April 2008

It’s been a long time since Disney really got something right. With Enchanted hitting a lot of the right buttons and the Pixar lineup hitting all of them, it’s really a treat when Disney simply gives you something quaint and likable.Meet the Robinsons is about a lot of things, but namely about the nature of family. Lewis is a semi-brilliant inventor who was left by his mother at an orphanage. By semi-brilliant I mean that he invents really cool things, but they pretty much always fail and cause mild disaster. But Lewis has little hope that he’ll ever be adopted. Then a brilliant idea comes to him: what if he can make a machine that will allow him to remember his mother, and ultimately can find her to have a family again? But when things go horribly wrong, Lewis finds himself dragged into a world of the future by a young boy who needs Lewis’ help to stop the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the past and destroying everything.The cliches are there. Yes, we have another story about an orphan boy who has to save the world. This is also yet another story about the consequences of time travel. Still, the characters are charming. All of them. The Bowler Hat Guy is creepy and comical, Grandpa Bud is slightly crazy, and Franny has a band of singing frogs. What more could you want? Well there is more: Adam West plays the voice of a futurist pizza delivery guy who comes off so much like a superhero that you can’t help but laugh and for some reason, Doris is an eastern European woman who races “model” trains, which aren’t really models at all. I found myself giggling here and there throughout the movie. This is a good thing because I was watching the film alone and I don’t generally laugh when I’m by myself (there’s just something missing from the environment). A lot of the funny parts were in the previews, but there are loads more that will have kids giggling too. The dinosaur is hilarious (we’ve seen the scene where it talks about its small arms).I think we should move to the breakdown now, since I’m giving away all the bits I liked already. Direction 4/5I can’t say that the directing is the best ever, but it didn’t annoy me. That generally means I liked the directing. If I don’t notice directorial faults, it’s usually an instant 4. One thing that becomes a problem with looking at the direction of animated films is that the process is somewhat different. I think the director here did a fantastic job pulling together all the elements of the characters. Every time the Bowler Hat Guy had his goofy, slightly creepy grin on I was grinning. Good directing for sure, but I don’t think it is award-winning (it’s no Finding Nemo). Probably the only thing that I didn’t find as enjoyable were the singing frogs. I didn’t get that “big band” feel that they were supposed to be conveying. Cast 5/5I’m basing this entirely off of the voice talent and on the fact that I don’t really know who any of the people are. I recognized Adam West instantly, because it’s hard not to, but the others weren’t recognizable simply because their voices were so brilliant. One fellow plays several of the characters and whoever played the Bowler Hat Guy was so perfect for the role (coupled with the visuals you really get this sense of emotion and hilarity).Basically, I would say the casting was perfect. There aren’t any voices I can think of that don’t fit. Adaptation N/AAs far as I know, this wasn’t based on a book or anything. Writing 4/5I can’t put my finger on it, but it does seem like there are some missing elements. The good bits are where we are presented with the future, which is somewhat wacky and, well, futuristic. It’s pretty fun to think about how different the future may be and with Disney this is a rather common experience (Tomorrow Land anyone?)The story itself moves well and there aren’t really any bits where you wonder just what is going on. It’s entertaining and I think that is probably the point. It does deal with some serious issues, but kids aren’t really going to care about that. What they will notice is a geeky hero rising up and succeeding in saving the world. Maybe there is some originality in that for kids. There aren’t a whole lot of geeky protagonists in Disney films (real geeks). Basically, it’s entertaining and it definitely drew me in. Visuals 4/5The biggest bonus for the visuals is what seems to me to be a good dose of originality. The Bowler Hat Guy, as I have said, is so wonderfully creepy that you can’t help but be fascinated by his enormous, grinning face and his skulking mannerisms. Goob has huge dark circles under his eyes and he actually looks rather tired. The style is very familiar, as are a lot of these Disney or Pixar CG films, but there are some fascinating changes to it, particularly in certain characters. My only complaint is that some things look a little too cartoony for this style and probably should have been made a little more layered and real (while still maintaining that it isn’t real, if that makes sense) Overall 4.25/5This is certainly worth watching. It’s a cute little film and kids will love it. There’s not much that is wrong with the film and that’s probably a good thing to say. I can’t think of anything that made me cringe.So, you should see this one. If you don’t, the Bowler Hat Guy will go back in time and make sure you are never born. Yeah. Okay, that’s an empty threat, but give this one a good look.

