THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (2011)

Growing up I vaguely remember the story of Tintin and his dog Snowy, not to mention his friend Capatain Haddock. I remember this because it was a cartoon and back in the day before there was too much to watch the selections were limited. As a cartoon, Tintin always seemed a little dry but nonetheless I found myself watching it from time to time. Then - nothing. At least not for fifteen years of my life.

Then, through my various interweb snoopings, a couple of years ago I discovered Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were teaming up to bring Tintin to the big screen. Retrospectively, it's surprising it took anybody this long to make a movie based on one of the most successful comic series of all time. But alas, along with writers Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) this amazingly talented super team has brought us The Adventures of Tintin, which also happens to be Spielberg's first 3D movie. As Scorcese did with Hugo, I'm happy to say he's done it right.

In this case, The Adventures of Tintin turns out to be more of a single adventure - one surrounding an old ship called the Unicorn. The ship itself belonged to a relative of Captain Haddock, who's played by the motion capture master himself - Andy Serkis. Tintin is played by Jamie Bell and other notable 'performances' come from Thomson and Thompson, who are voiced by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg respectively.

Tintin works for a lot of reasons. The biggest and most important reason it works is why any good film succeeds - the story. I'm not certain if the story is wholly based on previously written written material, although I wouldn't be surprised as even my foggy memory shook loose a few familiar moments from the cartoon. Other reasons Tintin is so wonderful are in part due to the amazing special effects, the successfully utilized 3D and my thirst for adventure - or anybody's for that matter. Any criticisms lie within that of the uncanny valley. While I admire the detailed animation and often marvelled at it - my suspended disbelief was never broken per say, just jarred.

The Adventures of Tintin gets an open door as I suspected it would. It's kid friendly, it's adult friendly and it's PETA friendly. Seriously, a lesser dog would have been eaten by that hawk. With Oscar season upon us, Tintin is sure to score big in at least a couple of categories including Best Animated Feature. I imagine a sequel isn't far off either.

Read more...

THE SMURFS (2011)

So, what do you get when you mix modern CGI with a classics children tail and the theory that if you can, maybe you should? You get a hunk of good intentions called The Smurfs. You also get somebody like Neil Patrick Harris to try and make it better. News flash folks, it's not NPH that does the writing - nor can his scrawny frame carry the weight of twenty years of childhood nostalgia and expectations. But then again - I'm not sure who could.

As more movies like The Smurfs continue to come out, a better idea comes to mind. Why not just leave well enough alone? Not only have the Smurfs told their numerous stories through the original show, but it's highly unlikely we need another 'wacky character caught in New York' story. Frankly, if you are going to make a Smurfs movie, why not keep it in the same environment that made the original so successful? Was there really no other story you could have told? Could there not have been more drug references? Did this have to be a kids movie when the generation it belongs to is now aged thirty or higher? I think if the studios wanted a film people would be raving about, they should have upped the ante here and made it more mature.

The basic story here is that The Smurfs are chased by Gargamel into a vortex that transports them to New York City. There the Smurfs meet Patrick (Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) who help them out by giving them a place to live until they can find their way back to the Smurf Village. Meanwhile, Gargamel is out to find them because, well, that's what he does. Also, he needs them so he can start up his own cosmetics company and take over the world - nope, I didn't make that up. But thankfully, the Smurfs will lend their helping hand to assist Patrick in coming up with a new ad campaign. One that'll undoubtedly represent his best wishes and intent - and not the interest of the people who are paying him (because his bosses are evil you see). Essentially, it's all a bunch of believe in yourself bullsmurf.

If there was any redeeming quality in this movie it was Hank Azaria who plays Gargamel. You could tell both him and Harris knew this movie was shit, so they decided to ad lib whatever they could get away with and have fun with The Smurfs. Yes, this movie is also kid friendly and colorful so I'm sure anybody under five may have a smurf of a time watching the film. Anybody with the brain of somebody a little more mature might giggle at some of the quips but will be bored by the unoriginal storyline.

I am giving The Smurfs a big BLUE closed door, because feeling blue can be a bad thing - despite the film's opening message. But let's be honest - there were very few people who knew this would make a good movie, even with the blue buzz around this thing. Although I've yet to see it, if you want a movie your child will cherish (especially if it's their first movie-going experience) I'd recommend Winnie the Pooh. From what I've heard, that's a movie to be proud of. New T-shirt idea: Go Pooh, Not Blue.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

CARS 2 (2011)

Did I hate Cars 2? Nope. Did I like it? About as much (if not slightly more) than the first one. My friend Luke brings up an interesting point about this film. While it's obvious this film exists to cash in on merchandising opportunities, the reason the Cars movies work is because we all believe our cars to be personified. There's almost nobody out there that doesn't refer to their car or a vehicle (especially the ones we love) as 'he' or 'she'. So what's better than seeing a film like Cars 2 and thinking to yourself "Hey, I bet my minivan does think that way!"

