list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Shrek on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Shrek/189190/default.aspx Title: Shrek
Year: 2001
Director: Vicky Jenson, Andrew Adamson
Plot: In this fully computer-animated fantasy from the creators of Antz, we follow the travails of Shrek (Mike Myers), a green ogre who enjoys a life of solitude. Living in a far away swamp, he is suddenly invaded by a hoard of fairy tale characters, such as the Big Bad Wolf, the Three Little Pigs, and Three Blind Mice, all refugees of their homes who have been shunned by the evil Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow). They want to save their homes from ruin, and enlist the help of Shrek, who is in the same situation. Shrek decides to offer Lord Farquaad a deal; he will rescue the beautiful Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz), who is intended to be Farquaad's bride. Accompanying Shrek on his adventure is the faithful but loquacious Donkey (Eddie Murphy), who has a penchant for crooning pop songs. The two must face various obstacles in order to locate the Princess, but they find their world challenged when she reveals a dark secret that will affect the group. Shrek is based on the children's book by William Steig, and features additional voice-work by Vincent Cassel, Cody Cameron, and Kathleen Freeman. ~ Jason Clark, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 75
Number of Lists: 110
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 10
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 GMTShrek2001Vicky Jenson, Andrew AdamsonIn this fully computer-animated fantasy from the creators of <a href=/films/128762/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Antz</a>, we follow the travails of Shrek (<a href="/players/P____51621/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mike Myers</a>), a green ogre who enjoys a life of solitude. Living in a far away swamp, he is suddenly invaded by a hoard of fairy tale characters, such as the Big Bad Wolf, the Three Little Pigs, and Three Blind Mice, all refugees of their homes who have been shunned by the evil Lord Farquaad (<a href="/players/P____42686/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Lithgow</a>). They want to save their homes from ruin, and enlist the help of Shrek, who is in the same situation. Shrek decides to offer Lord Farquaad a deal; he will rescue the beautiful Princess Fiona (<a href="/players/P___195733/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cameron Diaz</a>), who is intended to be Farquaad's bride. Accompanying Shrek on his adventure is the faithful but loquacious Donkey (<a href="/players/P____51440/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eddie Murphy</a>), who has a penchant for crooning pop songs. The two must face various obstacles in order to locate the Princess, but they find their world challenged when she reveals a dark secret that will affect the group. Shrek is based on the children's book by William Steig, and features additional voice-work by <a href="/players/P___198972/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Vincent Cassel</a>, Cody Cameron, and <a href="/players/P____24965/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kathleen Freeman</a>. ~ Jason Clark, All Movie Guide75Tag Target (>10)11011103http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s189190.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Shrek/189190/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/9/2/43771.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 9/2/2009 1:31:11 PM
Body: "Shrek" (voiced by Mike Myers) is an ogre who loves the solitude of the swamp in which he lives. However, that solitude is disrupted when the fairy tale creatures in the area are forced into the swamp by "Lord Farquaad" (voiced by John Lithgow), ruler of the nearby "Duloc.""Shrek," along with a talking donkey named "Donkey" (voiced by Eddie Murphy), goes to complain to "Faarquaad", who sends the two on a quest to save "Princess Fiona" (voiced by Cameron Diaz; singing voice by Renee Sandstrom) lava-protected castle where she is being held against her will by a dragon.Eventually, the three escape, and it becomes obvious that "Princess Fiona" and "Shrek" are ment to be together. However, "Shrek" wants to live a life of solitude, and "Fiona" is hiding a secret that she is ashamed of.Now, the two have to learn what destiny has in store for the two, or they will live lives that weren't ment to be.Let me say first that this movie is far from perfect. First of all, the story presented is pretty weak and rushed. We don't really get to see when "Shrek" and "Donkey" really get to trust one another. It appeared to me that the two became friendly somewhere between a couple of scenes. I also think that there were just too many characters in the supporting cast.I did like how the performances were handled in this movie. The actors really brought the characters to life. Sometimes, I forgot that the actors were not on camera, and I don't believe that they were in the same room when they recorded their dialogue.The movie is enhanced by the wonderful animation. In fact, the animation is simply amazing. Personally, I think the animation was even better on the silver screen than it was on television. The colors of the animation is simply beautiful, and the scenery really looked three-dimensional. The use of colors was perfect through the entire movie.Realism, in my opinion, is the only downfall in computer animation. Human skin looks more like rubber than actual skin. And when it comes to realistic looking hair or fur, it misses the mark. "Donkey's" hair just doesn't look real to me.Another downfall is that much of the humor is not for young children. In fact, there is some language that isn't for children in this movie either. If I remember correctly, the movie was marketed as a family movie. It really isn't thanks to some jokes and language. These jokes would go over younger children's heads, and would make older children laugh when it comes to bodily function jokes. But, some references are certainly targeted to the adults in the audience.Another fun aspect of this movie is the references to other movies, and numerous fairy tales. Some movie references I didn't notice, but did notice a particular special effect that everybody has seen from a certain sci-fi franchise starring Keanu Reeves.As for the soundtrack, I can't recall one original song or musical piece in this movie. All the songs are ones you heard before, including a really good cover of a classic Monkees song. I'm not really sure if the songs fit into the scenes, but it was fun hearing them.I can only say that you should watch this on HBO on a rainy day. It's cute, but not that cute.
