Due Date

This feature is a Road Film in which uptight businessman Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) and aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay-a.k.a. Ethan Chase (Zach Galifianakis) cross paths unexpectantly at an airport, and can't seem to get away from each other- literally. Ethan, a whimsical optimist, accidently gets Peter put on the "No Fly," list at the airport after he causes the businessman's short fuse to burst in an airplane fight before take off. Peter, who has a very pregnant wife at his home across several states and whose wallet was left on the plane he was escorted from, is in a tricky predicament: He can do his best on his own and stay in control of his actions, but probably not get very far, or he can shack up in Ethan Tremblay's car for the ride home to Las Angeles, sandwiched in between his awkward white dog and coffee can full of his dead father's ashes- not to mention the overwhelming smell of medical marijuana that awaits him on every nap he takes (for Ethan's "Glaucoma").

Due Date (2010) was directed by Todd Phillips, who also directed Old School (2003) and The Hangover (2009). The original screenplay is written by Alan Cohen, Alan Freedland, Adam Sztykiel and (of course) Todd Phillips. Phillips also appears briefly in the film as a character named "Barry" who walks in on Ethan's drug deal at the mother-of-two's house. Apparently, the film was sent to theatres under the code name, "Maternity Day" though I have absolutely no idea as to why. While it didn't collect great reviews from the critics or online, I found this film to be more original than some of the crap out there, and definitely funny as well.

I don’t have many bad things to say about the movie, so I’ll just say that the only thing I didn’t like was that Peter’s character arc did seem a little bit forced. There wasn’t a big enough push for him to change, but there was a distinct change in his character at the same time. The change was present, but there didn’t seem to be a catalyst. Or, there were some LITTLE pushes, but nothing too huge. There were also a couple of small things that never get explained, for example (SPOILER) when Ethan steals the officer’s truck and takes it with him to Las Angeles, they run the officer off the road… but no other officers ever come into the movie to retrieve the vehicle? It could be argued that the officer smoked Ethan’s pot, however, so maybe they didn’t call for back up… it does seem like they would, though.

Everything else about the movie was really good. It was funnier than I expected, both physically and verbally. There were quality moments of low comedy, with action and coordinated fighting in a humorous way, and then there were also classic lines from both Galifianakis and Downey. I would reccomend this to anyone who likes either actor, or who enjoyed the humor in "I Love You Man" or "Forgetting Sara Marshall" because it's very close to those two styles. It's not a bad movie for a date, either, even though there isn't much of a love story present (which is a friggen BLESSING sometimes!! Not every friggen character needs to be falling in love).

Frozen

Frozen, directed by Adam Green, is a psychological thriller taking place on a snowy mountainside where three college students have gone for the day to get away from their classes, for a little snowboarding and skiing. The two boys, Dan (Kevin Zegers) and Joe (Shawn Ashmore), are lifelong friends. Dan's girlfriend, Parker (Emma Bell) has come along for the ride, and there's clearly some distention between them. A storm coming in ends their night early, and the chairlift operator turns them away before they can make their final run. The kids push for one more quick run, since they've only had a few, and he reluctantly accepts. A miscommunication with a coworker takes place, and the chairlift is shut off. Parker, Dan and Joe are suspended in air without warning. Then the lights go out, and the snow starts falling. They soon realize that they've been left 30-50 feet above the ground on a frozen chairlift without any food, water, or way to get into contact with the ground on a Sunday evening, and the resort won't be open again until Friday, on a mountain where the temperatures reach well below zero, and wolves roam hungrily after dark.

