Review LV - Kids

Review LV
Kids (1995)

I've seen one Larry Clark film - Ken Park. I'm also familiar with Harmony Korine besides his contribution to Ken Park as I have seen parts of his film Gummo. While you think you're prepared for one of their films, you never are. There is definitely no exception when it comes to their film Kids. I've wanted to watch this film for years because I heard it was so controversial, and while someone told me it was bad, I decided to delve into it anyway.

"Of course I care about you," is the statement that wins sixteen-year-old Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) a thirteen-year-old's virginity one morning. You see, Telly has one goal in life, and that is to take as many girls' virginities as possible. Casper (Justin Pierce), one of Telly's friends, is encouraging of this behaviour, and Telly settles on screwing two virgins in one day, and his next victim is thirteen-year-old Darcy (Yakira Peguero). While the two meet up with their skater friends throughout the day, Jennie (Chloë Sevigny) and Ruby (Rosario Dawson) return to a clinic to see if they tested for any STDs. Ruby is quite the promiscuous teen, while Jennie only ever had sex with Telly. While it turns out Ruby is clean, Jennie tests positive for the HIV virus. Now Jennie must try and find Telly before he de-flowers another virgin.

If there was one thing I tried to escape in my high school years, it would be exactly what was portrayed in this film. That is, adolescents who encouraged drug abuse, whether it be alcohol or marijuana or stronger substances, and who attended house parties where sex was encouraged. While I know people who participated in such "festivities" (and still do) and I heard my fair share of stories, I never experienced it hands on. I guess maybe that's why I found Kids a bit unbelievable. I mean, some parts were head on, but others, like the scene involving Casper and Jennie at the end, just seems so ridiculous. I guess I'm just naive in that aspect. First off, the film captures the drug culture that teenage seems to be all about. I'm personally completely against usage, but I know that quite a few teenagers are accepting to it when it concerns drugs that aren't too extreme. Second, the film goes into the sexual side of teenagehood. This I can relate to more because all adolescents go through puberty at some point. Still, I was readily exposed to the lessons about "safe sex" practice, so hearing Ruby claim she had unprotected sex with six guys (I can't remember the number exactly, but it was high enough) was pretty shocking. Nonetheless, I know where I live, apparently we have one of the highest teenage pregnancies in the country, as well as the highest number of cases of gonnorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia. Obviously safe sex isn't practiced as much as I hoped... Even though this film came out nearly twenty years ago, the subject matter it brings up is still true to today's kids. And that's a pretty scary thought. While I think the film was a bit extreme in representing youths, dumb it down a bit and you have painted a picture of today's society.

Even though the film arguably represented today's teenagers, it still wasn't very good. I mean, there's only so much I can take of guys objectifying women and other men. Sex is not the only thing kids talk about, so it became redundant really quickly. The acting was also not anything spectacular, but I was willing to expect that since most of the actors and actresses were picked off the street to do this film. But Chloë Sevigny, who I've seen actually do a great job in a role, was so... nothing. Her character doesn't have emotion, whether it be sadness or happiness. I mean, sure, she "cries", but you don't feel it. I was sitting there thinking that even I could do a better job, and that's a sad statement indeed. Rosario Dawson was good, which I expected, but Chloë Sevigny was such a disappointment. I can't see why the director would want her to act the way she did - it's just unnatural.

I'd give the film six point five stars on ten. It's a typical low-budget film that screams Larry Clark and Harmony Korine, so if you're fans of them, you'll love it. Still, it has pretty bad acting and focuses too much on too little. The characters aren't three dimensional enough, and since this film relies on them, without that, we only get a less than mediocre film.

Pirate Bay torrent (uncut version apparently)

Review LIV - Highlander

Review LIV
Highlander (1986)

I don't have an anecdote for Russell Mulcahy's Highlander starring Christophe Lambert, Sean Connery, Clancy Brown, and Roxanne Hart. I heard that the sequel to this film is the epitome of the devil and it should never be mentioned (which is why I have refrained from linking it here), but other than that, I haven't heard much about this one. I heard it was good, but that was from one person. Time for me to review it!

