We went to see THE HOBBIT: BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES a week ago, and one of the previews that looked interesting to me was for an upcoming Disney flick. I'll describe a bit of it, so it plays out at least a little bit like I experienced it.
A girl is getting out of prison. I'm thinking BLUES BROTHERS where Jake goes up to the window to get his belongings from Frank Oz at the very beginning, because that's exactly what this girl was doing. She starts sliding her stuff into her hand, and there's a pin there, can't see it real clearly. The girl calls back in, says to the guard, "This pin isn't mine."
Then she touches it.
She flashes to a golden meadow, something that looks like wheat all around her. She lets go of the pin, and she's back in the jail. The pin is on the floor. She stares at it, reaches for it, grabs it, and she's back in the field. She looks around, and sees off in the distance...
A city.
Tomorrowland.
What it's about, I don't know. I just thought it looked pretty cool in the preview, and the way the preview was set up, I want to know what it's about.
So...coming to a theater near you...TOMORROWLAND from Disney Studios.
*****
Showing posts with label Films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Films. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Film Review: DESPICABLE ME 2
We finally got around to watching this Dreamworks film a couple nights ago. It was a fun film. I wasn't terribly impressed with the animation, but as seems to be the case with Dreamworks films, it had plenty of funny jokes, some of which went over my kids' heads but were all the funnier to me because of it. Can I cite a specific example? No, I can't. I just remember a few laugh-out-loud moments where my kids asked what I found funny.
I thought the story was a little thin. It had its moments, but in general there wasn't much there. Gru is now a "dad" and has to think about his girls. So his evil scientist goes to work for someone else, and Gru finds himself recruited by an organization dedicated to stopping supercriminals (like Gru was) from destroying the world. There's a plot afoot, and it centers on the mall where Gru has a bakery called "Bake My Day". Gru is asked to look for the formula in the mall, and to find out who is the bad guy.
Of course, things don't go well. If I spill more of the plot, it will spoil it, I think. So I'll stop there, and say that while it wrapped up neatly and there were times that it was exciting, overall, I didn't like it as much as the first DESPICABLE ME movie.
My review: Not bad, maybe worth seeing, but far from Dreamworks' best effort...
*****
If you want to read a book about one family's strategies when vacationing for a week at Disney World, feel free to check out my title , Doing Disney: How To Spend A Week At Disney's Florida Resort It's available on Amazon for $2.99. I tried to write it for families who get to spend a week in the World every year or two and want to maximize their time in the parks and in the area. It doesn't try to be comprehensive, but I think you might find a few helpful tidbits within its electronic pages...
Thanks!
I thought the story was a little thin. It had its moments, but in general there wasn't much there. Gru is now a "dad" and has to think about his girls. So his evil scientist goes to work for someone else, and Gru finds himself recruited by an organization dedicated to stopping supercriminals (like Gru was) from destroying the world. There's a plot afoot, and it centers on the mall where Gru has a bakery called "Bake My Day". Gru is asked to look for the formula in the mall, and to find out who is the bad guy.
Of course, things don't go well. If I spill more of the plot, it will spoil it, I think. So I'll stop there, and say that while it wrapped up neatly and there were times that it was exciting, overall, I didn't like it as much as the first DESPICABLE ME movie.
My review: Not bad, maybe worth seeing, but far from Dreamworks' best effort...
*****
If you want to read a book about one family's strategies when vacationing for a week at Disney World, feel free to check out my title , Doing Disney: How To Spend A Week At Disney's Florida Resort It's available on Amazon for $2.99. I tried to write it for families who get to spend a week in the World every year or two and want to maximize their time in the parks and in the area. It doesn't try to be comprehensive, but I think you might find a few helpful tidbits within its electronic pages...
Thanks!
Saturday, May 3, 2014
A-113?
A friend on Facebook pointed out this article:
DISNEY HAS BEEN HIDING A SECRET RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES. IF YOU'VE NEVER NOTICED IT, HERE'S PROOF.
It's far more innocent than we might like it to be (especially if you've just read Leonard Kinsey's new book, which will be the subject of the next blog post...)
Take a look!
*****
DISNEY HAS BEEN HIDING A SECRET RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES. IF YOU'VE NEVER NOTICED IT, HERE'S PROOF.
It's far more innocent than we might like it to be (especially if you've just read Leonard Kinsey's new book, which will be the subject of the next blog post...)
Take a look!
*****
Disney Has Been Hiding A Secret Right In Front Of Our Faces. If You’ve Never Noticed It, Here’s Proof.
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Disney Has Been Hiding A Secret Right In Front Of Our Faces. If You’ve Never Noticed It, Here’s Proof.
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Disney Has Been Hiding A Secret Right In Front Of Our Faces. If You’ve Never Noticed It, Here’s Proof.
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Disney Has Been Hiding A Secret Right In Front Of Our Faces. If You’ve Never Noticed It, Here’s Proof.
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Read more at http://www.viralnova.com/disney-a113-secret/#hK3k6YgY4FGd0EmF.99
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The Pixar Theory - blog on Pixar Universe
Blogger Jon Negroni has a theory - all Pixar films exist in the same Pixar universe. He has written a pretty cool piece detailing how every film is connected to the other films. There are some stretches in there, but it still makes for some interesting reading.
Here's the link to his piece: The Pixar Theory
There's also this piece that shows that FROZEN and TANGLED take place in the same universe, but you probably already knew that.
And this one that suggests who Andy's mom (from TOY STORY) is.
It is a fun blog, pointed out to me by my sons and it has already given me a bunch of entertainment reading over his posts.
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
Monday, March 10, 2014
Old WALL-E review/commentary
I don't usually do this, but I was scanning back-posts at my Journalscape blog and found this long-ish review of the Pixar movie WALL-E that I wrote on July 9, 2008 and thought I'd repost it here in its entirety. So go ahead and read on if you're interested in my take on that movie back when it came out...
