Half Year(!?) Update

I've been a bit lax about updating on here, so here's a quick run-down...

I got promoted! Sweet! No more slave wages! Now I can actually feed myself reasonably until I take the terrifying dive into making a feature film.

That's...basically it...I'm doing pretty well otherwise, staying healthy, and trying to keep personal projects alive. Trying to live thrifty and funnel all my new-found cash into fun filmmaking toys.

And yes...I've seen some movies. A lot of 'em. So many in fact, that I'm going to divide them by old ones (pre-year 2000), less old ones (this past decade), and new releases. Here we go...

Movies Pre-2000
"The Lawnmower Man" Jason made me watch this movie, and I frankly thought it was pretty terrible. The only cool part is that the bad guy is played by Frank Lapidus from Lost.

"The Warriors" I highly recommend this flick. It's got a groove and feel all it's own, and many classic lines that I didn't realize originated with this film. In a weird semi-futuristic (or alternate?) New York, a young street gang is unfairly blamed for the death of a leader. As they try to make their way back from Central Park to Coney Island, they are menaced by numerous other street gangs, each of which has its own neat look and feel (The Baseball Furies, which look like the band Kiss in baseball jerseys, are the coolest). It's a bit violent, but tons of fun. Come out and plaaaayyyy!!!

"Cocoon" Some movies just don't age well. I love science fiction, but I was disappointed in this "classic," especially since Ron Howard generally tends to be a pretty solid filmmaker. The movie rides on benevolent-alien E.T. vibes that were present at the time, but comes off as super-hokey and cheesy. Lame.

"Them!" It's funny..."Cocoon" is from the '80s, and has aged terribly. "Them!" is from the '50s, and is still totally awesome! It may be B-movie schlock, but rarely has schlock been this much fun or executed this well. In the movie, giant killer ants invade New Mexico. While the effects of the ants aren't entirely convincing anymore, it's a testament to the filmmaking that movie is still tons of fun to watch (then again, I am a sucker for giant bug movies). I don't want to sound like a Hollywood hack, but I would love to see or get involved in a respectful remake of "Them!"

"Chopping Mall" I caught this at the New Beverly during their Jim Wynorski tribute night. If you didn't know, Jim Wynorski is the genius behind "Deathstalker II," the most intentionally hilarious B-movie of all time. "Chopping Mall" is no "Deathstalker II" but it does feature the awesome Jon Terlesky (who plays Deathstalker) in a bit role, though he gets killed far too early into the film. Good B-grade (maybe C-grade) fun, though I wouldn't put it on any of my must-see lists by a long shot.

"Grosse Point Blank" A great flick that I'm surprised it had taken me this long to see. The always lovable John Cusack plays a hit man who has to deal with all the insecurities of going back to his high school reunion. The writing is spot on, the acting is great all across the board from the supporting characters as well as the leads, and even the action scenes are pretty sharp. Best of all, John Cusack was in high school during the '80s, so there is great wall-to-wall music blanketing the soundtrack (a highlight is when Cusack gets in a brutal fight near his old locker to the cue of "Mirror in the Bathroom"). It does take a little while before the film picks up, and I thought that the final fight was a tad anti-climactic, but this is an incredibly smart, fun, well-acted film that I would recommend to just about anyone. As with many of the best movies, it effortlessly combines several genres (action, comedy, romance) to make for a wholly entertaining flick.
The only weird thing was that, while watching this movie, I couldn't help but get that creeping feeling that I will be going to my own ten-year high school reunion in only four years. Yikes! Also, it's probably one of the only movies in which John Cusack does not have a dramatic scene in the rain.

"Fright Night" I was a bit disappointed in what some consider a "classic" 80s horror flick. The premise is interesting enough--a teenage boy discovers his new next-door neighbor is a vampire, so he enlists the help of his favorite TV-show vampire-killer to aid him. In execution the film drags and is pretty cheesy until the final act. However, the finale IS pretty neat, with some fun and inventive practical effects that really liven things up. Plus I always like when horror can be used as a metaphor, and while for the most part this movie is pretty surface-level, a sequence involving a girl who is a virgin and the vampire seducer has some intriguing undertones...let's just say "there's always blood the first time!"
If you enjoy fun horror you may like this one...but be patient as you suffer through the first 2/3 or so.