]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:31:11 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog9/2/2009 1:31:11 PM"Shrek" (voiced by Mike Myers) is an ogre who loves the solitude of the swamp in which he lives. However, that solitude is disrupted when the fairy tale creatures in the area are forced into the swamp by "Lord Farquaad" (voiced by John Lithgow), ruler of the nearby "Duloc.""Shrek," along with a talking donkey named "Donkey" (voiced by Eddie Murphy), goes to complain to "Faarquaad", who sends the two on a quest to save "Princess Fiona" (voiced by Cameron Diaz; singing voice by Renee Sandstrom) lava-protected castle where she is being held against her will by a dragon.Eventually, the three escape, and it becomes obvious that "Princess Fiona" and "Shrek" are ment to be together. However, "Shrek" wants to live a life of solitude, and "Fiona" is hiding a secret that she is ashamed of.Now, the two have to learn what destiny has in store for the two, or they will live lives that weren't ment to be.Let me say first that this movie is far from perfect. First of all, the story presented is pretty weak and rushed. We don't really get to see when "Shrek" and "Donkey" really get to trust one another. It appeared to me that the two became friendly somewhere between a couple of scenes. I also think that there were just too many characters in the supporting cast.I did like how the performances were handled in this movie. The actors really brought the characters to life. Sometimes, I forgot that the actors were not on camera, and I don't believe that they were in the same room when they recorded their dialogue.The movie is enhanced by the wonderful animation. In fact, the animation is simply amazing. Personally, I think the animation was even better on the silver screen than it was on television. The colors of the animation is simply beautiful, and the scenery really looked three-dimensional. The use of colors was perfect through the entire movie.Realism, in my opinion, is the only downfall in computer animation. Human skin looks more like rubber than actual skin. And when it comes to realistic looking hair or fur, it misses the mark. "Donkey's" hair just doesn't look real to me.Another downfall is that much of the humor is not for young children. In fact, there is some language that isn't for children in this movie either. If I remember correctly, the movie was marketed as a family movie. It really isn't thanks to some jokes and language. These jokes would go over younger children's heads, and would make older children laugh when it comes to bodily function jokes. But, some references are certainly targeted to the adults in the audience.Another fun aspect of this movie is the references to other movies, and numerous fairy tales. Some movie references I didn't notice, but did notice a particular special effect that everybody has seen from a certain sci-fi franchise starring Keanu Reeves.As for the soundtrack, I can't recall one original song or musical piece in this movie. All the songs are ones you heard before, including a really good cover of a classic Monkees song. I'm not really sure if the songs fit into the scenes, but it was fun hearing them.I can only say that you should watch this on HBO on a rainy day. It's cute, but not that cute. http://www.spout.com/groups/I_Love_Childrens_Movies/Re_Up/372/43041/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: I Love Childrens Movies
Post Date: 7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 GMTRisseladaI Love Childrens Movies7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM[quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_6_The_Song/625/42947/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/7/2009 9:04:03 PM
Body: The Pink Room - David Lynch Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me Probably one of my favorite scenes from a movie, The Pink Room is the name of the song that is playing in the back room of the seedy bar that Laura Palmer goes to to unwind. It just one of those songs that I can listen to on repeat and completely zone out to. Daybreak - Barry ManilowSerial Mom I had never heard any before and haven’t had the desire to listen to any after, but whenever I hear Barry Manilow’s Daybreak I will forever think of Kathleen Turner going psycho in Serial Mom. Hold Tight - Beaky, Dave Dee, Dozy, Mitch & TichGrindhouse A group of gorgeous ladies rocking out to this song before the unthinkably gruesome happens. Has become a staple in my iPod. My Sharona - The KnackReality Bites The gas station food mart with the whole gang dancing crazily to this song. Young Americans - David BowieManderlay Played during the closing credits, the placement of this song in the film was pretty much a big “Fuck You!” from Lars von Trier to America. I still like the guy though. Baby Did A Bad Bad Thing - Chris IsaakEyes Wide Shut The use of the song in the trailer and film was just perfect. Perfect! I’m Shipping Up to Boston - Dropkick Murphys The Departed I’m certain Scorsese won the Oscar purely for putting this song in the film. Where Is My Mind? - The PixiesFight Club Played during the crescendo of the film’s conclusion, I still get goosebumps when I hear this song. My Beloved Monster - EelsShrek Probably one of the only semi-upbeat songs sung by the Eels and it fit perfectly in the film. Needle in the Hay - Elliott SmithThe Royal Tenenbaums Sadly, Luke Wilson’s attempted suicide to this song was mirrored by Smith’s own suicide a few years later. Tiny Dancer - Elton JohnAlmost Famous I always see Kate Hudson twirling in an empty auditorium when I hear this song. To Be Continued . . .
