Shrek Forever After

In 2001, a new kind of fairy-tale film was brought to the world. A film where all of the fairy tale creatures like the Gingerbread man, Pinocchio, the Three Little Pigs, and many more came together in a heart-warming story about an ogre named Shrek. For almost ten years the world has been captured by the adventures of Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey. The films have spread into theme parks, video games, and even it's own musical production, making it a large part of the animated genre. Sadly, all good things must come to an end eventually and there is one more adventure for Shrek to embark on before the story-book closes. Will true love prevail once more? You'll have to find out in this final chapter that is "Shrek Forever After."
As most of the "Shrek" films begin, we start with a story book reading of a recap of the story of Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz). This time however, we are told a new story about something that happened before Shrek rescued the princess from her tower. The king and queen of Far Far Away (Fiona's parents) worry that Fiona will never be rescued so they go to make a deal with Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) to try to break her curse. Rumple will help only if he gets the kingdom for himself. Right before the king signs the deal, a messenger comes in and tell the king the Fiona has been rescued. For this reason, Rumple hates Shrek (Mike Myers) for foiling his plans.
Back at the swamp, Shrek and his family are living a happy life with their children and their friends Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas). However, Shrek is starting to miss his old "Ogre" life when he could lay in mud-pits and scare away nearby villagers. Shrek says he would give anything for one day of his old life and who would answer this call than the devious Rumpelstiltskin. Rumple tells Shrek that he can have a day of his "old life" back if Shrek gives him a day of his childhood. Shrek signs the contract but is immediately thrown into a land where no one knows him, he family is gone, and Rumple is king of Far Far Away. Why did this happen? Rumple deviously told Shrek that he required one day of his childhood and so the day that was taken was the day that Shrek was born. Now, with no one at his side, Shrek must embark on another quest to break this curse that was put on him and the land.
First let me give a sort of timeline of the "Shrek" franchise. The first "Shrek" was considered the best as first installments usually are. The second was almost on par with the first "Shrek" in my opinion and introduced several new characters like the King and Queen of Far Far Away, Prince Charming, and most importantly, our favorite scene stealer, Puss in Boots. The third film, titled "Shrek the Third," is where things started to go downhill. Since the film kept the same setting (Far Far Away) and antagonist, many aspects of the film were unoriginal. The humor was not as abundant as the previous two films and while I still enjoyed the film, it was nowhere near as impressive as the first two. Now we have "Shrek Forever After." Many would think that this film is just a movie for making extra money, but I thought of it more as a chance of redemption. Going into this film I only had one requirement...this film needs to be better than the third one and end the series on a good note. Fortunately for me, my quota was met. If you were disappointed with the third, this one is a good improvement.
The "Shrek" series is one of my favorite in the animated genre (in fact the first film is to this day the only film to beat out Pixar for the best animated picture award at the Oscars). Why do I, along with so many others, love the story? I believe the biggest factor is the way it combines all the characters we read about in those bed-time stories. Little Red Riding Hood, the Fairy Godmother, the Pied Piper, the Gingerbread man (one of my favorite characters), and so many more have been introduced to us throughout the series. Also present are the many concepts of several fairy tales like the "after midnight" dilemma and the most fundamental thing of the Shrek story, true love's kiss. These concepts and characters are what makes the series so unique. The third "Shrek" seemed to lack these things and above all, it lacked the magic that we were used to. Thankfully, "Shrek Forever After" has brought the magic back.
Some important things that the Shrek series has boasted before are a well written script and a simply beautiful score (one that I believe surpasses any animated film). The score is once again marvelous in "Shrek 4" and the script is even an improvement in some areas. In terms of the message, it is a step up from the traditional "true love prevails" plot shown before. This "Shrek" demonstrates the importance of family and the value of life. It shows how much one persons life can bless and affect so many other people's lives even when they think their life doesn't matter. It is much like the "It's a Wonderful Life" story line.
The problem with "Shrek Forever After?" If you've seen the other films, this one may seem slightly repetitive and very fast paced. After three films, it just seems like I already know the characters and in a way, I felt like I was watching a long TV show. My attitude at the beginning of the film was this: "Ok, I know these characters and the film is starting and feeling the same way as all the others." There's only so much you can do with a set of characters until it gets old and repetitive and this is how I felt with the movie.
"Shrek Forever After" is an improvement from it's predecessor and that was enough for me to enjoy it. The saga as a whole has done great things for the world of fairy tale creatures and while I have enjoyed all of them, I do agree that the studio needs to stick with the films other name, "Shrek: The FINAL Chapter." The film has presented a fun-filled adventure that serves as a entertaining end to the big green ogre's tale. 2 and a half stars out of 4
"Shrek Forever After" has a running time of 93 minutes and is rated PG for mild action, some rude humor and brief language.

