Change Your Image
clark-157
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
Up to Pixar Standards, if all you've seen is Cars 2.
In a parallel universe where dinosaurs can talk and are highly evolved, while people can't talk and are remarkably dog-like, a young dinosaur struggles to find his way home, and finds himself along the way.
If you're thinking this sounds familiar, minus the people who can only sniff the ground and howl like dogs while dinosaurs carry on intelligent conversations, you're right; it is familiar. This is because it uses two fairly common themes in movies, and, more generally, in stories: The "Coming of Age" trope, and the "Homeward Journey" trope. The Odyssey is one of the oldest examples of the latter, but plenty of films have used it, such as The Incredible Journey, War Horse, and even The Martian.
Pixar has used it previously as well, in Finding Nemo, and, to a lesser degree, Wall-E. So, while the trope is as old as storytelling, it can be the plot basis for great films.
Alas, Pixar fans, The Good Dinosaur is not a great film — too many elements are just too predictable, no real surprises — but it is nevertheless a pretty good film, just not up to Pixar's standards. It's enjoyable if you don't let the predictability didn't get in the way, and if you can convince yourself that this is not really a Pixar film, so that you don't expect too much. Actually, I guess it is up to Pixar standards if all you have seen of their films is Cars 2. And this is probably just a smidge better than Cars 2.
But, coming right after Inside Out, The Pretty Good Dinosaur is a pretty major disappointment, an inexcusable lapse in their normally high standards.
However, it's not by any stretch a bad film — this is why I gave it a 6 — and two aspects of this film are really well done: The cinematography, and the music. It is visually amazing; they were able to create landscapes in an animated film that are often indistinguishable from a live action film, and kudos to them for that.
The music is by Canadian Mychael Danna, one of the best contemporary composers of film music (The Life of Pi (for which he won an Academy Award), The Time-Traveler's Wife, Capote, and, I believe, all Atom Egoyan films) and his brother Jeff, and once again they do a really good job, although perhaps not quite as good as The Life of Pi, but hardly any films can meet that standard for music.
Mychael Danna also does a fine job with the music for the short that precedes The Good Dinosaur, and that short film, Sanjay's Super Team, is sweet, original, and well worth seeing.
Pixar has set an insanely-high bar in terms of quality in their films, and while this has clearly not achieved the level of their best films, it is nevertheless a pretty good film with some exquisite touches (cinematography, music). I recommend seeing it with significantly tempered expectations, if you were expecting something closer to Up, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, or Inside Out. Or, really, any Pixar film not named Cars 2.
Pan (2015)
Hook as Indiana Jones/Han Solo
Saw it with my boys, ages 10 and 14. They thought it was "ok, not great," and gave it 5 stars. Overall, I found it enjoyable, albeit with some curious creative decisions, which presumably is why it being panned by most critics.
As you probably know by now, it's a prequel, which affords the film makers the opportunity to change aspects of the story with which we are familiar, and to invent new plot lines. That said, they left enough of the familiar elements intact that the changes didn't overly distress me.
A significant change, however, was the choice to make Captain Hook into a (mostly) sympathetic character. I found this curious but not particularly troubling; after all, a villainous character can be made more interesting with a sympathetic back story. What bothered me more was the decision to turn him into a swashbuckling Indiana Jones (or Han Solo, if you prefer), because the actor does not pull this off; he looks and sounds like he's trying WAY too hard to be Harrison Ford.
Another problematic aspect is the whole "natives" thing. If you're doing a Peter Pan story, you have to confront the racism of J. M. Barrie's original (also in Disney's film), in which "Indians" are basically a "cowboys and injuns" 1950's American stereotype, bearing no similarity to actual aboriginals anywhere in this world.
One option would be to simply eliminate that aspect of the story, much as Disney eliminated black Africans, portrayed as racist stereotypes in Edgar Rice Burroughs' story, from their film version of Tarzan. My guess is the film kept the "natives" in the story for at least two reasons: 1. It provides the hint of a budding romantic interest between Tiger Lilly and Hook; and 2. The "natives" provide a link to the magical world of fairies, which in turn lead to the introduction of the Tinker Bell character.
Alas, both of these reasons are weak, however. Not only does the story not need a budding romance between Hook and Tiger Lilly, these characters don't have any credible on-screen chemistry between them. Using "natives" as a link to the magical is yet another racist stereotype, similar to what Spike Lee calls the "magical negro," only in this case it would be the "magical Indian." If you are unfamiliar with the problems surrounding the "magical negro" stock character, you can read about it on line, including in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro).