]]>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:04:03 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme7/7/2009 9:04:03 PM The Pink Room - David Lynch Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me Probably one of my favorite scenes from a movie, The Pink Room is the name of the song that is playing in the back room of the seedy bar that Laura Palmer goes to to unwind. It just one of those songs that I can listen to on repeat and completely zone out to. Daybreak - Barry ManilowSerial Mom I had never heard any before and haven&rsquo;t had the desire to listen to any after, but whenever I hear Barry Manilow&rsquo;s Daybreak I will forever think of Kathleen Turner going psycho in Serial Mom. Hold Tight - Beaky, Dave Dee, Dozy, Mitch &amp; TichGrindhouse A group of gorgeous ladies rocking out to this song before the unthinkably gruesome happens. Has become a staple in my iPod. My Sharona - The KnackReality Bites The gas station food mart with the whole gang dancing crazily to this song. Young Americans - David BowieManderlay Played during the closing credits, the placement of this song in the film was pretty much a big &ldquo;Fuck You!&rdquo; from Lars von Trier to America. I still like the guy though. Baby Did A Bad Bad Thing - Chris IsaakEyes Wide Shut The use of the song in the trailer and film was just perfect. Perfect! I&rsquo;m Shipping Up to Boston - Dropkick Murphys The Departed I&rsquo;m certain Scorsese won the Oscar purely for putting this song in the film. Where Is My Mind? - The PixiesFight Club Played during the crescendo of the film&rsquo;s conclusion, I still get goosebumps when I hear this song. My Beloved Monster - EelsShrek Probably one of the only semi-upbeat songs sung by the Eels and it fit perfectly in the film. Needle in the Hay - Elliott SmithThe Royal Tenenbaums Sadly, Luke Wilson&rsquo;s attempted suicide to this song was mirrored by Smith&rsquo;s own suicide a few years later. Tiny Dancer - Elton JohnAlmost Famous I always see Kate Hudson twirling in an empty auditorium when I hear this song. To Be Continued . . . http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/7/2/42900.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 7/2/2009 2:22:28 PM
Body: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:22:28 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog7/2/2009 2:22:28 PMUp I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/6/29/31876.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2008 10:26:45 PM
Body: The Spiderwick Chronicles rises above most family fare in that it boasts a truly interesting and provocative fantasy premise without taking itself too seriously. Yes, there are the customary family issues that set the backdrop for almost every family box-office smash, but this film actually incorporates them into the meaning of the story as a whole. The main character, Jared (played by the always remarkable Freddie Highmore), is much closer with his father who has recently separated from his stressed-out and seemingly depressed mother. And, while most films of this type would take this story line to cliched heights of ridiculous magnitude, Jared's loyalty for his father is instead tested and stressed based on what is actually happening in the main plot of the story, not thrown in to exploit the emotions of the patriarchal audience. And the sub-plot of Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn? YES!) and his neglect for his daughter because of his obsessive research in the "fantastical world around him" seems in fact symbolic of any of the characters' neglect of the realities of the world and what they have to face as human beings. And, looking at the film as compared to any other film, and not just in contrast with other family films, there is one very noticable high point that I found very interesting. The villain, the first unloveable ogre put on the screen since the original Shrek, is not completely big and bad. It is in actuality one of the most vulnerable creatures (including the humans) on the screen. His undying fixation on getting the Field Guide (of the magical realm?) is an ultimate weakness, shown deliberately by the film-makers, most prominently during the final stand-off between him and Jared. During this struggle, the ogre is both seemingly invincible yet strangely pathetic in his attempts, heightened by a clever cameo of Jared's father (it's predictable, but effective--watch the film and see what I mean). And the ending, both incredibly ironic and abrubtly hilarious, just goes to show what's great about this movie: it can be very, very out there without being at all pretentious. It is strictly fantasy, and not once does it try to be anything other than escapist fun.