Russell Nash (played by Christophe Lambert) is seen walking around New York City when he is suddenly jumped by a man wielding a sword in an underground garage. After a slightly lengthy battle, Russell Nash manages to cut off the man's head. If that wasn't enough, suddenly strong electrical currents are passing through the air and cars are exploding. This doesn't go unnoticed by the police, and Russell Nash is soon arrested. The film cuts back to the 16th century in the Scottish highlands where we discover who Russell Nash really is - Connor MacLeod, a highlander. He is an immortal, and we learn through Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez (Sean Connery), an Egpytian immortal, that the immortals will one day have to fight each other, kill each other (done by slicing the head off the body), and when one sole immortal remains, he will receive a prize. This is called the Gathering. When an immortal kills another immortal, a powerful amount of energy is released (as seen with the garage scene) - this is called the Quickening. While neither knows what the prize is, Ramirez warns that it must not fall into the evil hands of the Kurgan (Clancy Brown), or it could lead to devasting consequences.

I can't provide any explanations as to where the immortals came from, why they exist, or what their purpose is (besides killing each other for a prize) because it is not explained in the film. This bothered me considering the plot revolves around the immortals and the Gathering. If you don't explain this, you're just throwing everything out the window. Then you have Ramirez coming to train MacLeod, and why? I mean, we know that Ramirez doesn't want this prize falling into the wrong hands, but why does he choose to train MacLeod? Why doesn't he just kill him off and save himself? Or if he believes he needs someone to remain in case he dies, again, why MacLeod? I mean, how many immortals are on the Earth, anyway? Is that why Ramirez choose MacLeod? That might explain why MacLeod goes hundreds of years without fighting a single immortal, or so I'm going to assume because we only ever see him fight them in the 20th century. How does Ramirez know about the immortal creed and all, because obviously it isn't something you just know because MacLeod didn't know anything about the immortals until he was exiled from his clan for being an immortal. And even then, he didn't know all the rules that accompany with having immortal status. Does that mean most immortals go their whole lives not knowing anything about this Gathering and are promptly killed by another immortal, or just continue to live forever in ignorance? Which begs another question - MacLeod stays a late-twenties-, early-thirties-looking man in the film. Why does he stop at that age? Ramirez definitely looks older than MacLeod, so does it just change depending on who you are? Does your will drive what age you will live to? Okay, seriously, I could go on for so much longer with these questions, but I mean, this is ridiculous. The film explains essentially nothing about the immortals. It provides the rules, but excludes all explanations. The explanations are the places you get to let your imagination run when you are a script writer. I don't understand why the writers thought it would be a good idea to exclude all this. I was trying to enjoy the movie, but all these questions kept popping up. It was ridiculous.

... Alright, assuming I just decided to play ignorant, I suppose I could say the plot was alright. I mean, besides the fact that Connor MacLeod does not have a Scottish accent in the least, and I thought the setting for the Scottish highlands was kind of odd. I mean, why the Scottish highlands? Sorry, another question. The film was interesting in relation to the idea of immortality and having to kill other immortals in order to win some sort of prize. I thought the scenes in New York were strong - the fighting between immortals was really cool and the whole romance between MacLeod and Brenda C. Wyatt (Roxanne Hart) was... odd, but it wasn't the worst. Still, just because a couple of scenes were cool doesn't mean the plot was worthy of anything. This film was devoid of so many explanations. I know I said it in the previous paragraph, but why would you take all the explanations out? Isn't this the part that makes the story more interesting? Sure, I have some cool fighting scenes, but I'm not given much context into how this thing is run.

Highlander was a strange piece, to say the least. It had barely any explanation to the MAIN part of the film, and it seemed like it tried to focus on a romance and an action aspect. This turns out to be quite sloppy and not well done. Still, I guess the film isn't that bad. I was able to watch it, but it still left me utterly confused. I'd give the film six point eight stars on ten. I watched it, didn't hate it, but still - why did the plot go about like that? Just... why?

Pirate Bay torrent

Review LIII - Les Misérables

Review LIII
Les Misérables (2012)

Victor Hugo is a famous Romantic writer from France. He was born in 1802 and died in 1885, and in the span of his life, he wrote poems, novels, and plays, and he was also an activist when it came to fighting for political justice. He's well known for having written the novel, Les Misérables, but I really wonder how many people who have watched the musical broadway adaptation actually read the novel. Quite a few probably, but anyway, I just thought I'd give Victor Hugo a nod for being able to have provided Tom Hooper with the potential to make his remake of the musical, Les Misérables, win an Oscar. That sentence is way too long, but I don't care enough to go back and fix it! On to the review!

Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackson), after having been imprisoned for nineteen years for stealing bread and trying to escape in 19th century France, is finally being released on parole. However, Javert (Russell Crowe), a police inspector, reminds Valjean that he will never forget what the crimes the poor man committed, and that if he ever broke the law again, he'd be there. Valjean is turned away where ever he goes, but gets treated kindly from a priest, even after he steals silver dishware from the Church. He decides to find a better life for himself and breaks his parole. He becomes the owner of a factory, under a different name, and, unknowingly, one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired. She falls into a life of prostitution, but Valjean finds her in time to promise her he will take care of her daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen as young Cosette and Amanda Seyfried when older), before she dies. However, Javert is still on the case of the missing Valjean, and a cat-and-mouse game ensues while France tries to abandon a monarchical government once and for all.

I was actually pretty disappointed with this film, but I think the horrible video quality, as well as sound quality, really bothered me to the point that it made the film a bit boring at times. Still, I'll give my first impressions anyway... I thought the plot itself was interesting, but just that the whole thing wasn't that great. Alright, I'm going to bet I wasn't in the mood because I'm trying to think of something to nitpick about, and I can't even think of anything. I guess I can complain that the plot was a bit far-fetched - like how Valjean goes out of his way to help this one former worker of his. Not even just bring her to the hospital, but actually look after her daughter. Still, this makes sense to an extent. Valjean was imprisoned for years because he stole bread for his sister's son (if I recall correctly), and he felt he had sinned because he stole the silverware from the Church. However, he's forgiven in the eyes of God, and so he wishes to repent by acting out kindly to others. The part, though, that still bewilders me is when Cosette and Marius (Eddie Redmayne) fall in love just by looking at each other. While I have seen this in an opera before (they at least talked, though), it still blows my mind. They don't talk at all - they just look at each other, and suddenly they want to spend their lives together. At least make them talk or something! Otherwise, I can't really complain about the plot. It just felt like there could have been more scenes to justify everything, but I guess going for a three hour movie was not in their best interests.

As I said, I didn't find the songs that exceptional. I enjoyed some, but I should blame the bad sound quality on this one (evil torrents). I thought, though, the singing was really good at times. Every actor sang their own part, and I am quite impressed. Not only did they sing well, but they acted their parts well. While I thought Russell Crowe's character should have maybe been a bit more angry with Valjen, Hugh Jackson's character, at times, it was passable. Otherwise, the rest were quite good.

I think the version I saw, with its horrible video and audio quality, plus not being in the mood, both turned me off from the film a bit. I'd rather not give a rating, but should I ever watch the film again in the near future, I will possibly edit this and give the rating I thought it deserved. One thing is for certain - I really do love the poster for this film!

Review LII - Zero Dark Thirty

Review LII
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Kathryn Bigelow made history four years ago when she became the first woman to win Best Director at the Oscars for The Hurt Locker. While she wasn't nominated this year for her directing abilities, her film Zero Dark Thirty has been nominated for Best Picture! So, of course, I had to check it out. And for those who are curious, the title refers to a military term that refers to an unspecified time really early in the morning when it is still dark out.

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a first-time CIA operative and she's introduced into the scene pretty horrifically - by witnessing a man (Reda Kateb) being tortured by a fellow CIA worked, Dan (Jason Clarke) in order to find out where Osama bin Laden is. (Quick note - on September 11th, 2001, in New York city in the United States, two towers, called the Twin Towers, were destroyed by terrorists, which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Osama bin Laden was believed to be behind this attack and a huge search was made to find him.) While she appears obviously affected by the act, it doesn't stop her from dedicating her life to finding out where Osama bin Laden is. This begins the long and strenuous journey to find the man who caused one of the most famous terrorist attacks on the United States in recorded history.

