Movie Review: Inception - What dreams may come

Butterflies would be the only way to describe how I felt before, during and after watching Christopher Nolan's Inception (2010). It really isn't too often when you watch a film and immediately want to watch it again because there is so much more to understand. He's now past the hat-trick, leaving me in this state on four straight occasions, constantly asking myself; did I miss anything, did I get it? The movie going experience has always been enhanced two folds when he is handling things; camera work that leaves you with goose bumps as much as it leaves you dizzy, intricate plot structures and scripts drenched in ambiguously subjective themes, just enough magic realism to make his movies seem real, settings of epic proportions matched by equally epic production outfits. To say he's the entire cinematic package (and more) would be painfully cliche and yet completely appropriate.

When The Dark Knight (2008) got released, it became Heath Ledger's Dark Knight... I cannot disagree with this because Ledger's Joker well and truly owned the movie - yet it was sad that Nolan's credit got lost - he was after all responsible for taking Batman (and the Joker) where he did. With Inception however, the stellar cast matched by their stellar performance is completely and utterly secondary. The real winner of this movie is Christopher Nolan and his vision - take into consideration this is a script he has worked on for over a decade. Throw in heavy themes dealing with the mind and it's functions, the power of dreams and the effect it has on life decisions; throw in corporate espionage, the demons of a widower, deep seeded daddy issues and what you have is without a doubt a contemporary, psychological, action packed classic. 

In so little words, Inception is a visual embodiment of the human subconscious and the effect when you have a sneaky group of colourful characters who are able to immerse themselves into it. It takes lucid to a whole new level, where the protagonist and his team, control and manipulate their counterpart's psyche through the medium of dreams. The process revolves around the notion of planting a simple yet life altering idea in one's being, resulting in a complete change in the way one will live out his or her life. 

From the perspective of creating a movie, the concept is vast and infinite. When you are thrust into the dream world setting that our lead characters put themselves in, you are given a visual extravaganza that is literally breathtaking - not so much surprise as you are dumbfounded with what is being shown to you. Paradoxical labyrinth architecture that embodies infinity and the dream world (you're climbing up and yet being led below) is the star of this movie, it's what will stop you from blinking, it's what will keep playing in your mind, it's what will blow you away. From an imagery perspective, this isn't just clever, it's bloody genius. Taking the setting and dialogue into consideration, it's remarkable the way in which Nolan is able to connect his viewers to their own dreams and subconscious aspirations - you can't help but feel an affinity because a lot of what is discussed and what we see is an explanation to questions we constantly ask ourselves when we awake from slumber. 

One can imagine Hollywood actors literally wetting themselves with anticipation at the thought of working with Christopher Nolan - which is why the casting in this movie is ridiculously strong. I've had my say about Leo in my Shutter Island (2010) review from last month and yet again he delivers. Here he is a little more restrained. Compared to his past roles, his character Dom Cobb is subtle and the intensity is within - it really works given the context of the movie. Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt played the controlling roles well, they made for relieving and didactic elements in this highly charged movie... the former coming of age and the latter really leaving his mark as a heavy weight. The Scarecrow, Cillian Murphy gives an understated performance as the team's target - you couldn't fake his inner battles with his father. Marion Cotillard was haunting as the deceased Mal Cobb and nailed the femme fatale role... she was powerful. Watanabe was a bit dopey and I felt a bit of a weak link compared to the other supporting roles. He was a bit flat - his character in this is just as important as his character in Last Samurai (2003), thought he should have done more with it. A big oi oi, must go to our Desi brother Dileep Rao who stars as 'The Chemist' Yusuf, who is responsible for inducing the characters into sleep for the mission - he along with Tom Hardy who plays 'The Forger' Eames, were effective in bringing in the humour and gluing the chemistry between Cobb's team of mind manipulators.

