Movie Review - Robin Hood (with Russell Crowe)

By Alex Popp

The untold story behind the legend.



Following King Richard's death in France, archer Robin Longstride (played by Russell Crowe), along with Will Scarlett, Alan-a-Dale and Little John, returns to England in "Robin Hood", directed by Ridley Scott.

They encounter the dying Robert of Locksley, whose party was ambushed by treacherous Godfrey, who hopes to facilitate a French invasion of England. Robin promises the dying knight he will return his sword to his father Walter in Nottingham. Here Walter encourages him to impersonate the dead man to prevent his land being confiscated by the crown, and he finds himself with Marian, a ready-made wife. Hoping to stir baronial opposition to weak King John and allow an easy French take-over, Godfrey worms his way into the king's service as Earl Marshal of England and brutally invades towns under the pretext of collecting Royal taxes.

This premise may sound intriguing, but I saw it with my dad, who is an expert on the Medieval ages, and we both noticed different flaws and errors. With this sort of semi-historical movie, you have to be willing to suspend reality in the distortions of history. For example, while "Braveheart" was a fantastic film in all respects, the liberties taken with historical accuracy are legion. This film takes liberties as well (it must since Robin Hood is considered fiction), but it lacks the quality and luster of its predecessors.

First, I have to say that Russell Crowe, who is a major draw in historical epics, is clearly too old for the lead character. As the premise suggests, the movie is supposed to be a prequel to the average Robin Hood story, meaning that in this story, Robin Hood would be 25 at eldest. Russell Crowe is going on 50 and no one could imagine him being a young man. Cate Blanchett is much the same as Marion, though not as bad.

As for the performances themselves, this was, by far, not Crowe's best. Blanchett is lovely and handles her strong character well, but as a women who is willing to wear armor and fight in battle, it is far too trite for Crowe to have to rescue her at the end. I groaned when she had to recite the line "Walter, this one's for you". I think the writers could have done far better. Von Sydow is a joy to watch as his performance is the best in the film. Friar Tuck is obviously intended to be comedy relief, but this falls flat. Robin's battle companions seem present only to give tie-ins to the common Robin Hood tales. They remain on the fringes of the film, are uninteresting, and it is difficult to care much about them. I wouldn't fault the actors in this film; they seemed to have done the best of what was given to them, but the problem was the screenplay.

The action sequences are typical Ridley Scott, but after so many of his films, the quick-action, close-up shots are growing tiresome. It has reached the point were the quick-cut photography now makes it too hard to determine exactly what is happening on the battlefield.

Another thing my dad noticed were the weapons which were clearly all leftovers from another Ridley Scott film: "Kingdom of Heaven", one of my dad's favorite movies. The shields are so poorly repainted that you can see large areas of chipping around the edges. And one of the things I noticed was that there were war scars on every warrior's face. Really?

By far, biggest disappointment with the movie was the appearance of the invading French soldiers in wooden "LSTs" (landing ship transports). In the year 1199 troop transports were seldom more than commandeered trade ships. No Navy in the history of the world ever built such a thing out of lumber. Do you know how when you go to a movie in the theater, you kind of forget that you're there and feel in the movie? When you notice this obvious anachronism, you're back in the theater, and you can no longer buy in to the story. What were the writers thinking??

Overall, it is apparent that this was something the moviemakers saw as something they could just slap together with Russell Crowe, and really weren't trying.

Rated PG-13 for intense war sequences and some sexual content.

Two stars (out of four) for "Robin Hood," one of the worst fims of 2010.

Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.

===================

From the Emperor...

Hmmm. I think this review shows details as negatives... details that you might not care about. Overall, it's a fun and interesting tale that I recommend, but "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is more fun and interesting than this version. So if you're looking for a more gritty and less silly film than that classic, then this is it.

Of course, if you want to get even sillier than "Prince of Thieves," then there's always the classicer "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".

And you have to check out the classicest Disney animated version (you know, with the foxes and animals; which is also the only Disney animated film where the animals are anthropomorphized in a world without humans).

- The Emperor

Moms don't need "Mars Needs Moms" - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

After the good success of Polar Express, the okay results of Monster House, and the bust of Beowulf, for some reason Disney bought/invested in Robert Zemeckis' Image Movers.

Disney thought the company could line up Polar Express-like hits for their studio. Really?

Well after a successful take on "A Christmas Carol" where Jim Carrey filled the need that Tom Hanks provided in Polar Express, Disney kept at it. And Image Movers' next project did not fare so well. Zemeckis directed Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol himself, but he did not direct...

Mars Needs Moms

We always ask the simple question, "Who is this for?"

Watch the trailer and ask yourself that.

It's a great film. It's jaw dropping at moments and a nice sentimental story (which in theory would appeal to mothers). But aliens kidnapping moms? In a movie starring immature guys? With a visual style of a John Carpenter sci-fi horror flick? Really?

So it doesn't appeal to moms, obviously. You could get that just from the title ("Cowboys Versus Aliens" strikes again).

So who does Mars Needs Moms appeal to then? How about to the immature boys who can identify with the humor of the primary characters? Well, let's see, would teenage and 20 something guys prefer to watch this animation or Hangover Part 2?

No, they're definitely not the audience. Not unless Austin Powers is in this movie (which he's not).

So who's the audience? Girls? Why would girls be interested in a film that looks like a sci-fi horror flick?

What about older men? Well, it's their visual style, but I don't think they really want this family message, humor, and theme.

Then who was it for?

Well enough random people to make about x dollars. However, this hyper-realistic style of 3D animation that Image Movers is pushing forward is really just waiting for a failure (like Final Fantasy was) to put itself out of business. These films are way too expensive, and that puts more pressure on for each to be a hit or else they don't make profit.

Mars Needs Moms cost $ to make. If it cost $ to the theaters and another $20 million in Marketing, then this is a huge loss.

And, as predicted, it did put the Image Movers studio out of business. Zemeckis green lit the film but didn't direct it, and it's the one that sank the studio.

However, Robert Zemeckis is striking back! He struck a deal with X to fund his next grossly expensive animation, Yellow Submarine, based on the Beatles animated short.

But will The Beatles appeal more to adults than children (and then only a niche of adults)?

Will it be able to survive? The only clear hits Zemeckis had (Polar Express and A Christmas Carol) were family/kids films based on the concept of hiring a capable and successful actor to headline the film and make it his own (much like Carrey also did for "A Series of Unfortunate Events").

And Yellow Submarine doesn't fit that mold (instead the focus is on getting actors to recreate the voices and mannerisms of the Beatles). So perhaps Disney wisely pulled the plug?

Anyway, let's talk more about Mars Needs Moms...

It's a great film! =^)

We highly recommend it. It's a little scary (also makes you wonder why moms would want their kids to watch that), it's good fun, adventurous, and it has a nice emotional message about the importance of family and listening to parents. And the acting is almost as great as the visuals.

However, it took me a looooong time of hearing Joan Cusack's voice before I stopped getting pulled out of the movie and visualizing Joan Cusack. (Maybe it's because she was more "in character" in Toy Story 2 and 3 and less herself as she is in "Mars Needs Moms".)

I'm not sure why Mars Needs Moms was made or how they convinced Disney to green light it, but it was. So go enjoy it on DVD!

- TAE

Movie Review - Megamind

By Alex Popp

Will Ferrell voices a wannabe super-villain in "Megamind."



After Megamind kills his good-guy nemesis, Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt), he becomes bored since there is no one left to fight. He creates a new foe, Titan (voiced by Jonah Hill), who, instead of using his powers for good, sets out to destroy the world, positioning Megamind to save the day for the first time in his life.

One problem with the movie is that all of the funniest scenes and lines were shown in trailers; the ones you see 70 million times and then when you see the movie, you're like "Yeah, yeah, let's get to the stuff we haven't seen, please", but then there's no better humor. But there are still some other laughs. But the thing I liked the most about "Megamind" was the redeeming qualities. We all have learned that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but those words take new and unexpected meaning in this film. Some of the superhero abilities and specifications may seem like they were taken from "The Incredibles," but it still has some excitement leading to satisfaction at the end.

Rated PG for sequences of animated sci-fi action.

"Megamind" may not be mega-ingenius, but it is good enough for two and a half stars (out of 4).

Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.

========================

Emperor's take...

