Up

Copyright 2009, Disney/Pixar

You know, it's a funny thing. Today's the day that the box office estimates for the most recent weekend (read: the one that's not over yet) are reported. To my surprise, there were a fair amount of people on these here Interwebs who actually thought it possible that Up, the tenth feature film from Pixar Animation Studios, would end up grossing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million dollars or less in its opening weekend. Of course, by the time I made my way over this morning to pick up tickets for the 3-D presentation of Up, I'd already read that such naysaying was coming to no avail: as of right now, Up has grossed an estimated 68 million dollars, which makes it the third-highest-grossing opening weekend for Pixar.

Still, even if I didn't know that number, I wouldn't have been too surprised. See, I went to pick up tickets for an 11:30 A.M. showing of the film around 9:00 A.M. The first 3-D show of the morning was at 9, and by the time the lights in the theater were dark, the movie was sold out. Now, for context, I'll tell you that my local AMC doesn't have 3-D technology in its biggest theatre (their biggest theatre has a capacity of over 450 people, whereas the 3-D theater has only 170), but still. A Sunday morning at 9...sold out. By the time I got in line for the movie at 10:50, the 11:30 show was sold out; when my wife and I left the theatre at 1:30, the 2:00 show was sold out. Such business does not denote a 50 million or lower opening.

Don't be worried, by the way, that my time spent on talking about box office and sold-out shows means I'm about to burst the balloon of immensely rave reviews and say that Up isn't a good movie. No, Up is far better than good; like all of its Pixar predecessors, the film is not only a marvel of animation, but lots of fun to sit through. Not once did I look at my watch (it's a rare thing that I don't these days); even if I didn't have on the 3-D glasses would I have succumbed to this temptation. I was excited, thrilled, moved, and delighted. Encapsulating all of the best parts of Pixar films, Up is quite possibly the most universally entertaining film these people have ever made.

Not just because two of the three lead human characters are senior citizens is Up an all-ages success. Kids can delight not only at the colorful settings but laugh at Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner, in a finely tuned performance that is both childlike and prickly) and all of the wacky characters who surround him. Adults will laugh at some of the more clever sight gags (such as the artistic touchstone of dogs playing poker) and maybe even well up a few tears at the very real portrayal of a man still pining for his late wife. Coming after Ratatouille, a movie about a feisty rat who wanted to cook in Paris, and WALL-E, a movie about a silent robot that inadvertently saves the human race while trying to find his true love, Up is a movie that more people may be able to relate to, a movie that more people may want to see again.

Speaking of which, I am very curious to check out Up in 2-D. Now, unlike some critics, I didn't have a single problem with the 3-D presentation of the film. I realize that a few folks were worried about the overall color dimming, but the only time I noticed this effect was during the non 3-D material that came before the film. The reason I'd like to check the film out without the blocky 3-D glasses is because I'd like to see what the experience is. As my wife pointed out, there's not a whole lot of cheap trickery at play here. Directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson (who also wrote the script with actor/writer/director Tom McCarthy) don't feel it necessary to remind us that the movie is in 3-D, which is a nice surprise. Still, I wonder if the balloons that surround Carl, the snipe he and an 8-year old stowaway find in a mythical place in South America, or even that mythical place would look markedly different in 2-D.

Anyone who reads this blog or my work on Box Office Prophets knows that I am nothing if not a Pixar nut. I certainly don't love each of the Pixar films (need I mention Cars again?), but I'm a big fan. Safe to say, I was predisposed to like this movie. What I find most fascinating about Up is that, in many ways, it is the most adult, the most mature film from the studio. Putting characters in various positions of peril is not something Disney shies away from, whether it's Dumbo being put in a cage, Bambi's mother getting killed, or Mufasa being pushed into a stampede of wildebeest by his brother. It's rare, though, that a movie from the Mouse House, within its first 10 minutes, shows a character finding out that she's infertile and then dying. It's also rare for one of the lead characters to talk about his parents being divorced without actually saying so. From overhearing a couple chatty kids behind me in the theatre, it's safe to say that some parents will have a bit of explaining to do on the ride home. Now, not having kids of my own, I won't do anything but applaud the choices made by Docter, Peterson, and company here. Maybe the tune will change when I'm the one struggling to explain why a woman can't have kids.

