"Disney's Brave" G
The producers of Up return with a story set in the universe of medieval Scotland, where a fire haired headstrong princess decides she is not suited to marry a man, but should instead change her destiny. The trailer tagline has an interesting voice oddity when she says, 'If you can change yer fate, would yee, but Yee is old English for The, (...would the...doesn't make sense) so what she should have said was 'would'ja' or yeh'. The movie though reminds one of Beowulf and Tame Your Dragon, and this is at times annoying, however for the most part the affect of Mariam's quest is fun and colorful. Some intense scenes with the transfigured bears likely will startled young children. The film plot if 'Frog Prince' meets 'Brother Bear' meets 'Cinderella', except the mother isn't evil, just really demanding, because she is the queen. The gigantic father, the king, comes off as a Beowulf king archetype, and the guy from the dragon movie, but Meriam is completely different from those. The queen demands that her daughter be betrothed according to tradition, after a contest of strength, but the princess bests her suitors and refuses. The queen is livid and yells at her, causing her to run off into the woods, where she meets a woodcarver lady who is also a witch, and is given a spell when can change her mother's mind, only it does a whole lot more, as it literally turns her into a bear. This makes her look like the local marauding bear, and there is a great series of mishaps with armies from the land of clans around the kingdom as the suitors came with their kings to the castle and stayed. All of it takes place over a mere 48 hours. The cartoon is Pixar animation and done with that sort of 3d style Americanized animae big heads and big eyes, and visually it is quite lovely. The story at times is just a series of running gags, like Tangled was (which also had a headstrong princess), but this is a bit more free verse. The animators play with all manner of gags and even an occasional nude joke, which was odd, and there is at least one mooning joke, which was even stranger, and seemed to belong in something like Madagascar, not this one, but oh well. Good movie.
It's a good thing this is set in medieval times because before that the idea of fate and destiny did not come into play in ancient Scotland.
Review by Adam Browne
(Note: The Mattel dolls in stores look nothing like her. The Disney store ones are more show accurate).
Friday, June 29, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Review: "Tree of Life" is a bad trip through a life
"Tree of Life" PG-13
Terrence Mallick's trippy 1950s saga of a family that goes through very ordinary things and has very quiet lives was lorded over by critics to the point that it almost got Oscars. The story seems to focus on a man in contemporary times, Sean Penn, having a crisis where he reflects back to his chilhood in Texas with his brothers, his working stiff stuffy Dad and his nature enthusiast Mother. The middle brother eventually goes to Vietnam and dies in battle. The youngest brother is still living. Many friends of the family die over the years. The boys when they were teenagers discovered girls and how to break into a house, and other ways to get into trouble. One of the neighbor kids has a brain operation or something, as is evident by his half shaved head. Another drowns. This is Oscar bait, if it were acted with some semblance of timing, pacing or linear thought. But oh, it's Mallick! He did Thin Red Line! Oh, not this guy. Although critics loved it, and the haters were likely not so learned in existential movies, the reception seemed one sided. I don't mind trippy movies like 2001 and Solaris (with this reminding me of Solaris), but really this director is in love with his pretty images of not only this Texas family, but the beginning of everything through to the end, the red giant statge of the Sun and it turning into a white dwarf. Really! This movie was trying to be everything. All it needed to be was a nice little preachy family channel special about 90 minutes long, at most, about this family, and it would have won best picture. that is if they redubbed the freakishly quiet sound of each actor through most of it, because Oscar's old fogies love this stuff. Why was it so quiet? Half the time, Brad Pitt (the Dad) is mumbling. Sean Penn (the older son) does anyway. So I did understand it. Getting it was not an issue. I just didn't think it made a lick of sense most of the time to keep cutting to imagery that was so disconnected. None of them are in space, involved in astronomy, or science people, so why cut to vistas of exploding galaxies and suns? The heaven part was interesting but isthe guy that goes to heaven just dreaming? Is he imagining the movie while contemplating a leap off the Chicago bridge in the other scene? Probably he isn't. He is just dreaming. So is life a dream? Was this movie a nightmare? Well it was vaguely entertaining, except for some visual pretty stuff, and some mumbling and yelling on occasion and boys, and it was not a horrible movie. It just didn't make sense. It was like ten movies rolled into one. I can see what the Academy fogies were thinking though. They likely fell asleep and dreamed it was a better movie. And yes, I do like action films better. So what? I also liked Terms of Endearment and Solaris. I like trippy movies. This one however needed some work, or to never have happened. It's not the worst best picture nom I've ever seen. That probably goes to Gangs of New York (which was at least unintentionally funny), or possibly to There Will Be Blood. Ha. Tree of Life is also not the same movie as the 2005 version that I have not reviewed.
