Movie Review: The Croods

Movie Review: The Croods/Rated PG/Dir. by Chris Sanders and Kirk De Micco/DreamWorks/98 min.

In the world of live-action film, there are a few directors with the level of name-recognition and fandom comparable to famous actors.  Your Spielbergs, your Hitchcocks, your Scorseses.  Recently J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon have become the type of director that is almost more of a draw than any on-screen talent. However, in the world of animation, the director is usually a hidden hero.  Partly because most animated films are marketed to children, who really couldn't care less who directed the movie, and partly because directing an animated film is not as respectable as directing a live-action one among Hollywood types.  However, as an adult fan of the art form, I believe there are a few names in animation that should be as well-known as their live-action counterparts.  Brad Bird, who has successfully made the transition to live-action film, is also responsible for three of the best animated films of the past 20 years: "The Iron Giant", "The Incredibles", and "Ratatouille".  Then there's Andrew Stanton, who less successfully made the transition to live-action with "John Carter", but also directed the animated classics "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E".

Another name that should be synonymous with quality work in animation is Chris Sanders.  Starting at Disney in the early 90's as a story writer, he helped craft the stories for "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King".  Then he was promoted to writing the screenplay for "Mulan".  A few years later, he was handed the reins of a film as director (along with his writing partner Dean Dublois) with "Lilo & Stitch", a movie that was marketed by Disney as a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  He and Dublois then left Disney for DreamWorks and they directed "How to Train Your Dragon", a movie that was marketed  as a raucous comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  Now Sanders brings us "The Croods" (along side Kirk De Micco, whose previous directorial effort "Space Chimps" is far less promising), a film that has been heavily marketed as, you guessed it, a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turns out to be heartfelt and beautiful as well.  Sanders has a keenly sharp sense of humor, but he also understands that what makes a movie more than merely funny is heart and "The Croods" has heart to spare.  Thankfully, the most crude thing about the movie is its title.  

The Croods are the last family to survive the harsh dangers of their neighborhood and, as far as they know, the last humans left in a very frightening prehistorical landscape.  Grug (Nicolas Cage) knows that the only way he can protect his family is to instill in them a very primal sense of fear.  Bed time stories always end with curiosity being met with instant and unexplained death and fear and cave-cowering are met with survival.  While Grug's tactics have kept his family alive as others have been killed, his teenage daughter Eep (Emma Stone) longs for more than survival.  After encountering a rogue human aptly named Guy (Ryan Reynolds) and narrowly escaping a catastrophic earthquake, the family is forced to go on a road trip to find a safer place, which is great for the free-spirited Eep, but a nightmare for her father.

Along for the trip are mother Ugga (Catherine Keener), son Thunk (Clark Duke), the venerable Gran (Cloris Leachman) and a baby known merely as "The Baby", who is part adorable moppet, part feral animal, a personality trait that the movie uses frequently to hilarious effect.  While the family becomes intrigued by Guy's new ways and ideas, Grug is less trusting, especially as he sees his daughter's increasing infatuation with the free thinking Neander-dude.

Using the backdrop of the breaking of the continents and the constantly evolving wildlife of a prehistoric world, "The Croods" deals with the well-tread "rebellious teenager/strict father" story line, but because of the setting, the high level of humor and the terrific voice performances, it never feels cliched.  In fact, "The Croods" is one of those rare animated comedies that really gets the balance of humor and heart just right and it builds that humor from the character personalities and situation instead of building the situations around the humor, something that early DreamWorks films sometimes struggled with.  Plus, after an hour of consistent belly laughs, the poignancy of the ending packs a pretty powerful emotional punch.

We're also given themes and messages that are far removed from the traditional animated film.  No "Just be yourself" platitudes here, "The Croods" is all about change as the impetus of growth, which is a wonderful lesson for children and adults alike.  

The animation is quite lovely and in 3D it positively pops off the screen.  The 3D is used in obvious, "chuck things at the screen" ways, and also in subtle ways to tell the story.  While I would normally recommend people skip 3D, especially with the increasing expense of seeing a movie in the theater, this is one instance when the 3D is used to great effect which truly enhances instead of just costing more.

To say that "The Croods" is the best prehistoric-themed comedy ever made is not saying much.  Its competition is the likes of "Year One", the live-action "The Flintstones", and the Ringo Starr-staring "Caveman".  However, saying that it's among the upper-tier DreamWorks efforts is quite a compliment.  It stands easily among "Kung Fu Panda", "How to Train Your Dragon" and the other better efforts of the studio.  Hopefully, the studio will continue to attract talented filmmakers like Chris Sanders and these types of high-quality films will be the new norm for DreamWorks.

Grade: A-

Jack vs. Oz: Which fantasy is more bewitching?

Movie Review:  "Jack the Giant Slayer"/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./Dir. by Bryan Singer/114 min.
                         "Oz: The Great and Powerful"/Rated PG/Walt Disney/Dir. by Sam Raimi/130 min.

In the past week and a half, there have been two big-budget period fantasy movies released.  Both were directed by auteurs originally known for independent films, but who took over major Marvel comic book franchises in the early 2000's.  Both of them directed two of the best-regarded superhero movies ever made and were looking to do something completely different.  However, both of them came up with very different films.

Last week brought the first of the two films, "Jack the Giant Slayer", a movie with a troubled history of bloated budgets and changed release dates (it was originally supposed to reach theaters last summer, but was suddenly moved to a lower-profile spring release, which is rarely a good sign).  It was clear from the commercials that Warner Bros. either didn't have much faith in the film or they didn't have the first inkling of how to market it, in spite of director Bryan Singer's triumph with the first two "X-Men" movies.  If one was to believe the advertising, "Jack" was a wacky, chew-the-scenery action comedy with Ewan MacGregor and Stanley Tucci mugging at the camera at every opportunity.  In actuality, it's a full-blooded adventure film with top-rate special effects, committed acting and multi-layered writing rarely found in this style of sword and sorcery flick.

