JBFC Announces One Dollar Kids Films In 2011

The Jacob Burns Film Center (JBFC) has announced that tickets for children for the “Movies for Kids (and their Families)” series will be $1.00 for 2011, in celebration of its 10th Anniversary. “We would not be able to offer tickets for $1.00 without Club Fit’s generous support. While Club Fit is a founding sponsor of the JBFC, we are especially pleased that they have chosen to direct their support in this way,” Steve Apkon, executive director of the Film Center said. “We are thrilled to be able to enhance our longstanding partnership with the JBFC by underwriting the cost of the tickets for this series,” Ellen Koelsch, vice president of Club Fit said.

“Movies for Kids (and their Families)” are shown every weekend at noon as well as some holidays and school vacations. To kick off the New Year, the five films scheduled for January and February feature Gene Kelly, singing and dancing his way across the big screen in such films as Singin’ in the Rain and An American in Paris. During the school break in February, two Charlie Chaplin films, The Gold Rush and City Lights, will be shown at noon. For a complete listing of films and dates, or to purchase tickets, please visit our website at burnsfilmcenter[dot]org. Tickets may also be purchased at the box office which opens one hour before showtimes on weekdays and 11am on weekends.

Read Full Entry

Ajay Devgn confident of the success of Toonpur Ka Superrhero

Ajay Devgn seems very confident of the success of his next home production Toonpur Ka Superrhero. Though the release date of the movie is clashing with that of Tees Maar Khan , the actor-producer seems unfazed.According to him, the film which is based on a unique concept will be appreciated by the audience and the critics alike. " My movie has a new concept.

It is especially for kids. So, I think the concept will pull the audience to the theatres. With so many films being made and released simultaneously, you cannot expect to have a single release date. Whichever release date I choose, it will clash with some or the other film at the box office. Then why should I get scared? Most of my movies are released with big films.So it has now become very natural," he said.

Read Full Entry

Yogi Bear – movie review

Yogi Bear is based on a TV show under the same name from the late 50′s. The Warner Brother film adaption stays true to the original series, with Yogi being the leader and BooBoo being his more down to earth sidekick. The story is set in Jellystone Park, and they, of course, are “smarter than the average bear.” They think up of new schemes that in the long run hurt Jellystone. Now with their home being in danger of being replaced, they have to try to help save it. The question is, can they save the park? They try to work their smarts to help save their home and Ranger Smith’s job.

The trailer for the movie does not really do it justice; despite the fact that they marketed it to kids, it is something many adults will enjoy. They tie in a lone love story and of course plenty of adventure, yet they do add in enough humor for adults to laugh along with the kids. They did a great job to keep the whole family entertained by the Yogi Bear; in my theater I heard many other adults have laughs, especially at some of the grown-up jokes like the city’s mayor getting filmed admitting his real goals.

I loved all of the characters, but BooBoo and Yogi are my favorites. While Yogi is vain and sometimes comes up with bad ideas, he always means well. BooBoo is the voice of reason, and he is just a really sweet bear. How can anyone not like BooBoo? I did not mind any of the humans; if I had to choose my favorite humans it would be Ranger Smith and Rachel. However, all of the characters were great in the movie–even the bad ones.

I loved the plot; it was cute, funny, and an example of a true family film. The writers did an amazing job on it, and I hope that they will make a sequel just because it is such a cute movie. It was easy to follow and understand, which makes it great for really young kids to watch. They kept it without any violence, which includes anything that you might see in a cartoon show like Looney Tunes. The actors and voice actors did a great job at really giving each character personality in this movie.

The CGI graphics that they used were amazing, and while they were not perfect, they did look real most of the time. Most of it was live action, so I am sure that helped with some of the real-looking CGI graphics. Most mixed live action and CGI films do not come out looking as good as this one did, so this is a bonus point for Yogi Bear. They also filmed the live action part in a beautiful area and used great sets for the indoor scenes. I will also point out that some of the stunts that Yogi did and how they placed him in the stunts was well above what is typical in CGI live action movies.

I will also say that this is a rare movie that all age groups can really enjoy, and even toddlers can watch. It is a simple and fun film to watch as a family or as part of a slumber/birthday party; it will be a great option for any reason. That is a tough thing to find these days, and I am happy that I was able to find such a movie like this. All in all, this movie was cute and is one you will remember later down the road. While it is not Oscar or Gold Globe worthy, it still has its place and is something I would not mind seeing again. It really hit the spot that they were aiming for, and I think they went well above their goals with this film. As I stated earlier in this article, I hope they will make a sequel, since my only issue is that I feel like the story could go on longer. They left a lot untold, I think, and I hope that they will keep the story going for a little longer. Other than that, it was a solid movie and I enjoyed it a lot. For my rating 1 out of 10, I give this an 8 ½. Very good, but as I said it could have told us more. If you want a family movie to see this holiday season and have young kids, this is the one. Even if you are older and want to see a lighthearted movie, this one would be worth your time to see.

Read Full Entry

MOVIE REVIEW: Whiz Kids

This documentary follows three high school seniors from different backgrounds, as they prepare for a science competition and the chance to win $100,000 in scholarship money. It’s interesting how this highly overrated documentary shows what three smart kids can do if they work hard. You see, in the other highly overrated documentary Waiting for Superman, they talked about how horrible public schools were. These 17-year-olds aren’t from rich families, or “great” schools, yet they’re doing just fine in life. They’re going to do just fine at college, and in their careers. It proves what I’ve always thought – you can be at a horrible high school – if the child and their parents have them working hard in their classes, they’ll probably succeed.I’m not sure why so many uninteresting documentaries are being praised these days. Maybe I have a higher standard.

I don’t think every movie has to be Hoop Dreams or Spellbound. Spellbound (not to be confused with the Hitchcock film) followed eight kids that prepared for the national spelling bee. This movie only follows three.

One is a first-generation Ecuadoran girl that seems sweet. The other was a slightly annoying, precocious gal from West Virginia working on water purification. The third is a Pakistani immigrant working on fossil dating. He’s a very likable kid that I was really rooting for. Although, it’s hard to say you’re rooting against any child that’s working hard to win a competition.

I’m not sure if the film is hurt by the fact that most people don’t know what the Intel Science Talent Search is. It’s not like the spelling bee competitions, where the local news loves showing footage of young brainiacs spelling words we don’t even know.

You quickly get the gist of how important this science competition is. I just wish that as we learned more about the kids, it would’ve been more interesting. This is a movie that should’ve just aired on KPBS. Why somebody would want to spend $12 to go see it in the theatres is beyond me.

And nobody that recommends this movie can complain about people that watch reality TV shows that follow folks around. Sure…the models, chefs, singers, or people living on an island probably have half the IQ of these kids. That doesn’t make watching them for almost an hour and a half more interesting – probably less so.

Read Full Entry

Watching R-rated Movies Ups Odds of Teens Smoking

Teens who are allowed to watch R-rated movies are more likely to take up smoking than teens whose parents bar them from viewing mature movie content, according to new research. In fact, the study authors estimated that if 10- to 14-year-olds were completely restricted from viewing R-rated movies, their risk of starting to smoke could drop two to threefold.

However, the study found that only one in three young American teens is restricted from viewing R-rated films, which are restricted at the box office to teens 17 and older unless the child is accompanied by an adult. "When watching popular movies, youth are exposed to many risk behaviors, including smoking, which is rarely displayed with negative health consequences and most often portrayed in a positive manner or glamorized to some extent. Previous studies have shown that adolescents who view movie smoking are more likely to begin smoking," said the study's lead author, Rebecca de Leeuw, a doctoral student at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands.

"Our findings indicate that parental R-rated movie restrictions were directly related to a lower risk of smoking initiation, but also indirectly through changes in children's sensation seeking," de Leeuw added.

"Sensation seeking is related to a higher risk for smoking onset. However, children with parents who restrict them from watching R-rated movies were less likely to develop higher levels of sensation seeking and, subsequently, at a lower risk for smoking onset," she explained.

Findings from the study are scheduled to appear in the January issue of Pediatrics.

The study included data from a random sample of 6,522 American children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old. The average age of the children at the start of the study was 12.

The children were followed for two years, and given periodic re-evaluations at 8, 16 and 24 months to see if they had begun smoking during that time period.

Just 32 percent of children reported that their parents fully restricted them from seeing R-rated movies at the start of the study.

The researchers found that the percentage of children who were willing to try smoking went up with their parents' level of permissiveness regarding R-rated movies. Only about 8 percent of children who had never seen an R-rated movie had tried smoking during the study period, while nearly 30 percent of those who could see R-rated movies "all the time" had tried smoking. The researchers felt that the parents' permissive attitudes, coupled with exposure to sensation-seeking behaviors in movies, probably influenced the increased risk of smoking in teens.

"This study really adds to the whole body of work that has shown that regular exposure to smoking in movies makes it more likely that a teen will take up smoking," said Dr. Deborah Moss, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. "Parents should not be afraid to say no. Restricting exposure to R-rated movies reduces smoking, and smoking is a gateway behavior. [Restricting R-rated movies] is one more thing that parents can do to raise a healthy teen," Moss added.

"Many parents relax their restrictions regarding R-rated movies during adolescence, but our results suggest that continued restriction is an effective means of reducing adolescents' risk for smoking onset," noted de Leeuw. In addition, de Leeuw said, the study authors think that movie theaters and video stores should help parents by enforcing policies restricting anyone under 17 from viewing or renting R-rated movies without a parent present. "This may prevent children from watching R-rated movies without their parents' knowledge," she added.

