Buy the Die Hard Collection and support Falling Debris!

Billy receives a mysterious pet from his father for Christmas, known as a mogwai (voiced by Howie Mandell). Billy disobeys the only two rules that come with mogwais: don't feed them after midnight, and don't get them wet. One mogwai becomes many, and after they feast, they transform into gremlins, legendary creatures of mischief. Billy must save the town from the small troublemakers and win the girl of his dreams.

A fantastic start to a Christmas marathon, since it only vaguely has to do with Christmas. This is wholesome family fun, with only some slapstick violence... until the Gremlins get melted into puddles of ooze. Something about old Spielberg movies having suprisingly gross effects, it really takes me back. It's got a little something for everyone: wacky humor, dangerous monsters, and a racist old man. It takes more than a few shots at '80s pop culture references before a tragic Christmas death story. I rarely remember to put this on my marathon list, but I did this year, so make sure you revisit Gremlins this Christmas.

Of course, Gremlins 2 was made shortly after and takes place on New Year's Eve in the big city, so I might have to revisit that when the time comes.

 Side note: Imagine if Weta remade this. Mind. Blown.

Trivia

Two movies on the theater marquee:

• A Boy's Life - draft name for E.T. The Extraterrestrial
• Watch the Skies - draft name for Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Billy greets a Dr. Moreau on the street.

Buy Gremlins and support Falling Debris!

Along with Captain America later this year, Thor is Marvel's next big installment in the franchise leading up to The Avengers (see: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk). In hindsight, Thor serves more as a plot point in The Avengers than a standalone story. The god of thunder himself is portrayed by Chris Hemsworth, described as an Australian "hunk of beef" who hasn't seen much of the US limelight until now (see: George Kirk in Star Trek). He certainly fits the bill physically and brings the brash nature of a young god who knows how powerful he is. His brazen nature is what gets himself exiled to Earth by his father, Odin. His experience on Earth as a mortal teaches him the value of a real hero - one that fights with his heart instead of his sword hammer. By defeating his evil brother, Thor saves Earth, regains his powers, and wins the heart of a young maiden. Sound pretty typical?

Asgard restored in recent comicsFollowing his exile after instigating hostility between the Asgard and Frost Giants, Thor immediately encounters Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist (nurse in the comics) seeking evidence of wormholes. She immediately falls for the god of muscle thunder, but given the circumstances and Natalie Portman's sincere oggling of Hemsworth, it's hard to believe that it's anything more than physical attraction. I think we're lucky that director Brannon Braga is sophisticated enough to spare us the nude Terminator type of transportation. Unfortunately, in the comics, Jane Foster is only useful when interacting with Donald Blake and in the film, her goals of understanding the "science" behind Asgard inter-world transportation is irrelevant. Her research gives SHIELD something to steal from her, which in turn gives Thor a reason to help her, but the whole concept doesn't survive the "5 Why" approach. The writers obviously wanted to make Jane Foster more than just a simple damsel in distress and give her a reason for being, but their execution was ultimately a failure. Portman, as talented as she has been in Star Wars and V For Vendetta, doesn't exceed, let alone meet, expectations for a strong female lead. Aside from her amount of screentime, I could easily compare her significance on the plot to that of Sif or Frigga.

Odin? Or Satanic Iron Man?As a Norse mythology enthusiast and reader of Thor comics, my biggest problem is the depiction of Asgard. While Jotunheim is beautifully visualized as a desolate kingdom in a barren ice wasteland, Asgard is a beaming, advanced civilization mixed with mystics and technology. It's a bit too advanced for a race of people who originally fit into our civilization at a time when we were still wearing leather pelts and chainmail. In this, the Asgard (I don't say "Asgardians", it's stupid) wear solid armor, plated in gold and silver to the extent that they look like car parts or refrigerator doors. To some extent it's functional, but it just seems excessive to make Asgard look like a futuristic city we might imagine Atlantis (whether it be the Disney or Stargate variety) looks like. The costume design could have benefited from a leather and buckle base under all that metal accent to give the armor a more functional and less decorative look. The city structures could have been made from polished stone instead of precious metals. It's postulated that advanced humanoids would seem like magic to viking-era humans, but this over the top. The Bifrost entrance is a strange dome fitted with what can only be described as a spinning cannon that "shoots" travelers to their destination. I can't give you a much better alternative, but putting that much "technology" into something that should be mystic is superfluous.

