ridiculonius

I watched this movie on a whim, partially because I was bored (and watching relatively under- the-radar animated films is what I do when I'm bored) and partially because the style of the character designs intrigued me. Going in with such shallow intent and such non-existent expectations, I was truly and very pleasantly surprised to discover that "Dragon Hunters" is actually a pretty darn good flick.

Set in a world of floating islands, the film follows protagonists Gwizdo and Lian-Chu, a pair of down-on-their-luck, roguish dragon hunters who find themselves contracted into going after the World-Gobbler, a dragon big and bad enough to swallow entire fortresses whole. Along the way, they are unwillingly saddled with the care of young Zoe, their client's runaway niece and aspiring dragon huntress, who believes that the two are noble knights straight out of a fairy tale. Together, Zoe, Gwizdo, Lian-Chu, and the latter's pet dragon Hector must take arms against the ferocious World-Gobbler, prove their dragon-hunting worth, and, of course, nab the reward money while they're at it.

The movie is based on a French cartoon which was dubbed into English and aired on Cartoon Network around 2004. It only lasted 2 seasons and was kinda cheap (many episodes reuse old scenes, which can get pretty irritating), but it's fun nonetheless. That said, I didn't watch the show until after I saw the movie (and even then I've only seen the first season), and I think the film can stand on its own two legs. It's funny, action-packed, features some very nice CG animation and an excellent score, and is surprisingly heavy on the quiet moments and pathos. Part of this is because of the fact that the characters were already set up by the show, and the filmmakers probably figured that a large part of their audience would be made up of old fans. However, as someone who was a complete newbie coming in, I was very pleased with the characters and their arcs - Gwizdo in particular (voiced by Rob Paulsen in the film) underwent quite a bit of development and, thanks in part to Paulsen's flawless voice acting, oozed personality and charm. Forest Whitaker as Lian-Chu was, I found, a bit bland, which I thought was strange because Whitaker is a great actor. Lian-Chu in the show is quite soft-spoken, but Whitaker says his lines completely deadpan, which can make his character come off as somewhat boring, especially in comparison to the emphatic Gwizdo. Zoe is surprisingly endearing for a chatterbox kid, an archetype which is almost always ungodly irritating, but here works, somehow.

The world the characters inhabit, while not developed too much, is gorgeous and well designed, making the film quite a treat to look at. The various dragons, too, are quite inventive, many of their designs having been taken from the show, which was not shy in stretching the definition of a dragon to its utmost limits. The plot is well-paced, knowing when to take pauses for drama and (often very pregnant) silence, which is especially jarring if you've seen the show (your typical bright, energetic kids' cartoon). However, this dramatic spin never detracts from the humour, which is quick, sort of clever at moments, and often very dry (in a good way). There are a few nods to bodily functions/modern concepts but the film thankfully never goes for the full toilet humour or pop-culture reference angle, nor does it try to cater to children at the expense of the adult viewer.

All in all, a very entertaining ride, and well worth a watch (or a re-watch)! I recommend watching at least a couple of episodes of the show first, though, because it'll give you a better sense of the characters and make their arcs in the film that much more satisfying.

As a huge fan of the original Stephen King novel, I went into Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING with pretty high expectations. After all, this is THE quintessential scary movie, the film hailed as a masterpiece of horror, a brilliant and classic piece of cinematic awesome. And considering how much I loved the novel...

... You can guess where this is going, can't you?

Despite the obvious skill of both director and cast (well, most of the cast) THE SHINING falls flat both as a film and as an adaptation, succeeding to disturb the viewer but failing to deliver on any of the pathos or depth of character that was present in the novel. The film, like the book, doesn't outright scare so much as it builds tension to breaking point, forcing the invested viewer to the edge of their seats without them even realizing. However, by electing to ignore the more human aspects of the story, the film forgoes many opportunities, primarily with the characters. Where the novel made you sympathize deeply with the characters (thus making everything that happens to them that much more terrifying), the film almost immediately distances you from them.

I could go on for hours about how badly the individual characters were butchered, but let's keep it concise:

• Novel!Wendy has a great deal of inner strength, is fiercely protective of her son, and though she tries to keep her family together she is not afraid to stand up to Jack when he goes too far. Movie!Wendy does nothing but shriek, cry, and lie back and take much of Jack's (early) verbal abuse with a quiet and terribly pathetic subservience.

• Novel!Danny is a precocious and endearing child; intuitive, kind, strong, and very, VERY brave. Movie!Danny is irritating, dull, mumbles half his lines, and spends a great deal of the movie croaking "REDRUM!" like a particularly grating parrot.

• Novel!Jack is a sympathetic (though deeply flawed) character who genuinely loves his wife and son and truly wants to fix their all-but broken life. This makes his eventual descent into madness both horrific and tragic. Movie!Jack is cold to his family from the get-go and seems ready to snap the moment he sets foot in the Overlook.

Though the film is definitely chilling and enjoyable, it lacks the novel's essential humanity and suffers for it. Kubrick's creepy but emotionless vision of THE SHINING sucks the life and pathos out of a very human horror story.

Though this most recent interpretation of the classic novel is wonderfully acted and beautifully shot, the romance is lacklustre and, as an adaptation, it falls painfully short.

Let me begin with the trailer; I was put off of seeing this film for a while because of it. Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" is one of my favourite books, and far and away my favourite romance. Yes, it's primarily a love story, but you wouldn't know that by watching the trailer, which paints it as more of a Gothic pseudo-supernatural mystery with a romantic subplot. Though I know that footage used in trailers can be/is heavily manipulated, I feared that the "bold new vision" that the film boasted meant syphoning focus off of Jane and Rochester's relationship and placing it on the so-called "dark secrets" of Thornfield Hall and it's master.

I finally saw the film regardless, and though it can hardly be said that the "secrets" were given a disproportionate amount of screen time, the romance wasn't built up that much, either. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender have decent chemistry as Jane and Rochester, but they only share a few brief scenes together before we are asked to believe that Jane loves him. There is nothing particularly wrong with these scenes, but they lack real substance. They establish a connection between the leads but this connection does not appear to go beyond a platonic curiosity about each other's character. However, mere moments after the last (read: third) of these scenes, when Jane rescues a sleeping Rochester from a fire that started in his bedroom, we are treated to a very intimate, sexually charged interlude between the two in which Rochester thanks her for her help. The sudden tension between them is jarring after their previous interactions, which seemed to indicate that their relationship was going to undergo a more gradual, natural evolution. Throughout the remainder of the second act, we are told rather than shown that Jane and Rochester have become very close friends, and that Jane is utterly devoted to him - after the scene with the fire, the film seems to consider their romance successfully established and their interactions do little more than move the plot forward/restate again and again that they are close.

