Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (218) - TV Shows (1) - DVDs (1) - Games (1)

Review of Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva

Posted : 11 years, 1 month ago on 17 February 2013 01:38 (A review of Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva)

Note: The English dub is the version viewed.

Movies adapted from video games have earned a bad name for themselves. Usually terrible films that even fans of the source material tend to rebuke, video game movies are generally something to be avoided. Still, there are exceptions, Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva, being one of them. While Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva isn't perfect as well as being heavily flawed, it's still an entertaining and satisfying film that goes above what is often expected of video game films.

In a condensed form, the plot follows brilliant detective Professor Layton and his young apprentice, Luke Triton as they find themselves, as well as a large crowd of people, trapped in an opera house and slowly being picked off one by one in something of a tragic game. By solving puzzles, Layton and Luke, as well as their friend Janice Quatlane, must survive these puzzles in hopes of apprehending the culprit responsible.

Japanese anime (or really any form of anime) has never been my particular cup of tea. And if you truly detest the genre, I recommend staying far away from this, as it's unlikely to change your mind. In fact, it may cement that opinion. However, keeping an open mind through the quirks and oddities one finds in anime, I found myself actually enjoying myself somewhat.

The film opens with a one minute intro that more or less explains that this films is based off of a popular video game series, among a few other things. This feels very much like a commercial, and it's hugely unnecessary. Thankfully, it's short.

The plot is surprisingly engaging. While it starts a little slow, it isn't too long before the ball gets rolling and in true 'And Then There Were None' style, groups of people and disposed of repeatedly. The film becomes more frenzied and more intriguing. At times, the film is surprisingly creepy.

At times, the film feels very much like a video game. And there are things the film does that would only work in a video game, and simply doesn't work in this film. Some things that don't work is the utter improbability of much of what's going on. For example, Layton at one point, builds a helicopter out of materials he finds in a shed and uses it to fly to a nearby island. This would be acceptable in a video game, but in a film, viewers are much more unlikely to suspend their belief in reality.

Some elements of the mystery seem hugely obvious, and some characters are far too oblivious of them for far too long. Also, those who have not played some of the Professor Layton games will not know several characters whom are in the film, but without proper introduction.

And despite being a mystery, there are many things left open ended and unexplained. While this may not bother some, others may feel disappointed.

Attempts at humor are made, but it's all painfully unfunny. Never did I laugh, but humor is not the primary focus, so this can be excused.

What cannot be excused (and this is the primary reason that I'm not giving this a higher score) is a tedious, dull, and improbable action sequence near the end. It lasts 20 minutes, and frankly, it was 20 minutes too long. This represented the lowest point of the film.

I may be saying a lot of negative things about this film, but I did enjoy it. The plot is intriguing, characters are interesting, but what got me the most, is the ending. An absolutely beautiful and poignant finish. I won't spoil the details here, but you'd be surprised at the emotional depth displayed here.

Voice acting is will make those unexposed to anime cringe. The fact is, it's all hugely exaggerated and often laughable. The more bearable of the voice talents are Christopher Robin Miller as Professor Layton, Emma Tate as Janice Quatlane, and Robbie Stevens as Oswald Whistler.

While the animation isn't stunning, it's serviceable. Mixing hand-drawn animation and CGI, the animation is pleasant, if far from eye-popping.

Perhaps the best aspect of the film (other than the beautiful ending) is the score, composed by Tomohito Nishiura and Tsuneyoshi Saito. Utterly charming and wonderfully inventive, the music is fun, unique, and quite breathtaking at times. While parts of the 20 minute action sequence at the end go overboard with the synthesizers (as this represents not only the low point in the film, but the low point in music), the score is surprisingly effective, and even stunning.

There's a masterpiece somewhere in Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva. Somewhere, there's a beautiful and perfect film trapped in it's heart. Unfortunately, only some the majesty this film tries to produce is executed, leaving a flawed and utterly improbable film in it's place. But for all I dislike about this film, Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva still provides a mostly entertaining story, with an ending that's better than it has any right to be.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva

Posted : 11 years, 1 month ago on 17 February 2013 01:38 (A review of Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva)

Note: The English dub is the version viewed.

Movies adapted from video games have earned a bad name for themselves. Usually terrible films that even fans of the source material tend to rebuke, video game movies are generally something to be avoided. Still, there are exceptions, Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva, being one of them. While Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva isn't perfect as well as being heavily flawed, it's still an entertaining and satisfying film that goes above what is often expected of video game films.

