Iron Man II Review

I remember when saw the first “Iron Man” in theaters. It was before the advent of “The Dark Knight” so I was skeptical with “Spider Man II” being the only good super-hero movie I seen beforehand. Needless to say, back then I was under the impression that super hero movies did nothing but suck, and on rare occasions were utterly awesome. That, coupled with the flash and glam of “Iron Man’s” aesthetic really didn’t entertain my anticipatory-movie senses. I couldn’t have been more wrong. What I found beneath its glamorous exterior was a real human story about a sly, charming, weapons corporation CEO that has came to the haunting realization of how immoral his trade really is. So then, the question that we’re all begging for the answer to now is “does Iron Man II measure up to the emotional weight of its predecessor? Or does it take the safe-root with big explosions and hot women?” Okay, so maybe I was the only one asking that specific of a question, but you get the point.

“Iron Man II’s” story takes off not too far from where we left off in the previous “Iron Man,” in the first scenes we watch as a U.S. Senator harangues Tony Stark into trading over the Iron Man weapon in the name of “national security.” Needless to say, Tony is as reluctantly and charming as ever in refusing the senator’s offer. However, the senator is the least of Stark’s worries. It appears that the device that had made him into a superhero and kept him alive since the beginning of the first film is starting to infect his blood. Tony, being the impulsive fellow that he is, starts to act up and creates quite a bit of public outcry. Oh yeah, did I mention a vengeful Russian physicists (played by Mickey Rourke) is trying to kill him while at the same time a fellow arms CEO (Sam Rockwell) is attempting to ruin his business by making a better Iron Man suite. Yeah, there’s a lot going on in this sequel, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You see, where “Iron Man II” fails isn’t in creating an emotionally rich story with multiple three dimensional characters, where does stumble however, is in its presentation of aforementioned story; allow me to explain.

You remember how in the first “Iron Man” you could see as the relationship between Tony and Pepper slowly grew more and more intimate with little, funny sequences like when she has to replace his arch reactor? Well, “Iron Man II” has one too many sequences like that, and gets pretty boring after we expect them to be together already. However, the biggest flaw of “Iron Man II” is its central villain. The sort of mad, vengeful antagonist Rourke creates out of Whiplash is incredible, however that most likely has less to do with Rourke as much as it has to do with the character Whiplash. See, Whiplash is the perfect villain: he questions the use of the hero. Take Heather Ledger’s Joker from “The Dark Knight,” the primary reason he worked as such a great nemesis for Batman was because he found Batman’s weakness and exploited it. He took the very people Batman was trying to save, and began killing them in order to force Batman to reveal his identity. Whiplash questions the morality of the Stark family and their legacy, calling them “thieves and butchers.” Alas, Rourke is not given nearly enough screen-time to flesh out the character to his best potential, making the appearance of the character more disappointing than exciting. Now, mistakes such as this one can be forgiven if there is hope for the reappearance of the character. However, the film seems to want to get rid of him in order to make room “The Avenger’s” storyline. Now, I am in no opposition to catering to the fans of franchises; that is unless the product placement interferes with the quality of the film; which in this case it does.

Now, when you put its other flaws aside “Iron Ma II” still has cool, story driven action right? Well, yes and no. The part when we watch as Whiplash slices and dices Tony’s race car in order to kill him was probably the highlight of the films action sequences; and that’s mostly due to the incredibly badass briefcase suit. Now, if “Iron Man II” were a lesser film, I would have forgiven for its drawn-out third act of pure action but I know it knew better than to do that to us. Looking at “District 9” one could make the same argument about its third act, but you see, its action pertained DIRECTLY to the story, whereas “Iron Man II’s” felt a bit contrived. The climax of the film is an action finale where Tony and Rhodey face off against a bunch of robots (a sequence which is by the way addled with one liner’s) created by Whiplash. Sounds like it pertains directly to story, right? Well no, you see Whiplash created the robots for Hammer corp. (Stark Industries business nemesis) so that they may be unveiled at an important technology convention. Tony finds out the robots were created by Whiplash and goes to …. save the people at the convention from the robots? Why would Whiplash want to harm the people at the convention? Didn’t he accuse the Stark family of being “thieves and butchers?” In addition to this, his robots harming innocent civilians would only help Stark industries. It just didn't make any sense to me.

