Since the debut of Toy Story there has been a debate about whether a computer animated musical could ever be a success. The argument was that computer animated characters are too realistic to believably break into song. As a result, musicals remained in the realm of hand-drawn animation, which had become troubling given the slow death of traditional animation. But leave it to Disney to reinvent the animated musical once again. Continue reading
I’ve read The Chronicles of Narnia a couple times, and I absolutely love the first two films of the series, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian. So when Lucy and Edmond Pevensie arrive in the middle of a Narnian ocean with their annoying cousin Eustace, I know how they feel. Narnia is home to them, its their favorite place. The way they breathe deeply and smile widely once they realize where they are mirrors my feelings about returning to Narnia in story. Continue reading
When I heard that Disney was producing a live-action version of Alice in Wonderland I was both nervous and excited. I was never a fan of the animated “classic” and I felt it missed the point of the books entirely. So the new version offered a chance to either fix the mistakes of the earlier version (a la 2003’s Peter Pan), or a chance to fail again. Then when I heard it would be a Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp collaboration, my heart sank. The last time they did a remake/adaptation we were left with the absolutely horrible Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But I still had faith in the duo, with their many previous successes and their tremendous pool of talent to draw from. As the cast filled out better than I had hoped, and the images and trailers began emerging I allowed myself to hope that this time I wouldn’t be disappointed. When I found out that it was based on an original take of Alice’s story, rather than a direct translation, my excitement reached its peak. But I never, ever would have guessed what we were in store for. Continue reading
It’s been over two years since I reviewed a movie (Hairspray) and I feel it’s time to make a return. Due solely to the brilliance of Shaun of the Dead I stepped out of my comfort zone and saw Zombieland. I don’t go see scary movies, I’m not a big fan of gratuitous gore, and I usually find the humor of people in my generation to be far too sophomoric to be funny, but the prospect of zombie comedy combined with the always entertaining Woody Harrelson was too much to pass up. Continue reading
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why many of us feel there should be a Best Casting category in the Academy Awards (along with Best Stuntwork). I have never been so impressed with the casting of any movie as I was with Hairspray. From the guaranteed successes like Christopher Walken and Queen Latifah, to the wonderful surprises like James Marsden (absolutely incredible, and who would have guessed all this from Cyclops?), to the amazing finds of Elijah Kelly and Nikki Blonsky. And, of course, John Travolta.
I’ll start with him because he seems to be people’s biggest question. Those who know me well know that I’ve never really liked Travolta. I despise Grease, and can’t stand BeeGees music long enough to sit through Saturday Night Fever. I enjoyed Phenomenon and Michael well enough, and I think he certainly has talent (especially as a dancer), but he’s always left a bad taste in my mouth. But never have I seen such an iconic role (both from stage and screen) so well re-cast or re-imagined. Travolta throws everything he has into the role of Edna Turnblad, mother to the heroine of the film. He gives her such life and realism that the man-in-a-woman-fat-suit gimmick is pushed out of our minds with his first 30 seconds on screen. You know it’s Travolta in there, but it doesn’t matter, because what you see is the character, not the actor. Perhaps that was the appeal of the role for him. He brings real heart to the film (as with Harvey Firestien on Broadway, one of the best stage performances I’ve ever seen), and makes the struggles and the liberations of the story personal, more so than the main character, Tracy, was ever designed to.
Tracy, of course, is the driving force and the symbol behind the story, but she truly serves as a focal point for the supporting characters to tell their stories. We like Tracy, but she doesn’t have as much at stake as, say, the interracial couple of Penny and Seaweed, or Seaweed’s little sister Inez. Tracy gets her joy from giving everyone a chance to live their dreams (something we all should do) and that is what the film, of course, is about. Most movies today (at least, ones with happy endings) are about one character, or a group, reaching their goal, and it’s very refreshing to see a film where the main character helps everyone else reach their goals instead. Perhaps that’s a bit sappy, but it’s one of the best aspects of this story. Tracy’s heart is as big as… well, I can’t bring myself to make a joke there, but you get the idea.
