A Good Day to Die Hard

After several years, New York City cop John McClane is back on the big screen. One of America's favorite "cowboys" is back in another explosive outing, this time taking place in the streets of Russia. The fifth film in the "Die Hard" series, action star Bruce Willis has established a successful franchise with sequels that are, arguably, all worthy predecessors to the original (though none of them have managed to be better). Does "A Good Day to Die Hard" live up to the series' iconic name?

McClane's son Jack (Jai Courtney) has gotten into a bit of trouble during a special ops mission in Moscow. In the process of trying to crack a terrorist plot, Jack is taken into custody by the Russian police. But no worries, because daddy McClane is going on a "vacation" to Russia in order to relax, lay by the pool, and....wait, that's not right. He's going on "vacation" to find his son, kill a bunch of "scumbags", and create some big explosions. And that is all you need to know for the simple plot of this movie.

But it's ok for films to have simple plots at times. Look at the original "Die Hard" back in 1988, the whole film revolved around a cop taking down a bunch of bad guys with guns, and it all took place in a building...great film. And the other "Die Hard" films were very similar in plot structure. Unfortunately, this film's big problem (of several) was that it tried to be more like other films.

First, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like James Bond. I thought this during the very first scene of the film when the jazzy spy music started playing. Nice cars were paraded everywhere, attractive females in nice dresses were walking around...it was very Bond-ish. And if that was not enough, the plot tried to stock up on these plot twists such as those found in spy-thrillers. Unfortunately it was a sloppy attempt at story-telling.

At one point of the film, I actually asked one of the people with me what was going on...he did not know, and neither did the others. At this point I said to myself, "This is TOO MUCH thinking for a Die Hard film." I don't watch Die Hard for a plot-twisting mystery film, I watch Die Hard to see John McClane beat up tons of guys (more on that later) and make sarcastic remarks.

Second, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like "The Fast and Furious" films. This film is only 90 minutes, and so there is not a lot of time to establish a plot and characters in that time period. Since the film doesn't even do that, there is even more time for some great actions sequences full of guns and fists. Instead I got a drawn-out, car chasing sequence that felt like it lasted for a half hour...it was entertaining for the first five minutes. And I could have let that go, except that the other action scenes were increasingly sub-par that I was left only remembering all the cars crashing into each-other. Where is the gun-shooting, punch throwing goodness of all the other films? It is scarce in this film.

The heart of the flaw of "A Good Day to Die Hard" is this: the film tried to be more than a "Die Hard" film, it tried to create a new formula. The problem is...there was never a problem with the old formula to begin with. The Die Hard films had a good track record...until this point. This new installment strays so far away from the original's heart and soul in its attempt to create something new. And that something is a mess full of cheesy dialogue, an unnecessary and weak story, and surprisingly enough...not enough action worthy of the series. I give it one star out of four.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" has a running time of 97 minutes and is rated R for violence and language.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunter

J.J. ABRAMS, THE DIRECTOR OF STAR TREK, IS DIRECTING THE NEXT STAR WARS! YES! Ok, on to my review.

