Jasonic Reviews Toy Story 3

So this blog started with the first Toy Story film, which inevitably lead me here to do the third one all this time later. Fret not, for this will not be my last review ever rather it will just be the last of this franchise until the fourth film comes out -- yes, that's a thing. Anyways, before I begin I want to say thanks to everyone who supports me throughout this blog; from a few specifics to many others whose names I don't know, I am happy to have kicked it off with this franchise, which has been my favorite since childhood, and to have received encouragement from my readers either in person or in the comments. This may not have anything to do with the film, but I personally figured better late than never to thank my viewers more personally for what they do for me! So, without further adieu, my personal review of the latest film in the Toy Story series, Toy Story 3.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

The third film in the series finds our toys facing their toughest challenges yet. In it, our toy pals Woody (voiced once more by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (voiced once more by Tim Allen), and the rest of the cast (most of which maintain their old voice actors) prepare for the day in which their owner throughout the series, Andy (voiced once more by John Morris), goes to college. While they talk about the possibilities of going into the attic and such, they accidentally wind up at Sunnyside Daycare when Andy's mom mistakes them for trash in a bag. There they are welcome with open arms by the toy's leader Lotso Huggin' Bear (voiced by Ned Beatty) who introduces them to the concept of always being loved without every being outgrown. However, soon as the kids prove to be brutal, messy toy players, the toys realize their mistake and demand they be let go before the Sunnyside gang reveals themselves to be set up dictative prison. With help from Woody and the gang, the toys must then escape the clutches of Lotso and his daycare patrols and make it back home before Andy goes away to college and leaves them behind forever.

For starters, the graphics have clearly shown improvement over the previous two installments. With the amount of time passing between the second and third films -- eleven years -- this is definitely a given. Environments and characters are just as colorful as ever with a lot more detail visible to the naked eye such as Lotso's fur and Jessie's yarn. Much of the beginning sequence and daycare especially gives the viewer the feelings of bright, nostalgic memories, which is what the film sets up to be a lot of before delivering the kicker twist. As such, one thing different it has going for it is the use of darker colors to inflict the darker tone on its viewers; this film has a lot more grays, yellows, and browns saturating the scenes, especially those amongst the daycare group with Lotso, Ken (voiced by Michael Keaton), and evil Buzz among others. It is most clear that technology has come a long ways since the first film and really, without the first film, CGI would not be where it is today in any given situation.

The biggest part I mentioned once before is how much darker this film is in comparison to the other two. Not only are the colors more so in certain scenes, but the overall tone definitely has it going as well. Even in the beginning wild west sequence of Andy imagining his toys playing around there were more instances where it looked like one or more of the toys were going to die -- they didn't, but it sure looked like it. On top of that, the main villain, Lotso, is given a fully fleshed out backstory that helps you understand his motivation for why he does what he does and, though it makes you feel sorry for him, his actions as a villain are some of the most anger-inducing for any Pixar villain that's ever been. His conquering of the daycare is only the tip of the iceberg of the bad things he does throughout; between pretending to be a nice guy at first, reverting Buzz back to his old self, calling toys "trash that's meant to be thrown away", and abusing his alley, Big Baby, he is undoubtedly the most ruthless Pixar villain, topping Hopper from A Bug's Life and Syndrome from The Incredibles. He alone is almost the whole reason this film is much darker than the last two especially at the end when he leaves the toys to nearly die in an incinerator at the landfill. Many complain that this film was too dark for the series, but, frankly I don't mind it as it made for a more powerful conclusion.

Just the way in which the film wraps up and addresses everything the previous few films did from a toy's perspective made it one of the most satisfying conclusions to any film series ever. Toy Story 2 foreshadowed a lot of the plot points of this film through the use of Stinky Pete's lines about Andy growing up, children destroying toys, and eventually winding up in the landfill. And the way in which each was portrayed was done well to the best extent it could have been; with how they showed Andy growing up over time in the beginning symbolized by the reprise of the original "You've Got a Friend in Me" ending at the line about friendship never dying, it makes you feel for the toys and their dilemma right off the bat. Also, I'll admit, after seeing the toddlers play around with the toys in brutal, messy ways in the trailers, I assumed that the situation was more silly than it was serious because we did not yet know about Lotso's intentions of keeping the new toys hostage in that room while the other room played with the toys calmly and carefully. To say the least, that whole storyline was an expectation subversion. Plus, while they didn't spend the majority of the film at the landfill, the way in which they portrayed the climactic scene of them there was a thrill ride at best. Whereas it could have easily ended at the dumpster confrontation, the way Lotso dragged Woody into the dumpster with him setup for an even stronger climax where it looked like the toys were about to die in the most heartbreaking way possible. All the more, this made the ending with Andy and Bonnie playing with the toys all the more heartwarming before Andy finally left for college and the film ended the way the first one began.

And lest we not forget the audio department of this movie; the voices of many of the characters such as Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cussack, and Don Rickles (RIP) as Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and Mr. Potato Head among others really gave it their all in the performances we're used to by now. And many of the newcomers such as Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton, and Timothy Dalton as Lotso, Ken, and Mr. Pricklepants among others brought plenty new to the table while giving performances just as great as the other actors. Plus the use of Buzz's Spanish actor to play Spanish Buzz was a nice touch and really added to the humor and cultural variety of the film in my opinion. And who could ever forget the way in which they brought Randy Newman back to do the ending song "We Belong Together"? This was by far the best way to end the series with the return of the man who started it all followed by the Spanish version of "You've Got a Friend in Me" ("Hay Un Amigo en Mi"). And so, despite the fact that there will be a Toy Story 4 next year, I am very much satisfied with how this one ended and, should it not be as great, I may not consider it canon or necessary.

