Today's Review: Inside Out

Look at little me turning Pixar's Inside Out inside out! Or as much as you can in a general review of under a thousands words in length.

Inside Out - recensie

This may be a turning point for Pixar. The naysayers who wrote off the studio ever since Disney took over often seemed right in their sweeping generalizations that Pixar's truly creative days of imaginary wonder where done. Sequels, that's what was in store for the audience ad nauseam. It worked well on Toy Story 3, few will deny. Not so much on Cars 2 though, or even Monsters University. So a new original project was definitely desperately needed to show Pixar has lost none of its dreaming potency, and this is it. Inside Out is as emotional and beautiful, not to mention innovative and soulful an animated movie as they come, and especially as they used to come in this company's own case.

It's not as perfect as the likes of Wall-E or Toy Story 3, I'll have you know, since it has some little flaws. Like Monsters, Inc. and Up, that makes it a classic Peter Docter movie. Those films, too, featured the occasional emotional highs that went coupled with some whimsical additions that had a bit of a trouble fitting in the whole. It was especially vexing in the case of Up, where the movie just never got as powerful as it proved to be in its first act. Inside Out equally knows a few moments where the magic diminishes, most notably when it concerns the elaborate logistics of the brain (though personally I found the forgotten imaginary friend rather an obnoxious sort as well, though I appreciated the notion). Docter has learned something from Up's experience though, saving the emotional climax for the end of the film. And it packs quite a punch, as Docter delivers his message that it's okay to be sad. Quite a rebellious act, since the movie still flies the banner of the Mouse House which usually tells us the exact opposite. While still an undeniably happy end, it's unlikely anybody will restrain their tears. As Docter says they shouldn't.

So is this a definite comeback for Pixar? The list of upcoming projects still consists mostly of sequels, with the only original tale for the foreseeable future presented by The Good Dinosaur. I'm more than a bit skeptical about that one, judging from the first teaser and its overly retro dinosaurs parading through near photo-real landscapes. I doubt an Inside Out 2 is out of the question, considering the film is doing fine at the boxoffice. Still, I like to think the naysayers remain in the wrong, and there's still a few tears of joy to be spilled over Pixar's films in the next few years.

And otherwise we'll still have the shorts preceding the main events. Hopefully they'll be as delightful as Inside Out's Lava, which also gets those eyes wet and thus perfectly warms us up for the main course to follow.

Today's Review: Big Hero 6

Told you there was more where that came from?:

Big Hero 6 - recensie

Well, this movie was totally fun! But I cannot say in all honesty it was any bit original. Much of the story and character development felt formulaic, but that never got in the way of the fun to be had. Especially since it was the Marvel formula. Heck, at times the movie nigh made fun of its own narrative make-up - best example: when the nerdy character exclaims 'ooh, it's an origin story!' - but I doubt much of the audience would care they might have seen most of this stuff before. Especially the target audience of kids won't mind, inexperienced with the inspirational material as they likely are. Interestingly enough, despite being a (successfully Disneyfied) Marvel adaptation adhering to a typical plot routine, the characters differ an awful lot from their comic book counterparts. In fact, the excessively cute articial Baymax, the character that singlehandedly raised this film from a three-star flick to a four-star sensation, looks nothing like the dragonlike droid from the original source. Major characters like Sunfire and Silver Samurai are missing, since Disney doesn't own the rights to those (they're presently part of Fox's X-universe). Thankfully, we're getting a new one in their place, namely the fictional city of San Fransokyo, which immediately suggests the uncanny mix of American and Japanese animation styles present throughout and makes for a wonderful looking backdrop for these characters to have their little adventure in.

But above all else, Baymax makes this movie work. The apparently minimalistically but on closer look brilliantly animated character provides the beating heart of the movie, as a healthcare robot created by the protagonist's deceased older brother, who finds himself ever more transformed into a heavily armoured battlebot by the main character out for revenge, until the emotionless but caring robot reminds him there's more to life than abusing your talents for mindless anger. Plus, he makes for 80 percent of the jokes and they all work. And that's even despite his hilarious attempts at catching a football from the trailer didn't make in into the final cut. Don't expect to be surprised by Big Hero 6, but like Baymax and his ball, just roll with the robot for good times' sake.