I took my two boys to see the newest Disney-Pixar movie, WALL-E, yesterday afternoon. I was expecting to be as charmed by it as I have been by most of the previous Pixar films, including such offerings as CARS, FINDING NEMO, TOY STORY (1 and 2), and RATATOUILLE.
And I think WALL-E was as good as those movies (and maybe better in a lot of ways), but not nearly as charming. I don't know how to explain it...I think those other stories all take the Disney formula (if you don't know that formula, no sense in trying to explain it) and used it with their own unique twists. And they've worked, so much so that they are really the class of Disney animation currently, and have been for a long time, since the days of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and ALADDIN.
But - it's a much more complicated story than any of those. It's FAR less happy than any of them, far less funny, and more touching in a lot of ways. It's also more of a dystopian SF adventure than anything I've seen previously done by Disney. (I wonder what that will mean to repeat business for this film - while I liked it, I can't see going back to the theater to see it with the kids like we have done for other Pixar films...)
(THIS SYNOPSIS LIKELY CONTAINS SPOILERS - READ AT YOUR OWN RISK...)
In case you don't know, Wall-E is a little robot whose name is an acronym (exactly for what, I can't remember-waste allocation something something - Earth). He's the last one of his kind to still be operational, to still be functioning in his task to clean up the waste and garbage left on the planet by humans as they've abandoned their planet for a life in space. He's a fairly low-tech looking thing, yet he has intelligence and self-awareness. He is lonely, as you might expect, with only a cockroach as company for who knows how many of the last 700 years. Yet he goes about his tasks diligently, compacting and stacking trash into skyscraper sized piles all around the city.
Into this world comes EVE, a sleek "female" robot whose "directive" is classified. Fortunately for Wall-E, she doesn't vaporize him immediately (I wondered about her defensive responses - was she programmed to find monsters on Earth? Why is she so quick to shoot first at anything that moves?) and after he follows her around for a long time, the pair of robots fall in "love", or something like love at least.
When Wall-E is showing her his treasures, artifacts from humanity's past that he's collected in his day to day toils, he presents her with something different - something he hasn't come across in a long time. A small living plant. EVE's response is dramatic. She seizes the small plant, places it inside of her metallic body, and goes into a sort of catatonia. On her body a green leaf flashes over and over. And sure enough, soon the ship that left her comes to collect her, and she is being delivered to wherever she came from originally. And of course, Wall-E can't let her go like that; he chases her down and ends up going on a trip through outer space to her final destination: the star cruiser Axiom with its cargo of humanity.
And herein lies more dystopian elements. Humanity has changed - low gravity and a life of leisure has turned them into a bunch of lazy blobs who are content to be waited on hand and foot by their robot tenders and don't even think about life or interaction with each other. Their captain is a pleasant but seemingly not too "bright" blob voiced by John Goodman. (John Ratzenberger makes his usual appearance as a passenger who is forced to interact with others by Wall-E's intrusion into their daily existence.) The Buy-N-Large Corporation is the benefactor in all of this - the corporation is the entity that built the robots, that sent humans into space to live while Earth is supposedly being cleaned up, and that promoted this lifestyle in the first place - a sort of bad guy who isn't really even there anymore.
Of course, Wall-E and EVE save the day, getting the plant to the proper place which results in the ship returning to Earth, against heavy resistance from the robots who now seem to embody the Corporation. It's a touching conclusion at times, watching the humans get back on their feet, literally and figuratively, and relearn the joys of living, as the captain watches Wall-E and EVE dance through the space around the ship, and as the passengers are forced to interact with each other and simply act to save themselves. The captain outwits his robot overseer in the end, and humans return to Earth, which is not really "ready" to receive them but which needs their attention to be reborn. All very optimistic, at the end, and positive.
It's a cautionary tale, however, warning against a lot of things - not the least of which is excessive consumption, corporate greed and a trend toward indoor (computers, video games, big screen tvs, etc.) entertainment vs outdoor activity. It seems to warn against technological achievement just for the sake of achievement, with no attention to the good or bad results of such achievement. Maybe most of all it warns against the current trend of not looking beyond tomorrow. I think there are some heavy social and political themes buried in the cartoon medium within which director Andrew Stanton and Pixar work best. Probably a lot more of them than I'm getting to here...I think someone could expand on a lot of these things and dig far deeper into this story than I've done.
And that, by itself, is very unusual for a Disney or a Pixar type story. So, while WALL-E is not nearly as charming or uplifting as other Disney fare, it is certainly deeper and more socially aware than almost anything they've done in this medium to date.
I probably won't see it again in the theater, but will likely buy it when it finally comes out on DVD, and I'm thinking I'll enjoy it then, too. Meanwhile...I'll just have to content myself with playing the Wall-E video game with my sons...;-)
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
I took my two boys to see the newest Disney-Pixar movie, WALL-E, yesterday afternoon. I was expecting to be as charmed by it as I have been by most of the previous Pixar films, including such offerings as CARS, FINDING NEMO, TOY STORY (1 and 2), and RATATOUILLE.
And I think WALL-E was as good as those movies (and maybe better in a lot of ways), but not nearly as charming. I don't know how to explain it...I think those other stories all take the Disney formula (if you don't know that formula, no sense in trying to explain it) and used it with their own unique twists. And they've worked, so much so that they are really the class of Disney animation currently, and have been for a long time, since the days of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and ALADDIN.
But - it's a much more complicated story than any of those. It's FAR less happy than any of them, far less funny, and more touching in a lot of ways. It's also more of a dystopian SF adventure than anything I've seen previously done by Disney. (I wonder what that will mean to repeat business for this film - while I liked it, I can't see going back to the theater to see it with the kids like we have done for other Pixar films...)
(THIS SYNOPSIS LIKELY CONTAINS SPOILERS - READ AT YOUR OWN RISK...)
In case you don't know, Wall-E is a little robot whose name is an acronym (exactly for what, I can't remember-waste allocation something something - Earth). He's the last one of his kind to still be operational, to still be functioning in his task to clean up the waste and garbage left on the planet by humans as they've abandoned their planet for a life in space. He's a fairly low-tech looking thing, yet he has intelligence and self-awareness. He is lonely, as you might expect, with only a cockroach as company for who knows how many of the last 700 years. Yet he goes about his tasks diligently, compacting and stacking trash into skyscraper sized piles all around the city.
