greg-e-porter Reviews

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

Kubo, you have master animators, why do you have to cover it all up with CGI...

[6/10 · 24 September 2016]

Kubo and the Two Strings opens to a raging ocean and some establishing shots of a woman performing some magic. After a beautiful scene, we cut to some years later. The woman, who is nigh comatose, is being taken care of by her twelve or thirteen years old son, Kubo. We watch as Kubo wakes up and makes breakfast before walking from their cave dwelling to the nearby town. Kubo provides for the family by telling stories. In one of the best scenes in the movie, he pulls out origami paper and his samisen (the same one that his mother held), and begins telling a thrilling story that captures the imagination of the town. When he plays and speak, the paper floats into the air and folds itself becoming a spider, a chicken, and a brave samurai. In the interest of the review, Yada yada yada, Kubo and his magical friends (a Monkey, and a Beetle) have to go on a magical journey to get three magical items to stop the villainous Moon King.

Kubo and the Two Strings was made by the same people as Coraline (wonderful!) and The Boxtrolls (terribly disappointing!). Kubo falls into the same trap as The Boxtrolls; they put too much CGI on top of the beautiful miniatures. What's the point of the stop motion if I can't tell what it is? In fact, a coworker of mine thought it was a CGI movie.

The thing about Claymation and stop motion animation is that there is something unique about the texture. It's a good thing to see that they are models. You never lose sight of the fact that what you are watching is a construct so it's like you are being told a story (rather than have the fantasy that you are being transported to another world). There is a behind the scenes sequence during the credits; it shows the animators working on a large model. The film speeds up and the monster comes to life and interacts with the artists. It really gives an indication of the scale of the movie that would've otherwise been lost. There are other super cool behind the scenes clips on YouTube. One explains that these Eyeball creatures were made out of lights and thin metal (to create a really cool effect) and the motion was mapped to the rolling of a bowling ball. But, I ask, what's the point? It feels kinda weird to ask but, what's the point of going through all this work when the CGI flattens all of the absurdly detailed models. Another side effect of having so much CGI, is that there are jarring moments when the puppetry becomes the focal point of a scene.

In the case of Kubo, all of the animation is super smooth until you get to this old woman. Her really exaggerated facial expressions are jarring because one second she has squinting eyes and the next instant her mouth and eyes are totally open. The transition between the two looked like something of a blur. It didn't feel like it fit with the rest of the movie. And, speaking of the feel of the movie, I wasn't getting a good sense of space.

Let's compare Kubo to Coraline. If you've never seen Coraline, it's set in and around a pink mansion. In each of the scenes and in each of the rooms, you really get a sense of the world. The rooms are distinct enough that they stand on their own but they form a cohesive world and experience. In Kubo, we start off pretty good. We see his cave-home and how it connects to the village. Before too long, we cut to a snowstorm in "the badlands." All we can see is white snow blowing about. We don't know where we are in relation to the village nor do we even get the sense that it's cold. Then we're transported to a cavern, and then a forest, and then the "endless lake"? Sure they show transitions between the settings to connect them (aside from the initial cut to the badlands) but the sense of cohesion is missing.

The last point I'd like to make about Kubo is that I was disappointed by the general lack of music, or at least the role of music wasn't what I was looking forward to. I mean, it's called Kubo and the Two Strings, like two strings of a samisen (the music instrument that he plays). From the looks of the trailer, I thought he was going to be doing all sorts of magic with it. His instrument would be his magic wand, if you will. But, that wasn't quite the case. He plays his samisen but it isn't required to do magic. Some of my favorite parts of the movie focused on him playing but they were few and far between.

Overall, if you want to watch a really good stop-motion movie watch Coraline. If you've seen Coraline before, go watch it again. There were sequences in Kubo that that I really enjoyed but they didn't stave off the disappointment I felt from the overuse of CGI, the lack of a sense of space, and the lack of music. If you are a big fan of stop motion animation, maybe I'd say give it a go (at a matinée at most) if for no other reason than see how it compares to Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas. But then again, if you're that big a fan of stop motion animation, you've probably already seen Kubo.

Clue (1985)

Clue is one of the best movies based on a board game...

[6/10 · 22 September 2016]

For those who have not had the pleasure of playing the board game Clue, let me give a brief overview. A body was found in a mansion. The players have to explore the mansion, picking up clues along the way, and determine the identity of the murderer (Professor Plum, Colonel Mustard, Mrs. White, etc.), the murder weapon (gun, knife, candlestick, etc.) and where the murder took place (library, study, kitchen, etc.).

We open to a dark night, as a car approaches a mansion. A butler named Wadsworth (Curry) steps out of the car and throws some bones to two large guard dogs. He starts to head inside but then stops, slowly looks down towards his shoe and then to the dogs with irritation. He stepped in dog poop. That's comedy gold, am-I-right? Now, we slowly but surely meet the rest of the cast who are given aliases to protect their identity. Wadsworth had summoned the group together to confront Mr. Body, who had been blackmailing each of the characters. Mr. Body responds by giving each character a weapon (the same ones from the game) and states that unless someone kills Wadsworth, their secrets will be exposed. Someone is murdered and the characters have to find out who did it, where and with what. The movie is a perfectly adequate adaptation of the elements of the game.

Normally, I'm not the biggest fan of silly humor and Clue is pretty darn silly. Like having Wadsworth step in dog poop and then having each of the characters smell the air and check their shoes when he is around. But, for some reason, I don't mind it here. That is, I don't mind it as much as I normally would. Maybe I give it some slack because it's based off of a board game. It doesn't take itself too seriously like some board game-based movies- I'm lookin' at you, Battleship. Maybe it fills my goofy comedy quota. In any case, because of the type of humor (even though I let it slide) Clue is one of those movies that I can only really see once every couple years.

I do find some of the 80's centered jokes amusing though. At some point, someone says, "It's Hoover on the phone for you." "Why would the FBI director be on your phone?" "He's on everyone else's, why should mine be any different?" Zing! Now, I don't really know anything about Hoover but I get the idea and it's kinda funny. You know, as far as it goes.

One of the neat parts about the movie is that when it appeared, one of three endings was played at the theaters. When you watch it now, at the end of the movie, comes a card that reads, "That's how it could've happened. But how about this?" That gives a good indication of the light tone of the movie.

Overall, I'd recommend Clue if you're in the mood for something silly. I kinda put it in the same family as Austin Powers and I'm sure just about everyone has seen Austin Powers a dozen times. So, if you want that sort of experience but something a little new, check out Clue. Oh and it has Tim Curry and Christopher Lloyd which is pretty cool, you know?

Suicide Squad (2016)

Suicide Squad was mediocre at best but more-so disappointing because of its potential but, at the same time, it doesn't quite deserve all the hate it is getting.

[4/10 · 1 September 2016]

In the superhero world which has Batman and Superman, what if we were able to convince supervillains - like Joker's girlfriend, Harley Quinn (Robbie) and the world's top assassin Deadshot (Smith) - to fight for good? That's the premise of Suicide Squad. It sounds like fun. Who doesn't love a good group of anti-heroes? And can you get any better than comic book anti-heroes? Unfortunately, terrible writing and poor decisions spell doom for this potentially fun superhero flick.

The movie opens to the music of The Animals' "House of the Rising Sun". We see an intimidating high security prison so, I suppose, we're to assume that there are some pretty mean characters being housed here. We meet our first inmate, Deadshot (Smith), and watch his interaction with a sadistic guard. Aside from the fact that Deadshot is in a prison, we aren't really given any reason why he's a villain. Never mind the fact that this is Will Smith we're talking about. When is he really ever a bad guy? A Bad Boy, maybe, but not a bad guy.

We then cut over to meet Harley Quinn (Robbie). Grace's rendition of "You Don't Own Me" plays as we see Quinn lounging about her cell that sits in the middle of a heavily guarded room. The same sadistic guard approaches her and flirts with the supervillain. The bars on her cell are electrified, throwing her to her back into a daze. We cut to a flashback of the guards (led by the sadistic one) force feeding the crying Quinn and even taking a selfie with her while she is bound. Again, we might have some association with Harley Quinn (being the significant other to the Clown Prince of Crime) but we don't know that she's a villain. We continue to meet other people but you get the idea…

The Suicide Squad, as we learn, is the brainchild of a stone cold military woman. She opens a binder labeled "Top Secret" and proceeds to introduce each member. Each of the what, 5 or 6 people, have a several minute expository clip. It begins with a still shot of a given character which has their name and some interesting facts about them. It's a tired method of introducing characters and, man, does it take up a lot of time. We're like 20 minutes into the movie it feels like and we haven't even assembled the team! It's almost like we sat through a promotional short film for the actual movie. I'd kinda prefer if that were the case because we might be able to have a better movie in a year or two.