Does that mean Cars 2 is without its flaws? No, not at all. But it is watchable if you can get past the idea that for some reason cars with no hands can somehow make buildings, write newspaper articles and dare I say - make babies? Best leave that story for a time when Disney runs out of enough ideas to make a film literally titled The Birds and the Bees. These flaws were present in the first one as well. If you accepted it then, you'll accept it with the sequel.

In Cars 2, two main characters stray from home - Lightning McQueen (Midnight in Paris's Owen Wilson) and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy). They leave Radiator Springs behind for the sites of the world in pursuit of first place at the World Grand Prix. Sure enough, in front of the big shots Mater embarrasses McQueen leaving McQueen to push Mater out of the way and move on to 'more important things'. That's when Mater runs into spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The spies mistake Mater for one of the most gifted spies they've ever encountered. If Cars was McQueen's movie then Cars 2 is certainly Mater's.

Now, the Disney/Pixar execs will swear a couple of things when it comes to Cars 2 (Pixar's most unnecessary film to date). One is that this film was made solely for merchandising purposes (they'll say it was made to appease the fans' demands), and the other is that this is more of spy movie than a spoof of a spy movie. The merchandising is whatever - Cars 2 cost Disney $200 million to make. While it'll easily make that back in ticket sales, a movie made mainly for kids essentially sells out the second it's pitched anyways. If the studios thought kids would want to sport Black Swan gear, we would see the same - art or not. So for those of you hating on this film for that aspect of it, get over your high sense of self and tell me you didn't want an Optimus Prime action figure in the worst way when you were eight. As for the spy part of it, that's something I wanted to discuss.

It's the 21st century, a spy film made today will have some air of James Bond to it no matter what. It's what made Austin Powers successful, and it will make Cars 2 successful. The thing they have in common? They are both spoofs of spy movies in some ways. While Austin Powers is more candid about it, Cars 2 still borrows a lot from the spy genre and therefore becomes a spoof. But let me be clear, this isn't a bad thing. Here it's used as a tool to send Mater on a wacky adventure and provide some comic relief.

For the entertainment value alone, I am giving Cars 2 an open door. The day that I can't recommend a Pixar film will be a sad day indeed. This one came close though. But there are enough jokes, color and pretty things to look at that while the adult in us may struggle with it a bit, the kid in us (or car enthusiast in us) will love it.

*Stills courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Read more...

KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)

Kung Fu Panda Boo...

Kung Fu Panda (the first one) was at the very least an interesting enough concept. While I'm not the biggest fan of Jack Black as he seems to repeat the same shtick, the first movie entertained me enough that I would have at least recommended it when asked. Kung Fu Panda 2 on the other hand, is a movie that I feel didn't need to exist. In a year with a record-breaking amount of sequels, I can't help but feel that Dreamworks was only looking to cash in on the franchise cow that all movies seem to be on board for. It's no longer about just making one movie - but rather as many as possible. Chances are, when a studio is offered a film these days they'll ask themselves if a sequel is a possibility, even before the film is released. Later on this year we'll see Hugh Jackman in Real Steel, a film about robot counterparts who box. The studio that's produced Real Steel likes enough of what it's seen to already start talks about a sequel - that studio by the way also happens to be Dreamworks.

Panda 2 is a half origin story about Po (Black), a panda who in the first film learned he was the coveted Dragon Warrior. This story focuses on where he came from and the bad guy responsible for Po's separation from his parents - Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen wants to take over the world and was told once upon a time via a fortune teller that a panda would be responsible for his demise. Shen then had all the pandas killed off forcing Po's mother to abandon him in a box of radishes.

While Panda 2 does a nice job tying itself to the first one (as well as setting up a third film), as aforementioned it seems unnecessary. There's less of a journey for Po and Panda 2 seems to try less hard to please the viewer, as if implicating that because there was a first movie already there's no need to try anything new here or build upon Panda 1. We also get far less time with any characters other than Po than we did in the first movie. Call me asinine, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the other members of the Furious Five - who include animals voiced by wasted talents such as Angelina Jolie, David Cross and Jackie Chan, to name a few.

Kung Fu Panda 2 gets a closed door. I wasn't out to hate the movie from the beginning and I'm still not. It just didn't do it for me as I was hoping to be a bit more surprised and just simply didn't feel anything. This time around if an individual came up to me to ask if I would recommend this film, I'm afraid the answer would have to be a plain and simple "no".

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

RIO (2011)

Rio is brought to you by the number 420 - because it's about the only thing that will make this film less of a 'bird'en.