I enjoyed it more than Despicable Me, which seemed to be a sappy display of minions and adoption emotions (although Despicable Me was marketed better to mommies and kids as a result).

Megamind had a fresh story with a slight twist or two in it, and the comedic cast nailed it. Though I agree that most of the funny is in the trailer, it's still enjoyable throughout.

You also actually get to like the villain/hero and feel sorry for him and understand him, so the turn is completed successfully. In contrast, the Despicable Me character doesn't seem to change much at all, other than starting to like kids more and wanting to be nicer.

Interestingly, the scriptwriters originally wrote this wanting to cast Will Ferrell in it as a live-action comedy. It went around forever, and it became more of a portfolio piece to get them more gigs. It was finally picked up by DreamWorks Animation, much to their surprise. Ben Stiller picked it up and talked to DreamWorks. Of course, the writers were then happy to see Will Ferrell cast as the main character (as they intended, but they were thinking live action).

- The Emperor

Movie Review - Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

By Alex Popp

Earth goes dark.



The Transformers series goes wild in its third installment, "Dark of the Moon."

In the last days of Cybertron, the home planet of the Transformers, a single spacecraft known as the Ark crash-landed on the moon. When Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong discovered it on the day of our nation's first moon-landing, its secret was kept hidden for 40 years. When the Autobots learn of it, they race against the Decepticons to reach the ship and discover its secrets, ultimately leading the robots' final battle.

Director Michael Bay has totally outdone himself. Forget the first two movies; get an eyeful of this! With one of the best movie openings, out-of-the-ordinary robot fight scenes, and the most stunning 3D effects EVER, "Transformers 3" is stupendous on many levels. Fans of the Transformers will find this a major improvement after "Revenge of the Fallen." And unlike the first two, the premise is fairly interesting and well thought of in terms of the first moon landing and finding things that are kept secret, much like some movies about Area 51 and stuff like that. There are even parts that are laugh-out-loud funny and it would seem that the main character got himself a better girl. She is not as much of a you-know-what as Michaela, and they both agree to wait to say "I love you." She seems far more sincere about relationships than Sam's ex; all Michaela could think of was "No matter what happens, I'm glad I got in the car with you."

But enough about the other stuff and to the battle scenes that completely make the movie. With spectacular visual effects, and incredible sound mixing and editing, none of the action ever fails to deliver. By the way, if you do plan to see the movie (which I'm sure you will), do not skip the 3D, lest you utterly miss out. "Transformers 3" ends the way it should have and when the words "Directed by Michael Bay" suddenly appear on the screen, you just want to shout out 30 times "It was so good!" (Here's to you, Matthew) The movie takes normal robot fights to extraordinary measures and though it isn't the best movie I've ever seen, it's definitely the most thrilling.

Rated PG-13 for language and some innuendo that is unnecessary, but never slows the story down as it only takes place in the first hour of the film's two and a half hour running time. From then on, there's no time for anymore of it because of the intense, prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, destruction and mayhem.

Four stars for the beyond epic and without the slightest hint of unsatisfying, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Oh, and did I mention the 3D should not be neglected?

Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.

=====================

From the Emperor...

I agree. While I can't say it's better than the first, I definitely think this was better than the second, and the reason is because Spielberg fired Meagan Fox.

That's right, after Fox called director Michael Bay Hitler in a magazine interview, Bay was willing to write it off and commented on his blog that she was immature but was still planning to hire her back.

However, Spielberg had none of that, with Hitler being a touchy subject for Spielberg (he made many movies that reflect that). So Spielberg told Bay that Fox wasn't coming back.

And that actually made Transformers 3 better. While I think I like Fox a little better in the films, the new love interest story made this third movie much more interesting than the second one.

- The Emperor

Legend of the Guardians: Owls of GaHoole - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

I'm going to compare it to Rango a little. Yeah, bare with me.



Legend of the Guardians did much worse in the box office than Rango or others that struggled. I think it's obvious. Rango at least was comedic, fun for kids, had all sorts of jokes for older people in there, and starred Johnny Depp for the parents. But who was Legend of the Guardians for? It was too violent for little kids and not overly cute or funny (at least not to the satisfaction of what mothers want for their kids). It definitely wasn't for mothers (very violent), and what father really wants to see a cartoon war movie about owls?

I want to know who said, "I've got an idea, let's remake Braveheart, but let's do it with owls instead. You know, for kids!"

I'm not sure who the audience was. It was basically an animated Braveheart. It was made by the director of Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen. It was great, and I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure why they thought it would sell and why they thought they should give it to the guy who made sweet movies about heroes who die violently.

It cost $80 million, made $56 million in the US, and made $84 million outside the US (the international market also loves epic films with lots of action). Plus we trust Zack Snyder (300 and Watchmen), so that helped a little (and he's now slated to direct a Superman: Man of Steel for Christopher Nolan, which is where Zack belongs). The film didn't do as well on DVD sales (it did okay), but taking into account what the theaters make, and it made less profit than Rango. Another advantage it had, though, is that they made it for $80 million, which is pretty good based on how great that film looks (not sure why they made it for $55 million less than Rango when it seems to look better).

So please keep Zack away from kids movies and give him great movies like "Man of Steel" --- can't wait to see that!

Enjoy!

- TAE

Movie Review - Cars 2

By Alex Popp



In "Cars 2", Lightning McQueen gets invited to compete in the first annual World Grand Prix, and brings Mater along.  Racing against the world's fastest cars, McQueen has potential to win the three-routed competition.  But during the trip, two secret agents mistake Mater for another spy.  Together, the three of them travel the world to find the secret behind Allinol, the required fuel for the World Grand Prix.

Marking Pixar's 12th film, "Cars 2" wasn't made because of how well the first one did in the theaters; it was because of all the merchandise.  But even so, the movie is quite a fun thrill ride.  Although they could have added more with the racing scenes, the spy action zips along, and the writers clearly payed attention to a lot of detail.  Like most Pixar movies, it also has its funny and profound elements.  Yes, it has less of an emotional pull than the more fresh and sincere original "Cars," and therefore is not as good.  But it will still give you your money's worth with its rush of excitement and is a great choice to view in 3-D.

It's rated G, but gets far too intense for very young movie-goers.

Three stars (out of four) for the pared but unique "Cars 2."

Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.

Rango to Lone Ranger - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

UPDATE: Added info about how Rango was the highest grossing film for about a month and how that impacts the business of it. Originally posted 8/28/11.

===========================================

Some animations seem to focus too much on the adult audience and not enough on the youth audience. And I see that in Rango; I can't help but wonder who it was for.



Who was Rango for? How is Rango interesting to a 9-year old girl? How is Rango interesting to a 12-year old boy, a father, or a mother? Mothers often pay to go to movies because they want their kids to see the movie. What mother sees Rango and wants her kids to see it? Some, yes, but not as many as the mothers who went to see Toy Story 3, Up, or Finding Nemo.

Did you know that Rango was based on an old TV show flop from Tim Conway that lasted one season and was also about a bumbling Old West cowboy who accidentally became sheriff?

Does that seem like a good inspiration for a childrens film?

The point is that films like Rango aren't making as much money as they could and often lose money. The kids can still watch movies like this on DVD (and some films, like TMNT, were made cheap and then probably did much better on DVD than in the box office, thus making a decent profit). Mothers are more willing to pay for DVDs that they don't want to watch... because they don't have to watch them. They just put them on and get a free babysitter for their boys (because Rango seems more aimed at boys than girls).

But of course the mother's preference (for movies aimed at boys) is that it's on TV. Take 3-2-1 Penguins for example. It's a Christian cartoon aimed mostly at boys (from the makers of Veggie Tales). It didn't do well on DVD (mother's didn't enjoy watching it too much, or at least not as much as Veggie Tales), but after the studio (Big Idea) re-purposed it for TV, 3-2-1 Penguins did VERY well. Why? Because the mothers weren't entertained by it, but the boys were. So moms didn't want to invest the time and money, but they were more than willing to sit their sons in front of it and go get some work done.

Now Rango, 9, and Legend of the Guardians were perfect examples of films that didn't do so well (when compared to successes that DreamWorks, Pixar, Ice Age, and Despicable Me are getting), but only in the sense that they lost money or didn't make much to make the effort worth it to the studios (or to get a sequel). In other words, the movies were good even if they didn't make a lot of money. It's more of a marketing problem. (My only point is that they didn't make as much money as they could have; I did enjoy them.)

