Posted on May 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm
The Hub Network’s Villaintine’s Day Marathon airs this Friday, May 23 with episodes from “Littlest Pet Shop” featuring villain favorites The Biskit Twins (1–4 p.m. ET/10 a.m. – 1 p.m. PT) and from “My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic” featuring the notorious Discord (4–7 p.m. ET/1–4 p.m. PT). Here’s their cheeky tribute to the “Maleficent” trailer starring Angelina Jolie. Their version stars Discord!
Posted on May 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm
All the basic ingredients are there for a slam-bang summer monster movie. We have people in helmets and hazmat suits running to try to get away from something scary. We have a scientist pleading with a military officer to trust him and the guy in camo responding that he can’t take that chance. We have a guy everyone thinks is crazy who turns out to be right. We have mumbo-jumbo about radiation and bio-acoustics. We have a tentacle(?) tease 40 minutes in. We have a corporate/government cover-up. People say things like, “There’s been a breach,” and “I can prove to you and the world that this was not a natural disaster.” Oh, and “I’m going to find the truth and end this, whatever it takes.” And “It’s going to send us back to the stone age.”
Buildings will be destroyed and a bridge will collapse. People will be told to stay home and then traffic will be at a standstill as they all ignore directions. We have a lot of globe-hopping so that international forces can be involved and iconic skylines can be trashed. And, most important, we have a very, very big monster to do the trashing. Enormous ships will be tossed around like a rubber duckie in a bathtub.
What we don’t have is a very good story. And for a movie with a lot of destruction, not enough of a sense of real investment in the outcome. The good news about CGI is that you can make anything happen on screen. The bad thing is that everyone knows you can make anything happen, so at a fundamental level, it does not feel real.
“Godzilla” begins promisingly, with a terrific opening credit sequence over “archival” footage and glimpses of redacted government reports. And ash, lots of ash, detritus from atomic fallout, pretty cool in 3D. Then there’s a little backstory. In 1999 we see the discovery of a skeleton in a Philippine mine. The rib cage is the size of an apartment building. And there’s goop! If there’s one thing we’ve learned from monster movies over years, it has to be DON’T TOUCH THE GOOP.
Meanwhile, still in 1999, we get our introduction to the adorable family — there always has to be an adorable family — living near a nuclear energy plant in Japan who will provide the emotional core of the film. There’s loving American father (Bryan Cranston) Joe Brody, distracted by some inexplicable but rhythmic tremors. There’s loving French wife (Juliette Binoche), who also works at the plant. And there’s a son, cute tyke Ford. “Earthquakes are random, jagged,” Joe explains. What he is hearing is “consistent and increasing.” We know he will have a hard time persuading his bosses, but we know he is right. And soon tragedy strikes and the cooling towers collapse. The entire community is contaminated and shut down.
Fifteen years later, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson of “Kick-Ass”) is coming back from a military deployment where his job is “stopping bombs.” After he has an adorable reunion with his own adorable wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son, he gets a call. Joe has been arrested in Japan, where he is still obsessed with finding the truth about what happened. He has a crazy room with walls covered in clippings connected by string to show the various conspiracies. Ford thinks his dad is nuts. He’s about to find out that he is right.
I don’t want to give away any monster spoilers here, so I’ll just say that there are some surprises for anyone not thoroughly immersed in “Godzilla” lore. I liked seeing the creature pop nuclear warheads into his mouth like Popeye knocks back spinach. And it steps things up nicely when the monster’s power charge shorts out the grids. The special effects are excellent, though only a high-altitude/low opening parachute jump makes full use of the 3D. But the story is weak and the characters are cardboard. The original 1954 “Godzilla” resonated because it personified (monstronified?) our then-new fears about the atomic age. With so many contemporary scares about environmental damage, they should have been able to find something equally potent.
Parents should know that this is a sci-fi movie in the tradition of all monster movies, with extensive mayhem,scary surprises, some disturbing images, and many characters injured and killed. There is some strong language.
Family discussion: What made the scientist and the military come to different conclusions — information or training? What was the significance of the pocket watch?
If you like this, try: the original Japanese “Godzilla” movies
Posted on May 8, 2014 at 6:00 pm
“Oh, Toto,” says Dorothy (“Glee’s” Lea Michelle), “This doesn’t look like the Oz I remember.”
Tell it, sister.
Why why why why why take the most beloved family film of all time, based on a cherished book, and make a charmless sequel based, not on the other books by the original author, but on a story by the original author’s stockbroker grandson?
The original The Wizard of Oz
Here is what is not too bad. The voice talent is excellent, with Broadway divas Bernadette Peters (as Glinda) and Megan Hilty (China Princess), a kindly Patrick Stewart (a tree), a dashing Hugh Dancy (Marshal Mallow — he’s a marshmallow, get it?), Martin Short as the wicked Jester, and shambling Oliver Platt as an enormous owl called Wiser (names are not this film’s strong point, either). The opening credits spin out of a 3D tornado that is pretty nifty.
