"The Nightmare Before Christmas" Review

By Christopher Campbell

“The Nightmare Before Christmas” stands the test of time as one of the most visually appealing films.

Jack Skellington is the bony citizen of Halloweentown: a place filled with horror characters like vampires, a werewolf, and even a slow guy with an ax in his head. Jack is well-known for putting on a good show for Halloween, which is the only holiday anyone there knows about.

The story starts as Halloween night closes. Jack is starting to feel dissatisfied with the way things are going. Yes, people there are praising him, but he feels that everything is getting redundant. He has been doing the same thing for years, and he feels that he needs a change.

As the night closes, he wanders off into the woods until the next morning when he comes to a group of very interesting trees. Each one of them has a symbol representing a different holiday. Each symbol also has a knob to open up as a doorway. The one that catches his eye is a painting of a Christmas tree. He turns the knob, opens the door and gets sucked into the enormous void it leads to.

He lands in the snowy, white hills of Christmastown. This place is the exact opposite of Halloweentown. Rather than everything being dark, scary and depressing, it is bright, jubilant and joyful.

Jack wants the citizens at Halloweentown to know about this holiday. While they do not understand why he is so excited at first, he eventually convinces them that they should run Christmas that year.

Without revealing anything, Jack finds out that Halloween characters taking over Christmas is not a good idea.

This is one of my favorite animated films to this day. It is the first full-length feature film to be made using stop-motion animation. This means that every character you see on screen is actually a figure or a doll that has been crafted. Every single frame is simply a picture of that model, and the movie is made up of thousands of these photos.

The result is something that is more visually impressive than any CGI animated movie out right now. Paradoxically, even though it is obvious that everything is fake, this style of animation adds a sense of realism. Furthermore, the thought of how it was made and the amount of work hours spent on it makes this film even more amazing.

The most beautifully done scene is the second song in which Jack is dancing somberly through a moonlit graveyard. The character design makes his fluid, stringy movements very interesting. Equally amazing is how the movements, facial features and mouth match perfectly to the music. During the song, he climbs with his long, bony legs to the top of an odd shaped hill sitting directly in front of the enormous moon. He removes head (it’s not gruesome, don’t worry), and holds it out singing the song as all of this is happening.

The music in this movie is all very catchy. Danny Elfman, who has worked on a lot of Tim Burton’s movies as well as “The Simpsons,” did all of the music to it. He is the one who wrote the songs and the score. He also sang all the parts of Jack. After watching this movie, I always end up humming or whistling some of the songs.

A weak point that other critics have talked about is the fact that the story is not very good. As I watched it last time, I had this in mind. I thought maybe it is not that the story is bad, but that it is simple. While that is partly true, I can definitely see what those critics were talking about.

Near the middle of the film, I realized that the pacing was a little slow. The reason for this is because while the music is still very good and entertaining, it lacks any major conflict. When Jack tries to explain Christmas to the Halloweentown citizens, they do not understand. However, he quickly figures out a way to convince them, and when he says that they will take overtake Christmas, they simply run with it.

The only one who opposes this plan is Sally, who is the most pointless character in the story. She is a rag-doll-looking character. She was created by a scientist who appears to use her as a servant. However, she does not want to live this kind of lifestyle, so she constantly finds ways to poison the scientist or put him to sleep so she can sneak out.

Sally’s story, though interesting, is not very relevant to the rest of the movie. She was pretty much put in there as a love interest to Jack. However, they do not communicate with each other any more than with other characters, and as the movie closes, they end up together.

She is also the only opposition to Jack’s plan to take over Christmas. She has a premonition before he announces his plan that something bad is going to happen. As she tries to explain it to him, he either blows it off or comically thinks she is talking about something else.

The Boogie Man, the main villain, is also not very relevant to the story. He is a walking, talking, singing bed sheet filled with bugs. While Jack is preparing to take over Christmas, he tells some children, who are always up to no good, to capture Santa Claus. Jack’s intention is to give Santa a holiday, but the kids give him to the Boogie Man who is going to do something cruel to him.

Though he is not very relevant, he is a very entertaining villain. He is flamboyant and mean. When he is introduced, he sings in his gospel-sounding voice about how he is not going to be nice to Santa Claus. This is actually one of my favorite songs in the movie.

