I somehow think that it would be very wrong to say that I love Platoon, or even like Platoon. When watching this movie, for me it became very difficult to separate the movie's atmosphere from my enjoyment of it. The atmosphere is hateful.
Perhaps that's what Platoon does best. It was one of the first movies to capture the hateful experience of being an American soldier in Vietnam. The soldiers do and witness hateful things, live in filth and misery, and try to escape it all with drugs and alcohol. They not only kill the enemy, but kill each other: sometimes with misplaced artillery barrages, sometimes purposefully fragging each other.
How can somebody enjoy being in that place? At the same time one has to admire the portrait that has been painted, even if its subject is horrible to view. I think comparing this movie to a painting is rather apt, actually. The plot is simple: it can be summed up in a few sentences. It is merely filled in with terrifying images of men slaughtering each other and getting stoned.
So if you don't mind being thrown into the mud and shit of the Nam, you'll like it. If you'd rather stay home, don't watch it.
3 1/2 dog tags out of 5
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Review of 12 Angry Men
It is obvious from viewing 12 Angry Men that you are watching a play adapted for the screen. What is remarkable about this film is how well the movie works despite this. Most movies adapted from the stage feel excessively wordy and the locations get boring very quickly.
Not so with 12 Angry Men. As the film's plot progresses the camera angles get more claustrophobic, heightening the tension. As the balance of power in the hot, cramped jury room shifts, the film gets more exciting. The outcome of their verdict is never certain.
I liked it a lot. Go see it.
4 switchblades out of 5
Not so with 12 Angry Men. As the film's plot progresses the camera angles get more claustrophobic, heightening the tension. As the balance of power in the hot, cramped jury room shifts, the film gets more exciting. The outcome of their verdict is never certain.
I liked it a lot. Go see it.
4 switchblades out of 5
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Review of Bringing up Baby
I really liked this movie.
The real star of the show is Katherine Hepburn. She is astoundingly funny. The sense of humour is quite modern compared to comedies from this period, and it all gets pumped into her character. The leopard doesn't play as big a role in the show as the posters suggest, it is merely a part of the weirdness that constitutes Katherine Hepburn's character.
If there is one thing I will take with me from this movie forever, it is the gardener character. He's hilarious, wandering about mumbling about how if one more thing upsets him it will drive him to drink, and everything upsets him. Love it.
The show collapses just a little bit near the end at the police station when Katherine Hepburn starts pretending to be a gangstress, but other than that the show blew me away, considering when it was made.
4 brontosaurus intercostal clavicles out of 5
The real star of the show is Katherine Hepburn. She is astoundingly funny. The sense of humour is quite modern compared to comedies from this period, and it all gets pumped into her character. The leopard doesn't play as big a role in the show as the posters suggest, it is merely a part of the weirdness that constitutes Katherine Hepburn's character.
If there is one thing I will take with me from this movie forever, it is the gardener character. He's hilarious, wandering about mumbling about how if one more thing upsets him it will drive him to drink, and everything upsets him. Love it.
The show collapses just a little bit near the end at the police station when Katherine Hepburn starts pretending to be a gangstress, but other than that the show blew me away, considering when it was made.
4 brontosaurus intercostal clavicles out of 5
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Review of the Sixth Sense
I think that it's only possible to view and love The Sixth Sense twice. The first time you watch it, you love it because it's so creepy and the twist ending blows you out of the water. The second time you love it because you marvel at how intricately the twist ending is woven into the fabric of the movie and how all the clues were there the whole time.
After that? This was my third time. This time it was only okay. I think the reason why is related to the twist ending. Once you know the twist ending and have digested it with a second viewing, there is not much left. This problem is compounded by another problem, encapsulated in this bit of dialogue in the movie, regarding Cole's ghosts:
COLE: What if they don't want help? What if they're just angry and they want to hurt somebody?
A creepy line to be sure. But once you have seen the movie and know the answer to these questions, there is not much tension in repeated viewings. The ghosts become a little less scary because they are demystified.
