Winnie the Pooh

So my niece and nephew came up to from Oklahoma City to visit!  This always provides me with an excuse to go see a kid's movie without being creepy.  I usually try to go see my kid's movies on Wednesdays at the latest possible time.  But with a pair of kid's in tow, I can go to a summer matinee!

This is a new non-CG animated Pooh adventure.  And it is exceptionally short.  "Winnie the Pooh" is 69 minutes long.  It is preceded by a short film, "The Ballad of Nessie," which I would like to discuss first.

"The Ballad of Nessie" clocks in a 12 minutes.  It's a great little story about how Nessie came to be in Loch Ness.  She is essentially kicked out of her pond by an evil golf course developer.  We then follow her as she and her rubber duckie as they go in search of a new home.  "Nessie" is a beautifully animated film.  The drawings are very late 40s to early 50s style, while the backgrounds look like remnants of tartan.  The whole story is told as a poem read lovingly by Billy Connolly.  "Nessie" is a sweetheart of a movie and completely worth the price of admission alone.

"Nessie" Rating: 8 out of 10

Now for the feature.  "Winnie the Pooh" is fairly well done.  I'm going to do my best to not compare it to the original.  I will make this comparison though: the animation is wonderful.  Sometimes it even evokes that sketchy look that older Disney movies had.  The change in voices messed with me a bit, but might not bother younger kids (I understand that the original actors can't be expected to live and/or perform forever).  That said, I really enjoyed John Cleese as the narrator.  He has an wonderful ability to capture the childishness of the story and the fun of talking to the characters.

The soundtrack features She & Him performing both the theme song and some original songs.  The original songs are not the strongest in Disney history but, when Zooey Deschanel sings them, her angel voice elevates them.

The humor is a little too dated in a modern way.  I don't know how to quite explain it.  The characters' reactions are a bit sitcom-y and the physical comedy is not funny (like most contemporary physical comedy).  The rest of the movie is filled with great stuff that really feels like it belongs in a Pooh story.  This maybe makes the other elements I mentioned stand out more.  It just creates a slightly uneven tone to the film.

On the whole, I say to check this one out (if only for "The Ballad of Nessie").  If you have young kids, they will love this movie.  My nephew was cracking up almost the whole time.  He and the other children in the theater so thoroughly enjoyed it, that it has probably skewed my perception of this movie and I'm glad for it.  This movie absolutely owned its target audience while remaining more than watchable by adult standards.

"Pooh" Rating: 6.5 out of 10

Mega Python vs. Gatoroid

I will watch any Sci-Fi (or SyFy or whatever) channel original movie.  These are the modern B-movies.  Are they ever any good?  Hell no.  But that's what's so fun about them.

"Mega Python vs. Gatoroid" (herein to be called "MPvG") is about a eco-warrior played by Debbie Gibson who steals a bunch of normal pythons and releases them into the Everglades.  Would an environmentalist actually release a non-native animal into a sensitive habitat?  Nope.  But how else is this movie going to happen?  Anyway, the snakes start killing all the alligators and growing to ridiculous sizes.  So a Park Ranger played by Tiffany (that's right Debbie Gibson and Tiffany in the same movie!) issues hunting licenses to a pack of rednecks to kill the snakes and protect the gator population.  The snakes kill all the rednecks and the Ranger's fiance.  What's a woman to do?  How about feed the gators experimental steroids so they can fight the snakes?  Needless to say the snakes and gators soon reach Godzilla-esque size on the eve of the Everglades fund-raiser.  Pandemonium ensues, people die, and thousands of eggs are discovered (these reptiles are busy).  Can these giant menaces be destroyed before they reach Miami?  Rent it and find out!

"MPvG" is awesomely bad.  The effects are terrible.  The acting is terrible.  The Micky Dolenz cameo (seriously!) is terrible.  But it all results in a fun film.  I laughed pretty hard most of the time.  The rest of the time was spent trying to comprehend the idiotic plot and dialogue.  My favorite line?  Tiffany is giving a speech at the fund-raiser and ends it like this: "When I look out and see this beautiful, lush area, I think of my late fiance, Justin Regina.  And now ladies and gentlemen, keep drinking!"  That's awful.  Just awful.  Fortunately, this is followed by an incredible Gibson/Tiffany catfight. (You still haven't rented this yet?!)