That’s about it. The animation is garish and uninspired. The songs range from forgettable to not awful. The story is dreary. And the dialog is painful. “Emerald City needs all the heart and courage it can get right now!” says the Scarecrow (Dan Aykroyd) to the Tin Man (Kelsey Grammar) and the Lion (Jim Belushi) — Cowardly has been dropped from his name. This is apparently a cue for some excruciating bro-talk like “Can it, rust-bucket!” Can you imagine a line like “I have a large piece of bark lodged in my hindquarters” in the original? TMI, Wiser, way TMI. The attempts at humor are especially tough going. When Dorothy is hauled into court, she has to face the “peanut gallery” of candy peanuts and a jury of her peeps made up of Peeps. When Wiser says he is scared of the dark, the response is, “You’re nocturnal. Get a grip.” Oh, and the flying monkeys are here, and their leader has a pink mohawk.
Emerald City is indeed in trouble and they need Dorothy’s help. In Oz, years have passed, but back in Kansas it is the morning after the tornado and yet taking place in modern times — Auntie Em wears jeans. Dorothy’s house has been destroyed and this movie’s version of Agnes Gulch is an appraiser (Short again) who says he is “government-adjacent” and condemns all the property in the area. Before Dorothy can do something about this, she and Toto are whisked through a rainbow vacuum tube and find themselves back in Oz.
It turns out the Wicked Witches of the East and West had a brother, the Jester. He is capturing people and turning them into marionettes, so he can take over Oz. He has even captured Glinda, using the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West plus a magical orb that intensifies its power.
Dorothy and Toto meet up with Wiser, Marshal Mallow, and China Princess on their journey. They have dreary adventures and finally arrive for the confrontation with the Jester, which is surprisingly violent for a film for children. Weapons include a sort of gatling gun. The China princess appears to shatter. But all is resolved, finally, so that Dorothy can go home and set that appraiser guy to rights.
The best one can hope for from this movie is that it will be a potent deterrent to those who want to try to make more Oz movies, and a powerful reminder to families that they can best go over the rainbow by watching the classic.
Parents should know that this movie has fantasy violence and peril and scenes of post-storm destruction.
Family discussion: What could Dorothy do that the others could not? How did what she learned in Oz help her back home?
If you like this, try: the Judy Garland “Wizard of Oz” and the books by L. Frank Baum (great for family reading aloud)
Posted on April 30, 2014 at 1:00 pm
B+| Lowest Recommended Age: | Middle School |
| MPAA Rating: | Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action/violence |
| Profanity: | Some mild language |
| Alcohol/ Drugs: | None |
| Violence/ Scariness: | extended comic book/superhero violence with characters in peril, injured and killed, chases, explosions, bombs, very sad deaths |
| Diversity Issues: | Diverse characters |
| Date Released to Theaters: | May 2, 2014 |
| Date Released to DVD: | August 18, 2014 |
| Amazon.com ASIN: | B00JPS7HOA |
This is not the angsty Spidey we know. Just like the old television series theme song said, Peter Parker is “your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.” We first see him exuberantly swinging through the skyscrapers, deliciously vertiginous in 3D. His disposition is so sunny that he cheerfully greets a crook driving a truck filled with highly volatile stolen cargo with a happy, “Hi, Criminal!” and, when his offer of a handshake gets no response, offers a hug.
But then it’s down to business, with a gloriously witty and dexterous action scene as Spidey (Andrew Garfield) has to use his web to scoop up every one of the explosive vials rattling out of the truck before they hit the ground. No more of the dreary re-cap of the origin story that weighed down chapter one. We’re in it right from the beginning.
All seems to be going well for Peter, though this little fracas is making him late for graduation (not important) and the valedictory speech delivered by his true love, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). The special effects and action scenes are just fine in this film, but what makes it qualify as “amazing” is the chemistry between real-life couple Garfield and Stone, so electrifying that even super-villain Electro (Jamie Foxx), master of all power sources, seems to fizzle by comparison. The warmth (and downright heat) between the two leads make this far and away the most romantic superhero movie ever. As performers, they understand and respond to each other so completely in synch that we are immediately engaged in whatever is going on between them. They never waste time with the usual movie couple worries about how they feel about one another or whether they can trust each other or whether she knows and understands who he really is. “You’re Spider-Man and I love that. But I love Peter Parker more,” she tells him.
They have a bigger problem.
Peter is literally haunted by visions of Gwen’s late father (Denis Leary), who made Peter promise he would not put Gwen at risk by letting her become involved with him. Gwen is understandably frustrated with his struggle, and especially with his insistence that the decision is up to him. And, while she completely supports all of his crime-fighting activities (another refreshing departure from the usual storyline — no “I’m worried about you” or “Be careful”), she is committed to her own dreams, which may take her to England to study at Oxford.
Oh, and there are a couple of super-villains coming after Spidey, too.