“Iron Man II” is less than flawless; however it still manages to be a delightful cinematic treat. While at times the action is contrived, it still possesses a strong enough story to keep the audience engaged, not to mention the infamous charm of Robert Downey Jr. If only it had a bit more disciplined direction and a less sprawling storyline it really could have been the breath of fresh air its predecessor was. Let’s just hope all this “Avenger’s” product placement pays off. 4/5

Kick-Ass Review

They ought to have some formula by now for dictating the chances of someone making a genre satire. Just think about it, after “28 Days Later” we had Shaun of the Dead, a few zombie movies and years after that we got the delightful “Zombieland.” Looking at the track record of satirical parodies we are long overdue for one in regards to super-heroes films, which apparently have become the “bullet time” of cinema. So then, how does “Kick-Ass” hold up as our first parody? I walked in the theater really wanting to love “Kick-Ass” for it's clever, dark humored satyr; instead I left a bit confused trying to figure out if I really liked it or not; and whether thinking Hit-Girl is cool makes me a morally questionable person.

“Kick-Ass” follows the tale of an average teenage loser named Dave Lizewski. Needless to say, Lizewski is a comic book geek who seeing all the comics throughout the world has wondered why no one has ever tried to be a super-hero. “Probably because it's impossible” his friend sarcastically replies, “What, putting on suit and helping people? That's not impossible.” Looking up from his comic his friend gives him a look: “Dude, if anyone every tried that they'd get their ass kicked.” And how right he is.

“Kick-Ass” certainly gets off on the right foot. The opening scene we watch as a mental patient dressed up in super-hero attire falls gloriously to his death in a vain attempt to fly. When we get the traditional quickie on how how our central character came to super-heroism the film gleefully takes the opportunity to expose the formula by having Lizewski go through some sort of twisted concept of the super-hero right of passage: “My mom died of an aneurism at the breakfast table …. the only epiphany I've since [she] died is that life goes on.” Not to mention the first time he tries to stop a few criminals he gets stabbed in the stomach and has to spend two weeks in the hospital. At first glance it appears to be a full blown satire at the genre, however, as wears on it seems to run out of ideas.

A definite reason “Kick-Ass” was able to hold itself together was because of its strong performances. Chloe Grace Moretz gives an outrageous portrayal of the infamous Hit-Girl, which has generated quite a bit of controversy. The first time we see her plow through a group of bad-guys with her spear like weapon is unsettling to say the least. However, the film doesn't try to lighten the mood by displaying her as caricature, which is even more unsettling. However, later in the film, once dramatic events which I will not reveal have occurred, she is set up against a large group of bad guys that she just as easily conquers in a gory, but for some reason this time not unsettling, manner. I'd like to think of her as a caricaturisation of women super-heroes superimposed onto a young girl to exemplify how they are objectified. However, I know I would be bullshitting myself to say so. I have to admit, I thought she was cool but I also felt morally compromised for thinking so. Another noteworthy performance is by Cage of all people. Leaving the action-hero persona behind Cage steps into a bat-maneque mold and creates an incredible character out of the infamous “Big Daddy/Damon Macready,” so incredible was his portrayal that I'd like for someone to make a film solely about his story. Lead actor Aaron Johnson does a noteworthy job in portraying Lizewski: he balances fervent frustration and pathetic reality perfectly to give us a protagonist we can really care about. Mark Strong's character felt out of place in the generally lighthearted story of “Kick-Ass.” His character is bad enough so that at times I hated him instead of laughing, but when he was funny, the tone had already been set dramatic by another character.