My other problem, while understandably difficult to execute, is the occasional appearance of Thor's human alter-ego(s). In the film, Thor is 100% god, which creates room for a culture shock when he is banished to Midgard (you humans know it as Earth). In the comics, Thor occasionally shares his existence with a human alter-ego, whether it be Dr. Donald Blake (mentioned in the film) and Jake Olsen. The beauty of having an alter-ego is that it introduces a flaw and vulnerability in Thor's character, but also perspective to understand the suffering of the mortal realm. It's a great dichotomy that you don't even see in traditional superheroes like Spider-Man and Superman who just have one consciousness. I know that it would have been difficult to pull off in a single film and would likely be as successful in execution as Venom in Spider-Man 3, but hopefully they try to introduce it the future, whether that be in The Avengers or any Thor sequel.

Thor saw some controversy when it was revealed that black actor Idris Elba would be playing Heimdall, the guardian of the Bifrost Bridge. Conservative Christians (wait for it) were outraged that a black actor was playing a fictional adaptation of a Norse god in a comic book movie. Obviously, everyone is allowed to be mad at anything, but given how little significance Heimall has in the film, there's really nothing to worry about. He's obviously an important character, but this film makes a clear distinction between major characters and everyone else; Heimdall doesn't fit into that first list.

Tom Hiddleston gave us a fairly good Loki, playing it surprisingly straight as a god of mischief that doesn't laugh or barely crack a smile. I was curious if they were going to explore his origins and they did fairly well. He definitely has the most conflict of any of the characters, which almost begins to make us more sympathetic towards him than Thor. It's clear that he wants to manipulate his way to power, but it's hard to tell how far he's though his plan through. I would have loved to see him get absolutely hysterical during his transformations, but his calm demeanor puts in the Doctor Doom category of villain.

As a narrative, there are a lot of missing opportunities to explain characters and setting to the audience. Ancillary characters are often not referred to by name and other Norse words are even mocked by the film's token dumb character Darcy ("meow meow?"). Knowing that many of the proper nouns in the film are in a foreign language that is hard for English speakers, it's going to rank high on the "description instead of actual name" scale. I hate it when people describe a character as "the bad guy" or "Thor's brother" and even though there are difficult names, the creative team could have found ways of making names stick in the audience's head. The only real hard word is "Mjolnir" and even that doesn't need to be mentioned. Assuming that The Avengers won't involve much of Asgard and its inhabitants short of Thor and Loki, it's not a loss that we don't have time to connect to the Warriors Three, Sif, or even Odin.

From a cinematic perspective, I found that many of the scenes were shot at a slight disorienting angle and Asgard scenes often exhibited a noticeable amount of lens flare (we'll measure that as 0.4 Abrams). It was inconsistent and only felt as only a way to increase suspense during unsuspenseful moments. The CGI seemed lacking in some cases, particularly weather/particle effects where there was a lot of swirling dust. The effects just seemed unfinished and unrefined compared to the overall polish of the film. Of course, it wouldn't be a summer blockbuster if it weren't in 3D. Unfortunately, it's a post-production conversion that succeeds and fails in various regards. I saw it in 2D because I'm a traditionalist who appreciates the film more than the gimmicks. Luckily, the folks at Cinemablend have put some effort into helping you decide if 3D is right for you in this case as well as reviewing both versions independently. I don't feel like I missed out on anything.

