FILM REVIEW: The Secret World of Arrietty

This was original posted over at my podcast's website, Strangers and Aliens . . .

My kids and I are huge fans of Studio Ghibli. I love almost everything that I have seen from them, and my kids adore My Neighbor Totoro and Ponyo. Studio Ghibli is a Japanese animation studio. I would compare the studio to PIXAR, perhaps, and the primary force behind their output over the past decades is one man: animator Hayao Miyazaki. You may be familiar with some of their movies, like the "kid films" Ponyo and My Neighbor Totoro, or the older skewing fantasy movies Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke.

When Ponyo hit theaters a few years ago, I hoped to get the kids in to see it but we missed the chance, so we watched it together on video. Not long after, I heard rumblings about a movie based on the classic children's book The Borrowers. For the last year or two, then, I have been waiting for The Borrower Arrietty (it's original title -- Disney changed the title for release here) to come to the States after its release in Japan. My intention: for my kids to see it on the big screen.

We finally got the chance. And it was worth the wait.

We ended up skipping Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace in 3D in favor of Arrietty, and I am SO glad we did. (Mainly for "pocket-book" reasons. We own that movie and can watch it any time we want, and by "we" I mean my kids.)

This interaction between Arrietty and the cat has a distinct My Niaghbor Totoro vibe. It has to be an intentional homage . . .

First, my kids' reaction. All of them liked it almost as much as they liked My Neighbor Totoro and more than they liked Ponyo. This is no faint praise, because all four of them love both of those movies. They are some of the few movies to get repeat viewings in my house. My son loved the way the family of borrowers, six-inch-tall people who "steal" from the "human beans" the things they need to survive and who live under the floors and in the walls of human houses, had created a habitat using human objects. A straight pin becomes a sword. Double-sided tape is used to scale walls. Fish hooks are grappling hooks. As they wandered through a richly detailed world of these things, it really excited my ten-year-old son's imagination. My daughters loved Arrietty, a strong young woman, and a far better roll model than Disney's own princesses. This is typical for Studio Ghibli -- strong, idealistic female lead character who react realistically in fantastic situations.

And I enjoyed the movie as well. Hayao Miyazaki is credited as writer for this, and did not direct as he usually does. I was a bit worried about this. The last Studio Ghibli film I saw without him as director was Tales from Earthsea, which I was disappointed in. The animation for Arrietty was close to flawless, though (there are a couple moments when the character interactions with the background felt a bit "off") and the "secret world" the borrowers inhabited is richly detailed and sumptuous. Like all Ghibli films, the animation and story feel both sprawling and almost epic, but intimate in the details.

Arrietty's needle -- "makes a great sword"

The story itself is simple, and it feels almost like it is more of a character study than anything. The action is low-key, and it is the characters who carry the story forward. The film really is more about the emotions of the moment.

At its heart, though, this is a movie about friendship and family. The familial relationship is quirky and positive, although when Arrietty makes a new friend in the "human bean" boy who moves into the house, the contact comes because Arrietty disobeys her parents. There are consequences to all of this, even if it is not addressed specifically.

The Secret World of Arrietty is a movie I highly recommend. I believe that it would not be to everyone's taste, but if you appreciated the plot and tone of the earlier Studio Ghibli movies, you'll feel the same about this. And if you're not, this will be a good one to start with.

~ Ben

Previous SCI-FI/FANTASY FOR KIDS reviews:
Wall*E

The Secret World of Arrietty is © Disney and Studio Ghibli

Green Lantern is a movie about Hollywood . . .

I finally saw Green Lantern. For those who don't know, it's a superhero sci-fi fantasy action movie about Hal Jordan, who is given a ring (and a lantern, which charges the ring) that can create anything Hal can imagine using the power of green (also known as willpower) . . . which comes with a price: he is now a member of an intergalactic police force.

The premise has a lot or promise, and could easily be something really fun and interesting or truly awful. Amazingly, though, using the Hollywood power of green (also known as money) it's not either.

Here's my review: you know that kid that was always in your class who just coasted through school and never went beyond what they had to do in order to get by, even though they were talented and intelligent and maybe good looking? Who could have really contributed to society or been very successful if only they had applied themselves? But who slid through and never really did anything to live up to their true potential?

That's Green Lantern. Not the character, the movie. End of review.

But thinking about it, I had some more thoughts I've been trying to sort through. Green Lantern embodies something beyond a simple "good" or "bad" statement of opinion. (Don't get me wrong -- the following is still opinion. I'm fully aware of that.)

The movie itself is half-hearted and goes through all the motions that superhero movies are supposed to go through . . . and tries to be both Superman the Movie and Iron Man (the first one), but does so without really knowing what made either of those movies work. On a purely technical level, it works, and on a conceptual level, it works, but all the in between stuff -- you know, scripting and acting and filming and effects -- just doesn't gel.

An outline of the basic storyline would look good. "A" happens, then "B", then "C", which was caused by "A", and "B" and "C" together make "D" happen. But four people wrote the movie, and it feels like it has four different tones and four different characterizations for the main cast.