"Jack" stars Nicholas Hoult ("About a Boy", "Warm Bodies") as, well, Jack, a noble, kind-hearted farm boy who was raised on stories of giants, beanstalks, and magic beans.  Unbeknownst to him, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) was raised on the same stories by her mother, who taught her to seek independent adventures as they will make her a more wise leader.  Unfortunately, she's betrothed to the royal advisor, an older, shifty-eyed gentleman who is played by Stanley Tucci, so he's CLEARLY not villainous (Jafar from "Aladdin" was a more subtle traitor to the royal crown).  The princess' thirst for adventure leads her to Jack, the magic beans, a beanstalk, and, of course, giants.

"Jack the Giant Slayer" does a good job making the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" more grounded and believable.  In fact, it addresses how the story gets changed through the ages into the more benign version we now know.  Once the giants show up, the story becomes infused with a genuine danger and menace that leads to some surprisingly tense scenes, truly showing homage to its swashbuckling cinematic DNA.  The special effects are quite effective, both when used to inspire awe and when used to repulse (the giants are pretty gross, with a particular love for biting the heads off of their enemies).

The second of the two fantasy films, "Oz: The Great and Powerful", has a far less troubled history.  Lead by Sam Raimi with the same confidence he brought to the original "Spider-Man" films, and scheduled in March to take advantage of the release date that brought such huge success to Tim Burton's similar "Alice in Wonderland", "Oz" was exquisitely marketed by the super-geniuses at Disney.  However, unlike "Jack", the finished product isn't as good as the commercials make it look.

"Oz" stars the woefully miscast James Franco as Oscar Diggs (nickname: Oz), a magician/flim-flam artist who gets sucked up into a twister and sent to the magical kingdom inexplicably named after him where he encounters three witch sisters, Theodora (the similarly miscast Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz, slipping in and out of accents so much that it's hard to tell which one she was really aiming for) and Glinda (Michelle Williams), the obviously good witch, but never shown to be much more than merely good.  He is also given standard-issue sidekicks in the form of a servant flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) and an enchantingly animated and voiced China doll (voiced by Joey King).  It's never a good thing when you find the sidekicks infinitely more interesting than both the protagonist and the antagonist, but such is the case here.  I'd pay money to see an entire movie just about the fragile China girl and her teapot-themed city.

Franco simply doesn't have the range required in this film.  Sure, he's believable as a lovable shyster, but not as show-stopping entertainer, and that's supposed to be his true talent.  Every time he flips into P.T. Barnum mode, he's clearly out of his element.  Plus, he struggles with anything that requires sincerity.  In addition, Kunis, who is delightful in every other role in which I've seen her, simply comes across as whiny and annoying in her most dramatic scenes.  In fact, I think that this movie would have been far more effective with and entirely new lead cast (not including Braff and King, who both do a great job with their voice work).

The one area where "Oz" excells is visual splendor.  The special effects, the production design, and the visual direction are all enchanting and engaging.  Every inch of the screen in every frame is cinematic beauty.  If you're only interested in eye-candy, "Oz" delivers.  It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen in years.

Unfortunately, "Oz" will make a lot more money than "Jack" will for two reasons:  "The Wizard of Oz" is a more universally beloved story than "Jack and the Beanstalk" and Disney marketed their film WAY better than Warner Bros. did.  However, in deciding which film you may make the splurge to see, let me give you the following thoughts to ponder:  If you're looking for a good movie, "Jack the Giant Slayer" is an infinitely better film than "Oz: The Great and Powerful".  If you're looking for a beautiful-looking and pleasant movie "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is infinitely more pretty than "Jack the Giant Slayer".  Neither are perfect, but overall "Jack" is the better movie.

Grades:  "Jack the Giant Slayer" - B+ , "Oz: The Great and Powerful" - C (but the production design and special effects get an A)

Year in Review: 2012

     All I can say is thank heavens that the Mayans were wrong.  Partly because, ya know, I like living and stuff, but also because I saw some pretty awesome movies after December 21st.  In fact, 2012 was really a wonderful year at the movies.  If you like action movies, there were some terrific movies for you.  If you prefer costume dramas, we got ya covered.  Animated films, comedies, modern drama, indie experimental film.... all of them have been well represented in this past year.

     For those of you who actually care about my movie reviews, I sincerely apologize for not keeping up on hit this fall.  However, I hope to rectify this a bit now and, fortunately, a lot of these movies are still in theaters.  So without any further adieu, my favorites of the year:

Honorable mentions:  "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (Not as serious as the LOTR movies, but neither was the novel), "Chronicle" (Not so much a found-footage superhero as a superhero take on "Carrie"), "The Secret World of Arrietty" (Studio Ghibli's take on "The Borrowers" and one of the most buoyant movies of the year).

10.  Wreck-It Ralph - A year ago, I couldn't have conceived that I would prefer Disney's latest to a Pixar movie entrenched in Scottish legend, yet here we are.  While "Brave" was strong, but emotionally inconsistent because of a case of "too many cooks", "Wreck-It Ralph" was every bit as fun and laugh-inducing as it seemed it would be, but it was also loaded with a huge amount of heart and ingenuity.  Plus, it's a continuation of Disney animations current winning streak.  They are no longer trying to be like DreamWorks, but they are owning what Disney has been and what it can be.  If "Tangled", "Winnie the Pooh", and now "Wreck-It Ralph" are the future of Disney, then it is a bright future indeed.

