Rewind Review: Predators

Predators is a film with many struggles which do not immediately make themselves apparent but eventually constrain what is a promising premise. Quite frankly the stakes could not be any higher in a story. A group of strangers are dropped via parachute onto an alien planet. Once realizing they are on another planet and not alone it’s life or death. Sounds like a pretty foolproof recipe for an engaging story. Unfortunately, it isn’t for myriad reasons.

While it is fine to have dueling protagonists one of them needs to be a preferable option and neither Royce or Isabelle is really an attractive option and the sad part is the problems aren’t inherent. You have in this ragtag bunch former military men, mafia or other organized crime members and a doctor. All of which are job types which have bred interesting characters in the past, it’s just these characters hardly develop and show little to no emotion. In the beginning Royce wants to go at it alone and Isabelle wants the group together. Everything you see them demonstrate is just a reiteration of the fundamental difference between the two without illustrating further dissimilarity. So there is a fundamental lack of identification which exists here and even looking at director Nimrod Antal’s previous works that doesn’t typically exist. Vacancy functioned in large part because you identified with the young couple and Kontroll, a film he made in his native Hungary, similarly didn’t have the most charismatic protagonist but he was an engaging one.

The Predators in the film are few and aside from what we learn from the characters’s speculation we know nothing. We occasionally get good looking POV shots thru their heat-sensitive vision but know nothing of them, which would be allowable if they weren’t so prominent. There is one predator who is tied up, why he is ostracized is not explained and yet on the heels of the climax we are asked to watch a predator fight in which we have no rooting interest and do not understand the source of the conflict. That is a fundamental of bad drama in action.

20936

While the lighting and composition of the film provided by cinematographer Gyula Pados was quite often very striking and a highlight of the film there is a cramped aspect to the layout of the planet we see. Such that perhaps if there were more varied locations it would’ve feel more like an alien planet and less like they are under a dome surrounding a very small area.

Another slight issue which mushroomed in conjunction with the other issues it faced was that the film did operate, for the most part, in Franchise Mode. I personally hadn’t seen previous installations in full but there were things you knew would happen and a really high level of execution was needed to impress under those unusual circumstances and that didn’t happen. An example would be their first glimpse of the sky which shows that they are on an alien planet. The audience has already jumped ahead and knows that fact, so even though Pados’s shot with the aid of CG is quite good it is ultimately ineffectual and renders much of act one moot in terms of emotional impact, only their deducing facts about this foreign terrain keeps one engaged.

The cast is hit or miss. The charismatic and funny Danny Trejo isn’t there nearly enough. Adrien Brody may be many things but an action star he isn’t, principally toward the end he came off as a psychopath more than anything else. The one surprising performance the film had to offer was by the Brazilian actress, playing Hispanic, Alice Braga, niece of Sonia.

Predators (2010, 20th Century Fox)

Even with the stakes set at the start of the film as high as they can go tension never really mounts, it fizzles. Add to that a surprise from Topher Grace’s character and it’s hard to stand even though Grace was relatively effective throughout.

Predators is ultimately a film filled with promise that through many unfortunate miscalculations misses the mark badly.

4/10

Advertisements

Rewind Review: Step Up 3

Step Up 3, or 3D, depending on which version you are seeing is likely to go down as the worst film of the year. Firstly, to comment I did not view the film in 3D, however, it doesn’t seem as if much of the film would’ve benefitted greatly from it just a few scenes here and there but it really isn’t worth the surcharge.

What needs to be said up front is that this film does have one true redeeming quality and that can only be conveyed by backhanded complement, so that should give you some sense of just how good it is. The film manages to be rather entertaining and close to magical when dance routines are being done, however, there is not nearly enough screen time dedicated to dancing throughout.

There are, however, plot complications that are unnecessary, contrivances which are laughable and all of which are cliché and bring next to nothing original to the table. It is the first film since Gamer, last year, which made me think that perhaps a bright thirteen-year-old wrote it. If that were true the writing would be pretty good as it stands it was not written by a thirteen-year-old and it is abysmal. There are too many disparate elements thrown together seemingly only behind the strength of the notion that “That would be cool.”

stepik-step-up-3-d-13747761-1930-1086

There is a dance contest which The Pirates, the troupe we are “rooting” for due to the protagonists, is about bragging rights but it’s also about the cash prize. Why do they want the money? To avoid foreclosure on their dance home, of course. This place is like a dancer’s equivalent to the Batcave and yet all 100 (give or take) people who are in there somehow can’t afford the rent but the editing bay, foam pit, soundproofing, boom box room, etc, they’re all manageable.

