Hello again, all. Well, I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be back to let you know what I think of it. For now, here's my review for Dodgeball. Catch it. Get it? Ha...uh...here you go.



Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Average Joe’s Gym is a small place for locals to come and exercise without too much worry or pressure to be fit and muscular instantly. Globo Gym is the big corporation across the street that laughs at the little guy and all their gym stands for. Since Average Joe’s can’t pay their rent, Globo Gym is going to buy it and turn it into a parking lot. The only thing that can save them now is dodgeball. The owner and regulars at Average Joe’s come together to fight Globo Gym in a $50,000 tournament in Las Vegas. The winner gets the gym.

Sounds like a very believable concept for a movie, doesn’t it? Well, throw that out the window. Comedy is not a place to question believability. Other than the lame plot line that’s only a translucent cover for making a movie about dodgeball in the first place, the rest of the film isn’t all that off-the-wall. Most of the humor is not outlandish and surreal, but rather verbal and sometimes even cerebral. I know that sounds wrong, considering the sports-based premise. Yes, there are the physical moments, and they are funny too, but the general mockery of sports, gyms and everyday social interaction supplies the most laughs.

Oh, and is it funny! That’s an exclamation, not a question mark. Just like with another Ben Stiller movie (in this, he plays Globo owner White Goodman), “Zoolander,” I expected little and got a lot, because neither of them just went after the lame idiot jokes, but rather gave a range of humor and added a nice underlying wit to it all. Writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber does a nice job of mixing in the stupid with the smart, but it still could have been better. The most glaring underachievement is in the sportscasters. We have Gary Cole (“Office Space”) and Justin Bateman as co-anchors for ESPN 8, “The Ocho.” Cole is the play-by-play man. Bateman plays an extreme sports type color commentator who offers virtually nothing to the telecast. Maybe he could have pulled this off better back in his “Teen Wolf, Too” days, but I just wasn’t feeling the young, hip edge from the casting. Their acting is fine, and the delivery is good, but I would have liked to see more of a “Best in Show” interaction between them, with Bateman asking stupid questions or making awkward remarks, but having Cole play it off or run with it while staying professional. It’s just a suggestion, too little, too late. I also would have liked to see more playing around/more time spent working off the over-the-top stereotyped teams.

The cast is good and funny. Vince Vaughn (as the overly kind owner of Average Joe’s) and Stiller both show that they can carry a comedy once again. Rip Torn is fantastic as the handicapped, bitter retired champion turned coach. Stephen Root is brilliant as always, but also pretty much the same character as always. The real shining stars come in the form of the celebrity cameos. Aside from Shatner, the mere presence of some of these names will make you laugh. But to me the best one was Lance Armstrong as he has a conversation with Vaughn about the tournament.

Dodgeball is a pretty funny movie. It’s not the best, but it has plenty of moments that make it worth viewing. You may just find yourself wanting to start a pick-up game afterwards. I doubt you’ll find a funnier, goofy comedy this year.

I'm back with a long hard look at the latest kids movie to hit the screens. Kids films have impressed me most this year, but Garfield bucks that trend. I'll be back after a while with my review for the number one movie in America: Dodgeball. Don't miss it.



Garfield: The Movie
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

You’ve seen him in the paper. You’ve seen him on TV. You’ve seen him in car windows. You’ve never seen him like this. America’s favorite fat cat is now in movie form. Garfield, the lovable, egocentric feline hits the big screen by means of computer-generated effects. What a horrible way to introduce a character to a medium. Quick story summary and we’ll be on our way: Garfield’s owner Jon tries to win the heart of the veterinarian Liz by adopting a dog. The new pet, Odie, quickly takes over Garfield’s house and wins Jon’s affection. How can Garfield get rid of Odie and regain his position as top animal.

There’s more to it than that, but on the off chance you still want to see the film after I’m done here, I don’t want to ruin everything about it.

First, let’s start with the most noticeable: Garfield is an effect. He’s gone the way of Scooby-Doo. What makes this particular choice baffling is that no other animal in this film gets the computer treatment. The rest of them get the “Babe” effect of human mouths on trained animals. It just doesn’t look right to do something different for one than the rest. And worse off, Odie isn’t CG. Normally, a lack of CG would be great, but not when you’re talking about a unique-looking cartoon character such as Odie. Nowhere to be found are the elongated neck and tongue with big floppy ears and humongous eyes all on top of a teensy torso that make him so fun. Garfield mostly looks like Garfield. I think there’s too much detail. It’s strange to say that, but, if every single hair wasn’t noticeable and if the fat rolls and pouches weren’t as realistic, he’d probably be better to look at and more like the character we all know.

The effects must have cost a lot, because they hide our protagonist whenever possible such as inside boxes, under rugs, etc. One more reason not to use a fake cat. When they are used in full force, it’s basically just to show off how they figured out to manipulate real life objects with a non-existent entity. If there’s anything I hate more than useless CG, it’s useless CG used uselessly.

