Did you ever have enough Toy Story yourself as a kid? Did your kids ever watch it to the point where you had to force them to watch something else? Did you ever find yourself humming "You've Got A Friend In Me" over and over again and gotten tired of it? If your answer to all these questions is "no", then it's definitely a good thing that Pixar made another one only four years following the original's success without hesitation. Production for this movie saw some interesting developments throughout the studio and the movie itself and is not only one of the rare cases in which the sequel met the success of the original, but also surpassed it unexpectedly. Without getting too much into the fine details right away, let's go ahead and take a look at what makes Toy Story 2, like its predecessor, still one of the most beloved films to this day.
***SPOILERS AHEAD*** (but I'm sure many have seen this movie too, so why fret?)
The main factors that make Toy Story 2 stand out so well not just as a sequel, but as it's own film are its plot developments. This time we see Woody (voiced once more by Tom Hanks) trying to save a toy from a yard sale only to wind up stolen by greedy toy collector, Al McWhiggin (voiced by Wayne Knight), to be sold to a toy museum in Japan. While Woody gets to know his history through the likes of his "Roundup gang", Buzz Lightyear (voiced once more by Tim Allen) and the other toys set out on a search and rescue mission, risking their lives to locate Woody and bring him back home. Basic as it sounds, there's actually a neatly complex dilemma to it -- Woody initially wants to go back to Andy's after being fixed up for display when newcomers Jessie (voiced by Joan Cusack) and Stinky Pete (voiced by Kelsey Grammar) convince him that it's better to be adored forever than it is to be forgotten by those you used to play with. In a sense, it's easy to understand this, especially since Woody's departure would have meant the rest of the gang going back into storage (of which Jessie can't stand). However, Buzz begs to differ, reminding Woody of the lesson he taught him in the first film on being loved by those who matter most while they're around. Such a relatable topic for a movie about toys! Who would've thought a series like Toy Story would get SO incredibly deep?
And, for that matter, there's no real reason to argue that the film isn't good when it both looks and sounds fantastic! Although it was only released four years after the original -- and one year after Pixar's previous hit, A Bug's Life -- the animation and textures definitely got that much better! The humans no longer resemble plastic as the toys should and the graphics, despite being dated, actually hold up well enough today. General as that sounds, there's no mistake that, during the scenes where the toys are traveling through the apartment vents that it truly feels like you're inside one of those things -- not just from a graphical standpoint, but from the various sounds echoing off the walls as well. And so tell me again why I shouldn't say it doesn't sound great when the music is perhaps even more noteworthy this time? Randy Newman may not have any vocal bits in this movie, but there is still an abundance of phenomenal tracks both vocal and orchestral throughout. The part showing the montage of Jessie's story is greatly enhanced by the track "When She Loved Me" and there are, not one, but two different versions of "You've Got A Friend In Me" this time around! Could this possibly get any better?!
I may sound like I'm overly gushing about this movie from a nostalgia perspective seeing as I watched this film quite often, if not just as much as the first film when I was a kid, but really I'm not. Back when I was just a kid, though, it went over my head just how many genius adult jokes and film parody scenes were in this movie in the first place -- the adult jokes I'll save talking about for the observant viewers wishing to give this movie a view if you haven't already. What big movie buff could've possibly missed the Jurassic Park reference when Rex falls out of the car in Al's Toy Barn and Mr. Potato Head spots him in the rear view mirror? And those Star Wars references... I swear they're everywhere, even in a Toy Story film! Between Buzz breathing like Darth Vader in his helmet at the beginning or the "I am your father" parody scene between Utility Belt Buzz and Emperor Zurg during their showdown on the elevator, it's amazing the writers had the urge to stick those in there in the first place. With that I will say that Toy Story 2 is, without a doubt, a well-written, well-acted film with little moments like these from the side characters to make me appreciate it all the more!
Like its predecessor, Toy Story 2 is another one of those brilliant films that can't even have anything negative said about it. It's a sequel that managed to not only be as successful as the original, but succeeded it as well through means of deep dilemmas, well-written characters, well-acted voice performances from an all-star cast, improvements in graphics, excellent music, and little comedic moments that make me love it all the more. In the end, it's a neat addition to an already existing franchise and is one of the reasons why Pixar is known for being the animation giant it is today. All this and more said, I give this movie an A+ and surely consider it a must see for all ages as well as anyone who is both a fan of the original and/or looking for a brilliant film sequel to watch!
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Jasonic Reviews Spider-Man 2
When does a superhero sequel stand out enough to outdo the success of its predecessor both financially and critically? When it's excellent enough for observers like me to review! Although that answer may not exactly be 100% accurate, I very much concur with the general consensus that Spider-Man 2 is, without a doubt, among the greatest superhero films of all time. While it may not have been recognized as much as its predecessor two years before it, it surprised many viewers with being surprisingly superior to the original in just about every way. Bear in mind, I am not here to review it as a sequel, but as its own movie so, with it being my first true sequel review (not counting Star Wars: The Force Awakens), I will do my best to look at it through its own lens instead of constantly referring back to the original based on it. Plus, with the worldwide release of Spider-Man: Homecoming soon to be here, I figured now would be the best time to go back and take a look at, what many -- myself included -- consider to be the best Spider-Man film to date.
***SPOILERS AHEAD*** (but it's an older film, so who cares?)
Two years after the events of Spider-Man, Peter Parker (played once more by Tobey Maguire) is struggling to balance his personal and work with his Spider-Man crime-fighting always getting in the way of success. On top of that, he's grown more distant from his two best friends Mary Jane Watson (played once more by Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (played once more by James Franco), the latter of whom is trying to make big fortune through the brilliant work of Oscorp genius, Dr. Otto Octavius (played by Alfred Molina). When the doc's experimentation on a fusion reactor goes haywire, Harry's dream sinks right before his eyes and Ock becomes a madman due to his mechanical harness tentacles malfunctioning and taking control of him. With Peter caught in the middle of the chaos of yet another villain on the loose, his best friends falling out, and his personal feelings about himself and MJ, it's up to the brainiac-turned-Web-head to make his choices count. Whether he gives up on his dreams or gets what he wants most, ultimately Peter will soon witness what makes him the best he could possibly be.
Right off the bat, one can already tell the movie has a great premise full of strong themes. No longer weighed down by the details of the origin story, the movie has a chance to get right into the story and claim its own identity. With plenty of legitimate character building among the major characters, there's enough weight and dimension for people to talk deep about the film and take it seriously. Here, we are given more insight into the psychology of Peter Parker/Spider-Man with why he does what he does; having previously become Spider-Man to stop criminals simply to make up for Uncle Ben's death, he soon realizes his heart just isn't in it anymore. Between MJ losing faith in him as a friend and her being engaged to J. Jonah Jameson's son, John Jameson (played by Daniel Gillies), of all people, he begins to lose his powers due to an emotional and psychological imbalance in his mind. What becomes of him is him making a choice of whether he should quit being Spider-Man and live a normal, more productive life, which he ultimately acts on due to still feeling guilty about Uncle Ben. Some may consider this a selfish move on Peter's part, but, to me, it feels more like you just want him to be happy. Eventually, he does rediscover happiness through confessing his responsibility toward Ben's death, Aunt May (played once more by Rosemary Harris), in return, delivering a speech about there being a "hero in all of us", and MJ being threatened by Doc Ock all of which urges him to turn back into Spider-Man out of responsibility -- a brilliant, more stronger way of becoming a superhero than anything. And Tobey Maguire still plays him so well, especially this time around.
Not only does the film expand on many ideas introduced in the first movie, but it also enhances them too. Pretty much everybody, at this point, has gushed over how wonderfully complex and well-constructed Doc Ock's villain arc is compared to... well, many other superhero movie villains -- and, of course, Green Goblin, but I digress. We are initially given a teacher-mentor angle on Otto and Peter's relationship -- something that wasn't in the original comics -- and find out that the two share many of the same beliefs regarding science (the main idea being that "intelligence is a gift, not a privilege"). Unfortunate for Octavius, his hubris to make the fusion reactor experiment work results in the untimely death of his wife and the melding of his harness tentacles to his brain causing him to lose control of his own will. Unlike most comic book movie villains, which inspire genuine anger from me (especially the more they torture the heroes), everything building up to his downfall causes me to feel more sorry for Ock when he ultimately goes crazy and tries to finish the experiment because it's all he has left. However, by the end of the movie, he is perfectly set up for redemption when, at the end of his and Spider-Man's final fight, Peter confronts Octavius face-to-face and encourages him to regain control of his tentacles using the "intelligence is a gift, not a privilege" phrase from before (this I like to consider Ock's version of "with great power comes great responsibility). The finality of his choosing to redeem himself through sacrifice to stop the unstable fusion reactor by drowning it in the river is what ultimately seals Doc Ock in my book as one of the best onscreen villains in superhero film history. Of course, I can't forget how awesomely Alfred Molina unforgettably portrayed this character so well.
I could go on for hours about the other characters and how their arcs and roles are all very well-written and acted, but then this review would be bogged with character details and not enough room for technical aspects to analyze -- I will say I love Harry's arc and how he was set up as a villain for the next film, but that we'll cover another time. If anything, let's start with the basics; the action, for one, is so spectacular, my inner child breaks through when watching them. The big showdowns between Spider-Man and Doc Ock is well scripted with each making good use of their abilities to combat each other -- I mean a cephalopod and an arthropod versing one another in real life might be just as brutal, but why, in any situation wouldn't they just hug it out instead? (Spidey joke for the fans) Ranging between regular comic book madness to breakneck, high tail action, each fight scene is a pleasure to watch for any viewer whether they be a comic fan or a casual moviegoer. And, what review of this movie could ever go without talking about the epic train fight scene? It is, by far, one of the most iconic and well-put together superhero movie fight scenes of all time rivaling even that of the climactic scene of The Avengers years later. Plus, although the going back and forth between practical and CG may not yet be seamless, it's still nice to see a mix between the two especially in scenes where Doc Ock's tentacles are in the spotlight.