The most painful part about Suicide Squad, and I mentioned this in the bottom-line, is that there was so much potential. Leaving the theatre, I kinda wanted to go and see it again because, maybe, it would be different. That's a sign of a healthy relationship, am I right? Save yourself the time and money and pass on Suicide Squad at least in terms of a theater visit. I'd recommend watching one of the Avengers movies if you want a comic book action movie, or maybe Dark Knight if you want a darker comic book movie with a lot of action. Now I've got a few bones to pick so mind yourself of spoilers.

There are so many things about Suicide Squad (both big and small) that don't work. One thing, as I mentioned, is the team introductory montage. It's unnecessarily drawn out and it bogs down the rest of the movie. Now, at one point, the story's main villain attacks (I'll keep it vague to protect against spoilers). The main military guy who leads the squad knows what happened. Eventually, Will Smith confronts him and says, "You know what happened. Tell us." So the military guy proceeds to tell them (and us) what happened. Meanwhile, we watch it happen again. We saw it the first time...you know, like, when it happened. Why are you wasting precious minutes actually recycling footage? I mean, sure, there's that film making adage "show don't tell" but, guys, I don't think this is what it means.

Even down to the main plot of the movie - so and so is trying to destroy the world - feels tired. You're doing something wrong if "the world is going to end" feels dull. Just because they live in a world with Batman and Superman, doesn't mean that there are different fish to fry (not bigger but different). The lame plot is, perhaps, just an indication or symptom of Suicide Squad's biggest offender: the writing.

The actors do a fine job with what they're given but they aren't given much. The character development is nigh non-existent. We only get a few moments where we see the potential of Harley's character. We see glimpses of her relationship with the Joker (Leto) and her feelings but they don't go anywhere.

In the case of Deadshot, just having bits of dialog to show that he loves his daughter isn't character development. He's the highest paid assassin in the world (and along with that, I'd be surprised if he only killed "bad guys" but the movie doesn't get into that) and he was captured because his daughter didn't want him to kill his captor. Did his capture get him to reflect on his life choices? Hardly (or if it did, I wasn't feelin' it).

The Jungle Book (2016)

The Jungle Book was a whole lot better than I expected, though, it's a little scary for kids I imagine.

[6/10 · 30 August 2016]

When Mowgli (Sethi) was just a baby, he was found all alone in the jungle by a sympathetic panther named Bagheera (Kingsley) who took the orphan to be raised by a pack of wolves. Fast-forward a dozen years and Mowgli is growing up. He's at an awkward age where he realizes, despite his best efforts; he's not really a wolf. Shere Khan (Elba), the villainous tiger, points out that although Mowgli is just a Man-Cub but will grow up to be a Man. Man is a threat, thus, Shere Khan vows to kill the boy. For his safety, Bagheera and the wolf-pack, decide that Mowgli must return to the Man Village to be with his own kind.

The graphics are really quite good. The voice acting is solid all around. Mowgli, and I am not a fan of child actors, does a perfectly good job.

One of the things that most stuck out to me was how they handled the giant ape, King Louie (Walken). The character is relatively the same; he's an ape that wants the power of man's red flower (fire). In the original, he's an orangutan voiced by the incredible and bombastic Louie Prima. In this iteration, Christopher Walken does a fine job of voicing the character but it has a distinctly darker feel. The juxtaposition of the fun song (sung slower) with the realistic animation makes it downright scary.

I grew up watching Disney's The Jungle Book from the 60's so when I saw the trailer for this, I cringed. I expected it to just be a whole bunch of fancy graphics and cheap references to the original. Fortunately, The Jungle Book wasn't nearly as bad as I feared. In fact, it was solidly alright. How's that for a ringing endorsement? My wife and I watched this on a long flight from Belgium. We were tired and a captive audience so maybe that helped our experience.

Would I recommend The Jungle Book? There are certainly worse movies to see and it's good enough if you're in the mood for some pretty graphics. I still prefer the original because I am such a fan of the music and animation but this iteration of the story was a nice addition to our airplane journey.

Masters of the Universe (1987)

If I was a 12 year old boy in the 80's I would love this...but I'm not.

[3/10 · 24 August 2016]

So Dolph Lundgren (aka Ivan Drago) is the most powerful man in the universe, He- Man. Skeletor (Langella) is up to his old tricks again; he's trying to take over Castle Grayskull and the magical power held there to become the master of the universe. In their efforts to thwart his advances He-Man and company learn of his secret weapon; a pair of interdimensional keys. To evade capture at the hands of Skeletor and his second in command Evil-Lyn (Foster) - it's like Evilyn but she's eeeevil - He-Man and company make an interdimensional jump. Guess who comes into possession of the super device? Yup, two unlikely heroes: high school seniors Kevin (McNeill) and Julie (who is played by a super young Courtney Cox).

If you are a fan of He-Man, you've probably already seen this, but if you haven't I'd bet it would be a hoot. It's fan-service galore. It's one of those movies that assumes you know the characters and places. It translates to a movie that finds it satisfactory to throw named characters on the screen and call it a day.

There are some amusing parts about the movie though. If your quota of the '80's isn't full, this'll fill it. Take the interdimensional key. It's used by pressing a sequence of keys (which emit a different tone)...it's like a synthesizer! Good thing Kevin is the keyboard player in his high school band.

If the aforementioned notes didn't suggest, everything about this movie screams Saturday morning cartoon cheesy. Now, the cheesiness, of course, isn't an inherently bad thing; that can be fun every once in a while, especially when it can be found on YouTube. That said, there are almost certainly better things to watch. I'd think I'd recommend this if you want to see good old Dolph action and/or you're familiar with He-Man. Or you could always just watch Rocky IV.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Ghostbusters was better than I expected from the trailers, not to suggest that it was particularly good, but it was better than I expected.

[3/10 · 21 August 2016]

When a team of paranormal researchers are outed from their university, they go into business capturing ghosts. Through their activities, they come across a nefarious plot that threatens the world.

I expected Ghostbusters to be terrible. I think just about everybody did. For some (me included), the trailer suggested lame jokes and nostalgic references. Consider the official trailer (which, incidentally, is one of the most disliked YouTube videos of all time). It lacks a sense of fun and pacing. It begins with this slow piano cover of the "Who You Gonna Call" song and then switches over to like a pseudo-dupstep sound. The music is broken up by extended exposition or jokes and it really throws off the rhythm. Compare that to the "GHOSTBUSTERS FanCUT Teaser Trailer HD (RECUT)" by Bevan Bell. Bell's trailer was exciting, fast paced, and sprinkled with jokes. Ghostbusters is such a pop-cultural image that we know enough already; we don't need an introduction to the characters or the driving plot. The differences between the two trailers makes me wonder about movies trailers. I mean, I wonder if there are certain requirements for the official trailers. The official one is over two and a half minutes while the fan-cut is under a minute. I wonder if they had to contractually include certain characters in the trailer too.

In any case, the jarring pacing of the trailer is something that plagues this remake. There are a number of jokes that are funny but instead of making a joke and moving on to the next one, the camera lingers in silence, as if the awkward silence will provoke more laughter. It doesn't. It just kills the moment. I feel like someone ought to make a fan-cut of the film, removing all of the pauses to see how it improves.

All of the characters are pleasant. They're all pretty likable and they seem to work well together. Chris Hemsworth is the stupid but attractive secretary for the Ghostbusters. It's a running gag in the movie of having the protagonists ogle him, though Wiig's delivery seems forced. For a movie like this the draw is the chemistry between the cast, not the plot, so it's pretty minimal. They gotta save New York and the world. Boom. Done. It's sufficient to facilitate jokes. There is some character development in the sense that Wiig's character learns to accept and be proud of her experiences with the paranormal.

Ghostbusters jumps aboard the nostalgia train. I feel like a broken record but Ghostbusters is making me say it again: a reference just for the sake of the reference is bad, lame, and will probably be unsuccessful. Just having an original cast member pop on camera isn't going to make me enjoy the movie. In much the same way that having pretty graphics can't fuel a movie, neither can nostalgia.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend Ghostbusters. The jokes that are funny don't quite deliver because the pacing is off and the references to the original feel cheap. Instead, if you are looking for a spooky comedy, why not try something like Shaun of the Dead, Beetlejuice, Young Frankenstein, or Scary Movie? That's a pretty good survey of different "spooky comedies" (that was my Google search to find the above options) depending on your taste in comedy. Without thinking about it too much, I might recommend them in that order too.

One Warm Line: The Legacy of Stan Rogers (1989)

One Warm Line: The Legacy of Stan Rogers is a well-done Forty-five minute documentary about a really interesting, talented, and influential folk musician

[8/10 · 14 August 2016]

I don't know about you but I like me a good, light documentary from time to time. There are lots of great documentaries like Blackfish or Capturing the Friedmans but those are heavy, man. I'd recommend them but if I'm tired after a long day of work, I kinda just want to watch something pleasant while I'm eating dinner. Wait till after dinner, that's when then we can get into the heavy stuff.

