Frozen - movie review

From Dec 4, 2013

SCORE: A-
A week ago I saw Disney’s new film ‘Frozen’. It’s a great movie that many critics are saying is a return to Disney’s Renaissance Era (1989-1999) in that it’s in the style of a Broadway musical. One critic from The Wrap said the film was “the best animated musical to come out of Disney since the tragic death of lyricist Howard Ashman” and I would have to agree. 
There’s some great music here, from ‘For the First Time in Forever’ to ‘Let it Go’ to the funny ‘Reindeer Are Better Than People’ and ‘In Summer’ songs. 
Disney’s new hit songwriting team are the husband and wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez. They both worked on 2011’s ‘Winnie the Pooh’ (the so-so quasi-remake of the fantastic 1977 original ‘The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh’). While I didn’t care for the music in ‘Winnie the Pooh’, the music in ‘Frozen’ is MUCH better, although there are still some questionable lyrics like “Don't know if I'm elated or gassy” in the song ‘For the First Time in Forever’ but I’ll let one line slide because the rest of it is so good, like the girl-power ballad 'Let it Go'. 
I also liked that second song in the film, ‘Frozen Heart’, reminded me of the working song in ‘Dumbo’.
One of the best things is the orchestral score by Christophe Beck. The main title ‘Vuelie’ is absolutely amazing and is so moving it almost makes me cry hearing it. It reminds me most of Lebo M’s clarion call at the beginning of ‘Circle of Life’, the opening theme from ‘The Lion King’. You can hear 'Vuelie' here, just click on track 11: http://amzn.to/18DjVwz but you should really hear it in the theater.
In the Silmarillion (yes, I'm bringing up Tolkein), spirits called the Ainur helped create the universe through a holy chanting called the Ainulindalë, the "Music of the Ainur". I imagine the Ainulindalë sounding very much like 'Vuelie'. Yes, I feel that strongly about 'Vuelie'. 
From wikipedia: “For the orchestral film score, composer Christophe Beck gave homage to the Norway- and Sápmi-inspired setting, employing regional instruments such as the bukkehorn and traditional vocal techniques, such as kulning. The music producers recruited a Norwegian linguist to assist with the lyrics for an Old Norse song written for Elsa's coronation, and also traveled to Norway to record the all-female choir Cantus, for a piece inspired by traditional Norwegian music.” and: “It was also revealed on September 14, 2013 that Sámi musician Frode Fjellheim's Eatnemen Vuelie will be the film's opening song.”
I really liked how the movie played on the idea of what an act of true love is.
The relationship between sisters Anna and Elsa is strong. And I really liked Kristoff and his reindeer Sven, who have a Han/Chewbacca relationship. Good stuff. There's also a character named Hans, which I'm guessing is a nod to Hans Christian Andersen, who wrote 'The Snow Queen' that 'Frozen' is supposed to be based on. 

And I am SO happy that the snowman character Olaf was lovable and not annoying as hell like he was in the incredibly bad trailer that was released for ‘Frozen’ months ago. Watch it’s terribleness here, if you so choose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WdC4DaYIeQ. It has nothing to do with the movie anyway. I wonder if the Disney people toned Olaf down after the internet backlash from this trailer because he’s not annoying in the actual film.

Another interesting factoid for me is that the director, Chris Buck, is from Wichita, Kansas, where I lived for 3 years in the 1980s.

Everything you read about 'Frozen' says that it is “loosely” based on Hans Christian Andersen’s ‘The Snow Queen’, but after you see ‘Frozen’ you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen and then tell me how loosely it is based. Basically, ‘Frozen’ has almost nothing to do with Andersen’s original story, but that’s not a bad thing at all.

Disney Wine&Dine Half Marathon Recap - race review

From Nov 21, 2013

See my fiancee's and my Wine&Dine Half Marathon race recap, published by blogger Sarah, at: http://runningatdisney.com/2013/11/21/2013-disney-wine-dine-half-marathon-race-recap-a-west-coast-point-of-view/

Gravity - movie review

From Oct 14, 2013

SCORE: A+
Wow. I can honestly say that I have never seen a movie quite like "Gravity". Just go see it. I don't want to tell too much about it. 
Altho, I'll also say that while I think 3D is a passing fad (like it was in the '50s) and adds little-to-nothing to the experience of a film, the 3D DOES add to the experience of watching "Gravity." So see it in 3D if you can (I'm not even certain that you can see it in regular old 2D...)

If you'd like to know more of what I thought of the film, scroll down.
 

SPOILER ALERT !!!!!!!!