So there you have it; I've come full circle with the Toy Story trilogy and boy has it been an adventure into nostalgia for me. Between the great graphics, the darker tone and well-written villain, the use of foreshadowing throughout the series, and and the voice actors and music, there was definitely a lot of thought put into this film and making it the best for last. Though I can't say it was my favorite of the series, it's still up there with its predecessors as one of my favorite films of all time and I am proud to have included all of it in my movie review blog. So, overall, I give this movie an A+ and cite it as recommendable to any fan of this fantastic series!

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!

Jasonic Reviews Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island

As a childhood and recent fan of Scooby-Doo, I see there's a certain charm about seeing it done in a way that's both different and done well. After the original show ended, not every iteration was an absolute success (i.e.: Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo, Scooby-Doo Meets the Boo Brothers, etc.), but just for existing a long while, one ought to give them props for trying to revitalize the series multiple times. After many attempts at doing something different for its first few decades as a franchise, many would say that the first of many direct-to-video movies, Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island, from 1998 was the key to the franchise's relevance today as it allowed the talking canine continue to be relevant amongst today's generation of kids. Since the yearly release of Scooby movies continues even today, it's best to really look back and see what made this movie work and whether or not it holds up now.

A message from Morgan Moonscar: ***SPOILERS AHOY!!***

The film takes a massive departure from the traditional Scooby-Doo tropes in a number of ways. In it, the Mystery Gang reunites after a year long hiatus in an effort to discover real ghosts as part of a segment for the show that Daphne Blake (voiced by Mary Kay Bergman) is in charge of. After Fred Jones (voiced by Frank Welker) manages to get everyone back together, the likes of them, Velma Dinkley (voiced by B.J. Ward), "Shaggy" Rogers (voiced by Billy West), and Scooby-Doo (voiced by Scott Innes) travel to the city of New Orleans only to be met with an abundance of cases reminiscent of their old days. It isn't until they run into a young woman named Lena Dupree (voiced by Tara Strong) who invites them to her work residence of Moonscar Island in the bayou that they believe they're in for a real scoop. The island being allegedly haunted, the gang accepts the task to investigate the place, albeit skeptical of the possibility of there being real ghosts and monsters running around. Upon their arrival and investigation, however, more and more clues begin to emerge showing signs of genuine supernatural happenings and creatures popping up. And so, in a series of twists and turns, the gang finds themselves in the face of legitimate danger when captured by the least likely suspects.

The first and most notable thing about this movie is the fact that it goes against all the traditional Scooby-Doo tropes thereby giving the film a fresh direction. For starters, the characters are aged up and redesigned as young adults (see picture above) giving them more potential for them to evolve over the course of the film -- for example, Daphne becoming a successful career woman, being able to defend herself, and not be captured. Whereas Fred and at least one other character set off a trap that captured the villain at the end of every case, Scooby and Shaggy are the ones who actively neutralize threats, making them a lot more useful despite their classic quirkiness. And, of course, who could ever forget about the multiple twists the film takes to keep from repeating the same old, but somehow timeless formula? Long story short, the titular zombies turn out to be real and are haunting the place every night seemingly about to devour unsuspecting bystanders as zombies do. Moreover, the real villains are of the supernatural variety, being granted the transformation of "werecats" by a cat god and drain the life source of their victims in order to replenish their immortality -- the zombies actually being the good guys and trying to warn everyone of their potential fate. Tell me, does this sound like Scooby-Doo? It sure doesn't, but it definitely is done well and plays with everyone's expectations they've come to know from the franchise.

Simone: "I've had it with that meddling dog!"

Scooby: "Rog? Where?"

For a 1998 direct-to-video movie, the animation and art style in this flick is just as superb as many notable 2D animated films from the era. Every shot looks smooth and fluent, even more so than the old Scooby cartoons and made for TV films -- which, of course, were lower budget. The animators really gave it all they had with capturing the essence of the original cartoons in the way that the characters move and react to things, especially when Scooby and Shaggy get involved in cartoony antics and/or sprint away from whatever's chasing them. The characters themselves even resemble their original selves, but with updated wardrobes and even more detail applied to their overall looks -- i.e.: Fred and Daphne are given more detail in their eyes, Velma's given noticeable freckles, etc. Despite being set in a cartoon, the locales are given a lot of attention to detail in resembling the actual real life New Orleans; just looking at the city they travel throughout the unmasking montage or the bayou they venture into for the majority of the film could make one feel they've been whisked away to Louisiana. This amount of effort in capturing the feelings of real life locations would later go on to be a priority in later films and adaptations of Scooby.

If any kids or adults are gonna take away anything notable from the audio department of this film, it's the music. The film is packed with good music start to finish; from the cover of the original theme song in the opening chase sequence to Skycycle's "The Ghost is Here" from the aforementioned unmasking montage, the music is quite catchy that you might be wanting to look it up and sing along to it for days after. And who could possibly forget the real chase sequence in the film with "It's Terror Time Again", also done by Skycycle? While Scooby is known for its chase scene songs, never before has it experimented with power rock like such that sounds so legit it could even be played at a zombie walk in town and some may not even know it was originally from Scooby-Doo. And, to give credit where due, the voice actors did a good job at replicating the style of the original shows voice actors -- save for Frank Welker who reprises Fred here for the first time in years and has ever since. While some may disagree, Billy West does a good job sounding like Casey Kasem as Shaggy whereas Scott Innes was definitely a good successor to Don Messick (whom the film is dedicated to) in the few years that this same style of films was coming out. Lest we not forget that voice acting veterans such as Adrienne Barbeau, Tara Strong, Jim Cummings, and Mark Hamill were also in this film as Simone, Lena, Jacques, and Snakebite respectively. Seriously, for voice actor and rock music enthusiasts alone, this film may as well be one worth watching for a slice of obscure history.

