Megamind review

Well the good news is that Dreamworks' "Megamind" isn't nearly as headache inducing as their "How to Train Your Dragon" and it's not as boring and dunderhead-ed as Universal's "Despicable Me". But it still doesn't quite hit the right notes. What it does accomplish is making a decent animated superhero adventure movie that's animated and designed quite nicely and flows along smoothly enough. It's failure is that NOTHING in it is funny. No one and nothing. It's not insanely unfunny either. It's basically a movie you can sit through with a straight face and not feel it one way or the other.

Will Ferrell voices the big, blue headed super villain Megamind; who is of course not such a bad guy in his heart of hearts. And in an extended cameo Brad Pitt voices the city's hero Metro Man, who is basically Superman. They have battles, monologues and so fourth, but after one battle it appears as if Megamind has won. So what will he do with the city? No clue. The point was the same of any super-people bout. Who wins isn't important, but the game is. Without a hero Megamind is bored. So was I kinda now that I think about it.

They fill out the cast with impressive talents including Tina Fey and Jonah Hill, but again none of these people do much in the way of laughs. No one has even one stand out line that makes things work above the basic levels of a film. BUT it's crafted nicely. At the end of the day that counts for something right? Dreamworks Animation has really taken a creative dive. For me they have at best four or five good or better movies and the rest are all disposable junk. Will they be forever #2 to Pixar? For the time being, yes. However Pixar is another company that I'm not too pleased with. I stand by almost everything I said about "Toy Story 3" in June, however after re-watching it I don't feel it's strengths are as high as they were on that first viewing. It seems after "Wall-E" (which I think is their best film) they went after the idea of tugging the shit out of people hearts to get what they wanted. Okay, that's all fine and good.

My issue is that with "Up" and "Toy Story 3" they try too hard and they're not as good at it was "Wall-E". For the time being it seems like Pixar has found the secret to award and audience success without being the best. Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and the animated film "The Secret of Kells" were both leagues better than "Up" and yet walked away penniless and without accolades. Apparently being different in that genre doesn't work so well anymore. Both Dreamworks and Pixar have the same problem, yet I know it's not soon to change completely. As it stands the animated film I enjoyed watching the most this year was Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole". Granted I passed on reviewing it (mainly because I waited over a month to see it), but it reminded me of the Don Bluth cartoon days. When it was okay to be a bit dark in these films and a bit more adventurous. At no point in 'LotG' do they attempt to make a bigger, more emotional film. It's pure, rich adventure. And it's something we DON'T see anymore.

I got WAY off track here, but honestly there isn't much to talk about involving "Megamind". It's trailers tell you the story top to bottom, left to right and with no surprises. The genre doesn't need more "Megamind". It doesn't need more overly emotional goo either. It needs something different and original. Something to stir things up. Boy I like dreaming.

Despicable Me review

If Pixar and "Toy Story 3" told of what is all right in the world of animated films, then "Despicable Me" tells heavily of what's wrong. Yes, much like my unpopular opinion of this springs big hit "How to Train Your Dragon", I just don't get the greatness that's supposed to be found in "Despicable Me". I get the references and the point of the story... but I don't see what's supposed to be so great about it all. Perhaps if the movie went as far as to give us something that was... oh say... original feeling, then maybe I'd be on board.

Basically the film is as the trailer dictated. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a super villain who has been out matched by Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). This starts a rivalry between the two that ultimately leads to Gru adopting three young girls so that they can sneak into Vector's fortress and steal a shrink ray which will allow him to commit the crime of the century; which is stealing the moon. And as mildly complex at that might sound, it's really not. In fact it's so incredibly simple minded that at one point I forgot it entirely and felt the film was designed for the sole purpose of making an over the top villain have to take care of kids. In my mind that's about as awesome as action heroes taking care of kids ('The Spy Next Door', 'Race to Witch Mountain', 'The Pacifier', 'Kindergarten Cop' etc).

Now much like in 'How to Train Your Dragon', our lead (in this case Carrell) offers up a voice that after about forty minutes or so will have officially gotten on your last nerve. Basically Gru is something of a Russian or German or general Europe type and Carrell's voice acting chops wavers throughout. Sometimes it's meshes together alright and sometimes it's like he's speaking normally, but very slowly. Regardless of that it's still an annoying ass accent. Segel's isn't much better as his tries his hardest to sound dastardly. All the while his character Vector simply does mildly smirk inspiring things like dispatching attack sharks on Gru by dragging his butt across a computer board. Splendid.