Into this world comes EVE, a sleek "female" robot whose "directive" is classified. Fortunately for Wall-E, she doesn't vaporize him immediately (I wondered about her defensive responses - was she programmed to find monsters on Earth? Why is she so quick to shoot first at anything that moves?) and after he follows her around for a long time, the pair of robots fall in "love", or something like love at least.
When Wall-E is showing her his treasures, artifacts from humanity's past that he's collected in his day to day toils, he presents her with something different - something he hasn't come across in a long time. A small living plant. EVE's response is dramatic. She seizes the small plant, places it inside of her metallic body, and goes into a sort of catatonia. On her body a green leaf flashes over and over. And sure enough, soon the ship that left her comes to collect her, and she is being delivered to wherever she came from originally. And of course, Wall-E can't let her go like that; he chases her down and ends up going on a trip through outer space to her final destination: the star cruiser Axiom with its cargo of humanity.
And herein lies more dystopian elements. Humanity has changed - low gravity and a life of leisure has turned them into a bunch of lazy blobs who are content to be waited on hand and foot by their robot tenders and don't even think about life or interaction with each other. Their captain is a pleasant but seemingly not too "bright" blob voiced by John Goodman. (John Ratzenberger makes his usual appearance as a passenger who is forced to interact with others by Wall-E's intrusion into their daily existence.) The Buy-N-Large Corporation is the benefactor in all of this - the corporation is the entity that built the robots, that sent humans into space to live while Earth is supposedly being cleaned up, and that promoted this lifestyle in the first place - a sort of bad guy who isn't really even there anymore.
Of course, Wall-E and EVE save the day, getting the plant to the proper place which results in the ship returning to Earth, against heavy resistance from the robots who now seem to embody the Corporation. It's a touching conclusion at times, watching the humans get back on their feet, literally and figuratively, and relearn the joys of living, as the captain watches Wall-E and EVE dance through the space around the ship, and as the passengers are forced to interact with each other and simply act to save themselves. The captain outwits his robot overseer in the end, and humans return to Earth, which is not really "ready" to receive them but which needs their attention to be reborn. All very optimistic, at the end, and positive.
It's a cautionary tale, however, warning against a lot of things - not the least of which is excessive consumption, corporate greed and a trend toward indoor (computers, video games, big screen tvs, etc.) entertainment vs outdoor activity. It seems to warn against technological achievement just for the sake of achievement, with no attention to the good or bad results of such achievement. Maybe most of all it warns against the current trend of not looking beyond tomorrow. I think there are some heavy social and political themes buried in the cartoon medium within which director Andrew Stanton and Pixar work best. Probably a lot more of them than I'm getting to here...I think someone could expand on a lot of these things and dig far deeper into this story than I've done.
And that, by itself, is very unusual for a Disney or a Pixar type story. So, while WALL-E is not nearly as charming or uplifting as other Disney fare, it is certainly deeper and more socially aware than almost anything they've done in this medium to date.
I probably won't see it again in the theater, but will likely buy it when it finally comes out on DVD, and I'm thinking I'll enjoy it then, too. Meanwhile...I'll just have to content myself with playing the Wall-E video game with my sons...;-)
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
Monday, March 3, 2014
Disney Film: FROZEN
Finally, a couple months after its theatrical release, we made our way to go see the Disney animated feature, FROZEN. The impetus behind getting to see it this past weekend was that both of my sons will be playing selections from the film in their respective school bands. Both wanted to see the movie, hear the songs, and get a feel for what was coming.
I expected to like it. And I did. I have to say that I liked it a lot, more than TANGLED, or WRECK-IT RALPH, or any other recent Disney animated film. I liked it more than I liked BRAVE, actually, and that's saying a lot. More than MONSTERS U, also. Disney Animation has finally outdone Pixar, or at least outdone some of Pixar's efforts.
The film had a lot of heart. But then again, Disney's never been bad at tugging at the heartstrings. They know how to do this movie. They know how to do the humor, the sympathetic characters, the villains, the plot twists...
This movie has all of those things along with a plot that isn't one hundred percent about having the girl end up with the prince. Deservingly, it took home the Oscar for best Animated Feature last night.
The short, featuring a vintage Mickey Mouse, was fun, if a bit repetitive by the end. (It didn't win in the animated short category, I noted.)
I'll be buying it on DVD/BluRay, and I may even download some of the music. A couple of the songs were among the best from Disney animation.
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
I expected to like it. And I did. I have to say that I liked it a lot, more than TANGLED, or WRECK-IT RALPH, or any other recent Disney animated film. I liked it more than I liked BRAVE, actually, and that's saying a lot. More than MONSTERS U, also. Disney Animation has finally outdone Pixar, or at least outdone some of Pixar's efforts.
The film had a lot of heart. But then again, Disney's never been bad at tugging at the heartstrings. They know how to do this movie. They know how to do the humor, the sympathetic characters, the villains, the plot twists...
This movie has all of those things along with a plot that isn't one hundred percent about having the girl end up with the prince. Deservingly, it took home the Oscar for best Animated Feature last night.
The short, featuring a vintage Mickey Mouse, was fun, if a bit repetitive by the end. (It didn't win in the animated short category, I noted.)
I'll be buying it on DVD/BluRay, and I may even download some of the music. A couple of the songs were among the best from Disney animation.
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Film Review: SAVING MR. BANKS
We went to see SAVING MR. BANKS, starring Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson, over the holiday break. I expected to like it, and I did. It was a very good story, nicely told with the use of flashbacks to give us insight into the character of P. L. Travers, the author of MARY POPPINS. I didn't go to the film believing that it was a documentary, but I have to admit that I wasn't terribly aware of what was fact and what was fiction as I watched.
