I just didn’t care.

I wanted to, though, I really did. I went into Killer Elite looking for what I had heard was an enjoyable, well crafted action movie (thank you, Roger Ebert). What I found was an incomprehensible and self-serious excuse for grizzled men to drive boxy 1980s cars, blow things up and shoot each other, all in the name of a ‘political thriller.’

Before the film starts, a title appears which tells us the follow was based on a true story. For the majority of the movie I thought the director, Guy McKendry, might have been giving a tongue-in-cheek nod to Fargo, which opens with the same declaration. But whereas The Coen brothers said theirs was a patently false ‘stylistic choice,’ the end of Killer Elite featured an inane epilogue explaining that the film’s characters and events were culled from a memoir who’s author plays a key role in the film itself. So meta.

It would have been better had the movie been just a standard action-thriller rather than apparently trying to live up to reality. It’s painful to say any movie would have been better as a “standard action-thriller,” but there you go, desperate times. Depressingly, the movie took itself to be ‘smart,’ and felt little need to be enjoyable to just sit back experience. McKendry tries to pack in so much political wheeling and dealing, he ends up forgetting exposition or even explanation. The film is a mess of Arab/Euro relations, gun-for-hire guilt, military commentary and moralizing about sides and causes. The double-crosses are unintelligible, the characters single-dimensioned and strangely motiveless, and nothing invested me whatsoever in trying to puzzle my way through. Not even Robert DeNiro can bring the movie out a its own hubristic testosterone haze, considering he is on screen approximately 20 out of a very long 105 minutes. My God, it felt like twice that hours.

The movie jumps genres from heist movie to Bourne-clone and everything in between, without making any great impression, and is at least 45 minutes too long. Maudlin attempts to deepen the main character, Jason Statham’s Danny, are abandoned for the majority of the movie, with notable exceptions which stick out worse than hipsters away from Brooklyn. Danny is set up to be potentially interesting, considering he’s a conflicted man with a horrific job and actual human connection (as opposed to those he generally works with), but Statham is only really good at looking intensely out from under his Roman brow at men he’s beating to a pulp. And no other character even receives the cursory touches of development Danny does. Paradoxically, Killer Elite doesn’t even have a female character on screen long enough for the standard Hollywood titillation which goes hand in hand with this sort of film (and even when Yvonne Strahovski does appear, she’s dressed against type, for a far better and perhaps respectable picture).

Not even the technical aspects of the film are particularly interesting, which give the viewer little to distract themselves while the action simply skips off without them. Why was this wildly incompetent piece of film-school-rejection every made? There are no redeeming factors. But, I suppose DeNiro needed the check to renovate his (second) garage, and I just can’t fault him for that.

The phrase ‘epic on a human scale’ gets bandied about fairly often in the film world. Or at least it did until someone realized it’s exceedingly pretentious and makes no sense. I suppose, however, that it can be the only colloquialism to truly describe Ben Sombogaart’s Bride Flight. Set in New Zealand in the 1950s, 60s and the present, the scenery itself could fill the myth-scale quotient, though the story spans 60 years, three generations, and the lives of four Dutch settlers.

The three main women meet on a flight from Holland to New Zealand, en route to meet the husbands they barely know. Esther (Anna Drijver), a driven Jewish fashion designer haunted by the Holocaust; Marjorie (Elise Schaap), an excitable and unimaginative woman with practical dreams of having many children, and Ada (Karina Smulders), a beautiful and compassionate farm girl who cannot help but quietly see joy in almost everything. They bond, but their strongest tie will come from Frank (Waldemar Torenstra), a man whose funeral we see announced at the beginning of the film, and whose life we see unfold throughout it.

