NEW MOVIE: Finding Dory

Pixar has, for a long time, been at the top of the animation game, typically producing work that is not only technically revolutionary, but universally affecting. With 2016 comes a sequel to one of their most successful movies. Does Finding Dory have the same Pixar touch as the best of its contemporaries?

Rated PG for mild thematic elements

Finding Dory takes place a year after 2003's Finding Nemo.  We open to a look of what Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) was up to when she and Marlin (Albert Brooks, The Simpsons Movie, Drive) first met, then follows the blue tang as she begins remembering elements from her past. So begins another cross-ocean/cross-country adventure to find those important to us: family.

Finding Dory is a fantastic film and a beautifully-animated movie. It stands firmly on its own while building on the strengths of its predecessor. Whereas the title Finding Dory suggests that it could very easily become a simple rehash of the original, just with a different fish, it isn't. Nemo told two stories: Dory and Marlin's search for Nemo, and Nemo's finding himself. Dory isn't just about Marlin and Nemo finding Dory after she's taken by the Marine Life Institute; it's about Dory finding her parents, and finding how to accept herself despite her disability of short-term memory loss. These plots make for a moving film.

That said, like the best of Pixar, the moving family drama is coupled with smart humor. This sequel introduces several new characters, and puts many of the original's supporting characters in fun and creative cameo roles. Luckily, this all works out to make an entertaining ensemble. Hank the septapus (Ed O'Neill, Modern Family, Married...with Children!) becomes Dory's escape partner in the Institute, and their dynamic is really fun to watch as he helps her try to find her family (although reluctantly at first). Her whale friends, played by Ty Burrell (Modern Family, Muppets Most Wanted) and Kaitlin Olson (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), are welcome additions and provide some great comedic moments. I love how Stanton thought to build on Dory's whale-talk by introducing actual whale characters; it's a natural progression! When Dory and the clownfish separate, Dory isn't the only one to meet new people. The clownfish meet some sea lion at the institute, voiced by Dominic West (John Carter, The Wire) and Idris Elba (in a much lighter role after voicing Shere Khan in The Jungle Book). They provide great comedic moments with their interactions with the stupid sea lion Gerald and loony common loon Becky. It's a pleasure to see Nemo encourage his father to be trusting in these people who seem useless on the outside, like Becky and even Dory; it gives them purpose and relevance in a film that is more about Dory.

It's a great balance this film has, where it can make us guffaw at characters like Gerald and the sea lions and otters, but also make us really emotionally invested in Dory's adventure. When she's at her lowest point and lost, the film feels like a mature drama. When we meet the colorful newcomers, the film feels like a hilarious adventure. Yet it never feels like a tonal inconsistency, but natural. The film never goes overboard with anything, and it's all treated in moderation. Even though Nemo's advice, "What would Dory do?" could get old if repeated too many times, it's not. Even though Dory's flashbacks when she encounters triggers threaten to get annoying and convenient, it doesn't. Even though it could make a preachy message on environmentalism, it doesn't, comfortable that we can get it through visual cues, like sunken Volkswagons, or wrappers and other pollution that characters get stuck in. Because of the moderation, there are no qualms to be had with the material, yet we're still affected by it, whether Stanton wants us to feel excited, adventurous, entertained, giggly, or worried. That's why I have to give Finding Dory a perfect 5 out of 5 stars.

Hank, a great addition, and Dory have the best interactions of any characters in the film.

There is so much more that could be said about Finding Dory, but I don't want to gush over things that would be better experienced for the first time in a theater without much prior knowledge. The film feels like an ideal and natural continuation of the characters of Finding Nemo. And perhaps there we find the genius of this Pixar sequel. It cares about the characters more than the story. Usually when we think of sequels, we start forming a story that would be in the spirit of the original, but then we either get a rehash or something too big for our characters. This sequel, though, takes us on a character's journey rather than a journey with beloved characters. Whereas an X-Men: The Last Stand creates bigger stakes and a bigger story for the characters to experience, Finding Dory's story evolves from the maturation of the characters, whether in dealing with a handicap or experiencing loss for the first time. Go see it at the theater, stay until the very end of the credits, and experience what has the Best Animated Feature Oscar in the bag. Also, the preceding short film, Piper, is the most beautiful animation I have ever seen: a cute story of a young bird learning how to adapt to its surroundings and being brave. The animation really is stunning in how real it looks.