I can say however that I don't think this is quite as horrible as I expected. Honestly I've been dreading this movie all summer. None of the trailers interested me in the slightest and after a while of hearing the snazzy one line the world loves ('it's so fluffy, I gonna die!') about fifty thousand times I was pretty dead set against it. But it's not totally bad, just really lame. In fact while watching it myself and my friends noted the similarities to the animated adventure, comedy "Hoodwinked"; both through substance and animation style. Oh and they're both super lame. One thing I remember about "Hoodwinked" specifically was that it was ugly as far as CGI animation goes. Obviously it was made much cheaper than most, but the characters looked oddly shaped and almost so cartoonish that it was a turn off. The lighting was always really wonky in which it would range from awkwardly lit in the house to this blue night which made it's characters look slightly crappier. With "Despicable Me" it all seemed like it was one tier up. The designs were better, the lighting was better, the storytelling was... about the same and the character movements were just as stiff as before. I should say that I don't know if it's the same team, but there are many connections that could be made. Some of the jokes are fairly clever due to the timing of the actors and sometimes of the images like in the case of the sight gags. But it's never anything to write home about.

Yes... that's the phrase I want to use. It's nothing to write home about. The world is that of Roger Moore- James Bond movies and not in the cool way like 'The Incredibles'. It's a world of general cartoonishness, but with less interested writers. They never go full 'Shrek' sequel and just start pumping out pop culture references for laughs, but it'll play tricks like it. It'll somewhat be touching and somewhat be clever, but none of these things ever hit their marks. It's simply a safe and easy going animated feature that brings nothing new to the table. I maintain what I said about animated films in the spring, in that so many of them play by the same rules. I'd love to see some more animated films that attempted something more creative or more clever. I have hope for projects like Gore Verbinski's "Rango" (in glorious 2D) which he explained awesomely and I'm interested to see what Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians" will be like. I feel like there's a push to just give out the most generalist animated pictures and maybe if a couple of more experimental or stronger written ones come along and spice the field up, that it could create a change in the flow of things and maybe we'll end up seeing some more impressive animation features coming out way.

Toy Story 3 review

I've waited since Thursday night to write this up. It's taken so long simply because I wasn't FULLY sure how I felt about the film. Granted to did really like it, in fact if anyone didn't like it then I'd think they lacked a heart. However I wasn't 100% sure how I felt about the film as a whole. I looked at different pieces as something all their own, but the big picture wasn't quite visible to me. After much thought and re-watching key sequences (including the ending with nearly "Terminator 2" level intensity) I've concluded that this is A: the best film of the summer thus far, B: one of the best films of the year and C: the best film in the trilogy.

As for the Pixar lineup I'd say it's somewhere under "Wall-E" and "The Incredibles". On a technically level this is beautiful and from a storytelling perspective it's smart, somewhat tipsy in the middle but has a final act packed with intensity and emotion. You all know the story, Andy getting ready to head off to college and his toy's getting donated to Sunnyside Daycare only to discover that their new home isn't as friendly as they thought. So the crew must go all 'Great Escape' on these goons and get back home. However it won't be easy. Woody's dead set on everyone simply returning home and being there for Andy no matter what, whereas Buzz and the others truly believe that it's time to move on and have new owners. These differing mind sets is where 90% of the emotion with the rest coming from that last bit of hardcore peril the toys must face.

We gets lots of great new characters including Ken and Barbie, the evil Lotso and the creepy Big Baby. Despite it's G-rating 'Toy Story 3' plays in the darker side of things quite a bit. Sure there's that frolicking good, bright fun we see in all their films, but there's also a heavy amount of darker toned sequences, jokes and general style. Those things really make the film stand out and adds something fresh.

It's funny seeing how fantastic a picture "Toy Story 3" is compared to the dozens of animated films that have come out this year already and were simply cookie cutter tales with rehashed jokes that don't work. Here is a well written conclusion to a story began in 1995, that's still funny and charming and witty. Here's a film that doesn't need bottom feeder jokes to get you laughing. Really there's not a lot else to say about "Toy Story 3". I was surprised at how good it was and how strong it gets, but not surprised that Pixar could pull off something this impressive for their only real franchise piece. I can't swear that we'll NEVER see Woody or Andy again. I don't really think it's something necessary, but I wouldn't be against it either. Let's just say out of everything in theaters now THIS is the best you can see.

Shrek Forever After review

Is "Shrek Forever After" aka The Final Chapter the grand send off for the major animated franchise of the past decade? I'm hoping it is. While this newest installment is nowhere as bleeding tear boring as "Shrek the Third", it still doesn't live up to the glowing originality, humor, wit and intelligence of the first two. This time around the basic construct of Shrek is that of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Shrek is never born after he gets all bitchy for not feeling like a 'real ogre' anymore. The subtle point at the end being that parenthood ain't easy, but always be thankful for what you've got.