One Warm Line: The Legacy of Stan Rogers is about the Canadian folk musician Stan Rogers. He sang of country life as a farmer and a fisherman. He rose to fame through his connection to his audience and his tireless desire to perform. I'll leave it at that lest I spoil the documentary.

From my experience with reviewing documentaries, it's less about what information is presented but how. One Warm Line jumps between interviews with friends of Rogers, images of the musician, and clips of him in concert. There was a good balance between the musical and non-musical sections so if you aren't the biggest fan of his style, the film overall isn't overwhelming.

Until I saw this documentary, the only experience I had with Stan Rogers was from searching on YouTube for "pirate shanties." One of the videos I found was an excerpt from this documentary. I made time to see the whole film and I'm glad I did. Not only will I recommend One Warm Line but I'll recommend Stan Rogers too.

Die Krone von Arkus (2015)

For a German family movie with no English audio or subtitles, I had a solidly OK time watching Die Krone von Arkus.

[6/10 · 11 August 2016]

Before we get to the review of Die Krone von Arkus, allow me to give some context. My wife and I are flying from Krakow to Chicago by way of Munich and Toronto: the Munich to Toronto portion was about 7 hours on Lufthansa. Several movies were watched on the long flights but, while my wife napped, I watched the film currently in question, Die Krone von Arkus.

Die Krone von Arkus is a very German family fantasy movie. It's so German it didn't have English subtitles or audio. It's so German, I couldn't stream it on Amazon, heck, I couldn't order it on Amazon! I had to reside in Germany to rent it. I couldn't even find a torrent to pirate the thing.

Oh, and I suppose I should mention that I don't speak German….

Other than that though, let me tell you what I thought so far...because, well, as it was on a flight, I didn't actually finish the film but I saw almost all of it.

So in this little German town, there is a witch who is looking for a magical diamond ring. She rules over the town with an iron fist. She kidnaps children who live in the town to try and find the ring. I suspect, because, children and their purity are the secret to getting the ring. We cut over to our hero, the leader of a group of ragamuffin kids. He's kinda like the Artful Dodger from Oliver Twist. He meets a pretty lady ragamuffin who teaches him that he doesn't have to steal. Long story short, they have to try and save their friends and the town from the evil witch.

If you've read my other reviews, you might know that I'm not a fan of musicals. More often than not, the songs long overstay their welcome. Maybe it's because Die Krone von Arkus is a fantasy movie and a kids movie but even though there are a bunch of songs, they are all very short. I actually felt like I would've liked to hear more of them. Conveniently, even though I couldn't find the movie, the soundtrack is on YouTube.

So, because I couldn't really understand what they were saying, and I probably missed cultural queues, I can't speak too too much to the dialog. That said, it sounds pretty cool.

The art direction is pretty solid too. Die Krone von Arkus feels like a big budget movie. Would I recommend this movie? Sure, but especially if you are flying Lufthansa. In the future, if I do wind up watching the rest of this with subtitles, I'll return to this and do a follow up; let's hope it doesn't turn out to be awful writing with a cliché story.

This movie kinda reminds me of the first time I saw Jacques Tati's masterpiece, Playtime. I was a freshman in college. A small group of us made a pilgrimage to an obscure movie rental place to pick out some zany foreign films. I chose Playtime because it looked cool. We hike back to our dorms and pop in the movies. We sit through about an hour of Playtime before the group vetoed my pick. It was a French art movie so I didn't really get it on a number of levels but there was something alluring about it. I couldn't quite tell what it was but I knew there was something.

So years later, I crossed paths with Playtime again and I gave it another go and, the rest is history. Now, I don't know if Die Krone von Arkus will be as life changing but, this is to say, I'd recommend giving it a shot even if you don't speak German. Maybe by breaking from the dialog, it will cause you to look at it (and film in general) in a new way.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Computer graphics and failed attempts to exploit nostalgia. Please avoid Independence Day: Resurgence.

[1/10 · 8 August 2016]

Independence Day: Resurgence opens to a voice over of the President's monologue from the first film. It's one thing to make a nod to a predecessor but it's quite another when a movie immediately breaks into a reference just for reference's sake.

Now, the idea is that America defeated the aliens in 1996. Using the unifying threat of the aliens and the technology they left behind, the world is all futuristic. But wait! The aliens are back. Now America has to defeat them again.

I'm sure you've seen movies which are bad but not fun-bad. Fun-bad movies are cheesy and, well, fun to laugh at and with. Think about Sharknado. It's a shark-filled tornado. It's absurd and fun to talk about the absurdity. One of the reasons why Independence Day: Resurgence isn't fun is that the plot has so many holes, it doesn't lend itself to any sort of conversation. The big spaceship, for example, is so big "it has it's own gravity" which means all ships and buildings and people all fall towards the spaceship. The buildings and things all stay up there, until it gets to LA at which point everything falls back down.

Wait, what?

It would've been so easy to say it was an alien gravity weapon (to explain why the effect only happens once) but noooo, they said it's so massive it has it's own gravity. It's such a simple thing. Couldn't one person just say, "Excuse me, could we just maybe tweak this a little?" Independence Day: Resurgence is filled to the brim with similar inconsistencies. Even Goldblum can't salvage it, and I like Goldblum.

The only one interesting point of this film, is how internationally minded it is. Transformers and other computer graphic blockbusters destroyed the box offices in China. They did so well that there was a bunch of product placement for Chinese products in Transformers 4. In the case of Independence Day: Resurgence, one of the heroes is a representative from China and she speaks Chinese occasionally. Instead of Skype, to do video chatting, people use Tencent QQ (which is a Chinese chat program), and he drinks "moon milk" which is half covered with Chinese characters. I'm so used to being the target audience, it's a neat, new experience to not be.

If you want graphics go play a video-game. If you want Independence Day, go watch the original. But, please, avoid this movie. If we all abstain maybe this train of bad- nostalgia fueled films will stop.

Zootopia (2016)

Zootopia was cute, fun, and nice; I wasn't expecting much and was pleasantly surprised.

[8/10 · 1 August 2016]

As the introduction explains, in ages past, the animal kingdom was divided into two groups, predators and prey, who constantly lived at odds. Fortunately, overtime they evolved to form a society where animals can live in harmony. A utopia...or a Zootopia. Pun aside, Zootopia is the name of the giant city in which all the animals live. In this city, so explains our protagonist bunny (Goodwin), anyone can be anything their heart desires. In the case of our heroine bunny, she dreams to become the first bunny cop (larger animals like Bulls and Elephants tend to be cops). Will she be able to follow her dream despite the adversity that will surely follow?

My expectations were low for Zootopia. It looked colorful but I didn't think it had much else going for it. I was, however, mistaken. Zootopia is a really pleasant movie overall. The animation isn't merely colorful, it's fun and dynamic. The city itself is divided into different climate-based zones: you have the jungle, tundra, desert, and regular old concrete jungle section of the city. Even though you only see brief portions of Zootopia, it feels like a fleshed out world. It's fun.

I'd recommend Zootopia for anybody. It was a pleasant family friendly movie. It is somewhat predictable here and there but, what do you want, it's a kids movie.

Ratatouille (2007)

Ratatouille is a wonderful Pixar movie that I would recommend to anyone especially if one enjoys food.

[9/10 · 29 July 2016]

Ratatouille opens with an exposition describing the late, fictional celebrity chef Gusteau (Garrett) whose motto was "Anyone can cook." We cut to our protagonist; a rat named Remy (Oswalt). Remy is gifted with an advanced sense of smell which teaches him to appreciate the food that he eats. He'd rather not eat garbage when there is a whole culinary world around him. In his attempts to get some basic spices, he stumbles upon a cooking show featuring the aforementioned chef. Before he knows it, Remy finds himself in Paris. Exploring a little further, he makes his way to Gusteau's restaurant. He watches, with hungry eyes, the creations of the master chefs. Remy crosses paths with the recently hired garbage boy, Linguini (Romano). The pair team up; Linguini will be the human representative of the two, while Remy provides the culinary direction.

Ratatouille isn't too dissimilar from the dish of the same name. Ratatouille (the dish) is a bunch of vegetables, cooked together and baked. It's simple but it can be delicious. In Ratatouille we follow the smallest of characters, a rat, in his quest to do what he dreams; to cook. There are so many wonderful decisions even with the basic premise. Consider the idea of simply cooking. It's something we can all relate to because even if the audience doesn't like to cook per se, who doesn't like food? We can follow Remy's quest and imagine tasting his creations. And even the desire to cook is attainable for anyone in the audience. It just takes practice to get a sense of the mechanics, aromas, and flavors. Indeed, "anyone can cook" and Ratatouille makes the ordinary that much more magical.

The music of Ratatouille is phenomenal (I'm listening to the theme song "Le Festin" by Camille as I write). Some of the characters, particularly Linguini, teeter on goofy which I'm not the biggest fan of but they are so darn endearing it's OK. The graphics are, of course, incredible. Early in the film, Remy goes down a raging river and the water effects are amazing, even by today's standards and this came out in 2008.