9. Beasts of the Southern Wild - Many critics have praised this film as a commentary on a post-Katrina south, but that's not what this movie is.  It's a movie about what happens to the innocence of children when they are forced to deal with grown-up issues.  Starring current Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis (who was, extraordinarily only six years old when she filmed this movie), "Beasts" is a lyrical, poignant and dark ode to the defiant strength of youth.  It's not an easy movie to watch, but it's a stunning one.

8.  Moonrise Kingdom - Marketed as a typical Wes Anderson quirk-fest, "Moonrise Kingdom" is sort of a sillier, less-graphic, yet more insightful take on "The Blue Lagoon".  Which is to say that it's a comedy-drama about the exploration of romantic love among pre-teens.  And it's also about the decaying of romantic love among adults.  And it's also about the desire too fit in with a group even if the group requires the stifling of individual thought.  And it's also about Bill Murray chopping down a tree in the middle of the night.  Most of all, it's a well-written, phenomenally-acted addition to Wes Anderson's cavalcade of mirth.

7.  Skyfall - Works as an action movie, as a drama, and as a political thriller.  I still stand that the casting of Daniel Craig and the decision to reboot 007 with 2006's "Casino Royale" were the smartest things MGM could've done for the decades-old super-spy.  They've taken Bond from being an enjoyable, but somewhat laughable caricature to a fully formed character.  He's still debonair, still funny, but also far more believable when he's chasing and fighting the bad guys and when he's grieving.  "Skyfall" steps up the drama by deepening the relationship between Bond and M, fantastically brought to life by Judi Dench.  Also, it has the most disturbing Bond villain since the 60's in the form of Javier Bardem's truly creepy Silva.

6.  The Dark Knight Rises - A perfect ending to one of the best film trilogies in movie history.  It brings the story full circle, building off the events of "The Dark Knight" while answering questions raised in "Batman Begins".  Christopher Nolan did something with this trilogy that was pretty amazing.  He brought respect to the superhero genre.  How did he do it?  He chose to make a crime-drama trilogy instead of a superhero trilogy.  Yes, Batman is a comic-book character, but the "Dark Knight" films have far more in common with the works of Martin Scorsese than it does with the original Tim Burton-produced Batman films.  Filled with terrific dialogue, great performances (including one of the two stunners from Anne Hathaway this year) and a very real sense of danger and grief, "Rises" will be used in film classes for years to come as an example of how to get the third installment in a trilogy right.

5.  The Avengers - Is "The Avengers" as important as "Rises"?  Nope.  However, between the two, "The Avengers" is the one I'm going to be re-watching the most.  There are so many different reasons that "Avengers" shouldn't have worked at all.  Combining the vision of not only four different directors, but technically, four different genres (the "Iron Man" movies - modern action, "The Incredible Hulk" - psychological, man-on-the-run action drama, "Thor" - fantasy, "Captain America" - WWII epic), "The Avengers could've been a disaster.  However, it didn't just succeed, it blew away expectations.  Sharp dialogue, terrific character-based humor, lightning pacing, and jaw-dropping special effects, this movie is the definition of a fun popcorn-movie that also manages to be a solid piece of film art.

4.  Argo - The type of complex and taut thriller that defined the film world in the 70's, "Argo" feels like a lost Coppola masterpiece.  It is, of course, a look at a previously unknown chapter in the Iran hostage crisis, the details of which have only recently been released.  It's sort of stunning that Ben Affleck wasn't nominated for the Best Director Oscar, because this is a brilliantly executed bit of political thriller/critique of the Hollywood machine at work.

3.  Life of Pi - Just a beautiful, beautiful movie.  Visually it's the best use of 3D I've seen since "Avatar", but what's terrific about "Pi" is the visual is in the service of a thoughtful and insightful story which explores the power of spiritual faith.  It's rare that you see a film use this level of technical brilliance in the service of a very "indie"-style story and it's breathtaking to see the film-making prowess on display here, especially in the service of a very non-actiony premise (a man shares his mythical story of surviving for weeks stranded in the ocean on a lifeboat with a man-eating tiger).  

2.  Les Miserables - One of the most difficult challenges facing the filmmakers of this movie musical is the fact that the song score is so well-known that it is robbed of its emotional resonance.  The way director Tom Hooper dealt with this was brilliant.....emote first/sing second.  The vocal performances in this cinematic mass of raw emotion are definitely not concert ready, in spite of the fact that many of the performers are certainly capable of such a performance.  No these are performances that are whispered, sobbed, and wrenched out of characters at their most emotionally vulnerable, and it turns songs that are borderline cliched among those familiar with them into brand new and raw musical experiences.  Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, both a-list stars who have extensive vocal training, give the most heartbreaking performances of their careers by downplaying their natural glamour and charisma and staying true to plot and character.  Beautifully done.

1.  Lincoln - There are many movies that are worth your time.  However, this is the first movie I've seen in a very long time that I believe should be required viewing.  Not only a rich look at our beloved 16th president, but an in depth look at the political roller-coaster ride required to get anything positive done in our democracy.  It's an exquisitely written, brilliantly acted, highly entertaining film, that also manages to be a profoundly important work of American art.  For Spielberg to still be stretching and exploring and growing as a director after four decades of creating some of the best films of all time is inspiring, as is this wonderful movie.


So, there's my top ten.  If you have any time to catch these movies while they are still in theaters, I highly recommend it.  Thanks for reading!!!

At the closing of the summer....: 10 favorite movies of the summer of 2012

So, I've spent the week setting up my classroom, planning lessons, going to back to school BBQ's.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, for all intents and purposes, the summer is over.  Sigh.  Well, rather than bemoan the lost days of sun and waking up later than 5:30 a.m., I'm going to do an end o' the summer movie blog.

