|
Post by Trey_Vore on Oct 23, 2021 13:49:25 GMT -5
The Lion King (1994)
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures Director: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff Cast: Johnathan Taylor Thomas (Cub Simba), Matthew Broderick (Adult Simba), Niketa Calame (Cub Nala), Moira Kelly (Adult Nala), James Earl Jones (Mufasa), Jeremy Irons (Scar), Nathan Lane (Timon), Ernie Sabella (Pumbaa), Robert Guillaume (Rafiki), Rowan Atkinson (Zazu), Whoopi Goldberg (Shenzi), Cheech Marin (Banzai), Jim Cummings (Ed) Runtime: 88 min. MPAA rating: G (all ages admitted)
This movie is about a lion cub named Simba who is born into royalty and his father Mufasa tells him that one day his time as ruler of the Pridelands will set and rise with him. Simba can’t wait to be the one running all the fun, but his villainous uncle Scar will not stand for the fact he can’t be king as long as his brother and nephew are alive and works out a scheme to eliminate them. Arranging for Mufasa’s murder in a wildebeest stampede, Scar deceives Simba into thinking he was responsible for his father’s death and tells him to run away and never return. From there, Simba meets a pair of outcasts in the form of a meerkat named Timon and his warthog buddy Pumbaa where they teach him about their “Hakuna Matata” lifestyle. He stays with them until his childhood friend Nala, on a hunt for help finds him now grown up and romance blooms between them. Along with some wise words from the mystic shaman Rafiki, Simba learns the Pridelands are in ruins now that Scar has usurped the throne. So, with all that in mind, can Simba swallow his pride, face his past and overthrow Scar, thereby giving the Pridelands a king who will rule over with a gentle heart?
Life wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for The Lion King. This was the movie that in all honesty, no one at Disney’s Animation Division wanted to touch. Everyone at Disney’s Animation Department was regarding this movie as mere ‘filler’. It was thought to be nothing more than Bambi in Africa and they thought this was going to be a movie that no one would care for. After The Little Mermaid brought them back to the forefront as an animation powerhouse, Beauty and the Beast got itself a Best Picture nomination and Aladdin was the highest grossing movie of 1992, no one wanted anything to do with this movie; they felt the world was eagerly anticipating Pocahontas.
How wrong they would turn out to be, as this movie would have the opposite effect and turn into their Renaissance Era’s apex film. This ugly duckling did not turn out to be a beautiful swan, oh no, it would turn into a phoenix that would set our hearts ablaze. Maybe it didn’t cover any new ground, and it wound up losing the top box-office spot to Forrest Gump but it did set a record for highest grossing cel-animated film that has yet to be topped.
I will say though, that Forrest Gump did make more money, but The Lion King did sell more tickets; taking into account the fact there were a number of tickets were sold at matinee prices, and kids would not have had any interest in seeing Forrest Gump in that manner. Regardless, I’ll take The Lion King over Forrest Gump any day of the week and thrice on Sunday!
Yes, this movie that no one thought would do much of anything, would speak to us at the very core, and would continue to live on well after its box-office run was completed. It would go on to see merchandise including shirts, school supplies, party supplies, cartoon spin-offs, video games, a Broadway show, etc. The Lion King would do just the opposite of its original intention. Even in theatrical re-releases it continues to outgross new movies to become the weekend’s highest grossing movie.
When my siblings and I saw this movie back in the summer of 1994, we loved it and it stayed with us ever since. We all agree it’s been like their best movie. Maybe it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination but the way I see it, it doesn’t have any need for that award. And why would it? It doesn’t need a Best Picture nomination to prove it’s a masterpiece.
But enough with the backstory, you probably want me to tell you about the movie. It was said to have had an original story, but that claim is debatable. Some say it takes some of its cues from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and other people say there is some similarities to the Japanese anime series Kimba the White Lion. In any case, the execution is what matters and it does so amazingly well; not a single scene in this movie falls flat.
The movie begins with the start of a new day in the African Savannah, where all the animal life arrive at Pride Rock to greet and pay respects to Simba, the newborn king. This is I would say appropriate, as it lets us into the movie’s world in much the same way a baby is born. Unspoiled by life’s hardships and traumatic issues, Simba would grow up in much the same way a child is born, thinking the world is at his feet. Tragedy strikes when his treacherous uncle Scar arranges his father’s murder and suddenly, life doesn’t feel like it’s all peaches and cream. Now thinking he’s responsible for something terrible, he flees into exile and lives his life as a commoner with his friends. However, once Nala discovers he’s in fact alive, she and Rafiki are able to get him to face the skeletons in his closet and remember the ones that he is supposed to care for. It all comes together in a profound way and there’s very little to truly single out as misplaced.
There’s not any doubt that Simba is the identifiable character. He’s like your gateway into the movie’s world as he is the character that grows from thinking the world is at your beck and call, to having to face serious and real issues, make friends and a lover, all the while maturing to becoming selfless and heroic. It all comes in a very strong, cohesive package that one could say speaks for us all. The movie does play with many different emotions and the execution makes it all work so well.
They did an amazing job with the animation as well. Most of the animation is with cels, and they did a fantastic job with the atmosphere; a lot of attention to giving the movie the feel like you are actually in the African Savannah. The color set up does everything right, emphasizing the tone and moods you are supposed to feel. Even the character animation, with everything from how a lion would walk to a small lizard right down to a rhinoceros beetle, is animated with that spot-on precision. I’ll even say that in the Wildebeest Stampede, the most obvious example of the movie’s CGI use that took three years to animate, despite being such primitive CGI amazingly well and still holds up. There is no denying the animation team held nothing back regardless of the movie’s naysayers.
Now to give details to the characters. I’ve already described Simba, being the identifiable character and the one you want to see succeed. Johnathan Taylor Thomas in the role was a great choice as he was best known as playing Randy Taylor on Home Improvement at the time, and he delivers the spunk and sass we would probably think he should have. As an adult lion, Matthew Broderick takes over and does a terrific job balancing knowing when he should be unsure of himself when he knows he must confront his past and being assertive in the right moments. Nala, his classic love interest, goes through his same life changes that he does, in thinking she will become queen, to having to face hardships, to feeling like something needs to be done, to becoming the love of Simba’s life. Mufasa is Simba’s wise and powerful father, who is the benevolent king of Pride Rock. Voiced by the one and only James Earl Jones, there is no denying he was a great choice for a father figure. He gives a very warm presence when Mufasa would need to be receptive, to being stern when he needs to discipline Simba. You are in no doubt you can see a little bit of your real-life father in Mufasa, which makes it all the more tragic when he is murdered in cold blood. Rafiki is the wise mystic shaman and his delivery by Robert Guillaume was very inspired; he does his lines with such heart and appeal that he is a very strong teacher. Zazu, while only a minor character, is appropriately voiced by Rowan Atkinson, making Zazu a stuffy royal advisor who delivers a lot of comedy. You could say that he’s an appropriate support as he gives you reason to side with Simba, much like how if you are watching The Simpsons, that would mean if Simba is Bart Simpson, then Zazu is Principal Skinner. Now Timon and Pumbaa, unquestionably the movie’s darkhorses who you knew you wanted to see more of the moment they appeared onscreen, are a pair of slackers who also have no real direction in life which changes after they meet Simba. They easily could have Scrappies with how they are supposed to be comedic characters in a mostly serious movie, but they are always likable and deliver lots of laughs, keeping a very strong balance between comedy and tragedy. With voices by Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, they have an amazing comedic chemistry and could very well be Disney’s greatest comic sidekick characters; no wonder they are considered to be Simba’s co-stars despite the fact they are introduced only when the movie is half-over. They also prove that for all the movie’s artistry they can still deliver fart jokes and make it work naturally, much like how Back to the Future could be artistically a solid movie but still have room to have characters fall victim to jokes like crashing into a manure truck. Now on the villain side of things, Scar is truly a menacing villain as he schemes to kill his brother and his nephew to become king. His voice from Jeremy Irons makes him like a faux Brit and lends him to sound charming yet simultaneously devious. Under his reign, Scar basically becomes what Simba probably would be had he never been faced with any sort of trouble or hardship. Sure he is still under the royal family, but is craving power; once he becomes king, he starts to become selfish and greedy with his power and that causes the Pridelands to fall into ruin. Appropriately, he goes back to making a point made earlier that because he is king he can do whatever he wants and feels the world owes him a favor. His henchmen, the hyena trio of Shenzi, Banzai and Ed, you can say are like Scar’s three children. Shenzi can be seen as the oldest, Banzai the middle child and Ed is the baby. With their comedic voices done by Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin and Jim Cummings, they carry out their father’s work and are endlessly loyal to him, but they are too stupid, lazy and unmotivated to have any sort of impact on what their father figure wants them to do. I’m well aware they are not actually his children but their ties to him most certainly suggest that type of relationship they have with him, like how in one sequence they want Scar to give them a meal despite not having done their job, or how after Simba returns Scar looks at them as if to say “Okay, I will do my own dirty work, but once this is over you three are grounded forever!” Not a single character is wasted here.
Now for the songs. They definitely had their work cut out for them here. For The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, these movie’s musical scores were done by Howard Ashman, who had a god-given talent of writing songs with memorable lyrics you could remember and sing long after the movie was finished. He died from AIDS before the release of Beauty and the Beast. With Howard Ashman gone, they called on Sir Elton John and Tim Rice for the musical score. “Circle of Life” stands as a truly majestic introductory song that is one of the best. “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” is the song that helps define Simba as a character and proves to be a fun ride. “Be Prepared” is the movie’s Villain Song that defines Scar’s evil intentions. “Hakuna Matata” could have been just another “Bare Necessities” but still stands on its own as the song that Timon and Pumbaa use to give Simba the emotional support that he would need. “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is the sentimental song used to ignite the promotion that Simba and Nala go from friendship to love. They may have needed some time and were not immediately singable, but with time that changed and now songs are like a part of our popular lexicon.
Side note is, the movie’s original promotional spots said there would be 7 songs, not 5. There was the “Morning Report” song done by Zazu that was cut probably because it interrupted the flow of the movie, and thankfully you can still watch the movie without it. Then there was “Warthog Rhapsody”, which was recorded but not in the movie itself, I imagine this was sung during it’s planning stages but made it onto the “Rhythm of the Pridelands” CD. The other song we would have gotten was “To Be King” which was done early in the movie, performed by Mufasa to teach Simba about the responsibilities of kingship. This song easily would have been a dud as it makes its points too blatant and the idea of Mufasa singing would have just been ridiculous.
To be honest, The Lion King is nowadays more than just a mere movie. It’s not just the pinnacle of the Disney Renaissance nor is it just my personal favorite, a memorable animated movie, or pop culture from the 90s. It’s pretty much a way of life. I even remember reading that the Library of Congress has included this movie for preservation for being “artistically, historically, or aesthetically significant”. That would mean it can stand alongside other cinematic masterpieces like Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, North by Northwest, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars, The Shining, Ghostbusters, Platoon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and even it’s Disney Animated Film Catalog brethren Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Beauty and the Beast! That “filler” label now seems incredibly silly; this movie defied every sort of odd to achieve its success and is a movie that you need to see at some point in your life. Walt himself would be proud. See The Lion King and see it now!