People have been giving this one mixed reviews ever since it came out. I got a chance to see it when I was in England, since some movies don’t play there until some months after they’ve finished their run here, and I have to say that I rather liked it.The story: David is sort of your semi-geek/outcast who discovers that he has the ability to transport himself instantly to anywhere he wants to go. His abilities are initially triggered by a traumatic event–nearly drowning–but he learns quickly that he is able to control his abilities and soon leaves behind his old life, while everyone else thinks he’s dead, by stealing money from a bank and “living it large”.But there are some people who think David and others like him are wicked creations that should be destroyed. Soon, David finds himself in the middle of a battle that has been raging for hundreds of years as one secret group tries to exterminate another.The basic idea is pretty good. One thing that I think is a bonus for this movie is that the people who are supposed to be the good guys are rather ambiguous and you find yourself rooting for them not because they are the “good guys” but because they’re not as evil as the “bad guys”. Now to the break down: Direction 3/5One of the things I think is a problem for Hayden Christensen is not that he’s an absolutely terrible actor, but that directors really don’t work with him. Yes, some of Christensen’s dialogue is stilted and often times he comes off amateur, but then there are times when he is actually decent, if not good. This makes me instantly wonder who the directors are who have direct control of how scenes go and why they aren’t making Christensen do several different takes of the same scene to get the one that works best. George Lucas aside, I think the direction in Jumper is decent, but nothing incredible. No awards needed here. It’s good enough to get the job done and I think that’s all that matters. Many of the scenes work well, some are a bit flawed. The problems with the movie stem more from the story itself rather than in direction. So a 3 out of 5 is pretty good I think. Cast 3/5I can’t say that the cast is the best choice for this film. Christensen works for the film, but many of the things people don’t like about him do show up here, but in lower frequency than we saw in Star Wars. Samuel L. Jackson is really difficult to dislike, and here I think he is at his strong point. He should play bad guys more often because his Pulp Fiction aggressiveness really plays well in that “bad guy” role, especially when there is a slight bit of ambiguity to the nature of the bad guy. After all, Roland (Jackson’s character) thinks that he is doing what is right because history has shown legitimate reason for him to hate these “jumpers”. Rachel Bilson as Millie is pretty strong too. There are no stellar performances here, but nothing that would make me hate the movie. Adaptation N/AI never read the book so I can’t make any judgment here. Writing 3/5Since I haven’t read the book I can’t tell you what the differences are and whether such changes were good. I also can’t tell you if the ending is different. The writing is decent, but nothing spectacular. The only problem I have is that there are loose ends that are never explained in the end. What happens to the other “jumper”? Does he die? Does he get away? What? I’m not a fan of loose ends. In fact, they tend to really annoy me. There’s no reason they couldn’t explain what happens to the other “jumper”. Couldn’t they just show David (Christensen) looking at a news report showing the guy being captured or something? Wouldn’t that work? There are some other minor flaws too. The movie tries to establish a rocky relationship between David and his father, but it’s never really clear that there is a “bad” relationship. We never see his father beat him, or treat him in any way that could be seen as “bad”. In fact, we only see his father showing concern in a very “rough”, fatherly way.Beyond that, the writing is solid enough. The action is pretty solid and entertaining. Visuals 5/5It’s hard not to like the visuals here. They did a fantastic job showing all the jumps. It’s cool to see regular activities (like walking to the fridge) turned into a jump fest. The action sequences are like an amped up Nightcrawler scene, without the scary monsterness to it. There isn’t really anything bad about the visuals at all, which is probably the strongest thing for the whole film. There’s never a point where you go “well that looks like CGed garbage”. Basically, the visuals are perfect, some of them even stunning. There isn’t a lot of heavy CG, and the scenery itself is really brilliant. They actually went to the Colosseum in Rome! Overall 3.5/5I think when it comes down to it I can say I enjoyed the film more than I disliked it. This isn’t an award winner, but certainly one worth remembering. The action was solid and really kept me fascinated. There is a lot of conflict between characters (even between the “good guys”) and the ambiguity really added to the suspense. The “bad guys” don’t seem so bad at first, but actually seem like the good guys, since the “good guy” (David) is technically a “bad guy” anyway. Then things change and you actually see how bad the “bad guys” really are, and when David meets another “jumper” it becomes even more ambiguous. The “jumper” is, in some ways, just as bad as the “bad guys”. I love this is films because it makes you really think about the nature of good and evil