No movie is perfect, of course, as there are still some issues with this film that only fit the minor category. For one, MJ still seems like the unattainable girl she was in the first film, but for different reasons and, while she is in peril much less this time around, there at least is a point during the final fight where she only tries to stick up for Spider-Man -- even if she's only easily shoved aside by Ock's tentacles due to their omniscience. On topic of MJ, it's never fully delved into why she chose to marry John Jameson or even who the guy is for that matter (apart from the fact that he's an astronaut who played football on the moon, but that's about all we get). Pretty much MJ simply has another love interest to create further torment in Peter -- albeit indirectly -- and that's pretty much it. And the hospital scene with Ock's tentacles gruesomely murdering every doctor in sight, while a nice nod to director Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy, really takes a sharp turn in tone from the lightheartedness that's supposed to be Spider-Man. To give credit where due, though, many tend to complain about the film being "goofy" at some points (i.e.: the random extra screaming intensely at the mere sight of Ock's tentacles), but they're definitely not the kind of goofy that detracts from the overall story and quality of everything else.
For that matter, the film remains consistent with the identity we all know Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy to be: a fun, lighthearted adventure with a warm feeling and deep thematic elements. Part of what makes this film, in particular, feel very warm is the lighting and the ways in which every shot is set up to generate such a feeling. Not only that, but, despite the trials and hardships of every character along the way, it ultimately ends with each of them (save for Harry) achieving what's best for them. Movies like this (especially if they're superhero movies) always inspire me to achieve my dreams and never give up, no matter how tough the road getting there may be. When a film like this is done so well, it's easy for one to get their own message out of it, no matter what it may be. And what better than when a superhero film -- much less a sequel -- hits its audience with a ton of inspiration like Spider-Man 2 does?
So there you have it. As much as I felt the need to dive into many aspects of Spider-Man 2, it's only further proof that it's truly one of those films that gets people talking. It's got great story, wonderful character arcs, great acting, special effects, and action scenes, and, despite minor issues, it is a genuine piece of art that leaves everything up to the viewer to interpret and take away -- like one of those paintings in an art museum that no one knows the true meaning behind, but can look at their own way. In short, much like the first one did for superhero movies in general, this one upped the ante for superhero sequels, which, as of today, constantly and consistently try to outdo their predecessors even if they're not always the more successful films. All that said, without further adieu, I cite this movie with a solid A rating and consider it a must see for anyone interested in seeing what a true work of art is in the form of a superhero movie.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
***SPOILERS AHEAD*** (but it's an older film, so who cares?)
Two years after the events of Spider-Man, Peter Parker (played once more by Tobey Maguire) is struggling to balance his personal and work with his Spider-Man crime-fighting always getting in the way of success. On top of that, he's grown more distant from his two best friends Mary Jane Watson (played once more by Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (played once more by James Franco), the latter of whom is trying to make big fortune through the brilliant work of Oscorp genius, Dr. Otto Octavius (played by Alfred Molina). When the doc's experimentation on a fusion reactor goes haywire, Harry's dream sinks right before his eyes and Ock becomes a madman due to his mechanical harness tentacles malfunctioning and taking control of him. With Peter caught in the middle of the chaos of yet another villain on the loose, his best friends falling out, and his personal feelings about himself and MJ, it's up to the brainiac-turned-Web-head to make his choices count. Whether he gives up on his dreams or gets what he wants most, ultimately Peter will soon witness what makes him the best he could possibly be.
Right off the bat, one can already tell the movie has a great premise full of strong themes. No longer weighed down by the details of the origin story, the movie has a chance to get right into the story and claim its own identity. With plenty of legitimate character building among the major characters, there's enough weight and dimension for people to talk deep about the film and take it seriously. Here, we are given more insight into the psychology of Peter Parker/Spider-Man with why he does what he does; having previously become Spider-Man to stop criminals simply to make up for Uncle Ben's death, he soon realizes his heart just isn't in it anymore. Between MJ losing faith in him as a friend and her being engaged to J. Jonah Jameson's son, John Jameson (played by Daniel Gillies), of all people, he begins to lose his powers due to an emotional and psychological imbalance in his mind. What becomes of him is him making a choice of whether he should quit being Spider-Man and live a normal, more productive life, which he ultimately acts on due to still feeling guilty about Uncle Ben. Some may consider this a selfish move on Peter's part, but, to me, it feels more like you just want him to be happy. Eventually, he does rediscover happiness through confessing his responsibility toward Ben's death, Aunt May (played once more by Rosemary Harris), in return, delivering a speech about there being a "hero in all of us", and MJ being threatened by Doc Ock all of which urges him to turn back into Spider-Man out of responsibility -- a brilliant, more stronger way of becoming a superhero than anything. And Tobey Maguire still plays him so well, especially this time around.
Not only does the film expand on many ideas introduced in the first movie, but it also enhances them too. Pretty much everybody, at this point, has gushed over how wonderfully complex and well-constructed Doc Ock's villain arc is compared to... well, many other superhero movie villains -- and, of course, Green Goblin, but I digress. We are initially given a teacher-mentor angle on Otto and Peter's relationship -- something that wasn't in the original comics -- and find out that the two share many of the same beliefs regarding science (the main idea being that "intelligence is a gift, not a privilege"). Unfortunate for Octavius, his hubris to make the fusion reactor experiment work results in the untimely death of his wife and the melding of his harness tentacles to his brain causing him to lose control of his own will. Unlike most comic book movie villains, which inspire genuine anger from me (especially the more they torture the heroes), everything building up to his downfall causes me to feel more sorry for Ock when he ultimately goes crazy and tries to finish the experiment because it's all he has left. However, by the end of the movie, he is perfectly set up for redemption when, at the end of his and Spider-Man's final fight, Peter confronts Octavius face-to-face and encourages him to regain control of his tentacles using the "intelligence is a gift, not a privilege" phrase from before (this I like to consider Ock's version of "with great power comes great responsibility). The finality of his choosing to redeem himself through sacrifice to stop the unstable fusion reactor by drowning it in the river is what ultimately seals Doc Ock in my book as one of the best onscreen villains in superhero film history. Of course, I can't forget how awesomely Alfred Molina unforgettably portrayed this character so well.
I could go on for hours about the other characters and how their arcs and roles are all very well-written and acted, but then this review would be bogged with character details and not enough room for technical aspects to analyze -- I will say I love Harry's arc and how he was set up as a villain for the next film, but that we'll cover another time. If anything, let's start with the basics; the action, for one, is so spectacular, my inner child breaks through when watching them. The big showdowns between Spider-Man and Doc Ock is well scripted with each making good use of their abilities to combat each other -- I mean a cephalopod and an arthropod versing one another in real life might be just as brutal, but why, in any situation wouldn't they just hug it out instead? (Spidey joke for the fans) Ranging between regular comic book madness to breakneck, high tail action, each fight scene is a pleasure to watch for any viewer whether they be a comic fan or a casual moviegoer. And, what review of this movie could ever go without talking about the epic train fight scene? It is, by far, one of the most iconic and well-put together superhero movie fight scenes of all time rivaling even that of the climactic scene of The Avengers years later. Plus, although the going back and forth between practical and CG may not yet be seamless, it's still nice to see a mix between the two especially in scenes where Doc Ock's tentacles are in the spotlight.
No movie is perfect, of course, as there are still some issues with this film that only fit the minor category. For one, MJ still seems like the unattainable girl she was in the first film, but for different reasons and, while she is in peril much less this time around, there at least is a point during the final fight where she only tries to stick up for Spider-Man -- even if she's only easily shoved aside by Ock's tentacles due to their omniscience. On topic of MJ, it's never fully delved into why she chose to marry John Jameson or even who the guy is for that matter (apart from the fact that he's an astronaut who played football on the moon, but that's about all we get). Pretty much MJ simply has another love interest to create further torment in Peter -- albeit indirectly -- and that's pretty much it. And the hospital scene with Ock's tentacles gruesomely murdering every doctor in sight, while a nice nod to director Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy, really takes a sharp turn in tone from the lightheartedness that's supposed to be Spider-Man. To give credit where due, though, many tend to complain about the film being "goofy" at some points (i.e.: the random extra screaming intensely at the mere sight of Ock's tentacles), but they're definitely not the kind of goofy that detracts from the overall story and quality of everything else.
For that matter, the film remains consistent with the identity we all know Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy to be: a fun, lighthearted adventure with a warm feeling and deep thematic elements. Part of what makes this film, in particular, feel very warm is the lighting and the ways in which every shot is set up to generate such a feeling. Not only that, but, despite the trials and hardships of every character along the way, it ultimately ends with each of them (save for Harry) achieving what's best for them. Movies like this (especially if they're superhero movies) always inspire me to achieve my dreams and never give up, no matter how tough the road getting there may be. When a film like this is done so well, it's easy for one to get their own message out of it, no matter what it may be. And what better than when a superhero film -- much less a sequel -- hits its audience with a ton of inspiration like Spider-Man 2 does?
So there you have it. As much as I felt the need to dive into many aspects of Spider-Man 2, it's only further proof that it's truly one of those films that gets people talking. It's got great story, wonderful character arcs, great acting, special effects, and action scenes, and, despite minor issues, it is a genuine piece of art that leaves everything up to the viewer to interpret and take away -- like one of those paintings in an art museum that no one knows the true meaning behind, but can look at their own way. In short, much like the first one did for superhero movies in general, this one upped the ante for superhero sequels, which, as of today, constantly and consistently try to outdo their predecessors even if they're not always the more successful films. All that said, without further adieu, I cite this movie with a solid A rating and consider it a must see for anyone interested in seeing what a true work of art is in the form of a superhero movie.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Jasonic Reviews The Lego Movie
That moment when you're standard blockbuster formula is ripped apart by an innovative, smart, and fresh flick that's completely for all ages, you know that everything is awesome! While I'm uncertain that was really the best introductory line of all time, cheesy as it was, I do believe such can be said for an unexpected success like The Lego Movie. It's just about everything everyone who grew up with LEGOs wanted and more and is enough to also entertain newcomers and get them up and active with ideas. General as it sounds, maybe you're wondering why all this is being said by a 21-year-old who's watched the movie multiple times and still feels excited watching it? Because, believe it or not, this movie has many reasons why it's so much more than mindless fun.
So, without further adieu, in the voice of Metal Beard (voiced by Nick Offerman) I'll say...