The Lion King (1994) TreyVore rates it: A+
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 23, 2021 17:07:29 GMT -5
You hit the nail on the head with this review, Trey! Though one minor critique: It wasn’t just Howard Ashman who worked on those songs, but also Alan Menken. Ashman was the lyricist while Menken was the composer. Menken also wrote the music for Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules mind you.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Oct 25, 2021 1:14:04 GMT -5
Thank you Belchic. I'm glad you liked it so much and appreciate your critique. Now, for something seasonal:
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Distributor: Touchstone Pictures Director: Henry Selick Cast: Chris Sarandon (Jack Skellington), Catherine O’Hara (Sally, Shock), William Hickey (Dr. Finklestein), Glenn Shadix (Mayor of Halloween Town), Danny Elfman (Barrel, The Clown with the Tear-Away Face), Ed Ivory (Santa Claus), Ken Page (Oogie Boogie), Paul Reubens (Lock), Frank Welker (Zero) Runtime: 76 min. MPAA rating: PG (some scary images)
This movie is set in a world where holidays all have their respective towns. In Halloween Town, we meet Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King who is sick of doing the same thing year after year. While out walking, he discovers the trees meant to be the doors to their respective towns and he investigates the door to Christmas Town. Jack is in awe about this unfamiliar holiday but thinks he’s found the answer to his problem: this year Halloween Town will take over Christmas Town! Ignoring his lover Sally who thinks this is a terrible idea, he enlists Lock, Shock and Barrel, three troublemaking kids, to kidnap Santa Claus. Jack wants them to keep Santa under wraps, but against his wishes they take him to Oogie Boogie, the evil gambling bogeyman who plays a game with Santa’s life. So, can Jack Skellington learn the truth, find his life in the holiday towns, save Santa’s bacon and admit his feelings for Sally?
I’m very sure you have probably heard of Tim Burton. A widely-recognizable filmmaker who began his career as an animator for Disney, Tim Burton was inspired by TV specials like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas being such an aficionado for holidays. In the early 1980s he originally he wrote it as a short illustrated poem with the idea of it being a short film or a half-hour TV special when he pitched this idea to Henry Selick. Being that it was considered “too weird” for a movie coming from Disney, Tim Burton was fired and would go on to direct some critically acclaimed and highly profitable movies like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman and Edward Scissorhands.
Having proved himself, Tim Burton was then lured back to Disney still looking to push the boundaries with their recent successful animated films in the midst of their Renaissance Era, with his story being turned into a stop-motion animated film, the first of its kind. The process would be extremely painstaking with so many faces for moods and lip-syncing; Jack Skellington himself had at least 400 different heads!
I didn’t originally get to see this movie when it was released mainly because I thought it was supposed to be a horror movie and I have something of an aversion to those types of movies. As time passed I became more receptive and gave it a chance and I understand the appeal. So with Halloween coming, I thought it’d be a good time to give it a review.
Keeping in tone with past holiday specials, like the ones you probably remember from Rankin-Bass, the movie has a heavy holiday flair. The movie is about the, you could say, planner of Halloween, who is bored of his routine and wants to try something new. When he discovers Christmas Town, he thinks he’s found the answer he’s looking for and as a result, puts a ghastly spin on the most festive time of year with disastrous results. One could say this is like a metaphor for despite repetition not to forget why you love what you love and taking an interest in other cultures and ideologies, which are a set of themes that I find very cool and would heavily encourage parents to teach their children.
Of course, there is some sequences that I’m aware some kids will not appreciate, like how they would be horrified at the sequence where Santa Claus is in mortal danger and could be killed. That may be a bit of deal breaker as some kids might find that upsetting. That’s not a complaint against the movie as it has plenty of positive aspects, but it may take some kids some time to warm up to it.
To go along with its themes, the movie has a dark and grisly look which I would say is appropriate, and you wouldn’t expect anything less from Tim Burton. To stop it from getting too scary everything contains enough of a dark whimsy about it to keep it somewhat lighthearted. Even though it could very well have been unintentionally horrifying the movie’s tongue is in it’s cheek and it lets you know everything is all in good humor. It may have needed a painstaking process to make everything as it was from the somewhat foreboding nature of Halloween Town to the festive nature of Christmas Town, but for all that hard labor I would say their work was well worth it!
Now it’s time for me to tell you about the characters. The star of the whole shebang, Jack Skellington, is the hero of the story looking for a way of his Halloween slump and finds it in the more festive Christmas Town. Like I said, he is bored with the tricks and treats of Halloween and thinks spreading it to Christmas would help him. You can say this can be like wanting to come to an understanding about others and learning that making mistakes is okay. His love interest, Sally, the Frankenstein’s monster-like toxicologist, very much feels like a rock to the insanity, and one that is necessary for all the dark chaos on display. Zero, Jack Skellington’s ghostly apparition of a dog, is his most loyal friend and one could say is his Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Dr. Finklestein is the mad scientist character responsible for Sally’s creation, he is meant to be like a father figure meant to try to control Sally despite her wishes. The Mayor of Halloween Town is the politician with a rotating face, one can say this is like some sly commentary about how political figures many times have two faces. Lock, Shock and Barrel are three troublemakers from Halloween Town who are meant to be comedy relief characters, in addition to the fact they are children so they don’t fully understand their actions. Santa Claus, still the same jolly old elf you remember him as from many stories of the past, probably helps to push the idea that Christmas, for all the mayhem that can come from the seasonal festivities, is about peace, love and forgiveness. The movie’s villain, Mr. Oogie Boogie, for all his grossness is still quite a memorable antagonist. Like a living burlap sack full of bugs, he is probably meant to be like a character that never once gets sick of his job and why would he? He’s the gambling sort who takes pleasure in inflicting pain and terror and that’s something Jack isn’t supposed to be interested in, it’s all meant to be fun. There are a bunch of other characters too, but they are mainly there to give Halloween Town a sense of society. A very memorable set of characters indeed.
Another thing worth mentioning is the songs. While not being a part of the Disney Animated Film Catalog, this movie is a musical and has a very clever assortment of songs. I could certainly see this becoming a Broadway musical with it’s tone and tunes that you’d probably like to purchase for your iTunes account.
Do you wonder why The Nightmare Before Christmas remains so popular and never ever seems to leave your local Hot Topic? This movie is truly a sight to be seen. For all the work that Tim Burton had to do in order for this film to be made, it was well worth the time and energy spent! He’s made a lasting movie that will continue to appeal as long as there are the holidays. A good time to be had and for good reason, The Nightmare Before Christmas may not officially count towards Disney’s official canon, but that doesn’t stop it from being a great movie! It may not be for the youngest of kids, but that doesn’t mean they can't grow into it eventually. Like Disney himself said, adults are just kids grown-up! You’ll definitely make this a part of your seasonal viewing and I highly recommend The Nightmare Before Christmas!
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) TreyVore rates it: A
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Oct 31, 2021 0:49:41 GMT -5
Hotel Transylvania (2012)
Distributor: Sony Pictures Animation Director: Genndy Tartakovsky Cast: Adam Sandler (Dracula), Andy Samberg (Johnny), Selena Gomez (Mavis), Kevin James (Frankenstein), Steve Buscemi (Wayne Werewolf), CeeLo Green (Murray Mummy), Fran Drescher (Eunice), Molly Shannon (Wanda), David Spade (Griffin the Invisible Man), Jon Lovitz (Quasimodo) Runtime: 91 min. MPAA rating: PG (some rude humor, action, scary images)
This movie, starting off in 1895, has Count Dracula lose his beloved wife Martha to an angry mob; after this happens he has a luxury monsters-only hotel built in Transylvania, where he raises his baby daughter Mavis. This hotel would prove to be a safe haven for all monsters; all his friends love it there and are frequent guests. Present day, Mavis’s 118th birthday is coming up and Dracula wants the best day for her, but she wants to see the world outside the hotel. He lets her do so, but sets up a trap to scare her into never wanting to leave again. The ruse he sets up inadvertently draws the attention of a backpacker tourist named Johnny Loughran to the hotel. Knowing the monsters will all be horrified if they know a human is at the hotel, Dracula tries to disguise him as a party planner monster to hide the fact he is not one of them. So, with Mavis’s birthday approaching, and Johnny and Mavis falling for each other, can Dracula find a way to hide Johnny’s identity, make Mavis’s birthday a success and maintain the peace and his career in Hotel Transylvania?
Do you know who Genndy Tartakovsky is? Sure you do, he was known for memorable animated cartoon series in the past such as Dexter’s Laboratory, Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars. After a line of directors were considered, this movie would mark his first feature film directorial debut. He’s certainly got animation experience under his wing, and with CGI experience and comic timing to boot, surely we would have a great movie on our hands!
…or not.
I will just say this: this movie at the very least, had a funny idea in mind. You know how on a movie like The Santa Clause, that movie’s tagline was “what if your dad was Santa Claus?”? Well, this movie had a similar idea, that being “what if your dad was Count Dracula?”. It has the idea that could be funny from that perspective, and could be seen as your kids’ first introduction to these iconic movie monsters. So, what happened? What went wrong?
Maybe I should start with the story. This movie opens up a world of great ideas, and potentially interesting characters we can find appealing and want to know better. The movie could have taken a creative approach towards these movie monsters from the past and gave them a clever spin, in an animated movie meant to appeal to kids. However, instead of doing anything potentially interesting, it just settles on a dad who is overprotective of his child. You know, the type of story you’ve heard hundreds of times and told a lot better. Worse, the monster angle is really only used as window dressing; it’s only there to provide a series of jokes and slapstick that while kids will find funny, doesn’t do anything for more mature viewers. The movie doesn’t have a strong plot structure either; it’s almost like an excuse to deliver a bunch of jokes and slapstick that again, will only truly appeal to kids. They are its primary audience, but it doesn’t feel all that smart next to some other animated movies and it just helps give people the impression that animation is nothing more than entertainment strictly for kids when it isn’t.
This is really unfortunate, especially when you take into account this movie does have some nice messages about how kids should be allowed to make their paths. As well, the movie’s ending about how monsters are not, well, monsters, as in an evil force that must be eradicated, like how people aren’t afraid of them in a bad way, is present. If only it wasn’t so preoccupied with dumb jokes and slapstick. Don’t get me wrong some of the jokes can be funny, but too often it just goes for the easiest material and that doesn’t make it feel very inspired.
Then there is the quality of the animation. While I admit that the backgrounds can look nice, and the characters are designed to not look overly scary save for an occasional moment or two, Genndy Tartakovsky said he was inspired by the look of cel-animation and wanted to implement that into CGI. This does not translate terribly well as using CGI animation is almost like imagine you are using these characters like puppets. Maybe that works if you are at home and putting on a hand puppet show or you are using a marionette to move around in a silly manner to make people laugh, but in a movie that you are paying money to see, it just looks like the characters are moving in an overly exaggerated and not terribly realistic manner. I’m sure kids will probably find it funny but it just looks like the animation team did a very poor job.