Is it fair to judge a movie based on re-watchability? I think so. Speaking as somebody who watched The Fellowship of the Ring 19 times in theatres, some movies are re-watchable in the extreme. The Sixth Sense is not one of them. However, the first viewing was amazing, so I have to give the movie its due.
4 dead people out of 5
After that? This was my third time. This time it was only okay. I think the reason why is related to the twist ending. Once you know the twist ending and have digested it with a second viewing, there is not much left. This problem is compounded by another problem, encapsulated in this bit of dialogue in the movie, regarding Cole's ghosts:
COLE: What if they don't want help? What if they're just angry and they want to hurt somebody?
A creepy line to be sure. But once you have seen the movie and know the answer to these questions, there is not much tension in repeated viewings. The ghosts become a little less scary because they are demystified.
Is it fair to judge a movie based on re-watchability? I think so. Speaking as somebody who watched The Fellowship of the Ring 19 times in theatres, some movies are re-watchable in the extreme. The Sixth Sense is not one of them. However, the first viewing was amazing, so I have to give the movie its due.
4 dead people out of 5
Monday, October 1, 2007
Review of Swing Time
Swing Time is what it is: a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers movie. As such, coming into the movie, one should not expect anything sublime or extremely moving. It's just a bit-o'-fun.
I came into the show expecting this, and I must say it helped that I was drunk while I watched it. From my buzz, the dancing seemed fun, the lame-duck humour of the 30's just seemed innocent and charming, and the plot didn't seem all that bad. As I said, being drunk helped. Luckily, there was a sober person next to me, Suzi, who thought the movie was okay.
Ever seen a movie with a cool blackface routine in it? Come to think of it, have you ever seen ANYTHING with a cool blackface routine? Swing Time has it. It's a trippy little number entitled, "Mr. Bojangles". For all you folks who like getting high and watching pretty imagery, this scene is a must-see.
To sum up, it was true to itself and what it was, mildly entertaining, and expertly executed. At least while drinking.
3 out of 5 lucky quarters
I came into the show expecting this, and I must say it helped that I was drunk while I watched it. From my buzz, the dancing seemed fun, the lame-duck humour of the 30's just seemed innocent and charming, and the plot didn't seem all that bad. As I said, being drunk helped. Luckily, there was a sober person next to me, Suzi, who thought the movie was okay.
Ever seen a movie with a cool blackface routine in it? Come to think of it, have you ever seen ANYTHING with a cool blackface routine? Swing Time has it. It's a trippy little number entitled, "Mr. Bojangles". For all you folks who like getting high and watching pretty imagery, this scene is a must-see.
To sum up, it was true to itself and what it was, mildly entertaining, and expertly executed. At least while drinking.
3 out of 5 lucky quarters
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Review of Sophie's Choice
Sophie's Choice is two movies for the price of one. One of the movies is a young writer's coming-of-age story in New York. The other is a Holocaust movie. It is very dialogue driven. Does it succeed?
In one sense, yes. Kevin Kline is great as Nathan Landau: charismatic and funny. Meryl Streep is convincing on all levels as Sophie. The actual moment of Sophie's choice is one of the most powerful moments I've ever seen on film.
But then we come to the problem of the movie seeming very long. I found that the Holocaust movie disrupted the coming-of-age movie. Once we are thrown back in time to Sophie's suffering in the death camp, the tribulations of Stingo in the present day seem quite trivial. It seemed to suck away the energy of the primary story, if that's possible.
Then there is the other side of the character Nathan Landau. I won't give away what happens. Let's just say the audience discovers that he is not just a bad drunk. The effect of this realization is not shocking. It is disappointing. Imagine if you can a comedy starring a really stupid guy. The audience laughs at him and near the end they discover the character is retarded. The whole thing seemed like a huge deflation of Nathan's character.
Sophie's Choice is not for everyone. I loved many things about it. Other things frustrated me. Generally, I'd say they cancel each other out.