]]>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:26:45 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog6/29/2008 10:26:45 PMThe Spiderwick Chronicles rises above most family fare in that it boasts a truly interesting and provocative fantasy premise without taking itself too seriously. Yes, there are the customary family issues that set the backdrop for almost every family box-office smash, but this film actually incorporates them into the meaning of the story as a whole. The main character, Jared (played by the always remarkable Freddie Highmore), is much closer with his father who has recently separated from his stressed-out and seemingly depressed mother. And, while most films of this type would take this story line to cliched heights of ridiculous magnitude, Jared's loyalty for his father is instead tested and stressed based on what is actually happening in the main plot of the story, not thrown in to exploit the emotions of the patriarchal audience. And the sub-plot of Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn? YES!) and his neglect for his daughter because of his obsessive research in the "fantastical world around him" seems in fact symbolic of any of the characters' neglect of the realities of the world and what they have to face as human beings. And, looking at the film as compared to any other film, and not just in contrast with other family films, there is one very noticable high point that I found very interesting. The villain, the first unloveable ogre put on the screen since the original Shrek, is not completely big and bad. It is in actuality one of the most vulnerable creatures (including the humans) on the screen. His undying fixation on getting the Field Guide (of the magical realm?) is an ultimate weakness, shown deliberately by the film-makers, most prominently during the final stand-off between him and Jared. During this struggle, the ogre is both seemingly invincible yet strangely pathetic in his attempts, heightened by a clever cameo of Jared's father (it's predictable, but effective--watch the film and see what I mean). And the ending, both incredibly ironic and abrubtly hilarious, just goes to show what's great about this movie: it can be very, very out there without being at all pretentious. It is strictly fantasy, and not once does it try to be anything other than escapist fun. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/25/31666.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM
Body: Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:01:30 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/23/31570.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/23/2008 6:00:41 PM
Body: When I first saw the trailer for Wanted, I figured it was just another Matrix ripoff. And I’m sure there are many other people who thought the same thing. Of course, some Matrix ripoffs aren’t bad — I absolutely love Kurt Wimmer’s Equilibrium, for example — but most are. Even worse, though, are the parodies of the Matrix’s “bullet time” sequences. Do we really need to see another movie character bend over backwards to avoid a bullet (or milk)? Or another movie character suspended in motion while the camera tracks around him or her? It’s no wonder that until yesterday, I had pretty much dismissed Wanted, because of that Matrix-like bullet time sequence in which Morgan Freeman shoots around a slab of meat to hit an unseen target. Yet as of yesterday, the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes rating was 100% (Anthony Lane’s New Yorker review, posted today, is the first “rotten” one, taking it down to 92%). Now I’m more intrigued. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that that bullet time sequence is there, reminding me of the worst that The Matrix has inspired in the past decade. To remind you, too, I’ve compiled a bunch of clips that should provide you with similar doubt. The Gap “Khaki Swing” Ads - Soon after The Matrix came out and blew our minds with the effect, Gap had to ruin its cool factor real quick by showing just how easily it could be redone and exploited. These commercials also began ruining Louis Prima and the neo-swing movement in general, so it’s especially evil in my mind. Ultraviolet - OK, not so much a parody, but it’s so blatantly a Matrix ripoff that it should be considered such. The buildup of this sequence is so excessively stylized that after watching it I never wanted to see another bullet time sequence ever again. Wing Commander - I never saw this movie, so I don’t know what’s happening in the bullet time sequence with the milk frozen in air (seen in the trailer, above), but any movie featuring a bullet time sequence involving milk is a sure sign of a bad movie (see Kung Pow! Way of the Fist, below) Michael Jordan - Is this an ad? Or is it just another excuse just to use this effect? The Simpsons “New Kids on the Blecch” - This episode featured a very minor Matrix parody with guest stars NSYNC displaying a dance move called “The Matrix”. It would have been just another simple imitation if not