This is not a film for everyone. For one thing, there is one location shown in the bulk of the film, because naturally, the characters are isolated on one chairlift. Therefore the action relies heavily on dialogue, insight into character fear, possibility of escape, and probable terrors that could and will happen to them on their long wait for human contact. The thing about all of those things is that they require a likeability in the characters so that you CARE about those things, otherwise it's just a snorefest dialogue heavy movie with a lot of terrified faces and gore. Different characters appeal to different people, and when dealing with college students, many might tune out to them at first glance. However, being a college student myself, I gave them a shot, and was pleasantly surprised. I found them all at least believable if not likeable, though a stronger cast would have really helped the movie along. Kevin Zegers had the most likeable character in my opinion, but the others weren't too bad.

What was great about this film was that their terror seemed real. And, how hard is it to make a CHAIRLIFT sound frightening? I imagine it's no easy feet. The things that happen to the kids on the mountain did not make me say, "Really? That sounds forced," or "Get over it all ready," as some horror movies do. This film was realistic. It put real people on a real chairlift, which is a real danger, and left them in a climate that is really life-threatening. So as long as you can get into the characters at least a little bit, this movie is an odd idea that really worked in my opinion.

The movie didn't reach a level of fame due to the cast and writing, critics said. The actors weren't big enough to support the movie, and the writing wasn't strong enough to make you cry (basically). But, if you're into HORROR, as this movie is not often grouped with for some reason, you might like this one. There's certainly enough terror and screams for the genre, as well as a decent amount of gore- which, try as I may, I can only keep coming back to the film The Ruins for a comparison to this one on the level of gore. The special effects are believable, and you grit your teeth at the pain they represent. Between the isolation and the pain, I found myself going," JUST GO!" at certain points in the movie. When a movie can drive you to speak out loud as if the characters can hear you, it's either really good, or really bad. I pick the first for this one.

The Pianist

The Pianist (2002) is a Biographical War Drama set during WII Poland during the Nazi invasion, and through to the end of the war. It follows the main character of Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Pianist on the radio, and a Polish Jew. He lives with both his parents, two sisters, and a brother in the Warsaw District, when the Nazis invade Poland and begin their restrictions on Jewish life. While his family is condemned with the others of his religion, a family friend snatches Szpilman back from the walk to the train and he alone escapes.

The film is based on an autobiographical book by Wladyslaw Szpilman, originally written in Polish, called Śmierć Miasta (Death of a City). It was written shortly after The Soviet Union freed Poland from Nazi Reign in 1945. The publication of it was supressed, however, by the Stalinization in the area, until the late 1950's. The book was then republished by Wladyslaw's son in 1998, in German as Das Wunderbare Überleben (The Miraculous Survival), and then finally in English as The Pianist. The rights to the book were published by Roman Polanski, who wrote the screenplay, which won an oscar that year. The film took home two other oscars as well: Best Actor, and Best Director, in addition to being nominated for many others.

There are many films made in the last 20 years which follow stories set in the times of Nazi Rule. It's a popular subject to spread and be remembered, and wonderful protagonists are often found in the pages of documents from war times- especially in cases of Genocide (as are equally wonderful antagonists).
Some of the more popular of these stories are Schindler's List (1993) and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008). Other popular films merely make reference to these hard times, such as Shutter Island (2010). The Pianist is a big piece, like the sword and sandal epics of old times in Rome or Greece. The costumes, scenery, dialogue, cinematography, and characters are extremely well-done. The piece is over two hours long, but shorter than Schindler's List, and stars Adrien Brody as Szpilman.

Because the film centers around a man who works as a Pianist, there are several wonderful compositions in this piece- including Nocturne by Chopin (which I believe ALSO makes an appearance in Shutter Island if I'm not mistaken). Truthfully, nearly every song on the soundtrack to The Pianist was composed by Frederic Chopin- all but one, titled Moving to the Ghetto Oct. 31, 1940 by Wojciech Kilar. There isn't enough Chopin left in mainstream media, and classical music nearly always fits scenes of violence to perfection (especially if you've ever seen A Clockwork Orange).

