Change Your Image
ConStar8788
Reviews
Cars 2 (2011)
A sequel that really isn't.
One of the best movie reviews ever written came from the pen of Roger Ebert while talking about the movie "2010." In short, Ebert wrote that as good as 2010 might be, people's memory of the original film -- "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- would so forever cloud their judgment that "2010" could never be given a fair shake.
Given that the original "Cars" is, to some, Pixar's best work, and certainly no worse than a solid effort, the sequel is going to have difficulty gaining traction. And like many, I was perplexed as to what exactly there was left to do with this story arc.
Whereas the first movie is an ode to pre-Interstate America and gives a slap to the anti-car joykillers among us, this movie is not similar in any way save for the characters it uses to tell the story. The original "Cars" is a needed lesson for not throwing away or being dismissive of our past; "Cars 2" is James-Bond-meets-Cannonball-Run.
Fans of the spirit of the first movie, therefore, will have to find a way to detach before they can enjoy it. The supporting cast of the first film is essentially MIA. The supporting cast of the new film doesn't engender the same level of concern or interest. This is basically a two-man show, Mater and McQueen, and fortunately enough the writing is good enough to float the ship.
Where this movie stands out is in its presentation, graphics, pacing and look. It is just as fast as the original movie is slow. And it has several thunderously funny moments thanks to a clever script and a brief glimpse into the life of owning British automobiles.
Not Pixar's best by any stretch, but still light years better than what other animation studios are coming up with.
Purple Rain (1984)
Absolutely utter tripe.
There are good movies, there are bad movies and then there is this, which makes "Grease 2" look like "West Side Story" and should be the go-to movie critics use when explaining to musicians with overactive egos why it's a bad idea to pretend to be an actor when one is not.
Finding a starting place for criticism is as hard as limiting the criticism to an amount that would fit into a single review. As a lead, Prince only is believable when on stage -- which is, of course, where he belongs, not trying to play the part of a tortured musical savant.
Prince's method of walking deserves its own special criticism, as he seems to move from step to step as if trying to plan the next flip of his hair or fluff of his coat. Never mind the fact that he is not likable in his role as protagonist.
The supporting cast is plenty awful in their own right. Poor Clarence Williams III almost buckles under the weight of trying to carry this collection of drama school dropouts from scene to scene. Things get so bad that some reviewers actually seem to think Morris Day and Jerome Benton can act; more accurately, they simply stink less than what surrounds them.
This movie is clearly just a vehicle for the ego-absorbed Prince to preen and sneer his way through badly-written, badly-directed and poorly-lit material. The best part of the movie are clearly the songs, and if you take this movie as one long music video, perhaps it works. But unless you like watching a good musician who happens to be a hack actor spend a couple of hours trying to overcome Short Man's Syndrome on film, skip this and watch something else.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Disney should have walked, but strikes out instead.
In looking for a place to start with the criticisms, this film is a target-rich environment.
Disney began with a story far too mature for its target audience (assuming it was aiming at kids), followed it with some casting mistakes (Demi Moore, who is wooden throughout) and then topped it off with the most plodding, unmemorable soundtrack of any Disney movie post-"The Little Mermaid," which essentially marks a dividing line in Disney movie history.
Handling religious imagery or themes in cartoons aimed at children is also a balancing act, and while THOND tries hard not to offend, it unfortunately does so simply by ignoring the connections, which is unrealistic.
The audience I saw this movie with was about half children, half adults. Most of the children appeared either confused or disinterested, especially during the musical numbers. Some of the others were heard to ask their parents why Esmeralda and Quasimodo were not brought together at the end of the picture -- which, to an extent, solidified the message that the ugly boy can't get the pretty girl after all. In other words, all evidence that the source material was never meant to be delivered to children ages 6-11.
In short, the film misses its marks -- all of them.
Ratatouille (2007)
Visually stunning, but story was a flat soufflé...
My wife and I, huge Pixar fans both, came into this movie with high expectations given what critics had said about it.
Visually, the critics were spot-on. Much of the movie feels as if it is not animated at all. Within 10 years of so, Pixar will have us believing they work work with live actors, I'm sure.
But technical proficiency does not a masterpiece make; there must be a good story to tell. And this movie teeters on the brink of not having that story.
Assuming "Ratatouille" was made with children in mind, most children below age 10, maybe even age 12, won't get this movie. They'll love the cute rats and cheer for the heroes, but will miss the nuances of the story.
What hurts this movie's accessibility is a soup with many ingredients: Thick accents, an uninteresting secondary hero (Linguini), a villain (Skinner) who is not adequately developed and back-storied, and a plot scenario that never seems to be able to create a sense of urgency. I can easily imagine a lot of youngsters wondering what exactly the big deal is.
It doesn't help matters that the role of Linguini is fitfully written and voiced by an actor without much experience; Lou Romano was just a bad pick. Ian Holm's turn as Skinner could have been done much better.
Janeane Garofolo's Colette isn't properly back-storied, either; it's amazing that this movie can run for nearly two hours yet still leave so much on the table in regards to its characters.
There is some good, however. Patton Oswalt is great in the title role, and Peter O'Toole's exceptional turn as Anton Ego left me wishing he'd had a bigger role. Brad Garrett's Gusteau also gets too little screen time.
