Movie Commentary: Star Wars

Now that I’m contributing to this site, I thought this would be a good time to talk about something that's on my mind quite often. Actually it’s literally something that I’ve been “into” since I was 7-years old. The only problem is, that if I start talking about it, I’m liable to start rambling like an idiot and not make a lick of sense. But I still feel inclined to share my thoughts and feelings, so I’ll try to use restraint and limit myself in my ramblings.

The subject I’d like to discuss today is Star Wars. I know, I know. What could I possibly contribute to the discussion of Star Wars that could possibly be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Well, maybe a little history is in order—

I first saw Star Wars in the theaters as a child in 1977. It was truly a childhood altering (and probably geek generating) experience. From then on, the movies, toys and magazines defined most of my childhood. I stopped counting at 30 viewings of the original Star Wars movie when it came out on videodisk back in the early 80’s. I owned all of the Marvel Star Wars comic books. Suffice it to say, I loved Star Wars.

The original Star Wars (now commonly refered to as Episode IV: A New Hope) was and still is my favorite of them all. I agree with many out there, that The Empire Strikes Back is probably the best of all the movies, but it’s the original Star Wars that truly impacted me, and as I’ve heard, the world of moviemaking in general.

Then in 1997 came the Special Editions. I thought that was exciting! All of the movies back in the theaters with enhanced special effects! The idea was a fun one that seemed like a good idea—a chance for poor George Lucas to fix some of the mistakes or omissions that had been nagging him for so long. Great! But the only problem is (turning on restraint) with all of the added special effects, there were also alterations which to the general public might have seemed like no big deal, but to someone like me who has watched these movies so much that they’re engrained in my consciousness, they’re like looking at a beloved painting, like the Mona Lisa, and discovering that someone decided that she would look better with her teeth showing when she smiled, and went ahead and changed it. And it’s not even the fact that they went ahead and made the change that’s the problem, but they’ve gone and destroyed all versions of her with lips closed because it’s thought of as “incorrect.”

One example I have of this is the change where he made Greedo shoot at Han Solo (Harrison Ford) first in the Cantina. Come on! That’s part of what was great about Han! He was a scoundrel—a pirate! You don’t think that if he thought that Greedo was getting ready to shoot him that he wouldn’t shoot first? Of course he would.

One more example of a change that annoys me is when R2-D2 is spat out of the swamp by whatever the thing was that was trying to eat him. In the original version, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) cleans the slime off of R2 and says, “You’re lucky you don’t taste very good!” —a witty, light hearted remark that I rather liked. In the Special Edition that line of dialogue was changed to, “You were lucky to get out of there.” Taking out a chuckle generating line and making it quite forgettable.

I could go on and on, but this really isn’t the place for it. The sad thing is that there is no plan as of now (that I’ve heard of) to release the original versions of the Original Trilogy on DVD, so it appears that those versions that are so firmly etched onto my memory, are going to have to just stay there for a little while.

When the buildup to the Prequels started, I loved the new interest that resulted. Again there were new toys being made and there were a lot of promotional items being given away in restaurants and stuff like that everywhere. I must admit, the collector in me went a little crazy with this.

When Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace hit the theaters, I was psyched! I went to the midnight show and watched it two more times the following day. To this day I don’t hate it as much as most people seem to, probably because of all of the hype that made that a generally exciting time. I didn’t even mind Jar Jar Binks so much, because I think that the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi were more annoying than him.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones didn’t stay on my good side for long, though. The first time watching it was enjoyable, but the parts where Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is supposed to be wooing Padme (Natalie Portman) made me cringe when I first saw it, and really annoy me now. I also thought the special effects weren’t as good as should be expected.


Regarding Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, many people thought that this movie “saved” the prequels and provided a much needed link to the Original Trilogy. In my opinion, though, it has virtually ruined the saga for me.

You see, my problem is that I have young children that I would love to share what I so deeply loved as a child with them, but I’m very cautious about what they watch. Lucas has made it clear that these movies are supposed to be made for children, so why did he make this movie so intense that it garnered a PG-13 rating? I really think that if there had been a little more subtlety shown, much of the carnage could have just been hinted at and it could have been much better.

But more than that, there’s a matter of principle that I have a problem with. The redemption of Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi worked, in part, because we didn’t really witness the wicked things that he had done. The only real witness of his actions came from a comment from old Ben Kenobi, saying that he “helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights.” But in this movie we actually see him carrying out the act of hunting down and killing innocent Jedi. And by innocent, I’m including the killing of children (which thankfully is not shown). After watching this, I find myself not wanting Darth Vader to be redeemed at the end of Return of the Jedi! I don’t believe that the single act of killing the Emperor could have possibly paid for what he did to all of those undeserving people.

Sometimes I find myself wishing that the Prequels had never been made. Other times I just ignore my the problems I have an watch them for the nostalgia for the things that I loved as a kid. I'm sure if enough time goes by and I revisit the prequels, I won't be bothered as much by things as I am and maybe I'm just being too sensitive—I don't know. What do you think?

Movie News: Meet the Robinsons

With all of the negative comments about the floundering creative soul of Disney over recent years, there’s one bright glimmer of hope for me that would have been encouraging even if it hadn’t been recently announced that Disney was acquiring Pixar. And that glimmer of hope is the forthcoming animated film Meet the Robinsons, which is due out Spring 2007.

