Get your Portable ID!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Toy Story 3 Review
One day there will come a day when a PIXAR film fails to meet my increasing expectations, but it is not this day. It is on this day that it brings me great joy to say that there is a strong possibility that “Toy Story 3” will be the best film I see all year. It’s only June but I’m willing to bet my summer paycheck that “Toy Story 3” will be #1 on my top 10 films of 2010. Not only is it a wonderfully engaging roller coaster of laughs, chills, and tears (lots and lots of tears); it is also a wise and special meditation on issues such as friendship, loyalty, and growing up.
But let me make one thing clear right from the get-go, “Toy Story 3” is not a perfect movie. The first half of the film is not up to PIXAR’s usual standards, but that’s not really a complaint considering that the first half is very good. It’s just not the perfect PIXAR film it turns into at the half-way mark. During the first half, some of the scenes didn’t grab me as much I would’ve liked them to and some of the gags feel forced and unnecessary in a film like this. I was also not very interested in the Ken character during the first half, but his presence greatly improved as the film went on. These are minor complaints in an otherwise fantastic film.
One of the things that PIXAR has gotten really good at over the years is making us like the heroes of their films almost instantly. Being that I have loved these characters since I was five years old, I was on their side from second one. But to go the extra mile, each character has their own little moment of reintroduction that reminds us why we love them so much. The screenplay also manages to give each character a lot of depth and complexity, something that animated films rarely do these days, and it makes us root and care for these characters as if they were family members. The voice actors also give top-notch performances, especially returning voice actors such as Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, and PIXAR’s lucky charm John Ratzenberger. Veteran actor Ned Beatty voices the film’s villain named Lotso (nicknamed after the strawberry smelling Lots-O-Huggin stuffed bear) and he is fantastic. He steals almost every scene he is in, because he is such a well-developed villain with a unique motive that almost grants him our sympathy. Lotso has become one of my favorite PIXAR villains of all time. Michael Keaton is also very good as Ken, Barbie’s significant other.
PIXAR has said from the get-go that they will not do a sequel unless they can come up with a story that is as good as the originals, and that promise has not been broken. The story of “Toy Story 3” is an absolute triumph of creativity and imagination. Right from the beginning it grabs you in a manner that feels unexpected and exciting at the same time. It makes you fall in love with these characters all over again in ways you can’t even conceive of. Sure the pacing is a little off during the first half of the film, but when it reaches the half-way point “Toy Story 3” starts to fire on all cylinders and it doesn’t stop until the theater lights come up.
The second half of “Toy Story 3” is perfect. It delivers both story-wise and emotionally, and sometimes at the same time. I guarantee that you will love this film due to the second half, because it is the best 55 minutes of a film I have ever sat through. And then there’s the final scene.
Oh my God, what an ending! I dare not give anything away but that will not stop me from talking about how powerfully moving and satisfying it is. It’s such a bittersweet and touching moment that will make even the hardest of men break down into tears. Saying that I cried at the end of this film is a big understatement. I sobbed at the end of “Toy Story 3”. I almost had to get up and walk out because I was sobbing so hard. I sobbed so hard my body started to shake. I know this sounds extremely over dramatic, but it is true. This is the hardest I have ever cried during a film in my life, and I’ve seen a lot of sad movies. I dare you not to tear up at the end of “Toy Story 3”, but you will give in no matter what.
I don’t want to sound like I’m repeating everybody when I say that the animation is perfect. The animations of all the characters are excellent, and this world that the film takes place in feels alive and real. Even the smallest technical details give the film that extra layer of realism. There are also a ton of inside jokes and brilliant nods to the previous films. Fans of “My Neighbor Totoro” will definitely get a kick out of one scene, as well as fans of “The Great Escape” and “Escape from Alcatraz”.
Yes, I forgot to mention a few things such as the stunning action scenes, the excellent dialogue, and some really funny jokes, but you get the idea. Overall, “Toy Story 3” is another monumental achievement from the geniuses at PIXAR that prove time and time again just how committed they are to producing excellence. Fans of animation and film in general should definitely go see this film. It is a fun, exciting, entertaining, sweet, touching, and wise film that jump-starts new life in this dying summer. Go see it. I know I will again. A
But let me make one thing clear right from the get-go, “Toy Story 3” is not a perfect movie. The first half of the film is not up to PIXAR’s usual standards, but that’s not really a complaint considering that the first half is very good. It’s just not the perfect PIXAR film it turns into at the half-way mark. During the first half, some of the scenes didn’t grab me as much I would’ve liked them to and some of the gags feel forced and unnecessary in a film like this. I was also not very interested in the Ken character during the first half, but his presence greatly improved as the film went on. These are minor complaints in an otherwise fantastic film.
One of the things that PIXAR has gotten really good at over the years is making us like the heroes of their films almost instantly. Being that I have loved these characters since I was five years old, I was on their side from second one. But to go the extra mile, each character has their own little moment of reintroduction that reminds us why we love them so much. The screenplay also manages to give each character a lot of depth and complexity, something that animated films rarely do these days, and it makes us root and care for these characters as if they were family members. The voice actors also give top-notch performances, especially returning voice actors such as Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, and PIXAR’s lucky charm John Ratzenberger. Veteran actor Ned Beatty voices the film’s villain named Lotso (nicknamed after the strawberry smelling Lots-O-Huggin stuffed bear) and he is fantastic. He steals almost every scene he is in, because he is such a well-developed villain with a unique motive that almost grants him our sympathy. Lotso has become one of my favorite PIXAR villains of all time. Michael Keaton is also very good as Ken, Barbie’s significant other.
