The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Directed By Peter Jackson
Starring Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Richard Armitage as Thorin, and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug
I went back and forth over wether to write a review of the first Hobbit film (I never did). I knew that, unlike the original Lord of The Rings trilogy, which was three films based on three books, The Hobbit trilogy was three films based on one book. I never read any of the Tolkien books, so I didn't think it fair to review An Unexpected Journey, not knowing what came from the books and what was added to the script.
I will say this, An Unexpected Journey is a fun film, but at times it does drag. The Desolation of Smaug I found to be a huge improvement on its predecessor. I have no problem writing a review for this one, because I consider it one of the best films of the year.
The film continues the journey of Bilbo (Freeman) with the company of dwarves, as they fight to reclaim their homeland from the dragon Smaug (Cumberbatch). Along the way, they face the wrath of the orcs from the first film, forces from the Elf Kingdom (featuring the return of Orlando Bloom's Legolas), and the troubles of the town of Rivendale. Meanwhile, Gandalf (McKellen) investigates a dark power's return to Middle Earth.
Smaug greatly improves on the pacing issues seen in An Unexpected Journey. The film doesn't seem to drag at all, though perhaps we spend too much time in Rivendale. That's probably just my opinion, or what Jackson wanted us to feel, as all the build to Smaug's appearance finally comes to a boil between the second and third act. Let me tell you, all that build up is worth it. Three words: Kneel. Before. Smaug.
I saw this film in IMAX 3D, and I am so glad I did. The only way to get the full effect of Benedict Cumberbatch's performance as the mighty dragon is in IMAX 3D. Easily one of the most intimidating things I've seen on screen in years. Cumberbatch's performance, matched with the amazing CGI effects, makes Smaug a true sight to be seen. The rest of the ensemble cast is on mark, but Cumberbatch steals the show as Smaug, along with Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Seriously, Legolas is as amazing as ever.
There's plenty of action and drama to keep you entertained throughout the film, including that battle in the river sequence shown in the posters and trailers. But in truth, the real meat of the film is when the company enters The Lonely Mountain, and Bilbo comes face to face with Smaug.
The subplot with Gandalf is harmless, and certainly helps to build up to the conclusion in There And Back Again, but in my mind was just a way to connect us back to The Lord of The Rings trilogy. This is again where I have a tough time reviewing these films because I never read the books, but I suppose as a moviegoer I should just focus on what's given to me as a film.
It's a pity we'll have to wait a whole other year for the conclusion of this trilogy, because The Desolation of Smaug is so incredible, and practically leaves you begging for There And Back Again. Again, a big improvement on the first film of the trilogy, and easily one of my favorite films of the year.
Kneel. Before. Smaug. Ohhhh mighty Smaug...
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Film Review- "Frozen"
Frozen
Directed By Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
Starring Kristen Bell as Anna, Idina Menzel as Elsa, Jonathan Groff as Kristoff, and Josh Gad as Olaf
It's no secret I'm a guy who likes his animation, but Disney animation is my true bread and butter. Their animation studio may not be as dominant in the industry as it once was, now having to compete with the likes of Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and their sister studio Pixar. But their films can still pack a punch.
I love all the Disney animated films. From the classics of the fifties and sixties, such as The Jungle Book and Peter Pan, to the juggernauts of the nineties like Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King. Even their films from the past few years, such as Princess & The Frog, Tangled, and Wreck-It Ralph have wowed me. But even an avid Disney fan like myself had my eyebrows raised, when the ads for Frozen were declaring it "The greatest Disney animated event since The Lion King"
That's more than tooting your own horn. That's raising expectations to incredible heights, and betting everything that those expectations will be met by your audience. Given the gravitas of The Lion King, and the reception of more recent Disney films that preceded it like Tangled and Ralph, is Frozen that good? Is it the greatest Disney film since The Lion King…Note quite. But I'll tell you, it comes pretty damn close.
Like Tangled, it's a perfect blend of Disney's past and present, and earns a place, standing tall alongside the classics of the Disney Renaissance. The film, a loose (and I mean loose) adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen" tells the story of two sisters. Anna and Elsa, played by Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel respectively. Elsa is born with the power to create and manipulate snow and ice. As expected, her parents, the king and queen, decide to keep Elsa and her powers shut off from the rest of the kingdom. This also includes her sister, Anna, who grows up longing to be as close to her sister as they were in their youth.
When their parents die (It's a Disney film what did you expect?) Elsa, being the older sister, is crowned queen. As a result of an argument with Anna, Elsa's powers are exposed. Instantly feared by her subjects, Elsa flees the kingdom, and builds herself a fortress of ice in the mountains, while at the same time sending the kingdom into an eternal winter. Anna sets out to bring her sister home and set things right, with help of a mountain man named Kristoff (Groff), a summer loving snowman named Olaf (Gad), and a reindeer named Sven.
Frozen is a very unique Disney film. The central relationship is not "the prince and the princess" or "the guy and the girl" it's the relationship between the two sisters. It's a beautiful story. The way Anna and Elsa are written, in the script and the songs, is a breathe of fresh air and brings something new to the Disney formula. All of the characters bring both laughs and heart to the film in their own way. I have to say, I was ready to hate Olaf. He came off as so annoying in the trailers, but he steals the freaking show.
The animation is stunning. The animators clearly took full advantage of the winter setting of the film, and the technology at their disposal, to make a film that is more than pleasing to look at. The voice cast is not filled with huge names, but that's just fine. Kristen Bell did so well as Anna I forgot it was her. Idina Menzel as Elsa is amazing, and her solo song "Let It Go" is absolutely the stand-out number from the film. Josh Gad is perfect casting as Olaf. Jonathan Groff as Kristoff does a fine job, but you'd think a guy that was on "Glee" would sing more than fifty seconds in the film!
The songs in this film are a mixed bag. Again "Let It Go" is the film's stand-out song, and the only one that really stuck with me after I left the theater. After finding the other songs on Youtube, I can say Olaf's "In Summer" is upbeat and quite fun. Anna's song "Do You Want To Build A Snowman" is a very cute, and surprisingly emotional opening number. "For The First Time In Forever" and "Fixer Upper" are catchy, but don't leave a lasting impression like the previously mentioned songs.
I consider Frozen to be Tangled's sister film in some aspects, such as the tone and style (Keep your eyes open for some cameos, too). But a solid script (with maybe a twist that'll surprise you), more than enjoyable performances, and stunning animation gives Frozen enough to stand on its own. It's an instant Disney classic and truly one of their more unique outings. Hopefully Frozen can do what Tangled didn't, and earn an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature next year. It certainly deserves it. Again…maybe not the best Disney animated film since The Lion King, but pretty damn close.
Directed By Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
Starring Kristen Bell as Anna, Idina Menzel as Elsa, Jonathan Groff as Kristoff, and Josh Gad as Olaf
It's no secret I'm a guy who likes his animation, but Disney animation is my true bread and butter. Their animation studio may not be as dominant in the industry as it once was, now having to compete with the likes of Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and their sister studio Pixar. But their films can still pack a punch.
I love all the Disney animated films. From the classics of the fifties and sixties, such as The Jungle Book and Peter Pan, to the juggernauts of the nineties like Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King. Even their films from the past few years, such as Princess & The Frog, Tangled, and Wreck-It Ralph have wowed me. But even an avid Disney fan like myself had my eyebrows raised, when the ads for Frozen were declaring it "The greatest Disney animated event since The Lion King"
That's more than tooting your own horn. That's raising expectations to incredible heights, and betting everything that those expectations will be met by your audience. Given the gravitas of The Lion King, and the reception of more recent Disney films that preceded it like Tangled and Ralph, is Frozen that good? Is it the greatest Disney film since The Lion King…Note quite. But I'll tell you, it comes pretty damn close.
Like Tangled, it's a perfect blend of Disney's past and present, and earns a place, standing tall alongside the classics of the Disney Renaissance. The film, a loose (and I mean loose) adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen" tells the story of two sisters. Anna and Elsa, played by Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel respectively. Elsa is born with the power to create and manipulate snow and ice. As expected, her parents, the king and queen, decide to keep Elsa and her powers shut off from the rest of the kingdom. This also includes her sister, Anna, who grows up longing to be as close to her sister as they were in their youth.
When their parents die (It's a Disney film what did you expect?) Elsa, being the older sister, is crowned queen. As a result of an argument with Anna, Elsa's powers are exposed. Instantly feared by her subjects, Elsa flees the kingdom, and builds herself a fortress of ice in the mountains, while at the same time sending the kingdom into an eternal winter. Anna sets out to bring her sister home and set things right, with help of a mountain man named Kristoff (Groff), a summer loving snowman named Olaf (Gad), and a reindeer named Sven.
Frozen is a very unique Disney film. The central relationship is not "the prince and the princess" or "the guy and the girl" it's the relationship between the two sisters. It's a beautiful story. The way Anna and Elsa are written, in the script and the songs, is a breathe of fresh air and brings something new to the Disney formula. All of the characters bring both laughs and heart to the film in their own way. I have to say, I was ready to hate Olaf. He came off as so annoying in the trailers, but he steals the freaking show.
The animation is stunning. The animators clearly took full advantage of the winter setting of the film, and the technology at their disposal, to make a film that is more than pleasing to look at. The voice cast is not filled with huge names, but that's just fine. Kristen Bell did so well as Anna I forgot it was her. Idina Menzel as Elsa is amazing, and her solo song "Let It Go" is absolutely the stand-out number from the film. Josh Gad is perfect casting as Olaf. Jonathan Groff as Kristoff does a fine job, but you'd think a guy that was on "Glee" would sing more than fifty seconds in the film!
The songs in this film are a mixed bag. Again "Let It Go" is the film's stand-out song, and the only one that really stuck with me after I left the theater. After finding the other songs on Youtube, I can say Olaf's "In Summer" is upbeat and quite fun. Anna's song "Do You Want To Build A Snowman" is a very cute, and surprisingly emotional opening number. "For The First Time In Forever" and "Fixer Upper" are catchy, but don't leave a lasting impression like the previously mentioned songs.
I consider Frozen to be Tangled's sister film in some aspects, such as the tone and style (Keep your eyes open for some cameos, too). But a solid script (with maybe a twist that'll surprise you), more than enjoyable performances, and stunning animation gives Frozen enough to stand on its own. It's an instant Disney classic and truly one of their more unique outings. Hopefully Frozen can do what Tangled didn't, and earn an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature next year. It certainly deserves it. Again…maybe not the best Disney animated film since The Lion King, but pretty damn close.
Film Review- "12 Years A Slave"
12 Years A Slave
Directed By Steve McQueen
Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup, Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps, Nupita Nyong'o as Patsy, and Benedict Cumberbatch as Master Ford
This is that time of year when all the, as I like to call them, soon-to-be award nominated/winning films are released. You might think that's a pretty premature way of thinking, but look on the past few award seasons, and most of the nominees/winners had their theatrical releases in the late fall or winter. 12 Years A Slave is one of those films.
Yes, there are loopholes in my way of thinking. Films get overlooked by the academy all the time, even if they are released at this time of the year. I can honestly say though, 12 Years A Slave will not be overlooked, and it will be taking quite a few awards home in the coming months, Oscar and Golden Globe alike.
The film follows the life of Solomon Northup (Ejiofor), a free African American man living in the Northern United States. One night he is tricked and drugged by a pair of men posing as traveling entertainers (One of them played by SNL's Taran Kiliam. Go figure.), and is sold into slavery. The film follows his struggle to preserve and survive his time as a slave (Which I guess as the title suggests, is twelve years. Though it hardly feels like twelve years, but maybe that's not a bad thing). Through the film, he comes across folks kind and cruel, played by the likes of Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamati, and Brad Pitt.
This is a very raw film. Nothing is sugar coated, and it pulls at your emotions from the moment Solomon is kidnapped and sold into slavery, to the final moments of the film. It's a strong script brought to life by strong performances. Ejiofor as our leading man is a powerhouse. Solomon's struggle is real, and you feel it. He's a surefire Best Actor contender. Nupita Nyong'o as Patsy, a slave that Fassbender's Edwin Epps lusts for, gives an equally strong performance that could pull off some surprise victories come awards time. Michael Fassbender is chilling as the malicious slave owner Edwin Epps. I hate to sound repetitive, but he's probably another major contender come awards time.
