Reviews

I am actually a bit of Pixar myself. Some of their movies, like "Toy Story" and "The Incredibles", are my all time favorites. However, Cars really just didn't grab me when I first watched it. It's a rather sweet film (I guess), with good animation, but there's something lacking in this one.

The story follows Lightening Mcqueen, a hotshot race car, whose dream is to win the major, important grand race (I forgot what it was called). However, after qualifying, on the way there, his ride falls asleep and Mcqueen falls out. In his frantic search back he gets lost and stumbles upon a little has been town known as Radiator Springs. Here, he begins to find himself, and see what's really important in life (or something).

I know I probably sound very uncaring about this movie, but that's its problem; it is a dull movie. I remember this first time I watched it, I saw it with my nephew. He seemed really entertained (maybe because he actually likes playing with cars), but I was bored.

What's really missing from this movie are the creative, engaging characters found in a lot of other Pixar films. Most of the characters are just flat, and boring. I never really empathized with Mcqueen or any of his back road friends. Another thing that brought the movie down were the titular characters, the cars. Maybe it's just me, but the usage of cars in a movie is just not that entertaining. I don't mind cars a side characters ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit", for example), but when they're the main focus there's nothing that attention grabbing. Though there are a few funny car-related jokers here and there (i.e. falling asleep at the wheel), over all, it doesn't work.

The plot line is rather drab and seems to be recycled from other Pixar works. And in the end the morals that are presented are either so over used or not well presented that they really don't seem to matter that much. Also, another thing that drags "Cars" down, is, though the animation is well done, the overall color schemes is not that appealing. The whole cast and background are really dull colors that don't didn't catch my eye at all.

Unless you find the idea of a movie about automatic vehicles the greatest thing ever, "Cars" is really not worth the time. It will most likely get boring after awhile, and kids (unless they really love their Hot Wheels) will get anxious and squirmy.

"Winning London" is the story of a girl named Chloe who is the captain (?) of her high school Model UN club. After doing well in a tournament, her team is invited to the giant, international competition is London, England. However, when one of her team mates cannot attend, Chloe's twin sister Riley step in (mostly so she can hook up with some guy on the team).

I've never really loved or hated the Olsen Twins and their movies. But, a little while ago, I got suckered into watching this on TV by a friend of mine. This is a relatively harmless, but bad movie. The plot is pretty typical, and unimaginative, with nothing very interesting, creative, or unique about it. It relies heavily upon cliché jokes, plot devices, and, of course, stereotypes. Also, there are times when you can see how low budget this movie is. When Riley and a her boy toy are crawling through the air ventilation, it's really tall and wide and looks like a crappy set.

The acting is also pretty thin. The Olsens are blah, and really I felt nothing for either of their characters. They both seem rather unpleasant and whiny. One is willing to step over anyone and be a (for a lack of a better word) bitch just so she can win. The other is continually whining and making a big deal of how her crush isn't remembering her the way he should. The side characters also got on my nerves. That annoying kid with the camera (I forget his name) and the rather bland and boring fat girl. Even Jesse Spencer, who I rather like as an actor, wasn't that great. The accents were also pretty bad. Really, I found it sad to see the British people in the movie being portrayed as uptight posh individuals with accents that were garbled and couldn't be understood.

But really, though I didn't like this movie, and there were a lot of things that bugged me about it, it wasn't really anything terrible. In fact it's pretty harmless and dull. I don't think that I will forever have the horrible images of "Winning London" emblazoned in my brain. Probably, in about a week, I'll forget all about it. Besides, I'm not the intended audience. It's good if you have younger girls, they'll be entertained. Also, if you're an Olsen twins fan, then of course you're going to love it. If you're anyone else, I say just skip it.

After many years of not having seen this movie since I was a kid, I decided to watch this again.

Now I have been called a purist, and to certain extent I guess I am. When I was first saw the movie, I had never read the book, had seen only one other filmed interpretation of the novel (that being an episode of Wishbone), and only had a vague idea of who Victor Hugo was. At the time, I really enjoyed the movie (I remember distinctly my dad, who's more of a purist than me and who absolutely love Victor Hugo's works, getting really mad at it). Several years have passed since then, in which I have read the book, a comic book version, and seen several other movies which it is based upon. So what my opinion now? Well, actually, I still like this version. Granted, this is not my favorite film version, of the book. However, this one still has its effects on me.

First off, I have to say that the visuals to this film are stunning. The animation, colors, character designs, and, especially, the sets are beautifully done. It's probably one of the best things about the film. The songs are good but, for me, a bit of a mixed bag. Some are much more memorable than others. Personally, I think the best were "The Bells of Notredame". "God Help the Outcasts", and "Hellfire." Many of the other were a little on the less memorable side.