First, let's look at the box-office.  One of the most surprising things about the summer 2012 box-office is that there were not really any surprises.   There was no "The Help" or "Bridesmaides".  The top movies of the summer were the giant special-effects driven superhero movies, followed by a couple popular computer animated films, a raunchy r-rated comedy and a few mildly successful sequels, much like the summer of 2005...or the summer of 2008....or the summer of 2009....2011.....well, you get the picture.

Here are the top ten box-office hits of the summer (box-office figures as of 8/30/12):

1.  The Avengers - $617 million

2.  The Dark Knight Rises - $424 million

3. The Amazing Spider-Man - $258 million

4. Brave - $230 million

5. Ted - $215 million

6.  Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - $213 million

7. Men in Black III - $178 million

8. Snow White and the Huntsman - $155 million

9. Ice Age: Continental Drift - $154 million

10. Prometheus - $126 million

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the summer is HOW big the top movie was.  The big movie of the summer was, of course, "The Avengers", which is currently sitting at $617 million domestically and still going (it's getting a wide re-release this next week as an end of the summer hoorah).  At the beginning of the summer, the most generous projections I read for "The Avengers" put it just above $300 million and most predicted it would be the 2nd biggest movie of the summer.  I have my own theories about why it was so successful, but I'll share that a little later.

Another interesting thing to note is that only one film in the top ten was poorly reviewed ("Ice Age") and only three received mostly mixed-reviews ("Ted", "Men in Black III", and "Snow White and the Huntsman"), the rest were positively reviewed.  In fact, the top two movies of the summer were also two of the most acclaimed movies by critics, which is pretty odd for the summer months, but, of course, this summer didn't contain a "Transformers" movie....

Alright, enough with the numbers.  Let's get to my favorite movies of the summer!

10.  Snow White and the Huntsman - The plot of this movie is OK as a traditional fairy-tale meets "Lord of the Rings"-type revisionist experiment, but the film shines in two areas:  First and foremost, it's beautiful to look at.  I truly can't think of a more visually striking movie released this summer.  You could pause any moment of this movie, print it and throw it up on the wall of a museum.  This makes me very curious what director Rupert Sanders (who, of course, is now more well-known as the perv who made out with Kristen Stewart) could do with a better script.  Secondly, the two leading actresses own their parts, and yes, I even mean Kristen Stewart.  Between her strong performance and Charlize Theron's delightful scenery chewing, this is a pretty great argument for more female-centric action films.

9.  The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - In some ways, this movie could've just been called "Eat, Pray, Clean Dentures", since it's really the same type of wish-fulfillment fantasy masquerading as substantial dramedy that the hit Julia Roberts film was.  However, I respected "Marigold Hotel" a LOT more than "Eat, Pray, Love".  Largely because the characters are genuine and it boasts a truly awesome cast.  Honestly, I would've watched an entire movie of just Judi Dench and Maggie Smith.  They are fantastic in this film.  Also, "Hotel" had a beautiful sincerity as opposed to simple sentimentality.  It's not a classic, but it's perfectly pleasant.

8.  Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - Pixar owns the animated roost in terms of depth and storytelling, but DreamWorks has made it's fortune betting on the funny and they definitely beat the house with this one.  The first two "Madagascar" films were mildly funny, but this one takes the characters and throws them into situation after situation of surreal, Monty Python-esque proportions.  I don't think I found an extended scene in any movie this summer more innately hilarious than one which extols the redemptive powers of Edith Piaf.  If you've found any of the other "Madagascar" movies lacking, this one still might surprise you.

7.  The Bourne Legacy - The first three Bourne movies are among the best action movies ever made.  Therefore, the entire idea of continuing the franchise without Matt Damon was seriously daunting.  The movie did kick the franchise a little to the side and if suffers from a tad of "been there done that", but it also boasts a very likable leading duo in Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz and the hope of a possible Renner/Damon sequel, which could potentially explode from awesomeness.  

6.  ParaNorman - Creepy, funny and fun to look at, "ParaNorman" adds to "Coraline" in showing that Laika Animation is a force to be reckoned with.  There's a surprising warmth and humanity to the two-leads that transcends the stereotypes that abound in everyone else.  It's not appropriate for young children, but it should be fine for older kids.  It's all in the name of good, spooky fun.

5.  Brave - If you read my blog, you already know what I found disappointing about this one, so let's focus on what was great.  "Brave" marks a new high in visual splendor from Pixar.  Most of the backgrounds are stunningly photo-realistic, while the characters are delightfully broad in their proportions.  Plus, Merida is such a strong, independent and down-right fun character that the song "I Am Not My Hair" could've been written about her, inspite of her glorious locks.  Also, what a relief to see the mother/daughter relationship brought to the forefront of an artistic medium usually reserved for 10 year-old boys.  It's not the most perfect Pixar movie, but it will, undoubtedly, be considered a classic among animated films for years to come.

4.  The Amazing Spider-Man - I almost put this one lower on the list, but the fact of the matter is that the only negative thing I can really say about it is that it was completely unnecessary.  Other than that, it's really a fun movie, with terrific performances, great action sequences, and a fantastic balance between rollercoaster thrills and dramatic gravitas.  Here's hoping that the next one will not have the same feeling of deja vu.  Also, here's hoping Columbia and Marvel figure out a way to at least get Spidey a cameo in the next "Avengers" movie.