Jesse Eisenberg (correction - Academy Award nominee Jesse Eisenberg) makes a bad damn decision to be part of Rio - as does Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx, and Academy Award nominee Anne Hathaway. Rio proves to be another classic example of how a film can have the talent to back it up, but no originality to move it forward. Clearly these three actors were just too polite to walk away from this project after reading the this script, or they had their iPod on while reading the parts and couldn't hear the lines as come out of their talented mouths (Did that sound gay? Yeah, that probably sounded gay...).

Because you haven't heard the same story before (sarcasm abounds), I'll tell you a little but about Rio. Once upon a time there was a bird named Blu (Eisenberg) who fell off an exotic animal truck in Moose Lake, Minnisota. He was picked up by Linda (Leslie Mann) who raised him to be a cocky bird who never learned to fly. One day (out of the 'blue' perhaps?) Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro), a bird mater from South America, comes knocking telling Linda that Blu is the last male of his species. If there are to be any other birds of his feather, he'll have to mate with the last remaining female of his species - Jewl (Anne Hathaway).

So the trio heads down to Rio where after a failed Thanksgiving (you know, where Blu stuffs the bird?), Blu and Jewel escape only to be apprehended by a group of thugs looking to sell the rare birds on the black market. When the two escape from the cunning bad guy (and two cliché idiot sidekicks), they end up on the run and get into all sorts of wacky adventures while on the search for Blu's owner, Linda. Those adventures include two stereotypical (and racially-profiled) birds, voiced by Foxx and Geporge Lopez - as well as a decently entertaining bulldog named Luiz (Tracy Morgan). To top it all off, take a guess as to how in love Blu and Jewl fall... it just goes on and on, people.

I guess with Rio, I'd hoped that Hathaway had left alone Hoodwinked Too to avoid another animated disaster (this just in - I was wrong). Am I saying Rio would or could have never worked? No, I'm just saying it might have worked better under the supervision of Disney/Pixar director Brad Bird (seriously, no pun intended - he's just really good). At least Bird knows that physical humour every three seconds doesn't necessarily dictate good humour.

I am giving this clichéd mess of a film a big, fat closed door. For kids, sure - they may giggle a time or two. For adults - Rio will please you about as much as writer/director Carlos Saldanha's previous works did, such as Robots and Ice Age (both relatively unamazing, as well) - which also had big names be part of them as well. Come to think of it - are Saldanha films where big name actors (who have just won Oscars, especially) and their careers go to die? Maybe. Coming up next year - Jeremy Renner in Asparagus - a film about a young asparagus plant who's self-conscious about the way his pee smells (yes, that's based on a quote from Elf).

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Animation

Read more...

RANGO (2011)

Karma, karma, karma chameleon.

Johnny Depp is a weird guy - I mean that in the best of ways. We all know what he looks like when he's not in make-up as Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissorhands or The Mad Hatter. He seems very laid back and relaxed - yet he has this other side to him that allows him to pull off very unique and interesting performances. It's obvious why Tim Burton likes him and why Depp is today's go-to guy for the odd-ball characters that sometimes even land him an Oscar nomination. In something like Rango, it seems like Depp has once again successfully separated himself from the person he is off the screen and while you can recognize Rango's voice as Depp, it becomes very difficult to picture him saying the lines or if you've seen some of the behind-the-scenes footage - to see Depp acting the way he does while shooting.

Rango is about a pet lizard (a chameleon to be more exact) who has a passion for the theatre. Everything is just as he likes it until the car he's riding in the back of hits an armadillo in the middle of the desert and his glass tank flies out of his owner's car and he's left to fend for himself. That is until he finds the small town of Dirt - where apparently water shortage is an issue. Dirt is inhabited by all sorts of desert creatures - the most feared being a rattlesnake named Jake voiced by Bill Nighy (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Hot Fuzz).

After saving the inhabitants of Dirt from a a vulture (or something like that), the mayor (Ned Beatty, Toy Story 3) makes Rango the town Sheriff. All is good for a while for Rango until he discovers a secret plot to control the town's water - in turn controlling the town's people.

In an age where animated movies tend to turn to pop culture references in order to relate to the audience (and get another laugh or two), Rango is extremely refreshing in its originality. Besides more or less playing on the western genre and using a perfectly-fitting Clint Eastwood reference, this film is a wholly unique piece of work with some of the most original tones and pacing I've seen in a long time - animated or otherwise. All the performances are top notch and you get some really funny moments. I'm inclined to say this is an animated films adults will enjoy more than perhaps the kids will - due to the quirky nature of the humour, the subtle jokes and the slower and more odd moments.

Rango gets an open door. I believe this is a film that will appreciate over time and find its way onto the shelves and into the hearts with other animated classics. If you don't like westerns on the other hand, this may not be entirely for you - even then, it's a stretch to say you wouldn't enjoy yourself. The animation with Rango is some of the best you're likely to see in a while. Pay close attention to the lighting, and the flavor this film has within it's vibrant style. Definitely one to enjoy while it's still on the big screen if you can.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

GNOMEO & JULIET (2011)

A tired tale? Hardly.

