Reviews

WHAT'S BEAUTY AND THE BEAST ABOUT?

Disney updates their 1991 animated classic about a bookish beauty who falls for a monstrous beast.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: B+)

It won't be nominated for Best Picture like the original, but what this new Beauty and the Beast does right makes up for its flaws. Lets get the latter out of the way. Emma Watson struggles a bit out of the gate; she seems to have a decent voice, but director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) is unwilling for us to hear any flaws and she's noticeably auto- tuned. Watson shines in subtler, more intimate moments of kindness and affection, so she's great whenever she's interacting with her father, falling for Beast, or bonding with the castle furniture/servants. She's no Julie Andrews, however, and her solo musical monologing leaves something to be desired.

The film also sticks a little too closely to the 1991 film, fearful to establish itself as something unique as did 2015's fantastic Cinderella. Swaths of dialogue and musical cues are lifted wholesale and this version can only suffer in comparison to a bona fide classic.

What works? Almost everything else. Like I said, Watson does fine work in many parts of the film. Even though this movie copies the original in many respects, it usually does a decent job of it. I found myself most enchanted, however whenever it went "off book" and did something new, such as integrating less-familiar songs from the stage musical, offering some gorgeous brand-new tracks, patching up plot holes, and providing well-conceptualized backstories to both Belle and Beast that effectively deepen their bond and develop them as characters.

The cast is excellent. Dan Steven's Beast is magnetic; while the motion-capture animation is occasionally less-than convincing, the performance is nearly flawless and rich with emotion. Kevin Kline's Maurice is less of a crackpot and more of a steady, loving father here; his relationship with Belle is very moving. Luke Evans proves an inspired choice for Gaston; not burly and moronic like his animated counterpart, here he's more of an intelligent narcissist trying to keep his darker nature in check, making his ultimate failure all the more chilling.

Josh Gad's LaFou is much more sympathetic here than he was in the 1991 film, loyal to Gaston but nagged by an ever-growing conscience. The castle servants were a highlight for me; when you have actors like Emma Thompson, Ian McKellin, Ewan McGregor, Audra McDonald, and Stanley Tucci you really can't go wrong.

Visually the film is a wonder. The music is generally fantastic. This new film is sure to delight fans of the story and win over a new generation. I'd not be surprised if repeat viewings cause me to warm to it even more. It only suffers in direct comparison to the original, but as a standalone it satisfies.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS?

Beauty and the Beast is rated PG. There are some intense and frightening moments in which wolves menace various people and attack Beast. Speaking of the titular love monster, he is frightening and intimidating in several scenes. A man punches another man unconscious and leaves him for dead. A character is shown to be dying of disease. Beast is shot by Gaston several times and hit in the head with a stone fixture. Characters drink alcohol in a tavern. Before being turned into Beast, the prince is shown leering over several maidens at a dance. As for the so-called "gay controversy," it's much ado about nothing. LaFou is portrayed as effeminate. The opera singer chest of drawers attacks three men, dressing them in women's clothing; two are mortified, one comically enjoys it. Later, while rotating dancing partners LaFou bumps into that man (who's no longer dressed as a woman) and they smile at each other. That's it.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES

Only through accountability, humility, and contrition can we change our natures. Do not judge based on outward appearance; rather, consider a person's character. It's never too late to do the right thing.

WHAT IS AMISH GRACE ABOUT?

Tells the story of the 2006 massacre of Amish schoolchildren by a mentally unstable gunman, that religious community's subsequent forgiveness of the murderer, and their outreach to his widow.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: B)

Despite its status as a Lifetime movie and criticisms that it takes artistic liberties with actual events, Amish Grace emerges as a poignant and inspiring little movie. Due largely to acting and screen writing that are far better than expected, the film transcends its made-for-TV cinematography, editing, and musical score.

It's true, some of the peripheral characters aren't well-developed and come across as caricatures, but the lead performances by Kimberly Williams-Paisley (Father of the Bride), Matt Letscher (The Mask of Zorro), Tammy Blanchard (Bella), and Amy Sloan (The Day After Tomorrow) are all captivating, each giving wholly credible explorations of pain, loss, redemption, and healing. The screenplay intelligently makes a case for forgiveness, love, and faith without any trace of condescension or criticism. The paradox of the Amish shunning those who've left their faith while forgiving the greater sin of murder is brought up, but sadly left unexplored; still, this is a minor issue for a film this well-performed and moving.

Historical fiction has always created characters who are composites of actual people in order to streamline the narrative. Films like Titanic and Glory have done this to memorable effect, but rarely has this been attempted with events that are so recent. One may question the choice to focus on a fictional couple rather than actual people whose stories are certainly inspiring. However, by having protagonists who struggle and doubt more than the almost superhuman real-life Amish seemed to, the filmmakers have given the audience someone to relate to. Amish Grace, therefore, should be taken as very good historical fiction, not as history itself, though it will hopefully motivate viewers to learn more about the actual events.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? Amish Grace was rated TV-PG. It tastefully addresses the true story of the massacre of Amish schoolchildren by a mentally unstable gunman. The shootings occur off-screen and though the characters see the bodies, the audience does not. Though it contains nothing offensive and is appropriate for families, the film is thematically intense as it deals with the emotional and spiritual aftermath of murder, so parents be aware and ready to discuss the story with mature children.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? Forgiveness doesn't mean condoning wrong actions or letting someone escape consequences, it means letting go of bitterness and hate. You can find peace in loving those who've wronged you.

