The Master - DVD movie review

From April 21, 2013

SCORE: D/F
This movie really annoyed me. I thought it would be a scathing commentary on L. Ron Hubbard and his wacky invented cult, Scientology. That’s what the previews and press made it out to look like. 
But no, the film is mostly about the wanderings of a WWII vet ( Joaquin Phoenix) who suffers from PTSD. He’s sex-obsessed, but only has sex once in the whole film (at the end). He drinks. He stumbles around. He falls in with a cult. He gets thrown in jail. He falls in with the cult again. The movie ends.
Doesn’t that sound like a great flick to you?
Joaquin Phoenix does a great job acting as usual, but you never care about his character, because he’s a wholly unlikable person. 
Philip Seymour Hoffman also acts very well in the film, but who cares when the film is slow and meandering in its plot?
Nothing happens in this film. There is no character development. Joaquin Phoenix’s character begins the movie as a crazy, shiftless guy… and whoa! He ends the movie that way, too. Wow. That was a lot of character development. Good job, writer.
At the end I realized that this was a Paul Thomas Anderson film and I said “Oh! THAT’S why it was so annoying!” 
Many critics hail PTA as the best director in a generation and I have no idea why. His movies are all mostly boring and have little-to-no purpose. Just because PTA makes films that make no sense, DOES NOT mean that they are artistic!
The only films of PTA’s that I can stomach are “Punch-Drunk Love” (which I mostly like because it was Adam Sandler’s first dramatic performance) and “Boogie Nights” (which is really only palatable because you get to see Heather Graham naked on roller skates). 
No, I have not seen “There Will Be Blood” yet, which I hear is very good. I’ll see it one of these days when I have nothing better to do. Until then I will continue to avoid all PTA films like the plague.

Frankenweenie - DVD movie review

From April 21, 2013

SCORE: B
Overall I liked this movie. I think one of the best things about it is that it was filmed in Black and White. Thank you! I think we need more B&W films. I’m kind of tired of color. I see color every time I open my eyes. B&W films seem instantly more nostalgic and artistic. (btw, I still have yet to see “The Artist”, another recent B&W film).
The film has no songs that anyone sings, which I did sort of miss. One of the best things about “Nightmare Before Christmas” are its songs. Anywho, I liked “Frankenweenie”, just not nearly as much as “Nightmare Before Christmas”.

PROS:
• The film is in Black and White! Awesome!
• Sparky is visually appealing and animated very well
• Victor makes home movies
• Victor’s dad is voiced by Martin Short in one of his only non-annoying film roles.
• I loved seeing Christopher Lee’s Dracula movie on TV in one scene.
• When Victor is sewing Sparky together, they have a cool shot of his cast shadow on the ceiling.
• This film, being a Disney film, is never too gruesome. When Sparky is killed, his body is never shown. When Victor digs him up, it’s seen from far off. 
• During the electrical storm scene, the music reminded me most of the score from Burton’s 1989 “Batman”.
• There’s a funny twist with the pet named Colossus
• The rat monster, sea monkeys, and the fat kid look like “Nightmare Before Christmas” character designs.
• There’s a movie theater playing “Bambi”
• The burning windmill ending is just like in “Frankenstein”

CONS:
• Victor as a puppet is not as expressive as other characters in the film.
• The filmmakers should have had Zero’s tombstone in the New Holland Pet Cemetery somewhere. Sigh. Missed opportunity. Although there is a pet’s tombstone named “Shelley” in a nod to Mary Shelley, the writer of “Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus”.
• For some reason the bat-cat rubbed me the wrong way. I just didn’t like it as a monster.

NIETHER PRO NOR CON:
• All the kids in New Holland are weird emo kids.
• Victor reminds me of Johnny Depp
• There’s a remark in the film about Pluto not being a planet anymore
• The dead fish that is brought back to life becomes invisible… Why? It is never explained. Later, it disappears entirely. This is also never explained. 
• Is it coincidence that the Japanese kid raises a quasi-Godzilla-looking pet back to life?
• The jerk mayor of the town reminds me of Rudy Giuliani. No? It is just me?

ParaNorman - DVD movie review

From April 21, 2013

SCORE: A
I really liked this movie. It’s got some clichés, but I think those were done to poke fun at horror movie conventions. My favorite thing about it was that once you thought you knew where the movie was going, they took a left turn and ended up doing something far better than you expected.
The film actually makes reference a lot to bullying. Norman is picked on for being a freak (it’s painted on his school locker). The kid he ends up becoming friends with is an overweight kid, Neil (“fatty” is painted on his school locker). The school bully, Alvin, comes up and mocks Norman, then laughs and says “Ha! That was SO Alvin!” to his cronies. Norman’s friend, Neil, says “You can’t stop bullying. It’s human nature. If you [Norman] were bigger and more stupid, you’d probably be a bully, too.”
The film also ends with some more words about bullying, when Norman confronts the antagonist. Just when I thought the movie would end like most films, building up and up and up into a louder and louder crescendo, it takes another left turn and ends as well I hoped it would.

PROS:
• The facial animation is superb. The characters all have translucent ears. Cool.
• Cool 1970s style intro.
• Norman has zombie slippers. His feet slip into the zomibies’ mouths. Nice touch
• At one point a character says, “That statue just ‘psst’ at us!”
• Norman’s friend, Neil, in an effort to protect Norman, threatens to throw hummus at someone. “Don’t make me throw this hummus! It’s spicy!”
• Neil looks like the red-haired kid from “The Sandlot” and the X-Files episode “Bad Blood”
• Someone says to Norman; “Swear!” And Norman replies, “You mean, like the F-word?”
• Norman uses his phone as a flashlight, which we’ve all done and reminded me of Mulder and Scully going into a dark, scary place with nothing but a flashlight.
• The skies in the film are neat looking. I assume they were done digitally. They’re all smoky and ethereal looking.
• The bit with the vending machine was hilarious to me.
• There’s a Scooby Doo reference to “meddling kids”
• A policewoman gets mad about the townsfolk shooting at people. “Firing at civilians? That is for the police to do!”