Iron Man 2

In 2008, director Jon Favreou introduced us to a new kind of super-hero film. He showed us a comic book movie with comedy, action, drama, and most of all, a movie with a larger sense of reality. With the help of Robert Downey Jr.'s superb acting, "Iron Man" was born. Today in 2010, the same people who brought us the iron masterpiece have returned in this action packed sequel, "Iron Man 2".

We are first introduced to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) whose father is on his deathbed. Ivan and his father believe that Tony Stark's father stole his idea for the technology that eventually led to the creation of the Iron Man suit. Shortly after the death of his father, Ivan begins to construct a weapon/suit much like Iron Man's suit and starts his quest for revenge. Meanwhile, in the U.S., billionaire-icon-super-hero Tony Stark (Downey) is having the time of his life. Now known as Iron Man by all, Tony uses his heroic side to promote his company which results in the return of the Stark Expo, a convention where state-of-the-art inventions are exhibited. During this uprise in the company's popularity, Tony appoints his longtime assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) as the new CEO, a new assistant named Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) is appointed (which sparks an interest in Stark's personal side), and the billionaire also develops a rather large ego.

Ivan Vanko soon attacks Tony at a racetrack in Moscow and gains the attention of a rival of Tony Stark, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). These two men form a plot to take down Stark's enterprise and finally get a spot on top. However, Ivan has some plans of his own.

In the newest Marvel comic films, the goal is to start to connect the characters in each film to each other. For example, at the end of the credits of the first "Iron Man," we see Sam L. Jackson portray the famous Nick Fury who heads an organization known as S.H.E.I.L.D. (for the non-comic book readers, S.H.E.I.L.D. is like the super-hero C.I.A and police). The purpose of these tie-ins? Well, in 2012, Marvel plans to release "The Avengers" which is a super-hero team made up of Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. So if you thought the movie wasted actors like Sam L. Jackson and Scarlett Johhansson, relax...they are serving a bigger purpose.

Speaking of new characters, like in most sequels, "Iron Man 2" introduces us to several new characters. The most important new characters, are the S.H.E.I.L.D. agents. They consist of Nick Fury(Jackson), Stark's new assistant Natalie, A.K.A The Black Widow, and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) who was seen in the first film. These three watch over Tony and provide him with important tools to aid him throughout the film. Terrence Howard, who played Stark's best friend James Rhodes in the first film, has been replaced with Don Cheadle. Rhodes' character in this movie also introduces us to a new suit of Tony Stark's armor known as War Machine, which Rhodes dawns to eventually become Starke's sidekick.

"Iron Man 2" boasts an extraordinary cast who all give great performances. When it comes to Robert Downey Jr., it seems like he was born to play Tony Stark. His facial expressions, the way he delivers his lines, and everything else comes together to form the best Starke that simply cannot be recreated by any other actor. The film's antagonist, Ivan, is played by Mickey Rourke who did a great job as well. Rourke didn't have many lines, but his performance came out in his body language. While watching him, I could feel the emotions (mostly anger) that his character was feeling which made him all the more menacing. All the other actors and actresses show that the film has an A list cast which not only refers to their recent popularity, but their excellent acting.

In the first "Iron Man", the film had to focus on introducing the characters and getting to know them more than showing tons of action, which was what made the first film great. However, now we know the characters and the action can come out.. and oh boy it did. "Iron Man 2" was loaded with high octane, explosive action. I mean come on, what could be better than Iron Man jumping out of a plane, flying through the firework lit sky to AC/DC's "Shoot to Thrill?" Whether it was Iron Man fighting Ivan, Iron Man fighting War Machine, or Natalie fighting Ivan's henchman ( which had probably the best fighting choreography in the entire movie), many of the characters got their action time on screen and it was fun. I won't give details but one of the action scenes in this film was so insane that the entire theater I was in started to cheer, yell, and applaud. Another good thing about the action was that even though there was tons of it, it didn't push away the plot line and character development which is what most sequels do. In "Iron Man 2" we continue to see into Tony Stark's character and the many issues, both good and bad, he has to deal with. This particular element is what makes these films so good.