The film also jumps around the story's time-line a LOT. It begins with Jane leaving Thornfield and being rescued from a storm by St. John Rivers and his sisters (something which doesn't actually happen until very late in the plot). Then it flashes back to Jane's childhood (entirely removing the characters of Bessy and Miss Temple, I might add), and cuts between the St. John scenes and the distant past until, finally, we flash-back to Jane, who has suddenly aged several years, leaving Lowood School for Thornfield Hall, with absolutely no explanation as to where she is going and why (until she gets there, of course). We then follow her exploits at Thornfield without interruption; St. John and his sisters do not appear again for about an hour. Though it is interesting to see the film begun at a different point in time, the way it is executed feels sloppy. People who aren't familiar with the story might feel a little disoriented as a result.

There were many things in the film that, I found, did more harm than good. For example, the exclusion of St. John's love interest (a girl from town for whom he feels he isn't good enough despite the fact that she clearly reciprocates his feelings) turns what was originally a frustrating but ultimately kinda sad character into a complete jerk. The ending is abrupt and passionless. The pacing is... hard to judge. On the one hand, the film flows pretty smoothly aside from all the time skips - but on the other hand, the time skips coupled with the many cuts make for a choppy adaptation. For anyone who knows the novel or has seen a more faithful adaptation, it is very jarring when many of the key scenes appear because of how little build-up is given too many plot-points. Aside from the abruptness of Jane/Rochester's romance, there is also the all-but-cut character of Grace Poole, who is integral to the "dark secrets" subplot, the aforementioned removal of St. John's love interest, and ignoring the fact that Jane and the Rivers' are actually cousins.

Regarding the actors, everyone does a very good job, particularly Mia Wasikowska as Jane, who pulls off the "plain" look despite being very beautiful, and who does a fantastic job capturing Jane's personality. Michael Fassbender and Jamie Bell (who plays St. John) do good work with their characters but physically are awfully miscast. Rochester is supposed to be unattractive, at least in a conventional way - Michael Fassbender on the other hand is dead sexy. (ROCHESTER: Do you find me handsome? JANE: No, sir. ME: ... Do you have eyes, woman?) On the other hand you have Jamie Bell as St. John, who is supposed to be conventionally handsome but... is played by Jamie Bell. NOT to say that Bell isn't attractive (he most certainly is), but he isn't quite PRETTY enough to play St. John.

I know it sounds like I'm being hard on the film, but I really did enjoy it and for what it's worth it's a solid flick. However, I think that it did fall short on many counts. Film adaptations of "Jane Eyre" are hard to do. Not due to any real faults in the story, but simply because a lot happens, and all of it has relevance. Despite the fact that this most recent adaptation is a full 2 hours long, a lot has been cut and it shows. After seeing this film, I've come to the sad conclusion that, for "Jane Eyre" adaptations at any rate, the mini-series format is the way to go, unless the director is willing to let the film's runtime exceed the 2 hour mark.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is my favourite Disney movie of all time. Dark, beautiful, heartfelt, heartbreaking and triumphant, The Hunchback of Notre Dame takes Victor Hugo's classic novel and makes it fit the Disney Musical mold without sacrificing any of the thematic depth.

When the powerful zealot, Judge Claude Frollo, accidentally kills a young gypsy woman, his only concern is sending her deformed baby "back to Hell where it belongs". The Archdeacon of Notre Dame convinces Frollo to not only spare the child, but to raise it as penance for killing its mother. Frollo agrees on the condition that the baby live in Notre Dame's bell tower. 20 years later, the baby -- now a young man named Quasimodo -- is the cathedral's designated bell-ringer. When he finally gets his chance to spend a day among the Parisians he has watched from the tower his whole life, he finds them to be less than accepting of his grotesque appearance. The only person who shows him any kindness is Esmeralda, a gypsy girl whose impertinence in the face of Frollo makes her a wanted woman. Desperate to meet the new girl of his dreams, Quasimodo helps Esmeralda escape Notre Dame where she is essentially held prisoner by the guards waiting outside to capture her. Meanwhile, Frollo's inner demons are stirring, and Quasimodo finds himself trapped between love and his devotion to his master as a maniacal manhunt for the beautiful gypsy threatens to burn Paris to the ground.

I have been watching this film since I was two years old, but it took me years to fully grasp all the subtext and complicated themes that are woven through it. A warning to parents with young children -- this IS a very, *very* dark film, full of attempted murder, successful murder, sexual frustration, emotional abuse, off-screen torture, etc. That being said, the movie is also very beautiful, and I'm not just talking about the animation. The film is very emotionally driven; the plot, the characters, the animation, the voice acting, everything rides on a wave of pure emotion from start to finish, and you are taken along for the ride. Scenes like Esmeralda's singing of "God Help the Outcasts" bring a tear to my eye every time -- Frollo's descent into madness is genuinely frightening -- and Quasimodo's declaration of "SANCTUARY!" is enough to make any heart soar.

The score itself is brilliant, and carries the film, in my opinion. If I just listened to the music, I would get the same emotional impact as if I watched the film. The instrumental pieces are dramatic and heart-pounding (the "opera chorus" in the background is actually singing in Latin!), and the songs are a thousand times better than anything else Disney has ever done. They range in tone from the operatic and dramatic "Bells of Notre Dame" to the gentle prayer that is "God Help the Outcasts"; from the fun yet sinister "Court of Miracles" to the kid-friendly brevity of "Topsy Turvy". The piece "Heaven's Light" is masterfully juxtaposed with "Hellfire", the former being Quasimodo's declaration of his love for Esmeralda, and the latter being Frollo's confession of his "sinful" lust for her.

Well, there are only so many ways I can tell you that this movie is fantastic. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is truly Disney's greatest film, bringing together both the dark drama of Hugo's novel and the upbeat brilliance of the Disney Renaissance to create a wonderful piece of animation. If nothing else, it's a great introduction to Hugo's work (Notre Dame de Paris -- the original title -- is one of my favourite books of all time). In fact, there is one thing that I think this movie has been able to do that no other film adaptation of The Hunchback has; in the novel, Hugo states that when Quasimodo claims sanctuary for Esmeralda, he truly becomes beautiful... and in this movie, he truly does.

10/10

This movie could've been a lot better. It had its good moments, but those are quickly forgotten when they stand in the shadow of the lame script and 2-dimensional characters.

The plot is your standard "warring countries just a result of misunderstanding and solved by a romance" tale, with the Lockni and Nohrin tribes set against each other due to land-grabbing and an ambitious Nohrin noble. When Sedessa (Anne Bancroft), the Nohrin King's younger sister, begins to slaughter the Lockni people in order to gain more of their land, she is quickly disinherited by the peaceful King. In an attempt to get back at her brother, Sedessa poisons his wife and would've done away with him, too, if his infant daughter hadn't awoken him with her cries. Banished and removed of the wings that all Nohrin people have, Sedessa rallies the dull-witted and violent goblin creatures in her new home, seeking her revenge. 15 years later, a Lockni teen named Delgo (Freddie Prinze Jr.) meets Princess Kyla (Jennifer Love- Hewitt) of the Nohrin, and sparks fly. When Delgo is framed for kidnapping Kyla, it is up to him, his fumbling friend Filo (Chris Kattan), and a disgraced General named Bogardus (Val Kilmer) to stop Sedessa and rescue the princess before all hell breaks loose.

