Toy Story 3 is a blindingly fantastic film. Not blinding in the way that the sun is, more in the way that a torrent of tears is. This film will make you cry if you're an adult. And have a soul.
The main focus of the film is on the characters and their relationships, which change constantly throughout the film. Woody and Buzz still remain the leaders of Andy's Toys, but a growing conflict sets them apart from each other, Woody being Andy's favourite toy and Buzz left to tend the flock on his own. Buzz takes a number of turns throughout the film, going from co-leader of Andy's toys, to bona fide leader, to captor, to a completely Spanish and random tangent which is hilarious. Woody sees himself alone for the majority of the film, being singled out as Andy's favourite toy puts him on a separate journey which in the end decides the fate of all of Andy's toys.
His commitment and loyalty to Andy is one of the many touching elements of the story. Another being Andy's final playtime with his toys, which lovingly made me utterly bawl. There is also another moment in the film (which I wont give away) where the toys make a big decision; a decision to do something together which will leave most of the cinema in tears, only to wrench them back from sorrow with laughter and a sudden flood of happy tears.
The film's main aim is to make the adults cry I think, and Pixar do just that. This is the main aspect that Dreamworks films miss; the ability to connect and entertain adult audiences as well as younger ones. The writing is so clever that children will feel all the fear and laughter and happiness contained in all Pixar films, whereas adults will feel the pwoer of the decisions the characters make, and the implications of their decisions so much more than the children.
Coupled with a fantastic score from the legendary Randy Newman, this film absolutely lives up to the classics that are Toy Story 1 & 2, perhaps even improving on them. My generation was the one that grew up with Toy Story from the beginning and I'm proud to be a part of that generation.
06/08/2010
30/07/2010
Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) & Shrek Forever After (Mike Mitchell, 2010)
Well since no-one asked...
OH, *SPOILER ALERT*
Inception centres around Leonardo DiCaprio's character something Cobb (which is hilarious as a last name) and his struggle to get back to his kids in America. In the film's universe, there is a new type of theft, known as extraction where the thief enters the victim's mind during a chemically-induced dream, and steals information from their mind. It's based on the idea of lucid-dreaming, according to Nolan. Looks more like a drug-fuelled trip to me.
Anyway Cobb has to get back to his kids and so he takes on a mission from the guy whose mind he just raped (because essentially that's what it is - entering without permission, perhaps trespassing). The mission is to plant an idea in a Corporate rival's mind, a feat known as 'inception', a notoriously difficult thing. Anyway he does it and there is a lot of confusion and levels. They go into different levels in the dream state (a dream inside a dream inside a dream etc.) Cobb goes into limbo to find a chap who died in a dream a level up, because if you die in a severely sedated dream state your mind goes into limbo and you eventually wake up with a melted brain because every level amplifies the time spent in the dream world by like 5x or something. Anyway you spend ages in limbo for like a 5 minute dream or something.
They all have little totems, which are things they can check to see if they're dreaming or not, and cobb has a spinning top which stays spinning if he's dreaming, and when he gets out at the end when he sees his kids he spins it and it begins to wobble then it cuts to black and that really annoyed me cos it's the most cheesy, cheap ending I could think of 'oh yeah he was dreaming all along, or was he?' It was just stupid Nolan, you tool.
Also, it was hilarious when one of the bad guys got hit by the van in Yusuf's level of the inception. Just saying.
Shrek was better than the 3rd one, but worse than the first and second. The whole busted up Far Far Away thing with the war between the Ogres and the Witches was cool, but most of it was cliché and uninventive. The Pied Piper was awesome though. And the Witches looked like a clone army of The Hob Goblin.
Anyway I can't be bothered anymore.
OH, *SPOILER ALERT*
Inception centres around Leonardo DiCaprio's character something Cobb (which is hilarious as a last name) and his struggle to get back to his kids in America. In the film's universe, there is a new type of theft, known as extraction where the thief enters the victim's mind during a chemically-induced dream, and steals information from their mind. It's based on the idea of lucid-dreaming, according to Nolan. Looks more like a drug-fuelled trip to me.
