The Pixar Story

In a Nutshell: Excellent Pixar documentary. If you are a Pixar fan at all, you should see it.

Quick Plot: The story of how Pixar came to be. This is not about their technical achievements or software design, but about the people who make Pixar the company we love.

In Detail: Just excellent. I cannot say enough good things about this documentary. I have been a fan of Pixar since *before* Toy Story. We saw most of Pixar's shorts on VHS in high school (1993 or 1994) because one of my teachers knew someone who knew someone at Berkley, if I recall the story correctly. Then came Toy Story, truly one of the most amazing things I ever saw at the theater, both in terms of technical achievement and in terms of pure story. Pixar does amazing things, but what makes the company continue to be amazing is its people. Those people are at the heart of this documentary. See them in their natural habitat, see them when they were young and naive, see them as they are today. And never cease to be amazed at what they have achieved, and what they have overcome to achieve it. (A little bit of trivia for you: the writer and director of this documentary, Leslie Iwerks, is the granddaughter of an old friend of Walt Disney and the first ever Disney employee, after Walt himself. His name is Ub Iwerks. Amazing man; you should do some research on him if you are a Disney or animation buff.)

Will I Buy It? I'm seriously thinking I will. To put that into perspective, I only own two other documentaries, both of them about Titanic.

The Bourne Ultimatum

In a Nutshell: Not a whole lot of plot, but it more than makes up for it with excellent suspense. One of the best nail-biters I've seen in a while.

Quick Plot: Jason Bourne is tired of living on the run with no memory. He wants to know who he really is, and he wants to be left alone.

In Detail: That pretty much covers it. Not a whole lot of plot to speak of, but that's okay. I don't mind if a film doesn't have a long detailed plot as long as it does well with what it has. On this front, the film does quite well. More Joan Allen (good), more Julia Stiles (good), and adding David Strathairn (good). And they really did build the suspense from one scene to the next. They would build it up and let it down, but not quite all the way down, then build it back up again. We really enjoyed it. Just sit back and let it roll; don't think too hard.

Will I Buy It? Don't know. I don't even know if we own the first one. It was good, I'm just not sure if we'd watch it over and over (besides, my parents own it, so we could borrow it if need be).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

In a Nutshell: Disappointing. Not terrible, just not as good as Raiders or Crusade. Perhaps on par with Doom; better in some ways and not as good in others.

Quick Plot: A Soviet KGB agent seeks an ancient crystal skull, reported to have mind control powers. Indy must stop her, both to restore his reputation and to help a kidnapped friend.

In Detail: I honestly don't know what to say about this movie. It just felt... off. It was very strange. Most of the things that critics/reviewers liked about it were the parts I didn't care for, and most of the things that they thought were done poorly were the more enjoyable/important parts for me. The opening sequence, in particular, seemed almost to be a caricature of Indiana Jones movies, as though we weren't really supposed to believe what was going on. Some of that is fine, realizing that Indy can't do what he used to do with his added years (and mileage). It also broke a cardinal rule for me with this kind of "willing suspension of disbelief" film; if you establish the rules of your world as functioning in a particular manner, then you have to stick with your own rules! (Magnetism, for those who have seen it. That's all I'll say here.) Very unusual for Spielberg. To me, the film improved in the realm of believability after this segment, at least somewhat. Despite that, no one in the film seemed to really believe what they were saying, at least not most of the time, particularly on the looped segments (looping is when dialog has to be re-recorded after the scene has been filmed, usually due to excessive background noise of some sort; think dubbing). It did have its moments, don't get me wrong. Some scenes were done very well, and I thought they did an excellent job of lending some weight and importance to Indy's activities since we last saw him. But the pieces of this movie just didn't seem to mesh as well as in previous films. To address the two other primary concerns I have heard from many people: 1) I had no problem with the CG effects in the movie, so don't worry too much about what you have seen in the previews. I was fine with what they did, generally speaking. And 2) yes, Cate Blanchett is a one-sided character, but she is meant to be, much like the high priest in Doom. Given that, she does it well. Just don't expect a deep and multi-layered performance; it was never intended that way.