Did that affect my enjoyment of the film? Not one bit. I thought most everything about it was good. I don't expect academy award nominations for the actors, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them get them. The performances were good and believable, especially Thompson and Paul Giametti as the apparently fictional limo driver who chauffeurs Mrs. Travers around Los Angeles. Hanks was good as Walt Disney himself, but trying to play a character who so many, including me, have seen either in video footage or on TV back in the old days has to be difficult. I never quite got over the feeling that I was watching Hanks play Disney instead of watching Walt Disney himself, if that makes sense.
I highly recommend it to anyone, not just Disney buffs and Disney fans. It's a very good film that deserves accolades.
It's come to my attention that there is raging debate on Facebook and in the blogosphere over the inaccuracies and liberties taken within the story and the visual presentation. Most of the critics seem to like the film on the surface but are disturbed that people will see it and think it an accurate historical depiction of the events surrounding the making of MARY POPPINS.
I can see that many of the specifics are not accurate, and also I can see from checking the three biographies of Mr. Disney that I own that there is disagreement on the facts surrounding the relationship between Disney and Travers. I noted that Jeff Kurtti, a noted Disney historian, presented a letter that Travers wrote to Disney thanking him for the film and praising it. But I have read in too many places that Travers didn't like certain parts of the films, including the songs, and that her criticism often was held back until she was talking to someone who revealed that they didn't like Walt Disney. I don't know.
I think that in general, the film gives an accurate representation of the general mood surrounding the relationships between Disney and Travers and the production team of MARY POPPINS, but uses a lot of artistic license to make it a good story. Much like Walt didn't want to make Rudyard Kipling's JUNGLE BOOK, but Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK, Disney wanted first and foremost to make a film that would work well on the big screen and not necessarily be faithful to every little detail. And they succeeded in doing that.
That's my take. I'll probably buy it on DVD. I already bought a biography of P.L. Travers and I'll probably make it a point to watch THE BOYS when I get a chance because of this movie and the discussions that I've read.
*****
Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99. Thanks!
*****
Monday, October 28, 2013
The Treasures of Disney exhibit - Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry
The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago has a special exhibit going on right now: D23 Presents: Treasures of the Walt Disney Archives.
We had the chance to see this exhibit yesterday, and it was one of the better exhibits we've experienced at the Museum (and we've been members for several years now). That might be because we enjoy Disney, and I love the Disney history material. But we all found it to be quite fun, right up to the "Animation Academy" style class at the end of the exhibit. They had costumes from Enchanted, Mary Poppins, Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice In Wonderland, and a handful of other films. They had some interesting props, a bunch of macaques (is that the right word?) of various animation subjects, and other interesting things like the Nautilus model used in the filming of 20000 Leagues Under The Sea. The theme parks were covered as well.
It presented Walt as a forward-thinking genius who was one step ahead of the curve in the entertainment industry.
I'd actually like to go see it again. Check out the Museum of Science and Industry's info on the exhibit on their site.
*******
Monday, August 5, 2013
Disney Film: OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
I didn't get to see this movie in the theater, like I'd hoped to do. But I caught some of it on a flight, and it looked pretty good. Waiting at home was the DVD (which I had purchased when it came out), and it took until now to finally watch it.
And my initial impression was correct. This was a really fun movie. It told a pretty decent, if a little thin, story, describing just how the Wizard of Oz gets to be the Wizard. It filled in the backstory of the witches. It paid homage to the original film in several places. And it was a beautifully filmed movie, with plenty of colorful effects and solid animation. Performances were good, and I liked all of the actors in their roles.
More importantly, it held my boys' interest better than a lot of movies do when I show them on DVD. And now they want to see the original film, which prior to now, they've always demurred when offered the opportunity. So we'll be popping that one in soon.
My sons are REALLY looking forward to seeing PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS in the theater, maybe even this weekend.
*****
And my initial impression was correct. This was a really fun movie. It told a pretty decent, if a little thin, story, describing just how the Wizard of Oz gets to be the Wizard. It filled in the backstory of the witches. It paid homage to the original film in several places. And it was a beautifully filmed movie, with plenty of colorful effects and solid animation. Performances were good, and I liked all of the actors in their roles.
More importantly, it held my boys' interest better than a lot of movies do when I show them on DVD. And now they want to see the original film, which prior to now, they've always demurred when offered the opportunity. So we'll be popping that one in soon.
My sons are REALLY looking forward to seeing PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS in the theater, maybe even this weekend.
*****
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Disney Film: MONSTERS U
Took the boys to see this one a couple of weekends ago, and I (and they) thought it lived up to its billing. As good as the first? Not quite. But pretty darned good, with a fun, interesting story to tell.
And yes, John Ratzenberger does his scene reprising his character of the Yeti, who is a mailroom guy. Funny, huh?
Pixar doesn't stumble too much on this prequel to MONSTERS INC.
The short film (the name escapes me) with the umbrella love story was very well done as well.
*****
And yes, John Ratzenberger does his scene reprising his character of the Yeti, who is a mailroom guy. Funny, huh?
Pixar doesn't stumble too much on this prequel to MONSTERS INC.
The short film (the name escapes me) with the umbrella love story was very well done as well.
*****
Monday, March 25, 2013
Disney Film - JOHN CARTER
A long time ago (it seems) I wrote a couple posts (edit: it was only one post, located here) on the theatrical release of John Carter, the big budget Disney SF fantasy adapted from the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel A Princess of Mars. In the first, if I recall correctly, I commented that it wasn't a movie I had much interest in seeing, nor did my boys. Our initial reaction was due to the television advertising for the movie. It just didn't look that good. It didn't make me want to see it.
In another post (actually, in edits to that first and only post) I suggested that maybe that initial impression was mistaken, since I had read numerous commentaries on blogs stating that it was in fact quite good. And those reviews were enough to inspire me to buy the Blu-Ray/DVD release when it came out.
But then we never watched it. Until last Friday night.