Anyway Cobb has to get back to his kids and so he takes on a mission from the guy whose mind he just raped (because essentially that's what it is - entering without permission, perhaps trespassing). The mission is to plant an idea in a Corporate rival's mind, a feat known as 'inception', a notoriously difficult thing. Anyway he does it and there is a lot of confusion and levels. They go into different levels in the dream state (a dream inside a dream inside a dream etc.) Cobb goes into limbo to find a chap who died in a dream a level up, because if you die in a severely sedated dream state your mind goes into limbo and you eventually wake up with a melted brain because every level amplifies the time spent in the dream world by like 5x or something. Anyway you spend ages in limbo for like a 5 minute dream or something.
They all have little totems, which are things they can check to see if they're dreaming or not, and cobb has a spinning top which stays spinning if he's dreaming, and when he gets out at the end when he sees his kids he spins it and it begins to wobble then it cuts to black and that really annoyed me cos it's the most cheesy, cheap ending I could think of 'oh yeah he was dreaming all along, or was he?' It was just stupid Nolan, you tool.
Also, it was hilarious when one of the bad guys got hit by the van in Yusuf's level of the inception. Just saying.
Shrek was better than the 3rd one, but worse than the first and second. The whole busted up Far Far Away thing with the war between the Ogres and the Witches was cool, but most of it was cliché and uninventive. The Pied Piper was awesome though. And the Witches looked like a clone army of The Hob Goblin.
Anyway I can't be bothered anymore.
06/07/2010
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Mike Newell, 2010)
So I finally saw Prince of Persia - or should I say Prince of England during the Crusades or something. I know nothing about the history of Persia, I don't profess to, I can however say with almost certainty that Persians did not speak in British accents. 'But Tim! It's to make it more accessible to English speaking people!' I hear you hark, and while I agree with you, I would have preferred it to be in the native tongue of ancient Persia (whatever that is), That at least would have stopped Jake Gyllenhaal from joining the project.
Another thing I will say is this. You can put lanky, greasy hair and Middle-Eastern looking battle clothes on anyone but it doesn't make them look Persian! Gemma Arterton's duck lips didn't help either. Aside from this, the action was ok at times, I wouldn't say good because from what the film is based on (awesome flippy jumpy games) they could've gotten a better physical lead and had him jumping all over the shop instead of someone who would just bring in audiences.
Also, making the dirty desert-dwelling people cockneys was just a fabulous idea. Cos they're the common ones you see, they bet, and take hostages, and send the scantily-clad women out with drinks and just oggle them from afar.
Gemma Arterton was an annoying Princess who annoyed throughout even when she was being nice to our plucky hero. The most likeable character was that Black knife-throwing chap. He was a true hero. Not an arrogant street urchin turned 'man-of-the-people' prince whose selfish theft creates an earth-threatening catastrophe.
The film is silly. Too hardcore for children and too stupid for adults.
Another thing I will say is this. You can put lanky, greasy hair and Middle-Eastern looking battle clothes on anyone but it doesn't make them look Persian! Gemma Arterton's duck lips didn't help either. Aside from this, the action was ok at times, I wouldn't say good because from what the film is based on (awesome flippy jumpy games) they could've gotten a better physical lead and had him jumping all over the shop instead of someone who would just bring in audiences.
Also, making the dirty desert-dwelling people cockneys was just a fabulous idea. Cos they're the common ones you see, they bet, and take hostages, and send the scantily-clad women out with drinks and just oggle them from afar.
Gemma Arterton was an annoying Princess who annoyed throughout even when she was being nice to our plucky hero. The most likeable character was that Black knife-throwing chap. He was a true hero. Not an arrogant street urchin turned 'man-of-the-people' prince whose selfish theft creates an earth-threatening catastrophe.
The film is silly. Too hardcore for children and too stupid for adults.