Everyone else, in their limited roles hit their marks just right. Brad Pitt as the kind, country carpenter. Paul Giamati as the (for a lack of better term) slave vendor. Benedict Cumberbatch, as expected, is a joy to watch every second he's on screen. Taran Kiliam, I didn't even know it was him until the end of his scenes so credit to him. Even Paul Dano, who I really don't care for, does his usual "good job".
The film's only flaw, in my opinion, is the film really starts to slow down as we transition from the second act and into the third. Some might get a bit restless in their seats during this part of the film. That and, to me at least, the climax of the film, is a tad anticlimactic. I know it's based on a true story, but given the intensity of the rest of the film, I guess I expected more.
12 Years A Slave is not an easy film to watch, but it's a film that has to be watched. Full of top-notch performances, it's as a friend of mine on Twitter said "Brutal but beautiful". Keep your eye on this one, as you'll soon see members of its cast and crew on your television screens, accepting awards for their tremendous work.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Film Review- "Thor: The Dark World"
Thor: The Dark World
Directed By Alan Taylor
Starring Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and Anthony Hopkins as Odin
The God of Thunder. The Avenger with The Hammer. Thor is back in the second release from Marvel Studios this year, and what I consider, one of their best releases yet. Thor is my second favorite of the Marvel solo films, right behind Captain America. The Avengers is in a whole other class. Needless to say, I had high hopes for Thor: The Dark World, and I was not disappointed.
The film opens on Loki (Hiddleston) in chains, sent to a cushy prison cell by order of Odin (Hopkins) for all the little stunts he pulled in Thor and The Avengers. Meanwhile, a race known as The Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), is awakened when a powerful force from long ago known as the Aether remerges. Malekith seeks out to control the Aether and destroy the Nine Realms during time of The Converge, when all nine are perfectly aligned. To make matters worse, who but Jane Foster (Portman) discovers the Aether and is infected by it. That's when Thor steps in with The Warriors Three at his side to save his lady love and, quite literally, the world. But when Malekith's forces prove too strong, Thor is forced to turn to his half-brother Loki for help. Can The God of Mischief be trusted?
First off, this is Loki's film. Tom Hiddleston steals the show in his third time in the role. The rest of the cast is just as good as they have been in the past, balancing the drama and the comedy. Chris Hemsworth is again a perfect Thor, and he and Hiddleston once again play off one another seamlessly. Stellan Skarsgard is given more comedy to work with this time around, and it pays off. The Warriors Three are given more to do this time around as well. Jamie Alexander gives a strong performance as Lady Sif. Zachary Levi replaces Josh Dallas in this film as Fandral The Dashing. It's no secret I'm a huge fan of Zac, and I have to honestly say, he does great with every minute of screen time he's given, speaking or not.
I give credit to the writers, as the script has to juggle quite a lot. You have Thor's issues with Loki, his romance with Jane Foster, and the battle with Malekith. Everything manages to balance out nicely (while at the same time leaves the audience desperately wanting more, and giving us some hints as to where a Thor 3 might go). The one problem with the film I have is Malekith. As the main antagonist, he's not that interesting. His motivations aren't that clear, he doesn't have much of a personality, and like most two-dimensional villains, he just wants to destroy the world. Luckily, having Loki back makes up for it.
Thor: The Dark World is another solid film from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and again, stands out as one of their best. Funny, action-packed, and loaded with fan service (Get ready for the best cameo ever), it's a must-see this holiday season.
Directed By Alan Taylor
Starring Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and Anthony Hopkins as Odin
The God of Thunder. The Avenger with The Hammer. Thor is back in the second release from Marvel Studios this year, and what I consider, one of their best releases yet. Thor is my second favorite of the Marvel solo films, right behind Captain America. The Avengers is in a whole other class. Needless to say, I had high hopes for Thor: The Dark World, and I was not disappointed.
The film opens on Loki (Hiddleston) in chains, sent to a cushy prison cell by order of Odin (Hopkins) for all the little stunts he pulled in Thor and The Avengers. Meanwhile, a race known as The Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), is awakened when a powerful force from long ago known as the Aether remerges. Malekith seeks out to control the Aether and destroy the Nine Realms during time of The Converge, when all nine are perfectly aligned. To make matters worse, who but Jane Foster (Portman) discovers the Aether and is infected by it. That's when Thor steps in with The Warriors Three at his side to save his lady love and, quite literally, the world. But when Malekith's forces prove too strong, Thor is forced to turn to his half-brother Loki for help. Can The God of Mischief be trusted?
First off, this is Loki's film. Tom Hiddleston steals the show in his third time in the role. The rest of the cast is just as good as they have been in the past, balancing the drama and the comedy. Chris Hemsworth is again a perfect Thor, and he and Hiddleston once again play off one another seamlessly. Stellan Skarsgard is given more comedy to work with this time around, and it pays off. The Warriors Three are given more to do this time around as well. Jamie Alexander gives a strong performance as Lady Sif. Zachary Levi replaces Josh Dallas in this film as Fandral The Dashing. It's no secret I'm a huge fan of Zac, and I have to honestly say, he does great with every minute of screen time he's given, speaking or not.
I give credit to the writers, as the script has to juggle quite a lot. You have Thor's issues with Loki, his romance with Jane Foster, and the battle with Malekith. Everything manages to balance out nicely (while at the same time leaves the audience desperately wanting more, and giving us some hints as to where a Thor 3 might go). The one problem with the film I have is Malekith. As the main antagonist, he's not that interesting. His motivations aren't that clear, he doesn't have much of a personality, and like most two-dimensional villains, he just wants to destroy the world. Luckily, having Loki back makes up for it.
Thor: The Dark World is another solid film from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and again, stands out as one of their best. Funny, action-packed, and loaded with fan service (Get ready for the best cameo ever), it's a must-see this holiday season.
Film Review- "Gravity"
Gravity
Directed By Alfonso Cuaron
Starring Sandra Bullock as Dr Ryan Stone, George Clooney as Lieutenant Matt Kowalski
This is probably going to be one of my shorter reviews, because it's hard to find flaws with a film like Gravity. I rarely declare films to be perfect. With the films I've reviewed in the past, I've always found at least something to improve on, even if it's something miniscule. At the moment, I can't find anything I didn't like about Gravity.
The films opens in space, with Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) on her first space mission aboard the shuttle Explorer, with astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney). Disaster strikes during a spacewalk, when the debris from a Russian missile strike strikes the Explorer. Losing communication with Mission Control, and emerging as the soul survivors of the crash, Stone and Kowalski must survive the vast emptiness of space and find a way to return to Earth.
Ninety nine percent of the film takes place in space, and it is beautiful to look at. The effects are stunning, and pull the viewer into the moment. Normally I don't recommend 3D if it isn't necessary, but Gravity needs to be seen in theaters, in 3D. Space has never been seen like this in film. Every moment you are on the edge of your seat. This is a real thriller. You almost feel lost in space with these characters, and relieved when the credits start to roll.
The story itself isn't that meaty. It's "The Hero Adrift" again. But putting it in this setting raises the steaks and makes the film all that more chilling. That said, the dialogue is well-crafted, as that is where our story emerges. Sandra Bullock has brought her A-Game again in this film, and is more than likely on her way to her second Oscar nomination, possibly win. This is her film, and her performance controls it in conjunction with the visual effects. George Clooney is George Clooney. He's a good actor, I've just never been a huge fan.
Gravity has been in theaters for awhile now, and with all the awards buzz it's been getting, I'm sure it will get a re-release before Oscar season. So, I strongly recommend that this film be seen in theaters and in 3D, or else you're only experiencing half of the film. A strong lead performance and breathtaking visuals, Gravity is just about what some may consider, a perfect film.
Directed By Alfonso Cuaron
Starring Sandra Bullock as Dr Ryan Stone, George Clooney as Lieutenant Matt Kowalski
This is probably going to be one of my shorter reviews, because it's hard to find flaws with a film like Gravity. I rarely declare films to be perfect. With the films I've reviewed in the past, I've always found at least something to improve on, even if it's something miniscule. At the moment, I can't find anything I didn't like about Gravity.
The films opens in space, with Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) on her first space mission aboard the shuttle Explorer, with astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney). Disaster strikes during a spacewalk, when the debris from a Russian missile strike strikes the Explorer. Losing communication with Mission Control, and emerging as the soul survivors of the crash, Stone and Kowalski must survive the vast emptiness of space and find a way to return to Earth.
Ninety nine percent of the film takes place in space, and it is beautiful to look at. The effects are stunning, and pull the viewer into the moment. Normally I don't recommend 3D if it isn't necessary, but Gravity needs to be seen in theaters, in 3D. Space has never been seen like this in film. Every moment you are on the edge of your seat. This is a real thriller. You almost feel lost in space with these characters, and relieved when the credits start to roll.
The story itself isn't that meaty. It's "The Hero Adrift" again. But putting it in this setting raises the steaks and makes the film all that more chilling. That said, the dialogue is well-crafted, as that is where our story emerges. Sandra Bullock has brought her A-Game again in this film, and is more than likely on her way to her second Oscar nomination, possibly win. This is her film, and her performance controls it in conjunction with the visual effects. George Clooney is George Clooney. He's a good actor, I've just never been a huge fan.
Gravity has been in theaters for awhile now, and with all the awards buzz it's been getting, I'm sure it will get a re-release before Oscar season. So, I strongly recommend that this film be seen in theaters and in 3D, or else you're only experiencing half of the film. A strong lead performance and breathtaking visuals, Gravity is just about what some may consider, a perfect film.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Film Review Throwback- "Chicken Little"
I normally don't speak badly about Disney, but....God...
Chicken Little
Directed by Mark Dindal
Starring Zach Braff as Chicken Little, Joan Cusack as The Ugly Duckling,
Gary Marshall as Buck Cluck, and Steve Zahn as Runt of The Litter
Once upon a time, in the early 2000's, Disney and Pixar were close to going their separate ways. Disney was abandoning traditional, hand-drawn animation, and was moving into producing their films in CGI animation like Pixar. The first film to come out of this time, was Chicken Little, and my God is it awful.
Taking place years after Chicken Little (Braff) has declared the sky is falling, he is now labeled a loser and a lunatic by the town, and his father (Marshall) shows nothing but resentment. Desperate for his peers' and father's approval, Chicken Little joins the school baseball team. He manages to score the winning home run, and is labeled a local hero. But when he discovers he was right about the sky, he must risk his newfound fame, and his father's approval, in order to save the world.
Somehow I believe, in an alternate universe, that bare-bone story could have worked, if the film took a different direction. But no, it takes about five other different directions, and the result is one mess of a film. This universe of anthropomorphic animals, and the jokes that are crafted from it, are not well developed. To add to that, all the pop culture gags and references come out of nowhere, and just aren't funny. If this film is in a universe dominated by personified by animals, how are they watching Raiders of The Lost Ark or Star Wars? How do they know who Barbara Streisand is?
What's probably less forgiving, is this is film is kind of mean-spirited. The father and how he treats Chicken Little is hard to watch, and makes him a very unlikeable character. A lot of the side characters are very mean-spirited and unlikeable too. On the other side of the coin, Chicken Little's misfit friends, are very annoying, Steve Zahn in particular as Runt of The Litter. His character's sole purpose in this film is to burst out pop culture jokes that miss their mark every turn.
I'm surprised at the famous names they got for this film in addition to the ones already mentioned, such as Patrick Stewart, Don Knotts, Adam West, and Wallace Shawn. To be fair, their roles are small, and they work with what they're given. Zach Braff as Chicken Little is fine. It's not a stellar performance, but it's not problematic either. Joan Cusack as The Ugly Ducking is "okay". Gary Marshall as Chicken Little's father, Buck Cluck, is just not like-able at all.