Inception is a culmination of an outstanding script, brilliant directing, powerful acting and awe inspiring visual effects. Step aside James Cameron, Christopher Nolan is here and even Kubrick would be impressed. Watching his movies is like reading a Dostoevsky novel; a dense, complex story telling process where a tragic anti-hero's obsessions are morphed into his surroundings; matched, visualized and created in a medium rooted by the author's obsession with detailing in imagery, dialogue and character development. He has essentially achieved a form of art where the visual medium carries the same weight of meaning that only a book could achieve.

With Nolan, the viewer is no longer a spectator but a participant - there's always a strong sense that everything is up for interpretation; are you a good or bad person, an optimist or a pessimist, a believer or a non-believer, these are usually the questions you ask yourself when the credits start rolling up at the end. Essentially, it's your own answers that determines the eventual outcome of the movie and when that happens, it's nothing short of magic. 

Watch.Inception.NOW. You're late already. Five movie reviews in and I've hit 9/10. Watching it on Monday again, might have to notch it up to 9.5. A massive kudos to the distributors in India, technically we were one of the few nations to catch this movie FIRST. :) Epic release date for India. haha. IN YOUR FACE AUSSIES! Will this lead to a Matrix type trilogy/franchise? We can only hope so.

Movie Review: A-Team - So bad it's good...

Was kinda sketch when I heard this was being released, had my doubts as I do with most remakes. The cast especially... Liam Neeson playing a white haired extremely American Hannibal? Plus, how do you find a suitable replacement for Mr. T? Hmm. The silver lining being Michael Bay wasn't involved in this, but rather Ridley and Tony Scott, which in my opinion makes the world of difference. Remake or not, a movie based on what I remember to be the first TV series I truly followed besides M*A*S*H, this definitely needed to be watched.

A-Team (2010) is a popcorn flick based around a fairly camp 80s TV show, so one can't really complain about a weak script (as I usually do) or talk about symbolic editing and cinematography. You can't go into this expecting a deep plot and Oscar worthy acting, which is basically why I thoroughly enjoyed it. You watch this kind of movie with a bunch of rowdy friends on a big screen and reminisce about your childhood when your parents still had a say about how much TV you watched. The kind of movie, where you see multiple people being blown to bits and cheer, rather than grimace with horror. Where you see your heroes being put in positions where death is nothing but inevitable, but they still come out of it with a mere scratch, a bloody nose and a bit of grime. You got it, think Die Hard with four dudes instead of just Bruce Willis.

Funnily enough, the casting did work in a somewhat surreal way. Bradley Cooper played the role of Face well. I'm hetero, but I can see why he's being branded as the new 'pretty boy' in the industry. When you have your girlfriend squeezing your hand tightly during his swimsuit scene and then going on to tweet about how there weren't enough topless scenes, you begin to think maybe he was under utilized. District 9's Sharlto Copley (his resemblance with Luke Wilson in this is uncanny) was wacky enough to play the mad genius pilot Murdock. Copley is going places, no doubt. It would be wrong and disrespectful if I was to compare anyone with Mr. T, so that should tell you what I thought about the UFC fighter playing the role of BA Baracus. Liam Neeson was cool, but a wrong casting choice... he's a great actor; you just don't pick Rob Roy to play the role of GI Joe, if you get my drift. What did work, the team had chemistry and more often than not, it resulted in some laugh out loud moments.

The plot structure of the movie follows the format of the classic TV show. Hannibal devises what seems to be a near impossible suicide mission, which is followed by 30-minute bursts of ludicrous action, where against all instances of reality, the plan is successful.  You are peppered with funny one-liners through it all, while you feast on epic albeit bizarre violence that Tamil superstar Rajnikanth would approve of. The format did have its shortcomings though, with such a choppy structure, the overall story is lost. The plot is far too loose and isn't tied up as well as it could have been. Which is why as a viewer, you're not really taken aback by any of the twists and turns.