Fortunately I think Rango is making more money on DVD (again, mothers don't want to go watch it, but as a gift to their boys to watch without them, it seems like a better idea). Also, Rango did better than it would have done, because they hired Johnny Depp to voice it (that made more mommies and daddies interested in it).

Rango cost $135 million to make, and it made $123 million in the states, but it also made $120 million outside the US (the international market loves Johnny Depp after he made Pirates). Add its DVD sales and subtract the costs of theaters (which are never factored in, but could be as much as one third the box office take), and you have a film that made a little and did "okay."

Did you know that Rango was the highest grossing film for about a month in 2011? Now, does that really matter? I say that's irrelevant. They spend x dollars to make something and need y dollars to make profit. If x is too big and y is too small, then it doesn't matter if it sells better than its competitors (because they spent more money on it than its competitors). It's a business just like anything else... like making toothpaste. Doesn't matter if you've got the best selling toothpaste for a month. If you spent more to make it than you're getting back then it's still not a profitable business.

We probably won't see a Rango sequel.

The director of Rango was Gore Verbinski (Pirates 1-3, The Ring, Mouse Hunt). He has wisely decided to forgo more animations and chose to instead go back toward his biggest success (epic adventures like the Pirates movies), and he's trying to do for Old West what he did for Pirates (redefine and reset the genre). (Spielberg, Ron Howard, and the Iron Man director, John Favreau, just attempted to redefine old west with "Cowboys and Aliens" and failed.)



What's Gore Verbinski's next movie?

The Lone Ranger!

(Interestingly, Rango was based on an old TV show flop from Tim Conway that lasted one season and was also about a bumbling Old West cowboy who accidentally became sheriff. I find it interesting that Gore went from Pirates to 2 cowboy movies that are VERY different from each other!)

For Lone Ranger, Gore was also attempting to team back up with his dream team from Pirates 1-3... Jerry Bruckheimer, Disney Pictures, the Elliott/Rossio writing team (who also wrote Pirates and Zorro), and Johnny Depp (who would play Tonto). Armie Hammer (Social Network) is on for playing Lone Ranger. (George Clooney was once in talks.)

However, this past week, Disney announced that The Lone Ranger was on hiatus, simply because the budget is getting big and "Cowboys and Aliens" lost a ton of money.

But I say to Disney... go for it! After all, yes Cowboys and Aliens lost money, but it wasn't very fun (cool but not fun), the romance and story weren't really thought through, and it really wasn't all that well marketed. Who wanted to see it? Sure, women like Daniel Craig, but not enough to see a movie like that. It's target audience was older dudes, the characters were all stoic and serious, the romance wasn't there (Olivia is an alien, keeps dying, isn't relatable to women, and gets naked once... not exactly what women want), the title alone makes most women snort (I've heard a lot of women snorting at it), the weapon on the arm bit gets old after awhile (which is why they change that in the story near the end), and not enough older dudes were interested in it (and the moms weren't interested in taking their sons).

So "Cowboys and Aliens" failure had nothing to do with the old west. They just thought the concept would sell and they stuck too close to the comic and to the screenplay that they got. It could happen to anyone, and this time it happened to three of the best filmmakers of all time (Spielberg, Howard, and Favreau), all of which have flopped like this before (and probably won't be their last; Howard's got the most flops, Favreau didn't do well when he directed Zathura and Spielberg practically lost DreamWorks films when he flopped with Michael Bay on The Island).

In contrast, Wild Wild West did well (despite bad reviews), Mask of Zorro did well, and the Elliott/Rossio writing team (who wrote Zorro and Pirates 1-4) found the right chord with Pirates by including supernatural elements. They sought to do the same thing here on Lone Ranger (with a screenplay massage by Justin Haythe). So Lone Ranger has all the right signs (the right writers, producer, director, actor, and the romance that was missing from Cowboys & Aliens). (For example, the love interest from Cowboys & Aliens, Olivia Wilde, was also the love interest in Tron Legacy, which had a much richer romance, and that film did much better.)

So what's Disney waiting for? This is likely to do amazingly well despite Cowboys & Aliens' performance.

Of course, rumor has it that the "hiatus" announcement is merely a political move by Disney to get Bruckheimer and team to lower their budget. Normally, I would say, "Are you kidding? This is Jerry Bruckheimer we're talking about!" But Bruckheimer did deliver lackluster results with Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia, G-Force, Deja Vu, Glory Road, King Arthur, and Bad Company (good movies with budgets too high and that weren't assembled in marketable ways). So I think both Bruckheimer and Disney should compromise a little (since this is the first attempt at a Lone Ranger film, they shouldn't assume it will do $200 million+ ... then they can increase the budget with sequels once they prove that it's a hit).

Jerry and Gore should cut a few financial corners, and they should get this ball rolling!

Meanwhile, Johnny Depp has something good going here. Not only is he Jack Sparrow (Pirates 5 broke 1 billion even though it sold a little low in the United States, so they're making a sixth one), he's tied into almost every recent Tim Burton hit (Sleepy Hallow,  Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd, Alice in Wonderland, and the upcoming Dark Shadows), he's now also on Gore Verbinski's short list (Pirates 1-3, Rango, and the upcoming Lone Ranger), and he seems to have been finding some blockbuster dramatic projects in between Pirates and Burton films (Chocolat, Finding Neverland, Public Enemies, and The Tourist). Plus Johnny has a 21 Jump Street movie coming up. Keep the hits coming for Johnny Depp!

Enjoy!

- TAE

Movie Review - The Last Airbender

Updated with more review info at the bottom (explains how M Night ended up with their Airbender actor, Noah Ringer and how Noah has improved his acting in Cowboys and Aliens). Originally posted on 2/23/11.
===================================

by Alex Popp



Four Nations. One Destiny.

The world is divided into four kingdoms, each represented by the element they harness, and peace has lasted throughout the realms of Water, Air, Earth, and Fire under the supervision of the Avatar in "The Last Airbender," directed by M. Night Shyamalan, the director of "The Sixth Sense." When young Avatar Aang disappears, the Fire Nation launches an attack to eradicate all members of the Air Nomads to prevent interference in their future plans for world domination. 100 years pass and current Fire Lord Ozai continues to conquer and imprison anyone with elemental "bending" abilities in the Earth and Water Kingdoms, while siblings Katara and Sokka from a Southern Water Tribe find a mysterious boy trapped beneath the ice outside their village. Upon rescuing him, he reveals himself to be Aang, Avatar and last of the Air Nomads. Swearing to protect the Avatar, Katara and Sokka journey with him to the Northern Water Kingdom in his quest to master "Waterbending" and eventually fulfill his destiny of once again restoring peace to the world. But as they inch nearer to their goal, the group must evade Prince Zuko (played by Dev Patel from the Best Picture winning "Slumdog Millionaire"), the exiled son of Lord Ozai, Commander Zhao, the Fire Nation's military leader, and the tyrannical onslaught of the evil Fire Lord himself.

The film was originally going to be titled, "Avatar: The Last Airbender," because that was the name of the TV series on which it's based. However, the word "Avatar" was dropped to avoid confusion with James Cameron's "Avatar." And this is most certainly not to be confused with the brilliant majesty of "Avatar."

I never watched any episodes from the cartoon, but others who had were disappointed. And I hated the movie enough without seeing the series. The whole premise is based on Buddhist theology, but that wasn't the main thing that brought down the quality. Some may not think about the effects at all, but if you really compare them with the background, you can tell that it's all fake. On top of that, the script is so juvenile, blending well with the terrible acting. To me, the movie was just flat out boring. I probably would have liked it more if Jesse McCartney had gotten the role of Zuko which he was originally given.

Some consider M. Night Shyamalan to be the master of twist endings, but the only twist in the ending of this film is that it tells you there's going to be a sequel. Great.

Don't ask me how M. Night Shyamalan made a movie as good as "The Sixth Sense" and then turned around and made this.

Rated PG for sequences of fantasy action.

One and a half stars (out of four) for "The Last Airbender," proof that not every movie from 2010 was good.

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.
==============

And now here's a review from The Emperor...

