My Favorite Twelve Supporting Kids Cartoon Characters

Salutations,

So I have a half dozen or so 'best of' lists that are half finished and I'm going to be proactive and finish them. The first and easiest because its the closest to being done is my supporting cartoon characters list. I have the distinction of being able to watch six hours of cartoons (anything PG rated or less) at work every day so I've been looking at a LOT of kids movies (because Disney sequels > Olson Twins movies) lately and that's where I came up with this particular group. To preface this, its kids characters only, so no Brian from Family Guy or Ralph Wiggum from the Simpsons. Also, its supporting characters, so no primary heroes (mostly boring) or villains (saving for another list) are going to appear here. So without further ado...

12. The Aracuan Bird (Disney, no credited voice actor that I can find)
Well, I know this particular character probably isn't on anyone's list, but let me explain a bit. Most old time cartoon shorts had a hero and villain and thus almost none of them technically worked for this list (I didn't want to use super obvious characters like Goofy or Daffy). The Aracuan Bird appeared in three Donald Duck cartoons: a segment of the movie The Three Caballeros(1945), the short The Clown of the Jungle (1947) and a segment of the movie Melody Time called Blame it on the Samba (1948) (you can look up some if not all three on YouTube). The bird melds the more plot driven, safer Disney cartoons with the kinetic energy of the Warner Brothers. Given the generic, fairly tame adversaries that Donald Duck normally dealt with (ants, a dopey bee, Pluto, etc.), this combination of Woody Woodpecker and the Looney Tunes Dodo hopped up on RedBull really made an impression on me as a kid, despite his sparse appearances. So representing the bright nonsense of classic cartoon, the Aracuan Bird makes the list.

Fun Fact - there is an actual Araucuan bird (note the slightly different spelling) native to South
America.

11. The Huntsman (Freakazoid, voiced by Jeff Bennett)
Okay, this is the last really obscure character, I promise. If you weren't aware, I really love Freakazoid!... If you don't know what it is at all, it followed Animaniacs and spoofed superheroes the way Animaniacs spoofs classic Warner/Disney cartoons. Like Animaniacs, the show had multiple segments and shorts without a real main plot line. One of the supporting characters, The Huntsman, is a combination of Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, and Robin Hood. He's strong, magical, tough, and has an amazing theme song that to this day I still can recite pretty well. Unfortunately, he doesn't usually have much to do... watch this (its only about 3 minutes) to get a good idea of why he's hilariously awesome... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPbIiLrNGZo

Fun Fact - Jeff Bennett also voiced Dexter's Dad on Dexter's Laboratory...

10. Hammy (Over the Hedge, Steve Carrell)
Over the Hedge isn't even one of my 20 favorite animated movies, but the surprisingly manic vocal performance by the normally even mannered Steve Carrell combined with a really fluid animation puts him on my list. I suprised myself with just how fun and crazy this character is when I watched the movie again. I thought long and hard about including Chip or Dale or both, but in the end they weren't as interesting. I went with what would happen if Chip or Dale freebased some cocaine... you'd get Hammy. If you haven't seen Over the Hedge, its a fun throwback type of movie and Hammy's role in the very end of the climax is what put got him in the list.

Fun Fact - Hammy suggests calling the titular hedge "Steve" saying that "Steve is a nice name"

9. Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe, no credited voice actor)
This one was tricky for me... I wanted a character from the 80s action cartoons I watched a lot in my very young years. Optimus Prime seemed like a main character and the best part of He-Man and Thundercats were the villains. That left G.I. Joe and by far my favorite Joe was the silent ninja Snake Eyes. If I remember right (and its been probably 15 years since I've seen any of the G.I. Joe episodes) Snake Eyes was severely burned and suffered damaged vocal cords in a helicopter explosion. Although you'd think a guy armed with only a sword and a few grenades would be at a disadvantage in a firefight, you would underestimate the poor aim of the Cobra troops. Quiet, badass, action star with nary a line, Snake Eyes deserves his spot on this list

Fun Fact - Not a fact at all, but I was always really cheesed that besides hardly being in it, Snake Eyes got his butt whooped twice in the G.I. Joe movie... I know they were pushing the newer characters to sell more toys, but don't make the cool old characters look like total wimps. At least he had a better fate than most of the original Transformers in their 80s movie....

8. Gurgi (The Black Cauldron ,John Byner)
I really love Lloyd Alexander's series of Prydain novels quite a bit. For those who are unaware, its a series of five books, the second of which is the Black Cauldron, which are based on Welsh mythology. The rights to the series are owned by Disney, who only produced the 1985 classic, the Black Cauldron, which at the time was the only Disney animated feature to receive a PG rating... Gurgi is to the Prydain books as Sam is to Lord of the Rings, only if Sam was a mix between a dog and a monkey. Gurgi is full of mischief, but is arguably the most heroic character in the movie. His two traits are his use of rhyming couplets (the most famous was "crunchings and munchings") and his odd voice, spoken all in the 3rd person, provided by impressionist John Byner (who's most famous for the ant and aardvark characters from the Pink Panther cartoon). To try and describe the voice... think maybe a more intelligible Donald Duck who's a heavy smoker. To sum it up, in terms of balancing loyalty, humor, and an unforgettable voice, Gurgi gets the spot at #8.

Fun Fact - Gurgi is the only character from Black Cauldron to have his own attraction at a Disney theme park, Gurgi's Munchies and Crunchies at Magic Kingdom DisneyWorld. It was open from 1986-1993 and then changed into Lumiere's Kitchen (it's currently called the Village Fry Shoppe).

7. Puss in Boots (Shrek 2, Antonio Banderas)
I don't enjoy the Shrek character or franchise that much but somehow someway this little guy makes it on the list. He's why I own Shrek 2 and not the original... The movie character combines the fairytale with Antonio Banderas playing Zorro with a lot of 'cat' still intact. The cute cat faces, the constant distractions, the funny payoff of the "Cops" sequence... Exactly what a supporting character should do. The character is popular enough that Dreamworks has a spinoff in production based more on the actual fairytale. I'm looking forward to that a lot more than the actual fourth Shrek movie that's coming out this year.




Fun Fact - Antonio Banderas also does the voice in the Spanish language version of the movie.

6. Tiger (An American Tail, Dom DeLuise)
First off, R.I.P. Dom DeLuise who died earlier this year. I think the movie buff would remember DeLuise as Burt Reynolds' co star in both Cannonball Run and Smokey and the Bandit as well as his small parts in Mel Brooks films. I personally became aware of DeLuise through a variety of animated characters, primarily in Don Bluth films. An American Tail is the first movie I can remember seeing in theaters when I was 4 years old, so chalk up personal bias as to why Tiger is so high on this list. I was discussing Tiger with a friend at work who dismissed the character as being a knockoff of the Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz. I disagree and I think that the combination of panic, embarassment, agitation, and warmth DeLuise brought to the role gave it a more depth than the Lion (I think the physical comparison is more apt). Even though An American Tail will always be remembered for the song Somewhere Out There, I think Tiger's musical number "A Duo" deserves a mention (as well as the trippy visuals).

Fun Fact - Dom DeLuise voiced the character of Tiger seventeen times, in both theatrical movies, both straight to DVD sequels, and in all 13 awful episodes of Fievel's American Tails. The only character he voiced more was Itchy, the Daschund from All Dogs Go To Heaven (21 times).