The story, despite its generic nature, is fun and engaging. The world that the film creates is beautiful and exotic, populated by bizarre creatures and featuring some wonderfully animated landscapes. The violence is spectacularly done, and can even be quite dark at times. If nothing else, it is a treat to watch, and that's saying something considering that this film wasn't done by any big-budget companies.

The script is where the movie falls flat. The dialogue is even more generic than the plot, and it provides little to no character development. Delgo is a pretty run-of-the-mill teen hero, and his romance with Kyla (an even less fleshed-out character) is dry and unbelievable. Filo, who is supposedly the comedy-relief, is more irritating than funny - he talks far too much and his voice can get incredibly grating. Sedessa's henchman Spig (Eric Idle) is much funnier, despite the fact that his role is much smaller. Sedessa herself is pretty smooth and enjoyable to watch, though her motivation is weak and she just comes off as petty at times. The best character by far is General Bogardus, who actually has a complete story arc and some (attempted) development.

Overall, Delgo was an OK movie - there are many moments where you can see the potential shining through, and it's almost sad to know how great the film could've been. It's nothing special, but it's still fun and enjoyable, simply for the action scenes and the animation in general. I wouldn't recommend you see it anytime soon, but there's definitely no harm in doing so.

Mark Swan's The Princess and the Pea is an imaginative and surprisingly original take on the old fairy tale that suffers from a lack of budget and a weak heroine. Like most Disney movies, it seeks to pad a relatively simplistic story with villains, extra characters, and a deeper plot, and in that area it succeeds very well. The script is strong, blending elements of classic animated films, the dark undertones of Grimm fairy tales, and its own charm and flair. However, as I mentioned before, the heroine is rather weak, and the central romance a bit too clichéd to be taken seriously by a modern audience.

The film begins shortly before Laird, the wicked and selfish crown prince, is to be coronated. He cannot find his golden shoes, which are still in the throne room after he threw them at young Prince Rollo from a neighbouring kingdom. Determined not to look like a fool by wandering into his own coronation barefoot, Laird sends his younger brother Heath to fetch his shoes. However, unbeknownst to Laird and Heath, an old law states that whichever prince enters the throne room first shall be crowned king. Heath enters and is crowned King in his brother's place. He makes Laird Lord of the Pig Country, much to Laird and his wife Helsa's displeasure. Shortly after, both Helsa and Heath's wife give birth to baby girls. Heath's wife, unfortunately, dies in childbirth. Laird decides to switch the girls, leaving Helsa as a nurse to their daughter, Hildegard, while Heath's real daughter, Daria, is sent to live with the Pig People. Years later, an adult Rollo returns to the kingdom to seek a wife. He is turned off by Hildegard's shallowness, but is smitten with Daria, whom he meets in the woods one day. But their love will soon be interrupted by Laird, determined to take back his kingdom. Meanwhile, Heath's faithful friend, Sebastian the Crow, is desperately searching for the key to the Legend of the Pea, which he needs to find before the end of Heath's reign, or the kingdom will be destroyed.

This film suffers a great deal from the animation, which isn't *too* terrible, but looks very off-putting in a few places and almost looks as if it were done on Flash. The songs were for the most part catchy, well-sung, and worked seamlessly into the film; however, the love theme "Kingdom of the Heart" was rather cheesy and halted the story. A lot of the imagery (and songs, in one case) seemed to be taken from other films; the reflection of Daria in the pond that aged as it rippled was taken directly from Quest for Camelot, for example, and the song "Kingdom of the Heart" sounded suspiciously like "Dreams to Dream" from An American Tale: Fievel Goes West.

Daria herself is supposed to be the pure-hearted, sensitive and kind princess that Hildegard couldn't be - however, she's a little *too* sweet. There's nothing wrong with her being a good person, but she was very 2-dimensional; her only personality trait seemed to be that she was nice. All of her hopes, dreams, and dialogue seemed to focus on one of two things; everyone in the world getting along and being good, and her finding the perfect man. Her and Rollo's relationship was a little too quick, and since they only shared about 5 lines of dialogue and a dance together, the quality of the time didn't quite override the quantity. This might fly in a '50's cartoon like Cinderella, but this film was made in 2002, after more than 10 years of cartoon heroines becoming more dynamic and their relationships with their true loves becoming more deep. Considering how imaginative the rest of the movie was, Daria's personality and her romance with Rollo seemed a bit underwritten and lazy.

However, this does not diminish the fact that the movie had a very original set-up. The original Princess and the Pea is a simple story, and this film managed to give it an interesting plot as well as a fun, foppish villain whose humorous moments never distracted from the real threat he posed. Characters like Helsa were given a bit more depth than can usually be found in secondary characters; she was shown to have a good heart underneath her cruel and selfish ways. Sebastian was a fun character and Heath had a real nobility to him. Even the animal side-kicks, Daria's three pet pigs, were enjoyable to watch; and unlike other films featuring animal side-kicks, the pigs weren't mere distractions and filler.

All in all, this movie suffers in a few spots that keep it from being perfect. If it had gotten a bigger budget and they had rewritten Daria's character, it could've been a much better film. However, it is still a great little gem and a lot of fun to watch. It hasn't got a lot of notoriety, and if it hadn't been for YouTube I probably never would've seen it; but if you can get your hands on it, I'd highly recommend you watch it!

Having been a huge Harry Potter fan for the past 10 years (I finished the 2nd book just before the 1st film came out), my relationship with the films has been rather rocky. The first two, I thought, captured the whimsical essence of the first two books. The third managed to make itself the director's own without taking away from the original novel. From "Goblet of Fire" on, however, the HP films began to go downhill. And once David Yates signed on, I began to lose faith in the art of adaptations.

The 5th, 6th, and 7th Harry Potter books are my top 3 favourites in the series (not in that order, mind you), and after the butchered story & characters that made up "Order of the Phoenix", I wanted to die. Yates had taken the book and made it his own, all right... but not in a good way. He turned "OotP" into a self-indulgent montage of Harry's angst. He cut all the important back-story and information in "Half-Blood Prince", and turned it into a romantic comedy with magic. The man simply didn't understand that, in order to make an adaption good, one must first and foremost please the FANS.

But, hallelujah, with "Deathly Hallows", the man finally got it! Capturing the grit and dark tone of the novel without focusing on the angst as he did in Movie 5, Yates' latest film has managed to stay (thankfully) close to the book. Obviously, some things were cut - but considering that most of the novel's first half consists of strategies, flashbacks, and repetitive hiding out, this really isn't an issue. And taking into consideration how much Yates had to throw in last-minute due to their absence in the other films (Mundungus Fletcher, Bill & Fleur's relationship and wedding, additional Horcrux information, etc.), the 2-and-a-half hours they had were put to extremely good use.

My beefs were petty, few, and far between. First among them is the already infamous dancing scene between Harry and Hermione. It irritated me at the same time that it entertained me, only because it was pointless and only served to give pathetic hope to a ship that will never sail (seriously, all the directors seem to be Harry/Hermione shippers). My second irritation actually has a name - and that name is Bonnie Wright. Ginny never quite did it for me in the books, but at least she had a personality; Wright plays the snarky spark-plug like so much dead wood. As a result, we care just as much about her (and her relationship with Harry) as we would any random extra. Luckily, she doesn't have that much screen time in Part 1.