As is expected with Holocaust dramas, there are definitely gruesome moments in the film. But where Schindler's List (which is arguably the counterpart to this film) focuses on the tragedy of war, the destruction of families, and the cruelty of men, The Pianist follows one man's tale of survival in a time where he literally has no friends. There are intense themes of isolation, destruction of the world around the protagonist, and starvation is highlighted in this piece. I would not argue that one film is greater than the other, but I would certainly say that one is not good enough for both. Both of these films should be viewed (probably not in succession of one another to avoid a night filled with horrors).

The Rite

The Rite is a new film this year, starring Colin O'Donoghue and Sir Anthony Hopkins. It’s an adaptation developed from the book "The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist" a somewhat-autobiography by Matt Baglio, which was published in 2009. It was directed by Mikael Hafstrom, who has done other work in the horror/thriller genre, including 1408, in 2007. The rights to the movie were purchased from Baglio by producers Tripp Vinson and Beau Flynn (who also directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose in 2005) before Baglio had even finished the research for his book, in Rome. Needless to say, they were excited about the possibilities the film held, and the thought of exorcism- like serial killers- has become an American favorite.

The Rite is a suspenseful horror movie set mostly in Rome, about the possibility- or lack thereof- of human possession by demons. The story revolves around a man, Michael Kovac, who has a narrow set of choices in his family: become a mortician or a priest. He chooses to be a priest simply to get away from his hometown, but his viewpoints tend to side with logic over faith, which often sends his thoughts on Theology into question. A professor who admires his potential decides to send him to Rome to attend a special class on Demonic Possesion held at the Vatican, to see if it can help to strengthen his faith. When Kovac gets to Rome, however, his findings are only met with more skeptisism. This is when his teacher overseas in Rome decides that he needs to meet someone who can show him the proof he requires. He introduces him to an exorcist with the church, Father Lucas Trevant, who performs daily exorcisms of civialians, at their request- no matter how potentially life-threatening they may be.

The film has an almost-Noir feel to in the visual department. There are lots of blacks contrasting with the bright whites shown, and shadows are aplenty. The cinematography is altogether well-done, with great shots of Rome, and an inside-look into the staying rooms and livelihoods of priests, deacons, and nuns. The dialogue is occasionally funny- especially some one-liners by Father Lucas- but overall, it's a very dark movie, yearning to find the light.

The most notable feature about this film is the portrayal of demonic posessions. Most of us have seen such films as The Exorcist, or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, or even an online, streamed video of a claimed exorcism as it takes place. We are not unfamiliar with many of the visuals and sounds associated with demons, the devil, or exorcisms. But, I think we would all agree, that in a narrative film, the exorcism is only as good as its actors/actresses. In this film, the posessed are particularly potent. Marta Gastini, playing Rosaria in the film, a pregnant 16-year-old girl believedly raped by her own father, is posessed by a demon who will not tell its name. As the posession in this story comes in waves, sometimes the true face of the victim comes back to the surface. Gastini plays this very well, in what is arguably the best role in the movie- sorry, Hopkins. I love you, but she was chilling. I won't spoil the special effects or techniques used to show posession in this particular film, but Rosaria is as much a reason to see the film as would be an interest in exorcism itself, or genre.

 

The film came out January 28, 2011 (last night) and has currently made 5.3million at the box office. It took the lead on a quiet night for films, last night, and has gotten moderate to good reviews. I would definitely recommend this film, and will most likely purchase it when it comes out on DVD.

F*ckin' Perfect

If anyone has ever been on the UArts blog that I write for my college, you may have noticed that I love the singer and songwriter P!NK (Alecia Moore). Anyone who follows her career or publicity will know that she is expecting a baby in her near future with her husband, Carey Hart. Now, I am not one to inulge in celebrity gossip- ever. I don't like the way they rule our media and/or thoughts, in the slightest. But the truth about P!NK is that she speaks to me on a deeper level than being "famous." In fact, I never liked her for that reason. I liked her because she speaks to girls that the media leaves out in this mass consumption frenzie we engage in. She talks to the girls avoided by Gossip Girl, Jersey Shore, and America's Next Top Model. P!NK is one of the few people who uses her voice to build positive body image, self-respect, and confidence, and she has been this way from the start of her mainstream career.