Movies Post-2000
"Food, Inc." A well-put together doc that will make you never want to eat anything ever again. I honestly knew a lot of this stuff already due to my interest in environmental sustainability, but even so the doc packages the material nicely in an understandable way.

"Up In the Air" I enjoyed this film, but I thought it had the same problems I find in nearly all of Jason Reitman's work. He always takes us to an interesting, often vulnerable place with his lead protagonist, but then leaves us hanging with little resolution. I felt this way about both "Thank You For Smoking" and, to a far lesser extent "Juno" (though the latter film had plenty of other problems).
Performances are strong, and a movie about people getting fired is certainly going to resonate with a wide audience in this day and age. And at the end, I get that George Clooney realized he had led a meaningless life. But so what? What does he do now? Where does he go?
An OK film, but I've yet to be wowed by Jason Reitman as much as everyone else seems to be.

"A Matter of Loaf and Death" Nick Park's work is one of the main reasons I have become fascinated with stop-motion animation (which, you could argue, ultimately got me to wind up in film school). The characters of Wallace and Gromit are certainly his most endearing, although I feel they work better in short form then as feature-film characters; "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" was fun, but it lacked the sharp quick wit of both "The Wrong Trousers" and "A Close Shave." Even the earliest effort "A Grand Day Out" still had more pluck and originality, despite its unrefined and more primitive animation.
Because of this, I hoped the recent Oscar-nominated short "A Matter of Loaf and Death" would be another great one to add to the list. I was honestly a little let-down. The animation was top-notch as suspected, but the storytelling was far too lazy. What's great about both "A Close Shave" and "The Wrong Trousers" is that they are both mystery stories; and the reveal is always funny, surprising, and a cute twist on the old formula. In "The Wrong Trousers" the "chicken" diamond thief turns out to be their silent penguin border, who uses a glove on his head as a disguise. In "A Close Shave" the sheep rustler is Wallace's unwitting love interest, who is being manipulated by her evil dog, who turns out to be a robot! In both these stories there is more to the villain than meets the eye, and the reveal not only moves the plot along, but makes you laugh as well.
But in a "Matter of Loaf and Death" the villain is forgettable and predictable; we are pretty much aware of who the baddie is from the outset, and the "humor" lies in Gromit trying to make Wallace aware of it before it's too late. This result is by-the-book slapstick, and the finale showdown, while technically impressive (and admittedly full of a couple really good gags), is chock full of pop-culture film references--so much for originality.
By all means, if you like claymation as I do, you should check the film out. But it's not as good as some of Aardman Animation's past efforts.

"Special" Lately Hollywood has been getting a bad rap for making mostly shit movies (and I agree!), but people then assume the only "good" films out there are indies. While I agree that there have been some great low-budget films coming out lately, sometimes you watch a movie and realize that Hollywood actually knows what they are doing better than the amateurs (you also realize this the more you volunteer to help your "friends" out when they find out you have some handy equipment at your disposal).
"Special" has some fun moments, but it would have made for a much better skit (or even series of skits...web series?!?!) than a feature film. In the movie the lead character takes an experimental drug that convinces him he has superpowers. For a while the movie flirts with the idea that it may or may not all be in his head, but pretty quickly abandons this in favor of what is ultimately the same joke over and over again (though one very funny scene involving "mind reading" with his doctor had me in stitches).
I appreciate all independent filmmakers out there for doing their thing (it's not like I've made a film yet!), but I found this to be feel like a lame low-budget "Kick-Ass" (which in turn felt like a low-budget "Watchmen"). I'm tired of superheroes, and most of this material has been treaded before, and better.

"Crazy Heart" This film won the Oscar for both Best Song and Best Actor. Having seen it now, it 100% deserved the awards it got. The music is truly beautiful, and Bridges definitely gives a performance I would consider Oscar-worthy. Is it any more Oscar-worthy than some of his other roles for which he didn't win? That's another argument entirely, because Bridges is almost always good.
As a whole I liked the film, but it certainly had some problems. I could never fathom why Maggie Gyllenhaal would fall for Jeff Bridges, and it definitely ambles along similar territory as practically every other movie about aging musicians (so kudos to Bridges for making it work). I did appreciate that, in this case, the movie was about a fictional character (as opposed to the mediocre "Ray" or the excellent "Walk the Line"), and yet they still made him feel well-developed. I also thought Colin Ferrell was a welcome surprise, and I enjoyed that his character turned out to be a pretty nice guy who was there to help Jeff Bridges.
If you like Jeff Bridges and country folk-rock, I think you will really enjoy "Crazy Heart."