All technical things aside, when you get right down to it, I'm just relieved. Relieved that David Yates finally gets it - with something as widely-loved as the Harry Potter franchise, one cannot screw around. The director of an adaption has an obligation to the fans of the original work - and Yates has FINALLY acknowledged that obligation in "Deathly Hallows: Part 1". If you're a fan of the books, or even if you're not, you'll love it!

Why?

Why, oh, why did this have to be so terrible?

There is no reason why The Last Airbender had to be a bad movie. It had both a devoted fan-base and around 30 hours of incredible material to draw from (though the main plot structure was based on the first 10 hours). The original show covered all the elements (pardon the pun) that the movie had to have; plot, back-stories, character development/relationships, and a relatively in-depth world including basic religion(s), cultures, cosmology, and even flora/fauna. So why did the film fail?

As a huge fan of the show (I've seen every single episode and love them all to death), I'll try to look at this from two perspectives; that of a fan, and that of a non-fan who saw the film out of context. From both perspectives, I think it's safe to say that The Last Airbender was downright horrible. Why? I'll answer that question with some of my own.

Fan-Perspective: - WHY the "racebending"? When the source material already includes a huge amount of racial diversity (albiet with strong East-Asian influences), there is no excuse whatsoever for changing that diversity to suit the director.

• WHY the mispronunciation of names? I appreciate that Shymalan wanted to honour the "correct" pronunciation of the names Aang, Sokka, Iroh, etc., but when the names were pronounced a certain way for the entire series, you can't change them. If he's Ah-ng in the show instead of Oh-ng, that's how the creators wanted the character's name pronounced, that's how the fans know him, and it wasn't Shymalan's place to change that.

• WHY only 103 minutes (including the credits)? When condensing 10 hours of material down into a watchable film length, it simply doesn't make sense to make it THAT short. I don't know how much material ended up on the cutting room floor, but in what reality does it seem logical to turn a sweeping epic of a show into a visual summary? It was as if Shymalan wrote a synopsis of the first season and called it a screenplay. If they had extended the time, think of all the material they could've added, or all the things they could've expanded on and developed!

• WHY no Kyoshi Warriors or Avatar Roku? I can see why they would cut the Kyoshi Warriors for the moment (since they really don't come into play until the second season/sequel), but I can't help but wonder how they're going to integrate it. And there's simply no excuse for turning the spirit of Avatar Roku into a spirit-dragon. It makes no sense, and serves no purpose other than annoying the fans.

• WHY make bending so... difficult? In the show, benders can manipulate their native element with short and simple movements - the more advanced they get, the more natural and effortless it becomes. In the film it takes 5 earthbenders to move 1 rock. It wasn't even that big of a rock. Like the replacement of Avatar Roku with a spirit-dragon, there's just no good reason for doing it.

• WHY change the Fire Nation's motivation for capturing Aang? In the film, Gran-Gran (not that they call her that in the movie, or anything) says that the inhabitants of the Fire Nation doesn't believe in the Spirit World, and that they were afraid of the Avatar's sway on the people because of his connection to the Spirits. This is complete and unabashed bull-crap. In the show, it is made perfectly clear from the beginning that the only reason that the Fire Nation wants to capture Aang is because his purpose is to keep peace and balance between the Nations/Elements; therefore he is the only single entity capable of rallying the conquered peoples and overthrowing the empire. The Spirits have nothing to do with their motivation, and it was a stupid move on Shymalan's part to make that the case.

And Non-Fan Perspective: - WHY the bad acting? No matter which way you look at it, the cast of TLA sucks. All racebending aside, the only decent/good actors were Dev Patel as Prince Zuko, Shaun Toub as Gen. Iroh, and Cliff Curtis as Fire Lord Ozai, and they didn't have nearly enough screen time (this doesn't mean they were right for the parts, but, hey, this is non-fan perspective, right?).

• WH... well, this one is more of a WHAT? As in WHAT the hell just happened? I could follow the film because I know the show. But, had I not seen the series, I would've been pretty lost. Katara's constant narration doesn't help much, and the way the plot progresses is weird and a bit choppy. Even I was a bit confused after a few sequences - the whole "starting a mini-uprising in the Earth Kingdom" montage left me completely disoriented.

So, I think it can be agreed - The Last Airbender was awful. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be. With a re-write and re-casting, this movie might've been saved - but, unfortunately, we are left with nothing but the table scraps of an amazing show that deserved a much better tribute.

Dreamworks is notorious for creating a combination of hits and misses - their misses can be anywhere between disappointing (Shrek 3) to just plain forgettable (Monsters vs Aliens), but you'd better believe that their hits hit HARD. Their most recent release, Megamind, coming hot of the heels of the DVD release for How to Train Your Dragon (arguably one of Dreamworks' best), is, despite its poor press, a major HIT in my book.

Two aliens are placed in escape pods as infants in order to flee their respective planets, each being devoured by a black hole. One, a well-groomed humanoid with extraordinary powers, crash-lands into the lap of luxury on Earth - the other, a blue, big-headed baby, falls not far away, right into a prison yard. Each a product of their upbringing, the two boys form an intense rivalry in their school (or "shool") days, as one becomes the egotistical, he-man hero of the classroom, and the other quickly devolves into an outcast. This latter child, fed up with trying to gain acceptance, decides to turn villain on his rival - when the boys become men, they name themselves Metro Man (Brad Pitt) and Megamind (Will Ferrell), and engage in constant battles set in Metro City. One day, when Megamind actually succeeds in killing the famed superhero, he takes control of the city, turning it into a den of chaos. However, without a hero to fight, Megamind feels that he has lost his purpose, and seeks to create a new hero and rival to liven up his life again.

This movie works for 3 main reasons - first, the characters. Will Ferrell as Megamind is simply brilliant; flawed but lovable, we pity the guy for all the crap he took that drove him to villainy, we appreciate his intelligence while still laughing at his screw-ups and flamboyant nature. Surprisingly enough, what could've easily just been a purely comic protagonist became a 3-dimensional character, and you actually get to care deeply for him. Brad Pitt's small but memorable role as Metro Man provides great comedy and a snide parody of a certain Man of Steel. And let's not forget Roxanne Ritchi, voiced by Tina Fey - your typical Lois Lane damsel-in-distress. While Roxanne *does* seem to get kidnapped a lot, she never loses her cool... mainly because Megamind simply doesn't threaten her. She's brave, but she still gets scared. She's smart, but she can make stupid mistakes. She's kind and a bit naive without losing that snarky grin. She isn't the *most* rounded heroine out there, but she has her moments, and overall, she's a pretty likable character. Jonah Hill and David Cross are also great, of course, with Hill's character of Hal being oddly 3-dimensional himself, and Cross' being little more than a voice-of-reason for Megamind to play off of.