3 great American novels out of 5
In one sense, yes. Kevin Kline is great as Nathan Landau: charismatic and funny. Meryl Streep is convincing on all levels as Sophie. The actual moment of Sophie's choice is one of the most powerful moments I've ever seen on film.
But then we come to the problem of the movie seeming very long. I found that the Holocaust movie disrupted the coming-of-age movie. Once we are thrown back in time to Sophie's suffering in the death camp, the tribulations of Stingo in the present day seem quite trivial. It seemed to suck away the energy of the primary story, if that's possible.
Then there is the other side of the character Nathan Landau. I won't give away what happens. Let's just say the audience discovers that he is not just a bad drunk. The effect of this realization is not shocking. It is disappointing. Imagine if you can a comedy starring a really stupid guy. The audience laughs at him and near the end they discover the character is retarded. The whole thing seemed like a huge deflation of Nathan's character.
Sophie's Choice is not for everyone. I loved many things about it. Other things frustrated me. Generally, I'd say they cancel each other out.
3 great American novels out of 5
Friday, September 7, 2007
Review of Goodfellas
Goodfellas is great. There are so many things to praise. I like the epic quality to the story. I like the acting. The direction and photography are stellar.
There is something to be said for the violence as well. There is something very casual about the way violence is presented in this movie. I believe it has to do with directorial choices. For example, in one scene, our protagonist walks across the street, pulls out a pistol, beats his girlfriend's neighbor in the face with it several times, and then walks back across the street. This is all done in one shot from start to finish: no reaction shots, no close-ups. It somehow makes it feel that much more real.
I have a minor quibble with the ending, however. For some reason, the action cuts to Joe Peschi emptying his revolver into the camera, then cuts back to the scene in progress. It's weird and pointless. I wonder if it was the suits upstairs with a brilliant idea that the show should end with a BANG and pressuring the director to insert something. Anyway, it was weird.
Summarizing, there is some justification to the idea that this is the best gangster movie of all time. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.
4 out of 5 slices of garlic so thin they liquefy in the pan
There is something to be said for the violence as well. There is something very casual about the way violence is presented in this movie. I believe it has to do with directorial choices. For example, in one scene, our protagonist walks across the street, pulls out a pistol, beats his girlfriend's neighbor in the face with it several times, and then walks back across the street. This is all done in one shot from start to finish: no reaction shots, no close-ups. It somehow makes it feel that much more real.
I have a minor quibble with the ending, however. For some reason, the action cuts to Joe Peschi emptying his revolver into the camera, then cuts back to the scene in progress. It's weird and pointless. I wonder if it was the suits upstairs with a brilliant idea that the show should end with a BANG and pressuring the director to insert something. Anyway, it was weird.
Summarizing, there is some justification to the idea that this is the best gangster movie of all time. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.
4 out of 5 slices of garlic so thin they liquefy in the pan
Monday, September 3, 2007
Review of The French Connection
A disappointment, I'd say.
There were lots of good things about it. I liked the car chase where Popeye follows the skytrain through New York, wrecking stuff. I liked the scene where he tracks the crafty villain throught he subway. However, the sum of the parts didn't seem to add up.
Boredom was the main problem for this flick. I'm sure the intended effect of the cops stalking the smugglers with increasingly scary music, watching them eat and doing nothing bad, was tension. For me it didn't seem to work. It was okay for awhile, but it just goes on and on.
Did I say boredom was the main problem? I change my mind. The ending was terrible! I will not spoil it for you, but I will say that the filmmakers forgot how important climaxes are. Instead of providing the audience with the climax it needs, we hear a gunshot and then the ending is written with captions on the screen! Bad filmmaking! Bad! No buscuit!
To conclude, The French Connection was an art-fag movie masquerading as a thriller. Sigh. Why are films that people classify as "innovative" turn out to be boring?
2 out of 5 porkpie hats
There were lots of good things about it. I liked the car chase where Popeye follows the skytrain through New York, wrecking stuff. I liked the scene where he tracks the crafty villain throught he subway. However, the sum of the parts didn't seem to add up.