 

(P!NK live in Philadelphia, October, 2009)

It used to be that many artists hid the issues in their lives that may be thought of as controversial, such as promiscuity or frequent intoxication. In the mainstream model we see people like Kesha... who had about a million 13 year olds singing her ridiculous "Tik Tok," song within a week of its release. Honestly. "Brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack." That might be the most fucking disgusting woman I have ever seen in my life. But, the beat of the song is catchy and makes a frequent apperance if you're in the club scene, which I sometimes am. P!NK takes the approach that few- appart from another hugely mainstream artist whom I greatly admire: Lady Gaga- do. She shares her problems with the world, in songs like "Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely)" and "Sober." She's not afraid to put herself out there to be judged. P!NK, unlike Kesha, is a role model. She admits to habits which may be considered taboo or bad by some, and doesn't act like it's the coolest thing ever to be praised and followed, but doesn't say it condemns a person, either. Young woman across the world have openly admitted that they have identified with P!NK from a young age. (To those that identify with Kesha, I wish a talented dentist upon you.)

 

(P!NK live in Philadelphia, October, 2009) 

In her new single, "F*ckin' Perfect," P!NK speaks to the protagonist of the video, a young woman who doesn't fit in with her classmates, is made fun of, pushed around, thought less of, and ultimately tries to commit suicide after near starving herself to death to be like the "pretty girls." The video ends when she cuts her hair into a short style (not unlike the one P!NK herself sports) and sings to her baby daughter not to think that she is anything less than fuckin' perfect to her. The video is touching, especially knowing the current state of the singer. To anyone who appreciates what she has to say, I recoomend this video, or especially to an expectant mother, who would find it cute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Rax2PXiWA

I have no idea when the singer is due, but I wish her a healthy and happy birth. To the rest of you, don't hesitate to leave me a suggestion of something you'd like me to do some research on and fire up on here for you- or maybe a movie you'd like me to watch and review. Just leave a comment! :)

 

(P!NK live at UArts Workshop, October, 2009)

The Academy Awards

Yes, I already have posted for the day. But I urge everyone to check on the list of Oscar Nominations for the work produced in 2010!

http://www.imdb.com/features/oscars/2011/nominations

There is a link to the list, represented by IMDB.com.
Don't forget to tune in on Sunday, February 27th to see who wins! It affects you more than you might think, especially in a mass media culture.

Planet of the Apes

The film Planet of the Apes (1968) stars Charleton Heston as a Spaceman, Taylor, who has embarked from Earth on a quest through light-years in time, and traveled 2000 years ahead of when he embarked from, aging only 18 months, himself. He awakens when his spaceship crashes into water and estimates that he is somewhere in a different galaxy near a distant star. He lands with two living compadres, one dead, and the two living come with him to see if they can find life on the planet. He soon discovers that man inhabits the planet, but not man as he knows it. The people behave as if prehistoric, and cannot utter a sound- they are mute. Before he knows what's what, a troop of apes riding horses and carrying weapons approaches to catch the flock of humans they have stumbled upon. Taylor is shot in the neck and captured, and brought back with the other humans to where the apes dwell, where he will receive help from a husband and wife, scientist team, Dr. Zira and Cornelius (played by Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall).

Planet of the Apes was originally a novel written in French by Pierre Boulle in 1963, and later published in English via Del Ray Books: a branch of Random House Books. When the story was acquired by screenwriters Michael Wilson and Rod Serling, the story changes as it does when being brought to the big screen from a little book. Needless to say, reading the novel is an entirely different experience from reading the book. The setup and resolutions are different, as is the protagonist in many ways. Reading the novel is almost like reading the situation of Planet of the Apes the film as it's happening to another person, entirely. It's as if Serling read the book and said, "Okay we like this... but what if it happened to THIS guy?!" Never the less, the book is an excellent read as the movie is a great watch, and they're unique enough that they can (and will be) compared, but one should really view them are seperate entities to enjoy them both to the fullest potential.