From a time where computer-animated, comedy films like Shrek were popular, I see Chicken Little as the old guy (Disney) trying to fit in with the "cooler" younger crowd, and it is hard too watch. Thank goodness Disney stuck with Pixar and with what they do best, in films like Tangled, The Princess & The Frog, and to an extent Wreck-It Ralph.
This film is a mess, riddled with annoying pop-culture references that don't belong in it, or in Disney in general. I mean for God's sake, the trailer was a Napoleon Dynamite homage and the DVD cover is a Men In Black homage! I would not recommend it to any Disney fan, animation fan, or even a parent looking to entertain their children for two hours. I remember when I was kid I watched it quite a lot. Rest assured if I could, I would travel back in time, and slap myself for it...
Chicken Little
Directed by Mark Dindal
Starring Zach Braff as Chicken Little, Joan Cusack as The Ugly Duckling,
Gary Marshall as Buck Cluck, and Steve Zahn as Runt of The Litter
Once upon a time, in the early 2000's, Disney and Pixar were close to going their separate ways. Disney was abandoning traditional, hand-drawn animation, and was moving into producing their films in CGI animation like Pixar. The first film to come out of this time, was Chicken Little, and my God is it awful.
Taking place years after Chicken Little (Braff) has declared the sky is falling, he is now labeled a loser and a lunatic by the town, and his father (Marshall) shows nothing but resentment. Desperate for his peers' and father's approval, Chicken Little joins the school baseball team. He manages to score the winning home run, and is labeled a local hero. But when he discovers he was right about the sky, he must risk his newfound fame, and his father's approval, in order to save the world.
Somehow I believe, in an alternate universe, that bare-bone story could have worked, if the film took a different direction. But no, it takes about five other different directions, and the result is one mess of a film. This universe of anthropomorphic animals, and the jokes that are crafted from it, are not well developed. To add to that, all the pop culture gags and references come out of nowhere, and just aren't funny. If this film is in a universe dominated by personified by animals, how are they watching Raiders of The Lost Ark or Star Wars? How do they know who Barbara Streisand is?
What's probably less forgiving, is this is film is kind of mean-spirited. The father and how he treats Chicken Little is hard to watch, and makes him a very unlikeable character. A lot of the side characters are very mean-spirited and unlikeable too. On the other side of the coin, Chicken Little's misfit friends, are very annoying, Steve Zahn in particular as Runt of The Litter. His character's sole purpose in this film is to burst out pop culture jokes that miss their mark every turn.
I'm surprised at the famous names they got for this film in addition to the ones already mentioned, such as Patrick Stewart, Don Knotts, Adam West, and Wallace Shawn. To be fair, their roles are small, and they work with what they're given. Zach Braff as Chicken Little is fine. It's not a stellar performance, but it's not problematic either. Joan Cusack as The Ugly Ducking is "okay". Gary Marshall as Chicken Little's father, Buck Cluck, is just not like-able at all.
From a time where computer-animated, comedy films like Shrek were popular, I see Chicken Little as the old guy (Disney) trying to fit in with the "cooler" younger crowd, and it is hard too watch. Thank goodness Disney stuck with Pixar and with what they do best, in films like Tangled, The Princess & The Frog, and to an extent Wreck-It Ralph.
This film is a mess, riddled with annoying pop-culture references that don't belong in it, or in Disney in general. I mean for God's sake, the trailer was a Napoleon Dynamite homage and the DVD cover is a Men In Black homage! I would not recommend it to any Disney fan, animation fan, or even a parent looking to entertain their children for two hours. I remember when I was kid I watched it quite a lot. Rest assured if I could, I would travel back in time, and slap myself for it...
Friday, August 23, 2013
Film Review- "Kick Ass 2"
Kick Ass 2
Directed by Jeff Wadlow
Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Dave Lizewski/Kick Ass, Chloe-Grace Mortez as Mindy McCready/Hit-Girl, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Chris D'Amico/The Mother Fucker, and Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars & Stripes
The general public seems to love the original Kick Ass while I'm just okay with it. The general public doesn't seem to like Kick Ass 2, while I find it better than the original? Am I insane? Maybe, but so is this film.
After the events of the first film, many citizens have become inspired by Kick Ass and decided to become heroes themselves. Dave is drawn back into the world of superheroes, starts training with Hit Girl, and joins a group of heroes called Justice Forever. Meanwhile, Mindy struggles to live a normal life and fit in at high school while leaving Hit-Girl behind, and a vengeful Chris D'Amico becomes the super-villain The Mother Fucker, and forms a league of super-villains to take down Kick Ass and other heroes.
As I've said before, the original Kick Ass is not for the faint of heart. Kick Ass 2 is DEFINITELY not for the faint of heart. While Kick Ass had its problems with an uneven tone, Kick Ass 2 knows what type of film it wants to be. The gloves come off, and it goes for the cringe-worthy, the gore, and the outrageous 110%. There is one scene involving some grotesque toilet humor, which I never go for, but it's just one scene. The action is once again, completely over-the-top and amazing. The jokes are dark and at time uncomfortable, but hilarious. The story is good. It goes to new heights and builds off what the first film set-up.
I got to say, while the Kick Ass character was a big problem for me in the first film, I found him in this film to have improved greatly. The character has matured. He has motivation. Aaron Taylor-Johnson gives a much more compelling performance this time around (Here's hoping he does a good job with Quicksilver, should he choose to be in The Avengers 2). Christopher Mintz-Plasse is better this time around, but I'm still just not a fan.
Chloe-Grace Mortez is again great as Hit-Girl. Jim Carrey gives a subtle but brilliant as Colonel Stars & Stripes. Clark Duke is given more to do in this film as Dave's buddy Marty and the new superhero Battle-Guy, and he works well with the more material he's given.
The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. The Justice Forever crew is to Kick Ass 2 what the Oozma Kappa fraternity is to Monsters University. While one or two of the characters are fun and interesting, the rest just aren't. The Mother Fucker's gang of villains (I can't type their name in good conscience) are insane. John Leguizamo, Morris Chestnut, and Garret M. Brown, as Javier, Marcus, and Dave's Dad all give limited but well-crafted performances.
While we're on the subject of limited performances, I wasn't very pleased with what they did with Lyndsy Fonseca as Dave's girlfriend Katie. Without giving anything away, they really push her aside in the film, and not in a pleasing way at all, considering all that went on with her in the first film. I get the actress is on a television show now, so she might not have been available as much, but it could have been done so much more satisfying to the character and the audience.
Kick Ass 2 knows what type of film it wants to be, and it goes for it. I found it improved in so many areas where Kick Ass came off as a weak film. If you enjoyed the first film in any way, definitely see this sequel.
Directed by Jeff Wadlow
Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Dave Lizewski/Kick Ass, Chloe-Grace Mortez as Mindy McCready/Hit-Girl, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Chris D'Amico/The Mother Fucker, and Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars & Stripes
The general public seems to love the original Kick Ass while I'm just okay with it. The general public doesn't seem to like Kick Ass 2, while I find it better than the original? Am I insane? Maybe, but so is this film.
After the events of the first film, many citizens have become inspired by Kick Ass and decided to become heroes themselves. Dave is drawn back into the world of superheroes, starts training with Hit Girl, and joins a group of heroes called Justice Forever. Meanwhile, Mindy struggles to live a normal life and fit in at high school while leaving Hit-Girl behind, and a vengeful Chris D'Amico becomes the super-villain The Mother Fucker, and forms a league of super-villains to take down Kick Ass and other heroes.
As I've said before, the original Kick Ass is not for the faint of heart. Kick Ass 2 is DEFINITELY not for the faint of heart. While Kick Ass had its problems with an uneven tone, Kick Ass 2 knows what type of film it wants to be. The gloves come off, and it goes for the cringe-worthy, the gore, and the outrageous 110%. There is one scene involving some grotesque toilet humor, which I never go for, but it's just one scene. The action is once again, completely over-the-top and amazing. The jokes are dark and at time uncomfortable, but hilarious. The story is good. It goes to new heights and builds off what the first film set-up.
I got to say, while the Kick Ass character was a big problem for me in the first film, I found him in this film to have improved greatly. The character has matured. He has motivation. Aaron Taylor-Johnson gives a much more compelling performance this time around (Here's hoping he does a good job with Quicksilver, should he choose to be in The Avengers 2). Christopher Mintz-Plasse is better this time around, but I'm still just not a fan.
Chloe-Grace Mortez is again great as Hit-Girl. Jim Carrey gives a subtle but brilliant as Colonel Stars & Stripes. Clark Duke is given more to do in this film as Dave's buddy Marty and the new superhero Battle-Guy, and he works well with the more material he's given.
The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. The Justice Forever crew is to Kick Ass 2 what the Oozma Kappa fraternity is to Monsters University. While one or two of the characters are fun and interesting, the rest just aren't. The Mother Fucker's gang of villains (I can't type their name in good conscience) are insane. John Leguizamo, Morris Chestnut, and Garret M. Brown, as Javier, Marcus, and Dave's Dad all give limited but well-crafted performances.
While we're on the subject of limited performances, I wasn't very pleased with what they did with Lyndsy Fonseca as Dave's girlfriend Katie. Without giving anything away, they really push her aside in the film, and not in a pleasing way at all, considering all that went on with her in the first film. I get the actress is on a television show now, so she might not have been available as much, but it could have been done so much more satisfying to the character and the audience.
Kick Ass 2 knows what type of film it wants to be, and it goes for it. I found it improved in so many areas where Kick Ass came off as a weak film. If you enjoyed the first film in any way, definitely see this sequel.
Film Review Throwback- "Kick Ass"
Kick-Ass
Directed By Matthew Vaughn
Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass, Chloe-Grace Mortez as Mindy McCready/Hit-Girl, Nicholas Cage as Damon McCready/Nicholas Cage,
and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Chris D'Amico/Red Mist
Three years later, the sequel's out, and I still don't know how I feel about this film. I don't love it, but I don't hate it. My feelings towards Kick-Ass always seem to flip-flop, but here's my review.
Dave Lizewski (Taylor-Johnson), an average high school student, asks the question "Why has no one ever tried to become a superhero?" With nothing else to do apparently, he decides to become the superhero Kick-Ass. Dave soon finds himself in over his head when he comes across a father/son superhero team, Big Daddy and Hit-Girl (Cage and Mortez), and their fight to bring down crime lord Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong).
The fish out of water story of Kick Ass is fine. It's not incredibly original, but it's harmless. The original comic, which I haven't read, I've heard is pretty dark and cynical. The film is dark and cynical as well. It's not for the faint of heart I can tell you. But on the whole, I find the film to be slightly uneven in tone. At times it seems from scene to scene, the film goes from over-the-top, gore and cringeworthy, to subtle and light-hearted. Kick-Ass is clearly meant to be a gritty, superhero-film parody (Parody might not be the best word), but there are times where it goes to this place where it's trying to be just another superhero film. That being said, there is plenty to enjoy. The action is ridiculous and superb. There's enough jokes to laugh at. The dramatic, intense scenes are compelling.
My biggest problem with the film, is sadly Kick Ass. He's just not that interesting of a character. Aaron-Taylor Johnson, from his performance to his constant narration, annoys me. That and he has no real motivation to do what he does, until the third act of the film. I don't think I'm spoiling this for anyone, but only when in the third act, when Big Daddy dies and he feels compelled to help Hit-Girl finish their fight, does he have any sort of reason to do what he's doing. He says in the beginning "I didn't become a superhero to like revenge a parent's death or anything", he literally just became a superhero because he wanted to. I know this is a riff on superhero films, but giving Kick Ass that almost cliche' superhero motivation would have probably made him a more interesting character!
My second biggest problem, is Red Mist. Another character that's not very interesting. His motivation to become a superhero are not worthwhile, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse I don't enjoy as an actor. He's really just a plot device for Mark Strong's character, who on the other hand, gave a good performance in this film.
