The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

As we near the end of the year, I had to look back on my list of movies that I had been most anticipating and as the year went on, and the list grew shorter, I found myself feeling rather satisfied with the list that I had composed for 2012. While all of the movies I chose may not have been complete masterpieces, they at least left me satisfied. Until this week, only 2 movies remained on the list that needed my viewing: Django Unchained and today's movie, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. And just for the heck of it, we'll give Les Miserables an honorary spot because while I may not have been all that hyped for it this time last year, I have seen footage and behind the scenes featurettes and well, consider me pumped. But I digress.

When I really think about it, The Hobbit had quite a bit to live up to. I mean sure, we've all been looking forward to Avengers and Dark Knight Rises for a few years now, but if you are like me, then this movie was 9 years in the making. It's kind of hard not to get yourself hyped up when you see the day approaching, especially when I remember writing my thoughts on the first trailer when it first hit theaters this time last year. Add on the fact that it has a number of the same stars, the same director, the same screenwriter, studio, even the locations are the same. Is it possible to screw something up when the set up is so perfect? Well, if Peter Jackson's name is on the movie in question, then the answer is very loud and resounding "HELL NO!" While I don't think that HUJ is anywhere near as breathtaking or mind blowing as LOTR, I still think that this movie was very well done and it did anything but let down my rather high expectations.

So the story is first set in the Shire actually during the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, in which we see Bilbo preparing for his birthday party and, to take his mind off of things, he decides to write his memoir as a gift to his young nephew, Frodo, who also makes an appearance in this movie. As he is writing it, the rest of the movie is essentially one big flashback as Bilbo recounts the story of the Dwarves of Erebor, the dragon Smaug and the series of events that led to him travelling to the Lonely Mountain with Gandalf (played masterfully once again by the great Sir Ian McKellen) and Thorin, grandson of the last king of Erebor. We get a really well told prologue reminiscent of the iconic intro to Fellowship that details the building up and tearing down of Dwarven civilization and introduces us to the main antagonist of the movie, Smaug. In fact, the prologue is not the only thing that I saw as a throwback to Fellowship, the music is very similar and even the ending scene is almost identical to that of Fellowship. Int erms of staying loyal to the book, I would say that they left no t uncrossed nor any i undotted. I could almost quote the movie as the characters were saying it, that's how faithful it was... And that's how big of a nerd I am.  The two best examples of "That's exactly how I pictured it in the book!" would be the scene with the 3 trolls and the Riddles in the Dark.

Let's talk about the cast, both new and returning. First off, one of the great things about the Lord of the Rings movies was the cast. It may have to do with the fact that I have been in love with these movies for over 10 years now, but I am having a hard time imagining anybody playing these parts except the people they cast. To me, Ian McKellen is Gandalf, Hugo Weaving is Elrond, Andy Serkis is Gollum, etc. And the great thing is that this imagery has translated into the new cast for The Hobbit as well, especially Martin Freeman as the younger Bilbo. To me, he is Bilbo incarnate. All in all, I think he's a terrific actor because he is also John Watson incarnate in the BBC series Sherlock, which I really need to review someday. As for the dwarves, I don't really recognize any of them all that well, so I can buy them in their parts as well. Everybody put their best feet forward and it really shows, there is not a single weak performance in this movie. But...

We need to address one character that, as of the time that I am reviewing this, has gotten some early hate. Radagast the Brown, a wizard that is pretty much a magical earth-child, has already been compared to Jar-Jar, who infamously and almost single-handedly nearly ruined Star Wars. In order for a character to be on par in any way with Jar-Jar, he would need to be made purely for failed comic relief, contribute nothing to the story, and just make you feel unlcean and all around racist for watching him. Radagast, actually does play a part in the story and was not meant to be a purely comical character. Sure, he's a bit odder than the others, but I don't think of him as being a purely comic relief character. And on top of that, he's white, I'm white, I don't feel racist for looking at him. So that's out of the way. Moving on.

The one gripe that I have heard about the movie is the slow pace of it. Being that they need to spread all this material over the course of 3 movies, you would think they would all be a bit shorter. But no, it clocks at almost a 3 hour run time. And again, while slow pacing is an issue that many other people will have with movies, it never really bothered me. As long as I don't feel like there is nothing but filler or the scene drags out too long, I could give a damn. Turn a 30 second scene into a 10 minute scene if you must. But, for my money and what I was picturing, the scenes are all the perfect length, and I never found myself checking my watch.

