Movie Review: Cars

I just had to go to this conference in the mountains this past week, and I was alright with going. Sure, I was alone, but the drive was through some of the most beautiful terrain, so I had zero concerns as the roads twisted and turned, attempting to make me barf with motion sickness.

See, I hate driving. Three hours stood between me and the meetings. I stacked up on CDs and the portable DVD player for when I got there.

One hour in, I looked over and saw what I referred to in the past as a 'creamer truck. A long, silver cylinder being hauled by a Mack or a Peterbilt through the narrows of I-70. Behind it, I knew for sure, a bright red Mack followed.

And my mind flew back to seeing this title last week, when a Mack truck was doing the same thing...only making faces in the rear end of the silver cylinder.

Yes, after seeing this movie once, I memorized everything.

You see, in our neat little nation of ours, the car-culture rules. That is why this gas problem hits us so profoundly; this is why Europe giggles at us so.

We cannot help it, we love our cars. I hate driving. I LOVE my truck. My family's heart orders like this: my partner, my dog, my truck. Why is this?

The debate would be long on the philosophical, but I will point to this little movie that could. Cars exists because of our car culture; Cars streamlines that love into something just as magicial as every other Pixar title.

Pixar. As you know, Disney imploded it's feature animation unit and bought out this tiger of a studio. Six pictures later, the energy has not waned, keeping Disney in the limelight--and will probably keep doing so. Disney's older studio was just as good. With it's feature animation unit, Disney chose famed tales of different cultures, tooled and edited them and gave them a zing and spit them back out for the masses. The masses did not mind, for the stories were streamlined and highly creative on various levels.

Pixar was formed outside of their jurisdiction, and as such, was given a creative leeway that the feature animation unit could not enjoy. Not that it mattered--the themes picked by then-enfant studio were just as deep and meaningful as the main features. They each had a deep felt theme (some amoung them? Toy Story's undying friendships, the use of creativity in A Bug's Life, the famed 'quest' of yore becoming the focus of Finding Nemo) that was conveyed through the audiences ability to relate to the characters on screen. How does a human relate to bugs, toys, monsters and in this case, cars?

Damn good writing, that's how.

Remember that car culture comparison I noticed before hand? The authors of the screenplay must have noticed it too, for the people watching this film really do relate to the talking vehicles onscreen. In this Pixar outing, a young hotshot racer pulls a three way tie with an old retiring machine and another upstart. Having to move the race to California, the three board their trucks and head west on the Interstate. Our hero, with nods to Steve McQueen, is named Lightening McQueen accidently finds himself on the old Route 66 passage--and in the old town of Radiator Springs. He destroys the cities main throughofare and is sentenced to fixing it. The forced time forces him to slow down and realize that life in the fast lane does pay off as much as he wishes.

Okay, that's pretty deep for what has become, for many, a kids format for film. But Pixar pulls us in by starting first with a slam-bang opening sequence that, to my brain and eyes, was so photo realistic, peeling my eyes from the silver screen was not an option. From there, it, as Disney has trained them to do, relies on the actor's to truly act their parts--and by having big names this becomes the result in their entire bevy. Paul Newman came out of retirement to play a Hudson Hornet, dangnabit, he really does look like car, I'm afraid to say. Poor guy. His voice, all gravelly, even carries the sound of engine dying. Whoa.

The only drawback is that by showing what life is like 'in the slow lane,' the picture also slows--and with all the high energy in pictures beforehand, the audience loses that spark for a bit. It does return, but the pace is uneven.

Lastly, even the credits are good. Yes, entertainment even pops up during the credit. But with movies this satisifing, why would you want to leave? No one does, so they even give you fun stuff to watch then as well.

If we had more movies like this, boring summers would not exist.

Movie Review: X-Men 3

I read an interesting article in the Advocate a few days before seeing this movie. It talked about why people like my partner and myself have such a liking to comic books and their many facets of television and movies. It was an editorial, but it made a good point--super heroes tend to live a double life like many gays and lesbians.

Not mention, they are hot, but we don't need to elaborate there.

Still, that's why so many of my kin ran to the movies when "X-Men" opened up. The whole story line of being 'different' and having to survive in a discriminatory world was profoundly (and sadly) too easy to relate to. I took "X-Men" probably more strongly than most.