In a condensed form, the plot follows brilliant detective Professor Layton and his young apprentice, Luke Triton as they find themselves, as well as a large crowd of people, trapped in an opera house and slowly being picked off one by one in something of a tragic game. By solving puzzles, Layton and Luke, as well as their friend Janice Quatlane, must survive these puzzles in hopes of apprehending the culprit responsible.

Japanese anime (or really any form of anime) has never been my particular cup of tea. And if you truly detest the genre, I recommend staying far away from this, as it's unlikely to change your mind. In fact, it may cement that opinion. However, keeping an open mind through the quirks and oddities one finds in anime, I found myself actually enjoying myself somewhat.

The film opens with a one minute intro that more or less explains that this films is based off of a popular video game series, among a few other things. This feels very much like a commercial, and it's hugely unnecessary. Thankfully, it's short.

The plot is surprisingly engaging. While it starts a little slow, it isn't too long before the ball gets rolling and in true 'And Then There Were None' style, groups of people and disposed of repeatedly. The film becomes more frenzied and more intriguing. At times, the film is surprisingly creepy.

At times, the film feels very much like a video game. And there are things the film does that would only work in a video game, and simply doesn't work in this film. Some things that don't work is the utter improbability of much of what's going on. For example, Layton at one point, builds a helicopter out of materials he finds in a shed and uses it to fly to a nearby island. This would be acceptable in a video game, but in a film, viewers are much more unlikely to suspend their belief in reality.

Some elements of the mystery seem hugely obvious, and some characters are far too oblivious of them for far too long. Also, those who have not played some of the Professor Layton games will not know several characters whom are in the film, but without proper introduction.

And despite being a mystery, there are many things left open ended and unexplained. While this may not bother some, others may feel disappointed.

Attempts at humor are made, but it's all painfully unfunny. Never did I laugh, but humor is not the primary focus, so this can be excused.

What cannot be excused (and this is the primary reason that I'm not giving this a higher score) is a tedious, dull, and improbable action sequence near the end. It lasts 20 minutes, and frankly, it was 20 minutes too long. This represented the lowest point of the film.

I may be saying a lot of negative things about this film, but I did enjoy it. The plot is intriguing, characters are interesting, but what got me the most, is the ending. An absolutely beautiful and poignant finish. I won't spoil the details here, but you'd be surprised at the emotional depth displayed here.

Voice acting is will make those unexposed to anime cringe. The fact is, it's all hugely exaggerated and often laughable. The more bearable of the voice talents are Christopher Robin Miller as Professor Layton, Emma Tate as Janice Quatlane, and Robbie Stevens as Oswald Whistler.

While the animation isn't stunning, it's serviceable. Mixing hand-drawn animation and CGI, the animation is pleasant, if far from eye-popping.

Perhaps the best aspect of the film (other than the beautiful ending) is the score, composed by Tomohito Nishiura and Tsuneyoshi Saito. Utterly charming and wonderfully inventive, the music is fun, unique, and quite breathtaking at times. While parts of the 20 minute action sequence at the end go overboard with the synthesizers (as this represents not only the low point in the film, but the low point in music), the score is surprisingly effective, and even stunning.

There's a masterpiece somewhere in Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva. Somewhere, there's a beautiful and perfect film trapped in it's heart. Unfortunately, only some the majesty this film tries to produce is executed, leaving a flawed and utterly improbable film in it's place. But for all I dislike about this film, Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva still provides a mostly entertaining story, with an ending that's better than it has any right to be.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Source Code

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 26 January 2013 07:57 (A review of Source Code)

Source Code shouldn't be as bad as it is. It has a relatively interesting and unique (if slightly gimmicky premise), and has some great ideas up it's sleeve. The problem here, is that Source Code also has it's share of terrible ideas and obvious flaws that send this initially entertaining action flick into a downward spiral that progressively gets worse until the film closes.

The premise behind Source Code is that a man named Colter Stevens wakes up in the body of an unknown man, on a train. Completely confused, Colter panics until the train ultimately explodes. He awakens again in a capsule, where he is informed through a monitor that he has the ability to inhabit other people's body through a process called Source Code. Through Source Code, Colter lives the person's last 8 minutes in order to discover information.

The plot is a bit more involved and complicated then that, but everything is so convoluted and tedious, it seems pointless to explain the rest of it.

The idea here is quite unique. I like the premise. The problem here is execution. There are so many ideas that aren't utilized or aren't fully utilized that could've made this a much more intelligent, suspenseful, and engaging experience.