This bothers me. It doesn't bother me as much as the kid I was talking about above (who I sometimes WAS when I was in school and who I came across many, many times when I was teaching school . . . and still do, even out of that setting). Because that kid is a living human being with a future and with a family and who is a part of society. No, Green Lantern is a story. A $200 million story. And if you've read my blog at all, you know that I believe that stories have power. Sadly, the power this story had was wasted.

That's my general feeling about Green Lantern, and as I was thinking about it and all the wasted potential I started thinking about something more metaphorical. Green Lantern is a movie about itself. Green Lantern is about big, expensive, Hollywood movies.

Here is a character who has the power to create whatever he can imagine, and when he does imagine things it just lacks . . . imagination. I know that something like this runs the risk of looking like a Looney Toons cartoon, and we already have a superhero movie like that in The Mask. But I just found myself being underwhelmed by it all. Once or twice, I thought the things he was doing were clever. The other times, it just felt bland.

And, going to that other power of green, the one that the movie's producers have, they could have done anything their imaginations dreamed up as well. But I just found myself being underwhelmed by it all. Once or twice, I thought the things he was doing were clever. The other times, it just felt bland.

That's when it struck me: Green Lantern, in all it's mediocre blandness, is a movie ABOUT ITSELF! And, in a bigger picture sense, about Hollywood blockbusters.

I have a long list of things that should have been done differently to make Green Lantern better, but what scares me is that there are a LOT of people who are MUCH smarter than I am who worked on this movie . . . and this is still the end result.

So instead of Green Lantern, I recommend the follow movies that Green Lantern is trying to be:

Superman, which has the heart of heroism and all ages appeal . . .



Iron Man, which is edgy and has a strong, sarcastic, and confident "hero" at its core who has a lot of life lessons to learn:



The Mask, which has a more wacky, abut also more organic, variation on the superhero who can make anything he can imagine come into being:



Each of these films have flaws . . . but they also have a lot of heart.

~ Ben

REVIEW: X-Men First Class

THE REVIEW:

X-Men First Class is a prequel to the OTHER X-Men movies that manages to surpass them. It's a strong film, and it feels like a movie . . . instead of feeling like a comic book movie. Packing a lot of characters and a lot of action sequences into two hours and twenty minutes, X-Men First Class is exciting and funny and fun.

It's not perfect. The main bad guy, Sebastian Shaw, has an unexplained change in motives and, well, more. (See the spoiler notes below.) But with so many characters, there was very little time for the background characters, yet most of them still have pretty satisfying character arcs. The exceptions: Tornado-man and Azazel, who stand around in the background and look cool and kill people. (I'm sure Tornado-man has a name, I didn't catch it.)

Overall, though, it's a slick movie with emotional pay-off. The acting, for the most part, is good. I've heard complaints about Kevin Bacon -- I really liked him in the movie. A lot. And as much as I loved Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan as Professor X and Magneto, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were very likeable as the younger versions of the characters.

Overall, a good movie that, for me, is the best of the franchise.

GEEK'S TAKE:

Comic book fans: not sure how you will like it. It is a prequel to the movies, so it has very little to do with comic book continuity. However, it didn't bother me. I knew nothing about Sebastian Shaw before, but I liked what he was in the film (mostly).

I still think it would have been better if, as a complete reboot, it had featured the comic book cast of Angel, Cyclops, Beast, Iceman, and Marvel Girl. As a group,  that's my favorite team of X-Men. Of course, that would have meant a reboot to the movie franchise.

SO WHAT DOES IT "TEACH" ABOUT STORYTELLING?

As a writer, I appreciated a lot about this movie. With a few plotholes (a couple elements seemed to be left on the cutting room floor -- it felt like this may have been a two hour and thirty minute film originally, and if my suspicions are correct, I hope it's successful enough to get a director's cut), it still managed to give a satisfying and emotional story.

Any action sequences came directly from the plot and were driven by the characters. Unlike the later X-Men movies, this one feels like a lot of time and thought was spent on the story. In a way that resonated with me, the plot built on the relationships of the characters to push things forward. It all rises to a climax that that, because of the personal character and relationship groundwork laid earlier in the story, becomes more tense and more interesting.

Along with that, the theme of the movie gets explored from many different angles.Almost every scene is about choosing to become the person you want to become, and each character is given a chance to choose what they are going to do. Those choices all have a payoff in the climax of the movie.

BOTTOM LINE

I really enjoyed this movie. The 60's setting helped separate it from the other X-Men movies and gave it a different sort of vibe compared to other superhero movies. I wish there had been a bit more clothing . . . maybe it was a budget thing? Not for kids (not just because of content, it's just a more mature film), X-Men First Class is a heartfelt action film, with character development, fun, menace, and action.

SPOILER NOTES:

How is it that Sebastian Shaw goes from being a Nazi scientist interested in mutants to being a mutant himself? Was he a mutant in the beginning, which adds an interesting level to his character but doesn't seem to be what the story is showing? Or did he make himself into a mutant, which seems to go against the whole "mutants are the next step and regular people are doomed to be overrun" thing? It feels like there was a tiny bit of exposition missing between the 40's and the 60's.

Nano Film Review #30 - Tron: Legacy, the film and soundtrack

Tron: Legacy is a movie that shouldn't exist. But I'm glad it does.