Will I Buy It? Probably, but more because we feel compelled to than because we liked the movie. ::heavy sigh::

Premonition

In a Nutshell: Wow, not at all where I thought that movie was going to go. It was one of those strange movies where I thought it was quite good, but I'm not sure if I liked it.

Quick Plot: A wife and mother lives the days before and after her husband's fatal accident out of order. Can her foreknowledge of his death help her prevent it?

In Detail: This really did not turn out to be the movie I was expecting. From the previews, I thought they were going one way with it, and it didn't turn out that way at all. More like a chick-flick thriller, if you can imagine such a thing. Not in a bad way. I like chick flicks! And it certainly kept me guessing. My best friend and I went to see it while she was visiting, and about half-way through, I leaned over to her and said "my brain hurts!" She just nodded in agreement, LOL. I spent much of the movie going, "okay, but wait...." Lots going on, lots to keep track of, if you like that kind of thing. I still have one little issue that I can't quite make fit, but I'll live.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. Worth renting (we did the dollar theater, and it was definitely worth more than that) or catching on television, but don't go out of your way.

The DaVinci Code

In a Nutshell: Better than I was expecting (haven't read the book), but the reveal came *way* too early.

Quick Plot: Robert Langdon is drawn into a mystery full of symbols and danger, as a violent sect tries to destroy The Holy Grail.

In Detail: I had something here about the politics of this whole thing, but I deleted it. I'll just leave it at this: this is a work of fiction, both the film and the book. A well researched one putting forth an intriguing theory, I'll admit. Kind of like the one about men never really landing on the moon and all the footage being faked. Believe it, don't believe it, it doesn't matter. You have to decide for yourself. Okay? Now then, where were we? Ah, yes.

I found this quite an enjoyable movie. Must more a suspense film than a mystery film, which surprised me. And it stars Alfred Molina, which long-time readers of these musings know is a huge plus in my book! Ian McKellen is his usual grandiose and glorious self. I still think Tom Hanks was not the best choice for Langdon, but he managed better than I thought. You see, The DaVinci Code (which I have not read yet) is the *second* Robert Langdon novel. The first, which I have read, is Angels & Demons, and I loved it! So I was familiar with the character already. (BTW, everyone I know who has read both novels prefers A&D to Code.) He did a decent job here. The female lead was just sort-of there. Didn't love her, didn't hate her. But to be the female lead, I think she should have been a little more... engaging? Oh well. But as I said at the beginning, my biggest bone to pick with this movie is the reveal. I thought the whole thing was given away much much too early, though for once, DH didn't pick up on it. (Strange. He usually gets it before I do. He had The Sixth Sense figured out by the time Willis and Osment first met!) He did have it figured out by the end, but I felt like they had out and out *told* you much earlier than that. Took much of the tension out of the rest of the movie, but it was still a fun ride.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. Probably not, though I said that about National Treasure, I think, and ended up watching it so much on television that we now own it and watch it frequently. Guess we'll have to play wait and see on this one. I still say probably not, though.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

In a Nutshell: Disappointing. I am very unhappy with this film overall. If I could have Pirates 1 and 2, and just forget 3, I would (but that would make the end of Pirates 2 rather bothersome, no?).

Quick Plot: Too much plot for its own good! One of my many complaints. Will looks to free his father from Davy Jones. Will and Elizabeth can't quite get it together. The crew tries to retrieve Jack Sparrow (excuse me, *Captain* Sparrow) from Davy Jones' Locker with the help of a Chinese map and an old friend. And Beckett seeks to destroy all the pirate brethren and bring order to the high seas. And I left out a ton of sub-plots. See, too much!