Note: I have been made aware by some foster parents that the film's dealing with heavy topics of abandonment and loss may be difficult for some foster/adopted kids. If you are a foster/adoption parent, it has been suggested that you preview the film for your children before taking them to see it. I thought the film was fantastic, but I also have not had experiences like these characters have that would act as a trigger. I thought I would share this information with my readers.

Have you seen Finding Dory? What's your favorite Pixar film? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: The Jungle Book

Walt Disney Studios has released yet another live action remake of one of their animated classics. Beginning with the "okay" Alice in Wonderland and continuing on to a widely well-received Cinderella, how is The Jungle Book?

Rated PG for some sequences of scary action and peril

Directed by Jon Favreau (Elf, Iron Man), The Jungle Book is a retelling of the 1967 animated classic (also Walt Disney's last film) and follows the story of Mowgli and his journey to find himself in the jungle. For me, this film had a lot to prove. The original animation was one of my favorite movies growing up, and I still love it when I watch it today. Gratefully, this new one exceeds the original in almost every way.

In a creative choice, Favreau chose for the film to be completely animated besides Mowgli, and the choice pays off. The film is absolutely gorgeous, especially in 3D, and really brings life to these characters in ways that other family films have never reached. I felt completely immersed in this world, and while I knew everything was animated, I never doubted it was real. Neel Sethi, in his debut performance, is much to thank for this. Though being young, he had such chemistry with the animated creatures, and very rarely did he betray that he was actually talking to crew members with colored sticks and puppets in a soundstage. Furthermore, the voice cast is stellar. Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Garfield) is the standout as Baloo, the lovable, relaxed bear who befriends Mowgli with his knowledge of the bare necessities of life. It really is a perfect match. Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Schindler's List) and Idris Elba (Luther, Pacific Rim) are also rather good as Bagheera the paternal panther and Shere Khan the villainous tiger, respectively.

But the real question is: is it worth seeing if I've seen the original? Voice acting and animation were two things that the original succeeded in completely, so what sets this one apart at all? Simply put, the story is better. For as fun as the original animation is, there's very little connecting the pieces together; Mowgli travels from one animal vignette to another, and Bagheera and Baloo look for him. The new film cuts many of the vignettes, such as the marching elephant brigade scene (though they still appear in a more reverent role) and the vultures to streamline the film, and thankfully develops and expands what remains. We care more for Mowgli's wolf family, even after he leaves, since Favreau gives them stakes as Shere Khan terrorizes them, and the cubs are so adorable. The time with King Louie (Christopher Walken, Pulp Fiction, Catch Me If You Can) is extended into a thrilling chase sequence, and the film even develops a moral through the original book's Law of the Jungle passage. The result is a film that feels more concise and powerful than its predecessor.

That's not to say the film is no longer fun. In tradition with the other recent Disney remakes, this is not a musical, though there are two musical sequences, taking the two most popular songs from the original film and using them in basically the same way. Baloo and Mowgli sing a new rendition of "The Bare Necessities," which is a joy to hear from the jazzy baritone of Bill Murray, and we get an odd but still delightful version of "I Wanna Be Like You" by Christopher Walken. The latter is the only one that feels somewhat out of place because of how they jumbo-sized Louie to a Gigantopithicus ape, changed the story, and made Louie into a more antagonistic presence. However, I could still give it a pass while watching it because it's simply delightful. There are other easter eggs and character rapports that provide additional levity.

The only part that feels short-changed in this new film is the much-publicized character of Kaa the snake (Scarlett Johansson, The Avengers, Her). Honestly, she's not given much purpose in the film other than to provide exposition about Mowgli and the fiery "red flower" plot device. Her scene is well-done and is hypnotizing, but it is her only appearance in the film. Heck, the elephants have more screentime than her and they say nothing. Her role is now humorless and her song, "Trust in Me," is cut. Oddly enough, that song, in which Scarlett Johansson does a rather good job, is in the credits with the other two numbers mentioned above, so part of me thinks her scene was trimmed for time to get to Baloo and Bagheera quicker. I still felt she was relatively useless in the film, though, and I would have liked to have seen her play a bigger role in the film like in the original. Regardless, that is really my sole complaint in a film that is very strong and will most definitely get some Oscar buzz next year, at least in visual effects.

