The Princess and the Frog

Yesterday, I finally watched Disney's calculated strategy for merchandising princesses to little black girls, The Princess and the Frog.

OK, that was pretty cynical, but listen: I'm happy for little black girls that they get to have a princess to identify with more (hey, I identified with Belle more than I did any blonde princesses) and can pester their parents to buy them the associated princess merchandise with as much enthusiasm as anybody else. Also, if looking to increase the profit margin on princess merchandise was what it took to get Disney to animate something by hand again, so be it. The question is, was it any good?

The answer is both yes and no. Let's start with no: there are quite a few moments that reek of cold calculation. At some points, you can practically hear the writers thinking, "What other 'Disney-ey' things can we put into this movie?" There's an animal who wants to be human, just like in The Jungle Book. There are animals who accidentally kiss when trying to eat, like in Lady and the Tramp. (Although the frog version here is much grosser and dumber.)

And most of all, worst of all, there are the songs. This film does not have the soul of a musical. Instead of really building toward the songs, making the songs the high points of film, it feels like it makes room for some songs because it knows there are supposed to be some. (In this case, the writers are thinking, "Oh, we can fit one in here, can't we? Probably better fit on in here.") It doesn't help that they're not very good. The heroine (Tiana) has one big musical number toward the beginning--her theme song, if you will--and it's all right. But the only one I genuinely enjoyed was the villain's crazy evil voodoo entrapment-of-the-hero hootenanny. The rest were either irritating, cyncially by-the-numbers, or both. (Example: Our Heroes find themselves a good voodoo lady, and there is of course a big musical number with dancing Busby-Berkeley-esque flamingos and whatnot. Again, they were clearly trying as hard as possible to do something "Disney-ey.")

Finally, exactly when, how, and why did the male and female leads fall in love? I cannot answer those questions. Such information was not provided by the film.

Now for the movie's yeses. It looks beautiful. Sure, all-computer animation is cool and everything, but after awhile you just start to miss things that are lovely and hand-drawn.* To be sure, computer animation is art, but animation that at least starts with hand-drawn pictures is . . . well, it's an artier art. The two songs that were not lousy looked especially good; Tiana's song is very stylized and cool and the villain's song is vibrantly creepy.

I also, to my surprise, liked many of the characters. I thought the villain was pretty cool and creepy, although I was pre-disposed to like him because Keith David did his voice. (Gargoyles forever, man!)

Wait, out of context, this picture looks kind of . . . romantic? I promise, in the movie, the prince and the villain do not start making out.

Tiana is sympathetic and relatable (and best of all, has a distinctive enough character that she'll fit beautifully into my princess quiz. And come on, the quiz is the real reason I watched the movie anyway). I enjoyed Tiana's best friend--if my calculations are correct, the first non-animal best friend a Disney princess has ever had (Tiana also has a living mom, which is almost as unprecedented)--who's flighty and shallow and pretty over-the-top . . . but in a good way? I dunno; she's funny. I like her dad, too, but mostly because he's John Goodman. John Goodman is Goodtimes.

The biggest surprise was that I really liked the frog/prince. The movie's trailer and the cheesy accent had prepared me for some unbearable "comic" relief from that character, but he's genuinely funny. Part of it is the writing, which is a little on and offbeat in a good way, and part of it is the voice actor's line readings, which are occassionally hilarious. (Characters on the "no" side include the evil lackey, mostly because his character design is just the evil butler from The Aristocats** in the body of Mr. Smee from Peter Pan;

It's simple math; it must be true.

the alligator who plays the trumpet because . . what?; the Cajun hick semi-toothless firefly because it's really just too much; and the briefly seen Cajun hick frog-hunters because they're creepy, especially the aptly named "Two Fingers." Also, as you may have picked up on, this movie is unflattering to Cajuns.)

Overall, I'd say this movie had more good than bad; it was OK in the least perjorative sense. I wouldn't want to buy it or anything, but if it's a movie that my someday-future kids wanted to watch over and over, I probably won't have to fight the urge to hurl the DVD player into the street.

That's higher praise than it probably sounds like.



*Huge tangent: the place where I do not miss hand animation is television. I've got Animaniacs on DVD, and while the writing and voice acting are still sharp, the animation is just awful, to the point of distraction. And it wasn't an outlier. Children's cartoons in the 90s were, as a group, really ugly and sloppy. Nowadays, even the most cheaply made animation, because it's done by computer, at least looks nice and neat. Consider WordGirl! (I love Word Girl.) It's on PBS, so you know the budget can't be much, but the animation, while simplistic, looks good. Something else to consider: The Simpsons. When you see a re-run, you know that if it looks bad, it will be a good episode (because it's from the earlier seasons [exception: if it looks really bad, it's from the first or second season, and those are not good]); if it looks good, it will be a bad episode (because it's from a more recent season). I miss the writing The Simpsons used to have, but it's hard to pine for sloppy hand-animation.

**The Aristocats is a terrible, awful, horrible movie. I couldn't mention it without reminding everyone of that.

ETA: I just remembered! Tiana's not the first Disney princess to have a friend. Pocahontas also has a friend, although I don't remember her name. I'm pretty sure she was boring. But then, since she's a character in Pocahontas, that's a given. Click here to read more . . .

A Few More Disney Thoughts

1. So, in my previous Disney post, when I used the phrases "watched ad nauseum" and "burned into my brain" to describe my childhood relationship to Cinderella, I spent my hyperbole too soon. I subsequently re-watched The Little Mermaid and HOLY COW. Not only could I still probably sing you every song and recite every line (with the appropriate vocal cadences and everything), but I could pinpoint words that The Little Mermaid put into my vocabulary. This was particularly true in Ursula's song "Poor Unfortunate Souls." Ursula taught seven-year-old me what "gossip" and "body language" mean. For real.

2. Pocahontas (and Pocahontas in Pocahontas) is just kind of dull. That answers the question of why my sister and I never looked into watching it ever again after seeing it in the theater.

3. Mulan doesn't get a lot of love, but I will defend it entirely. That movie is funny (not quite as funny as I thought it was when I was younger, but still funny) and interesting, visually and thematically. Verdict: much better than Pocahontas. Or Sleeping Beauty.

4. Man, Aladdin is just good. It's just a good movie. The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast have not (yet) made appearances in my re-watch-fest, but those three--like most Pixar movies--clearly qualify as Quality Cinema. Aladdin might be third out of those three, but still.

