Friday, January 16, 2004

Big Fish

In a Nutshell: Wow. I was so surprised by this movie. I was just expecting it to be okay, and it was exceptional! And I don't even *like* Tim Burton! Just go see it.

Quick Plot: A son tries to reconnect with his sick father, after years of having to tolerate Dad's "big fish" stories.

In Detail: Just wow. This is truly one of the best movies I have seen in quite some time. I wasn't even going to see it; I really don't like Tim Burton films. But my brother convinced me that it wasn't a typical Tim Burton (like Edward Scissorhands ::shudder::), and that he really thought I'd like it. And he was so right! Thanks little bro. This movie was fun and funny and fantastical and fulfilling all at the same time (and no, I didn't try to get all those words in there, it just worked out that way). Yes, it's a little strange, but in a good way, and it actually makes sense within the context of the film. It is also very moving; if you're a crier, take tissue (I only had one or two tears, but there was lots of sniffling and a couple of borderline sobs in the theater). Just a great great film. I'm trying not to say too much about it, because I don't want to ruin anything. Just see it, you won't be sorry.

Will I Buy It? Most likely.

Peter Pan (2003)

In a Nutshell: Well, I liked it, but I also understand why it is not doing well at all. To borrow from my husband, "it's too childish for adults and too adult for children." (He's going to start charging me for those, or at least requiring co-writing credits.) By attempting to do both, it doesn't fully please either group. What a shame.

Quick Plot: Does anyone really not know this story by now? Oh, okay. The time has come for young Wendy to "grow up" and leave the nursery. But she doesn't want to; she wants to stay a teller and believer of stories to her siblings forever. And when the star of her many adventures, Peter Pan, comes to take her away to Neverland, where she will never have to grow up, she jumps at the chance, but comes to learn of the things she'll miss by staying a child forever.

In Detail: I really did like this movie. It was genuine and heartfelt, and beautiful to watch. But, let me reiterate: it's too childish for adults, and too adult for children. If they had gone fully in the adult direction, it would have been truly fantastic (well, to me), but how do you market Peter Pan to adults? It's almost impossible. As it is, they tried to please both groups, and instead, I think both groups leave unsatisfied. But personally, I really liked it, and I thought it was good to very good. The parrot was just, I don't know, creepy, and I hated Tinkerbell. But the interactions between Peter and Wendy were fabulous. Totally reminded me of what it's like to have a crush when you're 10 years old. Sensual, yet still innocent, without being sexual. Lots of parents are saying that the film is too sensual, but I think it rides that very fine line perfectly.

I'm about to jump into the deep end here (something I generally try to avoid, especially here), but hang with me, okay? The whole story has always been a metaphor for sexual awakening anyway, whether parents wanted to believe that or not (thank you Disney). If you go to Neverland, not only do you never grow up, you never mature, in all forms, not just getting a boring job or "acting proper" or whatever. By not staying, Wendy accepts her move from "the nursery" into the adult world, along with all that implies. And yes, I'm sure it is uncomfortable for parents to watch two pre-teens kiss (I'll let you know after I have my own kids), but it is very chaste and age-appropriate, and pre-teens *do* kiss, pretty much just like that in most cases (don't freak out, Mom and Dad, I was not one who experienced it personally). I found it to be very beautiful and moving, both the kiss and the film itself (well, once you got past some of the slapstick parts). And let me tell you, the boy who plays Peter is every 10-year-old-girl's dream! Such a cutie-pie. ::sigh:: Oh to be that young again.... Anyway, definitely worth seeing, though quite a bit more violent and eerie than I expected. Our theater even had it marked as PG-13 (though technically rated PG by the MPAA), and I'm not so sure I disagree. It's certainly borderline, so keep that in mind before showing it to very young viewers. Will do fine in the theater or as a rental.

Will I Buy It? I'm definitely considering it.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

Home on the Range

In a Nutshell: Don't bother, unless you are desperate for a film you can see with your children. Extremely disappointing.

Quick Plot: Three cows try to save their farm from foreclosure by capturing an outlaw and collecting the bounty.