***ARGH! HERE BE SPOILERS FOR THE LEGO MOVIE AHOY!!***
The film is a mostly animated comedy adventure set in a world of LEGOs about an average construction worker named Emmett (voiced by Chris Pratt) living a normal life following "the instructions" very closely like everyone else. That all changes when he touches an important artifact known as the "piece of resistance" thereby labeling him of importance amongst the evil forces of President Business (a tyrannical businessman who rules over the land voiced by Will Farrell) and a team of legends known as the "Master Builders". Believing himself to be special -- having been dubbed "the special" by others -- Emmett eventually finds that he's incapable of living up to the prophecy foretold of him saving the world. With the help of his fellow comrades, Wyldstyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks), and mentor figure, Virtruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman), Emmett will soon come to realize that being special isn't all it's made out to be in legends. Rather, it's all about one's ability to stand out and be their own person.
First and foremost, it seems as though the first and best thing to note about the movie is its presentation. The look and feel of the character movements, at first glance, may appear to be stop-motion photography, but is actually CGI made to look like stop-motion. Admittedly, I was initially baffled at the thought that stop-motion had come far enough to where everything looked and played out as sleek and fluidly as any other animated movie, but, boy was I wrong! Many of the fast action scenes and environments where a lot happens on screen at a time (i.e.: the chase scenes with multiple blaster bolts and explosions, the ocean waves midway through the film, etc.) would have been next to impossible to perfect in stop-motion -- even the filmmakers must have be relieved that they didn't go that route because, surely, the film might even be in production still to this day if that were the case. All that said, the only stop-motion sequence is during the credits, showing they at least had the will to go about it, even if for only 1% of the film. One of the main reasons it was so indistinguishable for me at first was due to the art style; each LEGO piece and mini-figure appears realistic enough to be mistaken for actual pieces that you could hold in your hand. The characters themselves such as the 1980s spaceman called Benny (voiced by Charlie Day) are even designed with some authentic touches -- Ben, in particular, having a crack in his helmet right where it cracks in real life. And the overall attention to detail in the pieces and environments is just astonishing that I could be at it for hours naming off every little reference and background gag that pops up through out.
Generic as the plot sounds, this movie, much like many other films I've reviewed, has a way of denying expectations with a freshness that catches the audience off guard. That said, it twists about the formulaic "Chosen One" arc to where it falls flat on its face. When Emmett is first told he's the "special", he doesn't once take the standard "liar revealed" route and instead becomes confused and cowardly about the whole situation at hand -- part of this may be because of Bad/Good Cop (voiced by Liam Neeson) having previously shown him interview footage of his neighbors, coworkers, and other associates each stating differently that he's "not special". Plus, even though Virtruvius at first states that the aforementioned prophecy is true, it is later revealed that he simply made it up. I won't necessarily go into detail about exactly what this means, but I'll only skim the major spoilers by saying that the true purpose of the film isn't to once more showcase the tired trope of "everyday generic guy becomes the hero to save everyone". Rather, instead, it presents a heartfelt message about control and perfectionism vs. freedom and creativity done in a way that doesn't beat the viewer over the head with the moral of the story. For this reason among many others, The Lego Movie still holds up very well three years later.
Even the voice acting is some of the most entertaining, energetic voice work I've ever heard in an animated movie in ages. Emmett is among one of Chris Pratt's most memorable roles with his spot-on delivery (both comedic and heartfelt) that, in a sense, he almost works better as an animated voice role than he does a live actor -- even so, Star-Lord, I felt, was a great role for him, but we'll get to that another day. As Wyldstyle, Elizabeth Banks seemed a bit held back in a voice over role, but even she had her moments both funny and serious. Oh, and did I even mention that Batman was a main role in this movie? Voiced by Will Arnett, this Batman's voice is probably the most well-done bat growl voice of them all -- even more so than Christian Bale who originally popularized the growly bat voice (more on him another day). And, although it's his first truly animated role (having done some voice work beforehand, I might add), it goes without saying that Morgan Freeman as Virtruvius sounds epic in multiple ways I can't comprehend -- the editors having gone as far as leaving one of his outtakes in the movie because it fit the tone they were going for. Plus, the multiple other ensemble and cameo voice roles (Allison Brie as Unikitty, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as Superman and Green Lantern respectively, and Billy Dee Williams reprising Lando Calrissian to name a few) were all very welcome additions that both amazed me and made me chuckle/laugh often. If my points I've brought up don't convince anybody to watch the movie and/or buy more LEGOs to be fun and creative with, then I don't know what will.
For what it is, The Lego Movie is similar to Toy Story in multiple ways. It's an innovative movie that dove into a whole new territory of filmmaking (CG animated LEGOs vs. CG animated film in general), completely defied audience expectations (both a pleasure to watch and full of heart), both have fantastic voice work that will be remembered for years to come, and one other way, which I've decided not to share with those who haven't quite seen the movie yet. I didn't quite mention that the movie -- plus its competitor -- also has a fantastic score (both orchestral and vocal) with myself even enjoying the song "Everything is Awesome" and its layered meaning every now and then. Since I decided not to write a whole paragraph about it, I will go ahead and say that, like Toy Story before it, nothing negative can really be said about The Lego Movie and it definitely still holds up today unlike Frozen, which, before it came out, was all the craze before this movie took its place. Generally speaking, this movie gets an A in my book and is another one of those must see recommendations that goes out to all ages everywhere.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
So, without further adieu, in the voice of Metal Beard (voiced by Nick Offerman) I'll say...
***ARGH! HERE BE SPOILERS FOR THE LEGO MOVIE AHOY!!***
The film is a mostly animated comedy adventure set in a world of LEGOs about an average construction worker named Emmett (voiced by Chris Pratt) living a normal life following "the instructions" very closely like everyone else. That all changes when he touches an important artifact known as the "piece of resistance" thereby labeling him of importance amongst the evil forces of President Business (a tyrannical businessman who rules over the land voiced by Will Farrell) and a team of legends known as the "Master Builders". Believing himself to be special -- having been dubbed "the special" by others -- Emmett eventually finds that he's incapable of living up to the prophecy foretold of him saving the world. With the help of his fellow comrades, Wyldstyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks), and mentor figure, Virtruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman), Emmett will soon come to realize that being special isn't all it's made out to be in legends. Rather, it's all about one's ability to stand out and be their own person.
First and foremost, it seems as though the first and best thing to note about the movie is its presentation. The look and feel of the character movements, at first glance, may appear to be stop-motion photography, but is actually CGI made to look like stop-motion. Admittedly, I was initially baffled at the thought that stop-motion had come far enough to where everything looked and played out as sleek and fluidly as any other animated movie, but, boy was I wrong! Many of the fast action scenes and environments where a lot happens on screen at a time (i.e.: the chase scenes with multiple blaster bolts and explosions, the ocean waves midway through the film, etc.) would have been next to impossible to perfect in stop-motion -- even the filmmakers must have be relieved that they didn't go that route because, surely, the film might even be in production still to this day if that were the case. All that said, the only stop-motion sequence is during the credits, showing they at least had the will to go about it, even if for only 1% of the film. One of the main reasons it was so indistinguishable for me at first was due to the art style; each LEGO piece and mini-figure appears realistic enough to be mistaken for actual pieces that you could hold in your hand. The characters themselves such as the 1980s spaceman called Benny (voiced by Charlie Day) are even designed with some authentic touches -- Ben, in particular, having a crack in his helmet right where it cracks in real life. And the overall attention to detail in the pieces and environments is just astonishing that I could be at it for hours naming off every little reference and background gag that pops up through out.
Generic as the plot sounds, this movie, much like many other films I've reviewed, has a way of denying expectations with a freshness that catches the audience off guard. That said, it twists about the formulaic "Chosen One" arc to where it falls flat on its face. When Emmett is first told he's the "special", he doesn't once take the standard "liar revealed" route and instead becomes confused and cowardly about the whole situation at hand -- part of this may be because of Bad/Good Cop (voiced by Liam Neeson) having previously shown him interview footage of his neighbors, coworkers, and other associates each stating differently that he's "not special". Plus, even though Virtruvius at first states that the aforementioned prophecy is true, it is later revealed that he simply made it up. I won't necessarily go into detail about exactly what this means, but I'll only skim the major spoilers by saying that the true purpose of the film isn't to once more showcase the tired trope of "everyday generic guy becomes the hero to save everyone". Rather, instead, it presents a heartfelt message about control and perfectionism vs. freedom and creativity done in a way that doesn't beat the viewer over the head with the moral of the story. For this reason among many others, The Lego Movie still holds up very well three years later.
Even the voice acting is some of the most entertaining, energetic voice work I've ever heard in an animated movie in ages. Emmett is among one of Chris Pratt's most memorable roles with his spot-on delivery (both comedic and heartfelt) that, in a sense, he almost works better as an animated voice role than he does a live actor -- even so, Star-Lord, I felt, was a great role for him, but we'll get to that another day. As Wyldstyle, Elizabeth Banks seemed a bit held back in a voice over role, but even she had her moments both funny and serious. Oh, and did I even mention that Batman was a main role in this movie? Voiced by Will Arnett, this Batman's voice is probably the most well-done bat growl voice of them all -- even more so than Christian Bale who originally popularized the growly bat voice (more on him another day). And, although it's his first truly animated role (having done some voice work beforehand, I might add), it goes without saying that Morgan Freeman as Virtruvius sounds epic in multiple ways I can't comprehend -- the editors having gone as far as leaving one of his outtakes in the movie because it fit the tone they were going for. Plus, the multiple other ensemble and cameo voice roles (Allison Brie as Unikitty, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as Superman and Green Lantern respectively, and Billy Dee Williams reprising Lando Calrissian to name a few) were all very welcome additions that both amazed me and made me chuckle/laugh often. If my points I've brought up don't convince anybody to watch the movie and/or buy more LEGOs to be fun and creative with, then I don't know what will.
