A review of a movie based on The Borrowers needs a "Tiny" image: I chose Tiny 49 because it reminded me of some of the colors and images in The Secret World Of Arietty. So--on with the review!
-
You've gotta love the Japanese for their penchant for taking obscure British fantasy novels and turning them into lyrical animated films. They did it wiith Howl's Moving Castle (by Dianna Wynne Jones) and now they've done it with The Borrowers by Mary Norton. I'm not exactly sure how but a studio in Japan has teamed up with Disney to bring the movie to a broader audience. I remember reading the novel and seeing a Hallmark TV Movie when I was much younger--but honestly I don't remember much about either. I guess that means I have no preconcieved notions about the movie. Still, I didn't find myself being surprised by the plot so I guess the plots are basically the same.
-
The story is a fairly simple one: the last family of Borrowers--tiny people who live inside the walls and under the floorboards of a ramshakle old country home, make their living by taking just what they need by the gigantic "human beans" who reside above. Young Arietty (voiced by Bridgid Mendler) is on her first "borrowing" and is "seen" by sickly young "bean" Shawn. (Being "seen" is the ultimate disaster for Borrowers since human curiosity eventually causes calamity). Plucky Arietty and Shawn form a tentative friendship over the objections of her parents Pod (voiced by a surprisingly low-key Will Arnett) and Homily (Amy Poehler--in full hysterical mode). They also attract the attention of housekeeper Hara (voiced by Carol Burnett--bringing the crazy). What happens afterward? Read the book or see the movie!'
-
A couple of things really struck me about The Secret World Of Arietty: the hand-drawn images are nothing less than utterly gorgeous. There's a sweet, old-fashioned quality in the movie that Robyn and I really enjoyed (but younger folks might find a bit too slow). Still, the scenes, mostly drawn from a tiny person's point of view, are a joy to behold. I loved the depth of rendering and the soft, subtle, dare I say romantic? coloring. (See this movie on as large a screen as possible to appreciate all the details.) Some may find the celtic-inspired soundtrack a bit sicky-sweet but we both liked it (even if we didnt remember anything but the general tone after we left the theater). I'm not a huge "anime" fan so I wasn't completely surprised by the nods to Japanes culture in a quintisentially "English" movie (eating with chopsticks, reading from right to left and removing shoes in the house) but to me this just added to the quirk charm that infused the entire experience.
-
The Secret World Of Arietty probably moves too slow for younger kids but older childern (and more importantly their parents and grandparents) will enjoy. Fans of fast paced action-packed cartoons won't like this movie but it would appeal to general audiences and sci-fi and fantsy fans in particular. Go see it on the big screen if you can--rent it when it comes out if you can't.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
-
NOTE: checking IMDB for info I found there was a UK and US version with different voice casts. I don't know why: needless to say I reviewed the US version.
A review of the 2012 Academy Awards telecast needs an image that's "Oscar" gold. That's why I chose Golden Rose Circles as today's fractal cookie. Because you demanded it (OK, you didn't demand it but I'm doing it anyway Alison) I'm going to give my take on this year's awards. Now--on with the review!
-
I had the strangest feeling I'd inadvertently time-tripped (again) watching the latest Academy Awards show. Billy Crystal was back for a ninth time (after being gone for I-don't-know-how-many years) and the lion's share of the awards went to a silent movie (The Artist) and a pic about the early days of film (Hugo) and a lot of old poops were up for awards. (Meryl Streep and Christopher Plummer both took home awards.) All in all it was a "nice" show: Crystal's hosting wore like a pair of old brown loafers (comfortable and easy to take but nothing to write home about) and there weren't any controversial moments to talk about. Still, you gotta give him credit for being more animated than James Franco at last year's awards. Yes, I suppose we could mention Streep upsetting Viola Davis to take the Best Actress Oscar but not even that was all to surprising.
-
WHAT I LIKED
Billy Crystal's opening film montage was wildly amusing (and I love the inside joke involving Justin Bieber). He also had the best joke I'd heard in a long time: "nothing eases the pain of these tough economic times like watching millionaires give each other golden statuettes." (It's funny because it's true!) For me the best moment of the whole show happened on the Red Carpet when Sacha Bron Cohen spilled "ashes" all over Ryan Seacrest (who was NOT happy about it!) I also particularly enjoyed Chris Rock commenting on the difficulty of doing animated film and Olivia Spencer's acceptance speech--probably the only truly genuine moment in the whole show.