HEREAFTER Family Movie Review jonathan September 22, 2010 Drama No Comments

By Jonathan Decker (Family therapist, film critic)

REVIEW (GRADE: D+) A rare double-misfire by director Clint Eastwood and star Matt Damon, Hereafter opens with one of the most gripping scenes I've ever witnessed: a tsunami sweeps through a resort town, with buildings, cars, and people swept up in a massive tidal wave. Initially similar to scenes in various disaster films, Eastwood shows his talent as a director when he scales down from massive special-effects- driven destruction and follows one person as she struggles for life against the current and debris. It's a harrowing, realistic scene, effectively opening with a bang a film that sadly whimpers along for the rest of its running time. Essentially a feature-length promo for psychic mediums with a few blatantly anti- Christian overtones, Hereafter is flatly-written, sluggishly-paced, and dramatically unsatisfying. To their credit, the actors do the best they can with the meandering script, and a few scenes are emotionally effective, but the end result is underwhelming and unfocused.

CONTENT OVERVIEW: Hereafter is rated PG-13. It contains intense, but not graphic, depictions of a natural disaster and a terrorist attack. There is a moderate amount of foul language, including one f-word. It is implied that a man and a woman are having a sexual relationship, and both are briefly scene in their underwear in a hotel room (it is morning and they are waking up/getting dressed).

MESSAGES TO DISCUSS: Do family relationships continue beyond the grave?

WHAT'S ROGUE ONE ABOUT? Disney's first Star Wars spin-off film (read: not a Skywalker "Episode") is part heist movie, part war film as Rebel forces steal the plans to the Death Star.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: A) At this point one can look at the Star Wars franchise as a series of individual films or as one giant story; I prefer the latter, as the connective tissue between prequels, excellent animated series, original trilogy, and new trilogy is part of what makes the saga so satisfying. Rogue One ties in to most of these in incredibly rewarding ways, but also serves up a unique story and characters, dazzling action and effects, and a moving arc about fighting to give others hope.

Gareth Edwards proves a wise choice for director, composer Michael Giacchino is a fine stand-in (but could never replace) John Williams, and the cast is terrific. Disney's emphasis on strong writing and acting is much appreciated, though I would have enjoyed a longer film if it had meant getting to know these characters better. Still the performers do strong work, with Felicity Jones providing an inspiring lead, Diego Luna nicely-layered, Alan Tudyk delivering wry comic relief as a reprogrammed Imperial robot, and martial arts superstar Donnie Yen giving us impressive moves and the film's best line. Forest Whitaker (as Clone Wars character Saw Gerrera), Mads Mikkelsen, and Ben Mendelsohn all shine.

Rogue One strengthens the story of A New Hope, patching up a few holes, and improves the prequels by association (much like the fantastic Clone Wars animated series does). You may know how the basic story ends, but the fates of the individual characters gives the film its heft. Casual moviegoers will have a great time; fans will be ecstatic. Don't miss it.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? Rogue One is rated PG-13. There is no language, drug use, or sexuality. There is plentiful action violence with persons and aliens killed by lazer blast, explosion, and debris. There are many intense moments and some heartbreaking deaths. Several of the protagonists are self-described shady characters who've done "awful things" but want to fight for a good cause. One scene near the end may be terrifying for small children (or they may love it; to say more would be to spoil it).

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? No matter what you've done in the past you can do the right thing now. Liberty and standing against oppression may require you to risk your life. There is no greater love than to die for a friend. Evil can only be overcome through unity.

WHAT'S PASSENGERS ABOUT? A man and woman wake up from cryo-sleep on a futuristic space flight decades before the other passengers.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: C+) On paper, talented and attractive Hollywood stars Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt should make for an ideal on screen romance. Indeed, one reason Passengers works as well as it does it their ability to elevate the material. Their chemistry suffers, however, from a under-cooked screenplay that hinges on deus ex- machina plot conveniences, laughable dialogue, and questionable ethics that give the romance a bit of a creepy vibe. Still, the visuals are phenomenal, the impressive sets alone are worth the price of a matinée, the stars are solid (Michael Sheen nearly steals the show as an android bartender), and the ending is emotionally-satisfying. Passengers is worth seeing if you're a fan of sci-fi, romance, or the actors, but it fails to meet its potential.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? Passengers is rated PG-13. It features one f-word and several moderate profanities. We see a man's naked rear end as he walks around a spaceship. A woman wears a revealing swimsuit. There's two sex scenes (one right after the other), one of which features obscured nudity. There are intense moments of peril.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? Lies and dishonesty always come to light and damage trust in relationships. Accountability and vulnerability draw people close. You may not control your circumstances, but you can control your response and attitude.

WHAT'S LA LA LAND ABOUT?

An aspiring actress and a struggling jazz musician fall in love and inspire each other artistically.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: A)

Featuring truly dazzling film-making and strong performances by Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, La La Land is an enchanting blend of modern and retro. Taking place in present-day Los Angeles, but made in the style of classic Hollywood musicals, it's a delight. The leads are merely passable as vocalists, but strong as actors and dancers. Their undeniable chemistry, combined with the sensibilities of writer-director Damien Chazelle (who places one foot in bittersweet reality and the other in whimsical fantasy) make for an unforgettable cinematic experience.

The songs, choreography, wardrobe, production design, editing, and cinematography are top-shelf. It could use a bit tighter pacing and the ending may divide some audiences (I thought it was beautiful), but this unconventional love story is a must-see.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS?

