arc_a2007's reviews

Listening to Dark Side of the Moon, or in this case, watching The Wall is always a spiritual experience for me. How did I reach this point? Well, like so many of my generation, I grew up hearing Pink Floyd ad nauseam on the radio, never thinking much about it; their music was bizarre, otherworldly, and dreamlike, but nonetheless heard too often to be really appreciated. Fast forward to about 19. One of their songs from Dark Side of the Moon entered my head. Music always enters when I awake, even something I haven't heard in many years.

So I sat down and listened, for the first time, really listened. It was like hearing Pink Floyd for the first time. The lyrics were... I couldn't believe it. Disillusioned with society, the narrator sees through all the stupid games, meaningless rituals and trappings that amount to an ultimately meaningless existence. Money, time... all a poison for the soul and the world that most people drift through without a second glance is a nightmare to anyone who sees it with these cold eyes. It was all spelled out there, as if straight from my mind but more clear and complete. So Dark Side of the Moon suddenly made sense, was completely profound and profoundly personal I had a similar experience with The Wall. This too was heard endlessly on the radio without thinking much of it, even after my aforementioned revelation. Only when I saw this film did it really fall into place, and in a major way. Pink Floyd: The Wall is many things to me. Depressing it certainly is, and a dangerous film for anyone battling depression. It broadens the world view introduced on Dark Side, adding to the bleakness, only this time the insanity flirted with on "Brain Damage" is explored in full.

I haven't gone through absolutely everything that Pink experiences in the film (and I hope no one has to), but many of the scenes are a bit too real. They hit hard, and that's one thing about these Pink Floyd albums: they're profound and potentially beneficial, but far from easy to digest. I guess that's why I don't listen to them often; they're for special occasions when I'm truly ready for the trip.

The Wall is indeed personal; I envisioned making this kind of movie years before I saw it. I'm a lover of the surreal and this movie certainly has that, not only in the excellently twisted animation of Gerald Scarfe but the central narrative in general. The animations, of course, complete the music like its missing half. These also create the most disturbing moments, the parts of the film that will really stay with you.

The acting is great; I love the spontaneity and risks taken to ensure its realness - I certainly noticed that. The masks are appropriate, there's no other word for it, and the school children walking in unison was a great nod to Metropolis. Anyway, the way the visuals accompany the music is sometimes sad, or discomforting, but always completely fitting. Maybe I'll write more later. Right now I'm deliriously tired.

I've got to be honest... I expected this movie to be bad. The trailers gave me a bad impression and the film's poor IMDb rating didn't help. But I was pleasantly surprised. The graphics are impressive, some of the most realistic yet. The mice and rats are just a bit too real for some people; just as easily creepy as they are cute. The environments are meticulously designed, creative and clever, and lighting certainly plays an important role.

But an animated film is not measured by its visuals (at least in my mind). The story is always the driving element, and Despereaux spins a layered tale of redemption. The big-eared hero Despereaux is not the sole focus of the film. It's split between him and Roscuro, with slices of the king and the servant girl as well. Each character has a tale of redemption, and those who become villains are seen in a sympathetic light. These aren't larger-than-life Disney villains, they're human beings (well, not always but you get the point). There's a reason why they turn to negative deeds. And they don't have to die for there to be a happy ending. The emotions are real. The scene where the king plays the lute for example, is heartbreaking without uttering a word.

I really enjoyed this film. Like all of you, I saw the IMDb rating and expected something pretty bad. But after seeing it, I just don't understand the negative hype.

That sums up Open Season perfectly. The film was designed to be shown in 3D, and they make sure you know it by making crap fly out at the screen every few seconds. This has been a bad habit of 3d movies from the beginning, and one that doesn't show signs of stopping if the upcoming "A Christmas Carrol" is any indication. But it's not all bad. The story behind Pixar's Up was so absorbing that you actually forgot it was in 3d. Coraline was even more effective with 3d, completely absorbing you into its surreal, stylized world. But I'm getting waaaay off-topic. Open Season's 3d effects are in-your-face and obnoxious. There, done. Moving on...

