“Iron Man 3″ (3D) Movie Review

Iron Man 3

 

WHAT I LOVED:

- The change of director makes for a wittier and more memorable Iron Man sequel that’s a clear improvement over its more uneven predecessor!

- As usual, Robert Downey Jr. knocks it out of the park in the titular role of Tony Stark!

- The special effects in the action set pieces are extraordinary, easily the best in the Iron Man movies to date!

- The Extremis menace makes for a nice change of pace compared to the villains of prior Iron Man movies.

- Finally, we get to see Marvel Studios’ interpretation of The Mandarin!
WHAT I DIDN’T SO MUCH…:

- Some story elements feel forced and contrived, particularly with how much of an idiot Tony is made out to be in this latest sequel.

- Marvel fans are going to be very divided on the big screen portrayal of The Mandarin.

- The 3D is weak, and a pretty big let-down.
AND HERE’S THE FULL REVIEW:

Iron Man 3 is a sequel that might leave some people with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it’s a very well-produced and enjoyable movie, and a definite improvement over the more flawed Iron Man 2 from 2010. On the other hand however, the change in directors from Jon Favreau to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’s Shane Black, is very, very noticeable. Black gives the franchise some fresh blood, which helps it to remain enjoyable, memorable and relevant, even after we were treated to the stellar final product of The Avengers last year, but he also doesn’t seem terribly concerned with copying Favreau’s style. His movie has more abstract commentary to read into. The narrative device, which is full of Tony Stark monologues now by the way, is entirely different. Hell, even the villains of the piece are unlike anything that Iron Man has squared off against previously on the big screen. They’re more fantastical, which is welcome, since it embraces the fact that Norse gods and aliens have now been introduced into the Marvel Cinematic Universe at this point. Despite Iron Man 3 having so many superb high points however, it’s also difficult to argue that more conservative Marvel fans will have a tough time swallowing Black’s bold new direction. There’s some controversial elements in the script that may delight some, but frustrate others. The movie may definitely succeed as a fun and reasonably well-conceived superhero flick to kick off the Summer blockbuster season, but it also doesn’t really concern itself with trying to associate itself with Marvel’s funny pages. Where the movie will really divide people most of all is its portrayal of The Mandarin, which likely won’t be what many fans of the Iron Man comics will be expecting. Yes, we waited three movies (four, if you count The Avengers) to see The Mandarin, and he’s finally coming to the forefront for this latest sequel! With that said however, he’s not at all what he is in the comics. There are no ten rings of power. There is no alien influence on how he rises to his position. He doesn’t have a Fu Man Chu moustache and/or appearance. Granted, if you agree that The Mandarin is a dated, difficult character to translate to the big screen, despite being Iron Man’s archenemy in the comics, you may not be bothered by the fact that the movie essentially flips the character on his ear, and turns him into something unrecognizable. On the other hand however, if you’re a fan of the comic book version of Mandarin, it’s probably the biggest change that will piss you off out of the gate with IM3, since that’s not the character that you’ll see here. The Mandarin isn’t the only potentially controversial element of the movie however. Changes to Iron Man’s mythos abound in the script, and it’s clear that Black had his own aggressive vision for the film, particularly since it features nanomachine technology, Extremis as a key plot arc. This is likely the primary reason for Favreau’s departure from the director’s chair (though he still executive-produces the movie, and reprises his acting role as Happy Hogan), since he went on record to say that he was avidly against doing an Iron Man movie about Extremis, citing that it’s too outlandish and fantastical for his technologically-grounded direction. He’s definitely right about that, but given that so many fantastical elements have now been placed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it’s probably easier for audiences to give the more fantastical direction of IM3 and Extremis some more leeway. So, you might need to be prepared for a few curveballs in the movie’s story, depending on how attached you are to the Marvel comics source material. If you could care less however, and can easily take a superhero movie on its own merits, then you should agree that IM3 is yet another superb Marvel-endorsed kick-off to Summer blockbuster season, as well as a very strong start to Marvel Studios’ Phase 2 of movies!

Characters: (9/10) – If you’re hoping to see cameos and appearances from other Avengers, or even S.H.I.E.L.D. and Nick Fury, you’ll be disappointed, since none of them show up in IM3, as the movie wisely places the spotlight entirely on Tony Stark. Beyond introducing Extremis, much of this sequel is about how the climactic battle in New York from The Avengers has affected Tony and those close to him. While there’s absolutely no mention of the character’s infamous alcoholism from the comics in IM3, Tony still finds himself suffering from anxiety attacks in IM3, which has caused him to bury himself in work, namely designing legions of Iron Man suits, which has caused tension with his girlfriend and company CEO, Pepper Potts, who has since moved into Tony’s California estate. As much as IM3 explores some neat new elements of Tony’s character, the movie is also a great chance to shine for Pepper, who really comes into her own like never before as the key supporting character to Tony. The movie sadly sweeps both her and Rhodey under the rug for most of the middle portion, but during the early portions and climax, Pepper’s character arc has never been better! The fact that she actively participates in the movie’s superb climax, to an even greater extent than she did in the original Iron Man movie, should make fans of her character quite happy as well! Also, yes, as the previews teased, she does don the Iron Man armour at some key points, a nod to her current superheroine identity of Rescue in the Marvel comics, but I’m not going to spoil specifically how or why. As for Rhodey, he’s still War Machine, despite being oddly absent in The Avengers last year, or, at least, he still has his own armour, fighting for the American government as a sort of technological super-soldier. His armour has been re-painted red, white and blue, and his moniker has been rebranded to ‘Iron Patriot’ as a result. Yes, this is one of several plot elements that might ruffle the feathers of avid Marvel comics readers that don’t do well with changes to the source material. If you’re unfamiliar with the Marvel comics, The Iron Patriot is actually a name used by Norman Osborn (a.k.a. Spider-Man’s Green Goblin) when he made his own Iron Man armour during a certain arc of the comics, meant to combine the capabilities of Iron Man and Captain America. Needless to say, the Iron Patriot of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same character, just being War Machine with a name and colour change. I suppose in the end though, that probably makes more sense in the context of a movie, even if it will still miff Marvel purists. Like Pepper, Rhodey is often sidelined for the bulk of the movie’s middle portions, which mainly follow Tony’s journey for personal redemption after he is initially attacked by The Mandarin. As you can imagine, this means that Tony spends a lot less time in the Iron Man armour than you’d think, perhaps even less than he did in the original movie! Even so, IM3 remains interesting, thanks to plenty of clever dialogue scenes, and some solid action sequences that are still good, even without Tony in his Iron Man armour. This also means that when Tony DOES don the armour, it always counts for maximum effect, even if his big armoured scenes were pretty much all given away in the previews at this point. Anyway, like I said, The Mandarin is going to divide people. Some people are going to love what IM3 did with the character, and some people are going to get very angry, since it’s a far cry from how The Mandarin is portrayed in the comics. The other key villain in the movie comes in the form of Advanced Idea Mechanics, or A.I.M. for short, a prevalent terrorist organization in the Marvel comics. In IM3, it’s simply portrayed as a rival company to Stark Industries, headed by Aldrich Killian, a disabled scientist that Tony once blew off at an expo. If your’re familiar with the Extremis story arc of the comics, you might remember Killian as being a bit of a lesser character than he is in IM3, where he’s a more powerful and prevalent threat. The Mandarin may be the key villain of the movie, but it’s Killian that creates Extremis, which, in IM3, is potrayed as a flawed technology meant to repair broken and damaged organic tissue. Instead, it gives people violent tendencies and superhuman capabilities, because this is a Marvel movie, and that’s what always happens with weird science in the Marvel pantheon. The one-two punch of The Mandarin and Extremis thankfully gives Tony something very different to battle against beyond just another asshole in his own perversion of the Iron Man armour. Yes, it’s more fantastical and very different from the villains that Favreau delivered in the prior two movies, but that also makes IM3 feel more refreshing and surprising as a result. Granted, even if many of the bold changes are for the better, not every character twist that Shane Black, who not only directed, but also co-wrote the script, is effective. Tony seems to have actively regressed from how his character evolved in the prior two movies and The Avengers, basically just going back to being a selfish prick with no regard for anyone or anything beyond himself. In fact, some of Tony’s actions in the movie are blatantly idiotic, even with his arrogance to consider, and they feel kind of contrived and forced, as if the movie needs a desperate push to get the story going here and there. This is basically the only use for Rebecca Hall’s character, Maya Hansen, another key personality from the Extremis arc in the comics, but, obviously, it’s difficult to address her without spoilers. Occasionally, IM3 may frustrate with a few of its character moments, especially since they fly in the face of what the comics have established for the Iron Man mythos for decades. Still, if you do have an open mind and some patience, you’ll agree that IM3 is the most creative and fulfilling turn for the principal Iron Man movie cast yet!

Acting: (10/10) – One big strength to IM3, as expected, is that the performances are excellent all-around! Robert Downey Jr. is yet again at the top of his game, playing the titular character of Tony Stark. He’s still witty, arrogant and delivering that same stuck-up charm from Iron Man’s prior big screen appearances, even if it feels like his character has kind of regressed in this latest movie. Likewise, Gwyneth Paltrow is stretching further than ever as Pepper, who seems to be Tony’s only conscience for the most part, even when IM3 focuses so heavily on Tony’s acts during The Avengers. Like I said though, Paltrow gets to have more bearing on the movie than ever before, and many of Pepper’s best big screen moments to date are right here in IM3! Don Cheadle felt like he had a little more bearing on events during Iron Man 2, since he spends so much time sidelined in IM3, but he at least gets a strong turn in the climax with Robert Downey Jr., which also allows Gwyneth Paltrow to participate in the action more actively, as I said. Guy Pearce gets a lot of screentime as Aldrich Killian, even if some may not agree with making him such a key villain. He doesn’t really come off as altogether threatening, but as more of a kooky, eccentric threat that has grown to epic proportions after events during the movie’s 1999-set prologue, he still works well enough. His connection to The Mandarin may try Marvel purists’ patience though, especially when they see how the character has been altered with Ben Kingsley’s portrayal. To be fair, Ben Kingsley is a fantastic Mandarin, and probably one of the best actors that Hollywood could have found to play the part. Even with how well he plays the role in IM3 however, Kingsley likely won’t be embraced by every corner of the Marvel community, since his portrayal of the character is so heavily inconsistent with the version from the comics. As for Rebecca Hall playing Maya Hansen, she’s probably the most underused performer in the movie. Her character is little more than a plot device, and fans of the Extremis storyline from the comics may be disappointed that she wasn’t given more to do. Likewise, Jon Favreau barely appears as Happy Hogan, since the movie quickly finds an excuse to take him out of most of its duration, perhaps because Favreau had other commitments during filming. It’s very difficult to touch on specific elements of each performance without spoiling the movie, but rest assured that IM3 is extremely well-done, even with Shane Black having only one other directing credit to his name!

Stunts: (10/10) – IM3 spaces out its action scenes very carefully, but with Tony spending less time in the Iron Man armour compared to previous movies, you can imagine that the stunt work is given even more of a chance to shine here. Again, it’s difficult to discuss exactly how the stunts have improved without spoiling IM3′s handful of highlight action scenes, but I will say that Robert Downey Jr. proves that he doesn’t need the armour to kick plenty of ass! Even being a more fantastical force, Extremis eliminates the need for armoured villains, which means that even the super-powered elements of the characters can be demonstrated more, without being buried under a bunch of CGI. Even Pepper gets more than a few stunts this time around, so you know that IM3 is bringing it with its incredible stunt work!

Special Effects: (9/10) – I’ll say this; There’s no easy way to do the Extremis effects. The result of Extremis being portrayed on screen was probably about one of the best effects jobs that you could ask for. Still, it’s difficult to deny that at times, it can look silly. Granted, it looks silly in that vaguely acceptable, comic book-y way, but still silly. Of course, IM3 is still loaded with amazing effects-driven moments, especially during the handful of sequences when Tony is actually in his Iron Man armour, but not everyone will be satisfied with how the Extremis-powered baddies look. Still, the action remains flashy, intense and enjoyable, and as far as being a superhero blockbuster goes, IM3 definitely delivers on the flash factor where it counts, even if it’s more stunt-driven and less CGI-anchored than its predecessors, at least, beyond Extremis. This brings me to the movie’s 3D presentation, which, unfortunately, is really underwhelming and weak. The 3D occasionally enhances a handful of action scenes, albeit to a rather limited degree, and beyond that, it just kind of hangs there, not really doing anything. Fans of 3D movies won’t exactly feel ripped off, but if you don’t really care for the whole 3D medium, you won’t really lose anything by just watching IM3 in plain old 2D, since the 3D is really disappointing in this movie.

Set Pieces: N/A

Costumes: (9/10) – For what it’s worth, the movie’s wardrobe is not bad, even if there’s much more screentime for Tony Stark than there is for Iron Man. There’s actually quite a few new Iron Man armour designs in the movie, since Tony makes so many on account of his anxiety, and they all generally look pretty sharp, even if most are CG-rendered. Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin costume is probably about as good as it gets for a big screen Mandarin, and the rest of the costumes are reasonably grounded, which is surprising, considering the fantastical element of Extremis throughout so much of the story.