La La Land is rated PG-13. It has one f-word and a few moderate profanities, along with two vulgar hand gestures. Swimsuits and dresses reveal legs, abdomens, and mild cleavage (frankly it's no more revealing than what's shown in old Gene Kelly movies if you go back and re-watch them). There's some drinking at Hollywood parties. Some couples dance sensually in the background, but it's not raunchy or explicit. A man and woman kiss and live together; we see them cuddling fully clothed in bed. There is no sexuality.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES?

Be grateful for the people who inspire you. Pursue your dreams with tenacity and integrity. The direction your life takes hinges on the decisions you make; choose wisely. Surround yourself with people who believe in you but also hold you accountable.

The clever title is accompanied by a clever film. Director (and star) Dan Merchant's fair and thoughtful look at America's "culture wars" is Exhibit A for the case that documentaries can be as moving, funny, and entertaining (if not more so) than mainstream films.

Merchant, a Christian himself, sets out to examine the damage inflicted to the Savior's cause by those who profess belief, but practice hypocrisy and judgment instead of love and service. Equally important, he also investigates how belief in Christ motivates millions to do good and bring healing and hope to others.

Interviewing big names from both the right and the left, using archival footage of famous humanitarians and outspoken celebrities, conducting man-on-the-street interviews organizing a good-natured Family Feud- type contest between believers and secular humanists, and using humorous animation, Lord Save Us From Your Followers invites the viewer to look for the good in those who do not share their beliefs or values.

Lord, Save Us From Your Followers is an excellent film to watch with teens and up. Rated PG-13 for mild language and mature themes.

WHAT'S SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD ABOUT? A geek must battle his girlfriend's exes for her heart. Literally battles them.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: B) Director Edgar Wright has directed and co-written two of my all-time favorite comedies, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. The appeal of his work lies in both the originality of his direction (even the film editing is funny) and in the sharpness of his screenplays. His latest, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, represents a step up for Wright as a director, but sadly, it's also a step down for him as a screenwriter. In terms of visuals and sound, Scott Pilgrim is one of the most creative films of the past decade, and I don't mean merely in a "Wow, that CGI looks cool!" kind of way. The film-making itself is endlessly inventive as Wright blends the styles of comic books, video games, and rock n'roll into a charming love letter to geek culture.

Michael Cera (Arrested Development, Juno) successfully stretches a bit beyond playing the affable, clueless nice guy role he's made a career out of. Those elements are still there, but so is an edge of selfishness and, ultimately, growth. What's more, he impresses with speed, flexibility, and coordination in the film's many fight scenes. He also really plays the guitar in the musical scenes, impressively shredding it up.

The plot, as it is, finds amateur guitarist Scott Pilgrim having to battle the "seven evil exes" of his new girlfriend, who is quite literally the girl of his dreams (played by Live Free or Die Hard's Mary Elizabeth Winstead). In the mix are a gay roommate, an Asian high-school girlfriend (one of the film's highlights), a movie star (Captain America's Chris Evans), a super-powered Vegan (Superman Returns' Brandon Routh), a trail of broken hearts, and a battle of the bands. It's fun stuff, but a film this intentionally silly needs two things to blossom: more laughs and a shorter running time. Scott Pilgrim clocks in at nearly two hours; it should be about 20 minutes shorter, and the pacing lags in spots.

What's more, while the film is quite funny, it is neither as clever nor as packed with humor as Wright's previous movies. Too many jokes fall flat, perhaps because too many revolve around Scott's roommate and his sex life. I have no problem with sympathetic portrayals of LGBT characters, but the character isn't well-rounded. His sexuality gradually becomes his only defining characteristic. Also, Scott's relationship with the female lead goes from zero-chemistry awkwardness to physical intimacy without any transition in between. I know the film wasn't striving for realism, but even by movie standards, that was a stretch. Though there is entertainment and ingenuity to be found in Scott Pilgrim vs the World, there are also some flaws and, depending on your tastes, potentially offensive content.

By Jonathan Decker (Family therapist, film critic)

WHAT'S EAT PRAY LOVE ABOUT? A woman seeks to find herself through a year of traveling, meditation, and dining. Based on the novel of the same name.

IS IT ANY GOOD? Before Facebook, you may recall, one might sit through literal slide-shows (projected onto a sheet, for example) in order to experience a friend's vacation. This film feels like sitting through such an evening, if your friend were self-indulgent and a bit narcissistic, kept bringing up her broken marriage and her justifications for a fling during the slideshow, gabbed on and on about the wonderful people she met as if you knew them, and took way too long to show her admittedly scenic slides.

As someone who enjoys glimpses into world cultures/religions, good actors, and romance in general, I'll admit that there were a few moments that charmed, enlightened, and moved me. But this sluggishly-paced movie feels a good 45 minutes longer than its 2 hour and 15 minute running time. This is to say nothing of its repetitive narrative structure, general predictability, and disturbing core message: You can find peace through avoidance of accountability and by literally coming to see yourself as your own god. It's all about "love yourself" and "forgive yourself," which is fine, but the protagonist takes no responsibility for what she does to hurt other people early on. Julia Roberts is likable, but her character here mostly is not. This is not a film I'd revisit.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? Eat Pray Love is rated PG-13. It has a fair amount of foul language (including one use of the phrase "mother——," which I thought was only allowed in R-rated films), sexual innuendo, male rear nudity, and implications of adultery and other sex outside of marriage.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? It is not enough to life for self- fulfillment; one must live to benefit others. Take time to enjoy and savor life.