I love this kind of garbage cinema.  It makes me smile.  I can only hope it can do the same for you.

Rating: 3 out of 10 (but 12 out of 10 on the fun scale)

To Be or Not To Be

Wow!  What a great film!  Seriously.  I love old movies anyway (this is the 1942 film, not the Mel Brooks remake), but this is a film that really lives up to its reputation as an important classic.

"To Be or Not To Be" is about a troupe of actors who get caught up in the Polish Resistance during the Nazi occupation.  They are called upon to use their talents to halt the activities of a Nazi double agent.  This could easily be a serious war-time drama.  Instead, director Ernest Lubitsch crafts an impeccable comedy.  I found myself laughing out loud at every Nazi joke and jab at the self-importance of actors.

Why are these old films so much better than new films?  It is because the actors were better?  Were the directors better?  Were the scripts better?  Yes.  Yes.  And Yes.  Check this movie out.  One of the great comedies of all time and one of the great World War II movies of all time.  That's pretty impressive.

Rating: 9 out of 10

Inglourious Basterds

This is not the first time I have seen this movie.  I've watched it probably a dozen times.  But if I haven't reviewed a movie and I watch it, I'll be adding it the the reviews.

This is not my favorite Tarantino movie (that's "Pulp Fiction") or the most watchable ("Jackie Brown") but it is, to me, his best made film.  My only fault with this movie is that it is too short (and at 2 1/2 hours that's saying something).  I want to see more of the Basterds and more of Hans Landa and more of everything.

"Inglorious Basterds" is revisionist history at its finest.  The story involves multiple plotlines that converge on a scheme to destroy the Nazi high command in at a movie premiere. 

The dialogue is phenomenal.  The acting perfect.  The soundtrack outstanding.  It is violent when it needs to be.  Talkative when it needs to be.  And always awesomely entertaining.

World War II movies should be outlawed from here on out.  Tarantino has crafted the WW2 movie to end WW2 movies.  If somehow, you haven't already seen this film, go do it.  Right now.

Rating: 9 out of 10

Green Lantern

It should be noted that I am a HUGE fan of the Green Lantern comics.  As such, I will do my best to review this movie as just that: a movie.

DC Comics has finally released a non-Batman film!  This may seem like great news, but Christopher Nolan's Batman series set the bar pretty high.  I was pretty back and forth as to my enthusiasm for this movie.  Warner Bros. released plenty of production teasers and promotional material to help psych up the fans, but most of it served to break my heart.  So when the time came to finally see this bad boy, I went in cautiously optimistic.  This seems to have been the appropriate mindset.

The movie is about a test pilot named Hal Jordan (played by Ryan Reynolds) who is irresponsible and brash.  Early in the film, an alien crashes on Earth and his ring, sensing its owner's death, seeks a new bearer.  It chooses Hal.  Hal then travels to the planet of Oa to begin his training as a member of the intergalatic Green Lantern Corps.  Hal receives plenty of harassment for being human (the first one to bear a Green Lantern ring) and returns to earth to save us all from a massive alien powered by fear.

The plot was fairly good.  If anything it suffered from trying to cram too much into its running time.  The filmmakers really should have picked whether to have a Earth movie or a space movie.  ("Thor" suffers from this problem too.)  With any luck, the sequel will be more evenly paced as the premise and characters are already set up.

The cast, however, I felt was fairly strong.  Ryan Reynolds (while not my first choice for this role) played Hal very well.  He has a natural charm that works help the audience like him regardless of what a reckless turd he is.  He delivers his jokes a little too much like he's still playing Van Wilder, but he also plays the drama like he's going for an Oscar.  He is a star presence to be reckoned with (anyone who can distract you from that god-awful CG outfit should be showered with praise).

Blake Lively is the strongest member of the cast, surprisingly enough.  She really pulled off Carol Ferris.  She's a strong business woman, a hopeless romantic, and a damsel in distress and she performs all these roles believably and seamlessly.  As a bonus, she looks much better as a brunette than blonde.

Peter Saarsgard plays the human villain, Hector Hammond. Saarsgard is one of my favorite actors.  He is weak and sleazy and looks to be having fun hamming it up under some really great makeup.

