Was that it?

Michael Jackson had a hard life. There is no question there. There were questions raised about him every time he was in the media. Every single time. But one thing never challenged in regards to Michael Jackson over the years, was that he was and unrivaled talent.

Often when I write, I find myself ripping on some movie or what not. But in the long run, its ok to be picky I guess.

That said, I didnt LOVE the wildly popular 'This Is It'. I just didnt. Everyone else went crazy for it, and my thoughts are that it was so because of the media and merchandise tornados set loose because of MJ's sudden death. What I was looking forward to seeing was a more in depth, documentary style story telling about the 'King of Pop'.

What I got, were concert rehearsals. Was it interesting? Yes, very much so. But was it deserving of employees at blockbuster, two months ago, walking up to everyone in the store asking if they would like to pre-order the movie? Or the building sized promotion lacing major cities? The phenomenal amount of tee shirts and sequined gloves set loose into crap stores like Hot Topic with 'This Is It' written across the fronts? NO!

I cant believe what a godly power the media has over the people! Long story short, it was a nice movie that showed Michael Jackson pulling out all the stops to make his grand return (and the concert looked as though it would have been unbelievably grand to see). It showed what a talent he possessed, his love for his songs, and his love of those who loved both him and his music.

But it all boils down now to one question (whether a simple or complex question, i'll leave that up to you). Would this movie have been so triumphant if Michael Jackson had not died?

My thoughts are no. We were swept up by the idea that these were some of the last moments of his life and that his return to fame only came after his untimely death. But this movie certainly shows a touching side to the star and displays every song we have loved over the years. I just wanted more than a concert I guess. Everyone who I trust as movie reviewers seemed to think different than me. High Def Digest gave it 4/5 stars Me, however would rate it at a 3-3.5 stars/5. A very average (maybe slightly higher than average) film. Rope of Silicon, a site a dont tend to agree with quite as often but appreciate their reviews, gave it an A-. Really? An A-?! We arnt talking about 'Shawshank Redemption' here! Anyways, anyone reading this who has seen 'This is It', let me know what you thought of the film and why you agree or disagree.

But one side note, I rented it on blu ray, and I would recommend it. Not all films need to be watched in high def, but I recommend this mainly for the high def audio.

Malificent. The backstory?

Tim Burton. He is a revolutionist, deep and thought provoking, with an unmistakably spellbinding image formula. But there in lies the problem. He, in one film lover's opinion, has become exactly that... a formula. While I dont dislike a single Burton film I can think of, and considering he holds two places in my top favorites ('Batman' & 'Big Fish') he is not one I look forward to seeing the films of any longer. Its not that I dont enjoy them, its that they all feel the same... to a certain degree. You cannot look past the overuse (regardless of how much you may like them) of Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter (who is ironically one of my favorite actresses), Chris Lee, and of course, brilliant composer Danny Elfman.
But every film he does has a similar look/sound and cast/crew... and it's run its course for me. This, is why I am skeptical about his talks of his back story to one of the greatest villains (and most certainly best Disney villain) of all time.

According to 'Aint it cool news', Burton is going to create a "her side of the story" for 'Sleeping Beauty's' Malificent. It isnt that im worried about Burton giving the fairy turned evil enough credit... but Im just concerned that his wife will be donning the green skin and black horns, that Elfman will be playing tunes similar to each he has done for Burton before, that Depp will portray some character - probably a love interest that will add to the fairies scorn, and that... there will be no action to speak of (I loved the build of the climax for the film)


Sleeping Beauty is my favorite Disney film. Not because of the story... but because of how wonderfully the villian is portrayed and how stunning the art is. (Check it out on Blu Ray... ridiculous) I just hope that he doesnt go along with this formula, that he nabs a great actress (nothing against his wife... but i would love to see someone else - Tilda Swenson perhaps... even though she already did the witch from Narnia... but you get the idea). And I would love to see him do a live action movie with scenery that is an homage to the animated movie.

Long story short... I want to see a great film about such a loved character. Not a cookie cutter Tim Burton film.