If that seems like an afterthought, the movie makes it feel that way, too. It raises our expectations by starting right in the middle of the action and getting the obligatory Stan Lee appearance out of the way early (though not foregoing a corny line of dialog). But then it turns out to be a bit over-long at two and a half hours, and the big confrontation scenes are oddly truncated at the end. Normally, the most important character in a superhero movie is the villain (hello, Tom Hiddleston as Loki). For mostly better but sometimes worse, the main character in “Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the Peter-Gwen romance. It is more than fine; it is great. But it is so powerful that it throws off the rest of the film.
As we often see in movies with young male heroes, there are plenty of daddy issues for everyone. Gwen and Peter have both lost their fathers (Peter has also lost his surrogate father, Uncle Ben), and Peter’s old friend Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) loses his (Chris Cooper) early in the film. Peter finds out more about his late father (Campbell Scott), uncovering a cool secret hideaway, though it takes too long for him to figure it all out. Peter and Harry have a great moment of awkward reconnection before falling into a familiar pattern of bro-talk. But Harry is sick, and he is convinced that the only thing that can keep him alive is a transfusion of Spider-Man’s blood. Spider-Man visits him to explain why that can’t happen, but is unable to persuade the desperate Harry. “Your blood can’t make me die more.”
Meanwhile, the shy, nebbishy Max Dillon (Foxx), overlooked and mistreated, has (of course, this is Marvel) a lab accident that turns him into a blue glowy guy (reminiscent of “Watchman’s” Dr. Manhattan) who can channel and harness all power sources. The problem with this character is that both his powers and his motivations are underwritten and he just does not have enough to do until too late in the film. Dane DeHaan is well cast as the spoiled rich kid who is bitter and wounded by his father’s neglect, and thank goodness his supervillain make-up and super-space-skateboard-y thing is much better than Willem-Dafoe’s. But again, we wait a long time for him. Paul Giamatti is wasted in a small part, much of which takes place inside a big robot that could have come from the final confrontation in “The Incredibles.”
But those big, swoopy swings through the skyscrapers and terrific performances by Garfield and Stone make this a great way to start the summer movie season. (And you don’t have to sit through all the credits — no stinger scene at the end.)
Parents should know that this film has extended comic book/superhero violence with characters in peril, injured and killed, chases, explosions, bombs, and sad deaths of a parent and a major character.
Family discussion: Should Peter have kept his promise to Gwen’s father? How did learning the truth about his own father make a difference to Peter? Could Peter have changed Harry’s mind?
If you like this, try: “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Avengers”
Posted on April 12, 2014 at 7:40 pm
This haunting, provocative film is the essence of what it means to call a work of art “adult,” not because of its explicit nudity and sexual situations but because of the way it presents and engages with them. It is fearless, it assumes the audience would rather ponder the questions than be fed the answers, and it has a performance of extraordinary sensitivity and insight from Scarlett Johansson as — well, we are not sure exactly what her character is or indeed if character is the right word.
We are unsure of what is going on right from the beginning, a beam of light with a dot that looks like an eye test. Is it a faraway planet or a star? Is it coming toward us? The only thing we know about where we are is that we will have to figure it out for ourselves and will never be sure if we are right. A man pulls the body of a fishnet stocking-wearing young woman out of a wooded area and loads her into a van. We then see a completely blank place, as though standing in front of a seamless, unpainted backdrop, not so much a space as an absence of everything except a naked young woman removing the clothes from the body. She is clinical and efficient manner if not especially experienced. Soon, she is wearing the clothes and shopping for more, including a fur jacket.
The young woman is beautiful, desirable. She drives around Glasgow, asking men for directions in a light London accent. As they chat, she finds out if they are on their way to meet friends or go home to family. When one says he is alone, she invites him to ride with her. Soon they are back in another void, this one black. He walks toward her, removing his clothes. She walks backward. In one of the most striking images we will see this year, she stays on one level as he begins to sink into liquid. And soon she is out in the van again, still asking for directions, luring another man to his death.
As the woman/alien (we never learn her name) goes about her tasks, at first she is like The Terminator, utterly single-minded, proceeding exactly according to formula. But she begins to develop — what is it? — doubts? Curiosity? She moves from the fur jacket to leather, to cloth, as she begins to be less willing? less able? to keep killing these men. She tries to partake of some human pleasures, but cannot, and finds herself lost, not one or the other or anything in between.
The imagery is powerful, with much made of eyes, reflections, blankness, and the Scottish landscape. Johansson gives a performance of tremendous subtlety, depth, sensitivity, and control, perhaps a reflection of years spent, like the creature she portrays, in the superficial seduction of being a star.
Adapted from the novel by Michel Faber
Parents should know that this movie includes very adult material, with graphic nudity and explicit sexual references and situations and violence including sexual assault. Characters drink, smoke, and use strong language.
Family discussion: Who is this character? Who is her companion? Why are they doing this? What makes her think about trying some of what humans enjoy?
If you like this, try: “Birth” by the same director, and some other films about aliens coming to earth like “Mars Attacks,” “Starman” and “What Planet Are You From?”