Boredom was the main problem for this flick. I'm sure the intended effect of the cops stalking the smugglers with increasingly scary music, watching them eat and doing nothing bad, was tension. For me it didn't seem to work. It was okay for awhile, but it just goes on and on.
Did I say boredom was the main problem? I change my mind. The ending was terrible! I will not spoil it for you, but I will say that the filmmakers forgot how important climaxes are. Instead of providing the audience with the climax it needs, we hear a gunshot and then the ending is written with captions on the screen! Bad filmmaking! Bad! No buscuit!
To conclude, The French Connection was an art-fag movie masquerading as a thriller. Sigh. Why are films that people classify as "innovative" turn out to be boring?
2 out of 5 porkpie hats
Friday, August 24, 2007
Review of Pulp Fiction
I'm not sure I'm qualified to write a review of Pulp Fiction. After all, I'm very biased. As I was watching I realized just how well I knew the movie. It's not from seeing it that many times. It's just that all the conversations have been rehearsed and repeated so many times in my group of friends and in the media that I pretty well knew them off by heart. I felt a little bored watching it this time, which is hardly the fault of the movie.
What's with Quentin Tarantino and his continuity problems? They seem to happen a lot in his movies. For instance, the bullet holes are already in the wall before Jules and Vincent are assaulted with the hand-cannon. Then, at the end of that scene, everybody leaves without the briefcase.
I was reminded as I watched how violent Hollywood became after Pulp Fiction was released. For awhile in the mid-90's, it seemed like all movies had callous murders and gouts of blood spilling from bullet holes. Maybe that's just me.
Shockingly good performances from everybody in the show. Oh wait. Except for Julie Sweeny.
It's worth noting that the most exciting story in the show, "The Gold Watch", was actually written by Roger Avery, not Quentin. Whatever happened to Roger Avery anyway?
So to sum up, the show is still good. Even if you've seen it before, it's good to watch it an marvel at the number of cultural sayings and phenomena this movie spawned.
4 gold watches out of 5
What's with Quentin Tarantino and his continuity problems? They seem to happen a lot in his movies. For instance, the bullet holes are already in the wall before Jules and Vincent are assaulted with the hand-cannon. Then, at the end of that scene, everybody leaves without the briefcase.
I was reminded as I watched how violent Hollywood became after Pulp Fiction was released. For awhile in the mid-90's, it seemed like all movies had callous murders and gouts of blood spilling from bullet holes. Maybe that's just me.
Shockingly good performances from everybody in the show. Oh wait. Except for Julie Sweeny.
It's worth noting that the most exciting story in the show, "The Gold Watch", was actually written by Roger Avery, not Quentin. Whatever happened to Roger Avery anyway?
So to sum up, the show is still good. Even if you've seen it before, it's good to watch it an marvel at the number of cultural sayings and phenomena this movie spawned.
4 gold watches out of 5
Friday, August 17, 2007
Review of The Last Picture Show
Ho-hum.
The Last Picture Show is based on a novel and it shows. The movie meanders from one event to the next with little underlying plot. I tried very hard to discern the movie's message and couldn't find it. I also tried very hard to like it, but could not. It was boring. Mind you, its boringness never made me angry.
On the plus side, it has Jeff Bridges, some good acting, and some nice boobs to look at. Other than that, I really can't reccomend it.
1 1/2 unsatisfying deflowerings out of 5
The Last Picture Show is based on a novel and it shows. The movie meanders from one event to the next with little underlying plot. I tried very hard to discern the movie's message and couldn't find it. I also tried very hard to like it, but could not. It was boring. Mind you, its boringness never made me angry.
On the plus side, it has Jeff Bridges, some good acting, and some nice boobs to look at. Other than that, I really can't reccomend it.
1 1/2 unsatisfying deflowerings out of 5
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Review of Do the Right Thing
Hmmm...
A complicated movie for sure. A good movie? That's hard to say.