However, when we put the controversial Hit-Girl and out of place antagonist aside, what we find at the warm, chewy, center of this story is narrative of human struggle. A story of framed cops and frustrated teenagers, both fed up with the inaction of society to stop criminals. And because of this, much of the humor in “Kick-Ass” feels out of place. For an example, there is a scene where we watch from a security camera as Big Daddy slaughters Frank D'Amico's men, the music playing in the background sets a heavy and dramatic tone, inadvertently making it the most bad-ass thing I've seen in years. However, quickly after this the film cuts to Strong, with a surprised and comical look on his face that was supposed to make me laugh, but instead just raised my eyebrows making me think “What the hell?” There are many, many more scenes that seem to contradict themselves such as this one did. However, the overall product did not feel muddled (i.e. “Alice in Wonderland”) simply because of the power of the dramatic sequences. If it really tried “Kick-Ass” could have been a meticulous and fully dramatic deconstruction of the super-hero myth, but it's doesn't, so it isn't. Despite all of “Kick-Ass's” imperfections it still amounts to fun, compelling adventure; if only it had more coherent direction it really could have been something good. 3.5/5

How To Train Your Dragon Review

It is a meticulous and hard high-wire balancing act making a film that attempts to appeal to both adult and young audiences. Sometimes the film will fail because of too much childish quirk and slapstick antics, like “Treasure Planet.” However, some manage find the perfect temperature between quirky and adult, such as Disney Pixar’s “Up” or Dreamwork’s “Shrek.” While no where near the league of “Up” or “Shrek” “How to Train Your Dragon” is still one of those films that can and will be appreciated by children and adults alike; a genuine crowd pleaser that will hoot more than a few critics horns.

The storyline of “How to Train Your Dragon” is a somewhat formulaic one, however, it still manages to compel. Like your typical mythical hero tale it follows the story of an unsuspecting protagonist. Slipping into the archetypal mold this time around is Hickup: a skinny, nasally, and all around screw-up of a Viking. Only to make matters worse for his physical insubstantiality is that he’s the son of a very proud and very large Viking King who of course wants his son to follow in his footsteps. So then, what exactly are his footsteps? This time around writers have taken the big-boned, axe-wielding super warriors that are the Vikings and turned them into hard-bitten soldiers fighting viscously against dragon raids in order to sustain their very existence. Needless to say, Hiccup is a little too squeamish for the whole slaying business. In fact, when his father leaves him alone with a restrained dragon and a short sword to murder the beast with Hiccup becomes so repelled by the thought of murder that he sets the beast free. Immediately pouncing Hiccup after setting him free the dragon Hiccup half expects the gargantuan reptile to tear him to shreds; but instead the beast seems to recognize Hiccup’s peril and spares his life as Hiccup did his. From here on Hiccup becomes deeply interested in the behavior of the dragons; and thus begins the bond between man and beast.

The first half “How to Train Your Dragon” centers itself not on Hiccup’s and the mysterious dragon’s relationship, but rather focuses on the Viking’s Dragon Slayer Training, leaving their ever-approximal relationship in foreground, saving it for the third and final act. The training sessions serve as a catalysts to introduce characters, such as his love interest Astrid, two very annoying twins, a tubby and nerdy Viking and of course the idiotic jock (an motif that seems inescapable in coming-of-age stories such as this one). The variety of contrasting and clashing characters make for good deal of quirky, funny, and cute humor. For an example, the first time we see them in training the tubby Viking begins reciting all the “stats” of the dragons that their teacher says they will learn to fight. However, at other moments the humor becomes annoying and childish; like whenever either of the dreaded twins open their groan-inducing mouths to start the millionth, unneeded and unfunny feud with the other. One could say the characters are clichéd; however in a tale with a world as fascinating as “How to Train Your Dragon’s” I think the writers made a conscious choice to have easily accessible characters.

The entire film opens and closes as expected. It pushes no real envelopes in the area of storytelling or world creation but rather does a familiar thing really damn well: At the dramatic parts we feel compelled, at the humorous parts we laugh and at the end we feel like we just watched a damn good movie and go home thinking what a well spent eight bucks that was. 4/5