If you're anything like me, you hear a title like Planet of the Apes and think, "Right, that's how I want to spend two hours... or I could go swimming in acid?" That was the type of optimism I had when I sat down with my five fellow screenwriters to watch this film in one of our required classes. I was pleasantly surprised with it- Sci Fi really not being my genre of choice- and even found it both intellectually and aesthetically pleasing.

For 1968, the makeup on the apes is somewhat incredible. Their mouths move when they speak, as do their eyes. The females, though not much different in appearances, have a certain air about them (no doubt because they're being played by humans in ape costumes) that prove themselves distinct from the men. There are three different primates shown in the film- who exist quite harmoniously with one another, though they previously had a similar situation to the caste system in India- and they are all painted in makeup that matches the way the natural creature looks. Even the special effects of surgical scars, blood, and weapons is well done. Occasionally the scenery reminds you that you're looking at a painted set, like when lighting flashes through the clouds in Act 1, but other than that, it feels rather like a pre-historic meets today horror story of what might happen.

This film is packed with intellectually stimulating themes and ideas. Some of which are, but not limited to, the theme of Science vs. Religion (or Knowledge vs. Faith), the debate over whether or not man is destructive and innately violent, and general oppression and slavery- based on the fears and believed needs of society. The writers hold their own opinions on each of these ideas, and they work that opinion into the writing to give a certain feel, and more importantly, ending into the movie. That being said, despite their obvious opinions, the audience is still entitled and welcomed to dispute that opinion and counter it with their own. This is a film asking for discussion, because it is better to discuss a problem than to ignore it. And as the film suggests, there is indeed a problem we face.

Charlton Heston did a brilliant acting job, which is no surprise if you have seen the biblical film Ben-Hur which he also starred in. He was infamous for emotional lines coming from an otherwise unsentimental man. The characters he played were often men who fight- heros. He died not long ago in 2008, but he took with him a legacy he began in 1941. He acted within a few years of his death, and was even shown in a film in 2010, two years after he passed. Planet of the Apes is one of the long looks into Charlton Heston and deserves a view if you have never seen- especially in an era where mankind is infamous for criticizing mankind. This film might be more up your alley than you think.

Adaptation

Every year, a certain amount of mainstream films enter our attention as we browse the media market. It's common knowledge- especially these days- that a great deal of the stories being told are stories that have already come about in one way or another. These films have a tendancy to fall on an extreme scale of either fantastically good, blockbuster movies, or one of the "I can't believe I just sat through that" disasters, which I like to call "The Spoof Movie Tragedies." But in actuality, nearly ALL of the films that reach the grand, mainstream scale are adaptations from other sources.

Sitting in a meeting being held by Scott Aversano, (producer of the new film, Killers, as well as executive producer of School of Rock and Team America) at my university a few months ago, it was jaw-dropping for me, as a screenwriter, to discover that Hollywood's birth of original screenplay specs being accepted has dropped at an alarming rate. Previously paying for over a hundred original screenplays each year between the companies, that number has dropped dramatically to a stunning figure of three. Three original screenplays are being accepted by mainstream Hollywood each year. What this means for writers is that they are up against the Yale of original specs when it comes to putting their ideas out there. Not only are we still in heated competition with one another, but now we shiver in the corner against the rising, formidable power of screen adaptations. This means that for the voice of originality to be heard, our original scripts have to be exactly what the buyers believe the masses want to see, commercially viable, with likeable protagonists, and void of risk. Point: An original screenplay in the upcoming years is going to be nearly impossible to sell.