PIXAR has said from the get-go that they will not do a sequel unless they can come up with a story that is as good as the originals, and that promise has not been broken. The story of “Toy Story 3” is an absolute triumph of creativity and imagination. Right from the beginning it grabs you in a manner that feels unexpected and exciting at the same time. It makes you fall in love with these characters all over again in ways you can’t even conceive of. Sure the pacing is a little off during the first half of the film, but when it reaches the half-way point “Toy Story 3” starts to fire on all cylinders and it doesn’t stop until the theater lights come up.
The second half of “Toy Story 3” is perfect. It delivers both story-wise and emotionally, and sometimes at the same time. I guarantee that you will love this film due to the second half, because it is the best 55 minutes of a film I have ever sat through. And then there’s the final scene.
Oh my God, what an ending! I dare not give anything away but that will not stop me from talking about how powerfully moving and satisfying it is. It’s such a bittersweet and touching moment that will make even the hardest of men break down into tears. Saying that I cried at the end of this film is a big understatement. I sobbed at the end of “Toy Story 3”. I almost had to get up and walk out because I was sobbing so hard. I sobbed so hard my body started to shake. I know this sounds extremely over dramatic, but it is true. This is the hardest I have ever cried during a film in my life, and I’ve seen a lot of sad movies. I dare you not to tear up at the end of “Toy Story 3”, but you will give in no matter what.
I don’t want to sound like I’m repeating everybody when I say that the animation is perfect. The animations of all the characters are excellent, and this world that the film takes place in feels alive and real. Even the smallest technical details give the film that extra layer of realism. There are also a ton of inside jokes and brilliant nods to the previous films. Fans of “My Neighbor Totoro” will definitely get a kick out of one scene, as well as fans of “The Great Escape” and “Escape from Alcatraz”.
Yes, I forgot to mention a few things such as the stunning action scenes, the excellent dialogue, and some really funny jokes, but you get the idea. Overall, “Toy Story 3” is another monumental achievement from the geniuses at PIXAR that prove time and time again just how committed they are to producing excellence. Fans of animation and film in general should definitely go see this film. It is a fun, exciting, entertaining, sweet, touching, and wise film that jump-starts new life in this dying summer. Go see it. I know I will again. A
Shrek Forever After
I admit it. I enjoyed “Shrek Forever After”. There, I said it. Are you happy? After months of saying that it would suck and it was going to be torture watching it, I walked out of “Shrek Forever After” feeling good and displaying a smile. But, I really hope that this truly is the final film in the Shrek franchise. After nine years of being one of the most successful franchises of all time, I hope DreamWorks will allow the big green ogre to rest with the knowledge that he went out in style. I really wanted to hate this film and I was trying to find things in every frame to hate, but I have to admit that I really liked “Shrek Forever After”.
The film begins with showing Shrek’s new life as a father of three. He’s married to Fiona, lives in his swamp, and has frequent family get-togethers with Donkey, Dragon, and their mutant dronkey babies. However, Shrek starts to miss the life he used to have as a care-free and hunted ogre, and by chance runs into a midget by the name of Rumplestiltskin. Rumpy promises to give Shrek 24 hours to live his former life as a mean ogre, and in exchange must give one of his days to get a day. Shrek is tricked into giving the day he was born, thus throwing him into an alternate reality where he was never born. And everything is fucked up. Since it’s in the trailer, I’m not spoiling any of the changes that are in this reality. In this world Donkey doesn’t know Shrek, Puss in Boots has become the new Garfield, Fiona has become Xena Warrior Ogre, and Rumplestiltskin has become the king of Far Far Away. From there, Shrek must find a way escape this new reality and get back to the life he had.
I’m just going to get the negatives out of the way first. The marketing campaign for this film was awful. In every trailer, they pick out almost all of the bad jokes and throw them in the trailer. And they are just as painful to watch in the film. I’d say that I laughed at the jokes in “Shrek Forever After” 45% of the time, and that’s still very low for an animated comedy. However, it is a major improvement over “Shrek the Third’s” 0.01% laugh rate. There is also a character that you don’t see in the trailer, but he is completely useless. He is not integral to the plot, not funny, and he’s only there to reinforce the reason to have a crappy dance number. Speaking of which, I didn’t see it in 3-D and I never will. But it is very obvious that the scenes where staged to be in 3-D. The animators manage to cram every scene with something that would fly out at the audience if they saw it in 3-D, but in 2-D it’s just annoying. Also, some of the running jokes in the first two are reintroduced in this film, but they’ve really beat them into the ground. In “Shrek 2”, Puss in Boots doing the cute, big-eyes look was hysterical. In “Shrek Forever After”, the old joke is poorly executed and really just there for a cheap laugh. There are also new ogre characters that could’ve been potentially funny and they could’ve gotten some great laughs out of it, but they are just wasted.
Now complaints aside, the film is a major improvement over the god-awful “Shrek the Third”. While “Shrek the Third” was horribly written, annoyingly voiced, offensively stupid pile of crap, “Shrek Forever After” is funny, entertaining, and has its heart in the right place. This film rightfully focuses on Shrek and Fiona’s love rather than Shrek trying to find some heir to the throne of Far Far Away, and that’s where it soars. The scenes where Shrek is falling in love with Fiona all over again are sweet, heartfelt, and they really make you root for and care about Shrek. You want him to succeed in the end. You want him to get the girl, again.