I knew I was going to see this movie. I was nervous, being a cineast and knowing from my sources some of the changes they were making (Juggernaut as a mutie? Where's Bryan Singer's style? Why did James Marsden leave?). But I had no choice in those matters.

This film, like others I've seen this summer--is slightly better than most, but really doesn't have the power or skill of the first two. First off, as mentioned, characters are toyed with. They show up, like friends at a graduation party, but don't do much else then eat the dip and leave early. The first storyline involves the return of Jean Grey. Only now, she's evil. So evil that she destroys things. ALot. Why? I'm not sure, other than she's angry.

See what I mean? The story isn't quite right. The main protagonists flit between all the violence but don't become anything more by the end of the story. No one changes in their attitudes.

And they are given such great opportunities to send a message during this movie. A second storyline involves finding a cure for all of mutantkind. Imagine that and the impact it has on gay culture. How many of us hear the tales of 'ex-gays?' How many of my friends have wanted to not be what they are born to be? That's heady stuff and gives this film some gravitas.

But it is not played out. Merely mentioned to give both sides action sequences as they fight over it. So the concept is there, but the execution is not.

I so wanted to like this movie, and, in many ways, it is decent--but far from the end of a trilogy. I am very open to adaptations--I totally understand the need to play with storylines. But I have a problem when the plot detracts from the overall theme of a piece. There's a great message here, a way for nongays to understand something that they might not experience. It is as if the filmmakers did not have confidence in the message they were sending and decided to go for the gut with one more fight scene.

Unfortunate. So, yeah, it's good. But my heart kinda ached a wee bit after seeing it.

Movie Review: The DiVinci Code (warning: spoilers)

Sorry it took so long to post, friends. The blogsite's been having troubles uploading my posts and I decided to just write at home. Hopefully, we're back in business--especially since I sent some of you all emails!

Like answering a question with a question, I'm going to start this review with a book review. I hated the Divinci Code book by Dan Brown. I'm really surprised I read it cover to cover. Complicated and completely devoid of adjectives, Mr. Brown's text reads like a Grisham novel---it reads like a movie adaptation. 'You've seen the movie, now read the book!' is it's attitude at the time, even tho there was no film yet. You could practically see the camera angle comments and editing remarks between the dialogue. He wanted to make a movie. Worse, he deals with art for goodness sakes, but lacked the ability to create said art in the reader's brain. I had to keep running to the internet to see exactly what he was describing.

So, as I read, I believed that it would make a good movie.

I was right.

The glaring drawbacks of the hack job of a book are greatly reduced on the big screen. The tale is a complicated one, but luckily, also facinating. Seems that the Holy Grail of old was really not an object but a secret. The secret being that Jesus of Nazareth was more mortal then we can ever think--to the point that he got married and fathered children. It also seems that a secret cabal knew this and did their best to hide the lineage from the church. The church, if this information got out, would be called a liar and might collapse--so they intend on keeping it as quiet as possible.

Enter Tom Hanks character, a symbolgist from Harvard. He has the skills to decipher hidden clues created by DiVinci and others in their works and possibly open this story wide. Hard to make a bookish professor exciting, isn't it? You do what you can, but it's another blow to the tale. At least his cohort was a cop. A small, geeky cop with no gun. Go figure.

Sounds complicated, right? It is and that is the problem. If I were to tell you, merely just tell you these secrets, you'd be asleep after the first paragraph, even if you were pious. But if, as Mr. Brown probably thought, I hid it in a work of fiction, well, you might be more interested. Most likely. But the fact of the matter is, this is heady stuff. Good stuff, but not for the faint-of-brain, for lack of a better discription.

If you like to think during your tales, this might be for you. It's also a fairly passive story. The protagonists merely move from situaition to situation, reacting instead of acting on what is happening around them. It's as if they are kidnapped the entire time by the legend floating about them. Such passivity doesn't make for engaging work. If either of them were shot, I wouldn't care, for they weren't all that interesting to begin with.