Repo Men Review

I was very apprehensive about going to see “Repo Men.” After all, a 20% on the tomato meter pretty much guarantees its going to be a piece of shit on wheels. However, despite my resources I found myself encapsulated by its premise. So then, what premise could be so good as to sway me away from my best intuitions? This one: in the future recent feats in the field of medicine has allowed corporations to be able to create prosthetic organs at the low, low price of $600,000+. Needless to say the average Jo could never afford such pricey necessities, so what’s the solution? Why give them a payment plan of course! But what if you can’t pay that off? Well, when you can’t pay off your house the bank takes it away, when you can’t pay off that fancy new car the bank takes it away, but what about when you can’t pay off your liver, or your heart, or your new left lung? That’s where the Repo Men come in. Sounds like a pretty fucking awesome premise right? It may come to a surprise to you then that film itself is not nearly as bad as the tomato meter makes it out to be, however not nearly as good as it could have been. In other words: a hell of a lot better than “Alice in Wonderland” but no where near as good as “Shutter Island,” genuine mediocrity that if in the hands of a better director and writer could have been something truly great.

As the title implies, Repo Men follows the story of two of these infamous repossession agents. The first is Remy, played by Jude Law, and some other guy played by Forest Whitaker (who lost a ton of weight by the way). They’re job is to stroll around the city with a high-tech scanning gun and check people for overdue organs, then, whether in a crowded city block or in the comfort of their own home they tranquilize the client with a dart and cut out their unpaid for property. The beginning scene gives us a sense of how disconnected from human mortality these men truly are. While getting it on with some pretty lady in his sky-high pent-house one unlucky fellow finds himself tracked down by Remy. The man begs for his life, Remy tranquillizes him and his lover, after which he puts on some soothing music to ease his job of removing the man’s prosthetic organ, a process in which no details are spared. “Wow, this is pretty gruesome and gritty” I thought to myself, only to realize just how two-dimensional Remy really is as a character, even after he has to get a prosthetic heart.

My mind couldn't help but think about Wikus from last year’s magnificent “District 9.” I think one of the reasons that film worked so well was because of Wikus. See, Wikus wasn’t an incredibly smart or physically substantial person in fact he was a somewhat stupid and very skinny, and that’s what I liked about him. He wasn’t your average, gun toting badass; he was a scared little man on the run from an inhumane weapons corporation. The point that I’m trying make is that he was an original, likeable (in the sense that he was hate-able) character: Remy is not. Jude Law’s portrayal of the stalwart action hero is as bland as any, even though he has a British accent. But who can blame the guy, the only person I’ve ever seen be able to make such characters appear three-dimensional is Bruce Willis and Jude Law is no Bruce Willis. Oh yeah, in case you were wondering Whitaker did his job well.

However, the crap doesn’t just end Law; in fact I think the primary problem with this film is its script and ham-handed direction. See, “Repo Men” had a TON of good ideas; however it didn’t flesh them out to their best potential. For instance, there are actually communities of homeless people with prosthetic organs living in decaying urban areas. Sounds pretty intense right? No, not really. “Repo Men” apparently had thought centering the second half of the film on a boring, contrived, and nonsensical romance instead of a story about a hunted and impoverished portion of humanity was a good idea, or perhaps it thought the liberal use of blood and guts would distract us from its idiocy. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that Remy was married and infatuated with this woman at the same time? And to top that off that he DOESN’T want his wife to divorce him. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention he had a wife that left him because of his job. I guess it must have slipped my mind because the film couldn’t really make me give two shits.

The final kicker in this cluster-fuck of mistakes is the ending fight scene and metaphorical sex scene. Remy and Mrs. Love Interest whom, I forgot the real name of because I didn’t really care about her, in a final attempt to outsmart the system break into the corporation building and begin registering their prosthetics into the repossession machine. However, before they can do this they must fight an angry mob of -- knife-wielding business men? Anyhow, onto the metaphorical sex scene: wanting to trick the computer registration system of repossessed organs Remy and Mrs. Love Interest have to cut each other open and stick a high-tech Wal-Mart item scanner into each other to key in the items -- apparently they found this an appropriate time to start making out.

There is one thing that keeps this film from falling apart and that is the very end, which I will not tell you because – Well, because despite all the gaping flaws of this film its still commendable due to its intriguing premise and the fact that it still manages to entertain, even if we do have to switch from thoughtful, philosophical mode to blockbuster-popcorn flick in the first and last fifteen minutes.

