Director John Lee Hancock takes the real life story of Michael Oher and brings it to the big screen not as a documentary but as a “based on true events” movie. Hollywood liberties were taken as the high school Oher attended and the name of the football team he played for were both renamed; the school is now the Wingate Christian School and the team is the Crusaders.  JLH also made the character of Michael Oher appear slower and dumber then he really was at that time – I’m sure this was done to help bolster the drama of the movie.

Michael Oher’s story started at an early age when he was removed from his mother’s home due to her addiction to crack cocaine. He repeated both the first and second grade and attended eleven different schools during his first nine years as a student. During this time he was also in various foster homes and eventually would run away from the foster home to look for his mother. During his senior year of high school, Oher learned that his father, who he hadn’t seen in years, was murdered.

The Blind Side focuses on Michael Oher’s sophomore and junior years of high school. We first meet Michael Oher (played by Quinton Aaron) as he is being driven to the Wingate Christian School by the father of a friend with whom he was living, sleeping on his couch. At the school, his friend’s father Tony Henderson meets with the coach of the football team in hopes of getting his own son, Tony Jr., and Michael, into the school. The coach takes some interest in Michael but the school administrators don’t think that he fits, nor would he be capable of handling the school’s workload. His grades are below average and he was passed from grade to grade just so the next teacher would have to deal with him – no one took the time to try and help or teach Michael. One teacher, Mrs Boswell (played by Kim Dickens) fights to allow Michael into the school and says that she will help him learn and get his grade point average up to passing level.

During this time Michael leaves his friend’s house due to issues within that household. Because of this, Michael has been living at the school in the gymnasium or at the local laundromat in town. The night before Thanksgiving, Sean and Leigh Ann Tuohy (played by Tim McGraw and Sandra Bullock) with their son S. J. (played by Jae Head) are heading home from the school when they see Michael walking on the side of the road on a cold and rainy night heading in the direction of the school. Feeling sad for Michael, the Tuohy’s offer to take Michael back to their home so he can get a warm night’s sleep. Leigh Ann starts to help Michael by offering to take him shopping for new clothes as well as hire a tutor (played by Kathy Bates) to help him bring the GPA from 0.9 to 2.65 and get him the education he never received.  The Tuohy’s oldest daughter Collins (played by Lily Collins) also helps Michael with his studying. The Tuohys know that Michael can do so much more when given a chance and are there to encourage and help him.

The Blind Side chronicles the hard times and new times that Micheal Oher experiences.  Tim McGraw and Sandra Bullock do incredible jobs portraying the Tuohy’s and both show the warmth and compassion that is in the hearts of the real-life people they are playing.  Both managed to become the Tuohys and you forget that this is a movie as you fall into the real-life struggles and trials that the family goes through in helping Michael Oher. Quinton Aaron does a great job at playing Michael Oher. He manages to capture the physical size and athleticism of the character. He also does a wonderful job in showing the softer side of Oher, although as stated earlier, the director does play on the “slowness” to help push the drama. The comic relief of the movie would be Jae Head as S.J which is short for Sean Tuohy Junior.  S.J. manages to work up the laughs and isn’t the stereotypical cute kid/brat but is the light-hearted support  that is needed to push the dark subject to the side.  S.J. manages to help Oher with his college offers and eventual pick of which college he will attend. The Tuohys want Michal to go to Mississippi University, Ole Miss, as that is where they attended college, but let Michael hear offers from other colleges.  Because this is based on real life you are treated to screen cameos of current and former college coaches as they try to get Oher to go to their college/university. It’s amazing to see what coaches will do and what deals are made to entice someone to play for their organization.

The Blind Side is an emotional roller coaster as there are laughs and teary moments throughout the movie. There is a very touching scene in the movie when Leigh Ann finds Michal’s mom and asks for permission to adopt Michael even though he has been a ward of the state for years.  No matter how different the social class is between the two women, they are both mothers that have children and were able to relate with each other over the well-being of Michael.

