The Smurfs Review

The Smurfs franchise has really done nothing new since the 80s.  So the film makers had the challenge of making a movie that would appeal to both the nostalgia of my generation and today's kids.  While they may not have hit a home run with the Smurfs, I think they did a decent job and made a solid movie.  It is definitely the best movie with blue people that I have seen in the past year and a half because it is definitely better than Avatar.

First, the acting.  Both Hank Azaria and Neil Patrick Harris are very solid in their roles.  This is especially true of Azaria.  He hit the Gargamel character spot on with his role.  His interactions with Azrael are perfect.  He stays true to the original character while making it very fun for kids to watch.  Harris' character is completely new so he didn't have anything to build on.  The character itself was a bit weak and without depth.  But it's a kids movie so that's OK and Harris played it very well using his strong likability.  The voiceovers, while nothing to write home about, were decent throughout with one exception.  Having George Lopez do the voice of Grouchy just didn't seem right.  I can't put my finger on why.  It just didn't fit.

Overall, the production quality was good.  The CGI in the Smurf village and forest was well done and looked quite cartoony without looking drawn on paper.  In this respect, it was modernized quite well.  But when the Smurfs were in New York (which is most of the movie), the green screening becomes quite obvious.  I know it is hard to make it all look real but there are times when the Smurfs look a little too added on to the actors and sets.  Maybe I have come to expect too much from CGI though.

I really only have two problems with the movie.  First, I know it's a fantasy story and they need to bend reality a lot.  But that doesn't mean that you should just break rules and reality for the sake of a cheap laugh if it doesn't serve any purpose for the story.  There's no way Gargamel would wind up in maximum security prison for taking a leaf blower and engaging in mischief in an FAO Schwarz.  There was nothing in that scene that necessitated the maximum security prison or other inmates and it should have been scrapped.  Second, Gutsy Smurf.  I know that they were trying to create a quirky, trendy character that would provide a lot of laughs etc. and make it fun for the kids and also provide better merchandising possibilities.  But this could have easily been done by utilizing an original Smurf in Hefty.   He could have provided just as many jokes and we would have been spared a tacked-on Scottish Smurf that was just unnecessary.  It would have been able to appease kids and purists alike.  Gutsy's jokes were only "funny" because he was Scottish (that makes him say, "mind the gap" when jumping onto the subway.  They say that in the United Kingdom.  That's funny, right?  Right?)  (But I'm beginning to think I'm the only Smurfs purist out there.)

Thos two fairly minor issues aside, see it.  If you are a fan of the comics and old cartoon, it's close enough to be entertaining.  If you aren't a fan, it's still a good distraction with some good laughs.  And it's still decent for kids.

Finding Neverland Review

From what I understand, this movie is loosely based on actual events.  If that is true, the actual events are very sad indeed.  Using the backdrop of the creation of Peter Pan to tell the story of a man who finds his way is quite interesting.  But, coming away from this one, I really don't know what to feel.

It starts out pretty slow and, to be honest, a bit boring.  But then it does pick up the pace and you find yourself being quite entertained.  However, one of the problems is that it is very predictable.  You pretty much know that, what happens has to happen because of the whole melancholic tone of the entire film.  That aspect is balanced off by superior performances from Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet though.  They both perform quite strong.  But that is really no surprise.  They are both very good at their craft.

One aspect of the film did bother me a bit.  The switches between fantasy and reality were kind of difficult to watch.  This might be because sometimes the transitions were too subtle.  For me, it seemed to hurt the flow a bit.  But it was needed for the very powerful ending (I won't give it away).

Overall, I say see it if you come across it.  But it isn't a lazy Sunday afternoon movie.  It would put you to sleep if you watched it in that setting.  If you are in the mood for a serious, melancholic drama though, watch it.

Winnie the Pooh Review

If you're anything like me, you remember sitting at home on a cold Sunday evening waiting for the Wide World of Disney to come on CBC.  You waited with anticipation to see what they would be showing.  Sometimes you were happy and sometimes you were disappointed.  The two that never disappointed me were Winnie the Pooh and Sport Goofy.  All those feelings came flooding back this afternoon when I watched the new Winnie the Pooh.

The thing I think I liked the best about this movie is the fact that they animated it just like the old one.  They didn't try to go 3D or CGI or anything stupid like that.  They stuck to the original formula and it worked.  There's no attempt to modernize the characters or story.  Because of that, it has a great nostalgic value.

It is also very cleverly written.  For the entire story, you feel like you are actually in the mind of a child playing in his room with his collection of stuffed animals.  The story follows this type of meandering imagination quite well.  In that respect, it is very much like A Town Called Panic.  The jokes are very well delivered by the voice over cast.  But it also doesn't hurt that all of the characters are complete morons.  I spent most of the 70 minutes laughing or at the very least, smiling.