Story: (8/10) – Not every element of IM3′s storyline is a winner, but I will say that it offers a fresh and compelling new take on an Iron Man movie, even if it doesn’t really care for being faithful to the source material. The movie begins with a prologue set in 1999, which sets the stage for Tony and how Aldrich Killian went on to found Advanced Idea Mechanics. Fast-forward to the present day, shortly after the conclusion of The Avengers. Tony Stark finds himself suffering from anxiety and insomnia, leading him to incessantly build new Iron Man suits, in turn causing tension with Pepper, who has just moved in with him. After a brutal terrorist attack leaves Happy Hogan in the hospital in critical condition (I told you, Favreau isn’t in the movie much!), Tony ends up giving his home address to terrorist mastermind, The Mandarin, believed to be associated with the attacks, and thus challenging him to a battle. After this causes Tony’s estate to be leveled by attack helicopters, Tony manages to get Pepper and his visiting ex-girlfriend, Maya Hansen to safety, but ends up trapped far away from them after a flight plan in his Iron Man armour goes wrong. Left without any means to return to the people he left behind, Tony must nonetheless piece together a way to bring down The Mandarin, particularly as the threat of his new weapon grows larger. That’s about all I can say regarding IM3 without spoiling the movie. This is one of those movies that is better if you know nothing about it going in. If you’re already well familiar with the Iron Man comics, you’ll need to put up with a lot of liberties taken with the Iron Man mythos, and the Marvel mythos as established in the comics as a whole, but considering how creative and inspired IM3 is as a written work, it’s still easy to declare this a contender for the best Iron Man movie yet! Be warned however that, as I said, some of the character turns are botched, and do come off as frustrating as a result. My advice is to take IM3 on its own merits, and not worry so much about your preconceptions, nor the source material. If you can do that, you’ll agree that it stands as one of the more novel and daring superhero blockbusters out there so far, for better or for worse.

Length/Editing: (9/10) – At 130 minutes, IM3 is paced around where you’d want a movie of this scope to be at. Some scenes in the middle do drag at times, and some may be disappointed that Tony doesn’t spend more time in his Iron Man armour. Still, the movie is consistently entertaining and witty, even when not all of its creative liberties are successful. It’s at least a movie that will effortlessly keep you engaged the whole way through however!

Genre Appeal: (9/10) – Once again, IM3 is going to divide people in some places, particularly those that are very fanatical about their Marvel comics fandom. Much of the movie boldly goes in a different direction than most other superhero movies, and while that will split audiences, as I said, it at least means that IM3 is not the same old repackaged superhero blockbuster. It also stands effectively apart from its two predecessors, which is another big part of the reason why it won’t have a difficult time keeping audiences engaged. If you want a Summer blockbuster sequel that leaves a good impression, and perhaps redeems some of the noticeable faults of its predecessor, you should be very satisfied with IM3, so long as you try not to be bothered by it having virtually no regard for following the comics.

Re-watch Value: (8/10) – There’s actually an impressive amount of hidden nuggets and bit Marvel references in the movie, despite how aggressively IM3 wishes to be free of the mythos of the Iron Man comics. Watching the movie again feels rewarding, since you can spot things that you didn’t before, as well as pick up on more potential teases for the upcoming Phase 2 movies that Marvel Studios has in the pipeline. On that note, be sure to stay after the credits for Marvel Studios’ predictable extra scene. It doesn’t tease developments for future movies, but it is an amusing little payoff to IM3′s narrative device, and is the closest you’ll get to a direct acknowledgement of Iron Man still being a part of The Avengers.

Conclusion- IM3 should be commended for its bravery. It’s clearly a movie that doesn’t want to be the same old Marvel blockbuster. It wants to be something different from the movies that came before it. To that end, it succeeds, because IM3 proves very effectively that solo Iron Man movies can still be enjoyable and relevant, even after the release of The Avengers last year. Whether or not an Iron Man 4 happens seems to be up for debate, but the movie does leave the door open for it, as well as an inevitable return for the character in The Avengers 2 a couple of years from now. Even with all of the changes, IM3 will be highly enjoyable for people who enjoyed the prior two movies, as well as The Avengers. As I’ve repeatedly asserted however, IM3 does challenge the audience to let go of their preconceptions. This is especially true of Marvel comics fans, who no doubt have their own idea of where the third movie should go, and more specifically, how it should portray Iron Man’s archenemy, The Mandarin, whom they’ve waited three movies for. The payoff of The Mandarin’s portrayal will likely be a huge middle finger for some, while others will see it as a stroke of genius that isn’t quite like what any superhero movie has attempted before. Regardless though, if you can get past some of the daring and controversial elements of the script, you’ll agree that IM3 is a damn great start to this Summer blockbuster season, and a very strong kick-off to Marvel Studios’ Phase 2 of movies. Really, the worst you can say about IM3 is its disregard for the source material. Beyond that, it boldly forges its own direction, but does so surprisingly effectively, standing firmly apart from other superhero movies, as well as the Iron Man movies that Jon Favreau directed previously. Tony may spend disappointingly little time in his Iron Man armour, while Pepper Potts and Rhodey may also spend a hefty chunk of the movie’s middle portion on the sidelines, but even then, the story is compelling. The writing is very clever and full of surprisingly sharp media commentary in regards to our modern society, if you’re willing to appreciate it. Don’t think that IM3 is pretentious and stuffy though! This is still a very enjoyable and action-packed superhero movie, which functions equally well as a popcorn flick. Even if you don’t see Tony in his Iron Man suit an awful lot, there’s still a good helping of action scenes, which are all superb. The climax is a particular highlight, being the best climax that the Iron Man movies have delivered to date, especially with Tony getting some very cool help from both Pepper and Rhodey alike, who finally get their big chances to shine! The movie is more stunt-based and less CGI-heavy than its predecessors, like I said, but even then, it still looks very well-produced and very grand in scope, clearly being a labour of love from all involved, even with some of its controversial story direction. The only low point to the movie’s final product is its disappointingly lacklustre 3D presentation, which frankly feels a bit tacked-on, and only seems to be there because the Marvel movies have all gone 3D since Thor back in 2011. If you just want to watch IM3 in 2D, you’re really not missing anything. Still, whether you’re going to see the continued evolution of these characters, even if Tony has regressed a tad from the past couple of movies, or for some awesome superhero action, IM3 will leave you quite satisfied, as well as whet your appetite for more of Marvel’s Phase 2 movie slate. The future of the franchise may go either way, but if this truly is Robert Downey Jr.’s last solo Iron Man movie, as his contract with Marvel expires with IM3, at least his character definitely went out on a very high note here, even if it’s all but assured that Marvel will find a way to get RDJ back for at least The Avengers 2. Marvel fans may wish that the movie laid more setup for the upcoming Avengers sequel, particularly since the other Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. are barely mentioned in passing, but we still have three movies to go before that comes out, so there’s plenty of time to lay that groundwork. Thus, in conclusion, I urge you to take IM3 for what it is, and put aside what you think it should be. It truly is a superb movie, but it also doesn’t care about what you feel an Iron Man movie should be portraying. Still, if you’re willing to embrace the courage and creativity behind the latest Tony Stark escapade, you’ll agree that the solo Iron Man movies have truly never been better!
FINAL SCORE: 90% “AWESOME!”

FINAL VERDICT: “Iron Man 3 packs in some bold, controversial story and character directions, some of which will likely not sit right with avid Marvel enthusiasts. Still, it’s a very creative and refreshing new take on Iron Man that firmly separates itself from both previous Iron Man movies, and other superhero movies in general, yet still packing in that same awesome action and badass appeal that the Iron Man movies have always done so well! Best of all, this movie proves that solo Iron Man movies can still kick plenty of ass, even after the release of The Avengers, and it definitely kicks off Marvel Studios’ Phase 2 slate of movies on a very high note!”

“Jurassic Park 3D” (3D) ‘Mini’ Movie Review

Jurassic Park 3D

 

 

 

The other day, I finally got to check out a standard digital 3D cut of Jurassic Park, recently re-released to theatres to commemorate the movie’s 20th anniversary. Jurassic Park IV is also supposed to be arriving in theatres next year, so it seems like the brand is attempting a pretty ambitious comeback, after the rather uneven Jurassic Park: The Lost World, and the rather lacklustre Jurassic Park III.

If you’ve been following my occasional takes on the 3D re-releases of classic movies, you probably know that I really wasn’t that impressed with most of them, especially not the ones in live-action. Slapping 3D onto a movie for the sake of making a buck just seems like a blatant cash grab, especially since the 3D is often very poorly-done, obviously partially due to the fact that it’s applied onto a movie that wasn’t shot to accommodate 3D.

With that said however, Jurassic Park 3D is thankfully the exception, not the rule. This is a very well-done 3D re-mastering of a classic movie, which finally illustrates the potential of these 3D re-releases when they’re done right!

SO HOW DOES THE MOVIE HOLD UP?:

Fantastically! If you haven’t seen Jurassic Park in a long time (and I hadn’t seen it in many, many years), the movie is just as awesome now as it was back in 1993. I can safely say that better than most too, because, and this may shock people, I never saw the original Jurassic Park as a kid, so I’m not watching it with rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. I heard loads about it, and I even remember playing with the toys and enjoying the Sega Genesis games with a buddy of mine, but I never actually saw the movie until 2009, when another friend brought over the DVD, insisting I see it. Yes, I was TWENTY-ONE the first time I saw Jurassic Park, which to some people, would probably be inexcusable.

Like I said however, this means that I can comment on the movie honestly, without nostalgia getting in the way, and yes, it’s still really damn awesome! This is actually a 3D re-mastering that’s worthy of seeing on the big screen again, since it’s just as awe-inspiring and terrifying as it ever was! One thing that’s especially impressive is how well the special effects have held up too. The dinosaurs still look detailed, lifelike and badass, perfectly investing the audience in the danger that’s all around the lead characters. Iconic scenes like the T-rex first appearing to examine the trapped tour cars, or the raptors chasing the fleeing kids in the kitchen, are still really tense! Hell, my date was making fun of me the entire night for jumping and curling up in my seat. Again, I never saw this movie as a kid, but even so, if I respond with that kind of reaction even twenty years after the movie is released, chances are, it’s stood the test of time really well!

DOES THE 3D ADD ANYTHING TO THE MOVIE?:

Surprisingly, yes! The 3D job here is actually superb, and I never thought I would say that about a live-action classic getting a 3D makeover. The 3D presentation in Jurassic Park 3D isn’t anything that will blow your socks off, but it’s actually really well-done. The pouring rain in many scenes appears to be crashing all around the audience, the dinosaurs actually do appear to lunge out of the screen at times, the atmosphere of the park is a lot more widespread and palpable, and everything is so much more lifelike! This is probably the best case for 3D enhancing a movie that I’ve ever seen, since it actually successfully takes one of the greatest and most recognized Spielberg movies of all time, and genuinely makes it better! Trust me, watching it on DVD, or even Blu-Ray, is not the same. The movie gains quite a bit when you watch it on the big screen, and gains even more when you watch it in 3D!

The only slight knock in the presentation of Jurassic Park, compared to current movies, is that the audio isn’t quite as powerful. This might be negated in the IMAX 3D cut, since it can take advantage of a more potent sound system, but I can’t effectively comment on that, since only a standard digital 3D cut of the movie was playing in my area, forcing me to see that one. It’s not like the movie is dead quiet or anything, but a few of the jump scares and destruction aren’t quite as pronounced as you may be hoping in the remastering, since the sound doesn’t appear to be touched up that much in the standard 3D cut at least. Still, the jump scares still often got me, much to my date’s amusement (but one got her too, so I was still happy!).

Believe me when I say however that the 3D is actually quite justified here. Again, the IMAX 3D presentation may be even better, but even the regular 3D is quite sharp. It pulls you into the movie more, and enhances the impressive effects and sets that are already on display. It also makes a strong case for Jurassic Park IV being released in 3D next year, since it shows off how a Jurassic Park movie can actually be well improved by a 3D job that’s actually done right!

CONCLUSION; IS IT WORTH SEEING?:

Absolutely! Jurassic Park 3D is easily the most impressive 3D remastering of a classic movie that I’ve seen to date. The 3D genuinely improves the movie, bolstering the atmosphere, improving the effects, and sucking you into the experience in a way that just watching a DVD at home couldn’t pull off. If by some miracle you’ve never seen Jurassic Park before (and hey, that was me until a few years ago!), you definitely need to see it on the big screen, in 3D, while you still can! That’s definitely the most effective way to experience the movie, and you’ll get a heightened sense of just what makes Jurassic Park so great when you see the movie this way!

Jurassic Park isn’t a movie I’d imagine would work in 3D, but I was happy to be pleasantly surprised by this remastering. It’s still an amazing movie, and it only gets better when you see it in the theatre, and in 3D! This remastering heightened my anticipation for next year’s Jurassic Park IV immensely, and trust me, you don’t want to miss it, especially if you’ve never seen Jurassic Park before!

Not really much else to say, except that dinosaurs still rule the Earth, at least, on the big screen!

Brent’s Top Twenty Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2013!

It’s Summer time!

Well, ok, it’s still Spring, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s Summer, because the Summer movie season is imminently about to kick off! I’ve been busy with other obligations, but before I get lost in those again, I wanted to uphold tradition, and list the top twenty movies I’m most looking forward to seeing this Summer! This will be a quicker and dirtier list than most years, but I trust it will still be a handy guide to this year’s latest blockbusters.

Anyway, chances are, you know how this goes by now. Let’s get to it!

