Movie Review: Race to Witch Mountain

Disney has a recent tradition of taking their older, more dated, properties and making newer versions with mixed results. For the most part they are commercial successes, but I can’t say that I’ve seen any of them that I prefer to the original. It’s probably because I grew up watching and enjoying the originals and I can’t help but compare them. Also it’s probably because most of them star Lindsay Lohan, and it didn’t take me long at all to get tired of seeing her everywhere. Fortunately, in addition to being completely Lohan-free, Disney’s new version of Escape to Witch Mountain, renamed Race to Witch Mountain, is an extremely entertaining and very fun ride!

As it began, Race to Witch Mountain first grabbed my attention by the intense opening credits, which featured a montage of fuzzy UFO sighting video edited together with audio clips of people describing their encounters. The pace of the credits got me interested in the film and hoping that the rest of the movie would be just as exciting.


The story begins as the U.S. Government tracks a UFO as it crash lands in the desert just outside of Las Vegas. Agents are quickly on the scene, led by Henry Burke (Ciarán Hinds), and they soon realize that there were two beings on the ship who most likely resemble human beings, and the agents begin tracking their movements into the city.

Meanwhile, Jack Bruno (Duane “The Rock” Johnson) is a man with a troubled past who is trying to make a clean living as a taxi driver who shuttles people to and from the airport in “Sin City.” After a few brief examples of what his life is like we swing right into some exciting chase scenes as Sara (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig) appear in his taxi offering him $500,000 to take them into the middle of nowhere in the desert. From this moment on there were enough car chases, special effects and humor to keep me interested through to the very end.

Along the way they run into Dr. Alex Friedman (Carla Gugino) who is a scientist who has massacred her career by her persistent professing of her belief in extra-terrestrial life. I was entertained by the scenes that introduced her character as she tried to talk serious science to a group of costumed sci-fi fans that were attending the UFO convention where she was presenting. Her coming together with Jack, Sara and Seth at the convention and the antics that facilitated their escape from their pursuers were some of the best parts of the movie for me.


While I really liked this movie, there were a couple moments that struck me as weaknesses. The first was the introduction of the mafia-type thugs who show up and try to bring Jack to see the big boss-man. This is a story thread that I didn’t think went anywhere and only served as a device to make a couple of minor things happen. The whole sub-plot could have easily been jettisoned in my opinion.


Another thing that distracted me was that immediately after Jack and the kids get finished fighting an alien bounty hunter. called a Siphon, and then narrowly escape being pursued by the same bounty hunter who chases them in a space ship, Jack has an bafflingly hard time believing Sara when she tells him that they are from another planet! I thought that the point for him to abandon his disbelief was back when the seemingly indestructible Siphon first fired his Boba Fett-style wrist rockets.

There was another moment that I thought was going to disappoint me, but when it didn’t finish the way I was expecting it to, it only made me enjoy the movie even more. Like I wrote in an article about bad foreshadowing a few years back, whenever a trusted character in a movie tells the protagonists not to trust anyone, we usually see by the end of the movie, that the person they were weren’t supposed to trust is usually that same “trusted character” who says something like, “didn't I tell you not to trust anyone?” Two movies that do this are Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Minority Report (both Steven Spielberg movies, hmm). Well, all I can say is when a particular character in this movie said, “don’t trust anyone,” I actually groaned because I thought for sure this was setting him up to be a traitor in the end. To my surprise it didn’t turn out at all the way I was expecting it to, and I really enjoyed what they ended up doing with the character.

I was happy to see the two grown-up stars from the original Escape to Witch Mountain, Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann, in small parts as people who lend them helping hands in a restaurant.

In many ways I don’t think that the marketing for this movie did it justice. I don’t know what I was expecting out of it, but I sure wasn’t expecting to enjoy it as much as I did. The nice thing about this movie is that I never felt like I was patiently sitting through a kids movie waiting for the credits, but I also never thought that I was watching a show that was too mature for my 9 and 11 year old daughters who were sitting with me. The director, Andy Fickman, did an excellent job of making a well-rounded piece of entertainment that all ages will enjoy. Definitely a movie I would recommend and very much worth watching in the theater.

Movie Review: Beverly Hills Chihuahua

When Disney's Beverly Hills Chihuahua came out in the theaters a few months ago I wasn’t very excited to see it, but my 10-year-old daughter loves dogs and nearly fainted with ecstasy when she saw the trailers—so off we went.

The movie was a bit different from what I was expecting from the trailers, which amused me with their “Dog Revolution” themes. Instead the story is about a pampered Beverly Hill’s Chihuahua, Chloe (voiced by Drew Barrymore) whose owner, Aunt Viv (Jamie Lee Curtis) has to go away on business and leaves her prized pet in the care of her irresponsible niece, Rachel (Piper Perabo). Rachel’s friends soon coerce her into a road trip down to Mexico and in the process of it all, Chloe ends up getting lost south of the border.

