Posts Tagged ‘sequel’

Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

This is one of those reviews that’s kind of easy to write but at the same time kinda hard. Easy because I know exactly what I thought of it, hard because it’s all been said up to a month previously by other people, lol. As you probably have heard, this is pretty much one of the best movies of the year, it’s practically unanimous, and I’m glad to say that for once I agree with such a widespread view.

It’s kind of crazy to think that I’ve now seen every part of this trilogy in the cinema and even when I saw the first one, I wasn’t exactly a kid at 15. I remember taking my sister to see it, I remember loving the music (I was into all Disney music bigtime at the time) but probably more than anything revelling in the sheer hi-techery of the whole thing (“the whole movie was made on a computer!!”)

When Toy Story 2 was released, I forget what level of anticipation I really had for it. I was in the middle of college and pretty much high on Disney after Tarzan (I’d end up doing my final dissertation on Disney). What I remember is badly wanting my own Jessie doll after the movie, her story being the one that really resonated most with me.

I saw the first part again when it was re-released in 3D… part two never made it to our cinema in that form, or I just missed it, but these are movies that are always fresh in my mind. The 3D worked, I thought, pretty well in that re-release, but more than anything it was just awesome to see it on a huge screen again, and projected digitally. It felt strangely pure or something (as opposed to, say, a 70mm oldie being projected digitally).

I didn’t necessarily doubt this installment would be as great as people were saying (I’d seen the trailer and it really boded well on the emotional front). But having recently seen that first one and once again realise just how perfect it is, on top of the wonders that Pixar have given us even in the 11 years since part 2, I didn’t put my expectations too high.

Well I’ve seen Toy Story 3 twice now… first in a dodgy download version because I simply needed to see it before I read too much about it and spoiled it for myself. I trusted, as I always do, that if the movie was as good as people were saying, the quality of the presentation would not make a huge difference to the story, and I wasn’t wrong. Like many people, I bawled not just like a baby but like someone with serious mental problems LOL.

This movie has some serious emotional weight, like the most recent of Pixar’s productions Wall•E and Up. What’s different here, however, is how those emotions are spread throughout the picture. There are two intense emotional beats towards the end of the movie, but the melancholic undertones are there right from the moment (after a “fantasy” opening similar to the way the first two movies open) we re-enter Andy’s bedroom, through the POV of his mom holding a video camera.

I won’t talk about those two parts at the end, except to say that they worked just as well on my flat laptop screen as they did in enormous 3D. My opinion of 3D remains the same as I think I’ve said before, and it’s just exactly the same as my opinion of seeing movies on the big screen in general. It’s always nice to see movies larger than life, but it’s simply not always possible. Almost all of us have more favourite movies that we’ve never seen on the big screen than ones that we have, so I’m pretty sure we can all agree that if a movie is good enough it doesn’t necessarily need a big screen projection. It’s nice, it adds to the experience, it immerses you more, but it doesn’t change the quality of the film.

I’m still only giving the movie 4 hearts right now because I’m remembering the original and how absolutely perfect that was right down to the screenplay structure etc, and I feel like to a certain extent those massive emotional punches at the end throw this instalment off-balance in a similar way to those last two Pixar productions I mentioned (though by nowhere near as much… plus they made me cry a lot more). I’m in near total agreement however with those calling the trilogy as it stands one of the best trilogies of all time. The consistency over 15 years really is incredible, not to mention the sheer uniqueness of this world… and while I’ve really focussed like everyone else on the huge emotional impact of this one, it has just as much excitement, humour, thrills and invention as the others.

I wanted to say something about Jessie but I can’t find anywhere above to slip it in lol. Like I said I had a huge crush on Jessie after the second movie, and she had the big emotional moment of that movie that really made me love it most, in her backstory with Emily (cleverly echoed here in Lotso’s story; though Lotso of course reacts very differently to being left behind). I had actually almost forgotten how much I loved her so much that she wasn’t even a factor in my excitement about seeing part 3. Then she appeared and I just fell in love all over again. There’s more made of the funny relationship between her and Buzz that began in the second movie, and in the midst of this are some insanely stylised, romantically-lit shots of her that just wowed me. It’s her face that really carries the first of those aforementioned emotional punches at the end and all I need to do is recall that face and her hand reaching out to start crying all over again. This is a wonderful, wonderful addition to a practically perfect series of movies. But you know that already.