Do I even need to say how awesome Nic Cage and Chloe-Grace Mortez are in this film as Big Daddy and Hit Girl? They're over-the-top, they're well written, they're performances draw you in from the beginning. They are the best parts of this film.
So, Kick Ass is an uneven film, but would I ever tell someone to not watch it? Absolutely not. There is plenty to enjoy this film, despite its uneven tone and its unfavorable casting choices.
Kick-Ass 2 on the other hand...
Directed By Matthew Vaughn
Starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass, Chloe-Grace Mortez as Mindy McCready/Hit-Girl, Nicholas Cage as Damon McCready/Nicholas Cage,
and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Chris D'Amico/Red Mist
Three years later, the sequel's out, and I still don't know how I feel about this film. I don't love it, but I don't hate it. My feelings towards Kick-Ass always seem to flip-flop, but here's my review.
Dave Lizewski (Taylor-Johnson), an average high school student, asks the question "Why has no one ever tried to become a superhero?" With nothing else to do apparently, he decides to become the superhero Kick-Ass. Dave soon finds himself in over his head when he comes across a father/son superhero team, Big Daddy and Hit-Girl (Cage and Mortez), and their fight to bring down crime lord Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong).
The fish out of water story of Kick Ass is fine. It's not incredibly original, but it's harmless. The original comic, which I haven't read, I've heard is pretty dark and cynical. The film is dark and cynical as well. It's not for the faint of heart I can tell you. But on the whole, I find the film to be slightly uneven in tone. At times it seems from scene to scene, the film goes from over-the-top, gore and cringeworthy, to subtle and light-hearted. Kick-Ass is clearly meant to be a gritty, superhero-film parody (Parody might not be the best word), but there are times where it goes to this place where it's trying to be just another superhero film. That being said, there is plenty to enjoy. The action is ridiculous and superb. There's enough jokes to laugh at. The dramatic, intense scenes are compelling.
My biggest problem with the film, is sadly Kick Ass. He's just not that interesting of a character. Aaron-Taylor Johnson, from his performance to his constant narration, annoys me. That and he has no real motivation to do what he does, until the third act of the film. I don't think I'm spoiling this for anyone, but only when in the third act, when Big Daddy dies and he feels compelled to help Hit-Girl finish their fight, does he have any sort of reason to do what he's doing. He says in the beginning "I didn't become a superhero to like revenge a parent's death or anything", he literally just became a superhero because he wanted to. I know this is a riff on superhero films, but giving Kick Ass that almost cliche' superhero motivation would have probably made him a more interesting character!
My second biggest problem, is Red Mist. Another character that's not very interesting. His motivation to become a superhero are not worthwhile, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse I don't enjoy as an actor. He's really just a plot device for Mark Strong's character, who on the other hand, gave a good performance in this film.
Do I even need to say how awesome Nic Cage and Chloe-Grace Mortez are in this film as Big Daddy and Hit Girl? They're over-the-top, they're well written, they're performances draw you in from the beginning. They are the best parts of this film.
So, Kick Ass is an uneven film, but would I ever tell someone to not watch it? Absolutely not. There is plenty to enjoy this film, despite its uneven tone and its unfavorable casting choices.
Kick-Ass 2 on the other hand...
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Film Review- "Man of Steel"
Man of Steel
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Kal-El, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Michael Shannon as Zod, and Russell Crow as Jor-El
I know this movie came out awhile ago, but frankly when I saw it back in June, I was struggling to decide wether or not I really enjoyed it. Well after letting it sit for a few months, I can honestly say that Man of Steel is the best Superman film to date.
Given the dated cheesiness of the original Christopher Reeves films and the....I don't even know-ness of Superman Returns, I realize that might not be saying too much. Well anyway, as you can imagine, the film chronicles the life of The Last Son of Krypton. As a baby, Kal-El arrives on Earth, is adopted by the Kent's, and takes the name Clark Kent (Cavill). As he grows into a young man, he travels the world, trying to find his place among humans. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Adams) is trying to track down and identify him, and a threat from Krypton remerges in the form of General Zod (Shannon).
While much of the typical Superman origin story is what makes this film, they do bring some new aspects to it. Namely Clark's early days as a nomad/wandering hero, the element of a new Krypton on Earth, and the government's unease with Superman. They're interesting plot points and do breathe some new life into the script. The script on a whole however, has some problems.
Our time on Krypton and the first act is rushed and underdeveloped. Some viewers, myself included, might not fully understand the Krypton backstory until Jor-El explains it to Clark in Act Two. The same can be said for Zod's mission and what he's after. That, and there are some moments, story-wise and visually, that are just too silly. These moments hark back to the Christopher Reeve days of Superman, and just don't fit in with this gritty, more realistic version of Superman Snyder has crafted.
The performances in the film are fantastic. Henry Cavill is the perfect Superman. Amy Adams is the perfect Lois Lane. Michael Shannon is the ultimate villain as Zod. Russell Crowe shines as Jor-El. Kevin Costner is, decent, as John Kent (I'm sorry but it just always seems to me like Kevin Costner doesn't care). Even the supporting cast like Henry Lennix and Christopher Meloni are great additions.
The visuals are great. Hans Zimmer's score is great. I can't deny this is a well-made film. I can't ignore the fact that at times Snyder goes for style over substance though, and with the upcoming sequel (Where Superman teams up with BATMAN!!!), they need to fix that problem. On a whole though, Man of Steel is another enjoyable superhero film. It may not have the power of The Dark Knight or The Avengers, but it will certainly stay fresh in viewer's minds for a few years to come.
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Kal-El, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Michael Shannon as Zod, and Russell Crow as Jor-El
I know this movie came out awhile ago, but frankly when I saw it back in June, I was struggling to decide wether or not I really enjoyed it. Well after letting it sit for a few months, I can honestly say that Man of Steel is the best Superman film to date.
Given the dated cheesiness of the original Christopher Reeves films and the....I don't even know-ness of Superman Returns, I realize that might not be saying too much. Well anyway, as you can imagine, the film chronicles the life of The Last Son of Krypton. As a baby, Kal-El arrives on Earth, is adopted by the Kent's, and takes the name Clark Kent (Cavill). As he grows into a young man, he travels the world, trying to find his place among humans. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Adams) is trying to track down and identify him, and a threat from Krypton remerges in the form of General Zod (Shannon).
While much of the typical Superman origin story is what makes this film, they do bring some new aspects to it. Namely Clark's early days as a nomad/wandering hero, the element of a new Krypton on Earth, and the government's unease with Superman. They're interesting plot points and do breathe some new life into the script. The script on a whole however, has some problems.
Our time on Krypton and the first act is rushed and underdeveloped. Some viewers, myself included, might not fully understand the Krypton backstory until Jor-El explains it to Clark in Act Two. The same can be said for Zod's mission and what he's after. That, and there are some moments, story-wise and visually, that are just too silly. These moments hark back to the Christopher Reeve days of Superman, and just don't fit in with this gritty, more realistic version of Superman Snyder has crafted.
The performances in the film are fantastic. Henry Cavill is the perfect Superman. Amy Adams is the perfect Lois Lane. Michael Shannon is the ultimate villain as Zod. Russell Crowe shines as Jor-El. Kevin Costner is, decent, as John Kent (I'm sorry but it just always seems to me like Kevin Costner doesn't care). Even the supporting cast like Henry Lennix and Christopher Meloni are great additions.
The visuals are great. Hans Zimmer's score is great. I can't deny this is a well-made film. I can't ignore the fact that at times Snyder goes for style over substance though, and with the upcoming sequel (Where Superman teams up with BATMAN!!!), they need to fix that problem. On a whole though, Man of Steel is another enjoyable superhero film. It may not have the power of The Dark Knight or The Avengers, but it will certainly stay fresh in viewer's minds for a few years to come.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Film Review & Editorial- "Monsters University"
Film Review & Editorial- "Monsters University"
Monsters University
Directed By Dan Scanlon
Starring Billy Crystal as Mike Wazowski, John Goodman as James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, Helen Mirren as Dean Hardscrabble, Steve Buscemi as Randall Boggs
There's been an ongoing debate among the film-viewing community, that Pixar has lost it's touch. Cars 2 ended the studio's spotless record, and Brave, despite winning the Golden Globe and Academy Award, had a lukewarm reception. Now, with Finding Dory set for 2016, and rumors of a Toy Story 4 popping up every now and then, everyone's ready to say that Pixar has run out of originality and finally gotten the sequel bug.
So with all that in everyone's minds, and the fact that it was a prequel to one of Pixar's original classics, Monsters University was released this June. Set years before Monsters Inc, young Mike Wazowski (Crystal) heads off to attend the titular university, with big dreams of becoming a great scarer. He soon finds a rival in classmate (and future best friend) James P. Sullivan, or Sulley (Goodman). While Mike is hard-worker, Sulley is a slacker, and has had everything handed to him in life.
Their rivalry takes a turn for the worse, when it gets them kicked out of the school's scaring program. Then, when the annual greek-life Scare Games comes along, Mike and Sulley attempt to put aside their differences and team up with the misfit fraternity Oozma Kappa to enter the games. The frightening, headstrong Dean Hardscrabble (Mirren) allows them to enter, on the condition of if they lose, they leave Monsters University.
So that's the plot. I'll be honest, it's not that original. It's no different than any other story we've seen in other college films, from Revenge of The Nerds to every college film that has come after it and before Monsters University. The Oozma Kappa members don't offer too much. There were five of them and I enjoyed two of them for the most part. It's not what we've come to expect from Pixar, it's a predictable film, but it's still a very enjoyable film.
Why? Because of the characters. For most of us, these are characters we love and have grown up with, and you enjoy seeing them on screen again, and putting these characters in these scenarios is enjoyable to watch. It's a very funny film too. There are a lot of laughs, with nods to Monsters Inc that can bring a smile to any fan's face.
The voice cast is great. Billy Crystal and John Goodman are again fantastic as Mike and Sulley, and Steve Buscemi return as Randall is fun to watch too. New additions like Helen Mirren as the Dean, Peter Sohn & Charlie Day as Oozma Kappa members in particular are a joy to watch. Nathan Fillion as fraternity present Johnny Worthington is cool to watch, just because he's Nathan Fillion. Even John Krasinski is a joy in the little cameo he makes in the beginning as a Monsters Inc employee.
At the end of the day, I still love Monsters Inc more, it remains not only one of my favorite Pixar films, but one of my favorite films in general. That being said, I still really did enjoy Monsters University. From that, you can probably guess my side of the Pixar debate is no, they haven't lost their touch.
No I did not enjoy Cars 2. As a fan of the films from Disney Animation in the nineties, I thought Brave was a beautiful film. Maybe if it was released back in the nineties it would have been more successful.
Monsters University, it's no Up or Toy Story 3, but it's another solid entry in their filmography.
Perhaps the general audience in recent years has come to expect Pixar to tackle serious issues and make us cry like they have in Up, Toy Story 3, and Wall-E. Perhaps the general audience isn't responding to the last few Pixar films, because they're not what we expect them to do. Here is my counter argument. Pixar isn't a studio that makes films people expect them to make. Pixar is a studio that makes films they want to make.
Pixar is a studio that allows filmmakers to tell the stories they want to tell, which is rare in an industry that constantly demands filmmakers go for "marketable and profitable", and I applaud them for that. It's why I, why most people have fallen in love with them. I mean, let's be honest, do you really think a film like Up, Wall-E, or even Ratatouille could have, would have been made at another studio? Monsters University, sure, has a familiar story but it has the essence of Pixar. The ending in particular, which sends out a very strong yet unconventional moral to audiences young and old, that dreams sometimes don't go like we planned, is a bold and daring choice we expect from Pixar. Monsters University has the Pixar heart at the very center of its script, which is emulated in the friendship between Mike and Sulley.
Thirteen out of fourteen films Pixar has made have been generally well-recieved, and that includes Brave and Monsters University. So while I eagerly await the next Pixar film, I highly recommend Monsters University now. It may not blow your expectations out of the water, but I have no doubt you will leave the theater with a smile on your face.
