This page has moved to a new address.

< $BlogTitle$>

The Cinematic Katzenjammer: March 2012


Looking Back and Reflecting on My Recapping of What Has Been

    It has been three months since I started this blog. I have watched and reviewed 91 movies. That's more than most people watch in an entire year. I'll admit, it's been rough at times, especially when the movie I am watching is so disgustingly bad I want to shove forks into my eyes and ears. But, I still find this experience very rewarding. I feel I have developed more as a writer and that a career in journalism may be something I find myself seeking sooner rather than later. 

   Before starting the blog, I could only talk about a movie I saw with a handful of friends and half the time I'd be dissecting it more than a normal person would. Along with that, I'd lose the conversation with whomever I was talking with because they wouldn't have as much of an interest in the film as I would. Luckily now, with this blog, I have found an avenue for my discussion, where I can say whatever the hell I want. People are actually regularly reading it, wanting to know what I am going to review next, and even recommending certain films just so they can read my reactions. 

   At only a quarter of the way through my adventure, the feedback is very encouraging. So, I want to thank all of you who read this blog, be it the daily readers or even if you're checking this out for the first time. I hope I have kept all of you entertained and that I even opened your eyes to films you never would have given a chance on your own. My love and obsession with film is even greater now that I have this blog and I hope that you, as the reader, will see that in everything I write.

Here's to another nine months of movies everyday and a lifetime of love for the cinematic feature.


And, for a short recap, here are some of the best as well as the worst films I've seen so far

The Best:

The Worst:

March 31: Immortals

"Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity."

   Greek myths are some of the oldest stories in the world and are rich with morally good and evil characters. They are stories of love, courage, tragedy and mischief and they have been told for thousands of years and have been heard by millions of people. Yet, for some reason, no one can make a good film out of them. With such incredible source material, why can't Hollywood produce quality work? The worst part is that the visuals may be amazing (300, Immortals, Clash of the Titans), but it's always the damn dialogue and story that sucks. Some can argue 300 had great dialogue but, when looked at again, you realize it was all tailor-made for quoting over and over. There really is no excuse when countless books can be adapted to the screen in marvelous ways (Lord of the Rings, anyone?). 

Give these two a book of myths and... my gods...

    With Immortals, the plot is not necessarily awful, it's just really lacking. You think certain parts have promise but then soon realize the story is nothing you haven't seen before. A peasant's (Theseus) mother is murdered in front of him by Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), an evil king. He then swears revenge and magically becomes the perfect warrior and leads an army to stop the king. Hyperion is a rather interesting character. He plans on releasing the titans to kill the gods because he feels that, if they were good, they would not have let his family die from disease. But, in the meantime, he also plans on producing as many kids with as many women as he can because he thinks that if his bloodline continues, he'll be immortal through them. The whole thing is really kind of creepy and Rourke's presence only adds to the strange.  Henry Cavill plays Theseus and, although his character isn't as developed or as powerful as he is in myth, Cavill does show that he has what it takes to be a leading man, as well as the Man of Steel

Hell yes. 

    Now, even though the story isn't as strong as it could be and the script suffers from a case of "trying too hard", the acting is very good. The cast does as good of a job as they can given the dialogue. Luke Evans should also be mentioned for giving a terrific performance as Zeus. He brings a new face to the character, as we have grown accustomed to seeing the father of the gods with grey hair and a big white beard. As a matter of fact, all of the gods are young, beautiful people and, while at first I was thrown off by it, I realized that their appearance fit the ancient world much greater than what we have come to know them as. 

Abercrombie & Fitch meets Olympus

   The best parts of Immortals are the special effects and fight sequences. Tarsem Singh, the director, is a visual genius and the way he captures each sequence is mesmerizing. The entire film looks like a piece of art and each fight scene plays out like a ballet (with BLOOD). Tarsem is one of my favorite directors, having made The Fall and The Cell, both mind-f**k movies that rape your eyes with beauty. However, Tarsem doesn't realize that a pretty picture doesn't make a film. If the script was up to par, nay even half as good as the visuals, Immortals would be incredible. 

No, Tarsem! The script! Focus on the script!