Now, all of that aside, the film is not perfect. It’s damn close, but not quite there. It’s a shame that they cut the running time so short. About an hour was cut from the stage version. Some new songs were added, all of which worked wonderfully, but it’s just a bit too short. The first act, up to the climactic march worked wonderfully (basically, up to intermission on stage), and had a good steady pacing. Unfortunately, that left only about 25 minutes or so for the second act, which felt somewhat rushed. They changed the plot to make it more believable, which worked fairly well, but it did require some creative revamping of my favorite song “Without Love”. I suppose they thought that having Tracy break out of jail with hairspray and a lighter was just a bit over the top. The climax of the film was pulled off spectacularly, though slightly more toned down (or less over the top) than what I expected. But none of that detracted from the experience enough to matter much (just enough to keep it from an A+).
Where the great success of the movie (and unfortunately the tragedy of this story) lies is with the magnificent Nikki Blonsky. She truly steals the show as the “pleasantly plump” star, and at this point is certainly deserving of an Oscar nomination. She shines brightly as both a beautiful and talented actress/singer/dance and as a role model for girls of all shapes and sizes. In case you were unaware, this truly was a dream come true for Nikki, the 18 year old from NY. She tried out for Hairspray on Broadway when she was 16 and was told she was too young. She was made fun of all her life because of her size and only wanted a chance to show the world what she could do (see any parallels?). And as wonderful as her success is, the sad part is that it will probably be short-lived. Our culture, and Hollywood as both a representation and a manipulator of it, is so image-conscious that a wonderful girl like Nikki stands no chance of having a lasting career. Ask (almost) any male between the ages of 10 and 30 whether he would see a movie with Nikki as the star over, say, Megan Fox who is currently starring in Transformers and you’d get a resounding “No”. Hell, ask any of them if they would go out with Nikki, or Tracy, and they’d say the same thing. Is Nikki attractive? Absolutely, but in our society your hipbones have to stick out a certain distance before you can have a chance. Lately there has been a lot of debate about roles for older actresses like Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren, and how Hollywood is both sexist and ageist when it comes to roles for women. While this may stand a chance of changing someday soon, Nikki’s problem, I’m afraid, is a lot farther from a solution.
When will we stop looking only skin-deep at people? Judging them by their size, or skin color, or the way they dress? What Hairspray teaches us is that, even if we can’t get others to see it, we’re all beautiful and deserve an equal chance. We should measure each other, and also ourselves, by what’s on the inside and not what’s on the outside. If we each not only think and feel that way, but also let our actions reflect that thought, we can set an example that others can follow. We won’t be able to change everyone’s opinion, but this is a fight worth fighting, regardless of the outcome.
< A >
I was one of the few who were ridiculously thrilled when it was announced that, after years of rumors, there would finally be a fourth Die Hard film. I’ve always been a huge Bruce Willis fan and I honestly couldn’t wait. The original three are wonderful and unique and truly redefined what could be done on screen. They’re three of the most pulse-pounding, hilarious, and heart-wrenching films in history, and they showed that just because you fill a movie with fights and explosions, it doesn’t mean there can’t be a heart and soul that soars and falls as much as in a great drama. The Dragonslayer Myth was never (and hasn’t since been) so real, so pure, and so totally badass.
I’m here to say that Live Free or Die Hard delivers on all those fronts, though in a more restrained way. The film takes one of my favorite characters in all of cinema and puts him in a believable and rather terrifying situation: a “terrorist” group has shut down the nation’s digital infrastructure, dealing a possibly fatal blow to the economic and social welfare of our country. In today’s society, it doesn’t feel nearly as far fetched as it sounds. They teamed our John McClane with an enjoyable sidekick (Justin Long), who keeps the plot rolling and makes McClane’s heroics seem even more incredible. It’s a move that worked wonderfully in the third of the series and for the most part it pays off here.