I'd highly recommend Ratatouille. I've seen it several times and it's always been a lot of fun. It's accessible to everyone too so it's a great family movie. I hope you see Ratatouille and enjoy it as much as I have. This is, of course, assuming you haven't seen it a number of times already.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

I wouldn't say that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory holds up as a standalone movie, let alone a remake.

[1/10 · 27 July 2016]

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is Tim Burton's 2005 adaptation of the book with the same name. Just watching the opening credits, in all it's dated (even for 2005) graphical glory, you can see the names appear on the screen: Helena Bonham Carter, Johnny Depp, music by Danny Elfman. We got the whole Burton crew here, boys, let's rumble.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if you've seen the '70's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, is largely what you'd expect; the reclusive candy-man Willy Wonka has announced that he will open his mysterious factory to the lucky children who find the several Golden Tickets hidden within chocolate Wonka bars.

Let me just start off this brief review to say that I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't enjoy the songs, the characters, or the stylistic decisions. I couldn't help but compare it to the original which I've seen countless times. The first portion of the movie is mediocre enough. It looks kinda like a Wes Anderson movie (he directed The Grand Budapest Hotel and Moonrise Kingdom) but more black and white checkerboard. But as soon as Johnny Depp comes into mix, everything takes a sharp downward turn.

You know how sometimes, especially with action movies, the hero eclipses the rest of the movie? It doesn't really matter about what is going on because we get to see the hero kick butt. For example, at first, there was Terminator and then shortly thereafter, there were Schwarzenegger movies. It doesn't matter who Schwarzenegger is fighting as long as I'm along for the ride. This works with Tim Burton now that I think about it; there was Nightmare Before Christmas and now we have Tim Burton movies. It doesn't really matter what's going on as long as I get to see some whimsy.

Now, with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, we spend a decent amount of time establishing this whimsical movie about a poor boy named Charlie but, once Depp is introduced, the focus shifts to him. If any movie should be called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory it should be this one.

Depp's representation of Willy Wonka makes me really uncomfortable. He seems to be channeling Michael Jackson but, doesn't the whole pedophile thing color this in an odd way? I mean, Wonka is inviting half a dozen children into his mysterious wonderland for a contest for which only he knows the rules. Sure we get to see Wonka's backstory (to explain his childlike nature) but that juice ain't worth the squeeze. I was attempting a more candy oriented phrase, but that's all I could think of.

I have pages of moleskine notebook notes about what I didn't like about this movie and why and how but, then, last night I re-watched Ratatouille. I'll go into more details about the plot but, for our purposes here, the main villain in Ratatouille is a food critic named Anton Ego.

At one point he says, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."

The above quote makes me wonder about movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There are plenty of movies out there and even plenty of fun bad movies. I can even see having a fondness for bad movies (even if they aren't fun). That said, I'm recommend avoiding Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. If you want some whimsy, why not go to watch one of Tim Burton's older movies? And if you want some Chocolate Factory, I'd recommend the original film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Thanks for reading!

Strip Search (2013)

Strip Search is a pleasant reality TV/Youtube Show; the sense of humor, however, isn't quite my cup of tea so I wouldn't recommend bingeing.

[6/10 · 30 June 2016]

Penny Arcade, if you are unfamiliar, is a hugely successful web-comic that focuses on video-games and video game culture that started in 1998. Strip Search is a reality show that aired in 2013. The goal was to search for the next big name in web-comics. The show received thousands of applications which were narrowed to twelve contestants who participate in challenges in the hopes of winning $15k and office space in the Penny Arcade offices for a year.

The roughly twenty minute episodes alternate between challenges and eliminations. The challenges are not solely art based, contrary to what I expected. Though it makes sense. The Penny Arcade people aren't just looking for an artist, they are looking for someone who has the ability to create a web-comic; which necessitates the ability to understand merchandising and working with clients and customers. So while there are a lot of creative challenges, some test soft skills like handling an interview or a nefarious contract.

The contestants, compared to all my other experiences with Reality TV, are really nice. It makes the challenges a lot more fun because they are all pleasant and excited. There are no alliances or "drama," it's just a lot of talented people jumping through hoops for their enjoyment as well as ours. I will say, that towards the end of the series, we already know that they can draw so the challenges get a little too silly for my tastes. I don't really have an interest in watching them go-kart race or play ping pong; I want to see them do things that I can't, namely, polished art.

That said, I found the elimination stages to be the most interesting part of the show. Two artists at a time each pick a theme out a waste paper basket, in the words of the one Penny Arcade guy, they each pick an idea that was "perhaps discarded before its time." The artists then have an hour and a half to draw a comic based on those two themes: cats and cars, candy and religion, for example.

During the elimination stages, the artists are heckled by the two creators of Penny Arcade. They have some funny jabs here and there but, overall, their humor isn't my cup of tea: lots of profanity and crude jokes. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good poop joke as much as the next guy but when that's all I'm hearing, it loses some of the effect.

A fun game to play with the show is to pause when the contestants pick their themes, and try to think of a comic you would draw. Heck, if you are inclined you could always draw it. Once you are done, you can continue playing to see how your idea compares. (I was pretty proud of a couple that I thought of, if I do say so myself.)

Overall, if you are interested in watching a largely pleasant hearted reality show, especially, one that centers around a creative subject, I'd recommend Strip Search. Because it wasn't quite my sense of humor, I wouldn't recommend bingeing it but it can be really fun to watch an episode or two here and there. The episodes are all on Youtube so it's free and easy to watch.

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

The perfectly OK Alice Through the Looking Glass is getting pretty terrible reviews but I don't really know why; it makes me want to ask, "What were you expecting?"

[6/10 · 29 June 2016]

Bottom line: The perfectly OK Alice Through the Looking Glass is getting pretty terrible reviews but I don't really know why; it makes me want to ask, "What were you expecting?" 2.5/4

Alice Through the Looking Glass is the sequel to Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. In this adventure, the Mad Hatter (Depp) is dying of sadness because he believes that his family (long thought to have perished at the hands of the Jabberwocky) is actually alive but just lost. Alice has to, once again, go into Wonderland to save the day even if it means traveling through time.

How's that for a spoiler free plot teaser? Any-who, the first thing I would like to note about this iteration of the franchise is how it's not directed by Tim Burton and you can tell because we aren't being beaten over the head with whimsy. We've got Johnny Depp returning as the Mad Hatter but he's just kind of in the background doing his thing instead of being center stage.

While I didn't see the first one, my wife did and she thought this one was better. I suspect that that might be the case because with the first one, the crux of the movie is the spectacle that is Burton's interpretation of Alice in Wonderland; we have to introduce all of the characters and tie them all together with an adventure. In Through the Looking Glass, we can just have an adventure.

The performances were all perfectly good. In one review, someone said that Sasha Baron Cohen's performance of Time was just Cohen doing an impression of Werner Herzog. Herzog is the guy who made Grizzly Man. Sure, I can see that in terms of his accent but I don't think it's a minus point to the movie. I thought he was a solidly balanced character that I enjoyed watching.

The big thing about this movie were the special effects. I thought there were fine too; not earth shattering nor dull.

Maybe one of the reasons I didn't mind this movie was because my expectations were appropriately grounded. I was expecting it to be unwatchably bad. Another reason was that I had just finished watching Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which I loathed, so Through the Looking Glass felt like a Burton-esque film that wasn't garbage. Overall, I'd recommend Alice Through the Looking Glass if you are looking for a light movie, maybe a weekend matinée.

Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan is a great psychological thriller/adaptation of Swan Lake; it's a solid movie.

[9/10 · 1 June 2016]

We follow Nina Sayers (Portman) who is going into her third or fourth year as a New York ballerina. Swan Lake is the ballet of the season and Nina is looking forward to getting a main part; the director promised her something more than a minor part because she's so talented and dedicated. "Looking forward to," is something of an understatement though; she is desperate, if for no other reason than to appease her domineering mother. The stress of trying to get the role is overwhelming. It mixes with her fears and anxieties about the competition from the new spunky, sexy dancer, Lily (Kunis). Weird and creepy things start to happen as Nina starts to breakdown.

I'm not going to say really anything else about the story other than that the movie incorporates Swan Lake is a really great way. Sometimes movies that are called "adaptations" are really more attempts to directly translate a story to the silver screen. Black Swan, however, takes source material and changes it to a new situation. Now that's what I call an adaptation.

The cinematography is great and the music is spectacular. This is a solid movie. It isn't too scary either. I heard it was creepy but because it's a psychological thriller, that helps; you know that a lot of the stuff is in her head. It's not like a monster is going to get her and then you.

I'm not surprised Natalie Portman won the Academy Award for her performance; she did a darn good job. Mila Kunis gave a great performance too. It gave me a newfound respect for her, actually. I've always associated her with expensive but lame movies like Friends with Benefits (2011) or Jupiter Ascending (2015) but I've been slowly warming up to her.