'Cause it's terror time again!
They've got you running through the night!

The film may not be absolute perfection, but almost nothing ill can be said about it in hindsight. Between its ambitious plot, the risks it takes along the way, the superb animation and art style, the music, and voice acting, all components work well together and don't trip over the other in an effort to make this a great movie. Even kids today would be surprised at how scary parts of this film tend to be because hardly any of the newer Scooby movies or shows for that matter tend to tread this area of risk taking and letting the monsters be real and deadly threats. The good news is that one show managed to play on its success in the form of Scooby-Doo Mystery Incorporated, but both have since faded into obscurity. Even so, I hope that somehow at some point every Scooby fan or superfan comes across this gem of a film of which I give a B+ and a worthwhile flick in the franchise.

Seriously, what are you waiting for?
Go watch this film this Halloween (or whenever you can)!
Bwahahahaha!

Jasonic Reviews Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I figured it was only a matter of time before I revealed my Potter fandom side to the world; and the best way I could do that was by writing my thoughts on the series in the form of a review. Now it may not seem logical for me to start at the third movie for those missing out on the series at the moment, but I think even the Potter fans can agree that this movie is a decent starting point for re-watching the series should they feel obligated to skip the first two movies -- as they're basically the same story and most everyone now knows how it was all set up. Plus, as someone whose reading the books for the first time in his life (save for this one), this one was always my favorite and so I inevitably felt the need to go ahead and do this one followed by my most favorites in the series -- the blog is about my favorite movies after all. Now that does not mean that I will be comparing the books to the movies in my reviews (this is not a blog for complaining about differences between films and source material after all). So, without further adieu, let's get right to it with my thoughts on my favorite Harry Potter story, Prisoner of Azkaban.

***SPOILERIFIC POST AHEAD***

After learning of his magical history, discovering more of himself, and ending Lord Voldemort's first two attempts at resurrection in the previous two films, Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe) returns for a third year at Hogwarts only to discover news that a prisoner named Sirius Black (played by Gary Oldman) has escaped the wizard prison of Azkaban. Knowing of Black's intent to kill him, Harry must keep safe on the grounds of Hogwarts at all times especially with the dementors -- ghoul-like creatures that literally suck out people's souls -- guarding the castle grounds. In a series of spell-binding events (literally), Harry and his best friends, Ron and Hermione (played by Rupert Grint and Emma Watson respectively) will discover ways like never before to deal with their issues. Between learning how to ward of dementor attacks, going to multiple classes at once, and the connections between Harry, Black, and other Hogwarts professors, more of the larger conflict at hand will be unveiled before Harry's eyes. As Professor Dumbledore (played by Michael Gambon) says, "Happiness can be found even in the darkest times if one only remembers to turn on the light."

The biggest thing to point out about this film is just how different it is from its predecessors. Whereas the first two were largely lighthearted children's adventures full of warm colors, relatively innocent circumstances (though clearly Chamber of Secrets had darker events, but it still wasn't very adult), and was full of joyful events that make children happy and adults feel like kids again, this one takes things up a notch without there being a jarring shift in tone and aesthetics. Many scenes now, especially the ones where dementors are present, take place in the rain, fog, and cloudy skies, signifying a progression towards a bleaker narrative. Even some shots, like the long cut shot where George Weasley explains the seriousness (no pun intended) of Sirius Black's escape, are framed in such a way that conveys the seriousness of the narrative at hand. That and the circumstances for Harry are much more driven by teen angst; gone are his childlike wonders of discovering he's a celebrity wizard and learning to overcome all odds in favor him seeking revenge against his parents' supposed killer. Alfonso Cuarón was clearly the right director for moving the series forward and his decisions in the direction are among the main reason why I enjoy this film the most going forward.

Acting-wise, the film not only sees return many of the more prominent roles and side characters we've been following the last few films, but also introduces many veteran roles playing the parts of important supporting characters going forward. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson very much maintain their lovable personas we've all come to know and love for the previous few films. Side roles such as Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy, Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom, and Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid aren't as up front this time around, but still are fun to watch and consistent in their performance as before. The real highlights, however, are a lot of the adult actors, especially the new characters/actors introduced in this one. Gary Oldman's performance as Sirius Black is perhaps the biggest win of them all, conveying masterfully a man who seems like his sanity could be fading (because spending twelve years locked up for a crime you didn't commit would really do that to you) to later becoming a more at ease and inspiring mentor figure to Harry for later down the line. David Thewlis as Remus Lupin was also a good choice as he managed to portray a different side of  the usual shady the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, one who, unlike the previous two, has no control over whether or not he turns bad due to his werewolf persona taking him over every full moon. As with a lot of his roles, Alan Rickman, though he doesn't have much significance as Serverus Snape this time around, he always brings his A-game to the role. And, of course, who could forget Michael Gambon, the guy who replace Richard Harris as Dumbledore for the remaining six Harry Potter films? Simply put, the cast was always good and really shines here.