The one aspect where Live Free or Die Hard seemed to fail (and fail is a relative term here) was in the role of the villain. In the first three films you had villains who were as memorable as our heroes, who you enjoyed every moment they were on screen and who you missed when they weren’t. Jeremy Irons brought a sadistic joy to his role in number three, William Sadler and John Amos brought a sense of reality and military discipline to number two, and Alan Rickman is one of the biggest Oscar snubs in history for his iconic role in number one. Timothy Olyphant, however, brings very little. The only real glimmer of a character comes in the moments where he is afraid of McClane, as he should be, but otherwise he is just a placeholder. Part of the problem is that he is too young to be particularly threatening or wise, and he lacks any sort of color at all. I’m not sure how much of that last bit is due to the writing, but I imagine he still wouldn’t have brought much to the table.
The action scenes are spectacular, particularly the helicopter chase and its finale. There is an action piece in the end with a fighter jet that is fairly unnecessary, and it was probably inserted to throw in some more explosions before the tense and wonderfully low-key final sequence. In my opinion they could have left it out, but the film doesn’t suffer much from the extra action.
What really matters, though, is our man McClane. He is probably the most heroic of all movie heroes, and at the same time the most relatable. Every hit he takes we all feel, which is part of the magic of the character, and part of the magic of Bruce Willis’ performance. In the end, the only thing that can make this a Die Hard film instead of another action film is Willis and McClane. He is older and slower and sadder, but he is still the same man, the one we want him to be.
The one real difference between the McClane of this film and the McClane of the others is that he makes more of an active choice to be involved. In the first three he became involved against his free will and had no choice but to see the situation through. In this film he is still thrown into things, but he has much more of an opportunity to step away and let others handle the situation. At first I saw this as a negative, because the original trilogy was really an example of what a man can put himself through when he has no other choice but to die and allow others to die too. This time he chooses to put himself through it all, because it’s the right thing to do, and someone has to. If he had done nothing, the bad guys would have gotten away with their plan, but there would have been no personal cost to him. But being the older and wiser man he is, McClane does what is right, and chooses to put himself at risk for the good of strangers. I think that is the mark of good filmmaking, and it’s subtle. A hero who does something heroic because he’s the hero isn’t nearly as interesting as a man who does something heroic because it’s the right thing to do. And that is where John McClane really shines.
On a side note, to wrap this up, I’m rapidly losing my faith and my patience with the MPAA rating system. Generally I think ratings aren’t that important in this day and age because you can easily go online (www.kids-in-mind.com) and see exactly what is in a movie before you take your family to see it. It’s great that this information is available and it means there is no excuse for being surprised or offended by the content of a film. The ratings are generally a guide for families, and I think that is great, but the R rating has really ceased to mean much. As the rules stand, generally in a PG-13 movie you can say the word “fuck” or its derivatives 2 or 3 times as long as it is not in a sexual context. Any amount over that line, or any sexual context, and you get an R rating. I’m ok with that, as stupid as it is, but why have a rule if you can get around it? When McClane delivers his signature line “Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!” a sound effect is used to cover the “fucker” part (only partially cover, you can still clearly hear it, I am glad to say). How moronic is that? Why base a rating on the existence of a phrase or word in a movie if you can get a lower rating by making it harder to hear, even when everyone can hear exactly what is being said and knows it anway? For Pete’s sake, they used the line in the trailers and commercials for the movie, and on the posters. By now everyone of every age knows what he’s saying (“Mommy, why does it say ‘Yippee-ki-yay Mo-” and cut off on the poster? What does that mean?”). It is dumb that there are words in our society that are forbidden, but it is far dumber that you can get away with obviously implying those words but not actually saying them. It’s like we have rules just to make ourselves feel better when we do something we’re ashamed of or embarrassed by, because we really don’t understand why it’s something to be ashamed of or embarrassed by in the first place.