The second thing that keeps Megamind from crashing is the script - it's genuinely funny and heartfelt without seeming pretentious. The comedic moments work because they really are funny. The serious moments work because they have genuine heart - they balance solemn with sweet with sad, all without losing that honest streak that ties them together. When Megamind hurts, you truly feel his pain, and even if it doesn't exactly tug your heart-strings, it definitely serves to further your emotional investment in the movie.

And finally, the animation is just awesome. 'Nuff said. I saw it in 2D, but based on what I saw, the 3D showing would be well worth it.

Truly one of Dreamworks' hits, Megamind captures just the right combination of crazy humour and lovable characters to create a, dare I say it, MEGA-AWESOME film that kids and adults can both enjoy. 9/10

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Avatar: The Last Airbender, is one of the greatest shows aired by Nick - one of the best animated shows I have seen in a long time, and among the most original. It's beautifully animated, epic in scale, laugh-out-loud funny, genuinely moving, and surprisingly romantic at points.

The main plot is this - the world is separated into 4 nations based on the 4 elements; the Water Tribe, the Earth Kingdom, the Fire Nation, and the Air Nomads. They distinguish themselves by their Benders, people born with the ability to manipulate one of the elements. However, there is one person who can control all 4 - the Avatar, a powerful being reincarnated again and again into the different nations, who is the bringer of peace. However, 100 years before the events of the show, the Avatar vanished when the world was on the brink of war, with the Fire Nation attempting to seize power. The show focuses on 12-year-old Aang, the Avatar and last of the Air Nomads, who was frozen in the ice for a century, and has been thawed out only to find the world in tatters. Now he must master the other 3 elements, defeat the Fire Nation, and restore peace once more.

The show is a serial - it continues the story rather than having a bunch of random episodes strung together in a season like so many other children's cartoons, which is wonderful. There are filler episodes, of course, but these are few and far between, and if they don't accelerate the plot, they do add little moments of character development that are useful as well.

It's also, as I have said, very funny - the primary "comic relief" is the character Sokka, but virtually every character, central or not, has their humorous moments. Despite that, the humour never distracts from what's going on, and never diminishes the dramatic and touching moments that also frequent the show. In fact, they enhance them, by giving the drama such a lighthearted contrast.

The show does have it's faults - some of the more overly-dramatic characters (*cough*Zuko*cough*) can get irritating at times, and there are moments where the newly discovered abilities of Aang and the other Benders seem a little too convenient, like they were thought up on the spot whenever the writers couldn't figure out how else to resolve the conflicts. But other than that (and I was really nitpicking there), there is virtually nothing wrong with it.

Overall, Avatar: The Last Airbender is a fantastic ride. I highly recommend either getting your hands on the Series DVD's, or watching the show online (try animefuel.com - just a warning, it's often busy and can't be accessed every now and again). I have never enjoyed a serial show - let alone one for kids - so much.

Before I start actually talking about the film, I would just like to say that even though I have read the first book and did enjoy it (despite it's flaws), I am NOT a crazy Twilight fan. I read the book primarily because I was going to go see the film with my English class (of all things) and wanted to have my background info; and let me say, this is probably one of the best book-to-movie adaptions I have ever seen. Not because it's a good *movie*, but because it follows the book to the letter and brings almost everything from the novel onto the screen and into the script.

That being said, I found the book to be, while no doubt enjoyable and sweet, written with a mediocre hand and riddled with unfortunate clichés, and original ideas that come across as nothing more than simplistic sketchy plot devices. For a debut, it's undoubtedly passable, but it's really the story and the romance that made it so popular, not the quality. The same goes for the movie.

The story, as most people on this Earth now know, is about an awkward teenager, Isabella "Bella" Swan, who moves from sunny Phoenix, Arizona to the wet, depressing North-West town of Forks, in an effort to give her mom and her boyfriend some space. Although she quickly captures the attention (and hearts) of what seems to be half the male adolescent population of Forks, Bella only has eyes for Edward, the handsome, pale-skinned, and mysterious boy who seems to despise her very presence. However, eventually they begin a friendship that turns into something much, much more squeal-worthy. And therein lies the conflict; Edward cannot allow himself to get too close to the introverted Miss Swan. Why? Bella's pasty Adonis is not only super-strong and super-fast, but super-immortal; he's a vampire, and he "vants to sauck her bluud".

The movie's dialogue is poor and clichéd, even more so than in the novel - the cast, which I honestly love, did the best they could (for the most part) with a barely acceptable screenplay, but that in itself was enough to bring the film down in my eyes. The same can be said for the awful special effects, which were laughable at best. As several people have already said, in the scene where Edward reveals the reason that he cannot go out in the sunlight (he gets sparkly *rolls eyes*), if I had not already known what was supposed to be happening to him, I wouldn't have noticed the sparkles - and even being prepared, I almost missed the poor effects entirely.

However, as I said before, I do love the cast - though not entirely for their performances in this movie, which, while enough to *just* carry the bad dialogue, aren't as good as they could be. Robert Pattinson isn't, to be honest, as attractive as I'd imagined Edward to be (he isn't bad looking, just not good looking ENOUGH), but he has personality, and that, while not revealed through his words or even his actions, comes across nonetheless. He makes Edward way more likable than he is in the book, I think. Kirsten Stewart is wonderful too - I love her and think she is an incredible actress. She manages to create a Bella that you can sympathize with; monotone and introverted, yet still vulnerable, sweet, and in possession of an inner fire that doesn't show itself often, but is obviously there. She and Pattinson have an incredible chemistry - and while the script has nothing but long, lingering looks between them to show that they are falling in love, the romantic/sexual tension they create so naturally manages to take that crappy "You don't have to say anything for me to know you're perfect" ideology and make it believable.

So, all in all, Twilight was an incredible adaption of a mediocre book, sacrificing quality dialogue for lusty glances, turning what could've been a thousand times better into an only passable film that was carried solely by the actors and their chemistry.

I really despise Disney sequels, normally. With the exception of The Lion King 1 1/2 and Aladdin and the King of Thieves, they are all unoriginal and badly animated, riddled with recycled plots and, in the case of the second Cinderella and Tarzan, given the look and feel of a cartoon miniseries *shudder*. While I do like The Little Mermaid, it was never one of my favourite movies - it's first sequel made me gag, but this one (while definitely not as good as the original) was not only enjoyable, but something that I would honestly watch again with a smile on my face.

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is (obviously, from the title) a prequel, telling the story of everybody's favourite red-headed mermaid approximately one year before the events chronicled in the original film. We are told through a sad little prologue about the death of Athena, wife of King Triton and mother to Ariel and her sisters. After her tragic death, Triton is heartbroken and bans music from the kingdom, as it reminds him too much of his queen and only serves to re-open old wounds. In his sorrow, he grows cold and distant from his daughters, leaving them in the care of Marina Del Ray, their governess, and her assistant Benjamin, who is (presumably) a manatee. But Marina wants the crab Sebastian's position as Chief of Staff, and will do anything to get it. Meanwhile, rebellious Ariel is desperate for a bit of fun and games, and when she encounters Flounder, a little fish with an ear for music, she is drawn into a magical world of musical speakeasies and aquatic bands - determined to bring music back to her kingdom and her family, Ariel will stop at nothing to get her melodious fix.

