Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3 (2010)

98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 195 reviews)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: Lee Unkrich

Starring: The voices of Tim Allen, Tom Hanks, Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton

From: Disney/Pixar

Yep, I finally went and saw this movie. It was this past Friday afternoon, and I saw it in IMAX 3-D, and at a legit IMAX theatre not one of those faux-IMAX screens that have popped up using the name but it not being quite legit due to how tiny the faux screens are in comparison to the old ones. It’s a shame that IMAX decided to whore their name out quite like that… but anyhow, I saw it at the one legit IMAX screen in Orlando, which is at Regal Pointe Orlando.

Remember now, I saw the first two movies in 3-D this past fall and talked about it here. In short, both were pretty great to see in that format, so I had high hopes for this one, and I’ll say that this one is also fantastic, although at this time I’ll say that it’s the least of the movies. That should be seen as no slight, though, as it’s like determining which kid of yours is your favorite. Even though the first two are just a little bit better, it’s still great and it’s amazing to have all three movies in a trilogy be of such high overall quality. People on IMDb certainly enjoy this (as you can see from clicking on the embedded link that's above (the "Toy Story 3 (2010)". I always link to a movie's IMDb page that way)

Oh, and I also saw the first two movies recently on Blu-Ray (via rental) and they both look awesome in that format, as it does seeing this film on a legit IMAX screen… although it will cost you 17 dollars per ticket (!) Then again, the 3-D isn’t “in your face” and it more enhances things and you’ll probably enjoy it in 2-D also. I mean, the 3-D stuff gets a workout in the short they show before the movie. It’s some oddball thing about two blobs and I thought it was more interesting for the 3-D stuff and the music rather than whatever story it’s trying to tell in 5 or so minutes. The choice is up to you.

I will not spoil too much of the plot for those of you who haven’t seen it yet but I’ll state the things that have been brought up in the reviews and the trailers. Andy, the kid who has played with the toys back in the 90’s, is now a 17 year old, about to head off to college. He still has his major toys around, the others sold off at garage sales or thrown away. He now has to decide what to do with his remaining toys, and there’s miscommunication with his mom, and it results in Buzz, Woody, and company meeting new toys, such as the strawberry-scented Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear, a Ken doll that goes along real well with Barbie, and the greatly named hedgehog known as Mr. Pricklepants. Various adventures happen and it’s a great old time.

Once I saw the movie I started to read the reviews of it and man, some people need the “Mr. Pricklepants” name more than that hedgehog! The reason why it’s not 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoes is due to a few critics bellyaching about it. It’s mainly them being dumb and in one case, the critic (Armond White, who writes for some rag in New York) is a middle-aged dude who is nonetheless a troll! I kid you not, a troll. He’s a total contrarian who does it just to get attention and hey, it works. He doesn’t like anything from Pixar and yet praises stuff like Transformers, Jonah Hex, and G.I. Joe! Then again, people should just ignore him. Sure, in reading what he writes, you may spot why stuff that critics like isn’t so great, or why bashed movies have some merit, but his contrarianism and troll manners isn’t worth it to slog through his material. Lord knows, I can have different viewpoints at times but I’m not a contrarian, or at least I’d like to think I am not. It’s just that at times I have ripped highly rated movies and given praise to stuff that critics (and maybe some of you) wouldn’t care for. I’m just not a shit-stirrer like Armond White apparently is. And really, the Rotten Tomatoes rating isn’t worth too much besides what critics think in general; I know, I post the RT rating when I can, but it’s more trivial stuff, IMO.

But man, White is a softy and even-keeled compared to some of the bitching and griping and arguing that’s gone on various messageboards over the movie, how great it is, its demerits (it’s not perfect, like Toy Story or its sequel almost are) or how it “botched” various things, and it’s all ridiculous. Talk about micro-analyzing to find any miniscule faults and blowing them way out of proportion, to show that you’re “hip” on those boards or what have you. It’s ridiculous. I won’t explain what their chief complaints are, as hey, spoilers, but it’s pretty sad to see people get worked up over such silly things like that. And some wacky fan theories have also sprouted up, claiming the movie is really a coded message for various things (some of which are very tasteless, including a rather horrible thing that went on in the 1930’s and 40’s) and that it’s nihilistic (I don’t know about that, although this movie is certainly the darkest in the series and I’m surprised at how far they went at times with various things, especially the end), and man, people on the Internet are just strange and wacky in general, but I’m sure you know that already.