No matter. Though it may challenge the youngest ones in an audience, Up is a sensational film, a surprisingly funny and moving picture, with enough moments that are worthy of cheers. You probably already know the basic plot (old man lifts house up with balloons and heads to South America), but the slightly more intricate facets are worth the surprise. Of course, I wish that critics had kept their mouths shut about the opening section, which is not only the most realistic material Pixar's put on screen but the most emotional. With only Michael Giacchino's score to provide the sound (and what a phenomenal score it is), we see how Carl, once a shy boy in love with exploring lost worlds, met a similarly-minded girl named Ellie, fell in love with her, got married, had a normal life together, and put their dreams of traveling to Paradise Falls (that mythical place I mentioned earlier) aside. One day, Ellie passed away, leaving behind a bitter and old husband behind. Their trip to Paradise Falls was close to coming to fruition, but as it always happened, life got in the way.

Carl ends up living in the same house he's lived in with Ellie for years, but by himself, in more ways than one. The entire neighborhood has been bought out by a construction company; though Carl refuses to give up his land, when he inadvertently injures a construction worker, he's forced out. Since he was a balloon salesman his whole life, the man has the tools for escape and uses them. That he is accidentally joined by Russell, a chubby little boy who stows away while performing his duties as a Wilderness Explorer, just compounds Carl's grumpiness. They land in Paradise Falls after a time and...well, avoid any spoilers if you can. It's not like we're dealing with an episode of Lost or something, but there are some times in movies where it's worth not knowing everything that happens.

As with WALL-E, the cast here is relatively small. Aside from the perfect Asner, Christopher Plummer (as the famed explorer Charles Muntz), Jordan Nagai (as Russell), Delroy Lindo (as a henchman) and John Ratzenberger (as a construction worker) are the most major players here. I would be remiss if I forgot Bob Peterson himself, who voices a few dogs that Muntz owns, dogs that can talk thanks to a specialized collar. Peterson's very funny here, but again...I don't want to ruin the fun. Up is just as much a love story as last year's WALL-E, as much of an adventure as The Incredibles, and as emotionally gratifying as Finding Nemo. Though I'm not ready to yet dub Up the best Pixar's ever made, the film easily lands in the top five, if not higher. Finally, as the fifth month of 2009 arrives, we have found a great film, the best of the year so far.

A Look Back at The Incredibles

Copyright 2004, Disney/Pixar

First of all, apologies for stretching this out so long. I have still not yet re-watched the 2007 classic Ratatouille, the other Brad Bird-directed Pixar film, and will be making a pilgrimage to the local multiplex tomorrow to see, in digital 3-D, Up. There will definitely be a review of the latter film tomorrow; I've decided, though to forego a look back at WALL-E, partly because I'm not sure I'd have anything truly insightful to say on the subject that I didn't say back in late December. That said, let's begin.

Brad Bird was the first, and only (at this point), person to make a movie at Pixar without being a product of the animation studio. Yes, animation fans will know very well that Bird was good friends with John Lasseter and another future Pixar folk during his time at CalARTS, but even the 10th Pixar release, Up, was created by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, two men who have worked on every Pixar film in some way. Having someone like Bird make a Pixar movie isn't just comforting because you know his background (Family Dog, The Simpsons, and The Iron Giant are among his impressive filmography); it helps because Pixar is acknowledging that they alone do not corner the market on creativity.

And, in many ways, honing creativity, that special gift that may elude many of us, is what The Incredibles is all about. This 2004 superhero epic has a lot of fun subverting the genre while also providing the goods, with some slam-bang action sequences. However, Bird is far more interested with the state of the American person. We live in a society where mediocrity isn't shunned, but awarded. Though Mr. Incredible, or his alter ego Bob Parr, believes that truly special people are the ones who lose out, he's more frustrated that, for example, his son Dash is graduating the 8th grade and a ceremony is necessary. Why does that have to be celebrated in as serious a fashion as a high school or college graduation? Though Pixar easily stepped out of being strictly for children with its second Toy Story film, a movie like The Incredibles leaves kids in the dust. How will an eight-year old be able to relate with the point Bird is trying to make?

I say "trying," because one of the only flaws, and certainly a forgivable one, with The Incredibles is that the point isn't made very well. Think of how the movie ends: after triumphing as a family over the villainous Syndrome, the Parr family goes back to normal life, watching Dash in a track and field meet, encouraging him to not go too fast and, eventually, end up in second. Bob has spent the entire movie trying to convince his wife, Helen (also known as Elastigirl), that the kids should try and be special, that their talents should be encouraged. Oh, sure, Dash is finally on the team, but...shouldn't he be winning? Why should the family go back to a relative amount of normalcy? Granted, at the end of the meet, they're ready to do battle with the Underminer, but it's hard to believe the rant against mediocrity when Dash is meant to lose, if only by a few feet.