Read Full Entry

2010: It Wasn’t All Bad

Ten things that cheered me up in 2010, not necessarily the most cheerful of years:

10. The San Francisco Giants’ first World Series championship! (And my favorite name for a ballplayer, or just about anybody: Buster Posey.) Go, eccentric underdogs, go!

9. Patti Smith’s emotional speech accepting the National Book Award in nonfiction for her memoir of bohemian life in sixties and seventies New York, “Just Kids.” Recalling her days as a clerk at Scribner’s bookstore, Smith said, “I dreamed of having a book of my own, of writing one that I could put on a shelf. Please, no matter how we advance technologically, please don’t abandon the book. There is nothing in our material world more beautiful than a book.”

8. The intelligent and thorough ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage written by district court Judge Vaughn Walker in August. Now onward and upward to the Supreme Court.

7. The new neo-soulish album “Good Things” by Aloe Blacc, and especially the song “I Need a Dollar,” a seductively catchy anthem for crummy economic times. And, while I’m at it, another example of galvanizing neo-soul: the Cee-Lo Green album, “The Lady Killer.”

6. The fact that California voters chose as their new governor Jerry Brown, a quirky septuagenarian with an undeniable dedication to public service, over the Republican eBay C.E.O. Meg Whitman, who spent an astonishing hundred and sixty million dollars on her campaign. And the cartoon that had an indignant Whitman saying, “But I was the highest bidder!”

5. And while I’m being cheerful about HBO: “Treme,” David Simon’s music-besotted portrait of post-Katrina New Orleans, which has been renewed for a second season—and its irresistible soundtrack album.

4. Gabriel Byrne as Dr. Paul Weston on HBO’s “In Treatment.” He makes listening sexy. And he’s helped to transform the show from a procedural about talk therapy into a meditation on the practice of compassion.

3. The Chilean miners’ rescue. And more than the rescue itself, the fact that the people involved in the operation thought so creatively for sixty-nine days about how to help the trapped men, providing everything from psychological and medical consults to movies, dominos, and empanadas, all through a tiny borehole that extended twenty-three hundred feet underground.

2. The fact that “The Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 1,” published, by the University of California Press, a hundred years after Twain’s death, is a bestseller.

1. Hermione Granger, as played by the lovely Emma Watson in the most recent Harry Potter movies, especially “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” At last: a heroine you and your tween daughter can both appreciate. Neither a hot-and-bothered vampire crush object nor a brat (obnoxious being the translation for “spunky girl” in so many recent kids’ movies), Watson’s Hermione is instead a person of character and playful intelligence.

Read Full Entry

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale film review

They don't come much weirder than this kids' festive film in which Santa Claus is not a rosy-cheeked man in red but a sinister, naked child abductor. While it does the soul good to know somebody out there is making movies this far removed from standard multiplex fare, just who is going to see this film? Not kids, that's for sure.

Set in a snowbound Finland in the days leading up to Christmas, a US expedition is digging into a mountain where Santa has been buried for hundreds of years. And it's not long before the reindeer are being slaughtered, the local children are going missing and a sinister old man is discovered bleeding and unclothed in an animal trap.

Revolving around a young lad called Pietari, this feels very much like one of those old 80s kids' films that wasn't afraid to scare its young audience but, while Rare Exports is certainly spooky, the plot is too thin to engage while its gratuitous use of the F-word and full frontal male nudity make it a children's film unsuitable for children. File under 'curio'.

Read Full Entry

Tangled

Long-haired Rapunzel and a thief escape a villainess. With the voices of Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi. Directors: Nathan Greno and Byron Howard (1:40). PG. At area theaters. Disney's "Tangled" is about life's journeys, not its destinations — and that makes all the difference. A Rapunzel retelling could have become just a retread of the studio's past princess tales, but this genuinely charming, chintz-free story does something new: It takes the time to chill out, as its heroine might say.

Except for Pixar's perfections, almost all CG-animated films zip around like toddlers on a sugar high. So "Tangled's" thoughtful pace and sweet heart make it perfect for girls 5 to 8 — an underserved audience — as well as 'tweens who don't want unnecessary pop songs, meta-riffs or mega-explosions in every movie.

This is an elegant film that begins, once upon a time, as a royal couple are expecting a daughter. After the queen drinks the juice of a magic flower, her child is born with hair containing restorative powers. But a vain old woman named Mother Gothel steals her from her crib and isolates her in a tower. As the girl grows, fearful of the outside world, her tresses are never cut and Gothel remains mysteriously youthful.

Nearing 18, Rapunzel yearns to see the world, but Gothel forbids it. A thief on the run, Flynn Ryder, helps her escape, and the two head off to see the beautiful floating lanterns the king and queen release into the air every year on their daughter's birthday. No one, including the girl herself, knows where or who she is.

There are laughs involving soft-hearted scoundrels and Rapunzel's silent chameleon sidekick, yet directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard keep the tale grounded, with tension coming from the inherently dramatic mother-daughter dynamic. The super-coiffed artist-
adventurer (voiced by Mandy Moore) and the narcissistic villain (deliciously mischievous Donna Murphy) occasionally feel guilt or loneliness, which adds depth without ruining the fun. Rapunzel and Flynn's (Zachary Levi) romance is cute, but this is a movie about finding yourself.

Which makes the movie a spiritual sister to "Beauty and the Beast" — thoroughly modern Rapunzel does most of the saving — with gorgeous, old-school Disney vistas and witty songs from Alan Menken ("The Little Mermaid").

There could have been more side trips on the road to self-discovery, but the plentiful lessons and derring-'do make "Tangled" a lock for playground pastimes. And maybe even some knotty parent-kid chats about finding your part in life.

Read Full Entry

Colin Firth Talks Movies, Kids & Cussing

Colin Firth's much anticipated new movie, The King’s Speech, has just been slapped with an R rating because of some hard language and the actor isn't too pleased about it. Firth has an outburst of profanity during a pivotal scene in the British film, which tells the real-life story of King George VI’s efforts to conquer a disabling stutter.

Firth says he doesn't mind the language, and the R rating will prevent kids from ages 13-18 from seeing an important film. "As a father of small children, the context I would like to keep them away from is when it (the 'f' word) is casually used," he said, speaking of his two sons, Luca, 9, and Matteo, 7. "I find that almost as disturbing. I love football and I take them but I have to wrestle with myself because what they hear there would make a sailor blush.

"I don't relish those words or my children hearing them, so I'm not judging people who don't like the words... But, in the film, it isn't used in a vicious, sexual way."But Firth makes it clear it's the parents' choice. “I’m not saying, ‘Bring your kids to hear the F-word.’ If people don’t want their kids to hear that, it’s their right.”

Read Full Entry

A film fiesta for kids ahead

Kids have a reason to rejoice yet again! The next couple of months will see a line-upof 10 children’s films up for release in the next three months. “It’s best to line up all the children’s movies after Children’s Day as the exams are over and Christmas festivities are also round the corner,” says a producer.

Actress Kajol, who’s involved with a children’s film that her actor husband Ajay Devgn is making, informs, “Our film (Toonpur Ka Superhero) will be released during December. I am really excited the way it has shaped up. It’s going to be a great entertainer for all our children,” said Kajol, who has just become a mother again, with son Yug.

Apart from a series of 3D films like Fantastic Mr Fox, Megamind, the next installment of the Narnia chronicles will also be released in December. “The third part of this blockbuster series will be released in 3D format on 10th December,” informs an official. Also lined up is the the much awaited Gulliver’s Travels, a film based on the 18th century novel of the same name by Jonathan Swift. Of course, last but not the least there’s the greatest of them all, the next instalment of the Harry Potter series which will be the prequel to the last film of the franchise.

Read Full Entry

Pixar NOT Planning 'Toy Story 4'

After "Toy Story 3" hit theaters and became the highest-grossing animated movie, Pixar began thinking up ideas not only for a fourth installment, but also "Toy Story" short films. Movieweb has now caught up with "Toy Story 3" producer Darla K. Anderson, who revealed that the fourth film is NOT in the works. "No we're really not," she said. "We have no plans for it at this point. We really worked hard at bringing 'Toy Story 3' to a conclusion."

Anderson added that the plan is still to move forward with "Toy Story" shorts. "We do have the short films that we are working on because we love the characters so much and want to keep them alive," she explained. "One of the short films will be in front of 'Cars 2' next summer."

Read Full Entry

Ziggo launches 3D movies On Demand

Ziggo, Holland’s largest cable operatporm has laucnhed the first 3D movies On Demand. More titles will be added during the next few months. The first three available 3D titles are Vliegen naar de maan (the Dutch langiuage version of Fly Me To The Moon), Spy Kids 3 and My Bloody Valentine. Three more titles are lined up for future addition, Streetdance, Oceanworld and Scar.

Just last month,. Ziggo launched its first permanent 3D channel, which at the moment has an upscaled 3D version of SBS Broadcasting’s Net 5 witgh native 3D programming during the night. Ziggo said it will add 3D content from other sources in the near future.

Read Full Entry

Kids Movies for Educational Purpose

There are kids movies for child education purposes which are necessary for your kids. All you need is to make them watch under your supervision and guidance and nothing seems wrong. It can really be a positive for your child as there are many benefits associated with kids movies for educational purpose.

There have been many fictional and graphical movies which have been designed basically to promote earning in younger children. When kids watch movies they get inspired and interested in specific characters. They become curious to know and learn more about them. They ask you to get them books or they go on the internet to read more about the characters. In a way they start learning more and more. There are many documentary movies as well which kids love to watch.