It seems that Hollywood has recently went into a phase that I particularly like. This new phase involves taking classic fairy tales and revamping them in unique ways for the big screen. This started with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago, and has continued with other films such as "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Hunstman" that have reimagined classic characters in more intense ways. The latest film to follow this trend is "Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters," an intense action flick that tells the story of the classic siblings when they have grown up.
   But of course the film begins with the classic tale. The brother and sister get lost in a forest until the come across a house made of candy. It is only when they step inside the house that they realize its inhabitant is a man-eating witch. You know the rest...witch tries to eat kids, kids burn witch, happily every after...but not quite. It turns out that Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretle (Gemma Arterton) have made a prosperous career of hunting down witches and turning in their corpses for gold.
   The movie really begins when the two witch hunters come to a small village where almost all the children have been taken by...you guessed it...witches. But these witches are a little more powerful because they have discovered a plan to make them immortal, and if they suceed it would mean bad news for humans everywhere...plus no paycheck for Hansel and Gretel.
   There are three words that I can use to sum up this film in a nutshell....big, bloody fun. Now allow me to elaborate. I went in to this film expecting a cheesy, popcorn action film with lots of guns and explosions...and I got my wish. "Hansel and Gretel" is what many would refer to as a Guilty Pleasure film. You don't really want to like it, and you don't want to tell people you liked it, but in your heart...you like it a lot. The most recent example of a guilty pleasure I can share was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. A film with terrible dialogue, over the top plot lines, and great action...but I love it. "Hansel and Gretel" is very much the same.
   But in terms of cheesy factor, this film is really not as bad as I expected. Ok, so the main characters are carrying shotguns, automatic crossbows, and Gatling guns in fairy tale world (not to mention spewing f-bombs). However, there was barely any of what I would call "cringe-worthy" dialogue and no plot-lines and set pieces that were wildly over-the-top. And because of that I can totally enjoy watching an automatic crossbow fire away at witches as they expload...in 3D.
   Again let me stress, this film is not for those who want to hear some complex story complete with engaging character development. This film is made for a specific audience, an audience who want 90 minutes of fast-paced, fun action sequences that have a lot of guns and a lot of witches that bite that dust, some in more brutal ways that other.
   And if this kind of film sounds good to you, then I will guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy yourself in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters." It's an intense, comedic spin on a classic fairy tale, but in terms of all the action films released on a yearly basis...it's a forgettable guilty pleasure at most. I give it two stars out of four.
   "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" has a running time of  88 minutes and is rated R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language.

Mama

   Over the past fifteen to twenty years, the "horror" genre has gathered a less than stellar reputation. Now, when someone says a horror film, the first thing that many including myself think of is endless amounts of gore, coupled with senseless violence and other crude perversions that have been made infamous by films such as "Saw," "Hostel," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It is rare now to see a horror film that actually puts effort into story, character development, and old school jump scares. Of course there are some great recent exceptions such as "The Woman In Black" and "The Cabin in the Woods." And "Mama," produced by Guillermo del Toro, is yet another example of a scary movie done right....for the most part. 

   It's a well known fact that creepy children make one creepy movie, and that's the case yet again with "Mama." The film begins with two girls being found in a shack in the woods by their uncle Jeffry (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain). These two girls had been surviving on their own for several years and the two do not understand how, but they adopt the girls and bring them to their new home (which of course kind of looks creepy on the outside). 

  But the one who was helping the girls survive in the wilderness does not like that they have been taken from her, or it, whatever you would call and undead ghost mother, and thus the haunting begins. As the monster begins to make itself more and more known in the house, Jeffry and Annabel must try to discover not only what this thing haunting them is, but why it is here and what it wants, and that quest comes with plenty of fun plot twists and scares. 

   As I said before, many horror films nowadays rely on gore and mutilation for their "scares," but not "Mama." This film is old school. There is no extreme violence, I don't recall there even being any blood (the film itself is only PG-13). Instead, the makers of the film relied on some great techniques and camera angles, accompanied with eerie music to catch the audience off guard with jump scares. Of course there is a lot of stuff that just creeps the viewer out such as someone walking through the house in the dead off night, hearing noices where there shouldn't be noises, and the younger sister playing tug of war with her older sister (OH WAIT! Her older sister just walked out of another room....oh no!). 

   But of course no movie is anything without a good plot, something that most scary movies lack. Guillermo del Toro has proven himself a great storyteller when it comes to these kind of films and he has proved himself yet again. This is a mystery film. You are trying to understand this monsters backstory, why its haunting people, what it's looking for. But it's not just a story about the monster, its a story about family. A story contrasting two mothers, one who is trying to be a good , loving mother when she has no expirence and another who will stop at nothing to keep her "daughters" emmeshed and in her possession. And the movies shows the pros and cons of both of these mothers and how they view their children. A plot line with this much effort was great to see in a film in this genre. 

  Unfortunately, the film's story is not perfect, especially when it comes to the ending. Many films are ruined by having a disappointing ending and I fear this is the case for "Mama." The film had such promise, such complexity, and really good scares but the climax relied too heavily on indeed CGI and an overexposure of the film's monster (she looked creepy at first but the creepiness is lost after twenty minutes of screen time). The end didn't make sense and didn't justify everything that led up to that point. 