Do you want to know more about the characters? Well, maybe I should start with the movie’s more developed and prominent ones. Count Dracula, the movie’s central character, is voiced by Adam Sandler and marking his first animated role in 10 years, the last animation role he had was back in 2002 when he did Adam Sandler’s Eight Crazy Nights. Like I said before though, this is just surface level because he is really just a typical harried father character who needs to understand that his daughter needs to be free to make her own choices. Johnny is meant to be his co-star and he’s strictly for the kids. Mavis is his soon-to-be 118-year old daughter who wants to see the world outside the hotel. You get the feeling she may have wanted to be a Disney Princess at some point in time? There’s no real point in describing the others—that being Frankenstein (should be the Monster, but again, kids), Wayne Werewolf, Murray Mummy, the Invisible Man, etc., because they don’t get all that much development, all they do is help supply laughs. Then there are the werewolf children who do nothing but add jokes and I even get the feeling that Eunice and Wanda are there just to help up the female character numbers. Who is the villain in all this? Well, there isn’t one. Again, we can say Dracula might be something of an antagonist being that he’s trying to keep his daughter from feeling locked up in the hotel like a prisoner, but that probably would have worked better if this was an episode of a show, not for a movie. Again, this is just supposed to be a kids’ movie and isn’t supposed to be scary, but this just feels like it’s a safe movie that won’t challenge kids at all.
Back in 2012, I did see Hotel Transylvania in theaters. I didn’t care for it then and it hasn’t gotten better with age. Despite not getting all that great of reviews, it definitely made money. Likely because it is not supposed to be scary and ultimately safe to take the kids to, they made a movie that made money. We got three Halloween adventures in 2012 (this came after ParaNorman but before Frankenweenie), and it’s easily the worst of the three. The only recommendation I can say for this movie is if your kids are under 10 years old and think they are not ready for ParaNorman, then this could be a soft and sweet movie that they will respond to. Other than that, unless you are a fan of Genndy Tartakovsky and are certain you will like this movie, you can skip it. If ParaNorman was the Halloween treat, then we can say Hotel Transylvania is the Halloween trick.
Hotel Transylvania (2012) TreyVore rates it: D
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 31, 2021 12:37:58 GMT -5
I don’t think I’ve seen you give a movie an F yet.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Nov 12, 2021 16:11:04 GMT -5
I don’t think I’ve seen you give a movie an F yet. I can PM them to you. In the meantime, Universal and Illumination are going to be releasing Sing 2 just in time for Christmas, so to get myself ready, I will be revisiting the original movie soon. Now for the next Illumination film before that one... The Secret Life of Pets (2016) Distributor: Universal/Illumination Entertainment Director: Chris Renaud Cast: Louis C.K. (Max), Eric Stonestreet (Duke), Kevin Hart (Snowball), Jenny Slate (Gidget), Ellie Kemper (Katie), Lake Bell (Chloe), Dana Carvey (Pops), Hannibal Buress (Buddy), Bobby Moynihan (Mel), Tara Strong (Sweetpea), Steve Coogan (Ozone), Albert Brooks (Tiberius), Chris Renaud (Norman), Michael Beattie (Tattoo) Runtime: 86 min. MPAA rating: PG (action, some rude humor) This movie is about a Jack Russell Terrier named Max who lives with his owner Katie in New York City. While his owner works, he stays in his apartment complex to socialize with the other pets including the pug Mel, the Dachshund Buddy, tabby cat Chloe and parakeet Sweetpea. His perfect world is turned upside down when Katie comes home with a big shaggy Newfoundland mix dog named Duke, who he takes an immediate disliking towards. While trying to slit each others’ throats, they are arranged to be taken to the pound, but are saved by a white bunny named Snowball, who leads an army of abandoned pets called the “Flushed Pets”. When Gidget, a white Pomeranian who’s harboring a crush on Max, learns that Max and Duke are missing, she assembles a team of his friends to find them. So, can Gidget’s team find Max and Duke and safely get them home, and can Snowball learn that there is hope for him yet? Having made out like bandits on the Despicable Me series, the team at Illumination proved themselves a formidable animation studio that would go on to do continuations on Despicable Me, that being Despicable Me 2 and Minions, which both would gross over $1 billion. With a foundation made, they would then have an idea for a movie about pets. Trivia is they were going to go with a murder mystery, but then decided to do something a little more relatable. This would also be the first movie that Illumination would do that had nothing to do with Despicable Me and was not a Dr. Seuss adaptation. This movie had an idea that you’d probably be able to relate to: what do your pets do when you’re not home? It may not have been the most original idea, and you could probably label it as “ Toy Story with pets”, but how did it fare? Well it’s hardly a perfect movie, as there is there’s some pros and cons I will discuss. The movie begins with setting up the idea of what life is like living in New York City. I do admire this as New York is my kind of town. From there it draws on your existing knowledge and relatable familiarities with domesticated pets to make it entertaining. We see life from several different pets’ perspectives along with the differences between dogs and cats which makes up the majority of its appeal. However, the story does have a glaring issue: the story, as it is, is rather weak. The movie’s protagonists are a Jack Russell Terrier named Max, who now has to share his owner’s apartment with a big shaggy Newfoundland mix named Duke. Almost like how an originally only child now has to deal with the fact they now have a little sibling, being told from a pets angle. Thing is though, coming within the same year as Zootopia, the movie’s feels more kid-targeted than something for the whole family. Then there is also the fact the movie is not about Katie, but rather Max and his new roommate Duke. Allow me to make an analogy. When you were reading something like say, "Calvin and Hobbes", the character you were supposed to care about was Calvin, not Hobbes. There was a reason for this: while Calvin could do a whole bunch of different things where he doesn’t need Hobbes, Hobbes’s… whole life is Calvin. While Calvin could do several things that didn’t need Hobbes beside him, Hobbes was probably sitting on Calvin’s bed waiting for him to come home. The reason for that is because Hobbes was just a stuffed toy and doesn’t exist unless Calvin was there; his life was that if Calvin was supposed be a troublemaker, Hobbes was like a manifestation of Calvin’s conscience. Calvin was easily the more appealing character, you probably didn’t want to know if Hobbes was going around having adventures while Calvin was not there. Now back to the story. The movie has the idea of “what does Max do if Katie is out working?” The answer seems to be “Not much”. In another example like Toy Story, while you have the idea that Woody and Buzz Lightyear don’t depend on Andy to have lives, it feels very much like in a hard contrast to the movie’s title, Max really doesn’t have a life away from Katie. We can say Duke has a similar backstory and that illustrates in issue I’m getting to. You get to see the antics of their neighboring pets which pick up the slack and make things more interesting and likely where kids will find appeal and mature viewers will get laughs out of if they are seeing the movie without kids. An adventure does unfold as Max and Duke have to bond in order to return home, but one almost wonders if the movie would have been stronger if they jettisoned the pets angle completely and made the movie about Katie. The movie’s animation style is very nice as they give people a multi-layered angle of what it’s like living in New York City. While limited to what a dog could see many times, like my owner’s apartment, an alley, Central Park, that sort of thing, they do make wide glimpses of the city as a whole and that makes for something appealing. I will admit the “Flushed Pets’” lair makes something much more interesting and much more appealing than the humdrum of the domesticated pets. The Flushed Pets aspect does give a wider assortment than simple dogs and cats which is definitely something I liked and appreciated. The animation does its job well and I definitely can say gives you something nice to look at. You probably want me to tell you about the characters. Where to start… how about I start with Max and Duke. Max is supposed to be the main character and Duke is his co-star. But what else can I say about them? I don’t know, as I don’t remember seeing an animated movie where the two leading characters were this terminally boring. The movie’s writing doesn’t suggest that Max and Duke are really supposed to be anything more than dogs. They are not supposed to be like Katie’s husband and child or anything, they’re just… pets and that’s it. What seems to be a prominent way for them to bond is probably the easiest way imaginable: they have a feast after they crash a hot dog factory. And because these two flatlines are such a prominent part of the movie, that creates a void as I honestly did not care if they got home or died trying to get back. The other pets, on the other hand, are a lot more appealing and they do their best to pick up the slack that Max and Duke leave for them. For one we have Gidget, a white Pomeranian who is harboring a crush on Max. I do have mixed feelings on her as if you understand what women are actually interested in, her crush on Max is not believable as you don’t buy any spark between them; you have no idea what she sees in him. If you ignore that aspect though, she does get some reasonably entertaining bits that help matters. Chloe is a tabby cat that is more snobby and finicky about things, she is probably the most entertaining character for those of us who prefer cats to dogs. You also have Buddy, a Dachshund and Mel, a hyperactive pug who are more like comedy relief characters which is all they really have in the tank. Sweetpea is a parakeet who seems like his job is to be cute. Norman the guinea pig is really just a running joke about how he’s looking for his apartment, it doesn’t add up to much. Tiberius the Hawk tries to help Gidget in her quest to find Max but just feels misjudged. They don’t do anything with this aspect of the story; as in he doesn’t make any kind of point of why he can be seen as dangerous when the world tends to want cats or dogs, he’s just… an aid for Gidget. The movie’s villain is Snowball, the white bunny who leads the “Flushed Pets” an underground gang of pets who have been neglected/abandoned/surrendered by their owners and now want revenge against humanity. Kevin Hart really helps with this whole spiel and his delivers his comic timing to give the story some life. The pet thing isn’t supposed to be a metaphor for anything, it’s just cute pets doing things for those of us who love our pets and love to see them in action. You will probably come away from this movie with at least one favorite character. I’ll also add that before the movie was shown in theaters, we would see a short cartoon called “Mower Minions” which was about five of Gru’s pill-shaped henchmen who want to buy a blender to make some banana smoothies and do so with some stolen tools to do yardwork at a retirement home. This cartoon is definitely funny and is always fun to see the Minions in their non-speaking mayhem; while I wouldn’t say it’s worth going to the theater to see it alone it makes for a very amusing four minutes. The Secret Life of Pets is harmless and will hold appeal to children who are looking for some cute pet antics that doesn’t demand deep engagement in the story, or adults who have an adoration for pets and love seeing them. While I do think something like this probably would work better as a cartoon series rather than a movie, it has enough charm and humor value for me to give it a mild recommendation. Hardly a movie meant to win awards, but it’s reasonably diverting and not meant to be anything more than that. And the fact it made almost $900 million worldwide means it definitely found peoples’ interests; it was almost as much as the later Despicable Me movies. Now that this review is done, let’s see if Sing can do better. The Secret Life of Pets (2016) TreyVore rates it: C+
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Nov 18, 2021 10:41:18 GMT -5
Rock Dog 2: Rock Around the Park (2021)
Distributor: Lionsgate/Huayi Brothers Media/HB Wink Animation/Splash Entertainment Director: Mark Baldo Cast: Graham Hamiliton (Bodi), Ashleigh Ball (Darma), Andrew Francis (Germur), Brian Drummond (Khampa), Jason Simpson (Lang), Kathleen Barr (L’il Foxy), Michael Adamthwaite (Carl, Trey), Brian Dobson (Fleetwood Yak), Sabrina Pitre (Wei), James Higuchi (Shumai) Runtime: 90 min. MPAA rating: N/A
Set one year after the events of the first movie, Bodi and his bandmates Darma and Germur are a local singing sensation in Snow Mountain called “True Blue”. They have even gotten to the point they have loyal fans. However, a media mogul sheep named Lang overhears their influence over Snow Mountain and flies out there to have them act as openers for his pop sensation Li’l Foxy. Everything seems to be turning out peaches and cream for True Blue, but it seems fame comes with a price as Bodi is tempted to fall under the pressures of being a superstar. So, can Bodi get his act together, learn to be true to himself, find out what Lang’s evil scheme is and save Rock-N-Roll Park?