Flaw aside, The Incredibles is one of the most fun movies Pixar's made. Though all of their films are about adventure in some way (yes, Ratatouille is the most low-key film in this respect, but being in a Parisian kitchen is an adventure all its own), Bird's creation takes about 30 minutes to get going; once Bob, as Mr. Incredible, has traveled to Nomanisan, the mysterious island that Syndrome calls home, the movie never stops its relentless pace. The action sequences, from Mr. Incredible's first encounter with the smartest robot ever created to Dash's headlong run through the island, are frenetic, colorful, and thrilling to watch. In his first outing as composer with Pixar, Michael Giacchino (on a roll these days, with his work on Star Trek, Fringe, Lost, and even Up) provides a jazzy, bouncy score that harkens back to the 1960s and 1970s.

The voice cast, while not uber-popular (the biggest name is Samuel L. Jackson, and he only appears in about 20 minutes of the movie), is excellent. Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter are both powerful and browbeaten as Mr. and Mrs. Incredible, a loving married couple whose spats are painful because of how real they sound. Jason Lee, as Syndrome, is probably the best actor to pull off a line such as "You sly dog! You got me monologuing!" Moreover, the animation of these characters is realistic enough; this film was the first with humans as the focal point, and it's easy to see how far the technology and craftmanship has come since they created Andy, his sister, and his mother in 1995's Toy Story.

Overall, The Incredibles, which currently boasts the highest opening-weekend gross for any Pixar film (though it's Finding Nemo that is still the highest-grossing film of all), is a fun, sly piece of entertainment. Of all of the Pixar movies, this is the one that demands a sequel, and would be easiest to create. The characters are just about as prickly and realistic as those in Ratatouille, the story is exciting and surprisingly relatable, and the whole film is one of the best Pixar's ever made. I dare not use the obvious pun on the title, but....well, you know what I mean.

Terminator Salvation

Copyright 2009, Warner Bros. Pictures

At its best, Terminator Salvation is too mediocre for its own good. At its worst, the fourth film in the Terminator series is howlingly bad, a groaner that will live on in late-night cable television, an utter obscurity. Think of it this way: how well do you remember 2003's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Six years from now, you will remember Terminator Salvation just as strongly.

Now, to be fair to the director of this latest entry, McG, things could have been...worse. I'm not sure how much worse (although the supposed alternate ending, in which John Connor, under the guise of Marcus Wright, kills everyone sounds like a terrible idea), but...yeah, the movie could have been more awful. As it stands, the film stands as an embarrassment for the more respected people involved in the process. For a guy like McG, who still finds it hard for people to take him seriously thanks to his goofy nickname (and buddy, if you've got a problem with that, just use your FULL NAME), it's hard to be too critical. I mean, let's be frank: I've seen both Charlie's Angels movies, and compared to them, Terminator Salvation is a masterpiece.

Let's start with Christian Bale, who stars as John Connor, the famed leader of the human resistance against the Terminators and other machines concocted by Skynet, a military defense program that becomes self-aware and goes crazy against its creators. Now, rumor has it that Bale was originally approached to play Marcus Wright, the convict who donates his body to Cyberdyne, the company that created Skynet, right before being executed. I'm not sure that Bale is great as John Connor, but how much better could he have been as Wright? The man who plays the latter character, Australian newcomer Sam Worthington (who will be seen later this year in James Cameron's Avatar), isn't all bad; in fact, as soon as he can control the accent of the character he's playing in a film, he'll be pretty interesting to watch.

But back to Bale. Think back, if you can, to this past January. A most infamous audio recording that now lives in YouTube infamy was revealed; in it, Bale goes apeshit on the director of photography for Terminator Salvation, Shane Hurlbut. The context that was later provided for this rant was that Hurlbut was walking through a scene that Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard (as Kate Connor, John's pregnant wife) were attempting to go through, a scene that was apparently so intense that Bale wasn't able to calm himself down because of how riled up he'd made himself to make sure the performance worked. About halfway through Terminator Salvation, I realized that I wasn't completely sure that scene had occurred yet. As it stood, Bale and Howard weren't on screen together much, and their time together consisted of hugging, kissing, and...well, not much else. The only other major scene the characters share together has been slightly spoiled in the TV spots (suffice to say, one of the many famous one-liners associated with this franchise appears). Guess what? Not an intense scene. Now, my moviegoing friend pointed out that the scene may well have been cut, but...come on. How could such an "intense" scene be excised from a movie that tries so very hard to be...intense?