This Citizen Kane style structure is as old as the day is long, and there is little suspense as to what will happen to all four characters after the first half hour. This is the stuff of paperback romance novels, and you know from the R-rating description of “strong sexuality and graphic nudity” what you’ll be getting. The only thing for it then is to have engrossing, fully fleshed characters. All three actresses put in a good deal of effort behind their stoicism, and Torenstra, as the sensitive hunk, has eyebrows ever-so-slightly darker than his sunbleached hair (which is apparently irresistible), but most the characters do not develop past the first act. Marjorie becomes possessive of her perfect life, Esther becomes successful but haunted, and Ada finds the best in her oppressive marriage—for a while anyway.

Horrible, heartbreaking and life-affirming things happen, and decades pass by in sumptuous period detail accompanied by a saccharine score fit for any grand romance. Supposedly one of the most expensive Dutch films ever made, the effort certainly shows. Maybe it’s too much to expect something more from a self-identified crowd pleaser, and maybe that’s the problem with foreign films that reach America: there’s this great expectation attached to every one that they will be something amazing. After all, they’re supposed to be the best of the best, that’s why they come to our shores. And Bride Flight is, all in all, a pleasant sort of distraction, which leaves you almost as soon as you leave the theater. But I could get that from any domestic film and not have to expend the energy of reading troublesome subtitles.

Nearly 16 years after its release, The Lion King continues to entertain generations of youth. Conventional wisdom has long held that the evil Scar, jealous of his new nephew Simba, usurped the monarchy and established a tyrannical rule based on authoritarian tendencies. But just how accurate is this interpretation of the film.

The character of Scar is far more complex than what we see in the traditional interpretation of The Lion King, and after taking a step back and getting the full picture of the conditions that exist in the Pride Lands it becomes readily apparent that Scar is not the villain Disney makes him out to be. Rather, Scar’s actions are in fact just when portrayed in a certain light.

When watching The Lion King it is easy to white wash over the rule of Mufasa, adopting the position that he is a wise and legitimate King. While it is understandable why this view of Mufasa is accepted, it seems that all the creatures of the Pride Lands respect him given the pomp and circumstance surrounding Simba’s birth, ultimately this interpretation of Mufasa is misguided.

Let’s not forget that Mufasa’s rule was built upon, among other things, what is in effect racism in the animal kingdom. He banished the hyenas to an elephant graveyard, and for what? Because they are different, they are unrefined or improper according to the lion’s standards. And for that the entire species is doomed to starve, forbidden from entering the Pride Lands.

Under Scar all of that would change, finally the hyenas would be accepted in the animal kingdom, rather than being banished as second class citizens. Scar’s rallying cry to the hyenas was simple, “stick with me and you’ll never go hungry again,” now that doesn’t sound like the heartless villain he is made out to be. No, in fact it could be argued that he had the best of intentions in assuming power, to rid the Pride Lands of hunger and introduce a new society based on equality.

Those opposed to Scar often times point to the condition of the Pride Land as proof of his despotic rule. But what was it that plagued the Pride Land? A drought. That’s right, Scar’s critics are quick to blame him for a naturally occurring weather event. It seems unreasonable to blame Scar for something beyond his control, he simply can’t make it rain any more or less than anyone else can.

To make matters worse, the lionesses punk out and refuse to hunt. Their visceral reaction to the new social order Scar hopes to create, one based on equality, where no animal is allowed to go hungry, further illustrates how blaming Scar for the problems at Pride Rock is short sighted. If the lionesses had been willing to share in the new social order then perhaps they could of constructively moved forward as a new society. We’ll never know, of course, because the lionesses decided it would be better to jeopardize the future of the entire community for the sake of an unelected monarch.

Of course Scar is not completely blameless, he did resort to questionable methods when murdering Mufasa and running Simba off the land, but his intentions were undoubtedly noble. Before Scar the Pride Lands were ruled by a despotic monarch who lacked horizontal legitimacy by denying whole groups of animals the basic rights given to all other animals. He tried to change that the only way he could, through a radical transformation of the social order. It might of worked too, if only the lionesses weren’t so tied to their traditions of social stratification and oppression.