We had a rare "boy's night" with me and my sons having the evening to ourselves, and I decided that *I* was going to pick out a movie to watch. Going through the stack of unviewed movies, I came across John Carter and thought, What better time to watch this one? It is not one my wife would want to see AT ALL, so it was a perfect time to pop it in and watch.
So the verdict is in. We all liked it quite a bit! Was it great? No, maybe not great. But it was very good and told a good story (albeit a story that's been covered before) and had very good effects and settings and the acting was decent. (I noted that the director was Andrew Stanton, I believe...) I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime, and I would be interested in seeing a sequel.
I know, because it didn't do well at the box office, that a sequel is very unlikely. Too bad Disney flubbed the marketing of this movie. Because they had something pretty good and didn't get the promotion right.
*****
In another post (actually, in edits to that first and only post) I suggested that maybe that initial impression was mistaken, since I had read numerous commentaries on blogs stating that it was in fact quite good. And those reviews were enough to inspire me to buy the Blu-Ray/DVD release when it came out.
But then we never watched it. Until last Friday night.
We had a rare "boy's night" with me and my sons having the evening to ourselves, and I decided that *I* was going to pick out a movie to watch. Going through the stack of unviewed movies, I came across John Carter and thought, What better time to watch this one? It is not one my wife would want to see AT ALL, so it was a perfect time to pop it in and watch.
So the verdict is in. We all liked it quite a bit! Was it great? No, maybe not great. But it was very good and told a good story (albeit a story that's been covered before) and had very good effects and settings and the acting was decent. (I noted that the director was Andrew Stanton, I believe...) I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime, and I would be interested in seeing a sequel.
I know, because it didn't do well at the box office, that a sequel is very unlikely. Too bad Disney flubbed the marketing of this movie. Because they had something pretty good and didn't get the promotion right.
*****
Thursday, February 14, 2013
OZ THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE
Who's looking forward to the release of this movie? It looks good to me, from what I've seen in previews and commercials. I'm planning on seeing it sometime next month.
As for THE LONE RANGER, I'm not as excited about that one. The previews and commercials just aren't dragging me in. Can you say "John Carter" as far as the marketing goes so far with that one? Maybe it's going to be a great movie, but so far I'm not seeing it.
*****
As for THE LONE RANGER, I'm not as excited about that one. The previews and commercials just aren't dragging me in. Can you say "John Carter" as far as the marketing goes so far with that one? Maybe it's going to be a great movie, but so far I'm not seeing it.
*****
Monday, January 14, 2013
Golden Globes for Animated Feature!
So Disney had three nominations, out of five possible, for Best Animated Feature last night:
And lo and behold, they did take hope the Globe trophy - for Brave, which deserved it, far as I could see. Wreck-it Ralph seemed pretty good, but didn't quite hit the heights that Pixar regularly hits. I can't speak to the other nominees; these were the only two I saw. But the others LOOKED like cartoons, while Brave was something a bit more ambitious...in my opinion!
*****
- Brave
- Frankenweenie
- Wreck-it Ralph
And lo and behold, they did take hope the Globe trophy - for Brave, which deserved it, far as I could see. Wreck-it Ralph seemed pretty good, but didn't quite hit the heights that Pixar regularly hits. I can't speak to the other nominees; these were the only two I saw. But the others LOOKED like cartoons, while Brave was something a bit more ambitious...in my opinion!
*****
Monday, November 26, 2012
Puss'n'Boots by Dreamworks
My kids chose this film to watch Saturday morning, picking it over John Carter, and they both enjoyed it. Me, I was a bit less impressed. It took a lot of the tropes from the Shrek films and used them to tell the story of the dashing swordsman, Puss In Boots, voiced by Antonio Banderas. We were treated to the cat's backstory, where it was revealed that he grew up as "brothers" with Humpty Dumpty. He left Humpty crashed into a bunch of pieces, after the Egg betrayed his trust. And when Humpty sends his feline thief to attract Puss to his lair, he's all about begging for forgiveness.
But from there, it's one plot twist after another, as the trio unites to kidnap the goose that lays the golden eggs from that kingdom at the top of that famous beanstalk. And for me, it was one or two plot twists too many. I've read reviews that suggest that this is one of Dreamworks' best efforts, but I sort of felt it was little more than an attempt to capitalize on the Shrek franchise a bit more.
I didn't hate it. It was good and entertaining, but I think I've come to expect more from Dreamworks. Like Pixar, they rarely lay an egg (no pun intended). And recently, I think they've hit some real home runs.
This one was more like a double. Doubles are good, but they don't score a run on their own, necessarily. Just my opinion.
*****
But from there, it's one plot twist after another, as the trio unites to kidnap the goose that lays the golden eggs from that kingdom at the top of that famous beanstalk. And for me, it was one or two plot twists too many. I've read reviews that suggest that this is one of Dreamworks' best efforts, but I sort of felt it was little more than an attempt to capitalize on the Shrek franchise a bit more.
I didn't hate it. It was good and entertaining, but I think I've come to expect more from Dreamworks. Like Pixar, they rarely lay an egg (no pun intended). And recently, I think they've hit some real home runs.
This one was more like a double. Doubles are good, but they don't score a run on their own, necessarily. Just my opinion.
*****
Monday, November 19, 2012
Disney Film: Wreck-It Ralph
Finally, I have something to post about, something that comes from me, instead of just being my take on some news or something pointed out on another blog.
I took my boys to see Wreck-It Ralph yesterday. I can't say I had any burning desire to see it. It just didn't excite me that much - a big video game bad guy who gets tired of being a bad guy and makes friends with a little girl. Sounds forced. Like they looked at the success of the Toy Story franchise, and thought, what can we do that's like THAT? And came up with lovable video game characters - but then thought they'd give it a little twist and go the other way with the unlovable video game character instead.