Oh yes: another extra thing to mention as I won’t write it anywhere else… moreso for me than the 3D among reasons to see this movie on the big screen is the short that precedes it. I always forget that Pixar put these shorts before all their features and this one like so many of them is so great it threatens to supplant the memory of the movie. It’s called “Day & Night” and combines 2D and 3D animation in an ingenious way that really can’t be described well to anyone who hasn’t seen it. It’s about conflicting ideas and perspectives from the broadest scale to the most specific (you could argue it’s simply about the co-existence of 2D and 3D cinema). It has insane technique and a great message in the perfect balance that the best of Pixar has to offer. I’ll be very disappointed if it isn’t at least nominated for an Oscar next year (likewise, of course, the feature it precedes!)



Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars

Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Words can’t express how much I feared this one, but I knew I would have to watch it if only so my objections could at least be informed, lol. It sat in my collection for a few months before I finally plucked up the courage (okay, I just wanted this week to get my total 2010 movie views up to 10 so I could post a list before the middle of the year… additional: I’m running about 3 weeks behind in actually posting stuff right now so that doesn’t quite make sense lol…).

The first 5 minutes surprised me. Much of the style feels drawn straight from the (in my opinion) flawless 1997 movie by Bronwyn Hughes. It feels very much like Michelle Trachtenberg’s Harriet grown up a few years. It reminds you that, actually, that treasured first film incarnation of Louise Fitzhugh’s eponymous heroine was also a modernisation of the original, which was set in time it was written, the 1960s. Then, “Spy Teen” appears. A typical, commercial, teen movie with a heartthrobby star. The fear strikes, oh no, this über-modern Harriet is surely going to fall for him and the movie’s about to collapse. But she doesn’t… it’s hate at first sight. That’s our Harriet.

And you know what? Despite my stoic expectations that at some point it would surely turn awful somehow, for the life of me I can’t say it did. Of course it’s nowhere close to the Trachtenberg movie let alone the books… and of course I’d still prefer they never even tried this version of the story at all. But given that they did try, this is about as good as they could’ve made it. They genuinely nod their head to the ’97 version, and excuse themselves for any failing in the far worse “Spy Teen” subplot. Even on the Disney TV movie level that it stands, it’s a hell of a lot better than Camp Rock or Get a Clue, etc… but more importantly it was so better than my expectations. I mean I’d actually probably watch it again. For fun.



Survival of the Dead

Survival of the Dead

Saturday, July 17th, 2010

I was still slightly baffled as I sat down to this after months of having it in my collection… while it’s true that his own additions to the original “Dead” trilogy (Night, Dawn, Day) haven’t come close to the greatness of old, it seems to me we should still be excited to have a new George Romero zombie movie coming out. I watched Land of the Dead again a couple of weeks ago and to my surprise had nothing new to add to my original review… it kinda has “something” but overall is dull as hell. I did, however, really like Diary of the Dead which, despite the obvious comparisons to Blair Witch, Cloverfield, etc, still had something genuinely pointed and grim to say about humanity at its close.

For me, Survival falls somewhere between the two other installments in the “new” trilogy. It references both Land and Diary, though mostly continues where Land left off, with Diary being a kind of appendix to the whole thing. The movie opens with some spectacular gore so it had at least one of the primary boxes for this kind of movie ticked from the off. Then it sinks into that same dullness of Land, however. Essentially the USP of this movie (where Night had the originality, Dawn the mall, Day the experiments, Land the sentients, Diary the style) is that there’s a movement to keep loved ones who have become zombies alive – think Nick Frost in the shed at the end of Shaun of the Dead, eg – and of course the only moral way to do that is to get them to eat something other than humans. It’s… interesting, I guess.