CONS:
• The movie reminds me of The Sixth Sense, about a kid who sees dead people.
• Movie clichés: The dad is fat and bumbling, the mother is annoying and cloying, the older teenage sister is bitchy.

NIETHER PRO NOR CON:
• There are some genuinely scary moments in this film, which I thought was cool, but which may scare younger viewers.
• Norman looks like Elvis to me.
• In a kids movie (or one that most people would associate as a kids movie) I was surprised to hear characters say “Jackass!” “Oh, hell yeah.” and was surprised to see a sexy, scandalous drawing of a witch on a billboard. I was also surprised to hear the dad at one point go on a rant about “limp-wristed liberals”, but I think that was done to show how stupid/close-minded he is.

The Three Musketeers - DVD movie review

From March 13, 2013

SCORE: B
Apparently, this movie got "mixed reviews" when it was released on DVD in 2004. I'm not sure why. It's by far the best movie done by the DisneyToon studios (the studio that produces off-shoot Disney films that sometimes get into theaters like the Duck Tales movie, A Goofy Movie, Return to Neverland, Jungle Book 2, etc. or they usually go straight to DVD). 
The animation in this movie is very well done, in my opinion, especially Donald's facial expressions (when he's deciding whether or not to leave) and the Beagle Boys. The squash and stretch is good, without being overdone as it is in many animated films. 
The watercolor backgrounds look good too. 
There are points where the plot drags / is boring. Maybe that's why this film got mixed reviews when it was released.
Some Notes:
- I like the opening and ending of the movie because they incorporate comic books, which I always love.
- I kept thinking of Babs Bunny (from Tiny Toon Adventures) while listening to Daisy Duck, because they're both voiced by Tress McNeille. 
- The tower where the Beagle Boys are taking Minnie looks almost exactly like the Rapunzel tower from "Tangled" which would have been in development at the time this was made, I think.
- Pete refers to the Mickey Mouse Club at one point, which doesn't make any real sense other than the connection that the kids in the Mickey Mouse Club were called Mouseketeers.
- There's a Disneyland reference, I think, when there's a sign in the dungeon that Mickey reads that states: "You must be this tall to survive prison"
- The Goofy / Clarabelle scene is done particularly well. Good music and animation.
- Mickey is referred to as "just a little guy" multiple times in the movie, which I guess is sort of a reference to "The Prince and the Pauper" short from the late 80s. 
- The scene at the end (the sword fight between Mickey and Pete) sort of references the Oswald the Lucky Rabbit short "Oh What a Knight" with its strong shadows on the wall during the fight.
- I liked hearing Rob Paulson's voice (as the Turtle/Trubadour). I've been a fan of his since he did Raphael in the 1987 TMNT series, then Animaniacs, and now as Donatello in the new CG TMNT cartoon from Nickelodeon.
- I noticed an Art Director in the credits with the name Toby Bluth. I wonder if he's related to Don Bluth.

Looney Tunes: Back in Action - DVD movie review

From March 13, 2013

SCORE: B
I'm scoring this movie by comparing it to its Live-Action/Animation brethren "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Space Jam". 
Roger Rabbit would easily get an 'A' from me whereas Space Jam gets at highest a 'C'. Looney Tunes Back in Action is somewhere in the middle at a 'B'. 
Whereas Roger Rabbit was set in the 1940s (an area that I am personally deeply in love with for multitudes of reasons), LTBA is set when it takes place: the 2000s. There's a fantasy element to Roger Rabbit that is lacking here because of this time difference. 
The movie is a lot like Roger Rabbit meets "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" with the characters running around the Warner Bros. studio lot.
Other Notes I took while watching the movie:
- There's an amazing scene with the characters running around famous art pieces, including Dali, Munch, Toulouse-Lautrec, and Seurat. 
- The famous Looney Tunes short "I Love to Singa" is referenced 2-3 times (a bit too much, I think).
- A character says: "Giddy up, Dumbo" in an obvious reference. 
- I liked the inclusion of the Tim Burton Batmobile in this movie.
- I thought the use of the Gremlin car was a reference to the director, Joe Dante's, previous movie "Gremlins".
- Scooby Doo and Shaggy have a cameo in the film but are TERRIBLY animated. Ugh.
- I enjoyed seeing Ron Pearlman in this movie as well as the hologram doctor from Star Trek Voyager. 
- I like Timothy Dalton in everything that he does ("Hot Fuzz" is one of the best) and he plays a secret agent here, riffing on his short stint as 007. 
- Bugs references "Pyscho" in a shower scene. 
- I noticed a Ben Burtt Star Wars sound effect in the firing of the car missile.
- Brenden Fraser references himself in funny (but formulaic) self-deprecating humor. 
- I thought there was a Roger Rabbit reference when Brenden Fraser and Daffy Duck kiss. In another scene, characters hang from a hook in what I assume is another Roger Rabbit reference.
- At one point, Yosemite Sam has pink "Sam ears" like Mickey Mouse ears. 
- Jenna Elfman is in a Kate Capshaw (Willie in "Temple of Doom") role here.
- There's a lot of product placement about Wal-Mart and they even comment on it jokingly in the film. 
- I like that the secret military base is called Area 52 and has old Hollywood aliens and the Dr. Who robots.
- I laughed when the good guys keyed Marvin the Martian's spaceship.
- I liked the Lightsaber carrot and "The Force for Dummies"
- I was surprised to see Peter Graves show up at one point.
- I just don't find Steve Martin to be funny anymore.

Lincoln - movie review

From March 13, 2013

SCORE: A
I really should write a better review than this one, but I saw the movie a few months ago and have sort of forgotten many things about what happened in it. After I buy it on DVD, I'll flesh out this review more.
Basically:
I enjoyed this film (one of the first Steven Spielberg films I've seen in a while), but I liked "Argo" better as a political drama. 
Daniel Day-Lewis did a good job, of course. 
It was a quiet movie, and a little bit boring at points. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. I think a lot of movies are too in-your-face nowadays. This movie lets you wait for Lincoln's punchline (he was apparently fond of telling jokes) or watch as he slowly walks down a hallway. 
Overall, I can see why it's getting the praise that it is. 
Interestingly, there's also a not-so-subtle reference to Obama being elected at the beginning of the movie.