Adaptations can be great films, filled with artistic technique and versitality. The Changeling, starring Angelina Jolie (2009) is a beautiful nonfiction adaptation, based on the true story of a woman whose son was taken away from her, and another was returned... but not the son she gave birth to. The costumes, lighting, direction, editing, story, and acting in the film is brilliant. It's a 4.8/5 stars film, no question (unless the genre is really not your cup of tea). But the concept was not an original idea- in the slightest. From Hell (2001) starring Johnny Depp, is an interpretation of the things may have gone down in the Jack the Ripper scandals of 19th ce. Whitechapel, London. In its almost noir-style, it completely captures the dankness of the city, the desperation of the civilials (and namely, the prostitutes) the steadiness of the killer, and fills the story with subplots, subplots, subplots. It has an all-star cast, is filled with multiple exciting, sometimes horrific- but always true- aspects of 19th ce. London, and never leaves you bored. This is admittedly my favorite film. It is also in no way an original idea. Even the theory of what may have happened during this scandal had already been proposed years before the film went underway. All of the notions had already been challenged (and in fact, disproven) by historians and criminologists. But even knowing that the story is impossible as I do, I cannot stop watching the movie in all of its power and success.

I don't pretend to say that adaptations are a bad thing, or that I don't enjoy them. Clearly, I find something moving and meaningful about them, and I do not wish for them to become a thing of the past. But all of that aside, it must take a backstep. Writing an original idea is becoming more and more like chasing a dream. To keep the market fresh, to keep MINDS fresh, inspirational, and thinking, new ideas need to come forward. And the media needs to LET them. Mass media's only goal is to make money. Therefore, as consumers, we have a responsibility to consume what we want to see. Day in and day out, I hear people ragging on the ridiculous spoof movies that come out... but they've seen them. They paid money to see them, through Netflix, On Demand, or damn it even in the Theatres. However, these SAME people may go home and watch a wonderful original screenplay like Inception (2010) for free, illegally, on a website. When you do things like this, this inables the market from making money one that movie you just watched. This tells them that you didn't like it. They won't make more- especially not when it's riskier to make a new movie than to retell a successful story. And that risk is the same reason you pay to see Spiderman but not Inception. You don't want to be told a new story you might not like, with SO much other media you have to choose from, when you could just see something you already know you like (obviously not everyone is like this, so don't bash me about how often you watch original Indie movies). Pay to see an original movie if it looks good. You need to!! If you don't, all you'll be able to do for the next 10, 20, 30 years is see a movie you've essentially already seen.

When you live in a mass media culture, the power is in your hands. So take it so we may see some original ideas. Even if they SUCK... wouldn't it be a refreshing change?

The Duchess

The film The Duchess (2008) has been lingering on my Netflix Instant Watch for weeks now, begging to be watched. I had a moment last night, and based on my interest in the film The Other Boleyn Girl, I decided to partake. It ended up being one of the best movies I have seen as of late. With a strong plot based the very real Duchess of Devonshire, Lady Georgiana, this film is likely to be remembered most for its strong female protagonist, played by Keira Knightley, and its particularly striking arrangement of costume choices.

Now, I enjoy reading the multiple synopsises of the film that I have seen so far, for one reason, mainly: they all describe Lady Georgiana's marriage as "unhappy" or "unsatisfying," which is quite the universal euphamism if you have seen the film. Georgiana endures first the loneliness and estrangemen t from the man she shares a home with- not too hard to live with. But as the story unfolds, she faces humiliation, betrayal, sexual and verbal abuse, blackmail, and incarceration in her own home. Her powerful husband does a lot more than make her life "unhappy." He makes her life Hell. Her husband, The manipulative Duke of Devonshire, is played by Ralph Fiennes in a performance that achieved a Golden Globe nomination as well as nominations for Best International Actor, and British Actor of the Year.