Although the story has its flaws, I do like the overall message that it presents. Before watching it the last time, I thought that this aspect was not very good. I thought it was that people should never try to change their lives. This time around, I realized it is really about being true to yourself. If you are not satisfied with what is going on, you can always try something new. However, it is also important to remember who you are and where you came from. It is also good to adopt aspects of other cultures, but it is wrong to try to change them according to your own.

I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 stars. Yes, it does have its problems. However, the visual aspect is amazing, the story has a good message and the music is enjoyable. Furthermore, the nostalgic value that this gives me adds some extra points. It is a movie I try to watch at least once a year around the Halloween season.

Content: Rated PG. There are some disturbing shots but nothing super gruesome. There is one--maybe two--instances of a religious vulgarity.

"Carrie" Review

By Christopher Campbell

“Carrie” uses tragedy to present a strong anti-bullying message despite its many flaws.

Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz, “Kick-Ass 2”) is a social outcast trying to survive the world of high school. She is a quiet girl who has been sheltered by her mother, Margaret White (Julianne Moore, “Crazy, Stupid, Love”) her whole life.

Her mother has instilled in her some radical religious beliefs, and because of this, she freaks out in the middle of the girls locker room when she has her first period. The other girls laugh at her because they do not understand her home life. She is humiliated as they throw things at her, make fun of her and record these actions on their cell phones.

One of the girls, cheerleader Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday, “Youth in Revolt”) posts the video online. When the cheerleading coach, Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer, “Arrested Development”), finds out about the video, she makes all of the cheerleaders do difficult exercises. Hargensen rebels, and Desjardin bans her from being able to attend prom. Chris is mad, and she wants to humiliate Carrie further.

Meanwhile, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde, “The Three Musketeers”), a cheerleader who was also involved in bullying Carrie at the beginning of the film, feels guilty about what happened. To make up for it, she asks her boyfriend, Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to ask Carrie to prom.

In the midst of these happenings, Carrie finds out she has supernatural powers. She can move objects with her mind, and she begins researching this phenomenon.

Carrie eventually agrees to go to prom with Ross, but Hargensen plans on using the event to humiliate Carrie. Neither Ross nor Snell know anything about this plan. Without spoiling anything, something big happens while they are there.

This movie is effective in getting the audience to relate to Carrie by the end. We realize she has been going through a lot in her life. She was raised by a mother who does not seem to want her to be happy, and no one takes her seriously because she is such an outcast. Both her social and family lives are completely screwed up.

When she goes to prom with Tommy Ross, the film does a great job at showing just how happy Carrie is. This adds to the tragedy of the situation because it is very predictable what is going to happen. However, this predictability is put to good use. Because we know what is going to happen, the audience feels bad for Carrie as the scene unfolds.

There are a couple of decent performances. Julianne Moore does a very good job at being a creepy woman who seems to misinterpret Christian beliefs and uses them to make Carrie’s life miserable. She is the epitome of the radical Christian, who even resorts to self-mutilation.

I personally did not like this character. She is one-dimensional, over-the-top and not realistic. Furthermore, she seems to be used as a tool to say that Christianity messed Carrie’s life up. There is a definite anti-Christian message this film gave that I, and likely many readers, do not appreciate.

Looking past that, there is a very good message as well that addresses the problem of bullying. This comes with the tragedy that happens at the end of the film. Since it is a spoiler, I will not reveal what it is exactly. I will say it has to do with people pushing Carrie so far that horrific things happen.

Another good performance is Ansel Elgort in his debut role as Tommy Ross. Though his performance is not the most outstanding, he does a very good job considering it is his first film. He has a likeability and charm that reminds me of Shia LaBeouf.

Chloe Grace Moretz does a good job in her portrayal as the title character. She is very believable as the broken outcast. When she is at prom, she really seems to be having a good time. When everything goes wrong, she does a great job at making it believable.

There are some problems with the direction done by Kimberly Peirce. The most noticeable is the use of instant replay. At least two different scenes showed something happen, and then it happened two more times. I can understand why Peirce does this: it is to emphasize how important this action is. However, it is a little annoying.

Carrie’s mom is not the only person who is one-dimensional. The high school students who are in on Chris’s plan to humiliate Carrie are also that way. Their motivations do not seem very fleshed out, and in the end they just seem like rotten kids.

This may have more to do with the acting than anything. This movie suffers in that the high schoolers are all beautiful people. The actors were obviously hired because of their physical appearance. It seems like the casting director was not as concerned about their talent.