As I previously stated, I didn’t originally get a chance to see the first Rock Dog in theaters. This was mainly due to a lack of promotion and not many theaters were showing it. However, once I did see it, I actually thought it was a nice movie. It had its flaws but I could still recommend it.
Other people felt the same way, as despite its poor box-office performance, it still found its fanbase, and now there are plenty of people out there who enjoy it. The suits at Lionsgate took notice of it and decided to go ahead and give viewers more of what they want. Like I said before, it’s not a matter of the movie’s original critical reception and box-office performance, it’s a matter of whether or not it finds a voice and can live on even though it’s no longer the newest film on the block.
That said, we now have the movie’s official part 2 in Rock Dog 2: Rock Around the Park. How does this one fare? Well, even though its animation is being done by Splash Entertainment, the same studio that worked with Lionsgate to make all those terrible sequels to Alpha and Omega and Norm of the North, this movie is actually pretty good. Still no masterpiece, but very watchable and still has good messages to send kids. I would say at the bare minimum, it’s at least of consistent quality with the first movie.
I’ll start with the story being that Bodi is now in a band of three with his friends Darma and Germur and is supposed to now be a local sensation in Snow Mountain. However, media mogul Lang has taken a keen interest in Bodi’s talents as a rocker and now wants them to tour, taking a very particular interest in Bodi. From there the movie gives us some insight on life as a rockstar, as Bodi, Darma and Germur all start off playing an opening act for L’il Foxy and the pressures of that lifestyle. The movie then goes on to have, as you might expect, that Bodi would fall into the dark side of being an A-lister and scare away his friends with his new image and attitude. It doesn’t have the same themes from before about Bodi needing to learn it’s okay to make mistakes so it does feel a little more conventional. However, the movie does have some good messages about being true to yourself, remembering the people you care about and not compromising your integrity. I do almost question some its themes of anti-capitalism, but I need to remember the original source material was made with a very different cultural aesthetic in mind.
I will admit though, that it’s not the first time that this has happened, but do you know how it’s been said many times how filmmakers will make a movie intended for kids that has mature references in it for mature viewers? It feels very much like this movie’s core audience is kids, but the way movie gives “title drops” as its way to be appealing for more mature viewers does get a bit tiresome. You will hear references to “Stairway to Heaven”, “Paint it Black”, etc. Not to mention Lang's idea of guising up Bodi is to have dress like Elvis Presley. I do understand that music is a serious business and isn’t supposed to be taken lightly but these feel like they are just there for the sake of entertaining viewers other than its core demograph.
The animation, as mentioned, is done by Splash Entertainment and while they do a serviceable job, it’s a bit obvious that the budget is clearly lower than before. Granted Snow Mountain still looks nice as does Rock-N-Roll Park, but we don’t get to see anything different other than a few new rooms like inside a gym or a business tycoon’s office. The city doesn’t even get to be featured all that much which I take as the movie not having the budget, as does a lot of background characters that are a bit limited as to what they are supposed to be. Again, budget difference, but there was a clear drop in what could have been done for a direct-to-video movie as opposed to a theatrically-released movie.
Now for the characters. Like how the movie has a different director, the entire original voice cast does not return; we now have the whole cast re-voiced. This isn’t terrible though, as the replacement voice actors do their job well enough. With the exception of Angus Scattergood, though he at least gets a handwave, the whole cast returns; we have a lot of characters in this movie and they all seem to have a role in one way or another. That isn’t always a good thing though, as it feels like some characters offer a little something, but otherwise could have been cut to better serve someone else. I’ll start with Bodi. He’s still the same likable hero you remember from the last movie, although now as a result of some character development, he’s now more assertive than before. I do like this trait as it proves he is capable of growth as a character; it’d be pointless for him to have to still be sheltered as he was in the last movie. Khampa has been demoted to a secondary character, which I personally felt was good; although he is now portrayed as being a bit goofier than he was in the last movie. Thankfully they don’t betray him completely and I don’t mind this so much as he should not be that prominent. Darma and Germur are now more active than they were before, and while they still feel a bit underused, they remain appealing and still have room to grow; for one thing we learn that in addition to being a drummer Germur is also a skilled artist. Maybe next time it will be Darma’s turn? More on that later. Fleetwood Yak is unchanged from the last movie, though he’s now no longer relevant to the story. Trey the Snow Leopard does return as a minion of the movie’s villain, though he’s now played more as a joke than a threat. Riff and Skozz return this time as a pair of police officers, but we can only wonder if they truly did turn over a new leaf. For the movie’s new characters, Lang is movie’s villain; he’s supposed to be a big shot producer who is interested in Bodi in particular and wants Bodi’s energy for his own evil purposes. I cannot say anymore about him because spoilers. L’il Foxy is the new established professional singer that does give some insight on the life of a pro rocker; I do like her as she does see the light and resolves to help Bodi against her boss. The biggest criticism I have about her is unlike how in the first movie, how Angus Scattergood was supposed to be a Mick Jagger-like celebrity, as in he is an established celebrity that more than likely won’t be going anywhere, L’il Foxy by contrast is more like a flavor-of-the-month style pop starlet along the lines of Hannah Montana. The fact she seems to have a fixation on social media further pushes the idea that this movie is intended for kids and just kids. The other new characters we have are Bodi's grandparents Norbu and Maydow, who feel like their only purpose is to help push some messages. Wei and Shumai are a pair of red pandas and likely True Blue’s biggest fans. They feel like they are patterned after Wayne and Garth of Wayne’s World which while not dependent on them and never threaten to be annoying, feel like they are another attempt at being an appeal to older viewers. The only other character I took note of is Carl, who I swear spends his life in the shower. He always seems to be seen when he’s taking one and is never seen wearing anything but a pair of towels! He’s probably just meant to be a joke, but isn’t all that funny. The characters are ultimately a mix of good and bad.
In terms of quality Rock Dog 2: Rock Around the Park does its prequel justice. It’s not a masterpiece but still leaves you feeling good and will appeal if you are a fan of the original movie. I still can see plenty of potential in it and would continue to show support.
I do say I will show support because maybe they will follow through on what I said in my review of the original movie; we are going to be getting a Rock Dog 3.
Rock Dog 2: Rock Around the Park (2021) TreyVore rates it: B-
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Dec 5, 2021 1:48:31 GMT -5
Sing (2016)
Distributor: Universal/Illumination Entertainment Director: Garth Jennings Cast: Matthew McConaughey (Buster Moon), Reese Witherspoon (Rosita), Seth MacFarlane (Mike), Scarlett Johansson (Ash), John C. Reilly (Eddie Noodleman), Taron Egerton (Johnny), Tori Kelly (Meena), Nick Kroll (Gunter), Jennifer Saunders (Nana Noodleman), Garth Jennings (Ms. Crawly), Peter Serafinowicz (Big Daddy) Runtime: 108 min. MPAA rating: PG (some rude humor, mild peril)
This movie, set in a world of anthropomorphized animals, revolves around a koala bear named Buster Moon who owns a theater in his hometown of Calatonia. Hard times have fallen on his theater and is threatened with foreclosure. He decides to host a singing competition and has his receptionist Ms. Crawly offer a prize of $1,000, however a typo she makes results in her adding two extra zeroes to the prize money, making it seem like he’s offering a prize of $100,000. Amongst the finalists include Rosita, a housewife mom pig, Ash the punk-rocker porcupine, Johnny the teenage gorilla who is the son of mobster Big Daddy, timid teenage elephant Meena, passionate dancing pig Gunter and Mike the street musician mouse. So with his theater and reputation on the line, can Buster’s show save his theater, his contestants do their best and how long will it be before the lie is discovered?
2016 was an amazing year for animation. We had some big hitters from Disney in that year in the forms of Zootopia and Moana, Pixar gave us a continuation to Finding Nemo, the newest stop-motion film from Laika was Kubo and the Two Strings, and in the same year, we got two major animated films from Universal and Illumination Entertainment. In the summer of that year, they gave us The Secret Life of Pets, which got generally positive reviews and made almost $900 million. But that wasn’t the only movie we got from them in 2016 and it had nothing to do with Despicable Me. This movie was going to be about “courage, competition and carrying a tune”.
When I first saw the trailers for this movie, it didn’t look like much. It just looked like what you might expect from a TV show episode that tries to emulate the Star Search/American Idol/America’s Got Talent-type of show that you would think would just never work as a movie; it might have worked better as an episode of a show. I even remember my Shrek 2 DVD having a bonus feature called “Far Far Away Idol” which was literally the Shrek cast in a rip on American Idol! I honestly had my doubts this would be better than The Secret Life of Pets. When we got this movie in the Christmas season of that year, reviews were also very good and I thought I should go see it. At the same time, this movie is getting a sequel for the Christmas season in 2021, so let’s see how well this movie fares…
For starters, I will say that the story isn’t its strongest aspect. Just as I suspected, it does have some appeal in the riff on televised American Idol-type of show in that it’s about theater owner Buster Moon who knows his theater is in trouble of being foreclosed and wants to prevent that, so he hosts a singing competition, with plenty of anthropomorphized animals coming in to audition. What they don’t know is because of a typo made by Ms. Crawly, he’s not offering a grand prize of $1,000, but rather $100,000. I tend to read this as due to the fact he goes with this ruse as it gets ratings up and so many want to try to win, it is supposed to be telling kids that trying to lie or cheat about something is not a good idea as those that do will eventually get found out.
Things do work out and everyone except maybe one is happy as you might expect from a movie meant for kids. The competition doesn’t have a clear winner but we can now say they could be saving something for the sequel. In the end I would say Sing has a decent story but that’s fine as there is another factor that more than makes up for it.
The movie’s animation quality is pretty good, as it uses Illumination’s style of cartoony-shapes on characters giving it a unique style. However because this came out in 2016, the same year Disney gave us Zootopia, it does beg a few comparisons. I don’t mind the more cartoony as opposed to more realistic look that Disney went for, but I do question how this world may be meant to work. For one, this anthropomorphized animal world has a bunch of characters of various shapes and sizes, but many things like the buildings seem to suggest that this world was probably intended for human beings. It does feel like this movie’s world could very well have been inhabited by humans and not much would have been different. Not just that though—because this is a world that humans could very well inhabit, I could understand anthropomorphized koalas, dogs, cats, lizards, bears, foxes, raccoons, skunks, kangaroos, etc. getting around in this world but how would this work if it’s also inhabited by something royally big like an elephant, hippo, rhino or even a whale? Or even something small in size like a shrimp, snail, mouse… how could they transverse in a world that seems meant for humans? I really shouldn’t try to overanalyze this because Illumination is not Disney as far as artistic quality, but the animation is still good and does its job right.