for the one guy falling out of place, which is a little funny. (I apologize for making you watch most of this behind-the-scenes feature to get to the sequence) Scary Movie - This one isn’t too bad, either. At first it merely seems like it’s just an imitation, but then the killer throws his back out. Good one. Unfortunately, the Wayans take it a little further and mess up the scene with that lame jig gag. Karate Dog - I’ve already recently shared this awful (or awfully funny?) clip of Jon Voight fighting a talking dog skilled in Kung Fu, and I think it speaks for itself anyway, so just watch. It’s OK if you stop after the first “baby carriage time” gag and don’t get to the other Matrix reference. Nobody ever needs to be subjected to “super lick.” Kung Pow! Enter the Fist - I’m so glad that this clip is presented in widescreen. All the better an homage to a movie that helped popularize the letterbox format of the DVD. Actually that’s about where the respect ends. There are just some things you don’t need to see done with the bullet time effect, and milk blasted out of udders is one of those things. Welcome to Dongmakgol - Is this really bullet time, or just a lot of slow motion and blue screen made to make us think we’re watching bullet time? It’s so ridiculously overdone, I can’t tell. And I don’t care. In a way it looks more like a ripoff of Kung Pow! than The Matrix anyway. Shrek - This one doesn’t even have any additional joke. It’s just an imitative reference and one of the many reasons I find the Shrek movies to be creatively vapid works. Plus, it’s not even as cool as the Matrix’s bullet time sequences because it’s a completely computer-rendered film. This scene could have existed even before The Matrix’s advances with the effect, which technically can be credited to much earlier animated works, including the original Speed Racer TV series. In fact, it now seems as if the Wachowskis were always just trying to make a live-action version of that last shot from the Speed Racer opening. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:00:41 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/23/2008 6:00:41 PM When I first saw the trailer for Wanted, I figured it was just another Matrix ripoff. And I’m sure there are many other people who thought the same thing. Of course, some Matrix ripoffs aren’t bad — I absolutely love Kurt Wimmer’s Equilibrium, for example — but most are. Even worse, though, are the parodies of the Matrix’s “bullet time” sequences. Do we really need to see another movie character bend over backwards to avoid a bullet (or milk)? Or another movie character suspended in motion while the camera tracks around him or her? It’s no wonder that until yesterday, I had pretty much dismissed Wanted, because of that Matrix-like bullet time sequence in which Morgan Freeman shoots around a slab of meat to hit an unseen target. Yet as of yesterday, the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes rating was 100% (Anthony Lane’s New Yorker review, posted today, is the first “rotten” one, taking it down to 92%). Now I’m more intrigued. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that that bullet time sequence is there, reminding me of the worst that The Matrix has inspired in the past decade. To remind you, too, I’ve compiled a bunch of clips that should provide you with similar doubt. The Gap “Khaki Swing” Ads - Soon after The Matrix came out and blew our minds with the effect, Gap had to ruin its cool factor real quick by showing just how easily it could be redone and exploited. These commercials also began ruining Louis Prima and the neo-swing movement in general, so it’s especially evil in my mind. Ultraviolet - OK, not so much a parody, but it’s so blatantly a Matrix ripoff that it should be considered such. The buildup of this sequence is so excessively stylized that after watching it I never wanted to see another bullet time sequence ever again. Wing Commander - I never saw this movie, so I don’t know what’s happening in the bullet time sequence with the milk frozen in air (seen in the trailer, above), but any movie featuring a bullet time sequence involving milk is a sure sign of a bad movie (see Kung Pow! Way of the Fist, below) Michael Jordan - Is this an ad? Or is it just another excuse just to use this effect? The Simpsons “New Kids on the Blecch” - This episode featured a very minor Matrix parody with guest stars NSYNC displaying a dance move called “The Matrix”. It would have been just another simple imitation if not for the one guy falling out of place, which is a little funny. (I apologize for making you watch most of this behind-the-scenes feature to get to the sequence) Scary Movie - This one isn’t too bad, either. At first it merely seems like it’s just an imitation, but then the killer throws his back out. Good one. Unfortunately, the Wayans take it a little further and mess up the scene with that lame jig gag. Karate Dog - I’ve already recently shared this awful (or awfully funny?) clip of Jon Voight fighting a talking dog skilled in Kung Fu, and