The film's visual style is minimal. Many of the animals seem like they were designed by Pablo Picasso, as they come in all sorts of bizarre, deformed varieties. Many of the animals introduced for no reason other than to summon a cheap laugh. Boog - one of the main characters - is annoying, whiny, arrogant and unconvincing. In other words, he's easy to hate. Elliot on the other hand... I expected this Ashton Kutcher-fronted character to be terrible, but he's actually a redeeming factor of the movie. He's very funny and has all of the best lines. The two tourists and their dog are funny as well. The villain is, well... pretty light. Don't expect anything more than a gun-totin' redneck. But at the very least he does create actual tension in one scene where Boog is hiding from him. It's when this film tries to become serious and deliver life lessons that it falls flat.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is one of those movies I grew up on. I've seen it so many times that no matter how long I wait, I remember everything that happens. In all honesty, I HATE some of the musical numbers the theme song is repeated way too much and the film really could have gone without "Truly Scrumptious" and "Lovely Lonely Man". But I do have a soft spot for "Roses of Success". But that's not why I like this film. I like it because it's enormous. It takes the viewer so many places and does so many things, all within two and a half hours. Sure, a big slice of the film is a giant detour of a daydream, but that's not a disadvantage when there's so much to see. It's the ride that counts after all, and this one is rife with fantasy, music, humor, tender moments and visual flair. This is a classic that deserves to be one.

I started watching X-Play way back when it was still Extended Play. I've watched it pretty frequently since then and it's still a reliable video game show. Adam and Morgan are natural hosts and it's obvious they're passionate about gaming. Even Adam, with his stuttering and his bad jokes, has a certain charm.

The only downside is that recently, they've done away with the corny sketches. That may sound like a good thing, but they were a part of the show's personality. As cheesy and cheap as they were, they did showcase a good sense of humor, generating jokes and references that only seasoned gamers could get.

I expected Igor to be terrible, but it turned out to be a pretty enjoyable film. It's the kind of thing you don't mind watching with your kids a few times. It doesn't break any ground as an animated film, but what it does, it does pretty well. Igor's sidekicks are highlights of the movie; both Scamp and Brain are constantly hilarious. Though I can definitely see why it bombed in theaters. Family audiences might dislike Igor for its black humor, but it's a light kind of black humor - harmless and fun. Nightmare Before Christmas fans might hate it for its visual style, which is at times a complete rip-off of NMBC or Corpse Bride. This is most apparent in supporting characters: the mayor of Malaria resembles the mayor of Halloweentown, Dr. Glickenstein resembles Dr. Finkelstein... the resemblances are uncanny. As for goths, they'll absolutely detest the ending! I detest the ending as well, especially the song they close the movie with. Speaking of music, they use 30s-50s vocal jazz tunes to great effect throughout the film, heightening certain moments.

Tom Sawyer is an MGM animated film at heart. It has corny songs, requisite love interests, physical humor and that signature art style. But Tom Sawyer is different. MGM usually makes sequels to animated films, putting little thought into them and stripping their essence away. But here they retell a classic story in their own unique way, staying true to the source material's strong narrative. And maybe that's why Tom Sawyer succeeds where so many other MGM features have failed. No habits are broken here, but it's an enjoyable ride all the same. I can't stand the corny country music-flavored songs, but eh. The art is really nice too.

Once Upon A Forest is a touching film. Its strong emotions and sincere message make it as captivating for both children and adults. The central story is one of love. Three children venture into a frightening world to save one whose life has only begun. It all takes place in a world endangered, setting the stage for an environmental message - one that avoids demonizing mankind. There's even a bit of social commentary near the end. The music helps to heighten the mood. "Please Wake Up" and the closer "Once Upon A Time With Me" are simply beautiful, even if they are hinted at a bit too much. "Please Wake Up" is sung by the aging Cornelius early in the film, and Michael Crawford's emotional performance, truly on the verge of tears, immortalizes it with such sincerity. The film's only real flaw is its length. At the very least, the whole day skipped when the furlings set out on their journey could have been touched on. I could nitpick with small problems, but I won't. It's rare that a children's animated film has such heart. It's also rare that such a film dares to defy the "happy ending at all costs" attitude.

Because that's exactly what you get. Monsters vs. Aliens isn't a TERRIBLE movie, but it's not very good either. The plot is predictable. That's something that you should expect from movies of this type. But a certain other animation studio (I think you know the one) makes the journey itself so enjoyable, and the scope of adventure so vast that it doesn't matter. Monsters vs. Aliens feels at times like a bunch of action scenes strung together by completely unfunny jokes. There's also a message of female independence here, one that gives the film a chick-flick flair. If that sounds bad, stick around. It gets worse.