The kids movies for educational purpose makes things happen for children. In reality not many can actually go and see a rainforest but through a movie they are able to see what they read in books. In the movies they see so many animals and different kinds of species. They learn from these and get interested in learning about them.
When kids movies for educational purpose are watched by the little ones they get influenced to act and play in the same manner. Usually the hero is a good guy and the kids start acting like them. This improves their behavior and they are more likely to participate in playing and learning.

Mostly the kids movies are made and based on published story books. This motivates them and inspires them to read the book. This indirectly creates the habit of reading books. Some children watch the movie before the reading and some watch it after reading the book.

When you watch kids movies with your children yon can ask them constructive questions which would help in building analytical skills. You can ask different kinds of questions regarding the story and the climax and make them think. Indirectly they would learn how to judge things and learn from the way they used their analytical skills.

Furthermore, make sure that when you get the kids movies for educational purpose they are best for your children. There are age limits which you should know about and get the correct movie for your kids. You can really change their behavior, and help them start thinking on different things. In fact, it is very important for parents to understand the importance of media and movies for children and their development. There are some parents who do not let their children come near the television sets. These couples should open their eyes and broaden their horizons so that their children can learn different things by watching movies designed only for them.

Read Full Entry

Black, white and Blu Psycho looks and sounds better than ever

This is an exciting time for anyone beefing up his home video library with high definition Blu-ray discs. The studios have been rolling out the latest hits with pristine audio and video and the discs are usually packed to the gills with excellent supplements.

Luckily, the studios seem to have gotten past the annoying and pesky trend of releasing multiple versions and needless double and triple dips (standard version, director’s cut, super deluxe ridiculous bonus feature version, etc.). Just put the movie out with all the expected bonus features and be done with it for goodness sake. I’m sure this trend will return once the ever-increasing revenue stream for Blu-ray discs starts to level off, but that’s a topic for the future.

In addition to the steady release of new films, all the old classics are making their high definition debuts as well. My recent review for Disney’s Beauty and the Beast may seem a little odd considering what time of year this is, but this review is much more appropriate.

By the time Alfred Hitchcock made Psycho, he already had a resume that would establish his presence amongst the all-time greatest filmmakers. Who knew that a low-budget, black and white film made by his television production crew would cement his place as the master of suspense and become one of the most famous and notorious thrillers of all time? Critics at the time certainly didn’t think so.

One of the things that makes this film so unique is Hitchcock’s use of misdirection. The viewer initially perceives Psycho as a somewhat standard film noir depicting a woman on the run from a failed love affair and $40,000 stolen cash. The story and the structure change completely when Marion arrives at the Bates motel. Tame by today’s standards, the sudden and jarring switch shocked audiences at the time and made Psycho unforgettable.

Psycho’s arrival on Blu-ray is fantastic for film fans. The disc will look familiar to fans of the 1999 Collector’s Edition DVD. All of that disc’s special features have been transplanted (in original 4:3 standard definition) to the Blu-ray, but there are some new inclusions as well. If you haven’t watched the classic collection of supplements, you should. “The Making of Psycho” is an excellent 94 minute documentary featuring interviews from Hitchcock’s daughter, Janet Leigh, screenwriter Joseph Stefano, and others.

The doc examines Hitch’s filmmaking process, the development of the script from the original source novel, the production and the public’s reaction. Everyone remembers the shower scene, but you probably didn’t know that Psycho was the first film to show a toilet flushing. This innocuous and seemingly silly event was as taboo-shattering and unsettling as the scene following it. Poorly produced featurettes serve only as fluff promotional pieces, but this is one of those all too rare docs that educates, entertains, and enhances the enjoyment of an already classic film. Documentary filmmaker Laurent Bouzereau has produced, written, and directed dozens of wonderful documentaries for home video over the last decade and I truly hope fans and industry figures appreciate the excellent work he has done.

Read Full Entry

Secretariat – movie review

Secretariat is Disney’s newest movie and is based on the true story of a racing horse named Secretariat. Secretariat’s mother was inherited by the daughter of the previous owner, and shortly after changing hands, the mare gives birth to Secretariat. From the first everyone knows that he is a special horse. His new owner appears to be a typical homemaker, yet soon she discovers a chance to be much more with the help of Secretariat. Together they reach great heights in their fight to stay on top of the race track and the owner’s personal life.

While this film was written and produced by Disney, the target for this film is tweens and older. This is partly due to the fact that they do have a couple sad parts in it, and in part because the time is the 1960s/70s. It shows during the time how tough it was for a homemaker to be seen as a serious worker. An example of this is when Penny Chenery–who owns Secretariat–was at one of the press conferences before one of the Triple Crown races, and her biggest competitor was making snarky comments about her being a homemaker.

The characters all held their own; none of them are outshone by the others, though the horse that played Secretariat could be considered the real star of the show. Still, as a whole, the cast did well and they really made Secretariat what it is. I do not recall any of the characters not playing their roles well or even feeling as if this movie was a movie. They all made it seem like this was happening in real time, and you can tell that the actors were really feeling the emotions in the movie. It was really one of the better played out movies based on true stories.

As for the plot, as I said above, this movie really has a lot of emotion to it. At times it was a bit too much emotion for a movie, and that really brought the story to life. The hopes, the fears, and everything in between all had that fresh feeling to them. The only bad thing about that was the fact that the sad parts made the sadness real even for those who are watching it. But when it turns around, you feel your own hopes rise with Penny’s. Basically, be prepared to have your emotions go strong when watching this movie. Also, they had a tiny bit of comedy involved which lightened up the mood a good amount when needed. But they did not over do the jokes or comedy in it.I also want to add that the set, clothes and make-up were fabulous for the era that this story takes place in. Disney really outdid themselves, and I enjoyed seeing the very real-looking clothes. They brought the era back without feeling as if they were faking the 1970’s or late 60’s. Which is hard for most movies, but Disney had a great team who helped create the past. They did a smooth crossover from the 60’s to the 70’s in fashion and hair, without making it seem as if it was an overnight change. That helped create the more real life image to the transition, as that was how it likely did happen in real life.

For the proper age group and who should see it, that could be a little bit tricky. As I said, I feel like tweens and older should see the movie. However, since this movie also has a decent amount of positive messages, like following your heart and believing in yourself, it could work as a family movie. But be prepared to have to talk about a few heavy topics if you show it to younger kids. Secretariat is not exactly a light movie, and since it is based on a real story it could be a great history lesson for some kids.

To wrap this up, I will say that this was one of the better family movies made in a long while. It can be used as a family friendly movie or just a film for older kids to watch. It would definitely a movie that I would watch again, and I really was surprised by how it turns out. I will admit that I was not expecting much from this movie, but in the end I can say that I really liked it. Disney targeted the right group of people and they really made it work for that age group. Now, for the 1 to out of 10 rating, I will give this a 9, all the way.

Read Full Entry

Cartoon Network Soars With Worldwide Broadcast Rights To DreamWorks Animation’s How To Train Your Dragon Television Series

Cartoon Network announced today that Dream Works Animation SKG, Inc.’s (Nasdaq: DWA) critically acclaimed feature film, How To Train Your Dragon, will be coming to the network as a weekly series in both domestic and international regions beginning in 2012. A success with audiences and critics alike, this epic adventure-comedy about a young Viking and his unlikely friendship with a dragon has grossed nearly $500 million at the worldwide box office to date and will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on October 15, 2010.

“Great characters and captivating story telling along with state of the art animation is what we love giving our audience,” said Stuart Snyder, President/COO of Turner’s Animation, Young Adults & Kids Business. “The How To Train Your Dragon weekly series definitely falls into that category of giving our viewers around the globe something they can’t find anywhere else on television and DreamWorks Animation is a proven leader in taking this art form to the next level. We are ecstatic to be bringing this project to our network and working with everyone at DreamWorks Animation.”

“How To Train Your Dragon has already captured the hearts and minds of audiences around the world and we are thrilled to join together with Cartoon Network to expand on this amazing movie in a television series of its own,” commented Ann Daly, COO of DreamWorks Animation. “It is incredibly exciting to be able to bring viewers deeper into the world of dragons and tell new stories each week inspired by our characters from the film.”DreamWorks Animation’s How To Train Your Dragon, based on the book by Cressida Cowell, rolls fire-breathing action, epic adventure and laughs into a captivating and original story. Hiccup is a young Viking who defies tradition when he befriends one of his deadliest foes — a ferocious dragon he calls Toothless. Together, the unlikely heroes must fight against all odds to save both of their worlds.

In the How To Train Your Dragon television series on Cartoon Network, the characters and worlds originally created for the big screen will be explored and further developed in a number of exciting ways that will be revealed over time. TV audiences will be taken on original, new adventures with Hiccup and Toothless every week.

Cartoon Network (CartoonNetwork.com), currently seen in more than 97 million U.S. homes and 166 countries around the world, is Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.’s ad-supported cable service now available in HD offering the best in original, acquired and classic entertainment for youth and families. Nightly from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (ET, PT), Cartoon Network U.S. shares its channel space with Adult Swim, a late-night destination showcasing original and acquired animated and live-action series for young adults 18-34. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner company, creates and programs branded news, entertainment, animation and young adult media environments on television and other platforms for consumers around the world.