Instead, the plot intricacies trips Source Code, and the film not only becomes flawed, but broken. There are obvious things overlooked by the characters, some contradictions, even a few plot holes. And if you aren't rolling your eyes or feeling somewhat frustrated by the cheap, cheesy, sequel-begging ending, then you've fallen for the gimmick.

Plot details are simply way too similar to other movies. Character revisits the same 8 minutes repeatedly. Sounds like Groundhog Day. Character wakes up in a body where he doesn't know who he is. Sounds like The Bourne Identity. And if the word Inception isn't screaming in your face when Colter, while in someone else's mind, gets hit by a train when lying on the train tracks, then you've clearly never seen Inception.

The fact is, Source Code is not only a bad film. It's a rip off of other, often better films. It's insulting, and it doesn't make for a good film.

The act of returning to the same 8 minutes quickly becomes repetitive. And while there's a "carrot" at the beginning of the film (knowledge of what's going on) to keep you interested for the first couple of "re-visits," the experience quickly grows tiring and dull.

The acting isn't particularly good. Jake Gyllenhaal delivers a passable performance as the distraught main character, Colter Stevens. Vera Farmiga does much the same as the seemingly robotic (in character, not in acting) Goodwin. Michelle Monaghan poorly acts the obligatory love interest, Christina, and Jeffery Wright as Dr. Rutledge uses a ridiculously hammy and over-the-top voice just begging for mockery.

The score by Chris Bacon isn't bad, but it's too generic to be anything but mediocre. The main titles show promise, but the rest of it is generic and goes overboard on electronics.

While Source Code starts off with potential, it quickly becomes a mess. Convoluted plot, hammy acting, rip offs from other films and an insultingly terrible ending left me not only disappointed, but disgusted. Source Code has it's share of thrills early on, but after half an hour, the whole film drags, leaving a potentially fresh and enjoyable film in a cacophony of improbability and blunt stupidity.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of The Lion King

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 24 January 2013 11:51 (A review of The Lion King)

If one were to name Disney's best known films, The Lion King would certainly be mentioned. Often considered Disney's best film, The Lion King is one of Disney's biggest successes. Personally, I would find Beauty and the Beast or The Princess and the Frog to be more suited towards the coveted title, but that doesn't change the fact that The Lion King is still an entertaining and well made production worthy of the Disney label.

The Lion King is about a young lion named Simba whose the rightful heir to the throne. In a tragic turn of events, Simba's father, Mufasa, is murdered by Simba's treacherous uncle, Scar. Scar tricks Simba into thinking that himself is to blame, so Simba runs away, leaving the throne to Scar. Simba finds new friends in the form of a warthog named Pumba, and a meerkat named Timon and they live a care-free life together, away from the kingdom.

The Lion King is largely a disappointment, not because it's a poor film, but because of it's legacy. While The Lion King stands tall among Disney's most famous and successful offerings, I found it to be a bit weaker than some of Disney's better works. Once again, I emphasize the fact that The Lion King is still an excellent film, it's just not quite worthy of being known as Disney's best.

The story is a bit on the slight side compared to other Disney films. There is little emotional depth. That's not to say there isn't emotion here, but the poignancy evident in Disney's best films isn't quite all there. It feels sweet, and tragic when it needs to be, but I never felt terribly moved or affected.

The characters come off as a bit weaker as well, though they are still loveable and memorable. The main character, Simba fails to have any sort of unique personality, which is common for main characters in Disney films. His lady friend, Nala, has the cliched "spunky and strong" personality so commonly adopted by woman in Disney films. The villain, Scar, is amusing with some clever lines (and an all but forgotten musical number near the beginning-ish), but he's simply too similar to the likes of Jafar or Shere Khan.

As is typical of most of Disney's work, the most memorable and entertaining characters are the side characters. Timon and Pumba are boisterous and outrageous. They're funny in a way that will entertain kids and adults. Zazu, a dodo bird and Mufasa's "majordodo" as he calls himself, is quite funny. And Rafiki, an unexpectedly humorous mandill, has a small and memorable part as well.

The characters are brought effectively to life by a talented voice cast, including Matthew Broderick who's unrecognizable as Simba, James Earl Jones as Mufasa, and Jeremy Irons as Scar. Supporting cast members, Nathan Lane, Ernie Sabella, Moira Kelly, Whoopi Goldberg, Rowan Atikson, and others perform memorably as well.