The last scene of the movie was a great added bonus that helped complete the first chapter of Michael Oher’s story and lead into the next chapters of his life. The crowd that attended the screening was clapping and cheering when this scene came up on the screen and I have to admit, I joined in with the celebration.  I’m left wondering how this will play out in other cities as I’m sure it will be big in Baltimore. I can’t wait to see The Blind Side again to compare the different audiences and see how they react to the last scene of the movie.

The Blind Side is rated PG-13 due to one scene of drug usage, violence, and sexual references. Some of the content is dark and not suitable for younger viewers (just saying, not telling you to not take your 3-year-old but hey, that’s up to you). After you’ve seen The Blind Side, post a comment and let me know what you thought. I know that I’ll be revisiting this review and adding some comments of my own once I’ve seen it a second time. The Blind Side is a movie so nice that you’ll want to see it twice.

 ★★★★½ 

• All About Steve Movie Review
• Cheri – Review
• Atomic Team Review: The Proposal
• Will Smith Attached to Hurricane Katrina Movie

For fans, the Twilight saga has become a sort of sporting event pitting one team against another. Team Edward was crazed upon the release of last year’s Twilight, and while New Moon is definitely geared toward “the other team,” there is more than adequate sexual tension and angst to satisfy both.

New Moon, the second movie/book in the series, centers on what happens when Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) leaves Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) after an event with his family threatens her safety. While the character tells Bella “You will never see me again,” Edward appears frequently through out the movie as a sort of ghostly consciousness trying to keep her from harm. Of course when she makes this connection, Bella goes looking for harm in order to see him.

While on her adrenalin search Bella rekindles an old friendship with Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), the rallying cry for Team Two. She brings him bikes to fix up so she can drive fast and loose enough to see Edward. However, on the way she develops a deepening connection to her friend and team Jacob holds its collective breath. Maybe this time she will get their man.

While Edward and Bella were the driving force in the first movie his disappearance for the greater part of New Moon does not kill this sequel. Instead we are given a new brooding monster (and his family) to love.

Originally, rumors circulated that Taylor Lautner would not be returning as Jacob in the second film. The producers feared he could not bulk up enough to visually play the part of the werewolf he becomes. However, Lautner was able to put on some very pleasing muscular weight. He worked hard for the part and his dedication shows in his acting. Viewers are not only rewarded by having the same actor back in character, but also by having one who could still be younger than Bella. New Moon gives a book-perfect Jacob.

While most film series have weak second installments I found New Moon to be better than the original. However, in the end, New Moon is still the sequel to Twilight. So don’t go to the theatre expecting some great dramatic work or art house film. That is never what these movies will be, but if you are going for a few laughs and some guilty pleasure, you just might enjoy yourself.

 ★★★☆☆ 

• First Footage from ‘New Moon’ Set for MTV Movie Awards
• New New Moon Footage
• Slade Slated for Eclipse
• ‘New Moon’ Crushes Box Office Records

Director and Screenwriter (gotta give credit where credit is due) Roland Emmerich managed to create what will be this season’s greatest comedy. I don’t think that is what he set out to do upon drafting, filming, and editing 2012 but that is the end result. This two-and-a-half hour comedy will have you rolling in your seat as you watch Cusack and the gang outrace disaster after disaster after disaster. The over-the-top elements and wacky situations in which Cuscak and the gang find themselves is downright hysterical. You’ll laugh as the Cusack Gang (short name from now on) out drive an earthquake that is ripping California apart. You won’t be able to resist the temptation to crack a smile when the Cusack Gang manage to hit the perfectly placed upturned pavement, use it as a ramp to jump a very large hole caused by the massive earthquake they were outrunning, and drive through a glass building that was toppling in front of them. It’s the Dukes of Hazzard meets Lethal Weapon 4!

