Tag Archives: sequel

Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek Into Darkness 3 star

May 17th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

“Tell me this is gonna work.”
“I have neither the information nor the confidence to do so…”

I guess it was either in my reviews of Casino Royale or The Muppets that I never got round to posting that I referred back to the first of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies (since I didn’t write it in that review) saying something about the current trend of remakes/sequels/reboots/requels? i.e. the way that it’s all been kind of mashed up to a point where a lot of these movies are none of the above – the first Abrams Star Trek is both remake, sequel, and reboot, e.g. A lot of the Marvel movies leading up to The Avengers had a similar feeling – all set-up. Tony Stark is Iron Man at the end of Iron Man and I was like, okay, now can we go on an adventure please? etc. Ditto Batman Begins, The Thing, any number of recent re-dos.

When Chris Pine took to the captain’s chair at the end of that first movie, I felt the same same way – and I kind of expected the second movie to deliver on that. But within minutes of the title credit of Into Darkness, Kirk has been once again unseated as Captain due to characteristic disobedience pre-credits. It’s the first of many moments that make this movie even more (it has to be said) pleasantly surprising than the last of this year’s big movies, Iron Man 3, and I hope at least that part is a trend that continues.

I’m writing this from a bunch of notes about a week after seeing it because I didn’t really know what to think after I saw it and I wanted to hear a few other people’s opinions to see if anyone felt whatever I was feeling. I think this tweet pretty much captured it for me



What I’ve found in the time since seeing Into Darkness is that it only made me realise just how special Shane Black’s Iron Man 3 was and how it’s possibly spoiled the whole of Summer 2013 for me. Into Darkness sure is chaotic and fun, don’t get me wrong; and it does at the same time delve into tricky issues – terror? no, Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain here is a little more complicated than that. But it’s all so much of the same thing as the first movie was – retreading, rehashing, and finally, resetting at the end. Very TV. Very old TV.

How about some of the good… As in the first of Abrams movies, there’s much made of the logic/emotion collision between Spock and Kirk. Though I’m sure this has always been a part of the whole Spock/Kirk set-up, I have to admit that despite enjoying the movies and struggling through at least one season of the original series (I still say only the extended first episode “The Menagerie” really did anything for me), I never really got this as much as I have in Abrams and co’s more refined, delineated take on them. The pre-credits sequence leads to Spock saying the famous line, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” in reference for being prepared to lay down his life before disobeying a Starfleet directive – leading to a coldness between him and Uhura for much of the movie as, to her, it appeared like he didn’t think about her. There’s later a wonderful scene between him and Uhura where he explains to her (paraphrasing, I don’t remember the exact line), “You mistake my decision not to feel as an unwillingness to live, when in fact it is the complete opposite,” – something that resonates with me deeply. I love what they’re doing with Spock in this series.

So, in case it isn’t clear, I was sort of disappointed with this movie – moreso in the days after the final credits rolled than while watching it. I love that big movies like this are now subverting both our expectations (even despite the level of promotion these days – there’s far more space in this movie than I’d been led to believe, for one thing) and “original” events in the old timeline – whether it’s done well as in Iron Man 3 or just a little disappointingly as here. Avoiding spoilers about the true nature of Benedict Cumberbatch’s part here (but you probably have your correct suspicions, as I did), when someone screams that name here, it’s a direct inversion of what we’ve seen before. I kind of love that the way they set up this “parallel” Star Trek franchise in the first Abrams movie looks to be something they’re going to keep drawing upon (I didn’t quite see the point of the repeat Nimoy cameo here, though – Shatner or nothing next time, okay?) But I really hope that the next one really takes us somewhere new.

Iron Man 3 Iron Man 3 4 star

April 25th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

The first words that came to mind in the deliberately disjointed first few minutes of Iron Man 3* were “fast and loose”. We see the image of a row of Iron Man suits exploding in slow motion as an almost clichéd weary narration by Robert Downey Jr. begins to tell the story before stopping and deciding to start over at a much earlier point. But “fast and loose” doesn’t really begin to describe the freedom Shane Black seems to have been given on this, quite easily the best and most fun instalment in the trilogy.