This rivalry between troupes is also rather hilarious because sometimes you can’t tell if it’s going to break out into West Side Story or a Kung Fu movie. Neither of which are really fitting here but get squeezed in anyway.

There is not only a very scripted-sounding documentary opening but a film within the film as one of the protagonists, Luke (Rick Malambri) is a budding documentarian. Yes, he’s the next Baryshnikov and Errol Morris rolled into one. But wait, there’s more, there’s a whole other plot which shares equal time for the first half of the film, vanishes and comes back; Moose (Adam Sevani) and his two lives, dance and Engineering, at NYU. As if that wasn’t enough Luke’s love interest, Natalie (Sharni Vinson) joins the troupe as a spy turns out to be Luke’s archrival’s sister and no one was ever the wiser.

stepik-step-up-3-d-13747939-1934-1088

I actually could go on. The contest to pay for a space is clichéd enough without adding the twin betrayal-reconciliation love plots and passion versus reason plots into the mix.

I could continue but dead horses need not be beaten. So what could make myriad bad plot devices worse? Bad acting, of course, come on down. Granted take this comment with a grain of salt as most involved in this film are primarily dancers but still too much of it was flat and ineffectual. The chemistry between both couples most of the times seems forced and the only one who gives their all and is somewhat winning is Adam Sevani. What’s more infuriating is that this film had another wonderful thing going and ruined it by cramming too many recycled storylines into. Had the film been simpler and had more dance numbers it could’ve been good. This was a musical, to an extant, that actually addressed a musical phenomenon of people breaking into song and dance in the streets realistically by having onlookers react to it. Being that it was in New York for the most part that allowed for some funny lines which at times distracted you from more “schmacting” by the bit players, but there was not nearly enough of that to save the film.

But that’s not all, the last thing that bears mentioning is the brief but comedically bad use of CG. It involves Icees, a grate, wind and unrealistic movement of said Icees when blown out a straw into the wind. It seems like it could not possibly be serious and it made me wonder if Woody Allen is missing an early draft of Everyone Says I Love You.

step-up-3d.png

I suppose one other redeeming quality is that despite this being a very bad film it is not a painfully bad but is actually enjoyably bad in the tradition of Troll 2 but nowhere near as good/bad. The few things that were infuriating were listed above and they over-complicated what in a simpler state may have been a passable film. In the end it was an unmitigated disaster.

2/10

Updates: December 20th, 2015

It’s a bit unusual for me to have multiple updates in a quarter much less in a month, but here we are. Much of the reason for a second update so soon is that I’m trying to keep myself on task, as well as letting you know what’s up.

So here goes…

BAM Awards

BAM-Awards-2015Some of the legwork to get me to BAM Awards shortlists has been done. On December 24th (yes, that December 24th) I will announce the shortlists, which is a culling down of all categories to only the most serious contenders. Watch this space for those announcements. This will be followed by nominees on January 2nd, 2016 and the handing out of prizes on January 9th, 2016.

Some categories which have been in limbo for inclusion this year will be either included or dropped on the 24th.

“Post!”

12_scott_mckenzie_billy_and_ann_emery_grandma_by_alastair_muir_2010

OK, so I went with a Billy Elliot reference, one that’s more noteworthy in the stage musical than the film, but the point is; many posts are scheduled through the first quarter of 2016. I know I promised new content a while back and that should still be coming.

Screenings

Hugo (2011, Paramount)

One thing that will augment the BAM awards, and new content, is getting through my backlog of screeners. You can track my progress (to an extent) on Letterboxd. In the wee hours yesterday, I posted a longer-than-expected extemporaneous reaction to a film, which I may expound upon soon.

List-Making

2006_tsc3_the_escape_clause_008

Aside from my awards, I do publish year-end lists in Early January. It’s with some sadness that I must say I didn’t see enough horror in 2015 to have a list on that genre be significant. But I will have a Top films (about 30 – some horror included) and also a Film Discoveries list (at least 30).

“I Just Wanna Bang on the Drum All Day”

TinDrum12

What slowed the progress of my posts on The Tin Drum was reaching a non-drafted section in my notes. I hope to get to that soon – and strike a balance with other ongoing projects. In the meantime, you can read what I have so far.