As always, the film also finds ways to bring us into the wizarding world of Harry Potter with its score and atmosphere. This film, being John Williams' third and last time scoring for the series, wasn't exactly the most stand out entry in the soundtrack of the series, though it still carried the same magical feel that the previous films did full well to pull us in. Scenes like Buckbeak's flight give off the same joyful vibe as scenes in the previous films such as Harry's first Quidditch match and when Fawkes flies them all out of the Chamber of Secrets. Little numbers like the "Toil and Trouble" track sung by the Hogwarts choir also allow us, the audience, to return to Hogwarts with a sense of joy knowing that, despite the raise in stakes with a supposed killer on the loose, that there is still a wondrous sense of magic to be found in this universe. And the moment where Harry sees his time traveled self conjuring up the final patronus against the swarm of dementors only to later do it  has a neat little contrast that only keen-eared viewers would notice. The first time, the strings and horns clash adding a sense of dread based on the situation with some hope to be found in the midst of it. Later on, the horns become more prominent as Harry has come to realize how much he himself is a light in the darkest of times (not yet realizing the darkness inside himself yet) just as Dumbledore alludes to at the start. I love how poetic these stories get with their themes and music!

Need I also mention the special effects? (I mean, duh, it's a Harry Potter film and that's only mandatory). Much of your usual Hogwarts magic remains with the moving staircases, animated paintings, and flying broomsticks that, by this point, have become standard for the series. This being a new entry in the franchise, of course, it tries many things new as well. For example, he dementors were originally considered to be puppets instead of CGI, but I believe CG did them justice with their bleakly obscure faces, scary clawed hands, and other ghostly features that make the grim reaper look adorable by comparison. This one also had more focus on CG creatures between Sirius and his dog animagus, Buckbeak the hippogriff, and Lupin's werewolf transformation; all three were animated exceptionally well and provided more of a sense of creatures of magical variety in this world -- and it would only become more prominent beyond this film. And lest we not forget the Knight Bus scene; that had some of the funnest bullet time sequences I've ever experienced in a film the way it races through the street and squeezes in between the two double-decker buses on the bridge. Trust me when I say that this whole series has wonderful special effects as well!

I think it's safe for anybody to assume that this is among my favorites -- if not my most favorite -- of the Harry Potter franchise both book and film. The film, in particular, has many notable highlights such as the reasonable progression in tone, a brilliantly acted cast, wonderful music, and great special effects that there's no denying that this is the wizarding world of Harry Potter we're in. And, as my favorite of the series as far as story goes, the writing definitely shows where this is going to take the series down the road and I applaud it for doing so in a logical fashion. And so, with all I've said, about this film up to now, I'm going to go ahead and give it a solid A and consider it a must see for everyone in the Potter fandom and beyond!

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!

Jasonic Reviews How to Train Your Dragon 2

In today's world of cinema franchises, it appears that the need to make a sequel for everything is a requirement on most fronts. Sometimes those sequels are genius extensions of the original, other times they're just phoned in cash grabs for the kiddies because, hey, kids liked the first one so they decide, without hardly any common sense, to milk it to death (i.e.: Alvin and the Chipmunks, The Smurfs, etc.). And so, with most animated kids films, a sequel may seem a bit concerning for the adults taking them to watch it, however, other franchises that started off with a bang, such as Toy Story, beg to differ. And so, without giving too much away right off the bat, I will say that How to Train Your Dragon, despite initial skepticism from some that a sequel would do the original justice, really earned it with becoming a series the way it did. But does it completely surpass the original in every way? Let's find out in my newest film review/critique!

***SPOILER AHEAD*** (it matters for this one -- you've been warned)

Five years following the first film, a lot has changed in a world dominated by vikings and dragons. The village of Berk has changed for the better in the sense that the vikings and dragons now live together in harmony; a twenty year old Hiccup (voiced once more by Jay Baruchel) now explores the world on a regular basis with his pet dragon, Toothless, when one day the former's father, Stoick the Vast (voiced once more by Gerard Butler), nearly forces him into becoming the village chief. Not wanting to become his dad and live up to his legacy, Hiccup soon learns of the existence of a dragon army on the rise lead by the likes of a madman named Drago Bludvist (voiced by Djimon Hounsou) and vows to persuade him to see dragons differently instead of go to war with him like his father would want. Along the way, Hiccup unexpectedly runs into his long lost mother, Valka (voiced by Cate Blanchett), whose been in hiding for years extracting and protecting dragons from the likes of Drago and other dangers of the world. With the help of his returning friends and his mother, Hiccup must discover his true identity and learn to protect his own.

From a synopsis perspective, one can tell this absolutely isn't a phoned in cash grab as some may have feared. Any lesser kids film sequel would have likely separated the main players and sent them on separate journeys before they realized how much they truly need each other (or quite possibly rehash the plot of the first movie by extension). Instead, this movie is clearly an extension of an already good story that continues logically in a way that mirrors The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, and Terminator 2 to name a few. For one, our protagonist has aged both physically and mentally, now sporting a more buff physique and improved upon his many skills, gadgets, and techniques since last time. Whereas the first film clearly paints him as a Harry Potter/Peter Parker protagonist, I'd say he's taken enough steps to be on par with Luke Skywalker at the start of Return of the Jedi in terms of characterization. Where one would expect Toothless to remain the static loyal pet this time around, there's quite a few twists that give him more development to work with (which I won't really spoil, but see for yourself). Sadly, the comedic side characters that had their fun little gags throughout the first film and continue into this one, including Astrid (voiced once more by America Ferrera) aren't as integral nor have they aged much like Hiccup, but they're still fun to watch nonetheless.