For what it is, The Lego Movie is similar to Toy Story in multiple ways. It's an innovative movie that dove into a whole new territory of filmmaking (CG animated LEGOs vs. CG animated film in general), completely defied audience expectations (both a pleasure to watch and full of heart), both have fantastic voice work that will be remembered for years to come, and one other way, which I've decided not to share with those who haven't quite seen the movie yet. I didn't quite mention that the movie -- plus its competitor -- also has a fantastic score (both orchestral and vocal) with myself even enjoying the song "Everything is Awesome" and its layered meaning every now and then. Since I decided not to write a whole paragraph about it, I will go ahead and say that, like Toy Story before it, nothing negative can really be said about The Lego Movie and it definitely still holds up today unlike Frozen, which, before it came out, was all the craze before this movie took its place. Generally speaking, this movie gets an A in my book and is another one of those must see recommendations that goes out to all ages everywhere.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Jasonic Reviews Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
When a movie opens up with an 8-bit version of the film company's logo, you know you can just hear all the gamer nerds geeking out over what they're about to see. Such was the case with me seeing Scott Pilgrim vs. The World with my friends a few years back on opening day. Never having read the graphic novels prior to then, I will admit, I had little to no expectations for what I was getting myself into. But then that aforementioned logo appeared followed by the following text/opening narration:
"Not so long ago
In the mysterious land
Of Toronto, Canada
Scott Pilgrim was dating a high schooler"
With that opening text alone, I was immediately sold on how cheesy, yet geeky and inventive this movie would be. And, boy, did it deliver on all three fronts.
*MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD*
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World sees the titular character (played by Michael Cera) in a jam when he falls for the new girl in town, Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead). In order to win her over, however, Scott must face all odds against her seven evil exes (known as the League of Evil Exes) and defeat them in various duels to the death. All while Scott throws down with the baggage of Ramona's love life, his band, Sex Bob-Omb, rises from their garage band status and his former girlfriend, Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong), seeks to get back at Ramona for presumably stealing her man. Sound crazy enough? While the story and characters apparently aren't nearly as fleshed out as they are in the graphic novels, they're still full of crazy elements and traits that make you wish it were real. Most prominently, each fight with an evil ex turns everything into a video game-like scenario with there being hit combos displayed on screen at times, Scott and other fighters pulling weapons out of thin air, and, each time an ex or other enemy is killed, they explode into a shower of coins followed by a number of points displaying where they die. Brutal as it sounds, it's all actually quite fun to watch.
Michael Cera, for one, does an excellent job of portraying an adorkable nerd -- who's kind of a jerk when you think about it -- and he and the other members of the ensemble play well off each other in their outrageous interactions. It's especially outrageous in the variety of methods that Scott utilizes to conquer each fight: his fists, his wit, pulling out tricks, a bass guitar, and, ultimately, the Power of Love and Self-respect. And, despite the daunting task at hand, Scott himself never resorts to the tired trope of "main character complains about the task at hand" trope. In other words, instead of relying on another person -- perhaps his sister, Stacey (played by Anna Kendrick) -- to motivate him to essentially take on the world, he just accepts that his destiny awaits beyond what he has to do and goes through with it. And, since it's Ramona's past that he's dealing with -- even somewhat his own -- his journey creates a surprisingly powerful message for the audience: the best way to even have a relationship with the one you want isn't all fluffy clouds, but, rather, involves serious commitment even to the point of dealing with another's baggage. That said, I may be giving a lot away just by simply explaining Scott's character, so let's move on.
Being directed by Edgar Wright of all people, the film is packed with many nods to the conventions of the medium in which it came from. From what I've noticed in the special features, many of the film's shots are actually pulled straight from the graphic novels. Much of it involves innovative camera work and interactions between the foreground and background in scenes such as the part where Scott watches Ramona and Knives talk from a distance as well the elevator shot during the climactic scene. The typography throughout the film is a nice edition as well; in scenes where one would expect a narrator to do a voice over there are, instead, instances of text (pulled straight from the books I might add) that explain transitions between scenes (i.e.: "And then... he stalked her... until... she left... the party"). Going along with the video game-esque scenes are moments in which there displays stats for Scott -- specifically right before the final fight in which one of them strangely says Balls: +8 -- that most gamers may see as an element missing from movies directly based on video games. As a movie referencing various video games as opposed to being inspired by one, I definitely see it as a crucial element that works better in this movie than anywhere else.
Ultimately, one of the best, most crucial elements that gives the movie the unique identity it already has is the soundtrack. Not long after I watched the movie did I get my hands on the soundtrack for reasons that it all fit surprisingly well with my video games. Personal stories aside, the original songs recorded specifically for this film contain mainly garage band-styled tracks played by Scott's band during the opening credits and the many music-based showdowns throughout. Many other tracks that inspired the graphic novel's author, Brian Lee O'Malley, back in the day are also featured as background music (examples being "I Heard Ramona Sing" and "Under My Thumb" among others). Even the bass battle between Scott and the third evil ex is full of such epic guitar riffs that would definitely inspire the most competent of guitar players watching this movie. Plus, in addition to there being multiple sound effects ripped straight from games throughout, there is also this one secret 8-bit song hidden at the end of the credits for those willing to stay all the way through to the end with it. Although this is definitely no Marvel movie, I still find it satisfying enough to sit through to the end of the credits when I watch any movie for review.
So pretty much the gist of my take on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is that it lives up to its poster tagline: "an epic of epicness". It may not be one of the absolute greatest movies out there, but it definitely has its own unique identity with its simplified plot line, wacky world and characters, video game-like scenes, its typography, and awesome soundtrack, I wish there could be more movies (and perhaps books) like it. Of course, there will never be a sequel, but even I would be down to see any movie that takes inspiration and cues from it on a lot of levels. With that said, the verdict? This movie gets a solid B in my book and consider it worth watching for its entertainment value.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
"Not so long ago
In the mysterious land
Of Toronto, Canada
Scott Pilgrim was dating a high schooler"
With that opening text alone, I was immediately sold on how cheesy, yet geeky and inventive this movie would be. And, boy, did it deliver on all three fronts.
*MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD*
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World sees the titular character (played by Michael Cera) in a jam when he falls for the new girl in town, Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead). In order to win her over, however, Scott must face all odds against her seven evil exes (known as the League of Evil Exes) and defeat them in various duels to the death. All while Scott throws down with the baggage of Ramona's love life, his band, Sex Bob-Omb, rises from their garage band status and his former girlfriend, Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong), seeks to get back at Ramona for presumably stealing her man. Sound crazy enough? While the story and characters apparently aren't nearly as fleshed out as they are in the graphic novels, they're still full of crazy elements and traits that make you wish it were real. Most prominently, each fight with an evil ex turns everything into a video game-like scenario with there being hit combos displayed on screen at times, Scott and other fighters pulling weapons out of thin air, and, each time an ex or other enemy is killed, they explode into a shower of coins followed by a number of points displaying where they die. Brutal as it sounds, it's all actually quite fun to watch.
Michael Cera, for one, does an excellent job of portraying an adorkable nerd -- who's kind of a jerk when you think about it -- and he and the other members of the ensemble play well off each other in their outrageous interactions. It's especially outrageous in the variety of methods that Scott utilizes to conquer each fight: his fists, his wit, pulling out tricks, a bass guitar, and, ultimately, the Power of Love and Self-respect. And, despite the daunting task at hand, Scott himself never resorts to the tired trope of "main character complains about the task at hand" trope. In other words, instead of relying on another person -- perhaps his sister, Stacey (played by Anna Kendrick) -- to motivate him to essentially take on the world, he just accepts that his destiny awaits beyond what he has to do and goes through with it. And, since it's Ramona's past that he's dealing with -- even somewhat his own -- his journey creates a surprisingly powerful message for the audience: the best way to even have a relationship with the one you want isn't all fluffy clouds, but, rather, involves serious commitment even to the point of dealing with another's baggage. That said, I may be giving a lot away just by simply explaining Scott's character, so let's move on.
Being directed by Edgar Wright of all people, the film is packed with many nods to the conventions of the medium in which it came from. From what I've noticed in the special features, many of the film's shots are actually pulled straight from the graphic novels. Much of it involves innovative camera work and interactions between the foreground and background in scenes such as the part where Scott watches Ramona and Knives talk from a distance as well the elevator shot during the climactic scene. The typography throughout the film is a nice edition as well; in scenes where one would expect a narrator to do a voice over there are, instead, instances of text (pulled straight from the books I might add) that explain transitions between scenes (i.e.: "And then... he stalked her... until... she left... the party"). Going along with the video game-esque scenes are moments in which there displays stats for Scott -- specifically right before the final fight in which one of them strangely says Balls: +8 -- that most gamers may see as an element missing from movies directly based on video games. As a movie referencing various video games as opposed to being inspired by one, I definitely see it as a crucial element that works better in this movie than anywhere else.
Ultimately, one of the best, most crucial elements that gives the movie the unique identity it already has is the soundtrack. Not long after I watched the movie did I get my hands on the soundtrack for reasons that it all fit surprisingly well with my video games. Personal stories aside, the original songs recorded specifically for this film contain mainly garage band-styled tracks played by Scott's band during the opening credits and the many music-based showdowns throughout. Many other tracks that inspired the graphic novel's author, Brian Lee O'Malley, back in the day are also featured as background music (examples being "I Heard Ramona Sing" and "Under My Thumb" among others). Even the bass battle between Scott and the third evil ex is full of such epic guitar riffs that would definitely inspire the most competent of guitar players watching this movie. Plus, in addition to there being multiple sound effects ripped straight from games throughout, there is also this one secret 8-bit song hidden at the end of the credits for those willing to stay all the way through to the end with it. Although this is definitely no Marvel movie, I still find it satisfying enough to sit through to the end of the credits when I watch any movie for review.