You could say that "Gravity" is reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey": it takes place in orbit/space, it plays with silence a lot, and it has super-long shots (in the first 30 minutes of the movie I think there were only two edits). However, "Gravity" is specifically about two astronauts trying desperately to get back to earth before their oxygen runs out (not about an alien monolith on the moon/an evil AI).
It's really amazing how gripping the film is despite its rather simplistic plot of "gotta get back to earth!". Bravo, Alfonso.
Sandra Bullock pulls off an amazing performance akin to Tom Hanks in "Castaway". 
The effects are also amazing and incredibly realistic. Seeing the space debris rip everything apart in silence (altho there is music) is actually pretty horrifying to watch. And the music itself is very interesting, light and ethereal for the most part, but when the low rumble builds you know some shit is about to go down. Very cool stuff.

Riddick - movie review

From Sept 19, 2013

SCORE: B
I liked this Riddick movie, but I pretty much like anything sci-fi and I've liked all the Riddick films, so you can take my review with a grain of salt if you wish.

This one is a little more back-to-basics... maybe a little too back-to-basics. The last half of this movie is so similar to 2000's "Pitch Black" that it's almost a remake. I think that the reason for this was that there was a lot of backlash over what the filmmakers did in "Chronicles of Riddick". They took it in a completely different tangent to the original, which you'd think would be a GOOD thing, but I think people just wanted more of the same. And so with this second sequel, the filmmakers give the audience more of the same.

This one DOES pick up where 'Chronicles of Riddick' left off, which I appreciate. From reading about the film, it almost seemed that they were disavowing Chronicles. But I actually thought that movie was pretty good. Still a 'B', but pretty good.

It's cool to watch Riddick as he's stranded on a desert world, bleeding and dragging himself with a shinbone that's at a 90 degree angle. He has to fend off alien dogs, alien scorpion thingies, set his own broken leg, etc. 

He makes a friend with one of the alien dogs that has heterochromia (two different colored eyes). Their scenes are good.

The CG is decent in this film. Not the best, but even "not the best" is way better than years ago. I don't really know what critics are bitching about.

I read a lot of critics who said that there aren't any characters to like in this movie. I totally disagree. You like Riddick and I do think that there's some good character development with him. 

Also, the point of the Riddick movies is that this convict is almost always a better person than those around him, who are supposed to be good/better people. In the first film, the hero-type guy was a morphine addict who wanted to sacrifice a kid (Jack) to the monsters so he could get away. 

All-in-all it's just fun to watch Riddick kill people, which sounds terrible of me, but that's pretty much why one watches a movie like this. Although one of the ways Riddick kills one of the merc is cool, but COMPLETELY impossible to do physically... but then again, that's why one watches a movie like this. It was like that scene in "Transporter" 2 or 3 where he's got a bomb on the bottom of his car, so he drives in such a way that his car becomes airborne, flips, and manages to catch the tiny bomb on an even tinier hook dangling from a winch. You watch it and say to yourself, "Riiiiiiiiiiiiight... Ridiculous."

Walt & El Grupo - DVD movie review

From Sept 26, 2013

SCORE: A+

As I've said, I'm a sucker for documentaries... I also love anything involving WWII era, so it's not surprising that I like it.

The film is directed by the son of Frank Thomas (one of Disney's Nine Old Men animators). He made a great documentary about the Disney Strike as well as the period just prior to the Disney Studio being taken over by the U.S. Government to make propaganda war films during WWII (yes, that actually happened). From wikipedia: “In 1941, the U.S. State Department sent Disney and a group of animators to South America as part of its Good Neighbor policy, at the same time guaranteeing financing for the resultant movie, Saludos Amigos.” (For more info on the Disney Strike, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animators%27_strike)

‘Walt & El Grupo’ a great documentary with great info about the goings-on at the time, and it also has great music. 
Did I mention that it's great? No? Well, it is.

The film goes over how people from Latin America viewed Americans coming to their countries on “good will” tours (they didn’t appreciate them normally, it seems) and what they thought of Walt Disney in particular (they loved him).

There’s a good bit where they explain that for some reason there is a cultural myth in Latin America that Walt Disney was frozen at one point. They don’t explain if it was supposedly during his life or after his death, but the fact that the majority in Latin America believe this is interesting and funny.

They revisit many of the places caught in photographs from the Good Neighbor trip and many of the people involved, at one point even interviewing a man now in his 90s who was a 19-year-old male dancer at the time he taught Walt to do a traditional dance.

There are also many interesting stories about all the animators who went on the trip. In most cases, their children are interviewed but in some instances they have a widow who reads letters from the time. Very interesting film.

the boys - DVD movie review

From Sept 16, 2013

SCORE: A+

What can I say? I'm a sucker for documentaries.

‘The boys’ is an amazing look at the Sherman Brothers, who wrote just about every song for Disney and Disneyland in the 60s and 70s, as well as the 70s "Charlotte's Web" movie by Hannah-Barbera.