Oz the Great and Powerful - movie review

From March 13, 2013

SCORE: B
This movie is through and through a 'B' film. That's not a bad thing, it just is. I mean just look at the fact that they have Bruce Campbell (the King of 'B' Films) in a scene, which I loved because he's hilarious and Sam Raimi directed "Oz". 
I really enjoyed the opening credits, although that's a weird thing to point out at the top of a review. They were quirky and seemed to fit the turn of the century. 
I liked that they filmed the opening in B&W as well as in the old screen size of 4:3. You really notice it later when the film turns to color and they open the screen up to 2.35:1.
I also greatly appreciated the color in this movie. It is bright and almost overpowering, but I miss color in films. It's a disturbing trend to me that many recent films are filmed in almost sepia tone, with the color drained out. I'm not sure if they're adding the silver nitrate back into their negatives (which I know is done sometimes) or what but it's very annoying. 
For a good example, look at the Harry Potter films. The first one is bright and sunny and colorful, and each successive film gets more and more drab in terms of colors. I guess the filmmakers think that a drab-looking film is more realistic or more adult, but it just looks dreary to me.
I thought everyone did a good job acting in the film. I really liked James Franco as Oz, and I say this to a lot of people: I would have preferred him as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels over Hayden Christensen, who cannot act to save his life. 
I also liked seeing Zach Braff in this film, as Oz's helper in the beginning and as the voice of his flying monkey servant when in the Land of Oz. 
Rachel Weiz and Michelle Williams also do a good job, although who the wicked witch is (and how many there are) does get a little confusing. 
Mila Kunis takes her "Sexiest Woman 2012" award and turns it on its head by becoming the ugly green Wicked Witch of the West (a phrase that Disney is apparently not allowed to use in this film because much of the original movie rights are still owned by MGM). 
Some Notes:
- The wikipedia article states: "References to characters from the previous film include: the Scarecrow, who is built by the townspeople as a scare tactic; the Tin Man, whose creator is introduced as the Master Tinker; and the Cowardly Lion, who is frightened away by Oscar after attacking Finley. Theodora's tears leave burn marks on her face, foreshadowing her weakness to water. Annie (Michelle Williams) informs Oscar that she has been proposed to a man whose surname is Gale, presumably hinting at Dorothy Gale's parental lineage."
- I thought that the Emerald City looked the way I would imagine Baron Harkonnen's city on Giedi Prime would look like. (Yes, I HAD to throw in a DUNE reference. You're welcome.)
- I thought the animation of the China Girl was very well done.
- The flying monkeys are now flying baboons, which IS scarier, I have to say. Baboons are vicious.

UPDATE: After having read some of the Wizard of Oz books now, I appreciate this film more and would give it a B+

Snow White and the Huntsman - DVD movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: B
I really enjoyed this new take on "Little Snow White" by the Bros. Grimm. It tried to be a little too LOTR at points, but overall it was good. I really liked the scenes in the fairy land. They reminded me of "Pan's Labyrinth".

Skyfall - movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: A
I initially didn't want to see this (because Quantum of Solace was so meh). But it was a very good Bond flick. Better than Casino Royal. I WILL WRITE MORE SOON

Les Miserables - movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: A+
Wow. Great movie. Sad as hell, but great.
The songs were fantastic!
I was surprised that the director decided to hold on certain characters while they sang. I mean, the shots were of just the actor against black or an out-of-focus background while they sang. That's ballsy. They did it like 4 or 5 times during the film.

The Campaign - DVD movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: C+
This was funny, but a bit over the top at times. The biting satire of the entire political process WAS good, though. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would be proud.
It was weird seeing MSNBC news people in the film. And Wolf Blitzer? Sheesh!

Wreck-It Ralph - movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: B+

The movie begins with the Steamboat Willie scene that all the Disney movies are opening with these days, but this time it’s an 8-bit Mickey! After that the film opens on an arcade game from the 1980s with a voice-over from Wreck-It Ralph (the bad guy from the game Fix-It Felix) voiced by John C. Reilly.

Seeing the TMNT arcade game at the beginning montage was awesome! It was also funny to see Ken and Ryu from Street Fighter II stop fighting after people leave the arcade and just talk to each other like friends.

Seeing bad guys from various games I used to play made my day: M. Bison and Zangeif from Street Fighter II, Kano and Smoke from the Mortal Kombat games, a ghost from Pac-Man, and Dr. Eggman from the Sonic the Hedgehog games (you later see Sonic himself. You also see Bowser from the Super Mario games, but unfortunately no Mario or Luigi to be seen, although Fix-It Felix does talk about Mario. I guess Disney got the rights to show Bowser, but not Mario. Oh, well.

The way the characters move in Wreck-It Ralph’s game is hilarious. They move quickly and jerk around like 8-bit video games characters.

The movie references things like characters being stuck in a walk cycle loop, a character a one point continues to walk even though he’s against the wall and not going anywhere. The character is from Hero’s Duty, a game like Halo and Call of Duty that has Ralph fight alien bugs in a violent FPS (first person shooter) game. I think there might be a mocking reference to Scientology in this game: when Ralph first sees the game he exclaims: “Sweet Mother Hubbard!”, but then I realized that the aliens are called Cy-Bugs which is sort of a reference to Cylons (from Battlestar Galactica). Jane Lynch does a good job as the tough female sergeant “programmed with the most tragic back story ever.”

I really liked Sarah Silverman’s character, Vanellope von Schweetz, as well as basically everything in the Sugar Rush racing game because it reminded me so much of one of my favorite game series: Super Mario Kart. Btw, try NOT singing the Sugar Rush song for days after seeing the movie. It’s a really catchy song. I liked the King Candy character, especially because for some reason he sounds like Ed Wynn (Uncle Albert from ‘Mary Poppins’). And I liked the character Sour Bill.

Watch out for the Darth Vader breathing reference :) There’s some stuff about bullying in the film, as the other racers bully Vanellope von Schweetz, destroying her car. I think it’s good that something was said about this subject, as it’s such a big deal in the news and education circles.