The story is packed with emotion based on the struggles an aristocratic- and at times, even a lower class- woman would face on a daily basis in the 18th century. Seen as the lesser counterpart to a man, the women in this piece are a marvel at the ways they determinedly seek out loopholes in the corrupt system they occupy. They aren't dull creatures. On the contrary, they are all well-educated, and often answer the same questions that men are asked (careful to admit that their opinions are grounded in no real way). Each character is strong and memorable. The emphasis on the joy of mothering children (not neccessarily the birthing) is a theme in this film, and more than one woman must face terrible consequences for the sake of choosing her children over everything else.

But the costumes are what I have been dying to talk about. From scene change to scene change, Lady Georgiana dazzles you with a new dress, a new hat, a new style of makeup. In the beginning of the film, about to lose her virginity to her new husband, he comments on the complication of removing a woman's clothing. She tells him that women's clothing must often be complicated because it's the only outlet they can use to express themselves- and after that line, Georgiana does nothing else if not live up to that quote. This film won a plethera of awards for its costume design, including an Oscar, A BAFTA Film Award, A CDG Award (Costume Designers' Guild), A Phoenix Film Critics' Award, and a Satalite Award. The costume designer was Michael O'Connor, whose work can also be seen in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets where he worked as Asssociate Costume Designer in 2002.

I reccommend this film to any person who appreciates period pieces of old England, English fashion, strong female protagonists, emotional pieces, the work of Ray Fiennes or Kiera Knightley, or history. As in any film, there are historical innacuracies. But none so bold as the work of Terrentino, who thought it wise to change the death of Hitler in Inglorious Basterds. Thanks for that, Quinton.

The Secret of Kells

Today I'm watching The Secret of Kells (2009), an animated movie starring the voices of Evan McGuire, Brendan Gleeson, and Mick Lally. It was nominated for Best Animated Feature Film at the 2009 Academy Awards, but lost to the film Up by Disney and Pixar. The plot is mostly fictional, with elements rooted in reality- for example, there is an existing book of Kells, likely to be written in Ireland during the Medieval ages, on Christian Gospels. It was also rumored to have been passed around multiple times, including once during the Vikings' explorations and invasions, as seen in the animated film.

The most notable credits to the film, I think, are the musical score and animation. The music is haunting, religious, and beautiful. Written by Tomm Moore and Bruno Coulais, and performed by Christen Mooney, the music inside the fort of Kells itself is solemn, with a definite Christian element. The music of the forest is quite different: the tinkling sounds of chimes sound like magic and morning due. It feels peaceful, beautiful, and original. There are also great elements of traditional Irish music in the piece as well, giving a strong cultural feel to the movie. If you've ever heard Irish bagpipes and rhythm, you know where you are when this film is taking place. And it all works very well with the animation.

The animation style is not like anything I had seen before it, but if I had to draw a comparison, it would be to the introduction of the movie Mulan, in which the city is being painted out of ink in traditional Chinese style. The Secret of Kells really comes with its own feel, though. If Jewish Gypsies of the late Middle Ages could animate, it would look very much like this. The sharp angles, but sweeping motions in the animation are artistically striking. This feels very much like a foreign film- Disney aint got nothin' on this. :P

The plot is simple enough for a child to follow, but not too boring for an adult. It's not a comedy, so there isn't any American "adult humor" stuck into the work as is generally seen in our children's pieces. This is an interesting genre for an animated piece, but the animation serves it very well. There's never a question of "Did this have to be an animation? Couldn't it have been live action?" The animation works very well with the elements of older times and magic, and would not have been as elaborate in a live-action piece.

In my opinion, this isn't just a good movie to show children to help build religious tolerance and cultural significance, but is entertaining for adults to watch as well (varying from person to person, of course). It's cute and certainly indulgent for those who appreciate the artwork. I do agree that Up was more deserving of "Best Animated Feature Film," but perhaps if the criteria had been more art based in nature, things would have turned out differently.