I think this review might be a bit too harsh. The Avatar actor (playing Aang) is obviously inexperienced, and so his acting is a little wooden. The northern tribe water nation princess is also a little wooden, but her charm, character, and story arc make all that easily forgiven and forgotten.

The overall story of this film is exciting and interesting, and there is more than enough drama and special effects to hold your interest, especially at the end. So I think if anything, the faults lie (1) in the Avatar boy's acting (and selecting him in the first place) and (2) that (like all M. Night films) it takes some time to get it going. M. Night certainly bombards you with activity and effects at the beginning, but you don't enjoy the characters until later in the film.

The actor, Noah Ringer, was cast as Aang because he's a martial artist (first-degree black belt rank with the American Taekwondo Association). He painted the arrow on his bald head and submitted his tape of him doing all the martial arts. His friends had even already nicknamed him Airbender (based on the fact that he looked and acted like the cartoon character).

However, M Night and crew overestimated their abilities to train a new young actor and to direct a new young actor (two major skillsets, and they depend on the actor's ability to learn). M Night has picked great child actors in the past (Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs), but he picked them based on acting, not on martial arts and how much they look like the character (big difference).

Despite Noah's poor acting as Aang (and despite Night's poor directing his actors to... well... act), Noah was able to train some more and follow it up with a much better performance in Cowboys and Aliens (he was in two films, and both were intended to be hits). So he's off to a good start in his career (despite the acting hickup in Airbender and the poor performance of Cowboys).

I think M. Night needs to be produced well in order to make a hit film, and he got that oversight and attention with his first four commercial films at Touchstone/Disney (Sixth Since, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village). Then he left Disney, and his films stopped being as big commercial successes (Lady in the Water from WB, The Happening from Fox, The Devil, and The Last Airbender from Paramount).

That said, Airbender was still a success. While it lost 19 million in the US (cost $150 million and made $131 million) it was a success still because it made $187 million overseas, which typically happens when a movie is cool and packed with effects and action, but is weak on story and characters.

Prince Zuko has a great arc that is only just beginning to form in this film (and the actory nailed the character incredibly well; he starts out as the #1 villain and then slowly moves his way down the villainous charts and into your hearts). Katara (Avatar's friend) is a good actress, though not perfect (I think it might be the directing a little though, because sometimes she nails it).

And I loved the story of Sokka (Katara's brother) and the northern princess, which was only beginning to unfold at the end of the film when it tragically stopped. So the problem partially lies with the source material as well. It's a good story, but he probably needed to rip apart the source material even more to make it more interesting earlier in the film. It's definitely a slow burner.

Overall, they'll probably make another sequel (since it made $319 million, worldwide), but either M. Night will do it if he thinks he can step up the game a notch (especially in the story and characters) or they'll give it to a new director. Either way, they need to teach that Avatar kid how to act. (Based on his performance in Cowboys and Aliens, he has definitely improved; too bad the film tanked.)

Currently M. Night is following it up with "One Thousand A.D." with Jaden Smith. Jaden is fresh off of Karate Kid, so this is a good idea (especially with Will Smith producing).

I give it three stars out of five, or 2 1/2 stars out of 4.

- The Emperor

Super 8 - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

Super 8 is E.T. meets Jurassic Park, with a smaller version of the Cloverfield monster thrown into the mix. Oh, by the way, SPOILER ALERT!!!

I'd be tempted to say that Super 8 also has some Sixth Sense thrown in there, but the truth is that Sixth Sense borrowed heavily from E.T. and Jurassic Park in the first place, so it's better to just point to the earlier Spielberg films.

It's appropriate that this feels like a Spielberg film, because it is a Spielberg film... Steve Spielberg produced it. It seems like JJ Abrams finally met his hero, Steven Spielberg, and they had a converation that went something like this...

JJ Abrams: "I want to remake E.T., and I want you to produce it."

Or maybe... "I'm planning to make a film that rips off your films so badly that if you don't produce it, everyone will hate me."

Or in real life, maybe... "I'm a huge fan of your films, and you inspired my latest film. Would you check it out and produce it if you're interested?"

And then of course the reason why JJ went with a smaller (but still big) Cloverfield monster is also evident... JJ produced Cloverfield.

However, I wouldn't say that this film is a combination of Cloverfield and E.T. No, it's much closer to Jurassic Park and E.T. The camerawork is far slower, steady, and sweeping. We focus more on the characters. And the action unravels like a Spielberg film than the frantic and violent nature of Cloverfield.

Next, the acting: The acting is superb. The biggest stars were the leads... the boy (Joe Lamb) and the girl (Alice Dainard). Joe Lamb was played by Joel Courtney. This is Joel's first film, and it was a success; after this he was signed to two films (Healer and as Tom Sawyer in the upcoming "Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn).

Alice Dainard was played by Elle Fanning. Does her name sound familiar? She was in I Am Sam, Daddy Day Care, Because of Winn-Dixie, Babel, Deja Vu, and Astro Boy. Her upcoming films include the Burton animated film, Frankenweinie.

Of course the last name should be familiar because she's the younger sister of Dakota Fanning (who is also connected by Steven Spielberg, who directed Dakota's biggest breakout role... War of the Worlds).

Super 8 is masterfully made, and it's a lot of fun for film lovers (who identify with the young film makers in this movie). I wish it would have done better in the box office ($153 million world wide), but thankfully it only cost $50 million to make. So it wasn't the success that Sixth Sense, E.T., or Jurassic Park were, so JJ will probably stick to Star Trek films and producing Mission Impossible and Cloverfield flicks. In other words, he probably won't try another Spielbergian film like this again.

So why didn't the film make more money? Perhaps it got lost in a summer of big movies (true, but I think it could have overcome that). I think the main reason is marketability. Super 8? What's that? A type of camera? You're basing your film around a type of camera... that happened to film a creature escaping from a train wreck? Hmmm. It's not quite as straight forward as E.T., War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, and Sixth Sense (where the names are exactly what you get; Super 8 wasn't really about the camera).

But regardless of its marketing problems, the directing, camera work, pacing, story, acting, and effects were amazing. If you haven't seen it yet, you should.

- TAE

Movie Review - The King's Speech

When God couldn't save the King, the Queen turned to someone who could.



The Oscar-winning "The King's Speech" tells the story of King George VI (played by Colin Firth), the father of Queen Elizabeth II. After his brother abdicates, George ('Bertie') reluctantly assumes the throne. Plagued by a dreaded stammer and considered unfit to be king, Bertie engages the help of an unorthodox speech therapist, played by Geoffrey Rush. Through a set of unexpected techniques, and as a result of an unlikely friendship, Bertie is able to find his voice and boldly lead the country through war.

First of all, I was very surprised at how well Colin Firth was able to stammer the way he did. Although, that seemed to be the real thing that made his performance difficult, even though he won Best Actor. The rest of the acting was very good, too, and this movie was very emotional in terms of King George not having a choice to be king, although in such a biopic as this, I wish we would have seen more of his childhood, like in a flashback or something. But still a very interesting and pragmatic film.

Rated R for two scenes with repetitive uses of the f- and s-words, but my dad and I remarked at the end that it was almost necessary! So, otherwise, it should be suitable for most teens, depending on how badly offended your parents are by such coarse language.

Three stars (out of 4) for "The King's Speech."

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.

Movie Review - The Day the Earth Stood Still

By Alex Popp



Jennifer Connelly plays Dr. Helen Benson, who is summoned to a military facility with several other scientists when an alien spacecraft of sorts arrives in New York City in the remake of the 1951 sci-fi film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

Aboard is a human-like alien and a giant robot of immense size and power. The alien identifies himself as Klaatu and says he has come to save the Earth. The US military and political authorities see him as a threat, however, and decide to use so-called intensive interrogation techniques on him, but Dr. Benson decides to facilitate his escape. When she learns exactly what he means when he says he is there to save the Earth, she tries to convince him to change his intentions.

I haven't seen the original, but I still had a lot of problems with the movie. For the most part, it was the premise/message about how "man is causing global warming." The main point is repeated over and over again. It was so preachy.

The real thing was that it was pretty clean with hardly any profanity and graphic violence, and no sex. But this is the kind of movie that you would barely notice any of that, because it's already bad enough without it. Put that in with corny script and mediocre effects and you have one of the worst films of 2008.