Alice In Wonderland Review

It puzzles me that it took Tim Burton so long to finally create his stylized rendition of “Alice in Wonderland.” Ever since I could recognize his hand in direction I always thought to myself “Man, it would be so cool if he made 'Alice in Wonderland.'” Honestly, one could go as far to say that Lewis Carrol's novel and Burton were born for each other, destine to have their lives intertwine. It may surprise you then that Burton's vision for Carrol's novel is, well it's pretty crappy. It has awkward pacing, gives us little time to identify with the characters but most of all it manages to make the experience boring. I know, I found it hard to believe as well. Hearing this one may be inclined to ask “So what went wrong?” Many things. First off was Burton's vision for the film. Previous silver screen adaptations of Carrol's novel were more or less none narrative, estranged adventures that had little or no purpose beyond giving lots of strange stuff to look at and go “Well that's weird.” Quite surprisingly, Burton was never impressed by these creative oddities, saying that they were just strange, narrative-less , emotionally empty joy-rides. So what did he do to correct this? He attempted the arguably impossible, to give “Alice in Wonderland” a narrative. Now, I am all for narratives, in fact I believe every great film needs at least a good narrative, however I don't think that was the best trajectory for Wonderland. See, on its own as a strange, fun-filled adventure Wonderland excelled, but when we constrain it to narrative it means removing much of the unnecessary strangeness that made it so lovable. Needless to say, that is exactly what Burton did. The final result is an unprecedentedly boring, fast paced, story with a lazy narrative.

Burton's recreation of “Alice in Wonderland” follows the story not of the young girl Alice, but rather twenty year old Alice. Being a young woman, as well as part of aristocracy, she is expected to marry a lord. Needless to say, when she is confronted by her suitor she flees, all these decisions she is expected to make is just much for her. Noticing a rabbit in a dinner-jacket hopping scuttling along side her in the bushes she chases after it till it leads to its rabbit hole. She falls in and thus begins her-not-so-fantastical adventure.

Burton's “Alice In Wonderland” isn't a completely worthless venture, just that it does no play to its strong suits. Like previous adaptations it has a variety of strange, interesting characters, places, and events that all add up into something of value. However, Burton mutilates any and all cool portions of the story either making them to parallel with people in Alice's life or simply keeping their strangeness to a minimum. I suppose if the film gave us more time with people in Alice's actual life the whole narrative idea could have played out a bit better, but it doesn't. Rather, it tries to get to Wonderland as fast as possible, perhaps it was confused as to what it wanted to be. Either way, it does not attempt to push itself in any single direction a very thoroughly, making it feel very muddled and cheap.

However, while it may lack continuity and consistency in the arrangement of its parts, the pieces nevertheless add up to give us a beautiful aesthetic gem. From cinematography, to its color pallet this is a drop dead gorgeous film. If you are simply looking for something to star at and go “Well that's pretty” for two hours then this will be well worth your ten dollars. Like JamesCameron's “Avatar” its 3-D doesn't try to pop out at you and hurt your optical senses, rather it is subtle and complimenting to the beautiful world that is Wonderland.

Depp is yet another one of the few positive aspects of this film. Making great use of his character creation ability he gives us a truly mad, “Mad Hatter.” Depending on his mood his accent will change from lispy, whimsical British to angry Scottish making him a very enjoyable whenever he is on screen. Due to Depp's trademark style of acting it is hard for one to decide whether his performances are nomination worthy or simply over-the-top, for this one I really can't tell, though I would like to believe the first. A subtle blend of CGI and contact lenses make up his great bulbous, uneven eyes, further complimenting the character's insanity.

Burton certainly had an interesting idea for “Alice In Wonderland” sadly it didn't pay off. Due to hapless direction and lazy story and plot-devices the film comes out a bland, CGI filled Tim Burton mishap.