It was inevitable, wasn't it? That one day Elton John would insist on being part of a project that combined his loves of Shakespeare and garden gnomes. As executive producer for Gnomeo & Juliet, he's done just that - but he's not the only man behind the curtain in this fun tale of two gnome families duking it out. It also comes to us in part from director Kelly Asbury, who unsurprisingly also headed 2004's Shrek 2 - my favorite Shrek film to date.

The story itself is of course based on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It's also based on Gnome Culture - surprisingly, we get no references on behalf of or referencing Travelocity. There are two families of gnomes - the Blue and the Red. Each color represents the owners who bought the ceramic figures, named Montague and Capulet.

The two colors it seems have been battling it out forever. They play pranks on each other and when the owners are away they have lawnmower races in the alley. While playing a prank one night on the reds (AKA the Capulets), a disguised Gnomeo (James McAvoy) runs into Emily Blunt's Juliet (who also happens to be in disguise and on a mission of her own). They fall in love almost instantly and it isn't long before they discover that they are, alas, enemies.

Whenever they get the chance, they tryst in a neighbouring abandoned backyard whose only inhabitant is a rejected pink flamingo named Featherstone (Jim Cummings). Other notable appearances come from Matt Lucas who plays Benny and Ashley Jensen who plays the wise-cracking Nanette.

What I really liked about Gnomeo & Juliet was the fact that the original 400 year old play was nothing more than a guideline. The writers realized it's been done before and that a simple translation wouldn't be funny no matter how cute the gnomes would be. There's even a comment on this within the film itself where a statue of Bill Shakespeare (voiced by Patrick Stewart) tells Gnomeo that his lovelorn tale sounds similar to a story he wrote and that "it didn't end well".

Gnomeo & Juliet gets an open door. It's funny, clever and isn't afraid to recognize itself as nothing more than a movie who's title is based purely and simply on a pun. However, anybody that knows me knows that there's nothing more that I enjoy than a good pun - and there are lots here (as well as a lot of quick references to other Shakespeare tales). A lot of people find garden and lawn gnomes creepy -but if their anything like these guys when nobody is around, I certainly don't mind.

*Stills courtesy of Miramax Films

Read more...

TANGLED (2010)

It's a pleasure to get tangled up in this Disney flick.

Rapunzel, Rapunzel! Let down your long hair! Words that ring through all our heads, no doubt, when we remember the fairy tales we grew up with. In fact, aside from Goldilocks and the Three Bears and those silly Hansel and Gretel kids, Rapunzel was one of the fairy tales I remember most. I don't know if it was easy to read or what the reason is, but it's there - engrained in my memory.

In Tangled, the tale sinks its talons into my memory deeper still. For the first time though, not as words on a page or pictures in a book. But as a charming, fun, whitty and quite aesthetically pleasing adventure.

The film starts off in the usual fairy tale manner - a long time ago, in a land far, faw away, etc. That's all there, of course, to set up Rapunzel's backstory and how she ended up in the tower. In the original fairy tale it's because the witch who took Rapunzel from her parents (as a punishment), put her in a tower to simply keep her from the outside world. With Tangled, it's more or less the same, save for the fact that Rapunzel's (Mandy Moore) long hair is long because once cut, it loses the power to heal and keep the witch, named Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy), young. Believe it or not, the backstory is set up quite nicely; and in a way that has an old school Disney air to it - which was nice to see after the disapointment that was The Princess and the Frog (2009). I don't care if it was Disney's return to classic animation and fairy tales - I just wasn't into it.

Eventually the handsome prince, or in this case, a thief named Flynn (TV's Chuck lead, Zachary Levi) finds Rapunzel's looming tower. He climbs up to and inside the tower using arrows to scale the side of it, in an affort to hide from the authorities that are chasing him. That's where he meets Rapunzel, who eventually coerces Flynn into taking her to the kingdom to see where the lights in the sky come from (one of the only mysterious views she has from her window). The lights are floating lanterns released by the town every year on Rapunzel's birthday, to honor her memory after she was kidnapped eighteen years ago. Flynn reluctantly agrees and the two begin their journey. Throw in several musical numbers (some memorable, some not) and a few wacky characters, and you have the first CG movie released by Disney that has successfully married old school Disney style with new school CG and 3D technology.

The biggest problem Tangled has (and it's barely a problem really), is that it may borrow a little too much from old school Disney. Certain mannerisms and the way Mother Gothel moves may remind you of Ursula from The Little Mermaid (1989). Flynn is undoubtedly inspired by Aladdin and Rapunzel is definitely reminiscent of most other Disney princesses. One can argue that this is all an omage compliment of the young animators, putting a little of the films they loved as kids into their very own Disney movie.