I'm not saying this movie will tap into your intellect or even get you talking. It is however, a whole lot of fun and will take you back to your childhood. Watch it with a bunch of friends and have a laugh, that's exactly what it's worth. A good laugh. Just be sure to keep reminding yourself, this is a remake of an 80s TV show, you get what you ask for.

This got panned by critics and didn't do very well in the box office considering its budget, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun. If you're not familiar with the show, maybe its aloofness will go over your head. If you've been a fan back in the day, then it's definitely worth a watch. As a remake, it did the original justice. 7/10 

Movie Review: Robin Hood - The Medieval Che Guevara

Watched Robin Hood (2010) early last week, must say I was rather excitable. Huge fan of the folklore that is Robin Hood. The Ridley Scott - Russell Crowe combination tends to be a winning one (wtf was A Good Year (2006)?), and it has to be especially good when you've got a story line based around history's greatest outlaw. Was looking forward to a more violent rendition of this and was keen to see what Ridley Scott did with the depiction of archery. 

In general, the casting was well thought out. Russell Crowe made for a great Robin Hood... but maybe with a few too many grey hairs. It was cool to see Cate Blanchett playing the role of Lady Marion, she embodies the spunk of the character. Can't hate on the Lost pick with Kevin Durand as Little John, though the script could have stuck with the 'crossing the river' direction instead of the hammed up gambling angle when he was introduced. The staple characters such as King John and Friar Tuck were done well. Mark Strong was a brilliant villain, but I was left a little confused as to why he wasn't playing the role of Sheriff of Nottingham considering he has always been Robin Hood's main antagonist. Thank god there weren't any American accents to be heard, sorry Kevin Costner.

You expect something historically relevant when you have Ridley Scott at the helm. Movies like Black Hawk Down (2001), American Gangster (2007) and even Gladiator (2000) are a testament to this. Let me start by saying that this movie isn't exactly what you expect from a Robin Hood story a la Disney's animal portrayal (anyone remember that? The wily fox and all...) or even from the Costner portrayal. This isn't the story of the Merry Men (the boat scene and bar scene did have its moments), Sherwood Forest, 'Stealing from the rich, giving to the poor,' an unjust Sheriff of Nottingham and a dickhead King John who pillages his people (ok, the dickhead King John part is there). This is very much an origin story which rids of all these elements. It's about how Robin Longstride becomes Robin Hood. That's something that is important to know if you haven't watched it and will save you some puzzlement and a tad bit of frustration if you're expecting those plot lines. I walked in with expectations of a bad ass Prince of Thieves, instead we get socialist mercenary participating in identity theft. Which if I'm being fair isn't such a bad take on the legend.

Not going to complain about historical references because I thought a lot of the ways the characters were tied up was quite clever. However, there were just too many characters and a few of them got a bit too much focus - the time could have been spent on building Robin Hood's identity. There are several Marxist one liners delivered by Crowe, it would have been nice to have a little more depth to them. Which is why the big speech leading up to the war is painfully contrived. This in many ways tells us how weak the plot elements are that lead up to the point. The speech itself is supposed to be akin to William Wallace's "They can never take our freedom!" and it falls flat on it's face because Robin Hood's character isn't developed enough. Also, where the hell was the archery? I can count on one hand the amount of times Robin Hood used a bow. The script and overall plot needed to be a lot sharper. This could have been the result of several script changes for this project over the years... it was originally planned that the protagonist of the movie would be the Sheriff of Nottingham, played by Russell Crowe.

War totting, sword wielding Robin Hood isn't what I remember and this is where the movie fails - plot wise as well as in the weaponry department. We needed more bows and arrows and a lot less politics. This would have made for a brilliant origin story, if the script gave the characters we remember to be important a little more face time. Little John and Friar Tuck are such colourful personalities and we barely saw any of him. I'll always remember the part where Robin disguises himself and takes part in the King's archery contest, sadly this was omitted. Having said of all this, this story is unique (as loosely as it's written) and it's a different take on a well known story. 