Thor and Donald BlakeDoes Thor live up to the hype and pave the way for a successful Avengers film? Between the goofy dialogue and clunky structure, Thor felt like a bad sci-fi movie mixed with Power Rangers action. It's certainly entertaining and established several plot connections to not only The Avengers, but Captain America as well. It's structured well, but Kenneth Branagh isn't a master of sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters. However, Thor won't have the support of the Asgard environment in The Avengers to contextually fit him in on his own, so hopefully bringing him back to Earth will mean assimilating him into human culture. Although much of the Avengers-themed films have shown more references to the Ultimate Universe than Mainstream, it looks like we're getting a traditional Thor, full of hubris and hormones. It's definitely got something for all audiences (except old people) and is even more suited towards non-nerds. I've gotten a lot of "I'm not really into Thor or comics in general" responses from people who are neglecting that even though most people don't read comics, Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman films have been some of the most successful films of the past decade. If anything, these films are getting more people into comics, albeit as a fad. The less you know about Thor, the better. You won't nitpick things like I do and you'll probably enjoy the Hollywood-ness more. It's worth seeing, but with rising theater costs, maybe a matinée.

SPOILERS

One cameo I didn't expect was SHIELD sharpshooter Clint Barton preparing to take out Thor during his attempt to reclaim Mjolnir. It was slowly and effectively revealed who he was, giving nerds an opportunity to be pleasantly surprised when the then-unidentified agent was passing up firearms for a compound bow. Coulson later refers to him by his given name, so no confirmation that he's already part of the Avengers Initiative. Aside from that, you have to love Stan Lee making his token appearance, this time as a local accidentally destroying a pickup truck while trying to pull the hammer from its place. One of my favorite writers, J. Michael Stracyznski, who carried Amazing Spider-Man for almost 8 years and successfully revived Thor from Ragnarok, made an appearance, but I missed it.

As with all the Avengers-themed films, there is a post-credits scene, this time showing Erik Selvig (actor Stellan Skarsgård) navigating a secret lab and encountering Nick Fury (awesome how Sam Jackson is getting paid to show up in 5 minute scenes that most people will never see). I honestly don't know why Selvig is in this other than his in-film knowledge of SHIELD and it's either him or Darcy, but Fury shows him a relic they've found - the Cosmic Cube, following which we see a reflection of Loki in a mirror influencing Selvig's dialogue. I'm sorry, nerdy man-couple behind us in the theater, it's not the Infinity Gauntlet. A clear cube does not a glove make. However, you're probably wondering how the Cosmic Cube fits into this. Last year at Comic Con, we saw footage from Captain America showing Red Skull raiding a Norse tomb specifically seeking the Cube, only to find a fake. Obviously Thor and Captain America are coming in as a pair to further develop the upcoming Avengers film, presumably with Loki and the Cosmic Cube factoring in. There's already been one confirmed script leak from The Avengers, which is resulting in re-writes and claims that someone has details on some major spoilers.

An adaptation of 1998 French film (and originally a play), Dinner For Schmucks is an awkwardly bad comedy poking fun of the stupid people that unfortunately share this planet with us. Tim Conrad is fighting for a promotion, but the boss uses a specific method to weed out dedicated applicants - a dinner, a competition in which each guest brings along complete imbecile and they watch the madness unfold. Whoever brings the stupidest, craziest person wins. Tim runs into Barry Speck (literally), and discovers that Barry has the (hopefully) uncommon hobby of taxiderming mice and creating artistic diaroamas with them. Tim sees it as a message from God (or a chicken, depending on the metaphor) and immediately invites him to the dinner, against the wishes of his fiancee. With the help of Barry, Tim saves his relationship and makes the most unusual friend.

The film asks the question of how far you would go for a promotion, while enjoying the "pleasure to laugh at the misfortune of others." Unbeknownst to the characters in the film, the misfortune is actually ours. Too bad they can't enjoy our misery. I'd like to say that the one redeeming quality is Zach Galifianakis, but his performance as a crazy person is surprisingly underwhelming. Compared to The Hangover and Due Date, his character Therman leaves much to be desired. Additional guest stars include Jemaine Clement and Ron Livingston, but even the intentional outrageousness of their characters fails to impress.