I also like video game conventions they reference, like Mini-Games and fighting the Boss Level.

As a side note, Rihanna’s song “Shut Up and Drive” is really out of place in this movie. I almost always hate it when they use pop songs in films, especially ones that weren’t made specifically for the film they’re in. With that said, I did really like the pop song ‘When Can I See You Again?’ (by Owl City) that plays during the end credits, so I’m a hypocrite. Oh, well.

For more info on all the video game references in the film, read this from wikipedia:

In addition to the spoken roles, Wreck-It Ralph contains a number of other video game references, including characters and visual gags. At the meeting of video game villains, the above characters include, in addition to any mentioned above: Bowser from Super Mario Bros., Doctor Eggman from Sonic the Hedgehog, and Neff from Altered Beast.

Characters from Q*bert, including Q*bert, Coily, Slick, Sam, and Ugg, are shown as "homeless" characters and later taken in by Ralph and Felix into their game (Q*bert also speaks to Felix at one point using the signature synthesized gibberish and word-balloon symbols from his game, called Q*bert-ese). Scenes in Game Central Station and Tapper's bar include Chun-Li, Cammy, and Blankafrom Street Fighter, Pac-Man, Blinky, Pinky, and Inky from Pac-Man, the Paperboy from Paperboy, the two paddles and the ball from Pong, Dig Dug, a Pooka, and a Fygar from Dig Dug, The Qix from Qix, Frogger from Frogger, and Peter Pepper from BurgerTime. Additionally, Lara Croft and Mario are mentioned in reference.

Additional references are based on sight gags. The residents of Niceland and the bartender from Tapper are animated using a jerky motion that spoofs the limited animation cycles of the sprites of many eight- and sixteen-bit arcade games. King Candy uses the Konami Code on an NES controller to access the programming of Sugar Rush. Throughout Game Central Station is graffiti that includes "Aerith lives" (referencing the character of Aerith Gainsborough from Final Fantasy VII), "All your base are belong to us" (an Engrish phrase popularized from the game Zero Wing), "Sheng Long Was Here" (referencing an April Fool's joke around a made-up character Sheng Long from Street Fighter), and "Jenkins" (a nod to the popular Leeroy Jenkins meme from World of Warcraft). There is also a reference to the Metal Gear series when Ralph is searching for a medal in Tappers Lost and found, finding first the "Exclamation point" (with the corresponding sound effect from the game), and then a Super Mushroom from Super Mario Bros. Mr. Litwak wears a black and white striped referee's shirt, a nod to the iconic outfit of Twin Galaxies founderWalter Day. One of the songs in the credits is an original work from Buckner and Garcia, previously famous for writing video game-themed songs in the 1980s. The Walt Disney Animation Studios opening logo is animated in an 8-bit pixelated fashion, whereas the Walt Disney Picturesclosing production logo appears in a glitched state, a reference to the kill screen from many early arcade games such as Pac-Man

The Hobbit - movie review

From January 6, 2013

SCORE: B+
I enjoyed the Hobbit, but did feel that it was overly extended... by a lot... and there's still 2 films to go. I once saw the LOTR films described as the books, but scarier... or the books, but more intense. I’d say that ‘The Hobbit’ is like the book, but with WAAAAY more stuff in it... and it’s not for kids, like Tolkien’s 1937 novel is.

I liked that the 13 dwarves were differentiated enough that you could follow who they were. It was very good that each dwarf has his own look and personality because I get confused about who is whom while reading the book. Also in the book you don’t get to know the majority of the dwarves as they have no lines, they’re just names on the page (that Tolkien got from a Medieval text that gave a list of dwarf names).

The Howard Shore score was amazing as always. Try to NOT sing “The Pines were roaring song” after you go home. I think it was a good idea to introduce the Arkenstone in the beginning back story because it comes up suddenly in the novel.

It’s funny that the dwarves greet each other with a head butt. Not only does it show their fortitude and that they have a different culture than anything you the viewer are used to, but it’s also funny because this is a take on how the stunt people in the original Lord of the Rings’ trilogy would greet each other: with a head butt. This was taken up by others, such as Viggo Mortenson, who talks about it in the LOTR DVD Appendices.

I’m not sure where Peter Jackson and the writers got Thorin’s back story with Azog the Defiler. I assume they didn’t make it up. From wikipedia: “He is referred to in a single remark of Gandalf’s in The Hobbit: "Your grandfather Thror was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin.”  In the films, his role is greatly expanded. In the Return of the King appendices he is described as being fully protected by iron armor, however in the Jackson films he is bare-chested and scarred.”

It’s good that Gandalf explains about the 5 wizards. I like the portrayal of Radagast the Brown. He seems like people I’ve seen shambling around the streets of Berkeley, CA. Although I didn’t like the scene where he fought the Witch King’s spirit. It’s funny that Gandalf recommends Old Toby weed to Radagast to calm him down, but the smoke coming out of his ears was a bit too Tex Avery to be in a LOTR/Hobbit film.

I like that the animals do not speak in the film (as Guillermo del Toro was worried about doing when he was still involved with the picture), or at least not directly in English. They squeak and squeal as animals do, and Radagast is able to understand them.

It’s weird to hear the Trolls speak, especially in a cockney accent. But they did speak in the book (although that was because Tolkien hadn’t developed them, as with other things in ‘The Hobbit’ like the Elves and the Ring). In the contexts of the films, I guess the Cave Troll in ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ was kept feral by the Orcs. And the Morder Trolls in ‘Return of the King’ could have been able to speak, but just weren’t shown doing so.

I still want to live in Rivendell. They should build it for real in the Remarkables (a mountain range in New Zealand) as a resort hotel or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remarkables

I didn’t really like the Stone Giants. In reading the book, I didn’t really get that’s what was being described. I don’t know. Everything in the LOTR/Hobbit that isn’t in our world, like Trolls, Orcs, Hobbits, Wargs, Dragons, etc. is at least alive. But giants made from STONE? Meh. Smacks a bit too much of ‘The Neverending Story’ for my liking.