Anyhow, I give the strongest recommendation for you to go out and see this, whether it’s in 2-D, 3-D, in IMAX, or what have you. It’s a great time and there’s thrilling stuff in the second half that’s even to a higher scale than what you see in TS2, and like I just mentioned, there’s some moments where you’re surprised at how far they went. I didn’t get teary-eyed at all during the movie (like many others have apparently reacted to it) but your mileage may vary, and hopefully you’ll find this a worthy flick to go along the first two amazing Toy Story movies.

I'll be back Friday night with at least one new review.

Gone With The Wind

Gone With The Wind (1939)

Runtime: 233 minutes

Directed by: Victor Fleming

Starring: Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Leslie Howard, Olivia de Havilland

From: MGM/Selznick International

Yep, a review of such a famous and well-known film, one that I just saw recently, believe it or not. It was another Blu-Ray rental from Blockbuster. I was able to see both the movie and then afterward listen to the commentary track from noted movie historian Rudy Behlmer; he’s pretty great with commentary tracks and this one in particular was well worth listening to for its 4 hour runtime, explaining just about everything about the movie and its backstory and how there were production problems (Fleming wasn’t the original director of the film) and whatnot. I thought it was more interesting than the actual movie…

I don’t think I need to say too much about the plot, but this epic film (unlike any movie before it) is a giant soap opera set in the south during the Civil War and then the Reconstruction period after the war. It’s about shrewish spoiled rich girl Scarlett O’Hara (Leigh) and her dealings with Rhett Butler (Gable) throughout that long time period. You’ll see them interact with many people, including Scarlett’s secret crush (Howard) and how he ended up marrying one of his cousins (I know, not always a pleasant thought), Melanie (the rather radiant during the time period de Havilland).

Now, I do realize that adjusted for inflation it’s the highest grossing movie in history and it is beloved by so many and has won so many accolades for the past 70 years. But, I can’t really share in that sentiment. I’ll admit that it goes by rather quickly for its epic length, the acting is quality for the time period, the sets all look lovely and lavish, there are some great cinematic shots and special effects… and yet, besides it being a giant soap opera, there’s the fact that Scarlett is just not a very likeable character, IMO. I realize that’s sort of the point, but to me it was more of a turn-off than anything else. I do remember reading somewhere in the past on some sort of messageboard a person saying pretty much the same thing; I don’t know if that memory played any part in my opinion; I don’t think so, but maybe I’m incorrect.

Anyway, if you've never seen the movie, I still say that you should, so that you can say you saw a flick many regard as an all-time great. Maybe you'll enjoy it more than I did.

I'll be back Sunday night with a review of a movie I saw earlier today.

The A-Team

The A-Team (2010)

48% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 147 reviews)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Directed by: Joe Carnahan

Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlto Copley, Quinton Jackson, Jessica Biel

From: 20th Century Fox

As I’ve mentioned before, the movies that were released this year that I’ve been looking forward to, I’ve been let down by (I’m looking at your general direction, Kick-Ass and especially Iron Man 2). I was hoping I’d enjoy this. I figured what type of movie it was going to be, based off of the TV show, but I was still hoping for at least a good time.

I’ll confess that I have faint memories of watching the TV show when I was real little. A few years ago I rented some episodes of the show from a local video store, and I discovered that I found the program to be rather stupid and not entertaining. I know that’s blasphemy to some, but it’s true. I better never try to watch Knight Rider, as I know I enjoyed watching it when I was a kid.

I saw this at the Plaza Cinema Café in downtown Orlando. I’ve been there twice before last summer, to see the original Italian Job and then District 9 (also starring Copley, interestingly enough). As people in the know had predicted even before it opened, there would be problems with the inept corrupt people who built and ran the PCC, and after a few months, that’s exactly what happened. They didn’t pay the bills and another company took it over, and now the joint is better overall. It’s not incompetent like it used to be… you can believe that the start times you read online are the actual start times for the films, it has the standard multiplex faire (although I wish they’d show more indy/foreign/older/off the beaten path movies), and it’s just a better experience there.