So why does this not blow me away like LOTR? Well, you have to keep in mind, I was 9 when I was first introduced to the tale of Frodo and the Ring, and I knew next to nothing about Middle Earth when I sat in that theater that day. Really it has more to do with the fact that it was my first trip into Middle Earth, and there is only one of those, but they did come pretty damn close to making me feel like I was being introduced to it all over again. Though, this is not a bad thing in the least, seeing as how it felt like I was returning to a place I truly loved. It would be like going on a vacation to the Grand Canyon years after seeing it for the first time. You can't beat that first experience, but seeing it again brings back all those familiar feelings.

The long and short of it: I love this movie, and I cannot wait to pick it up when it comes out on DVD and I really wish I had a time machine so I can go a year ahead and see part 2!

Final Grade: A-

Breaking Dawn pt 2

You saw that right people, I really did see Twilight: Breaking Dawn pt 2. I was not manipulated or tricked or kidnapped or in any way, forced against my will to see this movie. I went into that cinema willingly, and held my head high as we watched this movie. Why did I see this movie? Because I was told by a very reliable source that it was an enjoyable flick that would not let me down. And it did not disappoint by any stretch of the imagination. Seriously, I enjoyed the heck out of this movie. I would almost tell Ted to move over, seeing as how this is the funniest film to be released this year... Except that I was just informed before writing this that it wasn't meant to be a comedy... This was meant to be taken seriously... I thought I was going to be reviewing a laugh out loud hit, and it turns out I have to review a drama...

Alright, let's get this over with

So, some of you may remember my other review of the Twilight series (I refuse to call it a Saga because I can't say Twilight Saga without wanting to give my shotgun a blowjob). In that, I basically ripped it apart for being degrading to women, overly dramatic and not realistic at all because of the lack of consequences despite all of the mistakes the characters made. And yeah, my stance is still steady on that. And I honestly had to intention of seeing this movie until earlier this week when my girl friend said that she saw it and that it was one of the most enjoyable experiences that she has had at the movies, and she is a former twi-hard that really hates these movies... Can you see why I'm attracted to her? Anyway, this is one of those movies that I would have taken a fifth of vodka before seeing because for me, this belongs in the Wrath of the Titans group of movies and this movie alone may be a new guilty pleasure for me because I just enjoyed how horrible it really was. Honestly, I know that very few (in fact maybe even none) of my readers are Twilight fans, but if there are, I really have to ask how you can expect me to take this movie seriously when I watch the hokey acting, the cheesy dialogue and the horrible effects and I honestly can't help but laugh. The only person who is actually any good is Michael Sheen as Aro, and that's only because he and the rest of the Volturi are the "No fucks given" crew. They are in on the joke that this series is terrible and that these movies are terrible too, so why even bother trying to give a legit performance. The main cast is acting their hearts (or whatever the hell Kristen Stewart has) out, and Michael Sheen goes out of his way to be as campy as possible. His character is almost like Dracula if he were played by Tim Curry's character from Rocky Horror. The best part of the movie for me was when he first sees the child and lets out this really girly squeal. The only other actor that is actually any good is Billy Burke as the constantly hopeless dad. Seriously, the only other movie that I've suffered through is New Moon, and in that, all he did was shrug through the whole movie and say "You're grounded, Bella". That alone was better acting than Kristen Stewart if she got lessons from Robert De Niro. Why even bother talking about the rest of the characters? They are just as bland and forgettable as the main cast.

Something that I really have to ask about is this: They are outdoors all the time and yet, they never sparkle. They only sparkle in one scene in the entire movie. I thought being out in the daylight made them sparkle, even though what they are really supposed to do is burst into flames. Continuity? What's that?!