#20] The Heat

Genre: Buddy Cop Comedy
Release Date: June 28th
Official Site: www.theheatmovie.com

Plot: Sandra Bullock is a tight-assed FBI agent who must team up with Melissa McCarthy, a streetwise ball-busting cop that can’t even be arsed with wearing a uniform, to fight Russians, presumably because their accents are funny.

WHY: It’s a buddy cop comedy starring two women!….. Yeah, I’m also surprised that it took this long. The Heat is obviously another post-Bridesmaids female-driven comedy shake-up, and, hell, it even shares the same director, but this one is undeniably a gamble. It could go either way. On the one hand, it looks pretty funny. The Red Band trailer is especially amusing, since you really get to see more of Melissa McCarthy letting loose! The studio delaying the movie from an April bow to a late June release could be seen as a vote of confidence, especially considering that it’s around the busy Canada Day/Fourth of July season, but we’ll see how it turns out. For now though, you can colour me optimistic. I’ve always had a soft spot for buddy cop comedies, and I’m hoping that putting two women in the lead roles with an actual R-rated script will amount to a recipe for success!

#19] Fast & Furious 6

Genre: Action-Thriller
Release Date: May 24th
Official Site: www.thefastandthefurious.com

Plot: Another excuse to get the typical Fast & Furious crew together, this time with the excuse to resurrect Michelle Rodriguez’s Letty, and team everyone up with Dwayne Johnson. Luke Evans is a bad guy somewhere in there, but is anyone honestly paying attention between all of these speeding cars and ass-shaking women?

WHY: Yes, I know, we’re all fecking sick of the Fast & Furious franchise, which Universal seems to be in denial about, since they’ve cancelled plans to make Fast 6 the final movie in the franchise, and are instead shooting Fast 7 immediately after to beat this dead horse a little more. On the other hand though, these movies do still make a lot of money, because they’re good quick fix affairs that give us what we crave; Speed, action and a lot of ridiculousness. I suppose it’s still good enough to place, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to place high. My excitement for every sequel wanes a little more every year, even if the last couple were decent. That’s about as high as my expectations are going to get for Fast 6 though.

#18] Epic

Genre: 3D Animated Adventure-Comedy
Release Date: May 24th
Official Site: www.epicthemovie.com

Plot: Amanda Seyfried voices a little girl that gets shrunken down to fight a war for nature with miniscule leaf men. Surprisingly, M. Night Shyamalan is not involved, and neither is Scrat.

WHY: William Joyce must need money. After allowing Dreamworks Animation to make a CG film sequel of his Guardians of Childhood novels, he’s given another novel to Ice Age animator, Blue Sky Studios, The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs. Seeing as this title is long, absurd and franky, unmarketable, the studio executives challenged themselves to come up with a shortened title that makes even less sense. Enter Epic. The movie is trying very hard to be the next level of visual eye candy in animated filmmaking, but after numerous Ice Age sequels and Rio, it’s nice to see Blue Sky aiming a little higher this time. I’m pulling for Epic, if for no other reason than it’s not another Ice Age movie.

#17] Now You See Me

Genre: Mystery-Thriller
Release Date: May 31st
Official Site: www.nowyouseememovie.com

Plot: A group of all-star illusionists perform impossible robberies of corrupt banks and white-collar criminals, funneling the spoils into the bank accounts of their audience. I imagine their shows are sold out years in advance.

WHY: Some people may find them lame, but hell, I love magicians and illusionists! Yeah, it’s all trickery, but that’s precisely what makes it fascinating! If there’s another thing I love on this same note, it’s heist movies. Seeing the perfect heist go down piece-by-piece. Brilliant. If there’s a third thing I love, it’s Robin Hood, because he’s a badass. Now surely, if you put all these three things together, I should have my most anticipated movie ever, right? Well, Now You See Me may fall apart in the final product, but God, I hope it doesn’t! Making both magician thrillers and heist thrillers is a very fine art that requires the kind of creative precision usually reserved for neurosurgery and playing Battletoads. Now You See Me, like the all-important ‘final trick’ of the movie, is going to be one hell of a gamble, but if it comes together, it could be one of this Summer’s top sleeper hits, just as it could be one of the greatest disappointments if it doesn’t. Still, I am nothing if not an optimist. Besides, Isla Fisher is in it, and she had me at ‘Three!’.

#16] R.I.P.D.

Genre: 3D Fantasy-Comedy-Adventure-Thriller (yikes!)
Release Date: July 19th
Official Site: www.ripd.com

Plot: Ryan Reynolds tries his hand at a comic book movie for the zillionth time, this time as a cop who is shot dead in the line of duty. He is immediately brought to a divine Mary-Louise Parker, who assigns him to the Rest in Peace Department, undead cops who fight ghosts, making him appear to the living as an old Asian man. He is then teamed up with cowboy Jeff Bridges from that True Grit remake (presumably after sustaining severe brain damage), who appears to the living as a hot blonde lady……. I’ve got nothing… Except gratitude for executive-approved cocaine, since it is no doubt the reason that this movie exists.

WHY: R.I.P.D. looks like one of the most batshit insane Summer blockbusters to come along in years. The movie was delayed several times, and underwent a turbulent production period, but it was worth it just to see the sheer amount of aggressive mindfuckery on the big screen here. Seriously, when you watch the trailer, you can feel your own brain melting! The only reason why I’m looking forward to R.I.P.D. is because it looks like such a hot mess that it somehow seems absurdly brilliant. I’d better see it quickly too! Once the harmful effects to the human brain are discovered, this movie will likely be banned in fifty different countries! Oh, and it’s in 3D too, because the hallucinatory octopus in the executive board room told the studio that it was a good idea. The hallucinatory unicorn that pitched the movie agrees. This may be a godawful movie, but even then, I’ll still be laughing my ass off at it.

#15] The Great Gatsby

Genre: 3D Romantic Drama
Release Date: May 10th
Official Site: www.thegreatgatsby.warnerbros.com

Plot: Tobey Maguire befriends Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular Gatsby, trying to recreate a past love affair with Tobey’s cousin disturbed by WWI and there’s a hell of a lot of obnoxious 3D imagery involved in making that happen, and some other stuff. What the hell do I look like?! An English professor?!

WHY: Leave it to writer-director, Baz Luhrmann to make a needlessly convoluted movie full of obnoxious imagery, only this time, he has the power of 3D on his side, which he thankfully did not have when he made Moulin Rouge!. I’ll admit that I’m a little intrigued by a 3D Great Gatsby movie, which is basically the only reason why this movie placed on my list at all, and only one spot above R.I.P.D., triumphant mindfuck of the Summer. I’m a little worried that the movie will be bloated and boring, but at least the 3D will constantly be throwing Gatsby’s party antics in your face! Maybe if it tells me I’m having a good time for long enough, I’ll start to believe it! Your move, Baz!

#14] The Hangover Part III

Genre: Comedy
Release Date: May 24th
Official Site: www.hangoverpart3.com

Plot: Phil, Stu and Doug finally do the sensible thing and have Alan committed, until John Goodman harasses them about Leslie Chow stealing all of his money. Shenanigans ensue. Mike Tyson cameo likely. Hermaphroditic strippers unconfirmed.

WHY: I’m eager for closure on The Hangover as much as anyone, especially since it looks like Part III actually isn’t going to recycle the same formula this time. Much of the movie is being kept under wraps, but the gross love affair of Zach Galifianakis and Melissa McCarthy that nobody asked for is probably enough to get me interested. Come on, as if you don’t want Alan to find his better half! Then he won’t mind someone getting awfully close to his shaft, and isn’t that all any of us can ask for in life?

#13] Monsters University

Genre: 3D Animated Comedy
Release Date: June 21st
Official Site: www.disney.go.com/monsters-university

Plot: Pixar’s creative leg cramp is still acting up, this time with a prequel to Monsters Inc., detailing how Mike and Sully met and became best friends, after being worst rivals. Sentiment and typical family movie formula is likely to be present.

WHY: I usually get a lot more excited about Pixar’s latest effort for a Summer, but as much as I love Monsters Inc., I have to admit that the studio has been in a creative slump lately. Monsters University doesn’t appear to be shaking that up, because it just feels very cliched right out of the gate. Still, my loyalty to Pixar has kept my fingers crossed for this movie, and I’m hoping that it’s at least a pleasant Summer surprise. The studio hasn’t made another superb classic along their usual lines since 2010′s Toy Story 3, and I sadly don’t see this one joining the ranks. I wouldn’t mind being wrong though, especially since at least some of this looks pretty funny.

#12] RED 2

Genre: Action-Comedy
Release Date: July 19th
Official Site: www.red-themovie.com

Plot: The surviving seniors of the original RED continue to bastardize government protocol and make a mockery of our national heroes, but it’s funny, so who cares? Also, Bruce Willis was apparently involved with Catherine Zeta-Jones to proceed the new plot, which will likely cause hysterical sexual tension with Mary-Louise Parker. Unfortunately, the PG-13 rating will rule out a three-way.

WHY: I absolutely loved the first RED! It had problems, and it was kind of stupid at times, but it was just such a hilarious, surprisingly inspired movie that I just didn’t care, even if it had pretty much nothing to do with the graphic novel that inspired it. RED 2 is butchering the source material even further, to great effect by the look of the trailer, which is the one helping of info that can be gleaned from a very top-secret plot. Anthony Hopkins is apparently the villain, because hey, if we’re going to find another excuse for these golden age clowns (and Mary-Louise Parker) to raise hell, it might as well be against Hannibal Lecter. Since the original RED was such an incredible guilty pleasure, you can bet I’m excited for a second helping!

#11] Turbo

Genre: 3D Animated Adventure Comedy
Release Date: July 19th
Official Site: www.turbomovie.com

Plot: Ryan Reynolds voices a snail that gains super speed and decides to race in the Indy 500, because cars and snails are totally the same thing in every physical, geometrical way, and that’s what makes this a triumphant underdog story. Everything is also adorable, especially the announcement teaser.

WHY: Turbo is a movie that I can’t help but find extremely charming from its early previews. Hell, it even outclassed Monsters University in the charm department! I can see Turbo’s storyline being a predictable underdog tale, but it just looks so darn likeable, even if it’s also pretty asinine. Still, if done right, the fact that the movie will be cute and inspiring is likely enough to make it a winning Summer blockbuster for the family crowd, even if parents may have to answer some awkward questions about street racing. Thankfully, they can just address that the ‘modern way’ and get their little ones tickets to Fast 6, because god forbid you have a discussion with your child for a few minutes, right?

#10] Despicable Me 2

Genre: 3D Animated Adventure Comedy
Release Date: July 3rd
Official Site: www.despicableme.com

Plot: Gru and his minions are recruited into an anti-super-villain organization (one that apparently doesn’t believe in background checks), to help them fight Eduardo, a villain voiced by Al Pacino, who hopefully has a little friend for them all to greet.

WHY: Despicable Me was a very strong debut for Illumination Entertainment (who subsequently underwhelmed with both Hop and The Lorax after it), and I’ve been eagerly anticipating the sequel since seeing the original! As with many of the Summer blockbusters on this list, much of Despicable Me 2′s storyline is being kept under wraps, but as long as I get to see Gru and the minions again, I’m happy! There’s really no more to it than that.

#9] The Wolverine

Genre: 3D Superhero Action
Release Date: July 24th
Official Site: www.thewolverinemovie.com

Plot: After Wolverine became disgusted by the sub-par third X-Men movie, he travels to Japan and ends up getting his ass kicked by samurais, who take away his powers. Unable to compromise the fact that he is a badass and has a hot new Asian girlfriend, Wolverine decides that killing just about every thug in Japan is the sensible thing to do.

WHY: I was generous when I reviewed the original Wolverine movie, but even I have to concede that it didn’t compare to the X-Men films that cam before, it particularly the first two. Still, with the positive momentum re-attained thanks to the superb X-Men: First Class, I’m hoping that The Wolverine can right the wrongs of its 2009 predecessor, particularly since it now takes place after the main trilogy of movies, and not before, where X-Men: First Class can just retcon it out of existence (and rightfully so). The Wolverine sadly still looks to be the least impressive of the superhero movies dropping this Summer, but Hugh Jackman still wears the claws well, so I’m hoping that his second solo outing is an improvement. If nothing else, the premise is awesome, and I can’t wait to see Wolverine fighting samurais on the big screen! Too bad for them, I’m pretty sure adamantium beats samurai steel!

#8] The Lone Ranger

Genre: Western Action
Release Date: July 3rd
Official Site: www.disney.go.com/the-lone-ranger

Plot: Armie Hammer teams up with eccentric Native American, Johnny Depp to deal justice and make awkward jokes. Oh, and Armie Hammer was dead, but isn’t anymore, I think. There used to be werewolves in this thing, so who knows!

WHY: After a ballooning budget and an indefinite postponement in development hell, there’s more than just making a risky modern Western in today’s filmmaking economy. This is a HUGE bet by Disney, who already sustained a pretty painful flop last year with John Carter thanks to awful marketing that betrayed the fact that it was actually a strong movie. Thankfully, The Lone Ranger looks like it’s going to be a lot of fun, even if it will have a VERY hard time getting its budget back! This will certainly put the marketability of Johnny Depp to the test, but regardless, The Lone Ranger looks like one of the better blockbusters of this Summer, even with its slashed budget (slashed budget being relative, as the movie was still made for a staggering $250 million!), and should hopefully turn heads and exceed expectations. Disney may have delivered one of last year’s worst box office busts in John Carter, but they also delivered last year’s best surprise hit, Wreck-It Ralph last year too, so there’s hope yet. I’m really pulling for this one though, and you can bet I won’t waste time getting to it!