Of course I came to this movie well prepared in terms of the Avengers franchise – this week in anticipation I watched both of the first Iron Man movies and last year’s team effort again; but in terms of the tone Shane Black brings to the table, perhaps I would’ve been less surprised if I’d also seen his debut feature Kiss Kiss Bang Bang first. I finally watched it the minute I got home from Iron Man 3 and the “fast and loose” made a lot more sense – Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is just as much of a delirious overturning of genre – but it’s still a pretty big shock that Black was allowed to play so much with such a huge property here.

“When are we gonna talk about New York?”
“Maybe never?”

The movie is so much fun in the end that it’s easy to forget how brutal it is initially in setting up the stakes. There’s some real nastiness here from Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin and all he represents that is every bit as bold from a mainstream American blockbuster as all its ultimate slapdashery. Given Kingsley’s very bearded similarity to one of America’s most recent enemies and images of Tony Stark having fever dreams and anxiety attacks over his recent encounter with unprecedented attacks in New York, it’s hard not to see the clear parallel being made here. We’ve seen a lot of depictions of terrorism in movies since 9/11 but perhaps none quite so close to the bone as this. The anti-American diatribes uttered by the Mandarin are the kind that almost have you convinced he might have a point. A musing on the phoniness of the fortune cookie – an invention not Chinese but American, and therefore “hollow and full of lies” – leads into a larger more tangible statement, the bombing of something equally artificial, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre… a moment that strikes one as being as much anti-Hollywood as it is anti-American (not to mention being a particularly unsettling watch in light of even more recent events…). There are early references to America’s genocide of the Native Americans, and even a callback in the middle section of the movie where Stark, lost and suit-less in the middle of snowy Tennessee, calls home and tells Pepper Potts, “I just stole a poncho from a wooden Indian,” having done just that outside a gas station.

“The second you give evil a face, you give the people a target.”

It’s hard to talk more about Ben Kingsley’s performance other than to say it is at turns chilling and completely in keeping with the more riotous tone of the movie – to say more than that would be to ruin one of the movie’s biggest surprises. I’ve probably already said too much – but I honestly lost count of how many times I couldn’t believe what I was seeing during this movie, so it’s pretty hard to spoil completely. I expressed astonishment that a movie like The Hunger Games got made by Hollywood last year. Let’s just say, what that movie had to say about the duplicity of power was nothing compared to the even harsher indictments of the modern Western world up the Mandarin’s sleeves…

The Mandarin’s minions are pretty scary individuals too – bio-engineered into either weapons or bombs (it depends how the treatment “takes”) – the “burning embers” flesh effect here is perhaps the most disturbing thing I’ve seen in a comic book movie since Robot Vera in Superman 3. The visual effects of the various havoc they wreak are quite something to behold, and particularly visceral when contrasted with the snowy setting of the middle section of the movie.

Then there’s the “barrel of monkeys” scene. I probably would’ve seen the movie in 3D even if I didn’t want to since that was all that was on offer in the way of a midnight screening and usually I’d say I can take or leave 3D (especially when it’s post-converted as here, something I only learned shortly before seeing it), but this free-fall sequence isn’t just one of the best uses of 3D I’ve seen but also one of the most basically uplifting action scenes too.

The movie isn’t without its little wobbles. In the Tennessee midsection it strays dangerously close to MacGyver territory as Stark resorts to building an arsenal of weapons out of bits and pieces purchased at a hardware store, and the young boy who becomes a kind of sidekick is something of a worry when he first appears, but what can I say? Like everything else, Black pulls it off – some of the funniest and most cheeky lines come between Stark and the little boy, in fact.

Likewise there are more than a couple of “deaths which turn out not to be deaths” that would normally annoy the hell out of me but for some reason – perhaps because this movie just isn’t like other movies – they didn’t. Perhaps it’s that the first of those “deaths” is oddly the more moving of the two (I don’t want to spoil, but hopefully this will make sense when you see it). Incidentally this is another thing I might not have found so strange had I seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang first – in which Black actually brings all his dead characters, plus Elvis and Lincoln (and why not?), into a final scene to make a funny point about one character surviving and happy movie endings in general.