And so, they decided to keep the "natives" in the story, but on this island they are mostly not aboriginals in any sense that would be recognizable. The chief, played by Australian aboriginal actor Jack Charles, is a notable exception, but beyond him the natives are largely represented by a variety of ethnicities, including an Asian ninja fighter, various south Asians, and the princess herself (Rooney Mara), who is clearly white Caucasian. This seems inexcusable in 2015, or at least very strange.
The film is derivative on many levels, from the "Hook as Harrison Ford wannabe" issue, to Hook borrowing a line from Raiders 4 ("I'm not your friend, kid!"), to Peter Pan's dyslexia which magically transforms into an ability to read fairy language, as in Percy Jackson (the scene in which this happens is almost identical to when Percy Jackson, a dyslexic, learns he can read ancient Greek).
The Good: Hugh Jackman is great as a caricature of an evil pirate (Blackbeard). It is often a visually stunning film. Peter's life in the orphanage is very Dickensian, and thus another derivative aspect, but it is very well done. Levi Miller as Peter is excellent, as in fact are all of the boy actors. The 3-D effects are subtle but pervasive, and overall better than in almost any other 3-D film I have seen. The movie is entertaining. There are worse ways to spend an afternoon with your kids.
The Postman (1997)
Kevin Costner Directs Kevin Costner; Self-Indulgence Ensues
Box-office busts intrigue me. I often find myself enjoying them, despite their poor critical reception. This was a fairly major box-office bust, but as with any film, I would suggest seeing it for yourself to see if you like it or not. This is easy to do on Netflix; if you're not into it, you can just stop it and try something else.
The problems I found were the length — at almost 3 hours long, it was SLOW, at least much of the time
80-90 minutes would have been plenty, and would have made this a much tighter film — it's corny and unimaginative; no real subtlety here, too much predictability; Kevin Costner is in just about every scene, and, presumably because he was also the director, so there was no one to rein him in; the music was boring, cliché, and unimaginative, very much like the movie.
And yet, I made it through to the film's conclusion, probably because I'm stubborn and wanted to see how it would end, and also because the basic premise is unusual — a dude's decision to impersonate a postman in a dystopian world somehow leads to redemption for a great many people. This in itself is rather ridiculous, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief and look past this, which I guess is something to be said in the film's favour.
This Is the End (2013)
Similar kind of humour to "The Interview," but even more over the top.
The fact that so many of the user ratings for this film are poles apart reinforces a truth about comedy: There are many different types, and not everybody responds equally well to them all. This film is filled with gratuitous bad language, sophomoric sexual references, and weed — lots and lots of people smoking weed. So if any of those things bother you, don't see the film.
I, however, found it very funny indeed. The humour is based on things such as: Well-known actors ostensibly playing themselves, but doing so in a way that pokes fun at the stereotypically- superficial and neurotic lifestyles of celebrity L.A. actors; and everything is so over-the-top that you either say to yourself, "this is ridiculous," and walk out, or you say, "this is ridiculous," and laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. The situational ridiculousness of it all is kind of like "Sharknado," but "The End" is much funnier. A better comparison, perhaps, would be to "The Interview," which features James Franco and Seth Rogen, two of the main actors in this film.
If you liked "The Interview," you'll probably like this film as well. If you didn't like it, this is probably not a film for you.
Noah (2014)
Noah as Misogynistic Zealot
SPOILER ALERT: PLOT, SUCH AS IT IS, REVEALED BELOW!
It's the age-old tale:
Crazed, fanatical man — Noah — enjoys a "special" relationship with God, and is pretty sure an apocalyptic flood is coming because he had a dream about it. This was before Freud, so he interpreted it literally. Armed with this hunch and disturbing zeal, but lacking specific details (no mention of cubits, for example), he constructs a large, multi-tiered floating coffin with the aid of rock giants on loan from The Hobbit. This, he wagers, will ensure the survival of his small, dysfunctional family, as well as that of the multitude of creatures who show up in pairs and are checked in, no questions asked. Possibly the beasts had the same dream as Noah.
Disturbingly, the animals are gassed upon arrival, presumably to ensure a docile temperament, and they fall into a deep sleep.