#7] This is the End

Genre: Apopalyptic Comedy (yes, seriously)
Release Date: June 12th
Official Site: www.thisistheend.com

Plot: A bunch of celebrities, playing their real-world selves, face the End of Days together. The jokes just write themselves, don’t they?

WHY: Even just reading the premise of this movie, I burst into laughter. This is full to burst with comedic potential, as it has an ensemble cast of high-profile celebrities trying to survive the end of the world together. Do I even need to go on? Craig Robinson gets off on drinking his own urine. Danny McBride doesn’t seem to notice that the world is ending at all. Emma Watson becomes a looter. Rihanna is swallowed by a fissure. Basically, hilarity is all over the place, and for my money, this could very well be the Summer’s best comedy! In fact, I’m confident it will be!

#6] Pacific Rim

Genre: 3D Monster Action
Release Date: July 12th
Official Site: www.pacificrimmovie.net

Plot: Gigantic monsters appear from under the ocean to try and destroy us, so we build gigantic robots to fight them. Humanity is subsequently awesome. Also, Portal’s GLaDOS is in the movie, because it clearly wanted to set a world record for shattering the awesome barrier.

WHY: Why? WHY?! Get out of here before I backhand you! If you must have more detail, it’s mainly because Pacific Rim not only looks like an incredible visual showcase, but it’s also, much like This is the End, it’s actually an ORIGINAL MOVIE! Wow, don’t see those very often, do you? Pacific Rim could be the movie to bring back the monster movie, and with a Godzilla reboot on the way next year, the timing couldn’t be more opportune! Even if the story is lightweight, I don’t think I’ll really care, because Pacific Rim is already so full of visual ass-kickery that the movie has completely sold itself to me regardless. I think my eyes will need a cigarette after this one…

#5] Elysium

Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller
Release Date: August 9th
Official Site: www.sonypictures.com/movies/elysium/

Plot: Matt Damon lives in a bleak 2154 A.D. future, where the rich and powerful live on the perfect outer space colony of Elysium, while the majority of the population is sick, starving and dying on a ruined, over-polluted Earth. The metaphor is about as subtle as a brick to the face, but chances are, the guy who brought us District 9 knows what he’s doing.

WHY: District 9 had a paltry budget, and yet, it was one of the best sci-fi movies in many years back in 2009. Now, given an actual budget and real acclaimed actors, writer-director, Neill Blomkamp is delivering his follow-up effort, pitting Matt Damon against Jodie Foster in probably the most creative and engaging sci-fi plot since, well, District 9! Elysium looks awesome, will likely be loaded with plenty of thrills, and, yet again, it’s actually an ORIGINAL movie! I don’t want to speak too soon, but, considering all of the original Summer movies I’ve placed on this list, maybe Hollywood is embracing more creative risks? Nah, it couldn’t be that… Could it? Hey, maybe Elysium will in fact be so amazing (if you need proof, watch the excellent trailer!), that Blomkamp will finally be allowed to do that Halo movie! Lord knows that executives have enough evidence that he’d do it right!

#4] Kick-Ass 2

Genre: Superhero Action-Comedy
Release Date: August 16th
Official Site: www.kickass-themovie.com/

Plot: Dave Lisewski and Hit-Girl come under the wing of Jim Carrey, who is creating a ragtag team of amateur superheroes to stand against the building army of the world’s first genuine super-villain, The Motherfucker. Christopher Mintz-Plasse may actually be threatening here, but ‘McLovin taking over the world’ are still sure to be inevitable.

WHY: Kick-Ass is a contender for the greatest superhero movie ever made. This is the sequel to Kick-Ass. Jim Carrey leads a group of amateur costumed heroes. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is a super-villain called The Motherfucker. His underling is a massive woman named Mother Russia. There’s another superhero in the movie named ‘Night Bitch’. WHY DO I STILL NEED TO ELABORATE ON THIS?! Stop asking questions and just be sure to see this movie, since it will be the best decision you ever made since seeing the original Kick-Ass. Oh, and that didn’t deserve to be a box office flop, so let’s try and do better with the sequel, mmk?

#3] Star Trek into Darkness

Genre: 3D Sci-Fi Action-Adventure
Release Date: May 17th
Official Site: www.startrekmovie.com

Plot: The re-imagined Star Trek reboot crew returns to fight against that guy from Sherlock that everyone thinks is Khan because they lack basic reading comprehension and/or a short-term memory, especially since ‘Khan’ is apparently now spelt, ‘John Harrison’ in the rebooted Star Trek universe. Sherlock will likely end up being Khan simply because J.J. Abrams wants to spite me.

WHY: I don’t even like Star Trek, but even I have to admit that the 2009 Star Trek reboot film was excellent! It’s enough to get me extremely excited for the upcoming sequel, and I do have to admit that I geekgasmed a bit when watching the nine-minute preview playing before The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey back last December. The sequel looks dark, visually arresting and action-packed, and essentially appears to represent not only a worthy continuation of the rebooted storyline, but also everything I could possibly want in a Summer blockbuster. It will likely only get better in 3D too! Yes, I went there.

#2] Iron Man 3

Genre: 3D Superhero Action-Adventure
Release Date: May 3rd
Official Site: www.marvel.com/ironman3

Plot: Tony Stark comes off of The Avengers to FINALLY face his archenemy, The Mandarin. Also, Pepper Potts wears the Iron Man armour, likely causing unrelenting rage from fanboys all across the world, with hilarious results.

WHY: Early reports have already indicated that Iron Man 3 is amazing. Some European viewers have even declared it the best of the trilogy! I guess not every third movie is a stinker, but with Iron Man, I’m not surprised. The second movie already got dragged down by the burden of setting up the bulk of the foundation for The Avengers, even if it was still solid to me, and the series probably has nowhere to go but up. The inclusion of The Mandarin is well overdue, and it’s great to finally be getting an Iron Man movie with a 3D presentation (yes, again, I went there!). Iron Man is one of my personal favourite superheroes, and even if this could be one of Robert Downey Jr.’s last turns as old Shellhead, at least it appears like he’s going out on a very high note. You can count me extremely excited for this one!

#1] Man of Steel

Genre: 3D Superhero Action-Adventure
Release Date: June 14th
Official Site: www.manofsteel.warnerbros.com

Plot: The Superman movies are properly rebooted this time, with Superman fighting against General Zod for the fate of the world after discovering his true heritage, and finally losing that ridiculous red underwear. I have no joke here. This movie looks sublime.

WHY: Superman has had a rough time on the big screen since, well, Superman II, and that came out back in 1980! It’s literally been more than thirty years since we’ve had an undeniably awesome Superman movie! Well, that call looks to finally be answered. Man of Steel is rebooting the Superman film franchise with a more emotional, modernized focus, and it might even outclass Pacific Rim as far as being a visual showcase goes! Boy, Warner Bros. is really owning a lot of this Summer’s visual stunners, eh? In any case, Man of Steel looks to be the Superman movie that audiences crave. It’s gorgeous. It’s dramatic. It’s action-packed. It’s dignified. It’s powerful. It just looks incredible in every way! The delay from the original December 2012 release plan appears to have done the movie a ton of good, and, best case scenario, it’ll be one of this Summer’s top smash hits, paving the way for a Justice League movie. You’ll believe that a Superman movie doesn’t have to suck, folks, and that’s why I feel I can safely declare this to be my most anticipated Summer blockbuster of 2013!

What are your most anticipated Summer blockbusters? Do you agree or disagree with my picks? Feel free to comment below, and don’t forget to give me Likes too, because it keeps me warm at night!

Rewind Reel: Flight, Parental Guidance, Les Miserables

Welcome back to Rewind Reel, where I cover my take on movies I initially missed writing a review for during their theatrical runs. This time, I’ll be covering Denzel Washington drama, Flight, holiday family comedy, Parental Guidance, and the recent 2012 film adaptation of Les Miserables!

 

Flight

 

FLIGHT:
Flight was a film my parents were curious about, pulling it off of Rogers on Demand one night. It’s inspired by true events, but is very heavily altered and fictionalized beyond the details of its all-important plane crash. As much as it’s the very well-done plane crash sequence in the movie that’s been hyped, Flight is actually not about plane crashes at all. It’s more about a man’s journey to realize that he has an alcohol problem, a BIG alcohol problem! Flight was actually satirized at the Oscars because of how it handled its subject matter, and frankly, it’s a bit of an easy target because the film is actually rather overdone and heavy-handed.

If anything is good in Flight, it’s Denzel Washington. Fans of Denzel should definitely check the movie out, because it’s a terrific showcase of the man’s acting talents! In fact, the performances in general are quite good, and are the saving grace of the movie, even if it’s largely Denzel’s show. Despite that, I always felt that Robert Zemeckis, of Back to the Future and The Polar Express fame, was a rather odd choice for the movie, and it’s clear that he’s quite rusty at Oscar baiting since the likes of Cast Away and Forrest Gump. Perhaps this movie needed Tom Hanks.

Anyway, as I said, the biggest problem with Flight is that it’s constantly trying too hard to be taken seriously. The ridiculous amounts of booze that Denzel chugs throughout the movie are not only unrealistic, but they also feel forced in many cases. Even serious alcoholics have to have more sense than Denzel’s character does in this movie! Maybe not, but regardless, Flight just isn’t delicate with its subject matter, but in the wrong ways. It handles the issue of alcoholism with all the subtlety and care of an axe-swinging maniac, and that’s no doubt the main reason why it ultimately didn’t take home any Oscars.

Not only is the subject matter too heavy-handed, but at a staggering 139 minutes, Flight is also WAY too long! This movie needed a half-hour chopped out of it, especially since it sometimes has a nasty habit of raising potential character conflicts that go absolutely nowhere in the end! This is made worse by the fact that John Goodman’s character, easily the best and most interesting character in the movie, isn’t even featured beyond a couple of scenes, which was probably the single biggest disappointment in the entire film.

I will say that the plane crash sequence is indeed as tense and terrifying as people have hyped it up to be, and it’s a major highlight sequence that the movie unfortunately completely squanders in its opening moments. Yes, said crash is the only thing taken from real life events, and that crash played out very differently, because it ultimately had no survivors, unlike the movie, where only a small handful of people died.

Another big drawback in Flight is that Denzel’s character is heinously unlikeable, making him very difficult to root for. I know that the idea that alcohol is ruining him is kind of the point of the movie, but frankly, the character seemed like an asshole even BEFORE the booze got to him! Frankly, it often seems like he deserves all of the bad things that are happening to him, because not only does he get piss-ass drunk during various scenes where it doesn’t even make any sense to do so, but he also lashes out at pretty much everyone with no provocation. Yes, I can imagine that some alcoholics might have a pattern like that, but in a movie, it just feels mishandled and overdone, because the character gets wasted with no rhyme or reason, and doesn’t have any real personality traits that make him worth pulling for. So much of this makes Flight not only feel heavy-handed, as I said, but also like it’s a big fat waste of time.

Denzel fans will still enjoy the movie for Denzel’s performance, even if the overdone character and his scenarios sometimes feel too forced and unintentionally funny as a result. The movie’s ‘climax’ is genuinely facepalm-worthy in terms of being stupid and contrived, and you too often get the sense that the filmmakers are reaching to make their point. Again, if you like Denzel and you see this on Netflix, it’s worth a watch, but only if you have A LOT of time to kill and A LOT of patience for overdone alcoholic melodrama. As it stands, Flight certainly isn’t terrible, but it is rather overrated and forgettable. You probably have better options as far as dramas go.

 

Parental Guidance

 

PARENTAL GUIDANCE:
Parental Guidance was a movie that my mother was very adamant about the family watching, which, like Flight, she decided to sit the family down for after yanking it out of Rogers on Demand. It was the big family film for this past holiday season, since we, yet again, didn’t have a real Christmas film released in theatres for 2012. Despite being blasted by critics, the movie did end up making a fair bit of money, likely due to just being that family movie that got the coveted Christmas timeslot. Unfortunately, the critics are right for the most part. Parental Guidance is just not very good. It’s not really awful, but it’s not funny nor interesting either. The film’s worst crime is simply the fact that it’s extremely boring.

If you’re unfamiliar with the premise, the movie is about the ‘old-school’ parents of working mother, Alice Simmons, being forced to supervise their grandchildren, a product of ‘new age’ parenting. The idea behind the movie is that parents have gotten lazy and spineless in recent years, which has led to kids being spoiled and difficult, and more often than not neglected in terms of what they really need to be better people. This is a message that people really do need to hear, because it’s very much correct, even going as far back as my parents’ generation! Unfortunately, Parental Guidance just doesn’t capitalize on the theme very well. The premise is made moot by Alice staying behind to watch the kids anyway (hell, if you’re going to pay for Marisa Tomei, you might as well use her, right?), and it frankly feels like the filmmakers couldn’t decide if they were making a family hijinx-style comedy mainly directed at kids, or a serious parental commentary that’s more geared towards adults.

In trying to please both camps, Parental Guidance doesn’t really please either. The movie jumps willy-nilly between having gags that are too juvenile, followed almost immediately by adult satire, with an inability to commit to a consistent tone. As you can imagine, the tonal confusion also leads to conflicts being raised and dropped practically in the same scene, and the storytelling in general just feels like a huge mess.

