markiechan42 Reviews

March of the Penguins (2005)

It was PBS-tastic.

[6/10 · 5 December 2005]

Well, you knew there was bound to be someone out there who wasn't blown away by "March." No, I'm not jaded, or indifferent, or hate sickeningly cute animals; this film had a lot to like. But after reading pages and pages of reviews from bedazzled viewers, I get the impression that far too few Americans watch educational television shows on TLC, Animal Planet and PBS. I honestly feel that if more people watched less mindless programming, they may not be so easily impressed.

To start with, I will agree and say that the cinematography was incredibly impressive. I envy their underwater lenses and want one. <3 Their aerial shots, underwater shows, and that the camera crew could get so incredibly close to such docile creatures was interesting indeed.

I can also see why so many people were impressed with the animals' devotion, being that so often we as a species are generally lacking. But really and truly, there are more animals that are equally interesting, monogamous for their entire lifespan, and have humans and diseases to contend with, like wolves or chinchillas.

Morgan Freeman is a very nice choice for narrator, but I'll disagree with comments about the amazing-ness of having him do it; Mr. Freeman isn't the first celebrity voice over for a documentary, and certainly wont be the last. PBS is good like that.

It's worth a watch, and will make you diabetic if you stare at the fuzzy penguin babies too long, but maybe only for renting or babysitting entertainment purposes.

Robots (2005)

Cute and does tricks, but not well built

[6/10 · 24 October 2005]

This movie to me feels similar to how Bill Cosby once took apart chocolate cake mentally to make it a suitable breakfast. He said, "Wheat. There is wheat in the chocolate cake. And eggs. Goody! And milk! Wheat, milk and eggs... that's nutrition!" In "Robots," it feels as though the producers had a similar dissection. "Big stars for voices. And brightly colored computer animation. Hooray! Oo! Let's add in some fart jokes - those never get old!! Now let's whisk in a very sugary moral for kids to soak up. That's a movie!" It also kind of reminds me of a sparkler in a way. Really bright and flashy and neat, but as it burns, you see it's just a stick and nothing more. "Robots" shows off and dazzles the viewer as long as it can, but if you look closer you see it has very little to offer at its core.

The story is simple and wonderfully cliché, and the next hour or so is spent drilling the sappy moral into your head (You'd honestly have to be a zombie or something.), dazzling you with the most intricate and sophisticated animation Pixar has to offer, dozens of one-liners and random puns that have nothing to do with anything... the list goes on. "Robots" relies heavily on its all-star cast to keep the movie rolling, but overall, the main characters sounded very bored, and so the whole film begged one actor to save it. I've made movies and written scripts. You CANNOT assume that the movie will be saved if only one of your actors is funny and sounds genuinely interested in what he's doing (that means you, Mr. Williams). Much like in "Aladdin," Robin Williams feels like he is the entire comedy club, despite being surrounded and supported by actors who are very talented and otherwise funny.

Lack of interest aside, there's also a lack of chemistry between other characters. Much like in "Skycaptain," Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow are very talented and work well together, but romantically are dead. Here, the gorgeous Halle Berry plays the "romantic interest" of Rodney, although she isn't assumed as his girlfriend until the end, where it sparks an awkward moment. Until this point she helps him, but it really would've been better if the producers hadn't tried to force a romantic interest into it at all. It has no place and doesn't work.

Not to say this movie is BAD by any means. It will more than likely keep a child's interest for the whole running time, and may invoke some interesting discussions afterward. Adults will snicker at the multiple innuendos and sexual references (parents will get a kick out of making a baby in the beginning). Younger adults will likely feel nostalgic and want to play with things they haven't played with since the 80's and early 90's, like K'Nex and Domino competitions.

Overall it was cute, and I'm glad I watched it once, but I think I could've found something better to spend my time on.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984)

Ohm... the Hindu word for 'Peace'

[10/10 · 26 February 2005]

When I caught wind last week that Nausicaa had finally been re-released as it was originally viewed in Japan 21 years ago and was on sale at Wal-Mart, I rushed two towns over to see if it was true.

15 years ago, my brother gave me a copy of 'Warriors of the Wind,' a much more cropped version of the movie that barely summarized the first few books of the story and left much to be desired. But I fell in love with the film and its captivating story and superb animation. Since then, I've guarded that tape religiously, fearing that if i lost it, I'd never see another copy of it again. It was basically the movie that started my love and appreciation of Japanese animation.

The tape is now old and stretched at the top and bottom, and the box falling apart. So imagine my surprise to find it at Wal-Mart of all places as a two-disk special edition. I bought it yesterday and have already watched it twice. The English voices have all been re-cast and dubbed, and scenes that weren't previously in 'Warriors' are included. This version is truer to the first few chapters of the Nausicaa story, and truer to the manga dialog. Alison Lohman is a nice choice for the voice of Nausicaa - she's sweet, and gentle sounding, and really makes you empathetic to the situations when she talks. Patrick Stewart in the role of Lord Yupa is also a wonderful choice as his voice quality is beyond measure, simultaneously comforting and demanding your attention.

Even though the techniques for animating a film have changed drastically since the production of Nausicaa 21 years ago, it still sparkles and glistens like the jewel it is in Miazaki's crown. His way of storytelling and depth are enough to make even the youngest child think and ask real discussion questions. The way he makes you love the characters as they struggle can provoke tears from from almost any cynic. (And if you don't believe me, try Grave of the Fireflies - nary a dry eye to be found.) Miazaki is a god among animation directors, and we should all watch and benefit from the lessons in his films.

'Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind' is a must for any anime fan, environmentalist, Miazaki fan, or anyone who just wants a movie you can watch again and again, and let your children watch over and over without fear of their brains rotting. I'd also recommend Grave of the Fireflies and My Neighbor Totoro.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

Movie magic... Hocus Pocus - Are you out of focus?

[6/10 · 16 February 2005]

I live for thirties entertainment - I presently am trying to work up a 30's broadcast show with my program director. So hearing that this movie was supposed to be a tribute to the fantasy comics of the 30's that I read when I was a kid, I was thrilled. It came close, but fell several feet short of my expectations.

First and foremost, I would like to applaud Paltrow and Law and the other actors for performing in a movie with no real set. Presenting the weather on a blue screen is hard by itself, so doing an entire movie using blue and green screen is something to be proud of. I also applaud Pixar for their imaginative animations. But that's more or less where my praising ends.

Jude Law, as much of a hunk he is, didn't really feel right the whole film. His humor was very British, and did the classic eyebrow-raise more than give responses to Paltrow's statements. Paltrow was lovely, but her acting was wooden, as if she were overacting, or reading her lines from the cue card for the first time. Adding to it, even though individually they are wonderful actors, there was no chemistry between their two characters.

Polly came off as almost whiny in parts, and showed poor journalism skills. If the story of your life is in a bag, even IF you are in a room full of explosives, you don't put the bag down. Every true reporter knows this. And yet, she puts down her bag, and loses it in the explosion, and for the rest of the movie complains about her lost film, not batting an eye to the precious notebooks and plans from the scientist that would be needed for the story.

Another story character flaw is Frankie. It was advertised with Angelina Jolie, making it sound like she had a major part. While her part was very cool, it was very short, only soaking up 15 minutes of film time or less. I'm not a Jolie fan, but I really don't think a character should by hyped up in advertising to get that actor's audience in line if that actor only plays a minor role. Frankly, a movie about Frankie's character may be been more interesting.

Characters aside, the movie was fuzzy the whole way through. My friends thought that this was a salute to the old silver screen and the glow people always had on them in those movies, but notice that the fuzziness is only there when the characters are doing a lot with the CGI images. (IE, Polly is dodging around mega robot feet. Polly and robots have a fuzzy glow around them.) With the taupe and sepia tones the first 30 or so minutes the movie is covered in (another tribute) staring at the fuzziness hurts your eyes, especially in a darkened theater or room. The fuzziness is NOT a tribute - it's poor graphics editing. In an all CGI movie, the graphics come over as clean, but when meshing it with live actors, it takes careful cropping and blending to make the visuals look smooth and real.

The overall effect of the editing job? The film looks out of focus. There's also suspension of disbelief and certain physics that just don't work. My biggest example is Frankie's airbase. Just like in FF7, there's a mega air-base held up by 4 large propellers. HOW?? And then it's moving, and the propellers aren't. Whoops. There's also Law's impressive P-30. It's a neat plane and a neat idea that the plane has submarine abilities, but a nosedive from several thousand feet in the air at full speed would have obliterated an airplane that size, aquatic gear or not.

There was definitely a lot of time and effort put into this film. Sky Captain was definitely made for the effects, though. So if you're a nut for SFX, Gwenyth Paltrow's legs, or Jude Law in an old war plane, go for it. If you're looking for a quality plot, try Dick Tracey.

The Care Bears Movie (1985)

Something that this generation of children is missing... compassion.

[20 November 2004]

Let's face it - the world has grown into a rather unpleasant place, and the recent generations of children are more jaded than any I or my mother have ever seen. Toys are over-priced, uninventive and children get bored with them in a matter of days. Children's movies today are much the same, getting shorter and shorter every movie and teaching children nothing.

If anyone with children or younger siblings has ever had to suffer through current children's programming, you'll see what I mean. They're reverse-educational; a young child pointed at the Teletubbies sun and said "Baby," and then pointed at the real sun and said "Baby." Blues Clues teaches children to shout(trust me on this one,) and shows such as 'the Wiggles' remind me far too much of PeeWee Herman (the worst "children's" show of all time.)

So rewind TV - go back to 80's cartoons. Even though Care Bears were originally piloted to advertise the toys, the show evolved into something NICE. The animation was far from spectacular, especially when compared to today's computer animation, and the story lines WERE simple. But it had something to offer children that 99% of new cartoons don't offer - examples of non-violent resolutions to conflicts, sharing thoughts and items with others, being open about your feelings, caring about yourself and others. These 80's cartoons encouraged children to not be jaded, selfish and rotten brats. (And if you don't believe me that today's violence-fed kids are brats, just go to my sister's elementary school - I've NEVER seen so many 5th graders dressed like whores in my life.)

Storyline and morality aside, you should also pay attention to the music. Following the habits of 80's cartoons and movies, there are numerous song and dance numbers randomly inserted into conversation. But they are certainly striking in the boldness of them. And by this I mean the harmonies. Cue up the song "Home Is In Your Heart" on your movie or cd and just listen. The harmonies running through the song feel as though they should clash against each other and explode, but they just miss that clashing point and somehow manage to work very well. You can distinctly hear the SATB lines, and how soprano and tenor carry a lot of the melody and the base and alto are used to interesting harmonies. Just listen. The music was really well written.

Long story short, let your children watch movies like this, and if you feel that they didn't learn anything from it, discuss the movie with them. 6.5/10