Striking a truly impressive balance between engaging the mind, the heart, and the heart rate, Inception is the first movie since The Dark Knight that I wanted to see again the very next day (no coincidence since they were made by the same person). It has been said that Hollywood relies too much on special effects to cover lazy storytelling; not so with Inception, where truly stunning visuals only supplement what you'll really be talking about: the story, what it means, how it moved you, and how shockingly original it is. I've never seen anything like it, either in concept or in narrative structure. Neither have I attended, in a long time, a film that gave my brain such a workout.

This is a movie that expects you to pay attention and make connections. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a heartbreaking performance, leading a cast of top-notch actors playing interesting characters in a film that appears to be a science-fiction action/heist caper (a rather unique concept in itself), but is actually about guilt, the desire for redemption, and the raw power of simple ideas. Director Christopher Nolan, as he did with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, takes something fantastic and paints it in realistic tones. This is what unbridled imagination, combined with intelligence, emotion, and talent looks like on film. It is mentally and emotionally challenging. It also has some terrific action (including a physics- bending fight sequence that is jaw-dropping) and is very creative in its use of cinematography, editing, and music. Though comparatively light on language, with no sexual material and action violence where physical harm is not what's at stake (you'll understand when you see it), Inception is nonetheless not recommended for anyone younger than teens due to its complexity and intense subject matter.

While there's plenty to say about this third (and apparently final) film in the groundbreaking Toy Story series, if you at all enjoy movies, you've likely seen it or are planning to see it. Toy Story 3 continues the franchise's tradition of telling stories that tap into the sense of wonder and imagination in adults and children alike. Like all of Pixar's movies, the characters, comedy, and storytelling brim with more ingenuity, wit, and heart than nearly anything else on the market. They don't just make great children's films or great family films, they make great films, period. Like last year's Up, Toy Story 3 explores poignant themes of aging and mortality while wowing audiences with thrilling adventure and humor that puts competitors to shame. It is as charming as the first two films, with the advantage of ten years' advancement in computer animation and a screenplay that is truly touching. Highly recommended for the whole family (except the youngest of children; our heroes are put in grave peril, which may frighten or disturb them).

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz star in this romantic action-comedy about an unfailingly polite (and somewhat crazy) spy and the girl next door he falls for. No matter your opinion on Tom Cruise, he is a hoot here as he spoofs his own "invincible action hero" screen image as well as his own eccentric real-life persona. In no other film has he made me laugh so hard. Diaz, for her part, evolves slowly from damsel-in-distress to a strong and courageous action heroine, and she is a surprisingly good comic and romantic foil for Cruise.

Their chemistry, terrific action sequences, and very funny dialogue carry the film over its rather formulaic plot, some slow patches, and wide gaps in the narrative. Knight and Day is a great date movie for those looking for a balance of laughs, thrills, and romance. Audiences should know that there is brief strong language, a couple of innuendos (and the stars briefly appear in swimwear), and a good deal of violence, though the tone of the latter is so over-the-top that it is clearly dark humor and parody of the ridiculousness of "invincible action-hero" movies. Still, those troubled by any of the above should look elsewhere.

As others have noted, this remake should actually be called The Kung-Fu Kid, as it revolves around the Chinese, not Japanese, martial art. I'm not sure what's more troubling: the implication that American audiences wouldn't respond to anything less than a brand name or the fact that it's true. Regardless, a film nobody asked for, or expected much from, surprised audiences with its quality, proving itself to be one of the best live-action family films of the past decade.

Jaden Smith (son of Will and Jada Pinkett Smith and subject of his father's hit song Just the Two of Us) continues to build on the impressive acting chops he displayed in The Pursuit of Happiness. Jackie Chan, who has long been one of my favorite action stars (based on his Hong Kong films, not his American ones) makes good on his stated intention to reinvent himself as a dramatic actor, showing a range of emotions (subtlety, warmth, and grief) that is truly impressive. There's a great deal of thought in the storytelling, as well as a complexity to the characters, that is missing from many family films today. The cinematography captures the lush beauty of China and messages about inter-cultural appreciation, self-discipline, and the abhorrence of misused violence, are well conveyed.

The film's weaknesses are far from fatal. Its two and a half hour running time causes it to drag ever so slightly (it could've lost 10-15 minutes for a better pace). Also, after spending an entire film distinguishing itself from the 1980's classic and standing as its own film, this new Karate Kid (SPOILER) stumbles slightly by essentially copying and pasting the ending from the original. This may be fine for those who've never seen the older movie, and for those who have it is still thrilling and the well-delivered, with terrific choreography. I just wish the film had continued with its own independence. That said, it's still a poignant, moving, and thrilling surprise.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? The Karate Kid is rated PG. One of the key messages of the film is that of nonviolence. This should be surprising only to those who don't know much about actual martial arts, which teach mental and physical self-discipline, being in harmony with nature and other people, appreciation of life, respect for others, and use of force only out of defense. In order to convey this message, the film contrasts it with violent bullying and the misuse of force. There is child-on-child (and one instance of adult-on-child) violence in this film which serves the purpose of deflating the "fighting is cool" notion some audience members may have. It is gritty and painful to watch, making the film not recommended for very young children who may either be frightened by it or attempt to imitate it. For older children, however, the message of nonviolence should be clear. There are a couple of uses of mild profanity by a child, but these are corrected by his teacher and explained to be disrespectful, so the child doesn't use them anymore. A 12-year old boy and girl share a kiss.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? Physical force should be used only in self-defense, never to attack and only with the goal of making peace with one's enemies, not punishing them. Respect and honor your parents.