Rated a light PG-13 for some mildly intense sci-fi violence.

One and a half stars (out of 4) for "The Day the Earth Stood Still," which make the earth stand still in boredom.

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.

Thor - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

Thor was very good. I ended up seeing it twice in the theater (once in 3D and once without).



I kind of find it funny how, on the poster above, they have to write Thor twice just to show you that you're looking at the actual Thor character. They don't think people would know that.

I have to admit that Thor felt like two movies that were threaded together (one in Asgard and one on Earth). It also seemed that it would be hard to really make a villain that could give Thor a real fight (he's basically Superman: awesome, invincible, and he flies). In addition, I wasn't sure what kind of special effects they'd give us when his weapon is a big hammer.

Plus they had the additional challenge of making a Norse god relevant and interesting to us. And then they added another challenge by placing a relatively new actor into the title role (Chris Hemsworth, who was James Kirk's dad in the Star Trek reboot). And they added one more challenge to the plate by giving the movie to the director, Kenneth Branagh. It kind of fit... he's a Shakespearean director (and other period pieces), but he hadn't had a ton of success as a director yet and it had been many years since his last directorial effort.

Despite all the challenges and potential potholes, Thor was an amazing movie.

They made it more successful than X-Men: First Class (another attempt at establishing new-ish Marvel heroes in the same summer).



Here are the reasons why I think it was such a good movie:

1. Chris Hemsworth nailed Thor. You can't always get established actors. Sometimes the best actors aren't known yet, but they're so good that the movie makes them known. This is one of those roles. Chris morphed into Thor and nailed the cocky yet fun-loving attitude. This is on the same level as Hugh Jackman making Wolverine, Chris Evans making Human Torch in Fantastic Four (which he has leveraged to become Captain America as well), and Ryan Reynolds as DeadPool in X-Men: Wolverine (which led to Green Lantern and a coming DeadPool movie).

2. It's funny and clever. All the characters provide the right mix of humor, and the references to mythical elements are also clever, like an effets-driven update to the Rainbow Bridge and to all the characters and power items. I also appreciate the Hawkeye reference. I wasn't too excited about the actor (he doesn't seem impressive enough), but my friend assured me that he's great (and id a great job in The Hurt Locker).

3. The romance story works well. Due to #1 above and #5 below, Thor and Portman have great chemistry together. And the romance is brought to life even more, due to the humor and cleverness from #2 above.

4. The mythical world is brought to life with effects and superb directing. I really felt drawn into the world. The whole Ice Giants thing was a little silly to me, but they dealt with the mythology and the comic books in a realistic way, and thus, I still felt like it could be real. Which is kind of the point... even when something obviously isn't real, they want to present it as if it was real and get you involved in that world. They did it. The effects were amazing and highly... effective. Specifically, the battle sequences, monsters, giants, ice world, rainbow bridge... even the size differences of some of the characters... it all brought to life the idea of this world where talismans and other powers make warriors into gods.

5. The cast supports it well. Natalie Portman as a super hero love interest is a great catch. Her friends support well (Norah without her playlist). Anthony Hopkins is the ideal Odin. Renee Russo supports well (in a few shots). Our SHIELD agent friend does a great job (as usual), and even Loki is spot on. Thor's warrior friends are fun (though underused). We even get to see an enjoyable glimpse of Hawkeye (though he hasn't yet proven why he should be an Avenger).

And that's pretty much it. Congrats to everyone involved. They brought us the right mix of romance, humor, story, and effects. So far, it's the most succesful summer super hero film, beating out Green Lantern, X-Men First Class, and Priest (Captain America is TBD). The film has made (to date) $176 million in the US, with $435 million worldwide. That's a good haul for a new hero flick.

The Foreign box office take was particularly high ($259 million) and is comparable to Iron Man ($266 million) and higher than X-Men 3 ($225 M) and X-Men 2 ($192 M).

Overall with $435 M worldwide, Thor beat X-Men 2 ($408 M), X-Men Origins: Wolverine ($373 M), X-Men 1 ($296 M), Fantastic Four ($331 M), Incredible Hulk ($263 M), X-Men First Class ($286 M), and Ghost Rider ($229 M).

Thor's one of those Superman-like heroes who's basically invincible. So they need to find ways to make him vulnerable and real. In this film, they kind of cheated by taking away his powers (which is the usual way Superman is attacked... Kriptonite steals his powers). It's kind of an annoying cheat, really. Once Thor finally earned his hammer back, then it was pretty much game over for Loki and the Defender.

So hopefully they'll think of better ways to make him vulnerable than to cheat like that. "Either all or nothing" is not an entertaining way for him to fight villains. And if he's going to be in a sequel and in the Avengers movie, then they need him to fight villains who are at least as powerful as he is with his powers (maybe even a little more powerful than him).

The Hulk could work in Avengers (the Hulk could beat Thor), but I'm not sure what they want to do with Hulk (make him good, bad, or both).

Oh and in Disney news, Avengers will be the first Disney produced Marvel movie! Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and

Enjoy!

- The Emperor

Movie Review - Soul Surfer

By Alex Popp

The next "Blind Side"?



Based on the amazing true story, AnnaSophia Robb plays Bethany Hamilton, a teenage girl who is a natural on the surfboard in "Soul Surfer". Placing high in several competitions, she seems to have a whole career ahead of her. But it's all unpleasantly interrupted when she is attacked by a shark and loses her left arm. After weeks in the hospital, she doesn't give up on surfing and is determined to get back on the board, refusing to get a prosthetic arm.

With stunning camera work, entertaining surf competition scenes, and an all-star cast including Oscar-Winning Helen Hunt, Dennis Quaid, Carrie Underwood, and Craig T. Nelson, "Soul Surfer" is bound to be the best film of 2011.

AnnaSophia Robb has been acting since the age of 11, starring in other good movies such as "Because of Winn-Dixie", "Bridge to Terabithia", and "Race to Witch Mountain". And she is clearly growing as an actress; this is undoubtedly her best performance yet. Other fantastic performances included Dennis Quaid as Bethany's father, Chris Brochu as her brother, Timmy, and Lorraine Nicholson as her best friend. Carrie Underwood didn't appear in very many scenes, so it's difficult to say how she did. But who knows, singing may not be her only gift.

There have been arguments on whether or not this is a Christian movie. I would have to say yes. Bethany had to trust in the Lord to give her the strength and courage to return to the sea. She does whatever it takes to overcome the odds, as she says, "I don't need easy. I just need possible." And the verse Jeremiah 29:11 is quoted: "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." This verse was for a time removed during editing. But when Carrie Underwood reportedly asked the filmmakers to "tell the story" fairly and accurately by preserving both the verse and its reference, they listened. Also, Dennis Quaid reads a Bible. There's something we don't see every day. In fact, deemed too conspicuous and "prop-like," the words "Holy Bible" were also digitally removed from the cover of Bethany's dad's Bible (most Bibles these days don't have much on the front). But after Tom Hamilton e-mailed a photo of his own Bible—emblazoned with big text similar to that on the Gideon's Bible used in the scene—the words were reinstated. Hamilton told The Hollywood Reporter, "I could see the words bright and clear. I looked at my wife and whispered, 'Thank you, God, they put it back.'"

"Soul Surfer" tells the story accurately and is an epic and touching film that surpasses "The Blind Side". In fact, it may change the way you look at sports movies.

Rated PG for a very disturbing and heart-pounding sequence involving the shark attack. The shot where the shark merely pops out of the ocean scared the Darwin out of me. Although the attack itself is relatively quick, there is a lot of blood in the water. "Soul Surfer" is way out of range for kids 10 and under.

Four stars (out of 4) for the exhilerating and mind-blowing, "Soul Surfer," a true soul lifter of a movie.

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.

Movie Review - Bolt

By Alex Popp

If you think that "Bolt" is just a dog movie, think again.



Bolt, voiced by John Travolta, is the canine star of a hit TV series, living his whole life on its set, believing that he has superpowers due to the way that the crew edits the show. When he is accidentally shipped from Hollywood to New York City, he goes on cross-country trip with a cat and his biggest (and smallest) fan, a hamster named Rhino, to find his way back to his teenage owner (voiced by Miley Cyrus).