  But still I applaud "Mama" for breaking the stereotype of modern day horror films. It presents old school scares, a mostly impressive story, and a impressive performance by recent Golden Globe winner Jessica Chastain as well. It's a treadgy that an ending can make the overall product a disapointment, but "Mama" will still be a good choice if you want to watch a scary film late at night. I give it two and a half stars out of four. 

"Mama" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and terror, some disturbing images, and thematic elements. 

Les Miserables

In the summer between 6th and 7th grade, my school's required summer reading book was Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables." Looking at the book I feared it would be tough to read, not only was it the longest book I had ever read to that point but it was full of lavish description that I was not yet used to in a book. Five years later, it is still, and will always be, my favorite book I have ever read. Then, this past January, I got to see the musical adaptation of the book on stage..it is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen. So as you can imagine, I was ready to pass out when I learned that Academy Award winning director Tom Hopper ("The King's Speech") would be bringing the musical to the big screen. And when the casting list was released, when I saw that one of my favorite actors (Hugh Jackman) would be playing Jean Valjean, I had no words. Would this new film come to hold such a high place in my heart as the book and the show?

It is the year 1815, and prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman), who has been a prisoner for nineteen years after stealing a loaf of bread, has just been released on parole. Everywhere he goes he is rejected by those who look down on him, until a bishop offers him shelter for the night. It is this bishop that shows Valjean the grace and love of God. It is this revelation that compels Valjean to become a new man as he breaks his parole and sets off for an honest life.

Eight years later and he is the mayor of a town and owner of a factory. But his seemingly happy life is soon plagued with problems. The first starts when Valjean notices a man in his office, the Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who once ruled over him in prison, is ruthlessly hunting Jean Valjean because he skipped parole. His second problem arises when he encounters a miserable lady in the streets.

Fantine (Anne Hathaway) was a worker in the factory until she was fired when they discovered that she had an illegitimate child named Cosette. Now, trying to scramble together money to provide for her child by selling her hair, teeth, and body, she does not know how to go on. That is when Valjean comes to her and promises to take her child into his care. The remainder of the film tells of Valjean and his lifelong struggle to outrun Javert and take care of Cosette in the city of Paris where revolution is brewing.  

The first question I had when I was thinking ahead to this film concerned the amount of singing. Many know that the stage musical has no lines of spoken dialogue, it is all singing. Well I was happy to see that the movie is almost the same way. Ninety-nine percent of the film is sung, only a very small part is spoken, and I love it. All of the conversations, monologues, and songs that the characters sing by themselves, to another, or to a crowd just wraps you in to the story and mesmerizes you every step of the way.

But the songs would feel empty if not for the powerful performances behind them, and Hugh Jackman has given a performance perfectly worthy of his first Academy Award. The passion and emotion that he brings to the beloved character bring Jean Valjean to life like never before. His voice is incredible and his great effort makes this character one of the most memorable in the past decade.

However, it is Anne Hathaway that steals every scene that she is in. We have heard her version of "I Dreamed A Dream" in the trailers for the film, but in context, in it's entirety, the song is heartbreakingly beautiful. And every note she hits is beautiful. Her acting is so powerful and so real, I was asking myself "Where did that come from?" Look to her to sweep the Best Supporting Actress awards this year.

The love story between Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and the revolutionary leader Marius (Eddie Redmayne) is another major story arc of the film. Thankfully for us. Their voices harmonize greatly. Seyfried hits two of the highest notes in the whole film and Redmayne gets my award for best voice (which is saying something).

Then there is Russell Crowe. Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that Crowe has a bad voice by any means. However, when you compare his voice to every other voice in this film, he is obviously the weakest link, which is not the best thing to be when you have to portray the movie's conflicted protagonist. There were times when I was very happy with Crowe's performance such as his solo in "Stars," one of my favorite songs in the movie, but there were other times where his voice made me cringe. That being said, his acting make up for it, and I would not have wanted another actor to portray Javert.

All of the performances in "Les Mis" are noteworthy: the perfectly casted Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), the revolution leader Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), the beautiful Eponine (Samantha Barks), buts what makes the movie truly spectacular is the compelling story. The story of an angry man who, through the grace and mercy of God, has transformed his life into a life of putting the needs of others above himself, and has learned the supreme power of love. And that transformation, portrayed so well by Jackman, is inspiring.