I’ve seen some reviews that people think the whole convoluted relationship between the brothers was invented just to sell the film. Wow. That would take an amazing act of cynicism. It is what it is. They were two very different people who happened to be brothers and made amazing music together.

I don’t know why anyone would second-guess that. Roy E. Disney even describes Robert Sherman as more “Feed the Birds” while Richard Sherman is more “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” I feel that that’s a great description of the two men.

In the film you learn all about Robert Sherman’s trials during WWII and the things he saw that still haunt him to this day. You also learn about Richard Sherman’s first family and how to left them to pursue his music-writing career. They explain that “Feed the Birds” from ‘Mary Poppins’ was Walt Disney’s favorite song and how he would ask the brothers over to his office every Friday to play it for him before leaving for the weekend. They also give a lot of good background info on the Sherman Brothers’ best film: ‘Mary Poppins’.

And the film even goes into their work with Annette Funicello, their work on ‘The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh’ (one of my favorite Disney films), their work on ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ and how everyone thinks it’s a Disney film when it’s not.(It was actually written by James Bond scribe Ian Fleming, produced by Albert R. Broccoli, and released by United Artists.)

All really good stuff. Very intersting.

Journey Back to Oz - DVD movie review

From September 26, 2013

SCORE: C/C+
I liked this movie as a sequel to the 1939 MGM film “The Wizard of Oz” a lot more than Disney’s shitty “Return to Oz”, and indeed it is considered the official sequel, although I’m not sure who deemed it that. 

Anywho, info about it can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_Back_To_Oz . The movie was released on DVD in 2006 but has since been bought by Dreamworks, who took it off the shelves. It’s hard to find for less than $30, but I did manage to find it on eBay for $9.99. You can also watch it in 13 parts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQCfCSjOns

The movie, like “Return to Oz”, is a combo adaptation of the second and third Oz books (“The Marvelous Land of Oz” and “Ozma of Oz”). I’m not sure why both Filmation and Disney did this, other than the fact that the character Dorothy isn’t in the second Oz book. But why not just skip the second book and adapt the third book alone? Who knows?
This movie made some interesting changes to the story in the books, namely the all-girl army that takes over the Emerald City is changed to an all-elephant army. And the Saw-Horse is changed to a carousel horse.

Scarecrow’s animation looks like they were trying to emulate Chuck Jones and the elephants look like they were trying to emulate Woolie Reitherman’s elephants (in “The Jungle Book” and “Goliath II”). Also, Oz looks like the background painter(s) was a fan of Eyvind Earle, the guy who painted all the backgrounds in Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty”. In looking it up, the director of this movie—Hal Sutherland—used to work for Disney and animated on “Sleeping Beauty”, so I may be right in my thinking here...

There’s a nod to MGM, when the Cowardly Lion says that a film producer hired him to roar over his titles.

I noticed Paul Lynde’s voice as the voice of Jack Pumpkin-Head (he also voice Templeton in “Charlotte’s Web” which is really where I know that voice from). I liked the portrayal of the character Jack Pumpkin-Head better in Disney’s “Return to Oz”.

PRO:

Having Judy Garland’s real daughter, Liza Minnelli, as Dorothy is a great idea and she sings well.
The first song, “Faraway Land”, is a pretty good counterpart to “Over the Rainbow”, thought it’s impossible for any song to come close to the best film song in history (according to the AFI)
I liked Mombi’s crow.
I liked the strong arm chair.
“Keep a Happy Thought” is also a good song.
I liked the design of Glinda the Good Witch.
I really liked the sequence of Dorothy’s silhouette dancing around while Glinda the Good Witch sings.
The movie has a good message: At one point, Dorothy says: “If we have faith in ourselves, we have some of the greatest magic of all.”

CON:
The animation looks just like you’d expect from an underfunded 1970s TV cartoon, which is terrible. It’s slow, stilted, repeated, very little inbetweening, etc.
There’s some reused animation, like when the elephant army is marching to the Emerald City. They try to hide the fact by flipping the image, but you can easily tell.
Many of the songs are slow and plodding and not very good, like signpost’s song, wooden-head’s song, and “As Almost Anyone Knows” (Scarecrow’s/Tin Woodman/Cowardly Lion’s song)
The elephant trumpeting sound is repeated to a ridiculous and extremely annoying degree during the sacking of Emerald City.