So he signs a contract with Rumpelstiltskin who in turn plays the trading game where Shrek will get his one day of being a feared ogre again for a day he doesn't remember, that ended up being his birth. Awwwww snap, the playa got played! This then takes us down remake road where Shrek has to do basically the same things he did in the first film just with less death and depth. The only way to break the contract is for true loves kiss so he has to find the now warrior queen Fiona and get her to fall in love with him again and along with way re-friend the loud mouthed and only slightly humorous Donkey and the now retired and overweight Puss who isn't bringing in the laughs either, but he's doing a better job than the others. Oh and he has to defeat a small man with a big ego. Ah memories.

Ok, but seriously I don't hate this film. In fact I don't really dislike it, but it doesn't do anything for me. "Shrek Forever After" is 100% forgettable. Like "The Rocker"! You watch it, you shrug it off then you eat and go about the rest of your day. Nothing in this film is funny, but nothing is so blatantly unfunny as to make me hate it. Thus I'm not having to re-watch "How to Train Your Dragon" which is a film that I STILL go over and think of just how annoying and headache inducing those terrible jokes were and how tired I am of the overly cartoony and uninspired designs being used in a lot of these movies. Oh and don't get me started on Baruchel's fucking voice. Instead this final chapter plays is safe and does things that work to move along the fairly weak little story while not carrying on too long or throwing in too much.

I will say that the multitude of pop culture song uses have worn out their welcome and at this point it's like watching an episode of "Cold Case" and seeing what oldie they've got headlining this weeks episode. So what comes next in the animated world? I have zero interest in Universal's "Despicable Me", which MIGHT have been just a mediocre idea until they decided to turn it into complete junk by giving him kids to take care of. There's "Toy Story 3" of course which will probably be alright as most Pixar movies are, but I doubt it'll send us forward in anyway. And then to round out the ones being pushed now and that HAVE a chance to be something (that's right "Alpha and Omega", you look like shit, sound like shit and probably are shit) is "Megamind" which is basically a lot like the plot of "Despicable Me", but without kids and with a better cast including Brad Pitt. In anycase I don't feel like any of these will recapture that special something the first "Shrek" had. That certain kick that the animation world needed where they didn't think kids just wanted pop culture references and silly jokes, but that they could understand at least some form of satire and parody.

How to Train Your Dragon review

I decided last night to wait on writing this review simply because... I was hot piss angry about it. Which I shouldn't be given that it's a kids film I went into with low expectations, however it was blending in to the blob of family junk food movies that we're hit with dozens of times a year that are filled with dated pop culture comments, tasteless jokes, overly cartoonish design and worst of all monsters with no spine. But I thought it over really hard and realized I shouldn't take out my frustrations on this single picture and instead need to just focus on it's flaws and successes and nothing else. SO let's do that!

"How to Train Your Dragon" is a tailor made movie for kids in that 7 to 12 year old range that just like seeing movies with jokes and action and damn the rest; and for their parents who either never had too good of cinematic taste to begin with or who have been mentally brought down to the level of their child and think this junk works. Easily this is out of my demographic, but hell I enjoyed "Kung-Fu Panda" and "Monster House" and those were out of my demographic, so really that shouldn't matter too much. The problem here is it's pure old junk food, with nothing added to make it taste better. All the vikings have 'funny' names like Hiccup and Stoick and live in a very viking world of screaming violently and running around trying to kill things. I'm not saying vikings didn't do that, but there pretty much one big, bearded stereotype in the movie. Jay Baruchel voices our dweebish hero Hiccup with his dweebish fucking voice which works well... if he wasn't a main character and thus didn't have to hear him so often. This is something that worked for him in "Tropic Thunder".

Hiccup wants to be a viking, but instead is a loser that disappoints his father (voiced by Gerard Butler) on a regular basis and causes much chaos in the village. OK now let's get good ole' Toothless the 'dragon' with is really just a mixture of a cat and a newt with wings. They attempt to make that dragon as cute... scratch that they attempt to make every dragon as cute as possible while still trying to make things as adventurous as possible. That concept kind of works in the final act which is strangely filled with better looking and moving imagery, but nothing amazing or awe inspiring. A cute winged cat-newt and an ugly six eyed, winged version of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla going head to head in dark clouds; not quite cool, but not lame either. Sadly that's the only sequence I can get behind.