While the plot seems cheesy and juvenile (which it kind of is), Disney manages to pull it off, making it not only cheesy and juvenile, but touching, funny, and moderately smart. Marina Del Ray is a marvel - not encompassing the same sultry, strangely seductive evil as Ursula from the original, she instead channels Morgana from the first sequel, bearing the same manic determination and obvious crazy that makes her endearing as well as hilarious and cruel (while not particularly evil), something Morgana failed to do. She has an awful, garish taste in clothes that makes her fun to watch, and her voice has real personality, which makes her lines fun to hear.

Although not as well animated as the original (it's wonderful animation, don't get me wrong - just not as good), and definitely not as well developed, Ariel's Beginning will have me coming back for more - if you hated Return to the Sea but love the original Little Mermaid, I guarantee you'll like it, if not love it. If nothing else, it's fun to see the characters come alive again.

I, like many of those avid Disney fans out there, was outraged by the release of several sequels - such as Hunchback II, Cinderella II, Mulan II, etc. However, I think that Disney has realized that nobody really likes those crappy sequels - even the kids - and so has been upping it's game when it comes to straight-to-DVD-sequels; lately, the attempts at thirds has been actually quite good. After the success of the hilarious Lion King 1 1/2, the third Little Mermaid (Ariel's Beginning) definitely made par - Cinderella III: A Twist in Time also lives up to the standard set by both it's predecessor and what we've come to expect from Disney sequels.

Cinderella is married to Prince Charming and living in the castle - her stepmother, Lady Tremaine, and her stepsisters, Drizella and Anastasia, are stuck doing all the chores she used to to. Jealous of Cinderella's happiness and craving her own happy ending, Anastasia manages to steal the Fairy Godmother's magic wand. Lady Tremaine, determined to get revenge on her stepdaughter, uses the wand to take them back in time and alter the past, so that Anastasia's foot ends up fitting the glass slipper. Also with the help of magic, Tremaine enchants the Prince so that he thinks Anastasia is the girl he danced with at the ball. Cinderella, with the help of her mice friends Jaq and Gus, must now fight for her happily ever after.

I never liked Cinderella - I accept it as a timeless classic; I know it was groundbreaking for both animation and for film-making at the time it was made, and respect it for that. However, I never liked the story of a helpless heroine getting all she wants just because she has a good heart and befriends rodents. At least in the Grimm version, she had to really try to get her man (and there was some gore besides), but the Disney film really watered down the original grit.

Thankfully, the grit was brought back in this second sequel - Cindy has to do so much in this film to get the Prince to remember her (such as overcome exile, kidnapping, and defeat a human version of the diabolical cat Lucifer) that we really see her turn from a worthy girl benefiting from Karma into a determined heroine. And, since the Fairy Godmother is frozen at the beginning of the movie, she must battle Tremaine's magic with nothing but her own wits.

Cinderella III: A Twist in Time recaptures not only the drama of the Grimm fairytale, but also the magic of Disney hand-drawn animation, an art form that has been lost in the flashiness of CGI. I love computer-animated films, don't get me wrong, but I find they lack the intimate and personalized style of 2D animation. Somehow the beauty of hand-drawn animation manages to capture a humanity in characters and landscapes that you simply can't get with a computer - it turns the film into a work of art instead of just a movie. While this film's animation hasn't the beauty of other Disney flicks, it still retains enough of the magic to keep you riveted.

All in all, despite obvious issues with Disney sequels, Cinderella III: A Twist in Time brings an interesting plot, more three-dimensional characters, and a little Grimm touch to an undeniable classic - all the while retaining the intimate feeling of hand-drawn cartoons.

"Antz" is, for me, one of the wittiest, most original animated films I've ever seen. It combines a fish-out-of-water tale with an unlikely romance and a political drama, all held together with superb animation and sharp, fast-paced dialogue (riddled with some very well-placed innuendo).

Z (Woody Allen) is a neurotic male worker ant who doesn't feel that his career of digging tunnels is a worthwhile way to spend his days. Bala (Sharon Stone) is a rebellious princess who yearns for the spit and grit of the life of Joe Everyant. When the two meet, sparks fly, but after their night of fun transcends into a vicious bar-fight, the princess leaves before she is recognized by the guards. In a desperate attempt to see his prospective lady-love, Z switches jobs with his muscular soldier ant friend, Weaver (Sylvester Stallone). Hilarity ensues, as Z's desperate attempts to romance the proud princess help him unearth the diabolical schemes being concocted by the bloodthirsty General Mandible (Gene Hackman). In the colony's darkest hour, Z might just turn out to be the hero they need.

This film is great and fun for all ages. I highly suggest it (don't worry, the adult jokes will go right over the heads of the kids).

In the immortal "Shaun of the Dead", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. "Fido" presents us with an epilogue to "Shaun" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original "what-if...?" movie.

The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.

The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic "boy-and-his-dog" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his "pet" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.

A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including "The Matrix"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), "Fido" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.

"Fido" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible "Shaun of the Dead".

As a sequel/prequel to "Anastasia", Don Bluth's infamous Disney rip-off and one of my personal favourite animated flics, "Bartok the Magnificent" *does* fall short, but it still stands on its own with its own sentimental qualities; cute humour, great voice acting, and endearing (albiet childish) animation. Even though Bartok is a pseudo-villain in Anastasia (he faithfully assists Rasputin without really seeming evil), he makes a great hero.

The plot flows thusly - Bartok (played once more by the incomparable Hank Azaria) has a road-side, travelling show, in which he portrays himself and sings about his (completely made-up) heroic doings, while staging the dramatic killing of a vicious bear (portrayed by Bartok's partner-in-crime, Zozi - played by Kelsey Grammar). Through these antics the little white bat gains quite a fan-base, including the young Czar-to-be, Prince Ivan. And so, it is no surprise to anyone (except perhaps Bartok himself) when he is begged to rescue the Prince from the evil witch of Russian folklore, Baba Yaga (Andrea Martin). In his journey, Bartok meets a wonderful cast of characters, including a snake-thing called Piloff (Jennifer Tilly) and a riddling skull (Tim Currey), and discovers the hero in him he never knew.

While the ending leaves a few things unanswered (for example; if Bartok becomes a beloved hero in Moscow, as he does, how did he end up falling in with the wicked Rasputin?), "Bartok the Magnificent" gives for good fun for the whole family - kids will laugh at the corny jokes (maybe their parents too) and the talking animals. Adults will enjoy the use of great voice actors like Azaria, Grammar, Martin, Tilly and Currey, as well as Catherine O'Hara, cast as the voice of diabolical Regent Ludmilla (a character so hilariously over-the-top that she becomes just as "magnificent" as the title character).

All in all, yes, "Bartok the Magnificent" fails to live up to the very high standard set by its predecessor, but it remains a cut and entertaining addition to Don Bluth's resume.