The film is gorgeous to behold, and feels real due to the performances.

To conclude, The Jungle Book is a textbook example on how to properly do a remake of an already great film and make it still stand sturdy alone. It is visually masterful and it reeks of passion. Despite a short-changed snake scene and slightly awkward reworkings, the film streamlines the original film and develops it into something stronger that respects all the material that came before it. I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars. This is hands-down one of the best films of the year, and it is definitely worth your time. Furthermore, it gives me hope for future remakes of Disney films, such as August's Pete's Dragon and next year's Beauty and the Beast. Because of my tardiness in getting this review out (regrettably, I saw this opening weekend, and didn't find an opportunity to review it until now), it may be harder to find a theater still showing it, but if you get any opportunity at all to see it, take it. Favreau has definitely given Andy Serkis and Warner Bros. a run for their money in 2018.

Note: The Jungle Book is more intense than the original cartoon, so be wary of showing it to younger children. They will connect with Mowgli and his adventures for sure, but they will lose interest once they're screaming because of scary large snakes, scarred murderous tigers, and a jump-scaring Gigantopithicus (they won't be comforted by the fact it is Christopher Walken) over the course of the film's near-2 hour runtime. The PG rating is definitely deserved on this one so I'd wait till they're 8 or 9. If they can handle Indiana Jones or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, they can handle this. If they can't handle Monsters, Inc., you might want to hold off a little longer.

Have you seen The Jungle Book yet? Which version have you preferred of this story? What is your thought on the recent Disney remakes? Whatever you have to say about me or the moves, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Love & Friendship

Today, I'm reviewing Love & Friendship. "What is this movie? I've never seen a single trailer for it on the telly!" you are 99.9% definitely saying. "Why would I want to see this?" Well, I suppose I could be of some use to you!

Rated PG for some thematic elements

Starring Kate Beckinsale (Underworld, Total Recall, Much Ado About Nothing), Love & Friendship is based on Jane Austen's novella Lady Susan and is a romantic comedy about love and deception set in Victorian England. Lady Susan (Beckinsale) is looking to wed and stays with her relatives in Churchill to court the much younger Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Anonymous) whilst juggling domestic affairs with her unhappy daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark, of the stage) and with other suitors.

I must disclose that I am no expert in Jane Austen's literature, having never read one of her novels (though I do have a book that seems interesting on my shelf called I Was Jane Austen's Best Friend that I still haven't read). I did, however, see the adaptation Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow in middle school, and I did enjoy it, so I was optimistic about this one. I was not disappointed; this film is rather good, as well, though not without issue.

Not having read Lady Susan, I found the plot occasionally hard to follow. There are several characters to keep track of, and because I was unfamiliar with many of the actors in the film, it was hard to keep track of who was who and who does what. Additionally, the film is relatively slow-paced. The first fifteen minutes (or so it felt; I wasn't keeping track of time) didn't quite hook me in as a film should and it was difficult to connect to the characters in this time of introduction--it felt distanced from the audience, which, come to think of it, is natural. This is from a completely different time and culture than we are in now, and feels very different from a typical film or modern drama, and the classical-style score very much cements that feeling. Director Whit Stillman (Metropolitan, The Last Days of Disco) attempts to properly introduce his characters by having characters appear in their own extended frames with their names underneath with a witty description, as if it were a play's program, but the frames are fleeting and therefore not always useful, though provide good chuckles. He still tries to make sure we leave the theater knowing who the characters were and reintroduces them before the final credits roll with actor and character name superimposed on a brief clip of a scene of them from the movie. It's a flip of the coin whether it was effective or not, but it certainly makes it feel like the movie never actually ended after it does, which is unfortunate but not terrible.

Gratefully, the film does pick up with plenty of time left, and in the end, Love & Friendship is a fun, witty, independent comedy with great performances. Everyone seems to enjoy the roles they're playing. Kate Beckinsale is rather good as Lady Susan Vernon, a sly and deviously deceptive woman. Luckily, the mix of script and cold performance ensure that the characters' reactions to her actions and biddings are believable, but also make sure that the audience knows she's not a woman to be trusted. When Emma Greenwell (Shameless) as sister-in-law Catherine Vernon tips off to her mother that Lady Susan is a genius who can manipulate any man to bow to her will, I very much believed it. However, Beckinsale is not the only standout. Tom Bennett shines as the gleefully stupid Sir James Martin, a delightful mix of Dogberry and Michael Scott. He had me doubling over in my seat. His performance is so ridiculous, the film is worth seeing for him alone.