Mark Strong plays the great, albeit megalomaniac, Green Lantern Sinestro.  He doesn't receive the screen time that he this role truly deserves but he is great when he's on screen.  He'll be an amazing villain in the sequel.

Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett are wasted in this.

The art direction of Oa is fun.  It comes off like a hybrid of H. R. Giger and Dr. Suess.  This includes the designs of the aliens.  They seem kind of strange and hard to relate to.  Maybe later films can devote more time to characterization so as to help the audience connect with them.

My big problem with this movie is too much CGI.  So much of this movie could have been practical effects or a mix of practical and CGI.  Instead, the filmmakers must have just taken the easy way out.  Ever notice how the first movies with computer effects look better than current computer effects ("Jurassic Park" and "Dragonheart" come to mind).  Back then, computers were the hard way of doing things and that extra effort shows.  Now computers are the easy way and it equally shows.  At times the film comes off as false and cartoony (I started having flashbacks of the Star Wars prequels).

Despite these shortcomings, I really enjoyed it.  I have my comic fanboy grievances to be sure, but I would tell anyone to at least check this one out.  You'll be thankful you did if the sequel goes full on intergalactic and kicks our asses.

Rating: 7 out of 10

The Adjustment Bureau

How many Philip K. Dick stories are left to be mined my Hollywood?  I don't know but it can't be many.  "The Adjustment Bureau" (based on the story "The Adjustment Team") closes that gap (and then the remakes start).

This particular story revolves around a man running for the Senate in New York.  He meets a dancer (ballet not the other pay-by-the-dance type) and they fall in love.  But a shadowy organization of men in suits (and hats!) does not want them to be together.  Why?  Watch the movie.

Matt Damon plays the Senate candidate and he does an admirable job of being Matt Damon.  He's charming and handsome and anyone would vote for him.  But his performance is nothing special.

Emily Blunt is the dancer (unfortunately ballet and not the pay-by-the-dance type).  She plays the role exactly right.  As with any good love story, the audience needs to feel as if they could love the characters in order to connect to the romance.  Blunt is very lovable (except when she ruins Damon's cell phone. I would've punched her.)

"The Adjustment Bureau" is an enjoyable movie.  Nothing outstanding like "Blade Runner."  But nothing awful like "Imposter."  The first half is better than the second.  Somehow, I enjoyed the budding romance more than the mystery of the men-in-suits.  The mystery men of the Adjustment Bureau move magically through doors.  They open your closet door and step out in P.F. Chang's.  The second half is purely a showcase of magical doorway special effects.

This is a good movie for the couple who can't agree on a movie.  It's a little bit romance; a little bit sci-fi.  I wouldn't run out and watch this one.  But if the movie you want is rented out, try this one.

Rating: 6 out of 10

The Hangover: Part 2

Ok.  I think everybody loves "The Hangover."  How can you not?  It's one of the funniest movies made in the last 10 years.  Based solely on this, people showed up in droves to see the sequel.  And for this, they were rewarded with almost the exact same movie.  This is not to say that "The Hangover 2" is a bad movie, it's just that the first one is so much better.

In the sequel, Phil, Alan, and Stu throw a bachelor party in Bangkok.  That is primarily the only difference between this and the original.  Every plot point is a mirror image of the original.  Even most of the camera shots are the same.

Now this is not to say that "The Hangover 2" isn't funny.  It is.  It's much funnier than I expected.  As a retread of the original, of course it turned out to be funny.  I still laugh when I watch the original.  However, the jokes in Part 2 tend toward the perceived sleaziness of Bankok.  "The Hangover: Part 2" is never too shy as to utilize male nudity for a laugh (some really great laughs too).

But that sleaziness is part of the problem with this movie (apart from the constant reminders from the characters that "It's happening again!!").  The writers and director obviously felt as if they needed to outdo the original.  Not true!  Just try something else.  A funeral.  A high school reunion (that Alan crashes).  A road trip.  Anything!  Just don't make the same movie twice.

I can recommend this movie and sleep at night, but don't feel like you have to rush out and see it.  If you own the first one, put that one in. 

Rating: 6 out of 10 ( let's hope they try harder on "The Hangover: Part 3")