Review by Adam Browne
Terrence Mallick's trippy 1950s saga of a family that goes through very ordinary things and has very quiet lives was lorded over by critics to the point that it almost got Oscars. The story seems to focus on a man in contemporary times, Sean Penn, having a crisis where he reflects back to his chilhood in Texas with his brothers, his working stiff stuffy Dad and his nature enthusiast Mother. The middle brother eventually goes to Vietnam and dies in battle. The youngest brother is still living. Many friends of the family die over the years. The boys when they were teenagers discovered girls and how to break into a house, and other ways to get into trouble. One of the neighbor kids has a brain operation or something, as is evident by his half shaved head. Another drowns. This is Oscar bait, if it were acted with some semblance of timing, pacing or linear thought. But oh, it's Mallick! He did Thin Red Line! Oh, not this guy. Although critics loved it, and the haters were likely not so learned in existential movies, the reception seemed one sided. I don't mind trippy movies like 2001 and Solaris (with this reminding me of Solaris), but really this director is in love with his pretty images of not only this Texas family, but the beginning of everything through to the end, the red giant statge of the Sun and it turning into a white dwarf. Really! This movie was trying to be everything. All it needed to be was a nice little preachy family channel special about 90 minutes long, at most, about this family, and it would have won best picture. that is if they redubbed the freakishly quiet sound of each actor through most of it, because Oscar's old fogies love this stuff. Why was it so quiet? Half the time, Brad Pitt (the Dad) is mumbling. Sean Penn (the older son) does anyway. So I did understand it. Getting it was not an issue. I just didn't think it made a lick of sense most of the time to keep cutting to imagery that was so disconnected. None of them are in space, involved in astronomy, or science people, so why cut to vistas of exploding galaxies and suns? The heaven part was interesting but isthe guy that goes to heaven just dreaming? Is he imagining the movie while contemplating a leap off the Chicago bridge in the other scene? Probably he isn't. He is just dreaming. So is life a dream? Was this movie a nightmare? Well it was vaguely entertaining, except for some visual pretty stuff, and some mumbling and yelling on occasion and boys, and it was not a horrible movie. It just didn't make sense. It was like ten movies rolled into one. I can see what the Academy fogies were thinking though. They likely fell asleep and dreamed it was a better movie. And yes, I do like action films better. So what? I also liked Terms of Endearment and Solaris. I like trippy movies. This one however needed some work, or to never have happened. It's not the worst best picture nom I've ever seen. That probably goes to Gangs of New York (which was at least unintentionally funny), or possibly to There Will Be Blood. Ha. Tree of Life is also not the same movie as the 2005 version that I have not reviewed.
Review by Adam Browne
Monday, June 11, 2012
Review: "Prometheus" needs not to answer why
"Prometheus" R
Ridley Scott returns to the Alien universe in this science fiction thriller, which takes it on like a reboot without getting bogged down with the thing too much. It has all the right elements and pushes the buttons that would please most science fiction and horror fans and visually is quite striking and wondrous. Despite the premise of it trying to explain the origins of humanity, it is not about to, as one writer is Lindoff from Lost, and everyone knows how that went. The story opens on some planet in the past where a strange humanoid alien drinks a cup of goo and is turned into mulch that fertilizes the planet. Cut to the future, only about 70 years from now, when apparently star travel has been perfected, and a team of archeologists has found a map leading them to the LV system. A ship is built by mega corporation Weland, and it is sent to the barren system, possibly Zeta II Reticuli from the Alien movie. They never do explain the LV, but note the planet in Alien was LV426, and this is LV423. (Either they forgot or they are implying that the two planets are moons of that ringed planet from Alien). The ship, the Prometheus, lands on the planet with a kind of half baked crew, led by a stone cold Charlice Theron, (who could be a Replicant from Blade Runner, ha), and one of the scientists is the actress who played in the original Denmark version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The robot is named David, which is both poetic and ironic, and he is kind of nuts. Some Alien fans objected to the crew being kind of inept, but note that they were privateers. In the opening scenes they indicate they've come because they are seeking possible treasure or glory, so it's not like they need to be model astronauts. What they find on the moon is a strange installation where some giant aliens, (not Zentreadi, ha), have left behind some of their cache of stuff, and the humans being curious break into it, resulting in some reawakened primordial X Files like black goo shape shifters (but not like in Carpenter's The Thing). The Space Jockey pilot is discovered in a rather dead state, but something is alive down there, and it's mean. Now Alien was more haunted house in space, and this is haunted spooky pyramid and other spooky things. Is it a masterpiece? Well everything Ridley Scott did works, but you can tell that some of the other writers had no idea what they were doing. Still it was a very good movie. It's not a great movie. Also there is a truly disgusting scene involving a medical pod which makes the chest buster scene from Alien look like a routine gut ache. It all leaves some unanswered questions but to expect a science fiction thriller like this to actually answer 'why are we here?' is expecting too much. Once you reveal the wizard where can you go? You don't want to do Star Trek V and having some floating God alien. It would have been ludicrous if they actually had that. Glad they didn't.