5. Kronk (Emperor's New Groove, Patrick Warburton)
Maybe a surprise being this high, but I think Emperor's New Groove is the best post Lion King Disney movie. The film had a troubled history, losing an Owen Wilson voiced slacker type (good thing) and a soundtrack full of Sting songs (bad thing) for Kronk (great thing) and a Tom Jones song (pretty cool thing). It's always tough for G rated animated movies to reach both the kids without boring/excluding the adults. Most of the time, the more adult humor is pop culture/movie references. This movie has a fair share of those, but most of the humor is from the ever deadpan Patrick Warburton as Kronk, the dim witted yet well meaning henchman. Warburton tends to play two sorts of characters - tough (Joe from Family Guy or the Hoodwinked Wolf) or dumb (The live action Tick or Puddy from Seinfeld). He's been typecast for sure, but he plays the monotonous dimwit so gleefully well that he completely steals the movie despite being a villain's sidekick. Special props go to the use of the "angel and demon on the shoulders" gag that Disney brought back from their old Pluto cartoons.

Fun Fact - Showing that Disney realized he was the best part of the first movie, the character of Kronk starred in the straight to DVD sequel, Kronk's New Groove.

4. Genie (Aladdin, Robin Williams)
Robin Williams' comic stylings have led to a fairly hit or miss film career. To me, his two greatest comedic performances are in Good Morning Vietnam and Aladdin, where his manic improvs make sense in the context of the story. Everyone has their favorite, but out of all the modern Disney film sidekicks, the Genie combines personality with humor and visual flair while still being crucial to the plot (which is why he's here and some of his contemporaries aren't on this list).
Unlike most animated movies, Williams improved almost all of his dialogue. He had the script outline with suggested topics and came up with the various transformations (an estimated 52 character changes). Visually, the animators were inspired the stylings of caricaturist Al Hirschfeld to make the genie much more 'cartoony' than most of the human cast. The fluid animation combined with Williams' improvs that don't detract from the story are what put the Genie on the list. Plus, he has 2 songs, one of was Oscar nomiated (Friend Like Me) and might be my favorite Disney song. Finally, the Genie inspired the coolest level of the Sega Genesis Aladdin game (the 2nd best Disney video game after the NES Ducktales).

Fun Fact - After a contract dispute, Dan Castellaneta (the voice of Homer Simpson), took over for Robin Williams for Return of Jafar and the Aladdin animated series.

3. The Brain (Animaniacs, Maurice LaMarche)
Now this may seem like a cheat, but I'm using the Brain's appearances from Animaniacs as opposed to his own show. I make this distinction because I think Pinky and the Brain work best as shorts and not as well as full half hour cartoons. The Brain's personality seems to be part Napolean Bonparte and part Vincent Price, and the voice is based on Orson Welles. His appearance is actually based on Tom Minton, a producer and writer of Animaniacs. I find the Pinky and the Brain cartoons a good balance of classic Warners slapstick with a lot of really clever pop culture references (I especially love Brainy the Poo and Bubba Bo Bob Brain). Finally, the Brain started the great catch phrase "Are you pondering what I'm pondering..."

Fun Fact - Maurice LaMarche also imitated Orson Welles in Ed Wood, dubbing over Vince D'Onofrio's cameo.

2. Launchpad McQuack (Terry McGovern, Ducktales)
The best of the best as far as supporting characters go, Launchpad was far and away the greatest original character in Ducktales and then joined Darkwing Duck after Ducktales was cancelled. He served as the bodyguard and pilot for Scrooge and was the focus of several early episodes. His cleft beak/chin, the aviator goggles and bomber jacket gave him a distinctive visual look, being one of the largest characters in Ducktales. I also have to mention his ability to crash any sort of transportation with little to no injury to Launchpad or his passengers. Launchpad had a lot of courage and integrity and beyond his pilot skills, served as the voice of reason and honesty compared to the more obssessive Scrooge. My favorite Launchpad episode has to be Double o Duck in which he becomes James Bondish spy (an episode that has little to do with Scrooge or the nephews at all). As the series of Ducktales went on, Launchpad was used less and was replaced by both Bubba Duck and Gizmoduck, he also did not play a big role in the Ducktales movie. In Darkwing Duck, Launchpad was the pilot and sidekick to Drake Mallard and was the only character besides Gizmoduck to appear in both series. His personality changed a bit as he became dumber, more passive, and less a man of action (probably to contrast more with Darkwing himself). Anyhow, after watching the Ducktales episodes as an adult, I really think Launchpad is the best TV kids supporting character.

Fun Fact - Launchpad was considered for a starring role in his own show, a show that eventually became TaleSpin.

1. Baloo the Bear (Phil Harris, Jungle Book)
When I thought this list up, this was my easy top choice... as a supporting character, you can't beat Baloo. He advances the story of Jungle Book, representing the easy going jungle life that Mowgli has to give up to become a man. He also provides comic relief without being irritating or distracting and has a character arc of his own. By the end of the story, the lazy 'jungle bum' battles Shere Khan to help out his friend. Baloo also has one of the greatest songs in the Disney catalogue, "The Bare Necessities," as well as contributing to "I Wanna Be Like You." His brash, laid back and boisterous voice provided by radio personality Phil Harris complemented his large size and hipster attitude. I also personally respect that the Disney animators used the sloth bear as a model for Baloo's diet and physical features. He eats fruits, plants, and insects and his large claws and stocky body also resemble the sloth bear. Baloo was so popular that Phil Harris reprised the character (I realize the look of both characters is different, but in voice and personality... it's Baloo) in 2 different movies; Little John in Robin Hood and Thomas O'Malley in the Aristocats. Furthermore, Baloo became the star of TaleSpin, voiced mostly by Ed Gilbert (Harris' voice had aged too much although he did record some dialogue). After Harris passed on in 1995, Baloo was voiced by John Goodman in the Jungle Book 2 (a rare Disney sequel that wasn't completely awful).

Fun Fact - Phil Harris' last animated role was that of Patou in Rock a Doodle in 1991. Harris was 86 years old when he recorded the dialogue.

So there's my countdown... It took some time to put together... Hopefully it wasn't too boring or tedious to read through... And its all opinion (its called "My favorite" for a reason) and completely subjective. More lists and such to come...

That's all I have to say about that.

District 9 and Jennifer's Body

Okay,

So I've been lazy and have had a bunch of half written articles lying around. I still don't feel like finishing any of them, so I'm going to write a couple of mini review nuggets.

First, my thoughts about District 9... I liked it a lot, definitely a solid 8.5/10. I knew 2 things going in:
#1. It was about aliens and discrimination
#2. The aliens lived in the slums of South Africa
The acting was pretty amazing, especially the main character played by Shartlo Copley who I had never seen before. I actually didn't recognize ANYONE from the cast which made it seem a lot more real and less Hollywood. The movie had a respectable $30 million budget all of which went to the effects, which were pretty astounding. It also leaves room for a sequel while pretty neatly wrapping up its own story which to me is fairly hard to do. After watching the incoherent mess of Transformers 2's action scenes, I really honestly appreciated the action scenes in District 9 a lot more. The action here is messy, chaotic, and frenetic, but well shot and edited so you can really see and understand what's going on.