Read Full Entry

Review: My Soul To Take

Wes Craven is considered one of the modern masters of horror. The filmmaker has left an indelible stamp on the genre since the early 1970s, with such films as Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, The People Under the Stairs and The Serpent and the Rainbow. Of course, he's best known as the man behind Freddy Krueger and the Nightmare on Elm Street films, which stamped an instant horror icon on the world of pop culture, as well as the highly-successful Scream franchise which kicked off a new trend of self-aware slasher films. Craven's star has fallen somewhat in recent years as he failed critically and financially with 2005's Cursed and moved from horror to more straight-up thriller with the same year's Red Eye, but he has set out to prove that his horror tank isn't empty yet. He has a fourth entry in the Scream franchise set to release in April of next year and this weekend his first step into 3-D horror opens. Titled My Soul To Take, the film stars Max Theriot, John Magaro, Emily Meade and Jessica Hecht, hoping to raise Craven's visibility a bit before his next film is unleashed.

The movie stars Theriot as Adam "Bug" Hellerman, a teenager living in the small town of Riverton, California. Riverton is famous for being host to a serial killer known as the Riverton Ripper, a man who supposedly died on the way to the hospital after being apprehended by police. Bug is one of "the Riverton seven," a group of seven children who were prematurely born on the same night that the Ripper died…or vanished, as the case may be, following an ambulance crash. Local legend states that the Ripper will return one day to kill all seven kids. Now, on their sixteenth birthday, the Ripper seems to be back and working his way through the seven. Bug and his best friend Alex (Magaro), religious girl Penelope (Grey), jock Brandon (Lashaway), gorgeous Brittany (Olszynski), blind Jerome (Whitaker) and Jake (Chu) are the seven. As they try to survive, suspicion falls on Bug, with the belief that the Ripper's soul may have entered one of them.

Make sense? It's an admittedly interesting concept, but unfortunately Craven's script fails to make any sense of it whatsoever. The film kicks off with an intriguing beginning involving Abel Plenkov, the Riverton Ripper himself. However, the few moments of interest we get are fairly quickly submerged when it becomes clear that Craven has no desire to reveal anything in the scene. We get tantalizing hints of something deeper, including a psychiatrist who seems to be in on some secret, but it's a confusing mess that quickly resorts to making Abel an apparently unstoppable killer. He stabs himself, he gets shot umpteen times and still he keeps coming back. It's a stock slasher cliché that Craven exploits in the kind of way his Scream films would have mocked.

Once Craven gets the action-packed prologue out of the way, he jumps ahead to the night of the sixteenth birthday for the Riverton Seven, and things quickly go downhill. Craven makes the characters as disposable as any that his films have ever seen. He spends a token amount of time establishing a group dynamic—Penelope likes Bug, who has the hots for Brittany, who is also lusted after by Brandon, who high school queen Fang sees as a better match for Brittany—and tosses out some cardboard-thin supporting characters like Alex's abusive father and the high school principal who wants the city to move on for tourism's sake. There's a police officer and EMT who were in Abel's ambulance when it crashed and show up to look gravely concerned from time to time. But all of it is fruitless, because nothing of significance comes from it. Character quirks and group dynamics should help give us a reason to care about these characters and thus intensify the horror when they die. In this case it's just filling time to make the film seem more interesting than it is.

What makes this most criminal is that the main plot could have used the time spent on "who likes who" to explain itself better. If Craven wanted to make a simple slasher film without establishing heavy characters that would have been fine, but the plot of the Riverton Ripper and who is killing these kids makes no sense whatsoever. Craven tosses out a ton of red herrings, but he spends so much time focusing the suspicion on one character that it becomes deeply, agonizingly obvious that it's not him. The fact that it isn't him makes several things in the film completely pointless—why does he spend so much time talking to himself? What's this business with all the souls? Why is it important for the Ripper to kill these kids and claim their souls? Why is Bug nicknamed Bug? Did he really spend time in mental institutions and just not remember? And if so, why does no one in this town--in which he's spent his whole life--know the truth? Craven can't be bothered to explain—or if he had, these particular bits of exposition were excised in exchange for inane scenes like Penelope standing up to Brandon for Bug or a pointless subplot involving the principal's pregnant daughter.

Meanwhile, Craven writes and directs some of the most ridiculous, inane scenes in his long history as a filmmaker. No one would every accuse some of Craven's lesser films like Cursed or Shocker of having moments of cinematic genius, but My Soul To Take beats them all out for sheer ridiculousness. Consider as a point of evidence a class presentation, where Bug and Alex talk about the California condor. The scene is supposed to show how, after the first kill, Bug has been hit with a moment of strangeness where he becomes confident and a showman. Instead the focus is more on the silly Condor costume Alex wears, complete with puke and fecal effects directed at one of the students. It's one of the most surreally stupid scenes of the past couple of years and there is no choice other than to laugh uproariously, completely destroying any credibility of the scene and film. In another scene Craven riffs on the classic Marx Brothers mirror routine from Duck Soup which is interesting and vaguely amusing—but why? What exactly is the point? Craven doesn't seem to have one here. What he does have plenty of, on the other hand, is terrible dialogue. At one point, Penelope tells Bug that he should pray. Penelope, you see, somehow understands that the end is coming. Is she just crazy, or does she have some direct link to God that tells her the truth? When you hear her say "when things get hot, just turn up the prayer conditioning," you're pretty sure she's just nuts.

There are so many plot holes and so many obvious "twists" in this movie that it would take pages to describe them all. One plot twist involving Bug's family is so blatantly obvious that you can pretty much see it coming about thirty seconds after you've met the character. On the other hand, there is one that does provide a bit of a surprise, mostly because Craven has a brief moment of inspiration regarding the character in question. But most of the time he's too busy coming up with names like "Bug" and "Fang" or creating a ludicrous third act that involves a blind kid who can apparently climb up the side of a building to get into a bedroom window—Jerome is really only blind when he doesn't have to be inconvenienced by it—to build anything resembling tension or fear. He also makes these kids stupid to the point that they make the entirety of the Elm Street children look like Mensa members. At one point one of the characters is trying to flee from another that she thinks is the killer and says she's called the police. We see the cop approaching literally moments later, and the character who called them heads into the woods. We don't call this a slasher victim. We call this Wes Craven's own personal proof of evolution: only those fit to survive do.

Craven does understand that he needs gore for a horror film, and there is a little. Not enough to satisfy hungry horror fans, but we do get a decent amount of blood. As to the 3-D aspects of the film I cannot say, but I saw few scenes in the 2-D presentation that would stand to offer much in terms of the technology. All reports are that the 3-D conversion is as muddy as Clash of the Titans, but that is third-party reporting rather than an eyewitness account. The cinematography is decent but nothing particularly special, while the dialogue is occasionally drowned out by Marco Beltrami's overwrought score.

As for the actors who have to muddle through Craven's script, they're usually adequate though often uneven. Max Theriot has had small roles in films up to this point, including the younger version of Hayden Christenson in Jumper, Seth in The Pacifier and the son of Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson in Chloe. Here as Bug he has his moments and handles the role as gamely as most actors his age would have. He's by no means a revelation and he's unable to rise above the awkwardness of many of the scenes, but he could have done far worse. It's difficult to say the same about John Magaro, who makes best buddy Alex unrelentingly irritating throughout the course of the film. Zena Grey is bizarre as Penelope, for better or worse, while none of the other teens register except Emily Meade as the bitchy Fang, who is perhaps the most interesting character in the film. Jessica Hecht does thankless work as May Hellerman while no one else registers in any meaningful way. They are by and large completely forgettable—unlike this movie, which will definitely stay with you for all the wrong reasons.

Read Full Entry

The Hole – a film review

Doctor and single mom Susan (Polo) arrives in small town America with her two sons, teenager Dane (Massoglia) and traumatised younger brother Lucas (Gamble). Upon acquiring an apparently normal house in everyday suburbia, the boys are left to their own devices during the day and friendship blossoms between Dane and girl next door (Bennett).

Upon the discovery of a trap door within the basement of the new house which reveals a seemingly bottomless pit, the boys discover that their new home is the former residence of a disappeared local crank and old weirdo (Dern). Things start to go bump in the night as supernatural events start to occur – all linked to the fears and troubled memories which lay beneath the surface of the three youngsters.

Review:

In the 1980’s Joe Dante was one of several directors who created a new kind of cinema – popcorn movies based on adventure and family orientated horror.

Mainly set in small town America with at least one local crank and old mysteries being stirred up upon the arrival of a new face in town (normally a youngster with a single parent or troubled background left to his/her own devices whilst Mom/Dad held down the daytime job) it was like an updated Frank Capra movie with a black but warm heart.

Dante’s Gremlins (1984) was borderline with it’s black humour, minor goose bumps and those little terrors causing havoc everywhere. He then followed this smash with the adventure orientated The Goonies (1985) which has acquired a cult following ever since.

Kids in movies tend to fall into two categories, the outright sickly or annoying (Annakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace) to the likeable and smart (Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events). Luckily all three players fall into the latter and hold our attention for the duration of the escapade.

The cast is further supplemented by Dern (who adds another cameo to his four decades of portraying misfits) as the former resident now living in an abandoned glove factory, lonely and afraid of the dark.

Blink and you’ll miss it but Dante favourite and movie veteran Dick Miller pops up as an aging pizza delivery man.

The chills are mildly eerie rather than jumpy and visually hark back to classic movie moments, the puppet jester is reminiscent of both Stephen King’s It (1990) and the mischief of those gremlins whilst the make-up of the dead girl and the hole world remind us of Beetlejuice (1988).