To be fair, Paul Rudd is a great straight man. In a world of buffoons, he keeps us holding onto the world as it spins out of control. In contrast to his seriousness, the comedic performances certainly are funny

As uncommon as this type of dinner probably is, I'd like to think that if I was in Tim's position, I'd certainly exploit a group of eccentrics for the dinner entertainment, let alone the promotion. I feel like I should have learned some crucial moral lesson here about respecting others, but it's just not there.

Dinner For Schmucks? More like Movie For Schmucks.

It was just a game, but not anymore. 28 years ago, even before I was born, Disney amazed the world with a film so visually unique, that its influence still reaches the present. A film that I easily describe as "The Matrix 20 years before its time", Tron has become one of my favorite films of all time. At Comic Con 2008, Hall H attendees were treated to a surprise concept video depicting a light-cycle battle on the Grid. At that point, we realized that Disney was making a new Tron film. SDCC 2009 showed the same footage, at which point, we started getting worried that no progress was being made. However, the massive PR machine started rolling in 2010, with extensive footage, cast appearances and life size lightcycle replicas everywhere. Now, finally, Tron: Legacy is finally here.

For someone who sees so many movies, I admit that I don't have much exposure to IMAX and/or 3D cinema. I've only seen Coraline in RealD, and no IMAX ever. I saw the IMAX 3D version of Tron: Legacy, so this review is based on my experience. Not that it matters much in this review, but glasses have to go. These ridiculously large glasses that use linear polarization are really no better than circularly polarized ones used in RealD, so I guess the only need for such large specs is to match the larger IMAX screen size. That doesn't excuse the fact that glasses are still cumbersome for people with actual glasses and you really have to be in an optimum seat area for the picture to look great and not totally whacked out. We saw a trailer for Born to Be Wild 3D, which contained some shots that were not projected correctly, resulting in a headache-inducing image. But that has nothing to do with this film, just a rant on 3D films. For the record, this is a post-conversion 3D film. It was not shot in 3D, the effect was added in post-production and is the most common way of producing 3D films right now. Regardless of how neat it is, it's a gigantic waste. For an insider's perspective as to why 3D is still just a fad that doesn't do much for the audience, check out this testimonial from Gizmodo.

Speaking of rants, one of my pet peeves is not experiencing things in order. In line for the film, several teens were behind me talking about the original. In this case, how they haven't seen the original. One even admitted to just reading the Wikipedia article on Tron before coming. How unappreciative of people to show up at a sequel, and not only skip the original, but publicly admit it. Sure, there are cases where sequence doesn't matter, but this isn't Troll 2. You do not watch series out of order. This is not a buffet, it's a fancy meal. You watch the original. You appreciate the source material. Frankly, my dear, you give a damn.

Now, to the feature presentation. Tron: Legacy picks up 25 years after the original, giving us some background info on what happened to Kevin Flynn and ENCOM after his victory over the MCP and Dillinger. Flynn became a rich tech celebrity, had a family, then disappeared. In his absence, ENCOM becomes another corrupt empire of greed. On the anniversary of his father's disappearance, Flynn's son Sam infiltrates the company that he essentially owns, steals the company's newest product, and releases it on the Internet for free. After this superfluous overly action-oriented exposition, old friend Alan Bradley tells Sam to swing by the old arcade for clues about his father's disappearance. Sure enough, Flynn was keeping secrets the entire time. Much like his father's experience, Sam is transported into cyberspace, The Grid, the virtual representation of digital communication. Sam, seen as a rogue program, is sent to the games to compete to the death, where it's discovered that he's actually a user, and not just any user. At that point, it's a journey to find his father, reconcile their differences, and defeat the evil that Flynn created.