Which brings me to Christmas. Of all the surprises Iron Man 3 has to offer, this was the one which makes it likely to be the Avengers movie I will wind up watching the most in years to come. Because Iron Man 3, it turns out, among other things, is an instant Christmas classic. An early scene has two kids approach Stark in a restaurant and ask for his autograph – one is a little blonde-haired boy in glasses to whom Stark quips, “I loved you in A Christmas Story by the way…” The movie begins with Stark buying Pepper, much to her consternation, a ridiculous oversized bunny for Christmas but ends with him offering her a much larger (literally and emotionally) gesture. There’s Christmas songs on the soundtrack. There’s snow. There’s redemption. It’s not just a movie that happens to be set at Christmas – it’s an honest to god Christmas movie. It’s bizarre they didn’t schedule it for a November/December release (though I’d neither want an unfinished movie nor to have had to wait 8 more months…) – but that’s when I’ll be watching it in the future.

Iron Man 3 winds down very much as if it means to be the closing out of a trilogy that has done as much for the comic book movie (remember just 5 years ago when an Avengers movie was like a distant dream? I was barely even interested!) as it seems to have done for its star. When Downey Jr.’s narration speaks of the Iron Man suit like a cocoon it’s hard not to feel like he’s talking about himself and his much storied past problems. Like Stark, he immersed himself in this role that seemed at first so at odds with his image, and he seems to have emerged a far better man. I was reminded of the even more troubled Mel Gibson’s narration at the end of The Beaver – “This is a picture of Walter Black, a once hopelessly depressed individual, who had to become a beaver, who had to become a phenomenon, so that ultimately this could just be a picture of Walter Black…” For all its eye candy this is a franchise that has real characters with demons working through real recognisable issues at its core, and it’d be a jaded soul indeed that didn’t recognise how wonderful this is to find in what will certainly be one of the biggest movies of the year.

* (I’m usually as picky as the BBFC at typing film titles exactly as they appear in the opening credit but “Iron Man Three” just looks strange so I’m sticking with the 3)

Exorcist II: The Heretic Exorcist II: The Heretic 3 star

March 12th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: ,

“Does great goodness draw evil upon itself?”

(I just found this whole review in my drafts, I think I wrote it some time between Halloween and New Year – I think there’s a lot to be written about this movie regarding the plot, as messed up as it might be… I think the movie really has a lot to say based around that line above, it just majestically fails to say it… it won’t be the last time I watch it though…)

I’m sort of surprised I haven’t written about this one before, then again, slightly not. It’s a tough one. For while I agree that compared to the original this is barely worth the celluloid it’s printed on, I think taken on its own merits it’s nowhere near as bad as its reputation either. Director John Boorman has spoken of the fact he deliberately made a movie that was practically the anti-thesis to what audiences at large mistakenly perceived (and continue to perceive, alas) as the original movie’s raison d‘être – to shock and be nasty. It’s not worth really talking about how wrong this starting block was except to mention it – if you don’t see the great good in The Exorcist, I feel sorry for you…

So this doesn’t fit into what I would consider as the real Exorcist series – which would be the original, William Peter Blatty’s mostly unrelated follow-up The Ninth Configuration, and Exorcist III which re-united us with Damien Karras and Detective Kinderman – so what? What it does offer is the return of Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil, now troubled by her vague memories of what happened in the original movie; also the return of Kitty Winn as her mother’s assistant Sharon; a brief glimpse of Max Von Sydow out of old age make-up doing the “first exorcism” that is spoken of in the original (and would feature in the prequel “The Beginning” / “Dominion”); a haunting return to the house in Washington, standing just as we left it (for a time, at least…); some stunning photography by William A. Fraker; frankly incredible visual effects in the final reel (notwithstanding the awful recreation of Regan’s possession make-up/voice…); and a simply awesome score by Ennio Morricone.

If a lot of this sounds like mere aesthetic pleasure, I’ll be honest, it mostly is. Plotwise the movie frequently falls down. I’ve seen both versions and they both feel like they’ve been tampered with in a desperate attempt to make it all cohere (the short version only available on VHS is far worse in this regard, I seem to remember, though), and yes there are parts that are downright laughable. But if you don’t get just a little unsettled by the opening scene, or that strange first appearance of “possessed Regan” grappling with the doctor’s heart; or moved by Morricone’s “Regan’s Theme” over the autistic girl, Regan on the rooftop, or the closing moments; or just drop dead at how gorgeous Blair is here (okay, maybe just me, but I had to mention it: she’s never looked more beautiful), I really think you’re missing something slightly wonderful, albeit disastrously fleeting.

Resident Evil: Retribution Resident Evil: Retribution 3 star

January 31st, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

“You are my mother aren’t you?” “I am now.”