The songs are a large part of why The Lion King is so well remembered and while I wouldn't rank them among Disney's best, I would consider them some of Disney's better work. The opening song "Circle of Life," is pleasant and enjoyable, but forgettable, and includes dated sounding synthesizers that just don't belong. "I Just Can't Wait To Be King," represents more of what makes Disney songs so loveable. The song is upbeat and toe-tapping with clever lyrics and fantastic visuals. Still, while the namesake part of the song is catchy, little else sticks in the memory.

"Be Prepared," the often forgotten villain's song is delightfully creepy, and ranks among the better Disney villain songs. "Hakuna Matata" (one of the two most likely songs to get stuck in you head by the end of the film) is upbeat and catchy. The chorus is a cheery delight, though the verses are less clever. "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" is the best of The Lion King's wonderful songs. The lyrics are beautiful and catchy, and the peaceful and beautiful visuals keep things dazzling. Along with Hakuna Matata, you could have this song stuck in your head for weeks.

The animation is stunning, as is expected of Disney. The African plains and landscape is just beautiful. Birds flying, animals running, all depicted with typical Disney flair. The visuals do not disappoint.

The score, by Hans Zimmer, is pleasant, but like many of the Disney scores, not particularly interesting. The score makes good use of the atmosphere and location, but one wonders if it would hold up well taken away from the film. My guess is is "no."

While not as funny, nor as poignant as Disney's best work, The Lion King is still a delightful film from the house of mouse. With catchy songs, memorable supporting characters, and dazzling animation, The Lion King is wonderfully old-fashioned and charming cinematic entertainment.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of The Snowman

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 11 January 2013 02:55 (A review of The Snowman (1982))

To see this short film in it's entirety, use this link (trust me, it's worth it): [Link removed - login to see]

I rarely bother to review animated short films for 2 specific reasons (though these are not the only ones). Reason #1- Their length rarely exceeds 10 minutes, leaving very little material to discuss. Most short films can be effectively summarized in just a few sentences. Reason #2 is that short films only occasionally have enough depth or elements worth mentioning to make it worth the effort to write a review.

I make an exception for The Snowman because it does not fall under the description of Reason #1 or #2. The Snowman is 26 minutes long, which cancels out Reason #1. And there is just so much depth and details worth mentioning in The Snowman that I felt almost inclined to write a review discussing it (effectively canceling Reason #2). I may also add that part of my reason for writing a review for The Snowman is that it's such a wonderful work of art.

The plot for The Snowman is extremely simple, even for a short film. A young, unnamed boy builds a snowman that comes to life in the middle of the night. The boy, as one might expect, has a wonderful time showing the Snowman around his house, and later flying in the sky with the Snowman.

While the idea of snowmen coming to life has already been covered in various other feature length movies and short films (most notably Frosty the Snowman), The Snowman is far superior to all previous efforts of this concept.

The first half of The Snowman boasts a cozy and relaxing feel. It's cute, it's nostalgic, and it's beautifully innocent. These 13 minutes are basically childhood winters in a nutshell.

Then we hit the halfway mark, where things take a different tonal approach. At this point, the boy and the Snowman decide to take a motorcycle ride through the woods and fields. The feel here is innocent and cute, but less so.

Then the Snowman and the boy start flying (after they have brought the motorcycle back home). At this point, the film feels a bit darker. Part of this darker feel comes from the song that plays here. While this short film is almost completely wordless, this flying segment uses words in a lyrical song called Walking in the Air. This song is playing in a minor key, therefore sounding dark and mysterious. Yet still, the images, while focusing on darker colors, is still playful. The song is beautiful, and this is a truly majestic piece, but the tone here feels a bit off as to what's presented before this.

Also, as a sidenote, the boy that sings this song rolls his r's. I believe this is intentional, but I personally didn't like that. Still, it was more of a subtle irritation than a flaw.

After this flying sequence, the film returns to the more innocent, child-like feel that it started with, which is welcome.

(Spoiler Begins)

Now for this paragraph and the next, I'm going to talk about the ending, so if you want to avoid spoilers, I'd skip these paragraphs. To explain, at the end, we see the boy run outside to play with the Snowman again, as he did the night before, only to see that the Snowman has melted. We see the boy crying, and then the film ends. At first, I was a bit irritated by the abrupt and oddly melancholy ending of this initially warm and pleasing short. Then, as the credits played, I really started thinking. I realized how much I could connect to this child's trauma.