3. Moonrise Kingdom - Wes Anderson is an auteur in the truest sense of the word.  Within 30 seconds of a Wes Anderson film, there's no question who the director is.  He has a sense of quirky humor, uncomfortable dialogue, and uglification (yes, that's a word in my world) of beautiful actors that is practically trademarkable (yes, I just invented that word too).  The plot of "Moonrise Kingdom" has a surprising amount in common with "The Blue Lagoon", just without the controversial nudity.  It's largely about two pre-teen kids experimenting with their burgeoning physical feelings and yearning to be considered "grown-ups", the only difference here is that Anderson clearly believes that these two characters are more mature than most of the adults that inhabit their world.  I can't say I agree with all of the conclusions made in this movie, but I can say that Anderson has created a brilliantly written cinescape that will be studied by film students for decades to come.

2.  The Dark Knight Rises - A simply perfect ending to one of the greatest film trilogies of all time.  Plus, it bucks the legend that "third" movies are always the weakest.  It certainly doesn't have an instantly iconic performance that rivals Heath Ledger's in "The Dark Knight", but every performance is spot on, especially Anne Hathaway as the mysterious Selina Kyle.  She transforms into the role for which many considered her to be miscast....that is until they saw the movie.  Exciting, topical, frightening, and, most importantly, immensely satisfying, "The Dark Knight Rises" is the 3rd act in a real cinematic masterpiece.

1.  "The Avengers" - Yes, I'm aware that "The Dark Knight Rises" is more serious than "The Avengers".  However, the two aren't mutually comparable as they are truly different genres ("Dark Knight" is a crime drama, "Avengers" is a flat-out action extravaganza).  To be honest, I almost considered tying "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Avengers" at number one for the summer because they are both as close to perfect as a summer movie gets, but there's one thing that, in my mind, gives "The Avengers" the advantage:  It's more surprising.  When I saw "The Avengers" there were five spontaneous moments of applause in the theater, and this wasn't a hyped-to-the-wall midnight showing.  It was a matinee, where folks are usually a little more sedate.  These moments bring to mind the idea that you should never give a standing ovation unless you physically can not stay in your seat.  That's how these moments felt, so overwhelmingly fun, rousing and surprising that you couldn't help but applaud.  I've seen "The Avengers" in theaters a few times now and it simply doesn't fail to get the audience all giddy and that's why I think it's made over $600 million in the U.S. alone, because even after you've seen it once, it still sounds like the most fun you could have at a theater on any given weekend.  Repeat viewings coupled with repeat surprises are what make a film turn into cultural phenomenon.  "Star Wars", "E.T.", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Jurassic Park", "The Dark Knight"..... "The Avengers" fits onto this list very nicely.

So, there you have it.  With school starting, I'll try to keep up on the blog even though I haven't done a great job with that during the school year in the past.  Thanks for reading!!!

Prognosticating Pixar: Is the moment of "story comes first" gone?

"Story comes first."  It's a simple concept that has been the defining force behind the greatest critical and financial run in Hollywood history.  Not one of the greatest, but unquestionably the greatest.  Other studios, directors, actors, and other artists have had comparable runs of financial success and others have had similar critical praise, but no one has ever had both at the same level as Pixar Animation Studios.  From 1995 to 2010, Pixar produced 11 films, all of which were runaway hits at the box-office and 10 of which were among the most critically-acclaimed films of their year of release (only 2006's "Cars" had to live with just being "mostly well reviewed").  What was it that made Pixar so different from the other animated movie producers?  Sure, Pixar movies look amazing, but so do the films made by DreamWorks and Disney.  Pixar films make sure there's plenty of humor for adults and children, but that seems to be the sole goal of every other animation studio anymore.  No, Pixar got where they were because of those three simple words....."story comes first."

John Lasseter, the creative head of Pixar and now the head of animation at Disney as well, has emphatically stated Pixar's dedication to story and character from the beginning.  The mantra "story comes first" pops up on almost every Pixar "making-of" video, from conception to animation to publicity.  This is how they built their kingdom and how they became the best in the industry.

In January of 2006, something happened that worried fans of the studio however.  Disney purchased Pixar for $7.4 billion.  Why would that worry fans?  Aren't Disney and Pixar the perfect team?  After all, Disney had distributed every Pixar film up to that point, it seemed like it would be a natural fit to the casual observer, but Pixar fans were worried that Disney's influence would now be more aggressively visible in Pixar's output, which was a bit upsetting,  considering that Disney had been playing catch-up in the animation game for the first half of the decade, a genre that they used to not only lead, but monopolized.

Disney made the very wise business decision of making Lasseter the head of Disney animation as part of the deal.  This helped calm the Pixar fan base a little bit.  It seemed that their goal wasn't to make Pixar more "Disney-fied" but to infuse Disney with a little Pixar magic.

"Cars" was the first film to be released after the deal, but it would be unfair to consider it an accurate gauge of Disney's influence on Pixar's films because it was mostly completed at the beginning of 2006.  However, that didn't stop the tongues from wagging after the reviews started coming out.  The critics didn't consider it a flop, but they also didn't consider it to be the home-run classic that the previous Pixar films had been.  Many began questioning the amount that Disney paid for Pixar, wondering if it had been a terrible business deal for the company.  By the end of the summer, their tunes had changed.....

You see, while "Cars" wasn't a critical darling, or even a "Finding Nemo"-sized smash, it made over $6 BILLION dollars in merchandising.  Let that number sink in for a little bit.  $6 billion dollars.  In fact, the "Cars" brand-name is the 2nd most successful film-based merchandising name of all-time.  It's 2nd only to "Star Wars", which invented movie merchandising as we now know it.  So, while the movie itself didn't win Pixar any big awards, it earned Disney BIG money.  Therefore, Disney was OK to let Pixar do what they wanted for a little while.

"Ratatouille" remains my favorite Pixar film.  I love that little rat.