I think it speaks for itself anyway, so just watch. It’s OK if you stop after the first “baby carriage time” gag and don’t get to the other Matrix reference. Nobody ever needs to be subjected to “super lick.” Kung Pow! Enter the Fist - I’m so glad that this clip is presented in widescreen. All the better an homage to a movie that helped popularize the letterbox format of the DVD. Actually that’s about where the respect ends. There are just some things you don’t need to see done with the bullet time effect, and milk blasted out of udders is one of those things. Welcome to Dongmakgol - Is this really bullet time, or just a lot of slow motion and blue screen made to make us think we’re watching bullet time? It’s so ridiculously overdone, I can’t tell. And I don’t care. In a way it looks more like a ripoff of Kung Pow! than The Matrix anyway. Shrek - This one doesn’t even have any additional joke. It’s just an imitative reference and one of the many reasons I find the Shrek movies to be creatively vapid works. Plus, it’s not even as cool as the Matrix’s bullet time sequences because it’s a completely computer-rendered film. This scene could have existed even before The Matrix’s advances with the effect, which technically can be credited to much earlier animated works, including the original Speed Racer TV series. In fact, it now seems as if the Wachowskis were always just trying to make a live-action version of that last shot from the Speed Racer opening. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/capeach/archive/2008/5/21/29682.aspx Post By: CaPeach
Post To: CaPeach Blog
Post Date: 5/21/2008 6:17:49 PM
Body: Ogre meets girl. Ogre loses girl. Ogre overcomes obstacles and gets what he has coming to him. It's a potpourri of all the popular fairy tales and each one has something to offer. A chuckle a minute, a laugh every few minutes. Happy Hollywood Ending.
]]>Wed, 21 May 2008 22:17:49 GMTCaPeachCaPeach Blog5/21/2008 6:17:49 PMOgre meets girl. Ogre loses girl. Ogre overcomes obstacles and gets what he has coming to him. It's a potpourri of all the popular fairy tales and each one has something to offer. A chuckle a minute, a laugh every few minutes. Happy Hollywood Ending. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/5/19/29458.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 5/19/2008 11:25:23 AM
Body: Perhaps my review may be dismissed automatically by the fact that I have not revisited Narnia myself since reading them as a child, and even then, the C. S. Lewis books had none of the mental shelf life of “The Lord of the Rings” tomes or Jack London’s excursions into the wild. I approached “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” from a merely cinematic perspective. And, despite its battles and bluster, it’s rather a bore. That’s not to say it does not try to get medieval on your a** -- various armor-clanging clashes punctuate the numerous slow spots of exposition in the picture, vying for credibility in the rather noisy summer blockbuster period. In this installment, the Pevensie siblings – Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy – have busied themselves in the U.K. for a year since their last Narnian vacation, and a return trip to the kingdom reveals a few hundred years have passed in the mystical land. The kingdom is in ruin, under the tyrannical thumb of a group called the Telmarines (they are easily discernable for they all have a certain “ethnic” look to them, shall we say). The exiled Narnians’ one hope, the eponymous prince (played with regal blandness by Ben Barnes) has been banished by the dictatorial Mirza (played by Sergio Castellitto), who wants his newborn son to take the crown and follow in his bootsteps. The rest of the film is essentially a protracted battle sequence (as the Pevensie kids hack, slash and spear their way through thongs of their enemies like some pre-teen version of "Gladiator") that is filmed like countless other recent cinematic battle sequences. This means there must be the prerequisite shots that sweep over the oceans of bad buys readying to attack our rag-tag heroes (a la “Braveheart”), the high-definition climactic battle where we witness every fleck of dirt kicked up by participants ( thank you, “Gladiator”), and acrobatic maneuvers performed by our leads even while wearing about one hundred pounds of armor (“Troy,” “300,” I’m looking at your for that one). There is one diverting exception here, though. As the Narnians are an army of woodland sprites and mythical beasts, it is not uncommon to see a random goat, puma warthog or badger engaged in combat beside their human counterparts, give it a wacky, surrealistic edge. The film is not helped by its milquetoast leads, who possess no discernable range in or out of battle. I would love to see those Hogwart wizards fly in and rap each one of them with their Quidditch sticks. Aslan, the Jesus Lion of the books, again makes an appearance at just the right time to save the day, prompting one of my screening partners to ask upon the film’s conclusion: “So we