Some may suggest that the jumpy moments are too mild, but surely this is more akin to a Scooby Doo adventure rather than any Amityville Horror (albeit some scenes may make younger viewers jump).

The use of 3D is used well, especially within a film which has a basement and dark void at it’s core. Dern’s barrenly dark factory residence lit by dozens of hanging bulbs and lampshades is the most creative use of the format I have yet seen. However, I’m still not convinced by 3D (it causes eye strain and the layer of chemical on the glasses give the impression of watching a film through dirty shades) and the £2 extra per ticket.

At 92 minutes The Hole feels short and may leave you awaiting a final act that does not transpire. Whilst there is nothing new here, Dante does manage to capture the feel of those 80’s classics and allow his young protagonists to drive the film forward.

It will not set the world alight but it is likeable and provides escapist popcorn cinema that we all sometimes need.

Read Full Entry

Latino Film Festival for Kids

The Association of Peruvian American Professionals, in coordination with the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, is presenting the "Greater Hartford Children's Latino Film Festival" on Saturday.

The fest, made up of shorts, animated films and documentaries, will be at the museum, 600 Main St. in Hartford. All the films are in Spanish (one is in Portuguese) with subtitles, and admission is free for children. (Adults pay $5.) Part 1 of the festival, geared toward kids ages 9 to 12, begins at 11 a.m. and includes these films.

"Meditation: Then and Now," an animated short. "Chewing Gum," a Peruvian short about two street kids who meet a lost American tourist and fight over whether to help her. "Journey To Mars" (pictured), an animated Argentinian short about Antonio, a boy from the '60s, whose grandfather offers to take him to Mars. "If Eyes Can't See," a Mexican short about a blind boy abandoned by his mother, who makes friends with a bitter old man. "Scarecrow Girl," a Brazilian short about a girl who insists on going to school, even though girls aren't allowed.

"Creole Fish," a Venezuelan short about an old tradition banning women from fishing boats, and a little girl determined to fish anyway. That session will be followed by face painting, a hip-hop dance workshop, a personal empowerment seminar and a performance by the Aztec Dancers.

Part 2, geared toward kids ages 13 to 16, begins at 2 p.m., and includes these films:

"Meditation: Then and Now," an animated short. "The Nut," a short from Spain and Mexico about a little girl, a nut and a disenchanted grown woman. "Milagros," a story, made in New Mexico, about a boy who wants to play the ceremonial role of La Virgen, which usually goes to girls. That lineup will be followed by performances by Somos Peru Andean Folkloric Dance and the Zulu Bratz Breakdancers, and another empowerment workshop.

Read Full Entry

Movie Review: Despicable Me

The true measure of a kids' movie's success surely has to be its ability to also be enjoyed by adults. Otherwise, who is going to take the kids to see it. Despicable Me, the latest toon to hit movie screens in 3D, is one of those wonders that manages to get the kids laughing at fart jokes and the adults at the more high-brow humour.

The storyline follows Gru, a villain voiced by Steve Carell, who has found himself playing second fiddle to the new baddy on the scene, Vector (Jason Segel).

Vector has become the most wicked person on the planet having stolen one of the Giza pyramids. So Gru, his mad scientist sidekick (Russell Brand) and an army of "minions" - the ridiculously cute tic-tac shaped yellow creatures - get to work on stealing the moon.

The evil mission is only possible though with the shrink ray (how else are they going to make the moon small enough to hide in Gru's pocket) but Vector has it.

Hitting up the local orphanage for the help of three little girls soon sees Despicable Me take on a Grinch-like storyline with Gru's heart softening with each cutesy comment from his new daughters.

Kids aren't left short of any silly moments to get them giggling but adults may wonder if they're the real target audience when Gru seeks a loan from the "Bank of Evil - formerly known as Lehmann Brothers".

The storyline may be predictable, but try not cooing as Gru, the man who at the start of the movie popped a child's animal balloon, reads a puppet book to his "kittens".

Don't wait for this one to come out on DVD, the 3D effects are too good and used to their maximum ability with a rollercoaster scene putting the viewer right in the movie.

Read Full Entry

Harry Potter movies influence kids’ perceptions

With only 54 days for yet another Harry Potter movie to hit theatres, the popularity of JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series of children’s books and movies is a phenomenon unlike any other. While the books are valued for their ability to entertain and engage readers, the series has the potential to greatly influence children’s perceptions.

The series has contributed to promote appropriate social behavior in children with behavioral and emotional problems. It also influences children by allowing them to learn about people whose lives and experiences differ from their own.

It has been instrumental in the development of children’s conceptualisation of how they fit into and relate to society. “A series like Harry Potter gives children a scope to imagine and enhances creativity. One crucial subplot in the Harry Potter series is how Harry and friends are sent to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry which relates to children being sent to boarding schools to learn the art of adjustment and co-operation which is not bad at all,” says Kavitha Nambiar, a mother.

“The book and the characters have a great impact on the youth. It’s easier for the kids to imbibe positive traits from the movie or book series as they relate to the characters and form an opinion of their own about the values of life,” she adds.

Since the release of the Harry Potter movie series children have developed interest towards reading. “The visual representation of the book series has appealed to youngsters as they read more to know what happens next and before you know their imagination comes to life in the movie series,” she says. “The Harry Potter books or movies open up children to adventure which is much better than playing games on play stations,” she adds.

Nikita Mishra, a 14-year-old die-hard fan of Harry who is eagerly awaiting the release of the next Potter movie, says that her world revolves around the fictional story. “I have not missed reading a single book of the Harry Potter series and neither have I missed any of the movies. I wish there were universities teaching witchcraft as it seems interesting and I would be the first one to apply,” says Nikita.

According to Anjana Ramanath a mother of an 11-year-old, children are highly influenced by series like these as it renders a different understanding and things like magic appeal to children.
“Movies have an impact on children and when they are a remake of a book the ideas segregate within young minds as they see the fictional characters coming to live and renders a better understanding,” says Anjana.

Read Full Entry

Legend of the Guardians ultimately fails

It seems that everything How to Train Your Dragon and this summer’s Toy Story 3 did splendidly, Legend of the Guardians was able to screw up. The trailer was amazing. Absolutely amazing with pie and more pie on top. I would go so far as to name it a work of art. In fact, I recommend watching this thirty times on a loop instead of going to see the movie. Unfortunately, it also portrayed the movie’s desperately hopeful panacea: the graphics. Soaring majestically through rainstorms, carrying blazing fireballs across rough terrain, and generally being really adorable, the graphics astounded me. I knew they were going to be good, having seen the most striking images in the trailer multiple times both in theatres and on my home computer. They continued to impress scene after scene, rippling with profound and surprising detail.

Regrettably, much of the detail in the graphics came out of wild inaccuracies that were apparently thrown together out of a poorly written plot synopsis. I’m quite sure no one involved in the production of this film bothered to glance at any part of the popular book series aside from maybe some character descriptions.

Maybe I’m being unfair; maybe I went about this the wrong way. In general, it is a filmmaker’s dilemma when adapting a book for the screen; it is impossible to please everyone and get the details exactly right. Really, it could be my fault I read the first three books in the series a little too close to the movie release. However, I don’t remember the Harry Potter folks deciding hmm, maybe Harry being the only one Voldemort couldn’t kill is a little dull, maybe we should muck around in there. Ah, I know, Voldemort should instead have had fisticuffs with his parents and James is still alive, willing, and able to kick some ass.

That sounds ridiculous. The story was fine, what would be the reason to change it so drastically, and at the same time affect the rest of the storyline in all of the movies so it is markedly different from the books? That’s exactly my question for these fine filmmakers. Why change it so much? As a result of the drastic plot-altering changes, the movie turned into one huge blood clot of clichés. Oh, can’t think of dialogue for this scene? Let’s recycle a cliché! Not sure what to have the parents talk about to establish their love for their children? A CLICHÉ! WOO!

The book series, Guardians of Ga’Hoole, is a fantastic children’s adventure tale by Kathyrn Lasky. She chose to write about owls because she had been planning to write a children’s non-fiction book about them. She had compiled a lot of research about different species and behavior and this really shows in the series; the characters are developed through their species characteristics and interact with each other accordingly. I wouldn’t say the series is without cliché; after all, it does have a fourth-grade reading level, but the overarching storyline is absolutely powerful.

Some of the changes made for the movie utterly usurped this power, transforming the sturdy storyline into a weak, one-dimensional, and, above all, predictable romp through an uninspiring field of poppies. What bothered me the most were the ratios: nearly the first half of the movie was told in startling plot jumps and the makers failing to develop characters in the smallest sense.

The only thing we know about Soren is that he is a “dreamer” who wants to be a guardian of Ga’Hoole even though no one else seems to think they exist. In the books, his journey through an awful orphanage and search for the guardians takes a whole book to play out. In the movie it takes about ten minutes, and they got it all wrong anyhow. This sort of ten minutes here, ten minutes there continued for a while, but only served to confuse and rush the audience into the “exciting part.”

Imagine all three Lord of the Rings movies condensed into one hour-and-a-half-long “kids” movie. That is exactly how this felt. Perhaps making three books into one movie was just too much. But they’re small, and 2004’s Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events managed to do just fine.

Getting away from comparisons with the book series, the movie evaluated on its own still does not wow. I can see a narrow audience finding this movie great, like 10- 12-year-olds, but anyone outside of that age bracket will either be overwhelmed by the violence and strong imagery or bored to sleep by the banality of the plot.