   Even though Immortals is lacking a solid script and story, I still found it very enjoyable. There were enough bits of action to keep it from drowning in the shallow plot and you can't deny how good it all looks. I would recommend watching Immortals just to admire the special effects. Overall, Immortals is like the hot girl you see across the room/bar/church/school/street/internet, only to realize after talking to her for awhile, she's boring and just the same as everyone else. You realize that it's so close to the perfect package but missing vital pieces that would create its perfection. 

The Good:
mesmerizing visuals with epic action scenes
The Bad:
a mundane script with an unoriginal story
The Ugly:
realizing the film is close to amazing if only a few major things were changed

Overall: 6.4/10


Labels: , , , , , ,


March 30: Ink

"A mysterious creature, know as Ink, steals a child's soul in hopes of using it as a bargaining chip to join the Incubi - the group of supernatural beings responsible for creating nightmares."

   As I sit here writing this review of Ink, listening to the music from the film, I am in a state of contemplation. The movie, mixed with the incredible score, leaves you emotional and full of thought, thinking about what is really important in life. It makes you question if what you're doing is good enough or if you can do better... be better. The film lingers in your mind, even hours after viewing, and you can't help but admit how incredible it is. Sure, it has its faults, like every thing does, but at its heart, Ink tells a beautifully tragic story about one man's love for his daughter and the lengths he goes to protect her. The film is much more deeper than you'd expect and insanely creative. Ink is a combination of Inception, Pan's Labyrinth, and What Dreams May Come, except it's not. The movie does have many familiar themes, but the finished product feels completely new and it's very rewarding. 

Along with the emotional punch Ink packs, it is also rather disturbing

   The plot and story of Ink are its greatest strengths. Between our "realities" (awake and asleep), there exists others who create our dreams (the Storytellers) and others who create our nightmares (the Incubi), as well as drifters, who roam around seeking a meaning to their lives because they have no place to go. Among these drifters is Ink, a creature who kidnaps the soul of a girl in hopes of using it to join the ranks of the Incubi. As neither the Incubi nor the Storytellers can interact with the real world, a child's soul that crosses the plane into the "in between" is incredibly valuable. Thus, a war for the girl ensues, and the Storytellers will do whatever it takes to save her. Meanwhile, in reality, John, the father of the girl, is coming to terms with his own personal tragedies and wondering if he is fit to be a dad. The Incubi are using John's weakness's to plant evil thoughts and dreams into his head, wanting him to succumb to the darkness so that he poses no threat of rescuing his daughter. The Storytellers ask for assistance from Jacob, a Pathfinder who, in a sense, is a master Drifter and can physically alter objects and events in the real world. Jacob's plan is to bring John into their realm and use him to save his daughter. He beautifully orchestrates a chain of events that lead to an accident and, for a very short time, John is between realities. This all may sound very complicated, but Ink does a tremendous job of explaining as much as possible and does not confuse the viewer. It's masterfully written and in the end, ties together marvelously. 

   The acting in Ink is very hit and miss. John is played by Christopher Soren Kelly and he does a terrific job in the role. He has a very short filmography and I am surprised I have not seen him more, as he clearly has talent. The rest of the cast, however; is very average, as many of them seem to be drama students that just graduated acting school. This is only the slightest bit distracting and is very easy to look past. When it comes to the visuals of the film, Ink is very impressive. With such a low budget, Jamin Winans, the director, is able to do so much with so little. I can't help but imagine the epic heights the film could have reached if Winans had more money. I hope that one day (soon), Winans has the chance to direct a big studio movie, because I can only assume he'd work wonders. It should be noted that Winans also wrote, edited, and scored Ink, and this combination is obviously similar to that of Robert Rodriguez, who eventually directed Spy Kids and Sin City. Here's to hoping that Winans will follow a similar path. 

  Ink is a rare kind of film. It sparks a curiosity in your life and leaves you thinking about things you normally wouldn't even bother with. It does have its faults but they are very minor to the overall message of the film and can easily be overlooked. Ink succeeds in that it is nothing like anything you have seen before and, in its originality, you appreciate it even more. Now, I can tell that Ink may not be for everyone, as I feel it might be an either love or hate kind of film, but I do suggest at least giving it a chance. If you don't like it, you will have only wasted 107 minutes of your time. However, if you love it as I do, you will have experienced an amazing little film that deserves much more credit and recognition than it has. Ink is very ambitious and shows that creativity is not dead in the film world. It will inspire you to think, write, draw, or even make a movie on your own. I highly recommend Ink