So on to the rest of the story, God help me. The problems that I have still hold up. My main problem is the whole imprinting process with Jacob and Renesmee, who I still can't believe was named that. Even some of the characters are hearing that name and saying "Yeah, that's stupid". Even after people talk about it out loud, it still sounds creepy as hell. I almost wanted Chris Hansen from To Catch a Predator to walk in and say "Jacob, why don't you sit down?". Turns out, he was never actually in love with Bella, he was obsessing with her unborn child and his connection that he felt to Bella was really his connection to Nessie, as he calls her. The only other time that I can think of where somebody obsessed over an unborn child was the Terminator, and that was somehow less creepy than what we have going on here. By the way, the point when Bella got really pissed was when she realized that Jacob nicknamed her daughter after the Lochness monster. Two things: 1, her name is Renesmee, what the hell else are you going to call her? 2, you've got far bigger problems with him than that.

And now let's talk about the part that some people actually liked, and I have to say this is the part when I really, really give up all hope on humanity. So, at the end of the movie, there is this big throw down between the Volturi and the Cullen coven and their allies and whatever. Several people die and it was pretty epic and I almost found myself getting involved... And then we cut back to right before the battle as it turns out that someone was having a vision as to what the battle would look like if they were to fight. I couldn't hold it in any longer, I seriously booed the screen and yelled out "That is bullshit!" Honestly, whenever someone pulls the "It was all a dream" twist, I bite my lip, that is the absolute worst way to have a twist in your movie. The only movie where that worked was Inception and that was because it was only hinted that he was dreaming for the sake of discussion. I almost walked out of the theater and waited in the lobby for the people I was with. And I probably should have because the only thing left from that movie was one big Return of the King rip off. They seriously did the whole "cut to black, oh wait, we still have some movie left" routine. And then for the credits, they went through the entire cast and listed everyone with their name and a picture of the character that they played. The difference is that in Return of the King, even the characters that didn't show up in that movie were at least memorable because they had lines and character development. In this, even the people that were in it, I had to ask who some of them were because they either had one line or they were just sitting in the background. I guess you needed to be a fan of the books to get this, but still, if only people that read the books are going to have a clue as to who they are, then what's the point?

I could go on, but I'm tired and my fingers are aching, so for the last part of the movie, I'm just going to list the other questions/ things that make no sense about the movie.

Why do vampires have special abilities? Are they like the mutants in X-Men?

Why did they use a fake baby in some scenes and not in others? Why did they even use a fake baby at all? It was pretty obvious that it was a fake baby

What is it about Bella that people find her worthy of fighting this huge fight over? It's not like Harry Potter who they had a prophecy about him.

Why do they say that vampires don't breath even though they are talking, which requires breathing?

In pt 1, Edward was supposedly holding back during the love scene, and they broke the bed. In this one, he supposedly wasn't holding back and nothing was broken. How does that work?

Why do their eyes look red in some scenes and not in others? Is it a sign for when their blood lust is high or is it another example of continuity, or lack thereof?

Why were all of the covens so racist? The irish vampires were pretty stereotypical for irishman, and the romanian ones were all fruity and flamboyant.

People who read the book, when you read about the native americans coming out of the woods, did you imagine Tonto and Sacajawea? If you didn't, that makes this director more racist than George Lucas and Michael Bay. Already, I wouldn't be surprised if either of them made this movie.

Why does Renesmee age rapidly? People keep saying it's because she's half human but even after they say that, it still doesn't make any sense.

Why do all of these vampires have very exotic, foreign names and yet the Egyptian guy's name is "Ben"?

Why is Carlisle's name spelled with an "S"? Or as Aro would say "With an ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss" That's not so much something that is bothering me as much as it is a random thought.

Why did they not change Bella into a vampire before their wedding? Would have saved them alot of time and trouble.