As for the movie… it’s rather similar to the TV show, except that it’s dopey BUT GOOD. You get to see four Army Rangers in a special A-Team faction, led by Hannibal Smith (Neeson), and including Face (Cooper), the loony Murdock (Copley), and the famed Bosco (B.A.) Baracus (acting newcomer/MMA fighter Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, who doesn’t do too badly). You see them get framed for a crime they did not commit, and they try to right all the wrongs.

Sure, it’s a goofy movie, but you probably already figured it out if you saw the trailers and noticed Cooper firing a machinegun from a tank at drones… but the plane happens to be falling out from the sky… if you can believe that could happen, then you should enjoy this. If you can believe Biel playing a Captain of the investigative arm of the Department of Defense, then you should enjoy this. Need I go on?

The only real complaint is that there’s too much of that shaky-cam/quick editing crap that I’ve railed against on here more than once before. Yet, maybe because I’ve been waiting for months to enjoy a movie I had some sort of expectations for, maybe that’s why I’m giving it a pass when I may otherwise be more irked by it. If you can excuse that, this very funny movie that’s packed with quality action should entertain you like it entertained the packed crowd I saw it with on Saturday night. There are surprises and double-crosses along the way (I won’t reveal anything, except that I was surprised to see Major Dad himself, Gerald McRaney, play, surprise, a General) and it’s the type of movie you’d expect it to be (a big dumb action movie with plenty of laughs) but unlike many of them (IMO) this one’s actually entertaining to watch and doesn’t make you angry with how dumb and ridiculous it is. You’ll enjoy all the characters and how they interact with each other rather than be turned off by any of them, for example. Biel acts about as well as you’d expect her to (i.e., she’s a pretty face and not much else) but it doesn’t do anything to make you not have a good time with this.

So, if it’s the type of movie you think you’d like, I highly recommend you go see it and show it some love, as it’s not doing as well at the box office as many people had predicted, so it needs some extra cash thrown its way.

I’ll be back Friday night, reviewing a movie that is rather far away from what this film is.

Martyrs

Martyrs (2008)

50% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 24 reviews)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Pascal Laugier

Starring: Morjana Alaoui, Mylene Jampanoi, Catherine Begin, Robert Toupin

From: A bunch of companies, including TCB Film, Wild Bunch, and Canal +

Before I talk about this foreign horror flick, I have two things to mention.

1. Yes, I did change the layout on here a few days ago. It was to do something different. Hopefully you don’t think of this as being lesser than the original design.

2. I plan on seeing quite a few films on the big screen in the next few months, plus I have some reviews already in the can and I’ll just have to post them at the appropriate time. So, it’ll be more active here for the rest of the summer compared to the past.

Now, onto this French/Canadian movie which is not a French-Canadian movie. What I mean is that it was made by both French and Canadian film companies and filmed in Quebec, yet it’s not what you’d call a French-Canadian movie because it happened to be filmed there… but before I confuse any of you more…

This is a horror film that I’ll say qualifies under the “torture porn” genre. It’s prettier than most in that genre, but still… this is not for the weak of heart, or those of you used to watching those limp horror flicks. It’s not easy to watch, and that’s what most have said about it. Take very seriously that it’s rated R (and I’m surprised they got away with it) “for disturbing/severe aberrant behavior involving strong bloody violence, torture, child abuse and some nudity.” Believe it.

The movie starts off with a young girl, Lucie (played as an adult by Jampanoi) who escapes from a torture chamber, where she’s been for a long time. She ends up in an orphanage with another young girl, Anna (played as an adult by Alaoui), and after a brief amount of time with them as kids-where you see that, understandably, Lucie is still traumatized-you spent most of them with them as adults and yep, Lucie is still traumatized, haunted by her demons from the past. So, one day she snaps and she goes out for revenge. I won’t reveal what happens after that as that’d totally spoil things. But, it’s stuff that can be extremely difficult to watch. You know, graphic violence and watching women get tortured.