-
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE
Most of the "bits" in the show fell completely flat: Ben Stiller fell flat in his skit with Emma Stone and the filmed bits didn't work at all (I'm thinking of the "focus group" bit). There weren't any "best song" performances and that was a disappoint to me (although probably not a lot of other folk). While I enjoyed the Cirque Du Soleil scene I found myself wondering what the hell it was doing in the show. The speeches were all canned and there wasn't a bit of controversy to spice things up. This year's fashion ranged from pretty good to pretty OK but all the looks had the same basic quality. I found myself longing for a truly bad fashion moment. (The looks were so uniform that the Fashion Police on E! didn't even have a "worst dressed" segment!) Where were Tilda Swinton, Mickey Roarke and Helena Bonham-Carter when we needed them to bring the crazy? Ah well--at least that gives me a transition to talk about what you came to look at the blog for...
-
THE FASHIONS
Jennifer Lopez packed ten pounds of "ah-OO-ga!" into a five-pound dress and was so smoking hot that even gay guys wanted to do her. Of course it helps that she brought a little controversy with the "did she or didn't she?" have a nip-slip. (She didn't. Trust me on this one.) To me she was far and away the best dressed of the night.
-
Cameron Diaz was vanilla fabulousness in her dress while Gwyneth Paltrow wowed in a white column dress and matching cape. Octavia Spencer represented for the big girls in her beaded gown and Penelope Cruz looked amazing in slate blue. Rooney Mara looked like a dominatrix-bride and what was up with the "boob awnings" on her dress. You gotta give Viola Davis credit for showing up in the hair God gave her (instead of her usuall wig): she looked stunning in emerald green.
-
What was up with Angelica Jolie? As usual she looked pretty darn good (this year in basic black) but I couldn't figure out what that pose was all about. Was she trying to be funny? Was she desperate to show off how good her muscle tone was? Did she get a little sumpum-sumpum in the limo on the way over? Was it a lingering case of jungle rot? Inquiring minds want to know! ANYway--Angie's right leg has over 15,000 Twitter followers--way more than J-Los nipple...
-
Michele Williams channeled her inner "lipstick lesbian" in an orange monstrosity that fashionistas went crazy for. Me, I've thought she looked like a pencil with a lace doily around the middle. Natalie Portman was a fashion DON'T in a vintage red-orange polka dot mess. I probably bag on America's sweetheart Sandra Bullock but the black and white thing she was wearing looked like an ill-fitting potato sack. Jessica Chastain looked like she'd stolen the curtains from a Gothic funeral home in her gold-beaded black dress but at least you gotta give her credit for being memorable. I'm not sure what was going on with Kristin Wiig's flesh-toned chiffon-ruffled--THING but I really didn't like it. No guys stood out as exceptionally good OR bad this year.
-
I couldn't comment on this year's fashions without mentioning Melissa McCarthy. The fashionista crowd sandbagged her (as usual) but I liked the romantic blush gown (even if all the bejeweling was a bit much). Still, somebody needs to take that girl and get her hair done!
-
Ratings were up (however slightly) this year but the show just didn't *CLICK!* with viewers and I don't know why. Still, you can bet I'll be back next year with another awards show review.
-
'nuff said.
Usually I try and bribe my "loyal readers" (ha!) with a fractal cookie for dropping by and reading my random ravings. Sadly, there will be no cookies this time--for two reasons. 1) I couldn't find a fractal that seemed even remotely appropriate for a review of Wanderlust (and now you know what I'll be talking about) 2) this movie is SO BAD I didn't feel it DESERVED a cookie! So--on with the review if you aren't completely turned off by the first paragraph...
-
I may not be a complete fan of "gross-out" comedies but I have a pretty high tolerance: yes I cringed at movies like American Pie and There's Something About Mary--but frankly I laughed my ass off while I was watching. Judd Apatow is the uncrowned King of the Gross-Out Comedy: I laughed so hard my face hurt at movies like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up so I was kind of looking forward to Wanderlust. Sadly, I was doomed to disappointment.