Although, now that I look at the dates of those movies, it would seem that she is going kinda downhill because Black Swan came out in 2010… but this is to say that she is capable of a solid role. I mean, look at Nicholas Cage. His name on a movie poster is like the red X on the door of a plague victim. But! But, I say, he did win an Academy Award for Leaving Las Vegas so he has (or at least had) the ability to do it.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Spectre is one of the most generic and bland Bond films I've seen; there's really no reason to see it.

[2/10 · 19 May 2016]

Daniel Craig returns to his role as the International Man of Mystery super spy James Bond in Spectre. Spectre is the name of a super secret evil organization. I believe the organization first appeared in Thunderball (1965) but it never became more than an occasional reference. In this iteration of the franchise, however, Bond has to take the villainous conglomerate head on and, let me tell you, he does so with an unbridled lackadaisy.

Quite honestly, there isn't anything noteworthy about Spectre. It's almost like the filmmakers said, "Alright, well, we don't have any ideas for James Bond right now so let's just have him go after that big villain organization. What was the name of it? Octopus? Ghost? Oh yeah, Spectre!" It comes across as a poor attempt to increase the stakes. It seems silly though, after all, a poker game could be made exciting; it's all about how you do it.

But, in any case, artificially making the stakes bigger (or attempting to) happens throughout the movie: Bond gets a fancy new Aston Martin DB10 (made especially for this movie), he uncovers secrets about his upbringing, and in the introduction, he blows up an entire city block. All this and it still falls flat.

It seems like everyone involved phoned in for this film. I'm not just talking about the performances. Consider the one of the main subplots for this film. The 00 program is being phased out by a new department of the government that focuses on having a complete digital surveillance network cough NSA cough. "Is the 00 Program too old fashioned?" Now, wait a sec. The plot for Skyfall (a previous Daniel Craig-Bond movie) focused heavily on the government questioning the relevancy of the 00 program too.

One of Spectre's the colorful villains is the assassin Hinx played by Dave Bautista. He's a giant guy with metal thumbnails. Have the villains always been this silly?

Odd Job - a nigh unintelligible body guard who throws a metal bowler. Jaws - a giant tough guy who has metal teeth. Pussy Galore - a woman actually named Pussy Galore.

Alright, alright. Maybe this villain wasn't that silly…

So, in the interest of our discussion, let me get to some spoilers so we can really talk about this move. In sum, don't see Spectre. If you're a Bond fan, I'm sure you've already seen this but if you haven't, don't worry about it; there are plenty of other, better Bond movies. Maybe it was a shift in tone. Up to this point, Daniel Craig as James Bond was super serious Bond, but from the cheesy lines, to the weak dialog, Spectre feels like a poorly executed throwback. Now, let's get to some nittygritty details (mind yourself of spoilers).

Let's consider Christoph Waltz's character and his catchphrase. The scene is set for a sinister villain meeting; villainous figures sit in a big room discussing recent successful assassinations. A big door opens and, shrouded in darkness, the ringleader enters. Yadda yadda yadda the villain welcomes the hitherto hidden James Bond (to the shock of no one but James). The villain sits forward into the light, looks menacingly up at James and says "Cuckoo." Clearly, that's supposed to be a villainous catch phrase but it isn't very successful.

Now, in much the same way that I looked at other Bond henchmen, the catch phrases from James Bond characters aren't the best; lot's of innuendo or little singers. The first example that comes to mind is a fight scene where a thug falls into a bath tub. Acting quickly, Bond throws a lamp into the water and electrocutes the baddie. Bond looks and says, "Shocking." It's quick, cheesy, but it does it's job. To understand what 'cuckoo' means, we have to wait the entire movie until the villain gives an extended monologue (according to IMDb):

Blofeld: You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest? Madeleine Swann: Yes. It forces the other eggs out. Blofeld: Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took... (to Bond) Blofeld: So thank you, cuckoo!

"Cuckoo"? More like "contrived." But seriously, it feels like a plot device that the writers thought would be totally cool because it bookends the interactions between the characters. Only the movie goes on for another half hour. Moreover, it's meaningless without the explanation and, once provided, doesn't feel satisfying.

One last point, that I'd like to bring up is the intro sequence. The Bond franchise is famous (or infamous) for it's introductions. They are always stylized in a way that fits into the movie. Consider the theme for Casino Royale. The main plot device in the film is a poker game so the intro features bullets in the shapes of spades piercing figures who fall apart into little hearts, etc. They can be enjoyable because sometimes they foreshadow the movie.

In line with the rest of the film, Spectre's intro is lame. I was going to try and find a more sophisticated word but lame works. Instead of being stylized in a neat way, it's just clear images of Bond, women and nigh literal scenes of the preceding film, with the modification of octopi. Instead of a bikini – an octopus is wrapped around a woman's body. Instead of a pillar – a tentacle. Instead of shadow cast by a hand - it's an octopus. I mean, I get it guys, the mascot of the secrete organization is an octopus but sheesh, let's tone it down a little.

So, what do you think? Did you see Spectre? Follow up question if you have, are you a fan of Bond movies? Let me know in the comments below! Thanks for reading!

Victor Frankenstein (2015)

Victor Frankenstein is so bad it makes me wonder if filmmakers (actors or otherwise) regret participating in movies from time to time; it's not fun bad, just bad bad.

[1/10 · 28 April 2016]

Daniel Radcliffe provides the voice over introduction to Victor Frankenstein. "You know this story... The world, of course, remembers the monster, not the man. But sometimes, when you look closely, there's more to a tale. Sometimes the monster is the man."

Did that just blow your mind?!

But, wait, isn't that kinda the whole point of the book?

Now, I'm not knocking the movie for attempting to do something different but what Victor Frankenstein is doing feels really lazy. It's not like they are reinterpreting the story or some of the major themes, it's mostly just a recasting of superficial elements..

Now, the crux of the movie is, well, about Victor Frankenstein (McAvoy) and Igor (Radcliffe) as they struggle with the technical and ethical quandaries of reanimating life. In this iteration of the story, Igor is an abused clown in a steampunk circus. In his free time, he studies medicine. One thing leads to another and the young medical student, Frankenstein, recruits the clown to be a laboratory assistant.

The graphics and special effects are perfectly ordinary. Style-wise, we have a steampunk feel. If you aren't familiar with steampunk, it's Victorian England with, potentially, futuristic technology; it has a lot of bronze work and pipes and steam.

I mean, Victor Frankenstein is big budget flick aimed at us millennials. Let me tell you, we love steam-punk. It just feels like the decision of the marketing department to stylize the movie this way. There are other decisions that make me feel like this was marketed towards millennials but I'll get more into that later.

The dialog is dismal and it doesn't help that everyone phones in their performance. Well, everyone except for James McAvoy, he's just overacting the heck out of his role. He was so pleasant in X-Men: First Class why is he doing this?

The story itself, at least the direction in this film, was disappointing. I'll go into detail in a bit but, without spoiling anything here, it will suffice to say that it was a let down.

Overall, I would recommend that you actively avoid Victor Frankenstein. It's bad acting in a bad adaptation with tired art direction. Go and see Van Helsing if you want a supernatural but light and fun movie.

Now, let's discuss this movie in a little more detail -- so mind yourself of spoilers.

I mentioned that this movie was geared towards millennials. Let me describe the plot a little more. So we have Igor, the character to whom we are supposed to relate. He's just a guy who is really interested in medicine. Unfortunately, he's trapped in an abusive world (the circus). He's saved by Frankenstein and given the opportunity to do great things.

We have Frankenstein whose all for science; he's the "God is dead because science is awesome!" type of guy. I get the feeling that he's supposed to be "cool" because he's an atheist but he gets a little too carried away with his experiments for us to gravitate towards him. Meanwhile, a dogmatic, fundamentalist Christian inspector (Scott) pursues the protagonists. The inspector is definitely bad because he's like our parents.

This leaves us in the middle with Harry Potter (Igor, that is). He wants to study medicine and science because it's interesting. He's neither an angry atheist nor a Christian; he's more of an agnostic. This quality of the plot reminds me of what I understand of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche.

In his one book, he describes a shift in power dynamics in society. In the medieval period, we had knights and dukes and lords - the "nobility." The nobility had the power because they took it and fought to keep it; they were like hawks. They were to whom we were to aspire. Hence, being "noble" is a positive trait.

But, if they were so great and powerful, why did the system topple? It failed because of what Nietzsche calls "slave morality." The slaves who opposed this feudal system didn't actively rebel they just passively shuffled their feet until the system crumbled. In the metaphor where the nobles are the hawks, the slaves are the sheep. It's a sort of passivity or apathy that characterizes the sheep. Before I get into how this ties into the movie, I feel like should note that one of the things about Nietzsche is that there are problematic ways to interpret his ideas, case and point, the Nazis. For our purposes, I'm pointing out some of the characteristics that he describes with respect to the movie.