waited all this time for something the lion could do all by himself anyway?” I realize that the children all had to apparently learn valuable life lessons or something, but director Andrew Adamson never really makes those lessons clear. One thing I can assure you they do not grow to value is human life, as they leave behind a Rambo-sized body count on the battlefield. The film’s attempt at levity – a sword-wielding animated mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard – seems like a reject from the “Shrek” franchise, of which Adamson also served as director. The allegorical elements are present, but serve in a much more awkward dues-ex-machina-kind-of way (gee, I wonder who the man in the tidal wave is supposed to resemble?), which drains the film of much-needed suspense. There are three books left in the “Narnia” series, so there is ample room left for the franchise to grow (and the young leads to enroll in further acting lessons) for future installments. But—and this cannot be emphasized enough – for parents seeking a family-friendly alternative to the PG-13 antics of Iron Man and Indiana Jones, Caspian is not the answer. It was suggested to me by my friend that the PG rating was reached because there was no blood being spilled during battle sequences. Unfortunately, there is also none that pumps through the heart of this film, either.
]]>Mon, 19 May 2008 15:25:23 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog5/19/2008 11:25:23 AMPerhaps my review may be dismissed automatically by the fact that I have not revisited Narnia myself since reading them as a child, and even then, the C. S. Lewis books had none of the mental shelf life of &ldquo;The Lord of the Rings&rdquo; tomes or Jack London&rsquo;s excursions into the wild. I approached &ldquo;The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian&rdquo; from a merely cinematic perspective. And, despite its battles and bluster, it&rsquo;s rather a bore. That&rsquo;s not to say it does not try to get medieval on your a** -- various armor-clanging clashes punctuate the numerous slow spots of exposition in the picture, vying for credibility in the rather noisy summer blockbuster period. In this installment, the Pevensie siblings &ndash; Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy &ndash; have busied themselves in the U.K. for a year since their last Narnian vacation, and a return trip to the kingdom reveals a few hundred years have passed in the mystical land. The kingdom is in ruin, under the tyrannical thumb of a group called the Telmarines (they are easily discernable for they all have a certain &ldquo;ethnic&rdquo; look to them, shall we say). The exiled Narnians&rsquo; one hope, the eponymous prince (played with regal blandness by Ben Barnes) has been banished by the dictatorial Mirza (played by Sergio Castellitto), who wants his newborn son to take the crown and follow in his bootsteps. The rest of the film is essentially a protracted battle sequence (as the Pevensie kids hack, slash and spear their way through thongs of their enemies like some pre-teen version of "Gladiator") that is filmed like countless other recent cinematic battle sequences. This means there must be the prerequisite shots that sweep over the oceans of bad buys readying to attack our rag-tag heroes (a la &ldquo;Braveheart&rdquo;), the high-definition climactic battle where we witness every fleck of dirt kicked up by participants ( thank you, &ldquo;Gladiator&rdquo;), and acrobatic maneuvers performed by our leads even while wearing about one hundred pounds of armor (&ldquo;Troy,&rdquo; &ldquo;300,&rdquo; I&rsquo;m looking at your for that one). There is one diverting exception here, though. As the Narnians are an army of woodland sprites and mythical beasts, it is not uncommon to see a random goat, puma warthog or badger engaged in combat beside their human counterparts, give it a wacky, surrealistic edge. The film is not helped by its milquetoast leads, who possess no discernable range in or out of battle. I would love to see those Hogwart wizards fly in and rap each one of them with their Quidditch sticks. Aslan, the Jesus Lion of the books, again makes an appearance at just the right time to save the day, prompting one of my screening partners to ask upon the film&rsquo;s conclusion: &ldquo;So we waited all this time for something the lion could do all by himself anyway?