The movie is far from true to the comic roots, or even the television show roots for that matter. Jon isn’t really established as a lovable loser. He seems pretty well off and Liz seems to have a crush on him (another no-no in the comic strip). Nermal isn’t cute or hated. Arlene isn’t Garfield’s girlfriend. The names are the same, but the rest is pretty much not. There’s a lot from the established material that could have been worked from. Instead of a dog trainer named Happy, why not use Binky the Clown as the TV personality. That would have been a kick to see. Or, they could have used one of the television specials as a springboard. Those were fun. More fun than this.

Despite it’s faithfulness to the original material, the movie was just plain boring. And not funny. Bill Murray takes over for the late Lorenzo Music as the voice of the big orange fluff ball (just as Music took over for Murray as the voice of Peter Venkman in the Ghostbusters cartoon). Murray fails to capture the same attitude and dryness he’s known for. There doesn’t seem to be any passion in the delivery and not much of his obvious acting talent is on display here. Lorenzo Music is truly missed.

I just want to quickly mention that I found the Billy Joel “New York State of Mind” rip-off to be very unoriginal and thoughtless. If you’re going to have a stupid, pointless song (Murray phones in his singing, too), at least create an original one. Why do a parodied version of a well-known song?

I think I’ve pretty much made my point. Now, besides not looking for a true-to-form adaptation, don’t look for a funny movie. The audience I was with was comprised of a lot of seemingly bored children. They didn’t laugh at the typically stupid, guaranteed stuff. One parent was trying to cajole her son into laughing to no avail. There’s just not much here to like. I’d stay home and watch some “Garfield and Friends” cartoons. Speaking of which, when are we going to get a “U.S. Acres” movie?

The second Harry Potter movie was reviewed yesterday. Today you getmy thoughts on Saved! and the third wizard flick, still in theaters. I'll get around to writing on the first at some point, but it won't be right away. In the meantime, I suggest you all check out Ken's review of it on this very site. It's in the review section, under H for Harry. Happy father's day!


Saved!
Review by Jon Waterman

**

Mary lives a good Christian life. She does everything asked of her by her religion. She lives happily with her mother, while attending a Christian High School with many friends and a bright future and a great boyfriend, Dean. However, when Dean confesses to being gay, Mary’s world begins to tumble. She tries everything she can to cure him of these thoughts including giving her body to him (after all, Jesus told her to). It ended up not being enough, because Dean gets transferred to Mercy House, a rehabilitation center for Christian youths and Mary is in for a few more surprises of her own. What results is a test of faith unlike any she has faced before.

This is director/co-writer (with Michael Urban) Brian Dannelly’s feature film debut. It’s a good effort, but could have been better. The shot selection and composition was very functional and safe. The script also served its purpose and also seemed to shy away at times (I’ll explain more in a bit). The best move was the casting. This is one of those movies full of potentially big-name stars. I know most of them have been acting a while; yet only Mandy Moore and Macaulay Culkin have the big-time name recognition factor (even though Culkin no longer deserves it). These kids are young and quite talented. As they grow and mature, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start climbing the Hollywood ranks. The acting is good. Jena Malone (Mary) surprisingly holds the lead with a reasonable amount of range. Moore sometimes steals the show as the overly happy, conversion crazy Hilary Faye (although, that could be partly because she’s the loudest). Culkin (playing Hilary Faye’s brother Roland), as I hinted at before fails to impress me. It seems like he’s just delivering an older version of his “Home Alone” character, Kevin, who’s slightly bitter and jaded not because of his wheelchair, but because of his ideology. He does give us the funniest moment in the picture.

The humor is hit or miss. It just seems to try too hard to play off of the situations at hand, when it should be looking for comedy from anywhere. It’ll make you crack a smile or too, give you a few giggles, and a couple laughs, but nothing spectacular. I wasn’t expecting a gut-buster, but I was hoping that the movie would be a little more thoughtful. With the religious theme surrounding everything, there were plenty of opportunities for the desired effect of statement mixed with satire. The satire was accomplished, sometimes rather subtly. The statement the film wants to make was quickly given near the end rather than reinforced throughout like it could have been.

It’s pretty obvious to tell if you’re right for the film. If you consider yourself rather religious (and especially if you don’t enjoy when people mock your religion), then I’d avoid this. If you’re the opposite, then give it a shot. Maybe you’ll get more out of it than I did. If you find yourself somewhere in the middle, it can’t hurt to hear what the different sides have to say, even though the film isn’t particularly thought provoking. No matter where you stand, keep in mind it’s not all that funny, powerful or good.