Igor, for example, wants to do science because it's cool. He's OK with reanimating animals but he mildly objects to reanimating a human. He says that he doesn't want to participate anymore but he doesn't really give a reason why. His reasons certainly aren't the same as the fundamentalist inspector. He doesn't actively support or oppose the experiments either. He just says, 'I'm going away with my girlfriend.' After all, it's a whole lot easier to abstain than to give a definite answer.

We have these driven characters but are left with the one standing still. Consider the final lines of the movie. Frankenstein writes Igor saying, "I'm continuing with my experiments… Be ready because I'll call on you someday…" Frankenstein's experiments are where it's at, that's where I want to be. I don't want to be with Igor as he just shuffles about.

Gah! There's the rub. Maybe the reason I'm writing and thinking about this so much is because it hits close to home. The reason it's frustrating though is because the film doesn't provide anything satisfying. There's no insight or direction or call to arms. It's just a character that resonates with a target audience and that's that.

So, in summary, don't see Victor Frankenstein. It's a stupid movie and writing about it has made me mad.

Stupid Victor Frankenstein… >:|

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Star Wars: The Force Awakens was awesome; you don't have to be a Star Wars fan (you don't even have to have seen any of the other movies) to enjoy it.

[9/10 · 5 April 2016]

Sometimes, when I write a movie review, I struggle to find a starting point. Some movies require a little background or description to help illustrate my points. It can be a pain if the movie is bad or convoluted. It's worse in the case of the latter because I risk giving away too much of the plot. Fortunately for me, Star Wars: The Force Awakens does not fall into these categories. I don't have to say very much at all about the plot to recommend it to you. In fact, I don't think I'll even go into the plot at all for my review.

Just about everything in this movie is wonderful. John Williams is back with another solid score (though it struck me again how his scores all sound the same). The dialog was solid. The graphics and special effects were splendid. (I've come to associate J.J. Abrams with his sense of moderation and taste). There are little bits of fan service (that is, stuff for returning fans) but it doesn't get in the way. New characters and worlds were introduced smoothly and blended well with the returning characters.

The weakest part of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the two-dimensional villains. Now, don't get me wrong, this is going to be a trilogy but they still could've made the villains compelling, rather than hinting at a future back-story. That said, all the other characters were perfectly fine. I especially liked Harrison Ford's return as the dashing rogue Han Solo. It was his most vitalized performance in quite a while.

I've also got to hand it to the merchandising powerhouse that is Disney. Everything in this movie, from the light-sabers and the blasters to the revamped X-Wings, can be turned into something to buy. At one point, a character jumps in a Tie Fighter and says, "I've always wanted to fly one of these." "Me too," says I. Thank goodness I can in the new Star Wars: Battlefront III for the PS4! Han Solo shoots Chewie's crossbow, looks down at it, turns and says, "I gotta get me one of these."

"Can I have one of those too, Dad? And Kylo Ren's light-saber too!" Does this diminish the movie? Absolutely not, I just thought it was funny to see.

Now, I was never the biggest fan of Star Wars. It's not that I dislike them I've just never really liked them. That said, I loved Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I've seen this twice so far and it got me pumped up each time. It made me want to go on an adventure. I wanted to fly around in space ships. Heck, I wanted to just be a part of the movie making process.

At this point, just about everyone on earth has seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens but if you haven't, I highly recommend you do. The people I've met who haven't seen it explain that they aren't Star Wars fans. I assure you, you don't have to be a Star Wars fan to enjoy it. It's fun if you are a Star Wars fan so you get some of the references but that's just icing on the cake.

Porco Rosso (1992)

Porco Rosso was so cute and so much fun; I highly recommend it especially for kids.

[9/10 · 28 February 2016]

In Porco Rosso, we follow an Italian WWI pilot who was cursed to look like a pig. The story consists of Porco fending off sky pirates and the attacks of an American ace in the inter-war period.

This is a Miyazaki movie so, if you're familiar with his movies, it won't surprise you to hear that the animation is wonderful. It's colorful and happy. Porco's introduction and the introduction to his relationship with the pirates give you a good indication of the tone of the movie.

We see Proco lounging on a secluded beach. He is called on the radio to go fend off some pirates who are robbing a cruise and, to make matters worse, they've captured a class of schoolgirls!

Now, I cringed when I heard "schoolgirls" because, you know, I thought hyper-sexualized high school girls (aka early Brittany) but it was just elementary school children. I suspect it was a translation thing or maybe a cultural terminology issue. Anyway, we cut to the pirates and the one groans, "Do we have to take all 15?" "Oh course! We can't split them up from their friends!" And then they go on to let the kids climb all over the plane while being "kidnapped."

Even when Porco comes to the rescue the scene is light-hearted. Porco shoots out the pirate-plane's engine and even lets them keep a little of their loot to pay for repairs. "I don't want to be putting them out of a job," Porco explains.

I saw the English dubbed version. I'm generally a proponent of original audio with subtitles but, in this case, the dub was perfectly good for the movie. Michael Keaton does a great job of voice acting Porco. The voice of Meg from Disney's Hercules is the voice of Porco's love interest. Do you remember Everybody Loves Raymond? Well, Raymond's brother (the one with the deep voice) is a pirate alongside the voice of Patrick Star from Spongebob Squarepants. The daughter in Father of the Bride voices the spunky engineer. It's a solid B-grade cast.

When I was describing the cast to a coworker, he said that a mark of a good B-grade cast is when you say, "Do you remember that show? Well, the side character from that show was in this." That is, you know the actor not through their name but through a point of reference.

I would highly recommend Porco Rosso especially for kids. It's fun and happy and I'll probably see it again at some point.

Ponyo (2008)

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is an adorable Miyazaki movie but because of the odd story, I wouldn't recommend it as someone's first Miyazaki movie.

[7/10 · 27 February 2016]

If you aren't familiar with Hayao Miyazaki, he's like the Japanese Walt Disney. He and his studio, Studio Ghibli, are responsible for Spirited Away, Grave of Fireflies, Princess Mononoke and others. Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea (henceforth referred to as Ponyo) is one of their most recent films. I love Miyazaki movies, particularly how they animate water; Ponyo's defining characteristic is that it's about the sea so, naturally, it was on my to-watch list.

Plot wise, Ponyo feels pretty thin. There is a fish that wants to become a little girl. Only through true love can this happen…and also only through true love can she save the world from being flooded.

There isn't too much else to say about this one, quite honestly. The animation is beautiful, Ponyo (Nara) and Sôsuke (the little boy, voice by Hiroki Doi, who finds Ponyo) are adorable, and the music is great, and it has a happy ending.

If you were unfamiliar with Miyazaki, I wouldn't recommend this as your introduction to his movies because of the odd plot. I'd start off with something like Spirited Away or Kiki's Delivery Service, and then after a little while, add Ponyo to your queue.

I checked on the cast of voice actors for both the original Japanese cast and the American dub. Looking at the cast, you can tell this was definitely a big budget movie; Matt Damon (Kôichi), Betty White (Sôsuke grandmother), Tina Fey (Sôsuke's mom), and last but not least, the voice of the villain is Liam Neeson! We watched the original Japanese audio and it was great but, if you prefer dubs, I think Ponyo would be a good experience. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, Liam Neeson's voice is so distinct I wonder if it would break my suspension of disbelief.

Tamasha (2015)

Tamasha's best quality is its music and there are a bunch of songs that are smoothly incorporated into the movie.

[7/10 · 20 February 2016]

Tamasha opens to a play; a clown is talking to a robot walking on a treadmill. The clown touches the robot on its heart causing it to malfunction and step off the treadmill. The clown speaks to the audience saying the robot has a story to tell. We cut to a boy being scolded for not doing well in school. You might be able to guess where this is going: the boy is forced into a safe, responsible mold, going to school to become a scientist (or something) even though he wants to be an actor.

During the preceding intro credits sequence, the boy spends his last few rupees to hear a story from the park's resident storyteller. The storyteller mixes up his story but justifies it by saying it is always the same story, just different characters. It's pleasant to hear that because Tamasha's story is just like all the others but its execution is what differentiates it. Anyway, fade to black. Open to Corsica, France, where we are introduced to the love story.

If you've read my other reviews for Bollywood movies, you might be familiar with my general lack of understanding when it comes to the genre. Tamasha, however, would be a solid movie for someone not familiar with this style of movie. Sometimes in Bollywood movies they break into songs at, to me, odd times, or they have these over-the- top plot points that I don't quite understand. In the case of Tamasha, it felt closer to a Hollywood musical.

In the initial love song for example, Zed (Kapoor) and Tara (Padukone) are talking about their plan to have a weeklong fling (sans physical contact) and never meet again. Amidst the festival going on around them, they exchange clever lines and then break into song. The song conveniently lines up with what the festival musicians are playing. Speaking of songs, I loved the music from this movie; the songs are catchy and fun.