I think that most of the best Disney films come when they have choice, time-tested source material to draw from, and in this case their source material is the book A Day with Wilbur Robinson, by William Joyce—a fun adventure where a young boy goes to see his best friend Wilbur and gets a grand tour of Wilbur’s zany family.

Joyce seems to have a good relationship with Disney and was the creative mind behind Rolie Polie Olie, the computer animated show for preschoolers on The Disney Channel. One of his other books, George Shrinks, was turned into a traditionally animated series on PBS Kids. Both shows are favorites in my household.

Because of the simple plot of the Robinsons book, Disney has added quite a lot of detail to flesh out a complete movie storyline. There are also reports that the creative folks at Pixar have been doing some last minute touch-ups on plot points to clean up some things that have been lacking—yet another reason to be relieved at the proposed merger.


So according to the Disney press release, the story in the movie is about an ambitious young inventor named Lewis who creates a Memory Scanner that he hopes he can use to retrieve early memories of his mother and reveal why she put him up for adoption. Before he can use it, though, the dastardly Bowler Hat Guy steals it. Lewis then meets Wilbur Robinson who whisks Lewis away in a time machine where Lewis meets the Robinson clan and tries to hunt down the Bowler Hat Guy. In the process, Lewis discovers the amazing secret of his future family.


I do have one concern about the story though, and that’s the story thread about adoption. As adoptive parents, my wife and I try to be as open with our daughters as we can so there’s no big surprise some day when they find something out. But I get concerned when there are stories or movies that introduce a negative stigma about being adopted—making it seem like adopted children are loved less because someone decided to give them away. I know from personal experience that this is not true. Both of my daughters’ birth mothers were very loving and it was no easy decision to do what they did. I can only thank them every day for the rest of my life. I’ll be checking this movie out before showing it to my daughters because I don’t want them to think that being adopted is bad.


Other than that, I think this sounds like a fun tale and a good family adventure. You can view the trailer online and see that the animation really looks top notch. I look forward to seeing this movie and hopefully having my concerns assuaged.

Movie News: Star Trek 11

It seems that another SciFi franchise is jumping on the prequel bandwagon. I must admit that I was sorry to hear of the cancellation of Enterprise with Scott Bakula. I actually enjoyed that series. I was even willing to overlook the fact that much of the technology appeared to be more advanced than the original Star Trek. After all, it was close to 40 years ago. To their credit though, the writers for Enterprise did attempt to put in technology limitations, such as extremely limited use of the transporter.

So, that is why I am optimistic about an upcoming Star Trek feature film slated to be released in 2008 and distributed by Paramount Pictures. According to Daily Variety and other news reports that picked up the thread, there is as yet no title for this eleventh film in the Star Trek universe, but it will feature scenes about Kirk and Spock meeting at Star Fleet Academy and their first mission into space.


Another reason to be optimistic is director J.J. Abrams, creator, writer, director, and producer of the two ABC series Lost and Alias and writer on Forever Young and Regarding Henry. I have really enjoyed the intrigue, characterization, and pace of Lost, but I reserve the right to withhold final judgment on Star Trek 11 until I see his upcoming movie Mission Impossible III staring Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman (did anyone else loathe MI-2 as much as I did?). Joining Abrams in writing the Star Trek script will be Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, writers for MI-3, The Legend of Zorro, and several episodes of Alias, among other things.

It's also interesting to note that Rick Berman is not involved in this project. Berman has been with Star Trek since The Next Generation and has been involved with every Next Generation movie. Some people attribute the decline of the Star Trek franchise to him. Those same people often credit the late Michael Piller with infusing new excitement into The Next Generation series, starting with season three.

Piller came into Star Trek, The Next Generation in season 3 and was also heavily involved in the creation of Deep Space Nine, but that's where his Star Trek tenure ended. Piller also gave Ronald D. Moore, the developer of the new Battlestar Galactica series his start in the television industry when he brought Moore onto The Next Generation. Piller then utilized the talents of both Ira Steven Behr and Moore in the creation of Deep Space Nine. It will be interesting to see if this theory proves to be true with this Star Trek film.

If Star Trek 11 can focus on story rather than trying to dazzle us with amazing special effects, like some other prequels, this could be an interesting movie. And this comes from someone who is not that much of a fan of the original Kirk series. It could be interesting to see some background into Kirk and Spock (I have always been interested in the way Kirk passed his Kobayashi Maru test). It could also be fun to see a cameo of an aging Captain Archer or perhaps some appearances from other actors from the original series such as George Takei.

I remain optimistic, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

Movie News: Ratatouille

Collective fans of Disney, Pixar and Brad Bird will no doubt rejoice to hear the news of the upcoming Ratatouille, the story of a rat who lives in a Parisian restaurant—though I don’t know if the French will be keen on the idea that we think there are rats in their fine eating establishments.

Ratatouille features the combined directorial efforts of Brad Bird (The Incredibles, The Iron Giant) and Bob Peterson (one of the writers and Mr. Ray on Finding Nemo, voice of Roz on Monsters Inc.). The only confirmed cast member is Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond) as the eccentric chef who works in the restaurant, and an assumed cast member will be John Ratzenberger who has appeared in every Pixar production from the very first Toy Story where he was the voice of the piggy bank, Ham, to The Incredibles where he voiced The Underminer.

