Well, for a while I swore off most Hollywood movies and with good reason. I've seen a plethora of bad ones in the past year (either through rental or purchase). It does seem like the old days with movies that have a good plot, superlative acting and creative humour have fallen by the wayside, now replaced with dull, unimaginative and utterly unfunny jokes and non-memorable catch-phrases.
This past Saturday, my wife was out visiting a friend in another town, so I had my son for the day so I thought I'd take him to a movie (at the theatre). He has only seen two movies in the theatre before - Curious George and Over the Hedge, but based on what I heard about The Bee Movie, it seemed pretty good. To my pleasant surprise, it was. Of course, after the amount of cash I dropped to see it (tix plus food), it made me think twice, but I thought, "well, at least Hollywood is not all crap". So given the fact that we are on vacation today due to my wife's pregnancy appointments, I thought I'd rent a few movies for the family to watch last night. I got my son Ratatoule, which was pretty good, and I got my wife and I the recently released comedy, "I Now Pronounce You as Chuck and Larry". I am generally not a big Adam Sandler fan, but I thought that the premise of the movie was interesting. I didn't think that it was be a pro gay marriage movie, but more of a corny cheeseball flick that was more immature and had some slapstick situational humour. Boy, was I wrong on all counts.
The whole premise of the movie centers around a couple of firefighters, Larry (Kevin James) and Chuck (Adam Sandler). Larry is a widower who is raising a young son and daughter, and is, by all means, a family man. Chuck is a philandering man-whore who will be happy to get booty any way he can. As a result of Larry saving Chuck's life, Chuck indicates that he owes Larry. Larry decides that Chuck can repay this debt by "marrying" him through a same-sex partnership, since that would entitle Chuck to get Larry's pension in order to take care of his kids, should Larry die. Then, of course, things spiral in all directions when the scheme starts to take all sorts of unexpected twists. Without revealing much about the plot to spoil it for people who haven't seen the movie, I do have some general observations about the movie.
First, some positive elements. While I don't condone fraud, I do think that the fact that the Larry character wants to take care of his children is an admirable quality. In my view, the ends do not justify the means, but surely we can be sympathetic to a father who wants to take care of his children. Another positive aspect of the movie was the deep friendship seen in the Chuck and Larry characters - the fact that despite squabbles, and irritating each other to death at times, they still maintained a fairly warm, brotherly comaraderie, backing each other up when needed, and being there emotionally for each other when needed.
Despite some positive qualities, I feel that the movie is severely tainted by some negative components. The first of which is its obviously rabidly pro-gay stance, which I suppose should not be surprising, given Hollywood's severe left-wing bent. Not just in the Chuck and Larry characters, but also in Larry's son, who obviously is in need of some testosterone shots, based on some of his past times and activities. Perhaps I was naive, but I was seriously surprised by how much gay lifestyle and gay culture made it into this movie. I expected something slapstick silly, but there was obviously the same old bullshit message about "tolerance for gay, transexual, transgender, asexual", and the other plethora of sexual deviances known to man, as well as the constant barrage of cross-dressing men and such. To have Dan Ackroyd make his little speech at the end about tolerance was baffling, since his character wasn't that well developed to begin with.
Even though I am not one to be easily offended, I took tremendously gross offence at the way Asians were stereotyped in this movie. At the beginning, the Chuck character can be seen gallivanting with a group of scantily-clad Asian girls (reinforcing an unfortunate existing prevalent stereotype). I've never liked Rob Schneider, but the fact that he actually had the gall to put on a ridiculous suit from the 60s/70s (with matching haircut) and then make-up his face so he looks Japanese, and then put on a historically stereotypical broken-English Japanese accent, making the character look severely unintelligent - well, I can say that I will be boycotting anything to do with this asswipe in the near future. Of course, if he had done this and painted his face black and put on an ebonics accent, the film would have never seen the light of day and he probably would be fearing for his life right now. But it disturbs me greatly to see that Asians seem to be fair fodder for racist propaganda in these movies. Thankfully, I have heard that the movie has more than its fair share of critics other than me.