Now Sir Martin is involved in the giant love affair: he's Frederica Vernon's "unintended" suitor, meaning she does not like him at all in the prospect of marriage (though she could "if he were a brother or a cousin or a second cousin or a step-something). Frederica, though, has begun to fall for Reginald DeCourcy, much to the joy of the DeCourcys. Actors Clark and Samuel have tremendous chemistry and are a joy to watch, sometimes outshining Lady Susan's own plots. Their pairing makes them incredibly likable heroes in this often farcical story.

One more thing to note: I very much appreciated Stillman's use of color in the film. The costumes are very bright, as you can see in the photograph below, but the screen aesthetic also plays a role. The film has that mildly dull, period piece look to it, but once a certain event happens at the end of the film, when things come out right (it is a comedy!), the film becomes much, much brighter, almost blindingly so, with light blues and bright yellows coming out. There's also a fun but subtle bit of humor at the end that underscores an innuendo that I thought was very clever, but for the sake of you, dear reader, I wish not to spoil with explanation.

"A lovely family portrait."

In the end, Love & Friendship is a delightful film. The humor is sharp and witty, many thanks to Beckinsale and Bennett's dedicated performances. Despite losing me at times, the film comes together and comes out a fun story of true love and deception. For the most part, you know what you're getting going into this--if you like Jane Austen, you will adore this movie (the six other people in my theater were very much into it); if not, you may find enjoyment. Either way, I feel like it was $10 well-spent. If you catch it someday, you will likely enjoy it. I give Love & Friendship 4 out of 5 stars.

Have you heard of this film? Are you a Jane Austen aficionado? On an unrelated note, I do plan to catch up on earlier films I have seen and not yet reviewed due to other priorities, such as The Jungle Book and Deadpool, so keep an eye out for those. But whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

Farewell to the Calvary Film Society

On May 13, 2016, the Calvary Film Society screened its final film for the 2015-2016 season, The Shootist, as part of the theme "First & Last." Incidentally, it was also my last film night. I have been a member of the Film Society for four years--all of high school--and even wrote up a post about it in 2013, "The Film Society: Culture Made." To commemorate my parting and having written about my introduction to it, I find it only fitting to share my parting words with the greatest thing about Calvary Christian High School:

I remember going to my very first Calvary Film Society meeting. The film was The Birds. The whole week leading up to it, black birds were abound, circling CCHS. It was an uncanny connection, to say the least. Usually these birds resemble the death of something, but in October 2012 they signaled the beginning of my involvement with the most formative extracurricular activity for me during high school.

It was more than just a club. It is a society that makes one think intellectually about a film--not a movie: cinema--as art, and forces you to consider media from a spiritual, philosophical, and critical perspective. No film confirmed that more than Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, Mr. Jon Seals's swan song.

At the beginning of my junior year, Mr. Bohlander approached me about serving as the President of the Calvary Film Society (Student Representative, publicly). He, Mrs. Johnson, and Mr. Perkins explained this was not a usual position. They only appointed someone as such only if they saw it fit to, and if there was a true love, a passion for film--the last one to fill it was Matt Voor who has since graduated from the FSU Film School. I happily accepted the position.

Since then, I have helped organize the (quasi-)monthly film nights, assisted with film selection, and some other things. Amongst those, I was blessed enough to be able to lead three discussions, my own pick--Noah--on March 2015 (in retrospect, I am surprised that that made it into the CFS canon--thank you, Sponsors, for your faith in me!). This year I was able to lead two. In January, we talked about horror and style through Jaws, the first blockbuster, and in April, I led a discussion on the 1959 Journey to the Center of the Earth and talked about its place smack dab in the middle of film history. This year I have also given introductions to most of the films. Doing this has made me a more mature film aficionado and more knowledgeable on how to best communicate with an audience.