Monsters University
Directed By Dan Scanlon
Starring Billy Crystal as Mike Wazowski, John Goodman as James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, Helen Mirren as Dean Hardscrabble, Steve Buscemi as Randall Boggs
There's been an ongoing debate among the film-viewing community, that Pixar has lost it's touch. Cars 2 ended the studio's spotless record, and Brave, despite winning the Golden Globe and Academy Award, had a lukewarm reception. Now, with Finding Dory set for 2016, and rumors of a Toy Story 4 popping up every now and then, everyone's ready to say that Pixar has run out of originality and finally gotten the sequel bug.
So with all that in everyone's minds, and the fact that it was a prequel to one of Pixar's original classics, Monsters University was released this June. Set years before Monsters Inc, young Mike Wazowski (Crystal) heads off to attend the titular university, with big dreams of becoming a great scarer. He soon finds a rival in classmate (and future best friend) James P. Sullivan, or Sulley (Goodman). While Mike is hard-worker, Sulley is a slacker, and has had everything handed to him in life.
Their rivalry takes a turn for the worse, when it gets them kicked out of the school's scaring program. Then, when the annual greek-life Scare Games comes along, Mike and Sulley attempt to put aside their differences and team up with the misfit fraternity Oozma Kappa to enter the games. The frightening, headstrong Dean Hardscrabble (Mirren) allows them to enter, on the condition of if they lose, they leave Monsters University.
So that's the plot. I'll be honest, it's not that original. It's no different than any other story we've seen in other college films, from Revenge of The Nerds to every college film that has come after it and before Monsters University. The Oozma Kappa members don't offer too much. There were five of them and I enjoyed two of them for the most part. It's not what we've come to expect from Pixar, it's a predictable film, but it's still a very enjoyable film.
Why? Because of the characters. For most of us, these are characters we love and have grown up with, and you enjoy seeing them on screen again, and putting these characters in these scenarios is enjoyable to watch. It's a very funny film too. There are a lot of laughs, with nods to Monsters Inc that can bring a smile to any fan's face.
The voice cast is great. Billy Crystal and John Goodman are again fantastic as Mike and Sulley, and Steve Buscemi return as Randall is fun to watch too. New additions like Helen Mirren as the Dean, Peter Sohn & Charlie Day as Oozma Kappa members in particular are a joy to watch. Nathan Fillion as fraternity present Johnny Worthington is cool to watch, just because he's Nathan Fillion. Even John Krasinski is a joy in the little cameo he makes in the beginning as a Monsters Inc employee.
At the end of the day, I still love Monsters Inc more, it remains not only one of my favorite Pixar films, but one of my favorite films in general. That being said, I still really did enjoy Monsters University. From that, you can probably guess my side of the Pixar debate is no, they haven't lost their touch.
No I did not enjoy Cars 2. As a fan of the films from Disney Animation in the nineties, I thought Brave was a beautiful film. Maybe if it was released back in the nineties it would have been more successful.
Monsters University, it's no Up or Toy Story 3, but it's another solid entry in their filmography.
Perhaps the general audience in recent years has come to expect Pixar to tackle serious issues and make us cry like they have in Up, Toy Story 3, and Wall-E. Perhaps the general audience isn't responding to the last few Pixar films, because they're not what we expect them to do. Here is my counter argument. Pixar isn't a studio that makes films people expect them to make. Pixar is a studio that makes films they want to make.
Pixar is a studio that allows filmmakers to tell the stories they want to tell, which is rare in an industry that constantly demands filmmakers go for "marketable and profitable", and I applaud them for that. It's why I, why most people have fallen in love with them. I mean, let's be honest, do you really think a film like Up, Wall-E, or even Ratatouille could have, would have been made at another studio? Monsters University, sure, has a familiar story but it has the essence of Pixar. The ending in particular, which sends out a very strong yet unconventional moral to audiences young and old, that dreams sometimes don't go like we planned, is a bold and daring choice we expect from Pixar. Monsters University has the Pixar heart at the very center of its script, which is emulated in the friendship between Mike and Sulley.
Thirteen out of fourteen films Pixar has made have been generally well-recieved, and that includes Brave and Monsters University. So while I eagerly await the next Pixar film, I highly recommend Monsters University now. It may not blow your expectations out of the water, but I have no doubt you will leave the theater with a smile on your face.
Film Review- "Despicable Me 2"
Despicable Me 2
Directed By Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud
Starring Steve Carell as Gru, Kristen Wiig as Lucy Wilde, Benjamin Bratt as El Macho
It's hard to make a good sequel. It seems even harder to make an animated sequel. When I first walked into the theater to see the original Despicable Me, my expectations weren't that high. The story seemed thin, and it didn't seem too funny. But then, you guessed it, I was very surprised at what I saw.
Despicable Me has a simple story, but a big heart. It's well written, it's comical, and has a stellar voice cast. At the time it was a rarity of an animated film. From Illumination Entertainment, a new company entering an industry heavily dominated by Pixar and Dreamworks, Despicable Me ended up becoming something of a surprise hit. So what's the sequel like?
Well I entered Despicable Me 2 with lowered expectations, like I did with its predecessor. The original was such a special film, with a story that seemed like it was wrapped up pretty nicely before the credits rolled, how could the sequel prevail? What else is there to tell, and could an audience respond to it?
Yes, it can...on some levels. As a comedy, this sequel is funnier than the original. As an overall film, the original stands tall. This time around, retired super-villain and super-cool dad Gru (Carell) is recruited by the Anti-Villain League to track down a new villain, along with a new, enthusiastic agent named Lucy Wilde (Wiig). Yeah you know what happens between Gru and Lucy right? I mean. Come on now.
Well it seems pretty simple right? Not so much. The filmmakers seem almost confused as to what story they want to tell. Other elements of the plot include Gru dealing with little Agnes's concerns about a lack of a mother figure in her life, while also dealing with Margo's new boyfriend, and then there's Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) leaving Gru for a new, more evil job. The script's kind of a mess.
It's hard to understand what is moving the plot, and Gru's character forward. Is it his struggle to be a good father? His struggle to date Lucy and fill that void in his life? His struggle to relive or forget his days as a villain? All these are lightly touched on without any real development, and when we reach the ending (We all know what happens with Gru & Lucy right?), it feels forced and unearned, but at the same we as an audience come to expect it so we don't get bothered too much by it.
Clearly the filmmakers knew they struck gold with the Minions, and they dominate the film. They may even get more screen time than Gru. They do still manage to provide plenty of laughs, but they're almost used as a distraction for the flimsy script. Plus, while the Minions take up more screen time, Gru's daughters take up less screen time. They were the heart of the first film, and when we see less of them in this film, the film in turn has less heart.
But what works? Well as I've said, Despicable Me 2 is definitely the funnier of the two films, Minions and all. The voice cast is again great. Kirsten Wiig is perfect as Lucy Wilde. Benjamin Bratt is cool as the villain El Macho, although the character itself isn't that thrilling (Except for one little gag in a flashback).
So, if you're looking for a film with a lot of laughs, then I recommend Despicable Me 2. If you're looking for a sequel that matches the heart and writing of its predecessor, this isn't what you're going to get. As funny and as charming as it can be, the film just doesn't seem to know what story it wants to tell.
Directed By Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud
Starring Steve Carell as Gru, Kristen Wiig as Lucy Wilde, Benjamin Bratt as El Macho
It's hard to make a good sequel. It seems even harder to make an animated sequel. When I first walked into the theater to see the original Despicable Me, my expectations weren't that high. The story seemed thin, and it didn't seem too funny. But then, you guessed it, I was very surprised at what I saw.
Despicable Me has a simple story, but a big heart. It's well written, it's comical, and has a stellar voice cast. At the time it was a rarity of an animated film. From Illumination Entertainment, a new company entering an industry heavily dominated by Pixar and Dreamworks, Despicable Me ended up becoming something of a surprise hit. So what's the sequel like?
Well I entered Despicable Me 2 with lowered expectations, like I did with its predecessor. The original was such a special film, with a story that seemed like it was wrapped up pretty nicely before the credits rolled, how could the sequel prevail? What else is there to tell, and could an audience respond to it?
Yes, it can...on some levels. As a comedy, this sequel is funnier than the original. As an overall film, the original stands tall. This time around, retired super-villain and super-cool dad Gru (Carell) is recruited by the Anti-Villain League to track down a new villain, along with a new, enthusiastic agent named Lucy Wilde (Wiig). Yeah you know what happens between Gru and Lucy right? I mean. Come on now.
Well it seems pretty simple right? Not so much. The filmmakers seem almost confused as to what story they want to tell. Other elements of the plot include Gru dealing with little Agnes's concerns about a lack of a mother figure in her life, while also dealing with Margo's new boyfriend, and then there's Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) leaving Gru for a new, more evil job. The script's kind of a mess.
It's hard to understand what is moving the plot, and Gru's character forward. Is it his struggle to be a good father? His struggle to date Lucy and fill that void in his life? His struggle to relive or forget his days as a villain? All these are lightly touched on without any real development, and when we reach the ending (We all know what happens with Gru & Lucy right?), it feels forced and unearned, but at the same we as an audience come to expect it so we don't get bothered too much by it.
Clearly the filmmakers knew they struck gold with the Minions, and they dominate the film. They may even get more screen time than Gru. They do still manage to provide plenty of laughs, but they're almost used as a distraction for the flimsy script. Plus, while the Minions take up more screen time, Gru's daughters take up less screen time. They were the heart of the first film, and when we see less of them in this film, the film in turn has less heart.
But what works? Well as I've said, Despicable Me 2 is definitely the funnier of the two films, Minions and all. The voice cast is again great. Kirsten Wiig is perfect as Lucy Wilde. Benjamin Bratt is cool as the villain El Macho, although the character itself isn't that thrilling (Except for one little gag in a flashback).
So, if you're looking for a film with a lot of laughs, then I recommend Despicable Me 2. If you're looking for a sequel that matches the heart and writing of its predecessor, this isn't what you're going to get. As funny and as charming as it can be, the film just doesn't seem to know what story it wants to tell.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Film Review- "The Hangover: Part 3"
A tweet from myself (@ChrisFlaertweet), on May 2nd 2013:
"#Hangover3....All I can say is Ed Helms, I hope it was worth leaving for half of the final season of #TheOffice #Hereshoping"
The Hangover: Part 3
Directed By Todd Phillips
Starring Bradley Cooper as Phil, Ed Helms as Stu, Zach Galifanakis as Alan
....Imagine you just heard Disney announced they were making a film starring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy. Then you saw the trailers for that film, and then you saw the actual film, and what you saw wasn't quite what you expected. Instead of seeing a film where those three beloved cartoon characters are singing, dancing and having up-beat adventures...you saw a film where they were hired to take a hit out on Scrooge McDuck and steal all his money.
That's kind of like what The Hangover Part 3 is. It takes characters from films of one genre, and then puts them in a film of another genre. In this case, comical characters are put into an action/heist film.
Alan (Galifanakis) has been off his meds for awhile. After his father (Jeffery Tambor) dies of a heart attack, his family and The Wolfpack stage an intervention for him. While driving Alan to a rehab center in Arizona, the group is ambushed by a group of thugs led by Marshall (John Goodman). Marshall has some unfinished business with the recently escaped from prison, Mr. Chow (Jeong), and wants him DOA. Seeing is how Alan is the only one Chow's had recent contact with, Marshall demands The Wolfpack track him down, and takes Doug (Justin Bartha) as insurance. Alan, Stu (Helms), and Phil (Cooper) are soon tracking Chow down all over the west coast, on an adventure that takes them from Tijuana and back to Las Vegas.
First off, this film is not as funny as the original. It's not even as funny as the second installment. It completely throws out the formula of the first two. The humor is actually much darker this time around (A giraffe is decapitated within the first five minutes). If that's your type of humor you'll enjoy it like I did, but the laughs aren't as frequent in this Hangover film. As you may have guessed already, this is more like an action movie than a comedy movie.