Billy Crystal and Bette Midler, headling production alongside Marisa Tomei as Tomei’s character’s parents, are both two very talented comedians, but they seem just as confused as the movie’s final product, clearly unsure of how to proceed in each scene. The directing is all over the place, and there are times where it just feels like the filmmakers threw up their hands and didn’t bother polishing anything up, just wanting to get through the damn thing. The audience will quickly sympathize.

Like I said though, the worst problem with Parental Guidance is that it’s boring. It tries so hard to be amusing, but it all too frequently fails, because the studio clearly wanted a kids’ movie, while the script seems like it was originally meant for adults. The tug-of-war between the filmmakers and the studio just leaves a mess of a product that not even the combined talents of Marisa Tomei, Billy Crystal and Bette Midler can salvage, despite their best efforts.

In the end, this movie is far too poorly put-together to leave any kind of impression. It’s a tedious and embarrassing family flick that does have a good message behind it, but one that’s lost amidst production issues out the yin-yang. It’s not as bad as some people say, but considering how boring the movie ultimately is, with most of its jokes falling flat, and most of its commentary being lost in translation from page to screen, that’s almost worse than it being bad, so long as it’s the kind of bad where you could at least derive amusement from the trainwreck on screen. Unfortunately, Parental Guidance is just boring and forgettable, and deserves to fade into obscurity. Just ignore this one. You’re not missing anything!

 

Les Miserables

 

LES MISERABLES:
My sister received a DVD copy of Les Miserables for Easter, which she was nice enough to lend to me so I could watch the movie. I previously saw the non-musical edition of Les Miserables from the 90′s, but this was my first time watching a version of the story that followed the operatic style of the stage play, and not the straight storytelling of the novel. I remember that just about any movie enthusiast I know was very divided on this movie when it was screening in theatres. Some people thought it was incredible, while others absolutely hated it. In the end, I fell somewhere in the middle, since Les Miserables ultimately failed to leave much of an impression on me.

I will say this in Les Miserables’ favour; It’s VERY well-produced! The sets do genuinely look incredible (even if the all-important barricade scene is a bit underwhelming in this version), and the work that went into wardrobe is nothing short of breathtaking. The added production values that the stage play could never muster really work well here, since everything really pulls you into the setting, and makes every element of the story seem incredibly lifelike.

Another big plus in this movie is that the performances are generally quite strong. Hugh Jackman’s broadway experience really does him well here, since he’s not only an exceptional singer, but also a charismatic leading man, even in such a grimy, harsh storyline. Amanda Seyfried is also bright and charming as his charge, the young Cosette. Even the comic relief characters, a pair of shifty innkeepers played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, are quite amusing, even if they sometimes feel like they belong in a different movie. Hell, neither of them are billed in any of the press material, and I wasn’t aware that either of them were in the movie at all until I saw them! I suppose I can see why, since they’re pretty inconsistent with the other characters, even if their characters do show up in the novel and stage play.

If anyone steals the show however, it’s Anne Hathaway, playing factory worker-turned-prostitute and mother to Cosette, Fantine. The exceptional quality of her performance is likely the only reason why she’s billed so highly, since her screentime is disappointingly limited. It probably adds up to about twenty minutes, if that, which is largely nothing in a movie over two-and-a-half hours long! Hathaway sings the movie’s best song, I Dreamed a Dream, and that only makes her performance even better. If you know the story, you know why Anne Hathaway doesn’t spend a lot of time on screen, but it is disappointing nonetheless.

As far as the musical numbers go, they’re… fine. Truth be told, I didn’t find most of them to be that memorable. As I said, this latest adaptation of Les Miserables tries to stick as close to the stage play as possible, which means that it’s done in an operatic style, where very, very few lines are spoken normally. About 95% of the script is sung, so you’d better enjoy singing, because that’s just about all that this movie is! Unfortunately, this means there’s no escape from Russell Crowe’s singing voice, who portrays Inspector Javert, and is the only weak link in the cast, since he really can’t sing, and seems to be phoning in his performance. The almost exclusively sung dialogue is mainly why it’s disappointing that so many of the musical numbers are so unmemorable, even with the incredible production work in the sets and costumes especially. This drags down the entire movie’s long-term appeal, and makes it much more forgettable than it should be.

With that said, there are some highlights in the musical numbers beyond I Dreamed a Dream, even if there’s only a couple. The opening number, Look Down is actually pretty good, allowing Les Miserables to open strong. Also, despite the fact that it’s the most odd, gross and generally comedic song in the movie, Master of the House was probably my personal favourite, which is the big musical introduction of the characters of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Again, Master of the House is so ridiculous and over-the-top that it really feels like it belongs in a different movie, but it’s actually MEMORABLE! It’s mainly in the movie as a more upbeat and silly song to prevent it from being too depressing, but it’s the one song where the filmmakers loosen up and actually deliver something catchy and easy to invest in. Since all of the dialogue is sung, the musical numbers all bleed into one another, which is a big part of the reason why the operatic style of Les Miserables works much better as a stage play than it does as a movie. Master of the House was a breath of fresh air, because it felt like an actual musical number, and actually featured both compelling imagery (albeit comedically gross imagery much of the time) and charismatic singing from the likes of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter.

Les Miserables is clearly a movie that had loads of effort put into it from all parties involved. That’s why it’s kind of a shame that it merely ends up feeling so-so in the end, which probably won’t make it memorable in the long-term. It’s probably the most valiant attempt to translate the stage play to the big screen in its purest operatic form yet, but it doesn’t come off as an improved re-telling so much as a wannabe of the stage production much of the time, even with the vastly improved production values in the sets.

If you really like musicals and you can handle over two-and-a-half hours of straight singing, then you should still watch this movie at least once, if for no other reason than its commitment to trying to translate the operatic stage play to the big screen. Frankly however, if you’re in it for the musical numbers, and could care less about the Les Miserables story, you could just as easily look up the highlights on YouTube, as there are very few of them unfortunately. If you don’t care for musicals then STAY AWAY from this movie, because the singing literally never stops from start to finish, for better or for worse!

Ultimately, this isn’t a bad cinematic re-telling of Les Miserables, but its audience is kind of limited, and it’s a shame that it doesn’t leave more of an impression, especially musically.

 

That’s all for the latest episode of Rewind Reel! Until next time!

“Oz, The Great and Powerful” (3D) Movie Review

Oz, The Great and Powerful

 

 

 

WHAT I LOVED:

- The movie is visually stunning, particularly in 3D, with landscapes that are faithful to the famous 1939 movie musical, even if most of the subject matter is taken from the public domain L. Frank Baum books.

- The story is very clever, outlining a superb origin for the Oz character.

- The supporting cast of Finley and the China Girl are a lot of fun, and help to further the feeling that this is a true Wizard of Oz prequel.

- The movie still feels exciting, even when it cleverly finds ways to sidestep violent conflict.
WHAT I DIDN’T SO MUCH…:

- The casting is rather odd in many places, especially in regards to Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz being sisters (seriously?).

- Those hoping for more action and impressive effects will be disappointed, since the movie desires to remain family-friendly at all times.
AND HERE’S THE FULL REVIEW:

Like just about everyone in Western society, I saw the famous 1939 musical adaptation, The Wizard of Oz back when I was a kid. Inspired by the Oz novels written by L. Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz is one of the most beloved and celebrated family-friendly musicals of all time, being one of the first live-action movies to be displayed in colour, which has consistently allowed it to endure in pop culture even today. There have been numerous adaptations, prequels, sequels and other such things related to The Wizard of Oz, including African-American reimagining, The Wiz, and broadway prequel, Wicked, though Disney’s recent release of Oz, The Great and Powerful finally delivers a proper cinematic origin story for the titular character of The Wizard of Oz. It’s a bit strange that it took this long, but regardless, we have the most ambitious movie of 2013 yet in terms of production value, especially considering the legacy of the source material. It took me way too long to get to this movie, but I finally found a chance to see the standard digital 3D cut with my mother, since my delay in seeing the movie meant that the IMAX 3D cut had already gone. If you want my quick thoughts on how I may feel about the 1939 movie, I do like it, and I do respect what it’s done for the movie industry, but I wouldn’t really call it a favourite movie of mine either. It’s not a movie I idolized and fell in love with as a kid, and it just happened to be a movie I saw as a kid, because everybody sees The Wizard of Oz at some point or another by the sound of it. Thus, I kind of went into this prequel planning to just take it for what it was, as usual. I was legitimately curious to see what Disney and director, Sam Raimi would come up with for an Oz origin story, which I really thought was a great idea, since so much of that character wasn’t really explained beyond a quick and dirty denouement justification in the 1939 movie. Of course, since Warner Bros. still owns their original copyrighted works from that movie, Oz merely pays tribute to it in passing, largely taking more inspiration from the original books. This means that there are no ruby slippers, no real mention of The Scarecrow, The Tin Man or The Cowardly Lion (there are clever hints as to how they may have come about, but they’re never explicitly hinted at themselves) and there are no songs sung from the 1939 movie. In fact, it may be predictable, but in case there was any doubt, Oz is not a musical. It’s just treated as a straight fantasy adventure movie, albeit one that’s reasonably family-friendly, and perfectly fine to bring your kids to. There is some action and some more exciting sequences, but the movie completely sidesteps actual violence, quite cleverly might I add, and is more about the fantasy and wonder element than anything else. If you were expecting a high-stakes, action-packed Oz reinterpretation, you may be disappointed, since Oz is a family-friendly movie that is meant for all ages. It’s very jovial and innocent, even if there is a dark moment or two, but mostly, the movie is extremely upbeat, even during its more harrowing sequences. As a visual showcase and a family-friendly adventure, Oz is a real winner. Unfortunately, it also suffers from Raimi’s directing somehow seeming ‘off’, and I will admit that I wouldn’t imagine him being the first choice for a movie like this anyway, since his most well-known movies (the Evil Dead trilogy and the former Spider-Man trilogy) are pretty hokey and largely geared towards adults. This problem also manifests with the casting, which is kind of strange in some places. The movie immediately stumbles because James Franco doesn’t really feel like the best choice for the Oz character, and of the trio of witches in the movie, only Michelle Williams as Glinda (one of the only other characters to return from the 1939 movie) really makes all that much sense. Luckily, the supporting cast salvages the affair, and Oz gets more right than it gets wrong. If you’re coming for the visuals or the joyful sense of whimsy, this movie is definitely worth checking out, especially in 3D, even if I wouldn’t expect the world from it.

Characters: (8/10) – Even if James Franco doesn’t feel like the best casting choice for Oz, I will at least say this; Oz is very, very well-written. His origin story and character arc are very clever, even if some elements of his shifty character feel a bit neutered for the sake of making the movie family-friendly. What mainly sells Oz however are his supporting characters, which help to give the prequel a better sense of being connected in style to the 1939 movie, those being flying monkey, Finley (he’s a good flying monkey apparently), and the China Girl, who is a girl made of china that is never explicitly named for some reason. These two characters are both adorable and loads of fun, often being more useful to circumstances than Oz himself before the memorable and clever climax. As for Oz, the movie is still his journey, but it takes him quite a while to be likeable. I suppose that’s kind of the idea though, and as a journey of redemption for who Oz will become when the events of The Wizard of Oz take place, it’s a very strong character arc. Unfortunately, outside of Oz’s camp, the rest of the characters feel disappointingly underdeveloped. There’s two other witches in the movie besides Glinda, those being Evanora, Rachel Weisz’s character, and Theodora, Mila Kunis’s character, and if you think you know where this is going, then yes, you’re probably right. If you’re an adult that’s seen the 1939 movie, you will no doubt see where this is going right away too. Anyway, Evanora is the movie’s main antagonist (it’s treated as a twist, but the trailers immediately give it away, so it’s not a spoiler), and her motivations aren’t quite clear beyond the fact that she’s just ‘wicked’ (can you see where her and Theodora are going yet?). Theodora however is just there solely to tie into a movie that Disney doesn’t even wholly have the rights to, yet Wizard of Oz fans would riot if she wasn’t there. It’s very difficult to talk about her character without spoilers, even if they’re very obvious spoilers that a monkey can figure out, but I will say that her character came off as kind of disappointing, since her psychology and motivations felt very contrived. Theodora largely feels like she’s at the mercy of both Evanora and the script, and during the second half of the movie, when the big ‘twist’ (and I use that term generously) comes around with her character arc, she stays firmly in Evanora’s shadow, feeling like little more than an over-the-top sidekick when she should probably play a much larger part. That just leaves Glinda, who has a similarly thin personality, just being ‘the good witch’, as it were. Oh, and she’s a love interest for Oz, because, why not? I’m pretty sure that I don’t remember Oz and Glinda having a thing from the 1939 movie, but, whatever. Oz can’t keep it in his pants anyway, so I’ll chalk it up to that. In fact, that’s probably the most ‘adult’ element of any of the characters, the fact that Oz seems intent on screwing every woman he comes across (literally, all of them!), and the movie largely tiptoes around it by just making him give them all the same cheap, mass-produced music box as a half-assed gesture of ‘romance’. This element of the character does tie in to one of the other character turns, and again, I won’t spoil this turn, but said turn is probably the only real reason that Oz is such a horndog, well, that, and the fact that Disney movies wouldn’t be Disney movies with no love interest. Anyway, there’s a bunch of other bit characters, some of which drop hints about the four protaganists from The Wizard of Oz, even if the foursome is never actually shown or mentioned by name, but they’re all just in service to Oz’s character arc, which is fair enough.