When I saw the trailers and promos for this film, I thought of the movie "Underdog." I thought, "Looks pretty resistable." But is, in fact, irresistable with loads of laughs, stunning animation, and delightful characters (notably Rhino). I saw it with my brother and sisters, and we all enjoyed it. And of course, my brother and I were whispering to each through the opening scenes, "Cats are evil."

I also did see some spiritual content: the message of how you need to look around for evidence before you assume something is true.

Rated PG for some peril and action, but should be perfectly fine for most young moviegoers.

Four stars (out of 4) for "Bolt." It's awesome. No, it's beyond awesome. It's BE-awesome! Hahaha!

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.

Movie Review - Tangled

by Alex Popp

It takes two to tangle.

(I made that one up)



I'm sure we all know the story of Rapunzel, but you don't need to to enjoy the outrageously hilarious "Tangled," Disney Animation's 50th film (not including Pixar films and other non-canon titles) and the most expensive animated movie of all.

After receiving the healing powers from a magical flower, the baby Princess Rapunzel is kidnapped from the palace in the middle of the night by Mother Gothel. Mother Gothel knows that the flower's magical powers are now growing within the golden hair of Rapunzel, and to stay young, she must lock Rapunzel in her hidden tower. Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore from "A Walk to Remember") is now a teenager and her hair has grown to a length of 70-feet. The beautiful Rapunzel has been in the tower her entire life, and she is curious of the outside world. One day, the bandit Flynn Ryder, voiced by Zachary Levi, scales the tower and is taken captive by Rapunzel. Rapunzel strikes a deal with the charming thief to act as her guide to travel to the place where the floating lights come from that she has seen every year on her birthday.



It may sound like just another Disney princess movie, but it really goes beyond that with its constant knee-slapping humor in an excellent original screenplay and dazzling animation similar to that of "Bolt." Most of the songs are catchy and fun, including the comical "I've Got a Dream" and the Oscar-nominated "I See the Light." And the characters are so likeable that I don't see how anyone could not enjoy the movie.

Rated PG for some violence that may be too much for very young kids (someone gets stabbed with a knife off-screen).

The only thing with "Tangled" is at the beginning and end when Flynn narrates. He talks like the viewers know nothing ("The queen became sick. And that's usually when people start looking for a cure.") It's not very much like him and just feels a bit out of place. Still, "Tangled" deserves three and a half stars (out of 4), and is in some rivalry with "Toy Story 3" and "Despicable Me" for the best animated film of 2010.

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.


==================

Emperor here. I agree with Alex except for "Despicable Me." I wanted Despicable Me to be good, but it was shallow and just pandered to the kids with the minions. That's good (they know their audience), but it's no The Incredibles, and it shouldn't be compared to Tangled or Toy Story 3 (in my opinion).

Enjoy!

Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

Unfortunately, I think Pirates4 was the worst of the series (I'll get right to it).

I suspect American agrees with me. Here's how the Pirates films faired stateside:

5/20/11 - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - BV
$201,057,000 (US)

5/25/07 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - BV
$309,420,425 (US)

7/7/06 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - BV
$423,315,812 (US)

7/9/03 - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - BV
$305,413,918 (US)

As you can see from above, Americans didn't like Pirates 4, they liked 1 and 3 about the same, and they liked Dead Man's Chest the best. I agree that Pirates 2 was good (although Black Pearl is my favorite). Pirates 2 introduced us to Davey Jones, it gave us a sword fight on a giant wheel, it furthered the sweeping romantic story, and it gave us a giant Kraken. It did its job well. (Whereas the third one was weird because it involved Hell being a desert, and it involved Jack Sparrow seeing several versions of himself, a weirdness that he seemed to have shaken off before the fourth movie.)

What was good about Pirates 4:

- Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow was as great as always.
- Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa was a welcome returning character.
- The Mermaid stuff was excellent.

What was lacking:

1. The sweeping love story is gone. As much as I was excited to see Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley exit the series, I now see how they were necessary. They were not replaced well (a half-hearted attempt was made at making Penelope Cruz into a Jack Sparrow love interest and another attempt was made to build a romance between a priest and a mermaid that eerily ended in death). Without the epic romance, the story, energy, sense of purpose, and overall pacing of the movie was lacking.

2. The humor was gone. Jack was about as funny as usual, maybe a little less so. Mostly because he didn't really have any new material (he's done it all in the last three films). Also, in the first three films he wasn't relied on as the humor (he just complemented other key elements of humor). For example, the two bumbling pirates who were good for a laugh were gone. For some reason they were replaced with the annoying character from Snatch and someone said "we're good on the humor department" and gave up. Or something like that. =^)

Similarly, the cleverness was absent. I saw the skeleton in bed reference to the ride, but other than that, I don't really remember being impressed by clever writing as I did in the other three films. I'm counting this toward the humor aspect. The lack of humor also made the film start out slow (it took a long time before it became interesting).

3. The villains were weak. I love the blackbeard historical figure (I always wanted them to use him), and Ian McShane did a good job with it, but other than a briefly smoking beard (which is historically accurate and not taken in a cool and fantastical direction), which they seemed to forget about and stop doing, and other than him being able to control the ropes on ships and then bottle them up (a nice magical power that they never really explain or tie into anything useful), he just doesn't stack up. He's not the conniving evil British leaders we've grown to love, he's not an immortal who turns into a skeleton in the moon's light (Black Pearl), and he's not an immortal who controls the sea, controls the Kraken, and has a squid for a face (Davey Jones; hard to beat that).

And Penelope Cruz is barely better than Keira Knightley (and she comes without the romantic epic story to tie it all together). Plus the mysterious Spanish army is cool and seems to have their act together better than all the captains we actually see in the film. So their mystery is interesting, but their characters aren't all that cool or interesting, except for the fact that they keep coming back and having success and we're not quite sure why they're so good at it. The lack of interesting and cool villains also made the beginning move too slowly (it was awhile before we met Blackbeard, and he wasn't enough to spice it up very quickly).

4. The action and effects weren't quite there either. Sure, the mermaids were interesting (and a few minor water tricks), but there were no sword battles on giant wheels, no giant squids, no giant anything, no battles in storms (only one brief pirate ship battle in a mutiny), and no characters with special effects dripping off their faces.

In an age now where the blockbuster movies have to have effects that blow you away, this film was lacking. (Although people outside the US didn't seem to mind too much.) That might sound shallow, but simply said, we want to watch movies that are cool, and this one was missing that element. So the lack of action also made this movie move a little slower than the others.

===============================

Despite its shortcomings, the movie accomplished what it set out to do (thanks to folks outside the US)... make money.

Here are the movies with the World Wide stats included:


5/20/11 - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - BV
$201,057,000 (US) - $831,744,000 (WW)

5/25/07 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - BV
$309,420,425 (US) - $960,996,492 (WW)

7/7/06 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - BV
$423,315,812 (US) - $1,060,615,812 (WW)

7/9/03 - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - BV
$305,413,918 (US) - $658,311,224 (WW)


Looking at those stats above, non-Americans came to see it just as much as Pirates 2 and 3. It did much better than Pirates 1 overseas (which is normal that it takes the first film before the overseas market warms up to it more).

So will they make another Pirates movie? I think they should. They pretty much tied down the story of Pirates 4 without much room to continue it (my guess is because Johnny Depp wants out), but that can be a great reason to continue it. Without being tied to lackluster story of Pirates 4, they can try again and try to build out those elements that were lacking from this film: a sweeping romance, humor and cleverness, amazing villains, and better action sequences and effects.

Enjoy!

- The Emperor

X-Men: First Class - TheAnimationEmpire Movie Review

Overall, it was a great story and a great movie. But that's not enough nowadays, is it?



Basically, this movie was X-Men without Wolverine, and they now know how badly they need Wolverine or an interesting character like him (Gambit or Deadpool would work) to hold a film like this. They try hard to make this film interesting with Professor X and Magneto, but the problem is that we don't really see anything new here.

As one reviewer mentioned, this film seems to cater to fans and give them what they want... by filling in the blanks from the other films. Essentially this combines the earlier "X-Men Origins: Magneto" attempts. A younger, bold Magneto and Professor X aren't the same draw as Wolverine.

Truthfully, I think a Wolverine-less X-Men movie is possible, but they would need a lot more action, interesting characters, and special effects than this to pull it off.