Jeff Bridges portrays two characters in this sequel. One, he's still Kevin Flynn, and older, wiser Kevin Flynn, who has spent the past 20 years trapped in cyberspace, hiding in exile. He created The Grid, at least this incarnation (as opposed to the original), designing it with the help of Alan. In flashbacks, you can see how he treated his creation with doey eyed amazement and naitive. Years later, he's become the man in the iron mask, locked away with nothing but philosophy books and an apprentice, Quorra. His '80s "surfer mentality" has evolved into a zen-like hippie, who spends all his time meditating. At first glance, I'd almost say that it's a fan service homage to Bridges's unfortunately famous role as "The Dude". Even though, in hindsight, Flynn was always, shall we say, "open minded", and this was just a development of that given his disconnect with the real world, I know that unrefined film goers will just see him as "The Dude in Tron". Additionally, Bridges plays Clu (technically Clu 2.0), Flynn's digital avatar that he created to run the show while we was home. Flynn used a part of himself to create an accurate representation, but it eventually corrupted into an evil dictator bent on domination.

Flynn's apprentice Quorra is a program played by Olivia Wilde. I'd say she's the eye-candy of the show, but the short sequence of four hot women beats out Wilde's entire presence. Flynn takes her under his wing to teach her of the real world, providing rich literature and promises of actually taking her with him. She's naive and unsure of herself, revering Flynn as not just a teacher, but the only source of enrichment in her life. It's strange seeing Wilde as someone not as confident as her House counterpart. I compare her to Farscape's Chianna in almost every way. Much like the other characters, Quorra serves more as a plot device than participant, making her unsympathetic and essentially disposable.

That leaves me at supposed star Garret Hedlund, who plays Sam Flynn. Given that he shares the screen with the established star role of Jeff Bridges and the alluring Olivia Wilde, who really cares about this guy? His limited filmography consists of minor roles in major films or major roles in minor films, so he hasn't seen the spotlight much. This is his biggest role and I didn't know his name walking in or out of the theater. He will forever be known as "the guy who played Sam Flynn". Given his unremarkable performance, being outshined by not one, but two Jeff Bridges and lots of hot girls, I don't see this skyrocketing his career. It's unfortunate, but it's evidence that the Tron franchise will always revolve around Jeff Bridges.

Possibly one of the only aspect of the film to be universally appreciated is the music. The entire film is scored by famous electro duo Daft Punk. It was a natural choice and in hindsight, there's really no other way to imagine the sound of the Tron universe. I've been through the soundtrack several times before seeing the film, so I knew what to expect. It's mostly a common theme with thematic variations, accented by the one unique fight song, "Derezzed". It's not Daft Punk's greatest work, but it's definitely one of the most memorable soundtracks of the year.

The millionaire playboy and heir to Kevin Flynn's throne at ENCOM couldn't have been more unbelievable. He's introduced as a spitting image of the old man, hacking "one big door" to wreak havoc on the company. But instead of a passive-aggressive rogue, he's a thrill-seeking daredevil, base jumping off the rooftop, only to escape to his shipping container home on the river. He's rash and reckless, only putting thought into his mischief, a result of losing his mother and eventually father. There's clearly father-son abandonment issues, and not just between Kevin and Sam. In a way, Kevin Flynn has two sons: Sam and Clu. Sam developed into a selfish brat who inherited his father's throne in the real world. Clu developed into a dictator who overthrows his father in the virtual world. They're both angry at Flynn and it takes reconciliation to overcome that. Given that Flynn creates his own world, with a piece of himself to facilitate his rule, he is very much God in this story. It may seem farfetched, but it's actually quite easy to pull a large chunk of Christian theology from this fantasy. Then again, The Bible's the greatest Sci-Fi story ever told.