This movie is just not funny. It spouts pop culture references (a dirty habit of Dreamworks animation), one of which is embarrassing to watch even by oneself. The action scenes are... well, they're Incredibles-ish. At least they try to be. They attempt to be frantic and energetic, but it doesn't really turn out that way. The movie reaches its absolute lowpoint when we're supposed to mourn a character who's come off like one big joke the whole film. This eye-rolling moments leaves us wondering why we should care.

But it's not all bad. In one particular scene, the main character Susan gets imprisoned. What happens next is surprising and exciting. You just don't expect that to happen. The celebrity presence in a Dreamworks film is always a certainty. They always put flash-in-the-pan idiots in lead roles. But in their defense, at least Hugh Laurie is subdued. You don't know that it's him, and that's something these big personalities should learn to make a convincing role. Still, Monsters vs. Aliens is quite mediocre. We know where it's going within ten minutes of the film and the rest is fleshed out by action scenes and dumbed-down comedy.

A Troll in Central Park is not a terrible film. It's just extremely sweet and innocent and this world isn't ready for it. Anyone over six years of age will be embarrassed to watch this - even alone - but that's more of a societal problem. But there are definitely reasons to see this. The animation is amazing, particularly with the children. It's realistic but somehow completely believable in an animated world. And their movements are so fluid and realistic. You can tell every action was acted out and studied meticulously. I really wish this was done more often. The environments also look amazing, especially when the human world comes into play. As for the cute or humorous sidekicks, that's another story entirely. It's probably just a personal bias, but I hate the way Don Bluth designs his more cartoon-y characters. Their personalities aren't any better, ranging from "cute" to marshmallow-peep-flavored-vomit "cute".

Anyone who loved The Secret of NIMH will be shocked to see this film. I mean, how can the same guy who made a progressive, dark and outstanding film be responsible for this? The story is very fairy-tale esquire, like a children's storybook come to life. The villains are more humorous than threatening, the characters spontaneously break into song and dance and everything is whitewashed with cuteness. This is the result of Don Bluth finally giving in to the pressures of Disney, trying to replicate their formula, losing his identity in the process and ultimately falling flat. Luckily, Anastasia would be a healthy step up. But for fans of Bluth's one-hit wonder, it's kind of depressing.

Blair Witch 2 is an obvious cash-in on the success of the first movie. The film makes no attempt at hiding it either, as that fact is the motivation of the characters! In this film's universe, "The Blair Witch Project" was an actual recording, not a movie. Intrigued and curious, various tourists come to the area where it was shot to find out more. The film centers around a small circle of tourists visiting the area. Among them is the typical cool young male archetype, the horror-obsessed goth girl (who, surprisingly enough, doesn't show signs of mallgoth-ism) and the boring, ditzy girlfriend. Also among them is the easily-offended, fundamentalist Wiccan girl, surely a result of so-called "witches" who were offended at the original film.

As for the plot, there hardly is one. A circle of clueless tourists stay in a house in the woods and some weird stuff happens. Anything that's supposed to be scary isn't (at least not to me). Just as an example: near the beginning of the film, there's this huge tree in the woods. The tourists come back to it later and it's not there anymore. Oooh, scary! Phantom tree! But if you know the motivation behind this sequel, you know what to expect. It's a ridiculous attempt at crowd pleasing.

Valiant is certainly a step up from Robots (then again, what isn't?). By itself, it's an extremely average film, but you can't help notice similarities between the two. It certainly doesn't help that Ewan McGregor - who played the main character in this studio's previous film - plays the main character here as well. It also doesn't help that he's EXACTLY THE SAME, personality-wise. He's a good-natured, underclass hero that you can't give a crap about no matter how hard you try. And just like Robots, at the end of this film you get a nauseating "everything's fine" scene where everyone's just dancing. But at least they did away with those nauseating, embarrassing pop culture references.

Valiant is a predictable believe-in-yourself story (yet again an echo of Robots) with stereotype characters (ditto), illogical plot points and WTF moments (when the main character is chased across an entire ocean in a matter of seconds) but nice visuals. Being the Python fan, the prescence of John Cleese was enough to get me excited, but nothing could save the flat characters and predictable story.

After being pleasantly surprised with Kung Fu Panda, I decided to check out this direct-to-video feature packaged with the DVD release. Now, if you look at this as direct-to-video, it's not bad. They certainly come much, MUCH worse. But if you're expecting something as satisfying as the source film, you will be let down. You'll also be let down if you expect all the originals actors to be present. This is something that would be right at home on Saturday morning television. There are a few CG scenes here, but the feature mainly uses the stylized 2d technique seen at the beginning of Kung Fu Panda. Nothing's wrong with that. What really sinks this for me is the poor story. Everything about this feature "dumbs down" the plot of its source material reducing the origins of these important characters to simple morality tales. It takes the easy road on these potentially deep characters and ends up being a bit of a letdown.