Also worthy of note is that the music is set to be scored by Michael Giaccino who created the memorable soundtrack for the Incredibles and also does the impressive music for the hit shows Lost and Alias on ABC.

Not much else is known of the production yet. I’m sure they’re waiting until the upcoming Disney/Pixar release Cars has had its run before flooding the newswires with news of this latest production.

This is likely to be billed as a Disney production, since the acquisition of Pixar should be complete by the speculated June 29, 2007 release date, but just in case the acquisition fails for some reason, Disney and Pixar signed a one-picture extension to the distribution deal that was set to end with Cars. In this deal, Pixar would pay for all of the production costs and pay a fee to Disney for distribution of the film. One of the apparent differences, though, is that Pixar would own the film—as opposed to previous deals where Disney retained a certain degree of rights that would/will allow them to make sequels without the involvement of Pixar.

Movie Review: Nicholas Nickleby

"They came to see that family need not be defined merely as those with whom they share blood, but as those for whom they would give their blood."

Since watching Pride and Prejudice a few days ago, I’ve been in the mood to watch more movies made from classic British novels. One of my favorites of these movies—and one of the most painfully overlooked—is 2002’s Nicholas Nickleby, written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath who also wrote for the screen and directed 1996’s Emma, starring Gwyneth Paltrow.

The novel of Nicholas Nickleby was originally written by Charles Dickens around 1839 and is about young Nicholas, played by Charlie Hunnam (Cold Mountain, Green Street Hooligans) who, along with his mother and sister, is left destitute upon his father’s untimely death. They travel to London to visit their wealthy uncle, played by Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country), hoping to appeal to his feelings of familial obligation and throw themselves upon his mercy. Their uncle proceeds to let them think that he is generously giving them support and favors, but in the end, he is only serving his own selfish desires with no though for their well being at all.

An early, but major, storyline is what takes place at Dotheboy’s Hall, a boarding school in the country for young boys run by Mr. Wackford Squeers, played by Jim Broadbent (Moulin Rouge!, The Borrowers). It is to here that Nicholas is sent by his uncle as an opportunity to earn a living. The abuse portrayed at the boarding school actually occurred in Dicken’s days and was one of his main catalysts for writing this novel, but however, by the time it was published, these “cheap” Yorkshire boarding schools were no longer much of a problem.

If there is a recurring theme in Charles Dickens Writings, it’s that of how society looks upon and treats the poor and destitute. An interesting thing about this story, however, is that the Nicklebys don’t start out poor, but it's through the unfortunate occurrences which happen at the beginning that they end up in a position of need, and it’s through those circumstances that they see how cruel the world can be. It’s also through these trials, that when Nicholas begins to stand up for himself and his family is when he begins to see all of the wonderful things the world has to offer and how much control over his own destiny he can truly have.

One of the most touching storylines in this movie is between Nicholas and a young crippled boy he befriends at Dotheboy’s Hall named Smike, played by Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, King Kong). Smike was sent to Dotheboy’s for schooling years before, but when payment for his education stopped coming, he was put into hard service at the school. It is in witnessing the abuse and neglect of Smike that transforms Nicholas into a character who acts rather than one who waits to be acted upon.


The performance of Jamie Bell as Smike is well worth making note of. The way he contorts his body and changes his countenance makes you really believe he is as crippled as Smike. By the end, Smike is one of the most pitiful and endearing characters I’ve ever seen on screen—his history and fate, deeply moving. It's really a shame he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for it.

There is a richness and wit to the language of Charles Dickens that is so prevalent in this movie adaptation. I’ve not read the novel, but can judge from the other books by Dickens that I have read that much of the dialogue is either taken directly from the novel, or Douglas McGrath is a master at capturing the tone that Dickens had.

Nicholas Nickleby is rated PG for “thematic material involving some violent action and a childbirth scene.” The “childbirth scene” is actually just a shot of a very newborn baby against a black background and then a shot of the umbilical cord being cut. There’s no labor or real birthing involved and it all goes by in less than 5 seconds at the very start of the movie.

This is a great story of love, loyalty, and standing up against injustice in defense of the helpless. It wasn’t until my 8-year-old daughter wandered downstairs while I was watching it that I realized that this would actually be suitable for older children. They might struggle with the language and there are a couple of scenes showing brutality towards children, but overall, there are some great lessons to be learned. If your children are up to it, this movie may serve them well. Indeed, if this movie has gone overlooked by you, as it has by a great many people, you owe it to yourself to see it.

Book Review: Getting Things Done

For this review I'm going to delve into one of my favorite subjects - personal development. The trouble with most reviews of personal development books is that they are written right after the reviewer read the book. If you've ever read anything in the personal development genre you're probably familiar with the phenomenon of reading a book, thinking it was fantastic, inspiring, and has changed your life only to not be able to remember the title a few months later, let alone anything concrete that it has really done for you.