That’s right folks, it’s that time of year again. Oscar season has come in full force, and I’ve been busy the last few months handicapping the field and preparing for that night when James Franco and Anne Hathaway lead us through the last year in film. Below I’ve made my picks for many of the major categories. I’ve decided to skip over categories like Editing, Makeup and Costume Design that I and most other people don’t particularly care about, instead focusing on the major categories.

Cinematography

• “Black Swan” Matthew Libatique
• “Inception” Wally Pfister
• “The King’s Speech” Danny Cohen
• “The Social Network” Jeff Cronenweth
• “True Grit” Roger Deakins

Visually “True Grit” is the most satisfying film of the year, it provides a new look that represents an evolution in the western genre. In all likelihood this is also the only major category that “True Grit” could be considered anything close to a favorite in, and even then victory is far from assured, as it could easily get swept up by “The King’s Speech” or “The Social Network” if they are having a good night.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

• “127 Hours” Screenplay by Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
• “The Social Network” Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
• “Toy Story 3” Screenplay by Michael Arndt; Story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
• “True Grit” Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
• “Winter’s Bone” Adapted for the screen by Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini

The best part of “True Grit” is the writing. The script is really well done, and it is quite an accomplishment for the Coen Brothers to re-imagine the “True Grit” story the way they have. For my money, “True Grit” deserves to win this award. While my pick is “True Grit,” I actually expect “The Social Network” to pick up this award.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

• “Another Year” Written by Mike Leigh
• “The Fighter” Screenplay by Scott Silver and Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson;
  Story by Keith Dorrington & Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson
• “Inception” Written by Christopher Nolan
• “The Kids Are All Right” Written by Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg
• “The King’s Speech” Screenplay by David Seidler

This category has “The King’s Speech” written all over it. I would be very surprised if it did not win this award.

Animated Feature Film

• “How to Train Your Dragon” Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois
• “The Illusionist” Sylvain Chomet
• “Toy Story 3” Lee Unkrich

Another category where there shouldn’t be any surprise, “Toy Story 3″ will win this category, and does so by a long shot.

Actress in a Supporting Role

• Amy Adams in “The Fighter”
• Helena Bonham Carter in “The King’s Speech”
• Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”
• Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”
• Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”

I’m picking Hailee Steinfeld in this category for a few reasons. First off she did a fantastic job in “True Grit” and did exactly what a supporting actor or actress should do, set up her fellow stars. She held her own with her co-stars Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges, setting them up for scores of punchlines.

Additionally, while Amy Adams gave a strong performance in “The Fighter,” I just can never see a former Chanhassen Dinner Theater Actress winning an Academy Award, and Adams is sure to split votes with her “The Fighter” co-star Melissa Leo. Finally, if “The King’s Speech” is having a good night, as I expect it to, then Helena Bonham Carter could get swept up and walk away with this award.

Actor in a Supporting Role

• Christian Bale in “The Fighter”
• John Hawkes in “Winter’s Bone”
• Jeremy Renner in “The Town”
• Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”
• Geoffrey Rush in “The King’s Speech”

I really want to give this one to Geoffrey Rush, his quirky character in “The King’s Speech” helped bring the movie to life and provide some much needed depth and variety to the film, but Christian Bale had one of the best performances of all time. He stole the show in “The Fighter” and almost single-handedly made it one of the best films of the year. This is, however, another category where if “The King’s Speech” is having a good night, I can see Geoffrey Rush getting swept to victory in a wave.

Actress in a Leading Role

• Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”
• Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”
• Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter’s Bone”
• Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”
• Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine

I’ll be honest, none of these performances stand out. I would give it to Natalie Portman, and that’s what I think the academy will do too.

Actor in a Leading Role

• Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”
• Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”
• Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”
• Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech”

• James Franco in “127 Hours”

There is very little question that Colin Firth should walk away with this award. He was nominated last year for “A Single Man,” and this year he will walk away after a spectacular performance in “The King’s Speech.” He played King George VI like a champ, bringing him to life. His performance hinted at the emotional depth of the character while not overplaying it.