The Good:
Christopher Soren Kelly proving that you don't need a household name or be in a studio movie to have some damn fine acting chops
The Better:
an elaborate, yet simple plot that combines reality with our dreams and leaves you thinking about what is most important in life
The Best:
Jamin Winans incredible score that raises the emotional level of the film to insane heights. should also mention that one of the main themes in Ink is used on the soundtrack for The Grey, one of my favorite movies of the year 

Overall: 9.4/10

Best Quote:
Jacob: They're all reactions! One thing begets the next. A man has a weakness, he's flawed. That flaw leads him to guilt. The guilt leads him to shame. The shame he compensates with pride and vanity. And when pride fails, despair takes over and they all lead to his destruction. It will become his fate... Something's gotta stop the flow.

Extra- The song featured in Ink as well as The Grey


Labels: , , ,


March 29: Duck Soup

"Rufus T. Firefly is named president/dictator of bankrupt Freedonia and declares war on neighboring Sylvania over the love of wealthy Mrs. Teasdale."

   I hate to admit it, but Duck Soup is the first Marx Brothers movie I have ever seen. It's not that I'm not a fan of old movies, as I love Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton (Modern Times and The General are two of my favorite films), but I just never got around to watching the Marx Brothers. So, when it came time to watch one of their films, the title that kept coming up as one of their best was Duck Soup. I had seen it on tons of lists of best films of all time and I am disappointed in myself for waiting this long to watch it. It's a terrific comedy with fast talking smart asses, physical humor, and situations you could only find in a 1933 movie. 

Shitty times lead to awesome movies.... well, it USED to

   The plot is simple- a wise-cracking "politician", Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) is given all the power in the country of Fredonia, while the neighboring Sydonia is attempting to overtake the country. Sydonia sends two spies (Harpo and Chico Marx) to uncover dirt on Firefly, in hopes of discrediting him and starting a rebellion in Fredonia. The entire thing plays out in a ridiculous fashion and it is absolutely hilarious the whole way through. So much of the film feels like a stand-up routine and jumping from one joke to another keeps the humor constant. The Marx Brothers have terrific chemistry and watching them play off of each others humor is amazing. Now you may have heard a lot of the film's jokes before, but you can't help but think it all started with Duck Soup. 

The famous "Mirror Scene" has been duplicated countless times since Duck Soup.

   Overall, Duck Soup is highly enjoyable and shows that classic comedy is still hilarious. I can't think of any comedic actor today that could pull off what any of the Marx Brothers can and it's important to keep films like these relevant. A lot of people nowadays don't even want to bother with black and white films and it's very frustrating. Films from the 20's and 30's are what made Hollywood, and so much of what we have today wouldn't be around if it weren't for what came first. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Fatty Arbuckle, Laurel & Hardy, The Three Stooges, and The Marx Brothers are all classic comedy acts that have inspired all sorts of comedy. Without them, we wouldn't have Monty Python, Mr. Bean, I Love Lucy, or even Saturday Night Live. I highly recommend anything from the time, and I hope that you can give Duck Soup, or other similar films a chance. 

The Good:
fast-paced, genius comedy that keeps you on your toes
The Better:
watching a comedy from 1933 and still being able to laugh out loud
The Sad to Say:
that comedies made today will never be anything like what came out of early Hollywood

Overall: 8.5/10

Best Quote:
the entire film is quotable and is best when delivered by one of The Marx Brothers, so watch it!


I encourage everyone to give the classic comedies a chance. Here is a list of what I would recommend (some are available on YouTube):

Modern Times
City Lights
The Gold Rush
The Great Dictator
The General
Steamboat Bill, Jr.
Sherlock Jr.
The Bell Boy
The Butcher Boy

Labels: , , , , ,


March 28: Johnny English Reborn

"Johnny English goes up against international assassins hunting down the Chinese premier."

   Johnny English Reborn is an absolutely amazing film that mixes both comedy and action. Rowan Atkinson plays the title role and he does so brilliantly. Atkinson brings every bit of his talent to the screen and you can't help but cheer for the bumbling spy. His slap-stick antics never grow old and he is just as good as he was in Mr. Bean. It's nice to see a spy-comedy that's both refreshing and original, as so many of the "espionage a la spoof" movies are stale and uninspired (Austin Powers, Quantum of Solace, Naked Gun). Johnny English Reborn reinvents the genre and sets the bar incredibly high for any future similar films. 