First I'm going to address this torture conflict that so many people feel the need to point out. Regardless if you agree with violent means in order to obtain information or not, it doesn't change the fact that these methods were used to extract information from individuals who knew about Osama bin Laden. Boycotting this film won't stop the government from doing this - protesting to the government will. Another thing is about how this film is unrealistic and how "Osama bin Laden isn't dead - it's all a lie!" While we probably all have a little Illuminati influence in us when it comes to the government, you can't claim he's alive more than I can claim that is dead. I have sources that are a lot more valid than you showing he's dead. It's a politically driven movie, though, so we'll always get these complaints, but I just thought I'd provide my two cents. Anyway, the film itself. It isn't my typical kind of film, that's for sure. I enjoy war films, but the war against terrorism never really interested me. I guess because I hear people saying, "Oh, all brown people are horrible people," it's turned me off. I'm living in the present day of this war so I experience the bias many people feel toward brown people, and not specifically terrorists, versus looking back at the Vietnam War and hearing how both sides were wrong. At the time, the Vietnamese were looked down upon, but it's not the same anymore. This movie isn't super biased, though, in my view. It just confronts the issue of terrorism and finding Osama bin Laden, and it's interesting. It's a compelling story about a woman trying to find this man and driving herself crazy to do it. While some information was withheld in the film to make it more dramatised, it's still a good way to familiarise yourself with this manhunt for Osama bin Laden. While I think books and articles give you a better picture, this film still takes a real story and makes it more interesting than I thought it would be. The final scene was super intense, and I really enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it was my favourite film of the bunch, but it's mostly the story itself that turns me off. Like I said, it isn't my type of film. Nonetheless, it's still a good film that, I think, deserves a nod from the Academy, but not necessarily a standing ovation.

I thought Jessica Chastain did a good job as Maya. Every time she swore extensively, it seemed almost forced, but I'm going to assume that is the point. She's trying to demonstrate her strength - and she does. Jessica Chastain was able to present a strong character, but was also able to show emotion when it was needed. Jason Clarke also did a great job, along with Jennifer Ehle as Jessica. They were able to convey emotion, but, again, able to show complete seriousness in their job. Everyone else (I'm clumping you all up, I'm sorry!), whether it be the captives or the crew helping out Maya, did a great job as well. It was believable acting, and it made the film that much more interesting. The characters, while they were brought into a no-laughing situation, they were still able to show the proper sympathy and emotions when the time came. Bravo!

I'd give the film seven point eight stars on ten. This is a really personal rating since, again, it isn't my type of film. While I can compliment it a lot, in the end, it isn't a film I would have gone out of my way to see. Still, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The acting is quite good, and the way it's filmed can be quite beautiful.

Pirate Bay torrent (not the best quality)

Review LI - The Last Stand

Review LI
The Last Stand (2013)

I just realised I haven't watched a Korean film since the end of September. Still, I haven't forgotten the familiar faces that Korean cinema has brought to me. When I saw that The Last Stand was being directed by Kim Ji-woon, I was ecstatic and made it a must-see for 2013. Well, it came out yesterday, so today was as good a day as any to see Arnold Schwarzenegger in his first leading role since 2003. The film also stars Forest Whitaker, Luis Guzmán, Jaimie Alexander, Rodrigo Santoro, Johnny Knoxville, and Eduardo Noriega.

Ray Owens (Arnold Schwarzenegger) worked in Los Angeles, California (as GOVERNATOR) at one time as a big-time police officer, but has since displayed to Sommerton, Arizona to escape the brutality that he once saw. The police department here consists of only three other people - Sarah Torrance (Jaimie Alexander), Mike Figuerola (Luis Guzmán), and Jerry Bailey (Zach Gilford) - and they're not really the most compotent bunch. Sarah stays back at the police station to watch over her ex-boyfriend, Frank Martinez (Rodrigo Santoro), who is supposed to be kept beyond bars for the weekend for driving under the influence of alcohol. The rest of the game travels to Lewis Dinkum's (Johnny Knoxville) museum in order to take shots at slabs of beef. Everything seems to be under control until Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega), an infamous drug lord, escapes from custody at the hands of Agent John Bannister (Forest Whitaker) and his federal agents while being convoyed. Now he's heading to the Mexican border via Sommerton, but he's in for a bigger fight than he thought.

The film appeals to the action-lover, that's for sure. It has an epically fast car (I don't know cars, so there's probably a better one, but I'm limited here. The car is a Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1) with intense car chases, it has gun fights with tons of blood and explosions (okay, at least one), and Arnold Schwarzenegger! The plot itself isn't anything spectacular, you know, typical action plot that leads to the most action and craziness as possible. It was crazy, but it was entertaining, and since that is what the film was aiming for, it succeeded. Slight spoiler... I did, though, wonder throughout the whole film how Gabriel Cortez's group made a bridge themselves leading into Mexico. Sure, it's a narrow canyon, but it's not a metre long either. I don't understand how not one single person saw them working on this bridge because it must have taken a while. The materials they had to order to, and making sure they had a great engineer so the bridge wouldn't collapse. Also, now that the bridge is there, will they have to set up another border crossing area? Or will they just demolish the bridge? I'm mostly doing this is a joke now, but this demonstrates that it is a typical action film because it has these pretty far-fetched schemes. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for the film, though. It did what I expected - entertainment. However, I thought that, initially, there was a lot of swearing for no reason coming from Agent John Bannister. I don't know, it wasn't in particularly consist throughout the film, and it seemed useless at the beginning. There were also some pretty bad lines. Well, alright, maybe only one, and it was the "that ass" line coming from one of Gabriel Cortez's goons, Burrell, played by Peter Stormare (he's in the Big Lebowski! Whaaat!). It just seemed so out of place and ugly. Ugh, I still shudder at it.