30/06/2010
Get Him to the Greek (Nicholas Stoller, 2010)
Get Him to the Greek follows Jonah Hill's record label geek trying to get an out-of-date drug addict rock star to the Greek Theatre in LA for a final gig.
The dialogue was punchy and sporadic like a kick in the face from the heroine addicts whose apartment you've passed out in, which completely matches Brand's style of performance. The narrative is designed to be just like an addict's search for a fix: seemingly calm for a time, but getting increasingly desperate the more likely it is that a fix isn't readily available.
There is some brilliant slapstick in the Vegas hotel scene, while I didn't enjoy Diddy's character throughout, this scene made me howl with laughter.
Aside from him, Jonah Hill played a bit of a shallow character. Despite being a generally nice person who loves his girlfriend, he likes the music of an idiot, and likes the idiot even more.
The film was uncomfortable a lot of the time, climaxing during the threesome scene, which I found to be probably one of the most uncomfortable scenes in a film I've seen (besides Irreversible).
The film however follows a strict gross-out pattern of humour, something expected of a Apatow produced film. It's recommended though, as the humour outweighs the feeling of tense anticipation of another distressing drug fuelled scene.
The dialogue was punchy and sporadic like a kick in the face from the heroine addicts whose apartment you've passed out in, which completely matches Brand's style of performance. The narrative is designed to be just like an addict's search for a fix: seemingly calm for a time, but getting increasingly desperate the more likely it is that a fix isn't readily available.
There is some brilliant slapstick in the Vegas hotel scene, while I didn't enjoy Diddy's character throughout, this scene made me howl with laughter.
Aside from him, Jonah Hill played a bit of a shallow character. Despite being a generally nice person who loves his girlfriend, he likes the music of an idiot, and likes the idiot even more.
The film was uncomfortable a lot of the time, climaxing during the threesome scene, which I found to be probably one of the most uncomfortable scenes in a film I've seen (besides Irreversible).
The film however follows a strict gross-out pattern of humour, something expected of a Apatow produced film. It's recommended though, as the humour outweighs the feeling of tense anticipation of another distressing drug fuelled scene.
29/05/2010
Robin Hood (Ridley Scott, 2010)
Robin Hood is not the film you would expect. It chronicles the rise to infamy (or 'famy' depending on how you look at it) that Robin Longstride took when he returned from the Crusades.
The film starts with a siege on a French castle, where Richard the Lionheart, the King of England, is killed. Meanwhile Robin has been put in the stockades with some people he was fighting with, and has made the decision to desert the army once he is freed. His opportunity arises when the king dies, and he, along with Little John, Will Scarlet and Allan A'Dayle (whoever that is). One his way he encounters an ambush on the King's Crown return party, which he, along with his 'merry men' in turn ambush themselves. They kill a few French soldiers and he (Robin) shoots Godfrey, the main antagonist of the film, across the mouth, scarring him. They meet a dying Robin of Loxley, who asks Robin (Longstride - Russell Crowe) to return his father's sword which he stole. This part confused me, because if you've never heard the story of how Robin Hood came to be, you wont know that Robin Longstride was a bad ass archer who was just a pauper, and Robin of Loxley was one of the King's knights. Robin Longstride then assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley (who was the one from Nottingham - I thing Longstride was from Darlington) in order to return the crown to England and Loxley's father's sword. Meanwhile King Richard's stupid younger brother Prince John has shacked up with the French King's niece, and is generally a tool. He get's proclaimed king, kicks out the chancellor and puts his stupid friend Godfrey (yes, the French guy who everyone knows is a badd'un) as the new chancellor, ordering him to go up north and collect taxes on pain of death from burning and swords.
Anyway to cut a 140 minute film short, Robin pretends to be the wealthy Robin, he gets emotionally invested in Nottingham and Marion, and unites the King and the north to fight the French who Godfrey invites to have a little invasion. Of course he wins, and then gets cast out by King John because he's much cooler and everyone likes him, but everyone thinks King John is a tool.