"Bigger, Stronger, Faster" Interesting doc about steroid use, and drug use in general. The main point is not so much that steroids are bad or good, but that regulation of drugs in general is completely out-of-whack and unbalanced. Worth a view.

"Open Water" You have to admire low-budget movies if they work on SOME level. This flick was made for an insanely cheap amount of money on shitty little DV cameras, but it still manages to get under your skin and freak you out here and there. As a full movie I don't think it works, but it's a neat exercise in shoestring filmmaking.

Movies From This Year
"The Crazies" Decent filmmaking elevates this by-the-book zombie-type flick to something I would actually recommend to horror fans. One scene in particular involving a car wash (and its aftermath) is worth seeing.

"Alice In Wonderland" Ugh. If you want a perfect example of everything wrong with what's being made in Hollywood these days, see this movie. Somebody assumed Tim Burton + Johnny Depp + tons of money had worked many times before, so they tried it again! The result is a beautiful-looking film without an ounce of soul in its body.
Reworking a classic is tough, and I am quite fond of Lewis Carroll's stories in Wonderland and the Looking-Glass. However I was totally OK with the approach to make Alice a teenager and make this a sequel of sorts to the stories Carroll came up with, especially since they did their best to stay true to the Victorian era and not "spruce it up" with anything "cool" or "hip."
However even in Burton's best work, he has always been a man of style over substance (he's even admitted so himself). And thus while the "darker" (or whatever) Wonderland certainly looks really cool (especially the nifty Cheshire Cat), just about everything else about the movie fell flat. In fact, the screenplay is SO dull that at one point they literally PULL OUT the screenplay and lay it out to the protagonist to prove to her she has to fight the Jabberwocky. "You have to fight the Jabberwocky because this piece of paper says you will do so by the end of the movie!" Ugh...so much for realistic character motivations.
Oddly enough, the acting is actually pretty solid across the board (especially from Alice and Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen), but it's the complete dullness and lack of originality that bogs the entire film down. It's probably Burton's worst film since he remade "Planet of the Apes," and that's saying something considering how lackluster many of his other films have been of late.

"Our Family Wedding" Shitty, unfunny movie with horrible actors and a terrible premise (aside from maybe America Ferrera). How do these films keep getting get made in the first place?

"Waking Sleeping Beauty" It's delightful that documentary film has come to the forefront in the last decade. However I find it funny that, though there are many-a-doc out there now about serious, necessary issues we should all be aware of, docs I like the most tend to be the ones about things that are far less important. My favorite doc of all time is probably "The King of Kong," which is overall a very silly premise about two dudes playing video games against each other.
And so it is with "Waking Sleeping Beauty," a terrific doc if you're a Disney fan. The film chronicles the Disney renaissance that occurred in the early 90s, back when I was growing up and watching all these movies. As a fan of Disney animation the movie definitely got my heart pumping. Whether it will do that for you depends on how much of a Disney-o-phile you are.
My one complaint is that while the movie does offer an interesting look at some of the behind-the-scenes in-fighting that was going on, it is still generally presented in a sugar-coated light since the film was made by Disney producer Don Hahn, who produced such classics as "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" (I met the guy at the screening, but had I KNOWN this I would have freaked out a little more and tried to make a more solid connection...oh well).
Anyway, if you like Disney, I recommend it.