Other Works in 2016

Bloodmaster (David Rosenthal)

Some of the other works I hope to get done soon are as follows:

  1. New videos including a short documentary.
  2. Polishing and publishing new fiction. What I have already published can be found here. What I hope to prepare and publish is also intimated at in my about pages.
  3. Collecting more film writing and developing longer-form posts on a more regular basis.
  4. And more.

So, I hope this gives you more insight into the workings of the site here, dear readers. Bear with me for many exciting things are forthcoming.

 

Rewind Review: RED

What is it one can really say about the film Red? It does happen to get off to a good ambling start but somewhere along the way the novelty wears off. One of the highlights of the film is the siege upon Frank Moses’ (Bruce Willis) house. That is very early on.

While the film never takes a narrative jump too big it does progressively grow its web of conspiracy to a very high level. It was much more enjoyable and relatable when it was on a more personally based. The more entanglements of politics and the military-industrial complex that get mixed into it the less effective it becomes.

This is also a film with a rather interesting albeit not always overly-successful tonality to it. It’s part comedy, part action and part drama. The comedic never takes things too far out of the realm of believability and is always well-placed. It’s the action sequences that make you think a bit too much about what the real ramifications of these events would be.

red2-1

Where it does succeed, however, is that almost all the drama flows out of the characters as opposed to the situation which is why we remain involved in this particular tale.

The cast of this film is another thing that keeps a rather thin premise barely above water. Deserving first mention is a most welcome turn from Academy-Award winner Ernest Borgnine. It’s always good to see screen legends of a previous age getting legitimate work in today’s Hollywood. Bruce Willis is his usual action-star self in this vehicle and unlike some members of The Expendables doesn’t look out of place still playing an action lead.

Perhaps what’s best about these performances is that they did serve the story and weren’t merely used as adornment. John Malkovich’s character is a prime example. He brings forth most of the comedy in this title and it is due in large part to his paranoia. We find out through the course of the story that his paranoia is, in fact, perfect and he ends up being a great asset to the team and not a detriment.

2013-07-19-red2

Another way in which this film falls a little short is being too cute when you don’t have to. Without giving too much away there is a twist regarding the whereabouts of Morgan Freeman’s character. It is so blatantly obvious that they later waste a cut to reveal the “trick.” I highly doubt a high percentage of the audience was that fooled such that it was necessary and it really wasn’t needed to better convey the tale.

Red is a funny and entertaining film but ultimately the promise it shows early on is never followed through and it ends up being a rather forgettable experience when the opposite was promised.

6/10

Rewind Review: The Merry Gentleman

What one might think of when they initially hear that an actor is making his directorial debut is that the film will tend to be safe, unassuming and cinematically unappealing. When one learns in addition to the fact that said actor is not only directing but starring in the film nasty thoughts of vanity project, showcase and self-indulgence might come to mind. Wipe all those notions out of your head when it comes to Michael Keaton’s first feature length film The Merry Gentleman.

Immediately, upon the beginning of the picture so many things make themselves very clear – the very first thing we hear over the title card is a church bell ringing; a lot of the subtext of the film deals with religion. Initially Michael Keaton’s character (Frank) walks right past a church but later fixes a statue, watches a Christmas decoration be callously tossed aside on Boxing Day. He is struggling with his faith, guilt and remorse but all of it is unspoken. The second thing that establishes itself are the visuals. There is no dialogue for a couple of minutes to start, unlike a typical opening title sequence though a lot is happening and it must be paid attention to. Lastly, the visuals themselves, the framing and lighting throughout is extremely good and engaging to watch – excellent cinematography indeed.

Keaton’s character is also quiet and it takes him a while to speak but that in no way detracts from his presence and the level of performance. Yet the star of the film is Kelly McDonald. Her performance is truly good and having a few lesser-known faces around is a breath of fresh air. A lot of times as a viewer that frees you up allowing you to watch the characters and not the actors acting.

merrygentleman_1130_430_90_s_c1

The dialogue is smart and funny and the film is well-written. What I like best is that it remains a drama throughout. And when you have an abused estranged wife, a police investigation and a hit man you have three potential landmines and if they blow it will create genre fluff. The film deftly avoids all these and doesn’t  give you a Hollywood or even a tidy ending but its story is told and it’s over at the exact right moment and it was still quite satisfying.

It is also the kind of film that lingers with you. After it’s over you just keep mulling it over. Truly the mark of a thought-provoking film and in this case a very good one.