The story of Jean Valjean is one of the greatest in all literature. It will touch the hearts of every one who gives themselves over to the musical epic. Tom Hopper has created another masterpiece, full of lavish sets, epic scope, and brilliant performances. Never before has a blockbuster film had its actors sing live on camera in a film that is singing from beginning to end. Because of this, "Les Miserables" is a grand achievement in cinema, and one of the greatest accomplishments and films to ever grace the screens. I give it four big stars out of four.  

"Les Miserables" has a running time of two hours and thirty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for suggestive and sexual material, violence, and thematic elements

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A quick side-note before I begin my review. You may know that "The Hobbit" is the first film ever to be shot using 48 FPS. This means that the picture is supposed to be very clear, have high-definition, and be visually stunning. You may also know that the reaction to this 48 FPS has been very 50-50. Some say it makes the film look incredibly real, others say it gives you a headache. I did not see the film in 48 FPS since the nearest theater to support it is in Tampa, thus you will see no mention of it after this paragraph. 

For many fans of the epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, many feared that the chance of Tolkien's prequel, "The Hobbit," becoming a film was slowly decreasing with time. The film had been put into production a few different times only to be cancelled. At one point in time, the film even had director Guillermo Del Toro set to tackle the film, but he too backed out due to scheduling conflict. But finally fans got what they wanted, probably even more in fact. In 2010, it was announced the Peter Jackson would be returning to direct the two-part "Hobbit" film (a few months ago it was announced that "Hobbit" would be made into a trilogy). Now, nine years after the final LOTR film, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has finally made it to the silver screen, but can Jackson recreate the wonderful,
beautiful, and epic scope of the original trilogy?

Those who have read the books (and you will certainly not be lost if you have not done so) know that the events of "The Hobbit" take place 60 years prior to the LOTR films. It is before Sauron has risen back to power, before Middle Earth is plunged into war, and before Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) has acquired the Ring of Power. Bilbo has not gone off on any adventures and he is in no mood to do so.

But when the day comes when Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) stands outside his door, Bilbo is thrust into a dangerous quest with thirteen dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The dwarves seek to reclaim their home that rests inside the Lonely Mountain (which I swear looks just like the Paramount Pictures mountain) from the powerful dragon, Smaug. On this quest Bilbo will face trolls, goblins, and a certain familiar face whose every few words are "My precious" and he will travel through beautiful elven cities and vast mountain ruins, but by the end of his journey he will never be the same.

Now the first thing that everyone is going to do is compare this film to the LOTR films, which is not entirely fair. Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" to be a kid's book, therefore is does not have the same amount of darkness and intensity that the previous trilogy was heavy on. Instead, "The Hobbit" is more whimsical and even humorous. Many of the dwarves provide comic relief throughout and even some of the more menacing creatures such as the trolls and Gollum (Andy Serkis) will make the audience laugh.  Plus, believe it or not, there are actually several songs placed throughout the film.

However, while Tolkien may have written "The Hobbit" for a younger audience, this film is still full of sword slinging and decapitations. The film as a whole may be for light-hearted, but there are still a few intense scenes that are not for young viewers. So is it fair to compare "Hobbit" to LOTR? I suppose so, although "The Hobbit" will never be able to have the same epic feel to it that LOTR has, there are some things that this new film improves on.

One of these improvements is the CGI...in a way. The special effects were both an upside and downside to this movie. On the good side, the imagery and CGI landscapes were absolutely stunning. The beginning of the film shows us the inside of The Lonely Mountain where the dwarf king once lived before Smaug destroyed it. The city inside the mountain is a wonderful creation, and so is the elven city of Rivendell. The downside to the CGI is that every creature was created by it. In the LOTR films, the Goblins, Orcs, etc. that were close to the camera were played by actors and extras with costumes and make-up. In "The Hobbit," they are all CGI and while a few of the characters look good, most look really bad.