Lincoln

Biographies are nothing new to cinema, but it seems as though we are getting more and more of them lately. Last year, we had J. Edgar, this year we have Hitchcock and today's movie, Lincoln. The difference is that while most biographies tend to focus on the person's entire life,  Lincoln  only focuses on one section of that person's life. In this case, it's the final months of the Civil War and the passing of the 13th amendment. And really, that may be the only section of his life that you need to talk about, being that those months pretty much became his legacy. I don't really think there's a point in including a spoilers section seeing as how we already know how it all ends, but does that really lessen it's value as a movie? Of course not! We have to remember, this is Spielberg we are talking about, and a historical Spielberg film no less. So where do I start? As if it's even necessary to talk about the acting, seeing as how you've got one of the greatest actors of all time playing Lincoln, and a supporting cast that is far from forgettable too, from screen veterans like Tommy Lee Jones stealing the scenes that they are in (that Daniel Day-Lewis isn't in mind you), to the growing star Joseph Gordon-Levitt being able to hold his own on screen, which is really saying something given the rest of the cast. As for the rest of the movie, I have to say that I'm really glad that this is a PG-13 rated movie because even though I like my war movies as gritty as can be, after watching this, I really want them to show this film in schools for history classes. This film really gave us a look as to who Lincoln was as a person and how much he fought to get the 13th amendment passed and what it meant to him. Again, being that it is Daniel Day-Lewis who is playing the president, you are really able to detach him from the character and see Abraham Lincoln on the screen as opposed to some actor playing Abraham Lincoln. The best part about this characterization is that we see a lot of Lincoln's sense of humor and that, even at his most stressful moments, he was not above using a joke or anecdote to illustrate his point or calm everyone's nerves. It felt as if, even though he was fighting like hell to lead the country and bring it back together, we were reminded that Lincoln was a person first, and a politician second, which is again a notable trait about the film, because the temptation is to focus too much on the conflict rather than the person. And it is for this reason, that I said earlier that this film should be shown in schools. It's a realistic portrayal of the Civil War, it's a realistic portrayal of the time and above all, it's a realistic portrayal of one of America's greatest presidents. I might want to see this movie again.

FInal Grade: A+

Skyfall: The Next Generation

I'll explain why I entitled this as "The Next Generation", that part does contain some minor spoilers. As we get closer and closer to the end of the year, there seem to be 3 movies left on everybody's must see lists. This, Les Miserables and The Hobbit. So, how does our holiday movie season begin? Very strongly, I am happy to report. Skyfall is without a doubt, the best Bond film that we have seen since Daniel Craig has been cast in the part. In fact, critics have been praising this as being one of the best bond films yet, and I would have to agree with them. This takes the number 2 spot for me, right behind From Russia With Love and in front of Goldeneye. So why does this movie strike a cord with both critics and fans alike? Well, for starters, it has this theme of "out with the old, in with the new" in that they are taking the series in a new direction while still giving the old the respect it deserves. There are many scenes that made me think of scenes from older Bond films, even the ones with Connery. The best instance being when Bond does something spectacular and it is followed by a couple notes from the James Bond theme music. The movie starts with one of the best chase scenes that I have ever scene. It's probably the most thrilling chase sequence since the truck-batmobile chase from The Dark Knight, and that really is saying something. After that, we are treated to a very modern and yet very old fashioned credit sequence featuring a very well written song by Adele. The movie centers around M who is coming under fire from the british government for loosing a very important hard drive, and is being pressured into retiring by another british agent named Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes. After an attack on MI6's headquarters in London, Bond comes out of hiding (he is presumed dead after the opening chase scene ends very badly) to help his old colleague and mentor track down the culprit, played by a very flamboyant Javier Bardem. If Casino Royale was Bond's equivalent of Batman Begins (taking a much more serious and darker tone when before it was very tongue in cheek), then Skyfall is Bond's Dark Knight. It gets everything about Casino Royale right while going the extra step. And I'd like to emphasize that this is much darker than the past movies I've seen. This is the first time that I've heard them hint at Bond being a substance abuser after his brush with death. It felt kind of weird seeing somebody that you always thought of as invincible be so vulnerable and broken.

SOME SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH

 Now, when I said that this was also "The Next Generation", I meant it by both the tone and direction, but also in the cast. We have a completely new crew in the MI6 headquarters. We already have Daniel Craig as the new Bond, we are also introduced to the new Moneypenny, the new head of Q branch (normally someone much older than Bond, now played by a man who looks like he just graduated from high school), and we even get a new head of the department. Yeah, in other words, this is the installment where we see Judi Dench's death and the title of M passed on to Mallory. At first, I was bummed because I would have really liked to see Ralph Fiennes play a Bond villain seeing as how he's played a serial killer, a nazi and a dark wizard. But now that I know the nature of his role and that this will cause him to show up in more Bond movies, I don't think there is much to complain about. However, I do wonder why this ending has not sparked some controversy. After all, we are seeing the death of one of the most enduring characters in the franchise, and someone that I have grown up with in these films.