In Detail: ::just shakes her head:: Most of you know that I am a *huge* Disney fan. So what does it tell you when I have no idea what to say about this movie beyond disappointing. I was not engaged in the story at all, and I was not impressed with the music (though the singing itself was pretty good). It really just started and stopped. I didn't understand much of the motivation of the characters, and most peculiar for a Disney film, I found many of the characters miscast voice-wise. It was just a very surreal experience to leave any Disney movie so disappointed. Rent it if you have to, but otherwise don't even bother. This is definitely the final nail in the coffin (for a while, at least) for Disney "hand-drawn" animation. ::sigh::

Will I Buy It? I sincerely don't know. I'm not even sure it's worth it for the continuity of my Disney collection. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of this film. :(

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

In a Nutshell: Very good. Not quite as good as Fellowship, but infinitely better than Towers. Certainly didn't feel like 3.5 hours, that's for sure.

Quick Plot: Do you really need one? Frodo and Sam are off to destroy the ring, Aragorn must lead the race of men to victory over the Orcs and the forces of Sauron.

In Detail: Quite good, if a little confusing for non-readers (like myself; no stone-throwing, please, I'll get to it one day). I have some serious timeline issues with how it all works out, but it does work out, in some highly unexpected ways. I think the absolute best compliment I can give is that it sure didn't feel like it was 3.5 hours long. It held my interest, it rarely slowed to the point of checking a watch (which I did twice, I think), and there is really no good place to go to the restroom, so don't drink *anything* before going to see it.

Will I Buy It? Yep.

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Down With Love

In a Nutshell: Visually wonderful, fairly cute story. Fairly good, I'd say.

Quick Plot: Barbara Novak has written a book, teaching women to be like men in the bedroom department (all fun, no emotional commitment). Catcher Block (ladies man, man's man, man about town) is a journalist determined to make the scoop of the year by proving that Ms. Novak needs love, too, by making her fall for him.

In Detail: This movie was quite fun. It starts off rather slow, and it is by no means a great movie, but if you love the classic "pillow talk" type films, you'll find this one quite entertaining. It is visually stunning, but I love the classic 50s/60s style to begin with. So fun! Both Ewan McGregor and Renee Zelweger can deliver those wonderfully corny lines with enough tongue in cheek (pun intended) to pull them off. Both the dialog and the pace of the film picks up 30-45 minutes through, with one amazing soliloquy by Renee near the end. Worth seeing if you like the old Doris Day films. It is quite over the top in many places (similar to Soapdish in some ways), but it is intended to be, so just take it with a grain of salt.

Will I Buy It? I can't decide. It was a lot of fun, but I didn't love it. I would probably buy it if I found it for a good price, perhaps previewed.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

In a Nutshell: Boring! Some good acting, but not enough plot to make me care.

Quick Plot: Captain Aubrey is on the hunt for a French vessel that has managed to corner him twice, barely escaping each time. All hands hope the third time's the charm as they go after the French ship again.

In Detail: There is really no detail to give. It's like a study of what sailing/the British Navy was like back then. It has some nice moments, and some really fine acting, but there was virtually no story. I found it very boring, and so did my husband (so it's not just that it was a "guy movie"; I tend to like "guy movies" anyway, but not this one). Rent it if you feel you must see it, but otherwise, don't bother.

Will I Buy It? No.

Monday, November 10, 2003

The Animatrix

In a Nutshell: Different. Interesting. Not sure I liked it, but worth seeing if you're a Matrix fan. NOT for children.

Quick Plot: Nine animated shorts, in all styles from virtually photo-realistic CG to almost static black and white graphics, that relate to the Matrix, sometimes via backstory, sometimes expanding on other concepts. An interesting experiment.

In Detail: Basically, the Wachowski Brothers had some "aside" type things relating to The Matrix and its story, so they gave the 8 stories (one is in two parts) to different people and said "here, animate this." As a fan of animation in general, it was truly fascinating to see the different styles. Each is as different from the other as night and day. Some styles I liked, some I didn't. Some stories I liked, some I didn't. But it was a very interesting experiment. It certainly does things to "expand the universe," so to speak, though I think I liked most of the backstory I had made up in my head better, so be prepared for that.

Will I Buy It? Probably not.

The Matrix Revolutions

In a Nutshell: It's a semi-good action flick. Expecting something deep, or some answers? Don't bother.