What I loved most about Tangled, however, was just how funny it was. It was random, it was clever, it was a shining example of just how Disney has modernized their humour - and it works wonderfully! The way the jokes played out in this film, reminded me a lot of Meet the Robinsons (2007), in the sense that it knows today's audience are smarter and quicker - and comedy has evolved to that level as well. Physical humour doesn't hold up as well as it used to in the animated classics we all know and love. Today, it's about wit, charm and obscurity - that's what Tangled embraces and I loved it.

I am giving Tangled an open door. Despite it's overuse of classic Disney cliches, one can argue it wouldn't really be a Disney flick without it. I will say that it falls apart a little at the end as the obligatory romance blossoms and the characters are forced into their happy ending. The film was far more enjoyable at the beginning when it wasn't worried about getting to that inevtibale, romantic, fairy tale conclusion. As aformentioned though, these are little problems that I'm only nitpicking on. Don't let it hold you back from going to see this film, especially in theatres. While the 3D doesn't blow your mind (as it rarely does), it's a nice way to get lost in the Tangled world - which is very pretty to look at and quite vibrant.

In the original Rapunzel, by the way, at the end of the story, the prince accidentally pierces his eyes as he falls on thorns and spends years walking around blind trying to find his princess. Disney didn't include this ending. Not sure why, but I suppose they do have they standards...

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Animation Studios

Read more...

MEGAMIND (2010)

I'm blue, dum, dum, dee...

Will Ferrel has treated us over the past decade to a lot of memorable characters. While Ferrell seems to always play the same kind of character (naive, silly and childlike), he also has the ability to play things as a real straight shooter - as is the case with movies like 2006's Stranger Than Fiction, which I really enjoyed. Even if he hasn't fully yet taken to the Jim Carrey and Robin Williams route of playing 'so serious it's spooky' roles, he does somehow seem to find his way into many different roles for the same type of character.

For example, the character we see in Elf (2003) is not much different than that in Anchorman (2004) or Step Brothers (2008). It all deals with childhood adolescence and stubbornness, akin to and old man being stuck in his ways. 'Now' means 'now' and if it turns out to be otherwise, a tantrum ensues.

In Megamind, it's no different. This time however, the tantrum is, surprisingly, much darker than arbitrarily shouting "Son of a nutcracker!" and moving on. Ferrell plays Megamind, a blue-faced, kind-eyed outcast who came to Earth from his home planet in a journey not unlike that of Superman. The difference being that Megamind came to Earth at the same time as another extra-terrestrial, Metro Man (Brad Pitt) - who actually is, well, more like Superman, While Metro Man has everything given to him and soon becomes humanity's favorite saviour, Megamind immediately lands in a prison and is forced into a life of evil. Problem is, Megamind was never really that good at being evil - in fact he only decided to be evil after being rejected by peers, teachers and pretty much everyone else (which would make anyone blue in the face, I imagine).

As the years progress, nothing changes between Megamind and Metro Man. Metro Man always wins and gets the girl, meanwhile Megamind goes back to jail. That is until one day when Megamind succeeds in one of his evil plans and actually destroys Metro Man. Soon Megamind begins to get everything he's ever wanted (as nobody on Earth is powerful enough to stop him), and that's when we see something quite surprising - Megamind begins to realize that without the good doings of Metro Man to challenge him, he lacks purpose. He becomes a depressed, bored loner who starts to face an identity crisis.

Although I wish not give too much away, beneath the cartoonish, silly front of Megamind I was surprised to find an underlying layer of more adult themes. Watching the film revealed a lot of truths about the uncertainties many people face when they're not sure if they are doing what they should in life - including the opportunities a lot of us find ourselves forced into. Megamind deals with his particular crisis by transforming into different people to get what he wants, including a relationship with reporter Roxanne Ritchi (Tina Fey), as well as an apprentice in Ritchi's cameraman, played by the always pleasant (if not overused) Jonah Hill.

I always find it relatively interesting going into a movie, and walking out knowing I'm remembering something about the film that may be the farthest thing from what I'm supposed to. In this case, I may be over-analyzing Megamind, putting themes in there that aren't. In a lot of ways there was an original air surrounding this film, one that seemed to be hidden behind 3-D entertainment made for children. I felt a similar thing walking out of Despicable Me (2010).

Megamind gets an open door. In the end it's funny, occasionally witty and Will Ferrell adds a lot of fun to what is sure to be a lot of ad libbed lines. I also wanted to mention the performances of David Cross and Brad Pitt, who play Minion and Metro Man, respectively. They are more or less what you expect, but considering each of them are capable of carrying movies on their own, it's nice to see them not overstay their welcome. With movies like Avatar (2009) and The Smurfs (2011) surrounding this film, I guess the obvious thing to take note of, is that blue is cool, and so is Megamind.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

DESPICABLE ME (2010)

Not so despicable...

.