Directing

• “Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky
• “The Fighter” David O. Russell
• “The King’s Speech” Tom Hooper
• “The Social Network” David Fincher
• “True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

I have this one going to Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech” in large part because I think that it will be a very good night for that film. Hooper did a fantastic job with “The King’s Speech” and took what could seem like at first blush a somewhat pedestrian plot and turned it into one of the best films of the year.

I’d like to add that this is also the one category that I think could withstand a wave by the “The King’s Speech.” David Fincher is perhaps even the favorite heading into Oscar night for “The Social Network,” and he more so than anyone else seems well positioned to withstand a “King’s Speech” wave.

Best Picture

• “Black Swan” Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver and Scott Franklin, Producers
• “The Fighter” David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman and Mark Wahlberg, Producers
• “Inception” Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, Producers
• “The Kids Are All Right” Gary Gilbert, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Celine Rattray, Producers
• “The King’s Speech” Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin, Producers
• “127 Hours” Christian Colson, Danny Boyle and John Smithson, Producers
• “The Social Network” Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca and Ceán Chaffin, Producers
• “Toy Story 3” Darla K. Anderson, Producer
• “True Grit” Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Producers
• “Winter’s Bone” Anne Rosellini and Alix Madigan-Yorkin, Producers

Alright, so here we are, the big one. If you can’t tell my thoughts already, then I’ll make it clear now, “The King’s Speech” is the best film of the year, and will walk away with this award. It won at the BAFTAs, it won with the Producer’s Guild, and it won with the Director’s Guild. It might not be the flashiest film of the year, but “The King’s Speech” is the most well done, from strong acting, an apropos score, great writing, there is simply nothing about it that doesn’t scream first class. It might not be the fan favorite, that honor probably belongs to “The Social Network,” but this was without a doubt the most memorable film I’ve seen over the last year.

So there you have it, these are my picks for Oscar night. They may not all be right, but one thing I know for sure is that I can’t wait for another year at the movies.

A ballet may not seem like the most appropriate setting for a psychological thriller, but in the tenuous reality of Black Swan, it is the perfect breeding ground for dangerous obsession, throbbing sexual tension, and layers upon layers of hidden psychosis.

Everything starts with the naïve Nina Sayers, played by the incomparable Natalie Portman, as she auditions for and receives the role of Odette/Odile in her ballet company’s upcoming performance of Swan Lake. Traditionally, the parts of the Swan Queen (Odette) and the Black Queen/Swan (Odile) are danced by the same ballerina. Tchaikovsky’s original ballet has been adapted several times–Black Swan included. The story revolves around the princess Odette, who falls in love with a handsome prince only to be placed under a curse by a jealous sorcerer which turns her into a swan every day, leaving her human at night. Naturally, only true love can break the curse, but before Odette can reconcile with her Prince, her black counterpart, Odile, appears and seduces the Prince into admitting his love for her instead of Odette. The ending varies–but let’s just say it’s tragic more often than not.

The stakes are high for this particular role, the pressure intense–for Nina, it comes from all sides: the sudden attention of the company’s premier director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), her mother’s (Beth Macintyre) near-constant domineering presence, and the debatable rival of Lily (Mila Kunis), a transfer from San Francisco whose resemblance to and apparent interest in Nina is startling. As Nina struggles to maintain both the innocent veneer of the white Swan Queen and the seductive passion of the black Swan, her own mind turns against her, transforming her reality into one fit only for nightmares.

Portman’s performance is stunning–rumor has it she lost 20 pounds and trained for a year before taking on the role, so you’d better believe that’s her as much as it can be–and her dedication even more so considering she sustained several injuries during shooting due to the severity of the choreography. What’s astounding is how easy it is to fall into Nina’s reality, which is reinforced by the generally phrenetic cinematography and very specific but truly incredible use of mirrors in a wide variety of  difficult shots.

Devastatingly beautiful and dark, Black Swan will pin you to your seat, unable to look away even for an instant; it is unutterably all-encompassing.

Last weekend, CAB held its first movie night of the year, screening The Social Network on Friday and Saturday nights in The Junction. Directed by David Fincher, the 2010 film tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and co-founder of Facebook, as he developed and launched the wildly popular online social network during his time at Harvard.