Of course the action and landscapes would be nothing much without the actors leading the way, and Ian McKellen shines once again as the gentle yet powerful Gandalf. McKellen fills the film with many more wise words and profound encouragements, but what is even more exciting is that you probably get to see him fight more in "The Hobbit" than in any of the past three films combined. It was also fun to see Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee back in their familiar roles. And of course Andy Serkis can add another successful performance to his list of motion-capture roles. His younger and much happier Gollum helps create one of the best scenes in the film.

But what about Martin Freeman? The man that has been chosen to play the main character, Bilbo Baggins? Well, to be honest, near the end of the film I leaned over to the person with me and asked, "Is it me or has Bilbo barely spoken at all in the last two and a half hours?" The person next to me was thinking the same thing. There are a lot of good moments with Bilbo in the very beginning and the very end (plus his scene with Gollum) and in those scenes I feel like Freeman does very well with the character. But overall I do not think I got enough of the character to really judge his performance, but I have two more films to do that.

After nine years, I was very excited to jump back into Middle Earth, especially since I had never gotten the chance to see any of the LOTR films in the theater. The action is great, the story is exciting, the characters are lovable, and the magical world is created by mostly successful CGI. I for one cannot wait to see "The Hobbit" again and I eagerly anticipate the sequel next year. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has a running time of two hours and fifty minutes and is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence and frightening images.

Skyfall

Ladies and gentlemen...James Bond is back and truly better than ever! It has been a long four years since the lackluster "Quantum of Solace" was released, but after MGM's financial crisis was overcome, Academy Award winning director Sam Mendez (American Beauty) began his work on the British icon's newest outing. There are many reasons why "Skyfall" succeeds as a great Bond film, and I want to elaborate on the most important without slipping into crazy, fanboy banter...but I'm not making any promises.

As the always enjoyable M (Judi Dench) points out, our enemies are no longer countries and no longer have names, instead they are in the shadows waiting to strike. These words illustrate the newest threat that 007 (Daniel Craig) must deal with--cyberterrorism. How can you fight a villain who can hack a computer or blow up a building with the touch of a button? This is what Bond must do when a list containing the identities of all undercover agents is stolen and slowly released to the public (resulting in many deaths and compromised missions). But as always, Bond will find a way, and he does it with all the cars, women, and shaken martinis that makes him the suave agent we know today.

Not many films are able to immediately establish itself in the first few minutes of the film. With that being said, "Skyfall" has achieved the impossible in that it sets the tone and quality of the film in the very first shot, the first second, of the film! I can't be anymore specific for it would rob you of this experience, but starting with this beautiful first second of the two and a half hour film, "Skyfall" is loaded with elements that make it a classic Bond film. There are old characters reintroduced, classic assets that 007 takes advantage of, and incredible music that takes you back to the very first films of the series.

But the brilliant thing is that, even though the film tries (and succeeds) at being very nostalgic, it also succeeds in moving the series forward in new directions. "Skyfall" will be remembered as a Bond film that gives the franchise a darker feel. There is more intensity, more thrill, and a shockingly more threatening villain (more on him later) than the series has seen in a long time. The film praises the old but also promotes the new, and the mix is quite satisfying.

Now on to the two leads. When Daniel Craig stepped into Bond's shoes in 2006's "Casino Royale," he made quite the impression. Not only did he have just as much charm as the best Bonds of the past, but he brought such great intensity and coldness to the icon, not being afraid to kill his targets and do anything necessary to succeed. Now, in his third go around, Craig has fully embraced this character and given a fantastic performance. He is everything the world expects James Bond to be and more, making him the best actor to play the character yet.

But Bond would be nothing without the dastardly enemies he faces. And there has never been a Bond villain quite like Silva, played by the brilliant Javier Bardem. Bardem won an Academy Award for playing another creepy villain in "No Country For Old Men" so it only makes sense that he'd end up in a Bond film eventually. Staying in line with the film's goal in using what works and building on it, Silva has the same evil plans and same cruel nature that most other Bond villains have. But it's what Bardem brings to his character that makes him stand out, and that is the creepiness factor. Not only is Silva creepy, unpredictable, and makes eerie sensual advances on Bond, but he is downright insane. And it is interesting to watch his slow dive into greater insanity as the film progresses. "Skyfall" most greatly benefits from the two outstanding performances given by its two leading men.