Steve Carell and Jason Segal go head to head in the surprisingly entertaining Despicable Me. I, like everyone else, has seen the trailers and constant bombardment of dancing, yellow, one eyed little dudes in the weeks prior to this film’s release. However, I did relatively little looking into before seeing the film as frankly, it looked funny, but my desire to see it was … meh.

However, at a time where there really wasn’t much to see I decided to give it a try. I didn’t regret it. Despicable Me is the story of an evil mastermind named Gru (Steve Carell) who is constantly trying to trump every other evil genius out there and make headlines as the best thief ever. He’s a loveable character who seems to be past his glory days and has trouble thinking outside the box. He has his typical minions (Oompa Loompa-inspired shorties colored yellow) and a mad scientist named Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) at his disposal. The new guy in town, however, named Vector (Jason Segal) is the new kid with the new ideas and the better technology. Wherever Gru seems to strike, Vector is right behind him stealing the thunder.

As part of one of his dastardly plans to steal a shrink ray from Vector, Gru decides to adopt three girls from an orphanage to infiltrate Vector’s lair. However, what he doesn’t expect is he may end up kinda like-liking the girls a little more than he may have planned on.

Despicable Me has a more typical ending than I would have liked, however where it won me over was the atypical overall feel of the film which reminded me a lot of Coraline. It has some darker moments that fit the tone of the overall movie perfectly, and in a way I can’t describe it sort of gave me the heebie jeebies. This is far from a bad thing though as it makes the tone of the movie far more richer than something like Shrek, which is hit and miss but always typical. You’ll know what I mean when you see it.

It’s this touch of originality though that I loved about the film which is why I am giving it an open door. The film treats you right and hits a lot of the right notes without selling out. Plus I love Steve Carell. Let’s just hope he doesn’t overdo it in the future like Robin Williams, where just because he’s awkward and silly and makes funny voices he feels like he can forgo any effort whatsoever, when it comes to acting and or voice acting.

*Stills courtesy of Illumination Entertainment

Read more...

TOY STORY 3 (2010)

Read more...

SHREK FOREVER AFTER (2010)

Shrek Forever better than Shrek the Turd.

It’s a usual tale we’ve heard a million times and seen in a hundred movies and TV shows. The main character wakes up to their “awful” life where they don’t realize how good they have it – so they ask a magical fairy (or a magical fairy man) to make it all better and give them the life they crave. It’s your typical “what if…?” proposal that creates a story full of lessons learnt. I will admit, however, I wasn’t crazy about seeing this typical plot being brought to the likes of Shrek Forever After.

Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t worried about the idea that this instalment would be the worst thing to happen to the series. Shrek was magical, Shrek 2 was hilarious (and perhaps my favourite) and Shrek 3 was a typical, disappointing and awful sequel and comparable to the likes of Spider-Man 3. So the Shrek series had already let me down so I didn’t expect much from Forever After, especially when I heard the premise behind it.

The movie starts when we find out Shrek (Mike Myers) has actually hated his life since getting married and having kids. No one fears him anymore (turns out he was happier during those times), everyday is the same and he has become somewhat famous since becoming and unbecoming the King of Far Far Away. It’s the same routine for him every day and frankly he misses the golden era of life he was leading when we first met him in Shrek.

After becoming easily frustrated at his triplets’ first birthday party, he leaves the party and goes for a stroll. By the way, the funniest and most catchy line of the movie goes to the fat kid at the birthday party who keeps telling Shrek to “do the roar” (and it’s not that line either-but he’ll say it and you’ll laugh). So along the walk Shrek runs into Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) who says he will let Shrek be like he used to be for one day before he met Fiona (Cameron Diaz), and all ol’ Stiltsy wants in return is one day from Shrek’s childhood. Subsequently, he picks the day Shrek was born and Shrek wakes up in the plot of Back to the Future 2.

In this life Fiona doesn’t know him, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) is afraid of him and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a fat, fat mess. It’s up to Shrek to gain Fiona’s kiss by the end of the day to break the spell and put Rumpel in his place.

Shrek Forever After may not be as funny or refreshing as Shrek 2, but it still delivers on the laughs in a lot of unexpected places. There wasn’t much wrong with this film, just stuff I would have like to have seen. In the alternate universe he visits, Shrek theoretically never existed (paradox much?) - therefore his actions done in the first film are null. I would have found it clever and endearing if perhaps during his adventures in Oz he ran into the first film’s villain, Lord Farquaad. Even a small cameo would have reminded us a bit more of where this film series came from and created a more nostalgic feel for what is supposedly the end of the series. Plus John Lithgow’s height-challenged character was one of the more entertaining characters in Shrek. But his absence is about the only complaint I have.