Production, cinematography wise, it's lush - you can't get enough of the greenery and old times England. Acting wise, the movie is spot on. Mark Strong, Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett and even Oscar Isaac as the detestable King John were all great. This script just needed to be tighter and a little more enthralling. The action scenes were good, but far from epic. A tad bit random if I'm being honest. That being said, if this is part one to what will be a Ridley Scott trilogy (which is peculiar), fair play and I look forward to seeing what is done with the Robin Hood story we all remember.

Hmm. This was weak and yet still watchable. Execution was great, script was poor. 6.5/10.

Movie Review: Shutter Island - Scorsese's homage to Alfred Hitchcock

Got to watch a movie that isn’t made for children in the year 2010; yes, I’m referring to Iron Man 2, Shrek 4 and Prince of Persia (How To Train A Dragon was thoroughly enjoyable). Utter nonsense made with only $$$ in mind. I can see the gaming fan boys coming for my throat, so I'll say Prince of Persia (though I did find my friend's criticism about Jake Gyllenhaal being the whitest actor in Hollywood and yet still playing the role of a Brit-Persian quite hilarious) wasn't that bad. Anyways, you can imagine how excited I was to finally watch a movie with substance, a movie definitely worth talking/blogging about! - SG

Based on the psychological thriller novel by Dennis Lehane, Shutter Island (2010) is directed by Martin Scorsese with the customary lead role played by Leonardo DiCaprio and stand out supporting roles from Mark Ruffalo and the Sexy Beast (2000), Ben Kingsley. Thankfully, Kingsley redeemed himself with flying colours in this movie, after the atrocity that was his performance in Prince of Persia. He hasn’t sold out just yet.

Viewing Shutter Island, I think it’s blatantly obvious to see the movie is conveying comprehensive reverence to the legendary director, Alfred Hitchcock. The post-WWII based timeline, the setting of an asylum for the criminally insane, the theme of schizophrenia and it’s origins, combed with the mystery of a missing femme fatale patient - it’s all very 1950s noir.  Even the manner in which the actors deliver their lines is classical – it’s almost like we’re watching a play on stage. There are several nods to the great English director; acute, uncomfortable focus on details both in characters and setting (Shutter Island can be just as claustrophobic as Rear Window (1954)), the awkward choppy editing and use of dream sequences depicting psychosis, and more than anything else, the extremely sinister use of a very creepy background score. If the cliff scene and lighthouse scene at the end of Shutter Island don’t take you back to Hitchcock’s classic Vertigo (1958), I don’t know what will. Given Martin Scorsese’s reputation for being the leading voice in film history, there is no doubt this is reminiscent of old school film noir psychological thrillers, based around the style of Mr. Hitchcock. It is a perfect homage to a bygone era in cinema, in which psychological thrillers were touching on a subject that was still relatively unknown and was yet portrayed exceptionally creatively and to be fair, accurately.

In Pic: Shutter Island's inspiration - Alfred Hitchcock

Without sounding like a pretentious twat – I think this movie will be more appreciated by purists who are well versed with film history than those who enjoy a good mystery with jaw dropping plot twists. From the get go, this movie is painfully predictable, what you think is essentially what’s going to happen, barring a few inconsequential surprises. My brother who watched it before me, warned, “The ending will be the cause of quite a few debates…” I asked him “Was it good?” He was quick to answer, “Yes, as obvious as it was.” When I read The Wall Street Journal's critic John Anderson’s suggestion for the viewing of this film, I felt a little vindicated about my belief in the film’s quality; "Shutter Island requires multiple viewings to be fully realized as a work of art. Its process is more important than its story, its structure more important than the almost perfunctory plot twists it perpetrates. It’s a thriller, a crime story and a tortured psychological parable about collective guilt." Essentially, if you watch it appreciating the techniques in which the story is told – Shutter Island's story becomes secondary. The real highlight of this movie is the vivid imagery relating not only to the main character's life and struggles but also the demons he's fighting. The rats from the cliff and the haunting imagery of the holocaust and infanticide are going to stay with you for a while. The answers may be obvious but they're by no means spelt out for you.  