See it.  It is a great escape from reality that makes you feel good.  And, if you have children, they should like it too.  Now if I could just get them to make a Sport Goofy movie ...

Casino Royale Review

I must admit that I didn't know much about Daniel Craig when I heard them announce that he would be playing James Bond.  I was upset because I absolutely loved the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies.  But then I found out that they were not only changing Bond, they were doing a reboot and starting Bond out from the beginning.  So a replacement was necessary.  I'm not too upset because, for me, all four Brosnan Bond movies have great rewatchability.  And, after this and a few other movies, I have come to be a bit of a Craig fan.  He makes a really good Bond, especially one that is just learning his spy craft.  It hasn't all become "old-hat" for the character and Craig really plays that well.

If a reboot was necessary, they picked a good novel to base it on.  Casino Royale was the first book after all.  The film does a good job keeping some of the elements of the book (the car crash and torture) while updating it for modern times.  They needed to replace the baccarat with poker to remain relevant to today's audience (had it been made 10-15 years ago they would have used Blackjack).  Also, to capitalize on the success of the Bourne movies, they have reinvented Bond into a more character driven franchise.  While they keep some of the elements that made Bond famous (evil villain, hot women, cool cars, exotic locations), they have either pushed them firmly into the background or made them much more believable.  There is no more threat of world domination or a cataclysmic event.  The gadgets are also gone in this one.  While I did miss Q Branch, the actual advances in commercially available technology were starting to make it irrelevant.  I can buy sunglasses that are a camera now so Bond having something like that isn't so special anymore.

Overall, I'd say this is a really good restart to the Bond franchise.  It will be interesting to see the character develop through Daniel Craig for a few movies.  (Yes, I've seen Quantum of Solace but it's been a while.  I will review it here when I see it again soon).  There are just a couple of beefs I have with this one and they are minor.  First, if you're going to reboot, reboot fully.  Lose Judi Dench as M.  She's never been that good at it anyways.  Second, the poker tournament act went on too long and, in turn, made the movie too long.  They could have done a montage style and gotten it all across.  Third, the last twenty minutes seem tacked on and out of place.  But, from my understanding, they are doing a three part story arc on this reboot so it needs to be set up for the next one.  I can live with that.  Fourth, there are a few bits of dialogue that didn't fit into the new Bond.  Some cheesy lines would have felt more at home in the previous twenty movies.  It's almost as if they were afraid to take the change all the way.

All in all, it's a good spy movie.  If you like the Bourne movies, you should like Casino Royale.  I say see it.  But, if you want the more unrealistic fantasy based Bond, there's 20 previous movies you'll enjoy more.  It all depends on your mood.

Mr Popper's Penguins Review

Yes, I saw it.  Stop snickering.  I actually wanted to see it when I first heard of it because it looked like a fun little diversion during which I could turn my brain off.  Sometimes, you just have to go see a cute little feel good movie that doesn't make you think.  That's all this movie is and it doesn't try to be anything else.  It is little more than a retelling of Liar, Liar.  Jim Carrey plays a jerk of a father who, through an extraordinary situation, learns a valuable life lesson.  That's it.  Most of the movie is very thin.  While there is a plot, it moves a bit choppy.  There are conflicts that never get fully resolved and character development and changes that seem to happen out of the blue.

But it needs to be that way because it is a kids movie.  Everything about this movie is aimed at the children.  They go out of their way to not swear at all and to keep it G rated.  When taken in that context, it is very good.  Everything moves fast enough and the penguins' cute little antics are well spaced to keep the kids happy and entertained.  The theatre was almost sold out tonight and there were tons of kids there.  I heard very little of the kids being fidgety and bored.  That makes it a good kids movie.  In this way, it was better than Zookeeper even though I enjoyed that one more.  But Zookeeper is more for grown ups and, in spite of my juvenile behaviour, I am a grown up.  The one "beef" I have about keeping it a kids movie is that they go through all that trouble to make it appropriate and then, for the end credits, they play Vanilla Ice's Ice Ice Baby which is actually quite a violent song (pay attention to the lyrics).  But that really is minor.  Who's going to watch the credits?

Technically, this one is pretty 50-50.  While he was entertaining and decent, you could tell Carrey wasn't giving this one his all.  He was much better in Liar, Liar and The Truman Show (two movies I would recommend and will review next time I watch them).  The rest of the acting was average.  Not bad but not great either.  Where this movie really shines, technically, is with the penguins.  The CGI effects are very well done there.  The music keeps it pretty light all the way through with that stereotypical Danny Elfman-esque score that is used in feelgood movies.