So we'll have none of that here on Groundlings. Today I'm going to review a book I read about a year ago and the good news is I can both remember the title, author, as well as tell you a few things it's done for me. The book is "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. The book is certainly all the rage in certain circles and has been on the best-seller lists and has become quite well known. The title is pretty accurate and is really about organizing all of the "stuff" in your life into a trusted system. The benefit of organizing all your stuff into a system is that now your poor little human brain that's evolution has not kept up with our non-stop internet culture with 300 e-mails/day, more blogs and web-sites than you could read in a lifetime, plus 200+ channels on satellite TV broadcasting 24 hours a day with TiVo to record anything you might have missed - and that's not even considering your job or work. David's contention is that only when you've fully captured all the stuff coming at you which you can quickly sort using a system of "discard, delegate, act now, act later" system can your mind really become still. When you know that everything you have to be done is captured into a system, it won't get lost, your mind doesn't have to remind you about it and then your mind be truly relaxed and creative and fully present to what you are doing right now.

The book gives really concrete processes and tools for processing the real-world deluge of information that almost all of us face. It covers the gamut of how to process e-mail, to how to label folders, down to even recommending specific brands of label makers.

Having read the book about a year ago I'll have to be honest and say that it's still something I am mastering, but the benefits were immediate for me and continue to get better. My inbox went from 2000+ e-mails to 0-100 at any given time. I stopped simply not responding to things and my mean response time to e-mails went from weeks to days to almost always within 24 hours. Many fewer things reach crisis stage without being handled, both professionally and personally for me. One of the key things is managing commitments, but it's much easier to manage commitments when everything is laid out in your system. When I'm following the system things definitely work much better.

All in all if you are like most people in modern society with way more things to get done than anyone could ever actually get done, I highly recommend Getting Things Done. It's the best book in this genre out there.

Movie Review: The Wild

The Wild
Rated: G
Voices by: Kiefer Sutherland, Janeane Garofalo, Richard Kind, Eddie Izzard, Greg Cipes, James Belushi.
Directed by: Steve "Spaz" Williams


"The Wild" is the newest Disney animated film to hit theaters. All I can say is - smart move on buying Pixar. It's not that the film is bad, it's got all your basic formula things down just fine - it just lacks any real magic. The basic premise is that Ryan the Lion lives in the zoo and wants to go discover The Wild as it has been described to him by his Father, Samson the super-lion. Samson has made himself into a super-hero in the eyes of his son with his outlandish stories of bravery and courage.

Ryan pouts about being stuck in the zoo and living in the shadow of his father and runs away and climbs into a shipping container that some pigeons said would take him to the wild. He falls asleep in the container and wakes up just as it is locked and put on a truck to go back to Africa (I guess). Of course he changes his mind at this exact moment, but it's too late. (No you did not fall down a rabbit-hole and end up in a review of Madascar - I'm describing The Wild here). Meanwhile Samson discovers that Ryan is trapped in this crate and runs after him to rescue him, along with his buddies that include a snake, a giraffe, a squirrel, and a 90% irritating koala bear from London named Nigel. I think you can more or less imagine the rest, although the part where a herd of wildebeasts worshipping Nigel as a God did surprise me. Surprise - not amuse, let's be clear about that.

One thing standing between this film and magic is that the major character Samson is basically a cowardly Lion who has been living a lie, and Ryan is a whiny little brat. While these character flaws are ultimately resolved through normal heroics, there was never a sense for me of relating to them or wanting anything for them. Nigel, the funny Koala has some genuinely funny moments, but his gags and lines miss more often than they hit.

I found the animation a bit irritating, but I can't quite put my finger on what was wrong. There were portions that I thought were very well done and others that weren't. It seemed to me that certain motions weren't fully executed and seemed to have segments of the motion missing. In many ways the detail was excellent, but overall it seemed a bit unsteady to me.


All that said, if you are under the age of 10 I can definitely recommend the film as it does have some charm, some good music, and you will probably find Nigel 0% irritating and 100% funny. My 8 year-old loved it. If on the other hand you are a self-respecting adult you will want to like this film, you really will, but you just won't be able to - or you will love it and will prove that I'm simply cold-hearted and jaded. Please comment and let me know.

Recommended for Adults: Not for adults.
Recommended for Kids: They'll have a great time.
Overall: If you have kids, wait for DVD or pay-per-view, turn it on and leave the room.

Movie Review: Pride and Prejudice

"He's been most inconvenient since I swore to loathe him for eternity."

I love period movies—movies that take us out of the present day and transport us through the years into a world that acts, talks and dresses differently from the way we do today. And period movies usually tell stories that just couldn’t work in our time, whether it’s because of governments, or ideologies, or mores, I feel that characters seem to be a bit more limited in what they can do, just because I am living in the same world they are and as such I feel a bit more informed in the directions the story can go.

You might think that in bringing this up, that I’m talking about movies set in Victorian England, or the Old West America, but this also very much relates to science fiction movies. Star Wars is one of the greatest period films ever, as are all of the Star Trek TV Shows and movies. It’s the removal of the story from modern sensibilities that allow the storytellers to introduce concepts and ideas that are foreign to us.

In the case of a futuristic period film, the filmmakers have limitless possibilities. They are able to make up separate histories and cultures. As is seen in Joss Whedon’s masterful series Firefly and the feature film Serenity where he jumped 500 years into the future and created a universe where civilization lived and spoke much as they did in the wild west, with a fusion of the Chinese culture and sayings.

So where is this rant coming from? Well, I just recently watched Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. I don’t know why I didn’t make more of an effort to watch it in the theater, but I thought it was a real treat.