Return to Oz - DVD movie review

From September 10, 2013

SCORE: C- / D+
I've recently been getting into Oz pretty heavily. I bought the 4-disc DVD edition of the 1939 MGM film and have watched all the documentaries about the making of the film and the life and times of L. Frank Baum, who seemed like an amazingly interesting person. I also bought giant-sized, 1500-page book that has all 14 of the original Oz novels by Baum (yes, he wrote 14 of them). Anyway, I’ve gotten through the first 3 books, so I feel I know the world of Oz fairly well at this point. At least well enough to really judge the 1985 Disney film, ‘Return to Oz’, which is an adaptation of the second and third Oz books; ‘The Marvelous Land of Oz’ and ‘Ozma of Oz’.

‘Return to Oz’ didn’t do well in theaters, making only around $11 million of a $28 million budget. It’s almost always on movie critics’ lists of children’s films that are not appropriate for children. And I whole-heartedly agree. There’s a lot wrong with this film, even though the supposed cult following that has grown around it in the ensuing years claim that it’s a more faithful adaptation of Baum’s books than the 1939 MGM film.

CONS (and there are many):
This film is not fun at all to watch. There’s no whimsy in this film... until Dorothy walks on the stones in the Deadly Desert. Until that time the movie is either boring or just plain creepy, even for adult viewers. 

And the music is either dull or sad in the beginning in Kansas or it’s really threatening-sounding in the insane asylum scene. That’s right, Dorothy’s aunt takes her to a insane asylum where patients scream in the background and a doctor prepares to put Dorothy through electroshock therapy. Wow, good choices Disney people. Kids won’t be terrified over these things at all. 

And what’s worse: none of that shit is in any of L. Frank Baum’s two books that Return to Oz is supposedly based on (‘The Marvelous Land of Oz’ and ‘Ozma of Oz’). Why did the people at Disney in the mid-80s decide to make a movie like this? It’s only ever threatening or melancholy. Even at the end, when Dorothy goes back to Kansas it’s not treated as a happy home-coming, like in the 1939 MGM film. It’s treated as a solemn event where no one smiles and everyone is sad that Dorothy is leaving. And Kansas, well, it’s shown to be a dreary place (that’s kind of overcast and looks like it just rained), which is weird. I used to live in Kansas. I’d certainly describe it as desolate, but dreary? No. 

What the fuck was going on in the 1980s? With the exception of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films, every film, cartoon, or comic book from the 80s was dark, scary, gritty, etc. Think ‘Masters of the Universe’, ‘The Beastmaster’, ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, etc. Even sound sounded the same in the 80s. All music had voices that echoed and synthesizer... always synthesizer! And in films and TV everyone had voices that echoed, too, as they do in ‘Return to Oz’. I don’t understand what the hell people making films and TV were thinking back then, but I’m glad it changed.

Princess Langwidere and the witch Mombi are combined into a single character, which I did not like. And she she’s so creepy and evil that she makes the Wicked Witch of the West from the 1939 film look like a kitten. 

The character Tip from the books is not even in the film. 

In fact, in the book 'Ozma of Oz', all the events take place in the Land of Ev, a neighboring land to Oz. None of that is mentioned either.

The Scarecrow is really creepy-looking... I mean, really creepy-looking...

Also, the stop-motion in the film is pretty amazing. However, it’s pretty jarring when the Nome King goes from a stop-motion character to a man in makeup. Both were done well, but going from one to the other is too jarring.

PROS:
All that being said, I like Tik-Tok a lot. He looks exactly like the John R. Neill drawings.

As I said earlier, the stop-motion in the film is pretty amazing. 

Speaking of the Nome King, he’s got Dorothy’s ruby slippers (which were silver slippers in the original book, but changed for the 1939 film), instead of a magic belt like in the books. I know why they made that change, to be more in line with the 1939 film. However, when Disney made Oz the Great and Powerful in 2013 they supposedly not allowed to show or mention certain things because MGM still owned the film rights. One of those things was supposedly the ruby slippers, so I was surprised to see Disney allowed to use them in this film.

Jack Pumpkin-Head is also a very well-done character. I really enjoyed his character in the books and he’s pulled really well in this film. (I’m convinced that Tim Burton was also a fan of the character because when Jack Skellington first shows up in ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’, he looks an awful lot like Jack Pumpkin-Head. But I never made the connection before because I didn’t know much about Oz or the plethora of books written about it.) I was glad to find out that Jack was voiced and puppeteered by Brian Henson, Jim Henson’s son.

Elysium - movie review

From August 28, 2013

SCORE: A+

Wow... wow. Amazing! The best sci-fi movie I've seen in years. Hell, one of the better films I've seen this year. Great social commentary and a completely plausible future for our species.

Sharlto Copley in another chameleon role. Great! And Matt Damon in another solid part.
Everything about this movie was fantastic. The movie is hard-hitting and realistic (while taking place in 2154).You really feel for the characters. 

And Jodie Foster is one bad-ass villain, a machiavellian politician, a horrible person sort of like Ayn Rand.