Combine all this with the fact that the movie constantly pokes fun at the weight of Larry - I'm surprised that Kevin James accepted the script - it shows that this movie, while trying to get laughs, will stoop to the lowest of the low to obtain them. Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with humour, and even humour that may not be necessarily in the best taste - but it should not be at the expense of those who have historically been targets of such bigotry. To see Sandler and Schneider, both of whom have Jewish blood (and Schneider has a bit of Filipino blood) mock people racially - well, it's clear that both aren't well read in history. I once read Schneider commenting on how he would never work with Mel Gibson after Gibson's anti-semitic remarks. What a freaking hypocrite.
This perhaps should not be of much surprise to me, but I was a little shocked to see the overt sexuality in the movie, including the scene where the Chuck character is visibly fondling the breasts of the Jessica Biel character. My wife and I thought that was really dumb, not funny, and was there just to put some shock value into the movie
This movie had lots of potential - but as often is the case in Hollywood movies, I should not get my hopes up.
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Transformers The Movie (2007) - My Review
As a lifelong Transformers collector, fan, and enthusiast (my personal collection of Transformers is probably worth between $12,000 - $17,000), I would be remiss if I did not take the time to watch the new iteration of the movie, released this past July, in the theatre, while it was playing. I heard good things about the movie, and while it has been universally indicated by reviewers and people I know, that the movie, unlike its predecessor was not geared towards kids, I had a sense that perhaps the film makers really botched up the new version of the movie, in order to make it appeal to today's "I want to see lots of violence, ample amounts of nudity, and dazzling special effects" (not necessarily in that order) crowd. The consensus was that it was a darker movie. However, like anything else, I thought I would make up my mind after I went in and saw the film.
Since the movie's been out for a few months now, only several theatres were still playing it. One of my buddies had indicated he saw it, and that if I wanted to see it, he'd go with me. I knew of another friend who had wanted to see it, but never had time, and so I invited him, and he was able to join us with his wife and we all went to see the movie exactly two weeks ago today.
Some context before I proceed with offering up my review on the movie. I have watched the 1985/86 version of the Transformers movie ad nauseum. To me, I can remember most lines, all of the music (the soundtrack CD is still in my car). My son has proven to me that he is biologically mine, by taking up, on his own volition, a rabid fascination and keen interest in all things Transformers. I have purchased some recent versions of the figures for him, and he has requested to watch the original Transformers movie more times than I can count. As a result, I have had some recent re-introduction of the Transformers movie back from 1986. While it was a good movie, several things came to mind: 1) the music is pretty dated with Stan Bush arena rock permeating throughout the film, 2) it ended with what appears to be a scene begging for a sequel, since Unicron's head was floating into outer space and escaped the rest of him exploding, 3) the death of several high-profile Transformers has always disturbed me (and the role of Ultra Magnus was not terribly clear), and 4) there were several plot gaps in the movie that begged for a future movie that would connect the dots. So I went into the 2007 edition expecting a radically different movie, but hoping that there would be some tie in with the original.
I was right on both counts.
By the way, for those who have not seen the movie yet, I'll be sure to not put in any spoilers here (at least, not deliberately).
The 2007 movie, unlike the original, is not a cartoon. The robots and the battles were obviously all special effects and animation. Also inserted into the movie were real humans played by real actors. The music, overall, was very well chosen, having a mixture of old 80s music when appropriate (to conjure up the real-life environment for those who wish to go back to their childhood on memory lane), as well as up-to-date alternative rock (which I absolutely love). The movie took on a more serious tone, and is likely geared towards more of a teenage audience, due to some of the themes present. And as anticipated, it was a darker movie, both substance-wise as well as colour wise. Gone are the old Transformers team where many of the autobots were colourful and very fictitious looking. The newer edition of the Transformers features robots that have very intricate and fine detail. Some are even pretty scary looking. In the previous movie, even a non-fan would be able to quickly discern who was an Autobot and who was a Decepticon. In this rendition, the asthetic lines are far more blurred. Had the audio been turned off during the movie, I would have accidentally mistaken several Autobots to be bad guys.