5. Watching 90's Disney movies is a much different exercise than watching Snow White. (At least, generalizing based on myself, for grownups.) How do you judge Snow White? There's a lot about it that's kind of dull or uneven, but--it was the first time somebody made a whole animated movie. It's hard to blame them for the stuff that no longer really works (the several long scenes of Comedic Dwarf Business, the extremely rapid ending) when they couldn't have known better and, moreover, when they did so much that does still work. It surprised me, for instance, how good the songs were and how ADORABLE Snow White's forest friends all are. Are those just the cutest cartoon animals ever, or what?! Click here to read more . . .

A Few Disney Thoughts

For reasons that shall become clear later, I watched both Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty today. My sister and I watched Cinderella ad nauseum when I was a child but hadn't seen it in years and years. Sleeping Beauty played a much less prominent role in my childhood--I maybe saw it once or twice? But I had seen it more recently, since I rented it out of curiosity in college.

It turned out I still had some parts of Cinderella burned into my brain: the stepsister singing "Sing Sweet Nightingale," the Cinderelly song, and Gus trying to carry too many food units* under his chin and dropping them (I think of this often, when I try to carry too many things). But I also realized some things I never did before. Namely:

1: There is NO POSSIBLE WAY they could have given Prince Charming ANY LESS to do. He stands. He bows. They dance for a little while, but do not appear to talk to each other (they sing, but it's apparently in their heads). He speaks, like three sentences when he tries to stop her from running away at midnight. (Also? Way to run slower than a girl in heels, yutz.) He doesn't even do the glass slipper tryouts himself! The only personality he ever shows is when he yawns during the every-girl-in-the-kingdom-come-and-curtsey session.

It's a good thing Cinderella is kind of dull, too. They'll be perfect together.

2: The King is hilarious! He wants grandbabies so bad! He more than matches up to stereotypical mother-of-an-adult-child-who-really-wants-said-child-to-procreate that I've ever seen. Bravo, King from Cinderella. Bravo.

As for Sleeping Beauty, the impressions I gathered from watching it the last time were confirmed. It is not good.

I'm pretty convinced that I felt this way as a child, too, and that's why I didn't want to rent it over and over and over and over and over like I did with Cinderella.

Now, I know there are many adamant Sleeping Beauty fans out there. You are all probably outraged. My reasons are these:

1: It's not well-written. Watch it with a critical eye, you'll see. It's sloppy and formless instead of structured and focused. (And why did they bring her back to the castle before sunset on her 16th birthday?!? That's 16 years of exile [and very sad parents] flushed right down the toilet.)

2: The "Good Fairies" are incredibly stupid. They are therefore very annoying. And since they're the main characters, this is problematic.

2a: So, for 16 years, they've lived without magic, presumably making clothes and food for themselves, and yet on Aurora's birthday, they totally fail to make clothes and food? Did the other two just force the little fat one to wait on them hand and foot for a decade and a half? And then as soon as they get their wands back, they have a magic fight that gives away the Secret Princess Location (not that it really matters, because the Princess left the Location before Maleficent showed up, making it--again--entirely worthless for her to have been there in the first place)? And the fight only happens because they're such idiotic children they can't compromise on dress color? SO STUPID.

2b: I didn't time it or anything, but the fairies are onscreen and carry more of the story than any other characters, up to and including Sleeping Beauty. It's The Good Fairy Movie. I think this is an example of the poor plotting I mentioned in point 1.

3: That fight at the end between Maleficent and the Prince is very boring. (When I was a kid, I'm sure I was scared by the dragon part, but I was probably bored up until then.)

In conclusion, the more I think about it, the more I hate Sleeping Beauty, and I will not apologize for that stance.


*When I was a kid, I thought they were little cubes of cheese. I didn't realize until today that they're kernels of corn. Click here to read more . . .

Micro-Genres

I've decided to steal an idea from the A. V. Club again. This week, its writers answered this question:

Do you guys have any incredibly specific micro-genres that you feel you might be the only fan in the world of?

Their answers include things like "movies about hitmen," "graphic non-fiction" (which I did not realize was a thing), and "old country and folk songs about mules."

I don't really care about superhero movies per se. But for whatever reason, I really like movies/TV shows (or the parts of movies or TV show episodes) focused on a superhero grappling with his or her secret identity. I mean, I liked My Super Ex-Girlfriend. And apparently, that's saying something. I still love Lois and Clark, because it's 75% Clark and 25% Superman. My favorite parts of Iron Man were the ones where Tony Stark interacted with his secretary, not the ones where he was building stuff and shooting things. And my favorite episodes of Darkwing Duck revolve around Drake Mallard dealing with being a parent. (What? Darkwing Duck is really good.) I'm sure there are other examples that I'm not thinking of right now, because I am a total sucker for watching the life and struggles of the meek alter ego.

Except in the Spiderman movies. I don't like those. At all, really. Click here to read more . . .

Clichés

The Onion's A. V. Club (a pop culture website that has become my go-to pop culture website now that all the funny, intelligent people have left Television Without Pity) runs a feature on Fridays where each of its contributors answers a specific question. Every week, I think "I should come up with an answer too and post on the ol' blog." And finally, this week, I have.

This week's question is "What story clichés do you actively enjoy, or at least usually find effective?"

I realized my favorite storytelling cliché right away: when the villain derisively addresses the young (and, of course, idealistic) hero as "boy." Explaining why I enjoy this is a little trickier Maybe it's because it's so effective at emphasizing the contrast between the jadedness of the villain and the innocence/vigor of the hero? Or maybe it's just because it happens so often to Luke Skywalker.

That question was a response to last week's: "If you could permanently wipe one cliché—character, plot, anything—from the future of culture, what would it be?"

I didn't realize until today that my answer would be actual tension turning into romantic tension. You know, when the male and female leads hate each other and squabble constantly, and then they're right in the middle of their biggest fight ever and BOOM! they start making out. I hate that, and I'll give you three reasons why. 1: It's been done to death. 2: It's lazy storytelling, because the writer doesn't have to show development of a relationship, they only have to write point A (fighting) and point B (totally in love!). 3: Does that ever happen in real life? My money's on no.


How about you guys? Do you have favorite and dis-favorite movie/TV/book clichés? Click here to read more . . .