What really left me thinking of this movie higher than I otherwise might have is, as with Diary, the really simple summation of the idea that Romero conveys with a single final line and image. It’s the image of two zombies, the leaders of each side of the conflict throughout the movie, against an enormous full moon, approaching each other armed as if to duel. They raise their guns to fire, and they’re both out of ammo. The voiceover explains how when a war rages for so long, it’s easy to forget what we’re fighting over. To me it’s one of those perfect scenarios for a zombie movie which unfortunately the rest of this one doesn’t go into enough. The thing about Romero’s zombie movies is they’re simply about humans losing their humanity, and not only in the physical sense. This one doesn’t go far enough at all, but his heart is still certainly in the right place. I’ll still approach the next one with high expectations.



New Moon

New Moon

Monday, July 12th, 2010

So, I forget exactly why it was I decided in the end to watch the first Twilight, but I know I would never have watched the sequel (and the next one) were it not for the unfortunate casting of Dakota Fanning (and, in the next one, Jodelle Ferland)… I may have actually physically kicked something when I first realised I would “have to” watch this. So, yeah, I didn’t exactly come to it with an open heart LOL.

There’s a scene here that to me is pretty much the whole Twilight “Saga” (please, do we really have to call it that?) in a nutshell. Even better than the fact that the first major plot point hinges on ZOMG a papercut! there is a montage following Edward’s departure that literally made me LOL. Kristen Stewart sits in a chair in the middle of a room, and the camera begins to spin around her slowly. Titles indicate the passage of months as an emo song plays and she sits there looking miserable the whole time. I might be wrong, please tell me if I am, but I think we’re actually supposed to feel something other than “PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!” about this. (I’ve since been told that this sequence appears in the novel as simply blank pages with the month names typed in the middle, which only makes it funnier…)

Later, the kids go to see a movie within the movie – titles overheard in this fictional movie theatre? “Love Spelled Backwards Is Love” and “Punch Face”. No kidding. “Drake and Josh” had better made up titles than this. DRAKE AND JOSH.

Okay, I was mostly just annoyed that I watched this for Dakota Fanning and it takes her over an hour to show up. Really: if you’re planning to watch the movie for the same reason, don’t bother. Her role is nothing here, though it looks like she might have more to do in the third (alas). And it’s far from even her most averagely half-good work. I have no clue why she thought these movies were a good idea. I don’t think I wanna know.

But there was something else that irked me… the fact that after being so annoyed by how long it took Kristen Stewart’s character in the first movie to say “you’re a vampire…”, she basically does the EXACT same thing with Jacob the werewolf this time around. At one point he actually says to her, “the killer part is you already KNOW…” like as if he might as well be asking, “Were you dropped on your head as a child?” When the penny finally drops, someone actually says, “I guess the wolf is out of the bag…” If this were a comedy it might be perfect. “So you’re a werewolf…” Bella finally twigs, “Last time I checked,” quips Jacob… “… Can’t you just, like, stop?” she asks.

But for all my bitching, I’ve gotta say, there’s a point where it slightly flips and bizarrely isn’t in the end quite as bad as Twilight. “It’s a wolf thing,” Jacob tells Bella at one point. “No, it’s a Jacob thing,” she says, “You’re like your own sun,” and I kinda got the tingles a little. But then comes the clincher, when Bella faces both her potential loves and tells them,

“Stop. You can’t hurt each other without hurting me…”

And I kinda got it. When you boil down the triangle in this series to its simplest components like that, just about everyone has a personal experience they can bring to it, and for me this line really stung. Sure, there’s still at least one more embarrassing “Twilight in a nutshell” moment to be had at this later, better stage in the movie (Michael Sheen as a mindreading vampire looks into Bella’s thoughts and sees “nothing”, LOL), but as the credits rolled I can’t deny I found myself just a little choked up, and even if that had nothing to do with the movie as a whole, it still for me makes this installment that much better than the first. But there’s still way better things to get so excited about, kids.