Snow White - the review

Talk about it being time for an update! Wow, where did I go?!

Anyways, lets start with a quick blurb about the "Snow White" blu-ray. So, I bought myself a copy and finally had a chance to watch it. Its peculiar how time can change something. I remember "Snow White" to be short in length, funny, and somewhat scary. But, that was 20 years ago. Now, it is a classic. Does this mean that it is still as enjoyable as it was when I was little? No. But it came out in a very different time. Films were more dramatic, acting was far less realistic with a more theatrical feel. Think Betty Davis in "Marked Woman".

Anyways, Miss White spends half the movie screaming about nothing and running while holding the front of her dress up. Not to mention, girl falls in love with a homosexual prince in less than 60 seconds (talk about settling). I mean, this movie really doesn't do much for women except teach them to rely on men, be nice to little people, dont hate the gays - fall in love with them (especially if youre desperate and dont want to have to work), and be wary of fruits and vegetables. But again, that was the time. And there is plenty to appreciate about this movie.

Lets start with my favorite aspect, the fact that this was a hand drawn cartoon... the first feature lenght animated film... EVER. Consider this, if the audience didnt like this film, few of my generation would know the name Disney. No joke. If Snow White did terribly and the audience couldn't buy the idea of feature length animation, Disney would have no money left to try a second attempt. And none of the films we know today would have been made.

Also, the movie is very beautiful. Spectacular really. It isnt anywhere near as advanced as "Sleeping Beauty" (which looks like a brand new film on blu ray) but that also came out 22 years later. I just have to point out that some of the shots and sequences that are just amaizing. The few that stand out, are the queen (doing basically anything - but especially her transformation), Snow White running through the woods, the cleaning of the house, and the dance between the dwarfs and SW. Really beautifully done.

If you have a love for old animation, or have children, check this out. It may not be what you remember, but it certainly will never be forgotten.

This is a picture Disney put out with Rachel Weisz. Just thought it was worth posting.

Mirror, Mirror...

So, for all of you out that have taken the plunge that is blu-ray, I wanted to give you a little heads up. Many titles are coming out. This holiday season with be a big one for the blu market. And Im not talking specifically about this prevous summer's blockbusters. We are being treated to such titles from many years ago (some mentioned below) along with those who helped with raking in the summer's cash and aided in making this summer the biggest grossing summer for films ever.

ANYWAYS, I really wanted to mention something. "Snow White", yes... a film with no explosions, sex or violence (minus a poison... ugh I wont even say it), was just released on Blu-Ray. It has had rave reviews regarding the image and audio transfers. If you are a Blu Ray lover, and appreciate classics (as well as animation), check out this link. Here you can find the movie for sale on Amazon.com. Not only is it listed at $19.99, there is a promotional code (snowhite) -note only one "W"- that drops another $10 off!

Disney Blu-Rays tend to be pricey, so I suggest taking advantage of this now, before the sale ends! (I did yesterday)

Blu Ray releases!

This week on Blu-Ray there are two releases that I am quite excited about. The first, "Wizard of OZ" the 70th anniversary edition. I cannot wait to read a review on how this one looks. And next, "The Dark Crystal", which I have actually never seen as well as "Labyrnth" (which successfully scared the living crap out of me).

Everyone says that I would really enjoy "The Dark Crystal", which is probably true. When I was out at Jim Henson studios, they had a few creatures from the film (many were ruined over the years), but they looked pretty cool. So, what better chance to see this film than now in high definition?!

And speaking of which, "OZ" will no doubt be amazing as well considering I havent seen that film in like 10 years.

But if you have a Blu-Ray player, I suggest waiting to buy OZ down the road. The version that is being released today is a collectors edition with books, extra disks and special packaging is going to set you back almost 85 bucks! For me... I can wait. And while Im waiting... Ill watch "The Dark Crystal"

Inkheart

Due out in two weeks (June 23,2009) is the family/fantasy film "Inkheart" on DVD and Blu-Ray (read High-Def Digest's review here). I saw "Inkheart" in theaters before I started writing this site so I never talked about it.