In short, what we have here is a situation where the people involved tried too hard to make things seem more weighty than they were. McG promised fans that this film would be rated R, and it's rated PG-13. He mentioned that Jonathan Nolan, the man who co-wrote The Dark Knight, was behind the script; though Nolan is considered an integral part, the sole credited writers are John Brancato and Michael Ferris. And let's get to that script. One of the reasons I can't beat up too hard on a guy like McG is because, I presume, he didn't write some of the truly awful clunkers this movie offers up. "Now I know what death tastes like." "We have to stay alive...in HERE and in HERE." I don't want to keep recounting these lines for fear that I get a massive headache, but you get the idea. One of the many reasons that this new Terminator fails is because of how bad the dialogue is. Christian Bale, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anton Yelchin (as the uber-important Kyle Reese), and Helena Bonham Carter (yes, that Helena Bonham Carter) are all great actors, but if you give them shit to say, they can only do so much.

Another major flaw the film has is that it just makes no sense. Now, I realize that, in some ways, none of the movies in this franchise make sense. We're talking about movies that feature so much time traveling, they bend in on themselves. But, and if you can answer me this, you win a shiny nickel...how, in the year 2018, could Skynet know that Kyle Reese is the father of John Connor? Now, as audience members with a presumed knowledge of the series, we know this is true. We know that, at some point in his life, Kyle Reese will be a very important person. But how does Skynet know in 2018? At this point, Kyle is established as a goofy teenager who hasn't earned his stripes yet (literally, by the way, in one of the dumber stories). How do they know? And, even if they do, why do they waste time by not killing him when they have the chance?

Lots of unanswered questions pop up here, but if you've ever wanted to know how John got that scar of his that we see in the second Terminator film, you will know. If you want to know what Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like in a slightly cartoonish state, you will know. If you want to know what kind of movie makes T3 look like a classic, you will know. And, if you want to know how shameless McG and company are with regards to stretching this series out as far as it can go, oh my God, you will know.

Over-Rated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!

Or something like that. Someone at Box Office Prophets isn't happy with my choices of overrated movies, but you should still check it out...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11651

Well, Shucks

Or, gosh. Or, gee whiz. All phrases one Jimmy Stewart would say, the man profiled in this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11634

A Day Late

But still awesome. It's this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11624

TV Musings

This coming week is not only the week before the wife and I head off to Disneyland (six days, and not even that much when you consider the fact that, within six days' time, we'll already be in Anaheim), but it's the upfront week for network television, when we all find out if our favorite shows are saved for another year, cancelled, or left off into summer limbo.

Thanks (and I do mean that more seriously now than I would a week or two before) to the decision made by Ben Silverman and the flywheels at NBC to reveal most of its new shows two weeks ago, there have been far more announcements of shows that will return for a new season and, unlike most years, the four networks--ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC--have decided to all take a heaping does of crazy juice and renew shows that--Shocker!--actually deserve it based on quality.

Dollhouse, the latest Joss Whedon drama that would presumably die a painful death after a short first season, has been renewed, though the official placement won't be known until this time tomorrow. But, this show got renewed. The fact that it is, by and large, one of the lowest-rated network shows no longer matters, thanks to TiVo, Hulu, and various other options people have to watch this and other TV shows. I've been too lazy as of late, so I wasn't able to write up a post about this show--an odd drama starring Eliza Dushku as both a completely blank slate and anyone in the world--as being the best drama worth saving. That it lives for at least 13 more episodes surprises and pleases me greatly.

Better Off Ted, the most recent show from Victo Fresco, the man who created Andy Richter Controls the Universe, the best comedy you didn't watch in the last few years, was renewed by ABC. Its ratings weren't that great (the key rating, adults aged 18-49, was averaging around 1.8 on its normal timeslot, which isn't anything to brag about), and yet it lives. This was the best comedy worth saving, and it's saved. Only a month ago, I would watch this show, laugh my ass off, and then grumble about the seemingly obvious fact that the show wouldn't make it past its inaugural year. I'm thrilled that ABC is taking the chance on this show for another year.

And part of that chance is being taken presumably because, for better or worse, ABC has renewed Scrubs for a ninth season. Granted, the show's lead, Zach Braff, will only appear in six episodes, and Sarah Chalke would--if at all--appear in six episodes, and Judy Reyes has yet to be approached, and Neil Flynn is on another show, but...well, OK, it may not have been the wisest move for ABC, but if it means another few episodes that may be good, I'm thrilled.

Finally, though I may have mentioned CBS, the last network I'll touch on is NBC (I don't watch a single CBS show, and could care less if the network vanished), which has just renewed Chuck. This is a show loved by many--liked by me, loved by the wife--that got saved, and rightfully so. If basing it solely on ratings, if a show like Southland, which has been tanking as of late, gets a second season, Chuck oughta get a third. The budget may be lower, but I doubt the quality will be the same.