As the credits roll on my last night, I should reflect on the three pictured items. Every meeting, I have carried around a blue notebook. This notebook, originally purposed for Spanish class on virtual school, has since become synonymous with CFS. I have recorded my Oscar predictions in it, have written notes of films, and have preserved almost all past Film Society discussion notes in its pages (back when we printed them). This will always be a token of what the Calvary Film Society was to me.

Beside it are parting gifts from the three people who gave me this leadership opportunity. They signed a colorful "picture documentary" (as Mr. Perkins called it) on the work of Wes Anderson, The Wes Anderson Collection. I will treasure it and study it, using it to look deeper at Anderson's films. To me, this represents what the Calvary Film Society always is.

Finally, there is the Ticket Stub Diary. Should my path not change. I will be going to the cineplex quite often for the next several years. Ever since 2012 I have saved my ticket stubs (unless they curiously disappear) and I will continue to do so. But it will also become a collection of the films I will talk about and write about intellectually, critically, etc. For me, this represents the legacy of the Calvary Film Society in my life.

For the past seven years, the Calvary Film Society has affected so many students and has brought back student and faculty alumni. With the other founder returning and an ever-growing collection of student patrons of this art, I do not anticipate the end anytime soon. I will not be as regular as I have been the past four years (for obvious reasons) but I hope that through my tenure I have been able to affect you all by a t least a fraction of how the Calvary Film Society has affected me. Thank you for the discussions, thank you for the opportunities, and thank you for everything else.

Until next time, "I'll see you at the movies."

NEW MOVIE: The Boy

The Boy is the second horror film of 2016, and one of many creepy doll movies, one of many creepy house movies, and certainly not the last of bad horror movies. The Boy stars Lauren Cohan from The Walking Dead as an American who is hired to be a nanny in a secluded mansion in the UK. As we all know, the boy she is nannying is not just any boy; he's a porcelain doll named Brahms. While the concept is not in any way new or fresh (we just had Annabelle a little over a year ago, it has the same rule trope as Gremlins, and the attic scene is just Christmas Vacation with a Gothic vibe), there is something that makes the film interesting.

Rated PG-13 for violence and terror, and for some thematic material

Remarkably, the performances are actually good. Cohan makes most of her character's actions believable, especially when we learn some of the horror she's experienced in the past. Even though the concept is somewhat ridiculous (which is brought up in dialogue), she makes us the viewer believe the circumstances, making the first half pretty tolerable as far as the story is concerned. Rupert Evans, from The Man in High Castle (another popular television show), is also good as the family's delivery boy, and he and Cohan have good chemistry together as romantic leads (that doesn't mean I wasn't suspecting him of being a villain for half the movie).

It's also worth mentioning that the film builds suspense rather well. Where it disappoints is in scares, I thought. I felt uneasy at times during the movie when it was building up the tension. Unfortunately, all but maybe two of the scares in the movie are not silly jump scares. By that I mean, fake-outs. For example, the first scare in the film is the hand grab out of the portrait that ends the trailers. The build-up to it is nice: there's a bump in the night, she goes walking to figure out the source, sees the portrait, looks around, then there's a really loud noise as the ghost hand pops up!--and...it's just a dream. The next scare happens, and it's just a dream. Heck, there's even one scare in the attic where there's literally just a loud noise. I think there was supposed to be something on screen to accompany it, but I couldn't make it out. So I jumped because of the noise, but I was more confused than anything. As a result of the inefficiency, I didn't believe the movie the way the movie wanted me to. I'm sure the 13 year olds screaming behind me did, but the jump scares didn't do anything for me. Granted, I wasn't looking for a Jaws, but there could have been better resolutions.

But besides the lack of scariness to accompanying the suspense, there is an even worse offender that completely negates the moody suspense and the fine performances: the twist and the third act. I'll save you the spoilers if you do decide to see this movie (which you shouldn't), but I was angered by it. As we learn more about Greta through phone calls from her family in America, we learn that she was the victim of an abusive boyfriend that had terrible consequences. Because of those events and the trauma she experiences over the course of the film, I felt invested in a film about the psychological effects of these real-life horrors that also provided a tragic comparison between her and Brahms's parents. Just thinking about the potential makes me wish that was the movie I saw.