I had a few issues with the film, my main one being Marion. She waited 10 years for her husband to return from the crusades, having only spent about a week being married to him before he left. She then fancies new Robin, once he acts as her husband (she is fully aware he isn't, they are putting on a show for the people so she can keep her land) which to me, seems silly. She waited 10 years, for a man she dropped at the tip of a hat for someone PRETENDING TO BE HIM. That to me seems messed up. Robin Longstride stole Robin of Loxley's lifestyle as a 'favour to the Loxleys'.
Gripe number 2 is Russell Crowe's accent. Was he Irish? Australian? English? Get it together Russell.
Also, there was an awful lot of cheese in the film. Not the cool kind of cheese either, like Cheddar or Montery Jack, no, the corny type (what an odd concept). It can all be epitomized by Marion's line during the beach battle against the French which went "This one's for you Walter" (I should explain - Walter was Robin of Loxley's blind father who tried to defend himself against Godfrey when they came to Nottingham. Godfrey killed him). Marion then rode over to Godfrey, got beaten up because she had no place being on a battlefield and luckily Robin saved her, then carried her through the battlefield for a bit like in The Bodyguard, only there was no awesome kicking, just Russell Crowe not getting attacked because it was an emotional moment.
However despite all this I did enjoy the film, it was a lot of action, fun to see something about Nottingham (even though it wasn't really) and good to see some feral children doing their bit too. I would recommend seeing it, but only if you've got a lot of time cos it's a long stretch, but it doesn't feel like it while you're watching. See it once, talk about it for a bit, then forget about it.
The film starts with a siege on a French castle, where Richard the Lionheart, the King of England, is killed. Meanwhile Robin has been put in the stockades with some people he was fighting with, and has made the decision to desert the army once he is freed. His opportunity arises when the king dies, and he, along with Little John, Will Scarlet and Allan A'Dayle (whoever that is). One his way he encounters an ambush on the King's Crown return party, which he, along with his 'merry men' in turn ambush themselves. They kill a few French soldiers and he (Robin) shoots Godfrey, the main antagonist of the film, across the mouth, scarring him. They meet a dying Robin of Loxley, who asks Robin (Longstride - Russell Crowe) to return his father's sword which he stole. This part confused me, because if you've never heard the story of how Robin Hood came to be, you wont know that Robin Longstride was a bad ass archer who was just a pauper, and Robin of Loxley was one of the King's knights. Robin Longstride then assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley (who was the one from Nottingham - I thing Longstride was from Darlington) in order to return the crown to England and Loxley's father's sword. Meanwhile King Richard's stupid younger brother Prince John has shacked up with the French King's niece, and is generally a tool. He get's proclaimed king, kicks out the chancellor and puts his stupid friend Godfrey (yes, the French guy who everyone knows is a badd'un) as the new chancellor, ordering him to go up north and collect taxes on pain of death from burning and swords.
Anyway to cut a 140 minute film short, Robin pretends to be the wealthy Robin, he gets emotionally invested in Nottingham and Marion, and unites the King and the north to fight the French who Godfrey invites to have a little invasion. Of course he wins, and then gets cast out by King John because he's much cooler and everyone likes him, but everyone thinks King John is a tool.
I had a few issues with the film, my main one being Marion. She waited 10 years for her husband to return from the crusades, having only spent about a week being married to him before he left. She then fancies new Robin, once he acts as her husband (she is fully aware he isn't, they are putting on a show for the people so she can keep her land) which to me, seems silly. She waited 10 years, for a man she dropped at the tip of a hat for someone PRETENDING TO BE HIM. That to me seems messed up. Robin Longstride stole Robin of Loxley's lifestyle as a 'favour to the Loxleys'.
Gripe number 2 is Russell Crowe's accent. Was he Irish? Australian? English? Get it together Russell.