I notice that a lot of people aren't so hard on judging animated kids movies and that right there could be the problem. If creators know that now matter what they do as long as it has a mild story and moral and some action or comedy, then they're looking at mega money and at least decent reviews. And maybe I wouldn't be so feeling so bad after watching this movie if there were more animated movies or just kids movies in general with balls now-a-days. If we could have a family adventure picture come out that could give kids something fresh and interesting to look at and think about. Something that might scare them a bit or confuse them some, but damned if it won't stick with em' so they remember that and want to re-watch it when they're older to see if it still has that effect. Oh wait we did have that last year. One was called "Avatar" and was quickly trumped up into an awards film and hated on to a high level because of that and the other was called "Fantastic Mr. Fox"... show of hands, who saw that last movie? *crickets* I see...

Perhaps crap like "How to Train Your Dragon", "Monsters vs. Aliens" and upcoming crap like "Sherk Forever After" and "Despicable Me" is what parents, kids and I guess everybody else wants to see. On the one hand they get the big bucks and nobody yells out that it's ripped off from something else or it's too long or weird or has a bad message and all that. It appears that audiences don't care as long as they're content with what it is and nothing more. But on the other hand this has got me all depressed for the future of cinema and shit because then most of the impressive stuff goes unseen and mediocrity reigns. But until producers or audiences wake up, some of us will have to await in silence for animated films NOT made for kids (like the Fincher, Eastman, Cameron, Verbinski, Snyder etc collaboration of "Heavy Metal") or just any kids picture that's not dumbed down as far as possible (basically most non-U.S. made kids films that reach our country. Or things from Pixar... sometimes.)

Disney's A Christmas Carol review

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me this fall was this. I've always been lukewarm when it came to Robert Zemeckis' animated pictures. The man has done some fantastic things technically and most of the 3D and motion capture effects that are used in film, tv and video games came from him and his studio. However "The Polar Express" was a bit dull and dry and the characters were too much polished zombie for me. "Beowulf" was a letdown. Partially because I expected something more and partially because the 3D wasn't that strong. So I didn't walk into expecting much. And even with that, I still think this is his best animated feature to date and a perfect 3D film.

First off the graphics and animation are superb. Dozens and dozens of shots look more real and animated and the 3D is far stronger than any of the 3D films I've seen yet. Second is that Zemeckis also wrote the screenplay. He's a talented director, but he's an extremely talented writer. Here he doesn't make this a kiddie Scrooge. No... instead he takes his version into a darkness. A darkness and doom that Scrooge is supposed to feel throughout all three haunting, not just the final one. Jim Carrey also plays Scrooge much more dramatically then comically. In fact you could count the funny moments on one hand. His face is used for all the characters he plays, but finding like his voice they're all transformed in certain ways. Zemeckis keeps him wizzing through the world camera approach, but it's the quiet and still moments that work best. Hell there are even times he aims to be scary and jar the audience a little bit.

The only two problems I have are mild, but they exist. The final haunting and the added chase scene goes on a bit too long and messes with the perfect pacing it had. The film isn't particularly long, but that really stretched it out. And the second... well... it's the film itself in a way. There was such an amazing job done on this film... I mean for my money it's one of the best animated film of the year, far better than "Up". But if only that tech could've gone into a story when haven't heard and seen a billion times. I'm pretty sure this and "Dracula" are the most remade stories in history, however this is one that we see a new version of every year just about. It's nit picky, but I wish instead this could've gone into a fresh new Zemeckis story. However... for it to be a Scrooge story it is fantastic and near perfect. And at least now we can look forward to Zemeckis keeping his promise and bringing us a new "Roger Rabbit" film. Now that's exciting.

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" *** 1/2 out of ****

The Men Who Stare At Goats & Planet 51 mini reviews

"The Men Who Stare At Goats" *** out of ****

A prime example of just an overall great story. I've never read, but I have heard of the book and the bizarre stated to be true story of the Army's push for a new type of solider. In the past things like Remote Viewing research has been released by the government, so it is indeed possible that this story is fact. George Clooney plays yet another great character, Lynn who is one of the best psychic soldiers to have existed and Ewan McGregor plays the reporter in the middle east searching for a story and finding Lynn. The two men's exploits are funny, but sometimes go on a bit too long and a lot of times their material is upstaged by the flashbacks ofthe 70's with Jeff Bridges Kevin Spacey and Clooney's characters. This was the directorial debut of actor/writer/producer Grant Henslov ("Good Night, and Good Luck") and it's a good jumping point. I will say there is one scene that is perhaps one of the funniest things I've seen all year, but it's not one that you would expect. Probably why it was so funny.