Just to warn you, this is where the spoilers start. It's sometimes difficult to remember that anyone other than Kevin Flynn mattered in the original film. But the film isn't called Flynn, it's Tron for a reason. As we know, Tron was Alan Bradley's program that helped Flynn defeat the Master Control Program. For all intents and purposes, he lives happily ever after with the other programs. However, Clu's machinations to repurpose programs as soldiers results in Tron becoming Rinzler, Clu's gladiator champion and personal mercenary. It takes Flynn to realize it, but he doesn't seem too torn about it. Maybe it's his zen thing, but there's no expression of their camaraderie and I really don't feel bad. It takes the entire story for Tron to fight his way out of the brainwashing and, wait for it, fight for the users. I don't want to give the wrong impression - it's great that Alan Bradley and Tron are in the film and play important roles. But I didn't connect with either and found them to be more plot point than character. It's a shame, really, that the film's namesake still take a backseat to "Hot chick #2" (not a real character), but I guess something is better than nothing.

Wait, I take that back. The ending disproves that last argument, as Sam says farewell to Alan and rides off with Quorra. It's so anti-climactic and disappointing, I felt like I should have left two minutes earlier. Endings are tricky, and the it got the better of them in this case. We could have just stopped at Flynn "reintegrating" and Sam/Quorra escaping into the light. Put in a neat, Matrix-like effect of traveling through cyberspace with a monologue to echo the introduction, but leave it completely ambiguous. We know that Sam changed for the better, losing his selfishness and wanting to do his father right, but turning on the Flynn's Arcade sign and zooming away is halfway between "not enough" and "just right". He instead agrees to start participating in ENCOM's business and name Alan Chairman of the Board. How is that more important than revitalizing the arcade? I can think of so many more rewarding endings that balance closure and nostalgia, but riding off into the sunset is unacceptable.

That brings me to another reason why people need to go to Comic Con at least once. Watching through the credits, I noticed that the attendees of SDCC 2010 were thanked. Why's that? Because this year, during the Hall H panel, they recorded sounds from the 5,000+ people in the room chanting to use in for the disc wars crowd. Call it superfluous fan service to milk more money out of the audience, but I can only imagine what I missed out on that day. Note to self: sacrifice all time at SDCC to be in Hall H all day, every day.

In the end, Tron: Legacy is just a fan service. Disney, realizing its absence in a major revenue generating market, decided to revive some old IP and cross some generational gaps to milk this cow. Adults, teens and kids can all get on board what is essentially an amusement park ride with shiny lights. To recoup the losses of such a drawn out and expensive production, we have to give it a post-conversion 3D and send it to IMAX so people will pay an outrageous amount of money for 2 hours of entertainment. It's fun, I'll say that. It's a fun ride and even has some material to analyze, but it ultimately fails my "good movie test". If you couldn't watch the film and explain to someone what it's about (not what happened, what it's about), then it's not a good film. Film's are stories, remember. You want a video with no story, go to YouTube. (Good) Screenwriters put an ungodly amount of effort constructing effective stories that have meaning and impact the audience in some way. Much like The Matrix sequels (the original was actually quite rich), Tron: Legacy is spectacle. I enjoyed it and I'm glad I saw it in IMAX 3D. It will make a great Blu-ray (for enthusiasts; there ought to be tons of supplemental material). I'm just a little disenfranchised that Disney, a studio that has a history of great cinema, emphasized commercial success instead of critical success. It can definitively be said that there should be no sequels and the franchise should end now.

END OF LINE

First, I really enjoyed the movie and would see it again. It was very different from the previous movies. Beyond the obvious that this is the only book to be split into two films (can anyone hear Warner Brothers milking the proverbial cash cow?), what struck me and my wife about this is the lack of magic. Sure, there was a bit at the start, and there was a good showdown towards the end, but there was quite a bit of the story where magic took a back seat. What I think we pinned it down to is no Hogwarts. We missed the magical setting of the castle.