Acting: (6/10) – One of the most disappointing elements to Oz is the fact that the acting is actually kind of shaky, and Raimi’s directing isn’t much better. It’s not awful acting or awful directing, but considering the pedigree of both Raimi and the Oz source material, not to mention that, separately, the main actors are great actors, it is disappointing nonetheless. Again, Zach Braff and Joey King as Finley and China Girl respectively are the best actors in the movie, largely because they’re the most enjoyable and memorable, even if they never showed up in the 1939 movie, unlike the other lead characters. As I said, James Franco doesn’t always feel like the best choice for the Oz character. He’s doing his best with what he’s got, but the movie needs someone with more of that shifty charm that the character demands, rather than Franco’s often brutally honest style. Someone like Robert Downey Jr. would have made more sense in the role, which is disappointing, since RDJ turned it down, likely due to commitments with his role in The Avengers and potentially even Iron Man 3. Michelle Williams at least fares better as Glinda, capturing both the appearance and the quiet grace of the character, even if she’s now blonde, and is no longer a redhead. That’s no doubt something that Oz purists will pick at, even if it’s rather inconsequential, since Michelle Williams is likely the best of the lead actors here. Rachel Weisz is a decent villain in Evanora, being surprisingly devious, even if her outstanding dignity is strained when she’s inevitably forced to overact. Where she feels more shakily cast is when we have to buy her as the sister of Mila Kunis, playing Theodora. The movie could have explained this if it had said that the two weren’t blood-related, but it doesn’t do that, instead giving Theodora a much older, inexplicably British sister. It’s almost unintentionally funny when you think about it that way! Still, Mila Kunis is perhaps one of the worst victims here, since she’s a great actress, but she doesn’t feel well-cast as Theodora. Yes, she’s got the look of Theodora, but her role calls for both an innocent disposition in the first half of the movie, followed by something more over-the-top and crazy in the second half. Again, Kunis gives her best effort with what she’s given, but her performance ultimately feels inconsistent. She’s too sexy to be taken as innocent early on, especially with her motivations feeling so contrived (you’ll see what I mean), and she’s not scary enough to be taken seriously when she takes her turn to crazy town. Does anyone remember American Psycho II? No? I rest my case! Anyway, while the writing is quite sound, for the most part (Theodora’s character needs a bit of work, since she’s the most contrived personality of the lot), the actors and director all feel kind of mismatched, and that drags down the movie in far too many places. Still, for what it’s worth, you do get your Bruce Campbell cameo that just about any Sam Raimi movie demands, even if it’s very brief and uninteresting. Hey, it’s better than nothing!

Stunts: (6/10) – There is some stunt work in the movie, but it’s very light. Raimi at least tried to minimize CGI in the set design, which is appreciated, since it helps make the world of Oz seem all the more real and palpable. Still, since Oz is a family-friendly movie and is completely non-violent pretty much, there isn’t much to say about the floaty and whimsical stunt work. Some of it is decently fun, but it’s nothing impressive.

Special Effects: (8/10) – Wherever Oz stumbles, it’s thankfully picked up by the mostly impressive special effects. There’s a handful of flashier scenes, but like the stunts, many of the effects are reserved so as not to frighten children. Unfortunately, this can also work to the movie’s detriment, since it means that effects-driven characters that are supposed to be menacing and scary, like Theodora, just end up looking kind of ridiculous, since the filmmakers clearly don’t want to scare off kids. Again, if you think you know where Theodora’s character is going, chances are, you’re right, and, sadly, you’re going to be underwhelmed by the effects used to portray her character turn. I can’t really elaborate without spoilers, but, trust me, considering that this director made the Evil Dead trilogy, you’re going to really let down when you see how the effects of this character have been neutered here. The rest of the strong effects-driven scenes were given away in the trailers already, but they still look plenty good on the big screen, especially in 3D. Speaking of the 3D presentation, it’s quite good, and you should definitely see Oz in that format if you can. The 3D was honestly more gimmicky than I expected it to be, no doubt mainly to amuse kids, but it still spends the majority of the movie doing what it’s supposed to do, enhancing the atmosphere and bolstering the special effects, and at the very least, the gimmicky 3D scenes still feel amusing and not annoying. The movie doesn’t lose a MASSIVE amount if you just watch it in 2D, but the key effects-driven scenes are definitely at their best in 3D, so, like I said, the 3D cut has the upper hand, and is more recommendable than just watching Oz in 2D.

Set Pieces: (10/10) – By far the strongest point of Oz is the sets, which are breathtaking. You’ll see some familiar locations from The Wizard of Oz, which are altered when necessary to avoid stepping on Warner Bros.’s copyright, as well as some more novel locations, and all of it looks incredible! If Raimi has done anything here, it’s definitely a spectacle factor, which makes sense, since that was also one of the best things he contributed to his Evil Dead and Spider-Man trilogies. Every scene is set up, framed and shot with incredible aplomb from a visual standpoint, making the already strong set design even better! Trust me, if it’s a believable trip to Oz with modern production values that you want, Oz definitely delivers there!

Costumes: (8/10) – The costume work is basic, but largely pretty good. Some of the costumes, specifically Oz’s sidekicks, are done via CGI, but most of the other Oz citizens have an actual wardrobe, including the witches, as does Oz himself. Again, it’s a family-friendly movie, so you can’t expect anything to be too garish, but for what it is, it works. The characters of Oz are brought to life with modern production values, and it all looks pretty pleasant.

Story: (8/10) – The storyline for the movie is really, really good, even if it has a few slow points, simply because the movie is dragging out false tension. Yes, that’s a common trap that prequels fall into, and Oz doesn’t manage to avoid it. We know that certain characters won’t die, and certain characters will turn out a certain way, so adding any element of uncertainty to proceedings just feels like a waste of time, when the movie could have instead focused on something more interesting. It’s also annoying that certain parts of the 1939 movie can’t be used, because Warner Bros. owns the copyright on them, so crucial elements like the ruby slippers can’t be portrayed. Like I said however, this is still a very inspired origin story for the Oz character, still certainly making it a story worth experiencing! Anyhow, the movie begins in Kansas, 1908. After con man, Oscar Diggs, a.k.a. Oz, winds up in some trouble, he attempts to escape in a hot air balloon, only to be caught in a twister. Believing himself to be doomed initially, Oz reawakens in the colourful world that shares his stage name, whereupon he meets Theodora, an optimistic and naive young witch that he sees fit to charm. Theodora leads Oz into her sister’s kingdom within The Emerald City, believing him to be the wizard spoken of in a prophecy, whereupon Oz will save the world from a wicked witch. Theodora’s sister points Oz towards the witch, who turns out to be the good witch, Glinda, subsequently informing him and his companions that the real wicked witch is actually Evanora, ruling The Emerald City with a reign of tyranny. Now targetted by Evanora upon learning the truth, Oz must join with Glinda to formulate a plan of resistance, one that satisfies her kingdom’s rule of non-violence, and discovering his redemption along the way. Much of the movie’s writing is clever, even when it’s sometimes let down by the acting, and Oz fans will definitely enjoy experiencing the tale of this latest prequel, especially since it doesn’t need to be dark and violent to tell its story!

Length/Editing: (7/10) – Kids might get a little bit restless with the huge 130-minute runtime, and as I said, certain parts of the movie drag when they waste time on false tension that the audience will just see right through. Still, the adventure feels engaging and satisfying, even without any violence, with kids no doubt able to enjoy the gimmicky 3D elements and colourful visuals, while adults can appreciate the story and clever nods to the source material. The movie could have had about ten or fifteen minutes shaved off of it, especially considering that it takes a surprisingly long time for Oz to actually end up in the land of Oz, but still, the movie is hardly boring!

Genre Appeal: (9/10) – If you’re in the market for a fantasy movie or an adventure movie, Oz will be plenty appealing to you! Even with its flaws, it’s a very well-conceived story that actually successfully sidesteps the overdependence on darkness and violence in many of today’s modern blockbusters, and that counts for quite a bit! Of course, if you’re expecting darkness and violence in all of your blockbusters, you may be disappointed that there isn’t any to speak of in Oz, but frankly, it doesn’t matter, because it’s a very strong family-friendly adventure that puts its own welcome spin on the source material, again, even considering its flaws.

Re-watch Value: (7/10) – Oz fans in particular will find this movie quite rewatchable, especially considering the amount of clever nods to both the books, and whatever the filmmakers could afford to use in reference to the 1939 movie. Even people who just like a good fantasy movie will likely want to own this on Blu-Ray when it arrives, especially if Disney does indeed follow through with a sequel that takes Oz’s origin even further (though, frankly, I don’t really feel one is necessary, personally).

Conclusion- Oz may not be a new standard for the Oz books, or the legacy of the 1939 movie, since it’s probably more flawed than you’d imagine. Even with its drawbacks though, the movie is still bright and compelling, especially for family audiences with an appreciation of the source material. It is disappointing that Warner Bros.’ copyright forces the movie to do without several pivotal world elements like the ruby slippers, but even then, the movie is very clever and very well-conceived. Even with a bit of a shaky cast and almost a complete lack of real action, with no violence at all to speak of for those who may actually demand it in their blockbusters, Oz is still a good movie, because the positives do outweigh the negatives. The characters are fun, even if not all of them are well-developed, and the new sidekicks for the Oz character are actually among the best of the bunch, which is something I definitely didn’t expect! The journey of the Oz character is quite fulfilling, albeit somewhat neutered for family audiences, and while some of the elements involving the wicked witches are pretty lightweight so as not to frighten children, it’s still interesting to see how these characters become who they are in the 1939 movie. Oz is also a real visual stunner, and it only gets better in 3D! Kids will probably be the most amused by the surprisingly gimmicky 3D presentation, which becomes annoying noticeable when you try and watch the movie in 2D, but this means that you should catch Oz on the big screen while you can, and do so in 3D, because the 3D job really does enhance both the sets and the effects. As I said however, I’m not sure about Disney’s confirmed plans to do a sequel to the prequel (that’s a mouthful), because, frankly, I feel like the Oz character has had his redemption, and I’m not sure where else he could go. I suppose I’ll keep an open mind, but this is just an indication that the storytelling in the prequel left me quite satisfied. Even if the 1939 movie kicked off almost immediately after, it would fit with the storytelling of the prequel, which is the other big thing that Sam Raimi’s direction and the scriptwriters really got right here, beyond the incredible realization of the world of Oz. It sucks that Sam Raimi, along with a good chunk of the lead actors, don’t feel like the best fit, but even then, the strength of the writing and visuals still carry the piece quite nicely. The complete lack of violence and actual dark elements also make the movie plenty safe for children, even if those expecting a darker take on Oz will no doubt be disappointed. As impressive as various elements of Oz are, it really does feel like a Disney movie, allowing you to take both the good and the bad from that final product. It’s a great movie to bring your kids and more conservative family members to, being pretty innocent overall, but it won’t really scratch your action itch, which is best left saved for this year’s Summer blockbusters. So, if you like the Oz stories and want another good one to add to the pile, then you should definitely check out this movie, since it’s probably the best origin story that the actual Oz character could have asked for. As a blockbuster, it may fall short of being a truly great and powerful piece, but that’s not to say it isn’t entertaining in its own right!

 
FINAL SCORE: 77% “GOOD”

FINAL VERDICT: “Oz, The Great and Powerful stumbles a bit with its odd casting choices and sometimes problematic directing, and Warner Bros.’ maintained copyright of the famous 1939 movie does get in the way of some of the writing. Still, the movie really excels with its inspired origin story for the Oz character, which is well-told amidst a beautiful realization of Oz that is given loads of colour and personality. It may not be a dark or action-packed blockbuster, but it’s a good bit of whimsy for both family audiences and Oz fans eager to see how the titular character actually came to be, especially if you experience the especially fun and sharp-looking 3D cut!”

“Olympus has Fallen” Movie Review

Olympus has Fallen

 

 

WHAT I LOVED:

- One of the best Die Hard clones to come along in a while!

- Gerard Butler finally gets his best chance to flex his action man muscle since 300!

- Plenty of well-constructed fight scenes following the White House takeover!

- As usual, Rick Yune is an imposing villain!
WHAT I DIDN’T SO MUCH…:

- Even considering the premise of the White House takeover, the movie isn’t all that original.