I don't really have anything else to say about the film, so I might as well give my rating. I'd give it a seven point five on ten. It was entertaining, nothing more, nothing less, and if you're looking for an easy movie to watch, I recommend this one. Thank you, Kim Ji-woon, for making an English-speaking film - I can finally support you by seeing your film in theatres.

Review L - Adams Aebler

Review L
Adams Æbler (2005)

Man, fifty reviews... I never thought I would get this far! Well, I suppose I assumed eventually, but not as quickly as this. Thank you for those who actually read this reviews (I have fans, right?)! Anyway, why not celebrate by reviewing a film from the great Danish director and writer Anders Thomas Jensen and starring the always wonderful Mads Mikkelsen? I am talking about Adams Aebler, or, as it is known in English, Adam's Apples!

Adam (Ulrich Thomsen) is neo-Nazi who has just been released from prison into the wonderful care of Father Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen). He is only required to stay there for a few months, but Adam is bugged right away by Ivan's overly forgiving and ignorant views on people's continuing bad habits. While Ivan introduces Khalid (Ali Kazim) as a recovering robber and Gunnar (Nicolas Bro) as used-to-be alcoholic, convicted rapist and kleptomaniac, yet they both continue to behave sinfully. When Ivan asks that Adam choose a goal to accomplish as a means to rehabilitating. Adam, in typical fashion, chooses something apple related, that is, to make an apple pie. However, his true goal becomes to break Ivan's unshaken faith.

The film obviously takes a lot of symbolism and stories from the Bible, but the biggest comparison has to be from the Book of Job. Since I learned about the Book of Job briefly in a class last semester, I'll give you the brief version to demonstrate my pompous attitude. Job is a man who is devoted to God. Thus, an adversary (who is usually always referred to as Satan) asks God that, if he were to put Job through Hell (not literally, but it comes close), would Job still be faithful to God? The all-powerful, omniscient deity says he would and gives this adversary the right to destroy everything Job has. Thus begins Job's complete and utter torture from this adversary to see whether or not he'll actually break. This plays an important role in the movie as we see that Ivan has had a really, really bad life. I'll also briefly explain the apple story to everyone because, hey, I'm appealing to all readers here and you might not have the knowledge of Christian mythology. Adam was the first man on Earth, and both he and Eve, his "wife", are told that they cannot eat from one tree in the Garden of Eden (this place is referred to as a paradise, a utopia). This tree is the Tree of Knowledge. As you may know, Eve is tempted by Satan (he's disguised as a snake) and eats from the tree, with Adam following in pursuit. The important element here is that, while we might assume the knowledge this tree provides is mathematical and analytical knowledge that aids in further increasing our mental capacity, it can also refer to ethical knowledge as well, i.e. knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve are born into paradise - the good - so they don't know what evil is exactly. This specificity in the story helped with my interpretation at the end of the film. But, you know, it's open to debate.

Alright, so now about the actual film! Well, I originally watched this film because I like Anders Thomas Jensen's writing (his stories are definitely interesting), so I was hopeful this would be a good film. Well, it was! Nothing spectacular, but I enjoyed it. It's not really a typical film, I find, but it has its piece of comedy and drama. The humour is off-coloured, but nothing extreme, in my opinion. The film mostly relied on symbolism, as I said, so it's a film you have to interpret yourself. But it isn't an experimental film. While a piece of work can always be interpretated differently, this film has more of a clean-cut way of how it wants to be taken. I enjoyed being able to analyse it myself, but I liked that it wasn't overly ambiguous. Anyway, the story itself is almost sadly cute. You have Ivan who only looks on the sunny side of life (I'm thanking Gordon Lightfoot for that line), yet he went through such horrible incidents that you expect him to break down crying every time. He just ignores them all, and, well, I found that so sad. Plus you have Adam there pushing him over the line because he believes himself to be "evil". I'm laughing at what's happening on the screen, but inside, I feel I should be crying. The plot itself, though, was lacking a bit. It seemed like there should be something bigger happening, but it never came. Thus, while the film had some creative ideas, it wasn't amazing.