Today's Double News: ascending inside out

Time is often against me, and so it proved this second half of the week. This is all the news I could muster:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158313/nieuwe_trailer_inside_out

This is getting somewhere, conceptually. Though there's still a lot of questions to be answered. I had a tough time visualizing how this whole interplay between the voices and the characters they control would work. I guess I got my answer. It does seem a somewhat static concept though. Are these voices really gonna stay confined to being simple talking heads in a conference room playing off each other as they suggest the actions of their subject? That has a tendency to get boring. I assume it's gonna be more visually interesting that that, somehow. I like the little details, like each set of voices taking on the characteristics (moustache, glasses, hairstyle and the like) of their host. I do believe limiting the voices to a set of five does sell the human psyche a bit short, but at least it makes for coherent storytelling, not plagued by an abundance of different emotional characters. Would have made more sense if some other emotions popped up in the minds of other characters, as everybody has some more strongly developed emotions defining their personality. Maybe that will still be the case, but we just don't see it from this trailer (which is basically more a clip of the film than an actual trailer, it must be noted). For now, the concept still isn't worked out as much to get me really excited about this film, but at least it proves intriguing and - as far as I'm aware - inspired.These days, that's as much as you could hope for in a Pixar movie.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158314/nieuwe_posters_jupiter_ascending

Yay, character posters! No big budget Hollywood flick's promotional campaign would be complete without them. Typical set-up of archetypal characters here. You've got your lead, a female for a change; her love-interest; the villain; and the wiser, older gentleman whose services will mostly consist of providing expositionary dialogue, to help both the protagonist and the audience get acquainted with this new world. Interesting to see Sean Bean is by now considered old and wise enough to play the part of the latter. But hey, any excuse to get him (and an excruciating death scene on his part) in your film is well worth the effort. I still wish the leading couple would have seen different casting, as the acting of neither Kunis nor Tatum appeals to me. But hey, it's not about their acting (or about me, sadly), it's about their popularity with the audience, and both stars are undeniably hot at the moment in that regard. I won't deny that despite the dull leads, this movie has very much peaked my interest. Even though in many ways it seems like it's copying Dune a bit too much, the notion of humanity being just a resource of vastly superior extraterrestrial life to exploit at will is a nice change of pace. Though no doubt the plot will devolve into the typical 'chosen one' routine of old. The set-up may prove fascinating (and the visual effects, too, naturally), the execution likely less so. Oh well, we didn't expect the ingenuity of the original Matrix come again from the Wachowskis, now did we?

Today's News: still behind schedule

It's gonna take me a while longer to get back on track in regard to commenting on the bits of news I posted. As usual, time is against me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157503/nieuwe_character_posters_hobbit_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157522/meer_characters_posters_hobbit_3

Wow, those are some bland posters. Just the faces of some of the protagonists, that's all we have to work with. Rather disappointing, as this is the last Hobbit movie, if not the final Middle-Earth movie (ever?), so you would think they'd go out with as much of a bang as the movie itself (though I may be assuming a little too much here, I doubt this trilogy will end on a boring note). We already know what the characters look like, so we would have liked to have seen a bit more of the environment they inhabit. A grand and elaborate banner (think the Bayeux Tapestry, but its Tolkien equivalent) was released last month that did a far better job of promoting the movie, capturing our imagination and firing our desire to see this film than this dull posters would ever do. The advertising art for both predecessors too looked much more appealing by comparison. Guess the promotional execs think it's all a matter of the little things. Assumptions from the characters' facial expressions are all we are left with, which is a pointless guessing game for those who have read the book. Why does Gandalf look so disheveled? What's up with Galadriel's determined gaze? And is Bilbo finally going to go berserk with that little sword of his? We'll have to watch the movie to find out. But then, we were planning to do so anyway, and these posters at the very least won't discourage us from doing so.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157443/eerste_teaser_pixars_inside_out