WHAT'S THE A-TEAM ABOUT? Based on the hit 80's TV show of the same name, The A-Team finds a group of top-notch mercenaries working to clear their name from a wrongful charge and bring down the corrupt spies and military officials who put them in prison.

IS IT ANY GOOD? (GRADE: C) This is a film that had true potential: the casting is spot-on and the camaraderie between the actors in infectious. The first twenty minutes or so suggest that this film will be filled with laughs and inspired mayhem. Sadly, a boring story, second-rate special effects, ridiculous action sequences, and an uneven tone bog down the proceedings. Though there is some witty dialogue and the actors are clearly enjoying themselves, these positives only caused me to sigh at how much fun this film could have been.

IS IT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS? The A-Team is rated PG-13. Though it is implied that one character is a ladies' man, there is no sexuality and only a handful of moderate profanities. There is a good deal of action violence, however. One character smokes cigars throughout.

ANY WORTHWHILE MESSAGES? Though peace is the ideal, lethal force can be necessary when defending freedom and innocent lives. Though traitors betray others out of greed, the greatest love is to be willing to die for your friends.

Though fairly violent by Disney standards, Prince of Persia is nonetheless an agreeable fantasy adventure, recommended for families with older children and teenagers. Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, who also brought us the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Prince of Persia is not as good as the first film in that series, but superior to its sequels. It strikes a similar tone of comedy, romance, action, and supernatural fantasy, with Jake Gyllenhaal providing a dash of charm to go with his muscles and Gemma Arteron proving herself both lovely and graceful as a princess. Alfred Molina (Spiderman 2, Maverick, Raiders of the Lost Ark) is the best thing about the movie, stealing every scene he's in as an opportunistic sheik.

Think Aladdin meets Indiana Jones and you'll get an idea of the movie's tone. The action scenes are fantastic, the sets and clothing are exquisite. The story is…a typically middle-of-the road summer movie story, but it never bores. As for potentially objectionable content, this film is roughly comparable to the first Pirates movie, so one can use that as a gauge.

Much like the man it reveals, Covenant Communications' new documentary Stories From the Life of Porter Rockwell emerges with glaring imperfections but ultimately redeemed by things done right. Featuring insights and commentary by a variety of well-respected Latter-day Saint history scholars, the film attempts to strike a balanced portrayal of a man some called a murderer, others a hero.

This balance in viewpoints is ultimately the film's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. On the one hand, it is refreshing to have a variety of perspectives on this elusive historical figure. The fact that the film doesn't shy away from controversy or whitewash potential history about the man is commendable. On the other, by more or less allowing the audience to decide where they stand on Porter's character also means that the film doesn't paint a clear picture of who he was.

To be fair, it can be said that the film attempts, and mostly succeeds, at showing the whole man, with his strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices on display. The loyal friend of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was also a drunkard. The lawman dedicated to justice may have also had a leaning toward vengeance. A man of family, a man of God, a man of the bottle, a man of blood…which was he? Or was he all of them? The film takes no firm position, and to me this was both aggravating and gratifying. On two things, it seems, all of the scholars in the film agree: Porter loved Joseph, and Porter was an excellent marksman.

As for the film itself, Richard Purdy is perfectly cast as Rockwell. He possesses a gritty integrity that makes him perfect for the role. The other actors, however, are a mixed bag, in many cases not enough care was taken, either in the casting or in the wardrobe/makeup, to make them appear of the time period portrayed.

A young woman playing young Porter's wife, while likely a fine actress, looks very much like a BYU student wearing an 1800's dress, with modern hair and makeup. Likewise, scenes that are supposed to take place in Palmyra and Nauvoo look very much like Utah Valley, and I'm quite certain I saw modern housing in the background of one shot, pulling me out of the attempted re-creation. Once the Saints arrive in Utah, all of the locations are more authentic.

The cinematography is gorgeous to look at in many cases, and the musical score, while not what I would've expected, is memorable and well-utilized. For history buffs or those interested in learning more about this truly fascinating figure, the film is a recommended purchase. Also recommended is Richard Lloyd Dewey's meticulously researched book Porter Rockwell: A Biography.

Robert Downey Jr. reprises his star-making role from the first film, as a charmingly egotistical, but ultimately courageous superhero. The film has a terrific cast, some clever banter, and a handful of genuinely thrilling action sequences, but the story isn't as focused or compelling as that of the first film. It feels as if the filmmakers are trying too hard to win over the comparatively few fans of the comic books, but in doing so alienate, to an extent, the mainstream audience. That said, IRON MAN 2 works as an exciting summer blockbuster with wit and spectacle, but doesn't quite measure up to the original. Action violence abounds, and a few innuendos and scantily-clad females pop up as well.

If you've ever seen an LDS film that brought your soul to a higher plane, odds are T.C. Christensen had a hand in it. As a writer, director, producer, and cinematographer, he has helped add professional gloss, creative warmth, and spiritual sincerity to projects such as The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd, The Work and the Glory, Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration, The Touch of the Master's Hand, Gordon B. Hinckley: A Giant Among Men, The Mouth of Babes, Forever Strong, Emma Smith: My Story, Only a Stonecutter, and many more. After enjoying the spirit and truth of many "Mormon Movies," but not necessarily the quality of the filmmaking, I have come to expect that when Christensen's name is in the credits, I'm in for an artistic treat as well as a spiritual banquet.