The episode begins with Eddie (Meat Loaf Aday) and his wife Charlotte; Eddie is dying of lung cancer, and Charlotte is watching over him, when suddenly her windpipe begins to close. Enter House and Princeton hospital. The team tries to diagnose Charlotte, Eddie meanwhile lying in the next bed. Everyone then realizes something very strange - Kutner isn't at work. After waiting for him a few hours, House sends Foreman and Thirteen to look for Kutner at his apartment. When he doesn't answer the door, they use their key to get in, only to find that he has committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

This episode was very strange for me. At first, I was incredibly excited that Meat Loaf, one of my favourite musical artists, was guest starring in the episode (and under the name Eddie, which was also the name of his character in The Rocky Horror Picture Show), but then the shock and impact of Kutner's suicide kind of ruined that for me. Kutner was always my favourite member of House's new team, and not just because I love Kal Penn as a rule. It was an incredibly rushed and as of yet unexplained death (despite House's many theories throughout the episode - including murder, a theory quickly brushed aside - no one really discovers why Kutner killed himself), and appeared to have no thought put into it. It was almost as if Kal Penn came up to the writers and said 'I'm leaving the show' just as they were writing the script, and they hastily included his death in there.

And yet, they did a good job. Taub had a great one-liner ("You can't feel that much guilt without love", which was relevant both to the patients, Eddie and Charlotte, and to Kutner's death), the song played at the end was great, and I'm sure more than a few heartstrings were tugged during the funeral scene.

Great Episode!

We all love feel-good movies; they're fun, sweet, with an ending that just, well, makes you feel good. These films are, in themselves, quite common, but what is very rare is to find a feel-good cartoon (a good example is 'Happy Feet'). 'A Goofy Movie' is one of those rarities.

Max Goof is just a teenager trying to fit in -- after performing a song by popular singer Powerline on-stage (without permission) at the end-of-year assembly, he quickly ascends from zero to hero in the school's eyes. When the girl of his dreams, Roxanne, accepts his invitation to go on a date to a pay-per-view screening of the Powerline concert, Max is floating on air. But because of his stunt at the assembly, his dad, Goofy, resolves to spend more time with Max to keep him from turning into a bad kid. Max is forced to break his date with Roxanne, but when she asks why, he tries to impress her by saying that Goofy was once in a band with Powerline, so they are going to see the live concert in L.A., and he will wave to her from the stage as he performs with Powerline.

The rest of the movie is basically Max trying to Goofy to L.A so he can keep his promise, and deal with his dad's embarrassing nature. It's full of laughs, heartwarming moments, and the ending really pulls it all together to make a feel-good cartoon. Disney is, of course, famous for the show-tuney songs, and so there are some moments when characters randomly start singing, but the songs in 'A Goofy Movie' are really good. My personal favourites are "Nobody Else But You" (a great song on it's own) and "After Today".

I highly recommend 'A Goofy Movie'! It's great for the kids and there are plenty jokes that'll make even the adults laugh out loud.

I would just like to take a moment to say; I loved all three Lord of the Rings books, and all three Lord of the Rings movies. The Two Towers was actually the best of the books, (which is surprising because I hated the second movie) but when it comes to the movies, Return of the King takes ALL of the cake.

We pick up where we left off in The Two Towers (the movie); Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf reunite with Merry and Pippin after the hobbits have defeated Saruman with the help of the ents. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam near the end of their journey, still on their way to the "short cut" into Mordor, led by the treacherous Gollum/Smeagol.

Aragorn & co. split up, with the majority of them staying in Rohan whilst Gandalf and Pippin travel together to Gondor, the kingdom that by right should belong to Aragorn, and also happens to be next on Sauron's hit list. However, Gondor is being run by the Steward, who is the father of Boromir (remember him? the guy from the first one who died?), and he doesn't really feel like trusting Gandalf, *or* handing the kingdom over to Aragorn.

Frodo and Sam face problems of their own; the Ring's power is growing and Frodo is suffering the same personality change that got poor Gollum/Smeagol. Speaking of the little bugger, his dual persona's are battling it out; the Smeagol part wants to be good again and help the hobbits, whilst the Gollum part wants to kill them and take the Ring. With this guy leading them, Sam and Frodo really need to watch their backs!

Now, I love this movie and everything about it. The effects, the acting, the pure scope and brilliance of the plot meshed with the intricacies of fantasy... it all works. However, there is one. Little. Exception.

Mr Frodo Baggins.

I absolutely *hate* him! I can't stand him! All he does is wallow in his own misery, he barely fights the Ring's influence at all, and he's always falling over. Oh, gimmie a break, angsty boy! As far as I'm concerned (and, according to my sources, JRR Tolkien felt the same way), Sam is the true hero of the story. He faithfully went along with all Frodo's ideas, he kept him afloat, sacrificed his own food and water to keep Frodo going, because he knew he couldn't take the Ring. He protected him as best he could from that conniving little Gollum/Smeagol. At Mt. Doom, he freaking' CARRIED Frodo up the mountain!!! He rescued him when he was going to let himself fall into the lava! And at the end, he had to deal with the pain of his best friend leaving him forever. A real trooper, a real, brave, selfless Hero.

Love the movie! Hate Frodo!

Beauty and the Beast is arguably one of the best Disney films ever (second only to The Hunchback of Notre Dame), as well as one of the most touching love stories of all time. The relationship between Belle and the Beast is both funny and endearing, the songs are remarkably good, and the animation is beautiful. A lot of the humour is very witty (even though most of it was childish, it can also give the parents a chuckle or two), and, while it is quite violent for a kid's movie, it gives very good messages; the most poignant of which is "appearances aren't everything".

It's based on a very old story, but it has been altered to become Disney-fied. Belle (French for "beautiful") is a gorgeous but odd girl who confounds her entire town with her looks and strange ways. Her father is an inventor, ridiculed as well for his seeming madness, though everyone accepts that he's harmless.

When Belle's father goes off to enter his wood-chopping invention at the fair, he gets lost and stumbles into a strange castle inhabited by living objects, like clocks, candelabras, feather dusters and teapots. However, his warm welcome at the castle is cut short when a ferocious beast appears and locks him away. When her father doesn't return home (but his horse does), Belle goes off in search of him, only to find the castle herself and to exchange herself for her father. The Beast keeps her prisoner, in hopes that she will fall in love with him and break the spell that has been cast over him and his servants. But between the Beast's temper, Belle's stubbornness, and the constant plotting of muscle-man Gaston, determined to win Belle at any cost, this won't be so easy...

As I said before, the relationship between Belle and the Beast is funny and endearing - funny, because at first, they can't stand each other. The Beast appears crude and frightening, and Belle is determined to be as difficult as possible. Once they begin to bond, however, a different kind of comedy emerges - the Beast is hilariously awkward and eager to please (though he isn't really sure how), and Belle is gently guiding him in the ways of human interaction. It's endearing for almost the same reason - essentially, the film turns from a tale of a jailer and captor's unexpected romance, into the story of two outcasts who find both acceptance and love in each other.