The movie opens to the stage play and then jumps back in time to see Zed as a child. It then jumps back and forth in time to show how various plot points play out. Unfortunately, the best example will give away spoilers, so I'll wait until later to discuss it.

The performances of Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone were perfectly fine, except for a point that I will discuss in a bit. I must say that they both have this look, where their eyes tear up but they don't cry. They do it well and they do it several times throughout the movie.

The only thing I didn't like was how Zed was portrayed when he was breaking out of his mold. I don't think there are any major spoilers in this next part. Have you ever seen Office Space? It was the movie about a guy who hates his cubicle job and then, through a botched professional hypnotherapist session, stops caring. He shows up late and has a new generally chill but disconnected demeanor. Zed, as you might've expected, experiences a similar existential crisis. Instead of shouting, "I quit!" or just quitting, he just becomes an insane jerk. Not just kooky but I'm-not-going-to-be in-a-relationship-with- you-because-you-might-murder-me insane.

Part of his morning routine is to hold the elevator door open for a little old lady. Once he starts to snap, he smiles at her as he lets the door closes. He shouts at his boss and makes a general scene. Is it too much to ask that protagonists in this situation address their concerns coolly? I mean, instead of flipping out, couldn't he have just started writing a screenplay or taken up acting in his free time?

This doesn't detract too much from the total movie, however. Overall, it is fun, colorful, and happy. At about two hours and twenty minutes, Tamasha is a long Bollywood film but it only drags in the last scene or two. I'd recommend this movie to someone who is even mildly interested in Bollywood. One strategy, I've come to use for selecting Bollywood movies, is to first listen to some of the music videos for the movie. If you like the songs then check out the movie, otherwise, pass on it.

If you are interested, search for these songs on YouTube: Heer Toh Badi Sad Hai Matargashti Wat Wat Wat Safarnama

Krrish 3 (2013)

As one who has little experience with Bollywood action movie or the Krissh series, I wouldn't recommend Krrish 3 because it's too clichéd, too over-the-top, and too long.

[5/10 · 4 January 2016]

Krrish 3 is the third in the saga of Krrish; the superhero of Mumbai. It's everything I expect from a Bollywood big budget action movie. I'll get more into what I mean by that in a bit. The first few minutes of the film are dedicated to a review of the story so far. As if we needed a refresher, am-I-right? I'm willing to bet that you need so allow me to elucidate.

"This tale began with the birth of a mentally challenged boy, Rohit…" He grew but his mental age remained to that of a child. He was bullied. He prayed to Krishna and then, one night, a spaceship landed in his homeland. He made contact with the aliens who gave him super intelligence. He became a scientist, met a pretty lady and had a son (named Krishna). He went to Singapore to work with another super scientist and disappeared! Meanwhile, Krishna grew up with his grandmother (Rohit's mother) in a secret location. He joined a circus, donned a mask and became a superhero. He learned that his father was held captive in Singapore. And now we can start the movie.

After writing all that, I'm exhausted of plot summary so let me speed up the general plot of this film. Kaal (Vivek Oberoi), a paraplegic with telepathic abilities (no, not Professor X), holds the world hostage by releasing a super-virus. He has the only known antidote. His ultimate goal is to get enough money to fuel his research to cure his paralysis. He splices his DNA with animal-DNA to create animal-human hybrids he calls "Manimals." He has a frog hybrid, a shapeshifter lady, and a super strong guy. Will Krrish save the city and the world?

Bollywood continues to baffle me. A while ago, I tried watching Dhoom:3 and couldn't get more than a half hour through the nearly three hour epic. Krrish 3, on the other hand, is a reasonable two and a half hours and it even has an intermission. Both films are the mixture of over-the-top action sequences, over-the-top dialog, and musical sequences. I didn't understand if I should internalize the tap dancing sequence like I internalize Die Hard. Now I know I'm writing about Krrish 3 but I tend to use Dhoom:3 as my point of Bollywood reference. Krrish 3 presents the same sorts of questions.

There's a fight scene between a villain and Krrish. They are indoors, mind you, and whenever the camera does a close up of Krrish, his hair is blowing in the wind. They are indoors! There is no wind! Even beyond little details like that, just the level of similarity between X-Men and this movie. I can't be the only one to ask this, right? And yet, Krrish 3 broke all sorts of Bollywood records. I wonder what was lost in translation that captured the Bollywood imagination.

Would I recommend Krrish 3? I don't know, man. It's one of those things where it could be fun to watch because it's silly. But, I feel kinda bad saying that because I don't really understand it. I feel like I'm laughing at a culture and their cinema, you know? As far as comic book action movies go, I don't recommend it. There have been a ton of comic book movies in recent years and this one isn't quite worth its two and a half hour runtime.

But I can't seem to let it go as simply a "no" review. It, and Bollywood as a whole, continues to confuse me and I think it's because I am too uninformed as to the culture. I can see how The Twilight Samurai, which I watched not too long ago, could have been equally confusing if I was clueless about Japanese culture and cinema.

As it is the New Year, this seems to be a good time to make a resolution to learn a thing or two about India and it's cinema. Surely then I will be able to appreciate or at least have a better idea as to what is going on in the major Bollywood films that will undoubtedly come in the future.

The Twilight Samurai (2002)

If I were to pick two words to describe The Twilight Samurai, they would be "taste" and "moderation" which are two very good words in my book.

[9/10 · 27 December 2015]

The Twilight Samurai is a story, set at the turn of the century, about a petty samurai father, Seibei (Sanada), narrated by his then five-year-old daughter. Seibei's wife died of consumption leaving him to care for his dementia stricken mother, and two daughters. Seibei is of the samurai class though he works as a bureaucrat in the castle stores for a meager salary. IMDb summarizes the film as, "A 19th-century samurai tries to protect a battered wife." This only a minor plot point in the film. We follow him as he experiences tests of character with regard to his desires, his aspirations, and his duties to the clan.

Now, this may be an embarrassing testament to my general ignorance of international movies but I mistook this for another film. There is a popular samurai series about Zatoichi (aka "The Blind Swordsman") that follows the adventures of, as you can probably guess, a wandering Samurai who is blind. According to Wikipedia, a total of 26 films were made in the '60's featuring this character. I thought that The Twilight Samurai was that. Clearly, any samurai movie is an action movie, right? Sigh, it sounds even more embarrassing when I write it. In my defense, the film The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi came out in 2003. The Twilight Samurai is, in fact, a serious and really good drama. It won just about every Japanese film award possible and it's not too surprising.

The acting is fabulous, the cinematography is beautiful, and the music and sound are just as good. I'm generally not a fan of narration. "Show me, don't tell," I think when I hear a narrator but I've certainly heard worse narration than that of The Twilight Samurai's. I'm also generally not a fan of children in movies (read: I generally loathe them in movies) but Seibei's daughters are adorable. They play a large part in the motivations of Seibei but they don't play a large part in the movie. They are there just enough to work their way into your heart and make you sympathize with Seibei; one can understand why he wants to stay at home, take care of them, and watch them grow.

Overall, The Twilight Samurai is a very good movie. To my chagrin, I went in expecting a hack and slash but was enthralled by the story presented in front of me. It's happy and sad at the same time, and despite being a very Japanese movie, as an American, I found it accessible. By accessible, I mean that some movies use specific of cultural cues that either go over my head or don't jive with my American state of mind. I'll get more into detail about what I mean but it requires giving away some spoilers. This all said, I'd recommend The Twilight Samurai to someone interested in watching a more serious movie about the self and society and family. The only reason why I didn't give it a four out of four is because of some details surrounding the ending (which I will discuss next). Now, mind yourself of spoilers from here on out.

I mentioned that The Twilight Samurai was a very Japanese movie. In my experiences with Japanese movies, there are some recurring themes, namely, responsibility to one's duty particularly with respect to community versus the self. In The Twilight Samurai, we see this through Seibei and his interactions with his clan.

A friend of Seibei comes back from Edo (the capital city which was later renamed Tokyo) and offers to take him there for a promotion. Seibei respectfully declines saying that his dream is to eventually give up the title of Samurai and become a farmer with his daughters; he doesn't want to rise up in class because he's happy and content. Despite this desire to become a farmer, he is tasked with the job of killing a criminal samurai. The criminal was ordered to commit suicide but didn't, saying, "If you want me dead, you'll have to do it yourself." The criminal samurai is the best one-sword fighter in the clan so it's a high-risk task. Seibei attempts to defer the "honor" or responsibility to someone else but, eventually, accepts because it's his duty to follow the orders of the clan. The film doesn't stop at the "following orders" image. He accepts the task reveals that he intended to provide a route for escape rather execution.

A while ago, I reviewed The Shonen Merikansak. It's a movie about a washed-up punk band that reunites. The movie seemed say, "Yeah, I wanna rock, so let's rock." The last shot of the movie, however, undermines that whole message. It changes to "Yeah, I wanna rock, but let's be serious and get back to work after this bit of fun." The Twilight Samurai contains the theme of duty but still gives Seibei the strength to balance responsibility to one's post with responsibility to one's moral code. Seibei explains that he intended on letting the criminal escape to the mountains.