Cool 22nd century tech: downloadable memories, energy shields, exo-skeleton suits that enhance strength, extremely realistic robots, ground-to-space missiles, people with hip dermal scaring (instead of tattoos), and medic beds that cure cancer, sure, but they are shown to be able to do a hell of a lot more than that... (no, they cannot bring people back from the dead)

I found it interesting that on Earth everyone speaks either Spanish or English fluently, while on Elysium they speak French and everyone is either white or Indian (there's a President Patel).

Waking Sleeping Beauty - DVD movie review

From August 26, 2013

SCORE: A+

I absolutely love this film!

Where does one begin?

This is the film about the Disney Renaissance period (1989-1999), starting with the unprecedented success of ‘The Little Mermaid’ (with the hiring of Howard Ashman, who wrote the Broadway musical ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ [bet you didn’t know that]) and ending with ‘Tarzan’. (For more info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Renaissance)

This movie is a behind the scenes account of the Disney that I grew up with. (It’s also somewhat of a companion piece to ‘Walt & El Grupo’ and ‘the boys’.) It tells the real-life struggles going on behind the scenes of some of my favorite animated films.

The film goes explains the bad blood between Roy E. Disney (Walt Disney’s nephew) and studio head Ron Miller (husband of Walt Disney’s daughter, Diane), how Miller was financially running the Studio into the ground and how Disney rallied the other board members to oust him. It goes over the hiring of Frank Wells and Michael Eisner and Eisner’s heated battles with Roy Disney and Jeffery Katzenberg (who eventually got fed up with the company, left, and sided with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen to make their own animation studio: Dreamworks).

The film talks about the amazing talent of Howard Ashman who Roy Disney describes an “another Walt Disney”. There’s even tidbits about the renaming of ‘The Great Mouse Detective’ being on Jeopardy and you even get a view of Tim Burton, who worked at the Studio in the 80’s, animating on ‘The Black Cauldron’.

The entire movie is made of archival footage (much of it from Randy Cartwright, the animator of the Rug in ‘Aladdin’, whose cameraman was none other than John Lasseter, the creative officer of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation and WD Imagineering).

Just please, please watch this film. It’s insanely good. Well done, Don Hahn.

The World's End - movie review

From August 26, 2013

SCORE: A

Wow! Love it. So funny.

The final act in the loose Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy by Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost. The other two films being ‘Shaun of the Dead’ and ‘Hot Fuzz’. My favorite of their films is still ‘Hot Fuzz’ but this one is pretty damn good, too.

The film starts out as a getting-the-band-back-together buddy buddy film about 40-somethings that try to relive their youth by pub crawling all the way to the end of town, ending at The World’s End pub. But the film takes a drastic and violent turn at one point and becomes a completely different film. This may turn some people off, as it did my fiancee, but I love twists in films. I HATE movies that I can guess what’s going to happen. There’s no way of guessing what’s in store for you when you watch ‘The World’s End’.

Hilarious stuff. I hope they make another in the Three Flavours Cornetto series.

For more info on the series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Flavours_Cornetto_trilogy

The Wolverine - movie review

From August 26, 2013

SCORE: B+

The second Wolverine film is much better than the first, ‘X:Men Origins: Wolverine’. (That being said, I still don’t understand everyone’s beef with the first one. It was a B-flick full of action, so what? Why is that a bad thing?)

With the inclusion of Mariko and Logan’s journey to Japan, I thought this film would take place shortly after the first Wolverine film and way before the first ‘X:Men’ movie, like in the comics. But interestingly enough it takes place AFTER the third X:Men film (which I also think is underrated). I appreciate this twist.

The film is better paced than the first, with better acting all around and better SFX. They finally take away Logan’s healing factor, which some critics see as an alienating factor of the character. How do you truly root for or worry about the life of someone who is superhuman? (For some reason, no one bitches about this when talking about an actual superhuman hero... you know... SUPERMAN... but I digress.)

All-in-all a really good action flick, with most critics hailing the train fight scene. The Silver Samurai’s inclusion was also well-done.

I’m always glad to see Will Yun Lee in stuff, after becoming a fan of his while watching the ‘Witchblade’ TV series. I also like Hiroyuki Sanada. Good to see him in this film. Svetlana Khodchenkova is a nasty villain. Well done. But I have to say, Rila Fukushima (as Yukio) is such a strange-looking woman, like an alien... Sorry, Rila.

Stick around during the credits for some cameos...

Looper - DVD movie review

From August 26, 2013

SCORE: B+

A pretty neat sci-fi flick. Well acted. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has some makeup/CG work done to look slightly more like good ol’ Bruno (Bruce Willis).