Julie and Julia

Whilst we were in Tennessee, we went to see Julie and Julia. Do you want to know how it was? Well, I'll tell you.*

It was good. As most of the reviews will tell you, the Julie part (following the blogger played by Amy Adams) was not as good as the Julia part (with Meryl Streep as Julia Child and hey, looking these two descriptions, how could you think it would be?). On the other hand, I didn't think the Julie parts were as bad as most of the critics seem to. Amy Adams' character can be kind of whiny, especially at the beginning, but she's not horrible. I found those scenes to be more gently dull than aggressively annoying.

And it's worth waiting through the Julie parts to get to the Julia parts. Oh my gosh you guys, Meryl-Streep-as-Julia-Child is so charming and so endearing and so precious. And funny. Every time she was on screen, it wasn't just me that was happy--it was obvious that everybody in that theater was delighted. She and Stanley Tucci are also adorable together. (One funny thing is, since Meryl Streep isn't really that tall a lady, they obviously both put her in enormous heels and cast the shortest people they could find for all of her scenes.)

The most startling thing about the movie was this: the theater was full at noon on a Wednesday. Why? Because it was packed, packed I tell you, with people of retirement age. Never have I seen this large a number, let along this large a proportion, of people in their sixties or over at a movie. Julia Child is apparently a rockstar for people forty years older than me.

Now, I'm not saying it's great cinema or anything--even in the Julia Child parts, there were subplots that were pointless and went nowhere. But on its own terms (as a romantic comedy, with romances between Mr. and Mrs. Child, Mr. and Mrs. Bloggerton [I can't remember her last name] and the one-way deep and abiding love of Julie for Julia), it's sweet and funny and a nice way to spend a couple of hours.


*Please understand that even though "Well, I'll tell you" looks like a perfectly normal combination of words, in my head it is said with the cadence of Terry Jones as Prince Herbert as he kicks off the song about how he survived his fall from the tower of Swamp Castle. Yeah. Click here to read more . . .

Braveheart Was Somewhat Dumber Than I Remembered

To prepare to write about Edward I and Scotland, I decided I needed to re-watch Braveheart. Fun fact: Braveheart was the first R-rated movie I ever saw. (My mom rented it for me on VHS and then told me when to cover my eyes for the dirty and/or violent parts [and thanks to Braveheart's battle-buttockery, there actually was a point to which both "dirty" and "violent" applied].) But I hadn't seen it since, so last week I checked me out a copy from the library.

As the title of this post indicates, it was somewhat dumber than I remembered. And I'm not even counting what might be the most obvious dumb thing: William Wallace impregnating the Princess of Wales. In fact, that I enjoyed for its soap operatic hilariousness. I also tried to mostly ignore timeline difficulties--for instance, in the year the real Wallace died, 1305, Isabella of France (whom the fictional Wallace knocked up) was not yet married to the future Edward II. Or living in England. And she was ten years old. But again, oh well. Here are the main things that did bother me:

#4: Some of the battles (particularly the first one in that village right after the English kill Mrs. Braveheart) are just Monty Pythonesque in the hilariously untenable ways that Scottish dudes kill English dudes.

#3: The whole "primae noctis" thing--besides the fact that it never existed--has no point in the narrative. Wallace claims near the end of the movie that it was the reason he and Mrs. Braveheart hid their marriage, but that's not true. They hid it because her father disapproved of him. Remember? The beginning of the movie? When her father disapproved of him?

#2: "Freedom!"? Really? When serfdom was in full swing? That battle cry would have been beyond meaningless to those destitute Scottish dirt farmers.

#1: Wallace wins Isabella over for good by revealing that Longshanks did, like, bad stuff. Like when he took over cities, he'd like, kill people. This was the only part of the film that actually made me angry, because it was the Fourteenth Century. This was hundreds of years before they stopped chopping criminals up and hanging the bits up around major towns. How could Isabella possibly have been shocked and appalled by the fact that bad things happened in wars when she would have seen rotting decapitated heads every time she went anywhere in London? COME ON.

The way things really were is showcased in the execution scene, where everybody brings their kids down to have a fun day watching a man die an excruciating death. Now that was how people rolled in the Middle Ages. Click here to read more . . .

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince: The Movie!

Non-spoilers:

I really liked it. I hate to inflate people's expectations about things, because it's always a bummer when something isn't as good as you think it's going to be even if it's still good on its own merits. However, I have to admit that this is my new favorite Harry Potter movie. Yes, it has unseated Azkaban. It's scary, it's funny, it's sad . . . it's really good.

The biggest complaint about the movie in reviews (although the reviews are generally favorable) is that it doesn't have much of an independent plot; it's just sort of marking time before the end. And that's fairly true. On the other hand, is it actually a problem? As they pointed out on this podcast, this movie assumes that the viewer knows what's going on. It doesn't spend any time re-acquainting you with the characters, recapping what happened at the end of the last movie, or explaining concepts to you. It just does its Harry Potter thing, because if you have any desire to know what's going on, then you already do. So why is it problematic to have a movie that just moves the overarching story along?

The acting is the best it's been so far. Emma Watson toned it down (which is a good thing); Daniel Radcliffe is very good and at times very, very funny; Jim Broadbent surpassed my expectations as Slughorn--he was a treasure; and Neal liked second Dumbledore a lot more in this one (although I've always liked second Dumbledore, so I didn't really notice a difference). Oh, and the girl who plays Ginny very nearly almost gave her character a personality, which is an improvement.

On a more general note, there are always Harry Potter book fans who complain that they cut to much out of the movies. This, in my view, is as useless as complaining that you went to see the movie at the theater and it was just too loud. There are some obvious constants about movies and one is this: there can't be as much in there as there is in a book. There can't.

For instance, the most exact book-to-movie/TV adaptation I can think of is How the Grinch Stole Christmas. You know, the good one. The cartoon Grinch is basically identical to the movie Grinch (well, except for the songs). So a half-hour of film basically translates into 64 pages . . . that are mostly filling with drawings. And you think, you really think, that people would be able to make an under three-hour film out of a 652-page book without cutting huge swathes of it out? That's entirely unrealistic.

I think they did a pretty good job deciding what to and what not to cut, but I'll go into more detail on that below.

Spoilers, or at least specifics, follow after the break.