In Detail: There really isn't much detail I can give without spoiling a whole bunch of the movie. Truly not much I feel I can share. I am just very unhappy with this movie overall. The best part of the whole film should not be a glorified cameo. It was too long and too hard to keep track of who was doing what where and when. There was too much that I feel was brought in out of the blue that should have at least been somewhat incorporated or hinted at in 2; there were a lot of "where the heck did that come from?" moments for me. And there were way too many things that were meaningless. Things they made a big deal out of that turned out to be nothing (or were ultimately ignored), and my largest irritant: meaningless death(s). You want to kill that person(s), fine, but they deserve better than the death(s) they got. It was like the writers painted themselves into a corner, and instead of working out something smart and surprising, they just said "okay, we're done with you, off with your head" (figuratively speaking, of course). And the big moment near the end totally irritated me, but not for the reason you think (has nothing to do with wanting the obvious, it is the lack of choice; was that vague enough, or so vague it made no sense?).

But I will say this for both the movie and the franchise. I've talked about it before, but I have to say it again. It is rare that I see a film that causes me to sit stunned in the theater with my mouth hanging open in shock. In the POTC franchise, that has happened to me not once, not twice, but THREE times!! Once per film, in fact. Now *that* is saying something. Not sure what it's saying exactly, but given that it is a rare occurrence, for the filmmakers to make me do that three times in three movies, that's impressive.

For those who want my spoiler-iffic list of grievances (it's long, I warn you, even by my standards), please feel free to email me, and I'll send it out to you. Please note that it is not in "official" musing form. It is really just a long rambling email to my best bud and my brother, so it isn't necessarily logical and coherent. Anyway, if you're interested, I'll send it to you. But only if you ask, and please, I beg you, only if you have already seen the movie. Oh, and if you missed the coda at the end after the credits (did you know each of the three Pirates films has one?), I hear it is up on YouTube. Just FYI, since I know at least one person who missed it (hi, Kelli!).

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I'll have to see it again to decide. I can't imagine that we won't, just to have "the end" of Pirates 2, I guess. But on it's own merits, were it not part of a trilogy or if the other two could stand alone? No, I wouldn't buy it. (Yes, folks, it irritated me that much!)

Spider-Man 3

In a Nutshell: Quite good, definitely worth seeing. I liked it better than DH, who read the comics growing up. To him, Spidey 2 is far superior; I thought this one was only slightly less good.

Quick Plot: Peter is riding high on the public's love for Spider-Man, but his fame attracts unwanted attention from not one, but three villains, while simultaneously alienating the people he loves most.

In Detail: As I said, quite a good movie. Though packed with action, it was lacking in some originality that the first two had. They also moved a little more away from the "rules" they set for themselves in the first two films. I'm all good with willing suspension of disbelief, as long as you follow the rules that you lay down, and that was missing some here. Spider-Man is not invincible. He smashes into a wall, he's going to hurt and bleed and break something, not walk away with barely a scratch (no matter which suit he's wearing). And what happened to spider-sense? That seemed to be missing (yes, I know about Venom not triggering it in the comics, but Peter seemed not to have it at all in this film no matter who he is fighting).

I did like that the story was more personal, less about an outside foe and more about things happening close to home and heart. But I think they were trying too hard with Sandman. I actually could have done without that whole storyline. Given that the movie did have three villains, I think they juggled all of the various story lines admirably well. But in the end, it was just too much to handle. Just cut one (or two) and make another movie! I did love some other aspects of the movie, such as them finally getting to have some fun with each other on screen. It did add some unnecessary length to the film, but it was hilarious! There was another thing that I thought was excellent that I wish they had done more of, but I can't tell you because it would ruin a plot point. If you've seen it and you're dying to know, email me and I'll tell you. And I have to give credit to Topher Grace. This was not his usual role, and he clearly relished it!

As you may recall from my review of Spider-Man 2, I loved each of the piece-parts of the movie (villain, Peter and Harry, Peter and MJ, etc), but I thought the whole didn't quite work together as well as it should have. For Spider-Man 3, unlike most of the critics, I felt that the pieces worked and flowed much better here, though each of those pieces was generally not as good as Spider-Man 2. Weird, I know. It doesn't make sense to me either, but that's how it stands IMO. Definitely see it, though! Oh, and there's no coda at the end, so no reason to sit through all of the credits if you don't want.