Now what makes the "Iron Man" films stand out in popularity from other comic-book films? Well, somehow the makers of the film manage to find the perfect combination of comedy, action, drama, creative story, and character development into the films. As I stated before, what makes "Iron Man" a great franchise is that it cares about its characters and wants the viewers to get to know them and care about them as well. Also, I think a big factor pertaining to the the success of the first "Iron Man" is that the film contains a larger sense of reality than previous comic book films. These films don't have the perfect super-hero who never gets drunk, or never does anything wrong. Tony Stark faces problems that many people face like drinking and social pressure, thus it is easier to relate to him and enjoy his character. The films show that super-heroes can't be perfect.

"Iron Man 2" is a near-perfect super hero film that shows us all the action, laughs, and superb acting that anyone could ask for. When comparing it to its predecessor, I find it hard to say which one is better because they are pretty different in several ways and that both are just great films. "Iron Man 2" can take its place among my favorite films of the genre. By the way, especially if you are a comic book fan, stay after the credits for an overwhelmingly suspenseful cliffhanger. I give the film three stars out of four.

"Iron Man 2" has a running time of two hours and five minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language.

The Losers

As summer is quickly approaching, another season of blockbuster films are about to be released. There will be comic book action movies, the R-rated comedy hits, and all kinds of films that more times than not, always please the audience. However, all entertaining action film do not have to come out in the summer. A good example is “The Losers," a fast-paced, shoot-em-up action film which is good enough to tide me over until the summer season.

Meet the Losers, a team of five men that carry out special missions for the U.S. government. Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is the leader of the group that controls the operations. Pouch (Columbus Short) is the one that knows technology (in one scene he refers to himself as the black MacGyver). Roque (Idris Elba) is one of the tougher guys that does not always agree with the decisions made by the team. Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) is the sharpshooter who almost never misses with his sniper rifle. Last is the team’s funniest and most sarcastic member, Jensen (Chris Evans). These five are performing an operation in Bolivia and everything is going well until a group of children show up at the location that an air strike is about to be carried out in. When Clay tries to call off the air strike, he is talked to by a man named Max who, after the operation, tries to kill The Losers. Now presumed to be dead, The Losers are living in South America knowing that if they return, Max will most likely find them and kill them. Clay soon meets a girl named Aisha (Zoe Saldana) who claims to know how to get to Max. Longing for revenge, Clay and his team agrees to go with the girl back into the U.S. in an undercover operation to pay back Max and to clear their names.

The main attraction to "The Losers" is the action. Whether it involves chases, fist-fights, or gun slinging madness, this film is covered with action from start to finish. I figured this out at the very beginning in which the first ten minutes of the film consist of the five men taking out fifty bad guys. Is it pointless action? No. Is it well shot, entertaining action? YES! Many times action films only focus on action while totally ignoring other things, but thankfully this isn't the case for "The Losers."

Not only does this film have action, it also contains quite a bit of comedy (a good mix for a film). The Losers can take down men easily and they can crack jokes while doing it too. Most humor in the film is seen from my favorite character, Jensen that was played by Chris Evans who has played a smart-talking "hero" before (The Human Torch from the "Fantastic Four" films). Since I'm talking about comedy, this would be a good time to talk about the antagonist of the film, Max(Jason Patrick). You could tell from the dialogue and the way that Jason Patrick delivered his lines that the makers of the film were intending for the character of Max to be a both humorous and at the same time cruel villain. Sadly, the character was hardy funny and more of a wannabe villain than a smooth-talking, sarcastic bad guy.

A pro for "The Losers" is that the film had good acting. I am primarily speaking about Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Chris Evans who, after both staring in past comic-book films, showed that they are capable of being entertaining action stars(which is great for Chris Evans since he will portray Captain America next year). A con is that the film doesn't really have a complex story line and because of this, it doesn't focus that much on it's characters. One thing I would have liked to have seen was maybe a brief back story to each of the five members of The Losers.

"The Losers" is without a doubt a film that most action lovers will enjoy. Though it lacks a few things, the film makes up for it with good acting, plenty of action, and laughs. Once again, the movie is good enough to tide me over until May 7th ("Iron Man 2!!). I give it two and a half stars out of four.

"The Losers has a running time of 98 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, a scene of sensuality and language.