Anyways, I’m sorry about that, but it makes me furious (don’t even get me started on other aspects of the ratings, such as the disparity between violence and nudity in film). Live Free or Die Hard was a real blast, incredibly exciting and funny, and, with the exception of the villain, exactly what we expect from a film with Die Hard in the title. It’s a white-knuckle thrill-ride which will be hard to beat this summer. Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!
< A >
I am a picky eater, just ask my family, or my soon-to-be wife, or my friends, or anyone who has ever eaten with me. It’s not that I don’t necessarily like to try new foods, it’s that I know what I like the most, and given the choice, I will choose those foods. Take for example the classic peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I ate one for lunch every day at school starting in kindergarten, and having eaten so many has given me a very refined sense of what makes a good PB&J to me. It must use JIF Creamy Peanut Butter and Welch’s Concord Grape Jam. Any other brand or type will just not do. I generally go with Sara Lee Whole Grain White Bread, if I can find it, but it is really the inside that matters the most. The construction of the sandwich is of the utmost importance. Too much peanut butter and it is sticky and you are forced to drink too much, and too much jelly makes the sandwich soggy and overpowers the flavors. Despite all the conditions, however, any PB&J is generally enjoyable, but not all are the same.
So it is with film. I am certainly very picky when it comes to what I see in the theater. I like anything that is well made, but there are certain types of films I return to when given the choice. For example, 7 of the last 10 films I have seen were animated. And while all were enjoyable, much like any PB&J, Ratatouille was made just the way I like them. A Pixar film is like a sandwich made with exactly the right ingredients. You know to expect the best of the best every time. However, if you have eaten as many sandwiches as I, you know that perhaps every once in a thousand tries, if you’re lucky, you happen to make the perfect sandwich. It cannot be planned, forced, or studied, it just happens. The mix of the ingredients is perfect, just the right balance. And when you take that final bite, instead of feeling satisfied, you feel fulfilled, as if nothing could have possibly been any better. You can’t explain why, you can’t measure it, or quantify it, or even describe it. It’s just perfection. Ratatouille is perfection. It has the indefinable quality of taking something made just the way you like it, and doing it so well that it becomes more than you ever imagined it could be.
So enough with the sandwich metaphor, right? Let me put this in a way easy to understand.
Is Ratatouille the best animated film of the year so far?
Yes
Is Ratatouille the best film of the year so far?
Yes
Is Ratatouille the best Pixar film yet?
Yes
Is Ratatouille the best computer animated film ever?
It just might be.
Is Ratatouille the best animated film ever?
Well, that one is up for debate, but it will almost certainly crack my top 5, if not move all the way to the top. I’ll have to see it a few more times to be sure. It really is perfect, though. It is a story full of heart, but is never sappy or melodramatic. The days when the words animated and cartoon were one and the same are long gone. Films like Ratatouille are truly the great connectors, bringing us all together to a point where we can move past things like “That’s just for kids” and realize that these films are made for all of us. We can all enjoy them and grow together as a result. Nothing in this world compares to sitting in a theater filled with people of all ages, races and backgrounds and sharing the emotional experience of cinema. Lauging, crying, smiling together with strangers who you may never see again. That’s what it’s all about.
So I’ve basically been rambling about everything but Ratatouille but that’s because I really find I lack the words to describe it directly. I can only describe how it makes me feel about other things. It truly is the first great film of the year, and is so far above everything else I’ve seen lately (much of which I very much enjoyed) that it’s hard to even classify. The voice acting is some of the best I’ve seen, the animation has never looked so 100% real, the story was an absolute joy, made for adults but still enjoyable by kids. None of that, however, really does it justice. All I can really say is that it would truly be a tragedy for you to miss it. And that is the highest praise that can be given to any film.
< A+ >
(Also, I’ve been freaking out about WALL-E for months, and the teaser trailer is showing before Ratatouille. It looks to be even better.)
Well, it finally happened, I got bitten by the High School Musical bug. Those who know me well probably aren’t surprised. I saw it all the way through for the first time tonight, and after the first song I was hooked.