Pride and Prejudice is based on a novel by Jane Austen and is about a girl named Elizabeth Bennet who meets a grumpy Mr. Darcy and vows to hate him for all eternity because of his rudeness. As the story progresses, Elizabeth learns details about Mr. Darcy that… well, that would be telling, now, wouldn’t it?

Of all the stories I’ve read and all of the movie versions of these kinds of films, for some reason I’ve missed this one, so as my first exposure to this story, it was a good experience. Though I will admit that there were parts of it that seemed rushed, or that made me feel like we just missed something that would have explained the situation better, but was cut because of time. Maybe people who are more familiar with the story can fill in the blanks and don’t miss it, but it really made me want to either read the book or watch a more complete version of it, like the BBC Miniseries.


As a period film, this movie didn’t fail to please me, the costumes were beautiful, the cinematography stunning, and the language was elegant—though as always, I needed a warm up time to tune my ear to it before I felt like I was catching all that they were saying.


It was during Pride and Prejudice that I realized what it is about movies that I like the most—their ability totally remove me from the modern world into a time and place completely foreign and fanciful. Whether it’s 150 years ago or 200 years into the future.


One more thought about Keira Knightley: I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but she played the queen's decoy in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (pictured above in the foreground, Keira Knightley is on the left and Natalie Portman is on the right). Anytime you can see Natalie Portman as Padme, the handmaiden, that's Keira in the royal dress and makeup. So I just have one question—which of the two now is the bigger star? It sure seems that you see Keira Knightley a whole lot more nowadays than Natalie. Is there a stigma associated with the Star Wars Prequels? Maybe she's so unrecognizable in the makeup that people just haven't made the connection to Star Wars.

Movie Review: Chicken Little

"Modern Mallard says that avoiding closure can lead to molting, and I'm already small and on top of that I don't think I can handle being bald!"

It always seems like whenever a movie is made for the sake of something other than the story, it never fails to disappoint. For example, is there any doubt in anyone’s minds that the Star Wars prequels were little more than special visual effects portfolio pieces for Industrial Light and Magic? If you need proof, just listen to the commentaries or watch the behind the scenes stuff and take note of how often the story is talked about in comparison to the effects and production.

I had this in mind as I sat down to watch Disney’s Chicken Little. This was the first major effort by Disney to produce a CGI animated movie solo instead of in conjunction with their long time associate Pixar. Because of this, I couldn’t help but compare it to the Pixar productions as I watched it and by the end I decided it was more a showcase of their CGI animation capabilities than a movie they decided to make because the story was worthy.

But why? It had all of the cool, trendy CGI graphics and animation. What I found it lacking was heart and a well thought out story. From the trailers, one would believe that it’s all about an alien invasion, but I thought that it took too long to set up that situation and then when we finally do see the aliens, they’re gone before you know it.


The story is basically this: a little misfit chicken, named Chicken Little (shocker), is ostracized by the town he lives in because of his seemingly false claim that the sky was falling which sent the town into frenzy. In his efforts to prove him self to the town he finds that what he wants most is to prove himself to his father.

That alone sounded great to me. I really had high hopes that I’d be surprised by this movie and find that it was actually a touching father/son relationship flick. The problem is they just let it hang. It seemed like towards then end that they must have written in the script, “comedic alien invasion,” and let the gags fly. When it came to resolving the father/son conflict, there was no real bonding between father and son, but it was just that the dad turned into a pushover wanting to cater to every whim of his son’s. To me, that was unsatisfying.


But did I hate it? No. Much of it was very funny! As a comedy it worked well. I liked the premise, it just seemed like it was made up of parts of 4 different movies and it could have been great if it had just focused on one. I also like movies that are funny, but end up making us feel good about ourselves and the experience we had, it seemed like Disney was just in it for the laughs in this one.

I wish they could have focused more on one of the included plots to make this movie a bit more cohesive. Let’s see, is it a story about a misfit kid and the heartache of feeling that the whole world is against you? Is it about an ingenious kid whose incredible dexterity and ability to improvise saves the town? Is it about a father who doesn’t know how to identify to his son because he’s not as coordinated or athletic as he (his father) used to be? (A point that doesn’t jive with some of the stunts we see Chicken Little pull off throughout the movie) Is it about an alien child who accidentally gets abandoned on earth and has to be rescued by local kids and given back to the alien parents before interstellar war breaks out? (Hmm, sounds like E.T.) Any of these stories would have been fun to explore with the others becoming sub plots, but there’s really no clear main story for the movie.


But my kids enjoyed it. And I didn’t find anything in it that was offensive, except for the obligatory burp humor to make kids giggle. If I had to compare it to another movie, I would say it’s a lot like Dreamwork’s Madagascar—big on laughs, but only so-so on heart.

Movie Review: Dragonslayer

"If he's ready to lay a dragon in its grave, he's nothing to fear from me."

I've installed a theater in my basement, well at least I've smoothed out a 9-feet wide wall and a wired-in surround system. I don't have a projector of my own yet, but fortunately I am able to borrow one from work. Watching DVDs on it is VERY cool and it's nice to have a cinematic experience with movies that haven't been on the big screen for a long time.