That decision, to leave Pixar alone and let them do their thing, lead to four of the most acclaimed animated features of all-time:  "Ratatouille", "WALL-E", "Up", and "Toy Story 3".  All four of these movies received across-the-board raves from film critics and each of them broke the $200 million mark at the box-office.  This is a pretty amazing accomplishment considering that "Ratatouille" is about rats in the kitchen, "WALL-E" contains virtually no dialogue for the first half of the film, and "Up" is an action-comedy starring an 80-year-old with a bad hip and a chubby little kid.  None of these three movies had stories that screamed "BOX OFFICE SMASH", but each of them had intricately created stories nurtured by truly gifted and passionate artists.

"Toy Story 3" was, for me, the make or break movie.  It was the first film that wasn't in development at the time of the Pixar purchase by Disney.  It would be the first movie to truly show whether there was upper-management influence on the films at Pixar.  Heck, even it's existence pointed to there being at least a little influence, because Disney had been clear from the time of the purchase that they wanted to see more sequels from the studio.  However, the great thing is that Pixar waited to revisit Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang until they had the right story, and they were right to do that.  "Toy Story 3" became the top box-office film of 2010 and the most critically-acclaimed wide release of the year.

So why am I worried about the future of the company?  It's only been two years since "TS3" blew away audiences and skeptics alike.  What could've happened in the interim?

Even Mater's big heart couldn't pump an emotional core into this one.

Well, first off, "Cars 2" happened.  Let me state from the outset that I don't think "Cars 2" is a bad movie.  I do, however, think that it's WAY below the previously set standards of the company, and I think that is because it's the first that didn't follow the Pixar motto:  "Story comes first."

"Cars 2" didn't get produced because the people at Pixar were passionate about the characters and had figured out a wonderful way to incorporate them into a new adventure.  "Cars 2" was produced because "Cars" sold $6 billion dollars in merchandise.  Even though Pixar did a great job making the movie as visually exciting and as humorous as it is, it still comes off as the worlds most elaborate toy commercial.  You don't get the feeling that the creative force at Pixar said, "I have a great idea for a 'Cars' sequel!"  You get the feeling an executive said, "How many more Mater toys could we sell if he were rocket powered and armed?"

Of course, the critics, for the most part, savaged "Cars 2".  It remains the only Pixar film to get a "rotten" score on the critic compilation website Rottentomatoes.com.   Even the best reviews (including my own) could only say that if it were from any other studio, it would be a passable entertainment, but coming from Pixar came as a major disappointment.

I held out hope though, because the next Pixar film wasn't a sequel.  In fact, it wasn't the type of film anyone had seen from Pixar.  It was a princess film set in medieval Scottland called "Brave."  I was also excited because it was directed by Brenda Chapman, an incredibly talented animator and story-teller.  The thought of her getting to tell a female-centric story with all of the talent and passion at Pixar was more than enough to wipe out the memory of "Cars 2" related disappointment.

Surely, this Scottish lass would save the day, but could she save the studio?

Then Chapman was rather suddenly replaced as director by Mark Andrews (she still retains a co-director credit in the final film).  This didn't necessarily sound any alarms.  It wasn't the first time the reins of direction had switched mid-production at Pixar.  If anything, it indicated that the creative force wanted to make sure it was as good a film as it could be.  In fact, it wasn't until earlier this spring, when interviews from the filmmakers started to come out as part of the "Brave" publicity push that I started to have my doubts.  

In the interviews, Chapman talked about how "Brave", like all of the great Pixar films, started out of personal experience.  It was based out of experiences as a daughter and a mother.  It was fueled by her passion for creating a story that brought the mother/daughter relationship to the center, something that had never really been done in animation.  Conversely, Andrews talked about how he was brought on to bring more action and humor to the movie because there was concern it wouldn't play with little boys.  It was really the first time I'd heard someone from Pixar say that they made major creative changes in a story, not because of the story itself, but because it wouldn't play with a certain demographic.  Did they back away from "Ratatouille" because the idea of rats in the kitchen is just kinda icky?  No, in spite of the fact that I actually know people that still won't watch it because of that very ickiness.  Did they make WALL-E a wise-talking robot because they were worried little boys wouldn't have the attention span to watch a mechanical Charlie Chaplin?  No, and the movie was all the better for it.  Little boys and little girls love good stories, just like the rest of us.

When I finally saw "Brave" earlier this summer, my worries were simultaneously eased and confirmed.  Chapman's movie was clearly still there.  Merida's relationship with her mother is very much the heart of the story.  However, Andrews' movie was there too.  There were odd-fitting pop-culture references (including a joke about the witch's cauldron doubling as an answering machine, which is ripped right out of "Shrek 2") multiple brawls, and a surprising amount of jokes centered around seen and implied nudity.  I feel that "Brave" is two-thirds one of Pixar's best movies and one-third one of their weakest.  I really think that if they had let Chapman finish her film and gave Andrews an entirely different movie to work on, they would've really had something.  Andrews is also a very talented writer and filmmaker, but I don't think his sensibilities were best served on this deeply personal story from Chapman.

That having been said, two-thirds of a great Pixar movie is still a pretty darn good movie.  There's no doubt in my mind I will enjoy "Brave" for years to come.  I also don't doubt that I will watch it with a twinge of sadness for what it might have been.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard a bit of news that made my Pixar-loving heart cry a little bit.  They announced "Finding Nemo 2".  First off, this is a story that was beautifully told, but it ended.  There was nothing about that story that was left unresolved.  There's not an area of that story that begs to be revisited.  It's perfect as is.  However, it's not even the existence of a sequel that concerned me the most.  It's how it came to be.