The acting was good. Anyway, I liked Khalid's character - spunky, but laughable, and Ali Kazim did a good job. Nicolas Bro did a great job as Gunnar, who was also a character I really liked, even if he was a convicted rapist. Paprika Steen did a great job as Sarah. I'm glad she came back as I thought Sarah would be a one-time thing. Mostly, though, Ulrich Thomsen and Mads Mikkelsen get credit for their great job. I like that Ulrich Thomsen played Adam as a bad guy, but still with enough sensibility to make him likeable. He does a great job with the transition of the character as well. Mads Mikkelsen played Ivan well, and his performance really made me feel for the character. Apparently Mads Mikkelsen's character had a particular dialect (or accent?), but I don't speak Danish, so I couldn't pick up on it.

I'd give the film seven point seven stars on ten. It was enjoyable, but it still feels like something was missing. Still, the characters were fun and I enjoyed the story for it was worth.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLIX - Frankenweenie

Review XLIX
Frankenweenie (2012)

My winter break is coming to an end, so I've been trying to watch movies as quickly as possible. However, I decided to take a break from watching the Oscar nominees for Best Picture for a little bit. But that doesn't mean I didn't watch a film associated with the Oscars! I decided to check out some of the animated films, and I picked Tim Burton's Frankenweenie because it's the one I came across first. The film is a remake of a short Tim Burton did back in the eighties' and includes the voices of Charlie Tahan, Martin Short, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Landau, and Winona Ryder.

Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is a young, aspiring scientist who doesn't have friends except for his amazing dog Sparky and his crush next door, Elsa van Helsing (Winona Ryder). His father (Martin Short) expresses concern over this, but his mother (Catherine O'Hara) tells him not to worry. Nonetheless, his father one day asks that Victor play a game of baseball. Sparky accidentally escapes when Victor hits a homerun and is hit by a car and dies. Victor is devasted. However, one day, while Victor's new science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau), is demonstrating that a current running through a body can lead to it spastically jumping about as the human body contains nerves which makes it react to electricity, Victor gets an idea - why not try it with Sparky? In a typical Frankenstein manner, Sparky is revived and Victor is ecstatic. However, when Edgar 'E' Gore (Atticus Shaffer) finds out about his plan, Victor's science feat will lead to great consequences when his classmates decide they will win the science fair with such an experiment.

If you have any connaissance of horror films, you will recognise a whole bunch of scenes/monsters from them. Apart from the give-away Frankenstein reference given by both the name of the protagonist and his experiment, we have the names of other characters (like 'E' Gore, as in Igor) or just their physique (Nassor looks a lot like the Frankenstein monster, eh?). Mr. Rzykruski is based on Vincent Price, who is known in the horror scene because of films like the original House on Haunted Hill. It's also pretty cool since Martin Landau won an Oscar for playing Bela Lugosi, another familiar face in the world of horror, in Ed Wood. There are other references, but they come later, and I'd like to leave it up to you to guess where they come from (and yes, there is a Japanese character in the movie!). I thought this was a cute aspect - while a younger kid won't necessarily pick up on all the little "cameos", for lack of a better word, older audiences will and give them a little laugh. The plot is simple, but it's heart warming. I wouldn't recommend the film for really young kids since it can be pretty scary, but anyway, it's up to the parents, isn't it? It can be considered on the same level as The Nightmare Before Christmas. I thought it was quite nice - not as spectacular as Tim Burton has done in the past, but it was still entertaining.

I thought the puppets looked typically Tim Burton, but some of them really lacked in facial expression. Victor was able to look happy and shocked. Whenever he was sad, he still looked like he was smiling. Same goes for his parents. Other ones did have an array of expressions, but if the main protagonist is having a problem looking sad, well, I have a problem. Considering I've seen better from Tim Burton, I'm disappointed it wasn't as great as it could have been. The animation itself was still top notch coming from Tim Burton, and the voice acting itself was pretty good. I thought Charlie Tahan sometimes sounded a bit too bored, but I can't recall any other complaints in this department.

I'd give the film seven point three stars on ten. It was enjoyable, but it was far from being Tim Burton's best work. It awakens the nostalgia of classic move monsters and faces, but the way it's presented isn't as good as it could have been, especially considering Tim Burton has done way better.

Pirate Bay torrent