"How To Train Your Dragon" It's no secret that Dreamworks Animation often comes across as the little bastard child of Pixar, even though some of there movies are often pretty decent (they at least tend to be a cut above Blue Sky). Kung Fu Panda was great, Antz had a lot more to say than A Bug's Life (even if the animation wasn't as engaging), and the first couple of Shrek's at least did the pop culture thing as well as it could be done.
However amongst all those are the SharkTales, Bee Movies, and Monsters vs. Aliens atrocities that exemplify the exact OPPOSITE of what I like about what is possible with animation. So where would How To Train Your Dragon fit in?
Luckily, I loved this film, and I think it's a big step forward for Dreamworks (we'll see if they keep it up). No pop culture references, no cheap poop/fart jokes, just a fun story with a dangerous (even dark) tone, that ultimately is about overcoming differences and living peacefully with each other, something I think we could use quite a lot more of in today's world!
And what dragons! Each species is given its own very interesting and unique look that really helps bring the world alive. The lead dragon in particular, Toothless, movies and acts like the cutest, deadliest kitten you ever saw.
Of course, it's not perfect. I still can't fathom Dreamworks' choices in their voice casting. Jay Buruchel is not a very charismatic guy anyway, and he has one of the most grating, simpering voices of anyone I've ever heard--WHY would you ever cast him as your protagonist? And aside from Gerard Butler and Craig Furguson who get a chance to use their natural awesome accents, the rest of the cast is lackluster also.
Check it out! I hope Dreamworks recognizes how well this film did and tries to move more in the realm of "real" storytelling in the future.

"Shrek Forever After"
...or not.
Not a terrible movie, but bland, boring, and a rehash of everything we've seen before. Why do you keep disappointing me Dreamworks? Nobody cares about Shrek anymore!

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" Michael Bay's production company has lately decided it's not happy with making shitty horror movies like every other production company out there--it will NOW churn out shitty horror movie remakes of the few GOOD horror movie classics already out there.
Platinum Dunes' awful remake repeats everything from the original Nightmare on Elm Street without any of the fun. The movie takes itself far too seriously considering how stupid it is. Freddie was special because he was gleeful about killing in the Nightmare flicks--the movies definitely got stupider as they went on, but even in the first film there was something to love about the guy with the scarred face and prune-shearer hands.
Not so here. Jackie Earle Haley, admittedly a pretty creepy dude, does the best he can with what he's given, but he is nowhere near as iconic as Robert Englund, and making the pedophilic subtext more obvious only makes the movie more oppressive and uncomfortable.
I hope Platinum Dunes stops making this garbage, but they probably won't.

"Harry Brown" The plot of this film concerns a bunch of young British hooligans terrorizing a local neighborhood, until Michael Caine takes matters into his own hands. Sounds awesome, right?
I actually enjoyed the first half-hour or so of this movie because all it involved was Michael Caine acting and talking about being old. Unfortunately when he takes a stand and the movie SHOULD start being fun, it instead becomes oppressive, ugly, and un-fun to watch. I was hoping they would tap into the old bad-ass Michael Caine days when he was young and suave (i.e. the original "Get Carter"), but except for the rare instance ("You failed to maintain your weapon, sah!") this is a very uncomfortable and unjoyable film, and far beneath the great Sir Michael Caine. Skip it.

"Kick-Ass" Oh man, where to begin? I LOVED this movie! A totally average and ordinary high school kid wonders, "What would happen if I tried to be a superhero?" The result is a film that starts out as an interesting deconstruction and parody of the superhero genre, but as it goes on it becomes so badass, action-packed, and fun that I was enjoying it just as much as any other summer superhero flick.
The cast is strong all around, but it goes without saying that Chloe Moretz is the star as "Hit-Girl," a foul-mouthed ten-year old who REALLY knows how to kick ass, unlike our wimpy titular hero. Nicholas Cage also stands out as her father "Big Daddy," and if anything the movie could have used more of him (although it's always better to leave you wanting more I guess).
If you're easily offended, don't like ultraviolence, and are put off by little girls spouting dirty language, you should skip "Kick-Ass" (I'm talking to you, Mom and Dad). But if all that sounds awesome, and you like to rock out as your heroes beat the living snot out of each other, go see "Kick-Ass."