It's a sequel to a groundbreaking (in terms of technology) film . . . that's 30 years old. A film that doesn't hold up well if watched today (unlike the original Star Wars which, aside from some hair styles, holds up well because it was a ground breaking film that relied on physical models, not computer graphics). But the original is a good little film, if you watch it saying to yourself, "It was ground breaking 30 years ago."

Rumor has it that Disney has tried to bury the original Tron so young viewers won't think "they made a sequel to that rubbish?" and choose to spend their money on another movie instead. This is actually probably a good plan, whether they did it intentionally or not.

Tron: Legacy is also a solid film. It's got breath-taking visuals. Even watching the trailer, you can see deliberate symmetry in almost every shot. The graphics are mesmerizing, the action has a fluid motion that you don't find in other movies like this.*

The story is a weak spot. It's not terribly deep or complex, but it has an emotion and an energy absent in other movies like this.*

The characters are likable. Quorra, Sam, and Jeff Bridges as Flynn are all people I wouldn't mind spending time with (Quorra and Flynn more than Sam). The bad guys are cool, and the background characters are strange and interesting.

I saw it in 3D, which was cool and natural. I didn't feel like the 3D got in the way of the storytelling, but it also wasn't needed. I would have liked it just as well in 2D, I think. We'll see. If I see it again.

But the real star, to me, was the soundtrack. I've written about it before. I know nothing about Daft Punk, except that people got excited that Daft Punk was doing the soundtrack. But when I started hearing snippets, I started liking what I was hearing. And now the Tron: Legacy soundtrack has a permanent place in my regular rotation of atmospheric music and soundtrack albums. It's big. It's cool. It gets the blood pumping. And it fits the movie like a glove. To me, the movie almost becomes a visual showcase for the music. Daft Punk actually appear in the movie:

So, do I recommend the movie? Yes, if you want a visually stunning film with a great soundtrack and some fun characters. But Inception this ain't. It ain't meant to be. And that's one thing that I've taken away from the film. Just let your story be what it's going to be. They don't try to make it into something that it's not. It is what it is: a cool, sleek, elegant film with a cool, sleek, elegant soundtrack and cool, sleek, elegant characters. It's a popcorn film, it won't change your life, it's not changing cinema.

Do I recommend the soundtrack? Do you even need to ask?

Speaking of symmetry, I love the way the old poster (below) and the new poster (above) go together.

~ Ben

*When I say "other movies like this" I'm looking squarely at the Matrix sequels, and the first Matrix movie out of the corner of my eye . . .

Nano Film Review #29 -- The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

(Earlier Narnia posts: Read my review of Prince Caspian here. Here's Disney's admittance to releasing Prince Caspian on a bad weekend. And here's the news that Disney was dumping the Narnia franchise, but Fox was picking it up.)


Voyage of the Dawn Treader has some really great acting. Some incredible special effects. Great sets. Brilliant cinematography. Awesome creature design. It's a really good movie.

But, you know what, my review is going to be one of those "it was different than the book" type things. I feel bad even typing it. But it's true.

The kid who plays Eustace is spot on perfect. Edmund and Lucy, the same actors from the first two Walden Media Narnia films, fall into their rolls perfectly. Caspian does better as King Caspian than he did as Prince Caspian. The White Witch, brought back in a larger cameo than in Prince Caspian, is right on.

But they made so many changes. Unnecessary changes. Now, I understand the challenges of taking a story created for one medium and changing it to another medium. Most of my experience comes from comic books. I've taken historical stories and turned them into comic books. I've taken novels and turned them into comics. I've also done some small scale film projects and stage projects doing the same thing. And it is a challenge. Books are not visual, and so lots of action can happen within people's minds and it's really interesting, but on the screen or comic book panel or stage it's not as easy to do. But that's not the problem with Voyage of the Dawn Treader. They actually do a really good job of putting the internal conflicts of the characters on the screen in a visual way.

I understand that Voyage of the Dawn Treader, as a book, is not a long story with a beginning, middle, and end. It's a series of episodes, held together by a vague "quest" for seven lords who left Narnia long ago. There's no big battle at the end, there's no huge climax. So some of the "episodes" get rearranged. Two islands stops are combined into one island, saving a lot of time. The scariest and most dangerous island is moved to the end and turned into a fierce conflict. That all makes sense.

But apparently, rescuing the seven lords of Narnia wasn't enough. So they fall into the Star Trek movie trap: a story isn't big enough unless Earth itself is in trouble. So Narnia itself is in trouble. A vague evil is causing trouble, and it keeps showing up, and will eventually destroy Narnia if it isn't stopped. And the only way to stop it is . . . well, it's in the video below.



Yup, for some reason those seven lords of Narnia have a magic sword to place at on Alsan's table. And now our heroes must find the swords to destroy the evil.

Just curious about the logic here -- if it won't work unless all seven swords are brought to the table, what good could it possibly be to split up? Instead of seven guys working together to get teh job done, you've got seven guys trying to do it alone, and if even one of them fails, they all do . . . and they have no way of knowing if one of the others needed help . . . adding this element didn't help create a stronger story, it took a stable story and gave it a whole bunch of plot holes.