They also go the extra mile by making Shrek’s problems relatable to any father, and that alone is worth a good amount of recognition. This is one of the very few DreamWorks films that express mature situations, but they don’t play it down just so the kids will be able to understand it. The people at DreamWorks are giving kids a lot more credit to their intelligence than they do in most of their films, and understand that kids can accept mature material and will be able to take it in stride.
Another very good thing about this film is that even though there are a few pop culture jokes, they are the right ones. They aren’t offensively lazy, and they are actually integrated well into the plot and are worthy of a chuckle. When the film is funny, it is really funny. There is a line in a film I have been repeating all weekend and it is one of the biggest laughs in a long time. You’ll know what it is if you see the film, but it involves a fat kid with a lollipop. Also instead of being annoying like he was in the third film, Eddie Murphy has returned Donkey to his lovable old ways. There were just random moments of hilarity that spout out of Donkey’s mouth that reminded me that Eddie Murphy is talented. Now if only he would just stop starring in all these fucking family films.
The voice acting is also a major improvement from the previous film. We no longer have any of the annoying characters that were introduced or re-introduced in “Shrek the Third”. Justin Timberlake as that annoying Artie kid is gone. THANK GOD!!!! All of the lame fairytale villains from The Poison Apple are gone. MUCH APPRECIATED!!! Prince Charming has finally been erased from the Shrek universe. He was great in the second one, but he was just stupid in the third one. Mike Myers is still great as Shrek. Cameron Diaz is as awesome as ever as Fiona. Antonio Banderas is great as Puss in Boots once again. And the new villain Rumplestiltskin (voiced by Walt Dohrn) is funny and chews up the scenery. Gingy and Pinocchio are still voiced excellently, and almost steal the movie for the little time they are on. A very good ensemble cast all around.
And let’s not forget the animation. While the 3-Dness of the film can be annoying, the animation is an absolute pleasure to look at. It’s amazing how far this stuff has come. The environments look like they were ripped out a storybook, the character models are amazing, and the various little things that are going in the environment are fun to look for and discover.
Overall, “Shrek Forever After” is a fun film for the whole family and major improvement over the atrocious third film. The film leaves you feeling good and even though the final line is cheesy, it still warms your heart after all these years of following these characters. Rest in peace Shrek, you’ve earned it. B+
The film begins with showing Shrek’s new life as a father of three. He’s married to Fiona, lives in his swamp, and has frequent family get-togethers with Donkey, Dragon, and their mutant dronkey babies. However, Shrek starts to miss the life he used to have as a care-free and hunted ogre, and by chance runs into a midget by the name of Rumplestiltskin. Rumpy promises to give Shrek 24 hours to live his former life as a mean ogre, and in exchange must give one of his days to get a day. Shrek is tricked into giving the day he was born, thus throwing him into an alternate reality where he was never born. And everything is fucked up. Since it’s in the trailer, I’m not spoiling any of the changes that are in this reality. In this world Donkey doesn’t know Shrek, Puss in Boots has become the new Garfield, Fiona has become Xena Warrior Ogre, and Rumplestiltskin has become the king of Far Far Away. From there, Shrek must find a way escape this new reality and get back to the life he had.
I’m just going to get the negatives out of the way first. The marketing campaign for this film was awful. In every trailer, they pick out almost all of the bad jokes and throw them in the trailer. And they are just as painful to watch in the film. I’d say that I laughed at the jokes in “Shrek Forever After” 45% of the time, and that’s still very low for an animated comedy. However, it is a major improvement over “Shrek the Third’s” 0.01% laugh rate. There is also a character that you don’t see in the trailer, but he is completely useless. He is not integral to the plot, not funny, and he’s only there to reinforce the reason to have a crappy dance number. Speaking of which, I didn’t see it in 3-D and I never will. But it is very obvious that the scenes where staged to be in 3-D. The animators manage to cram every scene with something that would fly out at the audience if they saw it in 3-D, but in 2-D it’s just annoying. Also, some of the running jokes in the first two are reintroduced in this film, but they’ve really beat them into the ground. In “Shrek 2”, Puss in Boots doing the cute, big-eyes look was hysterical. In “Shrek Forever After”, the old joke is poorly executed and really just there for a cheap laugh. There are also new ogre characters that could’ve been potentially funny and they could’ve gotten some great laughs out of it, but they are just wasted.
Now complaints aside, the film is a major improvement over the god-awful “Shrek the Third”. While “Shrek the Third” was horribly written, annoyingly voiced, offensively stupid pile of crap, “Shrek Forever After” is funny, entertaining, and has its heart in the right place. This film rightfully focuses on Shrek and Fiona’s love rather than Shrek trying to find some heir to the throne of Far Far Away, and that’s where it soars. The scenes where Shrek is falling in love with Fiona all over again are sweet, heartfelt, and they really make you root for and care about Shrek. You want him to succeed in the end. You want him to get the girl, again.
They also go the extra mile by making Shrek’s problems relatable to any father, and that alone is worth a good amount of recognition. This is one of the very few DreamWorks films that express mature situations, but they don’t play it down just so the kids will be able to understand it. The people at DreamWorks are giving kids a lot more credit to their intelligence than they do in most of their films, and understand that kids can accept mature material and will be able to take it in stride.
Another very good thing about this film is that even though there are a few pop culture jokes, they are the right ones. They aren’t offensively lazy, and they are actually integrated well into the plot and are worthy of a chuckle. When the film is funny, it is really funny. There is a line in a film I have been repeating all weekend and it is one of the biggest laughs in a long time. You’ll know what it is if you see the film, but it involves a fat kid with a lollipop. Also instead of being annoying like he was in the third film, Eddie Murphy has returned Donkey to his lovable old ways. There were just random moments of hilarity that spout out of Donkey’s mouth that reminded me that Eddie Murphy is talented. Now if only he would just stop starring in all these fucking family films.