As to the cutting: the central plot of the book, in my view, is Harry's learning about Voldemort. There's very little (proportionally speaking) of that in the movie. I think they had to decide whether it was going to be a movie about Voldemort, with Harry in a passive role, or whether it was going to be about Harry doing stuff, even though that part isn't as cohesive. And I can't fault them for choosing the latter--after all, it's a Harry Potter movie. On the other hand, I can't say I would have made the same choice, especially considering how important Harry's knowledge of Voldemort becomes in the final book. I assume that will make the last two movies trickier to handle, but we'll just have to find out.

One book-to-movie difference that stood out was in Dumbledore's last stand--in the book, Dumbledore magically paralyzes Harry to keep him from intervening in the fight; in the movie, Harry just stands there of his own volition. It seemed a little troubling, EXCEPT! The reason Harry ends up not doing anything right there at the end is because Snape comes up and indicates that Harry should be quiet, as if assuring Harry that he's going to take care of everything. Harry's confidence in Snape is boosted at the moment because Dumbledore had just told him to go get Snape, that Snape's was the only help he, Dumbledore, wanted. And this means that for Harry, when Snape kills Dumbledore, there's an extra level of Snape betrayal. And that's pretty awesome.

So, my favorite part (at least on first viewing) was when Harry and Hermione were at the Slug Club dinner and Slughorn is asking Hermione what her parents do; she's like "They're dentists" and all the other wizards have a look of "smuh?" on their faces, while Daniel Radcliffe, over at the side of the shot, looks like, "Yeah, awesome. Dentists!" That doesn't describe it very well, but seriously. He was so funny right there. (The rest of the dentist conversation is also a hoot.)

Of course, Radcliffe was even funnier in the Felix Felicis scene. That's probably my favorite scene in the book, and I was surprised that the movie managed to live up to it. OH MAN. SO FUNNY.

And one final word on the greatness of Jim Broadbent--I didn't like Horace Slughorn in the book. He was a weasel. But Broadbent managed to incorporate the weasellyness, mix it with the timidity that is also present in book-Slughorn, and produce a Horace Slughorn that is not just sympathetic, but actually loveable. I loved him. And Broadbent is such a good actor--you could never confuse Slughorn with, say, Bridget Jones's dad, not because of hair or makeup, but just because of the way the actor held his face to play the part. He's SO GOOD.

Well, I know I'm forgetting tons of stuff, but I'll just wrap it up here. Suffice it to say, I really, really liked this movie.
Click here to read more . . .

Today!

If I were harder-core (or if I didn't have to go to work this morning), I would have gone to see Harry Potter last night at midnight. I did see HP #s 3 and 4 at midnight, but then summer before last, by the time Neal and I went to go buy midnight tickets, they were sold out. (It was like 3 in the afternoon.)

But we are going to see it this afternoon! Huzzah! Perhaps I will even post my review of the movie later today. But really, this post is just an excuse to again post this, one of my favorite internet pictures.


Yaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy! Click here to read more . . .

Pixar!

One of the least disputable opinions about entertainment today is that Pixar is awesome. Have you met anybody who thinks Pixar movies are lame? I haven't. They are meticulously made works of art, designed to amuse and provoke thought in audiences of all ages--with very few exceptions (well, one, as I will mention below), they succeed.

(I have found something that bothers me a little about Pixar movies overall, though. It occurred to me when I was watching A Bug's Life and the girl ant swoops in and saves the boy ant but then the boy ant immediately thinks of the plan that will save everyone!, and it's this: Pixar's never done a movie with a female lead. It's not like they don't have strong/admirable female characters, but ten movies and no girl/woman main character? That's fairly weak sauce. I guess it's probably just because fewer than one out of ten people working at Pixar are ladies [just a theory, based on the list of people who've been the lead writers and directors of them], but still. C'mon.)

Of course, there are better Pixar movies and not-as-better ones, so I've decided to rank them. Anyway, here they all are, in order of how good (I think) they are. Saving the best for last:

#10: A Bug's Life
I hadn't seen this one 'til a few weeks ago--I realized it was the only Pixar movie I hadn't seen, and I needed to watch it if I were to make this list complete. And it turned out that that was the only good reason to see it.

I'm not saying it's a bad movie. I am saying that it's thoroughly mediocre. The lead characters are fairly dull; the supporting characters are too numerous, and none of them get more than one note to hit; and the dialogue is completely uninspired. It was just pretty boring. It's the only Pixar movie I can think of that seems more aimed at kids than it is at everybody.

Still, the craftsmanship in the animation is, as always, top notch. I particularly liked the movie's use of water. I know that's a weird compliment, but I really dug it. The bugs are all small enough that they can deal with little blobs of water and just carry them around. (Thanks, surface tension!) And then at the end there's this big rainstorm, which drives everybody into a panic, because raindrops are so big, relatively speaking, that it's like watery bombs dropping from the sky. That was cool and obviously well thought-out.

#9: Cars
I was under the impression that Cars was a big hit until I saw the box office, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes numbers on Wikipedia. Sure, it's still a big hit by normal standards, but it's the lowest rated Pixar movie by far in the MC/RT percentages (Metacritic is made up of ratings given by regular people; Rotten Tomatoes is a compilation of critics' opinions), and lower than any but Pixar's earliest two films in box office gross. This aligns with my personal opinion of it--I think it's only OK/pretty unremarkable--but I was surprised because I get the impression that this was a huge, huge hit with little kids. It seems like everybody on the internets who has a little boy watches Cars every day and buys the boy(s) tons of tie-in merchandise. This is probably why they're making a sequel to this one when only Toy Story had so far rated a second (and soon a third) chapter.

I find this movie unsettling because, unlike other Pixar features, it is set in a world with no logical relation to our own. All the others are fantasy-tied-to-reality: what if bugs/fish/toys/rats had complex societies and inner lives? What if superheroes/monsters were real? What might happen in the future? But Cars isn't like that. It's more "what if cars had eyes and mouths for some reason and existed indepently of any sort of creators and there were no humans anywhere in sight even though car geography, morality, and language was identical to our own?" It's just weird, is my point.

Also, as a person from a small town, I have some pretty strong opinions about the movie's message that small towns are morally superior and that convenient interstate travel is evil, but I should probably move on.

#8: Ratatouille

(I'm not trying to insult Ratatouille with its eighth ranking. I'm not thinking of it as third-worst, just as the one that there happen to be seven above.)