So we end up with a movie that becomes the "book to movie" cliche that they avoided in the first two movies. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, changes were made to amp up the action and the drama and to make it more epic. But the story remained the same. In this version, action and drama are amped up . . . but sacrificing the original story to do so. Iconic moments from the book are removed -- moments I was excited to see on the big screen brought to life by master visual effects creators. At one point in the movie, I felt like I was watching an '80's fantasy film -- "You must find the magic weapon to destroy the world-engulfing evil!" and I had images of the Glaive flashing in my head . . . normally not a bad thing.

So overall, we get a well made movie with familiar characters . . . but it's just not Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'll watch it again. My son was excited about this Narnia movie in the same way I got excited about Star Wars movies. Fortunately, he loves the Narnia books as well.

It's not a bad story. It just felt like big budget fan fiction.

Now, were the spiritual elements lost in the midst of this? Surprisingly, no. There's some really good moments with Aslan and about Aslan. The director and writers were trying to be true, I think, to the intent of the book, and Lewis' ideas. For some reason, though, they just didn't have the same goal for the story.

(Let's address the Liam Neesan controversy for a moment. Mr. Neesan said, "Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries. That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me." You can't fault him, though, for misunderstanding the difference between Christ and Mohammed & Buddha. Christ is a personal, living part of God who wants a personal relationship with us -- not just a dead mentor. And this shines through brilliantly in the movie. Aslan reveals to Lucy in the end of the movie (and the book) that the reason Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace, and (eventually, Jill Pole) is so they might get to know Aslan better in our world. That's one of C.S. Lewis' intents for writing these stories as well -- to show us Jesus and help us know him better here.)

So, I do hope Walden Media gets the chance to do Silver Chair, which they should find less challenging to actually use the story as it is. I want to see more of Eustace, and he can carry that film. And I really want to see The Horse and His Boy made into a film (which would allow Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy to appear). But I fear that this is the last we'll see of Narnia on the silver screen. I had hopes for all seven movies to be made, but as of December 15 (six days after opening) Dawn Treader has only made back $112 million of its $155 million budget. It will make money, I think, but it's not a smash hit.

Final thoughts: it's a good movie, it's fun, it's kid-friendly (more than the other two). But I'm a grumpy old man . . .

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #28 -- Superman/Batman: Apocalypse

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. Terrible film. Terrible, terrible film.

I hate it when films have such great potential for being emotional, character driven action films . . . only to decide to forgo any actual emotion beats to make sure they hit all the action beats.

Here's a film about Superman discovering that he's not the last, living person from his planet . . . only to have his worst enemy convince her to turn against him.

But the emotion in this movie is as flat as the animation. Superman leanrs he has a cousin, and he says with no emotion at all: "Uh, I think she's my cousin."

His cousin gets kidnapped by his greatest enemy, after slaughtering a number of people from Wonder Woman's island? No emotion, just, "Uh, let's go get her."

His cousin is turned evil? No emotion, just a flat line reading of, "Uh, you don't have to do this."

Meanwhile, at the beginning, Supergirl wants to learn what it means to be an earthgirl . . . so Superman takes her to the mall and we get a pretty woman montage. Yup, that's what it means to be an earthgirl!

Batman is Batman, and does Batman stuff. Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman, and does Wonder Woman stuff. Superman is Superman, and does Superman stuff. But it all feels so flat. So dry. So lifeless. I want to see character development. I want to see emotional moments with action based emotional payoffs . . . not action moments with action payoffs. I want emotion, not going through the motions.

The fight scenes are impressive. Even more impressive? If they had taken the time to actually let the characters be true to the emotional elements of the plot instead of just crafting brilliant, brutal fight scenes.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #27 -- Avatar

Nano-film review: Entertaining, if cliche, story and characters; amazing world creation; spectacular special effects and action sequences.

Longer version: I’ve heard a lot of people comparing Avatar to other movies. Most of them are fair. Dances with Wolves. Ferngully. Even Delgo. (My old review of Delgo is here. And apparently after the Avatar trailer came out, the people who made the Deglo movie were considering suing James Cameron, which is ridiculous, although they may have sold one or two more DVDs from the publicity.)

The movie I’d compare it to the most, honestly, is The Dark Crystal. (The Dark Crystal, by the way, has a much better case against the Delgo people than the Deglo people have against Avatar when it comes to stealing visuals, I think.) The Dark Crystal is an incredible example of world building. And Avatar’s weakness is also The Dark Crystal’s: an amazing, visually stunning world and characters, but with a weak story to hang it on. (This is something Jim Henson himself would agree with, and with their follow up Labyrinth they started with the story first, not the world.)

Avatar was being hailed before release as a groundbreaking cinematic experience, and to be frank it is. It’s the best motion capture animation ever. The characters look expressive, move fluidly, and feel alien. The world they live in is an example of incredible world building. It is a fully realized world with believable, alien environments. It’s the best scifi/fantasy world I've seen. It totally blows way Lucas’ prequel trilogy in that regard. It’s a big, epic scaled world they created. It was made as a 3D movie, and the gimmick here is not things flying at your face, it's instead a layered, huge, textured world.