++++++++


Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Harry Potter enters his third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It’s been an eventful education so far, and it’s only getting worse. Murderer Sirius Black has escaped from prison and is looking for Harry. As the killer gets closer, Harry and the rest of the school have to face their deepest, darkest fears as well as try to figure out a way to stop the evil force from invading and causing more harm.

Well, the gang’s all back. But once again, I’m not feeling it. I still don’t feel like these people are opening up and exploring their characters. The kids are growing up and hitting puberty and changing hairstyles and whatnot, but they’re not growing into their roles. Even the veteran actors playing the teachers (Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) don’t lend anything new or introspective. Perhaps the original material doesn’t offer any more depth than what is seen in the first film, but that seems like a shame to me. These could be great characters, if only there was more to them presented on screen.

Once again, the movie is still good. The story is pretty solid and entertaining throughout the 2 1/2 hour running time. The length isn’t felt hardly at all. One thing I particularly enjoy about these films is that once the main resolution and climax of the story passes, there’s still more action and mystery and magic around the corner. Unless you read the books, it’s pretty tough to know what to expect. You can always assume twists and turns and for your original instincts to be wrong. It’s amazing that these family films can accomplish the mystery/suspense thing so well, yet adult genre movies fail nearly every time. That’s a true testament to the great writing by novelist J.K. Rowling and to screenwriter Steve Kloves.

I’ve heard complaints from people who’ve read the book and don’t like the movie, because it ignores key aspects of the novel. All I can say is welcome to the world of adaptations. I’d be amazed if there is a movie out there that is actually better than the book it came from. The movie was over two hours long and can’t possibly include every nuance or every side story. I wish there was more characterization (which is a main complaint), but the movie still works as is. It’s still a lot of fun and excitement.

Director Alfonso Cuarón adds an interesting touch to the visual side of things and presents us with a darker palate to accompany the increasingly ominous mood. Also new to this film are vignette scene transitions. It’s a slightly subtle addition and enhances the feel as well. The screen becomes engulfed in black and then is lifted from it again only to have it hover along the edges until it retreats past the borders of the frame. Maybe I’m reading too much into that, but I’m sticking to it.

Once again, we get a worthy sequel. It’s pretty easy to see why so many get excited about these movies and books. They’re fun, entertaining, exhilarating and well made. It’s good to see a worthwhile movie series being produced again. Let’s keep them coming.

The second Harry Potter movie was reviewed yesterday. Today you get the third and still in theaters. I'll get around to writing on the first at some point, but it won't be right away. In the meantime, I suggest you all check out Ken's review of it on this very site. It's in the review section, under H for Harry. Happy father's day!




Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Harry Potter enters his third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It’s been an eventful education so far, and it’s only getting worse. Murderer Sirius Black has escaped from prison and is looking for Harry. As the killer gets closer, Harry and the rest of the school have to face their deepest, darkest fears as well as try to figure out a way to stop the evil force from invading and causing more harm.

Well, the gang’s all back. But once again, I’m not feeling it. I still don’t feel like these people are opening up and exploring their characters. The kids are growing up and hitting puberty and changing hairstyles and whatnot, but they’re not growing into their roles. Even the veteran actors playing the teachers (Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) don’t lend anything new or introspective. Perhaps the original material doesn’t offer any more depth than what is seen in the first film, but that seems like a shame to me. These could be great characters, if only there was more to them presented on screen.

Once again, the movie is still good. The story is pretty solid and entertaining throughout the 2 1/2 hour running time. The length isn’t felt hardly at all. One thing I particularly enjoy about these films is that once the main resolution and climax of the story passes, there’s still more action and mystery and magic around the corner. Unless you read the books, it’s pretty tough to know what to expect. You can always assume twists and turns and for your original instincts to be wrong. It’s amazing that these family films can accomplish the mystery/suspense thing so well, yet adult genre movies fail nearly every time. That’s a true testament to the great writing by novelist J.K. Rowling and to screenwriter Steve Kloves.

I’ve heard complaints from people who’ve read the book and don’t like the movie, because it ignores key aspects of the novel. All I can say is welcome to the world of adaptations. I’d be amazed if there is a movie out there that is actually better than the book it came from. The movie was over two hours long and can’t possibly include every nuance or every side story. I wish there was more characterization (which is a main complaint), but the movie still works as is. It’s still a lot of fun and excitement.

Director Alfonso Cuarón adds an interesting touch to the visual side of things and presents us with a darker palate to accompany the increasingly ominous mood. Also new to this film are vignette scene transitions. It’s a slightly subtle addition and enhances the feel as well. The screen becomes engulfed in black and then is lifted from it again only to have it hover along the edges until it retreats past the borders of the frame. Maybe I’m reading too much into that, but I’m sticking to it.

Once again, we get a worthy sequel. It’s pretty easy to see why so many get excited about these movies and books. They’re fun, entertaining, exhilarating and well made. It’s good to see a worthwhile movie series being produced again. Let’s keep them coming.