Finally, a new Pixar movie that's not a sequel! I'm not entirely sold on the concept though. It's intriguing, but hardly novel. However, Pixar usually tends to make such outlandish premises work just fine, and I'm hoping post-Brave Pixar won't do any different. You won't get any clear indication of the story just from watching this teaser, which only hints at the overall story (not that much info on that has been released so far, anyway). Not to mention it does a solid but sentimental job referencing all the Pixar greats - and some less great, too - we remember oh so fondly. This teaser is playing mostly on the past emotions of pleasure we experienced watching all the company's classics, as well as stimulating a strong emotion not characterized in the film: curiosity. But there's also plenty of room left for doubt, make no mistake. Which begs the issue, how come there's only five emotions in the girl's head? What happened to the rest of them? A philosophical debate about the nature of emotions and the way they rule our mind seems to be in short order. Though it's likely Pixar still has some surprises left on Inside Out's plot and the questions this teaser throws in our path about the logic of it all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157465/logo_daredevil_serie_onthuld

Well, at least they got the logo right. That's straight off the comic books' covers, that is. Though the usual subtitle 'The Man Without Fear' is absent, but this works equally well. A return to the comics' greatness (on-again/off-again, honestly) is sure in order after the Ben Affleck version, which showed little of that. Currently, New York Comic-Con is in full swing and so far the Daredevil panel was by far the most fascinating occurrence. The concept art looked pretty neat, the first released pictures gave some pretty sweet glimpses, except maybe for the titular character's costume. Though I have a sense it's not the final piece, but more like Daredevil's initial stab at a costume (á la Spider-Man's ludicrous wrestling attire in Sam Raimi's first movie). It would be a bit of a downer if this series' superhero ran around with a black handkerchief for a mask for the whole show. I guess Marvel has to find ways to cut the budget somewhere...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157499/toch_een_iron_man_4

And one reason the studio has to do just that involves the exorbitant pay cheques demanded by its star performers these days. Robert Downey Jr. is by far the most expensive of the lot of them, as his salary for Iron Man 3 amounted to no less than 50 million (!) dollars, reportedly. So small wonder Marvel is looking for way to dodge such excessive costs on future projects. One way to get rid of Downey Jr. would be to quit making Iron Man films. The man is still contractually obliged to assume the character's mantle for two more Avengers flicks, but they could end it there by using those films to find a narrative way to replace him with another character to fill his iron shoes. It's not like that sort of thing isn't constantly happening in the source material. Remember Thor is currently a female in the comics? Which would only entice audiences more strongly to find out what the heck is going on. Of course, that would mean spectators will have to get used to an Iron Man without Tony Stark (no way they are gonna recast that character, considering how beloved Downey Jr.'s take on him is). I have no qualms with that. The Marvel Universe is so much larger than just one popular guy, and the movies have still barely scratched the surface. I'm all for a new Iron Character if it saves Marvel from bankruptcy so they can keep on making highly enjoyable superhero movies. I doubt we're going to see an Iron Man 4 with Robert Downey Jr. in the starring role again (and he himself apparently doubts it very much as well, considering his conflicted reponses to the 50 million dollar question), and if that be the case, I don't mind. There's various ways to deal with that in compelling storytelling (in fact, the matter has already been explored in both Iron Man 2 and 3), and I have confidence that the House of Ideas will pull it off once more. Iron Woman sounds like a wonderful notion, so bring it on!

Today's News, and plenty of it

Time restraints prohibited me to repost some of my news items for MS on this blog, so today there's more than usual:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155538/mole_man_gecast_voor_fantastic_four_reboot

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155565/eerste_trailer_star_wars_rebels

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155587/frank_lammers_speelt_michiel_de_ruyter

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155616/spring_breakers_2_aangekondigd

Let's just start with the oldest bit of novelty and work our way to the latest, shall we?