Some good stuff: I like the fact that they brought back Optimus Prime, and the original guy who played his voice - that was a nice touch. There were some very un-Optimus lines that were a bit cheesy, such as when he said "the world wide web", but they still kept his leadership demeanour and tone. By the way, Optimus was the only one who was brought back as more or less the same vehicle. Bumblebee was brought back as well, but he is no longer a VW Beetle. Similarly, while Starscream was a jet, he was a much different looking jet and transformed as such. Megatron was something else altogether, as was Ratchet (though his function was similar). I didn't mind the changes/updating of these characters - the rendering of the robots and how they transformed was excellent, and more than made up for me having to adjust to matching up the names with the new faces.
The storyline, as unbelieveable and at times, silly, as it was, was pretty easy to understand. It didn't bring up the same "huh" questions as the original cartoon movie did. This is good that they kept the plot fairly simple, since I would presume people don't go to see Transformers in order to engage in a philosophical storyline or glean great spiritual truths, though there were enough cheesy cliches in the movie to establish your own worldview and statement of faith.
The battle scenes were, without a doubt, spectacular. I'd say that the movie lived up to the hype based on the battle scenes alone. The robots Transformed more realistically this time around, whereas in the old movie, you start to wonder "when they transformed from vehicle to robot, what happened to this part? Coupled with the excellent music that was married with the fight and action scenes, action buffs will get more than their fill of testosterone. Some people have told me that they hated the fact that the Transformers now fight with turret-type guns, gattling-type guns, and machine guns/rocket launchers, IED-looking devices, etc., rather than the traditional laser gun. I personally welcome the new weaponry. It is more sophisticated and shows the evolution of military technology. I would have been disappointed if they all just shot laser guns.
One positive aspect that I haven't heard too many people mention is subtle, but I think that it was intentional and worth mentioning. Everyone knows that North American cars have been dealt a serious blow by the Japanese and German car industry (and with good reason - just check out Consumer Reports on domestic vehicle ratings). I personally am not into domestic cars, and I myself drive a Japanese car. Regardless, I thought it was great (and refreshing) to feature so many domestic (North American) cars in a positive light, making them look cool in the movie. Say what you will about GM, but you have to admit, the Solstice looks really nice. I've never been a fan of muscle cars, but I found that they did a good job of showcasing the Mustang in the movie. Several scenes seem right out of the Fast and Furious movies (which I love) and it worked well to show off the robot in vehicle form (something that wasn't really focussed on with the G1 Transformer set).
To segue between the positive elements of the movie and some of the aspects I didn't like, I'll touch on an area that some may gloss over, but I think is worth nothing. Now, I have to be somewhat objective here. I can see both sides of the coin in that the presence of Megan Fox was both good and bad for the movie. Women's rights activists will likely not appreciate the um...suggestive closeups of Miss Fox's anatomy, coupled with some , er...rhythmic music. Since I am a happily married man, I can't comment on too much here, but I can say that it was probably not necessary to have her in the movie (or the boy for that matter - they were simply fillers until the robots started to fight, which is why most people - at least guys - go to see this movie). However, to add a truly, um, human element to the movie, they injected Megan Fox into the show, in the event that there are some viewers who realized 15 minutes into the movie that a film about robots is not for them - but they dropped so much cash for popcorn and drinks that it wasn't worth it to walk out. All that being said, while there was no nudity, "love scenes" or anything terribly graphic scene-wise, the highly sexualized presentation of the admittedly attractive Miss Fox was probably not needed in the movie, as was the totally unnecessary blatant reference to masturbation later on in regards to the boy. When I think of the Transformers movie, I don't want to think of masturbation references - I take "More Than Meets The Eye" at face value, thank you very much. Anyhow, her character (as was the boy's - what's his name?) didn't really add all that much to the movie, and if you ask me for my honest (and I mean honest) opinion now, I can tell you that the only thing I remember about her being in the movie is the scene where she's leaning up against Bumblebee while the camera takes some liberties in its shot angles. The overall character development of ALL the humans was rather weak.