It's been a few days, but I'm back and writing. I hope to be back later today with at least one more review. For now, I look at Before Sunrise before the sequel comes out in a couple weeks. And I write on the second installment of the Harry Potter saga. Watch them now and prepare. Keep coming back.




Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Young wizard Harry Potter is off for his second year at school, where he learns to hone his magic skills. The previous year was quite eventful and this one promises to be the same, because he’s been warned that bad things will happen upon his return. Soon, people are turning up paralyzed and death threats written on the walls in blood pop up. Suspicions arise as to who may be committing these villainous acts. People are becoming weary of the new teacher, Hagrid the groundskeeper and even Harry himself. To find out for sure, they must locate the un-findable chamber of secrets.

It’s a new year and a new title, but the characters aren’t changing. There are more of them now, but the ones we met in the first film, “HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” aren’t given any new depth or personality. I don’t feel like I know Harry, Ron, Hermione or the supporting characters any better now than I did at the start of the film. But despite not growing character wise, the movie does expand on the universe itself. The new people are quirky and fun as are the new magical things presented to us. It fails to capture the feeling of awe and wonderment that you get from the first movie. For lack of a better term, it’s less…magical.

That doesn’t mean the movie isn’t good. It is. It’s entertaining and cute and mostly family friendly (there could be some scary stuff for littler kids). But, I feel like the story saves it from being a boring mess. I haven’t read any of the books, so I don’t know how accurately they are adapted from J.K. Rowlings’ original text, but I found it to be quite exciting and mostly packed with events and happenings to keep it moving. It can be a little repetitious at times with re-visiting certain locations over and over, but overall it flows through the whopping 160-plus minute running time without much problem.

If you’re a fan of the books or the previous movie, then you’ll probably enjoy this second release. I found it to be fun, but I still felt like more should have been done. Since we already know there will be a series of movies, I want to see the space and the characters grow (and I’m not just talking about age). There doesn’t seem to be a firm grip and they are relying on the settings and people’s knowledge of the books already out there to carry them through. I don’t think it’s enough. It’s still a fine film and a sequel worth seeing.


++++++++


Before Sunrise
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Jesse meets Celine on a train in Europe. He’s traveling to various places on a low budget. She’s a student heading back home. They get to talking and talking and they keep talking until its time for him to get off in Vienna. It’s here that he thinks of a crazy idea. She should get off with him and spend his last night in Europe exploring the city together. She agrees and the movie carries on from there.

Director/co-writer (along with Kim Krizan) Richard Linklater, best known for “Slacker” and “Dazed and Confused,” is back again with another intellectually stimulating film. What I like about Linklater is that he can work with different formats and genres yet still make the piece his own. “Slacker” was more of a leaf flowing through the wind type of thing. “Dazed” took the high school movie thing to a different place. “Before Sunrise” works with just two characters talking for 105 minutes. He takes a potentially Hollywood love story, and, through his approach and style, gives it back to those sick of the formula.

The film is filled with long takes that essentially comprise their own scenes. You subconsciously know the setting is going to change once you see an insert shot or a cut away. Most of the time both characters share the screen space. This allows the viewer to analyze either of them at any time. You can see how Celine reacts to Jesse’s thoughts on relationships and love and vice-versa. Even though the template of the conversation carries throughout, we are treated to the beautiful city of Vienna in the background as the two walk and explore. The city isn’t just background, it fuels the discussion and works as a character itself, surrounding them and forcing them closer together.

I enjoyed the acting as well. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) and Julie Delpy (Celine) both speak fluently and naturally. I’d be hard pressed to find a moment where it looks like they’re working off a script. Their acting makes it look like a well documented encounter rather than a fictionalized account of one. You can see the interest in each other grow and their relationship to one another builds from avoiding regrets by leaving the train to something deeper and more tangible. It’s very romantic and soothing to watch something form from nothing in front of your eyes.

I know the film is conversation heavy, but that doesn’t mean it’s boring. Obviously if you know you aren’t interested in philosophical questions and exploring human nature, then you’d know to not bother with the film. But if that idea intrigues you, then give the movie a shot. You probably won’t agree with everything said, but it will at least get you thinking and maybe it’ll spur some discussions of your own.

Well, here I am again. I'm very slowly getting caught up. Bare with me. And keep coming back. It'll be fun!



Super Size Me
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

America is getting fatter by the minute. We’ve become a culture of overindulgence, and not only in terms of food. Everything has to be readily available here, now, and in abundance. Our consumerist gluttony knows no bounds, until it’s too late. And when a breaking point comes and side effects start to become prominent, someone must be blamed – other than the user, that is. Not too long ago, two teenage girls tried suing McDonald’s for making them obese. The lawsuit was thrown out, because the girls couldn’t prove that the company intended for people to overuse their product. It’s preposterous to think that a company could be held responsible for the weight of a human being, but it’s equally ridiculous to believe that if overweight individuals dine at the fast food restaurants, that these places don’t greatly contribute to their appearance. In this documentary, director/guinea pig Morgan Spurlock sets to find out just how harmful this stuff really is by only eating McDonald’s food for a month (three meals a day).