"Iron Man 2" To talk about Iron Man 2, I'm going to start by talking about Kick-Ass again. "Kick-Ass" treaded a fine and difficult line, in that it definitely had some points to make about the influence of superheroes in today's world, but at the same time it was able to never get preachy and pretentious (a failing of the "Watchmen" movie). However, I believe that "Kick-Ass," "Watchmen," and even "Special" are all clear indicators that superheroes are beginning to run their course--I'm tired of them, and now it's come to the point where even making FUN of the genre isn't original.
Basically, I'm getting pretty sick of all these superhero movies and they're all starting to blur together. For any of these movies to work at all, you need a movie that can stand on its own two feet WITHOUT the superhero involved. Let's try a few examples...
"Batman Begins" A man seeks to avenge his parents by taking his greatest fears and turning them against the criminals of the world.
"Spider-Man 2" A young man is torn between his duties to the world and his desire to live an ordinary life and be with the girl he loves.
"Iron Man (1)" An egocentric billionaire realizes the work he does is causing harm to the world, so he aims to put a stop to it by using his technology for good and care about others.
I didn't think the first Iron Man was perfect. It dragged in places, and the finale was sub-par compared to some of the earlier scenes. But I appreciated that it told the story of a selfish man who learned to care for others. Unfortunately I found Iron Man 2 to be a big letdown. In the movie Tony Stark starts out as Tony Stark, and ends as Tony Stark. He doesn't learn anything, nor does he change...all he does is stop the bad guys and save the day. He may have an arc reactor, but where's his character arc (ha!)?
What's most frustrating is that I actually think there was opportunity for an interesting story in Iron Man 2. In the first movie Tony Stark may have learned to care, but he's still and egomaniac bastard, as evidenced by the fact that he's the only superhero who freely puts himself in the public's eye ("I am Iron Man!"). In the second movie, we learn that Tony Stark is dieing, and for a while I thought the movie was going to develop into the story of a man who believes he must go it alone, but then realizes he needs to put trust in others in order to make it. The first movie is about a guy taking control of his power for good--this could have been a movie about relinquishing one's power to others. The movie flirts with this idea...Rhodey (unnecessarily recast) gets the War Machine suit. Pepper Pots becomes the new CEO. And Tony deals with daddy issues. Great.
But then halfway through all this potentially interesting character stuff, Tony's dad tells him that he hid the key to his salvation inside a GIANT MAP in his office, and all Tony has to do is build a homemade PARTICLE ACCELERATOR in his room in order to create a NEW ELEMENT that will conveniently SAVE HIS LIFE. Hmmm...I know comic books can be silly, but this is just too ridiculous.
From there, it's off to the races. A few explosions, and we're done. And oddly enough, am I the only one who actually thought the fights were too few and far between anyway? We get one short one with Whiplash on the racetrack, and then one big one at the end. But there should have been something in the middle to keep me satisfied.
The biggest issue here is that the filmmakers just didn't worry about any sort of character study. These movies aren't Shakespeare, but people should change and develop, especially when you have one as interesting and dynamic as Tony Stark, played by just as interesting and dynamic an actor as RDJ. However I think another problem is something I fear will become more and more apparent in superhero movies as they continue to be made...why do we need to shoehorn in all our other movies into THIS movie, so that they all just become commercials for one another? Throwing in Captain America and Thor references may be fun for the uber-nerd, but it's not fun for the filmgoer who just wants to pay to see the good movie that THEY'RE ACTUALLY WATCHING. And the entire Nick Fury S.H.E.I.L.D. plotline (and Black Widow) could have been removed completely and the movie would have worked (and you could replace it with more action and character goodness!). The only reason the S.H.E.I.L.D. plot existed was to tease at Marvel's other movies and their ultimate plan for "The Avengers."
So is that all movies are now? Advertisements for other movies? Perhaps, but that's pretty sad. I'm all for a tip-of-the-hat to the sharp-eyed geek, but please, let's stop shoving our entire plot-line to the sidelines just to sell a few more toys that most people probably don't even care about.
The one saving grace is Sam Rockwell, who steals every scene he's in. I love the guy. "If [this gun] were any smarter it would write a book that would make 'Ulysses' look like it was written in crayon." Awesome.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" Cool doc about street art! It's neat that, living in LA now, I see a lot of this stuff around, and after seeing this doc I appreciate it a bit more. I wonder how much of an in-joke this movie is amongst the art crowd, but it's a marvelously entertaining and interesting documentary nonetheless.

"Robin Hood" Has Ridley Scott lost his touch? This overlong, meandering film takes the problems of "Kingdom of Heaven" and compounds upon them, making a weird Robin Hood prequel that goes nowhere. Watch it if you want to find something to fall asleep too. Yuck! I hope Ridley doesn't make these same mistakes if he ever goes back to the Alien saga or develops The Forever War.