The creatures are graceful and vicious and just plain cool looking, although the humanoid creaturs and their semi-naked attire may take some getting used to. They’re just human enough to be relatable and alien enough to be different. The biosphere and environment of the world are carefully crafted and a wonder to experience on the big screen.

But then there’s the plot. You've seen this movie before . . . just never this big in scope. You'll know the plot and almost exactly how it's going to resolve five minutes in, if you’ve ever read a book or seen a movie. You've seen these characters before. Remember Paul Riser in Alien? He’s in this movie. Remember the gruff sergeant toy from Toy Soldiers, or Robert Duvall from Apocalypse Now? He’s in this movie. Remember every scientist from every science fiction movie? They’re all in this movie. But it’s okay, because this movie is bigger than any of the other times you've seen this story and looks prettier.

I will say, though, that I really liked the main character. He helps the movie rise above the cliches by being a likable character with emotional motivations. He's the perfect character to experience this whole new world with.

The underlying message is cliché, unfortunately, but you do get some interesting Big Ideas that can only come from science fiction. Things about the natural of individuality. Our place in this world. Our relationship to God. You also get lots of hamfisted references to current events, like the casual tossing out of "shock and awe", that sort of thing. It would have been a much better movie if it had left those connections up to the audience.

The music was James Horner doing James Horner. The familiar echoing horns did their thing, and the music settles in to the background. I’ve decided that even though many of James Horner’s film scores sound very, very similar, it’s familiar.

All things considered, Avatar is a visual feast, with exciting action sequences and beautiful effects. Plot is mostly predictable, but forgivable because of the world building. Avatar should be seen on the big screen. The 3D was awesome, although it took a while to get used to. (I want to see it in 2d.) It was a big, epic scaled world they created, very sophisticated. It should be seen on the big screen.

I just can't wait until this technology and this level of world building is matched with an equally sophisticated story.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #26 -- Where the Wild Things Are

Here's my two word review of "Where the Wild Things Are":

Missed. Opportunity.

Yes, it had some AWESOME character design and character portrayal. The effects were amazing, and my wife was disappointed to find out that the facial effects were CGI, but it was nearly impossible to tell where digital effects began and practical effects ended.

But the movie had a weak narrative and a weak resolution. I love Spike Jonze's work, and I expected to love Where the Wild Things Are because of that. Adaptation is an amazing film that anyone who wants to be involved in any type of story telling art needs to watch. Being John Malkovich was a work of beauty, and the puppeteering scenes are breathtaking. His movies aren't traditional, and that's okay. But this movie was unsatisfying.

Where the Wild Things Are, ultimately, COULD've been a heart felt, fun, children's movie that resonated on a deep level with adults. Where the Wild Things Are, instead, was a well crafted downer of an adult therapy session working out childhood issues.

You can't deny the craft and art of this movie, but ultimately it was a MISSED OPPORTUNITY for what could have been a great movie -- a heartfelt, fun, children's movie that resonated on a deep level with adults. Instead, we're given a well crafted downer of an adult therapy session working out childhood issues.

The saddest thing about Where the Wild Things Are is that the great children's movie that could be made from the book will NEVER HAPPEN.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #25 -- Up

Three reviews in one:

PART ONE: The Movie

Up is tender, silly, touching, and fun. Like Star Trek, if you don't tear up just a little bit in the first ten minutes (or at least think about tearing up), you're a cold stone hearted freak. (Maybe a bit harsh. Sorry.) The ending also has a few moments that are emotional and lump-in-the-throat-inducing.

The movie is not a kids' movie that's good for adults as well, it's an adults' movie that's good for kids, in my opinion. It's about living and dying, letting go of the past and embracing the future. There's a scene at the beginning of what I would call act three, where the old man has to choose between his planned future and the unexpected future that was dropped in his lap that becomes one of the greatest portrayals of the concept of "you can't take it with you" that I've ever seen in a movie. (As my shop teacher used to say, "We came into this world bare bottomed, we're leaving it bare bottomed.")

I loved this movie. It may have knocked WALL*E out of the running as my favorite Pixar film. A bit scary for some kids at one point, but a fine film.


PART TWO: 3D

I saw this movie in 3D. It's the first modern movie I've seen in 3D. In fact, the only OTHER film I've seen in 3D is Michael Jackson's Captain EO. (Captain EO . . . wow, directed by Coppola, story by Lucas, starring Jackson, score by James Horner . . .)

Up was great in 3D. I thought it'd look like a Viewmaster image or something, but no. The shading and everything made it look quite realistic, as if I were looking at a stage with these actual people and settings right in front of me. It didn't feel emersive, like I was IN the action, but that's okay. It was an interesting way to see the film.

Of course, I paid for the glasses. Automatically. And then I was asked to "recycle" the glasses I just bought. I wonder, though, since I kept them, if they'd not charge me next time I went.

I'm guessing not, although I will try.


PART THREE: Partly Cloudy (the short film before Up)

Partly Cloudy was cute and short and nice. I was surprised, while watching the main feature Up, to see a few incidental thematic tie-ins with Partly Cloudy. I don't think Partly Cloudy is the best of the Pixar shorts, but it works. It's fun and has a nice resolution, story-wise. And it was a decent set up to get me ready for the main feature.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #24: Star Trek

Can't believe I took this long to post a review of Star Trek, considering I've seen the thing twice already . . . in IMAX. And the second time around it was better.