What follows is a frequently funny mismatched buddy movie as she teams up with the reluctant Delgado (voiced by Andy Garcia), who is a washed-up police dog without a home. Meanwhile, Papi (voiced by George Lopez), a hunky Chihuahua who belongs to Aunt Viv’s gardener and is madly in love with Chloe accompanies his owner to Mexico in an effort to rescue his love.

One technical issue that probably annoyed only me, is that I'm not a fan of the animation of animal mouths that started in the 1990s with the movie Babe. I was just as entertained by the dogs and cat in Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey even though we never saw their mouths move once. It was the writing and the editing that made that movie as touching as it was and it's also what makes Beverly Hills Chihuahua so endearing. It would be just as good without the animated speech of the animals.

With all of the unmanliness of watching a movie about tiny, fancy, talking dogs aside, I found this movie very entertaining. In many ways it reminded me of the wholesome movies that Disney made years back, like The Shaggy Dog, That Darn Cat!, or even The Apple Dumpling Gangor Pete's Dragon. There were, of course, all of the standard formulaic elements that get tiring in some movies, but I always feel I have to remind myself when watching movies like this that are made primarily for kids, that they are are playing to an audience that hasn't already been jaded by seeing the same formulas play out again and again.

I'd recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedies about animals. It's nowhere near as annoying as the movie from a few years ago, Cats & Dogs, but it actually has quite a lot of charm.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua is available today on DVD and Blu-ray and is also available for download on iTunes. Don't forget to download the catchy theme song, "Chihuahua," while you're at it.

Movie Review: Wall-E

Wow, what can I say? I've been anticipating every new Disney/Pixar release since they wowed me with their first theatrical release, Toy Story. Now Wall•E is out and I'm as impressed as ever!

Set far into the future we encounter Wall-E as he happily labors away at a job he's been doing for the last 700 years, which is cleaning up the Earth.  As he's worked through the centuries, he's developed a few quirks: He's befriended the last living inhabitant of the Earth (that we know of), a cockroach. He watches the songs and dances from Hello Dolly over and over and fantasizes being able to have someone to love and sing to of his own. And he collects things that he finds interesting. Everything from rubber duckies, to lighters. As far as Wall-E is concerned, he's a robot who has it all.

Soon a probe ship arrives at Earth and launches EVE whose mission it is to seek out signs that the planet is once again able to sustain life. Of course, as far as Wall-E is concerned, when he sees EVE it's love at first sight.

From here we embark on a wonderful adventure of Wall-E discovering what has become of the former inhabitants of the Earth as he attempts to stay close to EVE. The wonderful part of this movie is how the simple fact of Wall-E's presence impacts every person he comes in contact with, and changes them all in very positive ways.

Wall•E not only displays Pixar's state-of-the-art expertise in computer animation, but it's also a showcase for the skill level of their animators. There is very little dialogue in this movie at all. Most of everything we learn about Wall-E and the other robots who inhabit most of this film is done through synthesized voices and pantomime. It's quite a joy to watch these seemingly inanimate objects display a wide range of emotions that allow us to empathize with them.

For the first time in a Disney/Pixar film, the future looks bleak. With our planet so polluted that we're forced to evacuate to space and humanity evolving into helpless blobs because the technology they've developed spoon feeds them everything they need, it's really the boldest statement about world issues that Pixar has ever made. I'm sure that many people will take environmental messages from this film, and maybe appropriately so, but the strongest message that I got out of it stems from some of my personal relationships with people who have let their health go so far south that they need full-time caregivers to help them accomplish simple tasks in their daily lives. The message I got from this movie is to never give up your ability to control your own life, whether it's your personal abilities or social freedoms, because if you ever do, it'll take nothing short of a revolutionary effort to gain it back.

Watching this movie, I fell in love with Wall-E in much the same way I fell in love with E.T. when I was a child. My favorite part was in the beginning when we got to see him doing his daily work, and then watch him stop to take in the wonder of the simplest of things. That child-like curiosity is something that I could have watched for hours.

Whether or not you have children, you owe it to yourself to see Wall•E. It's a visual delight and a heartwarming treat that's bound to inspire and touch audiences for years to come!

Movie Review: Cars

Knowing that I’m a big Pixar fan, I decided that I would try to be as impartial as possible in watching the new movie, Cars. I did a good job too—I thought. At first I was jaded as I heard Randy Newman’s Disney/Pixar logo fanfare at the beginning and I thought, “Oh yes, this is a John Lasseter film and he ALWAYS uses Randy Newman.” Then I was cynical as the movie started and I thought, “Is this going to be an hour and a half long Chevron talking car commercial?” And then the race began… I was hooked.

The story is about Lightning McQueen, voiced by Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Shanghai Noon), a rookie on the racing circuit with a huge fan base and even larger ego. When his arrogance leads to botching his easy victory which ends up being a three-way tie, a showdown race is scheduled between the three winners in California for the following week.