Zack Snyder, the director, previously helmed Watchmen and 300. I think maybe he forgot that this needed to be more kid-friendly with some semblance of interest for other age groups. Maybe he got mixed up: plot must be kid-friendly and rest of movie must be 300!

Anyway, this movie could have been great if the director had chewed off a little less of the story to make into a movie and perhaps followed the great, moving tale outlined in the books even a little bit. Instead, all that came out was a clichéd, confusing jumble mixed in with attempted fratricide and bloody owl combat. If that sounds like your kind of movie, well, more power to you.

Read Full Entry

Movie Review: You Again (2010)

You Again opens at Ridgefield High School, circa 2002. Marni (Kristen Bell) is the school dork that gets picked on by most pf the student body especially J.J. (Odette Yustman), a popular cheerleader that seems to derive a sadistic pleasure out of tormenting the nerdy girl.

Fast forward to present day where Marni is doing very well in her public relations career. Her braces are gone, her acne is cleared up and she no longer rocks $8 dollar haircuts. Marni is on her way back home to attend the wedding of her brother, Will (James Wolk). According to Marni’s mother, Gail (Jamie Lee Curtis), Will is marrying a girl named Joanna. When Gail tells Marni that Joanna attended the same high school the same year as Marni and Will, Marni wracks her brain to figure out who Joanna is. It turns out that Joanna is actually Marni’s collegiate tormentor, J.J. Now Marni struggles with the decision to either let the past remain in the past or take this juicy opportunity to get revenge on the girl that made her high school years into high school hell.

To make matters worse (well, worse for them but hilarious for us) it turns out Joanna’s Aunt Ramona (Sigourney Weaver) and Marni and Will’s mom, Gail, have some unsettled high school rivalry of their own to deal with. It’s a double feature grudge match as Marni and Gail square off against Joanna and Ramona.

Also featuring Betty White as Marni’s grandmother, “Bunny”.

For me, You Again had so much going for it. Okay, for starters, the cast is sensational. Veteran pros Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Betty White, and Victor Garber give the film an unshakeable foundation with flawless comic timing and endearing characterizations. The “new kids” like Kristen Bell and Odette Yustman are just as attractive and witty as their senior peers. And as good as the principle cast was I would actually award the “Stand-Out Performance” honor to Kyle Bornheimer who plays Joanna’s former beau, “Tim”. Mr. Bornheimer’s emotionally unstable and slightly obsessed ex-boyfriend is a true scene stealer.

One major cast tidbit I must divulge is that there are notable appearances from Reginald VelJohnson, Patrick Duffy and Christine Lakin. ABC’s TGIF (Thank God It’s Funny) fans should remember that Mr. VelJohnson played the patriarch, “Carl Winslow”, on Family Matters (aka The Steve Urkel Show, lol. Ran from 1989 to 1997 on ABC and 1997 to 1998 on CBS). Mr. Duffy played the patriarch, “Frank Lambert”, on another TGIF series called Step By Step (ran from 1991 to 1997 on ABC, 1997 to 1998 on CBS) that was created by the same guys who made Family Matters. Ms. Lakin played Frank’s tomboy daughter, “Al”. According to IMDB (Internet Movie Database) Staci Keanan is also in You Again somewhere though I’m sorry to say that if she was I didn’t recognize her. Ms. Keanan played Frank’s eldest daughter by marriage, “Dana”, on Step By Step. Forgive my gushing on this but I used to watch both of those shows regularly so to see past cast members in a feature film and in the same cast was a big thrill for me. Plus, there’s also a quick cameo from someone that looks very much like Catherine Bach (“Daisy Duke” from Dukes Of Hazzard
).Yet another familiar face makes a surprise entrance but all I can tell you is that Grandma Bunny isn’t completely immune to the high school reunion bug her family has been smacked with.

The story is a relatable theme about how our pasts can determine our futures. Though, in the case of You Again it’s more about how a person’s past can come back to bite him/her on the butt.

The film obviously has Marni as the sympathetic character that clearly deserves justice and our encouragement to stare Joanna down until the evil cheerleader begs for forgiveness. However, when we meet present day Joanna she seems to be a completely changed female. The self-absorbed “mean girl” is now a nurse, a volunteer at a homeless shelter and an operator at a suicide hotline. Marni’s vengeance plot is then complicated by the genuine possibility that the bully may have learned the error of her ways and transformed into a compassionate human being. I loved the tension between Marni and the new and improved Joanna because it’s Marni thinking this girl is too good to be true. I was wondering along with Marni if and when the real Joanna would suddenly jump from the bushes and shove Marni’s face into the nearest toilet.

The other fight on the card has Gail and Ramona dealing with their unsettled history. The true story of their grudge isn’t revealed until later in the film but it’s fun to guess who was the tormentor and who was the “tormentee” and what was the terrible incident that split the bond between these former BFFs?

What’s most important about You Again is that it made me laugh, it made my friend laugh and it made the rest of the audience laugh. You Again was a highly enjoyable comedy with some outrageous moments that would’ve had me rolling on the floor if I wasn’t at a public theater. Nothing against the spectacular ushers that do their best to keep the cineplex clean but ain’t no way I’m going to be laying on a movie theater floor. I know what’s down there. Heck, I put some of it down there. Anyway, I thought You Again was a chuckle and a half. The best parts, of course, are the showdowns between the warring women. One of the wildest scenes takes place during a dance rehearsal for the wedding. Marni and Joanna get jiggy with it while Gail and Ramona try to out-Mambo each other. This culminates in Gail trying to recreate that iconic flying lift from Dirty Dancing (1987) with disastrous yet amusing results.

I can’t say that You Again is completely original. There are some scenes in the film that seem “inspired” by past like-minded comedies. But I liked the concept of feuding former high school students with axes to grind and I liked that there are two different kinds of past skeletons that are put on display. There’s the catty match between the nerdy Marni and the beauty queen Joanna. And then there’s the alternate situation between Gail and Ramona; two former best friends that will try to make up for the sake of the kids but it won’t be as simple as a hug and handshake.

You Again is also quite family friendly family. Amazingly, the "B" word was never uttered though I could sense the ladies just straining to use any other derrogatory term but that one. If I had one complaint it would be that there wasn't enough of Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver. By themselves it was cool but when they were together it is heavenly magic. It guess it would be equivalent to Bono and Bruce Springsteen doing a tour together. "Ripley" and "Laurie Strode" in the same movie together? Fantabulous!

But again, I say, the important thing about a comedy is that it makes me laugh and, doggone it, You Again did what was advertised so I feel that my money was well spent on this picture. Definitely one of those films you want to see with your chums so you can all spray Pepsi out of your nostrils together.

Rhymes With: Easy A (2010), The Proposal (2009), Step Brothers (2008), Julie & Julia (2009), Bringing Down The House (2003), 13 Going On 30 (2004), Death Becomes Her (1992), Romy and Michelle’s High School Reunion (1997)

Read Full Entry

Legend of the Guardians: Great fare for kids and adults

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’ Hoole features characters named Ezylryb and Gylfie – who live in the Kingdom of Ga’Hoole, when not stretching their wings across the Sea of Hoolamer. Reading this, anyone who finds the geography lessons necessitated by fantasy an unnecessary chore will likely flee to Another Page.

Don’t. The new 3-D animated film from filmmaker Zach Snyder (Watchman, 300) is a splendid adventure sure to thrill children and fantasy buffs, while leaving everyone else passably entertained.

Legend of the Guardians opens with an owl surfing a fierce wind. The computer animation is vivid; the depiction of the sleek, soaring barn owl, intricately detailed. So far so good. Then we get into the owl’s tree house (in the Forest Kingdom of Tyto) and family time: Dad telling a bedtime story to three moon-faced owlets while mom fusses about.

Oh Lord, fantasy agnostics will shudder – two hours of owls talking in BBC accents.

Don’t worry. A minute or so later, two owls – Soren and Kludd – fall from high up in the Great Ga’Hoole Tree. A snarling wolf approaches, about to strike. But the young owls are snatched away by recruiters from the St. Aegolius Academy for Orphaned Owls. The rescuers are meaner than the wolf, however – vicious birds who speak with garish Cockney accents, as if they’re auditioning for a Guy Ritchie movie.

St. Aggie’s is a factory for raising a fascist air force, it turns out. Helen Mirren’s purring seductress, Nyra, runs the place. She wants to conquer and rule the owl kingdom. Kludd is a ready disciple, while brother Soren, our hero, dreams of joining the Guardians of Ga’ Hoole and saving the day, defeating the self-proclaimed Pure Ones.

What ensues is top-notch Saturday-matinee-for-kids fare. Nothing too complicated: good versus evil, brother against brother, lots of fighting and stunts galore. And please pass the popcorn.

There are some sharp, funny bits. Geoffrey Rush gives voice to the aging Guardian hero, Ezylryb, a battered but game screech owl, as if he’s Winston Churchill rallying Britain against the Nazi menace. And to reach the Guardians, Soren (Jim Sturgess, star of Across the Universe) hooks up with a great grey owl, Twilight (Anthony LaPaglia), who fancies himself a poet hero and bashes out unshapely folk songs on a lute.

Still, it’s the 3-D stunts that make Legend of the Guardians a stirring entertainment.

The good stuff kids will replay in their heads afterwards includes a harrowing flight through frozen rain and a climactic battle, a violently swirling aerial ballet, that will have wee ones ducking into their parents’ laps for cover. So if you feed your kids sticky candy, it’s probably best not to wear good trousers.