College students today are masters of the web. As the only generation to have grown up alongside the internet, we  have incorporated its features into our daily lives. Photos no longer end up in leather-bound photo albums stashed onto bookshelves at home. They appear online, on Facebook pages, neatly positioned between a list of “Friends” and a slew of personal information.

Facebook.com, the second most visited website on the internet, was launched in February 2004 and has since evolved into a standard of communication and online interaction, boasting over 600 million active users.

Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and current CEO and president of Facebook, has become an icon of pop culture around the world. In The Social Network, his character is played by Jesse Eisenberg, who portrays Zuckerberg as a nerdy, isolated, and socially awkward teenager. This image, however, may not be completely accurate. Time magazine, which named Zuckerberg “Person of the Year” for 2010, reports that he is just the opposite.

Whatever Mark Zuckerberg’s true character may be, The Social Network is definitely a film worth watching. The movie has already won numerous awards and is currently nominated for Best Motion Picture of the Year at the 2011 Oscars. In addition to its success at the box office, over 120,000 people already “like” The Social Network on Facebook—and that’s how you know it’s good.

When a piece of literature is interpreted into film, there are always inevitable grumblings of dissatisfaction and accusations by the fans of misinterpretation by the filmmakers. Howl suffers from this dichotomy more so than a novel-turned-film because it is based on a poem, which is much more open to interpretation and lacks the architecture of narration and plot that a novel innately has.

The film Howl centers on a dramatized version of an interview with Allen Ginsberg, the obscenity trial surrounding his poem, Howl, a black and white rendering of an underground, seemingly hipster poetry reading, and finally an animated interpretation of the actual poem.

While on one hand I was completely surprised and disappointed by the animation of the poem itself, on the other hand I was captivated by the portrayal of Ginsberg and the obscenity trial surrounding the poem.

Simultaneously using four perspectives to tell a single story is an ambitious undertaking that ultimately leaves the audience feeling unfulfilled. The concept of four views is an interesting one, but each point of view is too brief. The audience does not have time to form attachments to the characters, namely James Franco’s portrayal of Ginsberg. It is especially disappointing because each frame is too interesting on its own to only have a tiny peek.

Although there was somewhat of an emotional gap between the audience and Ginsberg, the film depicted the relationship between Ginsberg and his life-partner, Peter Orlovsky, in a touching, albeit brief, way. At once, it was moving and completely heartbreaking. Their relationship in the film was the most notable and memorable storyline, which begs the question why a biopic of Ginsberg has not been made in the past. Franco convincingly and sincerely portrays Ginsberg, embodying not only his mannerisms and speech patterns, but the essence of what a person imagines Ginsberg to have had.

One of the greatest disappointments of the film was the portrayal of the poem itself – the namesake and very reason for this film to be made. The animation portions of the film do a disservice to viewers who never read the poem prior to the film. The amateur attempts at CGI came off too cartoon-like to be taken at all seriously. The images they paired with Ginsberg’s words, too, were fantastical making his poem seem theoretical instead of an earnest contemplation of the experience of a drifter or a rootless wanderer, and the hardships associated with that life.

It’s odd because while this portion of the film is so demeaning, the obscenity trial actually makes me value the poem more than I ever have. The lawyer representing Ginsberg’s publisher accused of producing obscene material, played by Mad Men’s Jon Hamm, says during the trial, “there are books that have the power to change men’s minds,” speaking of Howl. Likewise, there are also films that will change minds. In fact, even with the atrocious animations, this movie changed my mind. While I had always appreciated Howl, it was never a work of great importance in my personal literary cannon. This film, however, proved to me that Howl is not only a literary triumph, but also a political one, a social one. It made me appreciate it, not only as a poem, but it made me appreciate the man behind the poem.

This past weekend I journeyed to the Gateway Theater to see the hottest movie of the Halloween season, Paranormal Activity 2. The film smartly features the two things people hate to have bad stuff happen to: dogs and babies.