I know there are many who have scoffed at it for its sugary-sweetness, but that is one of its most endearing qualities. Most people these days can’t stand a bit of sweetness, which is why the more successful films have anywhere from a hint of darkness to nothing but. I won’t quote The Matrix again, but things just seem more real when there’s some darkness or bitterness or anger or tragedy. Anything without that is just cheesy. Well you all know that I like cheesiness (you should see me cry my eyes out in Hook if you don’t believe me). High School Musical is one of the cheesiest things I’ve ever seen, and in a good way.
I’ve often heard variations on the expression “so sweet I could puke”. This movie is one step short of that. The best comparison I can come up with is Halloween night. Everyone knows the feeling of eating so much candy you make yourself sick with all the sugar. This is like stopping one piece of candy before that point. It’s that feeling of being so completely full of sugary goodness that you practically glow, being completely content and happy, knowing that if there were any more you’d just burst. And it is a wonderful feeling.
Having said that, HSM is one of the most unrealistic movie I’ve ever seen. For me, high school was the worst time of my life, full of mean, hateful, spiteful, evil people. And while a bit of that is touched on, especially with the wonderful song, “Stick to the Status Quo”, it’s still from a school where no one drinks, does drugs, or even kisses (not even the romantic leads), and in the end everyone ends up friends and is that much the better. Now I know part of this is the oblivious point of view of the adults producing and directing this film, and part of it is just classic Disneyfication. However, is it too much to hope that high school, kids, and people and general could really be like this? That we could actually learn to Love Everybody?
Yeah, I’m an idealist, but I’m proud of it, more so than anything else about myself.
It’s interesting that I also saw Children of Men today, a movie about a world with no children. And while I feel bad calling the kids in HSM children, being only 5 or 6 years removed from them, it’s easy to see how a world could loose hope without the sound of their voices. HSM can show us what we all have the potential to be; good, pure, loving, honest, sweet… and happy.
Children of Men * A *
High School Musical * A *
I was also going to write a tirade on how ridiculously stupid high school athletics is, but decided it wasn’t worth the effort, and I might just be rather biased about it anyways.
I also want to add that the character I like and identify with the most is the composer of the musical Kelsi. She has the best moments in the entire movie (check out her enthusiasm for rehearsing with Troy and Gabriella when they get the callback, or the moment when she kicks the piano bench during “Breaking Free”).
Before I get into my opinion of this movie, allow me to fill you in on its background, if you don’t already know. Last year, New Line released the titles of the movies they had in development, one of which was “Snakes on a Plane”. This was greeted with the comment, “That’s the worst title I’ve ever heard,” which was followed immediately by, “That’s the best title I’ve ever heard.” It was obvious, it didn’t beat around the bush, and it told you exactly what you were going to get. It was then announced that it would star Samuel L. Jackson. Almost immediately fake trailers appeared on the internet, pieced together from his other movies, clever voiceovers, simple effects and the like. The most famous included Samuel L. Jackson (or someone imitating him) saying, “That’s it, I’ve had it with these mothaf—in’ snakes on this mothaf—in’ plane.” This line was latched onto by fans and the internet community as the sort of thing they expected from this movie. Many fan sites sprung up, and the title began being used among internet geeks as an actual phrase in everyday conversation, meaning that things were as bad as they could get (e.g. “That test was snakes on a plane”). It was even featured on NPR’s “All Things Considered”.
Then, New Line started throwing wrenches into the internet machine. First, they announced that the title was going to be changed to “Pacific Air 121”, the reason cited being that “Snakes on a Plane” gave away too much of the plot. There was a massive outcry not only from the internet community, but from Samuel L. Jackson, to have the title changed back. Eventually New Line gave in and went back to “Snakes on a Plane”, but not before they announced that the movie would be PG-13, to appeal to a wider market. This time the protests were much louder, because a PG-13 rating not only meant that the movie would not be as scary or gory as it should be, but that Jackson wouldn’t be able to deliver the line that everyone had grown to love. Once again the demands of the public were met, and the director called the cast back to film more scenes, adding gore, violence, nudity, drugs and, of course, foul language. New Line began to realize what a powerful force the internet was, and began to cater to the fans more and more. They even held a contest where people could record their own songs about the movie and the top 2 would get featured in the movie and on the soundtrack. Nothing like this had ever been done, and the internet hype saved New Line millions in advertising.