The movie also seemed to play towards a politically correct casting method. My opinion here may seem a bit controversial and perhaps I'm simply nit-picking, but I do feel that some of the characters were cast that way in order to appease the politically-correct crowd, who want to see "diversity" among what may be perceived by some to be stereotypical roles. The fact that the senior featured "youth" analyst was an young Australian girl with piercings seems a bit weird (only because there are so few women in the computer sciences to begin with), and more so with the fact that a conservative government body like the U.S. department of defence would give her any credence being young and presumably inexperienced). I also noticed the fact that they threw in a black kid living with his mother, who was the major computer hacker. I suppose that is not unusual in and of itself, but it's not like this kid was a nerdy Steve Urkel type - instead, he acted and talked as if he was living in a metropolitan ghetto. Again, maybe not unusual, but for me, it was a bit far fetched and seemed to be the "PC" thing to do. I also noticed that the writers put the blame on North Korea/China for terrorist nukes. You'd think they would have targeted the Middle East, but NOOOO, Hollywood doesn't seem to want to do anything that puts the Middle East and particularly, Muslims in a bad light. Finally, since Transformers was a Japanese invention, it would have been really good it they could have at least had some Asian characters added, since they seemed to be featuring everyone else. At the very least, they didn't go overboard and introduce the obligatory gay character, which seems to permeate throughout the liberal left's Hollywood production of movies and television. I would have suffocated myself with my popcorn bag right then and there.
Unlike the original, there was not just one or two instances of swearing in the movie (I can debate as to whether the instances were needed at all in the original, since it really didn't add anything to the movie whatsoever), but there were a noticeable amount of swear words present in the 2007 edition. Now, this may just be a simple reflection on what seems to be an increased acceptance in modern day culture to profanity, but I still believe that a movie that had its roots in a kids' toy that was meant for 6-12 year-olds, can probably do without vulgar language.
My biggest issue with Transformers 2007 is the fact that they had so many damn humans in it, you start wondering whether it was a movie about Transformers or humans. The first, what, hour or so of the movie only features an un-transformed Bumblebee (with the exception of the original scene, which wasn't long enough), but that gets lost in the shuffle when you have to wade through all that human dialogue. At points, it really did feel like I was watching freaking Beverly Hills 90210. All the robot ass-kicking didn't start until well past the 70% mark of the movie. That made the movie worth it, but I would have personally have preferred to see more of that, and less of teenage angst and Family Ties 2007.
Overall, I liked the new movie, despite some of its shortcomings. I appreciate the fact that the producers took risks, making some updates that they know would likely alienate some long-time Transformers fans. But I don't think it would have been wise to rehash the 1986 version all over again, either. It would have been nice to see more of a deliberate connection back to the old characters, and in the process moving the audience towards the new cast of characters, rather than just introducing them all without seemingly giving a history of how we got from then to now. I am not sure if it even is meant to have any connection of the original 1986 movie, since you would have known that Optimus Prime died (if you don't know that, ooops) and Megatron ceased to exist and was re-created as Galvatron. I think it would have been good to re-establish these old links for the old-time fans (and there are tons of them out there) rather than try to simply capture the imagination of new fans with a historically revisionist version. All that being said, the film's action scenes did not disappoint and really show how far we have come in animation and realism. This aspect alone makes Transformers (2007 version) worth your consideration, if you are interested in Transformers on any level.
Since the movie's been out for a few months now, only several theatres were still playing it. One of my buddies had indicated he saw it, and that if I wanted to see it, he'd go with me. I knew of another friend who had wanted to see it, but never had time, and so I invited him, and he was able to join us with his wife and we all went to see the movie exactly two weeks ago today.
Some context before I proceed with offering up my review on the movie. I have watched the 1985/86 version of the Transformers movie ad nauseum. To me, I can remember most lines, all of the music (the soundtrack CD is still in my car). My son has proven to me that he is biologically mine, by taking up, on his own volition, a rabid fascination and keen interest in all things Transformers. I have purchased some recent versions of the figures for him, and he has requested to watch the original Transformers movie more times than I can count. As a result, I have had some recent re-introduction of the Transformers movie back from 1986. While it was a good movie, several things came to mind: 1) the music is pretty dated with Stan Bush arena rock permeating throughout the film, 2) it ended with what appears to be a scene begging for a sequel, since Unicron's head was floating into outer space and escaped the rest of him exploding, 3) the death of several high-profile Transformers has always disturbed me (and the role of Ultra Magnus was not terribly clear), and 4) there were several plot gaps in the movie that begged for a future movie that would connect the dots. So I went into the 2007 edition expecting a radically different movie, but hoping that there would be some tie in with the original.
I was right on both counts.