On the way to California, his impatience causes him to be stranded in Radiator Springs, an old forgotten Route 66 desert town with an unusual automobile population. It’s here that he learns that his one-man-team/win-at-all-costs mentality is not the way to find true happiness and make real friends.


Pixar definitely is the top CGI animation studio for technological innovation and it showed in the smoke left by the squealing tires and the visual depth of the crowds in the opening racing scenes. The reflections on the cars actually made me think that they must have used real cars in places. The realism was amazing!


As with all Pixar films, their technological prowess never upstages the depth and charm of their characters. Owen Wilson is perfectly cast as the self absorbed speedster, and the Radiator Springs gallery of misfits all have their special charm and appeal. Tony Shalhoub (Monk, Galaxy Quest) does a perfectly unrecognizable accent as the obsessive Luigi, the European auto mechanic; Paul Newman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting) has a powerful presence as the road weary Doc Hudson; but perhaps the most memorable of the bunch will be Larry the Cable Guy (Larry the Cable Guy), who voices the innocent and brash Mater, the tow truck.

I have to say that Pixar has done it right again. While I wouldn’t classify this as my most favorite of their movies, it in no way tarnishes their reputation for putting out the finest in CGI Animation, if not the finest in family entertainment.

I dare you not to enjoy this movie.

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: 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: 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: 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.

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: Escape to Witch Mountain

Can't Escape the Classics

It’s nice to know that the classics still span the generations. One movie I remember loving as a child was Escape to Witch Mountain. Imagine my surprise when I found out that my wife loved it too. I don’t quite remember why we decided to show it to them, but we rented the DVD for my son and daughter (age 9 and 5 respectively). My kids love to just sit down with a bag of microwave popcorn (or two) and noisily crunch away.

Escape to Witch Mountain was a Disney film made back in 1975. It was about a pair of orphans, Tia (Kim Richards) and Tony (Ike Eisenmann), who have psychic powers, mostly telekinesis and telepathic abilities. An evil millionaire discovers the children’s powers and plots to exploit them for his own nefarious plans (heh, heh, heh. “Mine is an evil laugh.”). Tia and Tony have one chance for freedom, Escape to Witch Mountain.

Ok, I must admit that one of the most endearing qualities of this movie is the chemistry created by the two siblings. Ok, so maybe I had a crush on Tia when I was little. But I have read other reviews by women who were equally as impressed by Tia. Admittedly though, they were both decent kid actors, no Haley Joel Osment by any stretch of the imagination, but not bad.

When the movie was over, my son said, “Thanks for renting that. We love movies where kids have powers.” I think we all at one time or another wished we had powers. Somehow, when so little is under your control, it is just cool to imagine that you have an ability that no one else has.

One cool feature on the DVD is an interview with Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann as Adults. Kim has changed a little bit (although her voice didn’t) but Ike looks just like he did as a kid. Reminiscing with former child actors is always cool, even if you didn’t have a crush on them.
Needless to say, this is a film that both children and adults can watch together and enjoy. The sequel however, “Return to Witch Mountain” left a little to be desired in my mind (but my kids still liked it).

New DVD Releases Coming Tuesday, March 7, 2006

There are a few movies coming out on DVD this week that are worth noting. Among them are Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Jarhead.

There are two, however, that I’m more interested in that aren’t getting much press.

First is Howl's Moving Castle. I’ve never watched any form of Anime since watching Star Blazers as a kid, but this movie has me interested. I’m planning on renting it and sharing my thoughts on it here.

Another movie that I’m interested in catching on DVD is the original The Shaggy Dog. I watched this as a kid and I remember liking it, but with Disney’s upcoming release of the updated The Shaggy Dog with Tim Allen, Disney has seen fit to capitalize on the hooplah and get the original one out.

Personally, I’ve enjoyed the original versions of Disney’s movies much more than the remakes. It could have been my childhood crush on Hayley Mills, but in my opinion, the original The Parent Trap was much better than the new one with Lindsay Lohan. I felt the same way about Freaky Friday (maybe I just don’t enjoy watching Lindsay Lohan all the time—I didn’t even attempt Herbie Fully Loaded).

So, what do I remember about the original The Shaggy Dog? Not much. It looks like the DVD has an original theatrical black and white version plus a color version. So was it filmed in color but distributed in black and white? I can’t imagine that they would have a colorized version.

I think the thing that makes the old one appeal so much to me is that I get fed up with old movies being thought of as outdated or somehow bad because they don’t have all of the new CGI visual effects that they can do nowadays. I also have this fear of these “outdated” movies being locked away because they are looked at as being obsolete in much the same way George Lucas has locked away the original releases of the original Star Wars Trilogy—but that’s a long discussion best left for another time.

There have been enough modernized remakes of classic movies that I’d like to hear anyone’s opinions comparing the old ones vs. the new. Do you think that your age and whether having seen, or not having seen, the old one affects which one you like better?