In terms of the audio and visual aspects of this movie, everything is very much on par with, if not more so, than the original. Everyone from the original cast as well as the new additions really sell the film with outstanding performances from everyone. Jay Baruchel has surprisingly improved as Hiccup, Gerard Butler's awesome voice is just as powerful, and Cate Blanchett really sells the mother role like I personally believed she could to name a few. And the score, done once again by John Powell, is just as impressive and really whisks you away to this other world full of dragons and vikings. Sure, there are no slow, gripping, dialogueless scenes with songs like "Forbidden Friendship" this time around, but John Powell manages to create gripping action and flight scenes with his music regardless. The graphics are very much upgraded to where everything looks and feels more real; the snowy mountain environments induce chills, the clouds make you really feel like you're up in the sky, and underwater scenes look... well, underwater. And lest we not forget the fact that they managed to squeeze in so many little animated figures in the big battle scene toward the end of the second act. Never before has there been so much crowd simulation in an animated movie that to witness such a technical feat was amazing at the time! The action in general was also more engaging as the dragons and vikings have clearly learned well how to combat others in the air and on land.

The movie may have a few faulty bits such as underused side characters and the lack of investment in the main villain aside from one bit of dialogue about his backstory, but I, in no way, hold it against the movie nor do I consider it that much worse than the first film as a result. As a matter of fact, the main reason why I like this movie much more so than its predecessor is the bold decision they made with its direction. Dean DeBlois clearly knew what he was doing in making this all about Hiccup's coming of age story where he must essentially give up his old, crazy ways of "goofing off" (according to Astrid) and be forced into leadership to protect his own. As much as I wish to talk about it in-depth -- save it possibly for a whole separate analysis -- I will say that it's much like The Lion King in terms of the way it goes a ballsy direction and impacts the audience hard in an emotional sense. In trying to defend this franchise from those who claim it's "just for kids", I use this movie and, if they're aware of what happens, the scene I'm referring to as an example as to why the How to Train Your Dragon films aren't just for kids and nobody else. The way it deals with darker, more mature themes than the first film (not that the first film wasn't completely innocent in terms of subject matter) is what really hits home for me personally for this installment and makes me all the more excited to see how they ultimately conclude the series when How to Train Your Dragon 3 (yes, a THIRD film IS in the works) hits theaters in a full year from now!

Based on what I've said now about this film, it goes completely without saying that I generally prefer this one over its predecessor and I absolutely enjoy it when an animated film franchise takes a step in the right direction for a change. Despite a few minor faults that don't truly affect the overall product, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a visually stunning, well-acted, excellently scored, emotionally investing logical continuation of an already awesome family-friendly film that more animated movies should follow by example. The way it delivers on so many levels makes for a thrilling experience that I'd be more than personally willing to share with anyone regardless of if they've seen the first film or not. All things considered, the film gets an A+ in my book and is on my recommend list for everyone!

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!

Jasonic Reviews A Bug's Life

With Pixar being one of the biggest franchises my family loves to quote and the fact that this one, like Toy Story, is near and dear to my childhood, I didn't think I could leave this one alone. Sure, nobody, even Pixar themselves, really recalls this movie off the top of their heads, but it is still memorable in my mind. It may not have or ever be getting a sequel/prequel like every other Pixar film up until Cars, though I still believe it has and should get some recognition in today's world even almost twenty years after its release. So, without further adieu, here's my thoughts on why I think Disney/Pixar's A Bug's Life is a brilliantly endearing animated flick that, despite having some flaws, still holds up relatively well today.

*This movie's plot is rather basic and familiar, so I won't tag SPOILERS, but will still encourage cautious reading for those who haven't seen it*

The plot of this movie, while familiar in a number of areas, doesn't truly bother me. It's a basic story about an awkward, outcast ant named Flik (voiced by Dave Foley) who tirelessly tries his utmost to bring new ideas and inventions to his colony who, year after year, gathers all the food on their island for an offering to a gang of bully grasshoppers keeping them in line. When Flik screws up big time by accidentally getting rid of the food offering, the grasshoppers's leader, Hopper (voiced by Kevin Spacey), demands they double down on their end of the bargain before the summer ends. Despite his huge mistake that has the colony endangered, Flik is granted permission by the colony's leader in training, Princess Atta (voiced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus), to go out and find a bunch of "warrior bugs" to forever rid them of Hopper and his gang. Just when the princess and the other ants believe they had gotten rid of Flik to prevent any further mishaps from him, Flik surprisingly returns home with a troupe of circus bugs whom he mistakes for warriors when they put on an act in the city. Misunderstandings awry, Flik desperately tries to cover up their acting as warrior bugs in hopes to finally prove that he can make a difference.

Although the story itself is full of tired, predictable tropes, I've never actually been bothered by it so much. As a kid, this movie was my introduction to such a stock story format so I was never sour about Flik being the dweeb protagonist who later becomes the respected hero, his "liar reveal" that gets him banished permanently, and the fact that the ants in the colony don't get much development (but I wouldn't say they're all completely forgettable either). In fact, I found back then as I do now that what made it enjoyable, despite the predictable story beats, was the character interactions and I still believe this holds true. This is more apparent in the actions and personalities of the circus bugs themselves; you have Heimlich (voiced by Joe Ranft), a caterpillar with a German accent and a huge appetite, Francis (voiced by Dennis Leary), a ladybug who often gets mistaken for a girl, and Slim (voiced by David Hyde Pierce), a stick bug who is cast in shows as nothing but stick-like objects. Their fun, silly interactions are the highlights of the story and they, alone, keep things fresh for those big moviegoers who are tired of seeing the same story time and again. Plus, as a Pixar film, it allows for subtle adult humor with enough innocent fun mixed in to keep the kids entertained.