I found "Inkheart" to be appealing, but nothing special. Its special effects were fun, but there was almost no strong climax. The story came and went without leaving much of an impresson. Would I watch it again? Yes. Do I think that casting Brendan Fraizer in it was a poor decision? Yes. How about the casting of Helen Miren, Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent, Rafi Gavron, and Jennifer Connolly? No. All of the supporting cast was great. I love Serkis, Broadbent, Miren, Connolly, and now newcomer Gavron - who I am sure you will hear from in the near future.

What really made the film fall, I believe, was the climax. There was a good deal of tension which lead to anticipation of something big and magical to happen. Which never really did. All in all, it really was a slow film. There were two scenes that were supposed to be the first and second climaxes. They were the tornado (that ended up being boring) and the crazy shadow monster/finale... who kinda just stood there for about ten minutes and did nothing but loom over a very obvious soundstage (Imagine Sauron - before the ring was cut off - but without the mace and on some serious downers).

But, oddly enough, I would say that this movie is certainly watchable. It just not one I would

recommend to people looking for some great action. Good kids movie.

Here is the trailer, which certainly got me excited to go out an see it. But it is one of those situations where the trailer is more exciting than the actual movie.

Also, the soundtrack (done by Javier Navarrete - whose work on "Pan's Labyrinth" was amazing) leaves a lot to be desired... Dissapointing...

The Reader & The Wrestler

I recently watched both 'The Wrestler' and 'The Reader'.  Both are excellent movies.  

I'll Talk about 'Reader' first. 

'The Reader' is a coming of age story in Nazi Germany.  It centers around Michael Berg (played by 18 - at the time- year old David Kross) and Hanna (Kate Winslet).  Ralph Fiennes plays the older version of Michael and was directed by Stephen Daldry.

Winslet won an oscar for her performance, so we dont need to talk about its brilliance.  But someone to mention is David Kross.  At only 18, Kross's performance was outstanding.  He is really someone I expect we will see more of now in America.  

The movie itself is a thoughtful look at how one might live with their secrets.  It's very shocking in itself, being that both Winslet and Kross spend a good deal of the movie naked.  But over all, such a wonderful film.

Then there is The Wrestler.  Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei were both outstanding.  But, the Oscars already told us all about the acting.  I wanted to see the performances, but what I went in to this film not knowing, was what a great overall movie it was.  I loved it.  It was a real story, with real people, in a very real world.  (minus the Hollywood ending).  But I loved it.  

Also, I usually can stomach gore, but because of the realism in this film, I'd suggest preparing yourself for a little bit of blood because I was squirming.

Gandalf, Pocket Full of Hobbits, and Something About a Ring...

So, today Warner Brothers released the first information about the release of the Academy Award winning,  box office juggernaut Lord of the Rings trilogy set for Blu-Ray.  If you dont have a blu-ray player yet (and I dont blame you being they are still so ridiculously expensive and we are in a recession) then just be glad to know that the movies will be available when you do take the blu plunge.  

The prince for the three THEATRICAL films (that is theatrical versions, not extended...which I intend to wait for) is $99.99 but Amazon lists it at $69.99.  

It seems an odd move by Warner Brothers to release the box art and no street date yet, but we can probably be sure to expect one soon.  

*I would like to note, that if you did enjoy the films, I seriously recommend buying the extended versions (I know it sounds crazy to want a longer version of the films....but at least try watching them).  So much important information was left out of the original theatrical versions, and as for me.... Im a fan of explanation and content.  

How Everyone Became A Millionaire

I'll start off by saying that when I went to see 'Slumdog Millionaire', I was the only one in my group of five that had heard about it.  It would take a few weeks before it became the sensation it was created to be.

I am writing this post because I walked out of that movie theatre feeling just like everyone else.  Happy I saw it.  But, unlike everyone else...  I certainly do not think it was quite as spectacular as everyone else in the world did.  

Slumdog was, to me, a very safe story revisiting the 'star crossed lovers' path, though haven't we have all heard this before?  Maybe with its  fantastic editing, great cast, new/ more harsh settings, and brilliant directing this movie seemed fresh and inviting.    