Since I have this new home theater, I thought it only fitting to start revisiting movies that I really enjoyed when I was younger. The first movie I thought I'd try out is 1981's Dragonslayer starring Peter MacNicol. This is a movie that I saw in the theater when I was 11 years old (do the math and you'll know how old I am) and I loved it! I watched it many times on video shortly after, but I haven't seen it as an adult. I came across the DVD on the store shelf the other day and thought that now would be a good time to pick it up and watch it on the big screen.

The story is pretty straightforward, a kingdom is being terrorized by a dragon, so a group of people set out to find a sorcerer to dispose of it. When the older, more experience sorcerer is unable to pass the “test,” his apprentice takes up the call and tries to fill his master’s shoes.

In addition to MacNicol, who plays the young sorcerer's apprentice, Galen, this film also features an excellent performance by Sir Ralph Richardson (Time Bandits, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes) as the senior sorcerer, Ulrich.


At first I was worried that my adult eyes wouldn't think it was as good as I thought it was when I was young. I was also concerned that the special effects would seem cheesy compared to the new CGI stuff that's so common nowadays. Well, my fears were unfounded. I found the story and the writing just as interesting as before, and George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) produced special effects were terrific! Even the stop-motion animation of the dragon was smooth. I was also pleased that the filmmakers were able to tell the story without inserting a humorous sidekick for comic relief. There are funny moments, but they never seem out of place.

One thing that stuck out to me was how far we got into the movie before we got a clear view of the dragon instead of just a claw here and there. I'm sure that it was because of the budget constraints that made them have to limit how often we see the dragon in the movie, but I thought it served the movie well—adding a lot to the mystery and suspense. I'm sure that if it was made today with CGI, we'd be seeing the dragon all the way through the movie, but I think that would have ruined some of the tension and the awe that we feel when we finally see it.


On a side note, Star Wars fans might be interested to see a younger Ian McDiarmid (Darth Sidious/Senator Palpatine/Emperor Palpatine of the Star Wars franchise) who plays Brother Jacopus, a Christian preacher who comes around once magic and sorcery seem to be fading away.

According to IMDB, this was Peter MacNicol’s first role. Occasionally his performance suffers from putting on an English accent, but otherwise he embodies the young, naïve sorcerer-in-training that he is playing. I only wish his hair wasn’t so curly.

I would call this a severely underrated and under watched movie. If you have any interest in fantasy movies of any kind, this movie is a must see!

Book Review: A Wizard of Earthsea

The other day, I was helping my son do some pull-ups on the chin-up bar. He asked me, “Dad, how come we do these every day?” I simply told him it was so he could get stronger and beat his last score on the school fitness test. “Do you think we could just practice a couple of days before your test and that would be all you would need?” I asked him. I was surprised when he answered yes.

I remember when I was his age though, I couldn’t wait for anything. I was even born a month premature and my mom said it was because I kept bugging Heavenly Father if I could go yet, and finally he gave in. I guess I still am a bit short on patience in some situations (I can hear my wife's voice . . . "SOME situations?").

Perhaps that is why I so readily aligned myself with the main character Ged in Ursula K. LeGuin’s coming-of-age novel, A Wizard of Earthsea. Ged is a precocious child who shows above average aptitude for magic and can’t wait to gain more knowledge, ultimately to his own detriment. The world he lives in is an island-based land with nothing but boats and sea-based cultures. Magic is ubiquitous and wizards are highly respected members of society.

I first picked up A Wizard of Earthsea because my new favorite author ( Shannon Hale ) included it in a list of her must-read books. As I read it, I found that I couldn’t put it down, despite the little things that bothered me about it.

In some circles, Earthsea is compared to Harry Potter, but other than dealing with a boy who goes off to wizard school, they are nothing alike. First off, the language of Earthsea (written in 1968) is somewhat detached, for lack of a better word. You tend to see things from a narrator’s point of view instead of getting inside the characters’ heads.

Another thing that bothers me about many fantasy books are all the impossible-to-pronounce made-up names of people and places. Oh, and the maps that are included to help track the action. Unfortunately, Earthsea has both. The good news is that the story is strong enough to get you past these things.

In the world of Earthsea, magic takes real exertion. You can’t just keep casting spell after spell, because you become week drained. Not to mention the fact that the world must maintain balance. If you change the weather by magic here, you could be affecting the weather adversely in another part of the world. This lesson of balance is lost on Ged as he brings a horror from the world of the dead into the realm of the living. Ged is a flawed hero who learns to combat his pride, arrogance, and above all, he learns the value of patience. Ursula allows Ged to make bad choices and then he must live with the consequences of those choices.

As Ged battles the darkness he has unleashed, he learns that this enemy is a part of himself. He ultimately learns that he must confront his problems instead of avoiding them, as his shadowy enemy only has power when Ged is afraid and retreats from it. It is difficult to admit that we each have darkness within us, but only by confronting these problems can we triumph over the evil things within ourselves.

No, this book is no Harry Potter. It is definitely for teens and adults. The journey Ged faces kept me up reading late into the night on several occasions. I even finished the book in record pace for me. In language and world creation, Earthsea is more Tolkien-esque, but a bit faster paced. Still, I am a little uncomfortable making that comparison as well. Overall, I could not put down this book and have already gotten the sequel (there are 4 books in the Earthsea saga, plus a prequel). I highly recommend picking this one up. But don’t take my word for it. Read the first chapter on Amazon and decide for yourself. You can get it for .75 cents.