Still, I was able to watch it and I was interested in where the weird tale was going to… then, the last half hour happens. Like others have said online, things go downhill there. Then, the ending… I didn’t care for it, and I’ll leave it at that, along with what the story was actually about. So, despite the nice acting (those girls having to do what they did in this movie… wow), the pretty cinematography and the way it was filmed, I otherwise I have to say that while it was interesting to see the movie, I’d never watch it again and it’s not “holy shit awesome” as many have proclaimed.

By the way, of course there’s going to be an American remake of this, and it will likely be toned down quite a bit from the original. Just recently it’s been announced that they’d like for Kristen Stewart to be in it, and boy that has people mad. I don’t know if it’s exactly fair, as from what I understand she isn’t a bad actress and it’s not like if she’s in it, it’ll automatically be as soft and wussy as a Twilight film.

So, if you do want to see this, be prepared for a challenging movie to watch, and maybe you’ll like it more than I did. And yeah, this should be seen rather than the American version, whenever it gets made and released.

I’ll be back on Monday night with at least one new review.

The Longest Day

The Longest Day (1962)

Runtime: 178 minutes

Directed by: Ken Annakin/Andrew Marton/Bernhard Wicki/Darryl F. Zanuck

Starring: An incredible all-star cast; the highlights include John Wayne, Richard Burton, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Christian Marquand, and Curt Jurgens

From: 20th Century Fox

You know, I really haven’t seen too many war movies at all. That’s just how it’s been. In particular, before I saw this film, I had not seen any flicks about D-Day. That’s right, no Saving Private Ryan or even the Band of Brothers miniseries. I had heard about this movie for years now and I know that my mom enjoys it, so I finally was able to watch this late last week via a Blockbuster rental of a Blu-Ray disc; it looks really nice in that format.

This big-budget (inflation would make the cost of it around 70 million in current dollars) all-star extravaganza-they don’t make them like this anymore-is all about D-Day, from the night before, when the Allies finally decided to make the surprise invasion after several delays, to the journey to Normandy to the combat itself on the shores of northern France. Many different viewpoints are seen, and not just from the Allies. You get to see moments with the generals of the U.S., England, Scotland, France, and Germany, along with the soldiers of all those countries, and even the countrymen and freedom fighters in France. That’s why the movie is 3 hours long and yet it’s never boring. Among other things, you get to see that at times, war is indeed hell and brutal rather than the romantic image that is popularly attached to it. Also, you get to see the toll that being in the situation has caused for the soldiers, and how the whole effort was a massive undertaking. You learn that the decision to invade Normandy was a shocking one as it was the least predictable thing for them to do, so that’s why they did it and totally caught the Germans with their pants down.

Besides the drama and some comedic moments, you also end up with many action sequences, which are entertaining to watch and some of them are very nicely filmed too. What is noteworthy is that the German and French people speak their own languages, so there’s lot of subtitles. But, unless you’re a total rube that should be of no bother to you.

If you enjoy war movies or heck, grand old tales from the older days of motion pictures, then you should enjoy this 3 hour epic film filled with many stars of yesteryear, both in America and abroad. You’ll also better appreciate the D-Day invasion (the anniversary of which was just a week ago), so all around this is a classic film from the 60's.

I'll be back on Friday night with another review.

Goldfinger

Goldfinger (1964)

Runtime: 110 minutes

Directed by: Guy Hamilton

Starring: Sean Connery, Gert Frobe, Honor Blackman, Harold Sakata

From: Eon/United Artists

Yep, here’s the most famous Bond of them all, and one that many say is the best of them all too. It has iconic moments and scenes, from the title song by Shirley Bassey to Oddjob (Sakata) and his special hat, to the fancy Aston Martin DB5 given to Bond by Q, which is now up for sale to the public. If only I had a few extra million pounds of disposable change... speaking of Bond cars, here is a nice list of all of them, courtesy of good old Wikipedia.