Casting Call: The First Avenger Captain America

It seems that things are coming together for Marvel's last movie before the main attraction hitting theaters in 2012 that is the Avengers. After this summer's Iron Man 2 and next summers Thor, Marvel will release one more film about the leader of the super hero team that consists of Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Nick Fury, Black Widow, and the leader himself...Captain America. Major casting for The First Avenger: Captain America been announced throughout this past month. The role of Cap's sidekick, Bucky Barnes, will be played by Sebastian Stan (Gossip Girls). The role of the villain, the Nazi general named The Red Skull, will be played by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from the Matrix saga). Last but certainly not least, Captain America will be played by a man that has already been part the Marvel Universe...Chris Evans. Most will know Evans from his role as The Human Torch from the Fantastic Four films. I'm liking these casting decisions so far (except for Stan since I've never heard of him.) The film itself will center around WW2 and feature the super hero team, The Invaders. In the original comics, the Invaders included Cap, Namor, and an older version of the Human Torch. I expect that the end of the film will show how Captain America gets frozen and survives till present day where he is found by Nick Fury to lead the Avengers.

How to Train Your Dragon in a nutshell

Who doesn't love Dreamworks films? I mean there's "Shrek" (awesome), "Madagascar", and "Kung Fu Panda." The newest addition to these characters is Hiccup, a scrawny son of a viking king who constantly has a pest problem on his hands...dragons. Hiccup was never meant to kill a dragon with his bare hands like everyone else. Instead he tries to use his inventions to do the job and one day it works. Hiccup doesn't catch just any old dragon, he catches the fastest, most dangerous kind of dragon called a Night Fury. When Hiccup realizes he can't kill the dragon, he decides to train the dragon and comes to name it Toothless (due to the fact that at first, the dragon seems to have no teeth.) The two embark on an adventure as Hiccup realizes that the dragons are nothing like the vikings make them out to be. This journey includes laughs, thrills, and a dragon so big that, if this wasn't a kids movie, would have killed all the dragons and vikings. Like all Dreamworks films, the animation is stunning. The different kinds of dragons, variety of vikings, and the scenery showed that the people at Dreamworks are moving in the right direction. The script was funny and contained absolutely no cheesy material. The films plot was firm and didn't wonder off into unneeded side stories *cough* Transformers 2 *cough* and the story was enjoyable and original. By the way, for some unknown reason, knowing that the head viking was voiced by Gerard Butler (300) made me enjoy the character more (like when he was laying the beat down on multiple dragons). So, in a nutshell, go see "How to Train Your Dragon." It's just proof the Dreamworks is getting closer and closer to topping Pixar.

Clash of the Titans

The many stories and adventures of Greek mythology have been retold in many ways in our pop culture including various books and movies. Now Greek mythology returns once again in this remake of an 80's film under the same name. Some differences between the two? Well, the plot has been tweaked, there are more action sequences, and the CGI has been ramped up tenfold. As stated in the tag line for the film, titans will clash in this new action extravaganza, "Clash of the Titans."

Perseus(Sam Worthington) never knew his parents. His mother had been drowned by being locked in a coffin and his father, little does he know, just so happens to be the Greek god of lightning, Zeus(Liam Neeson). A fisherman found Perseus and raised him until he was an adult. When the family finds their way to Argos, where a group of soldiers destroys a statue of Zeus, Hades(Ralph Fiennes) rises from the seas and kills everyone around him (save Perseus and a few soldiers) including Perseus' parents. In Argos, the people are celebrating the return of the surviving soldiers of Hades' attack and are comparing themselves and the princess Andromeda to the gods. Of course this doesn't settle well with Zeus therefore the god of lightning allows Hades to attack Argos. During this attack, Hades kills the remaining soldiers with whom Perseus is standing. When Hades' attack has no effect on Perseus, he becomes aware that Perseus is a demi-god and tells him that he is the son of Zeus. After that Hades threatens Argos with destruction by the hands of the Kraken, a monstrous beast that had overthrown the Titans enabling the gods to rule in the first place. The only way to prevent this is to sacrifice Andromeda. Perseus then volunteers to lead a band of warriors to find a way to kill the Kraken and ultimately get his revenge and kill Hades.

Sam Worthington has gone from part machine, to part alien, to part god in his acting career and has proved himself to be a good actor. Alongside Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, "Titans" boasts an "A" list cast, but does the film make good use of the actors? Well, yes and no. While I enjoyed the fact that it was Liam Neeson portraying the king of the gods, it is hard to take him seriously when his armor is shining like the sun and his beard goes down to his stomach. All of the gods except Hades also have shining clothes that could have been toned down. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed Ralph Fiennes's performance as the evil god of the Underworld. The same menace seen in his other character, Lord Voldemort from the "Harry Potter" series, is poured into this character as well. Hades is definitely my favorite character in the movie.