There’s nothing to really hate in Forever After, and that doesn’t make it the worst movie of the year by any means. But what it does have doesn’t make it an amazing movie either. For me, Forever After was simply fun and something I was able to get into relatively easily. I had a great time watching it, and it further adds to my belief that animated films can actually benefit from 3-D. The door is open for this 4th and final instalment of this lovable green ogre’s quadrilogy, and I recommend it to anyone wanting a little harmless fun added to the beginning of what is sure to be a great summer for movies.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)

Jim Carrey plays the Grinch then Scrooge? What kind of shitty Christmas gifts did he get as a kid?

We are all familiar with this classic tale from Charles Dickens. And as of this adaptation, there are over two dozen versions of this movie, and this one is by far the best. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have enjoyed nothing more than watching Mickey’s Christmas Carol almost every year since I was born. It is the version I am most familiar with, and it seems to be one of the more popular Christmas movies amongst the masses. But Robert Zemeckis teamed up with Jim Carrey to create what may be almost exactly what was in Dickens’ head when he wrote the story back in 1843. This is made obvious if one views original illustrations which accompanied the original story. If placed side by side, it would be hard to distinguish between the two.

This isn’t the first time Zemeckis has been faithful to the source material. The Polar Express was literally like a living version of the book, right down to the last shot of the movie. I will use the mention of that film as a nice segway into comparing the two.

The reason for this comparison is because I don’t believe there would be a better comparison for either now that both exist. Express was a beautifully done film, and unlike many that came before it. It came to us as a faithful adaptation from a children’s book. So much like Where the Wild Things Are, because Express was so well done, it stands out and is well on its way to becoming a classic Christmas film much like the animated version of How the Grinch Stole Christmas or It’s a Wonderful Life.

A Christmas Carol however, although memorable and no doubt part of most chirldren’s DVD/Blu-Ray collections by January 2011 (assuming it’s released December 2010), may not be as memorable as Express. The reason for this is twofold. The first being it will be lost amongst the large amounts of adaptations that have come before it, and the second being that it does lack that certain warm holiday feeling due to its sometimes scary visuals and old English dialogue – which can at times be hard to understand, as faithful as it may be to the original source material. That, and the audience who watches and re-watches Christmas films on a yearly basis is made up mostly of children, who will no doubt relate more to a preteen boy who has trouble believing in Santa Claus versus an elderly man who has lost his holiday ways.

That said though, this is undoubtedly one of the best 3-D films I’ve seen (Zemeckis is a master at making sure he uses this technology to his advantage). The film itself looks absolutely wonderful and photo-realism takes another step forward with the infinite amount of detail, to the point where you can actually see the fine hairs on Scrooge’s face. Jim Carrey’s performance as the classic Christmas-hater Ebenezer Scrooge is well done (as well as all the past, present and future ghosts), although at many points the role gets lost in the usual antics of Carrey, and it can become distracting. Gary Oldman however does wonderfully as Bob Cratchit, and in the usual order of motion capture or other animated films, features of all the actors faces can be seen in their cartoon counterparts.

This film overall is definitely one to see, 3-D or not, as there is almost nothing else coming out celebrating the holiday season, and I am all for the holidays. This is definitely something I don’t recommend for your usual G-rated audience, as it all can become quite scary and maybe is too mature for audiences under the age of 8 or so – as it should be though, and is one of the reasons it will stand out amongst the other Carols for years to come. The door is festively open on this one, so go through it if you don’t mind a gentle Christmas haunting, and another visually stunning masterpiece from Zemeckis.

*Stills courtesy of Disney

Read more...

TOY STORY 1&2 in 3-D (1995 & 1999)

Waaaay better than the illegal VHS copy I first saw ...

In a release that should have lasted more than 2 weeks, Woody and Buzz embark on a big screen retread in a beautifully done third dimension. Now, I won't get right into the details on the story, as I think most people are familiar with it by now. The general overall story line is based around the idea that our toys are alive, and when we aren't looking, they intereact and have arguments and play video games based on themselves. But I've never seen it like this.

The first time I watched Toy Story my 7th grade teacher was kind enough to make a copy of the movie from a VHS her friend had loaned to her, and then showed to us. Now, before DVDs, the first VHS I bought was my own, and I didn't get to see very many films, so I was grateful for anything - good quality, static, full screen, whatever. Toy Story 2 was seen on VHS as well - only a real copy this time. That was the last time I saw them (crica 2001) until I bought them on DVD in 2004. Then i was able to rewatch them as I pleased in wonderful digital widescreen. They were as I had remembered, and I loved it.

But it was never, ever, like this. After watching these films in digital 3-D, I rediscovered these films in a whole new way, unlike anything i had seen before. When I say that, and when I tell you this, I may be biased, as I now am comparing a viewing experience like digital 3-D to a copied VHS I had seen over a decade ago. But past that, compared to the DVD's even, there were textures and details that one would almost certainly miss upon any other form of viewing. This goes from the paint on the walls to the texture of Slinky Dog. Now, this is probably due more to the digital side of viewing this film, but the 3-D added that little extra pop.

