When the movie started with a remix of Jay-Z ‘s “99 Problems” I must say I was a little worried.  Instantly I could see the direction the filmmakers were going with the film, but fortunately it quickly calmed down.

“The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” stars Denzel Washington as Walter Garber, a New York subway dispatcher who has recently been demoted due to a pending suspension. The action begins as Ryder, John Travolta, hijacks a subway train and its passengers.  Garber immediately finds himself stuck in the middle of the heist when he ends up dispatching the area Ryder has taken control.

Both of these characters are very three dimensional while having a lot in common. The two relate simply by the fact they have been ‘screwed’ by the system and are trying to overcome their mishaps.  They quickly begin to toy and pick with one another in order to make the other break while on the radio. With no surprise, Denzel’s character plays the negotiator in this film but with some differences from characters past.

Garber is just your ordinary city guy trying to support his wife and kids, but has seemingly got himself into trouble recently. He is a bit shyer than Denzel’s past protagonist roles and yet he is still a powerful man with a good head on his shoulders just trying to make good. His character is trying to make amends with his past by saving the passengers on board and taking care of the situation. There is much emotion as Garber is sent home when the real negotiator arrives even after wanting to stay, but is quickly returned to his desk when Ryder asks to talk to him and only him.

Travolta is brilliant as Ryder. He really brought another dimension to his character. This is apparent by his great showcase of odd choices of emotions when he dealt with death or fear. It’s not like this that different to some of Travolta’s past roles. For instance, his character in FACE OFF has many similarities, but this one is not nearly as sick and twisted.  His motives are different and justified by a great screenplay by Briand Helgeland.

One of the main storylines is the reaction a normal city guy like Garber would have when he comes faced with an insane killer. “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” also asks how far a typical guy will go to make amends. Garber is not necessarily dealing with amends with his job, but with himself as well. He isn’t supposed to have dealt with matters like this before, however it is a little unbelievable due to how smooth he deals with the situation. Let’s face it, Denzel is the negotiator and it feels like it too. It when the movie gets about half way through that things start to get a lot better.

After the half way mark, you start to understand Denzel’s character a little more. In fact, it takes until half way through the film to feel any difference in the movie from any other conventional heist movie. I was looking for what would stand out from this movie, or why it was even made. It appeared that it was just like any other one of these types of films. The relationship formed between the protagonist and the antagonist are what really set the movie apart.

I noticed myself starting to care much more about the characters and leaning towards the edge of my seat once the action started to pick up. The pace quickly picked up to make this really what the film set out to be; a suspenseful drama. It delivered, and it delivered with some force!

Sure it was Tony Scott’s kinetic, shaky camera style that helped add to the action.  At points it felt that it was a little too much, but it soon becomes unnoticeable as the audience becomes more involved with the plot rather the execution.  His style was to help the film to appear more contemporary and fresh. Ironically this is not a fresh take on action movies and has become a major negative selling point to recent movies.  Besides the cinematography, the action is still well done at appropriate areas to keep the film moving along while keep it interesting as well.

This cast really supplied some additional help. Ryder’s posse includes Luis Guzman (“Waiting”), who adds some comedic light to some suspenseful scenes and plays the brains to the subway system.  James Gandolfini plays the self-centered, unpopular mayor of New York. Michael Rispoli plays the head of NYC Trasit’s Rail Control Center. Finally, John Turturro does a magnificent job as the hostage negotiator that comes in to help.

“The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” is basically your average story of a crazy killer that takes hostages for money.  It is the depth of the characters and relationships between them that sets this apart from others. It has plenty of suspense and great action that we expect along with some excellent performances. I believe the audience will actually take away something from this film as the moral of the story is strong. If you are in the mood for a quality, fun action/suspense drama then I suggest seeing this film.

Warner Bros. Pictures “The Hangover” is directed by Todd Phillips, “Old School”, which got me a little excited to seeing this movie, but unfortunately Phillips failed to hit his mark. This was no classic by any means and fell flat when I noticed this had all been done before.

I was worried the first time I saw the trailer as there are many movies that follow this formula, and in fact, there was a direct-to-video movie in 2006, “Bachelor Party Vegas”, that dealt with a group of friends celebrating a bachelor party while getting into trouble along the way.  Hmm… okay well the plot was the same making me figure the moral of the story will most likely follow.  Fortunately “The Hangover” does not end the same.

The idea of the movie is simple.  Four buddies drive to Las Vegas for friend Doug (Justin Bartha) bachelors’ party.  What was meant to be a one fun night in Vegas turns into a full blown out adventure when none of them remember what happened the night before.  After waking up in their suite, which was a mess, they realized they have lost Doug who is supposed to be getting married the next day.

After what seemed like a long portion of the movie, the audience finally finds out that the three buddies left, will be spending the rest of the movie looking for Doug. At that moment is when it is apparent that this movie is nothing new. There is nothing original about it, but three crazy friends added with a crazy surrounding like Las Vegas made it easy to create wild and hilarious escapades.