You see, "Finding Nemo" was directed by Andrew Stanton, one of the original "supah-genuises" at Pixar.  He worked on "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life".  He also directed "WALL-E".  He is the man.  However, after "WALL-E", he wanted to work on another passion project of his.  He decided to make his first live-action motion picture for Walt Disney studios.  He wanted to take a shot at bringing Edgar Rice Burroughs' "John Carter of Mars" to the big screen.  His film "John Carter" premiered earlier this spring to mixed reviews and a disastrous box-office. (I still recommend it though.  It's a pretty fun movie.)  He still wanted to make more live-action films, to which Disney said, "Sure....if you make 'Finding Nemo 2' first".  

Now, I'm sure that Stanton will bring all of his considerable talent to the table.  There's no doubt in my mind that he will work as hard as he can to create a wonderful film.  The thing that worries me is that old Pixar mantra....."Story comes first."  The decision to make a "Finding Nemo 2" or a "Monsters University" (coming next summer to a theater near you!) should not be made by a studio executive.  Leave those kinds of fiscally fueled decisions to the people working on another "Ice Age" movie or the newest adventures of the "Madagascar" penguins.  A Pixar sequel should be made because a terrific idea sprung from one of the gifted artists employed by the studio.  It should be made because a character had room to grow at the end of the first film and a great story idea of how to perpetuate that growth had sprouted from the creative playground/working environment of Pixar's famous headquarters.  A Pixar movie should never come into existence as matter of career bartering.

In order to explain my final area of concern regarding the future of Pixar, I need to explain my theory of "movie moments."  I believe that every truly great film has at least one "moment".  A moment that surprises you or takes your breath a way.  A moment that makes you move to the edge of your seat just so you can immerse yourself in it.  A moment when the story, the visual, the music, the dialogue (or lack thereof), the character development all come together in such a perfect way, that you realize you're no longer watching a movie, you're witnessing the creation of a lasting work of art.  Every classic film has at least one of these surprising, beguiling moments.  Furthermore, every Pixar movie had at least one of these moments....until 2011.

Would you say we've had a plethora of great Pixar moments?

Unsurprisingly, "Cars 2" was never really concerned with providing moments that elevated it to high art.  At its best, "Cars 2" is amusing, at its worst, it's crass commercialism.  However, I'm disappointed to say that "Brave", a movie that should have been filled with such moments, never had one, at least not for me.  As much as I enjoyed it, there was never a moment that surprised me, there was never an image that took my breath away, there was never a line of dialogue that connected me to the characters in a deeply emotional way.  Again, I think there might have been had Brenda Chapman been allowed to see her vision through from beginning to end, but as is, there simply are no "classic" moments.

In full disclosure, I do not right this blog as a casual observer.  I'm writing it from a room in my house affectionately known as "Pixarland".  There is a large sign above the window that says "Welcome to Pixarland."  Original theatrical posters from Pixar films are framed and make a sort of wallpaper around the entire room.  At the side of my desk hangs a talking "Flik" room alarm that Ruth bought for me while we were dating.  There are two curio cabinets to my left filled with Pixar toys and memorabilia.  Atop the two cabinets are talking WALL-E and Dug toys and a plethora of Pixar-based "Little Golden Books".  Behind me is a WALL-E clock and home-made placards that outline different facts about every single Pixar movie.   I am a Pixar superfan.  However, I also write this blog as a lover of film in general and the place that Pixar has carved out for itself in the history of film is a pretty impressive one.  It is, as such a fan, that I am concerned about the future of Pixar.  It is my sincere hope that Disney realizes that the thing that makes Pixar unique and, as a result, successful, is its utter lack of concern for focus groups and demographics.  It is my sincere hope that the creative forces at Pixar remember to put more trust in their artists than in toy sales.  It is my most sincere hope that recent films and behind the scenes developments at the studio are merely a hiccup and that the dedication to the idea that "story comes first" will re-establish itself at Pixar, a studio that has proven itself time and time again as a haven for those that believe movies can be great art and great entertainments at the same time.  Here's hoping......

Movie Review: ParaNorman

ParaNorman / Focus Features / Rated PG / 93 min. / Dir. by Chris Butler and Sam Fell

Walt Disney understood something that many current makers of children's entertainment fail to realize, that it's OK, even healthy for kids to experience fear when watching a movie, especially if there's a purpose behind the scares.  His earliest films have more blatantly dark elements than most things the studio would dare put into the market today (although 2009's "The Princess and the Frog" certainly didn't shy away from the dark side).  "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Dumbo", they all have moments that are seriously upsetting.  As a kid, these moments scared me, but I felt a little braver for having witnessed them.  Plus, they taught me messages.  "Pinocchio" taught me that if I lead a hedonistic lifestyle, I will turn into a jackass.  "Dumbo" taught me that excessive drink will make me dream about freaky pink elephants.  "Fantasia" taught me that I should never, ever, ever visit Bald Mountain at night.  You know, important messages like that.

Of course, some modern films still use fear as a teaching tool for children, but there are a few animators that have taken the fear a step further, making horror movies for kids.  Tim Burton started it with "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and continued with "The Corpse Bride" and his upcoming "Frankenweenie".  While his animated films have had macabre elements, the theme is often that when dark things are shined in light, they're not really that scary.  However, others have added more adult elements in this types of films, making them feel more like animated horror films for older kids and adults than kids movies.  "Monster House" fit this mold as did Laika Animation Studio's "Coraline".  Well, Laika is at it again with "ParaNorman", a visually engaging, entertaining and often thoughtfully poignant movie that is definitely not for small children.

The film focuses on Norman Babcock (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee), an kind, soft-spoken boy who is picked on by the bullies at school and who feels ostracized from the rest of his classmates.  You know, like most kids are.  However, there's a very special reason that Norman gets tormented at school.  He made the mistake at a young age of telling people about his gift.  He can see ghosts.  All of the spirits that have unfinished business on Earth.  He sees them all.  His usual walk to school involves conversations with dead mobsters, soldiers and pilots.  It also includes the occasional play time with the local roadkill animals.  Of course, none of Norman's neighbors see any of them, so he just looks seriously crazy.