&rdquo; I realize that the children all had to apparently learn valuable life lessons or something, but director Andrew Adamson never really makes those lessons clear. One thing I can assure you they do not grow to value is human life, as they leave behind a Rambo-sized body count on the battlefield. The film&rsquo;s attempt at levity &ndash; a sword-wielding animated mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard &ndash; seems like a reject from the &ldquo;Shrek&rdquo; franchise, of which Adamson also served as director. The allegorical elements are present, but serve in a much more awkward dues-ex-machina-kind-of way (gee, I wonder who the man in the tidal wave is supposed to resemble?), which drains the film of much-needed suspense. There are three books left in the &ldquo;Narnia&rdquo; series, so there is ample room left for the franchise to grow (and the young leads to enroll in further acting lessons) for future installments. But&mdash;and this cannot be emphasized enough &ndash; for parents seeking a family-friendly alternative to the PG-13 antics of Iron Man and Indiana Jones, Caspian is not the answer. It was suggested to me by my friend that the PG rating was reached because there was no blood being spilled during battle sequences. Unfortunately, there is also none that pumps through the heart of this film, either. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/24/24285.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/24/2008 11:00:34 AM
Body: With the fate of Heath Ledger’s final projects up in the air, Variety takes a look at some past films that were effected by the sudden deaths of their respective stars. Would Shrek have been as popular with Chris Farley as the voice of the titular ogre? Would Interview With the Vampire be better with River Phoenix? Should Jane Harlow’s final film, Saratoga, have been scrapped? WGA reps and studio execs enter a second day of informal talks today, which should be more exciting that it feels to me. Maybe it’s because I just read this detail of how badly the writer’s strike is effecting the economy, and now my head hurts. After confirming that Tony Gilroy had directed him to a second Oscar nomination, Tom Wilkinson has decided to reunite with the Michael Clayton director for the pharmaceutical company drama Duplicity. He is joined by Billy Bob Thornton and joins Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida are now considered a “husband-and-wife team” for writing an original screenplay that Oscar-winner Sam Mendes will direct as a low-budget comedy. Currently untitled, the movie will be about a young couple trying to decide where in the U.S. is best to raise a child. It could be a very short film if the couple just reads the latest issue of Fit Pregnancy magazine. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:00:34 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/24/2008 11:00:34 AM With the fate of Heath Ledger’s final projects up in the air, Variety takes a look at some past films that were effected by the sudden deaths of their respective stars. Would Shrek have been as popular with Chris Farley as the voice of the titular ogre? Would Interview With the Vampire be better with River Phoenix? Should Jane Harlow’s final film, Saratoga, have been scrapped? WGA reps and studio execs enter a second day of informal talks today, which should be more exciting that it feels to me. Maybe it’s because I just read this detail of how badly the writer’s strike is effecting the economy, and now my head hurts. After confirming that Tony Gilroy had directed him to a second Oscar nomination, Tom Wilkinson has decided to reunite with the Michael Clayton director for the pharmaceutical company drama Duplicity. He is joined by Billy Bob Thornton and joins Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida are now considered a “husband-and-wife team” for writing an original screenplay that Oscar-winner Sam Mendes will direct as a low-budget comedy. Currently untitled, the movie will be about a young couple trying to decide where in the U.S. is best to raise a child. It could be a very short film if the couple just reads the latest issue of Fit Pregnancy magazine. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/animation/MemberTagFilms.aspxanimation
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 209

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:12 GMT29558209Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dog/MemberTagFilms.aspxdog
Number of films tagged: 1373

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 161

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT137347161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fairytale/MemberTagFilms.aspxfairytale
Number of films tagged: 197

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 80

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:04:51 GMT1974580Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/silly/MemberTagFilms.aspxsilly
Number of films tagged: 57

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 75

]]>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:13:04 GMT573675Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/touching/MemberTagFilms.aspxtouching
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 110

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT8736110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/princess/MemberTagFilms.aspxprincess
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 72

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:53:48 GMT6123372Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Changed-My-Life/MemberTagFilms.aspxChanged-My-Life
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:35 GMT462760Tag