So pretty much the gist of my take on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is that it lives up to its poster tagline: "an epic of epicness". It may not be one of the absolute greatest movies out there, but it definitely has its own unique identity with its simplified plot line, wacky world and characters, video game-like scenes, its typography, and awesome soundtrack, I wish there could be more movies (and perhaps books) like it. Of course, there will never be a sequel, but even I would be down to see any movie that takes inspiration and cues from it on a lot of levels. With that said, the verdict? This movie gets a solid B in my book and consider it worth watching for its entertainment value.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Jasonic Reviews How to Train Your Dragon
Sometimes it takes watching a movie all on your own to fully realize the deeper value of it. While viewing films is generally something I genuinely enjoy doing with people (friends and family alike), I can't always pick up on everything I like about the film and simply share my general thoughts -- especially on a first time viewing. The reason I'm sharing this is because, when I first watched DreamWorks' spectacular outing of How to Train Your Dragon, I had been watching over a bunch of kids with my teenage pals at the time and, naturally due to the kids being loud and off the walls, I couldn't pay full attention to it. While not a fully unpleasant experience, it didn't exactly give me the chance to let the film fully resonate with me; I never even had genuine interest in it at the time for fear that it would just be "another dumb kids movie". Years later, though, I gave it another chance after going to see the sequel in theaters with my best friend and did I actually think it was an awesome well put together film for pretty much all ages? Long story short: Yes.
*No need for spoiler tag in this one*
Being based on a children's book of the same name, the premise of How to Train Your Dragon is rather familiar at best. The film sees a scrawny teenage Viking nobody named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) desiring to fit in amongst his village of Berk, which is regularly attacked by menacing dragons. His father, the village chieftain, Stoick the Vast (voiced by Gerard Butler), who hates dragons with a passion isn't proud of him for being so weak and clumsy and the fellow villagers see him as a disgrace and don't always give him the attention he deserves -- particularly his crush, Astrid (voiced by America Ferrera). Hoping to get noticed for a change, he goes out of his way to somehow successfully capture a "Night Fury" -- the most feared and mysterious of all dragons. Even so, in his attempt to kill it, he can't bring himself to do it and ends up befriending it in secret (later naming it Toothless for its lack of teeth). Through being forced into the village blacksmith, Gobber's (voiced by Craig Ferguson), program of "dragon training" by his father and getting to know Toothless without anyone else knowing, Hiccup soon discovers that dragons, menacing and destructive as they are, aren't exactly everything the Vikings make them out to be. And so it becomes a tale of the nerdy protagonist venturing from "nobody" status to becoming an inspiration to everyone around him, a stubborn parent who won't listen at first, disowning his son, then later reconciling, and a "hide the pet" storyline that ultimately is exposed and shamed before everyone sees they were wrong.
The main reason hardly anybody criticizes the movie for having this familiar of a story is because it actually manages to do something that most films with these formulas don't do: pace it well and generate actual emotion. There's no rushing into the friendship between Hiccup and Toothless becoming friends; they take their time to get to know each other and Hiccup is seen actively studying Toothless to see his likes and dislikes as well as why he can't fly -- reason being that Hiccup shooting him down caused him to lose half of his "tail fin", which, in-universe, keeps dragons balanced as they fly. Plus, being Gobber's apprentice and all, Hiccup has experience in blacksmithing and knitting outfits together, which we are shown in his attempts to be creative in finding ways to help Toothless start flying again. On top of that, the relationship between Hiccup and his dad, unlike many similar examples, is given enough depth to make it feel... surprisingly human. Nothing Stoick does makes him an antagonist to Hiccup rather the two just have a hard time understanding each other; for example, Hiccup initially wants to kill dragons, Stoick says they're too dangerous for him, not because he's physically weak, but because he just doesn't have the heart for it. And when Stoick later disowns Hiccup for befriending Toothless and refusing to follow the traditional Viking ways of killing them, he doesn't lock him in a dark room nor is he completely hardened toward him. Instead, he walks away noticeably heartbroken, but continues to go on and try to find the dragon's nest in hopes to put an end to their attacks. Touches like this make the film stand out despite its formulaic setup.
Another thing that stands about the movie that stands out is its aesthetics. The character art style, kiddy as it looks, is easily subverted by the amount of heart that went into the film's story and is enough to give it a kid-friendly look all while adults can enjoy the other aspects. Even I can't get over just how much work went into the backgrounds and environments of this movie; there's enough balance between vibrant and natural colors throughout the village and the more forested, mountainous, and rocky sea areas to where it feels like you've been whisked away into old Viking times. At times, though, the graphical quality doesn't exactly look fully polished, but it's never too much to where it's distracting. If the environments themselves don't sound cool enough, try watching the dragon flight sequences. Simply put, with or without 3D, it's amazing and, even I'm not fully sure how they did it, but something about the camera angles and the high energy adrenaline given off by said scenes makes you feel as though you're the one riding the dragon close to the sea, into the foggy rocks, and through the clouds even. Not only does it "wow" my movie critic side, but it definitely brings out my inner child who wanted to ride on top a mythical dragon like that.
Overall, the running jokes and character interactions as well as the voice work are of note in this movie. Things like Gobber and Stoick gesturing to all of Hiccup who then points it out, Gobber's remarks about needing extra underpants, and some of the side character trends such as the twin's arguments with one another are enough to get good chuckles from me. In terms of interactions, the humor between Hiccup and Toothless as they become friends is fun and enjoyable to watch especially in the "Forbidden Friendship" scene where most no dialogue is present -- a very effective moment, which I will explain later on. When dialogue is present, though, a lot of the voice deliveries, well... deliver. Jay Baruchel is clearly going for the typical nerdy boy sound in his voice as Hiccup, but, weird as his inflections may sound, it isn't completely unbearable to listen to. Voices of the side characters such as Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Kristen Wiig are a neat ensemble and each have their own unique characteristics in both running gags and deliveries, but none of them even compare to Gerard Butler's performance as Stoick. Let's face it, in any movie he's in, Gerard Butler packs so much power and might with his awesome voice that it's easy to recognize him, especially when his performance is spot on.
Apart from voice acting, sound design wise, this movie definitely has a recognizable, unique, and "Viking feel" to its soundtrack. Composed by master orchestrator, John Powell, How to Train Your Dragon incorporates many classical string instruments, horns, and other instruments to bring the Viking world to life, truly bringing to life many sequences. From the high energy action scene that kicks off the movie to the amazing flight test and romantic flight sequences, the music never fails to stand out and captures the emotion of the scene perfectly. This is especially the case for me in the aforementioned "Forbidden Friendship" scene; the scene itself, dialogueless as it is, is conveyed completely through the score, which starts off softly then later builds toward excitement to show just how Hiccup and Toothless are finally starting to warm up to each other. In short, watching this scene with the sound off would completely rob it of context and the magic of their developing friendship. And, every time I hear it, straight up chills, most especially when Hiccup successfully manages to touch Toothless for the first time. If anything, I'm still amazed that a movie about something as non-existent as dragons could make me care so deeply about them, especially a E.T.-esque relationship between a boy and his pet dragon of all things.
In the end, of course, there's that moment in which everyone realizes they were wrong about dragons and that, even though not all dragons are good, not all dragons are bad either. Personally, I see this as somewhat of an analogy for how the film turned out to be; it looked to be a dumb, kiddy, cliche-ridden story from the outside, but, on the inside it's a film that, although it does follow a story that's been done to death for YEARS, it's genuine, for all ages, and touchy-feely enough to where it rose above a lot of other movies with similar premises. Between its new takes on old trends, stunning visuals, running jokes and character interactions with good voice acting, and stellar score, it definitely hasn't be ignored amongst audiences and critics alike. Even its success was enough to warrant a franchise with sequels (which I will cover someday) that managed to follow in its footsteps and be adored by kids and adults alike. As an adult who actually likes this movie, I give it an A+ and will certainly recommend it to anyone who can get passed its outward appearance to check it out.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
*No need for spoiler tag in this one*
Being based on a children's book of the same name, the premise of How to Train Your Dragon is rather familiar at best. The film sees a scrawny teenage Viking nobody named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) desiring to fit in amongst his village of Berk, which is regularly attacked by menacing dragons. His father, the village chieftain, Stoick the Vast (voiced by Gerard Butler), who hates dragons with a passion isn't proud of him for being so weak and clumsy and the fellow villagers see him as a disgrace and don't always give him the attention he deserves -- particularly his crush, Astrid (voiced by America Ferrera). Hoping to get noticed for a change, he goes out of his way to somehow successfully capture a "Night Fury" -- the most feared and mysterious of all dragons. Even so, in his attempt to kill it, he can't bring himself to do it and ends up befriending it in secret (later naming it Toothless for its lack of teeth). Through being forced into the village blacksmith, Gobber's (voiced by Craig Ferguson), program of "dragon training" by his father and getting to know Toothless without anyone else knowing, Hiccup soon discovers that dragons, menacing and destructive as they are, aren't exactly everything the Vikings make them out to be. And so it becomes a tale of the nerdy protagonist venturing from "nobody" status to becoming an inspiration to everyone around him, a stubborn parent who won't listen at first, disowning his son, then later reconciling, and a "hide the pet" storyline that ultimately is exposed and shamed before everyone sees they were wrong.
The main reason hardly anybody criticizes the movie for having this familiar of a story is because it actually manages to do something that most films with these formulas don't do: pace it well and generate actual emotion. There's no rushing into the friendship between Hiccup and Toothless becoming friends; they take their time to get to know each other and Hiccup is seen actively studying Toothless to see his likes and dislikes as well as why he can't fly -- reason being that Hiccup shooting him down caused him to lose half of his "tail fin", which, in-universe, keeps dragons balanced as they fly. Plus, being Gobber's apprentice and all, Hiccup has experience in blacksmithing and knitting outfits together, which we are shown in his attempts to be creative in finding ways to help Toothless start flying again. On top of that, the relationship between Hiccup and his dad, unlike many similar examples, is given enough depth to make it feel... surprisingly human. Nothing Stoick does makes him an antagonist to Hiccup rather the two just have a hard time understanding each other; for example, Hiccup initially wants to kill dragons, Stoick says they're too dangerous for him, not because he's physically weak, but because he just doesn't have the heart for it. And when Stoick later disowns Hiccup for befriending Toothless and refusing to follow the traditional Viking ways of killing them, he doesn't lock him in a dark room nor is he completely hardened toward him. Instead, he walks away noticeably heartbroken, but continues to go on and try to find the dragon's nest in hopes to put an end to their attacks. Touches like this make the film stand out despite its formulaic setup.