-
The basic plot goes something like this George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Anniston) are a couple of desperate Manhattanites living successful, if unhappy, lives. When their fortunes change and they lose everything they had off to Atlanta for a job with George's odious brother Rick (Ken Marino--who also shares writing credits for this travesty). In need of sleep the pair pull off at the Elysium Bed and Breakfast--only to discover they've wandered into an "Intentional Community" (AKA a commune right out of the free-lovin' 1960s.) George quickly finds he likes the place--but Linda not so much so when things quickly go sour with his brother he takes them back to join the group for good and all. Now it's Linda who gets into the groove while George finds himself on the outside looking in. Add some complications involving the "spiritual center of the group Seth (played by Annistons' real life boyfriend Justin Theroux). Eventually everything spins out and (almost) everybody gets their happy ending.
-
There are many problems with the movie--start with cardboard characters that are none-too-likable and give them a script that's very long on gross and critically short on funny. (You know you're in bad shape when NOBODY in the entire theater is laughing.) I found it particularly telling when I'm watching one off the outtakes at the end of the movie where Paul Rudd is doing a bit in a mirror (that is as long and painful as it is unfunny). He ends up saying "I'm grossing myself out!" Sorry guy--you grossed us out long ago--and we weren't laughing with you! There's plenty of full-frontal nudity--but sadly none of it you want to see. The language is frankly strong (even by my standards and I have a pretty good tolerance for strong language). Far too many of the situations are cringeworthy--and I could have handled all of that if only the movie had been FUNNY!
-
Ordinarily I'd note that I was the only one NOT laughing in the theater (like when I went to see The Hangover) but this time nobody in a half-full theater was laughing. Don't waste your money on this crap--don't even rent Wanderlust when it comes out on video (probably some time next week). This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen but it sure comes close.
-
FINAL GRADE: F
I wasn't sure what image I was going to use for today's review. I thought about Ares (since I'll be chatting about This Means War) but that seemed a bit obvious. Then I considered maybe something like Blast or Ka-BOOM! since there are so many explosions in the film but that seemed rather obvious as well. I finally settled on MixIt mainly because the movie tries to mix the action and romance genres. How well did that work? You can probably guess from the title. Ah well--on with the review...
-
It must be unbelievably hard to be Reese Witherspoon's character Lauren in This Means War. Poor thing has had to move from Atlanta to Los Angeles where she has a job she's both good at and really enjoys not to mention a truly fabulous loft. Of course, she was cheated on by her oh-so-cute boyfriend and she's down in the dumps. But that's OK, very soon she meets two cute guys--FDR (played by Chris Pine, AKA Captain Kirk in the latest Star Trek incarnation) and Tuck (Tom Hardy who was in Inception) and hits if off with both of them! Both guys just happen to be CIA Agents AND best friends and both of them really like her as well! (They are in the midst of dealing with a murderous arms dealer out to kill both of them.) Will Lauren choose womanizer FDR who is secretly a wounded puppy inside or Tuck the sweet, sincere divorced dad? Will the guys have their friendship strained as they both pursue the girl? Will Heinrich the arms dealer end up capturing the girl to draw the guys to him where she finally chooses the right guy? You can probably already guess the answers to these questions without even setting foot inside the theater.
-
You can probably guess I had some real issues with this movie: it's impossible NOT to love Reese Witherspoon in full-on "cutie-pie" mode but it's a bit annoying when whatever choice she makes is the right one. Chris Pine has the "cheeseball womanizer with a heart of gold" part down pat but you have to wonder how tatted-up Brit bad boy Tom Hardy ever got into the CIA! His character Tuck seems awfully intertwined with FDR's family (he's almost a surrogate brother but that's never explained.) Still Hardy manages to balance sweet guy and badass with equal finesse. I also wondered how these supposedly-dedicated Agents could use CIA Spy Tech to spy on Lauren and each other to further their relationship. The action bits were don well enough but there was nothing particularly new or unusual to be seen.