The movie is more than just a science project. It does document the physical and emotional changes that the overly processed food brings (through interviews, fitness spa check-ins and seeing three doctors). It also documents Morgan’s attempt to discover why America is gaining weight. It looks at the commercialism and advertising budgets (and political lobbyists) at the disposal of the big companies as opposed to non-profit organizations. It looks at schools and the surprisingly unhealthy cafeteria menus. It interviews advocates and experts in various fields that provide insight and further the theories presented. The movie does not cover every angle. It glances over some major issues (the time-management issue for one) in favor of humor and entertainment value…and to shove more of Spurlock’s face in the screen.

There is quite a bit of entertainment value. The information is presented in a few different forms. There are the standard interviews, the talking to the camera moments, plenty of supporting footage, and graphics/animations, which reminded me somewhat of “Manufacturing Consent” except without the meticulousness and impressive care for detail in the presentation. The animations could have been pointless and hokey, but somehow they came across as supportive and slightly funny. I just wish they wouldn’t have shown so many paintings using Ronald as a focus. They were all virtually the same (same artist) and didn’t really provide any good commentary.

Despite the omissions, the overall point comes across and exploring the culture and trying to rationalize our behavior just to cover everything seems a bit much. He may not be the force that a Michael Moore has become (mostly because Morgan doesn’t show resentment or spite), but for a first-time feature effort, Spurlock creates a very effective piece which is sure to spark debate and conversation and maybe even change some lifestyles.

I'm back to start of the week. Keep checking back, because I'll be writing quite a bit, trying to get caught up again. You don't want to miss a word.




Soul Plane
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

Plane lover and aspiring businessman, Nashawn, sues an airline company after a disastrous flight leaves him emotionally scarred. In return for his suffering, Nashawn is awarded $100 million. Whatever shall he do with all that money? Start his own airline, what else? He’s going to do things his way from now on…assuming he and the crew survive the maiden voyage.

The film started off strong. The credit sequence looked nice. The prologue worked well and was shot very effectively. But then they started to add jokes. The style of humor is a less surreal “Airplane” or “Naked Gun.” There are a lot of improbable situations and sight gags, plenty of puns, some physical and sexual humor and a sky full of fish-out-of-water wackiness. Here’s the catch: Very little of it is funny. The gags are slightly clever, but it tries so hard to make everything a laugh riot, that the film crashes before leaving the ground.

To make matters worse, the movie will most likely offend a lot of people. It does nothing more than perpetuate many stereotypes of all races represented (black, white, Hispanic, Arab). All the dumb jokes that they feel make fun of and in a way reinforce the individuality of a culture instead serve to reinforce boundaries between cultures. It could have been worse. Luckily, nowhere is a black person shown to be a violent gangbanger. In fact, I was pretty pleased with how interracial interaction was presented (mostly). Despite the cheap joke of the Middle Eastern fellow being treated like a terrorist, and despite the aforementioned boundaries, white and black people interact with each other as individuals (with no mention of skin color) and not as people from two different worlds. Overall, I still think it does slightly more harm than good.

Now, I love going to bad movies. Sometimes, there’s nothing better than watching something that you think will be horrible and laughing at it with your friends. “Soul Plane” had all the ingredients right there: A stupid plot, goofy white people in a hip-hop setting, comedy, and a bunch of virtual no names trying to hit the big time (although there are a lot of big name African American stars and comedians laced throughout, my guess is the majority of the country have never heard of anyone other than Snoop Dogg, D.L. Hughley, Tom Arnold or Method Man – none of which are known for their acting prowess). Yet, instead of eliciting intentional or unintentional laughs, the movie produced open-mouthed disgust. This movie is bad. It’s not even bad in a good way. It’s awful and boring and dumb. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste the time.

I bet the suspense was killing you. There I went making promises I couldn't keep again. Well, I'll just say that hopefully, I'll be updating more this coming week. I still have quite a bit to get through, including Saved! and the new Harry Potter. Come on back and check it out. You know you want to.

I also want you to know that on the homepage, on the bottom left hand corner, you'll find a link to my top ten of 2003. It's a few months late, but it's there.




Shrek 2
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Big ogre Shrek and his new wife Princess Fiona just returned from their honeymoon. Now they’re going to take another trip. This time, they’re off to the land Far, Far Away. There, Shrek will become acquainted with Fiona’s parents, the king and queen. But will the disgusting beast of a husband win the approval of such esteemed royalty?