I really liked the idea of crime bosses using time travel to bump people off. This movie is pretty brutal in its death scenes. People are shot down quickly and mirthlessly.

There’s some interesting things done with silence in this movie. Some scenes are calm and quiet, which magnifies the action scenes. Michael Bay should watch this movie and take notes so he will learn how to shoot an action flick, unlike ‘Transformers 2’ which is balls-to-the-wall action from start to finish. But when EVERYTHING is intense and action-packed, then NOTHING is. You need the calm, quiet moments to make the loud, action scenes mean more, sort of like how the band Foo Fighters always has calm, melodic music interspersed with hard rock. It’s the contrast that makes it great. (Did you understand that, Michael Bay?)

Early on, the main character’s friend is part of an underlying storyline about telekinetic people that you should pay attention to...

There’s a really interesting scene that happens to the character Seth, involving time travel and loss of limbs that reminded me of the people disappearing from photographs in the Back to the Future movies.

There’s a character who shows abilities similar to Jean Grey in the third ‘X:Men’ film. That’s what it most reminded me of, but I won’t say too much more than that.

Despicable Me 2 - movie review

From August 26, 2013

SCORE: B+
 

First off, from wikipedia: “As of November 24, 2013, Despicable Me 2 has grossed $366,375,650 in North America and $550,100,000 in other countries, for a worldwide total of $918,081,374. It is the twenty-seventh highest-grossing film, the fifth highest-grossing animated film, the second highest-grossing 2013 film (behind ‘Iron Man 3’), the highest-grossing 2013 animated film, the highest-grossing Illumination Entertainment film, and the second highest-grossing Universal Studios film (behind ‘Jurassic Park’). With a budget of $76 million, the film became the most profitable film in the 100 year history of Universal Studios.”

Holy shit! Did you know that? I didin’t. And I’m not sure it’s deserved.

I thought Despicable Me 2 was pretty good, but not THAT good.

But most people disagreed with me with most critics giving it positive reviews, surprisingly enough. From wikipedia: “Stephen Whitty of the The Star-Ledger gave the film three out four stars, saying "Not only a fun cartoon but - that rare thing - a sequel which actually improves on the original."

I personally liked the first movie better. I more agree with this guy: Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film three out of four stars, saying "It's a credit that the writing can be so funny in the moment, that it takes time to realize there's no cohesive story, zero dramatic tension and nary a practical lesson for either the characters in the film or the people watching in the theater.”

The animation was good. Steve Carell as Gru is funny as always. And Kristen Wiig as Lucy Wilde is pretty good. But I have to say (SPOILER ALERT) I saw her and Gru getting together from about a 1,000 miles off. And if there’s one thing I hate, it’s being able to easily guess what’s going to happen in a film. I also felt that there was a bit too much about the Minions. They’re funny, sure, but the majority of the film shouldn’t be based around them. Leave that for a Minion film... like the one Universal is making soon.

The Lone Ranger - movie review

From July 28, 2013

SCORE: B-
I enjoyed "The Lone Ranger". I'm not sure why so many critics hate it so very much. 
The acting was good, it was funny and exciting, and action-packed. My dad and I liked everything about it. 

My only two beefs would be that the music didn't really have memorable themes, which I personally feel is a VERY important thing for a film to have. Also, (SLIGHT SPOILER ALER) the film is told in flashback by an old Tonto. That's fine by me that they begin and end the film this way, but the thing I didn't like was that they kept cutting back to the 1930s three or four times at points that didn't need it. It started to get annoying.

"The Lone Ranger" SHOULD have been a huge cash cow: produced by Jerry Bruckheimer (producer of the wildly popular Pirates movies among many other things), directed by Gore Verbinski (director of the wildly popular Pirates movies), starring Johnny Depp (star of the wildly popular Pirates movies), and even written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (writers of the wildly popular Pirates movies). 

Do you see a pattern here?

So they have all worked on the Pirates films, which have garnered Disney almost $4 BILLION (all four films included). It sounds like a pretty safe bet that Disney made. But you never can tell how the audience will accept something. 

Many reasons have been given: people don't care about Westerns anymore, the public doesn't know or care about the Lone Ranger character anymore, Johnny Depp's crazy antics are getting on people's nerves, the film is too violent for a Disney picture, not everything Jerry Buckheimer touches turns to gold, the film is too long, etc, etc, etc. 
I could refute all of these in this review, but I really don't have the energy to do so. Just know that I think the majority of the criticisms are wrong.

Go see it. It's good.

Pacific Rim - movie review

From July 28, 2013

SCORE: B+ / A-
I really enjoyed this movie! It's extremely fun to watch and has a great theme song, crazy battle scenes between giant robots and monsters, and some very funny scenes (mostly involving Charlie Day, but Ron Perlman gets a few goods ones, too). 