The music is wonderful (again, as I said before), especially the songs "Gaston", "There May be Something There (That Wasn't There Before)" and the eternal classic "Beauty and the Beast", sung by the teapot character Mrs Potts, voiced by Angela Lansbury. The lyrics are at times funny, at times poetic, at times somewhere in between.

The merging of the timeless love story, the conflict and drama, the humour, the songs, the animation, and the classic Disney talking things that shouldn't talk creates a thing of beauty. The story of a pair of oddities who fall for each other; the story of a man who was a monster; the story of a beast who learns to love; the story of the girl who taught him how. Truly a masterpiece.

Ghost Town is one of those rare movies that make you smile at the end. Not laugh, not cry, just, *smile*, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The irony is this is the absolute definition of black comedy, and I think that's why they had Ricky Gervais star in it, because, let's face it, if you make a black comedy without starring a British guy, it just doesn't pull through.

Bertram Pincus (Gervais) is a reclusive and generally irritated Manhatten dentist, who absolutely abhors every living thing and their constant flow of mindless chatter. However, after demanding anesthesia during a routine operation, he begins to see people who follow him in large crowds, asking him incredulously if he can see them. Upon revisiting the hospital to ask what is wrong with him, Pincus discovers that not only did he die for a little less than seven minutes on the operating table, but the people following him are ghosts, begging him to help them with their unfinished business.

Among these ghosts is Frank (a marvelously cast Greg Kinnear), a man who died with both a wife and a girlfriend. He asks Pincus to help him break up the engagement of his wife Gwen (Tea Leoni) to what seems like a perfectly nice man. Realizing that Gwen is both attractive and lives in his building, the grouchy dentist agrees. As Pincus begins to get to know Gwen, however, he begins to fall in love with her, and realize that every life matters.

This movie is a black comedy with heart; the relationship between Pincus and Gwen is both heartwarming and funny, as the dentist is obviously not used to talking to people, let alone pretty women. Kinnear and Gervais have real, hilarious and human chemistry that results in very interesting conversations. And, at the end, we all learn something or two about life and death.

10/10

Does anyone else think that "Reba" is basically a ripoff of "Roseanne"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart).

And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. "Reba" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her *too* lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne "I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable.

But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of "Roseanne", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make "Reba" witty.

Overall, "Reba" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of "Roseanne", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality.

I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.

Jane Eyre is probably one of my all-time favourite books, and, I'm glad to say, the 2006 film has become one of my all-time favourite movies. The actors have an amazing chemistry, and some scenes were just too electrifyingly romantic to belong in a Victorian period piece. The acting was great, the script was great--pure brilliance!

Based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte, the film focuses on (duh) Jane Eyre, an orphan living with her cruel aunt and abusive cousins. After being sent away to an all-girl boarding school, Jane develops into a little and learned woman. Eventually, she adopts the career of governess at a place called Thornfield, working for the estate's reclusive master, one Edward Rochester, and his charge, a little French girl called Adele. Jane and Rochester develop a close friendship that soon turns to something more; but Rochester holds a dark secret, one that could prevent them from ever being happy...

The character of Jane is so sympathetic; she is humble and kind and yet very capable of holding her own. Rochester is also very interesting, in that he appears gruff and indifferent but has a strangely charming disposition. Actually, he reminds me a little of Gregory House (House MD).

Overall, it's a wonderful movie based on a wonderful book; it will appeal to fans of Bronte and fans of Victorian romance alike.

10/10

Let it be known that I hate westerns as a rule. I'm sorry, but I can't stand them. Most of them (for me) have the same tiresome plots, the basis of which are always some so-called "good" character goes out to kill some so-called "bad" character (both characters are, on an added note, incredibly unlikeable). The whole movie is often tied together by scenes of unending gunfire, in which people (who you think are important but you can't be sure) are shot dead without ceremony and left there while the "good" character reaps the reward. I cannot abide westerns. So, when my mum finally convinced me to see Young Guns, I was (despite the presence of Keifer Sutherland) determined to despise it.

Well, I finally found the best western. And it is this.

Young Guns follows the story of William "Billy the Kid" Bonny (Emilio Estavez) and the gang of Regulators he was the pseudo-leader of during the Lincoln County War. The Regulators, which include(d) Josiah "Doc" Surlock (Keifer Sutherland), Richard "Dick" Brewer (Charlie Sheen), and Jose Chavez Y Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips), all wanted revenge for the cold-blooded murder of their friend and mentor, John Tunstall. Having been deputized via a friend of Tunstall's, Alex McSween, the Regulators were admitted to kill certain men in their vendetta. After Billy's reckless slaughtering of folk not permitted to be slaughtered, the Regulators were branded outlaws, and became part of a county-wide manhunt that eventually led them to a final showdown with Tunstall's killers.

A movie that is about friendship and politics just as much as it is about gunslinging, Young Guns is touching, exciting, and much more humorous than any western I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that makes you smile at the end of it, an ending which is bittersweet and moving. Estavez's Billy the Kid is a slightly psychotic, annoying yet strangely likable anti-hero with a strong sense of loyalty that makes him the most interesting character in the movie. The Regulators, though coarse and somewhat awkward in their social abilities, are all quite affable in their own way, and you really get to care about them.

Overall, Young Guns is not only a terrific western, but a terrific movie. While riddled with clichés and deep-down-but-not-so-far-from-the-surface messages, it still retains enough dignity to have true heart.

9/10

To start, let me say that if you don't like comedy that relies heavily on profanity, you won't like this movie. If you don't like satire and social commentary that is concealed by curse words, you won't like this movie. If you don't like the idea of Jesus wearing tight jeans and a white tank-top, dancing provocatively with teenagers and moon-walking on water, you will *hate* this movie. Stop reading this review right now and don't bother, because you won't appreciate it and it will be a waste of your time.

But, if none of that stuff bothers you, watch Hamlet 2 NOW, or you will regret it.

What begins as the tale of a failed commercial actor-turned-Drama-teacher becomes a funny and enjoyable fight to put on a controversial play as Dana Marchtz (Steve Coogan) tries to save the Drama program at an Arizona high school. Dana is married to a sardonic woman, he lives with a lazy border, his Drama class has two (typical Drama geek) students who can't act, the school critic is a prepubescent word-smith who hates his work, and to top it all off, he just might be sterile. His life, in a word, blows. But when budget cuts force a large group of heavily Latino students to take Drama as their elective, Dana is faced with a golden opportunity. If he can't put on a powerhouse play, the Drama program will be eradicated also, and the new kids might just be the actors he needs to produce "Hamlet 2", his magnum opus.

With Amy Poehler and Elizabeth Shue in great (but regrettably small) supporting roles, this movie can't miss. It's hilarious, it's smart, and the chunk of the actual play at the end (with the so-called blasphemous song "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" at it's core) was a real bang-for-your-buck ending, where even the conservative Bible Study kids got into the sacrilege. I guarantee you it will make you laugh, cry (with laughter), and want to get up and go join a Drama class. Just pray to Sexy Jesus that if you do, Steve Coogan is not your teacher.