How to Train Your Dragon

***1/2 Stars

The most refreshing and surprisingly wonderful film of the early year belongs to How to Train Your Dragon, DreamWorks finest animated film since the original Shrek. Believe it or not, Dragon is as much a fine drama as it is comedy. It never surrenders to cheap laughs or potty humor. It's always nice to watch a fantasy film that remains faithful to the world it lives in and doesn't reduce itself to pop-culture references.

The story begins with an epic battle between vikings (the good guys) and dragons (the bad guys) through the eyes of the most notable viking's son Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) who one day dreams of becoming a true viking by killing a dragon. Unfortunately for Hiccup, he doesn't have the muscles or training to become one. However, he does get lucky during the opening battle by shooting down the most feared dragon of them all, the Night Fury. Too bad for him, no one was watching.

After the battle, Hiccup wonders through the forest, frustrated that no one believes his accomplishment. As he's walking, he finds the dragon he shot down without half of his tail, thus making it unable for him to fly. Too good of a person to kill it, Hiccup forms a connection with the dragon. He calls him "Toothless," because when he doesn't attack something, he hides his teeth. Hiccup decides to help the wounded creature by building it an artificial tail. The more he helps, the more Toothless trusts him.

Back in town, Hiccup's father Stoick (Gerald Butler) tells him he's ready for Dragon training. Hiccup takes what he's learned from his secret lessons with Toothless and applies it to his training, making him the best in school and a local hero amongst the vikings.

The title for the film, How to Train Your Dragon, seems to be both a literal and metaphorical statement, one that actually creates an emotional and political message of understanding in regards to a two-sided battle and the bonds these characters create simply by listening to each other. The relationship between Hiccup and his dragon is a beautifully executed one, which comes from a great screenplay based off Cressida Cowell's novel. I saw it in 2-D, and it was this good. 3-D must be on a whole other level. Either way you choose to see it, all that's important is that you simply choose to see it.

Chloe

** Stars

Chloe, or Fatal Attraction meets Closer, brings up the question: Does a B-movie with an A-list cast make it better or worse? The film doesn't necessarily provide an answer, and I won't be premature and say worse, but this uninteresting and lazy thriller certainly helps that claim.

This is one of those movies where every single character borderlines on being unlikeable. They are all either hopeless and helpless or lost and confused, and every member of the main family seems to know nothing about each other. Julianne Moore plays the miserable, middle-aged wife Catherine Stewart, a gynecologist who suspects her husband David (Liam Neeson) of having an affair after missing the flight home for his surprise birthday party. David's excuse is that he hates birthday parties and everything about them. You'd assume he's lying, but in the context of the conversation the couples has, Catherine seems to know this. So wouldn't you think after two decades or so of marriage, she'd know that a surprise birthday party is probably not the best idea? Doesn't matter. It happens anyway.

Her suspicions are raised when she reads a text message on David's phone, "Thanks for last night!"-Miranda. And there's a picture to go with it of her and David. Okay, now that's plausible. But things go from melodramatic to ridiculous when Catherine hires a beautiful young woman named Chloe to flirt with her husband. Her job? To see how he will act. Wouldn't it be much easier to just call Miranda's phone or text her back and pretend to be him? Wait, that's what a real suspicious person would do under the circumstances. This after all, is a movie, one with characters doing things they would never do unless they were in fact, in a movie. I'm all for suspending disbelief, but I won't settle for boring and illogical storytelling.

So just when I thought I had figured out Chloe, it turns into every joke I thought about in my head while viewing it. When the film reveals all its secrets, there were moments where I thought, it would be really funny if that character slept with that character, then lied about it, then had sex with someone else that was important to that character out of revenge, then went crazy because of all the rejection. I had seriously doubts I'd be right here, but this in fact, is what actually happens.

I did my best there not to give anything away. In other words, let's just say Chloe is not afraid to go there. It's a shame that the A-list actors are dragged along for the ride.

I may have just answered my own question.

Greenberg

*** Stars

Greenberg is all character study and little story. It's a rather shallow film at times, but surprisingly, I never once found myself bored. As a writer and director, Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) makes some very brave choices in this film. Ben Stiller delivers a strong performance as Roger Greenberg, a failed New York musician who housesits his brothers home while he is away in Vietnam after coming out of a mental institution. He strikes up a friendly relationship with his brother's assistant Florence (Greta Gerwig) and spends six weeks doing nothing. Literally, nothing. Nothing except writing complaint letters to companies and drinking the days away. Florence and him grow rather close, in ways you wouldn't expect. They don't have anything in common, but they spend a lot of time together doing the small stuff. Roger is not the nicest person, and at times is rather unlikeable, however he is very much an interesting character with an original voice. Greenberg doesn't have an introduction or an ending, but rather a simple glimpse in the life of a group of people who did not expect the life they have been given. While this is a film that's easier to admire than to love, it's the bravery in Baumbach's talent that allows this to be a much better film than what it could have been.