Another thing that stands about the movie that stands out is its aesthetics. The character art style, kiddy as it looks, is easily subverted by the amount of heart that went into the film's story and is enough to give it a kid-friendly look all while adults can enjoy the other aspects. Even I can't get over just how much work went into the backgrounds and environments of this movie; there's enough balance between vibrant and natural colors throughout the village and the more forested, mountainous, and rocky sea areas to where it feels like you've been whisked away into old Viking times. At times, though, the graphical quality doesn't exactly look fully polished, but it's never too much to where it's distracting. If the environments themselves don't sound cool enough, try watching the dragon flight sequences. Simply put, with or without 3D, it's amazing and, even I'm not fully sure how they did it, but something about the camera angles and the high energy adrenaline given off by said scenes makes you feel as though you're the one riding the dragon close to the sea, into the foggy rocks, and through the clouds even. Not only does it "wow" my movie critic side, but it definitely brings out my inner child who wanted to ride on top a mythical dragon like that.
Overall, the running jokes and character interactions as well as the voice work are of note in this movie. Things like Gobber and Stoick gesturing to all of Hiccup who then points it out, Gobber's remarks about needing extra underpants, and some of the side character trends such as the twin's arguments with one another are enough to get good chuckles from me. In terms of interactions, the humor between Hiccup and Toothless as they become friends is fun and enjoyable to watch especially in the "Forbidden Friendship" scene where most no dialogue is present -- a very effective moment, which I will explain later on. When dialogue is present, though, a lot of the voice deliveries, well... deliver. Jay Baruchel is clearly going for the typical nerdy boy sound in his voice as Hiccup, but, weird as his inflections may sound, it isn't completely unbearable to listen to. Voices of the side characters such as Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Kristen Wiig are a neat ensemble and each have their own unique characteristics in both running gags and deliveries, but none of them even compare to Gerard Butler's performance as Stoick. Let's face it, in any movie he's in, Gerard Butler packs so much power and might with his awesome voice that it's easy to recognize him, especially when his performance is spot on.
Apart from voice acting, sound design wise, this movie definitely has a recognizable, unique, and "Viking feel" to its soundtrack. Composed by master orchestrator, John Powell, How to Train Your Dragon incorporates many classical string instruments, horns, and other instruments to bring the Viking world to life, truly bringing to life many sequences. From the high energy action scene that kicks off the movie to the amazing flight test and romantic flight sequences, the music never fails to stand out and captures the emotion of the scene perfectly. This is especially the case for me in the aforementioned "Forbidden Friendship" scene; the scene itself, dialogueless as it is, is conveyed completely through the score, which starts off softly then later builds toward excitement to show just how Hiccup and Toothless are finally starting to warm up to each other. In short, watching this scene with the sound off would completely rob it of context and the magic of their developing friendship. And, every time I hear it, straight up chills, most especially when Hiccup successfully manages to touch Toothless for the first time. If anything, I'm still amazed that a movie about something as non-existent as dragons could make me care so deeply about them, especially a E.T.-esque relationship between a boy and his pet dragon of all things.
In the end, of course, there's that moment in which everyone realizes they were wrong about dragons and that, even though not all dragons are good, not all dragons are bad either. Personally, I see this as somewhat of an analogy for how the film turned out to be; it looked to be a dumb, kiddy, cliche-ridden story from the outside, but, on the inside it's a film that, although it does follow a story that's been done to death for YEARS, it's genuine, for all ages, and touchy-feely enough to where it rose above a lot of other movies with similar premises. Between its new takes on old trends, stunning visuals, running jokes and character interactions with good voice acting, and stellar score, it definitely hasn't be ignored amongst audiences and critics alike. Even its success was enough to warrant a franchise with sequels (which I will cover someday) that managed to follow in its footsteps and be adored by kids and adults alike. As an adult who actually likes this movie, I give it an A+ and will certainly recommend it to anyone who can get passed its outward appearance to check it out.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Jasonic Reviews Inception
When you grow up watching enough films that range from awesome to mediocre at best, sometimes it takes a mind-blowing flick to knock some sense into you as to what "well done" really is. Long story short, watching the movie I'm about to review back when I was a teenager with little critical sense made me realize the true significance of spectacular cinematography, special effects, writing, and acting among other things when before I could barely make them out. Not to give myself any crap or anything, but even I find it amazing how this one film aided me in understanding many aspects of great and masterful filmmaking as I got older. So, without further adieu, I'm most eager to share the impact Inception -- one of the the most influential films of the decade -- has left on me since its release.
***SPOILERS BEWARE*** (and not everyone has seen the movie so I guess it matters this time)
The film summed up in one sentence: A Dream Within A Dream... within a dream... within a dream. BUT...! That's not all; if we're to get down to the nitty-gritty of the plot, it's about an extractor by the name of Dom Cobb (played by none other than Leonardo DiCaprio) who, along with his partner, Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), conducts corporate espionage missions inside people's minds through shared dream worlds. However, Cobb's missions are often sabotaged by invasive projections of his late wife, Mal (played by Marion Cotillard), whose suicide as a result of them being in limbo too long is on his criminal record and causing him immense guilt and torment. He is soon offered a chance at redemption when his most recent target, a business man called Saito (played by Ken Watanabe), tasks him with doing the impossible: "incepting" the brain of Robert Fischer (played by Cillian Murphy) in an attempt to disband the energy company owned by Fischer's father. With assistance from his main crew as well as graduate architect student, Ariadne (played by Ellen Page), and identity thief known as Eames (played by Tom Hardy), Cobb travels into the depths of Fischer's subconscious as well as his own in hopes to both accomplish the mission and expunge his criminal history so that he can make it home to his hoped-for reality of being with his children.
If that alone didn't sound deep enough, the plot and themes truly are just that: psychologically deep and engaging. As I just demonstrated, one can hardly explain the fine details about the plot in one sentence especially when One Simple Idea isn't enough to explain the film to its entirety -- technically, it kind of is, but more on that later. The main reason for this is because the film's director/producer/writer, the renowned Christopher Nolan, worked so hard on the script's main idea for years to make Mr. Cobb's emotional journey match up with the dream worlds he created. And, boy, did he deliver. The mere premise of people sharing a dream space with one another as well as crafting different worlds within dreams is a concept I've been super interested in coming to grasp more since watching the film for the first time a few years back. While most of it may be science fiction writing (such as the film's explanation of the "dream technology" they utilize being for military experiments), the onscreen action itself offers the audience many reasons why, simply put, dreams as well as one's subconscious are fascinating.
The various dream worlds and action set-pieces that take place within them are all unique representations of the subconscious and their layers. For example, when we're first introduced to Saito's dream world depicting a Japanese castle at the start of the film, it is clear based on his secrecy and when The Dream Is Collapsing that he has something to hide that he doesn't want to disclose to Cobb and co. Later on, though, the mechanics of the dreams start to play in big time; between instances like Cobb waking up through being kicked into a bathtub and water inexplicably pouring into the Japanese castle dream and Fisher's projections of militarized men infiltrating the three levels of dreams during the main mission, the whole thing is mind-blowing. And if that's not extremely surreal-sounding, a zero gravity fight takes place in the hotel dream while the van tumbles down a hill in the upper level dream. As one who likes to simply observe a work of visual media without much reaction the first time around, I didn't really give much thought to the zero gravity fight the first time around, but then, the more I thought about it, this particular action scene is, without a doubt, one of the most exciting fight scenes in all of cinema! So, when put basically, if one hadn't given much thought about dreams and their effects before this movie, they'd be lying if they said they haven't since.
As condiments to the film's main meat and bread (and by that I mean the outstanding action scenes and psychological premise), EVERY. SINGLE. ACTOR. in this is on top of their game thus making the movie all the more emotionally investing. I literally can't go without saying that Leo DiCaprio is absolutely golden in this as he plays a tormented Old Soul fighting to get over his tragic past with the death of his lover -- something Hollywood hardly even considers when writing love stories; another plus on Nolan's part! And to go along with that, Marion Cotillard does a great job of sounding like a delusional freak who can't discern reality from dreams in the flashback scenes depicting Mal after emerging from limbo with Dom. All the rest ranged from great to awesome at best, but I'd rather not be here all day describing each and every distinct performance by its characteristics (plus much of the main ensemble is carried over from The Dark Knight trilogy, which I also plan to review someday). If anything, though, the real show stealer is Tom Hardy as Eames. In the midst of this dark, serious, surreal psychological thriller/crime drama/noir/action movie, he's actually the one who gets the most laughs particularly in the layered dreams toward the end. When he steps in to assist Arthur in a shoot out by dreaming up a grenade launcher and transforms back into his plain self after projecting a hot woman in order to seduce Fischer's subconscious, I actually found myself cracking at his one-liners (e.g.: "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.").
Nevertheless, no good film is without the icing on the cake and, in this film's case, it's the astonishing musical score by the man, the myth, the legendary film composer, Hans Zimmer himself. Surely, everybody remembers hearing that iconic horn from the trailer that has essentially defined numerous dramatic trailer themes throughout the 2010s. For that matter, those same horns and intense strings manage to up the intensity big time during the big action bits thus making them more epic as a result. Even the inclusion of fast-paced drums (or whatever instrument was used) during the Mombasa chase sequence gave me a rush of adrenaline watching DiCaprio storm his way through the marketplace full of civilians as his gun-wielding pursuers gave chase. If nothing else, it would be a crime to let go unsaid that the slower, more somber bits of the score manage also to bring out the film's overall drab, dream-like atmosphere. Though I cannot exactly recall when it plays during the movie, every time I hear the track titled Old Souls, I instantly imagine myself lost in a bizarre, foggy dream world searching desperately for a way out before ultimately being chased by nightmarish projections that kill me, thus waking me up. After painting a story like that for you readers, I will note that, if you've been paying attention at all, that littered throughout this review are a few of the track names on the soundtrack written in italics. Even if you haven't seen the film, I would strongly suggests giving them a listen and see what all you can come up with for mental images -- and I would also recommend the track Time as it is, without a doubt, THE greatest movie ending song in the history of mankind!