A Serious Man Review

Sometimes I find myself envying atheists and agnostics and their ability to toss the reasons for certain events to mere chance and coincidence. Not to criticize them, just that I envy their convenience, and I think Lawrence Gopnik does as well. See, as a religious, at least to some extent, person “A Serious Man” spoke very deeply to me personally, and for the record: no I'm not Jewish. However, one does not have to share another's faith to be able to understand struggle, and while that struggle may come in all different shapes and sizes there is always a question griping at us, whether its right in our face or nudging us in the back of the head, it always seems to be the same question: why does this happen me, aren't I supposed to be the blessed one? As most of you already know, in almost all religions people are taught that “everything happens for a reason.” That the higher power, whether you call him/her/it “God” or “Billy Bob The Great,” has everything happen in order to compliment a higher purpose. Sounds like a convenient philosophy in order to cope with a world as contorted as ours, to a certain extent one would be right. However, that philosophy seems to lose its power once we get caught up in all that contortion, and boy oh boy if Lawrence Gopnik isn't caught up in it I don't know where is.

If one was to examine it for its most elemental constituents one would find the plot of “A Serious Man” to be a modernized and greatly expounded upon story of Job. I am sure everyone at some point in their life has heard the story, or at least a variation, of Job: Job is a good and faithful servant of God or appears to be greatly blessed. But then, in order to prove that Job's faith in Him ran deeper than the extent of which he benefited God turned Job's life into a living hell. With “A Serious Man” The Coens have brought never-before-scene dimension to this ancient tale. So then, how did they do it? With the fictitious Jewish physicist Lawrence Gopnik.

From the very beginning we can tell Gopnik's life is falling apart. His wife wants a divorce, his son is slacking off in school, his daughter seems to have some strange obsession with washing her hair, his brother is a lazy, mooching failure that he has to take care of, and there is a Korean student in his physics class that is planning to blackmail him if he does not give him a “pessing guradue” on his midterm; and why is all of this happening? He doesn't know – and neither do we.

After watching “A Serious Man” I began to think deeply about the Coens' previous master-piece: “No Country For Old Men.” In terms of its overall purpose and narrative “No Country For Old Men” was punctual – no, let me rephrase that – it was perfect in its use of mechanics. Through the framing of the shots, the use of editing, and the delivery of the lines “No Country For Old Men” always got the reaction it wanted out of you; “A Serious Man” is no different. Through seemingly inexplicable actions of the world surrounding Gopnik “A Serous Man” always makes sure we are as frustrated and confused as Gopnik (and yes, that is a good thing.) However, the Coens are too smart to go over-board on the inexplicableness, they very wisely keep the characters believable however, have them allude our full understanding.

One could say that “A Serious Man” is very much so a performance driven film, mostly because it is. Michael Stuhlbarg's portrayal of a man desperately trying to understand why his life is going to hell in hand basket is at times funny, and at other moments heartbreaking. See, Gopnik is man who believes that beyond a shadow of a doubt everything has consequences, whether moral or metaphysical. However, not even his long, perplexing physics equations can help him understand what's happening to him, and his local Rabbis don't seem to be any help either.

If one was to summarize “A Serious Man” as a modern day Job story they would not be entirely correct. See, “A Serious Man” is about more than just a man struggling with his faith, it's also about the world that's destroying it. Both through symbolism (like how Gopnik's neighbors are slowly moving their property line to encroach upon his) and overt events (his son's descent into laziness and drugs) “A Serious Man” tells a tale of how American culture can ebb away at one's faith.

In all that it does “A Serious Man” does it perfectly. It is yet another cinematic gem from the Coen Brothers that only further proves their ability to refine their subject to its best form. A compelling, pertinent, and brilliant piece that rivals their “No Country For Old Men.”

Little Miss Sunshine Review

There is something about humor and road movies that seems to come hand in hand. Just think about, wherever we find a vehicle, a mismatched group of civilians, and an end goal we always in turn find quirky, hilarious humor. However, there is something else that seems to hitch a ride with road movies, and that's drama. It seems so strange, that a single genre can act as the perfect catalyst to bring two polar opposite emotions together in perfect balance. Which begs the question: why? How is it that a single genre can work so perfectly in doing one of the arguably hardest things to do in all of cinema? I the answer is quite simple. You see, there is always an element that is touching or sentimental about road movies that if not balanced with humor would become sappy and melodramatic. So in a way, one could say that it is by necessity that road movies excel at the balancing-act that is a drama-comedy. "Little Miss Sunshine" is the art of this balancing act seen thoroughly refined to perfection, a carefully crafted and heart warming story about the logistics of what makes a loser but moreover what makes a winner.