For those who have seen the old "Clash of the Titans," they will realize that the biggest difference between the two films is the CGI. The first film used stop-motion effects to create effects such as Medusas' snake hair and the giant Kraken. In the new version, of course, CGI is used to create the giant scorpions, the flying horses, Medusa, and the Kraken that is so big it could probably make the Empire State Building collapse with its steps.

The only downside to the film is that it is cheesy/hokey at times. It is mostly the script but other hokey factors include unneeded characters that are meant to be comic relief, or events that play out and in the end are not necessary. There are also several characters that the film should not have included. For example, a desert tribe of monsters that aid Perseus in his quest are of no importance. If they were kept out, the film would be just the same. These two downsides to the film barely ruined my enjoyment of the film because I was expecting these problems to be there in the first place.

How would I describe "Clash of the Titans" in a nutshell? A slightly hokey, entertaining action film with very impressive visual effects. For myself, a fan of Greek mythology, this film was very enjoyable in almost every way. Oh and as a last remark, do not spend the extra money on the 3D showing. I give it two and a half stars out of four.

"Clash of the Titans" has a running time of one hour and fifty-eight minutes and is rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence, some frightening images and brief sensuality.

Alice in Wonderland

As we all know, Tim Burton is the master at directing dark, crazy films with past works like "The Nightmare Before Christmas", "Sleepy Hollow", "The Corpse Bride" and "Edward Scissorhands." All of his films can be classified as eerie, dark, weird, etc. So of course, who else could be more than capable of directing a film about a magical land with talking animals, a mad hatter, and a smoking caterpillar? Sure enough, Tim Burton has once again shown us a wild, crazy world that has re-imagined the magical adventure that is, "Alice in Wonderland."

In this re-imagining of the classic tale, we see nineteen year old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) that has just been proposed to by a less than charming snob. Out of her nerves, Alice runs away following a rabbit that she sees and eventually falls down it's hole. At the bottom of the hole, Alice arrives in Underland and several creatures including the white rabbit, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and several other animals who are arguing about whether or not they brought back the right Alice. Soon the creatures are captured and Alice runs away and eventually ends up at the Mad Hatter's (Johnny Depp) house. Here, the Mad Hatter informs Alice that the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has taken over Underland and that the only way to defeat her is by slaying the Jabberwocky, a dragon controlled by the Red Queen.

There's just one problem with this...Alice believes that this is all a big dream. Alice has no intentions of slaying the Jabberwocky and wants to go home as soon as possible. However, when friends get captured and problems arise, Alice must put aside her unwillingness and embark on a journey that is as crazy as the Mad Hatter himself.

"Alice in Wonderland" reminded me a lot of "Avatar" in the way that almost everything from the characters to the scenery is CGI. The creative plants, animals, structures, and Underland itself are almost all green screen. In fact, once in Underland, only Alice, the Mad Hatter, and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) are real people without the aid of CGI. Everything looks great and well edited on screen and the high quality 3D (this is the way to see the film) definitely makes it look better.

The characters are also very creative. The most enjoyable character is of course the Mad Hatter played brilliantly by Johnny Depp. Depp and Burton considered so many things when imagining this character and those ideas play out beautifully in the movie. An interesting detail about the Mad Hatter is that his clothes, eyes, and even accent change with his moods. For example, when angry the Hatter has dark red eyes and would switch from an English accent to a Scottish one. Not only is the Mad Hatter funny but he can put up a fight as seen in a couple scenes in the film including the climax in which he faces off with the Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover). Other interesting characters include the Red Queen who has a crazy desire to cut off other people's/thing's heads, the Cheshire Cat who aids several characters throughout the film from being in danger, and a wise, smoking caterpillar named Absolem (voiced by Alan Rickman) who appears to Alice several times in the film to offer her guidance.

The acting is great and of course how couldn't it be when led by a great actor like Johnny Depp. It feels like each actor works hard to make their own character unique and entertaining. The Mad Hatter has his different accents, the Red Queen has her funny habits and personality, and the White Queen has her out-there persona. So on and so forth, each character was incredibly unique and added to the films wonderful creativity.

Tim Burton has given us a magical film with laughs, action, and a trunk load of creativity that comes together brilliantly to recreate the wacky tale of "Alice in Wonderland". It has interesting characters, an entertaining fight sequence, and even an insane dance by the Mad Hatter near the end. "Alice in Wonderland" has enough magic to make anyone want to follow that rabbit down the rabbit hole. I give it three and half stars out of four.

"Alice in Wonderland" has a running time of 1 hour and 58 minutes and is rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situation, and for a smoking caterpillar.