The director, Neill Blomkamp, has a background in visual effects and animation, and based the movie out of his childhood in South Africa (hopefully the parts without the aliens). Normally such an unusual movie wouldn't get the release it did, but Peter Jackson gave Blomkamp the $30 mil for a movie project of his choice (this came about after the Halo movie fell through which Jackson would have produced and Blomkamp would have directed).

So anyhow, if you are a fan of action sci fi with some social commentary melted in, definitely worth your time.

The other movie I want to talk a bit about is Jennifer's Body. Everyone who knows me probably thinks I really loved this movie. You have a super hot Megan Fox and award winning screenwriter Diablo Cody together in a horror comedy (a genre I really love) which should be amazing. Unfortunately, a good idea on paper turns into a fairly blah movie, I'd give it a 4.5/10. I'm going to break it down into 3 areas of disappointment.

First, Megan Fox can't act... at all... As a token hot character with little or no dialogue, this isn't a problem (I'd have loved to see her die in the opening scene of the Friday the 13th or the upcoming Nightmare on Elm Street remakes) As Jessica Simpson, Pamela Anderson, and other "hot celebrity of the year" have found, its tough to be extremely successful as a lead only relying on physical and not acting 'talents.' Amanda Seyfried (from the horrific Mamma Mia remake) isn't believable to me at all as the nerdy friend (the classic "she's really hot but she has glasses" nerd that a lot of teen movies would make fun of). And the guy that plays Seyfried's boyfriend pretty much sucks too. To me, the only really redeeming actors are Adam Brody (from the OC and a small funny part in Thank You for Smoking) and J.K. Simmons (spiderman's boss, juno's dad, in about every 3rd movie these days). Sadly, neither has a lot of screentime and both play fairly one note characters, but compared to Fox and Seyfried, both look like best supporting actor contenders.

Second, Diablo Cody... I really do like Juno a lot, I know there's some backlash about the level of Cody's talent, I'm not going to completely rip her apart. The success of Juno was a combination of Cody's writing, brilliant performances by Ellen Page, Jason Bateman, and the aforementioned Simmons, the music by Kimya Dawson, and the direction of Jason Reitman. Unique among a lot of modern day movie makers, Cody is only a screenwriter. I say 'only' because a lot of the directors I like (Tarantino, Rodriguez, los Coens, etc.) also do screenwriting, producing, etc. So Cody's impact on a movie is only through clever, witty dialogue. She is really good at said dialogue, however, to me it doesn't completely work as well in this movie as it did in Juno. Sure, there are some catchy one liners (the "evil, not just high school evil" zinger that's in the trailer) but as a excellent, coherent screenplay... it sounded too much like Juno... There's a reason why Kevin Smith has never attempted an English period drama or why Tarantino has never done a family film... that's the same reason why Diablo Cody's writing doesn't work quite as well in a horror piece as it did in a teen dramedy.

As for horror comedy... There aren't a lot of great ones, (Gremlins, Shaun of the Dead, American Werewolf in London) there are quite a few flawed, but fun ones (Arachnophobia, Tremors, Slither) and some bad ones (Idle Hands, Urban Legends, All About Steve... well Sandra Bullock was scary enough in that one to make it all out horror for me). A final problem with Jennifer's Body is that it isn't very funny and it isn't particularly that scary either. There's a really fine line to balance and the movie falls short on both sides. The horror aspect, although fairly gory at times, never really even made me jump at all (compare this to a similar movie from last year, Drag Me to Hell, completely ridiculous yet there is still some pretty tense scenes). The hot chick killing guys, its been done before (Species for the mainstream folks and Teeth for the more indy folks), and the sarcastic high school angle played out like maybe Scream or even parts of the Faculty. There just seemed a lot of missed opportunities for humor or scares throughout (like when Fox's character gets in 'poor shape', it just looks like she isn't wearing makeup, compare this to AWolfIL... you might understand if you watch the movie). Finally... this is another movie with a wraparound story told in flashback. I really loathe this storytelling device for the most part because it makes the ending superobvious (except for in Fraility or High Tension, but those are two amazing exceptions). Basically if you are familiar with the horror genre at all you will know exactly what happens to the characters. The final nail is the pointless annoying scene during/after the credits. Comedic outtakes, excerpts from the soundtrack, these are things that are acceptable in the end credits, not extraneous scenes from the movie (I don't know who started this trend, but boo!).

So for now, that's all I have to say about that...

Patricks

Top 5 Least Disappointing Movie Monsters

Okay,

To preface this list, I had a brief conversation today about the power of imagination vs. the power of technology with regards to on screen creatures. For the most part, I'm in favor of the "less is more" because computers, puppets, miniatures... all have their issues to varying degrees. I've read a lot of books in the horror genre and then seen the accompanying movie, and usually, what shows up on screen just doesn't quite match up with what I have in my head. When the images meet or surpass what I've thought, it generally makes the movie a little more special. So thus, the top 5 least disappointing movie monster list. To make this list, the movie has to be based on a pre-existing book or story and I have to have read the story before I saw the movie. So without further ado...

5. JawsFoot, Peter Benchley's Creature

This isn't a particularly well known movie, to the point where I couldn't find any good screen shots of the titular beast. Instead faithful readers, you get the maquette pictured at the right. A short backstory/explanation... Peter Benchley is the guy who wrote Jaws (as well as the Deep) and based on the Jaws money, wrote 2 other sea creature monster movies, The Beast and White Shark. Both of these were made into TV miniseries, White Shark being renamed the awesomely generic creature. The book featured a nazi genetically enginereed shark/human hybrid that would have looked something like an albino Arnold Schwarzenegger with metal teeth and claws. As a middle school aged kid, I had this awesome mental picture of Ahnold as the White Shark monster (that line of reasoning wasn't too much of a stretch... I mean, he actually made Junior around the time I read this book). Instead, the producers of the movie changed the monster to what I have since dubbed Jawsfoot. When I watched the movie, I really loved this concept... I know it's completely ridiculous, outlandish, and dumber than the book, but I was not disappointed by this monster at all. Jawsfoot gets bonus points for the cast (including pre Sex and the City Kim Catrall and the Coach himself, Craig T. Nelson!) taking the ludicrous concept fairly seriously.

4. The Balrog, Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring

The fiery demon from the mines of Moria whom Gandalf would not let pass... The only Balrog I saw as a kid was this stupidity from the Ralph Bakshi 1978 Lord of the Rings... A guy rotoscoped in with butterfly wing, slippers, and a lion mask... Terrible, just terrible











After seeing the early previews for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, I was fairly excitied what
the Balrog might look like... The book says "shrouded in fire, darkness, and shadow" and mentions the many pronged whip... Trying to combine fire and shadow together would seem like a really tough character design, but as you can see, I think it came together amazingly well. The only reason why the Balrog is so low on the list is that well, he isn't in the movie very much (less than five minutes of screen time in a two and a half hour movie). Still, an amazing use of CGI and one of the most imposing fantasy monsters I've ever seen.