The voice acting is also a major improvement from the previous film. We no longer have any of the annoying characters that were introduced or re-introduced in “Shrek the Third”. Justin Timberlake as that annoying Artie kid is gone. THANK GOD!!!! All of the lame fairytale villains from The Poison Apple are gone. MUCH APPRECIATED!!! Prince Charming has finally been erased from the Shrek universe. He was great in the second one, but he was just stupid in the third one. Mike Myers is still great as Shrek. Cameron Diaz is as awesome as ever as Fiona. Antonio Banderas is great as Puss in Boots once again. And the new villain Rumplestiltskin (voiced by Walt Dohrn) is funny and chews up the scenery. Gingy and Pinocchio are still voiced excellently, and almost steal the movie for the little time they are on. A very good ensemble cast all around.
And let’s not forget the animation. While the 3-Dness of the film can be annoying, the animation is an absolute pleasure to look at. It’s amazing how far this stuff has come. The environments look like they were ripped out a storybook, the character models are amazing, and the various little things that are going in the environment are fun to look for and discover.
Overall, “Shrek Forever After” is a fun film for the whole family and major improvement over the atrocious third film. The film leaves you feeling good and even though the final line is cheesy, it still warms your heart after all these years of following these characters. Rest in peace Shrek, you’ve earned it. B+
Iron Man 2 Review
One word: FINALLY!!!!
I have finally seen the first truly spectacular film of 2010. I walked into this film eagerly awaiting what was to come, and I walked out of “Iron Man 2” with a huge smile on my face and a body pumped full of adrenaline. I got a major high off of this film. My hands are still shaking with joy as I’m at my computer typing this review. I can’t contain my enthusiasm and excitement for this film. If you’ve already seen this film, then keep reading. If you haven’t, why the fuck are you still sitting at your computer? Get off your ass and go see “Iron Man 2”. NOW!
“Iron Man 2” begins 6 months after Tony Stark reveals to the world that he is in fact Iron Man. Tony Stark is still that smooth-talking billionaire playboy we remember from the first film. However, Tony starts to realize that what is keeping him alive (the arc reactor in his chest) is also killing him. Plus, he’s running out of way to charge the reactor and needs to discover a better element to charge the reactor. Then you have the subplot about how the U.S. government wants possession of the Iron Man suit. And the one about the increasing sexual tension between Tony and his assistant Pepper Potts, and the fact that a new potential love interest arrives on the scene in the form of Natalie Rushman. And let’s not forget about the subplot involving a Russian physicist named Ivan Vanko who decides to kill Tony Stark for past transgressions against his family. And how does Ivan decide to exact his revenge? By creating his own arc reactor and using its power to create electric whips.
My biggest concern walking into this film was all the subplots. Subplots could be the kiss of death for a film if not juggled fluently and entertainingly. Past victims have included “Batman & Robin”, “X-Men: The Last Stand”, and the awful “Spider-Man 3”. Thankfully, “Iron Man 2” never allows itself to drown in its subplots. All of the subplots in this film provide their own reasons why they are vital to the story and how important they are in the long run. One subplot that I know that has been getting a lot of bad reception is the subplot involving Tony’s father, Howard Stark. I actually found that subplot to be rather interesting because it reveals a new side of Tony Stark. It allows Stark to overcome his own doubts and fears, and for him to come to the realization that he was born to be Iron Man. But my favorite subplot involves Iron Man being challenged by Ivan Vanko, who becomes Whiplash. A big reason why the subplot works incredibly well is the great performance from Mickey Rourke. He is everything you want a comic-book villain to be: creepy, intimidating, and downright menacing. But Mickey Rourke adds a whole other layer to Whiplash that raises him from being a good villain to a great one. And when you have Iron Man and Whiplash duking it out, shit hits the fan. Hardcore.
Speaking of hardcore, the action in this film is a major improvement over the first one. While the first film had a few good action scenes, this film has many fantastic action scenes. The last 20 to 30 minutes of “Iron Man 2” is the best action scene I’ve had the thrill of watching since the Bat-pod chase in “The Dark Knight”. The scene is so crazy and so fucking awesome that I thought I was going to have a heart attack. In fact, every action scene in this film is amazing. The stunts are expertly done, and they are a blast to watch. Another thing that increases the quality of the action scenes are the visual effects, which are some of the best I have ever seen. It’s the littlest details that truly bring the effects to life. The way Whiplash’s electric whips radiate and seem to have a mind of their own. The ways the Iron Man suits look also add another level of awesome to the effects.
One of the strongest points of the first film was the acting, and that is even better here. Robert Downey Jr. is still brilliant as Tony Stark. I cannot imagine another actor playing Stark and giving him the same charisma and charm that Downey Jr. brings to the table. He is so cocky to the point of being a complete asshole, but we still like him and definitely root for him. Gwyneth Paltrow is also great once again as Stark’s loyal assistant. Don Cheadle (replacing Terrance Howard) is fantastic as Stark’s friend James Rhodes, who eventually becomes War Machine. Sam Rockwell is also a superb casting choice as Stark’s business rival Justin Hammer. His slimy personality never gets old as the film progresses. But the one actor who I really wasn’t expecting anything good from was Scarlett Johansson, but she gives a good performance in what little screen time she has. An appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury is also welcomed with open arms. Garry Shandling is great, plus he gets to deliver one of the film’s funniest lines. Hell, even the routine Stan Lee cameo was good.