This is certainly the case with his latest effort: Treasure in Heaven:The John Tanner Story. As he did with Only a Stonecutter, Christensen, as well as his talented cast and crew, has captured with wonderful detail the story of one of Mormon history's unsung heroes. As was also the case with Stonecutter, he does so in about twenty minutes: perfect for family home evenings with youth who have short attention spans.

John Tanner was a well-to-do New Yorker in the 1830's when a crippling illness, as well as a meeting with missionaries, affected his life and the church forever. To divulge any detail would be to rob the viewer of enjoying the story as it unfolds, so suffice to say that the tale is one of consecration and wholehearted dedication to the Lord as Tanner exercises faith in God's promises. Becoming a major hero for the Church, and much beloved by the Prophet Joseph, his tale carries a rich power in and of itself, a power fully realized in this screen adaptation.

The acting is very good. Nathan Mitchell, who has portrayed Joseph Smith for the better part of a decade, continues to impress as the prophet of the Restoration. Matthow Maddox and Shauna Thompson, respectively, portray John Tanner and his wife Elizabeth, and both do inspiring, realistic work. From the acting to the music, the cinematography, the creativity of the editing, and the screenplay, all are top-notch and effective.

All that said, this is not to say this is an epic masterpiece, and nor was it meant to be. It's a simple, faith-affirming tale, well- told. I watched the film once on my own for this review, and the next day shared it with my wife's family, who asked after viewing it: "Where do you find these little gems?" With the values of the world shifting slowly away from belief and righteousness, and with more and more emphasis placed on the media, I think it's important to use film,television, and music for godly ends, and to support those who magnify their creative talents to inspire testimony and faith.

But that's just me. You can always spend your dollar on empty bombastic drivel like Transformers 2. Ugh.

Now that's more like it! Last July, after I heralded Inception and Toy Story 3 as rescuing 2010 moviegoers from a year otherwise bereft of great storytelling, I received an email from a Dreamworks animator pointing me in the direction of How to Train Your Dragon. Word of mouth had been positive, but I had yet to check it out. Dreamworks Animation (Shrek, Over the Hedge, Monsters vs. Aliens) is known for targeting the funny bone of children and adults alike, but with the exception of Kung-Fu Panda, making films with heart and a spirit of adventure to match the humor hasn't seemed to be their priority.

With How to Train Your Dragon, however, Dreamworks has raised their standard, making the race for Best Animated Feature at this year's Oscars much more interesting. Combining truly stunning visuals with well-rounded characters, Dragon doesn't insult the intelligence of young viewers. It is moving and uplifting, thrilling and funny, and uses its fantasy story to explore profound themes of prejudice, searching for personal identity, and longing for acceptance by a parent. If this sounds heavy, don't worry: you'll have a great time, and the action is pretty terrific. Listen for a great turn by Gerard Butler as a Viking father.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic crime-solver has been portrayed on film more than any other literary figure. The new version, starring Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson, has marketed the sleuth as an action hero instead of an intellectual. To my pleasant surprise, the film itself is true to its source material and Holmes' legendary mind is front and center in the narrative. The recreation of turn-of-the-century London is exquisite in its detail and the story builds steam as it goes on (indeed, I found myself enjoying it more and more as it progressed).

Downey, an American, flawlessly portrays the British lead, while Law's Watson is portrayed as less of a sidekick and more of a partner. The two have fantastic buddy chemistry, and their good- natured bickering is a delight. Parents should be aware that this PG-13 film, while very light on offensive language and sexuality (a woman's bare back is seen, as is a man's bare chest in a different scene, and there is one innuendo) does have a good deal of action violence and some blood. Also, the storyline involves the occult, which is displayed as evil and to be combated, but its portrayal may still make some uncomfortable. Sherlock Holmes comes recommended to those who enjoy action films with substance.

When the filmmaker behind the highest-grossing film of all-time takes twelve years off to develop his next film, the bar is set pretty high. Titanic's Jim Cameron set out to revolutionize movies with immersive 3-D technology which promised to be unlike anything audiences had ever seen. Since its release, Avatar has drawn enormous crowds; word-of-mouth and repeat viewings have lead, within a mere twenty days, to its claiming the title of 2nd-highest grossing film of all time worldwide.

Some conservative groups have blasted what they believe is the film's environmental extremism, with the Vatican's film critic saying that it worships creation instead of the Creator. Others have blasted it for perceived racism, with the "white savior" rescuing indigenous peoples. Some have said that the film is anti-military. Most claim, however, that it is simply great entertainment. In my opinion, the truth of all these claims is somewhere in the middle.

Regular readers may notice that I almost never divulge any plot information in my reviews. I don't like to read reviews that give away large chunks of narrative; I've never felt it was the critic's job to tell me the story, and I'll pay you the same courtesy. I will say, first and foremost, that the film is neither the political lightning rod some have made it out to be, nor is it worthy of the hype and box-office its receiving (I can think of many movies that deserve a wider audience). It is, however, constantly entertaining and artistically stunning.

Everything you've heard about the visuals is true. This is not CGI (computer-generated images) for just for the sake of it, nor is the 3D merely a gimmick. Cameron has succeeded in created a completely immersive new world. These are not special effects; this is art. The 3D serves to truly make viewers feel as if they were on a glorious foreign planet, with its own ecosystem and amazing wildlife.