Aesthetically, A Bug's Life is one of those animated flicks (no pun intended) that just pops! Everyone  who's aware of the history of the history between Disney, DreamWorks, and their competition to see whose movie about bugs would turn out better (Antz vs. A Bug's Life) would be pleased to find that, when compared to Antz, A Bug's Life is the brighter, more colorful movie. Sure, the ants mostly look the same, but the circus bugs come in all types, shapes, and sizes to a point where you'd immediately recognize who was who based on personality and looks. Similar to the ants, the grasshoppers mostly look alike, but Hopper and Molt (voiced by Richard Kind) look different enough from the rest to where you can at least tell who they are -- which is especially saying something for me since Molt is actually my favorite character with his humorous one liners and his reformation at the end. And the one thing that nobody ever talks about is the "city" under the trailer; to me, it's an interesting, somewhat engaging set up for a city made for bugs (buildings made of discarded trash, bigger bugs transporting smaller bugs, etc.) that could have been interesting to explore more in a sequel. Of course, this movie never warranted a sequel despite Flik and Heimlich talking about it in the Toy Story 2 outtakes and I've never been desperate for one, but I'm getting off topic. All in all, I'd say I'm satisfied with the movie's presentation and the fact that it remains a standalone.

To say that the sound design of this movie was great would be an understatement... it's brilliant! One of the most engaging parts for me and my family is, without a doubt, the voice delivery that makes the lines so appealing to all of us. Many of the voice actors from Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta to Richard Kind as Molt is so comically engaging that, even if the lines themselves sound generic on paper, the actor's delivery of the line is what makes it so memorable and easy to quote for us (i.e.: when Molt says, "Yeah! Where's the food?"). The sound effects themselves are well done too; while the scenes with the grasshoppers may seem a bit violent for an animated kids movie, you can really feel the impact of them breaking into the ant hill at the start as well as Thumper and Hopper beating Flik around toward the end. And, of course, the music! The music of this film was a standout moment for Randy Newman (known also for his work in Toy Story) and the orchestral score throughout definitely has an impact with the scenes they go along with -- the music by itself doesn't really stick with you, but it still works as music. The ending theme, "The Time of Your Life", may not give the same feeling of long time remembrance as Toy Story's "You've Got A Friend in Me", though Newman's voice is still just as distinct as ever and it wraps up the film nicely.

So, overall, as the second Pixar film, and the one I've probably seen most after Toy Story, A Bug's Life may not be perfect, but it's still had a lasting impression on me. Despite somewhat forgettable main characters and a story full of tired tropes, it's easy to remember the comedic side characters, the aesthetic designs, the Foley artistry, and music that went into it. For what it is, I say that if you're a Pixar fan or are looking for something entertaining for your kids to watch to go ahead and give this one a watch if you, yourself, can get past some of the less than memorable, overused elements. All things considered, I give this film an A- and will definitely recommend it to anyone looking for a good fix in their appetite for animated films.

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!

Jasonic Reviews Spider-Man 3

When a trilogy as good as the original Sam Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy rounds about, it's only natural that the audience would expect it all to go out with a bang. That was everyone's expectation about Spider-Man 3 prior to its much anticipated release in 2007... but then reception turned out rather mixed especially amongst the critics and fans. As a Spider-Man fan myself, I can honestly say I couldn't leave this one alone -- especially not after the Blu-ray release of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Before we get into it, I'll admit that it actually wasn't my favorite of the Raimi trilogy for a number of reasons. Regardless, each Spider-Man movie, no matter how good/bad, has at least one standout element that makes it unique and this one is no exception. Knowing how much backlash this film has gotten in the past, I will do something different and examine what worked and didn't work and do my absolute best to stay positive about it!

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

So the film is set roughly a year or so after Spider-Man 2 -- the passing of time/time of year is never made apparent in this series, but that's my educated guess. This time, Peter Parker (played once more by Tobey Maguire) is a widespread icon as Spider-Man and has his life in order for a change. In the midst of his fame and recognition, he plans on taking the next step in his relationship with his now girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson (played once more by Kirsten Dunst), who is struggling with her self-confidence after being rejected from her Broadway play. Meanwhile, Peter's former best friend turned enemy, Harry Osborn (played once more by James Franco), seeks vengeance against him for supposedly murdering his father, still blissfully unaware of what actually happened and who his father really was. In addition to everything else going on, an escaped convict from Rykers known as Flint Marko (played by Thomas Haden Church) tries desperately to get the money to heal his sick daughter and inadvertently becomes the "Sandman" when coming in contact with a molecular science experiment while on the run. When Peter learns of Marko's identity as his uncle's real killer, he utilizes a mysterious black alien suit that came from outer space and attached itself to his suit, causing him to break out his inner-aggression and seek vengeance on Marko. Throw in the Bugle's newest photographer, Eddie Brock (played by Topher Grace), trying to expose Spider-Man as a thief and it appears as though Spidey is in for his biggest, most riveting adventure yet!