Mr. Bond himself couldn't carry the weight of the Johnny English franchise. 

   The film follows, what you think is a simple plot. Johnny English must uncover a scheme to kill a Chinese official while trying to remember how an earlier assassination occurred. However, the script throws in so many twists and turns, that nothing is what it seems and so much is unexpected. I was genuinely shocked at many of the surprises the film held, and each new discovery gives even more depth to the film. English finds himself in a web of deception and deceit and he must figure out how to stop a very important person from being killed. 

So intriguingly woven and beautifully spun. 

   Overall, I would highly recommend Johnny English Reborn. The action is suspenseful, there are plenty of laughs, and the film is so well made you can't help but sit back and admire all the work put into it. From the camerawork, to the script, to the score, the film succeeds in every notion. Rowan Atkinson is at his best and he will make your entire side hurt from laughing. The film leaves you thinking about our own government, and if the CIA has men like Johnny English. If so, you can rest assured that we are in the best hands imaginable. 

The Good:
Rowan Atkinson doing what he does best and delivering one hell of a performance 
The Better:
An intricate plot so unpredictable you can't see anything coming
The Best:
the film takes an over-played genre and makes it completely new again

Uh, hello? The film sucked and I am surprised I even watched it in its entirety. Skip it and go run into a wall, you'll have more fun. 

Overall: 2.0/10


Labels: , ,


March 27: A Dangerous Method

"A look at how the intense relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud gives birth to psychoanalysis."

   A Dangerous Method is a tricky little film. It's filmed beautifully with terrific acting and a great score, but the movie as a whole is just... boring. The pacing is terrible and, before you have time to readjust to the time and setting, it shifts forward to another year. Part of the movie made me think that the filmmakers expected you to already know a good amount about Freud and Jung beforehand. And yes, the two both led lives that scream "make a biopic about me!", but their genius can't be bottled into a 100 minute film. With every jump forward in time, you're immediately trying to catch up on the events unfolding. It's like reading a book that skips chapters and you only have a vague idea of what's going on. It's not that A Dangerous Method is confusing, it's just lacking depth. 

It's like Great Illustrated Classics- pretty pictures, but you know all of King Arthur can't be explained in 100 pages... with big font. 

   The best part of A Dangerous Method is the acting. Michael Fassbender is excellent as Carl Jung and I would have loved to see a film completely focusing on him, his life, and more detailing of his studies. Kiera Knightley is exceptional, yet terrifying, as Sabina Spielrein, a hysterical woman who becomes one of Jung's patients and then mistress. She becomes the final wedge that splits the friendship of Jung and Freud, and her presence is the central conflict of the film. Her fits of hysteria are hard to watch, as she transforms her face and body into someone who is clearly in pain. Viggo Mortensen is fairly good as Sigmund Freud, but I couldn't help but think of all the other actors who could have played him better (Christoph Waltz, Geoffrey Rush, Ed Harris). However, A Dangerous Method is a perfect example of a movie that can't be saved by the cast. 

Ms. Knightley sure knows how to pick 'em. 

   Overall, A Dangerous Method is not necessarily a bad film, just severely lacking of greatness. It looks pretty, sounds pretty, and is acted well, but with a poor script and pacing, it's no instant classic. A lot of the subject matter is interesting and learning a little bit about how Jung and Freud thought is interesting, but you can't help but think of how much more involved the film could have been. A movie that could have been excellent and award worthy turns into a messy love story that leaves too much to be explained and desired. 

The Good: 
terrific acting all around, especially from Kieria Knightley
The Bad:
the film's pacing- one would think the film would be much better as a miniseries or three hour long movie
The Ugly:
actually thinking more would be better, then realizing the entire story could and should have been told completely differently

Overall: 5.2/10

Best Quote:
Carl Jung: Sometimes you have to do something unforgivable... just to be able to go on living. 


Labels: , , , ,


March 26: Battle: Los Angeles

"A Marine Staff Sergeant who has just had his retirement approved goes back into the line of duty in order to assist a 2nd Lieutenant and his platoon as they fight to reclaim the city of Los Angeles from alien invaders." 