I was surprised to find I posted (albeit small) reviews for the first three movies in this series (Resident Evil, Apocalypse, Evolution). I found the following in my notes as the beginning of my review of the last one (Afterlife) which I never posted:

“There’s a point in this where Alice encounters a character who was evidently in Resident Evil: Apocalypse, the last installment, which apparently I’ve seen. She asks the character if she remembers anything, and she obviously doesn’t… Luckily it quickly becomes apparent that it doesn’t really matter if we or she remembers anything… very video gamey as it happens I guess.”

I remembered this as Retribution began – mercifully or questionably, you decide – with a 7 and a half minute recap (note that this is a 95 minute movie, with 10 minutes of end credits) of the key points of the whole series and the ending of Afterlife played first backwards then forwards in slow motion. Then just when you think you know where you are again, the action cuts to what is to all intents and purposes a retread of the first 10 minutes of Zack Snyder’s remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, with Milla Jovovich suddenly a housewife and mother before zombie hell breaks loose in her suburban neighbourhood (it’s actually much better done than I might be describing it and I’d love to see Paul WS Anderson do such a straight horror movie, he made me jump more than a couple of times).

As it turns out, this was one of many simulations by the Umbrella Corporation using an Alice clone. “Our” Alice then finds herself in the simulation mistaken by the clone Alice’s daughter as the mother. This immediately struck a chord with me – I watched it in a double bill with Silent Hill: Revelation and it’s interesting that one of the many things that movie lacked compared to its forerunner, the motherhood theme, should show up (if only a small amount) here in another game adaptation. It isn’t Ripley and Newt, but it’s there and worthy of note.

I’ve been a loyal follower of this series since the first contained some of the most wince inducing moments I’ve seen in modern horror. I really think Paul WS Anderson does what he does well, even if I’d prefer he turned his hand more often to standalone work like his best work to date, Event Horizon – there’s a real menace to both his action and horror scenes that for whatever reason really hits me on a visceral level. Throw in the simple aesthetic pleasure of Milla Jovovich’s Alice either red dressed or leather suited and I am more than happy to sit down for 90 minutes for one of these however frequently they desire to release them (I’m actually already thinking a rewatch of the entire series might form the basis of my Halloween marathon later in the year – perhaps I’ll lengthen those older reviews).

Silent Hill: Revelation Silent Hill: Revelation 3 star

January 31st, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , ,

Of the many concerns that struck me only after the credits came up here (I’d previously been focussed on the idea of a sequel to begin with and the lack of Jodelle Ferland in the cast) was the title – I adored the first Silent Hill though I’d never played the games (I think I watched my brother play one once, that’s about as close as I ever got) but if I was asked what I loved the most about it I’d say the mystery of it all. Some people loathed the ending of the first movie, but it gives me chills every time (and I’ve probably watched it at least once a year since 2006 – this sequel makes me want to watch it again, too). So, Revelation? No thanks. I kinda didn’t want to know exactly what was going on at the end there.

They do fill in the blanks but it wasn’t as destructive to my memories of the first movie as I feared. First of all the replacement of Jodelle Ferland is done very well, for grown up “Heather”, flashbacks and Alessa alike. The question does arise as to why Jodelle wasn’t brought back – it would be a rare lead for her and reprise one of her best “loved” characters among her fans, the actress who replaces her seems to be about the same age, and the script, while nothing compared to Roger Avary’s for the first movie, is certainly no worse than some of the horror movies she’s taken part in. It’s unlikely she was doing the voice for ParaNorman at the time as animation voices are generally recorded years before the films are completed, but it’d be interesting if that played a part in the clash (her role in ParaNorman is very like Alessa, a young girl visiting anger on a small spooky down having been wronged years ago). In any case, I was able to get past the idea of Sharon getting out of Silent Hill (my basic understanding of the ending of the first, if not my metaphorical interpretation, wasn’t shattered, at least) and I warmed to the replacement quickly as she introduces herself to new schoolmates, a habit due to her and her father’s many moves across the country:

“…don’t bother trying to remember my name because I’m sure as hell not going to remember yours. Don’t talk to me, we won’t be friends. I won’t IM you, or Facebook you or tweet you. Read your blog. And whatever you’re thinking of saying or doing, don’t bother because I’ve seen it before and I’m just guessing here, but I don’t think there are too many original thinkers in this room.”