The bottom line: this is a fun, fun movie. Fun in a way that Star Trek has not been in a long, long time.

The soundtrack is simply amazing. Michael Giacchino is fast becoming one of my favorite film composers. I've always liked his Lost and Fringe music, and I enjoy his Speed Racer soundtrack. But his Star Trek score is awesome. Check it out here:



It's sweeping and bold and epic and personal. Like the movie itself.

The writers and director did a better job than they had any right doing with their two-pronged goal: create a Star Trek story that will satisfy old Star Trek fans and create a story that will satisfy people who never watched Star Trek before in their life.

Judging by the box office, they succeeded.

My new rating system is simple: Yeah or Meh. Star Trek = YEAH!!!

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #23 -- X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I didn't hate this movie as much as most people seemed to. It's a movie for people who liked the X-Men movies. Lots of X-Men characters pop up, and lots of lame plot devices and plot holes. There's some fun action, some good SFX and some bad SFX. Yeah, there's problems and BIG changes to characters and their comic book roots, but I say: "Who cares?" I walked into the theater expecting pure dreck, I walked out of the theater thinking it wasn't that bad. It wasn't that great either, mind you . . . and it won't be as good as Star Trek.

Recommendation: Non-comic fans -- see it at a dollar/second run theater; Comic fans -- stay away.

~ Ben

PS -- "Boo-hoo, they changed Deadpool," some say. I say nay! Rather, they set him up to be exactly who you want him to be if he gets a movie of his own . . .

Nano Film Review #22 -- The Spirit

All I've read of The Spirit comics are "best of" comic stories that show Will Eisner experimenting with the medium, using the pen and the page in new and unique ways to tell stories. And the stories I've read are genius. Masterpieces. A "The Spirit" movie should experiment with the cinematic canvas, and we live in a day and age where that's possible. Look at the poster and you see they way they tried to mimic Eisner's use of words and artwork to create a mood. A "The Spirit" movie should be funky dissolves and wipes and camera tracking using smoke and snow and shadow and light, so the screen and camera aren't just the tools of storytelling but become part of the story itself! With a skilled director at the helm, this could have been. Oh, there were funky dissolves and wipes and camera tracking . . . but they just didn't work.

So, instead of an homage to the spirit of Will Eisner's "The Spirit", what we end up with is an homage to Frank Miller.

All I could see in my mind while watching that movie was what could have been. All I could see on the screen was what was: a movie that tried to be many different things in one (an homage to Eisner, a parody of superheroes, a noir film, a comedy) and failed at all of them.

There were twenty people in the theater. Four got up and left in the middle of the movie. Behind me, a woman kept sighing and saying, "What?" When the film was over, I heard someone say, "That was terrible."

Me? I was just disappointed about what could have been . . .

~ Ben

Nano Film Review Recommendations: Alternatives to Delgo

So you want a fantasy movie that actually IS what Delgo wanted to be?

Here's some recommendations:

The Last Unicorn
I just discovered this film. It's beautiful. The story is interesting and satisfying, if a bit weird.

The Dark Crystal
Similar to Delgo, in that a LOT hinges on the world it creates. It's a valid criticism to say that The Dark Crystal is more style than substance, and some would say that it's a concept in search of a real story. The difference is that this creates a living world, while Delgo's world is dry and disconnected. I love this film. It's a masterpiece of puppeteering that we won't see again because of today's reliance on CGI.

Labyrinth
With Labyrinth, Henson wanted more story to go along with the world, and story-wise it works better than Dark Crystal. World-wise, not as much. Still, it's a bizzare and unique world, and once more pushed puppeteering film effects in to directions we will never be able to see the culmination of.

My Neighbor Totoro
Wow, wanna talk interesting creature and world creation? This movie is crawling with them (literally!).

The Hobbit
I've always loved this movie, since I first watched it on the black and white TV in the basement as a kid on some Saturday afternoon to when we rented it on VHS a little later to when I rewatched it as an adult on DVD. To me, Bilbo Baggins will always sound like Orson Bean.

And don't forget The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (all three versions, including the BBC version and the '70's animated version), Prince Caspian, Pan's Labyrinth (not for kids), The Lord Of The Rings trilogy (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King), along with the two other versions that were made (both interesting in their own right).

What say you?

~ Ben

Not-so-Nano Film Review #21 -- Delgo

(SPOILER WARNING. Not that you need to worry about it, since you're not really going to see this movie, are you?)

Needed to get away last night. I have a check from a script I wrote a few months ago. I hadn't been to a movie in a while.

I went to see Delgo for four reasons:

1. I'd heard about it over the years and was curious. It's had a long and tough history, struggling to find a distributor, even with an all star cast and good buzz online.
2. Wanted to see if it really was THAT bad. Couldn't be, could it?
3. Figured I'd be alone in the theater.
4. Knew it wouldn't last long in theaters.

#3 was correct. In fact, according to this article, it averaged to two people per screening last weekend. Wow. This means that #4 is also correct.