The crazy little messenger Orc seems inspired by Guillermo del Toro’s involvement. It wouldn’t surprise me if del Toro designed the character. Andy Serkis steals the show yet again.

The Orc King was really strange, nothing like in the book, where he’s in a throwaway line. I disliked the part where Gandalf and the dwarves ride on the bridge through the underground. It was too much. Silly.

I think the heart of the movie (and book) is in some great dialogue Jackson and team gave to Bilbo: “I know you doubt me. I know you always have. And you’re right, I often think of Bag-end. I miss my books. And my armchair and my garden. See, that’s where I belong. That’s home. And that’s why I came back. Because... you don’t have one. A home. It was taken from you. But I will help you take it back if I can.”

I can’t wait to see ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’ and meet Beorn, Smaug, and the rest!

PS: I chose the poster below because it’s better than the American ones.

Cloud Atlas - movie review

From October 29, 2012

Score: A-
I really enjoyed this movie. I'm not sure that I understood everything that went on, but I know I liked what I saw.
It was a very interesting movie. I was surprised at how often (and fluidly) they switched back-and-forth between time periods. It put 'Pulp Fiction' to shame.
I also had a lot of fun picking out the actors in each time period.
There's some very interesting things done withlanguage and culture in the future scenes, how they speak in the future and who gets deified. Neo Seoul (circa 2160s) has some pretty interesting technology, like image-shifting walls, GUI holograms, holographic roads, and human clones (and how they are treated).
I'll write a more thorough review after I let it sink in a while. I might even read the book before writing my review, so that might take a while, but I'll leave you with this from Wikipedia:
Film critic Roger Ebert praised the film for being "one of the most ambitious films ever made", awarding the film four out of four stars. He wrote "Even as I was watching Cloud Atlas the first time, I knew I would need to see it again. Now that I've seen it the second time, I know I'd like to see it a third time ... I think you will want to see this daring and visionary film ... I was never, ever bored by Cloud Atlas. On my second viewing, I gave up any attempt to work out the logical connections between the segments, stories and characters."
Variety described it as "an intense three-hour mental workout rewarded with a big emotional payoff. ... One's attention must be engaged at all times as the mosaic triggers an infinite range of potentially profound personal responses."

Argo - movie review

From October 21, 2012

SCORE: A+
The third movie directed by Ben Affleck is another winner. Great acting and story. I really appreciated the use of the very old Warner Bros. logo at the beginning. Even Affleck's production company had a 70s style logo. Cool. 
The film sometimes used shaky-cam and anyone who knows me, knows how much I hate shaky-cam. However, unlike the 'Hunger Games' movie, 'Argo' only used shaky-cam when it was portraying a chaotic scene, like Iranians rioting outside the U.S. embassy.
Affleck also did a good job acting in this flick, as did John Goodman (is he ever bad?) and Alan Arkan (I've never disliked a movie he was in), and of course "Malcolm in the Middle"'s Bryan Cranston. 
Get ready for an intensely interesting and suspenseful film that is a really good period piece. All the hair and clothes screamed 1979. I really enjoyed the opening of the film, which was done as animated storyboards. 
Stick around for the credits to see pictures of the cast compared to the actual photos of the people they portrayed. The film crew did an uncanny job of making the actors look like the real people. Crazy. (Also, seeing the old Star Wars toys was fun)
I might add more to this as I let it sink in, but all I can say about it right now is how good it is. You'll really be doing yourself a favor by going to see 'Argo'... although you'll probably be the only one in the theatre under 55 years old, like my fiancee and I were.