Kung Fu Panda is a pleasant surprise in a long line of poor Dreamworks movies. It's their best effort since the original Shrek, mainly because more attention is given to the story and characters. Dreamworks has several problems that keep my expectations consistently low and the big one is character development. It seems that for every film, Dreamworks tries to get the biggest names possible for roles. Because of this, characters often end up feeling soulless and flat.

Dreamworks hasn't dropped the big-name habit with Kung Fu Panda, but each character feels very fleshed-out and real. Even the furious five, who tend to take a back seat in the calmer moments of the film, seem to have their own ambitions and conflicts. As for the main roles, Jack Black plays an in-over-his-head, clumsy fanboy of Kung Fu quite well. Dustin Hoffman plays his role perfectly, reflecting a Kung Fu movie vibe better than anyone else in the film. As for Randall Duk Kim, he plays master Oogway, the most all-around likable character in recent memory. He is immensely wise, but takes life in a carefree, humorous manner. It's no coincidence his character has some of the funniest lines in the film. But I digress...

The story is a follow-your-dreams message against a fantasy Kung Fu backdrop. The comedy can be summed up as "quality over quantity" and works perfectly that way. The action scenes are often quite imaginative and one particular scene in the prison will have you on the edge of your seat (and the edge of disbelief). The visuals are great as always, the soundtrack is a pleasing orchestral score with a Chinese flare, and overall it's a great animated film. What a pleasant surprise from Dreamworks.

Sheep in the Big City is a strange show. I remember loving it when I was younger and only a handful of episodes were shown on constant repeat, but now that I look at it as a whole, I can easily see its flaws. I can easily see why it was canceled. For those of you who don't know, Sheep in the Big City was a contestant in a contest Cartoon Network held a few years ago. Different animation studios would send in short episodes of their proposed show and users would vote to decide which one would be made into a series. And it's as if the creators of Sheep never intended to win. When the series begins, things quickly become formulaic.

In every episode, General Specific tries to capture Sheep for his sheep-powered ray-gun. (What does he need a ray-gun for anyway? The show never explains.) Anyway, interspersed between every three-part capture sheep plot are "commercials" that poke fun at pop culture. These actually are funny, for the most part. But the show's main sense of humor comes from taking figures-of-speech, sayings, etc. literally. These are pretty juvenile at best, when they're not being glaringly obvious (One example is a man saying "I'm not a doctor but I play one on the TV", followed by him jumping around on a TV set, shouting "I'm a doctor! I'm playing on the TV!"). And would you believe the most hilarious moment of this series comes in the pilot episode? The characters are going about their business when a cute and saccharine little girl asks them to help find her sheep. One of the characters then proceeds to grab her by the head and nonchalantly fling her over their shoulder. If this kind of outrageous, unexpected humor had been used more often, who knows how it could have improved the show.

But as it is, Sheep in the Big City has too few moments of good humor and falls prey to its own plot. It probably sounds like I hate this show, but I don't. As I mentioned earlier, I loved this when I was younger, but now that I've watched the entire series through twice, its flaws are all too obvious.

I've watched this show dozens of times by now (for a lack of anything else to watch) and not once have I laughed. Hell, not once have I been entertained! The show has no plot or direction, but that's the point, isn't it? What you're left with then, are low-brau, intelligence-insulting jokes and random one-shot characters. This show is a lot like experimental music, in a way. You feel clever for liking it just because it defies convention. It could be a work of art, but it could just as well be a lazily thrown-together piece of crap. The latter seems to be the case here. But the bottom line is: this is one of the driest shows I've ever seen. I watch it again and again just trying to "get" what's so great about this show. Nope.

1.Robin Williams. You don't need to shout. Your crude, wooden impersonations weren't funny when we heard them ten years ago; they won't be now. 2.It's a novel idea to have a movie about the working class life... the conflicts of what you dream of doing and what you must do. Yeah, the film kind of sends mixed messages there, and even abandons it near the end. 3.Poor character design. I don't care about any of the misfit robots, not to mention Rodney himself. They're so boring, so safe and completely predictable. 4.The comedy. This film is laden with Robot jokes, jokes about the posterior and the toilet, just to name a few. 5.Near the end of the film, there exists a completely unnecessary, utterly tacked-on action scene that's unbelievably boring.