Unfortunately, despite seeing the movie twice myself on opening weekend, it failed to perform up to all the hype, bringing in a moderate for an R-rated horror movie $15.3 million at the box office.
I saw the film at the first showing, at 10 o’clock last Thursday night (the night the AC in my car died). In the theater with me were two groups, and what apparently was a teacher, all wearing SoaP (Snakes on a Plane) t-shirts, and several other scattered individuals. The opening credits, which take place over beautiful shots of Hawaii, were greeted with applause and cheers when the title and Jackson’s name appeared. That was how this movie was destined to go. Most of you know that I generally can not stand people talking or making noise during a movie. However, this was not a movie, it was an event, as much social as artistic. We whooped and hollered and screamed and laughed as a group, and even though we didn’t know each other, we were all sharing the same experience. And when, after discovering the dead co-pilot and a cockpit full of snakes, Samuel L. Jackson finally said, “Enough is enough! I have had it with these mothaf—in’ snakes on this mothaf—in’ plane! Everybody strap in, I’m about to open some f—in’ windows,” we all cheered and yelled the line with him. And as the credits rolled we all stayed and sang along to Cobra Starship’s “Snakes on a Plane (Bring It)”, the contest winning song/video, which played alongside the scrolling names. It was probably the most fun I’ve ever had at a movie that didn’t have “Star Wars” in the title.
But what does that say about the movie? Is it good, or is it so bad it’s fun, or is it just plain bad but you enjoyed it anyway? These questions are why I saw it a second time. Now, I don’t like scary movies, not at all, especially not ones where things jump out and get you (I do like Hitchcock and classics like “The Exorcist” and “Poltergeist”), so it was a big stretch seeing it again. Granted, it is not nearly as scary the second time through. What surprised me is that the movie was just as enjoyable as an individual experience (the theater atmosphere was totally different the second time) as it was a group experience. While not as cheer inducing the second time through, it was much more impressive. The action scenes are very well staged, even if overly contrived. The humor is just as funny the second time through. The moments designed to be touching and dramatic actually feel as such, not as filler between asp-kicking. The cool factor is just as strong, as is the fun. While not a great movie as far as action, humor, horror or drama goes, this movie has everything working and working well. Not impressive enough to stand out above the rest, but it fits right in and keeps you smiling. While this movie will most likely be known for a great title and one-liner as well as for its unique back story and relative failure at the box office, it will nevertheless remain a very good film. Perhaps that is why it did not do as well as many had hoped. It is too good to be “so bad it’s good” for the people who like movies like Napoleon Dynamite (which is actually so bad it’s horrible and the worst movie I’ve ever seen), and it is not such a standout that it would draw crowds of people who did not follow the movie through it’s interesting journey.
But I for one can’t wait for the sequel “Rats on a Plane”… “Where the f— is a snake when you need one?”
<>
So, I’ve seen many many movies since the last one I reviewed, and while I’m not going to review them all, I thought I’d give you my feelings on a few of them.
— X-Men: The Last Stand — (seen twice)
The third installment was enjoyable but very lacking in substance and story. Generally a good action movie, but disappointing after the first two. I especially liked Kelsey Grammer as The Beast, and Ellen Paige as Kitty Pride. I do, however, look forward to the Wolverine spinoff, which should allow the series to grow darker again.
— The Da Vinci Code —
I never read the book, based on the recommendation of my father, but I enjoyed the movie. Ian McKellen continues to shine as one of the finest actors working today, and Ron Howard does a good job with the impossible task handed to him. Good cast of actors I love and good, if unbelievable, story. I don’t see what the controversy is/was, though. It’s just a movie, people need to lighten up.