Im adding this link.  Its to "High-Def Digest's review of the Blu-Ray.  The reviewer and I had similar views about the film.  http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2179/slumdogmillionaire.html

Now, please dont misinterpret me when I say that the movie was really really good.  I just didn't think it was the years best picture (I didn't see all the noms mind you).  And there were very few things I didn't like.  The one that bothered me most, was that it was in english.  Was that was really just a ploy to get us dumb americans off our backsides and to the theatres.... heaven forbid we have to read subtitles.  

So, dont hate me for thinking this past years most critically aclaimed film was good,  but not sensational.

On another note, I saw 'Motorcycle Diaries' last night.  I thought that was tremendous.

Foucs Features seems to always want to pull out all the stops to be sure originality is the

 main ingredient for their films (Eternal Sunshine, Milk, Lost in Translation, Brokeback Mountain).  Apparently the company is one any director (minus perhaps Michael Bay or Bret Raitner) would like to work with to make what film's sometimes still aspire to be - art.  Also I'll note, Gael Garcia Bernal is someone I would like to see more often in big films (though he seems content making lower budget ones with more meaning).  If you havent seen it, rent it (and make sure your disk isnt scratched.... mine was and was skipping all over the place.... I thought I was watching the graphics from twilight again). 

What A Successful Family Movie Is Today

Times are always changing.  Its always tremendously important for filmmakers to understand what has continued to work over the years, and what they can do to make changes.  These changes are the fuel an audience needs to get up off their sofa's and drive down to their local multiplex and spend 15 dollars (yes... it is that much in some places of LA - 16ish for IMAX) to see a movie.

Lets go back fifteen years.  We had movies (mainly Disney) that were geared towards younger audiences.  Parents were dragged (at least mine were) to movies like 'Beauty and the Beast', 'Aladdin', 'Lion King' and so on.  Sure they enjoyed them enough, thanks to their morals and marrying of 16 year old protagonists.  But, one thing that separates kids movies then from today, is that now, adult audiences actually like to see them.  I think this was mainly due to 'Shrek' and its subtle but perverse humor. Its something that kids don't understand, but parents find humor in. That is why, I think kids movies have changed.   (Take a look at 'Enchanted' if you don't agree, a movie created to make fun of the classic Disney movies)

My birthday came recently, and the morning after the party, a group of friends and I watched my friend Brandon's gift, 'Bolt' on Blu-ray.  'Bolt' is a tremendous success in the family movie category (Note to the parents - it is not perverse in any way).  It is funny in a random/silly way, sort of like (I'm going out on a limb with this) Family Guy.  It starts with a bunch of goofy minor characters interacting with the delusional Bolt.  Soon after, Mittens the realist cat is introduced.  And finally, Rhino... the hamster.  Each character steals a bit of the movie, mainly in that order.  And some of the best vocal performances I've heard (I mean by characters - not so much due from Miley Cyrus's additions to the soundtrack).  To finish off the film, is a decent climax with a very heartwarming conclusion.

If you are a fan of films like 'Shrek', 'Surfs Up',  & 'Kung Fu Panda', I have a feeling you'll laugh as we all did at this twist on a familiar tail.  (Intentional)

Bad Movies - Hating To Love Them

So, I realized that I've done a lot of bashing of movies the past few days (however I am not saying that they don't deserve it).  Though, I would like to say something about bad movies.  There are a few that I really enjoy, regardless of being hated by the general public.  I think it's a good time to acknowledge that I do love a "bad" movie every so often and will stand up for why I like them whenever someone wants to argue against them.

Let's begin, shall we?

1) Superman Returns

This movie, I enjoy arguing for most.  I loved it.  But, I know so many people who couldnt stand it.  So the question comes up, is Superman Returns a conventionally "bad" film? Certainly not.  People went to see it, and many enjoyed it.  But, those who didn't like it would most likely agree with this quote by Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun-Times regarding "Superman" -"This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating."  This movie has special effects in so many shots that are really rather breathtaking, but the action sequences fall short.  Why is this? Here's my personal opinion why I think so many were disappointed by this, and I wasn't bothered....