Like many great films, "Little Miss Sunshine" is quick to establish its narrative. In the beginning scene we see a young girl (Abigail Breslin) wearing thick glasses staring intently at a television screen. What is she doing? Studying. She's studying as to what should be her proper reaction when she is crowned Miss America. Next we see a person which we can safely assume is her father (Greg Kinnear.) A man who is giving a motivational pep-talk on how to be successful to a whopping crowd of about half dozen people, maybe less. At last we see a sunken eyed man who seems to be sulking in his own pain and misery (Steve Carrel, yes that's right, Steve Carrel.) From this we quickly know what "Little Miss Sunshine" is about: determination, dreams, and harsh reality.

The young girl we see gazing into the T.V. screen is miss Olive Hoover, beauty pageant enthusiast. She has apparently been wooing the audiences throughout New Mexico with her routine and now it seems as though she'll be able to compete at the nationally renowned Little Miss Sunshine Pageant. Though we never get to see her routine until the very end, she seems an unlikely contestant. She has no noteworthy facial or body features, a set of values that is sadly enforced onto young girls her age if they wish to compete in such competition, and wears thick lensed glasses. However, she is going nonetheless.

Her father is Richard Hoover, a somewhat narrow minded (perhaps only to shield himself from reality) man that believes through his "Nine Step Program" anyone can achieve their dreams. Despite the fact that he has been going at it for years now and has come to no avail.

The sunken-eyed sulk we saw earlier is her uncle. A man who was once the number one Proust Scholar in the united states. However due to a series of very, very unfortunate events, such as the loss of his homosexual love interest to his arch rival, he lost everything and attempted to kill himself. However he failed at that as well. Carrel's frank portrayal of this man that lives enamored in his pain is nothing short of noteworthy. There is a scene when Olive asks him what happened to his arms and he simply replies "Well, I tried to kill myself." However, even in all his character's gloom Carrel still manages to be funny, a sign of a truly talented and wise comic.

One could go on about the characters in this film for pages, however that would be redundant. The long and short of it is: all the characters have and/or had goals which they are/were trying to achieve.

As I stated earlier, "Little Miss Sunshine" lends itself to a tightly constructed narrative, featuring definitive lines, scenes, and themes and pitch perfect performances. The most important theme of the film is the push. From beginning to end there seems to be one to many obstacles in the way of Olive reaching her final goal. Starting off with a simple dilemma of the most economic way to get to the beauty pageant all the way to having to literally push the car until it is going fast enough to start off in fourth gear. Another motif is the family's protection of Olive. There is a scene in which her grandfather is telling her older brother to "fuck a lot of women" while she sits just a few feet away listening to her CD-player. When she takes off her headphones to ask them what they're talking about the grandfather simply replies, "Politics." There are scenes like this throughout the film that depict the entire family's, including the seemingly indefatigable father, concern for Olive's innocence and determination. Her childlike naivety (after all, she is a child) is something they all seem to admire and desire, however, cannot attain simply due to their cynicism. Not to say that they're cynics, just that there is something about adolescence and adulthood that gives way to that aspect of human nature.

Near the middle of the film Olive begins to notice a lot of what her family is doing for her and subsequently becomes worried about the pageant. She professes her fear to her grandfather saying that her father hates and losers, and if she loses her father will in turn hate her. Comforting her her grandfather kneels down beside her bed and says "You know what a loser is? A real loser is somebody that's so afraid of not winning they don't even try. Now, you're trying, right?" to which she replies "Yeah" "Well, then you're not a loser." If someone wanted to find the moral of this film they need look no further than this scene. There are very few times in cinema where a narrative can be brought together by something so simple and yet be so profound.

For all its intents, purposes, and use of mechanics "Little Miss Sunshine" is perfect film. It will tug your heart strings, hit your funny bone and leave you feeling profoundly moved and thoroughly entertained.