Hopefully Nelson will fare better in this Marvel movie than he did in the last, where we only witnessed the beginning of his rise to supervillainy, but were withheld the result. Apparently Fox has bigger events in store for the seasoned character actor this time, already outing him as the Mole Man-to-be, though underscoring he won't be used as such in the first upcoming installment in the FF's reboot franchise. After all, Dr. Doom is slated to take centre stage as the primary antagonist for that film, as it ought to be, as he's the Fantastic Four's most appreciated and recognizable foe. The Mole Man is indeed a decent baddie for a later film, and since a second movie has already been announced, it's likely that's where we will first see Nelson assuming the mantle of the dimunitive underground monarch. Nelson is a bit taller than we're used to seeing the Mole Man, so either the studio fits the character to the actor - which may not be such a bad idea as an evil midget is the stuff of both political incorrectness and silliness - or Nelson will undergo a bit of a CG transformation to make his appearance adhere more to what the comic book fans will most likely expect.

As for computer generated imagery, Star Wars has had lots of it over the last fifteen years, but nowhere near as much as on the small screen in various animated shows. This fall, a new one will be added to the Disney XD channel, called Star Wars Rebels (no colon). This first brief trailer adequately shows it's from the same creators as The Clone Wars series, and as such the franchise stays consistent in terms of animation style on telly. However, this is the first Disney produced Star Wars show, and a dreaded feeling of childishness cannot be denied upon viewing the promo above. Bumbling droids and cheesy oneliners have been a staple of the franchise since its inception, though more frequent in use since the prequel trilogy. It seems Disney has no trouble continuing this trend to appeal to kids, though older audiences may not find it as agreeable. Of course, most adults were largely done with any new Star Wars material after Episode III, and those that remain hopeful of improvement will no doubt focus all of their attention on the next true event, the release of Star Wars Episode VII. Until such time, Rebels is as good a way as any to ensure Disney keeps its publicity running and guarantee the current generation gets indoctrinated into Star Wars, so they can be influenced to run to toy stores and buy every conceivable tie-in merchandise items Disney has licensed. And if Episode VII proves any good, the older generation will no doubt do likewise.

I wasn't aware a movie about the life and times of Michiel de Ruyter was in production, but as he's one of the most iconic Dutch historical heroes around, it had to happen sooner or later. Historical epics that tell of other chapters of Dutch history than the events in WW II have been kind of a trend since the successful Nova Zembla, though for every hit there is a painful flop to remind us of the challenge. Remember Kenau? Most likely you don't. Considering the abundance of naval battles De Ruyter fought, the producers have their job cut out for them keeping the budget in line. Which is no doubt why they had to let Yorick van Wageningen go. He was the perfect choice in my mind, but even the finest piece of casting is only a small piece of the whole the budget allows for. Frank Lammers is a fine second choice: he's fairly well known to Dutch audiences but hasn't had a breakthrough internationally, making him more affordable than Van Wageningen who has co-starred in various big Hollywood productions. Plus, Lammers has proven himself to be a capable, reliable actor, and not just for his role on Nachtrit for which he won a Gouden Kalf. If he can fight his way through taxi wars, naval battles should be an easy labor for him.

A sequel to Spring Breakers? That's the attraction of the less artsy elements of that particular movie, tits and ass and young Hollywood starlets, speaking. Those are no doubt the ingredients that drew in the majority of the audience for the first film. Nevermind the director's weird and hallucinatory montage and lighting, the dreamy visual quality and the simple plot of sex and violence, crime and drugs relaying the greatest imaginable culmination and therein the demise of the American Dream. Mr. Korine told his tale and presented his warning of lust and doom, and that suffices for him (apparently, as he's not inclined to participate in this sequel). Not so for the studio, who is now pressing for a second movie containing more of the same. Which is not to say there's not more to state on the subjects Korine discussed. Religion is certainly a subject that would fit in easily in a tale of Sodom and Gomorrah like this one. In fact, it was already lightly touched upon in the predecessor via one of the female protagonists who disappeared early on in the film (and for the better no doubt). There's more controversy to tackle in that department, plus a potential to bring back that character. Whether or not the studio cares about these possible ideological overtones or not, a Spring Breakers 2 could work. But considering most audiences thought of the first film as a disappointment (most of them probably just didn't get its intentions, even though this sounds horribly elitist of me to say), is there any public interest in a second coming? Then again, sex always sells. Isn't there another batch of former Disney starlets ready to exploit?