I never quite know how to feel about this one. If A Bug's Life seems uniquely unappealing to adults, this is the one that I can't imagine really speaking to children. I could be wrong--I've never watched it with a child, after all. I know there's a fair amount of action-adventure rat peril in it, but my lasting impression of it is as a fairly quiet film about cooking and about how dreams and aspirations are admirable, but don't always come true (at least in the ways you think they will).

My one quibble with Ratatouille is this: it's apparently a maxim in storytelling (or moviemaking? I keep trying to find the place I recently saw this and can't) that you can get the audience to take one leap with you but not two. This film asks you to take the leap that rats are sentient. OK, not a problem. Then it asks you to also accept that a rat can control a human, marionette-style, by yanking on the human's hair. Maybe this doesn't bother anybody else, but it does me.

Again, I'm not saying this is a bad movie. I've only seen it once, but I'm glad I did. It's a very good movie--just not as good as others like, say,

#7: Finding Nemo

I expect people to disagree with me for putting Nemo this low. I'm not saying it's not really-super-good. It is. It's sweet, it's action-packed, it's fun to look at. It has the whole package.

I don't think it would be nearly as good without Dory, though. Dory really sets this movie apart. She's so fun!

#6: WALL-E

I like WALL-E, but not nearly as much as everybody else does. The prevailing opinion seems to be that it was super innovative and creative that they sustained interest in those wordless scenes at the beginning. But I was raised on old-school Looney Tunes (and the lesser cartoons like Tom and Jerry), and I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of wordless cartoons. WALL-E's wordlessness was well done, to be sure, but it's not like it had never been done before.

WALL-E and his pet cockroach are adorable, EVE is ok, the fat helpless humans are pretty entertaining, the Fred Willard cameo is great, and the outer space stuff was really fun to watch, but I just didn't find any of it earth-shattering.

This is what it boils down to: one of my measures of whether a movie is great is if, when I leave the theatre, I keep thinking about and want to keep talking about the move I just saw. (For instance, you could not get me to shut up about Star Trek a few weeks ago.) A great movie should be the subject of conversation for the whole dinner afterward and/or the whole car ride home. When I saw WALL-E, I basically thought, "Oh, that was nice," and I was done.

#5: Toy Story

I will fully admit that my placement of this one so high is probably influenced at least in part by nostalgia. This is the only Pixar movie that came out when I could be classified as a kid (I was twelve, and "tweens" hadn't been invented yet) and, you know, it was the first of its kind.

I haven't seen it for awhile, but I'm reasonable sure it would still hold up. It's very funny (what with the tiny green aliens and the neurotic dinosaur and all). But it's not quite as good as--

#4: Toy Story 2

Is it some sort of heresy to think that Toy Story 2 is better than the original? I don't care if it is. Toy Story 2 is, as the kids (that is, the kids ten or fifteen years ago) say, "da bomb." Four things that make me prefer it to the first one: 1) it's more epic. It covers more space and more time (I'm thinking of the very old "Woody's Roundup" TV show and the flashback to let's say the 7os when Jessie was owned by a little girl) than the first. 2) it's more touching. It's a good thing that this one didn't come out when I was a kid, because I was worried enough about the feelings of my toys. That's why the whole melancholy theme of children growing up and abandoning their anthropomorphic playthings really gets to me. 3) Woody's not a jerk. I prefer rooting for characters that are likeable, and Woody is fairly unlikeable in the first one. Yes, I know he's dealing with a lot of stress what with Buzz upstaging him and all, but he could have calmed down a little. Finally 4) Riders in the Sky music. Always good times on its own merits and, as far as I'm concerned, far preferable to Randy Newman. Randy Newman is kind of my enemy, guys.

#3: Monsters, Inc.

I love this movie. It's just so cute. It's the cutest movie ever. Fuzzy monsters? Adorable toddler? SO CUTE.

Its one flaw (by my count) is the ending. Spoiler alert here, I guess. I can't help feeling like the very very end, where it turns out that Mike rebuilt Boo's door for Sully, so he could go back and see her after all, is tacked on/a cop out. I know it was supposed to be mean that Sully wasn't allowed to see her anymore, but it also made sense. It is better if human kids don't end up in the monster world (what with their causing of blackouts just by a fit of laughter), and the human world isn't ready for monsters. Also, what kind of relationship does Sully expect to have with this kid? They can't really hang out, because that would involve Sully just hanging around in her room (with a high probability of her parents coming in at some point and freaking out), or Boo being missing from her room for long stretches of time (which, by the way, means that Boo's parents knew she was kidnapped while she was in Monsteropolis, and there had to have been police looking for her, candle light vigils, who knows what. No way her parents are going to be lax keeping an eye on a kid that got mysteriously kidnapped for a day or two). Also, shouldn't Sully get married to some monster lady and have his own kids? He obviously has a large capacity for fatherly love, and he should use it on somebody who lives in his own dimension.

Similarly, I hope they don't make a Monsters, Inc 2. Partly because the whole Boo part of the story would be weird, but mostly because I doubt they could improve on the original. The nature of story (with the big paradigm change in how monsters relate to human children) wouldn't be conducive to a sequel.

#2: Up

Great! I'll try not to give anything away since it's new. Let's just say it's funny and also very sad. It's lovable and visually lovely. Five stars.

I agree with what Craig said on Facebook--3D wasn't worth the extra money. I wanted to see the 3D version because I'd never seen a 3D movie before. And the format was well-suited to the film, what with all the height and depth. However, I had a headache going in and the 3D did not help. Terrible call to see a 3D movie with a headache, that's my helpful tip.

#1: The Incredibles
This isn't just one of the best animated movies ever; it's one of the greatest movies ever. It's smart, it's funny, it's action-packed, it's thoughtful . . . it's amazing.

The thing about it that has always struck me (and most of you who read this blog have probably heard me say this before, but oh well) is the dynamics of the family. I first saw The Incredibles right after I took a class on "the sociology of marriage," and the writers of the film may well have read some of my textbooks. The way that Bob and Helen relate to each other, speak to each other, divide up their responsibilities; and the way that the kids and parents interact with each other . . . it's incredibly nuanced, sensitive, and true to life. It's the most accurate representation of a typical American family I've ever seen on film.

The voice acting is also just spot on. I mean, who knew that Craig T. Nelson was such a good voice actor (or such a good actor, full stop)? I didn't. Holly Hunter and Jason Lee are also particularly awesome. And then professional history nerd Sarah Vowell is good, largely because her funny little grown-woman voice is well-suited to playing an awkward teenage girl.