Though I never acted quite so dramatically, I did have a few dreams where I never wanted to wake up from. Not so much because I achieved fame or fortune in my dream, but because I had met a friend, that I somehow felt strongly connected to, like the boy and the Snowman. When I awoke, I felt sad and almost depressed that my friend had left. I had these dreams mostly when I was younger, but I have to admit that I still have these dreams today (though their immensely uncommon). I realized that this short was more beautiful than I initially thought. I had loved it before, I adored it now. It perfectly captured all of those wonderful dreams I had encountered before. This was a true piece of joyous and bittersweet nostalgia.

(Spoiler Ends)

Despite the nostalgia that I experienced at the end, and the overall magical and beautiful picture that The Snowman painted, it's majesty is dampened a bit a short 40 second intro featuring the boy as an older lad (this intro is done in live-action). This intro felt hugely unnecessary, and I really didn't like it. I felt that it made the film feel cheap, and less magical.

The score by Howard Blake is similar to the film itself, in the sense that it's a beautiful interpretation of childhood innocence. There are a few bits in the score that felt a little more empty than others, but overall, it reflects the film's charm and magic.

Few short films have made me feel the way The Snowman has. It's poignant, yet sad. Warm, yet dark. Cute, yet tragic. Childish, but nostalgic. Not all of the narrative detours work, and there are certainly flaws here. But The Snowman is still one of the greatest achievements in short films, and even cinema in general that I've ever seen.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Stardust

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 6 January 2013 02:40 (A review of Stardust)

It is important, if one enjoys the art of film, to occasionally see an awful movie. This gives balance to your opinion, gives you an idea of what truly bad cinema looks like, and provides some wonderful unintentional laughs. I say this because it's one of the few good things about Stardust. It will give one a much better appreciation for better films, and even mediocre films.

Stardust is about a shooting star that has landed on (presumably) earth. It turns out, the star is actually a person named Yvaine. The main character, Tristan, finds Yvaine, and wants to bring Yvaine home to his girlfriend to win her hand in marriage. He does not know, however, that there are other forces that want the star very badly, and will kill to get it.

There's more to the story than that, but the whole thing is so hopelessly tedious, and so unnecessarily complex, it's not worth it to explain the whole thing.

How so many critics have been won over by this is beyond me. Stardust (in addition to having very little to do with it's name) is endlessly trippy (in the worst way), often dull, and uneven in tone. Stardust tries to follow multiple stories at once, and the sequence of events and the poor editing makes it all feel lazy and slapped together, not to mention extremely in-cohesive.

Stardust is made even worse by a series of contradictions, plot holes, and obvious mistakes that should have been caught. Character development is also extremely rushed. Some characters literally reform in a single scene without showing any signs of remorse previously.

Stardust attempts to be many different genres. Action, comedy, parody, etc. This is typically a recipe for disaster, and Stardust is no exception. Moments of light-hearted and childish humor feels off when the film is so frequently dark and perilous. At times, Stardust feels more like a children's film with it's intellectually insulting humor.

The action scenes are barely what one could consider "action." It mostly revolves around people running away. The few times there's actually "true" action are surprisingly dull. The lengthy climatic battle may go down as one of the most tedious and campy of all time.

Special effects are mostly fine, and they admittedly look pretty good most of the time. Still, the first 10 minutes boasts some extremely dubious looking effects (two pint sized elephants being kept in a cage make up the most offensive of the special effects).

Acting is one of the most painless elements of Stardust. Charlie Cox is believable as Tristan, though a mostly brainless and indecisive idiot can't be too difficult to portray. Claire Danes is fine as the first obnoxious then overly sweet Yvaine. Michelle Pfeiffer makes for a creepy villain.

The score by Ilan Eshkeri is mostly uneven. At it's best, it's rousing, grand, and spirited. At it's worst, it's corny, childish, and shamelessly over the top. The love theme is also an obvious rip off of Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings cue, "Concerning Hobbits."

I am shocked and even a bit disgusted that Stardust has been so positively received from critics. It's ridiculously campy and trippy, hugely unfunny, and often immensely dull. Stardust is ultimately too childish to entertain adults and teens, and way too violent and off color for kids. One of the only reasons to see Stardust would be to get a few unintentional laughs.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Napoleon Dynamite

Posted : 11 years, 3 months ago on 29 December 2012 06:44 (A review of Napoleon Dynamite (2004))

Usually, after seeing a film for the first time, I have a 1-10 score in my mind that I plan to assign the film when I later write my review. If not, I'm usually fighting between two numbers. But Napoleon Dynamite has simply confounded me. It has taken me some time to decide whether I absolutely adore this film, or absolutely despise it.