To sum it up, this film is SO fantastic, SO involved, SO well-directed that I could easily talk about for hours how well it manages to construct everything it has in store. From its deep, psychological premise and inventively breathtaking action/visuals to its superb ensemble casting/acting and phenomenally influential soundtrack, almost nothing negative can be said about what this film does unless maybe someone viewing doesn't fully watch it with a critically functional mindset. In regards, I will say that, although the movie's dream sequences don't follow the whole stereotypical dream-like feel (that being the blurry, white vignette full of ridiculously surreal environments/events), the fact that each dream setting is portrayed more realistically than one would imagine with at least some surreal elements is all done in a way that viewer can better understand each dreamer's subconscious. With as much as I've discussed the subconscious throughout this review, my subconscious says I give this movie a solid A and would strongly recommend for anybody looking for an awesome piece of cinema that's considered art more than anything.
Thanks y'all for watching and I will see you in the next review!
***SPOILERS BEWARE*** (and not everyone has seen the movie so I guess it matters this time)
The film summed up in one sentence: A Dream Within A Dream... within a dream... within a dream. BUT...! That's not all; if we're to get down to the nitty-gritty of the plot, it's about an extractor by the name of Dom Cobb (played by none other than Leonardo DiCaprio) who, along with his partner, Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), conducts corporate espionage missions inside people's minds through shared dream worlds. However, Cobb's missions are often sabotaged by invasive projections of his late wife, Mal (played by Marion Cotillard), whose suicide as a result of them being in limbo too long is on his criminal record and causing him immense guilt and torment. He is soon offered a chance at redemption when his most recent target, a business man called Saito (played by Ken Watanabe), tasks him with doing the impossible: "incepting" the brain of Robert Fischer (played by Cillian Murphy) in an attempt to disband the energy company owned by Fischer's father. With assistance from his main crew as well as graduate architect student, Ariadne (played by Ellen Page), and identity thief known as Eames (played by Tom Hardy), Cobb travels into the depths of Fischer's subconscious as well as his own in hopes to both accomplish the mission and expunge his criminal history so that he can make it home to his hoped-for reality of being with his children.
If that alone didn't sound deep enough, the plot and themes truly are just that: psychologically deep and engaging. As I just demonstrated, one can hardly explain the fine details about the plot in one sentence especially when One Simple Idea isn't enough to explain the film to its entirety -- technically, it kind of is, but more on that later. The main reason for this is because the film's director/producer/writer, the renowned Christopher Nolan, worked so hard on the script's main idea for years to make Mr. Cobb's emotional journey match up with the dream worlds he created. And, boy, did he deliver. The mere premise of people sharing a dream space with one another as well as crafting different worlds within dreams is a concept I've been super interested in coming to grasp more since watching the film for the first time a few years back. While most of it may be science fiction writing (such as the film's explanation of the "dream technology" they utilize being for military experiments), the onscreen action itself offers the audience many reasons why, simply put, dreams as well as one's subconscious are fascinating.
The various dream worlds and action set-pieces that take place within them are all unique representations of the subconscious and their layers. For example, when we're first introduced to Saito's dream world depicting a Japanese castle at the start of the film, it is clear based on his secrecy and when The Dream Is Collapsing that he has something to hide that he doesn't want to disclose to Cobb and co. Later on, though, the mechanics of the dreams start to play in big time; between instances like Cobb waking up through being kicked into a bathtub and water inexplicably pouring into the Japanese castle dream and Fisher's projections of militarized men infiltrating the three levels of dreams during the main mission, the whole thing is mind-blowing. And if that's not extremely surreal-sounding, a zero gravity fight takes place in the hotel dream while the van tumbles down a hill in the upper level dream. As one who likes to simply observe a work of visual media without much reaction the first time around, I didn't really give much thought to the zero gravity fight the first time around, but then, the more I thought about it, this particular action scene is, without a doubt, one of the most exciting fight scenes in all of cinema! So, when put basically, if one hadn't given much thought about dreams and their effects before this movie, they'd be lying if they said they haven't since.
As condiments to the film's main meat and bread (and by that I mean the outstanding action scenes and psychological premise), EVERY. SINGLE. ACTOR. in this is on top of their game thus making the movie all the more emotionally investing. I literally can't go without saying that Leo DiCaprio is absolutely golden in this as he plays a tormented Old Soul fighting to get over his tragic past with the death of his lover -- something Hollywood hardly even considers when writing love stories; another plus on Nolan's part! And to go along with that, Marion Cotillard does a great job of sounding like a delusional freak who can't discern reality from dreams in the flashback scenes depicting Mal after emerging from limbo with Dom. All the rest ranged from great to awesome at best, but I'd rather not be here all day describing each and every distinct performance by its characteristics (plus much of the main ensemble is carried over from The Dark Knight trilogy, which I also plan to review someday). If anything, though, the real show stealer is Tom Hardy as Eames. In the midst of this dark, serious, surreal psychological thriller/crime drama/noir/action movie, he's actually the one who gets the most laughs particularly in the layered dreams toward the end. When he steps in to assist Arthur in a shoot out by dreaming up a grenade launcher and transforms back into his plain self after projecting a hot woman in order to seduce Fischer's subconscious, I actually found myself cracking at his one-liners (e.g.: "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.").
Nevertheless, no good film is without the icing on the cake and, in this film's case, it's the astonishing musical score by the man, the myth, the legendary film composer, Hans Zimmer himself. Surely, everybody remembers hearing that iconic horn from the trailer that has essentially defined numerous dramatic trailer themes throughout the 2010s. For that matter, those same horns and intense strings manage to up the intensity big time during the big action bits thus making them more epic as a result. Even the inclusion of fast-paced drums (or whatever instrument was used) during the Mombasa chase sequence gave me a rush of adrenaline watching DiCaprio storm his way through the marketplace full of civilians as his gun-wielding pursuers gave chase. If nothing else, it would be a crime to let go unsaid that the slower, more somber bits of the score manage also to bring out the film's overall drab, dream-like atmosphere. Though I cannot exactly recall when it plays during the movie, every time I hear the track titled Old Souls, I instantly imagine myself lost in a bizarre, foggy dream world searching desperately for a way out before ultimately being chased by nightmarish projections that kill me, thus waking me up. After painting a story like that for you readers, I will note that, if you've been paying attention at all, that littered throughout this review are a few of the track names on the soundtrack written in italics. Even if you haven't seen the film, I would strongly suggests giving them a listen and see what all you can come up with for mental images -- and I would also recommend the track Time as it is, without a doubt, THE greatest movie ending song in the history of mankind!
To sum it up, this film is SO fantastic, SO involved, SO well-directed that I could easily talk about for hours how well it manages to construct everything it has in store. From its deep, psychological premise and inventively breathtaking action/visuals to its superb ensemble casting/acting and phenomenally influential soundtrack, almost nothing negative can be said about what this film does unless maybe someone viewing doesn't fully watch it with a critically functional mindset. In regards, I will say that, although the movie's dream sequences don't follow the whole stereotypical dream-like feel (that being the blurry, white vignette full of ridiculously surreal environments/events), the fact that each dream setting is portrayed more realistically than one would imagine with at least some surreal elements is all done in a way that viewer can better understand each dreamer's subconscious. With as much as I've discussed the subconscious throughout this review, my subconscious says I give this movie a solid A and would strongly recommend for anybody looking for an awesome piece of cinema that's considered art more than anything.
Thanks y'all for watching and I will see you in the next review!
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Jasonic Reviews The Lion King
When the words "Lion King" come to mind, what is the first thing that pops in your head? The grand, ear-splitting African vocalist in the intro? That famous opening shot of the spectacular sunrise? Or is it "Hakuna Matata"? Whatever the reason your's may be, at least one of them is bound to come to mind when I consider the impact this movie left on me as a kid. Like Toy Story, I grew up on this movie -- and its sequels for that matter -- enjoying it time and again without ever realizing the factors that played into it being a great source of entertainment. And how does it look to me today? Well, a quick disclaimer: No nostalgia goggles were applied in the writing of this review.
Most of us that were born in the 90s no doubt grew up on the amount of great Disney movies released during that time. This era was known as the "Disney Renaissance" for the reason that Disney themselves saw a great revival in their animated feature's critical success after a few decades of somewhat unsuccessful flicks. Not wanting to throw in the towel despite lacking its best animators (among them the beloved Don Bluth), Disney reworked much of its animated department to forward a lot of projects that they had no idea would be so successful. After kicking off this era with memorable successes such as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, Disney traversed into a territory they hadn't quite touched yet: a Shakespearean play. Specifically, they drew inspiration from the somewhat lesser known Hamlet and incorporated into a story set in the African Savannah with animals and all. In hindsight, the mere idea isn't that ridiculous and is among many reasons The Lion King is remembered in the hearts of many.
*SPOILERS BEWARE* (but it's an old movie that just about everyone knows, so who cares?)
By today's standards, the plot is rather basic, but, given that it's based on Shakespeare, this is very much expected. The film sees a young African lion prince named Simba (voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas young and Matthew Broderick as an adult) as he desires to become king of his pride just as soon as his father, Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones), passes on. This all changes when one day Mufasa's jealous younger brother, Scar (voiced by Jeremy Irons), murders Mufasa and causes young Simba to flee from his home forever thereby allowing Scar the title he always wanted alongside a pack of comedic hyenas. During his runaway years, Simba encounters two wastrels named Timon and Pumbaa (voiced by Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella respectively) and grows up with them free of responsibilities. Having not realized the disaster occurring during his absence, Simba is eventually snapped out of it with visitations from his childhood friend, Nala (voiced by Niketa Calame young and Moira Kelly as an adult) and his shaman Rafiki (voiced by Robert Guillaume). With that, he realizes he must confront his past and take his rightful place in the "Circle of Life".
Right off the bat, it is very easy to tell that the film is full of good, if not great voice talent. Matthew Broderick, while not the best of the bunch, was at least a decent pick for adult Simba, though I do think Simba's young voice did a better job overall. Jeremy Irons, meanwhile, does a masterful job at making Scar sound as menacing as he appears on screen. That said, if his scarred left eye doesn't strike at least some fear into children watching, his voice definitely will. On the other hand, Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella as Timon and Pumbaa, while not the most noteworthy of the ensemble, do bring their intended comedic vibe to their characters whom I most often associate their voices with. Ultimately, though, the real show stealer had to have been James Earl Jones's Mufasa; like with a lot of his characters, he brings a very fierce, commanding presence to his character that only a (lion) king would deserve -- interestingly enough he had even played a king prior to this movie with Madge Sinclair (voice of Sarabi in this movie) even. While not exactly the top selling point of this movie, I found the voice cast to at least be of note alongside its more major hookers.