If you are looking for a good diversion for your kids that will entertain you as well, see it.  Also see it if you feel a little down and need a fun little pick-me-up (that was my situation tonight).  It is definitely worth it.  Delay seeing it if you want anything with depth.  There is none.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Review

Why is it that when the Transformers are in their robot state, their car/vehicle/etc. panels are all scratched to shit but, when they turn into their vehicle form, they have immaculate paint jobs?  That is just one of the many, many plot holes and problems with this movie.  Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it somewhat.  First, it is way better than Revenge of the Fallen.  I go to see these movies because they have cool transforming robots that cause massive destruction.  With Dark of the Moon, you get lots and lots of that.  Visually, it is a very appealing action movie.  There are a lot of really cool shots and it would appear that Michael Bay fired his vertigo-ridden dwarf as his main camera operator because you don't really have those  played out "spin around the model" shots.

The sad thing is, in order to get all of that really cool action, you have to put up with a lot of crap.  In that respect, Dark of the Moon is no different than the other Transformers movies.  While, of the three, it is Shia LaBeouf's best performance, he is still cheesy.  Everyone else is cheesy too.  Furthermore, if you are going to go through the trouble of getting rid of Megan Fox and throwing a blatant insult at her in the movie, at least replace her with something better.  Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, while nice to look at from the neck down, is just plain awful.  The rest of the acting and writing is no different from the other movies.  No better, no worse.  There are still the terrible efforts for comic relief and at one point, I even said "oh for f**k's sake" out loud.  The story is easier to follow than Revenge of the Fallen but it's really minor.  I will say that I still liked John Turturro's character and the addition of John Malkovich was well done.  With those two only, the comic relief was OK.  Finally, with regards to the acting, we have another example of good actors not being able to save bad writing.  Frances MacDormond and Patrick Dempsey are two good actors that are horrible in this.

It is flat out too long.  About two hours in, I started getting a headache from the 3D and intense motion and thought it was time to wrap it up.  There are so many things that could be cut out.  Take out the crap (ie. everything with Sam's parents for starters) and make a much more watchable 110 minute action movie.  And while you're at it, we could have done without Steven Spielberg's and Michael Bay's political agendas getting pushed on us.  I have no problem with celebrities using their celebrity to raise awareness on an issue but leave it out of the movie.  I do not pay you to feed me your propaganda.  And, oh, Mr. Bay, ripping off lines and concepts from multiple movies is not good movie making at all.  For shame!  And they're giant, technologically advanced robots.  By now, Bumblebee should be able to talk dammit!

Anyways, enough of my soapbox.  Even though it is better than Revenge of the Fallen, I recommend that you don't bother seeing it.  Unless you want only action and mayhem, you will spend more time rolling your eyes than anything else.  If all you want is action, it's got plenty and you may like it.  Finally, we know there will be a fourth movie.  They make too much money for there not to be one.  But they've done a really good job in setting it up to be a failure so maybe the end is in sight.  (That's all I'm going to say on that.  I don't want to spoil it.)

Fletch Lives Review

Many of you are probably wondering why I even bothered to watch this much less review it.  Let me start by saying I really like Chevy Chase.  His comic timing and talents are quite unique.  He's the best I've ever seen at performing the deadpan, subtle humour that I really like.  The only way yo describe it is that it feels like it's over the top but actually isn't.  I know that doesn't make sense.

In Fletch Lives, you get the same subtle and understated, yet hilarious jokes that you get in Fletch or Vacation.  There was even a point where I had Karl rewind it because I thought I saw something funny in the background.  Turns out that old guy was trying to feel up a lady while they weren't even in focus.  In that manner, Fletch Lives provides the same deadpan humour that a Leslie Nielson movie provides without the over the top antics and schtick.  You really have to pay attention to get a lot of the jokes because Chase delivers them in such a nonchalant manner.

So, it is funny.  But what about the rest of it?  Writing? Acting? Directing?  The only way to answer those questions is with one sentence.  It was released in the 80s.  From the entirely technical standpoint, this is your stereotypical 80s comedy.  There is nothing in it that is groundbreaking or different.  Except maybe for the fact that you actually don't see any breasts.  It even has that Phil Collins-esque "In the Air Tonight" drum beat led music all over it.

When all is said and done, see it.  There is plenty of humour to keep you entertained.  But, if you have already seen it, it isn't the best way to get your Chevy Chase fix.  Fletch is better (as per usual for a series).  And so is Vacation.  But it isn't a waste of time by any stretch.