Today's Review: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2: ****/*****, or 7/10

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs remains an overlooked piece of animation from recent years. Maybe because it's not a Pixar movie, maybe because it doesn't have as distinct a style as the likes of Aardman or Laika's stop motion features, maybe it's because it does have a somewhat generic quality to it at first glimpse. That said, it's a blast of a film, a great joy from beginning to end. And apparently it did well enough at the boxoffice to spawn a successor, as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 has now thundered into theaters.

Its title is a work of deception, aimed to convince audiences this is indeed a sequel. There's few meatballs to be found here, while the meteorological aspect has been toned down significantly. What remains is the characters from the first film, as well as the delightfully whimsical humour and offbeat visual design that characterized the previous movie. Though the directors of the original film decided to do The LEGO Movie instead, they left the project in the capable hands of people who understood and appreciated the quirky subject matter.

After his home island of Swallow Falls got covered in edible stuff during a giant foodstorm he partially caused, young inventor Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) and his friends have relocated to the big city of San Franhosé, where Flint is now working for Live Corp, a big company of science enthusiasts created by his idol Chester V (Will Forte). While that firm is also attempting to clean up the island to make it livable for the human population again, strange things happen to the mop-up crew and Chester calls on Flint for aid. Against his mentor's advice, he recruits his friends, including his girlfriend Sam (Anna Faris) and his stern father (James Caan), to help him in his mission. To their astonishment, Swallow Falls has reverted to a wild, primordial jungle, inhabited by all manner of strange animals and plants, some friendly, others dangerous. And it's all made out of food. Exploring this new wilderness he inadvertently created, Flint finds that not all is as it seems and starts questioning his allegiance. Flint soon must choose between the side of science and cold reasoning or to stick to his irrational friends and family instead, as the two sides of himself prove at odds over the future of the island and its wildlife. 

 

Cloudy 2 swaps food weather for food animals. That's not a bad thing, as it avoids lazy repetition. No more zany weather patterns like spaghetti tornadoes, now we have 'foodimals' like shrimpanzees and hippotatomuses. It will come as no surprise that a lot of the jokes are provided by such play-on-words, some ingenious, others less clever. Nevertheless, the wonderful look of these beasties – including the cutest strawberries ever! – clearly shows the fun the animators must have had while designing this film. At the same time, the characters we came to know and love from the previous film are left intact. Sadly, not all of them are given their due, as the emotional core of the movie is personified by Flint's idol on one side and his father and girl on the other. The remaining supporting characters are doing just that, without contributing to the whole much. Though the energetic cop Earl and the multi-talented cameraman Manny are still good for a laugh or two, they could have been left out altogether, in favour of developing the new antagonist more closely. No mistake is made from the beginning on that the expert sillywalker Chester is the bad guy, though in the end, the motivations of his diabolical schemes leave something to be desired, considering his supposed intellect. Cloudy 2 can definitely be accused of putting more focus on the look of the film than on the development of its characters.

Such slights are easily forgiven, as the film provides an excellent second course in terms of visuals. The fabulous forests of foodstuff, the clinically clean Live Corp headquarters, the quirky cityscapes, it all looks delectable to behold. Whereas the beasts of the jungle are obviously Jurassic Park inspired, their dwelling place takes a note or two from Avatar's pages, adorned with bioluminescence and all manner of bizarre features. This visual feast definitely sets Cloudy 2 apart from its predecessor, which proved more simple and primitive in this regard, giving it a look and feel all its own. As the plot was inspired by JP, so too the eye candy is only loosely based on Cloudy 1, instead of merely carbon copying it.