St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

Monday, July 12th, 2010

As I said in my review of the first of these revivals of the old British series, I always loved the original Trinian’s movies, and since then I’ve seen them all again on DVD and can tell you I still pretty much do (some aren’t great but always fun). And I even enjoyed that first modern take on the idea… even if, to be honest, I can’t quite remember why right now. I do remember I loved the two first-years in that movie, though, and the first relief here was that they’re back… along with even more of the new intake.

For the most part, for its first half, this movie pretty much appeased my low expectations simply by being clear about its story and easy to follow, along with just a few good giggles (mostly from the younger ones, it has to be said… I can do without the “teen appeal” posing of the older set, I’m sure none of the original Trinian’s girls would’ve been seen dead in Gucci…)

Just when it began to get interesting, that is, delivering on all the setup, there’s a scene that pretty much killed it for me personally. It’s a straight up parody of The Exorcist only it actually concerns real possession, like, it’s not just done as a silly joke, it’s a plot point and everything. I know this is meant to be a silly movie, but that just seemed cheap and plain stupid. It’s not even contained to the one scene, and goes on way too long.

It picks up slightly after this but it’s a tough recovery. The final act here is practically identical to the first movie’s, with the girls descending onto London in a (pretty awesome to behold, has to be said) flashmob scene and infiltration of a Cultural Event. It feels a little lazy, but there is a least a little more from those younger girls from the first movie in this sequence. I think I was just still reeling from the terrible Exorcist gag to get back into it as much as I might’ve in the end. It’s a shame the people behind these remakes feel the need to go so low for a guaranteed laugh from the lowest common denominator etc. Likewise on the Sarah Harding casting and the “cool” treatment of the older girls. It’s way off the original concept to have such mainstream style in a St. Trinian’s movie, at least in my opinion. All this said, I’m sure I won’t be able to resist if they try again.



Alice in Wonderland [2010]

Alice in Wonderland [2010]

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Well, here we go. Anyone who knows me or follows my Twitter or whatever will know this wasn’t in any danger of becoming one of my favourite takes on Lewis Carroll’s story, but I swear I didn’t go into it entirely closed minded.

The problems start right at the top, and again I knew this well before watching a minute of the actual movie. This simply shouldn’t carry the title “Alice in Wonderland”, and the usage is clearly a marketing decision… “Disney’s Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton” sounds like “Kerching!” right? You’ll know already perhaps that it is not the usual straight retelling of Carroll’s story but finds Alice 13 years later returning to the land of Red Queen, Mad Hatter, and White Rabbit Return to Oz/*Hook*-style etc. What you might not know is that Linda Woolverton’s screenplay has brought manic obsessive order to Carroll’s completely inconsistent nonsense land, now called Underland and populated with creatures and artefacts all of which have outrageous names, encylopedia entries and backstory.

In short, this movie not only substantially but literally removes the Wonder from Wonderland. I wish I was the kind of person who welcomed the substitution of Carroll’s imagination with Burton’s extravagant visuals but I’m not. This movie reminded me of watching Richard Kelly’s director’s cut of Donnie Darko which destroyed the original movie by telling the audience what it was supposed to mean. Everything looks as you expect from an Alice movie, the production design is up there with the best of them; but there’s such desperation to shed light on every nook and cranny, to explain everything so that your brain doesn’t have to work at all let alone a little, that even in 3D (I watched in 2D) it’s bound to come up flat to anyone who truly cares about art, to say nothing of the many fans of Carroll’s original work (it scares me, however, how many people clearly call themselves Alice fans without ever having actually read the text…)

The worst of this for me wasn’t any of this, however. The worst of it is, to my surprise, Mia Wasikowska is actually a pretty great Alice. Yes, she’s older, but we’ve covered why that is and it’s a problem all its own that isn’t limited to this production. She would’ve been a fine Alice even if they’d just told the original story age be-damned as so many Alice adaptations have (my fave, Fiona Fullerton, and the not-too-bad Kate Beckinsale Through the Looking Glass, eg). And though my love of Johnny Depp has slid with every Pirate sequel he’s added to his resumé, I didn’t find his Hatter at all as annoying as I expected (stupid WTF dance in the final reel notwithstanding). The scenes between the two of them, particularly the one where Depp questions, frightened, “Have I gone mad, Alice?” are almost all of them heartbreaking to behold. Here, Burton moves the camera in on his actors, he stops showing off his visuals… there are shadows both physical and psychological, and the movie actually starts to become something.