The Dark Knight Rises - movie review

From July 24, 2012

Score: A
First off, is 'The Dark Knight Rises' better than 'Batman Begins'? Yes.
Is it better than 'The Dark Knight'? No, but then again I think few movies are.
The direction: great. The acting: great. The music: great. No surprise there. 
Bane's theme is the booming drums (which sound like Japanese taiko drums). While I like it a lot, I still miss the quiet, weird atonal note that heralded the Joker's presence. But the heart-pumping drums let you know that Bane is on the scene.
Also, Selina Kyle's theme song is a nice little piano flourish. And thank you, Nolan, thank you for NOT ever calling Selina Kyle "Catwoman" in the film! Calling her that wouldn't have fit with Nolan's more realistic Batman movies.
I'm so glad to see the Tumbler back! And not only the one Tumbler. There's about 6-10 of them running around Gotham, still with their army fatigue paint job. Cool! Also, the Batwing -- called simply "The Bat" -- is very neat, too.
Bane's voice IS hard to understand some of the time. The filmmakers got a lot of flak once people heard it because everyone said it was hard to understand. Nolan chimed back with something about it not being entirely important to understand Bane all of the time. I would disagree. Bane has some great lines, it might just take you a few viewings to understand him fully. 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is a big movie. Maybe a little too big. In some respects it seems a little out of step with the other two Christopher Nolan films. 'Batman Begins' was Batman vs. the head mobster of Gotham and the cops and judges who were in his pocket. 
'The Dark Knight' was Batman vs. the Joker (an insane mobster) as well as the other mobsters in the city (with a twisted Harvey Dent near the end). 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is all of a sudden Batman vs. the terrorist revolutionary Bane and... [drum roll]... a nuke! 
That's about as big and balls-to-the-wall as you can go. The director and writers make it work, though. Like I said, it just may be a little TOO big. 
However, 'The Dark Knight Rises' actually feels more in-step with 'Batman Begins' than 'The Dark Knight' did because it's more of a direct sequel to 'Batman Begins'. It again follows the League of Shadows' interest in razing Gotham, which was started in 'Batman Begins'. 
It helps to remember the first two Nolan movies, because 'The Dark Knight Rises' quotes them a lot, visually speaking. There's quick shots spliced in from 'The Dark Knight' and 'Batman Begins'. And the prison in the film recalls the tunnel young Bruce Wayne falls down in 'Batman Begins'.
I think simply because it deals with a shadow society bent on Gotham's destruction again, 'The Dark Knight Rises' also feels more like a comic book movie again, as opposed to 'The Dark Knight', which felt like a cop/mobster movie that just happened to have Batman running around in it. 'The Dark Knight' felt more real because of that. 'The Dark Knight Rises' feels like a comic book movie once more. And that's not a bad thing. I'm just noting it.
Also, it's hard to put into words, but something about 'The Dark Knight Rises' just isn't as personal as 'The Dark Knight' was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is.
I think in its attempts to be bigger than its predecessor, 'The Dark Knight Rises' loses that human element. 'The Dark Knight' was more about the people of the city (Batman/Bruce Wayne's love triangle with Rachael and Harvey Dent, the Joker killing people up close and personal with a knife, etc.). 
'The Dark Knight Rises' is more about Gotham the city, than it is about the people of Gotham. 
The film does suffer a bit from what most critics and commentators have noted: it's deadly serious, with little-to-no moments of levity, unlike the previous two Nolan films. 
I would disagree a little bit with that because Selina Kyle offers a lot of the humor in the film. The two guys who did most of the wisecracking in the first two films -- Alfred and Lucius Fox -- are not funny in this one, for good reasons. They're worlds have gone to shit. What the hell are they supposed to joke about, movie critics?
Some people claim that the movie is overly violent. Oh, please! Spare me your crocodile tears, people. The movie is rated PG-13. There is no blood or gore in the entire movie (unless you include a scene where someone's blood is drawn through a tube at the beginning of the movie). 
There is a bit of railing against appeasement in the movie, which goes back to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany before WWII. 
While I agree with the sentiment that appeasement doesn't work, it sounds a little too Bushian these days. I remember people bitching a lot about appeasement pre-2008. It seemed unnecessary in the film.
Also, 'The Dark Knight Rises' has been criticized for taking a stance against the Occupy movement. While this is sort of true, the Occupy movement is more about bringing certain issue to the fore than it is about an actual revolution like what is portrayed in the film.
SPOILER ALERT
Now, I'm going to talk about Roger Ebert's review of the film a little, which sort of has some SPOILERS, so BEWARE:
Ebert, in his review here (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120717%2FREVIEWS%2F120719981) said that Bane "is a mystery because it's hard to say what motivates him". Um, the film blatantly states that he's part of the League of Shadows, who are bent on Gotham's destruction. Ebert then says Bane "releases thousands of Gotham's criminals in a scenario resembling the storming of the Bastille. As they face off against most of the city police force in street warfare, Bane's goal seems to be the overthrow of the ruling class. But this would prove little if his other plan (the nuclear annihilation of the city) succeeds". 
Did Ebert even watch the movie? Bane's ultimate goal is the nuclear annihilation of the city. 
He pits the ruling class against the middle class and poor because at that point in the movie he is trying to torture Bruce Wayne by making him watch his city rip itself apart. 
Duh. Jeez, Ebert. I should have your job.
Roger Ebert also says, "No attempt is made to account for Bane's funding and resources" (although he never asked the same questions about the Joker in his review of 'The Dark Knight' four years ago).
Anywho, there are two sources of Bane's funding that are explicitly explained in the movie. 1) The billionaire Dagget, and 2) Bane is part of the League of Shadows (from 'Batman Begins'). Now, where do the League of Shadows get their money? That's explained, too, at the end, but I don't want to give away who funds them in this review.
A BIT MORE ON THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THINGS:
There has also been a lot of political commentary surrounding the movie, even after you disregard the Colorado theater shooting. I'm going to quote from Wikipedia now: "Writing in Salon, David Sirota, a progressive political commentator compared The Dark Knight Rises and the game Call of Duty to 1980s popular culture reflecting the political period of the time, accusing them of perpetuating a conservative agenda: 'Just as so many 1980s pop culture products reflected the spirit of the Reagan Revolution’s conservative backlash, we are now seeing two blockbuster, genre-shaping products not-so-subtly reflect the Tea Party's rhetorical backlash to the powerful Occupy Wall Street zeitgeist.' An article in Variety reported Chuck Dixon, the co-creator of the Bane character, as saying that Bane is 'far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you're looking to cast him politically.' Catherine Shoard of the center-left British publication The Guardian claimed the film 'is a quite audaciously capitalist vision, radically conservative, radically vigilante, that advances a serious, stirring proposal that the wish-fulfillment of the wealthy is to be championed if they say they want to do good.'"
Does the film do all of that? I certainly didn't think so, and I consider myself pretty far left politically. If you re-watch 'The Dark Knight' there seems to be a lot that is anti-vigilante, anti-Bushian (with Lucius Fox calling Batman's cell phone surveillance system "unethical... dangerous. ... This is wrong."). If there's any real anti-left stuff in 'The Dark Knight Rises', maybe it's the filmmakers' way of balancing things out? Who knows?
On the other hand, to quote from Wikipedia again: "Nolan has denied the film criticizes the Occupy movement and insists that none of his Batman films are intended to be political: 'I've had as many conversations with people who have seen the film the other way round. We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story. What we're really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that somebody would try to wedge open. We're going to get wildly different interpretations of what the film is supporting and not supporting, but it's not doing any of those things. It's just telling a story. If you're saying, 'Have you made a film that's supposed to be criticizing the Occupy Wall Street movement?' – well, obviously, that's not true.'"
Quoting Wikipedia again: "On the other side of the political spectrum, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh alleged that the film was biased against Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head. In response, Nolan said that the comments were 'bizarre', while Dixon and Freeman said that the comments were 'ridiculous'."