This film was done by Bryan Singer, so I say that to understand the film a little better, take a look as his past work.  Im going to use "X-men" as an example.  "X-men" was a tremendous success because it sought out to, and successfully reinvented, the comic book movie.  But if we now look back at "X-Men" (after being treated to the beautiful action and special effects in "Xmen2", "Batman Begins"/"Dk Knight", "Iron Man", ect.) we see a rather wordy film with not much action.  In fact, polls show that X-Men is the least favored by the public (I cant even begin to go into how much I disagree with that, being that I hate, hate, HATE "The Last Stand").  My point here, is that Xmen is a setup.  I believe that Superman Returns was created in much of the same way.  We are supposed to be waiting for the next film (which is apparently called "Superman Unleashed" and will be out in a few years).  People might see then that this film was supposed to show Superman having to deal with, not Luthor, but human emotion.  And perhaps they will appreciate Singer's attempt at revamping a comic book character that people find difficult to even identify with (we love a badass - Batman, Tony Stark, Wolverine- characters who arnt necessarily good people.  Superman doesn't seem to have anything wrong with him, and we have grown away from enjoying characters like that).

In a nutshell (sorry for that rant), Superman, in my opinion, is a beautifully shot setup film hoping to appeal to a new generation of young people who have not been introduced to the hero on the big screen.  If you are determined to hate this film, at least appreciate the soundtrack by John Ottman, its really a good one. So, does this mean that the public is just too stupid to understand?  I would like to say no, but generally people don't say nice things when talking about humanity as a whole...

2) Speed Racer

Now, this movie is hated.  People just HATED this film.  I first saw this movie on my big high def TV in bluray.   This means two things.  1-I did not see it in theaters and had heard for months how horrible this film was. And 2 - it looked unreal, beautiful, and shocking (I'm trying to say the graphics are spectacular in high def).  So, I went into "Racer" with a different view.  I was expecting something horrible, and got something I really enjoyed.  I liked this movie mainly for the graphics, and paid little attention to the story.  For me, It's like a being a kid in a candy store... on E and Acid.  

I've said before I am a visual person, and this movie just does it for me.  Its not trying to be like superman or x-men or Iron man.  It was appealing to the fans of the show (I am not one of those).  It is tremendously stylized, like the show, and doesn't pretend to be a conventional/normal looking film.  Its trying to be what you might imagine a live action anime to look like.  The acting isn't great, it makes people (not me, but I've seen it happen) dizzy, and there is so much happening all at once you arn't exactly sure where to look.  One thing I want to point out, is the ending.  I don't know what it is but, I just love that driving sequence edited with previous footage mixed in with the sports announcers screaming and the checkerboard swirling like a kelildeoscope.  Love it. 

For me, Its a fun film i can just zone out and watch.  If you go into this movie having bad expectations and just want to see some beautiful colors whirling around like your brights in the wash, It's very possible you will end up feeling the same about this movie as I do.

3) Golden Compass

This movie is a big disappointment to me.  I really had hoped for it to be better received, because I wanted to see the next two books on screen.... which I don't think is going to happen.  I know the story from the books (I cheated and looked them up on Wikipedia and didn't read them), but it's clear to me that people watching this movie had no idea what was going on.  Myself included (pre wikipedia search).

  There were so many characters, all doing different things, and there was no explanation.  Is Nicole Kidman good or bad?  What's the point of 

Daniel Craig's character?  Who/why what are Gyptians? Is the polar bear supposed to b an alcoholic? And why cant the witches have more screen time?  None of this is answered.  So, to feel a little strange when the credits start rolling (not to mention being paired with the awful song "Lyra"), is totally normal as everyone leaving feels a bit like you, bewildered.  What this movie needed was, simply, some more explanation.  We are an audience of the new millennium.  We want to be told, not sent to find information and answers.  

But, again for me, I like this movie for its visual story.  It deserved its academy award for visual effects.  But, alas, visual effects couldn't save this movie from religious opposition, its horrible ending, and ultimately disastrous box office results that helped put an end to New Line.