Now, for the movie’s coup de grace; the characters. The movie’s plot may be just okay but the quality of the characters’ backstories is so strong and so well told that they feel like characters you might actually know. You have Buster Moon, the theater owner who knows his theater is in trouble and needs to do something to save it, but then goes with a lie as long as his theater is pulling in big crowds. That’s going to get him in trouble, I promise. His clients are definitely a varied bunch and are so interesting you can’t help but want to know more about them. You have Ash, the punk rocker porcupine who is forced to choose between going with the competition or staying in the shadow of her boyfriend. Rosita, a busy mother pig who has a husband and 25 children to care for and wants to keep her teenage music dream alive. Johnny, a teenage gorilla who loves to sing and is at odds with the competition and making his criminal father happy by staying in the criminal underworld. Gunter is a passionate dancing pig who tends to be paired with Rosita. Meena the timid elephant needs to overcome her stage fright to go on and, well, sing. Mike the zoot suit-wearing, street hustling mouse is an egotist with a Frank Sinatra-esque crooning voice who simply wants the money, and in addition to proving that liars and cheaters get caught, more or less helps with uncovering the ruse that Buster Moon inadvertently set up. There is a chance that of these characters he might be the worst personality. The issue I have is because all these stories are told so well, you think there is likely a world of characters that don’t get enough screen time. It’s a bit of a tit-for-tat. Don’t get me wrong, the characters are a real show-stealer and may be something of a game changer for Illumination.
Plus I hate to make another analogy, but some of the casting choices seem a bit random. Why is Buster Moon a koala? Maybe because koalas are from Australia, and this is a singing competition. In Sydney, Australia they have the Sydney Opera House so okay that works. Ms. Crawly is an iguana with a fitting name. Ash is a porcupine and totally understand that. Mike is a mouse and some people don’t like mice. I… guess that Meena being an elephant might work in that she’s a gentle giant? But I don’t fully understand Johnny needing to be a gorilla or that Gunter and Rosita would need to be pigs. Were they aware that Zootopia was going to be featuring a fox and a bunny and they probably should do something to avoid having a similar idea in the same year? I did like the characters one way or another but I felt that needed to be addressed.
In the end, Sing is no classic but still a fun time. Kids, furries, and music/theater fans will get a kick out of it and I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy it. This was the second of two movies that was a joint between Universal and Illumination, the first being The Secret Life of Pets. I had my doubts at first but those doubts were unfounded; I would say that Sing is the superior of the two. So where will your dreams take you?
Side note is, I once did get an autograph from Taron Egerton, the voice of Johnny and was blessed by Elton John to play him in the movie Rocketman.
Sing (2016) TreyVore rates it: B
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Dec 5, 2021 2:17:29 GMT -5
Nice review, Trey. Say, since we’re in the holiday season now, how about you review a Christmas movie? Since you did The Star already, how about Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas?
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Dec 7, 2021 0:49:07 GMT -5
Wish granted Belchic . Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas (1999) Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures Director: Alex Mann, Bradley Raymond, Jun Falkenstein, Bill Speers, Toby Shelton Cast: Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse), Russi Taylor (Minnie Mouse, Huey, Dewey and Louie), Tony Anselmo (Donald Duck), Bill Farmer (Goofy, Pluto, Horace Horsecollar), Tress MacNeille (Daisy Duck, Chip, Aunt Gertie), Alan Young (Scrooge McDuck), Corey Burton (Dale), Shaun Fleming (Max), Jim Cummings (Pete, Police, Mailman, Fire Chief, Dad, onlooker, shop owner, Santa Claus), Kelsey Grammer (Narrator) Runtime: 66 min. MPAA rating: N/A This compliation of Disney animated shorts tells us three separate stories from Mickey’s Toontown, in which we are told about three memorable Christmases with Mickey and his friends. First up is “Donald Duck: Stuck on Christmas” in which Huey, Dewey and Louie want to have Christmas every day and get their wish but it turns out to be a bad idea, “A Very Goofy Christmas”, where Pete tells Goofy’s son Max that Santa Claus does not exist and then he starts to have doubts in the magic of the holiday, and “Mickey and Minnie’s Gift of the Magi” in which Mickey and Minnie want to get each other a special present, but they are both strapped for cash. Is there a chance that everyone could have a Merry Christmas? You probably have fond memories with Mickey Mouse and his friends. These characters are world-renown, so there is not really a great need to tell you exactly who they are all over again. It doesn’t matter if you were born in the U.S.A. or one of the world’s poorer countries, anyone who has had a childhood could tell you about Mickey Mouse and his friends in their home of Mickey’s Toontown. This movie was a direct-to-video release, so there was a modest push for its holiday 1999 issue. It developed a fanbase that remained loyal ever since, and now is up for your viewing pleasure on Disney+. So, it’s now time for me to give my input on these particular Christmas stories featuring Mickey and his gang. I’ll go in order of which these cartoons air. First up we have “Donald Duck: Stuck on Christmas” where despite receiving top billing, Donald is really just a secondary character, the cartoon is really starring his nephews Huey, Dewey and Louie. They have a Christmas that they love and act like how kids would probably act. Not wanting Christmas to end so soon, they make a wish to have Christmas every day and get it, however, they are stuck repeating the same Christmas over and over and over again in an endless death loop. You think that may have been a curse rather than a blessing? You could probably describe this segment as what would happen if you took “Christmas Every Day” and mixed it with Bill Murray’s comedy Groundhog Day. I honestly liked this segment best, as it gives a story of why Christmas is the most magical time of year, but it would begin to lose it’s impact if every single day was Christmas. After Huey, Dewey and Louie experience the same Christmas day in and day out over and over, they try to liven things up by presenting a prank-laden twist on that particular Christmas. They have fun due to the fact they will experience it again the next day, but they soon discover that their wish led the rest of the family to have the worst Christmas ever. It helps to tell kids that Christmas isn’t a holiday about presents, lights, food and singing as there is a greater purpose for it all. I do like that they don’t make any direct reference to any specific higher deities just to avoid coming under fire, and despite the familiarity of the story, this one I personally felt worked best. Donald has always been reliable for entertainment value and here he doesn’t disappoint. I will say though, you know who Donald, his nephews, Daisy and Scrooge McDuck are, but where exactly did Aunt Gertie come from? She wasn’t in any classic cartoons or from DuckTales, and I don’t know if she was in Carl Barks’ comics. Maybe they needed an obnoxious relative character that always wants to give big soggy kisses and personality-wise that would not have fit Daisy? *shrugs* The second cartoon is “A Very Goofy Christmas”. After Goofy and his son Max mail a letter to Santa, with Max wanting a fancy new snowboard, Pete tells Max there is no such thing as Santa. Max then starts to wonder if there is a reason for this holiday and if it is even possible that one man can fly around the world making every delivery in one night. A role reversal occurs when Goofy starts to lose faith and Max now must fix things. Can Goofy and Max see from each other’s viewpoints, and what exactly did Goofy want Santa to give him? This is the movie’s original story, one not based on an existing tale. Now, if you are not familiar, Max is Goofy’s son, a character introduced in the 1992 Disney Afternoon series Goof Troop. I do question some of the logic behind this idea, as you would have to take a leap of faith and assume that Goofy knows a thing or two about procreation. In any case, Goofy does his trademark clumsy shtick and it helps make for some modest entertainment value, as at the same time Max provides the kids with an identifiable character who could be grappling with a bully who tells them there is no Santa Claus. It also turns out that part of the reason Goofy becomes depressed is that he’s sure he won’t be getting what he truly wants Santa to give him, and that can help kids understand the pressures that parents often to go through in order to give a Merry Christmas. I still felt the first story was superior, but this one is still worth its salt and enjoyable. The last cartoon is “Mickey and Minnie’s Gift of the Magi”. Here, Mickey works on Crazy Pete’s Christmas Tree lot, wanting to buy Minnie a gold chain for her watch. Minnie wants to buy Mickey a case for his harmonica, so she works hard at her job in a department store to be able to pay for it. Problem is, there is just one shopping day left before Christmas and they are both in a financial struggle. Is there a way for Mickey and Minnie to make ends meet for the big day? Now for the third and final segment, we have Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse in their take on the story of “Gift of the Magi”. Unfortunately, one of these three stories had to be the weakest, and this was clearly that. Part of the reason for that is because in the past, Mickey Mouse was a character, nowadays he’s simply the figurehead for the company in addition to being Uncle Walt’s avatar. Because of that, Mickey had to be a good and honest boy scout, which doesn’t make for the most compelling protagonist and I never found Minnie to be very appealing. It still had some laughs, namely when after Pete fires Mickey from his lot and then he stuffs his money, along with his lit cigar in his pants, but the too familiar story with no real deviations means this story just could not measure up to the first two. I will also add, that on a bittersweet note, this is a Disney cartoon where Wayne Allwine, Alan Young and Russi Taylor are all lending their vocal talents to these immortal characters. They are no longer with us, but we can say they will not be forgotten. I will say that I did enjoy Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas and would give it a recommendation. For after all, they never lose sight of what Christmas is about and it will send good messages to kids, for they will need to know that Christmas is not simply about getting presents. A perfectly fine piece of Disney animation to help welcome the best time of the year. Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas (1999) TreyVore rates it: B
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Dec 18, 2021 9:14:52 GMT -5
Despicable Me 3 (2017)
Distributor: Universal/Illumination Entertainment Director: Pierre Coffin and Kyle Balda Cast: Steve Carell (Gru, Dru), Kirsten Wiig (Lucy Wilde), Trey Parker (Balthazar Bratt), Pierre Coffin (Mel, Kevin, Stuart, Bob, the Minions), Miranda Cosgrove (Margo), Dana Gaier (Edith), Nev Scharrel (Agnes), Steve Coogan (Silas Ramsbottom), Jenny Slate (Valerie Da Vinci), Andy Nyman (Clive the Robot) Runtime: 90 min. MPAA rating: (mild action, rude humor)
After having been married at the end of Despicable Me 2, Gru and Lucy are now partners in the AVL and hot on the trail of Balthazar Bratt, a former child actor from the 1980s turned supervillain who is in the middle of stealing the Dumont diamond. After failing to catch him, Gru and Lucy are fired from the AVL. When Gru refuses to return to being a supervillain, the Minions, led by Mel, leave to find work. After getting a telegram, Gru is invited to come to Freedonia by his long-lost twin brother Dru, who is very wealthy and wants to meet them. Taking the family to Freedonia, Gru learns from Dru that their father was a supervillain and wants to become one himself. So which path will Gru end up taking?