I have harped on about how this movie pays homage to 1950s psychological thrillers – what made those movies special, during those times topics like schizophrenia and psychosis were still obscure and unfamiliar… which made the movies quite scary. People are truly afraid of what they don't understand. Take Psycho (1960) for example, as legendary as the shower scene was, the movie was really frightening because Norman Bates was the first character to depict schizophrenics and the violent obsessive behavior many of them are prone towards. In 2010, we’re all fairly well versed about psychosis and the criminally insane (thanks to classics like Psycho and The Collector (1965), as well as your abundance of contemporary movies centered around serial killers such as Silence of the Lambs (1992) and Seven (1995)) – which makes Shutter Island’s plot a tad foreseeable. Having said of all of this, I do think the plot was beautifully tragic – Teddy Daniels’ final philosophical words to Mark Ruffalo’s character did well to bring the whole story together.

All the personal jealousy aside, it’s high time Leo wins himself an Oscar, especially for his performance playing the role of the grief stricken WWII veteran, Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. He takes intensity to another level in the role – brooding, resentful and doomed. We may have lost him during the Titanic times (I was in high school, so it’s forgivable) – but we just cannot deny he is currently Hollywood’s finest actor. Just can’t remember a time I haven’t enjoyed one of his movies. In Blood Diamond (2006) he redefined the adventure hero by making himself an adventure anti-hero. He was outstanding in The Departed (2006), giving Donny Brasco (1997) a run for his money as the most cursed undercover police officer. He gave a really underrated performance in Revolutionary Road (2008) with Kate Winslet and it completely undid any preconceived notions I had about him thanks to Titanic (1997) and The Beach (2000). To be Martin Scorsese’s go to lead and to be releasing a movie with Christopher Nolan (Inception (2010)) in the same year is something very special. Can we start categorizing him with the likes of Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks? I don’t think it would be far off to say in time he’ll be bigger than Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and even Jack Nicholson.

    In Pic: Leonardo DiCaprio as Edward 'Teddy' Daniels

We’ve seen Scorcese do his fair share of mafia movies: Goodfellas (1990), Casino (1995) and The Departed. He’s made epic biopics: Raging Bull (1980) and The Aviator (2004). We’ve also seen his versatility in his powerful documentaries inspired by the world’s greatest musicians: Shine a Light (2008) and No Direction Home (2005). In Shutter Island, we have the best of everything that is Scorcese with a little twist, he isn’t telling us how great he is, he’s telling us how great Alfred Hitchcock was. There are also a few instances where I see inspirations from the psychological classic Persona (1966) in this movie. Intelligent yet quirky editing techniques, a keen eye for lush rich cinematography matched with a sharp understanding of imagery and colour contrasts, a reliance on actors who are passionate to the point of being obsessively ‘mode’ and of course, monumental settings spurred from larger than life production. Add a plot line that deals with very dark yet classic themes ranging from the holocaust, infanticide, dementia, treatment of the insane, and you have a true culmination of Hitchcock-Scorcese cinema. In so little words, the tension is so high with all these components coming together; as you float through the misty opening scene only to be dragged right down through the black ominous gates of Ashecliffe Hospital, you can’t help but think Shutter Island is going to be one hell of a mind fuck. And oh boy is it a mind fuck.

In Pic: Martin Scorsese - cinema's living legend

I'm easily swayed thanks to the garbage that's been released in cinemas recently, so to finally watch a movie with real depth and which keeps you thinking is refreshing. Scorsese proves (yet again) why he's an absolute legend. What do you think, is he the greatest filmmaker in American history?  I'm beginning to think so. 8/10.  Bring on Ridley Scott's Robin Hood and Christopher Nolan's Inception!