The one minor complaint I have against “Iron Man 2” (and keep in mind people, one minor complaint in an otherwise incredible movie) is that I didn’t feel the script was as witty as it was in the original. Don’t get me wrong, the script works very well but there really is no big pop to the dialogue like in the first film, especially during the second-third of the film. Other than that, no complaints.
Overall, “Iron Man 2” is the perfect summer film. It makes you walk out feeling good and excited. I can’t wait to see this film again. I recommend it to anybody looking to have a fun time at the movie theater this weekend. “Iron Man 2” is the sequel I was praying and hoping for, and it’s one of the best Marvel films ever made. A-
I have finally seen the first truly spectacular film of 2010. I walked into this film eagerly awaiting what was to come, and I walked out of “Iron Man 2” with a huge smile on my face and a body pumped full of adrenaline. I got a major high off of this film. My hands are still shaking with joy as I’m at my computer typing this review. I can’t contain my enthusiasm and excitement for this film. If you’ve already seen this film, then keep reading. If you haven’t, why the fuck are you still sitting at your computer? Get off your ass and go see “Iron Man 2”. NOW!
“Iron Man 2” begins 6 months after Tony Stark reveals to the world that he is in fact Iron Man. Tony Stark is still that smooth-talking billionaire playboy we remember from the first film. However, Tony starts to realize that what is keeping him alive (the arc reactor in his chest) is also killing him. Plus, he’s running out of way to charge the reactor and needs to discover a better element to charge the reactor. Then you have the subplot about how the U.S. government wants possession of the Iron Man suit. And the one about the increasing sexual tension between Tony and his assistant Pepper Potts, and the fact that a new potential love interest arrives on the scene in the form of Natalie Rushman. And let’s not forget about the subplot involving a Russian physicist named Ivan Vanko who decides to kill Tony Stark for past transgressions against his family. And how does Ivan decide to exact his revenge? By creating his own arc reactor and using its power to create electric whips.
My biggest concern walking into this film was all the subplots. Subplots could be the kiss of death for a film if not juggled fluently and entertainingly. Past victims have included “Batman & Robin”, “X-Men: The Last Stand”, and the awful “Spider-Man 3”. Thankfully, “Iron Man 2” never allows itself to drown in its subplots. All of the subplots in this film provide their own reasons why they are vital to the story and how important they are in the long run. One subplot that I know that has been getting a lot of bad reception is the subplot involving Tony’s father, Howard Stark. I actually found that subplot to be rather interesting because it reveals a new side of Tony Stark. It allows Stark to overcome his own doubts and fears, and for him to come to the realization that he was born to be Iron Man. But my favorite subplot involves Iron Man being challenged by Ivan Vanko, who becomes Whiplash. A big reason why the subplot works incredibly well is the great performance from Mickey Rourke. He is everything you want a comic-book villain to be: creepy, intimidating, and downright menacing. But Mickey Rourke adds a whole other layer to Whiplash that raises him from being a good villain to a great one. And when you have Iron Man and Whiplash duking it out, shit hits the fan. Hardcore.
Speaking of hardcore, the action in this film is a major improvement over the first one. While the first film had a few good action scenes, this film has many fantastic action scenes. The last 20 to 30 minutes of “Iron Man 2” is the best action scene I’ve had the thrill of watching since the Bat-pod chase in “The Dark Knight”. The scene is so crazy and so fucking awesome that I thought I was going to have a heart attack. In fact, every action scene in this film is amazing. The stunts are expertly done, and they are a blast to watch. Another thing that increases the quality of the action scenes are the visual effects, which are some of the best I have ever seen. It’s the littlest details that truly bring the effects to life. The way Whiplash’s electric whips radiate and seem to have a mind of their own. The ways the Iron Man suits look also add another level of awesome to the effects.
One of the strongest points of the first film was the acting, and that is even better here. Robert Downey Jr. is still brilliant as Tony Stark. I cannot imagine another actor playing Stark and giving him the same charisma and charm that Downey Jr. brings to the table. He is so cocky to the point of being a complete asshole, but we still like him and definitely root for him. Gwyneth Paltrow is also great once again as Stark’s loyal assistant. Don Cheadle (replacing Terrance Howard) is fantastic as Stark’s friend James Rhodes, who eventually becomes War Machine. Sam Rockwell is also a superb casting choice as Stark’s business rival Justin Hammer. His slimy personality never gets old as the film progresses. But the one actor who I really wasn’t expecting anything good from was Scarlett Johansson, but she gives a good performance in what little screen time she has. An appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury is also welcomed with open arms. Garry Shandling is great, plus he gets to deliver one of the film’s funniest lines. Hell, even the routine Stan Lee cameo was good.
The one minor complaint I have against “Iron Man 2” (and keep in mind people, one minor complaint in an otherwise incredible movie) is that I didn’t feel the script was as witty as it was in the original. Don’t get me wrong, the script works very well but there really is no big pop to the dialogue like in the first film, especially during the second-third of the film. Other than that, no complaints.