Napoleon Dynamite doesn't have a true plot (the only suggestion of a plot doesn't even occur until halfway into the film), but it does have a sort of premise. We follow the adventures of Napoleon Dynamite, a junior in Highschool, whom is nerdy, not particularly bright, and completely unpopular (he has but one friend; Pedro). Napoleon also has a brother named Kip, who's a nerd like him, who spends most of his time hanging out in "chatrooms" online.

While there's no true plot to Napoleon Dynamite, there are at least half a dozen sub-plots. These sub-plots give Napoleon Dynamite something of an episodic feel. It certainly didn't surprise me to learn that a TV series had spawned from this film, as Napoleon Dynamite has that kind of sitcom quality. Usually, when a film is compared to a sitcom, it is considered an insult, but in this case, it is to be thought of as a compliment.

The kind of humor in this film is extremely subjective, and the audience likely to enjoy it is very limited. Teenage boys will get the most out of this, while teenage girls will either be amused or disgusted. Parents will likely be irritated, younger ones will get bored, and grandparents won't understand a thing. The style of the film is very much the same. You may find yourself laughing like a loon, or you may leave the room in distaste. If you're looking for any sign of meaning, symbolism, or even intelligence, you're likely to be disappointed. The key to enjoying Napoleon Dynamite is to embrace the film on it's own terms.

That being said, there's much to enjoy about Napoleon Dynamite. Some of it is the characters (it's likely that we all know someone that's at least a little like Napoleon Dynamite), and some of it is the dialogue. If you're the film's target audience (which as I stated earlier, is likely teenage boys), it may be years before you stop quoting this film. There's just so much memorable dialogue.

Napoleon Dynamite has a lot of seemingly random cuts and scenes (most of which rarely last more than 10-30 seconds). Not all of them fit perfectly into the film, but Napoleon Dynamite still manages to be feel mostly cohesive.

The acting in Napoleon Dynamite is good on it's own terms, but the characters in this film are so hugely one-dimensional that there likely wasn't much of an acting challenge. I'm sure the biggest problem here was keeping a straight face through all of it. Jon Heder as the lead is convincing as nerdy Napoleon Dynamite. Other actors are in the same vein; convincing, but not exactly brilliant.

What little music there is, is scored by John Swihart. The score is mostly dated sounding organ pieces. It's somewhat amusing at first, but eventually feels more like a novelty as the films wears on.

As amusing as Napoleon Dynamite is, I didn't truly laugh almost at all. Don't get me wrong, I smiled and chuckled through almost the whole film. But there weren't a whole lot of "big" jokes. Just a whole lot of snicker-worthy ones. Regardless, I was never bored, though the whole thing is a bit exhausting. And the constant stupidity and parody nature of the films is a bit tiring eventually. Despite all of Napoleon Dynamite's major flaws, though, I couldn't help but enjoy it. Ultimately, Napoleon Dynamite is a guilty pleasure. If nothing else, it seems like this was a lot of fun to make, and the fun certainly translates onscreen well enough.

If I had to describe Napoleon Dynamite, I'd describe it as a very lengthy YouTube video. If this description doesn't appeal to you, than this film probably won't either.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Muppet Treasure Island

Posted : 11 years, 3 months ago on 28 December 2012 01:05 (A review of Muppet Treasure Island)

As far as quality goes, the Muppet films are all over the board. From mediocre entries such as Muppets From Space and The Muppet Christmas Carol, to masterpieces like The Muppets Take Manhattan and the 2011 reboot, you can never tell whether you're about to watch dull puppet wizardry, or a new favorite film. Unfortunately, Muppet Treasure Island ranks among the very worst of the Muppet films, and that is a downright shame.

Following the plot of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic, Treasure Island, Muppet Treasure Island is about a boy named Jim Hawkins, who with his friends Rizzo the Rat and Gonzo, as well as a host of other characters, go in search of buried treasure. Of course, their journey will not be without peril, as a dastardly plot concocted by pirates awaits the crew.

Muppet Treasure Island is dreadfully dull most of the time. Gags are bland and uninspired, dialogue is mostly the same. While there are a handful of amusing bits here and there, they don't come nearly often enough. Some smiles, one or two chuckles, and not a single belly laugh.