I found myself watching this film, purposely losing the suspension of disbelief to break myself from the story and just appreciate the pure technical achievement that went into making the first fully CG animated film ever. And boy howdy was it brilliant. You could see the animators stepped up the game in Toy Story 2, adding more and more detail, definitely outdoing the first film, which they should have. I appreciate that, but not as much as the fact Toy Story was even just created and how well it was done. I wish I could only see everything and every movie in as much detail and wonder as I did in every frame of these movies. Mixed with that sense of complete rediscovery for an old favourite.

As afforementioned, it is a true shame they only ran this for two weeks. In the last two weeks last night was the first chance I found to run through this very open door. Even the intermission proved entertaining with a clock counting down the 10 minutes between films, and trivia and behind the scenes looks - wonderful, wonderful stuff. Not to mention the truly unique nature of this double your pleasure movie-going experience.

Now, Toy Story 3 comes out on June 18th, 2010, and I intend to be there to see it. And from the looks of the trailer, its going to be a good one, based on the premise of Andy growing up, set up nicely in the second one. For now, I've included the trailer for the third chapter of this magical series.

Trailer ParkMySpace Videos

*Still courtesy of Disney

Read more...

CORALINE DVD REVIEW (2009)

A well so deep if you fell to the bottom and looked up, you would see a sky full of stars in the middle of the day.

It’s been a long while since I found myself owning a DVD without actually seeing it prior. Up until this point I had assumed Coraline was nothing more than another CG film aimed at children but hoping it would find an adult audience as well. To my surprise, I found myself watching a film made for no younger than more mature children . . . and possibly no older.

I think this because I think most adults would find this film boring. Now when I say ‘most’ I mean the general populous, not those who actually will take this film as the brilliant work of art it is, and who will have trouble giving it the patience it deserves. I myself am no stranger to ‘boring’ films per say, being subjected time and time again to them in numerous film studies classes.

A good example of another “boring” animation would be the Oscar nominated Les Triplettes de Belleville. Yet, as “boring” as it was, it was recognized internationally. Why? - Because again it was brilliant. Did I think it was brilliant when I watched it? Yes. Did I like the film and would I watch it again? No - but I can see what the people behind the film were going for, and they pulled it off with grace and style and vividness. It still doesn’t mean it’s for the average viewer.

This film comes from director Henry Selick, who also directed the wonderfully imaginative A Nightmare Before Christmas. This time it takes a different direction though and has a slightly more indie feel to it, which I’m grateful for. The last thing I need or want from Coraline is an animated cat lip-syncing to “Who Let the Dogs Out?”. It is also setting a precedent for sundry films to come, including Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, both adapted from children's books.

The fact of the matter is that Coraline, when one gets down to it, may come off as a bit dreary. The music for the most part is a bit drab, however, much like Triplettes, a person who pays attention will find themselves immersed in a world very much like that of the average childhood dream, a sort of scary yet very harmless dream. A dream that’s easier to sit through than the dialogue-absent Belleville, mind you. And like most dreams, Coraline is in a sense more real, than well, reality.

There is something unsettling about the way Coraline looks though, that reminds you of just how creepy films like Alice in Wonderland should have been, which it clearly pays homage to, and which also might explain Burton’s Alice in Wonderland coming out next year. But much like the classic Disney version, most parents will probably pop the DVD, sit their toddler and tweens in front of the TV, and walk away. This is all fine and dandy, as I believe the kids will enjoy and understand it more anyways. Than again, some may be completely freaked out and never want to see it again. But in time it won’t be surprising if the kids of today will reminisce about Coraline much like my generation talks about Return to Oz or Labyrinth, and the generation before discusses Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

And to answer your impending question, no, I won’t be surprised if we see Oz and Labyrinth at the hands of Burton soon. Can you just leave ONE childhood classic alone, please, Tim? Except for Garbage Pail Kids, do that one.

As for the DVD extras that come on this disc, they are what they are. Take my advice and don’t watch the 3-D version, it’ll just hurt your poor corneas. I watched the opening sequence and decided to flip over the disc to the 2-D version instead. I won’t watch another film in 3-D at home again, until they make polarized 3-D home theatre-capable. You get some nice explanations for the way they did some effects (I assure you not as much CG is done in the film as you think), and a feature length director’s commentary – which I’ve yet to listen to, but hear isn’t too bad.

As for the acting, Teri Hatcher and Dakota Fanning and the guy that plays the PC from the Justin Long Mac commercials all do pretty good jobs. It should be noted that this is one of the only films I actually like Dakota Fanning in. The door is open on this one. Although be cautious if you plan to step through it. You may find all those you know sporting a shiny pair of button eyes.

*Still courtesy of Alliance Atlantis

Read more...