Despite being a person who is somewhat desensitized to the horror genre (I used to beg my parents to put on John Carpenter’s gory The Thing every day when I was three), I found the first Paranormal Activity to be just plain scary. I remember leaving the theater last year grinning from ear to ear, helping to drag out those of my friends who had gone into cardiac arrest from the shocking ending. This time around, we wanted to try to have the same experience.

One of the problems with Paranormal Activity 2 is that it relies a bit too much on the formula of the first film. We follow a initially happy couple, Dan and Kristi (sister of Katie from the first movie), their teenage daughter Ali, and infant son Hunter. The set-up is the same, but instead of one stationary camera ready to capture the paranormal activity, there are multiple views from different areas of the Dan and Kristi’s house. Scenes alternate between day and night, creepy stuff gradually begins to happen, etc. etc. etc. Once again, the male lead, despite witnessing an overwhelming amount of disturbing events, fails to take action or believe that anything is wrong.

Through all these things, Paranormal Activity 2 is still a decently frightening and suspenseful film. Movie-goers will watch with bated breath wondering if the demon will hurt the family dog or the baby son. The film also does a great job of integrating the events from the first Paranormal Activity into the new plot. Fans will be happy to see the old characters come back for cameos.

As for the baby? Spoiler Alert! He’ll be fine. I’m sure the demon will make a great dad!

(Or, Every Movie I Saw  in Theaters This Summer in Fifty Words Exactly.)

Iron Man 2

Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as crack-addled detective—no, a white-man-turned-black—no, a heroin addict—no—does it matter? He brings the same dysfunctional genius he always brings to his role as iron-clad hero Tony Stark, and it makes up for the sequel’s otherwise lackluster plot and character development.

Despicable Me

Equal parts adorable and deplorable, this movie combined Steve Carrel’s usual comedic awkwardness with a girlish cuteness so far only rivaled by Disney’s Monsters Inc. Despite having a plot shot full of holes and relatively poor dialogue, the familial love that pervades the entire movie really does warm the heart.

Grown Ups

One day, Adam Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock, Kevin James, and Rob Schneider were playing  a game of one-upmanship (in which one person is ragged on until someone comes up with a joke no one else can top, and then it’s their turn), and they accidentally caught it on camera.

Toy Story 3

The story of every kid who ever went to college and left their toys behind. It completes the trilogy so beautifully, carrying with it the same love that sustained the first one, ten long years ago: the love that exists in the imagination of a child, to infinity and beyond.

The Karate Kid

Jaden Smith’s modern-day attitude, plus a surprisingly serious Jackie Chan, plus incredible fight choreography, PLUS a time that isn’t the eighties, when fashion was bad and onscreen fights even worse, equals a Karate Kid for kids of this century—but they’re mistaken if they think this is the real thing.

Inception
(Since I saw it twice in theaters, it gets double the words.)

This was a mindfuck of a movie, spawning comments such as ‘Dude you just INCEPTED me!’ and ‘No, CHRISTOPHER NOLAN incepted THE WORLD!’ because people cannot stop talking about it. Christopher Nolan has once again conned his audience into actually thinking about the movie. You can’t not, even if you’re only trying to figure out what exactly happened. And in thinking so much about it, it forces you to think about your own way of thinking, which quickly devolves into an obsessive compulsion, forcing you to question your own reality—is what I’m thinking really real?—and  that is Inception.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
(An epic of epic epicness.)

It was chock full of geeky references, quick-witted humor, and starred Michael Cera, the ultimate nerd-turned-actor. What more could I ever ask for? But as a fully declared and aware fan of video games, comic books, and to some extent, punk rock, I admit I may be a touch biased.

*

See a movie I didn’t? Completely agree with everything I’ve ever said? Think I’m full of shit and disagree on every point? Feel free to leave a comment and tell me exactly what you think!