"Letters to Juliet" Every year there are movies that come out where I wonder, "Who green-lit this trash, again?" (last year's winner was "Imagine That"). "Letters to Juliet" may at least appeal to a handful of sappy female audience members out there, so I can see why someone signed the line, but WHAT a bland film! If you can't call every beat of the entire movie from within the first five minutes, then you must have been raised strictly on avant-garde shit, because MAN is it predictable. And why is Amanda Seyfried suddenly considered a star? As far as I know she's never had a breakthrough role in any sort of mega-hit, and she's not particularly interesting in any way aside from a relatively decent pair of cans, but suddenly she's being groomed as the next big Hollywood starlet. What's the point? Her agent must be really fucking good. Boooooring.

"MacGruber" This movie tanked at the box office, which is disappointing because I actually thought it was kind of fun. The SNL MacGruber sketches aren't anything that would obviously scream "Oh man, let's make a movie out of this" since they're only each about thirty seconds long, but the 80s action hero is ripe for parody, and they do a fun job.
If anything, it's actually a testament to the writing that the movie is as much fun as it is...none of the actors are exactly mind-blowing, even if they are watchable, save Val Kilmer clearly having a ball as baddie Deiter von Cunthe (it's a shame that Kristen Wiig is sorely underused). But a lot of the jokes do a pretty clever job lampooning their 80s action counterparts, even when they are still pretty dumb. It's certainly more versatile and interesting than the by-the-book "Walk Hard" that somehow was considered really funny by critics, even though it only went far enough to spoof "Walk the Line" which was actually a really good movie that didn't exactly NEED a spoof.
If you like 80s action, but have grown up a bit to recognize how stupid a lot of it is, "MacGruber" should give you a fairly solid kick.

"Splice" In this movie two geneticists incorporate human DNA into the organism they are creating, addressing some ethical questions about human cloning and the like while also putting a neat modern spin on the traditional mad scientist monster movie genre. This movie might not be for everyone, but I enjoyed it for combining a lot of stuff I like--thoughtful horror, science, and Sarah Polley. The constantly transforming creature(s) are really interesting, and the themes of motherhood and mixing science with human emotions allows the movie to go to some interesting places. Is it perfect? No. I especially was not satisfied with the ending. But it did sustain interest both viscerally and intellectually, which few films do these days.

"The A-Team" Some films are woefully pointless and stupid, and some films are blissfully pointless and stupid. Luckily "The A-Team" is the latter. Sometimes all you need is a great cast (aside from the horrendous Jessica Biel) and some fun set pieces, and the movie will "work" in the most basic sense of the word.
To be fair, I'd never watched the original A-Team show, but from what I gather the new movie captures the same spirit, for better or for worse. Liam Neeson is perfect as the hard-edged leader, and Bradley Cooper is somehow insanely likable as the pretty boy, despite the fact that all he does is sleep with beautiful women and make me jealous. "Rampage" Jackson is probably the weakest link of the bunch, but he still gets by just fine. And the REAL hero is none other than Sharlto Copley from "District 9" as the bumbling southern Howling Matt Murdock! Copley steals many of the scenes he's in, and my favorite bit involves when he goes "undercover" as a South African journalist. Genius!
The movie's meandering plot is wildly out-of-control, and unfortunately the final action set piece is far less exciting than some of the ones that came before it, but it doesn't really matter.
Basically, here's my judgment on whether or not you'll like the A-Team (SPOILERS though, I guess): In the movie our heroes fly a TANK by shooting its cannon and aiming it in different directions. If you think that's retardedly idiotic, you'll hate the movie. If you think that's retardedly AWESOME, you'll love it!