On one hand, the show has awful pacing issues. The opening credits are laughable. Only slightly less laughable is the way that Spike Lee preaches at his audience, with characters speaking directly to the camera to pound his message in. Irritating characters yell at each other and drift pointlessly in and out of the plot.
Yet, when the lights came up, those of us who attended the viewing had a lot to say about what we had just seen. We talked about why we liked it and hated it. We talked about this or that character's actions. We talked about our own personal views on racism. These are the tell-tale signs that a movie has struck a chord with its audience.
If you haven't seen this show, I think it's important for you to know that Spike Lee is trying to preach at you. Secondly, it's important to know that Spike is going to preach at you with symbolism. One of the first images we see in the movie is a photgraph of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X standing side by side. The movie also ends with quotes by both of these men. The show is essentially about the conflict between the ideas represented by these men. King says never to use violence, Malcolm X says it is permissible. Moderation vs. Extremism. These are the underlying themes of Do the Right Thing, and if you are expecting a fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat plot, you will be disappointed.
So in the end, I'll admit the movie affected me. But I have to take points off for being boring and for being preachy. Sorry, Spike.
2 1/2 out of 5 Slices of Pizza
A complicated movie for sure. A good movie? That's hard to say.
On one hand, the show has awful pacing issues. The opening credits are laughable. Only slightly less laughable is the way that Spike Lee preaches at his audience, with characters speaking directly to the camera to pound his message in. Irritating characters yell at each other and drift pointlessly in and out of the plot.
Yet, when the lights came up, those of us who attended the viewing had a lot to say about what we had just seen. We talked about why we liked it and hated it. We talked about this or that character's actions. We talked about our own personal views on racism. These are the tell-tale signs that a movie has struck a chord with its audience.
If you haven't seen this show, I think it's important for you to know that Spike Lee is trying to preach at you. Secondly, it's important to know that Spike is going to preach at you with symbolism. One of the first images we see in the movie is a photgraph of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X standing side by side. The movie also ends with quotes by both of these men. The show is essentially about the conflict between the ideas represented by these men. King says never to use violence, Malcolm X says it is permissible. Moderation vs. Extremism. These are the underlying themes of Do the Right Thing, and if you are expecting a fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat plot, you will be disappointed.
So in the end, I'll admit the movie affected me. But I have to take points off for being boring and for being preachy. Sorry, Spike.
2 1/2 out of 5 Slices of Pizza
Friday, August 3, 2007
Review of Blade Runner
Wow. What a movie. Was it enjoyable? Kinda. Was it original? God, yes.
There were things to see in Blade Runner that you will see nowhere else. Screwed-up things. Fantastic things. Frightening things. I don't want to give too much away, but the sight of two mechanical midgets in Prussian uniform saying, "Home again, home again, jiggity-jig" and then walking into a wall sums it up pretty well.
The movie's biggest problem, I believe comes from expectations. For the first half of the movie, we don't know what might happen to the Blade Runner Decker. We have no idea how tough the replicants he faces are and the horrible things they could do to him. We don't know what consequences face him if he gives up, fails or succeeds. As an audience we are given little for which to hope or fear. It is only later that we discover how terrifying and powerful the replicants are. The result is confusion at Decker's actions, and resulting boredom.
The climax is, in a word, profound. I will not ruin it. It has to be seen.
To sum up, expect some boredom, but also expect to be shocked. How weird does that sound?
2 1/2 out of 5 cryogenically frozen eyeballs
There were things to see in Blade Runner that you will see nowhere else. Screwed-up things. Fantastic things. Frightening things. I don't want to give too much away, but the sight of two mechanical midgets in Prussian uniform saying, "Home again, home again, jiggity-jig" and then walking into a wall sums it up pretty well.
The movie's biggest problem, I believe comes from expectations. For the first half of the movie, we don't know what might happen to the Blade Runner Decker. We have no idea how tough the replicants he faces are and the horrible things they could do to him. We don't know what consequences face him if he gives up, fails or succeeds. As an audience we are given little for which to hope or fear. It is only later that we discover how terrifying and powerful the replicants are. The result is confusion at Decker's actions, and resulting boredom.