2017 was certainly an interesting year for animated films. I knew that I was looking forward to this movie being a fan of Despicable Me and very much enjoyed the prior two and the prequel film Minions. When I did see it, I liked it and felt it was one of the better animated films of 2017. It most certainly made a lot of money as it even outgrossed Despicable Me 2, but not Minions. I even saw it a second time during August to show some spite for The Emoji Movie.
So now, it’s time for me to give my honest opinions of the third Despicable Me.
I still feel this movie is one of the year’s better animated movies and still plenty of laughs to be had. I do feel this movie is though, probably the weakest of the Despicable Me movies and least likely to hold up over time. I do enjoy this movie even though I’m aware it’s hardly perfect.
Maybe I should begin with the story. And, well… we have a lot of stories to discuss here. The reason for this is we have a main plot of Gru and Lucy trying to find and arrest Balthazar Bratt being a 1980s child actor who is holding a grudge against Hollywood for ending his show so soon, but that ends badly as they are fired from the AVL and need to find a way to get reinstated. Then you have a big smattering of subplots which involve Gru and Dru and their long-lost brotherly bonding, Lucy adjusting to her new life as a stepmom, the Minions wanting to be villains again and falling into trouble, Edith aiding Agnes in her quest to find a real-life unicorn and Balthazar Bratt scheming to decimate Hollywood. That’s an awful lot of ground to cover in a 90 min movie. I would liken this as being the fact that this is their first post-Sing animated movie. You know, after they did Sing and they had that experience writing characters with very elaborate backstories, the writers at Illumination now probably feel a lot more confident with doing so and think they could do the same with their first entry into animation with mixed results. The movie still has the Despicable Me heart and charm that you would expect, and the humor is still there and still funny. The downside to this though, is it feels somewhat muddled. There are times when it feels like they want to give these characters the same power as that we saw on Sing, but for reasons I will explain, it does feel overly busy and you may not see as much as you might of one character or another. However, for as jumbled as it can be, it didn’t destroy my appreciation of the movie or its characters as the writing has enough to make it worth my while.
The animation is as you would expect from Illumination, bright, colorful and full of personality. Unlike in the past, the characters spend a good amount of time in Freedonia, a European-like country where Gru’s brother Dru lives and the culture they would soak up. My favorite part though, would be anytime they go all 1980s on us and take us back to the decade of excess. Being a junkie for the 80s I found myself really going to some of its musical cues and 80s-era references.
Now for the characters, there’s an awful lot to take in and it may not jive with some people like the prior two movies in this franchise. For Gru, he’s still the former supervillain-turned-AVL agent who now is tempted into returning to the dark side. I still feel that Gru is a solid character and fully understand what his place would be in trying to return to redeem himself to the AVL. Lucy is the still perky AVL agent who now is grappling with the fact she is now a parent in addition to aiding Gru in getting their jobs back. Gru’s brother Dru is in a way, the anti-Gru. He is like if Gru had never went down the path he went by having never been a villain or a parent. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want that to change though. Minion Mel, first characterized in this movie, you could describe if Dr. Nefario was a Minion. His purpose seems to help push the idea that family is what is important. The movie’s villain is Balthazar Bratt, a supervillain who does his criminal deeds with an 80s theme which I honestly thought was hyper cool being the 1980s junkie that I am. He bears a hate for Hollywood due to the cancellation of his show “Evil Bratt” after the third season and now wants to destroy it. I take this as telling kids you should not hold grudges and not let your past trouble you. Despite some of their “growing pains” these characters have to go through, I still feel they hold the movie together well enough.
There is however two factors that I feel I should bring up in regard to the characters, the first one I fully understand and the second is a factor that becomes more and more evident as these movies go. First off, we see only a little of the Minions this time around. This may be disappointing if you are a Minion fan like myself, but I fully understand why they don’t get very much to do here. For in 2015 we got Minions, which was a prequel to these movies and they were featured very prominently, so for this movie they have minimal screen time so we don’t start to get sick of them. It was just a smart business decision.
Second, it is becoming apparent that there is not much else you can truly do with Gru’s three adopted daughters Margo, Edith and Agnes. They were major characters in the first movie and gave it some level of heart. However, that was pretty much the height of their roles in this series; and there’s nothing else to really explore with them. I suppose you could tell us exactly how they became orphans in the first place, but in this movie’s world that probably doesn’t fit the tone they are going for. You could bring them back for a more minor role in the second movie as Gru probably felt they would now need a mother figure, but by now it’s pretty clear they are becoming “Artifacts”. Only Agnes truly gets a role as she goes off in a hunt for a unicorn because, Agnes and unicorns. Margo and Edith don’t get any role other than well, Margo helps enhance Lucy’s role and Edith gives Agnes someone to talk to. By this point they are pretty much used up as characters. I guess like how in the first movie Margo was advertising The Lorax, this time she gets to advertise The Grinch? Moving on. You can’t truly get rid of them because it would betray the message of the first movie and you’d be wondering why Gru and Lucy are suddenly childless, but now their roles feel purely perfunctory—if you are making a Despicable Me sequel, they need to have some sort of role just because it’s part of the job.
For me, I did enjoy Despicable Me 3 and would recommend it, but by this point I am starting to think this franchise has almost run its course. Maybe it could come back for one more movie, but then it would probably be for the best to end it. Still, it did make money and we can safely say that Despicable Me will be remembered as a memorable film series from the 2010s.
Despicable Me 3 (2017) TreyVore rates it: B-
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Dec 20, 2021 23:08:20 GMT -5
Adam Sandler’s Eight Crazy Nights (2002)
Distributor: Sony Pictures Releasing Director: Seth Kearsely Cast: Adam Sandler (Davey Stone, Whitey Duvall, Eleanor Duvall, deer), Jackie Titone (Jennifer Friedman), Austin Stout (Benjamin Friedman), Rob Schneider (Mr. Chang, Narrator), Kevin Nealon (Mayor Dewey), Norm Crosby (Judge), Jon Lovitz (Tom Baltezor) Runtime: 76 min. MPAA rating: PG-13 (crude humor, sexual humor, drinking and alcohol use)
This movie, set in the town of Dukesberry, New Hampshire, is about Davey Stone, a Jewish alcoholic troublemaker with a long rap sheet of criminal offenses that drew him the ire of the whole town. After he goes on a dine and dash and then a drunken vandalism spree, Davey is about to be thrown in the slammer when Whitey Duvall, his former basketball coach, intervenes to teach him about good behavior on the court. Davey is sentenced to community service but if he commits a crime, he’s spending the next 10 years in prison. However, with the holiday season approaching and a return of Jennifer Friedman, a girl from Davey’s past who he’s still carrying a torch for, will Davey find a reason to change his ways?
You probably know who Adam Sandler is. He started off as a comedian on SNL together with Chris Farley, David Spade, Chris Rock and Rob Schneider. You probably have fond memories of them and their sketches on Saturday Night Live. A memorable comedian who is known for having a wide list of memorable movies that may not be critically revered, but they make piles of money. He stepped outside his comfort zone earlier in 2002 to make Punch-Drunk Love, which fell short of box-office expectations. Never fear though, as being a musician his “Chanukah Song” would help form a base for this self-reinvention of sorts with a movie that’s “Nice, Naughty, Animated”. Plus, it’s not supposed to be a kids’ movie, if the PG-13 is a hint. Being a fan of mature animation, I had to see it.
So what went wrong?
Maybe I should start by describing the story. For a movie that claims to be about Hanukkah, it’s only a small part of the movie as it’s really just a typical Sandler movie that just kinda sorta set in the holiday season. The movie is about a drunken criminal named Davey Stone who is under threat of being sent to prison but his kindly old referee knows he wasn’t always this way. The potential was there for a good story, but it’s got such an immature mindset that while characteristic of Adam Sandler’s movies, it’s devoid of a particular voice and charisma that would make it very appealing. It’s supposed to be a mature animated film that’s about past regrets and adult situations, but at the same time includes lots of immature humor involving body functions and stereotyping. The way the movie ends, on an uplifting, happy note, just feels like a copout; for all the crude and vile actions in the movie, it ends like you are looking into a magical snow globe that just feels too easy. That’s part of the reason why this movie didn’t have a very strong box-office reception; it just doesn’t have a terribly clear audience.
However, do you know how I said this movie didn’t have a very strong connection to Hanukkah despite it being advertised as such? That’s kind of a mixed blessing. It’s not telling people much involving the rights and rituals about Jewish faith, which means you won’t learn anything about it through this movie, on the other hand, it doesn’t crap all over someone else’s faith either. So while a lot of humor is of the disgusting body function variety, it’s not truly blasphemous either. By doing that, it won’t upset or offend people who treat their faith of the highest order.
The animation I would say is also mixed. For one thing, I enjoyed seeing the way the characters look as they have an animation style reminiscent of The Iron Giant. Davey in particular is a spitting image of Adam Sandler as a cel-animated character, and while there is maybe an occasional moment where they threaten to cross into the dreaded Uncanny Valley, it looks fine for the most part, and the cel-animated characters look natural next to the movie’s use of CGI.
On the downside to this, the movie’s animation can look very nice, but the animation can get truly repulsive when it needs to be. If you watch shows like Beavis and Butthead, South Park or Family Guy, these shows don’t have the glitziest animation quality, but the crudeness of their animation means if they feature things like barf, boogers, urine and dung, it looks very much like they just didn’t care about quality and that means it’s not as vomit-inducing as it otherwise would be. Here, they would go ahead and feature body functions with what looks very much like tender loving care and… yuck. Indeed, the movie features some deer that provide some scatological humor which really is a bit much. So, that is most certainly the negative aspect of the animation.
Now, for the characters. You probably want me to just trash them, but I will start by saying there was some potential for a good story to be told, it just needed to be handled better. Maybe I should start with Davey Stone, being that he is the lead character. This guy is a royal jerk and isn’t likable. However, I will say that despite the fact he’s a douche and is clearly not meant to be likable is not an automatic deal-breaker. They could very well have made a well-crafted story about a character that isn’t meant to be likable, after all look at what it did for characters like Ebenezer Scrooge or the Grinch! The thing is though, what I feel might be the reason he isn’t looked at very fondly is the fact that not only is he a jerk, he’s just not truly sympathetic. I know the guy lost his parents during the holiday season and he’s been fighting having to grieve over his loss with booze, but his criminal ways are not really a Freudian excuse to be so utterly rude and nasty. His final acceptance sequence before the climax is just rather ridiculous as he’s having to fight corporate logos, almost like it’s meant to be a joke before the tragedy finally hits. They probably could have justified all this by having Davey get punished in some way and that would make people hold a better opinion of him, but the trouble here is, he’s also a Karma Houdini; he never receives any punishment for his actions and the end where he’s supposed to be a better person rings hollow; you don’t buy that he’s truly changed. For all his nastiness and criminal behavior, the worst thing that happens to him is he gets a self-imposed wedgie. Again, I know there could be a very compelling character and I have no objections to a Villain Protagonist but a lot of work and further revising needed to be done.