BUT...it works. It does have its laughs, and its a good watch. You do retain a general interest in the story (Props to Todd Phillips for all the little ties back to the original movie), you do care about these characters, and you want to see them make it out of this. Especially considering this time around, their predicament really isn't the result of their idiocy, but Chow's.
I don't have much to say about the returning cast members. They all do a fine job. Galifanakis is losing his appeal though, in my opinion. Ken Jeong I find annoying 90% of the time. John Goodman as Marshall is a fine addition. Melissa McCarthy has a funny little cameo as a pawnbroker in Vegas. Not to spoil anything, but some characters from the first film make return appearances, and it's fun to see them all again.
The Hangover: Part 3 is not what you would expect from the conclusion of a comedy trilogy. But you can still walk out of the theater a satisfied viewer. With the exception of the first film, this trilogy won't have that much of a lasting impact. But Part 3 will stay with you for at least a little while, either tickling your funny bone, or just making you go "...Huh."
*Probably some of the funniest laughs will come from the post-credits scene.
**If you were by any chance a little curious as to what it would be like if Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were hit men...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTSWo2y0NIY
"#Hangover3....All I can say is Ed Helms, I hope it was worth leaving for half of the final season of #TheOffice #Hereshoping"
The Hangover: Part 3
Directed By Todd Phillips
Starring Bradley Cooper as Phil, Ed Helms as Stu, Zach Galifanakis as Alan
....Imagine you just heard Disney announced they were making a film starring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy. Then you saw the trailers for that film, and then you saw the actual film, and what you saw wasn't quite what you expected. Instead of seeing a film where those three beloved cartoon characters are singing, dancing and having up-beat adventures...you saw a film where they were hired to take a hit out on Scrooge McDuck and steal all his money.
That's kind of like what The Hangover Part 3 is. It takes characters from films of one genre, and then puts them in a film of another genre. In this case, comical characters are put into an action/heist film.
Alan (Galifanakis) has been off his meds for awhile. After his father (Jeffery Tambor) dies of a heart attack, his family and The Wolfpack stage an intervention for him. While driving Alan to a rehab center in Arizona, the group is ambushed by a group of thugs led by Marshall (John Goodman). Marshall has some unfinished business with the recently escaped from prison, Mr. Chow (Jeong), and wants him DOA. Seeing is how Alan is the only one Chow's had recent contact with, Marshall demands The Wolfpack track him down, and takes Doug (Justin Bartha) as insurance. Alan, Stu (Helms), and Phil (Cooper) are soon tracking Chow down all over the west coast, on an adventure that takes them from Tijuana and back to Las Vegas.
First off, this film is not as funny as the original. It's not even as funny as the second installment. It completely throws out the formula of the first two. The humor is actually much darker this time around (A giraffe is decapitated within the first five minutes). If that's your type of humor you'll enjoy it like I did, but the laughs aren't as frequent in this Hangover film. As you may have guessed already, this is more like an action movie than a comedy movie.
BUT...it works. It does have its laughs, and its a good watch. You do retain a general interest in the story (Props to Todd Phillips for all the little ties back to the original movie), you do care about these characters, and you want to see them make it out of this. Especially considering this time around, their predicament really isn't the result of their idiocy, but Chow's.
I don't have much to say about the returning cast members. They all do a fine job. Galifanakis is losing his appeal though, in my opinion. Ken Jeong I find annoying 90% of the time. John Goodman as Marshall is a fine addition. Melissa McCarthy has a funny little cameo as a pawnbroker in Vegas. Not to spoil anything, but some characters from the first film make return appearances, and it's fun to see them all again.
The Hangover: Part 3 is not what you would expect from the conclusion of a comedy trilogy. But you can still walk out of the theater a satisfied viewer. With the exception of the first film, this trilogy won't have that much of a lasting impact. But Part 3 will stay with you for at least a little while, either tickling your funny bone, or just making you go "...Huh."
*Probably some of the funniest laughs will come from the post-credits scene.
**If you were by any chance a little curious as to what it would be like if Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were hit men...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTSWo2y0NIY
Wish-List For "Community" Season 5
Now that Dan Harmon's back to work on "Community", fans can expect Season 5 to be a return to form, and more like the show it used to be. While I believe Season 4 wasn't that bad, there were some things it didn't handle well. While some plot lines carried over from past seasons were executed (and in some cases concluded) poorly, other elements of the show were otherwise thrown out the window.
How will Dan Harmon address these issues? What will his response to Season 4 be? Whatever he does I'm along for the ride, but I, as I'm sure most fans do, have a little wish-list for Season 5.
1. Bring Back John Oliver/James Brolin/Malcolm McDowell
We haven't seen Ian Duncan since Season 2! I know John Oliver's been pretty busy with The Daily Show, and he'll be even more busy with it when Jon Stewart leaves to direct his first feature film, but before that happens can we get him back for one episode? His character is rooted in the beginnings of the show.
I for one felt the episode where James Brolin as Jeff's Dad, was underwhelming, considering it was built up to be the conclusion of one the show's most important story lines. Considering Harmon began this storyline, I truly hope he can bring Brolin back to bring Jeff's story with his father to a proper conclusion, one that both he and the fans can be happy with.
Malcolm McDowell was so underused in Season 4 the powers that be should be arrested for it, and I hope he can come back to intimidate the study group further. I mean...he's Malcolm McDowell.
2. Write The BEST CHRISTMAS EPISODE EVER
"Intro To Knots" paled in comparison to Christmas episodes from the past seasons. Past "Community" Christmas episodes were real treats, and offered something fun, exciting, and satirical. "Knots" didn't bring much to the table, other than giving Malcolm McDowell some deserved screen time. It didn't even feel like a Christmas episode. It was more like something pulled out of the cliche' sitcom handbook. In short, while I enjoyed the episode, it wasn't a "Community" Christmas episode. That said, I hope Harmon can make up for it.
3. Kill Chang Off
I'm sorry, but we have to get rid of this guy. Sure The Hangover trilogy is over, so maybe Ken Jeong's schedule will open up a bit, but does it really matter? Chang is no longer the interesting character he once was. When he was in power in Seasons 1 and 3, he was a compelling character. Now, he's been reduced to faking amnesia-sorry, Changnesia...what? With the conclusion of "Heroic Origins" his arc to join the study group that started in Season 2, has ended, so I really don't see anywhere else we can go with Chang. If anyone can give this character purpose again it's Dan Harmon, but honestly I'd rather just see Chang written off the show.
4. Explore The Relationships of Jeff/Annie, Tory/Britta, Jeff/Britta...
Five seasons in I think it's time to give these romantic couplings a little more spotlight. Harmon always did a great job of not over-saturating the romance into the show, and I think he can continue to do that. But we have these relationships that should be explored a little further, now that we've spent four years watching them grow.
Maybe Troy/Britta should be left alone. I'm sure not everyone was a fan of it. I loved "Basic Human Anatomy", but one flaw in it was that I really didn't care that Troy and Britta broke up. We spent like one episode in Season 4 developing their relationship, and their relationship wasn't even at the center of the episode, Troy and Abed's was! Again, another storyline Harmon set up, that I hope he can bring to a proper conclusion that'll satisfy both himself and the fans. There's always some drama between exes right?
That, and now that Britta's single again, the Jeff/Annie VS Jeff/Britta debate needs to be addressed. While Season 1 focused on Jeff/Britta, Seasons 2-3 developed Jeff/Annie and moved away from Jeff/Britta. Season 4, from what I could tell, returned to focus on Jeff/Britta. With this possibly being the last season of the show, something's got to give in terms of our protagonist's love life.
5. Make Fred Wilard A Series Regular To Replace Chevy Chase
Wilard's guest spot as Pierce in Abed's Sitcom Illusion in "History 101" was classic. He played Pierce perfectly with the cocky, absent-mindedness from Season 1, and he fit well with the rest of the cast. Dare I say, he could play a better Pierce than Chevy Chase. You don't have to make him Pierce. You could make him a new character, and throw in some meta-references for Abed to spit out. Either way, Fred Wilard has got to come back to the show.
I can only hope someone related to the production of "Community" sees this. A fan can dream right? Regardless, I look forward to the return of "Community"....midseason. Come on, NBC...
Side-Note: I'd really love to see an episode done in the style of Indiana Jones, or an episode without any dialogue, or an episode that pays tribute to the animated musical, or....sorry, I'm done.
How will Dan Harmon address these issues? What will his response to Season 4 be? Whatever he does I'm along for the ride, but I, as I'm sure most fans do, have a little wish-list for Season 5.
1. Bring Back John Oliver/James Brolin/Malcolm McDowell
We haven't seen Ian Duncan since Season 2! I know John Oliver's been pretty busy with The Daily Show, and he'll be even more busy with it when Jon Stewart leaves to direct his first feature film, but before that happens can we get him back for one episode? His character is rooted in the beginnings of the show.
I for one felt the episode where James Brolin as Jeff's Dad, was underwhelming, considering it was built up to be the conclusion of one the show's most important story lines. Considering Harmon began this storyline, I truly hope he can bring Brolin back to bring Jeff's story with his father to a proper conclusion, one that both he and the fans can be happy with.
Malcolm McDowell was so underused in Season 4 the powers that be should be arrested for it, and I hope he can come back to intimidate the study group further. I mean...he's Malcolm McDowell.
2. Write The BEST CHRISTMAS EPISODE EVER
"Intro To Knots" paled in comparison to Christmas episodes from the past seasons. Past "Community" Christmas episodes were real treats, and offered something fun, exciting, and satirical. "Knots" didn't bring much to the table, other than giving Malcolm McDowell some deserved screen time. It didn't even feel like a Christmas episode. It was more like something pulled out of the cliche' sitcom handbook. In short, while I enjoyed the episode, it wasn't a "Community" Christmas episode. That said, I hope Harmon can make up for it.
3. Kill Chang Off
I'm sorry, but we have to get rid of this guy. Sure The Hangover trilogy is over, so maybe Ken Jeong's schedule will open up a bit, but does it really matter? Chang is no longer the interesting character he once was. When he was in power in Seasons 1 and 3, he was a compelling character. Now, he's been reduced to faking amnesia-sorry, Changnesia...what? With the conclusion of "Heroic Origins" his arc to join the study group that started in Season 2, has ended, so I really don't see anywhere else we can go with Chang. If anyone can give this character purpose again it's Dan Harmon, but honestly I'd rather just see Chang written off the show.
4. Explore The Relationships of Jeff/Annie, Tory/Britta, Jeff/Britta...
Five seasons in I think it's time to give these romantic couplings a little more spotlight. Harmon always did a great job of not over-saturating the romance into the show, and I think he can continue to do that. But we have these relationships that should be explored a little further, now that we've spent four years watching them grow.
Maybe Troy/Britta should be left alone. I'm sure not everyone was a fan of it. I loved "Basic Human Anatomy", but one flaw in it was that I really didn't care that Troy and Britta broke up. We spent like one episode in Season 4 developing their relationship, and their relationship wasn't even at the center of the episode, Troy and Abed's was! Again, another storyline Harmon set up, that I hope he can bring to a proper conclusion that'll satisfy both himself and the fans. There's always some drama between exes right?
That, and now that Britta's single again, the Jeff/Annie VS Jeff/Britta debate needs to be addressed. While Season 1 focused on Jeff/Britta, Seasons 2-3 developed Jeff/Annie and moved away from Jeff/Britta. Season 4, from what I could tell, returned to focus on Jeff/Britta. With this possibly being the last season of the show, something's got to give in terms of our protagonist's love life.
5. Make Fred Wilard A Series Regular To Replace Chevy Chase
Wilard's guest spot as Pierce in Abed's Sitcom Illusion in "History 101" was classic. He played Pierce perfectly with the cocky, absent-mindedness from Season 1, and he fit well with the rest of the cast. Dare I say, he could play a better Pierce than Chevy Chase. You don't have to make him Pierce. You could make him a new character, and throw in some meta-references for Abed to spit out. Either way, Fred Wilard has got to come back to the show.