The gang of friends is not the greatest cast of actors. There is of course the outspoken, loud, and free spirited friend played by Bradley Cooper (He’s Just Not That Into You”, “Nip / Tuck”). His other good friend is played by Ed Helmes most known for his role on “The Office”. Helmes character bares no difference to his dorky and awkward role on the NBC sitcom. The third buddy is Doug’s future brother-in-law played by comedian Zach Galifianakis (“What Happens in Vegas”).

This cast of characters did a fine job with what they were given, however I am sure there was plenty of improvisation that played a key role that wasn’t delivered like it was in many past films in the same category.  It’s quite obvious that the filmmakers were trying to capture some of the success that films like “Old School”, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”, “Superbad”, “Blades of Glory”, “Pineapple Express”, and other similar films have had.

“The Hangover” is just another one of these ridiculous, outlandish, raunchy comedies. This is not necessarily a bad thing.  I actually love these types of movies if done right.  This film never quite got where I was hoping it would go though. I could go on for days with movies that have done this in the past, but all you need to do is take one actor from one of these films and follow their film credits.  Most share at least one film together that feels just like the other. This one is no different.  For example, the hilarious Ken Jeong plays a role in “The Hangover” and is known for having roles in many of the same type of the films with the same actors.

I definitely cracked up at some parts and was grossed out by many. With that alone, the movie was successful. Although, I found myself thinking that I just wanted them to find their friend already and get the movie over with.  It just wasn’t anything new and exciting. I am positive there will be plenty of people in the right demographic that will absolutely love this film. In my head I can just imagine a bunch of guys sitting around the tv watching “The Hangover” while drinking some beers and laughing hysterically. This film will do fine in the right setting.

There is plenty of mindless physical comedy with exciting action accompanying it that keeps this one entertaining. I never seemed to mind if Doug got home in time to get married, but I stayed entertained. Some of the comedic timing seemed off and maybe a little awkward toward the beginning. Luckily it started to flow a little better after the friends began their adventure. I don’t know why there is so much frontal nudity these days, but I guess it keeps the audience laughing.  I however, am over it. Let’s try to find a new approach to make us laugh.

At first I thought this was terrible timing for this movie to come out with Will Ferrell’s “Land of the Lost” and Jack Black’s “Year One” coming out soon, but I failed to notice the PG-13 ratings on those. I predict “The Hangover” to do well, but not be as memorable. These other movies have a chance to make a lot more in the box office as they have a broader audience and more can see it.  The R rating at least has a chance to pull another crowd in even though it leaves it more restricted. Time will tell.

Has Pixar gone 10 for 10?  Disney / Pixar’s UP is the studios 10th and first 3D film.  There has been plenty of hype for this new film, and I myself was one that got into that hype. I have watched most of the online featurette’s, “UPisodes” and clips. Fortunately, I did not watch all of them to save some of the surprises the movie may have.  I’m very happy to say that the hype lived up to my expectations.

Disney / Pixar’s UP is about a grouchy old man, Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner), who has made a promise to his late wife that they would go on an adventure to visit South America. It was a promise he held since childhood.  After Carl loses his wife Ellie, he realizes it’s now or never to fulfill his promise.

Carl’s house, which once sat in the middle of a typical middle-class American street, now is in the middle of a hustle and bustle construction site with sky scrapers and new developments on all sides.  The old man’s house is on the verge of being bought out by a developer so he can demolish it for his plans of the area.  Fredricksen realizes that he must save his house and take it with him on his adventure. His plan seems to take off without a hitch until he finds out that a local boy scout is trapped aboard his flying house.  Russell (Jordan Nagai) is an 8-year-old Junior Wilderness Explorer that only wants to earn his last badge of assiting an elder.  This is where all the comical antics derive from when Carl must now take on this adventure with one more than expected.

The audience will soon notice some of the heavy subject matters within this film. The main reason why Russell wants to earn his last badge is so that he can be honored the Sr. Wilderness Explorer badge by his father that is not around much.  This subject matter may hold a little too close to some of the children in the audience. There are many other subject matters toward the start of the movie like a baby complication and death that may need some explanation.  Much of the movie holds a dark undertone because of the side plots, but makes up for it in humor. No doubt these characters deliver a great amount of comical relief, but the sad parts may outweigh them. I do appreciate the more complex story and underlining the film has than say Cars did, but am just a little worried the effect it may have on children. You’ve been warned.

This being Pixar’s 10th film makes it a perfect time to debut their first 3D film even though they are a little behind the times.  By being a little late Pixar really got a chance to perfect this newer trend.  The scenes have tons of depth and are just gorgeous, which is displayed in Disney Digital 3D.  “We look at 3D as another crayon in our crayon box.” Director/Writer of Up Peter Docter stated. This is one aspect I truly love about Pixar. The studio has always been big on creating films strong on story with the technology used playing just as the medium to display that story unless it could help contribute.  Therefore Pixar never wants to have the technology distract from the movie.  In UP, Docter used 3D technology to help the movie showcase different moods the audience should feel between different scenes. “For example, at the beginning of the film, Carl is stuck in his ways and he’s living in this little house,” Docter explained. “We wanted it to feel claustrophobic so we flattened everything – we made it purposely less deep. Contrast that later when he gets to South America. We wanted this expansiveness – we wanted you to feel the wind in your face, so we really pushed depth there.” The use of 3D changes the mood for many of the scenes and helps show some of the beautiful locations within the film. Instead of using the effect as a gimmick, it is used as another visual cue.