And that's just the nerdy stuff. All the regular stuff--the action, the jokes, the characters, how good it looks--that's all top-notch too.

Man, I have definitely got to watch The Incredibles again.

Click here to read more . . .

Movie Ratings

The more specific the MPAA gets about why a movie has received a certain rating, the more hilarious it gets.

I was looking on Fandango to try to figure out what movie I might like to see tomorrow (any suggestions?)

OK, they're not always specific--Confessions of a Shopaholic is rated PG because of "some mild language and thematic elements"
Thematic . . . elements? Are they warning us that there might be an 8th grade English quiz at the end? For which we need to identify the protagonist, an example of foreshadowing, and some elements of theme?
(Also, wouldn't it be great if the raters got to put statements of value in there too? Like, "Mild language, thematic elements, and also this movie is clearly terrible.")

Frost/Nixon gets an R just for "some language." The real reason is probably more like "the producers wanted an R rating because those are the only films that get taken seriously. Also, kids don't want to watch this. C'mon."

But most films seem to get a whole laundry list of naughtiness. Take Taken (R): "intense sequences of violence, disturbing thematic material, sexual content, some drug reference"

Push's PG-13 (oh, and I totally forgot that this movie existed) is for "intense sequences of violence and action, brief strong language, smoking and a scene of teen drinking"
But . . . is the teen also smoking? And, see? That's a lot more stuff than Frost/Nixon.

But the reason I wrote this post at all is that the description for Fired Up cracked me up entirely: "crude and sexual content throughout, partial nudity, language and some teen partying"
I think it's the idea of some stuffy movie rater primly declaring that we need to be warned about "some teen partying" that gets me. Click here to read more . . .

Guilty Displeasures, Pt. 2: The Neal File

And now, for my inaugural post on our blog, my top three guilty displeasures:

3. Peanuts:

Man, do I feel bad about this one. Most people I know seem to have real great memories of growing up with Charlie Brown and the gang. Watching the holiday specials, reading the Sunday comic strips, and enjoying Charlie's endless humiliation as he never, ever gets to kick the football. Though I do remember watching the Christmas special when I was a kid, I just. don't. get. it. The comic strip was never funny (at least none that I ever read) and really, the whole thing was always pretty depressing. Charlie is always sad and run-down, that one kid always stinks, and Linus clings desperately to his security blanket as the only source of existential comfort in the children's bleak, disjointed world. In other words, it just isn't any fun. I feel bad about it, but . . . meh.



2. Baseball:



Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of baseball. Watching James Earl Jones tell Mr. and Mrs. America what baseball has meant to their country gets me choked up every time. And nothing, nothing can make a grown man cry faster than this:



And yet, I've just never been able to get excited about the sport itself. Part of the problem is that I was always more of a basketball kid than a baseball kid. If I had never met my Dad, I would build a basketball court in my cornfield, so he could come back to life and and play me in HORSE. Hey, this script writes itself . . .

1. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory:

Oh no, I don't even mean the Tim Burton remake. I mean the original Gene Wilder crowd- pleaser. Bring on the hate. I don't even feel bad about this one. I hate, hate, HATE everything about this movie. I hate that Charlie works all day to support his allegedly invalid grandparents, but guess what? When Charlie finds a ticket to tour a magical chocolate factory, suddenly Gramps is feeling young and spry! I hate that an eccentric billionaire candy-maker invites children into his own personal Neverland ranch and tortures them for two hours. I hate that he plays some seriously-twisted mind games with Charlie to determine if he is worthy to take over the factory. What a terrible, terrible movie.

Click here to read more . . .

Chronicling Me Some Narnia, Part 3

I found this out a while back from Television Without Pity, but I wasn't excited to write about it because it's a bummer. Disney has dumped the Narnia series. Something about blah, blah, blah, hard economic times. Whatever. Maybe The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wouldn't be the biggest movie of summer 2010, but it would make you money.

There's some hope, I guess, that a different studio will pick up the project, but as those links indicate, the timeframe is tight. They only have the actors locked in for a certain amount of time.

Here's the thing: Dawn Treader would be a totally kickin' movie. (This lady agrees.) It's a nice mix of cohesive plot and episodic adventures (they're on a sea voyage to the end of the world, but they land on various strange and mysterious islands). They meet lots of interesting characters and, since it's Narnia, learn Important Lessons.

Plus, this is the book where C.S. Lewis discovered that children could have personalities! It features Annoying Cousin Eustace (the snotty British child you love to hate!), who has his own redemption arc within the plot.

After seeing Prince Caspian last summer, I gave some thought to the potential of each of the remaining Narnia books as films. Dawn Treader tops the list, I have to say. It's definitely better raw material than Caspian was; it would need less tweaking.

The Silver Chair would be tricky. (Also, even Disney's original deal only covered the first three movies.) By book 4, all the Pevensies are out of the picture--it stars Redeemed Cousin Eustace and his friend Jill. Jill could be fun, though. I like Jill. It would be a darker film, however. The main characters spend most of their time isolated, much of it on a cold, desolate landscape, and most of the rest in a miserable underground kingdom. And their adventure isn't fun like in Dawn Treader. It just wouldn't be as enjoyable to watch.

Then there's The Horse and His Boy. This is my favorite of all the Narnia books, but I don't know if that's a widely shared opinion. One thing I like about it is that it's the deepest you delve into Narnia--it's from the point of view of people who are from and live in that world. The Pevensies appear, but it's something of a mid-quel to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, since it takes place when the Pevensies are all grown up and ruling Narnia. The main characters aren't anybody you meet in any other books, but they're interesting and likeable. There's fun, there's happiness, there are pretty locations, and there's even some glitz (what with the royalty and all). I think it would be a lovely movie, but it might not be what audiences are looking for from a Narnia film.

The Magician's Nephew might be the best book qua book of the series, now that I think about it. This is the deepest you delve into the real world; it's the story of the professor from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe back when he was a kid. We see him interact with his family (his uncle is kind of evil!) and everything. Then he and his friend Polly go to a couple different planes of reality, and then they see the very creation of Narnia. I can't decide whether his alternate-reality adventures would be really cool or just too weird on film. Either is possible.