Also, there was an awful lot of cheese in the film. Not the cool kind of cheese either, like Cheddar or Montery Jack, no, the corny type (what an odd concept). It can all be epitomized by Marion's line during the beach battle against the French which went "This one's for you Walter" (I should explain - Walter was Robin of Loxley's blind father who tried to defend himself against Godfrey when they came to Nottingham. Godfrey killed him). Marion then rode over to Godfrey, got beaten up because she had no place being on a battlefield and luckily Robin saved her, then carried her through the battlefield for a bit like in The Bodyguard, only there was no awesome kicking, just Russell Crowe not getting attacked because it was an emotional moment.
However despite all this I did enjoy the film, it was a lot of action, fun to see something about Nottingham (even though it wasn't really) and good to see some feral children doing their bit too. I would recommend seeing it, but only if you've got a lot of time cos it's a long stretch, but it doesn't feel like it while you're watching. See it once, talk about it for a bit, then forget about it.
13/05/2010
Power Rangers: The Movie (Bryan Spicer, 1995)
Power Rangers, one of my childhood professions.
The film is based around the original Mighty Morphin ones, as opposed to the new 30 different types (they could beat the crap out of any of them) and involves, typically, the protection of the planet from an evil source, this time in the form of Ivan Ooze who for some reason speaks English despite being, like, 6000 years old and some sort of weird purple alien. Anyway he creates this ooze and gives it to all the kids in Angel Grove, and they take it home, and all their parents play with it and it brainwashes the parents but not the children oh no, they're fine. Ooze ransacks the Command Center and so the Power Rangers lose their power to morph and physically run to the Command Center to see what's up. Oh I should also mention that at the start they do SPORTS LOTS OF SPORTS and sky dive cos they're the best at everything, and everyone in the city is waiting for them when they land and then they roller blade and do tricks and stuff because life is good when you're a Power Ranger and you don't have any money problems or acne or parental trouble. (Where are their parents anyway?)
So they have to go to another planet and go on a quest to get their ninja powers because they don't mighty morph anymore they ninja morph, and then they come back and beat Ivan Ooze and then everything's fine again and they eat lobster and watch some fireworks.
The characters used to be very stereotypical, the yellow ranger was East Asian and the black ranger was African American but now that's all changed, the black ranger is just American and the yellow ranger is African American and things couldn't be better. The blue ranger is still a nerd though. The characters are pretty basic, you don't really get to know them apart from in terms of the relationships they have with each other, for example you never find out that Billy's father left his mother when he was a young boy and because of his mother's string of marriages he can never have a proper relationship with a girl (something which may or may not be true). But my point is you don't really know these people, but you're not supposed to, it's a kids movie and looking at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, or even an adult, is stupid so I'll just focus on other stuff.
The uniforms are awesome, I really want one of those helmets.
And the falcon zord has missiles in it! The ape zord is best though.
Also I hadn't realised until I re-watched it a few days ago, but I make all the kung-fu noises Tommy does, only I don't know kung-fu.
The film is based around the original Mighty Morphin ones, as opposed to the new 30 different types (they could beat the crap out of any of them) and involves, typically, the protection of the planet from an evil source, this time in the form of Ivan Ooze who for some reason speaks English despite being, like, 6000 years old and some sort of weird purple alien. Anyway he creates this ooze and gives it to all the kids in Angel Grove, and they take it home, and all their parents play with it and it brainwashes the parents but not the children oh no, they're fine. Ooze ransacks the Command Center and so the Power Rangers lose their power to morph and physically run to the Command Center to see what's up. Oh I should also mention that at the start they do SPORTS LOTS OF SPORTS and sky dive cos they're the best at everything, and everyone in the city is waiting for them when they land and then they roller blade and do tricks and stuff because life is good when you're a Power Ranger and you don't have any money problems or acne or parental trouble. (Where are their parents anyway?)
So they have to go to another planet and go on a quest to get their ninja powers because they don't mighty morph anymore they ninja morph, and then they come back and beat Ivan Ooze and then everything's fine again and they eat lobster and watch some fireworks.