More good news (and speaking of movie matinees of yore): Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole is preceded by a Warner Bros. 3-D cartoon starring Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner. The short is called Fur of Flying. Save your kids a lifetime of frustration and tell them right off there is no point cheering for the dog.

Read Full Entry

A Legend of the Guardians director Zack Snyder had a hoot making A Ga'Hoole' film

Why would Zack Snyder, the director behind such clearly adult movies as "300" and "Dawn of the Dead," want to make a PG-rated movie about a community of owls based on a popular children's book series?

You might think that the father of five wanted to have a project that he could share with his kids. But you'd be wrong. "I saw a painting in the offices of Animal Logic [an animation company] and it had these owls in armor, with battling claws. I said, 'That is so cool. What is that for?' " Turns out Animal Logic was trying to get a movie made of Kathryn Lasky's "Guardians of Ga'Hoole" series.

Snyder was hooked. "I made this movie for myself. Maybe there's just too much of the kid in me," he said.

Three years after seeing that painting, Snyder is getting ready for the world to see his film. "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" opens in theaters Friday and is based on the first three books in Lasky's series.

The movie tells the story of Soren, a young barn owl who is kidnapped by an evil band of owls who brainwash captured animals to wage war against Ga'Hoole's wise, peaceful owls.

The books feature fight scenes and themes of war and family betrayal. "We actually had to tone down [some of the violence in the books] to make the movie," Snyder says.

The director was not familiar with the books when he started the project and admits he didn't know much about owls either. But he has learned a lot since then. In a scene early in the movie, an owl snaps up a mouse. "It was important to show that owls are predators, to let kids know that early." He also adds with delight that Lasky has seen the movie and is more than pleased with how her characters and world have been transformed on film. "She thought it was amazing; she was out of her mind -- and she hadn't even seen the final version," Snyder says with a laugh.

But the real audience is kids, and Snyder hopes that the 3-D world of Ga'Hoole will "seem like another planet" to them.

To get the fight scenes involving the owls just right, Snyder brought in stunt actors and had them put on cardboard wings and pretend to be owls battling. "They felt pretty dorky, but it really worked," he said.

What do his kids think of the movie? His 13-year-old son (Snyder's kids range in age from 10 to 17) "tries to be too cool for an owl movie," but while he was watching a scene in which Soren flies through a blinding storm while being pelted with rain, Snyder says, his son said, "Dad, that is inspiring."

That's just what Snyder was going for. "I wanted to make a movie with childlike qualities but one that wasn't childish."

Read Full Entry

MOVIE REVIEW: The Town

The Town" is an intense, riveting bank heist film with an excellent cast and a meaty plot. While the story is familiar - four men robbing a bank - this movie stands above other films in its genre.

Ben Affleck stars as Doug McRay, one of the robbers, but he also directed this fine film. Like in his directing debut "Gone Baby Gone," Affleck has set this film in his native Boston. His understanding of the city and its diverse population really comes through when watching the films he has directed.

The movie begins with our four robbers quickly and deftly taking over a bank. They wind up taking a hostage, a bank manager named Claire. Claire is released unharmed but quite shaken. However, Claire saw more of one of the robbers than she told FBI agents because she is fearful of her safety.

McRay decides to set up a chance meeting with Claire, talk to her, and find out what she knows about the identity of the men involved in the heist. While this was supposed to be a quick interview to learn what Claire might know, they quickly develop a good relationship. There is a great scene early in the movie where he apologies for her feeling uneasy, and she innocently replies, "It's not your fault.

Of course, as with all heist movies, Doug wants out of the bank-robbing game, but he's forced to stay in for one more payday, against his better judgment. This cliché hampers bank caper films, but it worked here.

Claire is played by Rebecca Hall, a fairly new and unknown face in Hollywood. Hall had an impressive standout performance in the 2008 Woody Allen film, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," which earned her a Golden Globe nomination. Beyond that movie, she hasn't been seen in a lot of other films.

Jeremy Renner, who earned an Academy Award nomination for last year's "The Hurt Locker," is one of the four robbers, and he brings an intensity to his role that shows he was deserving of that Oscar nomination. Also in the cast is an FBI agent played by Jon Hamm (TV's "Mad Men"), and he is a great foil for our villainous main characters. Academy Award winning actor Chris Cooper (he won for "Adaptation") has a small-but-vital turn as Affleck's father.

Average movie-goers have beaten up Affleck for so long for some of his bad movies that they forget he's had some decent roles too, from "Chasing Amy" to "Hollywoodland" to the Academy Award-winning "Shakespeare In Love." While many critics disliked "Daredevil" and bashed Affleck for the film, I think it is one of the better comic book adaptations - and there have been several! -- in the past decade. As a director, Affleck has proven again that he knows what he's doing.

Boston has been the setting of other huge crime dramas in recent years, from the Academy-Award nominated "Mystic River" to the Academy-Award winning "The Departed." This film falls just a step short of those two excellent films, but it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Shot on a $37 million budget, "The Town" grossed $26 million in its opening weekend, and with the great reviews it's received, it will be profitable in another week. Top critics at www.rottentomatoes.com gave it an impressive 91 percent approval rating. Average movie-goers were equally impressed, with a whopping 67 percent of viewers giving it an ‘A' grade, and another 22 percent giving it a ‘B' grade,I've given out very few 'A' grades this year, but this film is deserving.

Read Full Entry

Capsule movie reviews

In the animated kiddie movie "Alpha and Omega," sometimes the wolves look like wolves and sometimes they look and move like humans; some bear an uncanny resemblance to Dora the Explorer. That in itself should tip you off to the target audience for this unexceptional 3-D offering, which is also available in 2-D for those looking to avoid paying a ticket surcharge for low-budget animation. But the movie's visual flatness would work best at home on the small screen, where young girls (and maybe their big sisters) would enjoy the film's gentle, romantic shadings.

"Alpha and Omega" tells the story of the emerging love between Humphrey (voiced by Justin Long), a goofball omega wolf, and Kate (Hayden Panettiere), the foxy alpha wolf that he's been crushing on since he was a pup. Alphas and omegas can't marry, though, and, besides, Kate has been promised to an alpha wolf from another pack in order to settle a turf war.

A golfing goose (Larry Miller) and his British caddy (Eric Price) add a little humor, and the late Dennis Hopper turns up, voicing the menacing leader of the rival pack. But the story comes off as patchwork, with a climax cribbed from "The Lion King" and odd musical sequences that seem inspired by … ahem, classic Mariah Carey. It's not quite the vision of love intended.

Get breaking entertainment news, delivered to your mobile phone. Text ENTERTAIN to 52669.

—Glenn Whipp

"Alpha and Omega." MPAA rating: PG for rude humor and some mild action. Running time: 1 hour, 27 minutes. In general release.

For those whose knowledge of the Korean War doesn't extend beyond what they learned watching repeats of "MASH," the new documentary "Chosin" will be an eye-opener. Though it's a bit short on context and detail, the movie boasts a host of riveting interviews with the men caught behind enemy lines in the brutal winter battle at North Korea's Chosin Reservoir.

The men, most of whom have never shared their stories before, recall the 17 days in 1950 when 15,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines were surprised and surrounded by Chinese troops. The losses were terrible and the temperatures reached 40 below, conditions that produced scenes as cruelly surreal as any you could possibly imagine.

First-time director Brian Iglesias and his co-writer and co-producer Anton Sattler, both combat-decorated Marines and Iraq War vets, possess an obvious empathy with their subjects and a perspective on the horrors they faced. The interviewed vets seem gratified that someone is taking an interest in their efforts during this pivotal battle.

Left unanswered: Why has no one asked them to share their memories before?

—Glenn Whipp

"Chosin." Unrated. Running time: 1 hour, 25 minutes. At Laemmle's Sunset 5, West Hollywood.

"Heaven's Rain" is a delicate, frequently profound drama based on the 1979 home invasion murders of an Oklahoma minister and his wife, whose two children were brutally shot and terrorized in the process. Unfortunately, the resulting film needed a more objective eye and, frankly, a grittier take than the victims' son — producer, co-writer (with Paul Brown) and costar Brooks Douglass — was able to provide.

Hampered by Brown's pedestrian direction, the film turns cloying and heavy-handed, particularly during its excessive, overly beatific flashbacks to Douglass' idyllic youth. Furthermore, its faith-oriented themes, although pivotal, are often writ so large they tend to encroach instead of enlighten. Really, how many beauty shots of the heavens do we need?

Mike Vogel, a sharp, appealing young actor ("She's Out of My League," TV's "Miami Medical"), plays Brooks Douglass circa 1993 as the then-freshman senator and his still-shattered sister, Leslie (Taryn Manning), hit an emotional crossroads just before the state execution of one of their family's attackers.

Vogel and Manning ("Hustle & Flow") rise above the exposition-heavy material, even if Vogel is less effective in flashbacks as the teen Douglass. But the rest of the otherwise low-wattage cast, which includes Brooks Douglass, playing his saintly father, and Erin Chambers as an unconvincing newbie journalist, is uniformly bland.

Nice use of the Who's "Love, Reign o'er Me," though.

—Gary Goldstein

"Heaven's Rain." MPAA Rating: R for disturbing content. Running time: 1 hour, 46 minutes. At Laemmle's Fallbrook 7, West Hills.