2010 Oscar Predictions

The frontrunner for Best Picture The Hurt Locker has had a few bumps in the home stretch, but it should hold on fine and dandy for tomorrow night in what's been a rather unexciting and predictable Oscar race. Sure, Sunday night will be wonderful to watch, and lord knows I'll be in heaven, but I'm still disappointed in the Academy's choices for best picture. They got the ones we knew were going to get nominated right (Hurt Locker, Avatar, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds), but they missed the mark with other forgotten genres such as comedy. However, no matter what they choose, there is always a winner. And I must now predict them. I have already given my analysis of the movies (click here for that article), so here are simply my predictions and snubs.

Best Picture
Nominees:
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Who will win: The Hurt Locker
Who should win: Avatar
Who got snubbed: Where the Wild Things Are, (500) Days of Summer, & Star Trek
Who shouldn't be there: The Blind Side

Best Director
Nominees:
Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker
James Cameron for Avatar
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air
Lee Daniels for Precious

Who will win: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Bigelow
Who got snubbed: Spike Jonze for Where the Wild Things Are
Who shouldn't there: Jonze would take Lee Daniels place

Best Actor
Nominees:
Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart
George Clooney for Up in the Air
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker
Morgan Freeman for Invictus
Colin Firth for A Single Man

Who will win: Jeff Bridges
Who should win: Bridges
Who got snubbed: Sam Rockwell for Moon
Who shouldn't be there: All five are worthy, but if it were the case, Rockwell would take Freeman's place.

Best Actress
Nominees:
Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side
Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia
Carey Mulligan for An Education
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious
Helen Mirren for The Last Station

Who will win: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side
Who should win: I have no say in this category
Who got snubbed: Saoirse Ronan for The Lovely Bones
Who shouldn't be there: This category is very weak this year.

Best Supporting Actor
Nominees:
Christopher Waltz for Inglourious Basterds
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station
Matt Damon for Invictus
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones

Who will win: Christopher Waltz
Who should win: Waltz
Who got snubbed: Anthony Mackie for The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress
Nominees:
Monique for Precious
Anna Kendrick Up in the Air
Vera Farmiga Up in the Air
Maggoe Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart
Penelope Cruz for Nine

Who will win: Monique
Who should win: Doesn't matter. Monique's going to win. She is worthy. So is Farmiga.
Who got snubbed: Any actress from Inglourious Basterds

Best Adapted Screenplay
Nominees:
Mark Boal for The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman for The Messenger
Joel and Ethan Coen for A Serious Man
Bob Peterson and Pete Docter for Up

Who will win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Who should win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Who got snubbed: (500) Days of Summer

Best Original Screenplay
District 9 (Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell)
An Education (Nick Hornby)
In the Loop (Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche)
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Geoffrey Fletcher)
Up in the Air (Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner)

Who will win: Up in the Air
Who should win: Up in the Air
Who got snubbed: Where the Wild Things Are, Star Trek

Alice in Wonderland

**1/2 Stars

There's no denying Alice in Wonderland's ambitious attempts at recreating the magic of the 1951 original, but with a collaboration as appropriate as Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, it's hard not to say that this visual-trip falls short of its expectations. Although it's certainly not a failure by any means (and for many, it's certainly worthy of admission), it fails to produce a story worthy of future remembrance.

I always admired Burton and Depp for their ability to adapt familiar stories into a creation of their own (including Sleepy Hallow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Sweeney Todd, among others). Perhaps this is why it felt so right when this duo began to tackle this Disney classic. Depp plays the Mad Hatter, who is surprised to find that Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has returned to wonderland 13 years after the original (this isn't a sequel, but rather more of a re-imagining). Alice, now at the age of 19, is the daughter of a very wealthy family who escapes to Wonderland on the afternoon of her marriage proposal. When she arrives, she has forgotten her previous experiences, so everything is new to her.

It's interesting to watch Alice try and rediscover the rules of Wonderland such as the drink that shrinks her and the cake that enlarges her. The first 45 minutes of the movie include some very interesting characters and humorous scenes, but as Alice makes her way further into Wonderland the magic that was once sprinkled all over this place wears out. Especially in the third act.

I never give away an ending to a film in a review, and I won't start here, but the third act of Alice in Wonderland ruins any chance of letting the film become memorable. Instead of continuing down the path of visual wonders, new characters, and Alice's experience, she is shoved into a Chronicles of Narnia like situation that runs the rest of the movie's runtime amok. Helena Bonham Carter is an inspired choice to play the Red-Queen, but there's only so many times one can say, "Off with his head!" and still find it funny. Anne Hathaway is almost reduced to cameo status as the White Queen, who wants us Alice to fulfill the prophecy and take down the evil Red Queen. The Mad Hatter and other familiar characters including Tweedledum & Tweedledee, the White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat, and Abosolom the Caterpillar, all help Alice on her journey to discover what was once thought of as a dream, has now become real.

I was never bored by Alice in Wonderland, and on a visual scale, it's captivating, but I think this simply proves once again that in order to have a great film, one must have great visuals along a great story (yes, this has to do with my defending of Avatar). In Alice's case, she has been reduced to a pond in a visual game. It's a good thing the game is worthy of spectators, especially in a movie theater.