But...seriously, why didn't the execs take crazy juice when Arrested Development was on? I mean, come on!

Reading is Fundamental

But, sometimes, the movies get it right. This week's A-List, Movies Based on Books, straight from Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11613

Star Trek (2009)

Copyright 2009, Paramount Pictures

What the eleventh feature in the Star Trek series, with only those two words in the title, truly is could be categorized as great fun. No, not every film in the series is fun to sit through, and some Trekkers may argue that fun isn't what these movies are supposed to be, but let's just let them suffer through this film in frustrated silence. Only a curmudgeon could sit through Star Trek and not have a fantastic two hours at the movies.

I suppose I ought to double back and explain here that I am not a dedicated Trekker nor am I a complete know-nothing when it comes to the franchise. I was born in 1984, so my first major exposure came with the second TV series, Star Trek: The Next Generation. I can't honestly remember having seen a full episode of the original series, though I'm sure I have. Thus, there was never really any contest: Picard was a much better captain. I've seen all but one of the movies (that would be the oft-loathed first film from 1979); as a heads-up, after the Pixar and Bourne retrospectives end, I'm going to go through all ten Star Trek films, with this as a kind of inaugural start.

And yet, I'm not sure I wouldn't have wanted to see this newest film in the series, partly thanks to the phenomenal final trailer that ends with a lengthy shot of a missile heading straight for a Federation starship. How could I resist a film from J.J. Abrams, whose star continues to rise, what with his successful TV series, Lost and Fringe (kudos to the latter show for a great finale, by the way), and his feature debut, Mission: Impossible III, which was a fun action film with some great performances.

I specified that it was the final full trailer that got me excited, because the first full trailer almost completely turned me off. For some reason, the folks who made the trailer thought it wasn't just right to showcase the actors playing James Kirk and Spock (Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto), but that the scenes with the two should show them fighting each other. Because that's what I want to see; two great friends, before they're buddies, beating the crap out of each other. Great. To be fair, I wasn't ever completely thrilled with either casting decision, partly because I'm not impressed with Pine's previous work and Quinto seemed to be channeling his TV character, Sylar, in the trailer.

The trailer was mighty deceptive. Oddly, those scenes of them in the middle of a fight is from one and only one scene about two-thirds of the way through the movie, and the reason why Kirk goads Spock into the skirmish makes far more sense. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start here: my presumptions about Pine and Quinto were dead wrong. Pine, in particular, is a born star, full of charisma, charm, and snark. I'm not well versed enough in the franchise to say he's a better Kirk than William Shatner was, but he makes the character work on a completely different level than Shatner ever could. There are plenty of little plot points here that you could question, specifically why the captain of a starship would make a stowaway the first officer in his absence, but when you already know that Kirk has to be the captain of the Enterprise, you're willing to forgive. I never thought I'd say this, but I want to see Pine's next film to make sure it's just the one movie that he dominates in.

Quinto is also great, as the conflicted Spock, younger and more snippy than he was even in the original series. He never feels awkward as the logical half-human, half-Vulcan, even selling the infamous Vulcan salute. Quinto sells the imperiousness of the character along with the confusion and frustration. Seeing the younger version of the character get goaded into showing emotion is not only a great bit of foreshadowing, but the older version seems just as willing to let himself go. In fact, the whole cast here, from top to bottom, is excellent. I want to make special mention for Simon Pegg, who shows up late in the film as Scotty and steals the show; Zoe Saldana, as the flirty and coy Uhura; and Eric Bana, as Nero, the head villain, who sets the movie in motion by traveling through time in a black hole and blowing up the ship that holds one First Officer George Kirk, whose sole act as captain of a starship is to evacuate everyone, including his wife, who gives birth to James Kirk as the ship explodes.

The plot is, as it goes with anything Abrams is involved in, a bit too complicated to go into, but Nero killing the elder Kirk sets all the characters from the starship Enterprise into a completely different reality. Tribbles? Haven't happened yet and may never happen. Klingons? Not yet. Khan? Well...who knows? Of course, the movie does end with all of our favorite characters on the Enterprise with Kirk at the helm, but still, the possibilities are endless and I can't wait to see what Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmann do for the 2011 sequel. Kudos to the whole cast and crew for making Star Trek popular. Cliched as it may be, I'm ready to end this review by declaring the 2009 summer movie season officially on. Here's hoping the rest are as good as this one.