Likewise, Cameron knows how to stage action, and the adventure/combat sequences are truly thrilling. The narrative is fine, but not as impressive. The derivative script borrows heavily from Dances With Wolves, Disney's Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, and even Return of the Jedi.

Though the heroes are interesting enough, the villains are mostly one-dimensional. Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver do fine work, as do several others, but the only truly exceptional acting is by Zoe Saldana (Star Trek) who plays the princess of an alien tribe. Her work, via motion capture, conveys rich, tender, and savage emotion. So skillfully does she portray both the humanity and the strangeness of an imaginary race that the audience connects with her more than any of the human characters. She, and the rest of the alien tribe, are utterly convincing.

As for the controversy, the film does take a strong stance about protecting and conserving the environment. The claim by the Vatican's movie critic, that the film worships creation instead of the Creator, could be valid if it weren't so obviously fantasy. Its theology works in its imagined universe the same as The Force does in Star Wars.

I take a more moderate stance than the film does on conservation, as it paints those who mine natural resources as greedy at best and evil at worst. That said, any message about honoring and preserving nature is worthwhile. Also, On a different level, the story can be enjoyed by those who see it as a tale of a group nobly defending their homes, wives, children, and beliefs from those who seek only to conquer.

The claims of racism are, I think, unfounded. Like The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, and Dances With Wolves, Avatar takes a narrow-minded white man, immerses him in a foreign environment, and allows him a change of heart as he comes to appreciate the culture and way of life of his enemy. Unoriginal maybe, but hardly racist.

Because the story and characters are only moderately engaging, Avatar fails to live up to the hype. However, as an action film and a soulful artistic achievement, it is a terrific work that ought not to be missed.

With Clint Eastwood directing, Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela, and Matt Damon sharing top billing, how could Invictus fail? The answer is that it doesn't, as this rich historical drama provides great insight into South African history and the philosophy of one of the 20th century's greatest leaders. The film tells the true story of Mandela's presidency as he struggles to overcome prejudice and years of hatred and violence between blacks and whites. Seeing in the nation's rugby team an opportunity to unite his people, he befriends the team's captain (Damon).

While loaded with true-life sports movie clichés, Invictus overcomes them through the strength of its acting and the attention to political detail, from the desire of blacks to take back their country to the fears of whites about losing their voice in the newly democratic nation. I was fascinated and moved by the power of Mandela's philosophies of forgiveness, respect, and fellowship to steer both groups in the direction of unity. Invictus has brief strong language but is otherwise free of potentially offensive content.

After TIME magazine called The Princess and the Frog "the best film of 2009" and my folks sang its praises, perhaps it was only natural that the bar would be set too high. Then again, it's possible that I have been spoiled for so long by the brilliant originality displayed year after year by Pixar that a princess tale by Disney Animation Studios which adheres strictly to formula was bound to disappoint, even slightly. I suppose I should be pleased that Frog was as enjoyable as it was; I was glad to have seen it, and children likely will be more so. Then again, with some potentially nightmare- inducing scenes, maybe not.

I'll return to that in a moment. For now, as they say, back to formula. Princess character to inspire a whole new wave of Halloween costumes, PJ's, coloring books, and must-have dolls? Check. Anthropomorphized animals that sing, dance, provide comic relief, and play to broad cultural stereotypes? Check. Musical numbers to spice things up? Check. Power-hungry villain whose nefarious plot happens to involve breaking up the princess' romance? Check. Message about being true to yourself and chasing your dreams? Check. Happily ever after ending? Checkmate.

Then again, enough ingredients have been changed to keep it fun. As has been highly publicized, the princess character this time is African-American, and the diversity is very welcome. Though it's true that America has no royalty, the title makes sense by the finale. The combination of a black lead with a New Orleans setting allows for the standard musical numbers to be boosted by Gospel and jazz styles that are truly catchy and stand uniquely apart from Disney's admittedly excellent, but generally uniform, musical canon.

The traditional animation, especially the attention to detail in recreating New Orleans, is stunning, providing some hope for the future of hand-drawn animation in today's computer-generated market. The peripheral characters, including a trumpet-playing bayou alligator, a Cajun firefly, and redneck hunters, are amusing. However, Disney is lucky that, in my experience, people from the South tend to have a better sense of humor than the rest of us about being portrayed through the lens of cultural stereotypes, otherwise they'd have a real uproar on their hands.

The broad characterization of the prince, however, was less charming to me than it seems meant to be. Sounding like a poor man's Antonio Banderas, the writers seem to overestimate his entertainment value. I'm sure many will find him hilarious, and I thought he was likable enough, but from time to time I found him mildly annoying, as if the filmmakers were trying to capitalize on the popularity of the much funnier Puss-in-Boots from the Shrek films.

On the plus side, it helps that the message about chasing your dreams and being true to yourself is bolstered this time by very clear moral instruction about working hard instead of merely wishing upon a star. This, coupled with the culturally diverse cast of characters, can be appreciated by children and adults alike.

Of concern to parents should be the portrayal of voodoo magic by the villain, specifically with regards to the creepy animation of his "friends on the other side," evil spirits who do his bidding after he makes a pact with them. Drawn as shadows, they are nevertheless quite scary. As an adult viewer, I wasn't especially troubled by it: the voodoo magic is shown as evil and the villain pays the price for meddling with it. But as someone who had very young children with him, I was concerned about nightmares and found myself thinking that the film should have been PG instead of G.