Overall, “Iron Man 2” is the perfect summer film. It makes you walk out feeling good and excited. I can’t wait to see this film again. I recommend it to anybody looking to have a fun time at the movie theater this weekend. “Iron Man 2” is the sequel I was praying and hoping for, and it’s one of the best Marvel films ever made. A-
Alice in Wonderland Review
Tim Burton is a visual wizard, and there is no denying that. He has taken the works of Stephen Sondheim, Bob Kane, Roald Dahl, Washington Irving, and now Lewis Carroll and has turned them all into wonderful visual gems. However, sometimes Tim Burton’s creepy, quirky, and sometimes just bizarre directing style doesn’t quite mix with the original works. It worked wonderfully with “Sweeney Todd”, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, and “Sleepy Hollow”. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for “Alice in Wonderland”, Tim Burton’s latest visual gem. Even though I would be the first to admit that “Alice in Wonderland” is gorgeous to look at (especially in IMAX) and the cast of actors is mostly excellent, the source material’s mood and attitude rarely shines through the clouds of Tim Burton’s weird yet very entertaining directing style.
Alice is now 19 years old. Her father has passed away and she’s about to be proposed to by a snooty aristocrat in front of many esteemed members of Victorian society. Just as her intended fiancé proposes to her, she sees a white rabbit with a waistcoat and pocket watch, and in typical Alice fashion she (predictably) follows it. And where does that lead her? Unless you’ve been living in a cave for 200 years, you know she tumbles down the rabbit hole. And unless you are a complete idiot, you know that Alice ends up in Wonderland (the real name of the place is actually Underland). In Wonderland, Alice meets many weird and bizarre characters such as the Cheshire Cat, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the hookah-smoking Caterpillar, and of course the Mad Hatter. Alice is then told it is her destiny to fight the evil Red Queen and slay the Jabberwocky, and there her strange adventure begins.
As a warning for all you Lewis Carroll purists out there, stay away from this film. If you go into it expecting a faithful rendering of Lewis Carroll’s mad world, you are going to walk out of the theater pissed off. This is more of a Tim Burton film than a reimagining of Lewis Carroll’s universe and unless you are a big Tim Burton fan like me, you will have no idea what I mean. Half of the time the madness of Lewis Carroll and quirkiness of Tim Burton balance out wonderfully. The other half of the time, one element heavily outweighs the other and it’s always the wrong one. When a scene requires more of Lewis Carroll’s zany incomprehension, Tim Burton’s deranged style always overshadows the more important factor. When Tim Burton is needed to spice things up, we are left with Lewis Carroll’s bland taste in our mouths. But the times that the balance is perfect, the effects are truly remarkable. I felt a sense of true wonder and intrigue during those scenes. The script (written by Disney vet Linda Woolverton) captures a great deal of Carroll’s original vision during the first half of the film. But the second half could not match the brilliance and wonder of the first. The film ends safe with a typical CGI battle scene that isn’t particularly good, and how the battle is ended isn’t very rewarding.
One of the film’s greatest strength lies with its actors, and there are plenty of fine performances here. Newcomer Mia Wasikowska is a revelation as Alice. She perfectly captures Alice’s sense of adventure and presents herself as a strong female character and a more than worthy choice of taking on the lead role. Unlike so many other films with quirky characters, Wasikowska never lets herself become a backdrop for the cast of colorful characters. Whenever it seems she will become a backdrop, she provides a reason why she is just as interesting as the CGI characters. Helena Bonham Carter is an absolute joy to watch. I think I laughed out loud every time she screamed at the top of her lungs “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!” She brings a cold, yet strangely appealing zest to her performance as the Red Queen and I almost forgot that it was Tim Burton’s girlfriend who was playing this role. I really felt like this role belonged to her, and she took it and owned it. Anne Hathaway is also very good as the White Queen, a cute yet deranged Glenda-like witch. The voice-acting is probably even better than the live-action performances. Michael Sheen is great as the legendary White Rabbit. Timothy Spall does a marvelous job as a heroic bloodhound. Matt Lucas is hysterical as both Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Alan Rickman is fantastic as the (heavily underused) Caterpillar. But the finest performance in the film comes from Stephen Fry who voices the Cheshire Cat. His wicked sensuality and incredible voice combine to make a compelling and thoroughly entertaining performance. I loved listening to the Cheshire Cat as much as I did looking at him, and that’s saying a lot.
And for those of you saying to yourselves “hey, Dr. Razak hasn’t mentioned Johnny Depp yet”, don’t worry he’s next. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johnny Depp’s highly publicized performance as the Mad Hatter. As many of you know, Johnny Depp is my favorite actor working in Hollywood today and he always brings a unique flavor and zest to each of his roles. For the Mad Hatter, he does bring a unique flavor and zest to the character but he’s not a compelling character. It’s the strangest thing. His performance contains everything I love in a bizarre Johnny Depp performance but for this kind of material, the way he plays the character is almost completely inappropriate. Now I’m not saying I hated Johnny Depp’s performance (he nailed the tea party scene), but it’s not as enjoyable to watch as his performances in other Tim Burton films. Another performance I didn’t particularly care for was Crispin Glover’s performance as the Knave of Hearts. He felt completely out of place and was nowhere near as interesting as the Red Queen and the Mad Hatter.
But the main attraction of “Alice in Wonderland” is the computer generated imagery, and let me tell you that the special effects in this film are absolutely stunning. I loved looking at “Alice in Wonderland” more than liked looking at Pandora. The landscape is so colorful and creative that I felt like I had completely left Earth and had been cast into Wonderland. Many of the sets are also incredible. The Red Queen’s castle is a sight to behold, and the White Queen’s castle looks like something out of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel. All of the CGI characters are animated beautifully. The Cheshire Cat looks fantastic, Tweedledee and Tweedledum are creepily charming, and the Caterpillar is wonderfully animated.