To make things worse, Muppet Treasure Island has a grand total of seven songs, and almost none of which are appealing. "Shiver My Timbers," "Sailing for Adventure," "Professional Pirate," and "Boom Shakalaka," fall under the mediocre/forgettable/inoffensive category. "Something Better," and "Love Led Us Here," are absolutely awful ("Something Better" may have been less painful had it not been for Kevin Bishop's high pitched and highly annoying singing voice). The only decent song in the whole film is "Cabin Fever," which is actually quite fun and is the highlight of the film.

Like The Muppet Christmas Carol, Muppet Treasure Island is much more human involved than the other Muppet films. This is a shame considering that the Muppet characters are so much more entertaining. And it doesn't help that the actors behind the human characters perform less than satisfactorily.

Kevin Bishop, playing the child lead, is clunky as an actor, though I've seen worse. The thing that really makes his part in Muppet Treasure Island nearly unbearable is his extremely high voice. Tim Curry plays Long John Silver. He's intentionally dramatic and over the top, but this is more obnoxious than comedic. Billy Connolly gets a small part as Billy Bones that's forgettable, but not poor.

The score for Muppet Treasure Island is composed by Hans Zimmer. The score makes up one of the least offensive parts about this film. It's not particularly interesting most of the time, but it's occasionally rousing.

Though Muppet Treasure Island tries hard, it's the worst of the Muppet films, and simply awful. It's rarely funny, hardly amusing, and poorly acted. Though the musical number, "Cabin Fever" is fun, and the breaking of the "fourth wall" provides a few smiles, Muppet Treasure Island lacks the enchantment and joy of the series' best entries. It's also surprisingly violent (and profane) for a G-rated flick, but in a film as dull as this, that's the least of it's problems.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of Driftwood

Posted : 11 years, 3 months ago on 24 December 2012 04:20 (A review of Driftwood)

Driftwood is one of those films that I just wanted to hate from the start. I knew this would be another "classic uplifting film," and I was sure it was going to be disgracefully cheesy. Well, I was right; it's hammy to the core, and does little to change the basic "heartwarming" formula. But no matter how hard I tried, I was eventually pulled in by Driftwood's sweetness and pure innocence.

Recently orphaned nine year old, Jenny Hollingsworth (and her dog, Hollingsworth whom she named after herself) makes her way to a small town in Nevada that has been plagued by the Rocky Mountain Fever. A doctor named Steve Webster temporarily adopts Jenny until someone else can be found to keep her. Steve hopes to leave Jenny with his girlfriend, Susan Moore, but things get off to a bad start when Jenny says more things than she should. So while Jenny stays with Steve, everyone gets to know about Jenny and her curious antics.

If you expect Driftwood to be anything other than a corny, formulaic and helplessly sappy Hollywood picture, you would be absolutely foolish. The reason Driftwood works is because it mixes it's formula so well.

The likeable characters are a large part of why Driftwood is so enjoyable. Jenny, being a strange cross between Orphan Annie and Linus Van Pelt, is immediately endearing and is easy to like. Steve is caring and loving, and plays something of an underdog as he tries to convince the town of the need to vaccinate everybody from the understated Rocky Mountain Fever. Susan is a bit more bland as a character, having little personality. Still, she goes beyond acting merely as the love interest.

Still, the two standout characters (and actors) are Susan's aunt, Mathilda, and Murph, who helps take care of Jenny. Mathilda is cranky and hard to please, and Jenny's big mouth tends to get those around her in some sticky situations with Mathilda. Murph first seems like a grumpy old man, but we see his sweet side now and then under his crusty exterior.

All the characters are made even more likeable by excellent acting from Walter Brennan, Dean Jagger, Natalie Wood, Charlotte Greenwood and Ruth Warrick.

Dritfwood is just very steady and enjoyable cinema. The whole production is charming and pleasant, and hard to dislike. Still, anyone expecting anything other than the basic Hollywood "feel-good" formula will be sorely disappointed. Even when things get surprising grim and bleak looking, everything turns out hunky-dory in the end (and it's nicely wrapped up: no room for a sequel here, unlike modern film). Still, coming in with the right expectations, you should find Driftwood to be a sweet, brief and mild experience. It's no masterpiece, but boy is it adorable.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Posted : 11 years, 3 months ago on 16 December 2012 03:30 (A review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey)

Note: I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in the standard 2-D 24fps format, rather than the 3-D or 48fps format.