I’ve sort of oversimplified the plot, because, honestly, it’s all over the place. It jumps from one conflict to the next and follows tangents to other tangents, yet somehow comes back around to wrap everything up. I liked that. It was almost like a collection of shorts starring the same characters. It’s a much welcome change from the original where the story was pure A to B featuring a huge gap without conflict. The jumpiness and on a dime plot changes take the predictability out of what could have been a very typical story. It also allowed more freedom to play with settings and jokes.

The humor has improved as well. There are many more laugh-out-loud moments. Fairy tales and childhood stories are referenced of course, but the best stuff comes from other pop-culture references and just non-related material. Dull spots don’t last long, and most of the time, even if there aren’t jokes to be heard, there’s something amusing in the background to be seen. The tangents I mentioned before are even nicer, because you know you’ll have a brand new set of jokes coming at you from all angles. Very few films can say that.

The animation looks smoother and shows much more detail in faces and objects. It’s still not the best, but no one has really been able to master it yet. The human characters are looking a lot more human, but still the cartoonier they appear, the less noticeable the awkwardness in appearance becomes.

The direction, once again, worked very well. The camera placement and transitioning convey the mood of the scenes in which they appear. They aren’t afraid to let scenes play out. You can expect some longer pauses than you would normally see in a family film. The emotions and motivations of the characters come before the comedy. Thus, the storytelling is better, we get to know the characters better, we’re more invested in the story and the humor gets funnier.

If you liked the first “Shrek,” you’re most likely going to like this one more. Even if you didn’t really like the first one, you’ll see great improvements this time out and start to appreciate it. Just like before, this one is fun for all: kids, parents, non-parent adults and everyone else. It’s shorter, but funnier than its predecessor and just about as charming. I loved it.

Here you go. Two tonight. I'll post more tomorrow and the day after tomorrow as well. haha......sorry.




Shrek
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Shrek is an ogre living in a land full of fairy tale creatures. He keeps to himself in solitude, content to know that the rest of the world hates and fears him. It’s just him and his swamp. One day, Lord Farquaad, expels all the talking animals and magical beings, etc from his kingdom and into Shrek’s backyard. The only way for him to get things back to normal is by traveling to a far off castle and rescue a fair princess for Farquaad to marry.

You’d probably guess at first glance that this is a kids movie. But you’d be only half right. It’s not even a family movie. It’s an everyone movie. Adults without kids should feel free to check it out and enjoy it.

The film plays well to all ages and groups, because it’s drawing from universal appeals and shared storybook knowledge to create myriad jokes geared towards particular age groups. There are references in there directed towards older people, but kids will laugh at those jokes, too. Children do so, because either their parents are laughing and they want to act like they get it, or because the characters are acting goofy and silly. This broad reach is extremely tough to come by and a lot of credit is due to the team of writers (4 primary and several additional – too many names to list here) for creating this blend. There’s no real shortage of laughs, but the script tends to lean more towards the wittier side of things. The movie provides a nice mix of comedic elements, which overtake the blah, uneventful story.

The story was too linear for my tastes, and so I would have liked a side-story or two to mix it up. There’s only so much forest path you can stand before you get bored looking at it. There’s only so much of a group of characters you can stand before wanting to see what someone else may be up to. But, even though the storyline was dull, the way it was presented impressed me. I’m not talking about the animation (I will in a second, though. Hold your donkeys). I’m talking about the direction and the emotions conveyed through camerawork. Directors Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson know how to pick angles and use dissolves very effectively. They also brought out the best performances from their actors (Mike Meyers as Shrek, Cameron Diaz as the Princess and Eddie Murphy as Donkey, the tagalong sidekick).

One thing I really hated about their choices was the music. They use contemporary or pop songs throughout. The opening credits play to “All-Star” by Smashmouth. What that has to do with the story, I’ll never know. The film is filled with songs that usually carry the mood, but lyrically don’t live up to the rest of the production’s high standards.

The animation looks ok. The facial expressions come across well, however they work better on the more cartoony things than on the awkward looking humans. The movement isn’t as fluid as I would like, especially when it’s frantic. Anytime a character runs, it’s pretty jerky and looks odd. The scenery somehow manages to integrate itself while at the same time remaining in the background. The whole style is light and aides the storybook feel.

The movie is very entertaining and should be worthwhile viewing for anyone. Those not easily amused with physical humor may not find it too laugh-out-loud funny, but take solace in the drier wittier moments the film also includes. It’s cute, it’s funny, it’s incredibly charming (more so than the prince), and it’ll probably win you over.


++++++


The Day After Tomorrow
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Well, looks like the world as we know it is going to come to an end. The polar icecaps have melted and are now causing freak weather occurrences such as tornadoes in Hollywood. Very rapidly, most of the northern hemisphere will become subject to tremendous storms and floods which will freeze over with temperatures so cold, lives will end instantly. A new ice age is coming. As if that weren’t bad enough, the scientist who predicted this tragedy must trek over the snow across several states to reach his son who’s trapped in New York. Oh my.