8/10

Rewind Review: Unstoppable

One of the better ways to examine the progression of cinematic history I feel is to look at similar films and compare them. As I was watching this film, as absolutely enthralled as I was by the collision course that was set up; I got to thinking about The Great Train Robbery (1903). Now, granted, there is little that this film holds in common with a title 107 years its senior aside from trains but consider this.

The audiences in 1903 literally ducked out of the way when a train on screen plowed right at them and similarly ducked when the robber shot right at them. What tremendous progress both technically and with regard to audience sophistication has been made. When you look at this runaway train film, however, many classical techniques are what make it work.

Mainly, the editing puts this film over the top. The oldest and most tried-and-true technique in film. The film does set up the danger: this train with X-thousand tons of haz mats is likely to derail in a town of 40,000 or so, however, a number that large in a cinematic context is abstract. Who do we follow and care for? Frank (Denzel Washington) and Will (Chris Pine) who will be chasing the runaway train down and Connie (Rosario Dawson) who is the Supervisor trying to manage the crisis. Yet this doesn’t truly create most of the tension. It’s the cross-cutting that does it. It’s a news helicopter following, the runaway catching speed, showing an on coming train, a switch is made, they nearly hit one another.

denzel-washington-unstoppable

And there are situations similar to this throughout. The film builds tension-filled situations throughout and even the littlest mistake by anyone has consequences.

The characters are basically assembled but as mentioned before there is concern for their well-being and a rooting interest is established. It’s not even the facts that make us identify but how they are conveyed. Will has a skeleton in his closet a terrible mistake he made but we get to know him first before we learn what it is. We learn Frank is a dedicated, very capable engineer and then learn of his job situation. We can see Connie is wise, compassionate and courageous through her interaction with her superior.

The cast is vital when you’re dealing with archetypal characters such as these. You need not only talented actors but also charismatic one who will add and unwritten dimension to these people. Denzel Washington’s dialogue is frequently repetitive but there is a presence and authority to his delivery that adds to who Frank is. Pine has a tough look but a vulnerability which is crucial to his part. Dawson has a no-nonsense-ness about her that is inimitable.

unstoppable-trailer-

The film uses news flashes as shorthand to disseminate crucial information and also to raise the stakes as necessary. Thankfully, this tactic which could wear thin if used too much is used just enough. The one place it gets overly involved is the new helicopter becomes too much a part of the action at a crucial point and becomes an obstacle to our heroes.

To cap it off the cinematography and scoring are both very strong and add to the suspenseful ambiance.

Unstoppable is a nail-biter in the truest sense of the phrase and is a must-see for those who appreciate expert editing.

Mini-Review: Benji

 

It’s a method I generally try to avoid, but perhaps the best way to discuss Benji is via comparative analysis. After I had seen Benji what occurred to me is that there was some structural similarity to 9.79*, and that being that it is mainly a chronology of events (this one far more linear) but there is a late-in-the-game monkeywrench thrown into the mix. I will not expose details to preserve surprise, but the late revelation here only has one side telling the story period, not just on camera. Furthermore, the revelation, in my mind didn’t really shift the legal burden of blame.

Regardless, for the most part, this is an effectively rendered tale for the most part that reveals a mostly unknown personage now. The film does well to just present its case and not comment upon it. The only other issue it suffers from is that there is a slight lack of ebb and flow. There is a definitive rise-and-fall, but its crescendo and decrescendo. The rigidly linear nature of this tale hinders its efficacy some.

7/10

Rewind Review: Aliens in the Attic

If you skipped the movies this weekend and only glanced at the box-office figures you might’ve thought it was a rather dismal weekend. Financially speaking that is the case but one must always keep in mind that the box office is not always a true barometer.

The top ten films combined to just barely top $106 Million over the weekend when just a few weeks ago Harry Potter was nearly at the mark within two days. That is not to say this weekend was devoid of quality. Wallowing lowly in 5th place is an overlooked, under-advertised, and under-appreciated film which is a great time for all just waiting to happen; and one that you should catch before it makes a premature exit from multiplexes.

Aliens in the Attic fully lives up to the vibe I picked up from it when I first saw a trailer for it some time back. It seemed like a displaced ’80s film which had been updated for a modern audience. What I mean is that the film is relevant to today’s youth as the extended family that fight off an invasion of miniature aliens in their vacation home make jokes about how the mind control devices are like video game systems, yet the feel of the film is from a different time.