In summary, this movie doesn't rise to the level of greatness found in some of Pixar's best films ("Toy Story 2," "The Incredibles," "Cars"), but it isn't a total bust, either. The word "charming" has been used to describe it before and I guess it fits. Better for grown-ups than kids, and definitely for a time when you're not needing to get an adrenaline rush from your movie.
Grease 2 (1982)
Good at the time, but didn't age so well...
Depending on when you saw this film relative to when you saw the original "Grease," your viewpoints probably differ as to the quality of this movie.
I saw both within a month of each other at age 13. I hated the original and loved this one.
As I've gotten older, I've come to recognize that the original is a better piece of work, overall. The music from the original is better when taken as a whole. The supporting cast of the original has better players. The storyline doesn't seem as convoluted at times.
But there's something about this movie that holds on to you. It appeals much more to the age group pictured in the movie (i.e., junior-high and high-schoolers). The song "Cool Rider" and the scenes that accompany it in the movie rival anything in the original.
The dialog is better in places and the interplay between the male and female leads are better, I believe, than in the original. The original movie's pairing of Travolta and Newton-John gave us a dimwit trying to woo a goodie-two-shoes girl whose performance was oftentimes wooden and uncomfortable. This one gives us Caulfield and Pfeiffer, and the interplay between an intelligent, wise-beyond-his-years male lead and the "wild child" female lead.
Adrian Zmed's supporting performance as Johnny still cracks me up and is one of the few performances from this movie that still entertain me as an adult.
That's because outside of the performances of accomplished character actors Christopher McDonald, Eve Arden and Dody Goodman, the rest of this cast is just plain bad. Some of it is bad acting, some of it is miscasting and a lot of it is bad writing.
What we're left with today, 20-something years later, is a movie that made a really good attempt to build on the original, but in the end, was the soufflé that fell. It's still better than most want to admit, but it could have stood a couple of rewrites and a little more attention to detail in the prospective cast interview room.
The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
Moore's best turn as Bond...
The Roger Moore Era as James Bond is always a subject for lively debate. There are those who believe he held the role well, while others say he never came close to the standard set by Sean Connery.
Both views are correct somewhat, with the second being more accurate. Moore was not Connery. But for two films, "Octopussy" and "The Man With the Golden Gun," he came pretty close.
The plot behind TMWTGG is strong but its execution could have been better. However, that is the only complaint. Moore turned in his best mix of humor and Bond attitude. He comes quite close to Timothy Dalton's interpretation of Bond in "The Living Daylights," and to Pierce Brosnan's Bond of "GoldenEye." That's a compliment.
But as focused as Moore was for this film, it was the supporting case that lifted this film, primarily Christopher Lee as Bond's nemesis. Lee is a master of his craft and takes a role here that could have been great, but wasn't written very well -- yet still manages to elevate it to outstanding.
If you're looking for great performances by a Bond girl, Britt Eklund's turn as Agent Goodnight may be the best of any Bond film. She plays the role of rookie agent and the many facets of her character (rookie, ditzy blonde, yet also fiery and strong) with great balance. And no one in history looked better in a bikini.
And then there's Clifton James as Sheriff J.W. Pepper, improving greatly upon his first performance in a bond. James steals every scene he's in.
Top it off with one of the five best car tricks (the spiral bridge jump scene) in movie history, and you have an entertaining film.
The movie drags in some places and the special effects (aside from the car chase) aren't up to Bond code looking back on it all, but that doesn't stop this one from being one of the top films of the Bond series. Give it a shot.
Happy Feet (2006)
Not what I was expecting, unfortunately...
In any cartoon with talking animals, one must suspend disbelief in order to be able to enjoy what they're watching.
Unfortunately, with "Happy Feet," that suspension of disbelief requires a quantum leap outside the bounds of logic. And that's before we get to issues with the script, the cast, the acting and a subplot that could be construed as offensive to people of faith.
The crux of the plot -- that one penguin could basically affect the fishing habits of humans around the globe -- is unlikely at best and jaw-droppingly insipid at worst.
If you can believe a penguin could swim to what looks like the U.S. Atlantic or Pacific coasts, you might have a good time watching this film. Otherwise, if you're looking for a cartoon -- even a cartoon that throws messages in with its entertainment -- spend your money elsewhere.
The potentially offensive subplot in question involves a villainous penguin who represents a quasi-religious figure, and who comes to stand for backwards thinking and bigotry. Two other "penguins of faith" are portrayed as a hoaxser (Lovelace) and dim-witted (Memphis).
The movie also fails in its casting; Robin Williams gets two roles and does neither very well, although his Lovelace James-Brown-meets-Jimmy-Swaggart is slightly better of the two. Hugh Jackman's Elvis schtick as Memphis is poorly done.
One of the movie's best features, the realism of the animation, actually hinders its execution. The penguins are completely realistic, but in doing so, the animators robbed all but Mumble of readable facial expressions. Considering that small children will make up much of the audience for this film, that's a critical shortcoming.
There are other issues, including the lack of character development for Anthony Lepaglia's character, and sea lions, seals and whales that show up just long enough to intrigue, then disappear.
On the good side, the soundtrack is a winner, the melding of live action and animation was sharply done, and the movie carries a message of non-judgmentalness concerning Mumble's uniqueness.
But the movie may go over the heads of many youngsters, and some scenes could be disturbing for some children -- hence, the PG rating.
If you're looking for cartoon movies with messages, see the excellent "Over The Hedge" or "Cars" instead.