For a global disaster movie, there wasn’t a whole lot going on. There was the main storyline and a tiny bit of side story with three scientists in Glasgow, but that’s it. You were either with the father or the son. Neither of them I cared to follow. To be honest, I didn’t really see the point of the father going to get the son with the deadly storms fast approaching in the first place. He only had gear and supplies for himself and his crew. What were they going to do when they got there? Maybe I let my mind wander during that explanation, but it seemed like a horribly trite way to create more tension when the storm and the general need for survival could and should be enough. Add to that the wolf thing…. The son was gathered up with some people in the New York Public Library. They teased us with a couple short interchanges between an intellectual teenager and a male librarian. Those were fun to watch and I wanted to see more of that kind of thing. The relationship stuff (romantic or non) didn’t work for me. Show us how this is affecting several different groups of people, not just one family.

Obviously in a big budget blockbuster like this, the science is going to be off to aid the story. So, I don’t care how plausible some of this stuff is. What I care about is does it look cool. Yeah...kinda…I guess. It’s what you’d expect. Nothing here will surprise you or wow you. You either saw it in the poster or in the commercial or in your mind beforehand. Despite what they’d have you believe, there’s no poignant imagery here. The Statue of Liberty is surrounded by snow and ice. So what? Show us the world’s monuments. What would have been really nice would be to show how society begins adapting after the snow has settled and societies can resume with their new situation.

The acting was pretty good, though. We have professional, legitimate actors (Jake Gyllenhaal, Dennis Quaid, Ian Holm) doing the best they can with some cheesy summer flick dialogue.

So, the story sucked. The effects were standard, but director/co-writer Roland Emmerich (“Independence Day”) tried to impact us in the wrong way. The acting was above average. Despite what I wanted to see and didn’t, the film was still fun overall. I can’t for the life of me figure out why some of the story choices were made, but hey. It’s summer. Just let it go.

Hey all. It's been a slow night. I hope to be more productive tomorrow. For now, check out my thoughts on Hidalgo and don't forget that Issue 2 of Behind the screens is up as well. Be back tomorrow.



Hidalgo
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Before the turn of the previous century, horse racing was the thing. But unlike today’s Triple Crown hopefuls, these steeds were in it for the looooong haul. This film is based on a disillusioned Army dispatcher named Frank Hopkins and his mustang named Hidalgo, who is world renowned for being the greatest endurance racing horse. They’ve been invited to compete in the mother of them all, a 3000-mile trek across the Arabian Desert known as the Ocean of Fire. What’re the odds they’ll make it out alive?

From the trailer, I was expecting a cross between “Seabiscuit” and “The Mummy.” It looked like it would be a camp-town racing flick. In a way it was, but it took the good elements from each to create something under appreciated.

Before I dwell on the positive, let’s accentuate the negative real quick. The acting. It’s not so much good. Every supporting character is a cartoon (not literally). The most painful moments were at the beginning in a bar. A sore loser comes in and challenges Hopkins (played by Viggo Mortensen) to a fight. I’ve never heard acting that bad in a mainstream movie unless it was intentional. This clearly was not. The main people showed nothing spectacular or worthwhile or even good. Viggo went the opposite direction from his co-stars and toned everything way down. He subdued it so much that it came across as dry and uncaring. He risked boring the audience.

Luckily, the action on screen prevented that from happening. No, there wasn’t a whole lot of edge of your seat excitement. Yes, some of the drama, like the windstorm, was overblown (sorry about the pun). However, in between thrills, we’re treated to character development and great visuals accompanying the above average storyline.

Probably what hooked me more than anything was the effort that went into the camerawork. The landscapes are breathtaking and the mood is appropriately conveyed in manners and techniques normally not seen in a “kids” movie. They treat the characters and the story and essentially the whole film as something that should also appeal to adults. The film is formulaic, but the typical stupidity of the script is minimized, because they don’t beat the main points into your head over and over. There are a lot of subtle effects. The overachievement of the production makes it work.

The previews looked boring, so going in, I wasn’t expecting much. What I got was an interesting story, great cinematography and a fun, funny, charming family film.

I've just updated the site with the new issue of Behind the Screens. I take on more topics this time, so check it out and let me know what you think. You can find it in the reviews section if you scroll down and look to the left.

I've been busy watching movies, so I have a big backlog of reviews that I'll be tackling this week. On tap are reviews for: Hidalgo, The Day After Tomorrow, Shrek, Shrek 2, Soul Plane, Before Sunrise, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Super Size Me. I plan on seeing the newest Harry Potter film soon, as well. I'll be busy, so check back often for new stuff.

Hey everybody. I'm only posting one review today, because I'm working a couple of other things to be posted later, including the second issue of the new Behind the Screens. Be sure to check that out. Enjoy.