Aliens-In-The-Attic-aliens-in-the-attic-7391164-1066-600

Those elements which hearken back to yesteryear being mainly: an irreverent, at times goofy, comedy where kids are protagonists, a fantastical world that only the kids have access to while the parents are clueless in more ways than one, a relatively anonymous lead cast, an alien who befriends kids and not necessarily politically correct jokes like “Oh no, it’s the po-po” and “He got hit in the nards” (the latter very reminiscent of the ’80s classic Monster Squad).

From the very start of the film the tone is set that the film will be consistently funny and not only funny but fun. So much so that you just go along for the ride and certain questions about dubious plot points or rationale on the aliens’ parts don’t take up too much of your attention.

The CG, as one would hope was the case in a film where certain key characters are computer animated is pretty good and never shows glaring weakness. The cast despite some seemingly strange choices is quite good. Most notably the young core of the film (Carter Jenkins, Austin Butler, Ashley Boettcher and the Young twins) also deserving of praise are SNL alums Kevin Nealon, who plays a clueless dad in the Chevy Chase mold, and Tim Meadows who brings his wry wit to the sheriff’s role. SNL’s best generation have had overall less than stellar film turns but this two-for is one of the best showings by that class in a while.

 

fhd009ATC_Carter_Jenkins_008

The film benefits most from its fine, sharp writing. The writing excels in practically every sense – comedy, one-liners and pace. Despite having quite a diverse cast of characters, none of which have much time devoted to them alone, we definitely get a sense of character from all involved – even the aliens.

The most one can truly ask of a film is to be entertained and Aliens in the Attic does so in spades. It’s pretty much non-stop engagement and enjoyment and there is something for everyone in the family and it’s most definitely worth checking out.

The IMDb user rating is currently a 4.6 which in my estimation is much too low, and it’s a serious contender for most underrated title of the year. It’s not perfect of course, nothing is, but it’s one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in while and I was rather amazed by that so I will give it a 9/10 – a truly good film which was just a minute detail or so away from greatness but still a wholly satisfying and extremely enjoyable experience.

Rewind Review: 2012

So here it is another end-of-the-world-spectacular. Roland Emmerich was recently quoted as denying his penchant for destroying the world even though this is the third time he’s done so as a director and plans on doing so again. The apocalyptic film as a subgenre is tired enough as it is without it also becoming tired from the same director.

This film was not nearly as bad as I had feared when I went into it but it also wasn’t good. Firstly, the Mayan prophecy which is the launch point for the creation of this film is merely referenced and doesn’t really factor into the plot aside from the fact that the film more or less says it’s correct. This film also sets up many disparate story lines at the start that don’t really balance that well. All the storylines that go on connect in the end but you’re left wondering for too long what the relation is and some aren’t as focused upon or necessary. All it is doing is unnecessarily prolonging a film in which you already know what the climax is. The only real mystery is the denouement which ends up being disppointing and not the jolly event the film wants you to see it as.

268_1_dsc8234

It reminded me a bit of War of the Worlds but what works in War of the Worlds, meaning any version of that film, is that there is an enemy. You can’t fight a natural catastrophe and trying to prevent it doesn’t make for very compelling cinema which is why there was so little focus on precautionary measures and things just went to hell very quickly.

Suspension of disbelief in a tale like this becomes very difficult during one cliffhanging section, just one. I am quite open to trying to go with the flow but there was one narrow escape that was just too hard to swallow.

There’s also a fine line between showing the totality of the chaos and just being sensationalistic and this film crosses that line several times and by so much that some of it is just downright offensive- the USS John F. Kennedy tumbling off the crest of a tidal wave and crushing the White House, a crack in the Sistene Chapel’s roof and the statue of Christ the Redeemer breaking and falling off its perch above Rio.

harrelson smile

The best part of the film is Woody Harrelson and he gets killed off halfway through. Cusack and Peet are fine but they never really had to stretch and be all that impressive. Danny Glover playing the President of the United States is woefully miscast. When playing a fictitious president you’ve either reached that level as an actor or people just buy it and I didn’t buy this one and never heard anyone questioning Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact. Oliver Platt’s character never really made sense because he was fighting to take over a world that was going to end anyway. It’s just another case of a gifted actor in a bad project- something so common with him I now cringe upon seeing him.

The effects for the most part are really believable, nothing mind-blowing but nothing glaringly terrible either. The editing is not good in terms of content. Upon reflection I still can’t see the need of the film to have been that long and it did feel long this wasn’t a Spielbergian two-and-a-half hours either.