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

Don’t see myself writing too much about Iron Man 2.  It was disappointing to say the least. Besides a few standout moments by Mickey Rourke, some great effects/CGI and one potentially awesome Iron Man ‘finish them’ move at the end… I found myself getting more annoyed than wowed by it. Not even Scarlett Johansson’s butt shots could save this movie and that is saying something.

In Pic: Scarlett Johansson

Now Robert Downey Jr. is pure talent, there is no doubt about that… but when the script is as infuriatingly written as it is in Iron Man 2, Downey Jr. comes out of this as a bumbling buffoon.  Whenever Tony Stark kept checking his toxicity levels and would go on a tirade with one of his incomprehensible rants, I kept thinking, is good old Bob back on the sauce again? Given the near death circumstances the character is in, there was absolutely no intensity or struggle in this role. More importantly, the charming sarcasm that Downey Jr exuded for Tony Stark in the first installation for this classic Marvel hero quite clearly disappeared.  Barring a few humorous moments, I couldn’t careless if Tony Stark died or not.

For whatever reason they replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle as Iron Man’s sidekick Rhodey, I guess it worked.  Terrence was a bit flat, Cheadle did this role some justice.  Scarlett made for great eye candy and you gotta love the ‘chemistry’ she had with the movie’s director Jon Favreau. I also like Samuel L. Jackson's cameo in it, it's done tastefully and works for a nice prelude for future Marvel projects.  The biggest pet peeve I had with this movie was Gwyneth Paltrow.  Holy shit was she bad.  Every time she and Robert Downey Jr were on screen, I felt like throwing my entire box of popcorn on her face.  The dialogue, the on screen chemistry, the comedic timing was preposterously bad.  My thoughts were perfectly summed up when I stated on a friend’s facebook status, “Every single time Downey Jr and Paltrow conversed with each other in this movie, I felt like shooting myself in the head.” 

The only saving grace for this movie were the villains.  Sam Rockwell played the sniveling shady Justin Hammer really well… he’s such a great actor.  You must watch Moon directed by David Bowie’s son, Duncan Jones, if you’re a Sam Rockwell fan.  This was also the first time I was seeing Mickey Rourke since watching The Wrestler, and yes, the man delivered in a big way.  Again, I’m harping on about how crap the script was but he should have had some more face time, some more dialogue and more than anything else, Ivan Vanko/Whiplash deserved to have a much bigger battle scene at the end.  Having said that, his introduction during the Monaco GP scene was good stuff, they needed to capitalize on the tension built from that scene and sadly they just didn’t.  It’ll be nice to see Rourke doing a proper role again, this big budget studio driven super hero movie doesn’t do an actor of his caliber any justice and the irony is he nailed the role of Ivan Vanko.

In Pic: Mickey Rourke

We needed more Whiplash vs Iron Man, less Pepper 'Notts' nagging Tony Stark.  We also needed more of the suit, more of the cool little things it could do.  The crowd in the cinema went beserk when Iron Man pulled off that red beam move to decapitate multiple cyborgs… was that a spoiler? Sorry! But hells yes, more Iron Man suit, less incomprehensible Downey Jr.  Peeps were talking about this movie being bigger than The Dark Knight.  That’s laughable.  Let’s see if Marvel gathers up the balls to make Iron Man big (again) for part 3, and not ruin it like they did with Spiderman.

PSST - If you haven't watched this already, there's a cute little teaser right at the end, once you go through all the credits... fanboys should stick it out.  Ohh, we also got there early and saw the trailer for Ridley Scott's Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, thinking it's going to be epic.

Sorry guys, this was a suckfest. 5/10.  I really do want to say 6, but I don’t see myself watching this movie ever again.  I’ve watched the first part at least three times.

Check out Iron Man 2's details on IMDB: Click here
Check out the official Iron Man 2 website: Click here

Movie Review: How To Train Your Dragon - Pet lovers let's hold hands!