This is a clever plot device that neatly side-steps questions that naturally arise when thousands of animals are cohabiting on the same "boat" as Noah and his motley crew: How do the animals get the exercise they need to survive while being confined to tight quarters for forty days? Who changes the litter? Where do they find new litter? How do you feed them? What do you feed them? Where do they get fresh water? How to prevent altercations among the animals, some of whom are specifically designed to eat one another? And so on.
The message is clear: They are in a deep, drug-induced sleep, so who cares?
Another plus is that once gassed, the awful ruckus that likely would have been made by the unruly beasts is avoided, making it easy for the audience to hear the crackling dialogue and droll repartee among the actors.
But don't despair, action-movie fans! It's not ALL crackling dialogue! In fact, there's NO crackling dialogue! It is, however, quite droll, albeit unintentionally.
Fans of action will be delighted to learn that Noah turns out to be a killing machine, personally murdering many people attempting to board his boat without a personal invitation from God. Noah is quite certain that they are uninvited because HE has a "special" relationship with God, and they DON'T!
Take that, infidels!
The adorable rock monsters get in on the act too, killing hundreds before dying valiantly, only to have their souls whisked off to some place in the sky, presumably rock-monster-heaven.
While adrift at sea, Noah vows to kill the newly-born twin daughters of his step daughter (Ila, played with admirable diction by Emma Watson), sired by her step-brother Shem (Douglas Booth; the ethics of this incestuous pair-bonding are not questioned, owing perhaps to the propensity for such behaviour in the Bible).
Why? Because Noah is a misogynistic crazy man, and has come to believe that God wants ALL of mankind to perish, for no particular reason other than the fact that Noah has turned into quite a sourpuss. If the infants had been boys, they would have been allowed to live out their lives by Noah, but since they are girls, they must be murdered, and Noah is just the man for the job!
The other members of Noah's family, nonplussed by his promise to slay his newborn grand-daughters, to say nothing of his fanatical zealotry and poor attention to personal hygiene, build a raft for Ila, Shem, and their twin daughters in order to facilitate their escape from this opprobrium. Noah learns of this plan and burns the raft, using quick-burning fire-starting magic rocks that God has apparently sent his way.
Well, at this point in the scripting of the film, perhaps some brave member of the film's "creative" team said something like, "yeah
Bringing in the rock monsters from The Hobbit was a BRILLIANT idea, Mr. Aronofsky, as was giving Noah totally SICK martial arts skills — kids just LOVE that stuff! — but having him murder his twin grand-daughters might not play so well in some places. Just sayin'!"
Whatever the reason, we suddenly see a change of heart in Noah, who bails on his murderous vow and allows the newborns to live. For now.
What a great guy he is turning out to be!
There is more after this, but there should not have been, because really, the entire film is a waste of time.
-------
Numerous ethical dilemmas are explored in this film that go far beyond the issue of incest, such as:
How many people is it okay to kill if they are trying to get on your boat? Should a man's family do whatever crazy stuff he orders just because he believes "God" is telling him to do crazy stuff? What if he's wrong, and nobody has any straight-jackets? Who is this "God" character who (a) creates the world, (b) creates man and beasts, (c) becomes incensed with man, but not the beasts, but decides to kill practically all living things and start over? How exactly does God pick a crazy, abusive dude like Noah and his terrorized family to save? Could he not have picked a non-crazy dude? or more than one family? and (d) is powerful enough to create the world, life, and floods, but must rely on a crazy, misogynistic zealot to do his bidding for him when it comes to saving man and beasts?
But the biggest questions we are left with after enduring this film are:
How is it possible to make such a terrible film when you have a talented director, some talented actors, and 125 million dollars to spend? Did no one read the script? Is the director, Darren Aronofsky, surrounded only by timid sycophants who do not challenge him? Has Aronofsky lost any ability he ever had to be self-critical?
Oof! What a spectacular turkey!
White House Down (2013)
Die Hard-ish?
This is a pretty good action movie; my wife, who is a big fan of the "Die Hard" franchise, thought it compared favourably with those movies, although she finds Bruce Willis more compelling than Channing Tatum.
Some people are critical of the plot of this movie; not sure what they expected of a summer action movie, but for me it was pretty much on par with lots of other action movies, which is to say not particularly believable, but an entertaining watch if you're willing to suspend your disbelief.
It contains a few unexpected (for me) plot twists that help maintain interest in the film. The actors are doing good jobs. There is action. There are explosions. There is a bizarre car chase involving luxury SUVs doing doughnuts on the White House lawn; why not wreck the lawn, since you're destroying everything else at the White House?