-
Honestly I could have gotten past the clockworks plot but the action and romance never quite mixed (like oil and water). All the secondary characters exist merely to move the story along and the performances are pretty cardboard. Yes, it's a nice-enough little movie to enjoy as a bit of an escape but a dip in This Means War won't even get your feet wet. Not that there's a lot else out there to see (other than Oscar contenders) but you could easily wait until it comes out on video. Also--if you miss it, you haven't missed much.
-
FINAL GRADE C-
Bows And Feathers is a fab and frothy creation like a good production of My Fair Fair Lady should be--that's why I chose it as today's fractal cookie. So, without further ado, on with the review!
-
Regular readers of this blog probably realize what a strange place my mind can be. So I suppose it wouldn't be much of a surprise when I got the idea to compare Broadway Musicals to automobiles. IMHO, if My Fair Lady was a car it would be a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. And if the latest production from Performance Riverside were a Rolls it would be a car that had clearly seen better days but had been nicely tricked up to fool an unwary buyer. (Come on--you had to know I wasn't gonna like the show from the review title!) Why do I say that? Read on and all will be revealed.
-
Let's start with a frequent complaint I've had with shows at the Landis. The sound mix was nothing short of awful: many of the lead solos were buried by the band (particarly every word Henry Higgins "sang" was missing as the worst example). The dialog was spat out at machine-gun pace and was so echo-y that a lot of it was unintelligible. I have to give the cast credit for attempting (and actually maintaining for the most part) accents throughout the show: too bad the accents were nowhere near correct. (Yes, I know that's a quibble but I know my accents and a correct accent is critical to My Fair Lady). The costumes screamed RENTAL but they were serviceable enough. The sets looked nice but every time they changed it sapped momentum from the show. The pit band and chorus were first rate but it bugged me that, for a musical, there was surprisingly little singing from the leads.
-
Jason James as Henry Higgins followed Rex Harrison's lead (maybe a bit too closely). I was hoping for a spark of originality in his portrayal but I didn't get it. Natasha Harris as Eliza was pretty and feisty enough but she lacked the vocal power that is required to make the part shine. Worst of all, her "cockney" accent was some sort of horrendous Yorkshire-Australian hybrid the likes of which I've never heard before--and, God willing, will never have to hear again. Jamie Snyder as Alfred P. Doolittle particularly annoyed me: he brought a lot of energy to the part--but seemed way too young for the role. His accent was as atrocious (in a different way) than Eliza's and he spat his words out so quickly it was hard to follow him. He chose pretty much shout With A Little Bit Of Luck--which was sad because he proved he actually could sing on I'm Getting Married In The Morning. Jim Shine was in full "fussy queen" mode as Col. Pickering and his interaction with Higgins made both men seem frankly, shall we say--regal? The underscored the lack of spark between Higgins and Eliza. Thomas Roy (Freddy Eynsford-Hill) has a nice look and a pretty enough voice but he sings in an American accent! (Piece of friendly advice "bother me" and "rather be" really should rhyme in On The Street Where You Live--just saying.)
-
I really like My Fair Lady but I was sorely disappointed by this show and I don't think I was alone. The theater was crowded but the applause was frankly tepid (except for one actor who had a lot of friends in the house) and there wasn't a lot of laughter. Even my darling Robyn (who;s ever so much nicer and more forgiving than a cranky old bear like me) had a few good shots in (which I won't repeat here to preserve her stellar reputation). The show should have been a slam dunk but it missed the mark by a mile.
-
FINAL GRADE: C
-
Today's fractal cookie is Zimple Zpiral. Why did I choose it? You'll have to wait until the end of my review of Cats to find out.
-
Cats is one of the longest-running musicals on Broadway (second only to Phantom Of The Opera) and frankly, I couldn't fathom why that might be. At least not until I finally saw the show... Cats is musical theaters lowest common denominator.