So finally got some time to write out a little review for How To Train Your Dragon… it’s my been my first animation since maybe Ratatouille or Free Jimmy (not like your usual DreamWorks type animation, Free Jimmy is a proper raunchfest with Simon Pegg and Woody Harrelson doing the voices, you guys should get on it)… can’t remember which. Much to my girlfriend’s distress I gave Wall-E and Up, a miss.  Saw a lot of positive reviews for HTTYD; so I thought why not, I like dragons, let’s give this a watch.

Anyways the moment the opening scene played out, I realized I had made a mistake.  This movie really needs to be watched in 3D, it’s a bit wasteful to do it in 2D.  From the opening scene I also noticed one blaring issue I had with this movie – a huge part of me thinks for a few of the characters, the voices didn’t really match the faces I was seeing on screen.  Butler was good as the main character’s father, but the main character Hiccup, I just could not get my head around his voice throughout the movie - it’s the same guy who stars in Tropic Thunder as Kevin Sandusky.  Having a 28 year old doing the voice of a 13-15 year old kid is a bit off – I kept thinking why not Justin Beiber? Lol. The yank accents for the kids and the heavy Scottish accents for the adults was also a bit jarring.

The real winner of this movie is the main dragon, Toothless – miniscule details like his scales, his big green eyes, the movement when he flies, the way he chows down on food, as well as his basic emotions and mannerisms are ridiculously thorough. This is really remarkable animation and as a character,  Toothless is quite possibly the coolest pet anyone could ask for.  I’m not showing an image of him, because it’s a bit of a spoiler. There’s quite a lot of mystique during his introduction, I was quite intrigued.

The wide varieties of expressions on the rest of the character’s faces are splendid and something that regularly caught my eye was the manner in which everyone’s hair is meticulously detailed.  There are also a wide variety of different dragons, with unique abilities and features, which makes this movie a nice little encyclopedia for dragon lovers everywhere. Essentially, the extensive work on the detailing and the creative behind the different dragons, was thoroughly impressive.

Besides the mismatched voices, thought this movie was totally worth a watch.  Barring a few moments of really corny dialogue, the plot worked well and wasn't too predictable.  The whole Vikings vs Dragons theme had it’s didactic touching moments. After watching MIA’s ethnic cleansing ‘Born Free’ video, it becomes clear that the ‘we must all live in harmony’ message in HTTYD sticks out.  You also have the Lion King type father-son relationship, where the son must do all he can to follow in his father’s footsteps even though he’s the complete opposite… etc. etc.  And of course the little love story on the side, which is cute and works well if you’re taking your lady out for this movie. Was that sexist? Sorry!

I can’t imagine a person with any sort of pet not liking this movie.  For animal lovers, there must have been a time where you snuck in a dog or cat in your house and took care of it, knowing very well your parents would kill you if they found out.  This movie is sort of like that.  My girlfriend and I couldn’t help comparing Toothless with our pets… her being a cat person and me being a dog person, made for a heated debate.  Essentially, Toothless embodies everything you love about your pet… from warming up and building a trust with the owner to a point where they’re instinctually protecting the owner.  The ending is rather generic, but there is a little twist involving the main character Hiccup, which in my opinion saves the movie and makes it a little real. If you’re an animal lover, PETA nut, if you’re obsessed with your pet, then watch this movie (in 3D!), you will not be disappointed.

Here are my doggies, Toothless had a little bit of all three of them in his character:

In Pic: Hugo (Ghost in the Darkness)

In Pic: Bailey (Bizzle Dizzle)

In Pic: Jaango (Muffin)

YHIHF rating: 7.5/10, would have been a solid 8 if I had watched it in 3D me thinks.

Just watched IRON MAN II today, review for that coming up soon! - SG

Check out the How To Train Your Dragon details on IMDB: Click here
Check out the How To Train Your Dragon website: Click here