Quick Plot: Picks up exactly where the previous film left off, with Neo and Bane in comas and Zion under attack.

In Detail: When I walked out of the theater after seeing this film the first time, I had no idea what to say about it. Even my husband commented, "I don't envy you trying to write *that* up." After seeing it a second time, I am able to wrap some words around it, even if they are inadequate to express how I feel. The ultimate verdict: Extremely disappointing final chapter to what should have been an awesome trilogy. At this point, I would rather them have just left it with the original Matrix film. I wasn't overly impressed with Reloaded, except with the last few minutes. The conversation with The Architect truly saved it. I was hoping that Revolutions would continue with such a promising and wonderfully complex philosophy, and perhaps give us a few answers in the process. Instead, Revolutions seems to have dumped any depth it possibly could have had (except the train station scene with the Indian family) in favor of becoming a testosterone-driven action flick. How sad. And even then, it wasn't a very good one. Don't get me wrong, the Battle for Zion is *awesome.* There is no other word for it. Visually stunning, with plenty of action. But as an action film, the non-action parts flopped. So it was neither a good action film, nor a good Matrix film. It ignored too many of its own parameters and constructs to close the deal. I'm embarrassed to admit that, at this point, I liked Reloaded better, and I wasn't all that kind to it the first time around. (I saw it again on Saturday, and it's growing on me. Not sure if that's because it's growing on me, or if it's just better than Revolutions.) Did I just miss something? Perhaps my friend Kelli, the philosophy major, could shed some light, because I think the film is missing a whole heck of a lot! As long as you see it with the understanding that it's an action flick with a momentary lapse of insight and a good bit of other pointless stuff, you will probably like it better than I did.

I would like to say a quick word about seeing this film in IMAX format. WOW! The movie was still so-so, but when they talk about "the IMAX experience," they are not kidding. The clarity of the film is jaw-dropping. You could see the texture on the olive in a martini glass, for goodness sake. I was truly amazed. And I hadn't realized how astounding IMAX surround sound is. I caught myself looking over my shoulder occasionally, it was that believable. It was expensive ($11.50, compared to the usual $8.50, or $6.50 matinee), but ultimately worth it, I think. It was the first time I tried seeing a "standard" film converted to IMAX, and I was very pleased. Not something I would spend that kind of money on for every film, but for the special ones, definitely worth it!

Will I Buy It? Undecided. I can't be any more specific than that at this point.

Addendum: We have decided to pretend that only the first Matrix film exists, no others.

Monday, November 3, 2003

Brother Bear

In a Nutshell: I wanted to love it, but I didn't. Still good though.

Quick Plot: Kenai, an Inuit young man in search of vengeance for his brother, is transformed by the spirits into a bear so that he may "walk a mile in his enemy's shoes," so to speak, and Koda (an abandoned cub) tags along. But Kenai's other brother is also seeking vengeance, and assumes Bear-Kenai is the enemy.

In Detail: A beautiful film, to be sure, eh? The Aurora Borealis animation is fantastic. I especially liked the "Great Spirits" song segment, sung by Tina Turner. Beyond that, it was just, well, okay. I really wanted to love this film, and I didn't. Liked it, yes, but not love. Sadly, most of the best stuff, you've seen in the trailers. Beyond the stunning visuals (with extensive multi-plane camera use, yay!), the story is just a touch blah. Fine for kids, I think. Worth seeing, but perhaps with slightly lower expectations. If you like ending Kodas, I mean codas, stay through the credits.

Will I Buy It? Most likely. You know I'm a Disney nut!

Runaway Jury

In a Nutshell: It's a Grisham. Good, keeps your interest, not spectacular.

Quick Plot: A high profile case in New Orleans draws the top jury consultant in the nation to insure victory for the defense, but another party "owns" a jury member, and is willing to push the verdict either way, for a price.

In Detail: It was a Grisham, which means it is bound to be entertaining and tense. It also means that it is unlikely to be spectacular, and this wasn't. My two favorite Grisham films are The Client and The Pelican Brief. The ending here, while a surprise, just seemed to be a bit of a let down. I was geared up for something much more. I'd say worth seeing, but rent it.

Will I Buy It? Doubtful.