And for the first part of the movie, that's exactly what I was thinking. But, like a lot of stuff seems to go with me, at some point, maybe around the 1/3 finished point, it went from being mild entertainment to actually becoming engaging. Sucking me in. I started to like the way Ralph was thinking. I started to feel sorry for him. I was rooting for him. It had me guessing as to what was the truth of the situation he found himself in when he sort of crashed into a racing game called Sugar Rush. The little girl, Vanillope, voiced by Sarah Silverman, was funny and likable after a rough start, and I found myself laughing and caring about the character. Ralph's game nemesis, Fix-it Felix, was also funny, and it was interesting to see him come to understanding about Ralph's existence.
So I ended up liking the movie quite a bit. No, it didn't quite have the heart of most Pixar releases, but I think it stacked up favorably to their latest, Brave. But it was a fun, entertaining animated feature and I was glad I saw it. And for the 10-12 year old set, my boys liked it from the beginning.
The short that preceded it, called Paperman, was also fun, and well done. It involved a young man and a young woman's encounter over a piece of paper, and then he sees her again, and tries to get her attention by using paper airplanes. Cute. Maybe not Pixar-cute, but entertaining.
On another note, we did see a preview for the first of The Hobbit films, to be released in December. Looks good. I wanted to see a preview for Les Miserables, but that one was not among these coming attractions. Both of those are MUST-SEE's for me.
*****
I took my boys to see Wreck-It Ralph yesterday. I can't say I had any burning desire to see it. It just didn't excite me that much - a big video game bad guy who gets tired of being a bad guy and makes friends with a little girl. Sounds forced. Like they looked at the success of the Toy Story franchise, and thought, what can we do that's like THAT? And came up with lovable video game characters - but then thought they'd give it a little twist and go the other way with the unlovable video game character instead.
And for the first part of the movie, that's exactly what I was thinking. But, like a lot of stuff seems to go with me, at some point, maybe around the 1/3 finished point, it went from being mild entertainment to actually becoming engaging. Sucking me in. I started to like the way Ralph was thinking. I started to feel sorry for him. I was rooting for him. It had me guessing as to what was the truth of the situation he found himself in when he sort of crashed into a racing game called Sugar Rush. The little girl, Vanillope, voiced by Sarah Silverman, was funny and likable after a rough start, and I found myself laughing and caring about the character. Ralph's game nemesis, Fix-it Felix, was also funny, and it was interesting to see him come to understanding about Ralph's existence.
So I ended up liking the movie quite a bit. No, it didn't quite have the heart of most Pixar releases, but I think it stacked up favorably to their latest, Brave. But it was a fun, entertaining animated feature and I was glad I saw it. And for the 10-12 year old set, my boys liked it from the beginning.
The short that preceded it, called Paperman, was also fun, and well done. It involved a young man and a young woman's encounter over a piece of paper, and then he sees her again, and tries to get her attention by using paper airplanes. Cute. Maybe not Pixar-cute, but entertaining.
On another note, we did see a preview for the first of The Hobbit films, to be released in December. Looks good. I wanted to see a preview for Les Miserables, but that one was not among these coming attractions. Both of those are MUST-SEE's for me.
*****
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Disney Film: Pixar's BRAVE
I went to see this one over the 4th of July holiday, when the temps in Chicago were hitting 100 degrees. Didn't know what to expect; the previews really didn't get me that excited about the story, but after Up I vowed to never doubt Pixar again. (Still, some bits of doubt were creeping in. Cars 2 was good but didn't knock me out.)
What I found was a movie with the same "heart" as Up, to go along with the same degree of humor and the same great story. The story of Merida, a headstrong teenaged princess in feudal Scotland, seemed to me to be brimming with true-to-life, if exaggerated, qualities of teens and parents everywhere. Merida wants to determine her own path, and her mother wants her to do what she is required by law to do. Merida's wishes (like many a teen in real life) that her mother treat her more like a person and less like an object or a slave (from the teen's point of view) are taken a bit too literally by the overzealous witch in the woods (or is she just evil? Not sure!) and Merida's desire to "change" her mother does not work out the way she wants it to.
I read a review, just before seeing the film, that Merida was Pixar's first attempt at a female heroine, and in creating her they fall into the trap of making her too like other Disney princesses. Could she be Rapunzel? Tiana? Belle? Jasmine? I don't know. She didn't "feel" like those others to me. This wasn't a classic fairy tale to me. It was more a story about the evolution of a daughter's (or even a son's) relationship with her mother (or parents in general). I felt there was some depth to it, especially for my pre-teen kids, who loved the movie.
The three little brothers provided much welcome comic relief, and they were my kids' favorite characters. The caricatures that served as the men of the other clans were also quite humorous, maybe more to me. There weren't a lot of jokes aimed over the heads of the kids to the adults in the audience (like there are in a lot of Dreamworks' pictures - and I do appreciate that about Dreamworks products).
I think it was a worthwhile addition to the Pixar collection of movies, and while not quite reaching the heights that I felt Up reached, it was a nice way to spend an afternoon in the hot city!
*****
What I found was a movie with the same "heart" as Up, to go along with the same degree of humor and the same great story. The story of Merida, a headstrong teenaged princess in feudal Scotland, seemed to me to be brimming with true-to-life, if exaggerated, qualities of teens and parents everywhere. Merida wants to determine her own path, and her mother wants her to do what she is required by law to do. Merida's wishes (like many a teen in real life) that her mother treat her more like a person and less like an object or a slave (from the teen's point of view) are taken a bit too literally by the overzealous witch in the woods (or is she just evil? Not sure!) and Merida's desire to "change" her mother does not work out the way she wants it to.
I read a review, just before seeing the film, that Merida was Pixar's first attempt at a female heroine, and in creating her they fall into the trap of making her too like other Disney princesses. Could she be Rapunzel? Tiana? Belle? Jasmine? I don't know. She didn't "feel" like those others to me. This wasn't a classic fairy tale to me. It was more a story about the evolution of a daughter's (or even a son's) relationship with her mother (or parents in general). I felt there was some depth to it, especially for my pre-teen kids, who loved the movie.
The three little brothers provided much welcome comic relief, and they were my kids' favorite characters. The caricatures that served as the men of the other clans were also quite humorous, maybe more to me. There weren't a lot of jokes aimed over the heads of the kids to the adults in the audience (like there are in a lot of Dreamworks' pictures - and I do appreciate that about Dreamworks products).