Author’s note: you may remember that the SciFi channel did an Earthsea mini series a while back. Ursula hated it ( read her article ) and felt that it was untrue to her book and her characters.

Coming Soon: Cars

If there’s any studio that I’d be willing to give a “free pass” to—meaning that I’ll go see anything they make whether or not the initial previews interest me—that would have to be Pixar Animation Studios.

Pixar is the only studio I can think of that fosters an environment conducive to developing a great story above everything else. True, they are on the cutting edge of CGI technology, and have developed many of the tools used by many in the industry, but when one of their movies is on I never sit back and ogle at their technical prowess, I’m enthralled by the story.

Another thing that I really love about Pixar, is that it never talks down to the kids and never thinks that crude humor and innuendo are the only ways to keep adults who are watching the show interested. I’m never worried that my kids are going to start saying words they shouldn’t (like I was from Dreamwork’s Antz) or that they were going to ask me to explain what something meant (like why Pinocchio wearing women’s underwear was such a big deal in Dreamwork’s Shrek 2). Pixar’s movies are sincerely funny and sophisticated.

Why am I bringing this up? Because Pixar’s new movie Cars is due to be released in the theaters June 9th, 2006 and I’m not really all that keen on the concept of the story. I can’t help but think, as I watch the trailers, that this movie is going to seem like a 90 minute Chevron talking car commercial.



But, I will see it and I’m expecting to thoroughly enjoy it. Why this dogged optimism you may ask? Well, I guess it’s in large part faith in the director, John Lasseter. He was the one responsible for Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and A Bug’s Life. But not only that, if you listen to Brad Bird’s commentary for The Incredibles, you’ll hear how many times John Lasseter told him to do what it took to tell the story—that was his primary concern even if it meant increasing the budget or the running time. If you recall, The Incredibles was a remarkably long movie for an American made animated film.

So, from a Disney press release, the story of cars goes like this: “Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson), a hotshot rookie race car driven to succeed, discovers that life is about the journey, not the finish line, when he finds himself unexpectedly detoured in the sleepy Route 66 town of Radiator Springs. On route across the country to the big Piston Cup Championship in California to compete against two seasoned pros, McQueen gets to know the town’s offbeat characters – including Sally (a snazzy 2002 Porsche voiced by Bonnie Hunt), Doc Hudson (a 1951 Hudson Hornet with a mysterious past, voiced by Paul Newman), and Mater (a rusty but trusty tow truck voiced by Larry The Cable Guy) – who help him realize that there are more important things than trophies, fame and sponsorship.”



Sounds like it could be a heartwarming tale if you ask me, and with it’s G-rating, definitely something I won’t think twice about taking the family to.

On a side note, my interest in the future of Disney animation took a great leap when I heard that Disney was acquiring Pixar. But not only that, John Lasseter is the new Chief Creative Officer of their animation studios. Already there has been a stop put to production of many projects. Hopefully all of the retooling will be a good thing and we may even see traditional animation return? I hope so. Milt Kahl, one of the early Disney animation veterans said in the 70s, that the problem with Disney features was that “Walt had to go and die.” Walt Disney was the heart and soul of everything Disney put out. Hopefully John Lasseter will be just the person to bring it back.

Movie Review: Fun with Dick and Jane

I noticed the other day that "Fun with Dick and Jane" will be released on DVD next week. I thought it fitting to write a review of the film, not because I love the underdog and it was panned by other critics, but it's the last time I found myself laughing until it hurts in the theater. Never mind I was 10 years older than everyone else in the theater and the only movie I can remember seeing in the theater since that was "Syriana". Let's forget all that.


"Fun with Dick and Jane" is a remake of the 1977 movie of the same name starring Jane Fonda and George Segal. This time around we have Tea Leoni (Jane) and Jim Carrey (Dick) starring. Dick works for Enron, well not Enron exactly, well yes it is pretty much Enron exactly. Dick is promoted to be in charge of communications and his first appearance on network TV coincides with the company's "Enron-ness" becoming apparent to the world and the stock collapses live with him on air. Let's just say it doesn't go well and like everyone else he loses his job. He arrives home to find that his wife has also quit her job on account of the big promotion. Finding a job is no easy matter, especially when your communication skills have recently been memorably demonstrated on national TV.

Gradually Dick and Jane find out how good they had it as they gradually see their possessions repossessed including their lawn. One of my favorite threads of the story is their relationship with their son and their Mexican housekeeper/nanny. I thought this was some truly inspired writing.

It's not a perfect movie by any means. The robbery scenes fall a little flat and the ending is a bit too nice and tidy and designed to be a bit too feel good, but that's okay if that's what you know you are getting yourself in for. It's a nice simple comedy with some really funny moments and I would highly recommend it for what it is. Definitely worth a pay-per-view or DVD rental.