It's no question that most everybody remembers The Lion King for its grand, breathtaking visuals and spectacular animation. Honestly, who in the world could forget the aforementioned shot of the opening sunrise as it glazes the landscape in a golden hue? On top of that, just about every locale is drawn richly and colorfully in a way that, despite being animated, whisks the viewer away into the huge environments of Africa. From the wide open plains surrounding Pride Rock, to the more confined, sinister Elephant Graveyard littered with bones, and even Timon and Pumbaa's paradise full of towering majestic trees and waterfalls, each and every environment is one that easily sticks in the viewer's head forever. In addition, the attention to detail in the character animations is most impressive for its time. It's clear that Disney did enough studying of African wildlife to make everyone move like actual animals and even had the right tools for the job to bring the more complex animations to life. Specifically, I am talking about the famous wildebeest herd sequence in which every single wildebeest was animated in CGI. And this was only full year before Toy Story came out in full CGI too!
Even back in the day, there's no doubt this film's soundtrack was all the Disney craze back before Frozen stepped in and took that spot for this generation. Aside from "Hakuna Matata" essentially being the "Let It Go" of the time in which this movie came out, it is clear that this film's many other musical numbers have left a significant impression on viewers such as myself to this day. Okay, maybe not necessarily the songs themselves are noteworthy so much as the visuals associated with them. That said, numbers like "Circle of Life", "Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?" definitely enhance the scenes they go with, but are still memorable as songs in their own right. If anything, what's gotten to me most about the films score is Scar's villain song "Be Prepared" -- one of the most intense and menacing villain numbers in all of Disney's history -- as well as Hans Zimmer's masterful orchestrations that enhance the grand, majestic overall tone of the film. To this day, I still get emotional over little pieces in certain scenes such as the wildebeest chase, Mufasa's spirit appearing in the sky to Simba, Simba and Scar's final confrontation, and the ending medley after the finale, which ultimately leads into a short reprisal of "Circle of Life". All these and more add to the story and presentation and still keep me coming back every time despite minor flaws.
Despite most aspects of this movie being considered masterful, it is not without minor flaws. Like Frozen (with which it incidentally shares some plot similarities) after it, the first act feels more well put together than later down the line. After Mufasa dies and Timon and Pumbaa enter to teach Simba their inadequate philosophy, the film greatly brightens up in a way that almost makes you forget the previous tragedy. Granted, it's not as jarring as the transition between the off-screen death of Bambi's mother and the happy spring montage in, well... Bambi, but still, I couldn't help noticing this in my recent viewing. Then again, this may have been a deliberate attempt on the creators' behalf to help the audience better connect with Simba's sudden change in attitude -- me and my positive outlook on things, huh? In addition, Timon and Pumbaa, the more I think about them, may not be the greatest Disney comic relief of all time, but they at least don't drag the film down in any way and get a few good laughs every now and then. Other minor characters such as Zazu (voiced by Rowan Atkinson) are sadly forgettable, but at least keep things fun enough to watch when they're around. And though my older adult self admits that this isn't quite the perfect Disney film, it is still up there on my list of favorite Disney movies and movies in general.
So there you have it; an honest adult's non-nostalgia goggled review of one of the most iconic Disney films in both the Disney Renaissance and of all time. It still holds up to this day in more ways than one and remains one of the most aesthetically significant films in recent history. Between its interesting choices of casting, the iconic imagery and animation, and memorable score (musical or not), despite minor, insignificant issues, The Lion King is, without a doubt, one of those movies you're bound to remember forever. Overall, I give the film a solid A and consider it a must see for anybody whether old or young and Disney fanatic or not.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Most of us that were born in the 90s no doubt grew up on the amount of great Disney movies released during that time. This era was known as the "Disney Renaissance" for the reason that Disney themselves saw a great revival in their animated feature's critical success after a few decades of somewhat unsuccessful flicks. Not wanting to throw in the towel despite lacking its best animators (among them the beloved Don Bluth), Disney reworked much of its animated department to forward a lot of projects that they had no idea would be so successful. After kicking off this era with memorable successes such as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, Disney traversed into a territory they hadn't quite touched yet: a Shakespearean play. Specifically, they drew inspiration from the somewhat lesser known Hamlet and incorporated into a story set in the African Savannah with animals and all. In hindsight, the mere idea isn't that ridiculous and is among many reasons The Lion King is remembered in the hearts of many.
*SPOILERS BEWARE* (but it's an old movie that just about everyone knows, so who cares?)
By today's standards, the plot is rather basic, but, given that it's based on Shakespeare, this is very much expected. The film sees a young African lion prince named Simba (voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas young and Matthew Broderick as an adult) as he desires to become king of his pride just as soon as his father, Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones), passes on. This all changes when one day Mufasa's jealous younger brother, Scar (voiced by Jeremy Irons), murders Mufasa and causes young Simba to flee from his home forever thereby allowing Scar the title he always wanted alongside a pack of comedic hyenas. During his runaway years, Simba encounters two wastrels named Timon and Pumbaa (voiced by Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella respectively) and grows up with them free of responsibilities. Having not realized the disaster occurring during his absence, Simba is eventually snapped out of it with visitations from his childhood friend, Nala (voiced by Niketa Calame young and Moira Kelly as an adult) and his shaman Rafiki (voiced by Robert Guillaume). With that, he realizes he must confront his past and take his rightful place in the "Circle of Life".
Right off the bat, it is very easy to tell that the film is full of good, if not great voice talent. Matthew Broderick, while not the best of the bunch, was at least a decent pick for adult Simba, though I do think Simba's young voice did a better job overall. Jeremy Irons, meanwhile, does a masterful job at making Scar sound as menacing as he appears on screen. That said, if his scarred left eye doesn't strike at least some fear into children watching, his voice definitely will. On the other hand, Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella as Timon and Pumbaa, while not the most noteworthy of the ensemble, do bring their intended comedic vibe to their characters whom I most often associate their voices with. Ultimately, though, the real show stealer had to have been James Earl Jones's Mufasa; like with a lot of his characters, he brings a very fierce, commanding presence to his character that only a (lion) king would deserve -- interestingly enough he had even played a king prior to this movie with Madge Sinclair (voice of Sarabi in this movie) even. While not exactly the top selling point of this movie, I found the voice cast to at least be of note alongside its more major hookers.
It's no question that most everybody remembers The Lion King for its grand, breathtaking visuals and spectacular animation. Honestly, who in the world could forget the aforementioned shot of the opening sunrise as it glazes the landscape in a golden hue? On top of that, just about every locale is drawn richly and colorfully in a way that, despite being animated, whisks the viewer away into the huge environments of Africa. From the wide open plains surrounding Pride Rock, to the more confined, sinister Elephant Graveyard littered with bones, and even Timon and Pumbaa's paradise full of towering majestic trees and waterfalls, each and every environment is one that easily sticks in the viewer's head forever. In addition, the attention to detail in the character animations is most impressive for its time. It's clear that Disney did enough studying of African wildlife to make everyone move like actual animals and even had the right tools for the job to bring the more complex animations to life. Specifically, I am talking about the famous wildebeest herd sequence in which every single wildebeest was animated in CGI. And this was only full year before Toy Story came out in full CGI too!
Even back in the day, there's no doubt this film's soundtrack was all the Disney craze back before Frozen stepped in and took that spot for this generation. Aside from "Hakuna Matata" essentially being the "Let It Go" of the time in which this movie came out, it is clear that this film's many other musical numbers have left a significant impression on viewers such as myself to this day. Okay, maybe not necessarily the songs themselves are noteworthy so much as the visuals associated with them. That said, numbers like "Circle of Life", "Just Can't Wait to Be King", and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?" definitely enhance the scenes they go with, but are still memorable as songs in their own right. If anything, what's gotten to me most about the films score is Scar's villain song "Be Prepared" -- one of the most intense and menacing villain numbers in all of Disney's history -- as well as Hans Zimmer's masterful orchestrations that enhance the grand, majestic overall tone of the film. To this day, I still get emotional over little pieces in certain scenes such as the wildebeest chase, Mufasa's spirit appearing in the sky to Simba, Simba and Scar's final confrontation, and the ending medley after the finale, which ultimately leads into a short reprisal of "Circle of Life". All these and more add to the story and presentation and still keep me coming back every time despite minor flaws.
Despite most aspects of this movie being considered masterful, it is not without minor flaws. Like Frozen (with which it incidentally shares some plot similarities) after it, the first act feels more well put together than later down the line. After Mufasa dies and Timon and Pumbaa enter to teach Simba their inadequate philosophy, the film greatly brightens up in a way that almost makes you forget the previous tragedy. Granted, it's not as jarring as the transition between the off-screen death of Bambi's mother and the happy spring montage in, well... Bambi, but still, I couldn't help noticing this in my recent viewing. Then again, this may have been a deliberate attempt on the creators' behalf to help the audience better connect with Simba's sudden change in attitude -- me and my positive outlook on things, huh? In addition, Timon and Pumbaa, the more I think about them, may not be the greatest Disney comic relief of all time, but they at least don't drag the film down in any way and get a few good laughs every now and then. Other minor characters such as Zazu (voiced by Rowan Atkinson) are sadly forgettable, but at least keep things fun enough to watch when they're around. And though my older adult self admits that this isn't quite the perfect Disney film, it is still up there on my list of favorite Disney movies and movies in general.
So there you have it; an honest adult's non-nostalgia goggled review of one of the most iconic Disney films in both the Disney Renaissance and of all time. It still holds up to this day in more ways than one and remains one of the most aesthetically significant films in recent history. Between its interesting choices of casting, the iconic imagery and animation, and memorable score (musical or not), despite minor, insignificant issues, The Lion King is, without a doubt, one of those movies you're bound to remember forever. Overall, I give the film a solid A and consider it a must see for anybody whether old or young and Disney fanatic or not.
Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)