3. Kothoga Monster, The Relic

I realize that this was a fairly unoriginal movie, but I really liked the Jurassic Park meets Alien concept from the book. The authors, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child intentionally keep the descriptions fairly vague as to the actual creature's appearance. I don't want to post a picture because I think far and away the best part of the movie is actually seeing the monster itself. My mental picture of the Relic creature from the novel was blown away by an amazing Stan Winston (he's a visual effects guy who created both the Terminator and Predator among others) made creature.

One of the things I love is that the eye color of the monster changes from the novel to the book (yes, it's a small detail) and it's a really great, subtle tweak to the design. Yes, there is some poor late 90s CGI work at hand in parts of the movie, but the practical full size creature is one of the best of it's kind (I would use the Alien or Predator on this list, but since they were created directly for a movie and I saw the movies before any of the fan fiction, they don't qualify). So for being an organic, nasty, and crazy monster which elevated a mundane movie... the Kothoga (it's called MBun I think in the book)...

2. the Medusa, Clash of the Titans (the original)

I realize that Clash of the Titans has no exact literary basis, but I read the myth of Perseus before I saw the movie, so to me it counts. Clash of the Titans is the final movie done by legendary visual effects guru Ray Harryhausen. Harryhausen came to fame by creating a series of stop motion creatures in fantasy and science fiction films of the 1950s and 1960s. After watching CGI films for going on 20 years now, Harryhausen films seem really archaic and outdated, but as a young kid, I thought they were amazing (In my opinion, the moat monster from Willow seems inspired by those old films).

The medusa in the movie has a snake like lower body, a rattlesnake tail, and shows skill at archery (I always thought that was cool as a kid, then when writing that, I think to myself, self, "why would someone as deadly as medusa need to be an archer?" It'd be like if Magneto was also a sniper or something... just stupid... but then, she's immortal, so archery is a hobby or something... yeah, I'm a dork...)

Ahem, the point is, the movie differs from the classic interpretation, but I really love the more aggressive, hunting Medusa. I know Clash of the Titans is fairly corny and takes itself a little too seriously (especially Laurence Olivier and Maggie Smith), but it's rooted in Greek Mythology, so it's a fantastical adventure and nothing more than that. I know Clash is going to remade later this year and I'd wager that the Medusa in the remake will be a CGI creation that blows the original out of the water. For me, that old Medusa was an amazing representation of a myth brought to stop motion life.

1. All the monsters (besides the tentacles), The Mist

When I came up with this list, I knew that the menagerie of the Mist would take the top spot. For the not aware, the Mist is a novella (it's a little over 150 pages) in a book (Skeleton Crew) of short stories by Stephen King. It's about as simple as a plot gets, a bunch of people get trapped in a supermarket by an eerie mist concealing a number of deadly creatures. I read this story at the age of 13 or so, and I always wanted/pictured a movie adaptation (I thought of Christian Slater as the star back then, ended us with Thomas Jane, kind of a wash)... My wait finally came to end when Frank Darabont, better known as the force behind both Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile, released his version in 2007. I was disappointed by very little of this finished product, as Darabont treated the material very seriously, (it's a fairly ridiculous setup and I always had worries a movie would get campy or Tremorsish) even getting a Stephen King approval to alter the ending.

Given the pretty modest 18 million dollar budge, the creatures in this movie were executed to near perfection (this movie, the 19 M Pan's Labryinth, and the 30 M District 9 prove to me that the talent/will of a crew of artists and technicians can overcome budgetary constraints to create amazing visual effects). My one problem was the 'tentacles' sequence... which didn't look quite finished as far as the integration with the rest of the environment was concerned (they also reminded me a lot of the lake monster from the first Lord of the Rings as well as the monsters from the Treat Williams opus, Deep Rising). The flying creatures bit, the pharmacy, the 'Blowhole' (super obscure Tick reference there) creature towards the end all show what CGI can accomplish in this modern age of movies... for sequences or creatures where puppetry, stuntpeople in suits, and stop motion all would completely fail.

So that's this fairly odd list done... I could write a reverse (the most disappointed I've been... to figure out an early candidate... "Amy Ugly Gorilla Amy Go Away") someday, but that might be hard to cut down to just five... Next up to finish... either my top 10 underrated villains or my top 10 supporting horror characters (the second would use the same criteria as my cartoon list). Any request anyone for something different?

Remakelicious

okay,

To start this off, I'm very anti remake of 70s-80s or just movies in general. It's a huge hollywood fad right now (I know there was a screenwriters strike a little while back, but really?) and I think the remake of the excellent Spanish horror movie Rec was the low point. For those who are unaware, Rec was released on November of 2007, a little movie told from 1st person perspective ala Cloverfield about a group of people trapped in an apartment complex with an infectious disease ala 28 Days Later. Nothing mindbreaking, but a fun, claustrophobic little thriller. In October of 2008, we got Quarantine... A shot by shot 'remake' that was RELEASED eleven months later. Meaning that after some studio execs saw Rec, they decided right away to make their inferior version... Rec didn't get a theatrical release in america and was just released on DVD a few weeks ago in early July of 2009 in America. People at my store actually thought Rec was a ripoff of Quarantine, when in reality... grr...

Moving on... Up to this point, my two favorite remakes have been horror movies, namely fairly flawed horror movies. Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jessica Biel was substantially less gritty and nasty than the original, but had things like "a budget", "sets", and "professional actors" all of which I appreciated. Plus it had one of my favorites, R. Lee Erney, in a new role that filled some plot holes (if you don't know who he is... the abusive drill sergeant/cop from many movies, starting in Full Metal Jacket... bushy eyebrows, yells a lot... that guy).

I also thought the Hills Have Eyes was great... Once again fixing some dodgy acting, taming down the "superdogs" and featuring some outstanding makeup effects (although for sheer creepy factor, no amount of makeup tops Michael Berryman from the original...).

Bringing us to the actual review of...

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Now I respect the original a whole lot. For those who are unaware, horror god Wes Craven (who brought us Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream) started his career with the exploitation flick Last House on the Left way back in 1972. It was made on a shoestring budget and is famous for being banned in the UK and only getting past a "X" rating because a personal friend of Craven's was on the ratings board. Unfortunately, (and I'll piss off some hardcore fans of original) it's flawed, almost fatally by bad writing (the 'comic relief' cops belong in a different movie), bad acting (especially the parents), and cheap production values and camerawork (although the crappy camerawork does give it a true life gut punch feeling at times).

When I first heard about a remake, I thought immediately to some of the more hideous 70s remakes (I'm looking at you, Julia Stiles' The Omen and Van Wilder's Amityville Horror). I was really pleasantly surprised with what I got instead... a movie that fixed 95% of the original's flaws and improved on the first flick a great deal. Where to start??

Since the movie is a character driven piece with a pretty small cast, acting is important. The 'biggest names' in the remake are Tony Goldwyn (the villain from Ghost and Neil Armstrong in "From Earth to the Moon") and Monica Potter (the female cop from Along Came a Spider or the love interest from Patch Adams) as the parents. Okay, so maybe they aren't A list celebrities, but if you take a look at IMDB, they are fairly recognizable, yet bring a really nice grounded sort of realism to a somewhat ridiculous plot. Both actors brought an odd combination of sympathy, vulnerability, and flat out viciousness that played out well onscreen and they made a believable married couple to boot. Sara Paxton as their daughter also brought a nice "girl next door" vibe and seemed a much stronger, tougher character than the "victims" from the original movie.