Oswald the Lucky Rabbit - DVD set review

From July 7, 2012

Score: A+
This set was released in 2007, after the Disney Studios gained the rights to the Oswald character that Walt Disney himself had been swindled out of back in 1928. You can still get this set new for around $25 (most of the WD Treasures are insanely expensive, like around $150 USED and more than $200 new). If you're super-frugal, you can find all 13 surviving Oswald shorts on 
www.youtube.com. 
So who the hell is Oswald the Lucky Rabbit? He was the first character that Walt Disney made. His pictures were distributed by Universal. At that time, the distributor owned anything they distributed, as such, Disney never had the rights to his own character. So he later made Mickey Mouse, who is essentially Oswald with round ears. Although, in reality, Disney made Mickey up, but didn't design what he looked like. That task fell to a man named Ub Iwerks (I'll deal more with him in a few paragraphs). 
It's really interesting to see these old cartoons. Only 13 of the original 26 survive because Universal didn't keep track of their prints or take care for the ones they had. Many of the shorts were 35mm copies of 16mm originals in either private collections or museums from around the world, we are told in the audio commentaries. 
When you think of a silent film, you think of no voices, only a music track. Well, back in the 1920s, animated films were truly silent, they didn't even have music. Animated films would often be shown with a pianist playing music live. As such, the Disney Studios hired a guy who wrote olde-time music for the Oswald shorts on these DVDs.
Oswald has some great characterization in many of these short films. He can also remove parts of his body, no problem. He can pull off his own foot and kiss it for good luck. Someone can punch him in the face and his head goes flying off, and Oswald just pops it back on. When he sees his girlfriend--sometimes a cat, sometimes a rabbit herself--Oswald doffs his scalp and ears . When Oswald is shot by a canon he breaks into pieces, only to be shaken up in a martini shaker by a war nurse and remolded into his former self. She shouts: "Oswald!" and he awakens. Great stuff. Oswald's shadow can even swordfight for him. Cool.
I think the best thing in the set--and what the rest of my review is about--is a great documentary film called 'The Hand Behind the Mouse - The Ub Iwerks Story' by Ub Iwerks' own granddaughter Leslie Iwerks. 
NOTE: You can view this film for free here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnpkgt_the-hand-behind-the-mouse-the-ub-iwerks-story-part-1_shortfilms
Notable Quotes from the film:
• Roy E. Disney: "[Ub Iwerks] animated Mickey. He is the guy, really, and even Walt started admitting that towards the end, that without Ub there wouldn't have been a Mickey."
• John Lasseter: "He's the guy who first drew Mickey Mouse"
• Chuck Jones: "For me the most important thing about Ub Iwerks was that he got me interested in animation"
• Animation historian: "We know his work, but we don't necessarily know the man."
• Leonard Maltin on the partnership of Disney and Iwerks: "I think they had a great working relationship... without Ub, Walt probably couldn't have done some of the things he did. Without Walt, Ub's inventions wouldn't have been put to such good use. So, that's a perfect match up." 
So who the hell is Ub Iwerks? And what kind of a name is that anyway? Well, he was born to Dutch and German parents at the turn of the century. Ub's father had a name that was just as odd: Eert Ubbe Iwwerks (sic). (Btw: Iwerks' mother was 26 when he was born... his father was 57). Iwerks' father later left the family when Ub was only 14. 
Iwerks met Walt Disney at a company in Kansas City when they were both 18 years old and (with the exception of a 10-year period from 1930-1940) the two worked together until Disney died in 1966. Their first company was called Iwwerks-Disney Commercial Artists and only lasted a month. 
After working for the Kansas City Slide Company (where they learned all about the film process as well as the animation process), they started another company: Laugh-O-Grams. Here Disney and Iwerks made the so called Alice Comedies, wherein a live action girl played around in an animated world (in a reversal of Koko the Clown cartoons of the 20s where an animated clown ran around in the real world). Iwerks developed the process used in those films. Laugh-O-Grams eventually ran out of money and Disney moved from Kansas City to California to start a company with his brother Roy: The Disney Bros. Studios in 1923. They soon called in Ub Iwerks and it was at this point that Walt Disney stopped animating. 
That's right, before Mickey Mouse, before Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, Disney stopped animating. He never drew either Oswald OR Mickey. I never realized that until recently, and I think that most people don't realize that either. Disney may have come up with the idea of Mickey Mouse, but it was Ub Iwerks who designed and animated him.
Soon, Universal Studios contacted Disney and Iwerks to develop a character for them to star in a series of shorts: Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. They made 26 episodes; only 13 still remain today, the others have been lost to time. 
In 1928, Disney travelled by train from CA to New York to ask for more money from their distributor. Disney was soon told that Oswald belonged to the distributor and that Disney would be taking a 20% cut in pay. Disney and Iwerks bolted and began developing Mickey Mouse for their new company 'The Walt Disney Studios'. While developing Mickey's first cartoon--'Steamboat Willie'--Ub Iwerks supposedly worked as fast as possible, cranking out 700 drawings a day! (As an artist, I know what a crazy amount of drawings that is.)
At some point, Disney started futzing with Iwerks' animation and timing a little too much for Iwerks to stand and in 1930 he left the Disney Studios. He started a new company and developed new characters: Flip the Frog and Willie Whopper. The new cartoons made a lot of money in the beginning and started the careers of animators such as Chuck Jones (of Looney Toons and Tom & Jerry fame). 
After a few years, Iwerks' cartoons started losing money, mostly--according to the film--because Iwerks' films focused on solid animation and new animation techniques whereas Disney's cartoons focused on character development and personality. Also, Iwerks' cartoons were satirical of everyday life such as the politics of the time and the Depression and so forth and that just didn't ring true with audiences of the time.
After 10 years, Disney asked Iwerks to come back to the studio and he did, at the time that the US government had taken over the studio in the early 1940s to produce war and propaganda films ('Victory Through Air Power', one of my favorite films by Disney, was done at this time).
SOME INTERESTING THINGS LEARNED FROM THE FILM: 
• Iwerks apparently developed the following technology: 
• The forerunner to Disney's much-touted Multi-Plane camera
• The process of photocopying animators' pencil artwork directly to cels, beginning with '101 Dalmatians'. 
• The Sodium Traveling Matte Process used in 'Mary Poppins' and Hitchcock's 'The Birds' for which Iwerks won an Academy Award
• The anamorphic lens for widescreen films
• A perspective camera used for effects in 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'
• The split screen technique used in the original "Parent Trap'
• One of the first three-camera electronic editing systems
• The wet-gate printer that eliminated scratches on films
• The 360 degree motion picture screen used originally at Disneyland (and still in use at EPCOT
• A photo-electric control system used in the Disneyland audio animatronics
• Three dimensional projection processes such as those used in the Haunted House ride