Well... not exactly. Reading all that right off the bat, you may be wondering how exactly that all ties together. Some superhero movies in the last decade or so have been known for over-cluttering their plots with needless usage of characters and subplots to a point where it doesn't exactly flow smoothly together and this is no exception. Thing is, the film starts clear as day with Harry as the villain and, just when the rivalry action breaks out between him and Peter... he gets knocked on the head, losing his memory; and just like that all enmity between the two best friends that had been built up through the previous two movies is lost, but only for a while. During that time, Sandman takes over as the main villain before Symbiote Spider-Man seemingly kills him... and then we're back to Harry... and finally Eddie Brock who finally becomes Venom and teams up with Sandman. Long story short, the story, three villains amongst a number of other things, is very jumbled, each hour seeming almost like a different movie at some points. This may cause some to point fingers at Sam Raimi for lazy writing, but personally, I don't blame Sam Raimi or even the actors for any of it. What it boils down to is studio input; during production, Sony were pressuring Sam Raimi for the inclusion of Venom as well as Gwen Stacy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard -- more on her later) due to fans demanding that such characters seeing the light of day in film. That said, with a limited time to write the script, the writers couldn't seem to find a way to naturally incorporate everything the studio wanted and hoped it would stick.

Though that approach didn't really hit the mark for me personally, that didn't stop the film at all from being entertaining. People too often give this film flak for being "too cheesy" without realizing that the two previous films were just as so; in fact, I say I'm okay with their continued use of comedy bits (i.e.: J. Jonah Jameson's "pill buzzer" scene) as it reminds the audience that this is a Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie. On top of that, the action set pieces are some of the best in the series. Bits like Spider-Man getting caught without his suit and fighting the New Goblin, the black Spider-Man vs. Sandman fight, and, ultimately the finale with Spider-Man and Harry against Sandman and Venom  allow for a huge variety of action. In those three scenes alone, you have your standard above the city sky battle, an attempt to capture the thrills of the train fight from Spider-Man 2 (which is the best fight in the series, my opinion), and a fascinating climactic battle between the film's main four players in and around a construction site. Each are shot and choreographed fantastically and help the film feel fresh at every turn.

The main problem I have with the film's transitions between each action scene, however, is how unnecessary some scenes and plot points feel in the grand scheme of things. For example, Harry's amnesia, though it's a cool reference to the comics, doesn't seem to go anywhere; well, come to think of it, it foreshadows Harry's sacrifice for his friends at the end, so I'd say it's not all terrible. The main gripes I have are actually the aforementioned inclusion of Sandman and Gwen Stacy. Though Sam Raimi made it clear that he wanted Sandman to be the main villain above all else (even the former inclusion of Vulture he talked about ages ago), he wasn't exactly written in the best. Just as we're getting to see the initial developments between the three friends, we suddenly cut to Marko on the run; it's not the worst intro ever, but a little exposition prior to his intro would've helped. And then, of course, that dreaded retcon that everyone complains about, I would have to agree with; the previous two films had established that the carjacker was the one responsible for Uncle Ben's death so to rewrite the whole thing to say that "Sandman did it" feels a bit jarring and unnecessary, but it does make for an interesting resolution for Peter with his choice to listen and forgive him in the end. Ultimately, though, Gwen Stacy didn't need to be there and seemed to only further disrupt the possibility of Peter and MJ getting married like the film was implied to be about. I won't go on a tangent about why this doesn't work, but I will say that, upon my initial look at the film's trailer, I would not have guessed that Gwen Stacy was ever supposed to be apart of it in the first place.

And don't get me started on how the black suit storyline played out; I mean, it was a good device for making a darker movie, but then it's never really explained why it got there other than being from a meteorite that just happened to land next to Peter's bike in the beginning. Moreover, it takes a while, like an hour or so, before it finally attaches itself to Spidey's suit (further proof that Sam Raimi didn't want Venom in the first place). Strangely enough, I actually think the Saturday Night strut scene is funny in its own right, but then... the DANCE SCENE! Naturally, my cringe was off the wall at that point, but enough of this negativity -- we don't want to act like we're wearing the suit after all. As a positive critic, I won't trash everything about it so, instead I'll say that if I were in charge of writing the film, I would have effortlessly written it into the story to play out like so:

1. Spidey acquires the suit and learns its abilities in the first half hour
2. With everything going wrong in his life, Spidey uses the suit to feel good again
3. The suit causes him to unintentionally hurt his friends without his awareness
4. He tries to get back at his best frenemy and nearly kills him
5. Ultimately, he crosses the line when he seemingly kills his newest foe and tears it off

I may have even saved the introduction of Venom for the previously announced Spider-Man 4, but I'm through talking about "what ifs". If anything, I'll say it wasn't my favorite depiction of the black suit arc, but it wasn't the absolute worst either.

For that matter, this wasn't the worst Spider-Man movie either. Sure, it had its ups and downs and the bad seems to outweigh the good at some points, though I wouldn't call the worst Spider-Man or comic book movie in general. It had some good action, some fun laughs, good acting, and, overall, the spirit of the Raimi films was still there. In fact, I'd say the actors weren't downright terrible despite what some may say; I personally found Tobey's happy-go-lucky attitude in the beginning to be his way of implementing himself into the character he had played now for three films -- like he's telling the audience, "I own this character now!" Kirsten I can't say had much improvement (maybe some character development, but that's about it), but James Franco, like he said in the movie, is "So good!" Like he really owned Harry Osborn to where I could almost say he was Harry Osborn. Topher Grace wasn't as bad as people say either; his personality fit well with the rest of the comical vibe the series aimed to give. And, I can't believe I skipped over Rosemary Harris and J.K. Simmons' marvelous (no pun intended) acting as Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson respectively in the previous two reviews. Jameson especially was a highlight in this series and has me eagerly awaiting to see if J.K. would be up for reprising the role in the next live action Spider-Man movie (seeing as he's already done so several times in the animated shows). Lest we not forget that, despite feeling shoehorned, Thomas Haden Church is an all around good actor; he looks like the Sandman, gives him his own personality, and very well conveys a tortured sympathetic villain that was interestingly reminiscent of Doc Ock. I would've loved if everyone gave it there all to end this trilogy with a bang, but, for what it was, I can say I generally enjoyed the series as a whole regardless.