The last thing that I must praise is the visual beauty of "Skyfall" in both special effects and location. First off, the opening credits to the film were so well done and visually stunning, especially alongside Adele's enchanting theme song (also named "Skyfall"). And after the credits there are several beautiful scenes shot in cities such as Istanbul and Shanghai, and the peaceful (for a moment) hills of Scotland  And the chase scenes, stunts, and wonderfully choreographed fights have never looked better. Oh, and there is a classic Hollywood explosion that just made me so happy to see...just saying.  

2012 marks the 50th anniversary of James Bond, and there could be no better present for the fans than "Skyfall." This film has everything, a great hero, a menacing villain, beautiful music, humor and wit, great action, and a plot that is more thrilling than most films we see. Most franchises will be lucky if their third movie is still decent at all, but after twenty three James Bond films, Sam Mendez has possibly given us the best Bond yet. I give it four stars out of four.

"Skyfall" has a running time of two hours and twenty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking.

Wreck It Ralph

Here are two things that I love a lot: animated movies and video games. To me, animated movies have the great gift of telling incredible, friendly, and deeply compelling stories for all ages that many live action films just can't pull off. So when I saw the first trailer for "Wreck It Ralph" I got really excited. In the trailer I saw a super fun story arc based around vintage arcade games such as Pac Man, Sonic The Hedgehog, and Turbo Time. Not only was the story based around video games, but the characters are  video game icons who have actual lives inside their games. With Disney at the helm, I was sure that this would be a hit, and I wasn't wrong.

Wreck It Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) has been doing the same thing in his game for years. He breaks a building only to be thrown off the roof when Fix It Felix Jr. (Jack McBrayer) comes and saves the day. So after years and years of being laughed at and hated on...Ralph decides that he doesn't want to be the bad guy anymore. But when he decides to run away from his game to finally be  a good guy, everything goes crazy as the other characters go on a wild goose chase to find him across the different video games of the arcade. And if they can't find him in time, then the whole game will be shut down.

The greatest asset to "Wreck It Ralph" is the superb creativity that the writers and directors poured into this film, starting with a clever setting. Here is how the movie works, the different video game characters come out and play their roles (almost like putting on a show) for each kid that plays the game. Then at night, when the arcade closes they all head to Game Central Station (located in the electric socket) where they can interact with the different characters; it's almost like "Toy Story" with video games.

Then there are the different games that the characters wonder though that bring vastly unique environments along with them. This was one of my favorite parts about the movie, the digital set design of these games. The majority of the film takes places in a game called Sugar Rush (think of a racing game inside the board game).

It is in this game that the film's cleverness really comes out, primarily in the inhabitants. For example, the spectators of the races are large groups of jolly ranchers and jaw breakers, the "police force" is made up of walking doughnuts, and the centerpiece of the "game map" is a mountain of bottled diet coke that erupts every time a mento drops into it.

But the animation is also a shining point for "Wreck It Ralph." A smaller portion of the film takes place in a game called Hero's Duty (a futuristic take on the popular "Call of Duty" franchise).There is a moment in this part of the movie where thousands of robotic bugs are swarming through the air and attack the weapon-laden soldiers as the fire back in defense. The angles go back and forth, zoom in and out, and go all around the action. It was done so well that it at times could pass for a live action CGI sequence. Plus there is an awesome character that is basically a carbon copy of Jane Lynch, wisecracks, crazy metaphors, and all...oh yeah and the character is voiced by none other than Jane Lynch.

I also loved how they animated the characters in Ralph's game to move in quick, clunky, robotic movements to resemble the movements of old 8-bit characters such as Dig-Dug and Mario.
I was so impressed with everything about "Wreck It Ralph," it exceeded my expectations. And make no mistake this movie is for everyone. If you aren't a video game player (which is a strong possibility) this will still be very entertaining for you, it won't be confusing and there won't be tons of jokes that totally fly over your head. "Wreck It Ralph" is for kids, adults, gamers, and non-gamers, and it is the best animated film to grace the silver screen in the last couple years (and as a bonus, there is a beautiful short film preceding it). I give it four stars out of four.

"Wreck It Ralph" has a running time of 92 minutes and is rated PG for some rude humor and mild action/violence.