And yes, to #2, it was that bad. Mash all the annoying things from Disney movies (but leave out the awesome) with Star Wars semi-mystical mumbo-jumbo and Lord of the Rings battle scenes and you get Delgo, a movie that can't seem to figure out who its audience is or where it wants to steal its plot points from.

I hate to be harsh, but . . . man.

You've got a painfully unfunny slipstick sidekick and a dog-creature that pees on someone, juxtaposed against casual killing (the main character knocks some troll-like creatures to their death miles below, a smile on his face) and assassination and gambling addiction.

All the deaths are off screen, usually with the implication of a stabbing and then a hand falling limp, which lessens the emotional impact of a screen death for children, but also lessens the emotional impact of a screen death for the older viewers that the death was put in the story for in the first place. It happens multiple times, as well.

Add to that confusing, inconsistent character development (Delgo hates the buterfly-ish people because they killed his parents, butterfly-ish people ruin his sacred temple, but he still keeps his date with the butterfly-ish princess, has a painful Disney musical number "we're gonna put all our hopes and dreams and troubles into two or thee sentences for each other so the audience doesn't miss it" only without the music number, flirts with her, almost kisses her, and THEN remembers he's supposed the hate the butterfly-ish people -- the worst example of inconsistency).

Oh, and don't forget the (SPOILER WARNING) bad guy who got killed ten minutes before the end of the movie who turns out not to be dead ten seconds before the end of the movie, but no one noticed before he had time to crawl through not one but TWO cheering armies to get close enough to throw a spear at the heroes who are about to kiss, only so the sidekick can save the day. It's a useless scene that does nothing for the theme or story, and it's not the only scene like that.

The theme of revenge is never fully explored with the characters. It's given lip service by the mentor-character, but when (SPOILER WARNING) Delgo's new friend, a butterfly-ish warrior, is killed in front of his eyes, the killer runs away and Delgo never gets a chance to internalize and use his lesson about revenge. He smashes some tables in anger. But the filmakers are making a movie where the theme deals with revenge, and they make a point to have the murderer of Delgo's friend run away and do not let Delgo confront the theme! Then Delgo goes off to the next part of the story, and it's as if his friend's murder never happened.

Or (SPOILER WARNING -- do I need to say that?) when butterfly-ish princess confronts her mother's murderer, gives her a cool looking flying butterfly-fu kick to knock her into a deep crevice. The princess intends to kill the bad guy. It's the final climax of the movie (except the OTHER bad guy who rises from the dead ten seconds before the credits roll). The princess (the other lead character, next to Delgo) wants to kill the bad guy. Kicks the bad guy toward the crevice. But the bad guy doesn't fall down. Oh, wait, then the ground opens up beneath the bad guy. Good. The princess doesn't kill the bad guy. She wants to. She tries to. She fails. But the bad guy dies anyway. But it wasn't by the princess's hand, so that means it satisfying to us! Bad guy dies! And good princess didn't do it!

The backgrounds and creature design are awesome. The voice acting is decent (there's a big name cast . . . well, they were big names when the movie was made ten years ago). The character design is nice and expressive. Some animation is weak, but forgivable. The popcorn was okay.

Overall, Delgo is a movie that loses sight of its audience, characters, and story, though. Which is amazing, considering it had six credited writers and something like twenty story consultants. (Maybe more.) Is this an example of writing by committee? Is that why it fails to deliver? Or is it an example of a bad script that couldn't be rescued? I don't know where the blame lies. I just know this is the only time I have left a theater really wanting my money back . . . especially in this economy.

Not recommended. But you don't need me to say that. You already didn't see it.

~ Ben

PS -- I do find watching and reading bad examples of storytelling to actually be helpful to me as a writer. You can learn from seeing people do it wrong, just like you can learn from people doing it wrong.

Nano Film Review #20 -- Quantum of Solace

Casino Royale was a great James Bond movie.

Quantum of Solace is a movie with great action scenes.

Big difference.

Quantum of Solace feels like it's just an extension of the previous movie (plot-wise, it is) and a set up for the next movie. Like too many big action movies, it felt like the character moments were little more than pit stops between action sequences.

Can't say I really liked it. Can't say I really didn't. Fits nice and snugly in between. I don't recommend it, really. Maybe as a rental.

~ Ben

Nano Film review #18 & 19 -- Star Wars: The Clone Wars and WALL*E

Let's compare and contrast two science fiction CGI animated movies.

First, this:

Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Animation: pretty okay. It's stylistic, not realistic, and I've been waiting for a stylized 3D animated movie that would work. This did.

Story: pretty okay. It didn't engage me.

Characters: The "little girl" Jedi, I liked. The baby Hutt, okay. Uncle Hutt, no way. Established characters, nothing new -- which was frustrating. Since we know their futures already, it felt like there needed to be more to it. Subtext? I'm not sure. I mean, the "little girl" Jedi is going to be killed. And Anakin is going to survive the war and become evil. And the "little girl" Jedi will die because of him.

Script: I did laugh at a couple lines. I groaned about more, though.

Overall: A great big "meh". A diversion. But it's sad that Star Wars, which at one time captured my imagination and made me want to create these kind of stories, has become something so unimpressive.

WALL*E

Animation: Beautiful. Simply gorgeous.