-
Why is that? Observe. Start with subject matter that's hard to resist: really--who (besides a few old sour pusses like me) doesn't love kitties? Add in a tuneful score filled with one stunning production number after another and connect them with a plot thread so thin it is all but non-existent. Make sure the score is complex enough to follow but complex enough to keep it interesting. Give it a structure that is accessible yet complex enough so the average individual knows they couldn't do that. A clever book loaded with charming word play and the illusion of depth to distract the audience from how little there really is to the show. Mount the show on a set that brings out the child in everyone then sprinkle liberally with stage fog and big effects and cast a good group of singer/dancers to bring the show to life. Once all this is place you can sit back and let the show run for over seven thousand performances while the millions roll in.
-
You might think from the above paragraph that I didn't enjoy the show but I did. So--what if the show is an air biscuit of epic proportions? It's FUN! What if it panders to the crowd? Theaters NEED extravaganzas like Cats to make enough money to mount other shows. Besides--singing a populist show like this might encourage those who don't attend the theater to come back for something else. There's no point of concentrating on what the show ISN'T--for what it IS Cats is pretty darn good!
-
Of course, this wouldn't be a Baronial review without at least one minor quibble. The cast (many of whom were making their professional debuts) was quite talented even if I didn't recognize any of their names. The set was fun, costumes perfect and the effects pretty flawless (a major achievement in a touring production). All I could find the complain about was the pit band: I don't know what it was about their performance but it is just struck me as a bad 80s synth-pop band, It sounded like it was played on cheap instruments but medium-talented amateurs.
-
Will Cats stand the test of time? I honestly don't know: with all their is to recommend it this show will be touring for years to come but I do wonder if we'll look back in a decade or so and note that it's a period-piece good for nothing but remembering a long-gone period of history. Still, for the packed crowed we saw the show with Cats IS "now and forever".
-
FINAL GRADE: A-
-
Oh--and why did I pick Zimple Zpiral as the fractal cookie? I chose it, not only because I didn't have a "better" images that I hadn't already used multiple times and because, like Cats, this image is pretty enough but there really isn't a lot to it.
I chose Delicate 2 as today's fractal cookie mainly because it has a "2" in the title (since I'm reviewing two movies) and I don't think I've ever used it in a post before. So--on with the reviews!
-
THE ADVENTURES OF TIN TIN
-
What can I say about The Adventures Of Tin Tin? It's based on a comic series that's hugely popular all over Europe and the motion-capture animated movie is directed by Steven Spielberg so you know it's going to be a class act. The action starts pretty much from the opening credits and never lets up until the end (and that's one of the few points where things slow down a bit.) The animation is beautiful and, for once, humans don't look like weirdly-animated wax dolls (as in The Polar Express). The voice cast, Jamie Bell (as the title character), Andy Serkis (as Captain Haddock), Daniel Craig as the villainous Sakharine and Nick Frost and Simon Pegg as Detectives Thomson and Thompson are first rate. There is just the right mix of action, comedy and suspense that will keep the entire family entertained. Yes, there are a few little bits that left this sour old critic shaking his head a bit but what of it? This is just a huge tub of escapist fun--just what I go to the movies for! We saw the movie in 3D. Dunno if the 3D FX were really needed to enhances our enjoyment of the movie but they are certainly well done and I didn't find myself feeling ripped off for needing to spend the extra cash for the tickets. All in all it was the perfect movie for Christmas Day.
-
FINAL GRADE: A
-
SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS
-
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation gets another "steampunk" outing in the movie sequel. I really enjoyed the first movie (gave it an "A" I think) but I couldn't shake the feeling that I've seen this all before. The first time they pulled out the bag of tricks I was impressed but this time I came away with the feeling of "so--what else is new?" Robert Downey Jr. chews the scenery as the title character but just doesn't seem to be having fun. Likewise Jude Law as Dr. Watson--but at least he isn't relegated to bumbling sidekick in this role. At least he gets a bit of story for himself. Jared Harris as Professor Moriarity is pretty much one-note as the villain but Stephen Fry has fun with the role of Myrcorft Holmes. The rest of the cast was pretty much forgetable.
-
The script has Holmes trying to stop Moriarity from starting a world war (for a surprisingly pedestrian reason). That was a cool idea for amping up the character but the FX and pretty much everything else are a redux of the 2009 movie. If you like that sort of thing then rush out and see this movie, if not--wait a bit and rent it. I was well and truly disappointed by this sequel.
-
FINAL GRADE C+