4) Stardust

Stardust is a great movie.  But, is another I find myself arguing for a lot. You either love this movie, or hate it.  There seems to be no gray area.  I'll keep this short, but its a film that has great performances, good humor, interesting storyline -I hate the comparison to "Princess Bride" but understand it, and a surprisingly great climax.  Its just a fun film that is easy to make fun of.  The graphics could be better - but other than that, I don't understand what people loathe about this film.

I think that's good (I am sure there are plenty more).  Really, I just wanted to say that I am no film snob and love a bad movie every so often.  You'll hopefully understand my point, and if you disagree with it.... you are certainly not alone.  ;)

Should You See Twilight?

I will start out by stating the obvious, this movie had an absurd amount of hype.  It was really amazing how much publicity this movie recieved simply by word of mouth.  I mean, sure it had a following from the already popular novels, but I was really very surprised by how the movie turned the series into a phenomenon.  

So, I dont know anything about the books, except that they have to do with vampires.  So, I decided to suck it up (no pun) and see what this movie was all about, when released on blu ray (not theatres... I didnt care enough to do that).    But was it worth all this hype?  

The easy answer is no.  Because Twilight is not a good movie.  Did it have things about it I liked?  Yes.  For one, I loved the scenery shots.  I liked the bizarre relationship.  And, being a person who loves fantastic imagry, I really thought the gazebo scene, along with the tour of the vampire home, were beautiful (blu ray really does this movie some well deserved justice - colors are vibrant and unreal but fitting - reviewed on one of my favorite high def sites - http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2045/twilight.html.  Also, I really liked the villian played by Cam Gigandet (right).

But that was really about it.  And with each good thing, there were about ten bad.  And the things that were bad....  were really, really hard to suffer through.  I actually started this movie, had to stop, then a few days later, convinced myself to endure it and try to understand what about it doesn't work.  

This is how I break it down.  The 'fast paced' walking/running effect was absolutly horrible and distracting.  Honestly, it looks like the disk is skipping.  The running through the forrest scene is outrageous.  The villians with the boat in the harbor was laughable.  And the climax was dissapointing as far as a finale goes.  

But, consider this, 'Twilight' was a low budget film (it actually only had a 37 million dollar budget).  Im not sure 

most people know that, and for me changes a lot.  But what should have changed to save money and thus added into other scenes?  

The running sequence could have been done better, the fast paced movements (I acknowledge as disk skipping nonsense) could have been done more simply, and some of the smaller scenes deleted.  The baseball scene could have been shorter, thats for sure.  A lot less driving (these people seemed to be in their cars at all times) Would have been nice. 

Being a guy who loves sci-fi and fantasy, I would have liked to see more action at the end.  All this build up for a pretty boring ending (minus, beating up of the Kristen Stewart character - which I appreciated - no pun intended actually).  Then, villain Cam Gigandet was hardly in the movie - this was disappointing because I actually was most interested in his character and how he was going to shake things up to the protagonists, alas... getting hardly anything.  I know it's totally a sexist remark, but this really feels like a movie directed by a woman (which, it was - Catherine Hardwickle), because so little is attention is paid to action and too much on sappy "I love you but stay away" romance.  Sorry, guys... (I feel your pain).

So, in the end, will I recommend this movie? Yes and no.  To people like my mom, and other people uninterested in creating film, no.  Stay away!  This has so little emotional value, 

you'll no doubt finish the film with a very raised eyebrow.  

But people who are in fact interested in making films, I say yes. You might laugh at my reasoning, but I'm 100% serious.  I think that to understand good film is to see just as many bad ones

 as good.  You need to know why a bad movie is bad.  Why it doesn't deliver (although, this movie had huge profits - 37 million budget and over 376 million gross revenue - maybe I should have said satisfy instead of deliver) and what you personally think was wrong with it.

Now, you might disagree with me.  Which is great.  Everyone should have an opinion.  But there it is- why, I think you should or should not see Twilight.