It's Coming, It's Coming

Yes, the review of Star Trek is coming, thanks to the hourlong filler special of Lost in one hour (cannot wait for the finale!), but for now, read the third part of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11610

OK, I'm Guilty

No review of the big Enterprise flick today. Tomorrow, I promise. For now, read Part II of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11606

The Final Frontier

So, Star Trek came out this weekend, and kicked ass at the box office and in general (a review is coming tomorrow, but know that I loved it). Read about it and other topics at the Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11602

Where's The Canary?

You know? Oh, then, you don't know. The canary's in here.

And...scene. I hope you enjoyed my replay of the only lines I remember by memory from 1946's Gilda, which I reviewed for Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11596

Watch Dollhouse tonight at 8/7 central!

You Get a Franchise, and You Get a Franchise, and You Get a Franchise

Franchise films, the ones that are good, are the topic of this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11593

Read!

Now, Wolverine Sings!

Well, probably not in the second part of Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets, but you should read it just to double-check...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11582

A Look Back at Cars

Copyright 2009, Disney-Pixar

Cars, the seventh feature film from Pixar Animation Studios, holds a special place in my heart, but not the kind you'd think: it's the only film Pixar's ever done that I didn't see in theaters. Though the ostensible reason was due to my wife having zero interest in the film, the real reason was that...well, I didn't really have a major pull to see the film. That alone should tell you something, coming from an avowed Pixar fanatic. When you have John Lasseter, the Pixar head, the man who directed Toy Story, directing a movie, I should want to go. But, no, and when I first caught up with the film on DVD, my fears were proven right.

In November, though, once I got myself an HDTV and a Blu-ray player, Cars was one of the first films I bought on the new format. Despite my being so-so on the film, there's no question about this much: with Cars, Pixar makes leaps and bounds from its previous animated efforts solely in terms of technical skill. If anyone ever asks you why they should buy an HDTV and/or a Blu-ray player, and you happen to own this film, tell them to hold on as you put on the 21st scene of the film, when Lightning McQueen and Sally the Porsche take a leisurely, flirty drive around the small town of Radiator Springs. There's little in terms of dialogue here as we watch the two cars drive around the most photorealistic vistas and landscapes Pixar has ever created. It's so damn awe-inspiring, Lightning drops his jaw and I can't blame him. The animation here is flawless, with the exception of the "faces" the cars have, which are rooted in old-style Disney cartoons.

But let's be honest: Cars is, by the terms of previous Pixar films, not great. If it had been the company's first feature film, we'd all be over the moon about it, at least upon its initial release. I'm not so sure it would have had the lasting effect that Toy Story has, but the film wouldn't have been so thoroughly disappointing, because there'd be no prior hype going into it. Instead, we're looking at the film that follows up movies like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, two truly fantastic movies that work on a commercial level, but are also complex in their stories and characters. Cars, on the other hand, is easily the most unsubtle film Pixar's ever made. Within the first five minutes, you know exactly what problem the main character, Lightning, an arrogant young race car, has, you know he'll learn a lesson about his problem, and he'll fix it. No surprises.

Another interesting thing I noted is how, for the first time (and hopefully the last time), the folks at Pixar fell into the trap those working at DreamWorks make on an almost daily basis: they make far too many jokes that kids won't get, jokes that are squarely targeted at adults. What often separates Pixar films from DreamWorks films is the relatability of the characters and how the jokes cross boundaries. You don't have to be an adult to laugh at Woody and Buzz Lightyear struggling their way through a claw game and the fanatical toys living inside the claw; there are certain aspects to the joke that adults get more than kids, but everyone can laugh at it. But who under the age of 10 is going to get the joke of a character voiced by famed sportscaster Bob Costas being called Bob Cutlass? Having Jeremy Piven play a slick Hollywood agent is funny...if you know about Piven's role on HBO's Entourage, but kids won't know that.

Even worse, once the film steps away from having oddly placed celebrity cameos, the story that unfolds is both extremely slow-paced (I ended up being a bit distracted halfway through the film, and after another 15 minutes, Lightning hadn't gotten any further at being found by his own famous entourage of agents and the like) and completely derivative. It pains me to use those words in describing a Pixar film, but the truth is the truth. Though it's funny in parts and the animation is sensational, Cars is too much of a specific labor of love meant to cater to John Lasseter and his Walt Disney-esque fondness for a time long since forgotten. Obviously, having that kind of nostalgia works very well for Disney (and I'm certainly not against it, being a Disney fan and an annual passholder for Disneyland), but in Cars, it falls flat.