For me, the two stars of the movie were Garrett Dillahunt as Krug and Spencer Treat Clark as Justin. I knew Dillahunt could play a crazy villain from his performance as Wolcott from the excellent Deadwood series (he's also supposedly quite good in the Terminator TV series, but I haven't seen that) and he didn't disappoint with his first big theatrical performance. Dillahunt was an amazingly grounded, likeable, and at times fairly charming protagonist. To me, it was a really interesting approach to that sort of character... he didn't take some of the 'obvious' choices and almost seemed like a more daunting hurdle... It's tough to talk too much about him without getting into major spoiler areas (which I'm trying not to do). Speaking of vulnerable, Treat Clark really made me feel for what his character goes through as the youngest member of the gang. I connected to his performance... a lot of impact using his body language and especially his eyes... and very little dialogue (I've seen this character before with Jared Leto in Panic Room or the hillbilly girl from Hills Have Eyes, but this might be the best version in my opinion).

Despite being an hour and fifty minutes (somewhat long for horror movies) the movie was paced quite nicely. There were some beautiful camerawork by director Dennis Iliadis, really polished and fairly stunning cinematography, and a pretty haunting score. I especially appreciated the moments of just silence... it's almost a cliche, but when the movie got quiet, it amped up the tension. Finally, the different suspenseful buildups and how tense some of the scenes got... I was glued... It was also great to see a minimum of stupid "jump" scares (no cats, birds, or unnecessary loud noises in this one) instead using music and camerawork to create the solemn, moody atmosphere.

The action in the movie was nasty, brutal, and realistic. Goldwyn and Potter... reminded me oddly of Scream as they fought more like "real people" and not like "action heroes". The movie isn't a gorefest the whole way through, but there are some pretty damn nasty setpieces... And yes, a brutal and fairly long (in the unrated cut) rape scene is present... I know that really, really turns some people off, but it is a fairly important plot point and necessary for the conclusion to have the right emotional oomph.

So what didn't I like... the setup was a little clunky in terms of exposition and plot points (yep, she's real good at swimming... yep, he's a doctor.... wonder if that might come into play later). Two of the gang members that I didn't mention with my acting recap were a little stereotypical for me, (we got 1 'bad girl' and 1 'creepy, wide eyed rapist') in a crappier movie they'd have been fine, but with the other performances at hand, they stuck out a little bit. The very last scene was monumentally stupid, (after the 'boat scene', just turn the movie off) tacked on, and felt out of place (not to mention ripping off Wolf Creek and Gremlins). This scene is fairly over the top, completely out of left field, and takes away from the gritty realism and the mood established in the rest of the movie. I hoped it was just a 'deleted scene' only in the unrated cut, but unfortunately was in the theatrical as well...

So I give this remake.... 7 out of 10 (same score I'd give Hills Have Eyes remake)

Recommend for some great acting in this kind of genre flick, some high tension :o), amazing music, and great 3rd act.

Stay away from goofy gang members, clunky exposition, a few pacing issues, and a just awful final scene.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Thief and the Cobbler

Continuing on with last weeks' obscure animated classic, I'll jump right into what may well be the most intricate and detailed hand drawn animated feature of all time, one that took thirty years to finish. That would be the Richard Williams opus The Thief and the Cobbler.

A little background on Richard Williams... a Canadian animator, he worked on the early Pink Panther cartoons, the Raggedy Ann and Andy movie, and the animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol from the 1970s. His most famous work is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and he was directly in charge of the ToonTown sequence. After the success of Roger Rabbit, Williams got money from Warner Brothers to complete the Thief and the Cobbler. He had been working on the project by himself for twenty years (only completing twenty minutes) and was given a staff and several million dollars to finish it. By early 1992, it was obvious that the project was running over budget and wouldn't be done on time, so with about fifteen minutes of movie left to finish, Warner Brothers cut Williams out of the project completely, hastily finished the movie on their own and added several musical numbers.

Beyond being over budget, the actual story of the Thief and the Cobbler closely parallels a popular Disney movie. Let's see if you can figure out which...

In a fantastical middle eastern land, a poor teenage boy is arrested and meets a beautiful princess who he befriends. Along with a wily thief, the boy and the princess have to defeat the evil grand vizier. The vizier has plans to take over the kingdom and to marry the princess himself. He also has magic powers that he's used to enchant the king/sultan so that the vizier himself is basically in charge of the royal palace. Among the supporting characters are a tough bodyguard for the princess, a burly set of palace guards, and a bird sidekick to the grand vizier.

And to make matters worse, Warner Brothers decided to rename the movie Arabian Knight...

So if you are going to watch this movie, both the Arabian Knight cut and the Thief and the Cobbler cut are available on Youtube. I strongly recommend the Thief and the Cobbler recobbled cut - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQy2I9NCS8&feature=PlayList&p=18B0CA620B61D076&index=0... This has several unfinished sequences that were never animated but is the closest thing to Williams' vision that has been released.

Why do I love this movie? Like I said earlier, it contains some of the most innovative, wildest, and most energetic sequences from any animated movie. The two titular characters are both silent the whole time (in the Arabian Knight version, Matthew Broderick is dubbed over the Cobbler and comedian Jonathan Winters dubbed over the thief) which gives the movie a really old school Looney Tunes vibe, especially with some of the antics of the thief (who' s a combination of Abu from Aladdin and Wile E. Coyote)

The two vilains are the high point for me though - for one thing, Vincent Price voices ZigZag, the evil vizier. I've always been a giant fan of Price (and his other vocal performance as Professor Ratigan in Great Mouse Detective) and his fairly comic (he speaks entirely in rhyme) and menacing performance defiantely steals the film. (although it may have been confusing to audiences because this film was released theatrically two years after Price died: he recorded his lines in 1968). Zigzag looks like a combination of Jafar and the Genie from Aladdin. I wouldn't mention this but a lot of the character animation is similar to Aladdin because many of the animators worked on both projects (making Thief not an Aladdin ripoff because it was started 20+ years before Aladdin came out).

The other villain, King One Eye, is another amazingly impressive and scary villain. The vocal actor, Paul Matthews, apparently delivered a package to Williams who was so impressed with his deep, booming voice that he cast in the movie despite having no acting experience at all. As much as I enjoyed James Earl Jones as the Emperor in my last review, the force and malice of Matthews' performance similary impresses. In fact, a several of One Eye's scenes were cut out of the actual theatrical release because they would have given the movie a PG instead of a G rating.

So anyhow, this is a really strange yet beautiful movie, (I haven't even mentioned the brigands, the witch, Donald Pleasance choking and coughing as Phido the vulture, or the absolutely insane, Rube Goldbergesque finale) I don't want to ruin the plot any more. It's free on Youtube, check it out...

Thief and the Cobbler Recobbled - 8 out 10 (only because it's kinda hard to watch because of the unfinished animation in parts)

Obscure animated classics

Okay, I'm gonna stray a bit from current releases back to some older 'gems.' I personally really enjoy well done animation and since I grew up in the 80s, I thought I'd mention a couple of overlooked childhood favorites. Now, people who know my tastes might think that I'm going to talk about An American Tail, Secret of Nimh, or maybe the Black Cauldron (all of which are overlooked and very good). But I'm guessing that most people who read this are somewhat familiar with those three movies (or at least are aware they exist).