For his co-star Whitey, this guy is a riot. He does have some weird qualities that I’m getting to, but I will say that he was at one time Davey’s basketball coach who knows Davey wasn’t always a bad guy and wants to get his good side back. This character provides a lot of laughs, but there are some things about him that I feel probably should be addressed. He’s supposed to be a kindly old-timer who would give you the shirt off his back to make you feel better. He wants to be the one who wins the Dukesberry All-Star Patch, which is supposed to be like a Good Samaritan Award. It does feel a bit weird about why you’d want to win an award for doing so many good deeds for people (it already sounds very contradictory), and… I don’t know, it just doesn’t feel like a well-planned out motive. His sister, Eleanor, is a chunky woman who has literally been sitting inside the house for years ever since her wig was stolen. A lot of her humor comes from the fact she’s just so anti-social and so far behind the times. There are other characters on top of what I would list, but they don’t get the development necessary for me to list.
Side note, even though Whitey and Eleanor are meant to be well-minded people, they are not completely free from criminal behavior as this movie did help to teach me about fraud. I can describe that as during that one sequence where after we are introduced to Eleanor and she and Whitey settle down for the night, we pan to the outside of the house completely jazzed up in lights and the Narrator says:
“When you’ve got enough lights on your house to rival the Las Vegas strip, you’re gonna have a pretty big electric bill. And when you’re working as a volunteer referee at the Junior Basketball League, that doesn’t exactly put you in the Fortune 500.”
That ultimately would mean that they are putting a drain on the electric company but have no real means of paying for it, so that would be like they are trying to scam the electric company into paying for their service; they didn’t get punished.
Now, the songs, I will admit I actually enjoyed. We have “Davey’s Song” which is there to give us some insight on the type of character that Davey is and why hate the holiday season. The “Patch Song” feels like it may have been intended to give Whitey some insight on why he wants to win the patch, but it doesn’t go much of anywhere. “Long Ago” is the song that details what Davey and Jennifer may have had prior to Davey losing his parents. The “Intervention Song” has Davey fight the corporate logos which is ultimately ridiculous and undermines the emotional impact that Davey needs to want to change his ways. “Bum Biddy” is the song that causes the people of Dukesberry to admit they were wrong about how they were all treating Whitey, setting us up for the happy ending. My favorite though, was the “Technical Foul” song that Whitey and Eleanor sing to tell Davey about the rules he needs to abide by.
If it sounds like I may be trying to justify or defend this movie despite it’s terrible reception, I can explain that as my roommates from my time on the Disney College Program all bonded with me over it. Another reason for this is because regardless of how much people seem to hate this movie, I’m going to say that Adam Sandler has in fact done much worse, if movies like Jack and Jill or That’s My Boy are any indication. This was also Adam Sandler’s first venture into animation, so I can give him a pass for this movie, but Hotel Transylvania, which came out 10 years after, proves he didn’t learn much of anything.
In the end, I have to do my job as a critic and give an appropriate grade, however I don’t think this is one of the worst animated movies I’ve seen. If you’re in the mood for an anti-warm-and-fuzzy movie set during the holiday season this should work for you, and it’s a movie that did develop a cult following, so it does have a niche that it appeals to. Still, this movie is very much an acquired taste and is one you absolutely must try before you buy.
Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights (2002) TreyVore rates it: D
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Jan 27, 2022 15:19:10 GMT -5
Up (2009)
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios Director: Pete Docter Cast: Ed Asner (Carl Fredricksen), Christopher Plummer (Charles Muntz), Jordan Nagai (Russell), Bob Peterson (Dug), Bob Peterson (Alpha), Delroy Lindo (Beta), Jerome Ranft (Gamma), John Ratzenberger (Construction Worker Tom), David Kaye (Newsreel Announcer) Runtime: 97 min. MPAA rating: PG (some action, peril)
This movie is about a cranky elderly balloon salesman named Carl Fredricksen who made a career for himself as a balloon salesman. As major fans of dirigible pilot Charles Muntz, he and his wife Ellie were planning to go down to Paradise Falls, South America, something they planned and always wanted to do but life would constantly get in the way. Sadly, Ellie dies before they can go. Planning to follow through on his promise to go down to Paradise Falls, and not wanting to move into a retirement home, Carl ties several thousands of balloons to his house and plans to fly there. Inadvertently, he has a stowaway in the form of Russell, a boy scout who is on a hunt for his helping the elderly badge. Can Carl fulfill his promise to Ellie to get to Paradise Falls, and is there more to Charles Muntz than he’s letting on?
When Up was announced in the later half of the 2000s, I admit I was a bit hesitant to see this movie. I saw WALL-E without any real problem, but when we were getting this movie and seeing all the accolades it got, I started to worry that Pixar was getting too big. I was okay with seeing an occasional misfire from Disney as they had done so in the past but it seemed like Pixar was setting the bar so high for themselves that even they wouldn’t be able to touch it. I felt like that would be like if you were to get an A+ on every single school subject; even just getting something like a B grade would not seem okay.
At the same time, there were some insiders that were afraid that because of its subject matter, this movie would likely have been a disappointment at the box-office. They were afraid kids wouldn’t want to see it because it doesn’t truly lend itself to things like toys and Happy Meal promotions.
But the movie would strike back at that and would go become the second highest grossing Pixar film behind Finding Nemo at the time. Not only that, but it would be the first time since Beauty and the Beast back in 1991 that an animated movie would get a nomination for Best Picture. But how did it accomplish this? Time for me to give my thoughts on the movie.
The movie’s story is it begins in the 1930s as Carl Fredricksen is aspiring to be like his hero, pilot Charles Muntz. From there he develops a friendship with a neighborhood girl named Ellie who he later turns into a marriage. From there, the movie goes into its strongest sequence. Without speaking a word of dialogue, Carl and Ellie go through the joys and sorrows of martial life and it strikes all the right chords as people would know exactly what this sort of life is like. This sequence would cause people to break down crying as they would find this life relatable and know that despite all the aspirations made, compromises forced otherwise. As a post-retirement gift, Carl planned to surprise Ellie in that they would finally get to go to Paradise Falls, but she would not live to see it and dies soon after. This sets Carl up on a personal quest for redemption as he would want to get their house to Paradise Falls. Pixar was definitely at their peak with this.
I do know that some kids may not fully relate to Carl’s story, and some of what goes on may go over their heads. I remember shortly after said sequence occurred, my niece wanted to know why Ellie just seemed to have disappeared. Clearly this movie is working on two levels, and it’s an example of why Pixar was lightyears ahead of everyone else in animation during the 2000s. They were placing story and character development first and creating a sense of adventure while everyone else was making jokes about popular trends, casting A-list stars in high-concept roles and fart jokes. That’s not to say that Up is 100% ageless as they do have a few themes of a broken family and a GPS reference, but it’s not trapped to the 2000s.
There is a bit of a plot hole though, as it seems the characters’ ages don’t truly add up; I will admit I was a bit surprised to have Carl and Ellie as grade-school kids while Charles Muntz was an adult man; if Carl was supposed to later be 78 wouldn’t that have meant Charles would be over 100?
The main bulk of the story though, is between an odd couple friendship made between Carl and Asian boy scout Russell. Despite being so different, they create a great chemistry and are very believable. In spite having a lot of tropes that you might expect from this brand of story, the team at Pixar was very successful in creating an unlikely friendship between this elderly man and an elementary school-age boy.
Now to tell you about the animation? Being that it’s a Pixar movie, they don’t disappoint. The movie uses very believable animation to convey exact character movement as there is a big difference between how Carl or Charles would walk as opposed to Russell, the dogs or Kevin the snipe. There is a ton of detail too, ranging from the inside of Carl and Ellie’s house, to the South American forest, to the inside of Charles Muntz’s dirigible, with so much contrast in mood lighting; there are bright moments to suggest joy and dark moments to suggest gloom. By this point, you’d expect Pixar would deliver top tier animation and they do so amazingly well.
Now, you probably would like me to tell you about the characters, and there’s a lot you could say as they seem extremely complex; I’ll try to give you at least some idea. The main hero, Carl Fredricksen, is a cranky old man who wants to fulfill a promise made to his late wife that he would fly their house down to Paradise Falls as a life-long aspiration. He displays a wide-array of emotions the weight you feel about him being divided on fulfilling his promise to Ellie and give Russell the claim he would need for his badge. His partner, Russell, is a boy scout who at first seems like a nuisance to Carl but is more aid that he lets on, his has a thirst for adventure and a wide range of knowledge about various subjects that would likely make him the character that kids would be likely to gravitate towards. While Carl originally used a snipe to get Russell to leave him alone, it turns out to be real in the form of giant exotic bird. The snipe is what Russell names Kevin before learning it’s a female. Dug the dog is one of Charles’s dogs that has a collar which translates his lines of what a dog might be thinking. Clearly some imagination had to been used and there’s no denying their feral nature will prove ageless. The movie’s villain is Charles Muntz, a pilot who Carl originally idolized and has a long, detailed history of accomplishments, but are such accomplishments exaggerated? In truth, he’s out hunting for a snipe and his obsession led him to make some morally questionable choices. He has an army of dogs that like Doug all wear translating collars; amongst them is his dogs Alpha, Beta and Gamma who are loyal foot soldiers as you might expect dogs to be. Like I said, I don’t know if I’m doing the characters complete justice in these summaries as there’s probably a lot more that we don’t know about.
Pixar may have eventually surrendered being the perfect studio, but we can safely say this movie is one of their absolute best. Up is still relevant, with lots of heart and great animation and characters that everyone will deeply care about. There was no denying this movie was Pixar at their peak, everyone of any age will enjoy it. In fact, it made me want to do some traveling myself. Up is one movie that everyone should consider owning.
Up (2009) TreyVore rates it: A
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Jan 28, 2022 2:14:31 GMT -5
The Angry Birds Movie (2016)
Distributor: Sony Pictures/Columbia Pictures/Rovio Animation Director: Clay Kaytis, Fergal Reilly Cast: Jason Sudeikis (Red), Josh Gad (Chuck), Danny McBride (Bomb), Maya Rudolph (Matilda), Bill Hader (Leonard), Peter Dinklage (Mighty Eagle), Sean Penn (Terrance), Keegan-Michael Key (Judge Peckinpah), Kate McKinnon (Stella), Tony Hale (Ross), Ike Barinholtz (Tiny), Ian Hecox (Bubbles), Anthony Padilla (Hal), Billy Eichner (Chef Pig) Runtime: 97 min. MPAA rating: PG (action, rude humor)
This movie, set on Bird Island, an island of happy, flightless birds, is about Red, a bird with temper issues and large eyebrows. Working as a cake delivery bird for parties, he’s late to his gig and his cake is less than presentable, prompting the family to slam his services so he vents his characteristic rage on them. He gets sentenced to anger management therapy where he is grouped together with two follow outcasts, that being the speedy Chuck and volatile Bomb. When Red’s house is destroyed by Leonard and his pig pals from Piggy Island, the birds and pigs make friends but Red still doesn’t trust them. When the whole thing was just a scheme by the pigs to steal the birds’ eggs to make a giant omelet, it’s up to Red and his pals to lead the birds to recover the eggs. Can Red, Chuck and Bomb succeed in stopping the pigs and saving the eggs?