Movie Review: Slither

More fun than a barn full of space slugs

What can I say, I really enjoyed watching Slither. I’m a big comedy/horror movie fan and this one fit that bill nicely. There were some great one-liners and tons of perfect comedic timing from nearly everyone in the film. The plot, present only to allow the fun stuff to happen, is simple. Alien crashes on earth, infects some poor bastard, mutates into some big slimy thing and begins to take over the town. This movie has heaps of influence from some other great films including The Thing, Tremors, Evil Dead and Toxic Avenger (there are plenty I’m sure I’ve left out). There are several references to some of these films, like naming the High School Earl Basset High (Fred Ward’s character in Tremors), a department store named R.J. MacReady (after Kurt Russell’s character from John Carpenter’s The Thing), and even the music from Predator being referenced when the “posse” arms themselves to go hunt the creature.

One of the best things about this movie was seeing our friend Nathan Fillion again. For those of you who don’t know, Nathan played captain Malcolm Reynolds in the short lived television show Firefly and it’s feature film debut Serenity. Both are excellent and worth watching if you haven’t already. Nathan has a wicked sense for comedic timing and facial expressions and has got an every man persona that is very comforting and inviting. The most obvious difference between the character he played on Firefly and Bill Pardy, the police chief in Slither, is that Mal Reynolds was a bit more of a scoundrel and Bill is a big softy who’s only slightly macho.



The other great performance in Slither is that of Gregg Henry who plays the town mayor Jack MacReady (yet another reference to The Thing). He is a foul mouthed, boisterous, s.o.b. and a hilarious character. His dialogue might be a bit blue for some people, but he delivers it so deliciously that you can’t help but laugh. Eagle-eyed fans may recognize him as having a part in an episode of Firefly titled “The Train Job”.


Slither is a bit gory and bloody, as one would expect from an alien invasion type film, but for me none of it is even remotely convincing or disturbing and merely adds to the absurdity of the film. In a good way, of course. One of the few scenes that I will mention is when they find a woman named Brenda in a barn after she’s been missing for several days. When the alien first infects Grant Grant (no that’s not a typo but is the name of the character brilliantly played by Michael Rooker of Mallrats and Days of Thunder), he finds he has an insatiable appetite for raw meat; an affliction that ends up affecting all the victims. Once he infects Brenda, with the intent of having her give birth to more creatures, she eats so much that she literally takes up the entire barn where she is being held. When Bill and the posse open the door and find her, she is simply a giant ball of fat and flesh with only her head, hands and feet barely protruding from the girth. after they approach her and the group take a moment to try and comprehend what they are seeing, Bill cautiously says "So Brenda, uh what's going on here?”. That scene is a good litmus test as to whether you’ll enjoy Slither or not.

A few more notes of interest, Slither was written by James Gunn who is responsible for both the Scooby Doo movies (I’ve never seen them and have no intention of seeing them) and he’s also married to Jenna Fischer who plays Pam Beesley on the television show “The Office”. Jenna also appears in Slither as the ditzy police radio dispatcher Shelby who, while communicating with Bill, is asked a question to which she replies by nodding her head. After a few seconds of silence on his end, Bill finally asks her if she’s nodding again. Shelby says “Oops, sorry, I forgot...”. This is the type of humor that populates the film and it’s just simply fun.

During the final scenes of the film, Bill has a chance to be a hero. I won’t divulge the details, but I’ll just say that things don’t turn out the way he expected. It’s funny that after such a buildup to that moment you expect him to pull it off, and when it doesn’t the reaction from Bill is absolutely priceless; worth the price of admission alone. Slither may not sound like something you want to see, but if you’re interested in the least it’s definitely worth checking out. It’s certainly not a movie for everybody, especially little ones (duh...) but it’s a helluva good time. 90 minutes well spent. P.S., stay through the credits...

Movie Review: Ice Age 2, The Meltdown

What do you get when you end a movie with a Wooly Mammoth, a Sabertooth Tiger, and a Sloth deciding that they can be their own herd no matter how weird that is? You get a sequel that has a mandate to show us how many more odd combinations of herds there can be. Case in point: a female Mammoth who thinks she's a possum.

Now that's not to say Ice Age 2: The Meltdown is a bad movie, it's just that you loose something once the original three have decided that they are going to be a family. You miss the trust issues, the biting banter, and the fear that the tiger is just going to up and eat them. So now that they've set up this "any kind of a herd is OK" motif, they wind up stretching it out so much that the story never quite seemed very fresh to me.



Don't get me wrong, though. It was funny and entertaining. There were many times where I laughed out loud along with the rest of the audience and there wasn't anything in it that made me wish my kids weren't there. It's a good family film. The art and animation is superb in it as well.

In a nutshell the story goes like this: all of the animals live in an area of land that's surrounded by a glacier, which appears to be melting. After a warning by a buzzard, they all realize that they need to make it to this "boat" so they can survive once the ice wall breaks down. As the story's McGuffin, this premise seemed to work fairly well, but there were so many times the characters got sidetracked that it seemed like they either didn't believe the flood was coming, or didn't care.

There were two moments in the movie where I thought that they had actually run out of material and were just throwing in things to fill up their running time. One was a musical number and the other was a nighttime detour that Syd went on. They were cute, but had next to zero impact on the rest of the movie.



So would I recommend this movie? Well… maybe. I saw this with my wife and kids and we all enjoyed it. It was a fun day out which was more about spending the time with the kids and filling up on popcorn, pop and Skittles. Everyone had a good time and I thought it was money well spent. But I don't think I'd rush out to see it if it was just myself and my wife, or some friends. I think instead I'd wait for it to come out on video... or just watch the original.