The first movie I'm going to discuss is the sequel to Pinocchio (not those Disney awful DVD ones). You weren't aware of the 1987 sequel to the classic Pinocchio. Y'know, the one where Pinoc befriends Don Knotts, drinks absinthe and is tempted by the devil. Bringing us to the Filmation Production of...

Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, Animated, run time of 1 hour, 30 minutes

This film was released on Christmas day of 1987 and completely bombed in the box office, making under 4 million with a budget of 8. The production company, Filmation, was famous for the He-Man/She-Ra TV series, the 1960s Batman/Superman cartoons, and the animated Star Trek. Most of the animation was very simple and repetitive, but the writing was above average for the cartoons of their time. Pinocchio was the big budget attempt to rival Disney and Don Bluth and after it tanked, the production company went under.

Why did it fail so badly? It opened opposite Good Morning Vietnam and Moonstruck, which didn't help and I can see where people would rip it to shreds on being a ripoff of the original Disney version. The film I see as more of a reinterpretation of the original source material then a knock off. Besides its small theatrical success, it has yet to be released on DVD. However, industrious folks on YouTube have posted it, so if you want to watch it after I'm done chatting, click here: YouTube - Pinocchio and The Emperor of the Night part 1.

Why do I like this movie? The combination of being truer to the darker tone of the original story (in the book, Pinocchio kills Jiminy Cricket with a hammer early on), the really surreal imagery, and some very strange yet beautiful animation. If you've seen the Disney Pinocchio, you know most of the major plot points in this one. One of the reasons why this a very imperfect movie is the hammering of the moral message of "freedom of choice." I realize its the backbone of the story but everytime the characters talk about that issue, it just seems clunky. I realize that this is from the people that brought us He-Man and therefore aren't particularly subtle, but the preachyness stood out to me.

The animation is fairly uneven, especially in some of the early expository scenes. The highlight for me comes in the latter third. The Disney version is famous for the transformation into a donkey, but I think what happens in this movie comes across as even more disturbing and twisted and I'll leave it at that. The animation of the titular Emperor is stunning; he may be the most intimidating and evil antagonist in a movie 'for the kids' (on par with the Horned King in Black Cauldron). There are some songs in the movie, most of them forgettable (the first one sung by the Blue Fairy is particularly kind of lame) but I did like the "Your a Star" number (a lot of the Youtube commentators mentioned it as their favorite part of the film).

Voice acting.... Scott Grimes plays Pinocchio, he's not really a household name, but he's had reoccuring parts on ER, Party of 5, and Band of Brothers and he does a good job being the plot catalyst (and isn't as irritating or helpless as similar characters in other animated movies). Jonathan Harris (Dr. Smith from Lost in Space) grumps and humphs his way as the pompous Lt. Grumblebee (the most disposable character in the movie).

Ed Asner is recognizable and hits the right notes as the conniving raccoon con artist Scalawag (if you've seen Up, he plays the primary old man) and Frank Welker (who does a ton of animal voices and is the original voice of Megatron from the 1980s Transformers) does an odd quasi-mexican voice for his monkey sidekick, Igor. I will point out that these characters are an overall improvement to me over their Disney fox and cat counterparts, having even somewhat of a character arc.

Two vocal performances elevate this from middling throwaway to obscure classic. Don Knotts plays the unfortunately named Gee Whilikers (yes, Disney copyrighted Jiminy Cricket). I'm not sure if Knotts did any other animated roles of note, but he is perfect as the plucky conscience. The character with his bug eyes, hat, and scarf even physically resembles Knotts a bit. The booming voice of the Emperor of the Night is none other than James Earl Jones. Obviously, I don't need to discuss the merits of having a villain voiced by Jones, but he makes the Emperor even more threatening than his nasty animation alone.

Overall, there is a fair amount of filler in the story (the whole sequence at Bugsburg sticks out like a sore thumb to me), some sloppy animation, and a corny "message." However, the more creepy surreal parts, the Emperor of the Night himself, and the fairly ballsy idea of having a movie about Pinocchio being tempted by Satan is why I like it quite a bit. So if you have a spare hour and don't mind 80s animation, click on the link and check it out.

I give it a solid 7 out of 10 and that's all I have to say about that.

Ben Button

So yeah, last post, I was talking about Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump. Button is not a carbon copy of Forrest Gump, but very similar in plot structure and story. The better question is - is Benjamin Button any good?

I liked it. I mean, pretty much... (and there are gonna be some spoilers in this review, so if you haven't seen it... well, there were a ton of spoilers in my previous post because it was practically the whole plot)

Technically, it's brilliant. I watched some of the extras on how they used a combination of a midget, an actual old man, etc. and CGIed Brad Pitt's aged head onto those characters. The CGI in this one looks pretty much flawless... For a while, I thought they hadn't cast Pitt for the first couple characters (Ben in his 80s and 70s) and just used makeup on some existing old men to do the parts. Its different from Gollum or the Transformers in that it doesnt' look like a visual effect for the most part.

Actingwise, its Brad Pitt's show to steal and he does a good job and that's about it. I guess beyond the whole aging in reverse, Benjamin Button isn't the most interesting of characters. Pitt's at his best to me when he's playing loonier, more colorful characters like the boxer from Snatch, Jesse James in Ass. of Jesse James, or my personal favorite, the mental patient from 12 Monkeys. Aside from the visual trickery and I have to give credit for playing Button the whole movie at all the different ages, this is more Brad Pitt from Legends of the Fall with a southern accent (that was well done, but still sort of distracting).

Cate Blanchett doesn't fare quite as well, I just got irritated with her character and actually thought her best character moment is when she meets Benjamin and hides under the bed talking to him late at night. Much was said about Taraji Henson's role as Benjamin's mom. I thought this role straddled parody sometimes as a stereotypical sassy ole' black lady (and it gets worse the older her character gets) but she did play the compassionate mom well. Speaking of parody, Jared Harris as the tugboat captain... yikes! For me, this was the low point acting wise. Between a goofy accent, bad dialogue, and generally really hammy acting... Obviously yes, there's the directing and writing but for a really serious, darker movie tonally, he really stood out to me.

My two favorite supporting characters were Tilda Swinton and Jason Fleyming. Swinton as Benjamin's first real love, albeit as a late night affair in a hotel room, has a great chemistry with the experienced/inexperienced Pitt. Fleyming who most people don't know by name and generally is cast as a thug (like in Deep Impact) or psychopath (Jekyll/Hyde in the underwhelming LXG), is Ben's father, and he goes from being pretty evil character (almost throws Ben off a bridge as a baby) to quite a tragic one. I've never seen Fleyming with a part like this and really pulls it off well.

So the movie is long (2 hours 40 minutes), fairly depressing at times, yet I'd still recommend it. Anyone who knows my tastes knows I really enjoy David Fincher's work (Se7en and Fight Club are some of my all time favorites, I also like the Game, Zodiac, and even the maligned Alien3)
This is Fincher's take on a fairy tale/fable, in actuality, a pretty standard story that's painted in murky yellows and rusty oranges and while emotional, never felt like it was overly sappy.