Cars 2 - DVD movie review

From June 29, 2012

Score: C+
I have to report that 'Cars 2' is Pixar's first real stinker. (It's still a lot better than most animated movies by other companies, though.) 
The first time I saw 'Cars 2' was back in April and I almost fell asleep during it. I didn't like it but I thought I'd give it another shot and watched it again today--having been to Cars Land in DCA last week and having seen Pixar's 'Brave' a few days ago. I liked it slightly better the second time, but not much.
The first 'Cars' was made because of John Lasseter's love of cars, his interest in Route 66, and a real-life road trip that he and his family took after making 'Toy Story', 'A Bug's Life', and 'Toy Story 2'. The original 'Cars' was funny and new, made with real heart and soul. It was about something: learning to slow down and smell the roses, learning to find happiness in the little things, learning to be a better person, etc. 
I don't know what 'Cars 2' is about. The only reason I can see that it was made was to gin up interest in the upcoming Cars Land at Disney California Adventure... and it certainly has done that. I guess you could argue that 'Cars 2' is an homage to James Bond films, but I don't see that as reason enough to have made it. You could also say that it's about car racing, what with the whole World Grand Prix thing.
There's not really much of Lightning McQueen in this movie. It's based a lot on Larry the Cable Guy, who I've never thought of as funny. His shtick worked in 'Cars', but it's too much in 'Cars 2'. He's funny in small doses, but can't hold up a whole film.
There's a fairly confusing plot thread involving an alternative fuel called Allinol.
The original 'Cars' seemed to come from a very genuine place. In 'Cars 2' it just seems that everyone involved was going through the motions. I don't know what it is. Apparently others thought the same thing, though, as 'Cars 2' is the first Pixar movie to receive a "rotten" score on www.RottenTomatoes.com. But this movie did do financially well, and it is spinning off a straight-to-DVD movie 'Planes' by DisneyToon Studios, so I guess Lasseter and the Disney folks are going to get their money's worth. In the short film 'Air Mater' they even say that someone should make a whole movie based on the planes. Oy...
That all said, I did like the music in 'Cars 2' by Michael Giacchino (I guess they don't use Randy Newman anymore). There is also an interesting surrealistic scene wherein Mater realizes that he's an idiot and everyone laughs at him, not with him.

Brave - movie review

From June 25, 2012

Score: A
'Brave' is another winner from my favorite movie studio: Pixar. 
Yes, 'Brave' is Pixar's first film with a female lead. It's also their very first fairy tale (and has some dark elements as all fairy tales should) and they did a great job. 
The film is a bit scary for the little kids that it's being marketed towards (I wonder if Pixar will get any blowback from that), but it IS rated PG. I thought it was their first PG film, but 'The Incredibles' and 'Up' were also PG.
In seeing the trailer, I knew that I wanted to see it, but in all honesty I wasn't too hot on the story... as far as the trailer let on. In the trailer it appears that the whole movie is about a rebellious girl. Snore.
I'm so glad to report that the movie isn't only about that (only about the first 20 minutes is). The majority of the movie revolves more around plot elements that Pixar has apparently been tight-lipped about. And I'm not going to give too much away here. 
But I will say that the original title of the movie was 'The Bear and the Bow', which I think is a far better title than the one they ended up going with (Some people think 'Brave' is in part based on Mel Gibson's 1995 film 'Braveheart'. Pixar should have seen that comparison a mile off.) I guess they changed it because in the end might have felt that the title 'The Bear and the Bow' gave too much away. I don't know.
The animation of the bear is fantastic! Also, the music is phenomenal.
Some bad things: I do think that the acting/gesticulating of the characters is getting pretty outlandish nowadays. Rein it in a bit, guys. I also thought that Merida's three brothers were under used.
Some interesting things:
• The witch in the movie looked to me to be based on the witch in 'The Cobbler and the Thief'. That film is well-respected in animation circles, so maybe it was an homage.
• The original director--Brenda Chapman--was booted off the project in October 2010 for nebulous reasons. With a little digging, Chapman has said that it was over "creative differences." (Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/25/entertainment/la-et-women-animation-sidebar-20110525) 
• John Ratzenberger IS in the film, although I didn't notice him. He supposedly plays a guard named Gordon. I'll look for him the next time I see the film.
• One of the songs is performed by Mumford & Sons.
• Roger Ebert has said that the film had an uplifting message about improving communication between mothers and daughters. And in that way, some other reviewers I've read have equated it to 'Finding Nemo', which was a father/son tale

Madagascar 3 - movie review

From June 9, 2013

Score: C
I'd heard that the third 'Madagascar' movie was the best of the three films. I'm here to say: No, it's not. I think it's better than the first movie, but not nearly as good as 'Madagascar 2'. I really liked that one. 
'Madagascar 3' takes a LONG time to get going. It's pretty boring for about the first half hour and has few-to-no laughs during that time. Once the four main characters join the circus things pick up and the movie becomes enjoyable to watch. 
When they put on their Cirque du Soleil circus show, it's pretty cool. That scene is a surreal one involving all of the characters flying around as well as the song "Firework" by Katy Perry. I also liked the two shots when the monkey is shooting at Capt. DuBois. They're slow-mo shots from artsy angles.
I really liked the character of Stefano, the seal with the Italian accent. His design looks good and he's sweet and funny. I sort of like the character less once I found that it was Martin Short that voiced him, but that's ok in the end. I also liked Frances McDormand as the character Capt. DuBois, the animal control officer, but I feel like I've seen her like before.
Then there's the bad: Is it just me or is all kids' entertainment nowadays extremely assaulting? The cuts are too quick. Things are too loud. The characters talk too fast. God, I must be getting too old for this shit. I also felt that the animation--like most animation from Dreamworks--is too springy and feels too weightless, like they're all digital creations with no mass... er, wait a minute. That's what they are. It's the animators' job to animate them in such a way that we, the audience, forget that they're digital creations. I mean, Dreamworks finally got things right with 'Kung Fu Panda'. Why can't all their endevors be that good? Oh, well. Pixar will come out with 'Brave' in a few weeks and we can go see some good animation. (Although, to pick on Pixar for a second: I feel that their recent movies have way too much overacting, but that's a whole other issue)