Then there's The Last Battle. I flat out do not know how they would make this a movie or, if they managed it, how they'd get anybody to watch. Most of it is just creepy and dark and unpleasant. (I remembered when I re-read it recently why I had only read it once before. It's not any fun.) Redeemed Cousin Eustace and Friend Jill show up to help the King of Narnia try to save the kingdom/world, but . . . well, they fail. They lose and Narnia is destroyed and then everybody dies. Even the Pevensies. But then everybody gets to go to Heaven (except for Susan, because she's a slut now? Or something?), so they're totally stoked about having died. Which makes sense with Christian theology--after your earthly life, you get to kick it in this fantastic place and hang out with Asla--I mean, Jesus forever, and it will be awesome. Nevertheless, it would be a hard sell in a kid's movie. The whole package is just not feasible as a summer blockbuster.

So basically, my guess is that even if somebody rescues Dawn Treader, there might not be any more made. I'll certainly take whatever I can get, though. Click here to read more . . .

Get Smart. Or Don't.

Here's the deal: Get Smart isn't funny. And it doesn't have much to do with Get Smart, in any other way, either. It's pretty much just a regular ol' spy movie with some regular ol' jokes in it. This person who is named Maxwelll Smart is just some guy who's pretty nice and pretty humble and a fairly competent spy (except for a couple sequences where he hurts himself in not particularly funny ways), and he fails to be oblivious, which is the real Maxwell Smart's central character trait.

But, again, the main problem is that the movie just isn't that funny. Alan Arkin as the Chief? Not funny. The main villain and his sidekick? Not funny. Anne Hathaway's Agent 99 isn't funny. Not-even-thinly veiled President Bush isn't funny.The CONTROL nerds and the CONTROL jocks: slightly funny. Big scary villain henchman--a tiny bit funny, near the end. Steve Carell as Maxwell Smart has some funny moments, but he averages out at sort of funny. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson isn't all that funny, but I continue to find him really likeable, so that's something. And . . . I've run out of characters.

Another way to put it is that the movie Get Smart is just a waste of time. I haven't seen them yet, but my bet is that if you're looking for an excuse to eat popcorn while sitting on a cupholder-adjacent chair in the air conditioning, Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E or maybe The Incredible Hulk** would be better ways to go.

**Admittedly, I'm only tempted by the Hulk movie because of its tenuous connections to Iron Man. Apparently I only like to write about movies that I dislike, because I never wrote anything about Iron Man, which I LOVED. Seriously, LOVED IT. And not even in the way I loved Live Free or Die Hard, but loved in it a "This is some quality, lovingly-crafted cinema!"-type way.

Click here to read more . . .

Indiana Jones and the Sparkling MacGuffin

The gentleman caller escorted me to Indiana Jones: Episode IV last night. Luckily, my expectations were low, so I thought it was . . . ok. (If I had expected it to be good, I would have been disappointed. This is why low expectations are so great!) Now, " . . . ok" (which is a couple of steps below plain "ok") is its average score.

The beginning was just barely not-terrible. Barely. It was clunky and dumb and the effects weren't that good and the acting was ridiculous. Also, Cate Blanchett's character is pretty stupid, and that takes some getting used to. And so does her accent--she's supposed to be Russian, but during those first few scenes I thought, maybe she's supposed to be a Russian who's trying to sound English? Or something? I came close to laughter that the movie did not intend quite a few times.

Also, I realize it's an Indiana Jones movie, so I need to suspend me some disbelief. But seriously, Indy should have died a good five times over. In the first fifteen minutes. (If you think I'm being a stickler and you haven't seen the movie yet, watch it and then tell me I'm wrong.)

After the first handful of scenes, it does get better. I started to feel like everything just might turn out all right once Janitor showed up as an FBI agent. (My gentleman caller and I have been watching far more Scrubs than is healthy for the human mind, so we were both pretty psyched about that cameo. And then Mr. Meade showed up, too! That scene was good times.)

The movie didn't really pick up though until about the time Shia LaBeouf showed up. I assure you: this is a coincidence. I'm not saying Shia is bad in this movie. There was no point at which I wanted his character to be impaled by a spike or anything! But . . . it's not that Shia LaBeouf is a charisma-free zone. It's just that charisma is a little thin on the ground there. This isn't all his fault; the character isn't written to be interesting. He really only has one consistent character trait (SPOILER: it's combing his hair).

The middle of the movie, the bulk of it, is pretty good. It's not great cinema, of course, but it's entertaining. Why, there are points when it even approaches rollicking. It was, for the most part, very enjoyable. Except for one of the stupidest scenes I've witnessed in a major motion picture outside Zoolander. Oh man, you guys. It's so stupid. In fact, I'll describe it at the bottom of this post with a spoiler tag in front of it, for those of you who are curious.

The ending, unfortunately, is not so good. It's not as badly done as the first part; it's just pointless. I don't think it's a spoiler to tell you that there's massive destruction at the end of this movie, because it's an Indiana Jones movie. But in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade (I've never seen even little bits of the second one, I have to admit), there's a concrete reason that makes sense within the story why the destruction takes place. With this one, not so much. The underlying problem is that the over-arching quest of the movie just isn't very well thought-out. Or cool.

For that reason above all others, it just felt like the script should have gone through another draft. It could have and should have been more cohesive and had fewer plot holes. Again, I realize Indiana Jones isn't supposed to be high art, but the plot holes! They gape.

In conclusion, don't feel bad about waiting until the DVD for this one. As I mentioned, the special effects aren't quite up to the 2008 standard, so you won't be missing out by settling for the small screen. And if you do go see it at the theater, remember my magic ingredient: low expectations.

*SPOILER

So, there's a chase through a jungle, naturally. Shia somehow gets thrown up in the trees and entangled in some vines and what does he see there? Why, it's a monkey. And not just any monkey, but a monkey with Shia's stupid greaser hairdo. (No, really.) Then Shia starts swinging from vine to vine (more lame special effects) a la cartoon Tarzan. And he is accompanied by dozens upon dozens of greaser monkeys. I hope this sounds as lame as it was on the screen.

Click here to read more . . .

History + Fiction = ?

I have a problem with historical ficiton. Not a moral problem or anything; I'm ok with the existence of historical fiction, I certainly don't mind other people reading it. I just have never been able to bring myself to do it.

There's just too much fiction and not enough history, for my taste. I can see needing to use fiction to fill in the gaps of what we just can't know, but what actually happened is often so interesting that I don't understand why writers need to change around major stuff.

Like Anne Boleyn. I don't know why you need to make stuff up in order to make her life more suitable for the big screen. Admittedly, I haven't read The Other Boleyn Girl, so I'm not an authority on What Its Deal Is.