A large part of the story involves our three heroes hiking through wilderness and sleeping in a tent. This may sound bad, but it wasn't for me - just different, not bad. What that did was really force me to pay attention to the story, the acting, the facial expressions of Hermione when she's struggling with her feelings for Ron, etc. It was actually a nice change of pace. Having said that, I'm not convinced they needed to split this into two parts, but I'm reserving my judgement until I see the final movie next year.

So, what do you think about the treatmet of HPatDH? Do you like that they split the book into two films? Have you seen Part 1, yet? If so, did the relative lack of magical settings improve or detract for your opinion of the film? Oh, and I'll throw this out there - anyone else assuming they will release some type of 3D treatment for this movie? Just about everyone in the theater reacted to some of the scenes with Nagini as if they were 3D.

Post your comments below!

Now, one year later, the studio that brought you that gem brings you another - without the creative team behind the original. Oren Peli, director of the original, never intended to make a sequel, but agreed to help produce the film.

In this "prequel/sequel" (it takes place before, during and after the original), the San Diego PD once again thanks the family of the deceased for publishing this lost footage, this time involving Katie's younger sister Kristi, who is a new mom. When Kristi and Dan bring home their newborn baby, they - along with Dan's teen daughter Ali - find their new home in shambles. Traumatized, they install a multi-camera security system in the house to monitor everything. How convenient! With that, the family begins to notice that it was not burglars that terrorize them, but a... paranormal entity! Naturally, the activity increases and culminates with picking up right after the original's ending.

What gives this film "more" than the original is exactly that - more everything. We go from a single camera to multi-camera. Two people to three people, a baby (they're not people) and a dog (also not people). More night montages. More moving objects. MOAR PARANORMAL ACTIVITY! What you should know is that if less is more, more is way too much. PA2 ramps up everything to the extreme to the point where it's comical. To be fair,

While I found that some Hollywood folks enjoyed the construction of the film, they couldn't avoid the inevitable audience reaction: hysteria. Somehow, this franchise has garnered the audience participation frequently attributed to Rocky Horror Picture Show, with people randomly providing commentary. For a movie that was advertised using footage of the audience freaking out, something went downhill with just one sequel.

Unfortunately for the sanctity of preserving originality, it appears that a third installment is on the way, to say nothing of the Japanese "parallel sequel" that has yet to reach our borders.

The narrative follows Helena, the daughter of a couple that owns and performs in a traveling circus. Understandably, their lifestyle isn't quite normal, leaving Helena ironically wishing she could escape and run away to real life, which wouldn't be able to handle her. Despite her desire to experience "real life", she lives out her fantasies in her art collage spanning her wall. She has created an entire city of flying fish, domestic sphinxes and talking boot people.

When her mother falls ill, following an argument akin to Obi-Wan joking that Anakin will "be the death of [him]", Helena finds herself in her own dreamland, escaping the troubles and worries that go with family and responsibility, but entering a world with much of the same. She is mistaken for "the Princess", the daughter of the evil Queen who used the Mirrormask to trick the good King and Queen, then escaped to Helena's world, leaving her native world in discord. Helena must fight her way through the good and evil forces, find the Mirrormask and return everything to its rightful place. Seems simple enough, except when the conflicting forces are part of your own psyche.

Now, not all the credit goes to Neil Gaiman. This heavily visual film is actually directed by and adapted from the illustrations of Dave McKean, who often provides the art for Gaiman's work. I should note that it's actually a Jim Henson production, which definitely fits it in to the Dark Crystal and Labyrinth genre. The photography and cinematography are mesmerizing, albeit dark in brightness and often hard to see in a well lit environment. You can't be distracted during this movie. Watching it in the indy theater back at school, it was a beautiful, immersive experience. Unfortunately, watching it at home, trying to extract the audio/video quality of the Blu-ray out of my 24" HDTV and 2.0 speaker configuration while the lights were on and I was doing laundry, left me missing out on much of the film's beauty. Sure, it was mostly my fault, but I really need the equipment to appreciate Mirromask again.