Overall, the movie is very enjoyable. It does have some great effects. However, despite the story and characters, it's looking to rank last in super hero films this year to three new attempts: Thor, Captain America, and Green Lantern. It's also going to rank last of the 5 X-Men movies.

In order to compete at this level, as a blockbuster film, the movie has to do more visually and has to include more over-the-top and bankable characters (like Wolverine). The story and characters are excellent, but this isn't Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting, this is a blockbuster superhero Marvel movie.

As far as effects go, everything we saw here was already done in X-Men 2 and/or 3. There's nothing new here in action or effects. In effects, it probably ranks close to the first X-Men film, which means it doesn't meet current expectations. It's basically an X-Men movie without newer effects and without Wolverine.

And that doesn't seem to be what the fans want.

So I think the movie did quite well because of the story and characters (despite the lack of enough action, effects, and crazy characters). Which means there's hope.

Overall, it would be a shame to see this reboot go, especially since they're continuing the present-day timeline with Wolverine (in The Wolverine) and Deadpool. These X-Men characters are great, and the story is also good.

So I definitely think they should try again and make a sequel to this. However, they are going to need more impressive action and effects (time to let Bryan Singer go to Battlestar Galactica and get writers on the team who know how to sell out to action sequences and fit it into the story better). And they're going to need to add an interesting character into the mix. Since Wolverine is already out of this timeline, they can still bring in the Cyclops and Jean Grey love story (they wasted Angel and Iceman, but maybe they can bring them back in as well). And then they also need a wildcard character, so I suggest Longshot, Gambit, Nightcrawler, Multiple Man, or Colossus, and then they also have to make them as interesting as the comics do (Nightcrawler and Colossus weren't interesting in the films so far).

As far as Disney goes, I think Marvel is going to keep the X-Men license with Fox until this X-Men series franchise dies out. As far as I can tell, they can still get one to three more films out of this New Class reboot (if they do it right), another two Wolverine movies, and then three Deadpool movies (again, if they do it right). Plus they could easily give great characters like Gambit and Nightcrawler their own films, but first they need to make them great in an X-Men movie (hasn't happened yet).

Then I think the franchise will slide over to Disney once this X-Men timeline/existence has worked through the possible films (currently Fox is making The Wolverine and Deadpool). Then hopefully they can reboot it under the Disney brand and stick closer to the comics (if you don't know, Bryan Singer butchered the timelines on all the characters in the comics and even butchered personalities of the characters to get them to fit in the stories, so a faithful reboot would actually be far more successful than this run was; so far the most faithful one to the timelines and characters was Wolverine, and I assume they will keep The Wolverine and Deadpool faithful).

And if/when the X-Men franchise slides over to Disney production (Disney owns Marvel now, so it's only a matter of time), then with the reboot they can fit the characters into the Avengers world (which might be a different world, by that time) and feature film crossovers.

Enjoy!

- The Emperor

Tangled - TheAnimationEmpire movie review

UPDATE: We added a few links to our Princess and the Frog review, we explain #4 a little more (we received an interesting comment on this post that you should check out), and we added point #10 about how great of a roller coaster the film is, which starts out positive. =^)

Originally posted 12/5/10.
===========================



I think this review will be a work in progress because of the magnitude of what the film represents (as far as Disney's latest attempt at a fairy tale)...

So we saw Tangled, and it brings up a multitude of emotions. Here are our basic thoughts...

1. It's a step in the right direction from A Princess and a Frog. Honestly, I had to fast-forward about 40% of Princess and a Frog for my 5 and unders (demons? and voo-doo? really?). (Plus the P&F characters were interesting, but they were all thrown together randomly as they wandered around, and it was really a frog movie - about 80% of it was them as frogs, and if you're going to do a frog movie, you should do it in 3D and really get us in the world of frogs better.) Read our Princess and the Frog review here. So Tangled is a step in the right direction. I think Tarzan was Disney's last great fairy tale (although Princess and a Frog was "good") and the last one to be so successful. Tangled isn't as good as Tarzan, but it probably fairs better than Hercules, Hunchback, and Pocahontas for me, which means Disney finally got back to making fairy tales the right way again.

2. It's doing well in the box office. More on that later, but the film is probably doing better than any Disney animated film since Tarzan (which isn't saying a ton, but still, it's something).

3. There's only one good number in it. By "number" I mean the combination of music, how memorable it is, and then the fun of what's happening during the song. And that's the tavern song (The Snugly Duckling song about dreams). Compare that to Little Mermaid (3 songs), Beauty and the Beast (4 songs), Aladdin (4 songs), and Lion King (4 songs). You do have to give them points for "Mother Knows Best" in Tangled, but it was hardly as memorable or likable as the Snugly Duckling song or the greats of those other Disney films (such as the Beauty and the Beast tavern song about Gaston or even Scar's song in Lion King; "Mother Knows Best" felt a little too like "let's do this classic song idea bit" rather than anything innovative).

4. Why is this an animation? You've got to ask yourself this. Why isn't this a live-action film? Every animation needs to answer this question. My wife said, "Because kids like those films better." Well that's not a reason to spend 3 times the money on it (and many more years) in order to animate it. But basically that's a rhetorical question that you need to ask during animation development. And I got the hint that they never asked it. That's the premise behind every Pixar film. They say, "What can we do with 3D animation that's hard or impossible in real life? Toys. Bugs. Monsters. Talking fish. Super heroes. Robots. Rats. Talking cars." Take a look at Cinderella (talking mice, Fairy Godmother, Lucifer, and various animals), Little Mermaid (mermaid, sebastian, flounder, Skuttle, etc.), Aladdin (Genie, Abu, Iago, carpet ride, magic lamp), Lion King (everything), Beauty and the Beast (Beast and when working on the film, they/Ashman asked that question, and that's how they came up with the enchanted household items/servants), Hunchback (castle top scenes and the gargoyles that come alive), and Tarzan (talking apes and elephant and some tree surfing effects). And then you have Tangled (magic and long hair effects, and a chameleon and horse with personalities). So in that sense, Tangled doesn't really have much of a reason to be an animation. This was also a problem in Pocahontas (talking tree, and a raccoon, a pug dog, and a hummingbird with personalities). For example, let's compare Timon, Lumiere, Dopey (who didn't talk), Genie, Flounder, Pascal from Tangled, and Mushu from Milan. Who is the most memorable as a character? The ones who talked. I'm not saying talking animals is the answer (Genie, Lumiere, Dopey, and Mushu weren't animals, and Dopey didn't talk), but they all were stronger characters who could express themselves (mostly through voice). Tangled didn't sell us its comedy sidekicks as well as past Disney films did (Tangled had great characters, but they won't be compared to those I listed above).

5. What actually happens? I can't help but leave the film thinking... yes, they filled the time with an interesting ongoing chase and interesting characters. But what actually happened? She was in a tower, left, fell in love, and went back. Hmmm. I really didn't seem to enjoy or get immersed in any one place or any one experience (except briefly in the Snugly Duckling tavern). It was just one ongoing sequence of chasing and backstabbery. That kept me interested, but it doesn't make me want to watch it again or tell my friends.

6. Great characters, but maybe they weren't used as well as they could have been. Despite my misgivings of the film, I loved the characters in Tangled. Rapunzel was darling and charming (even Mandy Moore's light lisp gave her personality), Lady Gothel was a wonderfully wicked villain who used the power of her scheming mind, Flynn was a fantastic hero, Pascal the Chameleon was hilarious and fun, and Maximus the horse was also a fantastic and fun character that made a nice twist. However, I couldn't help but want to see Flynn more before he met Rapunzel, Maximus before he met Flynn, what Lady Gothel does for fun and when she's away from Rapunzel, and even what the almost nonexistent King and Queen do and what they're like. The only character that I felt acquainted with enough was Rapunzel herself. Everybody else made me want to see them more outside this sequence of chases and backstabbery. It seems that if the main purpose of changing the title of the film from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" was to focus on Flynn and their relationship more, then, well, they kind of failed (except for the title change, of course), because this movie only told Rapunzel's story well enough. Which leads to...