  Battle: Los Angeles is a generic, over-fried doughnut with a cliche cream filling. It's so plain and unoriginal that you immediately forget about it the moment it's over. The plot and script are two of the biggest weaknesses of the film and each scene of dialogue between rather lackluster moments of action are clearly filler. With a story similar to Independence Day and District 9, one would think it would be much more compelling than it really is. None of the characters are developed enough to care about and when someone dies, you don't feel emotional, you feel confused as to who it is that actually died. 

May you walk at the side of God, James. No, John? Jake? Oh, yeah...Kevin. 

   Aaron Eckhart is the only actor worth mentioning in the film and, although his presence adds the smallest bit of credibility to Battle: LA, it's not enough to save it. He's believable as a staff sergeant in the army, but an officer is only as good as the men he leads. In this case, each member of his unit is an empty shell of a character used specifically as a plot device to throw more bodies at the enemy. Speaking of which, the enemies are aliens that have come to earth to drain the world of water, which they use as fuel. They kind of look like tall, robotic Venus fly traps with arms that swing around like a monkey. Even then, they look very uninspired. 

Lego comes up with better designs. 

   Overall, Battle: LA is just too bland and unoriginal to be worth a recommendation. The film is weak all around and not even the special effects or action can save the terrible script. However, the movie would make for an interesting video game and, after watching it, I have quite the urge to play some Call of Duty. Unlike most similar films, I think of how good it could have been if certain things were tweaked. With Battle: LA, however, I can't really think of anything to change to make the film amazing. Too many components are less than great and Battle: LA should just be a movie you skip. 

The Good:
Aaron Eckhart and a surprisngly good score by Brian Tyler
The Bad:
action sequences filmed by a cameraman with a caffeine addiction, as every shakes and jumps around constantly
The Ugly:
a plot with no heart or substance and characters so boring you don't care what happens to them

Overall: 4.7/10

Best Quote:
... I need to watch better movies


Go play video games instead... woo gratuitous violence!

Speaking of which, check out one of my friend's blogs about video games:

Labels: , ,


March 25: Green Lantern

"A test pilot is granted an alien ring that bestows him with otherworldly powers, as well as membership into an intergalactic squadron tasked with keeping peace within the universe." 

   Next to Batman, Green Lantern is one of my favorite superheroes and thus, I highly anticipated this film. I first watched it when it was first released and I felt very neutral about it. I think my love for the character hindered my ability to see through the mess of the film and now, after re-watching it, I have learned the error of my ways. Green Lantern is a horrible film that completely tarnishes the Emerald Knight and all of the incredible mythology wrapped around him. After finishing the film, I felt very similar to how I felt after watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- a beloved character brutally murdered by poor writing and over-the-top special effects. 

Rest in peace, Dr. Jones... rest in peace

  If you look at Green Lantern on paper, you'd think there's a masterpiece in the works. Starring Ryan Reynolds, Marc Strong (Sinestro... hell yes), and directed by Martin Campbell, one would think nothing could go wrong. Somehow, it does, and it gets worse the more you watch. Now, Reynolds is Hal Jordan, the ace fighter pilot who becomes the Green Lantern and he fits the role perfectly, bringing his natural charm and charisma to the part. But, even then, it can't save the film. Martin Campbell directed Casino Royale and you would think that the action sequences would be at least similar to those in the Bond flick. Everything's just too over-the-top, including the special effects, and it completely takes away from any sense of danger or peril given by the action, as well as the human factor to the Green Lantern as a superhero. The film really should have been named Green Screen, because everything is computer generated. 

$200 million right here

   Green Lantern could have been so much better. The stars were aligned and a good man was at the helm, but clearly all of the budget went to making it look pretty and not on the script. It may be that the mythology of the Green Lantern is just too vast and deep to ever bring it to film in the proper way. One of the weakest parts of the script is having to explain how everything happens, who everyone is, and why it's all happening. The film does have a post-credits scene building up to a sequel that could be badass, and it teases you about what could be. Here's hoping all the mistakes of Green Lantern will be repaired by its sequel and that The Emerald Knight can have the movie he deserves. 

The Good:
Ryan Reynolds does the best he can with what he's given and I fully believe his casting was very smart
The Bad:
the film is about 80% CGI and it's more of a video game than a movie
The Ugly:
a disgustingly bad script with awful dialogue
Extra Ugly:
Blake Lively continually trying to act and being taken seriously

Overall: 4.8/10

Best Quote:
No, nope, never, nay, not going to happen


Labels: , , , , ,


March 24: Superman

"An alien orphan is sent from his dying planet to Earth, where he grows up to become his adoptive home's first and greatest super-hero." 