Unfortunately, the film takes an easy way out. After all, what would happen if he let the guy escape? What type of repercussions would he face? If he said that he let the guy go, Seibei would totally be executed. Well, we don't have to worry about it because the criminal samurai says, "I will escape…after I kill you." Conveniently, Seibei must defend himself and is thus rewarded with money, and his dream wife. Is it a deal breaker? No, but it feels like a little bit of a cop out

Shaun the Sheep Movie (2015)

Really cute, happy, and fun though it works better as episodic shows rather than a full length movie

[8/10 · 19 October 2015]

Shaun the Sheep is a full-length movie from the makers of Wallace and Gromit. I didn't realize, until later, that this was based off of a show of the same name. In retrospect, it makes sense why it is named Shaun the Sheep: The Movie.

The film opens with a montage of the daily routine of the sheep, the farmer, and his dog. It's day after day of the same thing. After a while, the sheep get tired of the monotony. With their adorable and charismatic leader, Shaun, the sheep hatch an innocent plan to get a little vacation. They just want to trick the farmer into thinking it's still night time so he stays asleep. Unfortunately, the plan goes awry and the farmer finds himself in the "Big City" with amnesia. Shaun, his fluffy friends, and the farmer's dog have to find a way to rescue the farmer, all while avoiding the hazards of city life, most notably the Animal Control Guy.

The animation is the main component of Shaun the Sheep and it's wonderful. It's colorful and soft but expressive and cute. There are a number of fabulous little details like a bit of a tongue to emote concentration or making the eyes feel slightly more open to show surprise. Over the past couple years, I've been slowly warming up to Claymation as a medium but this seals the deal. I love it.

I always forget how important sound is to a movie until I see a movie with really good sound. Shaun the Sheep is one such movie. The buzz of clippers, the sound of water, and the rustle of fabric really add to the experience.

Shaun the Sheep has little to no dialog; it's more of a pantomime but with the characters saying gibberish. Like the sound, the lack of dialog makes Shaun the Sheep more fun and forces you to focus on the animation. There are a couple of exceptions like the music. There are a couple of songs played at different points in the movie that have English lyrics. I wouldn't have considered this but, because there is no dialog, I subconsciously latched onto the English lyrics and it felt forced. I think it would've been more successful if they sang in gibberish or simply had instrumentals.

I found the TV Show on Amazon TV Prime or whatever it's called. It's available for streaming there. In the case of the TV show, each episode is broken down into independent segments. I like this format. How much complexity do you really need after all? The show is about cute little sheepies doing cute little sheepie things.

To be honest, I wasn't really looking forward to this movie. The trailer seemed to highlight burp jokes and crude humor but, fortunately, they weren't a major part of the film. (Of course they were still there).

Overall, I'd recommend Shaun the Sheep. I'd definitely recommend the show. I'd give the show a 3.5/4 instead of the movies 3/4 because the characters and "plot" lend itself to a segmented show but, with this in mind, I still really enjoyed the movie. The animation is adorable, the sound is great, and the story is OK. Before ending this review, I'd like to mention something else that I liked but, mind yourself of spoilers for this next part.

From the introduction, where we watch Shaun and his friends grow weary of their routine, there was a little knot of dread in my stomach. How were they going to handle the ending? When the Shaun and company gets the farmer back, what were they going to do? Were they going to say, "We had our adventure but let's get back to what we truly like, the routine?" That would be really depressing!

But it was such a relief when they tore up the schedule and went to the park. Sure, they would still probably have to do stuff, it is a farm after all, but the relationship between the farmer and his sheep had development to something greater than it was at the beginning of the movie. It's that relationship is part of a larger point that I'd also like to discuss.

There is a really pleasant sense of humor in Shaun the Sheep (both the film and show). It isn't malicious (the sheep don't resent the farmer or do any mean tricks) but there isn't a particular hesitancy when performing tricks or carrying out schemes. One episode, for example, Shaun kicks a soccer ball into the farmer's kitchen and see's a bunch of cakes and deserts. He gets the soccer ball, a couple bites of cake and then grabs a bunch of deserts for his friends. I suppose it's stealing but it feels so innocent. It's like there is this laid back attitude towards everything that I find really relaxing. Sure, they shouldn't be eating the sweets but, it's OK; the farmer had a ton and he can easily make more.

Have you seen Shaun the Sheep (the movie or the TV show)? Again, the TV show is on Amazon and, if you have Prime, it is free to stream. I'd highly recommend them both. Thanks for reading!

12 O'Clock Boys (2013)

12 O'Clock Boys illuminates a complex social atmosphere in North Baltimore but it does so in a way that feels incomplete, not to mention a little exploitative.

[6/10 · 16 September 2015]

12 O'Clock Boys is the name of a motorcycle group (one might argue that they aren't quite a gang) in North Baltimore. Their name arises from the fact that when they do wheelie's (that is, riding on the back wheel of their motorcycles) their wheels are straight up and down like the hands of a clock.

12 O'Clock Boys is also the name of a documentary which follows Pug, a thirteen- year-old kid who wants to eventually join the illustrious (or notorious, depending on who you ask) aforementioned group.

Many documentaries I've seen about gangs focus strictly on the gang: its origin, current members, former members, and police. 12 O'Clock Boys incorporates those but, as it follows the development of Pug, we come to see the larger ecosystem of Baltimore; not only do we see the gang and its relationship with the police but also we get to see how the gang operates with Baltimore and the poorer districts of the city, and even its relationship with future members, i.e. children.

Pug's home life is such that I can see how one might be drawn to the 12 O'clock Boys and the resulting sense of community. It's kinda sad to watch over the course of the movie how Pug gravitates towards an angrier lifestyle. He wanted to become a veterinarian and he had a bunch of pets but by the end of the movie he says that he wants to become a dogcatcher (I suppose because it sounds tougher). It's too bad too because, when he talks about animals, he sounds rather knowledgeable about them.

I read in an interview that Pug and his mother participated in the documentary because they wanted to shed light on the group. If people had a place to ride their bikes, like a park, they argue, then the problems would go away. But, is that really the case? Thinking about this is one of the more interesting questions to come out of the movie.

On one hand we have the founding members saying that they just wanted to ride, because when they ride they forget about their problems, yadda yadda yadda. Former and current members interviewed, insist that the gang doesn't do anything like guns or drugs or whatnot; they just want to ride their bikes. And, yet, they break traffic laws and intentionally ride past the police department to exacerbate the already tenuous relationship with the police.

We see Pug practicing with a child-size ATV and, eventually, in the park on his dirt bike. The plan is always to practice and ride until he gets to the point where he can ride with the group in the streets. There's the rub.

What would the dynamic be if the group had a venue for their riding? Would it be the same or is part of it the experience breaking the law?

At one point, the group is riding up and down a street and in a nearby park when the police come. The environment is electrified by the clash between the bikers and the police. So it's not "just about riding," but the movie doesn't really explore what it really is about.

If you've read my previous reviews, you might recall that I generally dislike children in movies. More often than not, it's a cheap way to force an emotional response from audiences. 12 O'Clock Boys is pushing it. With Pug, we see this kid come of age and watch his development. But because he's a kid, it feels mildly exploitative.

With respect to following Pug, there are a couple standout sequences. First, when Pug finally gets a dirt bike. He is practicing in the park near a group of kids playing basketball and one comes over and asks if he could try out Pug's bike. After some hesitation, Pug lets him. Sure enough the kid says, "I'm just going to take it around the block." The kid speeds away. After a few minutes, Pug runs around the corner to see if he'll return. You can see fear, desperation, embarrassment, and frustration wash over his face as he looks at the camera and then the cameraman. It feels like a really great moment to capture on screen.

At the end of the movie, Pug has spiraled further into the hood mentality. He had just gotten in trouble for fighting in school. The cameraman asks what Pugs intends to do about his bike. "Steal it back," Pug answers matter-of-factly. As he explains the plan, footage of the robbery plays. The movie ends with a shot of Pug in the back of a van dressed in black, with his bike, looking silently at the camera. It's depressing but well executed.

I've spent a lot longer thinking about this movie than countless other's that I've seen and I can't quite figure out why. I think it has something to do with why I found it unsatisfying. We watch Pug spiral downwards into the subculture of the 12 O'Clock Boys, which is depressing, right? We hear positive messages from the current and former members but we see contradictory images: a guy kicking the tail light of a police car, for example. The stories and images paint of picture of this group and it's surrounding city but it's not getting anywhere.

I don't think a movie should necessarily a definitive position but I feel like it would be helpful to provide a starting point and, perhaps, a direction for conversation. It you watch fluffy tupolev's Youtube video entitled "12 O'Clock Boys", you'll have just as much of a conversation starter as 12 O'Clock Boys. If you are interested in watching it, currently, it can be found on Youtube.