"Toy Story 3" How can I even write a review of this thing? Pixar time and time again has never ceased to amaze me. I knew this film would be good, but MAN did they knock it out of the park yet again.
When I was nine years old I saw the first "Toy Story" in theaters. To this day it still remains the movie I have seen in theaters more than any other (four times). What is incredible about the first "Toy Story" is that it didn't necessarily have to be THAT good. The new CG animation that it pioneered would have easily been enough to get people to flock to the theaters to see what all the fuss was about, and as long as the movie was watchable Pixar could have got by.
Instead "Toy Story" was an incredibly fascinating world filled with memorable characters, and people left the theater enthralled and talking about "that crazy next door neighbor kid" "the pizza planet aliens" or "the moving van chase." The movie could have been animated in any format and been great, and the fact that it was a new style of animation was just icing on the cake.
And when "Toy Story 2" came out it was still a big risk...sequels can be tough, and at the time Pixar was still young and fallible. And yet it did what every awesome sequel should do...take the magic of the first and expand upon it (see my fav movie of all-time, "The Empire Strikes Back"). If the first "Toy Story" introduced us to the characters and the theme of not being the favorite anymore, the second movie went as far enough as to question the meaning of LIFE itself. Woody is given the option of immortality in a children's museum in Tokyo, or a shorter (but more meaningful!) life as Andy's toy. Of course Woody chooses to be loved by his owner. What's great about "Toy Story 3" is that it says, "OK Woody...you've made your choice...now here are the consequences."
In many cases "Toy Story 3" is a return to form for Pixar, after the somewhat experimental "Up," "Wall-E," and even "Ratatouille." But that does NOT mean it is simplistic...far from it. Andy is prepping for college, and he is faced with the difficult decision we all must go through...what objects from our childhood go, and which stay? From a toy's perspective this is even more terrifying than it is for the young adult. I don't want to go into too much plot details here, but let's just say "Toy Story 3" does a brilliant job of dealing with feelings of uselessness and not being wanted. When most of the toys wind up at Sunnyside Day Care, they find it is not the happy carefree place it would seem. Another strength of the movie are the complicated characters...the toy who ultimately turns out to be the villain at first seems charming and friendly, and it's a surprise when he reveals his true nature. And he makes a great foil for Woody and the gang; when he was thrown out by his owner his stuffing went sour, while the other toys rely on hope and togetherness to get them through to the end.
And to the end they go! "Toy Story 3" is without a doubt the darkest of the three films, and I was shocked how close to the brink the filmmakers took these toys. They literally go through hell (or it's metaphorical equivalent) and back to get to Andy, and a pivotal scene where they accept their fate and come to terms with their mortality is one of the most powerful and intense scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time. It might even be TOO intense for the youngest ones, even though this film has a G rating.
But it's in the resolving coda, after the intense finale that Toy Story 3 really rises high. Woody recognizes what is best is not so much BEING there for his owner, as finding a way to stick together with his friends and move on from those he cares about. The last sequence of this film had me in tears, not only because it is a powerful scene in its own right, but because I myself have recently gone through the same experience Andy has. And in a weird way, I've also grown up with Woody, Buzz, and the crew through watching these movies as well. I was a young kid when I saw the first Toy Story, and now it's time for me to move on and say good-bye to these characters too.
Will Pixar make another Toy Story? I'm never going to say never, but I don't see how they could. "Toy Story 3" answers every hanging thread left, as the movie lets the toys not only come to emotionally satisfying terms with their own potential death, but also be allowed to bow out to their owner in the same beautiful way they bow out to their audience. I felt the same way about 'Toy Story 3" that I felt about "Return of the King." Is it the best movie of the bunch? Perhaps, but it's hard to say. Yet what it DOES do is elevate ALL the Toy Story films to a higher emotional level, and you recognize the maturity and importance of each of them. The Toy Story saga is ultimately greater than the sum of its pats, and I believe it deserves to stand as one of the greatest trilogies of all time. The story is done, and I am forever thankful Pixar let these toys guide me through my childhood.

"Lost" I don't normally review TV shows on here, but LOST is one of my favorite shows and it deserves an exception. I'll try to be quick...
Was every mystery answered? No. But I had relinquished myself to that fact a couple of seasons ago. And it is nice that the show opened and closed with Jack's eye. Even more so than Battlestar Galactica, this is ultimately a story about the characters (Jack in particular), and on that account they succeeded. Having every character meet their Constant and wake up in the alternate reality was a wonderful way to remind viewers how rich a show this has been over the years, and a graceful way to let some of the guys who died seasons ago get a final bowing out. It accomplished everything a clip show aims to do, WITHOUT being a crummy clip show! And I'll admit, I got a bit misty-eyed when Charlie and Claire reconnected.
So overall I loved this show through and through to the end, and found it emotional satisfying even if there were still a few burning questions lingering out there. But then again, The Island has always been a mystical place, and if they explained EVERYTHING the show would have lost much of its magic.
I can't wait to start my kids out on Season One someday!