I can only hope someone related to the production of "Community" sees this. A fan can dream right? Regardless, I look forward to the return of "Community"....midseason. Come on, NBC...
Side-Note: I'd really love to see an episode done in the style of Indiana Jones, or an episode without any dialogue, or an episode that pays tribute to the animated musical, or....sorry, I'm done.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Top 5 Episodes of "Community" Season 4
Dan Harmon, the creator of "Community", has announced he will return to his post as show runner for the upcoming fifth season. Harmon left his position after creative differences between the executives at Sony and himself. Many fans are overjoyed at the news of his return, and see this as an opportunity for the show to once again be the critical cult hit it once was. Many fans considered the fourth, "Harmon-less" season a letdown, and the worst season so far.
I believe that while the fourth season was not up to par with the past three, it still had some quality episodes. When Season 4 was bad, it was bad (Changnesia, anyone?). When Season 4 was good, it was good.
With that being said, here are my Top Five Episodes from "Community"'s Fourth Season.
#5: Episode 4.7 "Economics of Marine Biology"
The side story of Abed's fictional fraternity ("Delta Cubes!") was classic "Community". Jim Rash was given some great lines as The Dean in this episode, and the return of Board Members Clark and Richie was a funny moment. The Jeff and Pierce storyline was classic and true to the characters, furthering their development and relationship. While I felt the season finale (and the episodes that follow this one), didn't properly conclude Pierce's story*, this episode acted as a nice little consolation for everyone's favorite Greendale grump.
*Chevy Chase, and presumably the character of Pierce, will not be returning for the fifth season.
#4 Episode 4.1 "History 101"
While not the greatest episode of the series, "History 101" was a solid start to the season. The Hunger Games parody was underdeveloped, and nothing more than a setting for the episode, but it provided some great laughs. Abed's "laugh-track sitcom" illusion of the study group was spot-on. It was meta, and classic "Community" humor. The Muppet Babies illusion, within the illusion, was just icing on the cake. Reading this all on paper make this episode sound like a mess, but in truth this is real fun episode to watch.
#3 Episode 4.8 "Herstory of Dance"
You could place this episode in the middle of a Season 1 DVD, and if you didn't tell me it was from Season 4, I probably wouldn't have noticed. The humor felt very traditional and true to the roots of the show. It displayed the characters and their relationships as the fans have known them the past three years, while moving their stories forward. It's an episode I think Dan Harmon himself would be proud of.
#2 Episode 4.11 "Basic Human Anatomy"
A brilliant episode written by Oscar Winner Jim Rash (Dean Pelton himself). It features some truly wonderful performances from Rash, Donald Glover (Troy), and Danny Pudi (Abed). Not only in this episodes does "Community" mock the body-switching film genre, it puts its unique twist on it, that serves the episode and the characters well
1. Episode 4.9 "Intro To Felt Surrogacy"
I'm a sucker for "Community"'s theme/concept episodes, and this is really one of the best. Maybe it's my fascination with The Muppets, but you can tell that the cast and crew treated this episode with care. From the attention to the detail in how the puppets move and interact, to the musical numbers. Like "Basic Human Anatomy", or "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", the concept/theme isn't there for the hell of it. It services the plot of the characters, in a fun and unique way. It may not have furthered the overall arc of the show, but it was an emotional and satisfying episode, that showed how the group has grown in four years. "Intro To Felt Surrogacy" will possibly become known as the highlight of Season 4.
So with that we close the books on an uneven, but still enjoyable season of "Community". Now, onto Season 5...
Runners-Up:
Episode 4.9 "Intro To Knots" (The season's Christmas episode)
Episode 4.5 "Cooperative Escapism In Familial Relations (Jeff reunites with his father for Thanksgiving)
I believe that while the fourth season was not up to par with the past three, it still had some quality episodes. When Season 4 was bad, it was bad (Changnesia, anyone?). When Season 4 was good, it was good.
With that being said, here are my Top Five Episodes from "Community"'s Fourth Season.
#5: Episode 4.7 "Economics of Marine Biology"
The side story of Abed's fictional fraternity ("Delta Cubes!") was classic "Community". Jim Rash was given some great lines as The Dean in this episode, and the return of Board Members Clark and Richie was a funny moment. The Jeff and Pierce storyline was classic and true to the characters, furthering their development and relationship. While I felt the season finale (and the episodes that follow this one), didn't properly conclude Pierce's story*, this episode acted as a nice little consolation for everyone's favorite Greendale grump.
*Chevy Chase, and presumably the character of Pierce, will not be returning for the fifth season.
#4 Episode 4.1 "History 101"
While not the greatest episode of the series, "History 101" was a solid start to the season. The Hunger Games parody was underdeveloped, and nothing more than a setting for the episode, but it provided some great laughs. Abed's "laugh-track sitcom" illusion of the study group was spot-on. It was meta, and classic "Community" humor. The Muppet Babies illusion, within the illusion, was just icing on the cake. Reading this all on paper make this episode sound like a mess, but in truth this is real fun episode to watch.
#3 Episode 4.8 "Herstory of Dance"
You could place this episode in the middle of a Season 1 DVD, and if you didn't tell me it was from Season 4, I probably wouldn't have noticed. The humor felt very traditional and true to the roots of the show. It displayed the characters and their relationships as the fans have known them the past three years, while moving their stories forward. It's an episode I think Dan Harmon himself would be proud of.
#2 Episode 4.11 "Basic Human Anatomy"
A brilliant episode written by Oscar Winner Jim Rash (Dean Pelton himself). It features some truly wonderful performances from Rash, Donald Glover (Troy), and Danny Pudi (Abed). Not only in this episodes does "Community" mock the body-switching film genre, it puts its unique twist on it, that serves the episode and the characters well
1. Episode 4.9 "Intro To Felt Surrogacy"
I'm a sucker for "Community"'s theme/concept episodes, and this is really one of the best. Maybe it's my fascination with The Muppets, but you can tell that the cast and crew treated this episode with care. From the attention to the detail in how the puppets move and interact, to the musical numbers. Like "Basic Human Anatomy", or "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", the concept/theme isn't there for the hell of it. It services the plot of the characters, in a fun and unique way. It may not have furthered the overall arc of the show, but it was an emotional and satisfying episode, that showed how the group has grown in four years. "Intro To Felt Surrogacy" will possibly become known as the highlight of Season 4.
So with that we close the books on an uneven, but still enjoyable season of "Community". Now, onto Season 5...
Runners-Up:
Episode 4.9 "Intro To Knots" (The season's Christmas episode)
Episode 4.5 "Cooperative Escapism In Familial Relations (Jeff reunites with his father for Thanksgiving)
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Film Review- "The Great Gatsby"
The Great Gastby
Directed By Baz Luhrman
Starring Tobey Maguire as Nick Caraway, Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan, and
Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby
It's not easy adapting a book into a feature film. The source material can only offer so much story, so sometimes you need to stretch it to get to that 120 page script, and sometimes that will backfire on you (Looking at you The Lorax, The Cat In The Hat,...probably Twilight).
"The Great Gatsby" by F.Scott Fitzgerald is only 130 pages. It's a simple story that is well known and loved by many readers. I doubt this film is going to reach that same level of praise.
During the 1920s, Nick Carraway (Maguire) moves to West Egg on Long Island, where he becomes neighbors with the famous, mysterious, and fabulously wealthy Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio). After receiving a personal invitation to one of Gatsby's parties, Nick learns Gatsby and his cousin Daisy (Mulligan) were once lovers, but the Great War separated them. Gatsby asks Nick to arrange to have Daisy over for tea, where they reunite. This little afternoon of tea leads to scandal, drama, and secrets being revealed.
That's all there is to the story. It's quite simple. But Baz Luhrman, in his typical directing fashion, attempts to suggest there's more, by tossing dozens of flashy visuals at the audience. Style overtakes substance and it shows here. The original Fitzgerald story isn't represented as properly as it should. The opening and closing narration of Nick (Twisted here by the filmmakers) feels like nothing more than a gimmick to try and get the audience go "Ohhhhh!' at the end of the film. (Avoiding spoilers here).
Gatsby's parties are made to look like college night clubs. The way 1920s New York looks, it's as if we're watching a movie based on a Frank Miller graphic novel. And the portrayal of the green light at the end of the Buchanan's dock, dare I say, is reduced to something of a Green Lantern cameo.
Do these visuals work? No not really. Are they nice to look at? Sure. I didn't see the film in 3-D, and I'm glad I didn't, because from what I could tell it was just a cheap gimmick.
I'd say the soundtrack is nice, if it wasn't the soundtrack for a movie based on "The Great Gastby". One minute you hear roaring twenties music, the next a rap song by Jay-Z and Will.I.Am. Jay-Z and Will.I.Am have no place in "The Great Gatsby" Yes the songs are catchy, but why are they here?
I will say this though, the acting in the movie is strong. Tobey Maguire is good as the fish-out-of-water Nick Caraway. Leo does a fine job as Gatsby, but by the thousandth time he says "old sport", he starts to come off as robotic. Carey Mulligan works well as Daisy. Joel Edgerton really stands out as Tom Buchanan, and relative newcomer as Elizabeth Debicki gives a solid performance as Jordan Baker. The cast is good, but sadly not good enough to save the movie.
The best way to describe The Great Gatsby, is Baz Luhrman trying to Moulin Rogue a classic F. Scott Fitzgerald story. It doesn't work. I didn't completely hate it, but I didn't throughly enjoy it. It's not something I'd watch multiple times. Save this one for a Redbox night, and read the book instead. The book is much better.
Directed By Baz Luhrman
Starring Tobey Maguire as Nick Caraway, Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan, and
Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby
It's not easy adapting a book into a feature film. The source material can only offer so much story, so sometimes you need to stretch it to get to that 120 page script, and sometimes that will backfire on you (Looking at you The Lorax, The Cat In The Hat,...probably Twilight).
"The Great Gatsby" by F.Scott Fitzgerald is only 130 pages. It's a simple story that is well known and loved by many readers. I doubt this film is going to reach that same level of praise.
During the 1920s, Nick Carraway (Maguire) moves to West Egg on Long Island, where he becomes neighbors with the famous, mysterious, and fabulously wealthy Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio). After receiving a personal invitation to one of Gatsby's parties, Nick learns Gatsby and his cousin Daisy (Mulligan) were once lovers, but the Great War separated them. Gatsby asks Nick to arrange to have Daisy over for tea, where they reunite. This little afternoon of tea leads to scandal, drama, and secrets being revealed.
That's all there is to the story. It's quite simple. But Baz Luhrman, in his typical directing fashion, attempts to suggest there's more, by tossing dozens of flashy visuals at the audience. Style overtakes substance and it shows here. The original Fitzgerald story isn't represented as properly as it should. The opening and closing narration of Nick (Twisted here by the filmmakers) feels like nothing more than a gimmick to try and get the audience go "Ohhhhh!' at the end of the film. (Avoiding spoilers here).
Gatsby's parties are made to look like college night clubs. The way 1920s New York looks, it's as if we're watching a movie based on a Frank Miller graphic novel. And the portrayal of the green light at the end of the Buchanan's dock, dare I say, is reduced to something of a Green Lantern cameo.
Do these visuals work? No not really. Are they nice to look at? Sure. I didn't see the film in 3-D, and I'm glad I didn't, because from what I could tell it was just a cheap gimmick.
I'd say the soundtrack is nice, if it wasn't the soundtrack for a movie based on "The Great Gastby". One minute you hear roaring twenties music, the next a rap song by Jay-Z and Will.I.Am. Jay-Z and Will.I.Am have no place in "The Great Gatsby" Yes the songs are catchy, but why are they here?
I will say this though, the acting in the movie is strong. Tobey Maguire is good as the fish-out-of-water Nick Caraway. Leo does a fine job as Gatsby, but by the thousandth time he says "old sport", he starts to come off as robotic. Carey Mulligan works well as Daisy. Joel Edgerton really stands out as Tom Buchanan, and relative newcomer as Elizabeth Debicki gives a solid performance as Jordan Baker. The cast is good, but sadly not good enough to save the movie.