Actually, I think the film did so well by the very church that snubbed it and asked others not to see it. YOu would think a church after so many years would have learned the ins-and-outs of the movie machine. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Remember Mr. and Mrs. Smith of last year? Medicore film propelled to the top of the heap due to the well-timed romance of it's beautiful leads? Same goes for this movie. The mere fact that this title was repeated again and again from various pulpits made individuals take note and want to find out what the big deal was. Aint' nothing better for Hollywood then a request for a boycott. Many crappy films have found power this way.

But DiVinci, like Over the Hedge is better than average, but not great. Seems to be a reoccuring theme this year. Last year, the movies were just bad. This year? A step up, slightly.

Please, dear God, bring me a good movie! This is a start, but I'm still waiting for more.

Movie Review: Over the Hedge

You know, it has been a long time since I published anything on this blog. Seriously, it's not that I've not wanted to write; oh you have no idea how much I've wanted to write--but situations being what they are, life gave me a hand this past school year. Not only a hand, but one, very strong, finger. How did it happen after being a teacher for 13.5 years and a writer all my life did both things go to pot so quickly? Luck, perhaps. Situational ethics, maybe.

Whatever the situation, movies and weekend escapes of that sort took on a new meaning this school year. Now they weren't merely 'diversions.' Now they carried a weight to them, a weight that made mistakes appear more profound; a consequence that made successes even more joyous. I was cursed with very few 'awake' hours with my significant other. So those few hours became precious. When I went to the movies; I WENT TO THE MOVIES.

The school year had ended and, quite thankfully, so has my partner's vicious employment. So when the summer films opened, I could see the light of relief just out-of-touch, if only I could reach it...

It was from this standpoint that I attended my first summer movie, Over the Hedge. You don't have to read all of my previous reviews to know my feelings of animations and why I selected this title to celebrate with. I, for one, detest TomKatt and secondly, Disney and offhandedly, animation--is where I met my partner. So cartoons, if you will, are something I needed to survive. And since I was going to have hold onto until the dog days of summer arrived, this picture won the cointoss.

Not that it gave me much to hold onto. Disney may have perfected the art of animation, but others, most likely animators who once worked for Disney, have caught on. Adults like animation as much as the tykes, if it's done well. Since cartoons can be created with a computer at home, that means that something of substance has to be up there on the screen.

A story. Not just any story--a story that is universal enough that both children and adults can enjoy it, but specific enough that every single audience member feels like it is a personal experience. Look at Shrek for an example. Those jabs at the Disney Parks? Classic and something none of the youngsters could understand, but every adult could. Wallace and Gromit? No child in England or America is going to get horror movie stereotypes--

--oh wait, considering how many kids are permitted to see R movies, I should probably take that back.

It's with this tidbit that Over the Hedge misses the boat. Without the political commentary, it becomes a standard kid movie. That's alright, I suppose, but even then, the tales misses some really good opportunities to let the movie fly. The story is about Raccoon, voiced by Bruce Willis, who finds he is in debt to a very large bear, voiced by Nick Nolte, for gallons of food. Nature being what it is, food is scarce--so the Raccoon, working on a timetable, tricks the local fauna into action. They are a bit dimwitted, it seems, since their interactions have only been with each other. They are taken for a con job and collect food for the Raccoon and the bear.

As directly as I tell you here, that is the long and the short of it. It was mildly entertaining, but there was zero risks involved. They have a great list of voice over work--but not once is the cork pulled out for these performers. Don Bluth (An American Tail, Titan A.E.) learned from Disney some time ago that you have to let actors act...and from there, develop your storyboards and animation. You can see it up there on the screen, for each character is given a vivacity you can feel.

But the filmmakers here, it felt like, told the performers to stick to the script. There are zero zingers; nothing feels alive in the movie. Since there is nothing to connect to--the characters become mere computer creations. I didn't find them cute, cuddly or want them to succeed. I kept thinking I was watching a Warner Bros. short. Fun--but not really deep.

So, I suppose, I'm glad it was short. The kids will like it, I'm sure, but I'm sad it was the first 'big movie' I had to see this summer. For if this is what they plan on opening with--I wonder what the rest of the summer is going to be like.

Yeah, I might be putting to much weight on this, like I started this work with--but seriously, I have seen many movies carry that weight without burden. And yes, it IS a good movie, that was somewhat evident. But I might recommend renting a video instead for now.