By the way, for those who have not seen the movie yet, I'll be sure to not put in any spoilers here (at least, not deliberately).
The 2007 movie, unlike the original, is not a cartoon. The robots and the battles were obviously all special effects and animation. Also inserted into the movie were real humans played by real actors. The music, overall, was very well chosen, having a mixture of old 80s music when appropriate (to conjure up the real-life environment for those who wish to go back to their childhood on memory lane), as well as up-to-date alternative rock (which I absolutely love). The movie took on a more serious tone, and is likely geared towards more of a teenage audience, due to some of the themes present. And as anticipated, it was a darker movie, both substance-wise as well as colour wise. Gone are the old Transformers team where many of the autobots were colourful and very fictitious looking. The newer edition of the Transformers features robots that have very intricate and fine detail. Some are even pretty scary looking. In the previous movie, even a non-fan would be able to quickly discern who was an Autobot and who was a Decepticon. In this rendition, the asthetic lines are far more blurred. Had the audio been turned off during the movie, I would have accidentally mistaken several Autobots to be bad guys.
Some good stuff: I like the fact that they brought back Optimus Prime, and the original guy who played his voice - that was a nice touch. There were some very un-Optimus lines that were a bit cheesy, such as when he said "the world wide web", but they still kept his leadership demeanour and tone. By the way, Optimus was the only one who was brought back as more or less the same vehicle. Bumblebee was brought back as well, but he is no longer a VW Beetle. Similarly, while Starscream was a jet, he was a much different looking jet and transformed as such. Megatron was something else altogether, as was Ratchet (though his function was similar). I didn't mind the changes/updating of these characters - the rendering of the robots and how they transformed was excellent, and more than made up for me having to adjust to matching up the names with the new faces.
The storyline, as unbelieveable and at times, silly, as it was, was pretty easy to understand. It didn't bring up the same "huh" questions as the original cartoon movie did. This is good that they kept the plot fairly simple, since I would presume people don't go to see Transformers in order to engage in a philosophical storyline or glean great spiritual truths, though there were enough cheesy cliches in the movie to establish your own worldview and statement of faith.
The battle scenes were, without a doubt, spectacular. I'd say that the movie lived up to the hype based on the battle scenes alone. The robots Transformed more realistically this time around, whereas in the old movie, you start to wonder "when they transformed from vehicle to robot, what happened to this part? Coupled with the excellent music that was married with the fight and action scenes, action buffs will get more than their fill of testosterone. Some people have told me that they hated the fact that the Transformers now fight with turret-type guns, gattling-type guns, and machine guns/rocket launchers, IED-looking devices, etc., rather than the traditional laser gun. I personally welcome the new weaponry. It is more sophisticated and shows the evolution of military technology. I would have been disappointed if they all just shot laser guns.
One positive aspect that I haven't heard too many people mention is subtle, but I think that it was intentional and worth mentioning. Everyone knows that North American cars have been dealt a serious blow by the Japanese and German car industry (and with good reason - just check out Consumer Reports on domestic vehicle ratings). I personally am not into domestic cars, and I myself drive a Japanese car. Regardless, I thought it was great (and refreshing) to feature so many domestic (North American) cars in a positive light, making them look cool in the movie. Say what you will about GM, but you have to admit, the Solstice looks really nice. I've never been a fan of muscle cars, but I found that they did a good job of showcasing the Mustang in the movie. Several scenes seem right out of the Fast and Furious movies (which I love) and it worked well to show off the robot in vehicle form (something that wasn't really focussed on with the G1 Transformer set).