7. Why change the name? Why call Rapunzel Tangled? It was clearly about Rapunzel. I felt like I barely knew Flynn, and it just made me want to see more of his past. Essentially they didn't show us a ton of Jasmine before she met Aladdin. But they showed us a few scenes to get us to like her and understand that she wants to run away. We didn't even get that with Flynn. All we got was the scene where he stole the crown. Sure, it was cool, but it wasn't enough. It certainly wasn't a reason to rename the fairy tale! So why did they? Answer: Because the lack of success from Princess and the Frog scared them. So they figured if you name the film after the princess then the film doesn't do well. WHAAAAT??? That's hogwash. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Cinderella. Sleeping Beauty. Little Mermaid. Pocahontas. Mulan. It's especially laughable because they purposefully butchered the Princess and the Frog name to begin with. It's The Frog Prince. That's the fairy tale. So just don't go out of your way to change the name and the underlying story (and don't make a frog movie that heavily features demons). That's what they should have learned from Princess and a Frog. Anyway...

8. Narrations aren't all that fun. Unfortunately, the movie begins with the narration. Sure, it works okay, but with cuts to the past like that, they could have lengthened out the King and Queen's scene a little for us to get to know them (you know, have them talk and stuff). And it would have been good to get to know Lady Gothel a bit as well. (But I did think it was clever how Flynn said he was d*********** at the beginning and how that played out later in the story.) In other words, the movie should begin with character and personality and emotion, not a narration.

9. Tangled looks fantastic. This could be my first compliment that isn't back-handed. =^)    - No negatives here. They nailed the 3D style of Disney's 2D animated fairy tale humans better than anyone (Shrek, Tinker Bell movies, Pixar, anyone). Hair is notoriously hard in 3D animation, and they pretty much flaunt it through most of the film. So much so that I eventually forgot that I was even looking at 3D hair and was immersed in the film. And I couldn't help but look at things like the singing rats in the tavern and all the people in the kingdom and think, "Wow, they really just made and animated whatever they wanted, even if it was only briefly on the screen." I mean, Pixar made a whole movie about rats, and then Tangled makes a few great ones and just throws them away on a few quick jokes. It's impressive. Okay, so here's a backhanded compliment: I loved the lighting and environments, but the lighting didn't impress me the way seeing the light on the fish above water at the pier in Finding Nemo did. (But no other lighting has impressed me like that did, to be fair.)

10. It's a fun thrill ride. It's a roller coaster and an awesome ride. So I have another positive point to give it. I have to admit it, I have never seen a thriller made for children before (you could probably argue that The Incredibles had thriller elements, but even that was more of an action-adventure, which is a feat in itself). And I never would have believed that it would work to make a thriller for children and families. But Tangled did it. They pulled it off better than I could ever imagine. This movie is one long thrill ride, and it's fun and exciting. Sure, they try to slow it down at parts with some songs, humor, and romance, but the movie never slows down. Previously I argued that the thrill/chase element is the main weakness of the film, and in many ways it is, because we lose the songs, pacing, and oportunities to dig deeper in the characters (as well as opportunities to make more use of the animated art form). Ah, there's the backhand. :) - However, if you take the movie as it is, then you'll find the best thriller made for children and families that could ever exist. Double backhand -- Therein lies a problem and another reason why it probably didn't do as well as it could have. Parents aren't scrambling to get their children to watch thrillers. Personally, I don't mind for my children, but yeah, I admit that thriller isn't my genre of choice for children.

Here's how I'd rank it with the other Disney Fairy Tales for me (1989 and later)...

1. Aladdin
2. Beauty and the Beast
3. Lion King
4. Tarzan
5. Little Mermaid
6. Mulan
7. Tangled
8. Pocohontas
9. Hercules
10. Princess and the Frog
11. Hunchback of Notre Dame
12. Brother Bear

Besting Pocahontas is still a phenomenal feat, but Pocahontas also suffered from a poor answer to "why is this an animation?" Their answer was similar to Tangled... a magical tree and animals that play around. Using animation to give animals personality works, but it doesn't bring characters to life the way the talking mice in Cinderella do, Flounder and Sebastian, Mushu in Mulan, Lumiere and Cogsworth, Chip and Mrs. Potts, Iago and the Genie, Timon and Pumbaa, and others.

And because I'm a Disney nut, here is the list with Disney's older fairy tales. It's hard to decide what a fairy tale is, but I'm basically adding in Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, Sword in the Stone, and Black Cauldron. Let me know if you think other films qualify as fairy tales.

So here's the list of my favorite Disney fairy tales (all time):

1. Aladdin
2. Beauty and the Beast
3. Cinderella
4. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
5. Lion King
6. Tarzan
7. Little Mermaid
8. Peter Pan
9. Pinocchio
10. Mulan
11. Tangled
12. Sleeping Beauty
13. Pocohontas
14. Sword in the Stone
15. Black Cauldron
16. Hercules
17. Princess and the Frog
18. Hunchback of Notre Dame
19. Brother Bear

I know, comparing some of these films is like comparing apples to oranges, especially classics without as strong romantic angles, like Pinocchio and Peter Pan. Plus, if you were going to eliminate the ones that were written as "novels" more recently, you'd eliminate Tarzan, Peter Pan (play), Pinocchio, Sword in the Stone, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Black Cauldron. And then, on those grounds, you'd have to eliminate Lion King because it's basically an original tale based on Hamlet, Pocahontas because it's a true story, and Princess and the Frog because it was inspired by the 2002 novel The Frog Princess. So it gets a little fuzzy. =^)

Read our Princess and the Frog review here.

I hope you watch Tangled if you haven't, and then tell us what you think of it! (And how our review stacks up.)

- The Emperor

Movie Review - Hotel for Dogs

by Alex Popp


Who let the dogs in?

Emma Roberts (the niece of Julia Roberts) and Disney Channel star Jake T. Austin play two orphans who learn what imagination can do in "Hotel for Dogs."

Animals are strictly forbidden at Andi and her little brother Bruce's foster home. But for Friday, the adorable dog they secretly care for, they're ready to risk everything. They finally find Friday an ideal shelter, a huge abandoned hotel that Bruce transforms thanks to his engineering genius. In what has become an incredible paradise for dogs, Friday is soon joined by all kinds of furry friends, so many in fact that their barks alert the neighbors...and the local pound, who can't understand the disappearance of all the stray dogs. Andi and Bruce will have to call on all their friends and all their imagination to stop the hotel's secret from being discovered.

"Hotel for Dogs" was actually slightly above my expectations. It gets more and more predictable as it goes along, but at the end I smiled, thinking, "This is the way we should be treating man's best friend." I am a dog-lover.

Rated PG for some crude humor and mild language.

Two and a half stars (out of four) for "Hotel for Dogs."

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.

Movie Review - Dear John

by Alex Popp



What would you do with a letter that changed everything?

Well, whatever you'd do, I would send it to change everything in the minds of those who disliked the movie "Dear John," based on the book by Nicholas Sparks, the author of "The Last Song" and "The Notebook." This was also the film that knocked "Avatar" off the number one spot in the Box Office after it stayed there for seven consecutive weeks.

Channing Tatum from "Step Up" plays a soldier in the U.S. Military who gets sent home for a while before he performs his last year fighting in the war. At home in South Carolina, he meets a college student, played by Amanda Seyfried, and in just two weeks they fall in love. The girl lives next door to a young boy named Alan, who is based on Nicholas Sparks' autistic son. The soldier's father also has Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. When the girl visits his house, his father is excited when she gets interested in what he likes doing the most: studying coins. After two weeks, though, the soldier has to go back to Germany to fight for one more year before he can go home permanantly. But on September 11, 2001, terrorists attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon, forcing him to stay in the war even longer. In the meantime, he and the girl are desperatly trying to keep each other in touch by letters.

For a film without much potential, my mom and I were impressed. "Dear John" is one of the best films I've seen in a while. It's even better than "The Last Song" and is deserving of more praise than it has received. Through three quarters of the movie, my mom and I cried like babies. I might even say this was the best love story since "Titanic." The real thing that struck me the most was the way they protrayed the soldier's father who had Asperger's Syndrome, as I do myself. And I think this movie gives people who have others in their family who are afflicted with Asperger's an idea of how to deal with them. If you do, by any chance, then this is the movie for you. Or if you're looking for a movie with a great love story, then I also recommend this one.

Rated PG-13 for sensuality and some war violence.

Four stars (out of four) for the appealing and poignant tear-jerker, "Dear John," definitely one of 2010's best.

Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.