- The frequently preposterous storyline isn’t remotely realistic.
AND HERE’S THE FULL REVIEW:

Hollywood isn’t really shy about competing projects anymore. Just as we had two Snow White-themed movies last year, we now have two movies that are both about the White House being taken over by terrorists. The upcoming project is by infamous Independence Day/2012 director, Roland Emmerich, that being White House Down, and I can’t say that I have high hopes for that one. Thus, I was much more attached to Olympus has Fallen, not only because it has a much more creative title, but also because it could potentially offer me a Die Hard fix after I missed A Good Day to Die Hard back in February. I ended up seeing the movie with my father and brother, who both agreed that this movie is borderline OCD about satisfying the Die Hard checklist! You’ve got a lone old-school hero who is technologically impaired within an enclosed, heavily-guarded space, you’ve got said hero bantering with the villain on a walkie-talkie, you’ve got the antagonistic military pricks who make things difficult because they can’t just be a little patient, the sympathetic black man who encourages the hero (this time it’s Morgan Freeman!), and of course, lots of brutal, highly physical action scenes that put the hero’s stamina to the test. Olympus isn’t very shy about the fact that it’s a Die Hard clone. It practically wears the ‘Die Hard in the White House’ pitch like a shiny merit badge! Despite the fact that this movie is rather obviously derivative, and has a plot so preposterous that it occasionally borders on hilarious, Olympus is still a good action movie. Yes, it’s a good action movie because it sets the bar low and doesn’t try to bite off more than it can chew, but for what it is, it’s everything a disposable action flick should be. It’s badass, it’s exciting, it’s a little bit silly, and a hell of a lot of bad people die in it. It also happens to be the first genuinely good movie that Gerard Butler has been in since 300, which has to count for something. No, this movie doesn’t compare to the enduring appeal of 300, but it’s still a good time if you enjoy action movies, and don’t necessarily have high expectations. This is yet ANOTHER small movie though, so there really isn’t much more for me to say than that. If you want to see a destructive and satisfying action movie about terrorists taking over the White House and getting their asses kicked by Gerard Butler, then here you go, no strings attached. There’s no intelligent storyline, no grandiose set pieces (even considering that this is set in a conquered White House), no themes of the darkness within the human soul or any of that bullshit. There’s just action-packed entertainment for two hours, making Olympus a very safe investment for action movie fans who are all about exactly that; The action. Yes, this is a pretty disposable action flick in the end, and who knows, White House Down might end up being the superior film (though with Roland Emmerich directing, I sincerely doubt it), but while it lasts, it’s a pretty good time, and it’s easy to agree that this is probably the best Die Hard movie that’s not a Die Hard movie to come along in quite a while!

Characters: (6/10) – In the early portions of the movie, we’re introduced to a basic batch of characters. Of course this includes head Secret Service agent, Mike Banning, Gerard Butler’s character, and Aaron Eckhart’s president of the United States, Benjamin Asher. The two are not only professional partners, but also close pals, with Mike even idolized by the president’s son, Connor. Tragedy strikes however, and Mike is demoted to the treasury, with both men unable to let go of a tragic car accident that claims the life of the First Lady. Of course, Mike gets his shot at redemption when the White House is taken over by North Korean terrorists, who hold the president and most of his detail hostage, sans the Speaker of the House, who is left to be acting president and watch from the sidelines. Why North Koreans take over the White House (and why they do it in barely an afternoon) is just one of many plot elements that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially considering how much firepower a rogue terrorist faction not only wields for the takeover, but somehow sneaks beyond the myriad layers of American security. This is a brainless action flick though, so we’re not supposed to ask those questions! Anyway, terrorist leader, Kang puts pressure on the speaker to withdraw troops from South Korea, leaving Mike Banning the only man on the inside who can set things right. What ensues from there is a bunch of ass-kicking. If you think you can call the various plot turns of Olympus, then chances are, you’ve seen the original Die Hard. As I said, much of the movie is going through the Die Hard playbook, ripping out any page it can use. Even then, the characters’ actions are predictable and rarely all that shocking. As much as the movie tries to be grounded for the most part, Mike still stands as a one-man army who somehow takes down tens of North Koreans without any help, just as the degree of control that the villain has over White House operations is pretty outlandish, considering his main influence is a single woman on a computer. I know I’m not even an American citizen, but I’m pretty sure it would take A LOT more computer wizardry than that to paralyze the White House’s systems to the degree that Kang does. Again though, this is a disposable action flick, and I’m not supposed to be asking those questions. Neither should you. Heroes are heroes, villains are villains, and American audiences will no doubt love the not-so-subtle, “God bless America!” aftertaste throughout the movie. That was pretty well lost on me, since I’m Canadian, but hey, it’s there if you’re looking for it. None of the characters are any deeper than that. Even characters that attempt to add some emotional depth to the movie, like Connor or Mike’s wife, Leah, are little more than plot devices, often brought up and dropped on a whim, according to what the script demands. There’s even one scene where Kang (somehow) learns who Mike’s wife is, he makes a single idle threat over the comms, but then never even mentions Leah again. It feels like yet another page from the Die Hard playbook, but the difference between Leah and Holly McClane, is that Holly McClane actually had bearing on the storyline, and actually did manage to stymie the villain once or twice. Leah’s just kind of… there. The movie even cuts to the hospital she works at to show the injured victims of the North Koreans, but then doesn’t do anything with any of those scenes. They’re just there to pad the runtime it seems. Like I said though, heroes are heroes, and villains are villains, and there’s no use reading into the characters more than that.

Acting: (7/10) – The performances are pretty simplistic in their writing, but despite that, the cast assembled here is actually pretty sharp! In a way, it’s almost too sharp, since the movie brings in actors like Ashley Judd, who plays the First Lady, then immediately drops them after a brief appearance. Still, you can’t argue with a movie that assembles the likes of Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Melissa Leo and Rick Yune, and all of them deliver as expected. As I said, this is Gerard Butler’s first genuinely ‘good’ leading role since 300, proving that he still has that badass action man appeal when he’s put into the right movie. As you can imagine, he is channeling quite a bit of Bruce Willis into his performance, but that’s fine, because he’s an exceptional ass-kicker throughout proceedings! Aaron Eckhart and Melissa Leo spend almost the entire movie in the same place, the president’s bunker, along with Rick Yune, playing the movie’s villain, Kang. Even stuck in the same spot however, all of them are still extremely engaging. Yune is basically a moustache-twirling villain with no greater motivation than being evil for the sake of being evil, as hard as the movie tries to make him out as a misguided patriot, but he’s still a worthy and menacing bad guy, even if there’s not a lot to his performance. Eckhart and Leo are the main injections of patriotism into the movie, basically sustaining liberal abuse from the bad guys, only to shout all triumphant and say that they’ll never back down. It’ll probably come off as trying too hard to non-Americans, but their performances are still nicely dramatic and engaging in their own right. Morgan Freeman is also very well-cast in the role of the Speaker of the House, mostly just delivering his default ‘Morgan Freeman Performance’ of quiet, yet powerful dignity, but doing the job well. None of the actors are really straining here, but considering that the cast is still very good, all of them are just left to do what they do best, and it still works, even if it’s undemanding.

Stunts: (8/10) – As you can imagine from any Die Hard clone, many of the action scenes are highly physical in nature, at least past the initial takeover. Butler still just shoots some guys dead, but most of the time, he has to get his hands dirty, and his stunt choreography is pretty solid. Rarely, you’ll see the ill-advised action of the military dicks mess things up on the outside, if for no other reason than to make some more things explode, but that’s fair enough. The physical action is grimy, brutal and very hard-hitting, even if it’s not altogether showy. It seems like the movie is trying to be at least a little bit grounded with its action sequences, but they’re well-executed, with plenty of satisfying kills, courtesy of Butler, so you really can’t complain.

Special Effects: N/A

Set Pieces: (9/10) – If something is really impressive, and probably ate up most of the budget, it’s the set work! The ravaged White House locations actually look pretty great, bringing Butler through several important locations after they’re blacked out and torn apart. The movie doesn’t exactly give a guided tour of what is where, but you’ll recognize various locations if you’re familiar with the location, such as the Oval Office, the President’s Bunker, and Lincoln’s Bedroom, among others. The movie wisely doesn’t wallow in destroying the place (something that White House Down will probably have less restraint on), but still effectively captures the haunting and uncertain atmosphere of a conquered White House. It’s still pretty easy to see what’s going on too, even though most of the movie outside of the bunker is in the dark, so the lighting work is quite exceptional as well. All in all, this movie is pretty well put-together, so long as you don’t mind the fact the frequently dark scenery.

Costumes: N/A

Story: (5/10) – Like I said, the movie gives you exactly what you pay for, and little else. It’s predictable, it’s often outlandish, and in setting the bar low, it works. I’ve pretty much described the entire premise already anyhow. After being demoted after a car accident where he saves the president but is unable to rescue the First Lady, ex-Secret Service head, Mike Banning now works for the treasury. After a seemingly routine day, North Korean terrorists attack, infiltrate and take over the White House, with Mike managing to slip inside during the chaos. Being the only man on the inside, as military forces are paralyzed against the terrorist’s demands, Mike is given the chance to redeem his failure by defeating the terrorist operation from the inside and rescuing the president. That’s the whole movie. Nothing outside of the terrorist takeover ultimately has any bearing, and this is a Die Hard clone that is all about the action. Still, for what it is, it’s a solid and action-packed Die Hard clone that is well put-together for the most part, so even if the plot is derivative and predictable, it’s really difficult to care, so long as you’re coming for the action.

Length/Editing: (8/10) – The early portions of the movie are the slowest, before the terrorists arrive, especially since the First Lady’s death sequence feels a little bit contrived. Once the terrorists do start laying waste to the White House and the neighbouring areas, the movie starts kicking up, and it really doesn’t let up until the end credits, even at a sizeable two-hour length. Again, the bar is set low, but the movie doesn’t really have any real lulls once the North Koreans arrive. It remains consistently tense, exciting and entertaining, which makes it a very digestible, albeit disposable action film that’s pretty easy to watch.

Genre Appeal: (9/10) – Even though it’s not all that ambitious beyond the idea of simulating a White House takeover by North Koreans, Olympus works very well as an action film, because it focuses on the fundamentals of the genre, and it pulls them off. It’s a good example of doing the simple stuff well being better than doing the advanced stuff poorly. The movie is consistently exciting and action-packed once it gets going, giving audiences what they demand, and not wasting time with anything else. If you want an undemanding action movie, you have it here!

Re-watch Value: (4/10) – Olympus is ultimately unmemorable, since, as I said, it’s a pretty disposable movie that isn’t shy about taking liberal ‘inspiration’ from Die Hard. You’re likely to view it once and then never watch it again, unless you’re some sort of compulsive action movie DVD collector.

Conclusion- Olympus is a pretty basic action movie. It doesn’t have any real curveballs, it doesn’t break the bank on expensive set pieces, and it gives you pretty well what you ask for, without any strings attached. It’s a Die Hard-inspired action movie about terrorists taking over the White House, and nothing else. The movie certainly doesn’t try to be any kind of political commentary in that regard either, since it’s barely even trying to be realistic or in any way credible. You see a movie like this for one reason; The action. If you’re coming for the action, you’ll be nicely satisfied, because the movie packs in plenty of it. Considering the lacklustre reception to A Good Day to Die Hard, it may actually be a better Die Hard movie than the real Die Hard sequel that 2013 delivered beforehand! Sure, the original Die Hard that Olympus borrows so much from is a much, much better movie, but Olympus is still entertaining for fans of the action genre, and is still reassuring proof that not every movie Gerard Butler has a lead role in post-300 has to be bad. You could just as easily wait for it to come to Netflix, but if you enjoy catching first-run action movies on the big screen, you’ll enjoy this one, so long as you’re not expecting the world from it. If you’re worried about a bunch of attention drawn to some apparent security issue in American infrastructure as well, don’t be. Olympus is pretty preposterous, almost proudly preposterous, and it doesn’t waste time on realism when it could keep its focus on its first actual priority; Entertainment. Yes, there’s a bit of an aftertaste of America being so awesome because it’s so undefeatable and all that, and some foreign audiences might take issue with that, but like I said, the movie is sort of too stupid to be taken seriously for the most part. Still, for what it’s worth, it’s the good kind of stupid. It’s corny action movie stupid. It’s brain-off entertainment at its best, and it will scratch your action itch while you wait for bigger and better action movies to come in 2013. If you were disappointed with A Good Day to Die Hard, then that’s all the more reason to see Olympus, which actually comes closer to replicating the original Die Hard formula, even if it sometimes feels like it’s just ripping it off wholesale. There really isn’t anything else I can say about the movie though. It’s a Die Hard clone, but a good Die Hard clone, so if that’s the kind of movie you enjoy, then you’ll enjoy this. You won’t really remember it very well once you exit the theatre, but it provides solid, fleeting action-packed entertainment while it lasts, even if it also inadvertently goes to show how ridiculous the idea of a brute force White House takeover by North Koreans actually is in the end. Olympus will likely be outdone by other action movies over the next few months, which is why it will likely merely be a worthwhile rental if you miss its theatrical run, but for now, it works. If you want to see one badass take down an army of terrorists, it works. If you want good, digestible action movie entertainment, it works. Despite its title, the movie really doesn’t reach for the stars in terms of its content, but like I said, it’s a good reminder of an important school of thought when it comes to disposable filmmaking fare; Better to do the simple stuff well than the advanced stuff poorly.

 
FINAL SCORE: 70% “GOOD”

FINAL VERDICT: “Olympus has Fallen essentially boils down to ‘Die Hard in the White House’. It liberally takes inspiration left and right from Bruce Willis’s 1988 classic, but as predictable and derivative as it can sometimes feel, it still pulls off the action movie fundamentals well. The action is well-executed, the cast is awesome, and it provides action movie fans with plenty of what they’ll likely seek; Action. If you’re simply in the market for an undemanding, albeit entertaining action movie to scratch your itch while you wait for bigger and better offerings, Olympus has Fallen will entertain you quite effectively.”

“The Croods” (3D) Movie Review

The Croods

 

 

 

WHAT I LOVED:

- The cast of characters are diverse and likeable, for both kids and adults alike!

- The slapstick comedy actually works to great effect, especially in the contrast between the more cartoonish Croods and more grounded Guy character.

- The animation is lively and exciting, making the action scenes quite impressive.

- As usual with any Dreamworks Animation film, the 3D is used to great effect, especially in terms of heightening the movie’s sense of atmosphere!
WHAT I DIDN’T SO MUCH…:

- Some running gags grate a bit after a while.