Except for the wraparound story which I haven't really gotten to. The movie technically takes place in New Orleans, 2005, hurricane season. This has nothing at all to do with Benjamin's story, but tried to amp up the tension with a series of boring cutaways to Julia Ormond as Daisy's daugher and Cate Blanchett in old age makeup. Unlike the old Benjamin, this is obviously makeup and it really breaks up and distracts from the story every time this scene gets cut back to (it happens a lot). There's no real need for it, especially because Benjamin tells the story in 1st person the whole time, not Ormond's character (I know she's reading his diary, but still...).

So a recommend for technical wizardry, a non R rated Fincher film, affecting Tilda Swinton and non-evil Jason Fleyming

Stay away from the unnecessary length, the bland Cate Blanchett, and the goofy, redundant wraparound story

I'd give it 7/10... good, but not great

And that's all I have to say about that

Patrick

Really similar movies

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so says an old adage. You could also put it that there are just so many ideas out there. Whatever the case, movies pushed out by the Hollywood factory often are quite similar. I'm not talking about direct sequels/series or remakes or movies made by the same director, but completely separate films. A lot was said about the dueling volcano movies of Dante's Peak and Volcano or the dueling CGI kids movies about ants, A Bug's Life and Antz. Less was said about the "What is reality" concepts behind the Matrix and Existenz or the dueling brother cop movies We Own the Night and Pride and Glory. Anyhow, I saw a movie last week that, as I watched it, reminded me of a blockbuster from the 1990s. Here's a plot synopsis for you...

A caucasian boy is born in the south with birth defects that impair not only his ability to walk but his quality of life in general. With the support of his mother, he learns to walk and dramatically sheds his walking aids. He meets the love of his life at a very young age who then leaves him all alone. As the boy becomes an adolescent, he decides to join the military, going from a Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.

Our man wanders all around the world, his life brushing up against key historical moments of the 20th century. At some point he returns to his childhood home, and his mother dies. The man comes into considerable wealth through blind luck. Around this time, his lifelong love returns from her adventures, ready to commit to him. During their brief time together, they conceive a child. The couple part ways, due to the woman’s perceived inability to take care of the man. He does not raise the child through its early years but later makes an appearance in its life. The woman eventually dies in bed from illness. The man’s later years are hardly touched on, even though the movie has lavished much attention on his early and middle years.

The entire story dwells repeatedly on the theme of life’s uncertainty and, in contrast, on the notion of fate or coincidence. The film’s symbol for these themes is a small object seen hovering improbably in the air. A narrative frame scene punctuates the story, as does the main character’s drawling first person narration.

So I'll ask you, what movie is this??

Answers next time

X-men Origins Wolverine

Running time, 1 hour, 45 minutes

Okay, I'm not sure what I can add to what's already been said about Wolverine. He's been named the greatest Marvel Comics character of all time, he's been in countless comics, video games, and the star of the first 3 X-Men movies. So all I can offer is my opinion... I should preface this that as a big fan of comics, I could go through a nitpick all the things that were changed. In fact, I did this for about 15 minutes with a really die hard Wolverine fan at work the other day. This would be pointless, as this is a movie, and bottom line, I think it does a pretty damn good job of condensing 30 some odd years of Wolverine history into a fairly coherent movie. I'm also going to try and avoid any major plot points that haven't been shown in the previews, so if you haven't seen the previews, then don't read what follows

A lot of the internet reviews compare this film to X-Men 3, the Last Stand, which I don't think is really fair. In both movies, there are a lot of mutants and a lot of characters all together, but this in and itself isn't a terrible thing. I mean, the Lord of the Rings movies had literally dozens of characters, and they were pretty awesome. The problem with X-Men 3 was it had too many plots: you had the Mutant Cure (1), the Phoenix story (2), and Magneto and his Acolytes attacking mankind (3), not to mention introducing important characters like Beast and Angel.

X-men Origins Wolverine is actually a fairly linear story about James/Logan/Wolverine. I think the strongest part is the two opening sequences. First, you get Logan as a kid, followed by him and his brother Victor fighting in a lot of the major wars. Then, he gets recruited by the government and joins "Team X" or the "Weapon X" team, a bunch of mutant mercenaries who do covert ops type missions. There's also a fairly well done love story, and when the movie shifts into the present (there actually aren't too many flashbacks, most of the movie is in chronological order), you get some fun cameos from the first 3 X-Men movies.

I have to take a plot recap break and talk about the casting. In general, the Marvel movies have done an absolutely superb job with casting. After DC ruined Batman by casting the biggest Hollywood stars they could, (Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, The Governator) Marvel has consistently strayed from big names for more acting talent. Obviously, Hugh Jackman is once again fantastic as Wolverine and he has a little more range to cover in this movie. He's in absolutely fantastic physical shape and I found it cool that he focused on being amazingly toned and muscular without being overly bulky, which fit the character. Acting wise, I especially liked the touching scene about half way through when he befriends an older couple on a farm.

The best new character for me was Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth (You may remember Schreiber from the Scream movies as Cotton Weary or the psychotic kidnapper from Ransom). I know most people remember Sabretooth as the hairy 7 foot tall goon from the first X-Men movie which was closer to how he was depicted in the X-Men comics. In the Wolverine comics, he was a lot more of a three dimensional, yet still menacing human character. There's a good combination of aggression, physical menace (he's seems a lot taller and bigger than Jackman even though he's 6'3"... a whole inch taller), and a sense of fun that he has with the character.

I also have to mention Danny Huston as a scheming Stryker (although I preferred Brian Cox's take on the character from X-Men 2, apparently he was busy with a Day of the Triffids remake or something), Will. I. Am. (I feel dumb typing that) as the suave teleporter John Wraith, and Lynn Collins as the sensual SilverFox who all do a fine job. A little gem for me personally was Dominic Monaghan (better known as Merry from Lord of the Rings or the rock star in Lost) who really portrays the sad reality of living with mutant powers (one of the better elements from the first 2 X-Movies). Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was also spot on, with his usual charismatic sarcasm being a perfect fit for the merc with a mouth. One final supporting cast star goes to Kevin Durand as the Blob, yes it's a pretty comedic, one note performance, but with how serious most of the rest of the movie was, it was a nice change of pace.


Finally, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit... To preface this section, I'm a huge fan of Gambit, I loved him in the 90s animated series, I thought then if they did a movie that Jean Claude Van Damme should play him (Before you laugh, Van Damme could do the stunts, had the accent... okay, I was 13, it was a dumb idea, laugh) (I also wanted Dolph Lungdren as Colossus, so he could bust out "I will break him") The producers of X-Men tried to get Gambit in both part 2 (in the X-mansion invasion scene) and part 3 (in the military transport that housed Juggernaut and Multiple Man), but decided he was too important for a glorified cameo. Well, that's pretty much what the character ended up with. Kitsch looks the part, but his accent isn't Cajun at all (it sounds more Texasish then anything else) and isn't much of an actor either. Also, since when did Gambit's mutant ability turn into jumping long distances? If they do a spinoff movie and this was just an introduction to the character, I'd be okay with that, but if this is it, its pretty sad and pathetic (and really distracting to the important WOLVERINE story).