The giant monsters are called "Kaiju" which the film states means "giant monster". What I didn't realize was that Japan has had films called Kaiju films for years and that I've seen many of them. From wikipedia: "Kaiju films usually showcase Kaiju of any form attacking a major Japanese city or engaging another (or multiple) Kaiju in battle. The most famous Kaiju is Godzilla. Other notable Kaiju include Gamera, Mothra, King Ghidorah, Mechagodzilla and Rodan. The term ultra-kaiju is shorthand for monsters in the Ultra Series."

This movie is basically the most well-done Kaiju film ever. It's a dream come true for anyone who is a fan of Godzilla, King Kong, Gundam Wing, Appleseed, Voltron, The Big O, etc.

Totally fun.

Gulliver's Travels - DVD movie review

From July 14, 2013

Gulliver's Travels (1939)
SCORE: B
As with "Mr. Bug Goes to Town" I didn't know much about this film before a few months ago. I'd definitely seen clips of "Gulliver's Travels" from time-to-time throughout the years, but didn't know who made it. 
It was made by the Fleischer brothers after they saw the success that Disney had with "Snow White". "Snow White" came out in 1937 and the Fleischers made sure to get their first animated feature--the second cel-animated movie EVER--out before Disney's second ("Pinocchio" 1940).
I bought the newest DVD edition of this film from Koch/E1 Entertainment because I'd read that it had been remastered a bit. It all looked good, not as good as the digitally remastered Disney films, but decent. However, apparently a lot of animation fans had problems with the edition that I bought. From wikipedia: "E1 Entertainment released the film on Blu-ray Disc on March 10, 2009, but received strong criticism for presenting the movie in a stretched and cropped 1.78:1 format, as well as applying an egregious amount of noise reduction." Eh, it looked ok to me, and I'm usually picky about that kind of thing.
The effects animation of the waves at the beginning is good, but nowhere near as convincing as in the Disney films "Pinocchio", "Fantasia", or "The Little Mermaid".
The little guy with the lantern--Gabby--is voiced by Pinto Colvig, best-known for voicing Goofy and Pluto for Disney. But the voice he used for Gabby is really annoying, but apparently not to 1930s audiences because Gabby was such a popular character that he ended up getting his own short film series.
Watching the two kings roughhouse made me laugh. I like the design of King Bombo.
Princess Glory has that weird, bouncing shrill singing (like Snow White) that for some reason was popular in the 1930s. I hate it in "Snow White" and I hate it in "Gulliver's Travels".
The two kingdoms get into a war because the two kings can't decide which song should be played the wedding of their children.
I really liked that when the mob passes over a wooden bridge at night, you can see their torch light through the boards of the bridge. Really well-done.
A lot of time is spent showing gags of the Lilliputians while they tie up Gulliver. I liked how the Lilliputians shaved Gulliver with a scythe.
The roto-scoped Gulliver stands out too starkly from the other characters in the film. I read that ths was done purposefully to differentiate Gulliver from the Lilliputians, but I think its too jarring having the two animation techniques next to each other. I think its better to do what Disney did (as with Snow White and Chernabog from "Fantasia") where they certainly based the movements on a live-action reference, but they didn't roto-scope. There's a scene in "Gulliver's Travels" where Gulliver's hand dances with King Little. His hand is not roto-scoped and it fits in a lot better.
Some of the background paintings are gorgeous, as in the dawn sequence in Lilliput near the end of the film (approx 1:04:00).
There aren't really any memorable songs in the film. Apparently "Hap Hap Happy Day" was popular in its day and I liked "All Together Now", but they just aren't memorable to me.
Something about the animation isn't as good as the Disney Studios. Not enough in-betweening? I later read on wikipedia that the Fleischer Studios made "Gulliver's Travels" in less than two years, which is less than half the time it took Disney to make "Snow White", so I guess there was some cost-cutting going on after all.
I appreciate the film's message against war. It's a good ending, although the diagonal panning shot of the Lilliputians at the end looks terribly done.

Arjun: The Warrior Prince - DVD movie review

From July 13, 2013

SCORE: B-/C+
NOTES:
• The movie is a story told to Yuvraj by his mother.
• Battle between the Pandavas and Kauravas.
• Villain is Duryodhan.
• Arjun isn't the king. His brother Yudhishtir is.
• Odd traditions, such as the king not being allowed to deny any challenge on his coronation day.
• There are a few violently bloody scenes.

PRO:
• Really like the UTV intro, though that has nothing to do with the actual movie.
• Nice visuals, though. Are they painted backgrounds? Often they look like digital paintings over actual photos.
• Grand set pieces. The archery scene (Swayamvara), Indraprashta (the City of Gold that Arjun's family builds), etc
• Liked the brahmins, although they seemed uncharacteristically silly to me.
• I liked the scene where Arjun fought the army of demons in the mountains

PRO / CON:
• Reminds me of "Prince of Egypt" for some reason.
• It has an Intermission?