To segue between the positive elements of the movie and some of the aspects I didn't like, I'll touch on an area that some may gloss over, but I think is worth nothing. Now, I have to be somewhat objective here. I can see both sides of the coin in that the presence of Megan Fox was both good and bad for the movie. Women's rights activists will likely not appreciate the um...suggestive closeups of Miss Fox's anatomy, coupled with some , er...rhythmic music. Since I am a happily married man, I can't comment on too much here, but I can say that it was probably not necessary to have her in the movie (or the boy for that matter - they were simply fillers until the robots started to fight, which is why most people - at least guys - go to see this movie). However, to add a truly, um, human element to the movie, they injected Megan Fox into the show, in the event that there are some viewers who realized 15 minutes into the movie that a film about robots is not for them - but they dropped so much cash for popcorn and drinks that it wasn't worth it to walk out. All that being said, while there was no nudity, "love scenes" or anything terribly graphic scene-wise, the highly sexualized presentation of the admittedly attractive Miss Fox was probably not needed in the movie, as was the totally unnecessary blatant reference to masturbation later on in regards to the boy. When I think of the Transformers movie, I don't want to think of masturbation references - I take "More Than Meets The Eye" at face value, thank you very much. Anyhow, her character (as was the boy's - what's his name?) didn't really add all that much to the movie, and if you ask me for my honest (and I mean honest) opinion now, I can tell you that the only thing I remember about her being in the movie is the scene where she's leaning up against Bumblebee while the camera takes some liberties in its shot angles. The overall character development of ALL the humans was rather weak.
The movie also seemed to play towards a politically correct casting method. My opinion here may seem a bit controversial and perhaps I'm simply nit-picking, but I do feel that some of the characters were cast that way in order to appease the politically-correct crowd, who want to see "diversity" among what may be perceived by some to be stereotypical roles. The fact that the senior featured "youth" analyst was an young Australian girl with piercings seems a bit weird (only because there are so few women in the computer sciences to begin with), and more so with the fact that a conservative government body like the U.S. department of defence would give her any credence being young and presumably inexperienced). I also noticed the fact that they threw in a black kid living with his mother, who was the major computer hacker. I suppose that is not unusual in and of itself, but it's not like this kid was a nerdy Steve Urkel type - instead, he acted and talked as if he was living in a metropolitan ghetto. Again, maybe not unusual, but for me, it was a bit far fetched and seemed to be the "PC" thing to do. I also noticed that the writers put the blame on North Korea/China for terrorist nukes. You'd think they would have targeted the Middle East, but NOOOO, Hollywood doesn't seem to want to do anything that puts the Middle East and particularly, Muslims in a bad light. Finally, since Transformers was a Japanese invention, it would have been really good it they could have at least had some Asian characters added, since they seemed to be featuring everyone else. At the very least, they didn't go overboard and introduce the obligatory gay character, which seems to permeate throughout the liberal left's Hollywood production of movies and television. I would have suffocated myself with my popcorn bag right then and there.
Unlike the original, there was not just one or two instances of swearing in the movie (I can debate as to whether the instances were needed at all in the original, since it really didn't add anything to the movie whatsoever), but there were a noticeable amount of swear words present in the 2007 edition. Now, this may just be a simple reflection on what seems to be an increased acceptance in modern day culture to profanity, but I still believe that a movie that had its roots in a kids' toy that was meant for 6-12 year-olds, can probably do without vulgar language.
My biggest issue with Transformers 2007 is the fact that they had so many damn humans in it, you start wondering whether it was a movie about Transformers or humans. The first, what, hour or so of the movie only features an un-transformed Bumblebee (with the exception of the original scene, which wasn't long enough), but that gets lost in the shuffle when you have to wade through all that human dialogue. At points, it really did feel like I was watching freaking Beverly Hills 90210. All the robot ass-kicking didn't start until well past the 70% mark of the movie. That made the movie worth it, but I would have personally have preferred to see more of that, and less of teenage angst and Family Ties 2007.
Overall, I liked the new movie, despite some of its shortcomings. I appreciate the fact that the producers took risks, making some updates that they know would likely alienate some long-time Transformers fans. But I don't think it would have been wise to rehash the 1986 version all over again, either. It would have been nice to see more of a deliberate connection back to the old characters, and in the process moving the audience towards the new cast of characters, rather than just introducing them all without seemingly giving a history of how we got from then to now. I am not sure if it even is meant to have any connection of the original 1986 movie, since you would have known that Optimus Prime died (if you don't know that, ooops) and Megatron ceased to exist and was re-created as Galvatron. I think it would have been good to re-establish these old links for the old-time fans (and there are tons of them out there) rather than try to simply capture the imagination of new fans with a historically revisionist version. All that being said, the film's action scenes did not disappoint and really show how far we have come in animation and realism. This aspect alone makes Transformers (2007 version) worth your consideration, if you are interested in Transformers on any level.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Happy Feet - Movie
***SPOILER WARNING***
My wife, son and I watched this movie last night on DVD. I'm not sure what the big deal was with this movie. It wasn't that great. And while I would not say it outright sucked, it was pretty close. I can't believe this movie was given awards instead of Cars, which was a much better animation movie. Thankfully it was only a rental, and it was a better rental than the last one we had (Borat, which was TERRIBLE - not funny and way too crude for our liking - obviously, our son did not watch that one!).