  Superman is a damn good movie. Made in 1978, well before any of the superhero hype we have today, it still actually stands the test of time. Sure, you won't find the special effects of Spider-Man or the brooding atmosphere of The Dark Knight, but you have a familiar story told with heart and pitch-perfect acting. Christopher Reeve stars as the Man of Steel and completely embodies the role. He is the stumbling and bumbling Clark Kent and he is the charming and courageous Superman. He brings so much depth to the role, it's almost as though he sucked out the very soul and persona of Superman from the comics. 

How many times have I told you Lex, licking Superman comics won't give you powers. 

   Speaking of Lex Luthor, he is played very over-the-top and comically by Gene Hackman. And, although his version of Mr. Luthor is fairly different than the Lex we've known through comics and TV shows, he's still sinister and conniving. He may not have all the gadgets or political power, but he still manages to put the United States in peril. His plans involve sinking California into the Pacific Ocean and turning the desert property he owns in Nevada to prime coastal real estate. Sure, the plan is pretty obscure and "out-there", but Superman won't let anything bad happen. 

Because he's Mister Perfect... with every frickin' power you can think of. 

  Now, I admit that I have never been the biggest fan of Superman because he's pretty much immortal (except gasp green rocks weaken him!) and has every power imaginable. He's the poster boy of superheroes and seemingly does no wrong. But Superman, the movie, is so good that you can't help but like The Last Son of Krypton. With a great story (laying the origin bits on lightly), good action, and campy but lovable special effects, I would highly recommend Superman

The Good:
to this date, the best Superman film adapation, and still damn good
The Better:
Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor with exceptional evil insanity
The Best:
Christopher Reeve as Superman may be the best superhero casting in the history of superhero movies

Overall: 8.7/10

Best Quote:
Miss Teschmacher: Tell me something, Lex, why do so many people have to die for the crime of the century? 
Lex Luthor: Why? You ask why? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the bathtub?  

^^showing how nonsensical and mad Luthor is


Labels: , , ,


March 23: How to Train Your Dragon

"A hapless young Viking who aspires to hunt dragons becomes the unlikely friend of a young dragon himself, and learns there may be more to the creatures than he assumed."

   Dreamworks has always been the little kid brother to Pixar when it comes to animation. Dreamworks has Shrek and Pixar has Toy Story, but you really can't compare the two (Shrek can die unhappily ever after for all I care). Pixar is king of animation and it's damn near impossible for anything to ever rival their annual releases. Although How to Train Your Dragon did come out the same year as Toy Story 3 (cue tears), it's much better than a couple of past Pixar releases...*cough Cars cough*. 

"Let's make a NASCAR movie so we can profit off of all the merchandise! Oh, it sucked? Let's make a sequel!"

   How to Train Your Dragon is full of action, humor, and of course dragons. The action sequences play out better than anything you would see in Avatar or Transformers and the entire film feels like a 90 minute ride. The story is fresh, unique, and full imagination. The mythology is deep and each species of dragon is more creative than the next. The film really leaves you wanting to know more about all the different kinds of dragons that exist and you desperately want to own one yourself (like a Pokemon!). 

However, no one is cooler than Charizard. No one. 

   The best part of How to Train Your Dragon is Toothless, the main dragon befriended by the viking boy, Hiccup. Toothless acts like a combination of a dog and a cat, and the animators made a creature that does not talk, one of the most lovable things possible. The best scene in the film is when Hiccup befriends Toothless for the first time, and for five minutes, and no dialogue, the two's friendship begins with a sense of amazement, awe, and a dash of cute. How to Train Your Dragon's score, by John Powell, is magnificent and adds so much emotion to the film, especially that scene. The film's voice cast is stellar, as are the sound effects, and everything comes together perfectly.  I would highly recommend How to Train Your Dragon and I eagerly anticipate the second installment. 

The Good:
incredible visuals that play out a very imaginative story
The Better:
equally incredible sound effects and score that compliment the visuals
The Best:
a world so creative you keep praying it's real... just to have your own fire breathing friend

Overall: 9.3/10

Best Quote:
The names of all the dragons. The Deadly Nadder. The Hideous Zippleback. The Monstrous Nightmare. The Gronckle. The Night Fury. 


Labels: ,