THE SPOILERS HAVE ENDED

Of course the one thing that we all love about the Bond films are the gadgets. While I have criticized some of the past films for going too far in some areas, I do admit that I find most of them really cool. Fortunately for both me and the gadget lovers, there are some, but it is still pretty low key. He has a gun that recognizes his hand print so only he can use it, he has a radio beacon that he can use to call in support, and he has the car with machine guns and an ejector seat. Not much else apart from that I'm afraid. The new Q even remarks "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really do that anymore." Again, noting that they are moving on but still acknowledging a fan favorite of the past in a funny way.

Not much else I can say now, I've pretty much covered every area of the movie that I can think of. I would talk about the Bond Girls, but they aren't in it for very long. So yeah, for a movie that's 2 1/2 hours long, it certainly didn't feel like it dragged at all, you were certainly invested in what was going on the entire time (again, going back to what I said about this being Bond's Dark Knight), which is hard to do, and can go very badly if you aren't too careful.

Final Grade: A+

Yay or Nay? Rereleasing movies in 3D

There has been a new trend on the rise over the past few years in which major studios will take some of their best known and best loved movies and rerelease them in theaters for the (insert multiple of 10) anniversary. The most recent ones of course, being Titanic, Star Wars, and many of Disney's classic movies of the 90's. While I do think that sounds great, there is a slight problem that I have with it: They are all in 3D. I've already made it clear how I feel about the format, so you can already tell where this is going. Here's my problem, 3D is such an expensive tool and hardly ever does it actually pay off. The best uses of it have oddly enough been in animated films, rather than big action pictures like Avatar or The Avengers. My real question is why? Why would they feel the need to convert it to shitty 3D when they could easily just say "Hey guys! We are going to put Jurassic Park back into the theaters... Go see it!" It would cost the studios next to nothing, and it's not like they are reshowing movies that didn't score well at the box office. The movies I listed above are all ones that everyone and their mother have scene, and I guarantee you we would have no problem paying to see them again on the big screen. You don't need to convert them to 3D to give us the incentive  we loved these movies when we first saw them 10, 20 years ago, and we'll love them just as much now. If anything, it gives younger viewers the feeling of what it felt like to see it for the first time on the big screen, and for older viewers, it brings back those old memories of when they first saw it. In fact, that's exactly what they did when they released movies like Memento, Scarface and Lord of the Rings, and people went to go see them. Not as many, mind you, but that had more to do with the fact that only a few theaters were showing Memento, and it wasn't very widely advertised. I only know about it because I saw it on Chris Nolan's fan page on facebook. But that's beside the point. So why am I bringing this up? Well, I just saw an ad that said they are going to be putting Jurassic Park back into the theaters in April. At first, I thought "Wow, this is awesome!" I freaking loved those movies when I saw them in 4th grade on DVD, just imagine how awesome they would look on a huge ass theater screen... But then I saw that it was being converted to 3D, and again, I just had to question what the point of it was. Especially with a movie like Jurassic Park. 3D was supposed to be about creating an experience, and Jurassic Park never really felt like an experience to me. The one argument that I have heard for this is that "It's all about money" but not even that argument makes sense. Like I said before, the only thing the studio would have to say it "Hey everyone, we are putting this movie back into theaters for a couple of weeks, it's going to be exactly the same as when it first came out, we hope you enjoy it!", it would cost the studio a lot less than it would to convert it, and it's a pretty safe bet that audiences would go see it again, if not for nostalgia.

Election Day Special!

You probably came here thinking I was going to give my thoughts on the election happening today. That I was going to give some speech about how you should get out there and vote because your voice matters and that you can help shape the course of history.

Sorry guys, not today. Not that I don't care about what happens in our nation, but here's the thing, I do this as a hobby, and why would I want to spend my hobby time talking about stuff that matters? Instead, we are going to talk about the things that you pay me to talk about: Movies and video games. Okay, I guess I don't really get paid to talk about that, but that's not the point. In today's case we are going to talk about one of the most hyped up and anticipated games of 2012... That's right, we are talking about...

Wait... What? Sorry wrong game, we are really here to talk about...