The characters used to be very stereotypical, the yellow ranger was East Asian and the black ranger was African American but now that's all changed, the black ranger is just American and the yellow ranger is African American and things couldn't be better. The blue ranger is still a nerd though. The characters are pretty basic, you don't really get to know them apart from in terms of the relationships they have with each other, for example you never find out that Billy's father left his mother when he was a young boy and because of his mother's string of marriages he can never have a proper relationship with a girl (something which may or may not be true). But my point is you don't really know these people, but you're not supposed to, it's a kids movie and looking at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, or even an adult, is stupid so I'll just focus on other stuff.
The uniforms are awesome, I really want one of those helmets.
And the falcon zord has missiles in it! The ape zord is best though.
Also I hadn't realised until I re-watched it a few days ago, but I make all the kung-fu noises Tommy does, only I don't know kung-fu.
06/05/2010
Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)
I got stuck in New York. So sue me.
Well I went into this film having been told it wasn't as good as the first one, but I was pleasantly surprised. The action was action, Robert Downey Jr. was his usual debonair self, and Terrence Howard metamorphosised into Don Cheadle.
The story follows on directly after the end of the first film, but starts from the perspective of Mickey Rourke's character, Whiplash. I wasn't sure how to interpret Rourke's character, because he clearly had a backstory, and had been raised to hate the Stark family so I found it hard to hate him. Especially because he was such a bad ass. Anyone who has a Parakeet can't be all bad right? The real baddie turned out to be Hammer, Tony Stark's answer to Mandark (see Dexter's Laboratory).
The action sequences were really amazing, when I was watching the credits I counted about 10 visual effects companies who worked on the film, and it really shows because there're some spectacular special effects. I especially liked the parts in Stark's basement where we works. The effects where he walked through his computer and built the new element were astounding.
However my one gripe with the movie, is Scarlett Johansson. I've been told that her character has no purpose, and I absolutely agree. Any one of her sequences could have been altered so a pre-existing character could play her parts. Although I understand there is a whole world already created for Favreau to draw from, and she's probably in it. I just didn't see the point in her, Gwyneth Paltrow could have done most of her role and still have been Pepper Potts.
However having said that the film is fantastic, perhaps no so much so as the first but it still left a good impression on me, and despite preferring Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle as Rhodes, I did enjoy the fight sequences between him and Iron man, and then again at the end in the botanical garden dome thing.
Also, the AC-DC soundtrack is awful and there wasn't nearly enough Samuel L. Jackson.
I've got a little something in mind for my next review. It'll be awesome. And amateur.
Toodles!
Well I went into this film having been told it wasn't as good as the first one, but I was pleasantly surprised. The action was action, Robert Downey Jr. was his usual debonair self, and Terrence Howard metamorphosised into Don Cheadle.
The story follows on directly after the end of the first film, but starts from the perspective of Mickey Rourke's character, Whiplash. I wasn't sure how to interpret Rourke's character, because he clearly had a backstory, and had been raised to hate the Stark family so I found it hard to hate him. Especially because he was such a bad ass. Anyone who has a Parakeet can't be all bad right? The real baddie turned out to be Hammer, Tony Stark's answer to Mandark (see Dexter's Laboratory).
The action sequences were really amazing, when I was watching the credits I counted about 10 visual effects companies who worked on the film, and it really shows because there're some spectacular special effects. I especially liked the parts in Stark's basement where we works. The effects where he walked through his computer and built the new element were astounding.
However my one gripe with the movie, is Scarlett Johansson. I've been told that her character has no purpose, and I absolutely agree. Any one of her sequences could have been altered so a pre-existing character could play her parts. Although I understand there is a whole world already created for Favreau to draw from, and she's probably in it. I just didn't see the point in her, Gwyneth Paltrow could have done most of her role and still have been Pepper Potts.
However having said that the film is fantastic, perhaps no so much so as the first but it still left a good impression on me, and despite preferring Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle as Rhodes, I did enjoy the fight sequences between him and Iron man, and then again at the end in the botanical garden dome thing.
Also, the AC-DC soundtrack is awful and there wasn't nearly enough Samuel L. Jackson.
I've got a little something in mind for my next review. It'll be awesome. And amateur.
Toodles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