Another aspect of this Disney / Pixar film is uniqueness in look and style.  I have noticed that all of Pixar films differ in style from the backgrounds to the characters in the movie. “We wanted UP to have a distinct look all its own and to be a departure from other Pixar films,” Producer Jonas Rivera stated. “We were trying to reach back and connect to the great Disney films that we grew up with, like ‘Peter Pan’ and ‘Cinderella’, and the great sense of style and caricature that they had.”

One sense of style the audience may notice is the more ‘animated’ the characters look compared to the realism of the wild scenery they are set. For instance, there are scenes toward the beginning of the film where characters are animated like our favorite slap-stick 2D animated counterparts. Ricky Nierva, Production Designer, stated that he coined the term ‘simplexity’ for the style he wanted. Basically they wanted to remove some of the detail without making the CGI look cheap. The reason behind this was to caricature the humans while still keeping them relatable. This sense of style adds to the suspension of disbelief one must have to believe what’s happening in the film.  One thing about the film that I was having a hard time swallowing was the unbelievable situations. Okay, I bought the fact that a house flies to an exotic destination in South America via helium balloons tied to the fireplace, but I am not too sure I could believe some of the crazy action sequences.  I especially had an issue in the scenes with the dogs in airplanes later in the film.  I’ll hold off in order to not spoil anything, but there were quite a few stretches even in the world the film created.

UP is definitely the best family movie I have seen in awhile. I noticed myself laughing out loud a lot and even feeling like a kid again. It brought back quite a few memories of childhood and made me miss those good times had. More importantly, it showed me that I should always keep some adventure in my life no matter how old I am. After all, an elderly man is our action hero of the film.

If you are looking for a movie emotion invoking with humor, sadness, action, and adventure, then this is the film you should look at. It definitely has those adult themes family movies have been containing within the past decade and I actually took something away from it. That’s what we are all after anyway, right?

Partly Cloudy (Pixar Short):
Quick and to the point, Disney / Pixar’s newest short had some of the best comical moments compared to all of their past shorts. It is very touching and a perfect opening to UP. This is probably my favorite short from Pixar and really leaves you with an “awe” moment. However, this is another one that might need some parental guidance. Do your kids know where babies come from?

While the first Night at the Museum was an enjoyable enough piece of escapism, I never felt the need for a sequel.  I loved the setup, and yet by film’s end was pretty  much ready to move on.  Everybody had learned a valuable lesson, as per tradition in these type of films, and I didnít really think there was a lot left to do with the premise.  Because of this, I went into Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian with a decided lack of excitement.  And yet I came out having loved it. 

Both films revolve around Ben Stiller’s character of Larry Daley, and what happens to him over the course of a single evening in a museum where the exhibits come to life.  The first film took place at the Museum of Natural History, and as indicated in the title, the sequel takes place in the Smithsonian.  In typical sequel fashion, this means that everything is  bigger, better, and their is a lot more of it. 

But instead of just throwing more stuff at us and seeing what sticks, the filmmakers actually manage to utilize the expanded world.  Part of what makes this work so well is the interaction between the exhibits which would serve no logical purpose being together.  By placing the action in the Smithsonian there is a great deal of variety between the exhibits, and seeing them come together in such a way is a great deal of fun.

Being able to actually enter the paintings and interact with the sculptures brings a whole new level to this museum.  And when Daley takes a chase sequence into a classic WWII photograph, everything about this movie begins to click.  The creativity on display is way beyond anything in the first film.  Helping fuel this creativity is an amazing cast of new actors including Hank Azaria, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, and on and on. 

Everybody from the first film returns as well, but the absolute highlight is one of the new additions.  Amy Adams is brilliant in the role of Amelia Earhart (or at least a wax replica of her).  Playing a caricatured version of Earhart, Adams fast-talks her way through every scene leaving Stiller’s character desperate to keep up.  When he tells her that one of her exclamations sounds made up even for her, she replies “it’s how I speak.”  She then gives a normal line of dialogue as comparison and questions “where’s the fun in that?”

That brief exchange encapsulates everything that works about this film.  Everybody seems to be having fun.  There is not one weak link in the cast and everybody gets a moment to shine.  On top of this, the special effects are a blast to watch.  There is nothing revolutionary about them, but they are perfect for this type of film.  By manipulating real art and exhibits we are all familiar with and putting them in the context of this story, the effects begin to actually feel special.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I again don’t see the need for another sequel.  I just don’t know what they can continue to do with this premise.   However, unlike after the first film, I will keep an open mind.  When they announce the inevitable Part III, I might find myself actually looking forward to seeing the further adventures of Larry Daley and his magical friends.  Especially if Amelia Earhart is going with him.