It’s not enough by far, though. I might just be set in my ways on the subject but I’ve seen tons of Alice adaptations and no take on the story has yet made me feel so utterly convinced as this one that Lewis Carroll would literally cry if he heard about it (particularly the action-packed finale in which Alice slays the jabberwocky amidst a Lord of the Rings like battle…really) which I’m sure many people don’t really care about anyway. It struck me when the movie flashes back upon Alice’s original visit to “Underland” and they use a younger actress of the correct age that it would’ve been nice if, while shooting these small scenes, they had just gone ahead and had a second crew film the whole original book/s as a side project. It then occurred to me that the problem then would be that I fear many kids falling for this new vision would view such a thing as a prequel. And that’s just about enough about how much this movie depressed me.



Prancer Returns

Prancer Returns

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

As my mind boggles at how this installment has a higher score than the original on the IMDb and yet no one defending the ’89 movie anywhere, despite my pretty much zoning out after the point where they kill the eponymous reindeer here, this review becomes an easy one to write because I know exactly what I need to say. There is no way in hell that this is better than the original Prancer.

The original was about faith, childhood, and entirely put you in the best kind of Christmas spirit, that of a child. Its comedy came from truth: right from the off, for example, the little heroine’s loud singing which in itself reflected on the themes, she sang loud because she really believed in Christmas that much, it was an outward expression of her enthusiasm. The comedy in this movie is pure and simple slapstick. This story could be transplanted and displaced wherever and whenever you want it because it is nothing but a typical “kid brings something home they’re not supposed to and hilarity ensues” tale. You know: E.T., Fly Away Home, Pete’s Dragon. Oh wait, those were all fantastic because they weren’t piggybacking someone else’s legend. Prancer Returns‘ relationship with the first movie? It’s the same town, the kid in question expresses interest in the original story (which is quickly swept aside), and decides that a dead reindeer he finds is Prancer, thence naming the baby reindeer he finds close to the scene … also Prancer.

People speak of remakes and re-imaginings as “raping their childhood” and I always found that a ludicrously extreme response to the things I saw it said of but I understand the feeling here because this movie has no respect whatsoever for its namesake. It’s like one of the many sequels to Hellraiser which had nothing to do with Clive Barker’s universe but had the box and Pinhead shoehorned in somewhere, enough to warrant a title and coverart and nothing more. Only, this was worse. Consider it deleted from the Sky+ box and forgotten forever. Yes kids might like it but they deserve better, and let’s face it there’s plenty better.

(It needs to be said perhaps that I wrote most of the above long before the movie finished: I half hoped, half feared the movie would make a fool of me by maybe having the original Prancer actually “Return” hence the title at the end or something but not even that … seriously how anybody can feel good about this movie is beyond me.)



2010

2010

Monday, January 4th, 2010

“We have been given a new lease, and a warning, from the landlord…”

I figured for obvious reasons that this would make the perfect movie to start this year and decade with, especially on Blu-ray which I’m still a newcomer to, and especially since I’d never really watched it from start to finish if at all (I recognised a few parts but I’m not sure from when). Anybody who loves or at least knows cinema will know enough not to bring great expectations to this sequel to 2001 (which I’m not a personal fan of, but whose merits I fully appreciate), and approached this way, it’s not too bad at all.

What surprised me about the movie most was how much abstract remains regarding what’s revealed to us about the nature of the monolith etc. The movie begins with a computer readout of the “known unknowns” at the end of the first movie and what follows is futher exploration near Jupiter, the “resurrection” of HAL, and further developments leading to the creation of new worlds and a “new Eden” kind of set up that ends the movie with the line above. Watching at the start of a new year and decade, clearly we haven’t come quite so far as Arthur C. Clarke’s envisaged … but one can’t help but hope for events similar to this, something so cosmic and transformative we couldn’t all help but throw down our bullsh*t and look up together. [uhrm, /end corny mode]