But the visual appeal of this film isn’t flawless. I didn’t like the way the Red Queen’s card soldiers looked. I thought they looked very clunky and not very cool to look at. A character exclusion that I found very disappointing was that of the talking doorknob. As a child, that was one of my favorite characters from the 1951 animated “Alice in Wonderland” and I was very disappointed that the talking doorknob wasn’t included in this film. A wonderful CGI trick performed in the film is Helena Bonham Carter’s large head. The way they enlarge her head to match her ego is hilarious and her first appearance is one of the best scenes in the film.
For those interested in seeing it in IMAX, it is definitely worth the hefty ticket price. The scope is so wide and expansive. You actually feel like you are tumbling down the rabbit hole, and I ducked when the March Hare threw a tea cup at the screen. It’s a great experience if you are willing to give up a well-spent $16.
Overall, “Alice in Wonderland” isn’t the great follow-up to “Sweeney Todd” I was hoping for and it’s certainly not one of Tim Burton’s best, but it’s still an entertaining film that took my breath away during certain moments. B
Alice is now 19 years old. Her father has passed away and she’s about to be proposed to by a snooty aristocrat in front of many esteemed members of Victorian society. Just as her intended fiancé proposes to her, she sees a white rabbit with a waistcoat and pocket watch, and in typical Alice fashion she (predictably) follows it. And where does that lead her? Unless you’ve been living in a cave for 200 years, you know she tumbles down the rabbit hole. And unless you are a complete idiot, you know that Alice ends up in Wonderland (the real name of the place is actually Underland). In Wonderland, Alice meets many weird and bizarre characters such as the Cheshire Cat, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the hookah-smoking Caterpillar, and of course the Mad Hatter. Alice is then told it is her destiny to fight the evil Red Queen and slay the Jabberwocky, and there her strange adventure begins.
As a warning for all you Lewis Carroll purists out there, stay away from this film. If you go into it expecting a faithful rendering of Lewis Carroll’s mad world, you are going to walk out of the theater pissed off. This is more of a Tim Burton film than a reimagining of Lewis Carroll’s universe and unless you are a big Tim Burton fan like me, you will have no idea what I mean. Half of the time the madness of Lewis Carroll and quirkiness of Tim Burton balance out wonderfully. The other half of the time, one element heavily outweighs the other and it’s always the wrong one. When a scene requires more of Lewis Carroll’s zany incomprehension, Tim Burton’s deranged style always overshadows the more important factor. When Tim Burton is needed to spice things up, we are left with Lewis Carroll’s bland taste in our mouths. But the times that the balance is perfect, the effects are truly remarkable. I felt a sense of true wonder and intrigue during those scenes. The script (written by Disney vet Linda Woolverton) captures a great deal of Carroll’s original vision during the first half of the film. But the second half could not match the brilliance and wonder of the first. The film ends safe with a typical CGI battle scene that isn’t particularly good, and how the battle is ended isn’t very rewarding.
One of the film’s greatest strength lies with its actors, and there are plenty of fine performances here. Newcomer Mia Wasikowska is a revelation as Alice. She perfectly captures Alice’s sense of adventure and presents herself as a strong female character and a more than worthy choice of taking on the lead role. Unlike so many other films with quirky characters, Wasikowska never lets herself become a backdrop for the cast of colorful characters. Whenever it seems she will become a backdrop, she provides a reason why she is just as interesting as the CGI characters. Helena Bonham Carter is an absolute joy to watch. I think I laughed out loud every time she screamed at the top of her lungs “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!” She brings a cold, yet strangely appealing zest to her performance as the Red Queen and I almost forgot that it was Tim Burton’s girlfriend who was playing this role. I really felt like this role belonged to her, and she took it and owned it. Anne Hathaway is also very good as the White Queen, a cute yet deranged Glenda-like witch. The voice-acting is probably even better than the live-action performances. Michael Sheen is great as the legendary White Rabbit. Timothy Spall does a marvelous job as a heroic bloodhound. Matt Lucas is hysterical as both Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Alan Rickman is fantastic as the (heavily underused) Caterpillar. But the finest performance in the film comes from Stephen Fry who voices the Cheshire Cat. His wicked sensuality and incredible voice combine to make a compelling and thoroughly entertaining performance. I loved listening to the Cheshire Cat as much as I did looking at him, and that’s saying a lot.
And for those of you saying to yourselves “hey, Dr. Razak hasn’t mentioned Johnny Depp yet”, don’t worry he’s next. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johnny Depp’s highly publicized performance as the Mad Hatter. As many of you know, Johnny Depp is my favorite actor working in Hollywood today and he always brings a unique flavor and zest to each of his roles. For the Mad Hatter, he does bring a unique flavor and zest to the character but he’s not a compelling character. It’s the strangest thing. His performance contains everything I love in a bizarre Johnny Depp performance but for this kind of material, the way he plays the character is almost completely inappropriate. Now I’m not saying I hated Johnny Depp’s performance (he nailed the tea party scene), but it’s not as enjoyable to watch as his performances in other Tim Burton films. Another performance I didn’t particularly care for was Crispin Glover’s performance as the Knave of Hearts. He felt completely out of place and was nowhere near as interesting as the Red Queen and the Mad Hatter.
But the main attraction of “Alice in Wonderland” is the computer generated imagery, and let me tell you that the special effects in this film are absolutely stunning. I loved looking at “Alice in Wonderland” more than liked looking at Pandora. The landscape is so colorful and creative that I felt like I had completely left Earth and had been cast into Wonderland. Many of the sets are also incredible. The Red Queen’s castle is a sight to behold, and the White Queen’s castle looks like something out of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel. All of the CGI characters are animated beautifully. The Cheshire Cat looks fantastic, Tweedledee and Tweedledum are creepily charming, and the Caterpillar is wonderfully animated.