The plot is straight out of an NBC Movie of the week that should be shown as a two-parter during February sweeps. In 2009 Doctor Adrian Helmsley, played by Chiwetel Ejofor, discovers that the Earth’s core is getting hotter. He takes the facts and presents them to Carl Anheuser, played by Oliver Platt, who is the President’s top scientist. They determine that with the help of the world’s government, ships can be built to house all of the world’s culture as well as those select individuals that helped fund the project and all government parties throughout the world. The plans are put into motion and in 2010 the governments unite. Over the next two years the Chinese build six very large metal ships that will be used to transport countless live animals and people to safety for months if not years, and house state-of-the-art electronics that will guide their way. These Arks will be used for the months or years it takes to restart civilization after the great floods.

There is even a Who’s Who of characters that gave 2012 that NBC Movie of the Week feel. Danny Glover is the President of the United States. Woody Harrelson is Charlie, the one “crazy person” who knows the Government’s plans but isn’t taken seriously. Blu Mankuma plays Harry Helmsley the father of Ejofor’s character, and George Segal plays Tony Delgato who hasn’t spoken or seen his son in years and is also Harry’s musical partner. This short list of actors helped to make 2012 feel like a Movie of the Week. Where are Hasselhoff and Shatner when you need them?

I won’t even get into the wooden performance Glover gives as the POTUS. His delivery and demeanor seemed to indicate that this was a paycheck and not really a wise career move. Cusack did a good job at not taking the story too seriously. I mean, how can you when you’re constantly avoiding disaster with seconds to spare. Peet was the only actor who delivered a believable portrayal of a character. As I’ve been told, it only takes one rotten apple to ruin the bunch – thanks to Amanda Peet for being that apple. I kid, I kid… you were the bright spot to this comedy and you were the only person that made me believe that your character was in danger.

I’m sure some will think this was an amazing movie based on the great effects. YES, the effects were incredible. The way Emmerich choreographed the destruction of the Earth was, to say the least, beautiful. His use of real-world physics helped to portray the massive destruction that was happening before our eyes. His sinking of California was an awesome effect and the way the land mass sank while buildings kept toppling over was darn cool to watch. His use of dust and debris from downed buildings converging down the roads and toward the populace was too reminiscent of images captured on 9/11/01 in New York city.  I found myself picking up small sound effects that added to some of the massive events unfolding on the screen. There is a scene where the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy is being lifted by a massive tsunami and the scraping noise of the jets sliding off the bow of the ship was a nice touch of realism. But, as we all know, effects do not make a movie great. Story and acting are also needed to help sell the Hollywood magic and are just what was missing from 2012. I find it hard to take a movie seriously when the entire audience is laughing at EVERYTHING that is happening in front of them. If Emmerich is smart he’ll have Columbia put this under the Comedy section come Oscar time.

Columbia Pictures manages to deliver a PG-13 movie with intense disaster sequences, a 2.5 hour run time, little story,  lots of special effects, and laughs-a-plenty (which I’m sure was unintentional and just the by-product of a bad movie).

 ★☆☆☆☆ 

• 2012 Review — John’s Take
• Who Likes Tidal Waves?
• And there goes LA, 2012 Style
• 2012 Will Roadblock Your TV

There’s more human suffering on display in Roland Emmerich’s 2012 than any other film I’ve seen. Emmerich raises the stakes of his own game, creating a level of destruction that outdoes anything seen in Independence Day or The Day After Tomorrow. Where he succeeds most brilliantly is in forming a perfectly satisfying piece of coherent bubble gum B-movie, where Michael Bay, given a comparable amount of funding, will produce utter chaos.

The only well-rounded character in 2012 is the calamity itself: unprecedentedly huge solar flares are causing the core of the earth to heat up and weaken the crust of the earth. This is making the tectonic plates of the earth shift around, causing earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes and the bisection of the occasional grocery store. Emmerich takes about a half an hour to warm up the audience for impending doom, which makes 2012 incredibly lengthy when it doesn’t need to be. He could lop off the entire front portion of the film and begin with a mysterious bang, letting us put the pieces together as we go along, and it would have functioned just as well.