But, of course, the writer doesn't seem to recognize the potential behind the film to make a work that could raise awareness on an important issue while providing an unconventional horror. Instead what we get is a film that tells us that Greta was abused and then goes and abuses her, needlessly sexualizing her in a gratuitous (though non-explicit) shower scene and further torturing her when we realize the disturbing implications of the twist. The twist also reveals the inconsistency of the film: it began as a Gothic horror, developed as a ghost movie, then became an interesting psychological horror, then debased itself into a suspenseless PG-13 slasher that takes all the character development and important themes and burns them, throws them out the window, and dances on the ashes whilst making it rain with the millions in profit. When the theme music that introduced us to the creepy atmosphere plays during the last moments of the movie, it feels inauthentic and too good for the movie that we got in the end. We came in and got one thing, then left with something completely different and worse.

One may say, "Adam, it's just a stupid horror movie. You're thinking too much into it." To which I say, "Why shouldn't we look at a movie with depth?" Performances aside, this movie is beyond hollow. The fact that it disregarded the heaviness of Greta's past for a cheap finale chase and a stupid final shot that tries to set up Brahms as the newest horror icon is wrong. Greta was a well-developed character until the movie just didn't care. This isn't even a question of a strong female character or not--this is beyond that. This movie is morally wrong. It really upsets me how they made us empathize with a past that may have had sexual abuse and then goes on and metaphorically does the same to her.

Well, you did! You hurt me pretty bad after I had to sit through this awful thing.

I give this film 1 out of 5 stars. It's a thoroughly disappointing horror movie that had a lot of potential, good performances, and a creepy, suspenseful feel, but it ultimately threw all that away in favor of non-scary scares and a cheap, albeit surprising, finale that in turn cheapened the rest of the film to the point that it just felt wrong on so many levels. I left the theater hating it, and the more I thought about it, I hated it even more. If I hadn't seen Paul Blart 2 last year, I would've said this was the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater. But congratulations, Mall Cop, at least you've got that going for you.

So did you see The Boy? What did you think about it? How does it compare to other horror you've seen? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

GUEST REVIEW: Home Alone

For those of you who don't know, I'm the student representative of my school's Film Society. Our goal as the Calvary Film Society is to present films for those interested in not only the artistic and entertaining elements of films, but also the messages and worldviews they portray, following up each film viewing with discussion and analysis. At our annual Christmas party, we announced a contest for free movie tickets, that being a contest for the best review of the night's film Home Alone. In addition to the movie tickets, the winner would have their review published here on my blog. Our winner was Jordan Watt, and to close out the holiday season, here is his review, as promised. Congratulations, Jordan!

The film Home Alone is a unique film demonstrating the importance of family through the absence of family in the Christmas season. In this movie, Kevin, the protagonist, is set in a busy world and is neglected by the people whom he wishes most to be acknowledged, which is his family. When he does get attention from his family, it is in a largely negative way. Kevin, after being continuously rejected by his family, wishes for his family to completely disappear so he can live without always being neglected. What he didn't realize was that he would be mistakenly left behind on a trip to Paris and his wish of not having a family would become true. 

In his initial revelation of his family being missing, he is filled with jubilee. He becomes a rule-free child in his family-free environment. After his initial jubilee, he felt a gap in his life where his family once was. Kevin began noticing increasingly more the joy of other families and the lack of his, because of his ill wishes against his family. This was a symbolic standpoint in Kevin's view of his family. He had wished them away because of his own selfish wants, but he also realized how important they were. They cared for him and gave him a core in his life. After this point, Kevin becomes a more considerate kid towards his friendly surrounding people, and sought after becoming a better person. 

When Harry and Marv, the antagonists, planned to rob Kevin's home, Kevin sought to develop the religious part of himself. He went to church in a very symbolic way to be cleansed of his sins and confess his need for his family back. While doing this he is confronted by his mysterious neighbor, Marley, who Kevin's brother said was a murderer. Kevin was frightened at first, but was calmed by Marley's dismissing of the rumor. He told Kevin about the importance of family, and how even his family was split up because of arguments. Kevin, noticing that they were going through the same sort of pain, gave him advice on how he would approach it. Marley was thankful for the advice, and Kevin left him to prepare his home for defense. 