The best way to describe The Great Gatsby, is Baz Luhrman trying to Moulin Rogue a classic F. Scott Fitzgerald story. It doesn't work. I didn't completely hate it, but I didn't throughly enjoy it. It's not something I'd watch multiple times. Save this one for a Redbox night, and read the book instead. The book is much better.
Film Review- "Iron Man 3"
Iron Man 3
Directed By Shane Black
Starring Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark, Gwyneth Playtrow as Pepper Potts, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, and Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin
Tony Stark returns in one of the stronger films in the Iron Man franchise, and possibly one of the best films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
After his run in with Gods and aliens in The Avengers, Tony Stark (Downey) is facing some anxiety issues. He can't sleep and he's spending way too much time in his workshop. Meanwhile, an old business associate of Pepper's, Aldrich Killian (Pearce), returns with a new technology called Extremis, and a terrorist named The Mandarin (Kingsley) emerges.
When Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) is injured in one of The Mandarin's attacks, Tony calls for vengeance, and a fierce conflict ensues. This puts Tony in a real tough position, forced to rely on his smarts alone to take down these villains and protect everything he loves.
The film is like a Marvel version of The Dark Knight Rises, as it leaves our hero isolated and battling his way out of the toughest challenge yet. It's a solid story that answers the question "Does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit?" The action scenes are superb, from the terrorist attack at Tony's Malibu home, to the climax aboard an oil rig (Which is a fight scene that rivals the last fifteen minutes of The Avengers). But as well-written and action-heavy as the film is, it's really quite funny with a lot of laugh-out-loud moments.
Robert Downey Jr is again fantastic as Tony Stark. Gwyneth Playtrow is given more to do this time around. This is probably her best performance as Pepper in all the Marvel films. The returning supporting cast, Don Cheadle as Rhodey, Jon Favreau as Happy, and Paul Bettany as the voice of JARVIS (Who may just steal the show here), are all bringing their usual with A-Game.
In terms of the new cast members, Rebecca Hall is...average. She does a good job with what she's given, but she isn't given much. Guy Pearce gives a fine performance as Aldrich Killian, but nothing that really makes him memorable. Ben Kingsley is just fantastic as the film's Mandarin.
I'm writing this well after spoilers have hit the Internet, and everyone seems to either love or hate what they did with The Mandarin. I personally, was a little upset with how it was done, but I understand why it was done. When it comes to the Marvel films, the Iron Man films are the most grounded in reality, and what they did with The Mandarin character fits that mold. It's still a solid performance by Kingsley.
The ending will raise a lot of questions. Not to spoil, but I'm curious as to how much of the uncertainty in the renewal of Downey's Marvel contract factored into it, and I hope that what is done in The Avengers 2 doesn't just hit the "undo button" on the ending of this film.
In the end, Iron Man 3 is another solid film out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is absolutely worth seeing in theaters, maybe multiple times in theaters (I saw it twice).
Directed By Shane Black
Starring Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark, Gwyneth Playtrow as Pepper Potts, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, and Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin
Tony Stark returns in one of the stronger films in the Iron Man franchise, and possibly one of the best films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
After his run in with Gods and aliens in The Avengers, Tony Stark (Downey) is facing some anxiety issues. He can't sleep and he's spending way too much time in his workshop. Meanwhile, an old business associate of Pepper's, Aldrich Killian (Pearce), returns with a new technology called Extremis, and a terrorist named The Mandarin (Kingsley) emerges.
When Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) is injured in one of The Mandarin's attacks, Tony calls for vengeance, and a fierce conflict ensues. This puts Tony in a real tough position, forced to rely on his smarts alone to take down these villains and protect everything he loves.
The film is like a Marvel version of The Dark Knight Rises, as it leaves our hero isolated and battling his way out of the toughest challenge yet. It's a solid story that answers the question "Does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit?" The action scenes are superb, from the terrorist attack at Tony's Malibu home, to the climax aboard an oil rig (Which is a fight scene that rivals the last fifteen minutes of The Avengers). But as well-written and action-heavy as the film is, it's really quite funny with a lot of laugh-out-loud moments.
Robert Downey Jr is again fantastic as Tony Stark. Gwyneth Playtrow is given more to do this time around. This is probably her best performance as Pepper in all the Marvel films. The returning supporting cast, Don Cheadle as Rhodey, Jon Favreau as Happy, and Paul Bettany as the voice of JARVIS (Who may just steal the show here), are all bringing their usual with A-Game.
In terms of the new cast members, Rebecca Hall is...average. She does a good job with what she's given, but she isn't given much. Guy Pearce gives a fine performance as Aldrich Killian, but nothing that really makes him memorable. Ben Kingsley is just fantastic as the film's Mandarin.
I'm writing this well after spoilers have hit the Internet, and everyone seems to either love or hate what they did with The Mandarin. I personally, was a little upset with how it was done, but I understand why it was done. When it comes to the Marvel films, the Iron Man films are the most grounded in reality, and what they did with The Mandarin character fits that mold. It's still a solid performance by Kingsley.
The ending will raise a lot of questions. Not to spoil, but I'm curious as to how much of the uncertainty in the renewal of Downey's Marvel contract factored into it, and I hope that what is done in The Avengers 2 doesn't just hit the "undo button" on the ending of this film.
In the end, Iron Man 3 is another solid film out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is absolutely worth seeing in theaters, maybe multiple times in theaters (I saw it twice).
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Film Review- "Oz The Great & Powerful"
Oz The Great & Powerful
Directed By Sam Rami
Starring James Franco as Oscar Diggs, Mila Kunis as Theodora, Rachel Weisz as Evanora, and Michelle Williams as Glinda
If you’re going to take a favorite, well-known story and do a new take on it, you’ve got to give it some fresh new edge. Once Upon A Time does it every Sunday night on ABC. Countless films like Alice In Wonderland, and the multiple adaptions of Snow White like Snow White & The Huntsman and Mirror Mirror, have tried and didn’t really succeed for one reason or another (Kirsten Stewart, aside). Disney’s Oz The Great & Powerful offers some of the familiar, in an appealing new packaging, making it a very enjoyable film.
Directed By Sam Rami
Starring James Franco as Oscar Diggs, Mila Kunis as Theodora, Rachel Weisz as Evanora, and Michelle Williams as Glinda
If you’re going to take a favorite, well-known story and do a new take on it, you’ve got to give it some fresh new edge. Once Upon A Time does it every Sunday night on ABC. Countless films like Alice In Wonderland, and the multiple adaptions of Snow White like Snow White & The Huntsman and Mirror Mirror, have tried and didn’t really succeed for one reason or another (Kirsten Stewart, aside). Disney’s Oz The Great & Powerful offers some of the familiar, in an appealing new packaging, making it a very enjoyable film.
Before
Dorothy’s time, Oscar “Oz” Diggs (James Franco) is a carnival magician in
Kansas, striving for more than what he is. Unfortunate circumstances and an all
too convenient tornado send him off to the Land of Oz. There he meets three
witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle
Williams). The witches believe him to be the wizard prophesized to will bring
peace to their land after destroying the Wicked Witch. Seeing this as his
opportunity for a better life, Oz plays along and sets out on a journey that
will put him to the ultimate test as the fate of Oz (the land) rests on his
hands. But not everything in Oz is as it seems…
There’s
not much to the plot than that. There are some of the classic screenplay
clichés thrown in there, such as will the liar be exposed, and is the bad guy
really the bad guy. But they’re not the problems you expect them to be. You
really get invested in the story and this world. For one thing, it’s Oz, one of
the most successful and well-known cinematic universes of all time. Second, the
effects in this movie are awesome. It’s exactly how you’d expect Oz to look
like if the original were made today. Third, the performances in this movie are
terrific.
Michelle
Williams is spot-on as Glinda, and brings the same love and charm Billie Burke
did to the character in The Wizard of Oz,
but in a fresh, modern way. She may have been my favorite performance of the
film. Rachel Weisz is so convincing and alluring as the wicked Evanora, and
Mila Kunis gives a performance that I didn’t know she had in her. Seriously she
should show her more serious acting side more often. One question though,
wasn’t there four witches in the land of Oz (North, South, East, West), or am I
missing something?
James
Franco however as our lead…God bless him he’s doing his best. There are moments
when he really shines. But when he really has to show the suave, charismatic
side of this character, the cracks in his performance form. You just can’t help
but see that creepy, weird James Franco face behind it, trying to be
charismatic. Overall he did a fine job, but I wish Robert Downey Jr. didn’t
turn down the role. Meanwhile, Zac Braff may steal the show as the adorable
comic relief, Finley the Monkey.
Oz The Great & Powerful is a truly enjoyable film. It offers
something slightly new, yet slightly familiar, and I recommend it to any
filmgoer. And also keep an eye out for little references to The Wizard of Oz throughout the film.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Film Review- "Les Miserables"
Les Miserables
Directed By Tom Hooper
Starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, Russell Crow as Inspector Javert, Anne Hathaway as Fantine
I had never seen the musical and I had never read the novel. All I knew is that almost everyone declared Les Miserables as "the best musical ever". Now I have seen the film, and I can see why people love it so much. You can officially add me in to the Les Miserables Fan Club. I can't stop singing the songs to myself or listening to the soundtrack on Youtube. So the only thing left to do is review the film.
Set in France during The Revolution, Jean Valjean (Jackman), is finally released from prison on parole after nineteen hard years. Marked as a convict by his papers and ostracized by society, Valjean turns to stealing priceless silver from a convent. When he is caught, The Bishop convinces the officers he gave him the silver as a gift, and then tells Valjean he has saved his soul for God. Touched by the Bishop's actions, Valjean breaks parole and assumes a new identity.
Years later he has become a wealthy mayor and factory owner. At said factory, a young woman Fantine (Hathaway) is fired after it is discovered she is sending money to her daughter Cosette. Fantine is forced to sell her hair and teeth, and become a prostitute. Feeling responsible, Valjean promises her on her deathbed he will care for Cosette as his own. Meanwhile, Javert discovers Valjean's true identity and seeks to return him to prison.
It's tough to explain the rest of the story without going into too much detail. The plot is not as straight forward in the second half as it is in the first, as we witness, in addition to all this, a love triangle and the perils of the French Revolution. Les Miserables is something of a character study, but a damn good one nonetheless. You fall in love with these characters and you understand their pain, from Valjean's quest to become a better man, to Fantine's futile struggle for a better life. I must admit I did get antsy when the focus of the film turned to the love story of Marius and Cosette and away from Valjean. It sort of slows the film down, and their romance seemed rushed and underdeveloped (They do fall in love rather quickly, like the leads in a Disney movie).
Hugh Jackman is on his A-Game, brining to life one of the greatest characters ever known, and he makes the role his own. Anne Hathaway will break your heart as Fantine. Both actors are serious contenders for this upcoming awards season, and should bring home some gold. Russell Crowe as Javert is great, and the chemistry he has with Jackman is perfect. The supporting cast is spectacular. Everyone hits their marks.
The singing is just as wonderful as the acting. Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" will move you to tears. Russell Crowe, who was the only one I was concerned about, surprised me. There are a few moments where he appears shaky, but he's giving it his all here. Director Tom Hooper's decision to have the cast sing live gives the film such raw power audiences have never seen in film musicals. When we see the actors sing, it's real vocals, and real emotions that makes the film itself more real and the audience heavily invested. Dare I say it, the genre of film musical has been redefined.
Many have had mixed emotions with Hooper's choice of cinematography. There are many long-takes of close ups on actors as they sing. I myself am torn over this aspect. On one hand it gives us a better glimpse into the performances were watching, while on the other it somewhat robs the film of its production value (There's only so much of Revolutionary France you can see in a close-up). I admire Hooper's decisions as a filmmaker, and I do find that for most of the film, they pay off.
Les Miserables is probably one of, if not the best musical-to-film adaptions ever done. A well-assembled cast and director make it so. There are aspects of the film that may not be for everyone, but it is definitely worth seeing, as it will be a force to be reckoned with come awards season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)