As a result, we get weird subplots — the replacement of famous artwork in the Louvre and Buddhist monks and simple nonsense. That’s okay, though, because this breathing room lets us hang out with characters, none of whom are totally fleshed out, but also none that are really unlikeable. John Cusack, as a failed everyman writer, is as likable as he’s been in every role in his career.

Blessed with a slightly better script, he would really hold 2012 together; as it stands, it’s definitely an ensemble piece. We get fine turns from Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Chitwel Ejiofor, but they’re the standard characters we’ve become familiar with since Emmerich showed them off in Independence Day. His actors are chess pieces in showcase scenes, which is totally fine. The movie knows what it wants to be, satisfies that purpose, and nothing more.

It’s an average film, highly entertaining in the theater and ultimately disposable on the way out. However, the “rollercoaster ride” cliche totally applies to 2012, and seems to wear it with pride. The thing is, I can’t see Emmerich going anywhere after this film; he’s going to have to try his hand at a different game, because where do you go after destroying the world?

 ★★★☆☆ 

• Plus 1’s “2012″ review
• 2012 Will Roadblock Your TV
• ‘Independence Day’ Sequel to Take Two Films
• 2012 Annihilates Box Office Numbers

So why won’t this appeal to the masses? Very simply because of the script, which goes off the rails midway through the picture. Screenwriter Peter Straughan has some interesting ideas at work here, he just doesn’t know where to end it. Nor does he know where to take these ideas to turn them into a coherent story. Straughan likely read the book by Jon Ronson and came away so super excited over the material he decided to use it to write a script. Somewhere along the way someone forgot to tell him to go back and rewrite the film. It strives to be satirical, and many times almost gets to that point.

Director Grant Heslov doesn’t fail in making sure the movie stays entertaining at least during its brief runtime. He’s aided by a goofy-as-can-be George Clooney who acts like a kid on a roller coaster ride. It’s unclear what his Lyn Cassidy was written as, but Clooney takes him for an overconfident buffoon who feels he’s superhuman. The result is pure comedy, and a performance that guides one through the picture when it begins to get too outlandish for its own good. Clooney’s counterbalanced by a moody and glum Ewan McGregor who does a fine job as Bob Wilton, and plays off of his mustached partner elegantly. McGregor needs a film like this to get him back out there and this is a good jumping point.

Both are supported by Jeff Bridges who’s coasting by on his ‘Dude’ persona from The Big Lebowski. Obviously, that’s not a bad thing as he’s particularly great at it but he doesn’t really do anything we haven’t seen before. Kevin Spacey’s Larry Hooper is in a battle with Cassidy but not because they’re rivals like the story tells us. Spacey seems to be trying to one-up Clooney for “Goofiest Person In A Film”. While the edge might go to Spacey by the end, it never feels like Verbal Kint takes it too far. Stephen Lang also pops up, although it’s never clear why he’s there… but no matter. Lang’s always a joy to watch, as is Glenn Morshower, who’s in Transformers mode here. Again, never a bad thing.

Heslov does deserve credit for keeping all of these elements reigned in. He’s daunted with the task of trying to tell a coherent story amongst all the chaos, and he just goes with it. Heslov doesn’t hold anything back and doesn’t let any of his actors feel restrained by their roles. Instead of taking the “how can I save this?” attitude that directors sometimes  leave on their pictures, Heslov’s attitude toward this material is laid-back and fun. He’s perfectly aware things have gone up in smoke once the third act has arrived and does nothing to stop it from doing so. Maybe he’s smiling and laughing along with Cassidy and Hooper as they run rampant through an outpost.