The climax is, in a word, profound. I will not ruin it. It has to be seen.
To sum up, expect some boredom, but also expect to be shocked. How weird does that sound?
2 1/2 out of 5 cryogenically frozen eyeballs
Friday, July 27, 2007
Review of Yankee Doodle Dandy
The movie sucks.
I'm not talking about just the rah-rah America bullshit in it. The patriotism is of the sweet, hokey pre-World War II variety that makes you roll your eyes, not the badass, tough-guy Don't-Mess-with-Texas variety that makes you want to kill somebody. No. I'm talking about story and the structure.
It's not enough to have a good dancer and some good tunes in a movie. There has to be a story. For the last hour and fifteen minutes of Yankee Doodle Dandy, the characters just dance and sit around in rooms agreeing with each other. There is zero conflict. The result is boredom.
My advice to curious viewers, if they can stomach it, is to fast forward to the song and dance numbers and watch one or two of them. The Grand Old Flag number is the best thing in the show, but even that may make you groan in disgust.
Alternately, you could opt not to watch the movie at all.
1 out of 5 Glorious Stars
I'm not talking about just the rah-rah America bullshit in it. The patriotism is of the sweet, hokey pre-World War II variety that makes you roll your eyes, not the badass, tough-guy Don't-Mess-with-Texas variety that makes you want to kill somebody. No. I'm talking about story and the structure.
It's not enough to have a good dancer and some good tunes in a movie. There has to be a story. For the last hour and fifteen minutes of Yankee Doodle Dandy, the characters just dance and sit around in rooms agreeing with each other. There is zero conflict. The result is boredom.
My advice to curious viewers, if they can stomach it, is to fast forward to the song and dance numbers and watch one or two of them. The Grand Old Flag number is the best thing in the show, but even that may make you groan in disgust.
Alternately, you could opt not to watch the movie at all.
1 out of 5 Glorious Stars
Review of Ben-Hur
I first saw Ben-Hur three years ago. I was really unimpressed. It seemed very long. The ending seemed weird.
I am pleased to say that this viewing was much different. I think it had a lot to do with expectations. During the opening credits of Ben-Hur, a legend reads, "A Tale of Christ". Yes, this is a Christian movie. If you watch Ben-Hur not understanding this you will be unprepared for the ending, which is miraculous rather than the direct result of Judah Ben-Hur's actions, and it may seem sudden or confusing. Perhaps another reason I disliked the movie the first time I saw it was that I had just watched the Passion of the Christ, which is an awful, bloodthirsty movie. I was feeling very spiritually raw from watching it, and the religious stuff in Ben-Hur rubbed me the wrong way. In any case, I really liked it this time I watched it.
The scope of the movie is huge. The "cast of thousands" gives the viewer the impression that they are watching something really special. The chariot race is really fantastic, and so is a sea-battle between Romans and a pirate fleet. Even Charleton Heston is tolerable in the role of Ben-Hur, giving an especially shiny performance. The soundtrack is cool, and I especially like Jesus' theme. All-in-all, you can sense how much love went into the making of this flick. Everybody involved really wanted it to be something special. And it is.
Is it too long? Maybe. There are many over-long glances and head-hangings while muted violins wallow in misery on the soundtrack. I'd suspect the movie could lose a half-hour if the director had been willing to make the dialogue a bit more snappy.
So if you have an evening to spare and the willingness to make popcorn several times, sit down and watch this one. At the very least, you'll be entertained the first time you see somebody get trampled in the chariot race.
4 out of 5 Stars of David
I am pleased to say that this viewing was much different. I think it had a lot to do with expectations. During the opening credits of Ben-Hur, a legend reads, "A Tale of Christ". Yes, this is a Christian movie. If you watch Ben-Hur not understanding this you will be unprepared for the ending, which is miraculous rather than the direct result of Judah Ben-Hur's actions, and it may seem sudden or confusing. Perhaps another reason I disliked the movie the first time I saw it was that I had just watched the Passion of the Christ, which is an awful, bloodthirsty movie. I was feeling very spiritually raw from watching it, and the religious stuff in Ben-Hur rubbed me the wrong way. In any case, I really liked it this time I watched it.