There should be a "Fuck Yeah" somewhere on this poster

Yes, we are talking about one of the most awaited sequels probably of the new decade. Ever since the first Halo game was released for the original Xbox console, games have never really been the same, especially first person shooters. What Halo did for first person shooters is what Zelda did for fantasy games. In other words, titles like Call of Duty and Battlefield all owe thanks in one way or another to the original Halo. And in alot of cases, some games have failed to meet the standard set by the original masterpiece. Unfortunately, some of those cases include Halo's own sequels. Some of them were good, the best one up to this point being Halo Reach (which was really more of a prequel), but none really wowed us the way that Halo did. Halo 2 was pretty meh, Halo 3 was an improvement, but it has its flaws, Halo 3 ODST was like the equivalent of Bourne Legacy, it was interesting, but the world would have kept on spinning had it not been released. We also had Halo Wars, which was a strategy game for Halo which, while it was a worthy effort and I do think is pretty underrated, got kind of swept under the rug. Then we had Halo Reach, which I already said was the best one to come since the original. Last year, we had the rerelease of the original Halo, where the developers took the original Halo, updated the graphics and released it for the Xbox 360. And to be honest, I had been saying that this should have happened a long time ago. So now, here we are, 2012, and Halo 4 is upon us, even though we were already told that Halo 3 was going to be the last for this story line. 

So, has this franchise gotten lost in space, or does live up to its own hype?  The answer is a very thankful and relieved YES, it does live up to the hype. When Bungie said that they were passing the torch to 343 industries, none of us really knew what to make of that. As far as I know, they haven't made anything big, and Halo 4 would have been their first huge big budget project, and you can tell that not a dime of the blank check they were handed was put to waste. My main problem with the other sequels, even Reach was that none of them felt as big or as grand as the first Halo. Well, that problem was already addressed 2 levels into the game after you have crash landed on a new planet. I'm not going to go into the story, as I don't want to spoil anything for those who are holding out for Christmas, but I can say for sure is that from a story stand point, this is a far superior entry to the predecessors. As far as I have played, there are no flood, there are sentinels and we even get to fight elites again. I was bummed when they turned good because I really liked fighting those guys. Sad Panda. At least, not anymore now that I get to kill them again. Joy! Keep in mind, I'm not that far into the game right now, so I can't say this for sure, but like I said there is not one sign of the flood. I really hope that is not a knock on wood moment, seeing as how I thought they were cool for the first bit, but I always saw them as a gag that got old really fast. So, as fun as the other games were, it finally seems as though we have finally been given the Halo sequel we were asking for. The only gripe that I have is that I heard they took out the firefight mod for multiplayer, which was the source of hours upon hours of fun for myself and my friends. Oh well, as long as there is a co-op element, or really any multiplayer (something the Halo games kick ass at), we don't have much to complain about.

Wreck-it Ralph

As if I really need to actually tell you if this movie is good. It's a Pixar movie! It's almost a guarantee that you are going to love it, it just all depends on what you are going to love it for. Are you going to love it the same way you loved The Incredibles where it was alot of fun and made you laugh yourself silly? Or is it more like Toy Story 3 where you are going to ball your eyes out? Well, to tell you the truth, I would group this together in the category of Incredibles and Monsters Inc. There was a lot of heart to it, and it had it's fair share of touching moments, but what I'm really going to remember this movie for is just how darn funny it is. And you have to give it credit for having a pretty creative idea too. The movie takes place in the world of video games. You ever see those PS3 commercials that have a bunch of iconic characters drinking together or something like that? This is basically the movie version of those commercials. I really liked the lengths that it went into creating this alternate universe. Probably my favorite bit in the movie is the scene where Wreck-it Ralph, a video game villain, attends a support group for villains who want something more out of their lives. If you grew up in the 90's and ever attended a birthday party at a Chuck-E-Cheese or a Nickel Nickel, you will love this scene. In addition to Ralph, you have other well known baddies like M. Bison from Streetfighter, Bowser from Super Mario, and a zombie with hatchets which, I can't be sure, but I think it might be a reference to House of the Dead. That's the only game that I've played where the zombies threw hatchets. Now, as much as I go on about this scene, don't think that this is the only good thing about the movie. The humor, while it is primarily intended for kids, is also enjoyable for adults and older kids can enjoy the little winks to games like PacMan and Sonic and other games that we wasted quarter after quarter on during our childhood. The story is good, the animation is well, Pixar, you don't need to go much further. And the voice acting from Jane Lynch, John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman among others is all top notch. What more can I say? This is one of the best animated films of the year, go see it!