CON:
• No in-betweening
• It's that weird CG that's make to LOOK like 2D animation, but it's not.
• CG backgrounds. Ugh
• No squash and stretch.
• The movie just kind of ends all of a sudden. Then there's some title cards that explain that the armies faced each other again a few days later and that Arjun led the charge. Huh?

Star Trek Into Darkness - movie review

From July 13, 2013

SCORE: A

I loved it! JJ does it again. (I can’t wait for his take on Star Wars!!!!!!!)

While not as fresh as 2009’s ‘Star Trek’, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is a great sci-fi/action film.

There’s some ambiguity about the plot involving a terrorist attack, but the majority of the movie is spot-on.

The entire cast does a great job all around. Benedict Cumberbatch plays exactly who everyone on the interest thought he would, but I won’t spoil is for you. You also get to see Klingons AND Tribbles! Sweet! I also liked seeing Peter Weller in this film, who everyone of my generation might recognize as RoboCop.

I love the opening of the film, playing on the notion of ancient aliens and the Prime Directive. (Oh, Kirk, first you fuck with the Kobiyashi Maru test, now you fuck with the Prime Directive. You rascal! What will you do next?) I really liked that the planet in the beginning was even named Naibiru, which comes from the name of an ancient Sumerian name that writer Zecharia Sitchin states was the name of a planet that the Sumerians thought the Anunnaki came from. Good one, writers.

I love the twist in the film about who dies and who screams the infamous cry of William Shatner’s character, and how it echoes the second Star Trek film from the 1980s.

However, the film has garnered its fair share of controversy. From wikipedia: “The film was criticized for a scene with Alice Eve's character in her underwear, which was called "wholly unnecessary" and "gratuitous". Screenwriter and producer Damon Lindelof apologized on Twitter for the scene: "I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future". On Conan, Abrams addressed the matter by debuting a deleted scene of Benedict Cumberbatch's character taking a shower. Eve addressed the underwear controversy at a 2013 Las Vegas Star Trek Convention and said, "I didn’t know it would cause such a ruckus. I didn’t feel exploited."

Monsters University - movie review

From July 13, 2013

SCORE: A

As with all Pixar movies, ‘Monsters University’ was great! Very funny and endearing.

I really like how the beginning of the movie starts with Mike in elementary school going on a field trip to the Monsters Inc. factory that he will work at later in life. From there the film jumps to when Mike goes to college, to Monsters University. There he meets Randall and Sulley. (And if you look hard enough, you’ll see George Sanderson, the monster in the first film that gets decontaminated by the CDA. And if you wait around through the credits there’s a cameo by Henry Waternoose, Mike and Sulley’s boss from the first film.)

The monsters in Oozma Kappa are all great characters, with Art being my obvious favorite. He’s a crazy design and looks more like a muppet to me than a Pixar monster, but that adds to his coolness for me. (UPDATE: I went to the CTN Expo in 2013 and saw an interview with Disney animator Eric Goldberg. At the end of the interview he explained that the character Don Carlton is based on his appearance. Hehe. Brilliant!)

The animation in the whole movie is fantastic as always. And the characters look amazing, with Pixar’s program that scatters light within the CG model’s skin (that they developed during ‘The Incredibles’). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering

And I absolutely LOVE the music in ‘Monsters University’. The college band music makes me want to go back to college.

Speaking of college, they clearly based ‘Monsters University’ on UC Berkeley, which is awesome! The Scare School building is based on Doe Library (from UC Berkeley), complete with a campanile in the background. And the archway into MU looks like Sather Gate. And there’s a building Mike sees while he’s on campus tour that looks like a cross between the Valley Life Sciences Building and the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive. Oh, and later on in the film you get to see the backend of Monsters Inc. and there are structure based on the giant port cranes at the Port of Oakland.

Hehe. I love it!

By the way, the fact that Mike and Sulley meet in college in ‘Monsters University’ doesn’t make sense because there’s a line in the first film where Mike says, “You’ve been jealous of my good looks since the 4th grade,”... but then they don’t meet until college, according to ‘Monsters University’. But if you listen to the commentary on the DVD, they do bring this up, but they were told by John Lasseter or Andrew Stanton that you can’t have your hands tied by little things like that.

Lastly, I personally think that they should have named this film ‘Monster University’ instead of ‘MONSTERS University’ only because I think it rolls off the tongue better, but that’s just me. I also still prefer the title ‘The Bear and the Bow’ to ‘Brave’, but whatever.