The scope of the movie is huge. The "cast of thousands" gives the viewer the impression that they are watching something really special. The chariot race is really fantastic, and so is a sea-battle between Romans and a pirate fleet. Even Charleton Heston is tolerable in the role of Ben-Hur, giving an especially shiny performance. The soundtrack is cool, and I especially like Jesus' theme. All-in-all, you can sense how much love went into the making of this flick. Everybody involved really wanted it to be something special. And it is.
Is it too long? Maybe. There are many over-long glances and head-hangings while muted violins wallow in misery on the soundtrack. I'd suspect the movie could lose a half-hour if the director had been willing to make the dialogue a bit more snappy.
So if you have an evening to spare and the willingness to make popcorn several times, sit down and watch this one. At the very least, you'll be entertained the first time you see somebody get trampled in the chariot race.
4 out of 5 Stars of David
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Review of Toy Story
I was a little worried when I fired up Toy Story. I generally find children's entertainment to be vacuous, irritating and often in bad taste. However, as the opening scenes of the movie started up, I began to understand that I was mistaken to apply any kid's movie prejudice to Toy Story. It was clear that this movie was designed not just for the brats, but for me as well. It held my interest right throughout and gave me several belly laughs.
What I find remarkable about Toy Story is how good it looks. This movie is now over ten years old and the animation still looks good. Maybe the Incredibles or talking cars or whatever people are animating these days look better, but my untrained eye can't tell the difference. The toys just look good. And here's another important thing: at no point did my eyes get lost during the action. I find that many computer animators put too many things on screen at once, whether its too much action, too many colours or poor framing I'm not sure. All I know is that I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in the previews for Robots. Toy Story always kept my eyes interested without tiring them out.
The plot is really good. The computer animation is in service to the plot, not the other way around. My one complaint would be that Woody, the main protagonist, pissed me right off. The plot doesn't seem to make him sympathetic at the beginning of the story, so his political macinations against Buzz just seem petty.
The voice acting is great. Tom Hanks gives the weakest performance as Woody, but (and I shudder to praise this man) Tim Allen was fantastic as overly-heroic Buzz. Maybe I still have a soft spot for R. Lee Ermey, but I just love that drill sergeant schtick he does, and his deadpan performance as the army-man sergeant cracked me up.
Anyway, fantastic little movie that I wouldn't mind my theoretical children watching. If you haven't seen it, stop being such a jackass and watch it.
4 out of 5 army-men
What I find remarkable about Toy Story is how good it looks. This movie is now over ten years old and the animation still looks good. Maybe the Incredibles or talking cars or whatever people are animating these days look better, but my untrained eye can't tell the difference. The toys just look good. And here's another important thing: at no point did my eyes get lost during the action. I find that many computer animators put too many things on screen at once, whether its too much action, too many colours or poor framing I'm not sure. All I know is that I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in the previews for Robots. Toy Story always kept my eyes interested without tiring them out.
The plot is really good. The computer animation is in service to the plot, not the other way around. My one complaint would be that Woody, the main protagonist, pissed me right off. The plot doesn't seem to make him sympathetic at the beginning of the story, so his political macinations against Buzz just seem petty.
The voice acting is great. Tom Hanks gives the weakest performance as Woody, but (and I shudder to praise this man) Tim Allen was fantastic as overly-heroic Buzz. Maybe I still have a soft spot for R. Lee Ermey, but I just love that drill sergeant schtick he does, and his deadpan performance as the army-man sergeant cracked me up.
Anyway, fantastic little movie that I wouldn't mind my theoretical children watching. If you haven't seen it, stop being such a jackass and watch it.
4 out of 5 army-men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