You've likely heard of the surprising critical reaction to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit. While the reviews have not been negative, they've been very mixed, and they're certainly not garnering the critical success of the first three films. If the mixed reaction from critics is keeping you from seeing The Hobbit, ignore what they say. The Hobbit tops all three of it's predecessors, and provides an engaging and entertaining experience for Tolkien fans and newcomers.

For those unfamiliar with the plot; here goes. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an adaption of the first 100 pages of J.R.R. Tolkien's book (The Hobbit). Bilbo Baggins, a peaceful and quiet Hobbit has his life changed forever when his house is unexpectedly visited by thirteen dwarves (named Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur) and Gandalf the wizard. Baggins is then taken on a journey to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from a dragon named Smaug.

Unlike most, I have not been particularly impressed by the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. I found it to be too slow, too often, and while I still found it recommendable as a whole, it was certainly a bit disappointing after all the hype. Perhaps that's why The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey appealed to me so much: Because my expectations were so low, making my positive opinion of the film a bit *cough* unexpected.

The Hobbit, even with the mixed critical reaction, will not be a hard sell to Tolkien fans. So it matters little whether I hated this film or absolutely adored it; if you enjoyed the previous three films, you'll likely see this one. It will be the Tolkien novices that need convincing.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle here, is the intimidating, neck-aching, bladder-testing 3 hour run time (not to mention commercials and advertisements which run for at least 20-30 minutes). This was also my biggest concern coming in. The original trilogy had more than it's share of slow moments. And one of the critic's biggest complaints about The Hobbit (outside of, perhaps, the 48fps format) is the slowness of the film.

This is surprising to me, as I found The Hobbit to be a very lively experience. The Hobbit does, however, have a few slow bits here and there, but I found The Hobbit to be infinitely faster paced than it's predecessors. The Hobbit does have a lot of padding to it, though. Of course, one would expect this from a film of 3 hours in length adapting only 100 pages of material. But the padding, surprisingly, never really feels like padding. It feels quite natural and fits with the story. The 3 hour run time is still a bit testing (I admit to looking at my watch on several occasions), but this does not make The Hobbit any less engaging.

The tone of The Hobbit, is lighter than of that of the previous films. It's still a relatively dark film, but compared to the previous Lord of the Rings trilogy, it's a bit more light-hearted. As a result, it's also more humorous (don't go expecting belly-laughs though).

And, as one would expect, The Hobbit is visually incredible. Creatures and environment are beautiful, and the cinematography is impeccable, all of which easily tops anything seen previously in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Some fantasy fans that don't have the money to spend right now (or those that are worried by the mixed reviews) will certainly want to wait until The Hobbit comes out on DVD, but I would not recommend this. The visuals are simply outstanding, and you would be doing yourself a favor to see it all on the big screen.

Still, The Hobbit still is missing some key elements from the original trilogy. The characters, for instance, are not nearly as memorable or as loveable as those of the original. Frodo (who actually does appear briefly at the beginning), Sam, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, and the rest are sorely missed. And while some of the characters still remain (such as Gandalf and Gollum among a few others), a majority of the original ensemble is gone. This is a return to middle-earth but not to the original characters.

Still, the new faces hold up relatively well, and while not all thirteen dwarves are quite distinctive, they hold their own much better than one may have anticipated. Of course, a lot of the character's charm comes from the actors behind all the makeup and CGI.

Ian McKellen is as strong as ever as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman does a standout performance as Bilbo Baggins (honestly, he deserves some award recognition, but he's unlikely to get any). Sylvester McCoy has a memorable part as Radagast the Brown, and Richard Armitage as Thorin (the most distinctive of the dwarves) also performs well. And of course, Andy Serkis steals the show as Gollum. Gollum was arguably the best part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that remains true here. It's a shame we don't see him until 2 hours in, though.

The score by Howard Shore is excellent. Familiar and beloved themes return, most notably Concerning Hobbits, and the theme for the ring. The score is perfectly cohesive with the film, and should delight those that enjoyed Shore's work on the other three Lord of the Ring films. If there is a complaint regarding the score, it's the familiarity that so much of Shore's work possesses. At times, it sounds extremely similar to Shore's score for Hugo. At other times, it sounds oddly like John William's score for The Adventures of Tintin.

While the extensive length and weaker characters may be an issue, The Hobbit is still a rousing, entertaining, and visually wonderful film. Fans of the book and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy will find a lot to love. Still, it will be interesting to see if Peter Jackson will be able to squeeze 6 more hours out of only 150 more pages of the book. Seeing the job he did here with The Hobbit, I'm not too concerned.


0 comments, Reply to this entry