Fans of classic Disney princess tales should find much to enjoy here, and others likely won't regret seeing it. But with apologies to TIME magazine, The Princess and the Frog is not the year's best film. That title belongs to Pixar's Up.

For me, as for many small children, the cruelty of schoolmates, bickering between me and my siblings, and feeling misunderstood by adults were all sources of hurt, frustration, and genuine heartache. I remember putting on my Superman cape, my Ninja Turtle bandana, or my Batman mask and retreating to the backyard or, mother forbid, climbing onto the roof of the house to escape into the recesses of my imagination. There, I could be whoever I wanted to be.

When real-life bullies exploited my physical weakness and avoidance of violence, there in the grass I was more powerful than a locomotive and faster than a speeding bullet. In my imagination I wouldn't need to fight; bullies respected my strength and backed down. If my loving parents ever showed exasperation at my limitless energy and rightfully attempted to place limits and rules, I'd pretend I could fly away, never to be held down. When older siblings, entering adolescence, balked at my immature playfulness, I dealt with the very real heartache and confusion by pretending I was a hero or a king. Then, I was adored, appreciated, and loved. I became someone who saved the day and earned the respect of those around me.

For that reason I, like millions of readers across the decades, identified so readily with Max, the protagonist in Maurice Sendak's classic children's book Where the Wild Things Are. Dressing like an animal to escape his home life, he imagines a land of creatures and monsters that make him their king. A brisk ten sentences in length, the book tapped into something primal in my childhood heart.

Spike Jonze's hour and 45 minute film version expands on Sendak's vision without straying from its essence, and like E.T. and The Goonies, addresses real-world stresses that effect children in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner even as it interweaves them with its fantasy. In fact, the entire film is a wonderful hybrid of the real and the surreal, and rings true to the oft-forgotten emotional experience of childhood.

If this all sounds deep…it is. This is not a lighthearted kid's movie, and I wouldn't take young children to it. Not because it's inappropriate, because it isn't, but rather because adventure and fantasy are not used here to simply entertain. Rather, they purposefully and honestly dissect the broad spectrum of young feelings: fear, love, embarrassment, joy, loneliness, belonging, fun, rejection, and the sheer exhilaration of physical play. The film's Max learns, through his experiences, to make sense both of his own feelings as well as his mother's experience. He gains a taste of what it means to grow up and to be responsible for the welfare of others, and just how taxing (and rewarding) that can be. Ironically, while Max comes to comprehend adulthood, adult viewers are reminded of what it really means to be a child. While based on a book for young children, the film version seems more appropriate for adults and older kids looking to understand each other while being wowed by impressive fantasy.

And it is impressive. The artistry of this film is simply stunning. While many family movies rely too heavily on special effects, Where the Wild Things Are was wisely shot in real forests, with its young actor interacting with real Wild Things (which is to say, real-life actors in large animatronic suits as opposed to computer-generated beasts). While it is true that a giant fort and the Wild Things' faces are CGI, these visual effects are integrated seamlessly, giving the film has an organic quality. Wild Things approximates the blurry line between imagination and reality experienced by kids. The hand-held (but not shaky) camera-work adds to the earthy realism, and some of the warm autumn colors captured during moments of sunrise and sunset are gorgeous to behold. The Wild Things themselves are always fun to look at, and the technical wizardry in their design deserves an Academy Award.

Young actor Max Records is movingly real; he never seems to be acting and never appears to be coached by a director). He simply conveys what it is to be a nine year-old. The vocal work for the Wild Things is top-notch, and despite the movie's often melancholy tone, there are moments of great humor and genuine wonder. Though Where The Wild Things Are ultimately has a good deal of warmth, heart, and soul, this is a bittersweet tale with profound themes whose sadder moments will likely alienate those just looking for a good time, as will the time it spends on introspection. Younger children, as well as those seeking pure entertainment, may find themselves bored and restless. For those up for the challenge, however, it is a fine family film that doesn't insult one's intelligence.

Quite the opposite of Avatar, my expectations were low for The Blind Side, a film whose trailer rubbed me the wrong way. I'm all for inspirational films, but this one looked like an overcooked, manipulative tearjerker with Sandra Bullock stepping way outside of her comfort zone to play a Good Samaritan Southern Belle who helps a struggling black teen with a painful past. I was afraid the film would exploit or gloss over the true pains of African-Americans struggling to escape the projects. I was afraid Sandra Bullock, whose forte is romantic comedies, would annoy with an attempt at a Southern accent. I was afraid that the power of this true story would be lost in hackneyed and trite film-making.

My fears were unfounded, and one cannot, it appears, judge a film by its trailer. This is one of the best mainstream films about Christians I've ever seen, possessing charm, integrity, and honesty in spades. Bullock's stab at a Southern accent, while dubious in a two-minute trailer, is actually quite convincing when viewed in the complete film. She truly loses herself in the role, and much to my surprise, I'd like to see her win an Oscar for her tough-love portrayal of a woman whose cannot help but help others. Country- music superstar Tim McGraw, as her husband, proves himself a capable actor, Granted, he doesn't have to do any heavy emotional lifting in the film, but his ability to deliver lines of dry humor was an unexpected delight. Newcomer Quinton Aaron, as the young man helped by Bullock's family, conveys a great deal of pain, sorrow, and joy with his eyes.