The dialogue at times was quite trite, forced and at times just dumb. The film is only serviceable for its action. So if you’re an adrenaline junkie you’ll probably get a kick out of it. Fans of cinema need not apply.

5/10

Rewind Review: The Nutcracker in 3D

The Nutcracker in 3D as conceptualized by Andrey Konchaloskiy is a rather strange beast indeed. It’s the kind of film that is impossible to stop watching because despite all that you might have to say against it there is some element of charm, ambition, and brashness that keeps your eyes glued to the screen. Perhaps it is a symptom of the era of filmmaking we are currently living in, there are far too many “play it safe” moves made in film today from sequels, to remakes and generic storytelling. Now granted The Nutcracker has been told over and over again, however, none of them ever quite like this and that’s what you end up taking away from this film, like it or not, is a bold attempt at doing something truly unique and different.

What makes this story, or this retelling thereof, so unique? It is the spin placed on everything in this tale. It becomes a historical mishmash in which suddenly Albert Einstein is the children’s uncle, there is talk of Freudian psychology and of course the Rat King and his Kingdom are none other than the Nazis. Yet flying in this face of this seemingly are exotic flying machines and other-worldly motorcycles. Just to have the audacity to go and mix things that ought not necessarily mix is one thing but it goes further.

To use Tchaikovsky’s music extensively is to be expected and nearly mandatory. Whether or not your interpretation involves any form of dance or not his music has become much more synonymous with this story than E.T.A. Hoffman’s writing ever was. However, to add lyrics to his music is a decision that is dubious at best. Hearing that it is Tim Rice writing those lyrics gives you some hope but sadly they are some of the poorest most trite I’ve heard him compose and furthermore they rarely really work. It’s difficult to shoehorn lyrics into a symphonic score and this proves it. What makes the musical experience of this film even more frustrating is that there are parts in which you see songs that do kind of work and you wonder why all can’t but what makes it more frustrating is it needn’t be. There’s just something about this story, told as it is, that doesn’t make it conducive to music.

nutcracker_in_3d01

The performances show the kind of inconsistency that marks this film. There are those who leave you scratching your head and those that make it worth it. Amongst the head-scratchers is Nathan Lane. Why he was needed to barely sing in in one of the worst accents I’ve ever heard is beyond me. In the middle of the road is Frances de la Tour as the Rat Queen, her over-the-top insanity does grow on you as the tone of this film makes itself known. Making the film stay afloat are Elle Fanning as Mary and Charlie Rowe as The Prince, who is all too frequently absent because as the Nutcracker he is replaced by the voice of Shirley Henderson, who is incapable of sounding like anything other than Moaning Myrtle frrom the Harry Potter films. Her inability to mimic a boy’s voice not only brings this casting decision in question but made those portions of the film hard to bear.

What must be pointed out is that in terms of practicality this film is fantastic meaning in as many places where it could get shot practically it is. The rat-people wore prosthetics, there were many sets built and extras. The only things which were computer generated was what absolutely had to be which was nice to see.
The CGI when used is very effective because it is given more of chance to thrive by being surrounded by mostly real elements, making blending easier. To continue the art direction theme the costuming was also great at being both historically accurate but creative where they were allowed to be which is a nice and rare mix.

timthumb.php__1

It is not only the technical that works in this film, that is merely the most consistent element. As odd as the story is, even being rife with Nazi-symbolism, it does find an odd consistency in symbols and narrative flow such that production concerns and decisions in casting can be temporarily ignored and the story can hit you.

Perhaps the best example of this a scene where Max (Aaron Michael Drozin), the younger brother, discovers that despite being recruited by the Rat King (John  Turturro) he doesn’t want to destroy toys anymore. He lets out one of the better and realistic cries you’re likely to hear. It’s like something out of Disney’s Robin Hood in its authenticity.

As for the 3D it falls this far down in the pecking order because it truly is one of the more ineffectual jobs I’ve seen since it came back in vogue. There is little to no value added due to the fact that it’s in 3D. The image is clearer and sharper than many but the trade off is that there isn’t a tremendous amount of depth outward or inward added.

nutcracker_in_3d13

It’s a film that always has a sense of humor about it despite that you can call some of its decisions into question. It is a film that absolutely screams to be seen because it refuses to conform and it is likely to leave very few on the fence and that’s the most we can ask for, and the best kind of movie whether you like it or not, and for that I thank the makers of The Nutcracker in 3D.

5/10