This is what The Men Who Stare At Goats asks you to do. It cares if you like it, but at the same time it’s not afraid to just gleefully throw everything it can at you. Truth is, you’re either with this film from the opening frame, and just accept it in spite of itself when the later acts come, or you’re weary and far gone by the time said acts arrive. With that said, this film is tough to recommend to those on the fence. People interested should definitely give it a try, but the film isn’t for everyone and knows it. And sometimes, we need films like this that play by their own rules and offer up mildly entertaining exploits.

 ★★★☆☆ 

• The Men Who Stare At Goats Giveaway!
• Jeff Bridges: The Dude Who Stares At Goats
• George Clooney’s Goats and Air Get Release Dates
• The Men Who Stare at Goats Trailer

That’s about as far as the creators of The Fourth Kind are really willing to go in confirming the ‘truth’ behind their new film. Ultimately, that’s probably as far as they should go considering all of the events and ‘footage’ presented in this 90-minute treatise on alien abduction and extraterrestrial paranoia. Despite assertions from star Milla Jovovich and director Olatunde Osunsanmi that the film includes actual footage, there’s a surprising lack of supportive evidence found anywhere outside of The Fourth Kind.  I personally couldn’t uncover anything that substantiates that there is an actual Abigail Tyler or even any significant reports of UFO phenomena in the area.

Still, The Fourth Kind sets it all up in the same fashion that a TV documentary might; introducing the real Abigail Tyler, a haunted and frail looking woman, and then switching over to Jovovich as the hottie shrink version of Tyler who is trying to uncover the truth behind her husband’s death. In a move that flies in the face of most paranormal docu-dramas, the film switches to split screen and shows the video footage for the most harrowing and disturbing moments. Faces contort, people levitate, several end up speaking in ancient Sumerian, and all describe visitations by a grey owl. Some of it is creepy and effective, some of it is tedious, but almost all of it suffers from the burden of ‘based on a true story’.

What Osunsanmi conjures by adding the layer of potential truth to the movie is a glimpse into the mindset and philosophy of those who do believe they have been abducted or have experienced significant paranormal phenomenon. The film makes it easy to sympathize with Jovovich’s performance and be chilled by the Tyler we see the in the footage, but we are taken out of the film every time we glimpse a clearly fx-enhanced sequence that purports to be real. The continued insistence that what we are seeing is something beyond cinematic fantasy is hard to take.

Benefiting the film is the lead performance by Milla Jovovich who is surprisingly resilient to the haphazard plot twists and one-note ‘woman in peril’ construction of the character. She’s come a long way since The Fifth Element’s Leeloo and this role marks her graduation from one-note action warrior to a stronger dramatic actress. Everyone else, from the perfectly calibrated Elias Koteas (once notorious for playing nutjobs) to the caffeine-fueled Will Patton (he’s never looked more unstable) give the dramatization portions of the movie some credibility.

And what of the ‘real people’ in the footage? I have no doubt personally that they are actors and they do what they have been assigned to do: stretch that perception of the world in the film as reality. Particularly, I must give credit to the casting choice for Dr. Tyler. She looks like a woman who has faced the dark under the bed and come out worse for the wear. The Fourth Kind is very canny and wise when it comes to understanding our expectations of Hollywood and its presentation of real-world events. By casting the quite pretty Jovovich, and then giving us a disheveled and disoriented ‘real’ Tyler, it challenges the audience’s skepticism. She and the other victims aren’t pretty or glamorous. This means they have to be genuine, right?

For an evening of cheap and cheeky thrills, The Fourth Kind will do the trick. But like Paranormal Activity, it doesn’t offer anything, true or otherwise, that can satiate our imagination for more than a single sitting.