Now for the story. Because Disney, of course, supplies family entertainment, and tries to make pretty much everything as family friendly as possible, the story and characters were changed a lot from the novel. Many of the ideas Hugo was trying to demonstrate in his novel are gone in this version. Though I think this is a shame, because a lot of the original novel's feel and deeper meaning is lost. However, this does not completely destroy the movie. Since this is more of a kid's movie (or tries to be), many of the themes would be lost on a younger audience. But, the good thing about the film is that it displays it's own messages; discrimination towards specific groups of people and justice. There is also underlying bits about lust, that if you're old enough to understand, you will catch onto, but, once again, for a younger audience, it will mostly go over a kid's head (I know it did for me). The tone over all is much lighter as well. Personally I prefer the dark feel of the novel, but for it's purposes, I see why it was changed. The nice thing though, is that the movie is not so light that it is sweet and sugary. In fact, this is probably Disney's darkest movie.

I want to also touch quickly upon the characters. They were, of course, all changed in some way or other from their original incarnations. These changes weren't too bad. Though I think Frollo in the book was much more complex and interesting, he is definitely good here. In fact, I think he's one of the better Disney villain, and probably the best villain of the newer movies. One thing that did bug me, was the addition of the gargoyle characters. They were pretty much there for some sorta of humorous entertainment for kids. But for me, an older person watching this, they came off as annoying.

Overall, even with the major changes, I'd have to say this, for what it is, is a fairly good adaptation of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and worth checking out. But, if you're looking for the really close adaptation of the book, it's not a close interpretation of the novel. I'd suggest this for a little bit older kids, since it's a little darker and younger children might not understand any of the themes presented here.

"The Wedding Date" follows the neurotic Kat Ellis as she prepares for her little half-sister's wedding in London. However, since her former boyfriend dumped her, she hires a male escort, named Nick, to pose as her new boyfriend (because, no matter how successful you might be, being single means you're a total loser and failure at life). When she hires this escort, though, she soon founds out he's also a male prostitute. Things get even more complicated when she gets to London and reunites with her former flame...

I'm not the type of girl who's very partial to chick flicks, but if I'm at a get together, or such, with a bunch of other girls, I don't mind them. If you have a bunch other other people watching it with you, it usually makes the movie more fun, enjoyable, and bearable. However, I am sad to say, even when watching it with a bunch of friends of mine, "The Wedding Date," was still excruciating.

This is, of course, a movie that is perfectly happy with following a formula. I'm sure most people have seen or heard of at least one other romantic comedy following a plot that includes prostitute and client falling in love, former flames, or getting a date for a wedding/some other social outing to not look like a loser (or all three). But this movie is not one of the good ones.

Now normally with silly little romantic comedies such as this one, I try to ignore the fact that it is indeed formulaic and has been done before. However, with better romantic comedy movies, they at least try to have something good about them; fresh jokes, good witty dialog, enjoyable characters, etc. But, this movie does not. The plot sucks and over used and the jokes are boring, dull, and recycled from better (and worse) material. Most of the characters are shallow, stereotypical, and annoying. The main character Kat, is neurotic and grates on the nerves. Also, her former boyfriend, I don't see how she ever fell in love with that spineless, dick faced jerk. Her sister is ditsy and bitchy. However, I do think that Dermot Mulroney's performance as Nick was passable, especially compared to the other performances. I think it's unfortunate that the actors got stuck in this movie. Debra Messing, I believe (and like some other reviews have said), is a rather talented, bright and energetic actress. However, her talents can't be show cased in a movie like this. Over all, I just say skip this movie. It's not really worth the time.

John Macreedy, is a one armed man who arrives at the town of Black Rock. Here, he is looking for a man by the name of Komoko. However, the town's population treats him with hostility and suspicion.

"Bad Day at Black Rock," for some reason, is a movie that really stick with me. It gave me so many different feelings after watching it. However,this is a film I really like. Spencer Tracy does a wonderful job as the mysterious Macreedy and is helped out with good performance from his fellow cast member. John Sturges's direction is well done, helping give the whole movie a suspenseful and surreal feel about it. And that's what I think really affected me. In the beginning, when Macreedy gets off that train and begin talking with the other characters, I immediately felt the underlying tension slowly take hold. Everything about the way the film is set up helps add to this. For one, the characters, definitely have a lot of depth each one seems to be hiding something from everyone else. Another thing is the setting. That dreary little town out in the middle of the desert adds to the feeling.

All of this atmosphere helps build up on the theme of racism and discrimination that many Americans held toward people of Oriental descent around the time of World War II. It shows its messages without being something almost holier-than-though. In fact, if feels more real with the themes its trying to show. The only problem I have with this movie, is that it is so heavy. It's one that I couldn't watch all time. However, it is still a movie you should view at least once.