I give this movie three out of five stars. It does have its share of problems, but I can understand why. The director and some of the actors are fairly new. Despite these flaws, there is a powerful anti-bullying message that comes with the movie. I would have given this movie three-and-a-half stars, but because of the blatant anti-Christian message, I lowered it.

For those who want to know if you should see this in theatres or the original on Netflix, I watched that version as well. This new version is definitely better. I may be a little biased because it is a much older movie. There are some scenes that are word-for-word the same, but the style is a lot more archaic. If you decide to watch the original, be warned that there are at least two scenes of full-frontal female nudity. If that does not bother you, go ahead and watch it.

I would not necessarily recommend seeing this movie in theatres, but it is definitely worth a look when it comes to Redbox. Furthermore, I would definitely see it a second time if I had the chance.

Content: Rated R. There is some graphic violence. A couple disturbing scenes depict self-mutilation. One scene shows a couple engaged in intercourse, but there is no nudity. There is a little sexual content besides that. There is some language, including a few F-words.

A version of this review was originally published in The Utah Statesman, a student run newspaper at Utah State University on Oct. 29, 2013.

“Escape Plan” Review

By Christopher Campbell

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

“Escape Plan” keeps the audience invested by placing the hero in an impossible-to-escape scenario.

Ray Breslin (Sylvester Stallone) works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as a professional break-out artist. He is hired to go to high security prisons, look for weak spots, and expose them to break out. In theory, this is supposed to help prisons know where they need to improve.

A lawyer for the CIA approaches the BOP and funds Breslin to go to a different kind of prison. It is off the radar and would give the CIA power to incarcerate people who it deems too dangerous without giving them a fair trial. It is able to do this because the prison is not a government facility. It is funded by a company looking for profit.

Breslin’s coworkers put a tracking device in him, and he walks to the place he is instructed to go. Instead of some cops coming to arrest him, a black van comes, and some people pull him in. They put him to sleep and destroy the tracking device. It looks more like a kidnapping than an arrest.

When he wakes up, he is in a different kind of prison. The cells are small, clear boxes surrounded by video cameras. The guards wear black clothes and masks that cover their faces so the prisoners have no idea who they are while being beaten. Breslin finds out that the reason he is there is different from what he had originally thought.

This movie does a good job at establishing Breslin as a brilliant escape artist. At the beginning of the movie it shows him escaping a prison in Colorado, and he explains how he did it.

When he arrives at the for-profit prison, the film keeps the audience interested by raising questions about his situation. The prison is well established as very secure and highly unbreakable. Because of this, we have a good idea that the protagonist will win in the end, but we still want to know how.

The acting is decent. Sylvester Stallone does a good job at playing the main character. There is one emotional moment in particular that I felt was well done on his part. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the same as he usually is: calm and cool for the most part without displaying too much emotion. He also gives several cheesy Schwarzenegger lines, and there is one part where he speaks German.

Jim Caviezel gives the best performance in this movie as Hobbes, the warden. He does a good job at playing a threatening villain who the prisoners would not want to mess with. By the end of this movie, it is easy to hate him.

What “Escape Plan” does not get right is that it attempts to be more complicated than it should be. This is especially true in how it deals with the character Manheim. When Breslin gets to the prison he befriends Emil Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger), who had previously worked for Manheim. A big part of the plot becomes centered around how the warden becomes obsessed with looking for Manheim. However, it is not very well explained who this person is. All I came out knowing is that he has something to do with security. If the writers were going to make this person so central to everything, he should have been explained better.

With the exception of Breslin, some of the characters are not developed enough to where I care about them. This is especially true of Javed (Faran Tahir), an Islamic inmate who joins Breslin and Rottmayer in breaking out of prison. This character seems to pop out of nowhere in the middle, and he does some important things. Later on, something happens to him, but while it is going on, I do not care because his character was never well established.

This is an interesting movie that I would recommend people see if they want to watch an interesting jailbreak film. However, I would not recommend seeing it in theatres at full price. Either wait for it to come out at Redbox or see it at matinee price. There are better movies out right now including “Captain Phillips.”

Content: Rated R. There are f-words said throughout. Other than that, there is not a ton of language. There is some mild gore including one disturbing scene of a doctor doing stitches.

“Captain Phillips” Review

By Christopher Campbell

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

“Captain Phillips” takes a real-life event and molds it into a fast-paced thriller that left me at the edge of my seat.

Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) is an ordinary American suburban father and husband who is concerned for the safety of his family. To provide for his wife and children, he works as captain of a cargo ship. The movie starts with he and his wife driving to the airport so he can catch a flight to Africa, where he is to embark on a trip to deliver products and supplies.