The story is, again, very slow and nothing original: Lightning is a successful race car who needs to be taken down a peg or two, gets stuck in a small town, and learns to be a good person...er, car. In paying more attention to the story this time, I realized also that it's the love of Sally that turns Lightning around. Of course, I'm not particularly sure that Sally's affection is warranted; it comes out of nowhere that she begins awkwardly flirting with him. Sure, having Bonnie Hunt as the voice of Sally helps, but why should Lightning (who starts out as an affable if almost completely awful character, someone who you want to fail) deserve any nice treatment from her? We've seen Lightning be rude to every denizen of Radiator Springs, act condescending to the only character who wants to be his friend (Mater, voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, in a performance that's far more likable than I would have originally thought). Now, suddenly, Sally turns on a dime and likes him; this feels very false.

Again, I like Cars. I certainly don't love it, despite some great performances from Owen Wilson (as Lightning), Hunt, Michael Keaton (as Lightning's main rival), and the late Paul Newman as the crusty Doc Hudson. The animation is awesome, proof positive that Pixar will always win the visuals game. Unfortunately, following up Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird doesn't do wonders for John Lasseter; at least, not this time.

A final note: I realize I'm going out of order here, and the next look back at Pixar will be of last year's WALL-E (not a repeat of the original review, either). Still, bear with me. We've only got the Brad Bird films to look at, and those will be great treats for me and, hopefully, for you too.

Roar....

Wolverine struck last weekend, and now you may read the Monday Morning Quarterback about it on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11581

Frozen River

Copyright 2009, Sony Pictures Classics

I must be in a grumpy mood this weekend, because a movie like Frozen River, one that's been somewhat of a darling to some critics since it premiered at some film festivals last year and ended up garnering its lead actress, Melissa Leo, a Best Actress nomination at last year's Oscars, just didn't work that much for me. Though the plot is, in itself, incredibly engrossing and most of the performances work, something about the story, written and directed by first-timer Courtney Hunt, fell flat.

First of all, I'm going to play contrarian and wonder why exactly Melissa Leo got that nomination. OK, being honest, I know exactly why she got nominated. Independent film that most people have never heard of? Check. Actress whose face, not name, is familiar? Check. Actress in "raw" and "gritty" role? Check, check, check. Though she's not bad, Leo's not worthy of an Oscar nomination, whether the field wasn't exactly heavily populated last year. Here's the thing: in the first shot we see of Leo's character, Ray Eddy, she's smoking a cigarette. Simple enough. Oh, no, not here; here, Leo crumples her face in, sucking on the cigarette with every ounce of oxygen she's got. Why? Because that's how a "real person" would do it, and capturing "real life" is what this movie, and Leo's performance, is all about.

Unfortunately, the plot is more fascinating than the film alongside it. Ray is this close to being completely broke, trying to support her kids on a part-time salary at a dollar store in upstate New York. Her husband has vanished with a good chunk of cash, and when a Mohawk woman named Lila ends up stealing his abandoned car, Ray chases her down. They end up embarking on an odd friendship, sealed by their attempts to smuggle illegal immigrants across the river stretching from New York to Canada, all on the Mohawk reservation.

Obviously, there's lots of intriguing territory here, along with heaping doses of suspense. Why, then, does it feel like Hunt's too busy trying to show me how destitute the people in this film are? A good portion of the film is spent more on establishing that, yes, these people are poor. They are desperate. See, Ray works at a dollar store and can't get the manager to give her a full-time position (the manager's reasons make absolutely no sense, by the way). See, she lives in a trailer and wants to move up to a doublewide. See, her car's old. Get it? They're poor. Are you aware of that?

Frankly, whatever problems I have do not extend to the other actors, especially Misty Upham. Upham, who plays Lila, is prickly when dealing with Ray or even her own family. Lila's a more fully realized character who never seems desperate, despite all signs pointing to that fact. Though she's obviously not as experienced a film actress as Leo is, her side of the friendship is far more realistic.

At the end of the day, the problem with Frozen River is its inconsistent relationship with realism. At one pivotal point in the film, Ray has no interest in driving some Pakistanis over, only because she thinks that the bag they're carrying must have a bomb in it. Apparently, I'm supposed to side with a hypocrite who has no common sense. Now, I know what you're saying: I'm probably not supposed to side with Ray. The ending would have you think differently. Though it's not particularly happy, we're supposed to be glad that Ray won't be too worse off for being a smuggler for a few months. Sigh. Though it wears its indie cred on its sleeve, Frozen River is a movie in search of a stronger and more realistic, not "realistic," performance and a stronger script.