Where to begin with Happy Feet... First, it was way too long, for such a simple storyline (if it can even be called that). This is the first movie that my boy (4) actually asked several times "is it over yet?" He also took the remote and paused it numerous other times and walked out of the room, into the kitchen and drank a glass of milk or ate something, not rushing to get back. He definitely was not glued to his seat, by any means. The fact that he has not done this with any other movie is an indication that this movie didn't really draw him.
The big apparent "draw" of the movie - the music. Lots of music - but it wasn't for kids. Kids did not know the words and frig, why do they have to have stuff like "I'll make love to you, if you want me to" and "I just want your body, baby..." These were all long-gone adult songs. What a terrible selection of music. The only part that I thought was good was when the Latino penguins did Chicago's "If You Leave Me Now", but it was cut short. Also, the female penguin Gloria's singing voice was annoying (speaking of which, when I think Gloria in animation, I still think of Madagascar, which was an awesome movie).
The animation - for the people who thought that the animation of the penguins and the textures of the same were great - you obviously did not watch Over the Hedge. There's a movie where they did an amazing job on the animal fur and skin and eyes and what not. The Happy Feet characters weren't all that cute, actually.
I've never been a fan of Nicole Kidman, but she really blew in this movie. Also, Robin Williams' antics continue to be annoying, even in a new millenium.
The dancing - it was OK for animation and there were several highlights, like when the penguins entered the water and were doing synchronized swimming. Some parts of the dance theme were hard to understand - the humans at the end started dancing with the penguins - why? And the humans stopped fishing because they saw a dancing penguin in the zoo? I thought it was more sensible when they showed the human banter about the problem and one guy said something like, "I don't want to live in a world without penguins". That seemed more of a believeable impetus to stop taking the penguins' food rather than due to a tap-dancing penguin performing. Maybe I just didn't get it.
Adult themes - did they not think adults would not notice Mumble and Gloria come out of the ice, happen to fall into a 69 position, followed by doggie style? Frig...why can't they just make a kids' movie without all this crap. OK, my son had no idea what was going on, but still, why do they need to try to appeal to this to get laughs. Julie and I looked at each other and rolled our eyes several times.
The movie tried to inject political themes, which, for a movie directed at kids, was a bit over the top for me. I am no environmental tree hugger, but in this case, making the zoo/marine centre seem like a uncaring place of desolation does not represent the massive amount of animal lovers who actually work at the zoo.
Scary moments - When that killer seal is chasing Mumble - my son actually covered his eyes - but it was good that in the end, the tension was diffused when he penguins were laughing at the seal moving so slow on land. Also, the predator birds trying to attack Mumble. If this has to be targeted towards a kids' audience, it would have been more appropriate for the 10-and-over crowd.
Annoying characters - the "Lovelace" character, in my opinion, added nothing to the movie. Seemed to be yet another stereotype, one which I won't bother getting into. The best characters, in my opinion, were the Latino penguin gang, but sadly, they were stereotypically portrayed - I'll just leave it at that.
The film did have several positive elements. One, was the whole friendship/belonging theme, and it was prominent right until the end when Mumble's father was shown to be repentant for not siding with his son when pressure by the community elders. The other was the fact that it is OK to be different and have different talents and giftings. And while I thought that the environmental message was a bit too prominent, there is a message in there about how actions can potentially have effects on the food chain. Also, I appreciated that the amount of crude material was kept to a minimum.
Overall, though, this definitely was not something that caught my child's attention. And to me, I could not get it out of my head that the movie seemed like the Penguin version of Footloose or Dirty Dancing. I also could not help but consciously make comparisons to the March of the Penguins documentary (which was much better). For Julie and I watching it as adults, it was a bit too lengthy, had left a lot to be desired, and we didn't exactly feel happy after watching Happy Feet.