Kevin's vast imagination of a child allowed him to expertly trap his home. His new perspective on the importance of his family drove him to protect what belonged to his family. Harry and Marv were driven to steal from Kevin's family because of their selfish drive for possessions. Kevin sabotaged their plans by keeping a level head and through his newfound clarity. When Kevin is pushed to his limit and caught by the burglars, his impact on Marley cycled back to him. Marley incapacitated the burglars and rescued Kevin. The police arrived and all was well. 

Except that Kevin remained without a family. He decided to set up his house for Santa, and prayed again for his family to be returned. He no longer wanted anything but for them to return. Kevin fell asleep, and awoke to a snowy Christmas morning. He rushed to check for his family, but with no reward. His family was nowhere to be seen. At this point his hope was crushed, and he was at his lowest. He felt he had truly lost without what he now wanted so badly. To his great surprise, his mother arrived at the house, and he greeted her with the greatest love. He was joyful that his mother was there, but he wished he could embrace the rest of his family and be reconnected with them. Again, to Kevin's great joy, they also arrived at his home and he was praised for his bravery. He was acknowledged and loved by his family like no other time. He felt the most joyful he had ever experienced. After greeting his family, Kevin witnesses again the impact he had on Marley. Marley had called his son and talked to him about their argument before. His son and family visited and they all embraced and were reconnected as a family, just like Kevin was. In the end, Kevin and Marley both developed as a family member, and in their faith. They truly experienced the importance of family, and the real reason for the season—Christ.

*********************************************************************************************

Now what did you think about Home Alone? What's your favorite holiday movie? Whatever you have to say about the movies, comment below! And Happy Holidays!

NEW MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2

This past weekend saw the end of one of the more successful YA book adaptations since Harry Potter. In the past few movies, The Hunger Games series showed that it could be taken seriously as a movie for all to enjoy. Does the trend continue in the finale Mockingjay--Part 2?

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material

Mockingjay--Part 2 picks up pretty much where the first part left off (it's a very sudden opening, as if one merely switched the discs in a 2-part movie). We clearly have our conflicts for the final chapter at the open: can Peeta (Josh Hutcherson, Bridge to Terabithia) be trusted after his brainwashing at the end of the last film, and how will the Capitol be taken down? The pace at which these things transpire and are resolved take much longer to find their footing, so the first hour or so is kind of boring.

The thing I loved about Mockingjay--Part 1, my favorite of The Hunger Games movies, was the propaganda war. It allowed us to see the evolution of Katniss's character from tenuous winner to revolutionary icon. Unfortunately, though, the sequel doesn't cut the cord, leaving less of a distinction between the parts. Meaning, the film wants to go its own way, but it's bogged down by elements from its predecessor. I liked the filming of the propos before, but their appearance here makes the film progress slower than it should for being the final battle. That said, the film is exciting at a few points, frightening even, though derivative. I swear the final season of Falling Skies on TNT followed an extremely similar plot as the first act, all the way up to the sewer scene and corrupt rebellion, that this film lacked a lot of surprise, even if the source material came out before the alien show.

That said, even though the film lacked surprise doesn't mean it wasn't still suspenseful and powerful when it needed to be. The acting performances from the whole lot, especially from Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Donald Sutherland (as Katniss, Peeta, and perhaps less villainous President Snow), kept me invested even when the film dragged. Donald Sutherland embraces the evil that his character surely is, but at the same time, lets Katniss and the audience see his point of view, making a delightfully justifiable villain that maybe we want to let live in the end. A shocking scene towards the end is disturbing in all the best ways (my mouth was actually open in shock), and really lets us understand why Katniss does what she does as the film closes.

Considering that this is the final film in the series, it needs to have a good ending that wraps the series up well. Thankfully, it does, closing the series out with a fantastic final scene that is completely believable, and really, the series could not have closed out any other way: peaceful, a reprieve after the storm. The long tumultuous road, from bravery and sacrifice, from anger and unrest, from confusion and chaos--from war--to love and peace.

So all in all, The Hunger Games closes with a rather fine finale, that at times is derivative and slow, but makes up for all of it by being well-acted and exciting, while effectively closing out the series in a grim yet beautiful and bittersweet way. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2 gets 3.5 out of 5 stars.

One last shot for the franchise!

Did you see this one? What did you think compared to the others? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!