In "Hideaway" ("Le Refuge"), one of François Ozon's finest films, a young couple, Mousse (Isabelle Carré) and Louis (Melvil Poupaud), seem to have everything — great looks, money, passion, an upscale Paris apartment — and a powerful addiction to heroin. One night their dealer apparently cuts their drugs with valium, leaving Louis dead and Mousse in a coma.This decidedly downbeat prologue, however, deftly gives way to a seductively beautiful and subtle film revealing the power of a flowering friendship between Mousse and Louis' gay brother, Paul (singer Louis-Ronan Choisy in his film debut). After learning that she is pregnant and embarking on a methadone program, Mousse takes refuge in a former lover's spacious beach house in a secluded, woodsy setting. Not long after she settles in, Paul drops by for a visit on his way to Spain. He lingers, and the two people try to help one another find direction in their lives.

The bond that grows between them sustains Mousse's brief flash of jealousy over Paul's affair with a man he meets on the beach; Paul in turn is drawn to Mousse's maternity in her blossoming pregnancy. (Ozon and Mathieu Hippeau wrote the script to incorporate Carré's actual pregnancy.)

"Hideaway" is a spellbinding film, and Ozon, who is perhaps best known for the much darker "Under the Sand" and "Swimming Pool," both starring Charlotte Rampling, continues to be an inspiring director of actors.

Read Full Entry

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

There are just enough effects-driven laughs but a bit too much talky dead space in this not-at-all-anticipated sequel to the tepid, poorly animated 2001 film.

In the buddy movie tradition, two rival agents must work together to bring down a villain. Secret K9 agent Diggs (voiced by James Marsden from Enchanted) reluctantly hooks up with feline agent Catherine (Christina Applegate) to outsmart and out-claw the evil, hairless Pussy Galore (Bette Midler).

Read Full Entry

Under the Mountain' Is One Of Those Movies You Won't Mind Watching With Your Kids

More kids movies need to be like Under the Mountain. It’s inventive, action-packed, and, at times, downright scary. There are adventures, monsters, danger, and humor. It stands head and shoulders above many movies in the genre that have none of the things kids actually want, and it doesn’t insult their intelligence, which is a novel concept. Under the Mountain gets extra points for being directed by Jonathan King, who is responsible for New Zealand’s zombie sheep extravaganza Black Sheep.

Rachel and Theo (played by newcomers Sophie McBride and Tom Cameron) are happy-go-lucky twins who share an uncommon psychic bond. They are closer than close, but that changes when their mother dies in an accident. Theo backs away from his sister, unable to face his grief. Their father has a breakdown and ships the pair off to stay with their aunt and uncle in Auckland, a city ringed by seven dormant volcanoes. King makes full use of the unique physical attributes of the city, introducing it largely with sweeping aerial shots that capture the breathtaking beauty of the place.

Things are not as idyllic as they appear on the surface. The creepy neighbors, the Wilberforces, are actually shape shifting otherworldly creatures determined to take over the planet with their army of giant monsters, the Gargantua. Only Rachel and Theo have the power to stop them. With the help of grizzled neighborhood weirdo, Mr. Jones (Sam Neill), who likes to hang out in the park and play with fire, and cousin Ricky (Leon Wadham), who is more interested in losing his virginity than helping his relatives, they set out to fulfill their destiny and save the world.

Under the Mountain follows in the footsteps of movies like Goonies and Monster Squad. It lets the kids be the heroes, which is what kids really want to see. They get to have the adventures. The fate of the world lies in their hands. Grown ups only stand in their way. Under the Mountain is one of those rare movies that doesn’t talk down to kids, where the adults don’t swoop in at the last moment and save the day, and it gives the target audience their due.

The story can be a little bleak, and the heroes are in actual danger. There are times when you’re not sure that everything is going to work out. They might fail, and everything might not be okay. In order to defeat the Wilberforces, Rachel and Theo will have to put aside their problems and work together, and there is a very real possibility that won’t happen.

In addition to being beautiful photographed, the creatures look great. Once again WETA Workshop (The Lord of the Rings, The Host, Black Sheep) delivers and shows that they are the current gold standard for movie monsters. Their creations are spooky and intricate, and they find the perfect balance between applications, puppets, and physical effects, and digital additions. They blend the two elements well, and it shows on screen.

Under the Mountain is based on a beloved New Zealand children’s book that both King and his co-writer Matthew Grainger have wanted to adapt into a movie for years. I’m not familiar with the book, but there are a few moments where it is obvious they had to gloss over some things that the novel delves into further. This doesn’t impact the story, the pace, or the enjoyment of the film, but if you look closely there are a few minor things taken for granted. King and Grainger talk about this in the commentary track that accompanies the DVD release. They wanted to capture the feel of the book, but didn’t want to force an audience of children to sit through a two and a half hour long movie, which is understandable.

The DVD also comes with 50-minute collection of video that is part making-of, and part behind-the-scenes. The stuff at WETA that captures the creation of the monsters is the most interesting, but there are some fun moments with Wadham, who spends most of the movie driving, learning how to drive a car for the first time.

The villains are frightening, the stakes are high, the danger is real, and so is the fun. Under the Mountain is well acted, beautifully shot, and achieves everything it sets out to do. It is one of those movies that you won’t mind watching with your kids.

Read Full Entry

End-of-Summer Grab Bag

I see a lot of movies—more than most people. So many, in fact, I hardly have time to review them all. I’m often asked, “Who picks the movie you have to review?” Many are surprised when I inform them that I have free editorial reign over what I choose to review weekly.

I try to review movies that will appeal to a broad audience of readers. In choosing them, it’s safe to say that sometimes they don’t inspire 1,000 words. Here are three of which fall into that category:

“The Karate Kid”

The original “Karate Kid” is a favorite of mine. It’s a great fish-out-of-water story about a kid who moves from New York to California, gets his ass kicked and has to learn karate not just to defend himself but to learn a valuable lesson about life and friendship. Sure, it was hokey, but Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi was excellent. And like the greatest films of the 1980s, it featured Zabka (if you have to ask, don’t bother) as the villainous Aryan who just had to be taken down a notch or two.

The remake does a nice job of taking the story and moving it to China. Ralph Maccio gets replaced with Jaden Smith (son of Will Smith) who travels east only to discover kids with cornrows get frowned upon. Soon, he’s getting the crap kicked out of him. Instead of Pat Morita, we get Jackie Chan. Most of his American films have him sputtering out broken English that is sometimes comedy, and often times barely removed from the days where Mickey Rooney would pop in some buck teeth and squint to portray “the Orientals.

I’ll say this much: Jackie Chan is an actor capable of greater depth than for which many give him credit. He has some wonderfully heartbreaking scenes, and he pretty much makes the movie watchable. As for the product of Will Smith’s sack, I am less-than enthusiastic. Sure, the kid is in shape—to an almost bizarre level. How many pre-pubescent kids look like they just completed day 89 of P90X?

I would imagine if I was 12, I would have loved this movie. As an adult, I am pretty indifferent. I was amused by its location in China. Would it have been any less successful if they would have called it “The Kung Fu Kid”? For a kid’s movie, it could have been a lot worse.

“The Last Airbender”
Speaking of a lot worse…

M Night Shyamalan, what the hell happened to you? You used to be this awesome filmmaker who knew how to create solid, well-paced thrillers. “The Sixth Sense” is a brilliant movie. “Unbreakable” and “Signs” may be uneven, but they are still excellent films. No, I didn’t care for “The Village” when I first saw it, but upon subsequent viewings, I found it more tolerable. For awhile it seemed like people were unfairly bashing Shyamalan. Turns out those people were right.

High holy hell! I can’t imagine a worse theatrical experience. Wait, I can: “Lady in the Water” and “The Happening.” Shyamalan has done a lot of creative “about face,” from “inspired genius” to “hack of the highest order,” in just over a decade. Maddening!

This big-screen adaptation of the Nickelodeon cartoon is visually stunning. But the characters who inhabit this magical world are so poorly written and directed that audiences won’t get into their story, nor care about their plight. The dialogue is so laughable, I don’t understand how the movie made it out of the editing bay. This is a career-ending moment caught in 3D.

“The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”

Unlike Shyamalan, the career of Nic Cage will not and cannot die. I’m a Nic Cage apologist. Though even I have limits. After seeing him play Big Daddy in the most excellent “Kick Ass,” it was only a matter of time before the inevitable “curse of Cage” took hold. It is scientifically impossible for Nic Cage to be in two good movies back to back. If he did, the world might crack in two.

I went into “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” assuming I was in for something miserable-to-mediocre. To be fair, it’s more mediocre than miserable. Co-star Jay Baruchel (“Tropic Thunder”) has been popping up a lot onscreen. This year alone he’s been in the romantic comedy “She’s Out of My League,” as well as voiced the lead character in the Dreamworks-animated film “How to Train Your Dragon.” He seems to be an actor who casting people love but audiences don’t. His squishy face is in a perpetual mug to the camera. He’s fine in supporting roles, but his life expectancy as a lead actor can be measured in nanoseconds—something I am now referring to as the “Michael Cera Syndrome.” I like Michael Cera, but like Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and, now, Jay Baruchel, there’s a saturation point. 2010 showed me that I’ve already had enough of Jay Baruchel. Even saying his name right now is making me wince.

Now with the summer movie season officially over, we can look back on a few cinematic tragedies (“Sex in the City 2,” I’m looking at you), some greats (“Scott Pilgrim,” “Inception”), a few good ones (“Iron Man 2,” “Predators,” “A Team”) and far more 3D than any one person should be forced to witness.

If I was grading the summer 2010 movie season, I’d give it a C+. Better than average but very little to celebrate.

Read Full Entry