Will I Buy It? Most likely, unless DH truly objects.

Chicken Little

In a Nutshell: Cute little movie, though it was a bit light on plot. Not nearly as bad as the critics lead me to believe. This is the first Disney movie I ever missed seeing in the theaters, and now I'm a bit sorry I did. Far from great, but also far from terrible.

Quick Plot: After an embarrassing incident claiming the sky was falling, Chicken Little is working to repair the damage to his reputation and his relationship with his father. Just as he begins to make headway winning respect and affection, history repeats itself as a piece of the sky falls into his life.

In Detail: I was looking for something very light to watch one evening last week, and this definitely fit the bill. In fact, it was almost too light. It was as though they stretched each scene by 10-20% to make a full length feature. Some song filler is fine, but it does not make a whole film. The stuff they had was good stuff! I just wish they had expanded on it a bit. There were also some great zingers in there just for the adults that will be lost on the kidos. The beginning of the film is the best part, especially for those folks readily familiar with the full body of Disney feature animation. Too funny! I bet it was amazing in 3-D! (My brother says it was.) Worth seeing or renting, especially for children.

Will I Buy It? Don't know. In our pre-child days, I don't think I would have bought it just for DH and me. I might let my son see it on TV to see if he likes it before deciding. Goodness knows, we could use some new films for him to watch over and over (and over and over and....).

Addendum: We did finally buy this movie, and at least for age 3-4, it is one of our son's favorite movies! It has grown on us a lot, too.

The Bridge

In a Nutshell: I stumbled on this one late night on IFC (dangerous, I know; that is the Independent Film Channel, for those unfamiliar), just moments after it started. It really was like an accident, you just can't not look once you start watching. Very powerful, and very unsettling.

Quick Plot: Taken directly from IMDb, because I couldn't have said it better. "This is a documentary exploration of the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge during daylight hours from two separate locations for all of 2004, recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recount in sorrowful detail stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness."

In Detail: I really wasn't sure I wanted to watch this. In fact, I'm still not. I thought it was going to be awful, and it was very emotional, but it was also fascinating. Listening to how differently each person felt about what had happened to the person they knew; it was an amazing study of human nature, grieving, family, and friendship. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well. I'm not sure I can. And I absolutely cannot recommend this film to everyone. You have to decide if it is something you think you can handle; I know not everyone can. I won't lie, it is hard to watch. But I'm not sorry I did, and it is one of those things that has stuck with me far more than I thought it would. Very haunting.

Will I Buy It? No. I don't care to see it again.

Next

In a Nutshell: A good no-brainer type film. I like Nic Cage in this type of roll, I like Julianne Moore, and it is based on a Phillip K. Dick story. Makes you think a little, but don't think too much or you won't have any fun!

Quick Plot: Cris Johnson can see about 2 minutes into the future, and the government is "requesting" his help in finding a nuclear bomb that has been smuggled onto US soil. Cris is only interested in finding "her," the only thing he has been able to see farther away than 2 minutes.

In Detail: A nice popcorn flick, mostly forgettable after you walk out of the theater. Still, it was a perfectly pleasant diversion for an afternoon after the spring drought at the movies. Certainly was the most promising thing out at the time! And we really did enjoy it. Just don't over-think it. The plot holes are huge, and even the logic starts to unravel if you try and use your brain too much. Just hop on and enjoy the ride. Nicolas Cage excels at these straight but slightly off-beat characters, and Julianne Moore is her usual serious but excellent self (but if she's going to continue being in action movies, the woman has *got* to learn how to run! LOL). For Jessica Biel, who has recently stated that she wants to be taken more seriously in Hollywood, this is a step in the right direction (certainly better than "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"!), but she needs rolls with more meat and less, er, flesh (no, no nudity, just a lot of looking at her and not much doing on her part).

Will I Buy It? Probably not. We have other movies of this type (including others by Phillip K. Dick) that we prefer. This was not a stand out in any aspect. Worth catching on television or DVD, but don't go out of your way.