Despite the pseudo-sexual undertones in the title, How to Train Your Dragon was perfectly kid-friendly, with enough spice to appeal to an older crowd (although I admit I may have been the oldest in the theater, not counting harried parents). It was also, in my eyes, a perfect movie. I could have watched it again immediately after I saw it the first time, and I could have watched it again after that. I could watch it right now, today, and tomorrow, and the day after.

How to Train Your Dragon has two species in it: Vikings with thick vaguely-Scottish accents, missing limbs, and greasy hair, or with clear eyes and clean skin and leather jerkins, or with bones through their beards and spears in their hands; and dragons. Cute dragons, scary dragons, awesome dragons, wimpy dragons, REALLY REALLY BIG DRAGONS, really really small dragons, clever dragons, two-headed dragons, fire-breathing dragons, flatulent dragons, toothless dragons (namely the main dragon, Toothless, who befriends the main Viking, Hiccup) pink-green-black-purple-orange-red-blue-yellow dragons. Oh, and there were sheep.

Toothless, Hiccup’s dragon companion, can disappear and reappear when he wants to, has retractable teeth, a smooth black body, and moves with lithe and sinuous decisiveness. He also eats mostly fish. He’s like a large stray cat that could accidentally eat you. And who finds this stray dragon and takes him home? Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), the Viking version of a village idiot. He’s small and scrawny, with freckles and gray eyes and neatly kempt hair. Naturally, he’s picked on by all the other big and burly leather-wearing Vikings. Naturally, he’s smarter than all of them, with an inventive streak centuries ahead of its time.

Other notable characters include Hiccup’s father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), who is actually the chieftain of the village and has always been disappointed by his son’s lack of Viking strength, and Gobber, the one-legged blacksmith of the village who took Hiccup under his stump and saw that what he lacks in strength, he makes up in spirit. Of course, where would the movie be without it’s cute girl Viking counterpart? Astrid (America Ferrera) proves that killing dragons isn’t just a man’s game, and kills the Viking boys’ hearts at the same time.

For at last I have arrived at describing the point of the story: Vikings vs. Dragons. It’s not an athletic competition, it’s a deadly war that has been going on as far back as Vikings and dragons can remember. Dragonkind has been raiding Viking villages for sheep, virgins, and to cause general mayhem, while all Vikingkind can do is kill the dragons and protect themselves as best they can—until Hiccup met Toothless, and learned that dragons are not just mindless eating and ravaging machines. They can be taught, and trained, and even befriended.

The movie’s moral message is basically that: accept those who are different, because you never know what they can do for you, and more importantly, what you can do together. But if you think this movie is as simple and predictable as that, you are underestimating DreamWorks. Didn’t they bring us Shrek? Or, if you’re remember how many flops DreamWorks has also had, have faith in the directing team of Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, who also co-directed Disney’s Lilo and Stitch. And, if you’re very hard to please, they consulted heavily with cinematographer Roger Deakins, who has worked on many of the Coen brothers’ movies, and who is mostly likely the one to thank for the amazing quality of the animation.

It was both realistic and cartoonish, with anatomically sensible human bodies, if not exactly proportionate. The landscapes were breathtaking, and the details incredible—but not overwhelming. And as someone who grew up mostly without 3D movies, let me just say, they are a GREAT invention. The 3D quality added an entirely new dimension of enjoyment to the movie—I really did feel like I was actually there with the Vikings! I felt like I could reach out and pet a dragon! And oh, how I wanted to. The dragons were lovably sweet and round looking at times, spiky and intimidating at others, and overall so original. I’ve never seen dragons quite like that—there was a lot of thought put into the origin, design, and abilities of each dragon. If you stay and watch the credits, which I did, there are pictures and brief descriptions of all the dragons mentioned in the movie—plus more.

If you’re really just interested in this story, (which I certainly am), it was based on Cressida Cowell’s 2003 children’s book, How to Train Your Dragon, which was only changed slightly for the film version, to make it more suitable for an older audience. I imagine that’s what I’ll be spending my summer doing—since I cannot actually fly with dragons, I’ll just have to pretend.