- The movie doesn’t really find its narrative footing until the second half, when the focus shifts from Eep to Grug in the main protaganist role.
AND HERE’S THE FULL REVIEW:

Remember when Dreamworks Animation formed that partnership with British claymation studio, Aardman Animations? This was a pretty short-lived partnership, planned for five movies, but never reaching that far. None of the Dreamworks/Aardman partner films were very successful, often tanking hard at the box office, and making nowhere near their budget back. Perhaps it’s the fact that audiences just never got on board with the fusion of American and British animated filmmaking sensibilities, but the real tragedy of the whole thing is, these movies weren’t even bad! Flushed Away was a really underrated gem back in 2006, which not nearly enough people saw, and Chicken Run, despite being the worst financial failure of the lot, was actually fantastic, and I still consider it to be one of the best movies that Dreamworks Animation and Aardman alike have ever produced! Alas, things didn’t work out because of ‘creative differences’ (more like bleeding quarterly reports), and Aardman then formed a new partnership with Sony, which has led to more financially profitable movies that remain well-received by both critics and audiences alike, such as Arthur Christmas, and The Pirates!: Band of Misfits. Obviously, Aardman abruptly walking out on their deal with Dreamworks, meant that several animated film concepts ultimately didn’t see the light of day. Among these was a prehistoric comedy concept pitched by legendary Monty Python comedian, John Cleese, called Crood Awakening, which was about an eccentric caveman family surviving continental drift. This movie was initially abandoned by planned director, Chris Sanders so that he could pursue a wholly Dreamworks-produced project for 2010, and, yep, that project ended up materializing as How To Train Your Dragon, probably the studio’s biggest and most well-received hit since the original Shrek movie. Since follow-ups were set with delays, both in terms of creating a TV series and a sequel movie, Sanders decided to keep busy in the meantime by reviving the forgotten Crood Awakening concept, which was given some re-tooling and re-animating, before ultimately being released for the Easter 2013 season as ‘The Croods’. The premise of the movie remained faithful to the concept, but things were shuffled around, beyond the animation style changing, and the movie now being presented in 3D, as all animated movies are these days. Re-tooled as more of a proud family movie, The Croods represents the first movie released under Dreamworks Animation’s new distribution deal with 20th Century Fox, after their original deal with Paramount expired towards the end of 2012, following the release of Rise of the Guardians. The Croods has already become one of 2013′s most profitable movies, continuing Dreamworks Animation’s hot streak following rival studio, Pixar’s slight decline in recent years. It’s easy to see why, since the movie is another strong crowd pleaser, and a perfectly-timed Easter release that exceptionally takes advantage of the family being together. The Croods may fall a bit short of being another How To Train Your Dragon-level masterpiece, but it’s still a strong animated offering that is sure to provide some great breezy entertainment, and proves that the art of making a true family film is still alive and well in the right hands!

Characters: (9/10) – One potential side effect to the fact that The Croods was tossed between several parties until it ultimately came to the big screen successfully, is that it has a bit of a shift in protaganists halfway through its runtime. The entire movie centers on caveman family, the Croods, one of the last surviving caveman families after their neighbours were humourously killed off in a variety of ways, according to an amusing opening montage that kicks off the film, largely because they run and hide from anything remotely unfamiliar. The family consists of worrying father, Grug, doting mother, Ugga, rebellious teenage daughter, Eep, thick-headed son, Thunk, opinionated grandmother, Gran, and animalistic infant, Sandy. For the first half of The Croods, the story focuses mainly on Eep, who is trying to defy her father’s orders and explore the world around her. After the inciding incident occurs, and the family is forced out of their familiar surroundings toward the midway point however, the lead character role gradually shifts more to Grug, with Eep shifting into a love interest role for pivotal supporting character, Guy, the first ‘modern man’ that leads the Croods. While the movie obviously becomes a familiar story about Grug being an overbearing parent learning to let loose, have fun and be adventurous, something that has been done before in several other animated films, not the least of which is Pixar’s acclaimed classic, Finding Nemo, it’s in the second half that The Croods stands strongest from an emotional standpoint. The movie is still entertaining in the first half, but it really finds its footing with the personalities and stakes in the second half, making Grug a more predictable, but also more compelling and heartfelt lead character. Guy is given some development as well, even if his pet sloth, Belt is completely relegated to the role of being a gag character, and Guy mainly has to stand as the straight man to the more eccentric and cartoonish Crood characters. Despite this however, he’s still given more depth than most of the other characters, who mainly only exist to set up and execute gags, which I suppose is fair enough. Thunk, Gran and Sandy never move beyond being joke characters, and Ugga is the least interesting character in the movie, since she’s never given anything to do. Nonetheless, the characters endear themselves to the audience, even with one-note traits and personalities, since their jokes and humour are written and executed so well. What’s most pleasantly surprising about the Crood characters in particular is that they feature lots of slapstick gags that are actually effective and funny, even for adults! The cast is ultimately pretty limited, since there are no other human characters in the movie beyond the Croods and Guy, but you’ll still see plenty of very creative and equally amusing creature designs that constantly make the characters’ journey that much more wondrous to experience! The Croods is a good example of how to do a lot with a little, simply because its creative spark and comedy inspiration is so strong, even if it doesn’t have a complicated, or even an expansive collection of characters. Even so, it never feels overly simplistic or dumbed down. It’s a tight and focused production that just works because it’s so clever and inspired, even with the gradual shift in protaganists.

Acting: (9/10) – If there’s another thing you can count on Dreamworks Animation films to display, it’s a strong cast, and The Croods definitely delivers here as well! Nicolas Cage is perfectly cast as Grug, giving him a role that allows him to let loose and embrace his quirky side, making him seem much more interested and engaged in his performance as a result. Consequently, Emma Stone injects a whole lot of charm into Eep, who had the potential to be a selfish and unlikeable character, but instead becomes endearing, and worth rooting for in the early portions of the movie. Ryan Reynolds isn’t given quite as much to do as Guy, since he’s often forced to be the straight man to the Crood characters, but he still makes the character charming and charismatic, making the Croods’ desire to follow him that much more believable. Unfortunately, while the performances are all universally awesome, many of the other actors aren’t given as much to do. Cloris Leachman as Gran, Catherine Keener as Ugga, and Clark Duke as Thunk, are merely given a bunch of throwaway lines, which are funny, but they don’t mean much for character development. Still, each Crood is given their own distinct personality, even if it’s a thin personality in many cases outside of Grug and Guy in particular, and audiences everywhere are likely to have a particular favourite character that they grow especially attached to throughout the movie. Again, the cast of actual characters is quite limited, even if exotic and creative creature designs are pretty frequent, so the roster of actors isn’t exactly large. Still, the actors bring the movie to life quite well, even in small numbers, making it a simple journey, but one that’s immensely entertaining to watch unfold!

Stunts: N/A

Special Effects: (10/10) – Dreamworks Animation contunues to raise the bar with their animation, even in a movie that’s noticeably smaller in scale than their past several films, and the previous Rise of the Guardians in particular. While The Croods is still loaded with breathtaking, colourful and creative environments, it feels more cartoony, light-hearted and generally breezy compared to much of Dreamworks Animation’s last few offerings, which is fine, since it helps the movie stand as a reliable crowd pleaser. The design of the characters themselves are detailed and well put-together, even if they’ve been completely re-tooled from their original claymation plans. The blockier Crood designs work nicely against Guy’s more traditional Dreamworks Animation human character model, legitimately feeling like exaggerated cartoon characters brought to life. This is a big part of the reason why the slapstick scenes between the Croods actually work effectively, since they feel like a successful attempt to bring a 2D design into three-dimensional CG with great effect! The fast pace of some of the early animated scenes can feel breathless to adults, but kids will definitely love the movie’s manic pace during the more speedy scenes! As for the 3D presentation, consistent with all of Dreamworks Animation’s 3D work, it’s outstanding, and definitely the ideal way to watch The Croods! The 3D is mainly used to enhance atmosphere, but to that degree, it effectively sucks audiences more into the immersive world of the movie. There are a couple of sequences involving more gimmicky, in-your-face 3D, but considering how manic and cartoony the movie is, they occur less often than you’d think. The movie is still sharp-looking and impressive in 2D, but it’s really at its best in 3D, where you can most easily enjoy the exotic immersion of The Croods’ memorable adventure.

Set Pieces: N/A

Costumes: N/A

Story: (8/10) – The Croods’ storyline is pretty easy to predict for adult viewers, even from the opening moments, but a movie like this still stands as a fine example of a moviegoing experience being about the journey, not the destination. The shift between lead characters at the midway point is less jarring than you may imagine, and all in all, the movie tells a heartwarming, even if predictable tale of both family values, and having a sense of adventure. As I mentioned, the movie is about an eccentric caveman family who has survived mostly on their fear of anything foreign, but when continental drift destroys their home and forces them to seek safety, they must team up with Guy, the first ‘modern man’ to find a new place to live. From there, the movie is mainly a bunch of cool set pieces and gags, but in the second half especially, it manages to find its emotional core, which leads to some really compelling character interactions and themes. It’s difficult to talk about these without spoiling the movie, especially since it’s a bit smaller in scale than the past few Dreamworks Animation movies, but rest assured that it’s a strong animated film tale that effortlessly entertains for both kids and adults alike!

Length/Editing: (8/10) – As I said, the movie can be very speedy in pace, to the point where it may leave young kids hyperactive by the time the end credits roll. Still, this makes it consistently exciting and fun to watch, especially since the sometimes predictable outcomes of a situation wisely don’t overstay their welcome. As with any Dreamworks Animation movie, The Croods is put together with quite a bit of polish, obviously constructed in a way to maximize entertainment and heart, without getting bogged down in fluff. It’s an easy watch that provides a brisk animated adventure fix for family audiences in particular!

Genre Appeal: (10/10) – Even being a bit of a smaller movie than much of Dreamworks Animation’s catalogue, The Croods is an outstanding example of how to do a family film and an animated film right! The colourful and speedy animation is very appealing to look at, especially in 3D, and the comedy succeeds both in regards to the slapstick and the writing simultaneously. Even then, characters still find time to have some surprisingly potent emotional moments, even when much of the movie feels so cartoonish. Both fun and emotionally gratifying, it’s everything you could want in a family-driven animated movie!

Re-watch Value: (7/10) – Like I said, The Croods falls a bit short of Dreamworks Animation’s top classics like Shrek and How To Train Your Dragon, but it still stands as one of the studio’s better movies, and one that remains quite a good bit of fun on subsequent viewings. If you have young children in particular, this is definitely a DVD or Blu-Ray worth picking up when it arrives!

Conclusion- The Croods is very pleasant proof that not every movie concept mired by production woes is doomed to be a failure. Even if it doesn’t quite measure up to the instant classic appeal of How To Train Your Dragon, it’s still a very strong animated movie that will delight audiences of all ages, even if it’s families that will get the most out of it. There’s been animation tweaks, story changes and other such alterations that have distanced The Croods from its initial concept beyond the premise, but it’s still a reliable crowd-pleaser that is not only very entertaining, but also chock full of heart too. Kids will especially love the speedy and often hysterical moments of slapstick throughout the movie, which can even be enjoyed by adults, who will also appreciate the incredibly creative and exotic scenery and visuals that layer the piece. As I’ve repeatedly said, the scale is a bit smaller compared to a lot of prior Dreamworks Animation movies, but The Croods remains impressive, simply because of how surprisingly well put-together it is. Even then, some of the set pieces are indeed ambitious for the studio, representing some of their most stunning visual moments to date, and that’s saying quite a bit when you consider that Rise of the Guardians was Dreamworks Animation’s previous offering. Those skeptical of the new Dreamworks deal with 20th Century Fox can rest easy, because it seems that The Croods is proof that Dreamworks Animation has lost none of its magic in the distributor shift, continuing to rise in quality, and start more realistically challenging the Pixar throne. It remains to be seen if Dreamworks Animation’s next upcoming film for this year, Turbo (also starring Ryan Reynolds, go figure) will continue the studio’s hot streak, but for now, the future for Dreamworks Animation looks very bright indeed! If you’re a fan of Dreamworks Animation, or just love animated movies in general, then you should definitely see The Croods. If you’re looking for a family-driven crowd pleaser, this movie also comes very highly recommended. In fact, anyone who enjoys optimistic and colourful filmmaking should see The Croods, since it’s certain that they’ll find at least one thing to really love about it, whether it’s one of the characters, or one of the scenarios. There isn’t heaps to talk about, because, as I’ve said, it’s not a very large movie, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s a small movie with a strong vision that knows how to reach its audience, and it does so with immense success! I could keep trying to dissect what makes The Croods so good, but when it comes down to it, the simple answer is, it’s just so gosh darn loveable! It’s a movie that’s good because it’s so loaded with charm and inspiration, that it’s virtually impossible to dislike! Maybe it’s not a timeless classic, and maybe it’s not the next How To Train Your Dragon, but it still remains in the upper echelon of the Dreamworks Animation catalog, and best of all, it stands as proof that studios are still capable of making truly great family movies when they really set their minds to it!

 
FINAL SCORE: 87% “GREAT!”

FINAL VERDICT: “The Croods continues the Dreamworks Animation hot streak by providing a very strong family-driven crowd pleaser for the Easter season. Charming, visually stunning and frequently hilarious, the movie brings to the table what anyone could want in a strong animated film, and while it’s not the next showstopping Dreamworks Animation classic, it’s still one of the most relentlessly loveable movies that 2013 has delivered so far!”