I think it was a worthwhile addition to the Pixar collection of movies, and while not quite reaching the heights that I felt Up reached, it was a nice way to spend an afternoon in the hot city!
*****
Thursday, April 5, 2012
THE HUNGER GAMES - the movie
The Hunger Games probably wouldn't have been a must-see movie for me, but it certainly was for my kids, who both liked the first book a lot. I liked the book, too, but not enough to read on in the series immediately.
But after seeing the film, I did want to read on, and I did. Partly that was because of the vision of the filmmakers, who showed a dark, unwelcoming future where people live almost like pioneers, even as the ruling classes in the Capitol live in luxury. I wanted to find out more about this future; how did it come about and how did it work? The second and third books give more insight into these ideas; presumably the films will also.
Some things work better, in my opinion, on film, and I think it's very possible that The Hunger Games is one of those things. I'm a verbal, not so much a visual, person. So when I see a richly rendered vision I'm impressed. Personally, I thought that The Hunger Games did just that. Some may disagree.
I thought there were pretty decent performances. Yes, some of the tributes seemed to be caricatures of violent youths, but then again, that's sort of what they are. They are stunted in their growth purposely for these Games, and the performances more or less matched what I was thinking about those trubutes. But the main characters, Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch, all were very good portrayals with some depth.
I'm not a film reviewer; I tend to like a lot of stuff I see and I am not overly critical of things I don't know much about. What I saw here was a big budget movie that succeeded in conveying the vision and in telling the first part of a broader story. I'm not saying that this is a great film, destined to be a classic, but I think it's a solid entry into the subcategory of dystopian fictional films.
*****
But after seeing the film, I did want to read on, and I did. Partly that was because of the vision of the filmmakers, who showed a dark, unwelcoming future where people live almost like pioneers, even as the ruling classes in the Capitol live in luxury. I wanted to find out more about this future; how did it come about and how did it work? The second and third books give more insight into these ideas; presumably the films will also.
Some things work better, in my opinion, on film, and I think it's very possible that The Hunger Games is one of those things. I'm a verbal, not so much a visual, person. So when I see a richly rendered vision I'm impressed. Personally, I thought that The Hunger Games did just that. Some may disagree.
I thought there were pretty decent performances. Yes, some of the tributes seemed to be caricatures of violent youths, but then again, that's sort of what they are. They are stunted in their growth purposely for these Games, and the performances more or less matched what I was thinking about those trubutes. But the main characters, Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch, all were very good portrayals with some depth.
I'm not a film reviewer; I tend to like a lot of stuff I see and I am not overly critical of things I don't know much about. What I saw here was a big budget movie that succeeded in conveying the vision and in telling the first part of a broader story. I'm not saying that this is a great film, destined to be a classic, but I think it's a solid entry into the subcategory of dystopian fictional films.
*****
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Hunger Games - film and books
I recently watched The Hunger Games on the big screen. It inspired me to read the final two books in the series, which I did over the course of the last three days. They ended up being pretty decent, quick reads.
I liked the first book of the trilogy, but not enough to rush into reading its follow-up book, Catching Fire. I've seen and heard criticism of the series regarding the fact that kids are fighting and killing other kids in the series, and that is an issue, but then again, that's sort of the point of the story. They were written for young adults, so it sorta follows that they'd be about young adults doing things.
I see the point though. It's sort of disconcerting to watch children fight, as it was in the movie. It's sort of disconcerting, though less so, to read about it, at least for me, because of the context that the reader gets that the moviegoer might miss. In the end, though, after all three books (I finished Mockingjay today, a few hours ago), I found them to be pretty decent dystopian fiction.
I want to digest the material a bit more before commenting further, but I'm going to try to say more about these works. Maybe I'll separate them into movie and books. I'll also be interested to see what they do with the next book in the series, which doesn't seem as film-ready.
*****
I liked the first book of the trilogy, but not enough to rush into reading its follow-up book, Catching Fire. I've seen and heard criticism of the series regarding the fact that kids are fighting and killing other kids in the series, and that is an issue, but then again, that's sort of the point of the story. They were written for young adults, so it sorta follows that they'd be about young adults doing things.
I see the point though. It's sort of disconcerting to watch children fight, as it was in the movie. It's sort of disconcerting, though less so, to read about it, at least for me, because of the context that the reader gets that the moviegoer might miss. In the end, though, after all three books (I finished Mockingjay today, a few hours ago), I found them to be pretty decent dystopian fiction.
I want to digest the material a bit more before commenting further, but I'm going to try to say more about these works. Maybe I'll separate them into movie and books. I'll also be interested to see what they do with the next book in the series, which doesn't seem as film-ready.
*****
Monday, March 12, 2012
John Carter...really?
It's been awhile since I've posted anything substantial hereabouts. I've been injured, as you may note from my previous post over a month ago, and my time has been very limited. My limited work schedule has been quite packed since I have a significant backlog of work to do, and lots of paperwork needs to be done this time of the year, regardless of the disability and medical insurance stuff I have to also pay attention to.
Anyway, as I was coming into work this morning, I heard on the news that John Carter was expected (by analysts) to lose 150 million dollars. It did 30 million (if I heard right) last weekend. And it cost 250 million to make.
Wow.
Who is John Carter, anyway? I mean, here I am, a SF fan, and I have never read the Edgar Rice Burroughs book. I loved Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, and dabbled in others also. I read a lot of Brin, Benford, Card, Bear, among others. But I've never read A Princess of Mars. So maybe I'm making an assumption here, but is this story set on Mars? If it is, well, our well-known scientific knowledge (even my middle school kids know this) points out that Mars doesn't have any life on it.
However, I have to admit that I don't know what exactly the premise of this story is. Maybe they've retold it to make some sort of sense. I don't know.