I am somewhat intrigued, though. In fact, as far as the movie goes, I was sold until about the 1:45 mark of the trailer (Then my condition was downgraded from Sold to Intrigued):



I think I want to see it, even though the innacuries may, at the end of the day, just annoy me.


Speaking of intrigued, but in more of a confused way--there's some miniseries next month, Comanche Moon? And it's a Western? And it's all gritty and whatnot? And . . . Steve Zahn is in it? I don't get it, Steve Zahn. I don't get it. Click here to read more . . .

The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass didn't do as well as it was supposed to this weekend. USA Today thinks it's because of the antipathy of religious groups. And I suppose that's possible. But it also could be because it probably, you know, sucks.

If it were getting good reviews, I--for instance--would totally go see it. Sure, the author is some sort of atheist, but any atheists who decided to boycott The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe missed out on a pretty sweet movie.

But then, of course, that movie was actually good, and not (as The Golden Compass apparently is) all talky exposition and no character development.

I just don't think that a movie should get let off the hook for being lousy just because "those darn Christians are riled up again!" I guess we'll see if it holds up in final analysis. It would be like that time people decided Fran should be fired for the amoral email newsletter, making everyone forget that he should have been fired for being a lousy coach.

Click here to read more . . .

A Movie I'm Not Interested in Seeing, Anyway

I finally put my finger on what bothers me about Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story.

Unlike the parodic movies I'm used to seeing (OK, using to seeing . . . previews for), it's not a parody of a genre of movie, but rather a parody of one specific movie.

I suppose you could argue that a lot of movies, both big screen and tv, follow the same sort of arc of an entertainer's career, but this is clearly just Walk the Line: But Funny! Isn't that a lot of trouble to go to, to make an entire feature film that makes fun of one other feature film? (Admittedly, I might be defensive because I enjoyed Walk the Line so much. [Note to self: I should watch Walk the Line again.])

What is does have going for it it's that it's Judd Apatow (I had assumed it was in the Adam McKay/Will Ferrel family of movies, I guess because it stars That One Guy). I have really liked his movies--especially Knocked Up (if you haven't seen it, it's seriously very very good)--but this one looks dubious.

In other movie news, one parodic movie that I am increasingly tempted to go see . . . is Enchanted. I know, I know, but think about it: how long has it been since Disney was really turning out princess movies? I guess Cinderella/Snow White is as princessy as it can get, but I would say that the most recent princessing up at Disney was in the Little Mermaid/Beauty and Beast era, in a time when I was exactly the right age to be extremely enthusiastic about Disney princesses. And, since you can't really enjoy a parody without familiarity with its fodder, I woudl argue that Enchanted is actually aimed at me. (Not just me, but you see what I mean.) Also? The bicycles are still funny:

Click here to read more . . .

A Review of Amistad

Well, I know this movie came out 10 years ago (really!)--and for that matter, I got it from Netflix over a month ago--but I just got around to seeing it tonight. So here goes:

This is a pretty good movie. Turns out, Matthew McConaughey could act. I was surpised. Overall, it's a bit of a downer--what with it being about slavery and all--but it definitely has its moments.

Of course, part of the reason I like it is because of my avowed status as a history nerd. If you don't enjoy jokes at Martin Van Buren's expense, for example, you might not appreciate the movie quite as much. Which would be a shame, because there's a lot of mileage in making fun of Martin Van Buren.

Ooh, and then there's the whole reason I really wanted to see this movie: John Quincy Adams, baby! It's not every day that you come across a film featuring our sixth president in a major role. And he is played by none less than Anthony Hopkins. However, although Sir Anthony is a very fine actor, he does contribute to some of the unintentional humor of the film when on some occasions he seems to be giving JQA an Irish accent. Also, I think that when he asked the director what his motivation was, the director said something along the lines of, "OK, picture this: you're an old coot."

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit it's a very talk-y movie (Blah blah blah freedom, blah blah blah executive branch shouldn't boss around the judicial, blah blah blah legal system loopholes, etc.). However, the movie opens with some good old-fashioned stabbing, so . . . something for everyone! I mean, I'm no Matthew McConaughey fan usually, but even I have to admit that he's pretty endearing with his charmingly twee glasses and white man's afro.

In short, 7 out of 10. Or B+. Whichever you prefer.

(I know that a 70% doesn't equate to a B+; I also don't care.)

Click here to read more . . .

A Review of Shrek the Third

I went and saw Shrek the Third today with my gentleman caller. I made sure to read plenty of reviews (well, one thing that showed up on my Google News, in addition to the valuable resource that is Rotten Tomatoes), so I didn't set my expectations very high.

Here's the scoop: for a kids' movie, it's fine. It's solidly OK. There are some amusing gags--the seven lines John Cleese has are quite entertaining, and there are some ADORABLE ogre babies [no image available].

For a Dreamworks movie, it's pretty lackluster.

For a Shrek movie, it's--well, it's unacceptable.

I'm a big Shrek fan, as you may know. I love Shreks 1 and 2 (I remember them especially fondly for when they got me through my second throwing-out-my-back episode). They're so good. And 3 just isn't. The plot(s) are thin, the new characters are annoying, the old characters are cliches, and the storytelling is heavy-handed. And you know what? There are barely any pop culture references. I mean, it's a Shrek movie! You'd think if they were going to boil it down to anything, it would be a string of movie take-offs. Sure, there are one or two in there, but come ON. However, it's the clumsy storytelling that really started to annoy me, once I thought about it. Remember in the first Shrek, how hard a time Shrek had bonding with Donkey? Well, he goes through the same thing with Justin Timberlake, except five times as fast, four times as beat-you-over-the-head obviously, and with three times as much cloying dialogue. Plus, the movie as a whole doesn't gel; there are three main threads that seem like they just happen to be in the same movie. There are episodes of South Park with better-thought-out story arcs than this.

And here's another thing: Fiona bands together with a bunch of fairytale princesses, and they, like, go and fight; girl power, woo hoo. But if the film cares about girl power, why does the throne get left to either Shrek or Justin Timberlake? I guess Far Far Away has Salic Law, because (hello!) Fiona is the king's own daughter. Stupid sexist movie, assuming the throne ought to go to Shrek instead.

In conclusion--wait for it to come out on DVD. And don't be in a huge rush to rent it, even then.

Click here to read more . . .