It is fun, if you don't take it seriously.
The only questionable plot detail for me (and, I gather, for a lot of other movie goers here) is a heavy-handed political message that emerges from time to time, relating to the self-serving agenda of arms dealers. I don't dispute that arms dealers are bad guys, but it kind of felt like proselytizing when this happened, and it jarred with the otherwise light, escapist atmosphere of the film.
But overall, if you like action films, this is better than many although by no means brilliant, and worth seeing.
Saw it with my two boys, ages 8 and 12, and they enjoyed it too.
The Tale of Despereaux (2008)
Good film, visually stunning, with plot weaknesses.
I just saw it with my three kids, and the youngest two (ages 4 and 7) loved it, the older one (18) not so much. In fact, most of the flaws discussed below were pointed out to me by the 18-year old...
It's visually breathtaking, filled with attention to detail (incredibly subtle facial expressions, great use of light/shade, powerful scenery, nice music (although the lute music is somewhat anachronistic yes, I play the lute, in case you're wondering!)), and overall quite powerful. The only real weakness is the plot.
I do not want to overstate the weaknesses in the plot -- I'd recommend it to parents of younger children (maybe 10 and under; even my 4-year old really enjoyed it, and he usually isn't able to maintain his attention span for an entire movie). But IMO the plot weaknesses include:
- Roscuro, the good rat, turns bad REAL bad! so quickly it makes your head spin. Why? The story implies that this conversion to the Dark Side occurs because his attempted apology to Princess Pea (Roscuro had earlier accidentally tumbled into her mum's soup, the shock of which resulted in the queen's death!) turns out very badly, combined, presumably, with the frustration he feels to be stuck in the dank and dreary rat world after having experienced the freedom of living freely amongst humans. The speed and intensity of his turnaround strains credulity. (Roscuro is played by Dustin Hoffman, who was Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy (1969); type casting? ;-)
- The fact that he turns good again just as quickly is also somewhat problematic. This, however, is somewhat more credible to me because of we are given to understand that, unlike other rats, Roscuro has always been essentially good. He is portrayed as a sympathetic outsider misjudged by virtue of his ratness.
- Miggery Sow, the aptly-named (i.e., plump) lady-in-waiting to the princess, also turns bad with astounding alacrity, and appears to have developed a pretty serious case of dementia as well, due, we surmise, to a difficult life. This is a bit more believable to me, but the big problem with this character is that, after coming very close to having had Princess Pea eaten alive by rats, there is absolutely no repercussion for this act. At the end we see her back in the country with her dad, happily tending the fields. What happened to the dementia? Where is the punishment for kidnapping the princess and attempting to murder her? Where is Miggery's apology or show of contrition?
The film's narrator, performed with wonderful serenity by Sigourney Weaver, tells us that forgiveness is "the most powerful thing you can feel" (after earlier telling us that hatred is the most powerful thing we can feel... And here I thought it was love!), and this presumably is by way of explanation for why the princess apologizes... But for what? For being somewhat short on one occasion with her dimwitted, kleptomaniac servant (Miggery), and being scared of a crazy-looking rat?
The character of Despereaux is consistent from beginning to end. He is a quixotic non- conformist who becomes enamored with chivalry after reading about it in a story, and he makes it his quest to save the princess. When others write of the positive values in this film, I suspect that it is Despereaux's character to which they mostly refer.
But ultimately, I believe it is meant to be a film about redemption we are told that saying 'I'm sorry' will, essentially, make any wrong right, but the plot doesn't lead me to buy into it, particularly in the case of Miggery Sow who never apologizes for anything and gets away with her abduction of the princess scot-free.
As some others have commented, another weakness (or at least strangeness) is the Boldo character, who is magical, and made out of vegetables. Why? He is apparently the chef's muse... but what's he doing in the film? There's no back-story about where he came from, or anything to explain why we need this character.
I'd be curious to know how the film compares to the book; I'm guessing that most of the plot problems are not the fault of the book, but I guess I will have to have a look at the book to find out.
Again, I think it's a good film, definitely worth taking your younger kids to.
I just find it perplexing that with the humongous budget they must have had to hire so many huge Hollywood stars and and the many talented creative people who made it look and sound so good (amazing, really), they couldn't figure out how to avoid some pretty serious flaws in the plot.