 ★★½☆☆ 

• Aliens vs. Ninjas
• Milla Jovovich To Be a Face in the Crowd
• ID4…2?
• Resident Evil: Afterlife

Kelly’s The Box opens in 1976 with the button device being delivered mysteriously to the doorstep of Norma(Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden). Later that day, the box’s creator, Arlington Steward, shows up and pitches to Norma the aforementioned proposal regarding the rules of the button. Steward warns Norma of two other stipulations of the deal; he cannot reveal the identity of his employers and neither she nor her husband may tell anyone else about the arrangement, the box or Steward’s visit. He leaves the box in their care and says that he will return in 24 hours to pick it back up. They have until then to push — or not push — the button.

The Lewises are a caring and tight-knit family unit; no strangers to selflessness and sacrifice for those they love. Arthur works at NASA and his career goal is to eventually become an astronaut on the Mars Mission, while Norma is a high school English teacher. On the same day that Steward visits them, Norma is denied tuition reimbursement and Arthur learns of his rejection from the space program. Financially strapped, and faced with compromises to their future plans, one of them predictably pushes the button. They get the money, the box is taken away, and they are left with the consequences of their actions.

Up until that point, Kelly’s movie is firing on all cylinders. The costume and set designs that resurrect the kitschy nightmare of 1970s fashions and the fresh mystique of the NASA space program are without blame and create a curious texture that works for this film in the same way that the 80’s setting worked for Kelly’s Donnie Darko. Henry Mancini-esque score is a strange and archaic piece that evokes with precision The Twilight Zone qualities and pedigree of The Box, which is based on a Matheson short story that also appeared as an episode in that classic series.

The acting is surprisingly strong, especially from Diaz who really embodies Norma as a caring and compassionate woman who has made an uncharacteristically monstrous decision in a moment of weakness. She internalizes the central moral dilemma of the box in a way that the rest of the film fails to do. Marsden, so often the nice guy in the background, gets the opportunity to play that role front and center here and his mannered approach keeps everything from flying completely off the rails, at least until the film’s off-the-wall third act. As Arlington Steward, Langella is the most effective and imposing member of the cast. His presence, including his fearsome, fire-ravaged visage, is appropriately sinister and unnerving.

However, once the film moves beyond the confines of that original concept — even as a 30-minute Zone episode it was stretched to its narrative limits — I began to lose interest and investment in the characters and their ordeal. Much like Kelly’s previous features, the splendid Darko and the bafflingly awful Southland Tales, The Box introduces more ideas, characters and plot points than can be easily resolved or even satisfyingly explored within its running time.

After they push the button, the Lewises encounter strange, dead-eyed people wandering around their house and inexplicable nosebleeds in trusted friends and acquaintances.The NSA has set up shop at Arthur’s work and the movie begins creating a startlingly convoluted connection between Steward’s behavior, the philosophies of Jean Paul Sartre and the possibilities of life on the Martian surface. To add extra confusion, those strange sentient water structures from Darko show-up here, visualizing Sartre’s views on human nature and reflective consciousness. Kelly draws us back to the original set-up in a downbeat but powerful final sequence, but he never justifies or explains all the oddball science fiction that clogs up the film’s center sections.

So, is The Box successful as an entertainment? It certainly is bold and it strives for originality and thoughtfulness. As a suspense picture, it works well enough in the early going. However, it would be dishonest of me to suggest that it pulls all of its pieces together in a way that drives home its moral suppositions. They just aren’t supported by the plot or its delivery. Strangely, this will matter more to some than others. I fully expect to hear a negative reaction from the majority of filmgoers, but there may be those who embrace The Box because it is ambitious and they will latch on to all that the film gets right.

When I was asked last night after the screening, I responded that the film didn’t quite work for me. After spending some time chewing it over, and discussing the central question at its heart with others, I realize that in some small ways the film does its job and maybe it just got under my skin. It is possible then that, flaws and all, it may also get under yours.