It seems like it will be a typical trip, and he assures his wife nothing out of the ordinary will happen. When he comes aboard the ship, he finds out that a big chunk of their journey will be his ship driving through Somali seas with no one else around. With this knowledge, he decides to go forward with caution.

Meanwhile, a group of Somali men are out at sea looking for an opportunity to make money by seizing a cargo ship. When they see on the radar that Phillips’ ship is surrounded by nothing but ocean, they decide to take it.

Despite Phillips’s attempts to defend the ship, the Somali men climb aboard and take over. Eventually — hoping they will be able to get to Somalia on time to demand millions of dollars ransom for his return — the men overtake and capture Phillips.

This movie succeeds at taking an event that has been covered on the news and making it real for the audience. This could not have been done without the excellent direction of Paul Greengrass coupled with excellent performances by all actors involved.

Paul Greengrass does a great job using his knowledge of filmmaking to capture just how intense and scary it must have been to be taken hostage by Somali pirates. He keeps the pacing constant. The movie is a little more than two hours long, but it feels more like 90 minutes.

It is no surprise that Tom Hanks can act. The man has won two Oscars and has been nominated for three others. He has impressed me several times, and this movie is no exception. His ability to be a real human on screen, who expresses real emotions, makes it easy to empathize with his character. This is especially true at the end of the movie. He responds to something traumatizing, and it is easy to understand how his character feels.

Another incredible performance was done by Barkhad Abdi, who makes his on-screen debut in this film. He plays Muse, the leader of pirates who take over the ship. He does a great job being unpredictable and scary while also humanizing the character.

The only thing that was slightly disappointing is that the Captain Phillips character could have been developed a little better. We know he is a regular guy who cares deeply for his family. For the most part, this is all we need to know. The story itself makes us believe he is a good man without going much into his backstory.

What we do not know, however, is the reasoning behind some of his decisions. The pirates make two different attempts to come aboard the ship. When the first one fails, the crew suggests they go a different way or turn back because they know it is not going to be the only attempt. He tells them they need to move forward at all costs. This decision puts his crew in danger the very next day when the pirates take over the ship. It is not explained why he makes the crew do this. Is cargo really worth the crew members’ lives?

I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be in a state of constant suspense while learning about an event that really happened.

Content: Rated PG-13. There are scenes of brutal violence. One scene in particular surprised me by how bloody it was, and had it shown a little bit more, it could have been bumped up to an R rating. There is very mild profanity, no F-words and no sexual content or nudity.

A version of this review was originally published in The Utah Statesman, a student run newspaper at Utah State University on Oct. 15, 2013.

"Gravity" Review

By Christopher Campbell

“Gravity” is an amusement park ride in space that makes me appreciate that my feet are touching the ground, and that I am breathing oxygen.

Scientists Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) are working on the Hubble Space Telescope. It is the first time Stone has been in space, so naturally she is very nervous. Kowalski, on the other hand, is much calmer. He has been there many times.

While they are working, they get news that a missile has hit a satellite causing debris to fly out and hit other surrounding satellites. There is a chain reaction as debris is orbiting earth and destroying spacecraft everywhere. Mission Control at first says that the trajectory is not expected to hit them.

However, after a few minutes, the scientists are told to leave the Hubble as soon as they can. By this time, it is too late, and the debris catches up to them destroying the telescope. Kowalski and Stone are left in space with nothing but Kowalski’s jetpack, which is low on fuel.

The story is fairly straightforward: it is about a couple of stranded astronauts trying to survive. There are not many twists and turns. It is not “Inception.” However, what is surprising is that this movie is not predictable. The entire time, you are at the edge of your seat wondering if these characters are going to survive.

This movie does a good job at putting the audience in the characters’ place. It is entirely set in space, and it is entirely about their survival. Everything the audience knows about the characters is spoken rather than shown through flashbacks like “Lost.” This actually makes the characters more intimate with the audience.

Stone is the most relatable character because it is her first time in space. She is very nervous throughout the movie, and all she wants to do is survive. I feel the same way because I have never been trained to do the sort of things that she is forced to do. Because of this, I become invested in her survival, and I find myself at the edge of my seat.

Kowalski is the comic relief. There is a sense of warmth whenever he comes on screen. This keeps both Stone and the audience sane. I did not notice how effective he is at this, until one scene where he comes on screen after having been off for a little while. When I saw this happen, I felt myself relax a little.