So here are these big ol' commercials for the film, and they look pretty nice, but they aren't compelling. I asked my kids: Does that movie look cool? And I got a lukewarm "Yeah, it looks pretty cool." Not an "I gotta see it, it's so cool-looking" answer. You'd have to hear it to know the difference. There was no follow-up for them, asking about it. Once my younger son asked, "Who's John Carter?" (My answer was that he was a classic character from an early science fiction novel...but I've never read it.)
I feel the same way about the previews and commercials for the films. I got way more excited about the previews for Enchanted when it was coming out a few years back. Or for Bedtime Stories. These commercials don't excite me at all.
It's hard to believe that they spent that kind of money without knowing what their audience was. Is 30M a good opening weekend for a "blockbuster"? It doesn't sound too good. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
Maybe this movie is one of those things that sounds like a great idea but can't really live up to it, even if done extraordinarily well. Time will tell, I suppose.
addendum: Honor Hunter over at Blue Sky Disney posts THIS about the film, suggesting that it's a pretty good movie after all. Maybe even a great movie. I didn't realize that Andrew Stanton directed it. He points to huge marketing flaws as the reason for its suck-y opening. And that's more or less my point here. The marketing for this film stinks. My kids agree with what Honor says. They want to see The Hunger Games, not John Carter.
addendum #2: Cory Gross gives this film a pretty darned good review HERE at Voyages Extraordinaire also. I always considered myself a science fiction fan, but it seems I've missed something by missing this series. OTOH, it doesn't sound like the cerebral SF of Asimov or Clarke, which was more what I went for. I did recognize some of the names as I read the review from a book by Heinlein, especially Dejah Thoris...(Was that book The Number Of The Beast?)
*****
Anyway, as I was coming into work this morning, I heard on the news that John Carter was expected (by analysts) to lose 150 million dollars. It did 30 million (if I heard right) last weekend. And it cost 250 million to make.
Wow.
Who is John Carter, anyway? I mean, here I am, a SF fan, and I have never read the Edgar Rice Burroughs book. I loved Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, and dabbled in others also. I read a lot of Brin, Benford, Card, Bear, among others. But I've never read A Princess of Mars. So maybe I'm making an assumption here, but is this story set on Mars? If it is, well, our well-known scientific knowledge (even my middle school kids know this) points out that Mars doesn't have any life on it.
However, I have to admit that I don't know what exactly the premise of this story is. Maybe they've retold it to make some sort of sense. I don't know.
So here are these big ol' commercials for the film, and they look pretty nice, but they aren't compelling. I asked my kids: Does that movie look cool? And I got a lukewarm "Yeah, it looks pretty cool." Not an "I gotta see it, it's so cool-looking" answer. You'd have to hear it to know the difference. There was no follow-up for them, asking about it. Once my younger son asked, "Who's John Carter?" (My answer was that he was a classic character from an early science fiction novel...but I've never read it.)
I feel the same way about the previews and commercials for the films. I got way more excited about the previews for Enchanted when it was coming out a few years back. Or for Bedtime Stories. These commercials don't excite me at all.
It's hard to believe that they spent that kind of money without knowing what their audience was. Is 30M a good opening weekend for a "blockbuster"? It doesn't sound too good. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
Maybe this movie is one of those things that sounds like a great idea but can't really live up to it, even if done extraordinarily well. Time will tell, I suppose.
addendum: Honor Hunter over at Blue Sky Disney posts THIS about the film, suggesting that it's a pretty good movie after all. Maybe even a great movie. I didn't realize that Andrew Stanton directed it. He points to huge marketing flaws as the reason for its suck-y opening. And that's more or less my point here. The marketing for this film stinks. My kids agree with what Honor says. They want to see The Hunger Games, not John Carter.
addendum #2: Cory Gross gives this film a pretty darned good review HERE at Voyages Extraordinaire also. I always considered myself a science fiction fan, but it seems I've missed something by missing this series. OTOH, it doesn't sound like the cerebral SF of Asimov or Clarke, which was more what I went for. I did recognize some of the names as I read the review from a book by Heinlein, especially Dejah Thoris...(Was that book The Number Of The Beast?)
*****
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Disney Film: Experiencing TOY STORY (the first) again
Last night, the Disney channel was showing Toy Story in prime time, and when I got home from work, my boys were planted in front of the TV watching intently. I sat down across from my wife at the island in the kitchen, and I noticed that she continually shifted her attention to the action on the screen.
Finally I sat down between the boys and let myself get pulled into the movie again. It is far from my first time watching it, and it is not my kids' first time either. But the film is simply entrancing. It grabs you and you can't not watch!
I came in too close to the end, really. Buzz and Woody were in Sid's room, trying to escape before he awoke. Then there is the scene where the toys break the rules, and then the frantic chase to get onto the moving truck. Finally, the happy ending and the arrival of the puppy.
If I were to relate the story to someone totally unfamiliar with the movie, they'd probably say, "well, that's a nice story" or something like that. But the movie transcends the simplicity of the tale. It becomes something so much more, even today, after seeing Pixar's digital magic worked over and over, and seeing digital special effects that blow your mind! When it came out, the technology to create such a film was new, but Pixar infused it with something more than tech savvy - they gave it heart - the same heart that we see in so many Disney releases.
*****
Finally I sat down between the boys and let myself get pulled into the movie again. It is far from my first time watching it, and it is not my kids' first time either. But the film is simply entrancing. It grabs you and you can't not watch!
I came in too close to the end, really. Buzz and Woody were in Sid's room, trying to escape before he awoke. Then there is the scene where the toys break the rules, and then the frantic chase to get onto the moving truck. Finally, the happy ending and the arrival of the puppy.
If I were to relate the story to someone totally unfamiliar with the movie, they'd probably say, "well, that's a nice story" or something like that. But the movie transcends the simplicity of the tale. It becomes something so much more, even today, after seeing Pixar's digital magic worked over and over, and seeing digital special effects that blow your mind! When it came out, the technology to create such a film was new, but Pixar infused it with something more than tech savvy - they gave it heart - the same heart that we see in so many Disney releases.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