Anyone who’s ever used a smartphone during the 2010s is more than likely familiar with the phone app game Angry Birds. A Finnish game released in 2009 as a spin on Crush the Castle, it took the world by storm with its simple, silly theme of using bird characters to pop the greedy pigs using a slingshot and real-world physics. Fittingly, the pigs, ie. the villains, were originally meant to be an answer to the swine flu pandemic. It became one of the highest downloaded app games ever, and quickly spawned a wide range of merchandise, including T-shirts, stuffed dolls, Happy Meal toys, Lego sets and crossing over with several different franchises, it was everywhere. Red even got a balloon in Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.
That said, amidst all the merchandise, there was something else coming up on the horizon: a movie based on Angry Birds. We’ve seen movies about video games before but they don’t have the best track record. Part of the reason for that is you would need to embrace the more ridiculous side of the game while also taking into account whether or not the characters are strong enough to carry a movie.
I probably should start with the story. The movie doesn’t truly have the strongest one, as you might expect. All you really have is a character sentenced to anger management class due to being picked on forever, an unlikely friendship that leads to betrayal and finally embracing the source material. The movie does not expect you to be well-versed in Angry Birds lore, because honestly, there isn’t much. The games themselves were not Shakespeare, all you needed to know was the birds are being used to pop the pigs in order to clear the stage, with a high score and 1-3 star rating.
However, I will say that going into this movie, you were fully aware of its caveat. If there was ever a “Just Here For Godzilla”, this is it. The story doesn’t need to make very much sense or follow a lot of strong plot points, it’s just a set up because what you really want to see is the selling point of the game, that being to launch the birds to destroy towers and combat the pigs. It does take a bit to get there, but the reason for the movie doesn’t disappoint.
The movie’s animation quality is actually very nice. With it being done by Rovio Animation, that being the creators of the games rather than farm it out to a third party to compromise creative control, the game designers would most definitely know exactly how the characters should look. In the games themselves, the birds and pigs all are ball-like, almost like disembodied heads. In translation to a movie though, that is not going to fly, so they now have full bodies, with a torso, arms/wings and legs. The re-designs work well and fit naturally onto the characters. The climax of the movie is definitely its biggest highlight with them fully embracing the ludicrousness of it’s source material. They thankfully didn’t blow it all on the climax though, as the look of the islands and King Pig’s castle are all well done. The movie had a lot of internal love from it’s parent company and in that it shows; it easily helps make the movie well worth seeing.
Now, about the movie’s characters. Well, they are sort of a mixed bag. These are not the strongest characters in video gaming and they don’t have much to go on. That’s not truly the point of the game, in that you play it because it’s fun. For a movie though, well I’ll go and describe them. The movie’s hero, Red, is a red bird with anger issues. Under normal circumstances, he’d be seen as the bad guy because he seems to indulge in his anger and would be seen as a criminal because a lot of what he does could be judged as assault. His actions are seen as justifiable though, in that a lot of birds surrounding him are tools. As an example, he was picked on a lot as a hatchling, and a lot of other birds made fun of him. A dad is a jerk about him being late when he wasn’t and then Red throws the cake in his face. Another bird sneezes on his popcorn and he throws the bag on him. This doesn’t lead you to think he should be the one attending anger management therapy though. His buddies thankfully aren’t like that though. First off Chuck the yellow bird is like the hyper one who always does everything super-fast; he is almost like if Frozen’s Olaf was on a sugar rush and was always bolting around every time he’d move. His other pal Bomb is more of a dummy that inexplicably knows how to explode; it makes no sense in context but it worked in the game. They can both have moments of being annoying. His anger management instructor Matilda is a new-agey teacher that is holding in her rage until it’s time, and Terrance, who you probably knew as the wrecking ball, doesn’t get any real dialogue, almost like he’s supposed to be a restrained killer along the lines of Hannibal Lecter. The Mighty Eagle is like a past-his-prime legendary alpha male bird that under better circumstances could have been a great character. However, you’ll never have guessed that at some point he was ever a great hero; partly because he never had any roles on Bird Island; he was just a bird that is always describe as full-of myself attitude and only helps when the time comes. The pigs, led by Leonard, are never meant to be seen as heroic at all; they are just always meant to be seen as bad. That is not saying they’re bad, as a lot of humor is used to make them likable. Ultimately, not everyone is likable and some of them don’t get a lot of screentime. I’ll even say that some of their moral compasses are lacking. I will say they are acceptable but not amazing.
Complaints are in the end, meaningless as the movie never was once trying to change the world. It was always meant to be funny and it succeeds in doing that.
I’ll just close by saying The Angry Birds Movie is what you’d want it to be by the end. The movie is not high-art or meant to be award-winning by any stance and this movie doesn’t leave you hating the premise. It was nothing more than a silly idea that gives viewers what they want. It could have been a lot worse.
The Angry Birds Movie (2016) TreyVore rates it: C
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on May 28, 2022 12:46:06 GMT -5
The Bob’s Burgers Movie (2022)
Distributor: 20th Century Studios/Bento Box Entertainment/Wilo Productions Director: Loren Bouchard, Bernard Derriman Cast: H. Jon Benjamin (Bob Belcher), John Roberts (Linda Belcher), Dan Mintz (Tina Belcher), Eugene Mirman (Gene Belcher), Kirsten Schaal (Louise Belcher), Larry Murphy (Teddy), Zach Galifianakis (Felix Fischoeder), Kevin Kline (Calvin Fischoeder), David Wain (Grover Fischoeder), Gary Cole (Sgt. Bosco) Runtime: 102 min. MPAA rating: PG-13 (rude/suggestive material, language)
This movie is about the Belcher family who run a hamburger restaurant in a seaside community. When Bob and Linda fail to butter up the bank’s loan agent for an extension on their loan, they have one week to pay what they owe or the bank will repossess their restaurant. It shouldn’t be a problem, at least not until a sewage pipe causes a massive sinkhole to form in front of their restaurant, effectively stopping potential customers from entering. Overhearing her parents’ bedroom discussion, Louise decides to pull a stunt to prove her bravery against the claims of other girls at school by going down into the sinkhole as Tina and Gene watch. When she becomes hesitant and falls in anyway, she discovers a skeleton that belongs to a carny named Cotton Candy Dan, who was murdered six years ago and was somehow buried beneath the street. With the Belchers’ landlord Calvin Fischoeder thought responsible and put under arrest, they now have some leeway in regards to paying their rent, as Linda assumes. So, with one week to make money to pay the bank, can the Belcher family do just that, prove their landlord’s innocence, keep their restaurant afloat and find the person responsible for Cotton Candy Dan’s murder?
This movie is based on the long-running, Emmy-winning mature Fox cartoon series Bob's Burgers. I do certainly have a history with Bob’s Burgers, being the show that more or less allowed Fox to screw over The Cleveland Show on Fox’s Animation Domination block. I do consider myself a fan, however I will be honest and admit I haven’t been following it to the same level of The Simpsons. Don’t get me wrong, I have seen more than just a few episodes and I know virtually most of the series’ characters. Just some complications stopped me from being the most consistent viewer. It didn't stop me from picking up the DVD boxsets though. However I do know that it’s seen as a spiritual successor to Fox’s earlier series King of the Hill, indeed show producer Jim Dauterive worked that series for most of its run.
I do have a lot of respect for makers of mature cartoons. After all, I feel it must be difficult to make a series that would be a staple of viewing. The fact you are not targeting kids but mature viewers must be a Herculean task on its own. And on top of that you feel like the show could actually work as a movie that people will pay money to see is a… very big task as well.
The other thing I remember happening is that we were originally supposed to have gotten this movie in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic got in the way. So let’s begin the review of the movie, eh?
The movie’s story does have two running paths that it takes, the first being Bob and Linda’s efforts to keep their restaurant from closing and the second being the kids on a case to solve a murder mystery. The sinkhole that is formed as a result of what happened six years earlier ties both threads together as the parents and the kids are impacted by the potential doom that could befall their home.
At times, I’m almost reminded of the plot behind the first SpongeBob SquarePants movie in that there was a crime that occurs and the hero(es) now want to prove someone’s innocence. That’s hardly a bad thing in that it’s a plot that does work and the movie doesn’t require familiarity with the series on which it’s based to work. It does help, but I do imagine someone who is a very devoted fan may get the most milage. There are more details to the plot but I’ll just save that for when tell you about the characters.
The movie’s animation quality does maintain the look and feel of the show, with a slight step-up in quality. I do feel this has it’s pros and cons as well, it looks like how you think it should, and they have more regards to things like lighting. However, I do understand that the show doesn’t have the ritziest animation quality, a major reason for this is to meet deadlines and keep budget under control. There is, though, the factor of how there is instances of the characters momentarily looking static and not really showcasing much movement. The movie doesn’t go anywhere beyond the wharf that show is supposed to be set; there are a variety of different places they go, as a few examples, the restaurant itself, the harbor, a small town for carnival carnies, a warehouse… For me, the movie’s weakest quality was the animation.
Now for the movie’s characters, which is probably the strongest part. I should start with the members of the Belcher family. Bob is the family’s harried breadwinner who is always fearful of the idea that his restaurant is only a few days away from closing. He now has reason to think so as he’s now in the position where he only has a week to pay the bank otherwise his family will not only lose the restaurant but their home. Bob is always meant to be the straight character and while he is always the reason for the show, we are aware of who truthfully are the stars. His wife Linda by contrast is the loopy optimist who always tries to maintain a positive outlook. She, like sitcom moms of the past, is the binding glue that holds her husband and children together. Now their three kids, the show’s true stars, are all going through their own struggles—awkward eldest teen daughter Tina is pining for her crush Jimmy Pesto, Jr. to be her summer boyfriend, while worried that her potential new love life may not match her fantasy love life. Excitable middle son Gene is in the process of building an instrument for his new band, he’s also struggling with how to go about building an audience. Scheming youngest child Louise is facing the issue of peer pressure; she is now getting teased over the idea that her trademark bunny ears hat is starting to make her look immature. What unites them all is the restaurant is in danger of being shut down; the kids want to secure a future while the parents try to secure the present. Other characters that are notable are Teddy, the handyman who is Bob’s best customer and wants to aid them as he feels he can’t lose his favorite restaurant, the Belchers’ eccentric landlord Calvin Fischoeder and his brother Felix along with their cousin Grover—and I can’t say too much about them because spoilers—and Sgt. Bosco, the police detective who is on the hunt for the murder suspect. All united under a common goal, the movie does a great job carrying over the heart, humor and entertainment value the show is known for with its own quirky charm.
While life in Springfield and Quahog may have gotten a bit stale, The Bob’s Burgers Movie is a fine example of what is so notable about the series on which it’s based. I’m aware it’s box-office draw might be a bit soft especially in the shadow of Top Gun: Maverick, but I’m willing to bet it will continue to live on after it leaves theatres. So who’s up for burgers?
The Bob’s Burgers Movie (2022) TreyVore rates it: B+
|
|