I could go on, but I'd really rather not. I'd rather be watching better animated films. Nice visuals, though. That's about all I can say in the way of praise.

With most CG animated movies, I can watch them more than once. This isn't the case with Bee Movie. I've tried to watch it again on two separate occasions and I absolutely could not. It is indescribably boring and unfathomably dull. I could watch paint dry and be more engaged than this. They could have taken the themes of working class life and run with it, made it something that could really touch adults. Instead, they pretty much abandon that in a flash for a crazy "love story" that never really seems like a love story at all. Then they bring in things about bee cruelty, which intend to make the viewer "look through a bee's eyes" and abruptly abandon that for... I really don't know anymore. It's just one giant, honey-flavored mess. It's also laden with cheesy bee jokes and overused talent. Patrick Warburton and John Goodman have done enough animated movies recently to satisfy an entire century. So, in short, don't see this. It's easily one of Dreamworks' worst.

Most Christians will probably be severely offended by this show, but that's part of its charm. Its offensiveness is riding on the shoulders of an innocent little boy who simply doesn't know any better. He misinterprets others' advice and chaos ensues. The same could be said about religion itself. What I find so continually compelling about this show however, is that it dares to be different. The line-up on Adult Swim has swiftly shifted to gore porn as of recent (Metalocalypse and Robot Chicken being perfect examples), but Orel focuses its sights on the way religion controls people, changes them. Lying beneath the bitter sentiments however, is something even better: character development. Throughout the series, we see the various demented characters of Oralton for who they really are. This really kicks off in season three (which is currently nearing its end) and it's truly gripping. What you thought were one-off humor characters in the first season are revealed to be deeply troubled human clay-things in the second. Speaking of, the series gets quite dark at times, and with only the personalities of the characters... Yes, things can be dark without buckets of blood. But in the little town of Oralton, Statesota, we see much more than a bewildered mass. We see a portrait of the American psyche. (other psycho-analytical jargon here)

I'm ashamed to say that I live in the United States. I was lucky enough, however, to catch an episode of the original series on BBCA. I was glued to the screen the entire time, utterly entertained and interested in the plot and characters. I was thinking about purchasing the series when I saw an advertisement on television. "The acclaimed British crime drama is coming to America" it said. I decided to record a few episodes, one of which I watched today. Almost immediately, I began to suspect the wrong program had been recorded.

The first five or ten minutes was a pretty awful, rushed and messy CSI ripoff. It was uncomfortably wedged in before the major event that sets up the whole series. It wavered from two minutes of boring to two minutes of action, and back again. If you're going to re-make a series, nothing's wrong with an occasional nod to the original, but here they're obvious and painful. It's like they're jumping around with a sign that says "This happened in the original series too!" After the aforementioned major event occurred, I turned it off and swiftly deleted this program from my schedule. Amazon here I come. This reinforces the idea that America should never re-make British television. It lacks everything that made the original Life on Mars so enjoyable to watch. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

As with all of Pixar's previous releases, I keep finding myself coming back for more. No matter how many times I see it, I'm actually excited about seeing it again. This is mainly because Pixar spends so much time on the story. Here, the plot twists and turns, splitting apart so that everything can interweave and meet in the end. Such issues that take center stage here are family, friendship and love, with a slice of social commentary on the side. Here, each issue has time to gradually build until everything peaks near the end of the film. To say it's "feel-good" would be an understatement, but anyone familiar with Pixar should know this by now.

The cast is excellent and the voices fit the characters so perfectly that they become almost inseparable. The actors may not have always had a say on how their characters look, but I don't think they should be complaining; they're all spot-on. Seriously, I usually hate Larry the Cable Guy, but his character "Mater" was adorable, funny and plays a rather important role in the film. George Carlin (rest his soul) plays, quite appropriately, a hippie Volkswagen van, Cheech Marin plays a painted lowrider... these could've simply been amusing caricatures, but they were also made genuine elements of the film's emotional world. About the soundtrack... though this kind of music is usually suited for NASCAR fans, it actually fits the film quite well and *gasp* doesn't make me want to sandpaper my face off!

Oh, and the visuals are stunning, even by Pixar's standards. There are countless moments that beckon "ooh"s and "ahh"s. This is especially true in the scene where Lightning and Sally go for a drive. All in all though, this is a film well-worth seeing, both for children and adults. It's a film about family, friends and love, but also about the places we call home.