A Look Back at The Bourne Supremacy

Copyright 2004, Universal Pictures

It's been a couple of months since I took a look back at the beginning of the successful film series about ex-government killer Jason Bourne. Finally, I've gotten a chance to catch up with 2004's The Bourne Supremacy, a film that I saw twice in the theaters. The second time, I fell asleep. Granted, the first time I saw the Paul Greengrass-helmed actioner, I was in one of the front rows and couldn't handle the shaky camerawork that's a staple of Greengrass's style. The second time, though, I ended up seeing the film because my friends wanted to see it. I was just out of luck.

Now, having seen it a third time, not in a front row, not tired, I can say wholeheartedly that Bourne Supremacy is not a movie worth falling asleep during, nor is it a great film. I'll say this: it's better in various ways than its 2002 predecessor, The Bourne Identity. The script, by Tony Gilroy, is relatively sharp, moreso than the original. Here, Bourne faces off against two groups: the CIA, led by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen, smart and savvy); and an assassin (Karl Urban) hired by a mysterious Russian man with ties to the Americans. When Bourne's girlfriend (Franka Potente) is murdered during a chase in India, Bourne swears revenge against those who just will not leave him alone.

Having Greengrass as the man behind the camera as opposed to Doug Liman (who's a solid director, but doesn't have any kind of intriguing or unique style) helps enormously as does the handheld cinematography, which is not nearly as uncomfortable when you're in the comfort of your own living room. What's more, Gilroy creates a smart adversary in Pamela Landy, a woman whose methodical, nearly robotic nature end up getting her in more trouble with people not named Jason Bourne. Only once does her dialogue really ring false--in a montage sequence where she tries to give a pep...well, a pep yell rather than a pep talk and Greengrass poorly sets up the idea that this pep yell isn't happening over a minute or two, but that she's been doing this for hours or something. Aside from that, Landy's a smart character, even when butting heads with Ward Abbott (Brian Cox, weaselly as ever).

I liked The Bourne Supremacy. I guess I'm still not sure why everyone goes crazy about the Bourne series of films, but then again, I've yet to see the 2007 threequel. The action is fast, Damon is appropriately taciturn, but maybe it's that flaw that distances me from the films. Bourne isn't meant to be an emotional or explanatory guy, but it's hard to empathize with someone who says no more than a few sentences throughout an entire film. That said, I do like the series now more than I did originally. Maybe The Bourne Ultimatum, the follow-up to Supremacy, is the best of all. Still, I get the feeling that Greengrass, for all his flashy work, is best suited to real-life films such as Bloody Sunday and United 93, movies that evoke more emotion and are more visceral for being so true.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

Copyright 2009, Sony Pictures

I don't want to spend too much time here, but I got a chance to finally see the fall 2008 teen dramedy Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and wanted to say a few words. None of them will be very kind, though, which surprises me more than it may surprise any of you. I'd wanted to see this film when it first came out, but The Dark Knight being shown at an actual IMAX theater in my area beckoned. My wife and another friend saw it; both enjoyed it. The reviews were relatively good. All of this leads to a question: what is wrong with these people?

Nick and Norah is not only a disappointing film, it's unrealistic, annoying, cliched, and other adjectives that should deter you from putting it on your Netflix queue. The plot is mostly threadbare: Nick (Michael Cera) is a recently dumped high school senior in a band populated with gay guys and him; Norah (Kat Dennings) is the daughter of a record producer who knows Nick's slutty ex, admires his musical taste, and winds up meeting him on a whirlwind evening through New York City as they try to find a band called Where's Fluffy. Do they fall in love? Is the Pope...well, you know.

And that's part of the problem. Nothing about this movie is particularly special or unique. That which tries to be unique just comes off as weird. Why, for example, would a band thinks its best marketing tool was being so elusive as to send people off on wild-goose chases for their performances? Maybe it's me, but that's too much work for a musical sound that's nothing you haven't heard before. Mostly, this movie is chock full of cliched characters. Though Cera is charming here, if you've seen him in...well, anything else, you will not be surprised about his acting choices here. Dennings is also good, but there's not much work for her to do aside from looking annoyed or frustrated. The other actors are game, but the script is weak. Ari Gaynor (now seen as a single mother on Fringe) is funny as Norah's drunk friend, but a running gag with her chewing gum is not only disgusting, but pointless (even if I'm willing to buy that she'd keep chewing her gum after it landed in a toilet full of vomit, why would anyone else chew the gum without that knowledge?).

Overall, Nick and Norah is just not a good movie. Maybe I'm a bit grumpy, but movies with characters as one-note and misguided (so you broke up with a guy and you're following him around New York City...right) as these are a waste of my time. Of course, this movie's only 90 minutes, which may be its sole saving grace.