Speaking of seriously crazy, Norman has an uncle (John Goodman) who his parents don't want around him and the rest of the town knows as the dirty old hobo that lives near the cemetery.  Uncle Penderghast confronts Norman with a story about a 300 year-old witches curse and the raising of the dead.  Of course, only Norman can keep it from happening and, of course, he fails, leading to all kinds of zombie-themed shenanigans.  Unwillingly accompanying him on his adventure are his materialistic sister (Anna Kendrick), his arch-nemesis/bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), his persistent friend (Tucker Albrizzi) and his friend's lunkhead jock brother (Casey Affleck).

The biggest themes of "ParaNorman" involve forgiveness, acceptance, empathy and individual responsibility, all of which are terrific alternatives to the average and stereotypical themes of animated features.  The screenplay, written by director Chris Butler, takes these themes and expertly weaves them into a story filled with humor and charm.  The animation is ugly at times, stunningly beautiful at others and always reflective of the needs of the script.

So, "ParaNorman" is equal parts fun and scary and it's a great way to beat the heat of the end of summer (although why it's being released in August and not in October is a bit of a puzzlement).  However, there are enough questionable elements including violence and occasional adult humor to call the film's PG rating into question.  I really think that if this movie had been released as a life-action film, it easily would've been PG-13, so if you're thinking about this movie for your younger children, think twice.  Let's put it this way:  If "Coraline" was appropriate for your kids, this one will be too.  If not, steer clear.

Overall grade: B+

Movie Review: The Bourne Legacy

Movie Review:  The Bourne Legacy / Rated PG-13 / Universal Pictures / 135 min. / Dir. Tony Gilroy

After the huge success of 2007's trilogy capper, "The Bourne Ultimatum", Universal Pictures understandably wanted another chapter in the Robert Ludlum-based franchise.  However, Paul Greengrass who had directed the 2nd and 3rd films with a shaky-cam real-world intensity felt that "Ultimatum" wrapped things up nicely and wanted to move on.  Matt Damon, who gave super-spy Jason Bourne a terrific fierceness combined with a surprisingly warm likability, was very clear that he wouldn't return to the franchise without Greengrass, so Universal decided to move on without Damon.  In fact, they decided to make a Bourne movie without Bourne, which seemed like a bit of a misstep at first.  It's sort of like making a James Bond movie sans James Bond or a Batman without Batman.

However, they made a smart choice in turning the directing reins over to Tony Gilroy, a man who has shown he can capably handle thrillers or different styles, be it political ("Michael Clayton") or comic ("Duplicity"), but also has a connection with the franchise as writer of the first three films.  

Of course, Universal has dropped the dreaded "r" word in describing "The Bourne Legacy", but it's really not a reboot, which, in my mind involves taking a franchise back to step one, usually without a connection to the original franchise (with J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" being one of the unusual reboots that actually fits into the mythology of the original).  No, "Legacy" is more of a sequel....or maybe a sidequel, in that it takes place at the same time as "Ultimatum" (needless to say, seeing the first three Bourne films is somewhat necessary to understand what's going on in the new movie.

You see, while Jason Bourne was fighting to stay alive while a mysterious government organization used all of their resources to kill him, another mysterious government organization was apparently worried that the highly publicized manhunt for Bourne might shed a negative light on their similarly morally ambiguous program.  So, the program head, retired Air Force Col. Eric Byer (Edward Norton) decides to scrap the program before the details can come to light.  Of course, scrapping the program for these mysterious government organizations means killing everyone who ISN'T in charge of it, but knows about it, so Col. Byer decides to order the termination of not only all his agents, but the scientists involved in the enhancing both physically and mentally of said agents.  Without giving anything away, I'll say that most of the movie is spent with people in dark rooms frantically trying to find one particular agent (Jeremy Renner) and one particular scientist (Rachel Weisz) who have joined forces in their fight for survival.

"The Bourne Legacy" is quite a nice continuation of the Bourne franchise, although the absence of Damon is felt throughout.  I read recently that Gilroy is hoping that in the future he can convince Damon to rejoin the franchise and combine with Renner in their fight to take down the cowardly men in the dark rooms trying to kill them.   THAT is a movie I would love to see, because I really like Damon and I really like Renner.  Both of them are natural leading men who take on both the emotional aspects of their character and the physical demands of the stunt work with a seamless ease.

The screenplay for "Legacy" feels a little more "connect the dots" than the first three Bourne films (it's telling that it's the first one that has no connection to the Ludlum novels).  As such, the movie stalls a bit when it puts the focus on Norton and his nefarious team of agent hunters.  There were two or three too many scenes of them shouting orders like "Get me every video surveillance from every airport in the city!" or  "Contact the Department of Transportation and get me every shots from every traffic camera in the last hour!"   Also, the first Bourne movies had at least a few people in the government that thought that maybe blindly ordering the death of someone isn't really a good thing.  There was always someone trying to understand what Bourne was doing and why while they were hunting him.  Here, they all know that Renner's character is completely innocent.  They don't care.  It's hard to relate to any of these characters when what they're doing is unquestionably morally reprehensible.

 However, whenever the movie focuses on Renner and Weisz, the movie is stellar and contains all of the spy-movie thrills of the previous installments.   Plus, there's a real chemistry between the two, especially as the story reveals more about their personal pasts.  I'm excited to see where future films will take these two very likable characters.

Overall grade:  B+, not quite as good as the 2nd and 3rd Bourne films, but a very nice continuation of the franchise and a great promise of where Gilroy could be taking things.  Well worth your time and money.