It actually reminds me a lot of Venom in Spiderman 3, where it seems like some producer was like "If you make another X-Men movie, you HAVE to use Gambit" and the director was like "But it's a Wolverine movie" and then the producer says "Pick one of Gambit! Giant Metal Spiders! Wolverine fights polar bears" and the director is like, "fine, Gambit, let's see, replace Maverick or Forge, add in Gambit, DONE!"

Overall though, really nice, well done action movie. Gavin Hood, who directed, is more known for drama, and he really takes all the time he can for character scenes/development. Aside from my Gambit gripes, most of the acting is really well done for a superhero movie. There is some subpar CGI at times with his claws (how is it they look worse and the final sequence/fight seemed really unnecessary and a little silly (especially if you recall the Darth Maul fight from Phantom Menace).

You probably know if you want to see it or not already, but overall, it gets from me...

8/10... and that's all I have to say about that

Bonus Review!

Okay,

So I said "one per week" but there's not much going down this afternoon, so I'm going to go for a second review... I'm going to discuss another small, lower budget type movie....

Splinter, Horror, 1 hour, 23 minute run time

To begin this one, I really enjoy a good monster movie. I've told different people this over the years, a lot of times I get - monster movies are stupid, cheesy, not scary, etc. It also doesn't help that there are two big dumb horror trends in hollywood right now (well, three if you count the Saw sequels). #1, pointless remakes of 70s and early 80s horror movies and #2, pointless PG-13 remakes of original Asian ghost movies.

The other downfall of monster movies is the overuse of CGI for horror movies. To me, most CGI just looks fake and isn't scary (Relic and Deep Blue Sea come to mind), despite the fact that you should be able to do more with computers than you can do with puppets or stuntmen in suits (Alien or The Thing remake). Finally, utilizing the imagination of the audience... In general with horror movies, less is more. People can think of things a lot scarier than most directors can put on the screen.

So I should talk about the movie I'm supposed to be reviewing... Okay, Splinter... Basic setup... Two young couples get stuck at a gas station with a monster after them and try to escape. Not the most original of plots. I forgot to mention that the couples are a wimpy biologist and his girlfriend and a convict and his crazy girlfriend who carjacked the first two. Not really any notable faces among the four leads, (I recognized Paulo Costanzo, who plays the flustered nerd, as the stoner from the Tom Green/Breckin Meyer opus Road Trip) but all four can act. I have to give special props to Shea Wigham who plays the nasty, tough convict. It's a part that a lot of actors would play one note evvill, but Wigham puts together a really nice, multi-dimensional character and ultimately steals the movie for me (I had only seen him in a minor ole in the quirky Wristcutters).

As for the monster, it's fairly original, gory, and pretty nasty, and that's all the specifics you get, much more would completely ruin the movie. Due to budget constraints, you don't see a whole lot of critter, a happy problem. What you do see is an awesome composite of puppeteering and stuntwork (see, that rant I started with ties back in here). There's a fun little DVD extra that shows the combination of male gymnast and mime that bring the beast to life. Toby Wilkins, in his feature film directorial debut, keeps the pace tight and fully uses the claustrophobic harsh lighting inside the gas station.

The last thing about the movie is the writing. To me, it avoids both the bad exposition (there's no scientific specialist who gives a five minute talk about the specifics of the monster) and the bad jokes (no obnoxious comic relief character either) that can submarine a good horror flick. There are also some nice homages to Alien and Evil Dead 2, and the humor does cut the tension when it needs to. The characters aren't complete idiots and seem to make more realistic decisions than in most horror movies.

After I rave about it for 4 paragraphs, is it perfect? No... The acting out of the actress who plays Wigham's girlfriend goes from ehh to bad to terrible, there's some stupid character decisions solely to move the plot along, and a few good sized logic holes that make some of the movie a little silly(for example, what kind of gas station carries fireworks??).

It's a recommend for some excellent suspense, nice gore, intense Shea Wigham, and good directing. It's a no go if you don't like monster movies/horror at all (go watch Bride Wars then, wait... don't waste an hour and half of your time... bake some cake or read a book if you aren't confident with your baking abilities).

For me, it's a 8 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.

1st Post

Okay,

Since I work at a video store and all, I thought I'd create this and share my thoughts about one movie I see per week because I work odd hours (usually 5ish until 11:30ish) and I have nothing better to do during the day. I'll try to avoid overly egregious spoilers (or if I do, I'll warn everyone beforehand) and not mention any plot points that aren't on the back of the box. I also don't count the end credits in a movie run time (and no, the current lame trend of adding a 30 second scene after the credits in a bunch of movies doesn't make me change my mind about this)

If you don't know what a spoiler is, its when you read a movie review and they tell you major plot points like for example that Jessica Alba was really dead at the end of Fantastic Four 2... Wait, she wasn't dead?? Was she a zombie in that one?? No?? Well with her acting 'skills' and blatant cue card reading, I couldn't really tell (burnnn)... On to this week's movie


While She Was Out - 1 hour, 21 minute run time - Suspense/Drama

This isn't a movie that got a theatrical release that I'm aware of, it's not high budget, but it was executive produced by Guillermo Del Toro (director of Pan's Labryinth and one of my personal favorites in the directorial chair) and it stars Academy Award Winner Kim Basinger.

Your basic set up: Basinger is Della, a typical middle american suburban mom, has the S.U.V., two kids, and a real abusive asshole husband (Craig Sheffer who plays it straight eeeviiilll). After a fairly brief but well done character establishing opening, the movie sends Della to the mall to do some Christmas shopping. There's some good moments as Della deals with the irritations of the holiday season, some juxtaposition with some happy families and her crappy husband... The movie really starts when Della leaves a passive-aggressive note on a car taking up 2 spaces in a very crowded mall parking lot. Unfortunately, for her, the owners of the car are 4 young gang banger punk types who wait for her and don't have her best intentions at heart. A mall cop shows up (neither Seth Rogen nor Kevin James), things take a nasty turn, and Della ends up with only a toolbox being chased by a car full of angry punks...

So did anyone see Jodie Foster's "The Brave One" ? Ordinary people who get pushed a little too far... I got a really similar vibe out of this flick, down to an Oscar Winner Basinger's sometimes panicked, sometimes horrified, yet always determined and ultimately empowering lead performance. There's a first time director at hand (Susan Montford, who also co-wrote) who uses some strong cinematography and interesting settings (an unfinished housing development) keep the tension going. I also have to give a shout out to Lukas Haas (famous role - the kid from Mars Attacks - best role - the drug dealer from Brick) who channels some Dennis Hopper crazy at the leader of the punks.

On the bad side, the punks to me provide some hammy acting (Haas in particular veers between real menace and blatant evvill mugging throughout) and also seem a little too UN (there's one white guy, one asian guy, one black guy, and one latino guy). Despite Basinger's best efforts, I didn't completely buy into some of her character's arc and she can't overcome some of the clunkier writing. Also, despite the movie's short run time, the pacing is off, the chases get a little redundant, and there are some really silly plot holes (I kept expecting Haas to yell "Let's Split Up, Gang" Scooby-style at times).

So anyhow, overall, its a recommend if you want a lot of tense closeups of Basinger, some good feminista suspense, and some well done, documentary style camerawork. Its a no go if you can't get past some corny acting, a few pacing issues, and some writing flaws.

For me, it's a 6 out of 10. And that's all I have to say about that.

Patrick