 ★★★☆☆ 

• Say It Ain’t So! Fox Moving Towards Another ‘Darko’ Sequel
• Neill Blomkamp Will Return to Sci-Fi
• Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz Working ‘Knight and Day’
• A Glimpse of Shia LeBeouf & Michael Douglas in Wall Street 2

I sit in my seat and look about to see my surroundings; I start to hear clicking sounds getting louder and louder. I start to fly around the city of London, looking around I see people having snowball fights with each other, singing Christmas songs. This might sound like the Star Tours “The Christmas Carol Edition” that would be at Disneyland. You might think wow that sounds kind of cool, well in this film it played out to be too much of something can be a bad thing. It sounds strange that Zemeckis could not pull off a simple adaptation. The last animated film we saw from Zemeckis was “Beowulf” which I found to be an excellent adaptation; it carried strong writing as well as excellent use of 3D effects.

“A Christmas Carol” was written by Charles Dickens, it tells the tale of a decrepit old man named Ebenezer Scrooge whom despises Christmas and anything or anyone to do with the holiday. So on Christmas night as Scrooge arrives home, he is visited by his old business partner Jacob Marley, who died many years ago, whom has come to warn him that three spirits will come to visit him to counsel him about the error of his ways.

Zemeckis adapted the writing from the book to film very well, he stuck relatively close to it but also put in a few things of his own as an attempt to mix up some originality to it. One part of it in particular was how the spirits were made use of, all of them were different from the many film adaptations, not only characteristically but also visually.

Jim Carrey portrayed the title role of Ebenezer Scrooge, he performs it in a story book manner to the point of how I imagined him to be. That has been Carrey’s strengths as a character actor. He usually does very well with other films such as “Man on the Moon” and “Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind” but when it’s a role like Ebenezer scrooge or even The Grinch, I feel its like his primary weapon in his arsenal and it shows in the film.

There were problems with the film and they varied, the film had a lot of what I call Zemeckis moments: in which there are tons of flying shots or just moments blown out of proportion. Where we follow scrooge flying around the city or we have overview fly bys of London itself, it felt like the 3D was very reliant on this factor. It felt like it was used about eighty percent of the film and that can cause many problems for people who would like to see it at a non 3D show. Those Zemeckis moments became very obnoxious and boring, I thought to myself “Jeez enough already!” and we all know Zemeckis has the creativity but it seemed like he was just relying strictly on the 3D and nothing else. That’s one of the big problems with the film, we have so many Zemeckis moments that it begins to bury the messages that the story is trying to tell.

Now with any vital thing to a film it comes to the marketing of it, from the posters and many of the trailers or spots I see that “A Christmas Carol” looks like a family fun Christmas movie. But don’t let this fool you, there is a lot of dark themed messages and spine chilling moments in a kids advertised film, that might spook younger audiences. I thought there was going to be much more humor to it and that’s what it lacked a lot of it to make it friendlier to kids. Yes to a point the Story in it self is serious, if you don’t change the error of your ways them bad things are going to happen to you. But you would expect with Zemeckis and holiday movies but its not, some parents might be rubbed the wrong way with it.

The story of “A Christmas Carol” is a simple one and a classic but overdoing effects and relying on it to carry the film actually brought it down for me, despite the strong acting and good writing. The effects became obnoxious and distracted from the story that was being attempted. But hey if people are into over done effects and Star Tour rides instead of a good film then that’s cool. I think the film should have been live action versus animated but well see if Zemeckis returns to it. But if he decides to then I got the perfect idea, partner up with the Wachowski’s and tell the tale of the three little pigs, over do the effects and combine some “Matrix” shoot outs and “Beowulf” acting like maybe Ray Winestone as the wolf. Throw in some dark themes, then we might have a movie on our hands. Oh and don’t forget the 3D as well, anyways hopefully the next Zemeckis product will be better and I know it can be done.

 ★★★☆☆ 

Most Commented Posts

• Knowing Movie Review
• Free 2012 screening in Baltimore! Nov. 10th
• Free Pirate Radio screening in Baltimore! Nov. 12th
• Free Gentlemen Broncos screening in Baltimore! Nov. 16th