Without further adieu, here are my final thoughts regarding the last film in the otherwise good Spider-Man Trilogy. Despite its heavily apparent flaws of a jumbled story, contrived transitions and plot points, and an odd attempt at a darker movie through use of the black suit, the comedy was great, the action superb, and the acting done well enough for the viewer to enjoy. I can't say it was the best film I've ever reviewed (it might even be the worst so far), but still, for what it is, I can't say it's dumpster fire, but good in some aspects. In other words, I give it a C+ rating and label it passable for anyone looking to see what the film as to offer (whether it be their favorite character, pleasing action, or decent bits of acting).

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!

Jasonic Reviews The Social Network

As somebody who uses social media on a regular basis, it's interesting when you come across a movie that addresses the founding of one of the biggest social media sites of all time. It's one thing when a movie documents a real-life event that involves the creation of something revolutionary like Facebook -- which I am ironically sharing this review link on as you read. But the movie I'm about to talk about is no documentary; it's a series of events based on real life told through an entertaining screenplay. To talk about this details of this movie right off the bat, however, I feel would give too much away, thereby rendering the following paragraphs redundant. So, without spilling anything besides basic info in this introductory paragraph, I hereby address my thoughts on what makes the movie, The Social Network, a great flick.

*No need for spoiler tag here*

Based on the book, The Accidental Billionaires, which itself is based on real-life events, the film is essentially an exaggerated documentary, as I like to call it, about the creation of the Facebook website we know and love today. In it, Harvard student Mark Zuckerburg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) finds himself being dumped by his girlfriend, Erica Albright (played by Rooney Mara). Upon returning to his dorm to write insulting blog entries about her as well as create an attractiveness rating site called Facemash. Though it crashes much of Harvard's network, the site's popularity reaches the likes of the Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler (played in double by Armie Hammer), who give him the idea to start a social networking site called Harvard Connection. Zuckerburg steals the idea and renames it "The Facebook"; with financial assistance from his close friend, Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield), Zuckerburg manages to build the site, which becomes highly successful to the point of panning out to several other schools in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Winklevoss twins discover the similarities between their idea and Zuckerburg's site and forward to file lawsuit for intellectual property theft. In a series of depositions intercut between the main events, Zuckerburg makes many friends while also making a few enemies.

For starters, the film has a way of being cleverly entertaining that's somehow on par with an action blockbuster. The dialogue exchanges between the cast are rather down-to-earth, yet somehow manage to remain fun and entertaining all at the same time. I can't really explain how it is, but hearing Zuckerburg's techno, code-working babble and Sean Parker's (Justin Timberlake's character) entrepreneur business talk is very engaging when it could've potentially been rather boring for me. For that matter, despite the fact that I am no computer technician or hacker (thankfully), seeing and hearing Eisenberg deliver such information makes me curious as to if I could do what he does for a living. In a sense, it's a lot like Tony Stark's building montages in the first Iron Man because it gives off that sort of resonance that makes me excited about the topics being presented despite the fact that I lack experience in such advanced fields. And, without a doubt, each actor manages to act their role very well with Eisenberg, Timberlake, and Garfield all owning the show throughout. For a dramatized biography, it really manages to keep me invested.

Much of it could be the fact that, as mentioned before, the film takes a lot of artistic license in portraying its events. According to Facebook's creator, Mark Zuckerburg, a lot of what happened in this movie is false when compared to real life events. For example, Eisenberg manages to handsomely portray a greedy, arrogant, sex-motivated guy who just got dumped by his girlfriend out to make a name for himself, but, given what we know about the real Zuckerburg, I doubt he's that much of a narcissist. That and the parts where Eisenberg and Garfield are arguing back and forth about the rash, even self-centered decisions the other makes seems to be a series of events created solely for the purpose of dramatic entertainment. Despite sounding negative from a certain point of view, the film, by no means, is any worse for having this much creative leeway put into it; in fact, I say it's more appealing to watch that way! If nothing else, the little "decorations" the film applies to the story make it so that nobody gets easily bored of watching and leaves the movie feeling much more of an impact.

Another standout portion that makes the film what it is would have to be the music; scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the soundtrack might as well be one of the most unique tastes of movie music we've had in the last decade. The energetic and electronic feel generated from most of the tracks (including the somewhat somber opening piece "Hand Covers Bruise") gives it a flavor that really drives in the techno side of the film. It's no wonder some of the songs also give off a bit of a video game vibe a Reznor himself has scored some video games in the past. Really, a lot of talent went into the music despite it going barely noticed amongst the general public. For the hard-working people out there as well as those who are pushing to get homework done in the nick of time, it really gets your brain going to where you're concentrating like crazy just trying to crank out whatever it is you're writing/completing. Ironically, this is me listening to the soundtrack now as I write about it. Oh, what irony I've brought into this post!

So, overall, I say that The Social Network, being what it is and essentially documenting the rise of one of the biggest social media sites of all time, is a very well done movie for what it is. It's got great dialogue exchanges with great acting to boot, a meaningful story full of artistic license for entertainment purposes, and a really great soundtrack on top of that. That said, it's no wonder it won so many awards for having such an amazing premise among other factors that continue to make it relevant in our social media-infested world today. In terms of rating, I personally give it a solid A and consider it a must see for those willing to check it out for what it is.

Thanks y'all for reading and, as always, I will see you in the next review!