My wife, son and I watched this movie last night on DVD. I'm not sure what the big deal was with this movie. It wasn't that great. And while I would not say it outright sucked, it was pretty close. I can't believe this movie was given awards instead of Cars, which was a much better animation movie. Thankfully it was only a rental, and it was a better rental than the last one we had (Borat, which was TERRIBLE - not funny and way too crude for our liking - obviously, our son did not watch that one!).
Where to begin with Happy Feet... First, it was way too long, for such a simple storyline (if it can even be called that). This is the first movie that my boy (4) actually asked several times "is it over yet?" He also took the remote and paused it numerous other times and walked out of the room, into the kitchen and drank a glass of milk or ate something, not rushing to get back. He definitely was not glued to his seat, by any means. The fact that he has not done this with any other movie is an indication that this movie didn't really draw him.
The big apparent "draw" of the movie - the music. Lots of music - but it wasn't for kids. Kids did not know the words and frig, why do they have to have stuff like "I'll make love to you, if you want me to" and "I just want your body, baby..." These were all long-gone adult songs. What a terrible selection of music. The only part that I thought was good was when the Latino penguins did Chicago's "If You Leave Me Now", but it was cut short. Also, the female penguin Gloria's singing voice was annoying (speaking of which, when I think Gloria in animation, I still think of Madagascar, which was an awesome movie).
The animation - for the people who thought that the animation of the penguins and the textures of the same were great - you obviously did not watch Over the Hedge. There's a movie where they did an amazing job on the animal fur and skin and eyes and what not. The Happy Feet characters weren't all that cute, actually.
I've never been a fan of Nicole Kidman, but she really blew in this movie. Also, Robin Williams' antics continue to be annoying, even in a new millenium.
The dancing - it was OK for animation and there were several highlights, like when the penguins entered the water and were doing synchronized swimming. Some parts of the dance theme were hard to understand - the humans at the end started dancing with the penguins - why? And the humans stopped fishing because they saw a dancing penguin in the zoo? I thought it was more sensible when they showed the human banter about the problem and one guy said something like, "I don't want to live in a world without penguins". That seemed more of a believeable impetus to stop taking the penguins' food rather than due to a tap-dancing penguin performing. Maybe I just didn't get it.
Adult themes - did they not think adults would not notice Mumble and Gloria come out of the ice, happen to fall into a 69 position, followed by doggie style? Frig...why can't they just make a kids' movie without all this crap. OK, my son had no idea what was going on, but still, why do they need to try to appeal to this to get laughs. Julie and I looked at each other and rolled our eyes several times.
The movie tried to inject political themes, which, for a movie directed at kids, was a bit over the top for me. I am no environmental tree hugger, but in this case, making the zoo/marine centre seem like a uncaring place of desolation does not represent the massive amount of animal lovers who actually work at the zoo.
Scary moments - When that killer seal is chasing Mumble - my son actually covered his eyes - but it was good that in the end, the tension was diffused when he penguins were laughing at the seal moving so slow on land. Also, the predator birds trying to attack Mumble. If this has to be targeted towards a kids' audience, it would have been more appropriate for the 10-and-over crowd.
Annoying characters - the "Lovelace" character, in my opinion, added nothing to the movie. Seemed to be yet another stereotype, one which I won't bother getting into. The best characters, in my opinion, were the Latino penguin gang, but sadly, they were stereotypically portrayed - I'll just leave it at that.
The film did have several positive elements. One, was the whole friendship/belonging theme, and it was prominent right until the end when Mumble's father was shown to be repentant for not siding with his son when pressure by the community elders. The other was the fact that it is OK to be different and have different talents and giftings. And while I thought that the environmental message was a bit too prominent, there is a message in there about how actions can potentially have effects on the food chain. Also, I appreciated that the amount of crude material was kept to a minimum.
Overall, though, this definitely was not something that caught my child's attention. And to me, I could not get it out of my head that the movie seemed like the Penguin version of Footloose or Dirty Dancing. I also could not help but consciously make comparisons to the March of the Penguins documentary (which was much better). For Julie and I watching it as adults, it was a bit too lengthy, had left a lot to be desired, and we didn't exactly feel happy after watching Happy Feet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)