"Planet 51" ** out of ****

This is an example of a harmless kids film that had it been properly done could've been great, but instead takes all the easy roads and fails. Dwayne Johnson, Justin Long, Gary Oldman and Jessica Biel voice the characters in the 50's, B-movie, science fiction styled film. About ten minutes into the movie I came to the conclusion that this was from the same makers of "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius", a animated film I actually hated (and still kinda do). "Planet 51" isn't that bad, but it's flat and simple minded. Kids might like it, but parents are likely to be bored with it.

Fantastic Mr. Fox review

This is what I've been looking for this year. Generally this is what I look for every year actually. Kids films that aren't dumbed down and take easy roads to get to simple and easy conclusions. At the same the ones that don't do that (i.e. 99% of Pixar films) I still try to find something more spirited in them. I've learned that with Pixar and some other animated films that it's as much about the director and writers as it is with any film. For example Brad Bird's two Pixar creations "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" have almost exactly what I look for in those sort of movies. Their smart and funny and don't fall prey to idiotic topical jokes. The same is to be said of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" which more than lives up to it's name.

Director Wes Anderson very much put himself into this animated tale that uses little to no CGI and is done in good ole' stop motion animation. Meaning this 93 minute film took a few years to complete just half of it. For it's meat it gives you the story of Mr. Fox (George Clooney) and his family and friends (the other animals in the forest). Mr. Fox is a retired chicken thief who against the advice of his badger lawyer (Bill Murray) buys a tree just on the outskirts of three mean and ugly farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Mr. Fox decided however to come out of retirement for one last score with his new superintendent Kylie (Wally Wolodarsky). After his score keeps getting bigger and bigger and his wife (Meryl Streep) finds out and grills him for it, the three villains team up to hunt down and kill him and all the other creatures without mercy.

There you have it. There's a kids film with meat... real meat. It's spiced up with just how interesting and funny all these characters are. Ash (Jason Swartzman) is Mr. Fox's son (I'd say he's about 13 years old) who desperately wants to be thought of as an athlete, something that gets difficult after the arrival of Kristopherson (Eric Anderson). Kristopherson is his cousin and in many ways is what Ash wants to be. Thus he treats him like crap most of the time. What's funniest about Ash is just how he's portrayed and how accurate it really is real children. He complains, tries to find excuses out of things and most importantly acts and speaks without thinking of the repercussions. He also spits a lot which I found funny because growing up ALL guys spit like crazy around that age. As for Clooney as Mr. Fox... well who better really? The man has some of the best comedic timing and droll mannerism that's slink through to his character perfectly. It's no wonder why he's as acclaimed an actor as he is, just like Streep and just like Williem Dafoe who plays a security guard rat for Bean. Then there's the trillion other characters that all have their brief moments to shine and make you at the bare minimum smile.

Anderson co-wrote the screenplay with Noah Baumbach (as usual cohort in Anderson's pictures) and it's very much their way of storytelling. In fact the only thing I didn't see that's a staple of Wes Anderson's films is a slow motion walk by sequence. Would've been interesting though... it really would've been. So now I come to the biggest question which is what is it's cultural significance. I ask this because in a lot of good kids films they're here one minute and gone the next leaving a pile of merchandise in it's wake and nothing else. Then there are the few upper crust kids films like Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are",which is what I'll be comparing this with. My review stands from October still stand for how I feel about that film. I honestly feel no better or worse about the film and it still is good, but emotionally empty. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is in a sense what I wanted with 'WTWTA'. It has emotion and humor and intelligence. 'Wild Things...' was packed with split ideas and thus split emotions that were meaningful yet lacked real meaning sometimes as a child would be emotional and not always have a solid reason. That worked against it for me and while loved the ending piece it still left me empy. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" on the flip side has it's emotional quality, but it doesn't wear it on it's sleeve. These tiny characters tell stories about love, responsibility, family, growing up and it's done so in Anderson's classic view of people and interactions that's only slightly more hyper than it really is. These things allow kids to see it and grow with it so that they get the jokes they used love are still there, but then they find other things funny as well and see the meanings. To a certain extent I feel like 'Wild Things...' tried to have a lot of meaning and it fell flat or perhaps it was the dreaded spinning plate issue and Jonze couldn't keep them all going by the end.

Either way it's a good film, but I found "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to be great. It's great looking, feeling and flowing. It's funny and intelligent and funny in it's own intelligence and sometimes purposeful lack of intelligence ("I'm getting a high frequency radio signal through a can!" one character says during the big final rescue mission). The sad thing is that as great as this is, I just don't feel that it's going to hit it's audience this winter. I think "Fantastic Mr. Fox" may have to settle for DVD and hopeful cult status among hipsters to keep it floating. That last part actually makes me saddest than any of it.

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" **** out of ****