This character involvement is enhanced partly because of its use of 3D. With that extra dimension, it helps feel like you are actually in space with Kowalski and Stone. The distant stars seem very far away. When something floats away, this phenomenon seems real. I do not know if this film experience is quite as powerful in 2D.

People have asked if this movie is pretty much people floating in space. To answer the question, yes, yes it is. The entire movie is set in space. Watching the trailers I wondered how this would work as a movie, and if it would be boring. I can guarantee that it movie is not boring. It keeps the audience involved by being intense, and the parts that are not are funny and/or light-hearted.

I have no idea how this movie was made. How were they able to get the actors to look like astronauts floating in space for an entire 90 minutes? Was it all green screen? How were they able to get such beautiful shots of space?

What I can tell you is that this movie would not have been possible if it were not for the performances of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. They both nail their characters! Bullock does a great job at being neurotic yet relatable enough to keep the audience nervous. Clooney has a sense of warmth about him that causes relief whenever he comes on screen.

Both of their performances are good enough, in my opinion, to at least be nominated for an academy award. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on how that all works, so if it does not happen, please do not show up on my doorstep with pitchforks and torches.

The ending is incredible. Without spoiling it, everything that happens ties into a lesson. Leaving the theatre I felt inspired, and I do not feel like I was manipulated to feel that way.

I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. It has great thrills, excellent performances, and an inspirational lesson at the end. These qualities make me willing to recommend it to anyone.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is one violent image that I can recall. There is one use of the f-word, and a moderate amount of other words including the s-word. There is no sex, and if there is any sexual content, it is mild enough to where I did not notice it.

“Rush" Review

by Christopher Campbell

“Rush” is a beautifully shot, well-written film about racing and rivalry.

James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth, “Thor”) is a self-confident playboy. He is a thrill seeker and admired by many people. Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl, “Inglorious Basterds”)  is an arrogant man who has the drive to be the best at what he does. In fact, he is very good at it. Unlike Hunt, however, people generally do not like Lauda because of how in-your-face he is about his skill.

What these two have most in common is Formula 1 racing. They are both top drivers who are passionate about it, but their reasons for racing are very different. Hunt likes it for the sport and the thrill; Lauda has the desire to show everyone that he is No. 1 and no one is as good as him. When they start competing against each other, their passion ends up being the same: to beat the other person.

This film was directed by none other than Ron Howard. The thing that I like the about his direction in this movie is his camera work. There are some very crisp, beautiful shots throughout this movie, often of everyday things. It looks artistic at times, and there are moments that feel like a photography showcase.

The two lead actors were both very good in their roles. Chris Hemsworth nails it as the playboy who is in it for the thrills. Daniel Bruhl does a very good job at portraying a character who is so obsessed with being the best. He showcases just how abrasive and how confident the character is. With this description you would think that we are supposed to hate Lauda by the end. However, despite his arrogance, I ended up liking him.

This is not a typical sports movie. In those movies, typically we would have one protagonist or a group of protagonists to root for, and it would be predictable who comes out on top. This movie is more complicated than that. Both competing characters have reasons we want to root for them. Likewise, they both have qualities that make us not want to. This makes the audience more interested in how it will end.

The end is what I like the most about this film because it shows much these characters have changed because of the rivalry that they have. It also shows that even though they are rivals, they have a lot of respect for each other.

The main problem with the movie is that the storyline is not as great as it should be. This is mostly because it is based on real events that happened over a period of six years. It feels like a chunk of the film rushes through events, and this quick time lapse makes it slightly confusing.

This creates another problem: a lot of the movie seems to be telling about the rivalry rather than showing it. Whenever Lauda and Hunt interact, the intensity that should come from a heated rivalry does not seem to be there. This may have been a statement that they do not necessarily hate each other, so I may have to see it again. However, it seems that the audience comes to know of their rivalry because the characters explain that there is one.

I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars. It is a solid film with interesting characters and interesting insight into rival relationships. However, the storyline is a little rushed, and the rivalry is not as developed as it should have been.

Content: Rated R. There are several sex scenes, some featuring male and female nudity. There is a moderate amount of language, including the F-word and one instance of the C-word. There are also some violent images after car crashes and a disturbing medical procedure. If you do not like any of these things, do not see this movie. It is interesting, but there are other good films that do not have this content.

This review was originally published in The Utah Statesman, a student run newspaper at Utah State University on Oct. 1, 2013.