Nice speech, right? And the rest of the movie plays out just about the same as the first with Heather going back to Silent Hill despite herself and fighting all manner of bizarre monsters. As with the recasting of young Alessa, the overall look of the movie follows seamlessly from the first movie, and another of my favourite elements, the music, remains the same. What it lacks is that huge sense of mystery, and the powerful theme of motherhood that continues to hit me whenever I watch the first one. “Daughter. Sister. Self,” aspires to be a line like “Mother is god in the eyes of a child,” but it really doesn’t come close.

Eclipse Eclipse 2 stars

September 27th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

I didn’t change my New Moon review at all when I watched it a second time, I just added an extra heart. Kinda same thing here… this is the weakest of the first three (I’ve yet to watch the Breaking Dawn‘s)… practically half of it is backstory or exposition. But again it didn’t offend me as much as before a second time around – so if there is any anger in the words below, tone it down a little in your head :)

September 27th, 2010:

Again, I have to preface this review with the sole reason I watched it so you know where I come from and that I’m fully aware it wasn’t made for the likes of me. I saw the first Twilight because I’ll give anything a chance, it already had a huge following, and I loved Catherine Hardwicke’s previous work (not just Thirteen, but also Lords of Dogtown and The Nativity Story) and felt if anyone could make a great seriously adolescent vampire story then it was her. Needless-to-say, I was disappointed, and therefore dismayed when news came out that not only was Dakota Fanning to appear in the sequel New Moon, but also that Drew Barrymore might direct (thank heavens, only one of those rumours came true).

If you read my New Moon review, you’ll see that while it’s still to me just a huge blight on Dakota Fanning’s filmography, I did almost – just almost – begin to warm to the story, or at least comprehend why anybody would. Hearing that the third installment, now in the hands of an even more interesting director than the original’s Hardwicke (and certainly more than New Moon‘s Chris Weitz), was actually the closest to a “real film” that the series had come so far, I’ll admit I actually got my hopes up just a little here. I had issues with David Slade’s Hard Candy but it’s impossible to deny it’s a great movie, and 30 Days of Night was one of the best horror movies of recent years. They seemed like the perfect combo for Slade prior to showing the first two Twilight movies “how it’s done”. But I still came to this solely for Fanning and, this time, Jodelle Ferland. I really would not be writing about this movie if it weren’t for them lol. Damn them.

So, first disappointment: I was just a little miffed that Dakota Fanning’s appearance in New Moon was minor to say the least. But it came at the close, and hinted at a much larger role to come, therefore adding to me slightly increased anticipation of this third installment. Her appearance here is just as tiny and she appears to be, if it’s even possible, even more bored than she was there. I genuinely do not understand why she chose to be in these movies.

Then there’s Jodelle. Now, Jodelle Ferland hasn’t been as consistently brilliant as a Fanning or whatever over the years, with roles like those in The Messengers and Seed it seems she genuinely will take any work that’s sent her way, but she has made some terrifically bizarre choices in her catalogue so far. This role, like so many, really just calls for her to be a terrified young thing who barely has time to realise what’s happened to her before Fanning shuts her up for good. In other words she’s wasted even more than Fanning in a movie where “too bored to be cool for school” Kristen Stewart is the headliner. It is just wrong.

So, if you haven’t gathered, I was not impressed. The first two parts of this series didn’t upset me as much as the overpraise of them did. They were kind of inoffensive, whatever if you like it you like it and I’m not gonna object, stuff. I figured that it couldn’t possibly get worse than that, and with someone like Slade in charge and this seeming intention to “make it better”, I did just slightly believe this one might be OK. I didn’t in a million years expect it to be worse. But it is. It might be slicker (only slightly) visually, but it’s just the same meandering emo dithering that we’ve already been bored to death with in the first two instalments. It’s depressing how much passion there is for this series which is so utterly passionless. I tried thinking of it in the same terms as I have Sofia Coppola’s teenage moping movies from time to time – that is, that they’re adolescent in their portrayal of adolescence and that somehow, though annoying, that works – but that excuse just doesn’t cut it here anymore.

Don’t even get me started on the fact that these vampires seem to be made of highly flammable glass, lol. Seriously, if you genuinely love this movie, open your eyes and look around because you are in for a treat in so many other places.

Toy Story 3 Toy Story 3 4 star

July 27th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

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 3 star

July 20th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

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.