Young Adam
Review by Jon Waterman

**

When a body finds its way to shore, barge worker Joe starts to act different. After coming out of nowhere to land the job, the bargeman’s wife eyes him. One can’t help but wonder if he knows something the husband and wife that own the barge don’t. Most of the glances are suspicious until Joe starts making passes at the unsatisfied boat wife. Things progress and now Joe may be hiding two secrets.

This film is all over the place. It seems to be trying to be many things at once. It’s a crime drama/murder mystery/suspense/erotica/court room drama. None of these genres are played out sufficiently enough to work. The internal struggles of Ewan McGregor as Joe would have been much more effective had his churning mind not been set on top of a shifting storyline. Another thing that bothered me was the use of flashbacks to heighten the tension and mystery of it all. Ultimately, it does nothing and may have worked with the general theme of triumph over self better if the memory sequences were ordered differently (perhaps in reverse chronological order).

I enjoyed Ewan’s performance. His character obviously was distressed from the start and it was interesting to see him take his pressure out on others in various capacities. Joe has the potential to be good or evil and the choices he makes take him farther away from the good. Ewan plays the slow descent well. The other actors do a fine job, too, but McGregor shows off some subtle work.

The dark nature of the character and the story is reflected in the landscapes. I’ve never seen the lush greenery of Scotland be conveyed as bland and unappealing as it is here. The colors pop out, but yet seem utterly drab and lifeless. The lighting and restricted palette elsewhere only enhances this feel. It’s a shame the plot couldn’t be as consistent.

The film is rated NC-17, because there is a lot of nudity including some full frontal male exposure. Most of it seemed pretty gratuitous and almost like they were showing off. Another NC-17 film from this year, “The Dreamers,” also has a lot of nakedness from both sexes, but it fits the characters and thus the story. Also there it becomes unnoticeable because it’s so natural to them. Here, the nudity is sometimes raw and gritty and dirty, which is what the film calls for. Other times, it’s just there and in your face, and that was off-putting. Mix that with the adult themes and language (and the fact that children wouldn’t care to see the movie anyway) and the rating is deserved.

The movie is acted well and looks beautifully morbid and disgusting. However, the lack of clear focus and direction throughout kept me from getting into it and enjoying myself. It’s nothing special.

Alright. I hope you all had a good weekend. I'll be back later in the week with a couple more reviews. I need to write up for Young Adam, Hidalgo and The Day After Tomorrow. Who knows, I may squeeze in some Shrek as well. Come on back for that.



Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

The bride is back to finish her “unfinished business.” She started her rampage in the first film cutting through the forest of defenders with her mighty one-of-a-kind sword. Only a few obstacles stand in her way, but they’re bigger, badder and better fighters. Can she accomplish what she set out to do? Can she beat the odds and actually...Kill...Bill?

The two things that stood out in the first one, the varying visual styles and the overabundance of blood and violence, are virtually absent this time around. So, can the film hold up without these seemingly key elements?

The visuals do vary somewhat subtly from scene to scene and the flashback material is done in a different manner from the rest. However, little if anything new is brought to the table. When it’s 70s kung-fu time, we get the muted blues and greens and heavy, heavy grains. There’s black and white in the beginning, etc. The two volumes are consistent in their approach and methods, and with such a long running time overall, it’s tough to imagine there could be a whole lot of new techniques to offer at this point. Even so, the eye-catching flair is gone.

Also gone are the extravagant fight scenes with gallons of blood flying everywhere. These fights are more subdued as far as gore level, but still pretty substantial overall. But with out the sensationalism of the squirting veins and body parts, it loses a lot of the appeal and the fun. The expectations have been built for more of the same and perhaps at a heightened level for these later battles. Instead the film moves in the complete opposite direction with anti-climactic sequences.

The storyline does get more fleshed out like I had hoped, but only to a certain extent. We get some insight into her training and a bit of history with Bill and the events leading up to the wedding massacre. These lengthy, yet limited, scenes were nice because they broke away from the outlined plot structure presented within the film. It still didn’t seem like enough to me. I wanted it to go further back in time with Bill and the Bride or learn more about the group of assassins as a whole. Neither occurs. By the way, excuse me for potentially coming off as stupid or missing something, but I saw no significance in learning the Bride’s real name. Beeping it out until the big reveal seemed to serve no purpose other than to get people to come back and see the sequel.

It seems obvious that both parts be watched in one sitting, and if you put the two together, you’d have a great (but long) film. As it stands, if you’re a fan of the first one, then please see this one and have some fun. If you never saw Volume 1, then see them both on the same night and get ready for a ride. If you didn’t like the first one all that much, then you definitely won’t like the conclusion. The movie still works and is entertaining, but not nearly as much as the first. Once again, I was left wanting more, but this time there’s nothing to look forward to.