After an opening in Mexico that most people probably don’t remember too well compared to the rest of the film-hey, at least it shows some cool spy action and also shows people the danger of electricity around bathtubs-the plot starts and we see that the antagonist is Auric Goldfinger, a rather unsubtle name (I know, I know, there’s also a woman with the rather preposterous name of Pussy Galore, played by Blackman) to show what he’s obsessed with as a wealthy man. Bond first encounters him in Miami Beach and then later at a golf course that Auric happens to own in England. That’s when things heat up. Bond has to figure out how Goldfinger is transporting gold internationally. That leads him to Switzerland where his car comes to use, and then the final half or so of the movie is in Kentucky, near Fort Knox, where Auric has an insidious plan with those evil Communist Chinese. All of those settings actually appear in the movie, although it was much more brief than it was portrayed in the movie; a lot of scenes were filmed in England but set in those other locations.

I’ll say that this is the second-best of the Connery Bond films; that’s in no way a slight. You have so many memorable moments, fun action, and an ending which-while goofy-is memorable also. I can’t really think of anything else to say about the movie, as it still holds up today-despite some things that may be seen as “slow-paced” or hokey today-and if you must see one movie in the franchise, it should be this one.

By the way, today is the official anniversary of The Goonies, as it came out 25 years ago today. I feel that needs to be mentioned.

Anyhow, I'll be back a week from tonight with at least one new review. Until then...

From Russia With Love

From Russia with Love (1963)

Runtime: 115 minutes

Directed by: Terence Young

Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw

From: Eon/United Artists

I already talked about the first ever Bond movie, Dr. No. Here is the second film, and it’s one that many say is the best of all the Bond’s, and even I will probably say it’s the best; I mean, Connery himself agrees with me, and that’s not a bad guy to agree with, I say.

In this movie, you get a better understanding of what SPECTRE is, as they’re the straw that stirs the drink that is the plot. You meet Blofeld for the first time… or rather, you only see his torso and him petting a cat and you hear his voice (as Dr No.’s wardrobe inspired the character of Dr. Evil, the main inspiration of course was Blofeld, whom you get to see in full profile for the first time in You Only Live Twice a few years later); SPECTRE has a plan for stealing a Lektor code interpreting device from the Russians for their usage, and they came up with an ingenious plan a la Siamese fighting fish; they play both sides against each other and as they’re weak from attacking each other in battle, SPECTRE-a terrorist organization, after all-will sweep in and rule the entire world.

Rosa Klebb (Lenya; she makes for quite a scary villain; in terms of Austin Powers inspiration, think of the character Frau; also, judging by one scene, she may very well be a lesbian!), a defector from the Soviet spy agency Smersh, is the lady who goes to Istanbul to put the plan into motion, but not before visiting SPECTRE’s own private island and recruiting Donald “Red” Grant (Shaw). Grant ends up manipulating things so that the plan succeeds, unknowing to either the Russians, the Brits, or the people in Turkey who are affiliated with the two sides, including Bond’s friend Kerim Bey (Armendariz; this was his last-ever film, as he was terminally ill with cancer when he filmed his scenes; he killed himself shortly thereafter rather than deal with the pain; it’s a sad story, but he did the role for the money for his family, which is a great thing. You can’t really tell he’s that ill during the movie either). Klebb convinces a young lady working for Smersh as a clerk (Bianchi, an attractive-looking blonde) to work with her on a “secret” mission, not knowing that Rosa doesn’t work for Smersh any longer. From there you watch the plot and see when Bond figures things out and how he gets out of such a jam.

This movie is great entertainment. It’s set in the UK for a bit, but it’s mainly in Venice and then Istanbul, Turkey (a unique and pretty cool city I wouldn’t mind visiting one of these days) before a journey on the Orient Express that leaves Turkey and goes through what is now Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia (although aside from filming in Istanbul, the rest of it was filmed in the United Kingdom), so the scenery was nice. The story is very entertaining and you’re interested in how it turns out. Desmond Llewelyn debuts as gadget-master Q and he hands Bond a special suitcase, which of course comes to use later on. There’s spy stuff, intrigue, romance, some black humor, and yes, action scenes, including a catfight between two Gypsy women! No kidding. The highlight, though, is a fight that Bond and Grant end up having in real close quarters. Even almost 50 years later it’s very effective. It’s a brutal affair of punches and kicks (among other things) and the actors mainly did it all on their own with no stunt-people.

So, if you’ve seen some of the Bond movies before but not this one, you must do anything possible to check this out. I’ll still be back Monday night with another movie review.