Story: engaging, although meandering. It felt like two movies in one. Both were good, but the WALL*E story was best.

Characters: So likable. WALL*E and EVE moreso than everyone else. These are cute characters that exist in their own world and make sense and make you like them. The "stock" cute/eccentric Pixar-type characters are there as well, and they're good, although not as fun as other Pixar supporting characters.

Script: Again, beautiful. Again, I felt like I was watching two movies as the second half of the movie moved away from WALL*E to make room for a whole new cast of characters and a related but different plot. But it's totally forgivable because the characters are likable. There wouldn't have to even BE a plot, and you'd still enjoy watching these characters.

Overall: One of my favorite movies ever. If I made a list of favorite movies . . . WALL*E would be on it. Like Star Wars did years ago, WALL*E ha inspired me to create fun, engaging stories.

Two notes:

1. For a look at an energetic, engaging Star Wars: The Clone Wars, check out:

Star Wars -- Clone Wars Vol. 1
and
Star Wars -- Clone Wars Vol. 2

These collections of a handful of short animated films are fun, energetic, stylistic, and, above all, enjoyable. I love them.

2. I really wish we'd move away from the Clone Wars/Star Wars Prequel movies period of time. How awesome would it be to have Star Wars movies in this style, but featuring Luke, Han, Leia, and Chewie? The actors are still alive and while they aren't young enough to act in movies like that . . . they could do voice overs for animation!

Sorry . . . fanboy moment.

~ Ben

I know I get a tiny percentage if someone orders something from Amazon from a link I put here . . . but I'm only going to link to the movie I actually recommend . . .

Nano Film Review #17 -- Pan's Labyrinth

Just to get this in quickly, since I did the Hellboy II review . . .

Pan's Labyrinth is brutal and beautiful. Savage and whimsical. Realistic and fantastic. Not for the weak hearted, but also not for the callous hearted.

Hey! A "Nano Film Review" that lived up to it's name!

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #16 -- Hellboy II

I've been looking forward to this movie. Guillermo del Toro is a director I've come to love, mostly through his movie Pan's Labyrinth, which is a visual feast. It's also a beautiful (and horrible) statement about fairy tales and hope and all that stuff.

Hellboy II got looked over, I think, partially because of all the hubbub about Dark Knight. Heck, I looked it over. I intended to write this when it came out, but Dark Knight took my attention away.

But it deserves some recognition. Where Dark Knight was, in essence, a crime drama about a superhero (seriously, put Dark Knight up next to Heat), Hellboy II was, in essence, a High Fantasy movie about a superhero.

Seriously. Put Hellboy II up next to Lord of the Rings.

The character designs are fantasy.

The sets . . .

Heck, even the plot. They must stop the evil fairy/elf from finding the object that can raise an evil army to take over the world. Okay, I simplify it . . . but if you take the Reader's Digest version of Hellboy II and put it up next to the Reader's Digest version of Lord of the Rings . . . you're reading two Reader's Digest stories that are quite similar.

Truth be told, Hellboy II is, like Pan's Labyrinth, a visual feast.

Indeed, when the fantasy parts were the best parts. When the characters leave that world, you almost feel bad. Like you didn't want them to leave that world because you don't want to leave that world.

If you like High Fantasy and you like smart Alec superheroes and you don't mind getting a bit of peanut butter in your chocolate, check it out.

Images from Yahoo Movies.

Nano Film Review #15 -- X-Files: I Want to Believe

Did you like he X-Files TV show? Then you will like the movie, because it's just like the show.

~ Ben

Nano Film Review #14 -- The Dark Knight

I'm behind on my "reviews". Wall*E, Hellboy II, and a couple others just have to wait. Last night I saw The Dark Knight in Imax.

It. Was. Amazing.

I have to go again and see it. This is a movie that bears repeat viewings. This is a movie that Says Something. And I want to see it again.

First, the Imax stuff: it was beautiful. The last Imax movie I saw was something about the Wright Brothers at Disney or something. Just gorgeous. I'd like to see it again in Imax, but it was just happy circumstance that I found myself 20 minutes away from an Imax theater on this particular weekend. I'll not be seeing it in Imax again. But I think I want to see it on the big screen again.

This movie is a dark movie. Very dark. I'm surprised it did not get an "R" rating. I found myself squirming whenever Joker came on screen, because you never knew what he was going to do.

This movie mines the ideas of good and evil, heroes and antiheroes. And it does it well. It was a very dense movie, with a lot packed into the 2 hour 30 minute running time. And there were some cuts where you could just see they had to trim another second here or there to get it under the studio's desired running time. That's my only complaint: the movie needed some breathing space. Time not for US to breath, but for the story to breath.

Heath Ledger will not, and should not, be nominated for an Oscar. He was awesome, but it wasn't that kind of awesome.

They didn't really dig into my idea of the Two Face character: that Two Face is essentially half Batman and half Joker. I expected to see more of a tug of war between Batman and Joker over Harvey Dent. But the story that DID develop made sense for the theme they were running with.

It was a powerful film, exploring ideas in a mature way, but because of the capes and costumes, it was able to explore it in a more powerful way than had it been a "real world" action drama.

If you can see it in Imax . . . do it.

~ Ben