— A Prairie Home Companion —
One of the best films of the year, as expected from Robert Altman. I love the radio show, and you cannot go wrong with a cast this amazing. I warn those of you with short attention spans, or those who don’t like the type of music in this movie to stay away, because it is not an exciting movie, there is no plot, and it’s not really a happy movie either. It is really more of just an attempt to capture a moment in time and really make you feel it. Much could be said of the subtle performances, or the surprising singing abilities, but overall just a phenomenal movie.
— Cars — (seen twice)
Disney/Pixar once again delivers an amazing movie. Perhaps their best other than Finding Nemo. Both exciting and funny, with all the right heartwarming spots that you’ve come to expect from a Disney animated movie. Great voice cast, especially Larry the Cable Guy, who steals the show. Though I personally love Guido and his “pit stop”.
— An Inconvenient Truth —
A movie everyone should see. I like Al Gore a lot, and I think he would have made a much better president had he been allowed to win after more people voted for him than Bush. But that aside, a very hard hitting movie that will make you think and feel deeply. Even if you scoff at the idea of seeing a movie of a lecture from a former Vice-President, you should see this, because it is that important, and very entertaining.
— Superman Returns — (seen twice)
This movie was worth it just for the opening titles and the plane crash sequence. Nothing could say Superman more than John Williams’ theme (his best singular theme he has composed), even if it was used by a different composer for this film. Brandon Routh does passably in the tights, Kate Bosworth and Lois’s son are forgettable, Kevin Space and Parker Posey are great. This movie, however, suffered from a dumb evil plot. Not remotely realistic or threatening. Also a very anticlimactic ending. I know the trend in superhero movies is to be dark and subtle, but this isn’t Batman, this is Superman, the one hero who is allowed to fly off at the end of a movie or comic carrying the American flag to return it to the Empire State Building, or whatever.
— Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest — (seen twice)
Not much to say about this (odd, considering that I myself am a Pirate). Obviously (or hopefully) this movie will mainly function as a set up for At World’s End, because otherwise it wasn’t entertaining enough to sit on its own. Bill Nighy was great as Davy Jones, the action scenes are good, the effects are top rate, but the movie wasn’t too interesting I’m afraid. I would prefer much more swashbuckling and much less supernatural stuff. However, I am very excited for At World’s End, especially due to the return of Barbossa, the most real of all the pirates. We will have to see how my opinion of this film changes after the next one.
— Lady in the Water–
I don’t know what people’s problem is. People complain because M. Night Shyamalan makes up fairy tales to tell, and casts himself in his movies. They didn’t complain at his earlier movies, where he made up his own mythology, AND he is in all his previous ones. People need to get over themselves and just watch the damn movie. ::sighs:: Sorry. I really liked this film, as I have all other Shyamalan movies. I think the story was wonderful, and it was beautifully acted. Maybe I’m just the only one who believes in fairies, or in this case, Narfs.
— Monster House — (seen twice)
This was almost as good as Cars, and was much more creative. Scary and funny, with great action and some of the most realistic animation I’ve ever seen. It was especially good in 3-D. I highly recommend this one to anyone.
— Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby —
Ugh, worst movie I’ve seen in a long time. I am a big NASCAR fan, and I was looking forward to some great jabs at NASCAR, if nothing else. Will Ferrell is not funny, nor is his kind of movie. Making fun of gay people in that manner does not sit well with me, and it’s sad that many NASCAR fans, and many people I went to school with, apparently hate gays as much as the people in that movie did. Stupid, worthless, and disappointing.
I will try to write more regular reviews, look for Snakes on a Plane to be written after this one, I have more to say about it than these others. If anyone likes reading my reviews, or agrees or disagrees, let me know. If no one wants to read them, then I don’t know if I’ll keep writing them. I also plan an article on The Lost Experience, Panthers football, and maybe a couple other things.
The Love Pirate 