The one caveat I would give is that the pace and editing leave the story rather rushed. It's quite possibly because it's just "how the English do things", but American audiences might feel the lack of transition between scenes and even acts. It's not terrible, but given how short the film is and how fast it can feel, I would vote for an extended version that adds on another half hour, just to flesh out the pace and give us more to digest.

I won't lie and say this isn't basically just a retelling of The Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland, but it's definitely got a more contemporary tone. Instead of a girl who is just bored with her mundane life who wants to escape to something more fantastic, Helena leads a life that is too unstable for her wishes and somehow slips into a world even more bizarre. She's joined by the masked Valentine, who is a self-proclaimed very important man, although he commands very little respect in others. He's Helena's Tin Man, Cowardly Lion and Scarecrow wrapped into one, a jovial Irish juggler whose only wish is to be appreciated. He's confident in his character, as "Valentines never apologize". He definitely adds the momentum necessary to push Helena through her adventure, but there's still very little to him as a person, just his character.

I can't forget to mention Josephine Cronholm's spellbinding cover of Burt Bacharach's "Close to You" that involves a mechanical-doll dressing room, powered by an authentically uneven wind-up motor that affects the tempo of the music. It's wonderfully soothing and deserves more of a presence throughout the film, which is mostly scored with Jazz saxophone and bass.

Much like the related stories mentioned, it's all metaphor and allegory. Unlike typical Disney featuers that star a female protagonist who sufers from "damsel in distress" issues, Helena is a strong and capable young woman. Not that I know anything about female adolescence, but I'd say this is a good companion to that demographic, but there's plenty for everyone to enjoy. Lastly, this is the only film I've ever watched that literally ends on a "LOL WUT" moment. Bravo.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know that this is definitely not a documentary and/or biopic. It's a completely fictional story about alien abductions, and not very good ones at that.

Mila Jovovich opens as herself and attempts to convince the audience that everything they are about to witness is either real or adaptations of real events. The entire film is a blend of known actors portraying roles and acting out what appears to be a narrative, with spliced in "real footage" from patient interviews and cop car cameras. The real footage adds captions, strange sound effects and even manufactured distortion to make it seem like something (extraterrestrial) is interfering with the recording. Dr. Abigail Tyler (Jovovich) interviews psychiatric patients who display symptoms of "alien abduction", the fourth kind of close encounters, while being part of the mystery herself. The patients recall vivid dreams, scream in horror and even channel alien voices under hypnosis - luckily on camera, otherwise we wouldn't believe it.

Where the movie really goes wrong is that it's not even a narrative. It's not a documentary. It's not a biopic. It's not even a fraction of these things. Writer/director Olatunde Osunsanmi must have had his own encounter with craziness to believe that this was a good idea. The whole thing occurs in Alaska, where no one is going to look up the so-called "documented" cases of alien encounters. The names were changed from the original victims, but making it Alaska inserts a futility that would not be felt if it was encounters in New York City.

Within the first third of the movie, one of Dr. Tyler's patients holds his family at gunpoint and commits murder/suicide, visualized with a mix of re-enactment, actual footage and Dr. Tyler's perspective, all in a 24-esque split screen. This unique, albeit confusing style, is never repeated in the movie, which makes it horribly inconsistent. It's downright difficult to call it a movie because it has no structure. At some point, Tyler pieces together that the alien language spoken by patients is actually ancient Sumerian, which hints at an alien presence on Earth 8,000 years ago. It's very Stargate in that it wants to imply an alien presence in ancient cultures, but does it at the level of a bad History-channel documentary.

I'm truly sorry that I actually watched this twice. It's an awful movie that has nothing going for it besides some slightly disturbing "real" interviews. This is not how you get people interested in close encounters again. If this is any attempt to garner attraction to this pseudo-science, much like ghost EVPs did after all those TV shows and movies, then Olatunde Osunsanmi should have taken either a cinematic or documentary approach, not both. It infringes on my enjoyment of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and will never see the light of day again. Good night, you piece of trash film.