Review by Adam Browne
Ridley Scott returns to the Alien universe in this science fiction thriller, which takes it on like a reboot without getting bogged down with the thing too much. It has all the right elements and pushes the buttons that would please most science fiction and horror fans and visually is quite striking and wondrous. Despite the premise of it trying to explain the origins of humanity, it is not about to, as one writer is Lindoff from Lost, and everyone knows how that went. The story opens on some planet in the past where a strange humanoid alien drinks a cup of goo and is turned into mulch that fertilizes the planet. Cut to the future, only about 70 years from now, when apparently star travel has been perfected, and a team of archeologists has found a map leading them to the LV system. A ship is built by mega corporation Weland, and it is sent to the barren system, possibly Zeta II Reticuli from the Alien movie. They never do explain the LV, but note the planet in Alien was LV426, and this is LV423. (Either they forgot or they are implying that the two planets are moons of that ringed planet from Alien). The ship, the Prometheus, lands on the planet with a kind of half baked crew, led by a stone cold Charlice Theron, (who could be a Replicant from Blade Runner, ha), and one of the scientists is the actress who played in the original Denmark version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The robot is named David, which is both poetic and ironic, and he is kind of nuts. Some Alien fans objected to the crew being kind of inept, but note that they were privateers. In the opening scenes they indicate they've come because they are seeking possible treasure or glory, so it's not like they need to be model astronauts. What they find on the moon is a strange installation where some giant aliens, (not Zentreadi, ha), have left behind some of their cache of stuff, and the humans being curious break into it, resulting in some reawakened primordial X Files like black goo shape shifters (but not like in Carpenter's The Thing). The Space Jockey pilot is discovered in a rather dead state, but something is alive down there, and it's mean. Now Alien was more haunted house in space, and this is haunted spooky pyramid and other spooky things. Is it a masterpiece? Well everything Ridley Scott did works, but you can tell that some of the other writers had no idea what they were doing. Still it was a very good movie. It's not a great movie. Also there is a truly disgusting scene involving a medical pod which makes the chest buster scene from Alien look like a routine gut ache. It all leaves some unanswered questions but to expect a science fiction thriller like this to actually answer 'why are we here?' is expecting too much. Once you reveal the wizard where can you go? You don't want to do Star Trek V and having some floating God alien. It would have been ludicrous if they actually had that. Glad they didn't.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, June 1, 2012
Review: "War Horse" is formula Spieberg and trots along
"War Horse" PG 13
The years of World War I are told through the exploits of a spry horse named Joey who at first is adopted into an English family and then goes on to become a war horse, and is captured by the Germans for a time, and then escapes to be found by a family, and then other things happen to the horse building up to the finale. Sea-biscuit goes to war or black stallion's friend goes to war, as this Oscar bait movie goes. The camerawork and special effects are excellent as usual for the 'war epics' Spielberg does, however it is lacking in the heart department. Sure there are wrenching moments but with stuff blowing up and long stretches of countryside and dialog, it becomes mundane, like most of the middle of the better Saving Private Ryan. (Yes, different war). The accents are so oddly placed that you kind of get lost in what they're saying, so the emotion of the moment is kind of lost. Sure it's accurate (except for the Germans sounding English) but it's not Spielberg's best. It seems based on a 1982 book of the same name. (Not reviewed). You do feel for the horse when it gets trapped in some barbed wire, but then the moment is lost when the trench soldiers crack jokes and toss each other clippers. Yeah. Then along comes the rather incredible coincidence that brings the horse and his former master together again, using bombastic John Williams score to force the audience to feel sympathy. And what's with the sepia toned sunset (it's at the end)? It goes on so long you're like, you can't tell what's happening or see the people clearly. This time it doesn't work though. So it's not a bad rental, it just could have been better.
The years of World War I are told through the exploits of a spry horse named Joey who at first is adopted into an English family and then goes on to become a war horse, and is captured by the Germans for a time, and then escapes to be found by a family, and then other things happen to the horse building up to the finale. Sea-biscuit goes to war or black stallion's friend goes to war, as this Oscar bait movie goes. The camerawork and special effects are excellent as usual for the 'war epics' Spielberg does, however it is lacking in the heart department. Sure there are wrenching moments but with stuff blowing up and long stretches of countryside and dialog, it becomes mundane, like most of the middle of the better Saving Private Ryan. (Yes, different war). The accents are so oddly placed that you kind of get lost in what they're saying, so the emotion of the moment is kind of lost. Sure it's accurate (except for the Germans sounding English) but it's not Spielberg's best. It seems based on a 1982 book of the same name. (Not reviewed). You do feel for the horse when it gets trapped in some barbed wire, but then the moment is lost when the trench soldiers crack jokes and toss each other clippers. Yeah. Then along comes the rather incredible coincidence that brings the horse and his former master together again, using bombastic John Williams score to force the audience to feel sympathy. And what's with the sepia toned sunset (it's at the end)? It goes on so long you're like, you can't tell what's happening or see the people clearly. This time it doesn't work though. So it's not a bad rental, it just could have been better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)