But the visual appeal of this film isn’t flawless. I didn’t like the way the Red Queen’s card soldiers looked. I thought they looked very clunky and not very cool to look at. A character exclusion that I found very disappointing was that of the talking doorknob. As a child, that was one of my favorite characters from the 1951 animated “Alice in Wonderland” and I was very disappointed that the talking doorknob wasn’t included in this film. A wonderful CGI trick performed in the film is Helena Bonham Carter’s large head. The way they enlarge her head to match her ego is hilarious and her first appearance is one of the best scenes in the film.
For those interested in seeing it in IMAX, it is definitely worth the hefty ticket price. The scope is so wide and expansive. You actually feel like you are tumbling down the rabbit hole, and I ducked when the March Hare threw a tea cup at the screen. It’s a great experience if you are willing to give up a well-spent $16.
Overall, “Alice in Wonderland” isn’t the great follow-up to “Sweeney Todd” I was hoping for and it’s certainly not one of Tim Burton’s best, but it’s still an entertaining film that took my breath away during certain moments. B
TOP 10 OF 2009
1. Up
2. Coraline
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Star Trek
5. Up in the Air
6. A Christmas Carol
7. District 9
8. The Hangover
9. The Hurt Locker
10. Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
2. Coraline
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Star Trek
5. Up in the Air
6. A Christmas Carol
7. District 9
8. The Hangover
9. The Hurt Locker
10. Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Christmas Carol Review
There are many people who looked at the trailer for this and said “bah! Humbug!” I wasn’t a part of that crowd; I openly embraced the idea of re-imagining this classic Christmas story (hey, it beats running “A Christmas Story” for 24 hours on TBS on Christmas Day). I am also not a part of the crowd that believes that the performance-capture technology makes the characters look like soul-less zombies. I thought all the characters in “A Polar Express” and “Beowulf” looked fine and the attention to detail was off the charts. But I’m not saying that I didn’t have my concerns. Ever since they announced that Jim Carrey was cast as the three ghosts and Scrooge, I was excited but I was also thinking: “please don’t turn this into another Grinch”. And by that I mean the over-the-top and wacky Jim Carrey, as seen in “The Mask” and “Ace Ventura”. So went to see it today, and I walked out in love with this movie. I have seen the George C. Scott version, the Muppets version, and the Disney version, but I consider Robert Zemeckis’ version to be the best. It has everything that the other versions were missing and more.
The tale is timeless. It revolves around a selfish, grouchy old man named Ebenezer Scrooge who hates Christmas and pretty much anything jolly. But one Christmas Eve, he’s visited by three ghosts that are to help him realize the error of his ways and help him become a better man.
Many have complained about the fact that this film is way too frightening for small children, but what many of those people don’t realize is that “A Christmas Carol” was not written to be a Christmas tale, it was actually written as a horror story. What’s so great about this version is that Zemeckis nails bringing the horror elements to life, but he still manages to tug at your heartstrings with the Tiny Tim situation. Also, a lot of the story’s famous scenes are presented in a whole new way through stunning CG and some of the best usage of IMAX 3-D I have ever seen. Some of the scenes in this film are jaw-dropping, such as when Scrooge meets the Ghost of Christmas Present. Scrooge walks in the room and he enters a giant, lavish room decorated with Christmas items and the room sparkles with gold, green, and red. I was stunned beyond my wildest dreams, because I was not prepared for such a breathtaking sight. There are also rollercoaster ride scenes in the film that are actually quite amazing and don’t distract you from the original story. One of those rollercoaster ride scenes is when the Ghost of Christmas Past flies Scrooge through a snow covered forest and the city of London at night. Both scenes make you feel like you’re being lifted out of your chair and your soaring around the theater (especially in IMAX).
But on the other hand, the horror elements of the story are present and are quite frightening to watch. There are moments where I jumped out my seat, and ones where I felt really, really creeped out. There was a 5 year old boy with his father sitting next to me and during one frightening scene towards the end, they left the movie. “A Christmas Carol” is rated PG for scary sequences and images, and therefore many 1-6 year olds will not be able to handle this movie. I’m not insulting your kids, but there are some scenes in this film are pretty fucking disturbing. And if you see it in IMAX, it will probably be twice as frightening (since I saw it in both regular and IMAX presentation). Many people will read this and say: “it’s A Christmas Carol. It is appropriate for my 4 year old. How bad can it be?” For your four year-old, pretty bad.
Another great feature of the performance capture is the transformation of the actors. Jim Carrey is absolutely amazing as Scrooge and the three ghosts. With Scrooge, Carrey uses Scrooge’s physicality to his full advantage. He lurches forward, creepily moves his fingers, and talks in a bitter fashion. You forget it is Jim Carrey after 30 seconds. He also plays the three ghosts brilliantly, especially the Ghost of Christmas Present. Gary Oldman also does an incredible job as Bob Cratchit and the ghost of Jacob Marley.
Now, there is one particular scene from the film that I did not like. When the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come chases after Scrooge, Scrooge is shrunken and then has the squeaky voice. That scene is played for laughs but I did not care for it. I felt it was unnecessary and it just wasn’t that funny.
Overall, “A Christmas Carol” delivers on everything I wanted from the film and it gives me a new sense of appreciation for the classic tale. The performance capture technology and the IMAX 3-D make a great combination, and it takes you on the ride of a lifetime. Although it’s not for the little ones, this movie will delight both older kids and adults. And people, see it in IMAX. This is one of those films that needs to be seen in that format. A
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)