The elaborate visuals notwithstanding, there's a thing or two to be said against the film's morality. Its message is one of ecological respect, speaking out against the rape of nature for the sake of making money. However, as cute as the foodimals may be, they remain aberrations. An ecosystem has formed on this island, but what of the original ecosystem that had to make place for it? Our heroes connect to these creatures, seeing them as more than food, because they have grown to be living, breathing entities. But what of the sardines they happily consume, which were living, breathing entities to begin with? Should they not also fall under the same category? Where do the protagonists draw the line in deciding which creatures to stand up for, and which to see as mere food? Uneasy questions like these are formed when they do not eat animals made of food, but teach them how to fish for normal lifeforms instead.

It seems such questions never occurred to the writers, as the story of Cloudy 2 is subject to the execution in terms of jokes and visual flair. The latter works its magic throughout, awing us with one spectacular sight after another and charming us with their inhabitants, both human and food. The former is good for a smile all through the piece: though the number of truly memorable jokes remains somewhat limited compared to the previous installment, most gags prove effective in the short bursts they seem designed for. If the first movie was the main course, Cloudy 2 is a fine dessert, a four-flavoured sorbet, comprised of your favourite taste, two others you like fine, and one you never really cared for.

Today's Review: The LEGO Movie

The LEGO Movie: ****/*****, or 7/10

Movies based on pre-existing toys are often the stuff of anxiety for those that grew up playing with them, especially when it concerns brands that have been around for decades and thus have proven to be multigenerational. Will the alliance between movie studios and toy manufacturers, always driven by mutual profit first and foremost, yield a final viewing experience that not only serves to push kids into nagging their parents to go get them some but also to remind the older spectators as to why they themselves enjoyed the toys so much they feel their kids should continue playing with them, too? So far, few toy based films have succeeded on both fronts, as most of them are pretty dreadful: compare films the likes of Transformers and Battleship for example. Fortunately, The LEGO Movie doesn't fall into that same category of failure at all, as it enhances the feeling of joy and excitement experienced by everyone that ever built something from scratch out of the colourful little bricks. That said, from an ideological perspective, the motives behind the film's plot cannot helped but be questioned by mature audiences when the film is over.

Of course, a movie about toys can't feature the toys themselves being played with for two hours, it needs a narrative structure to suck audiences in. The LEGO Movie introduces the character of Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt), about as generic a LEGO minifigure as they come: typical old fashioned yellow head, not much physical accessories, wearing the same smile almost all day every day. He's got reasons to be smiling, as he believes himself to live in the perfect utopia, courtesy of President Business (Will Ferrell) who provides everyone with instructions to live their full life by, ranging from morning exercises, breakfast, buying overpriced coffee (37 dollars, awesome!) and carrying an eternal sunny disposition. The catchy national anthem 'Everything is awesome' not withstanding, it goes without saying this existence is one big lie and no good will come of its continuation.

Emmet is soon drawn into a wholly different life style altogether when he accidentally touches an unusual item that soon sticks to his back, meets a beautiful girl who looks nothing like all the other minifigures he has known and is promptly declared an enemy of the state, necessitating him and the girl named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) to go on the run. Basically a little plastic version of The Matrix, Emmet soon learns there's another realm beyond that which he always took for granted, as many dimensions, each with a theme of its own – including Western and 'Middle Zealand' – peacefully coexist alongside each other. Unless President Business destroys them all by gluing everything together permanently, according to his own rigid instructions. Fortunately, Emmet may be the 'Special', a minifigure with extraordinary master builder skills, who is the only one able to stop the shady schemes at hand. And so he teams up with the blind wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a pirate composed of various random parts called Metal Beard (Nick Offerman) and of course, Batman (Will Arnett), who is kind of a dick, to save the LEGO worlds from blind, obedient universal conformity, to let creative freedom ring.

Directed by the duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have proven themselves to be experts in whimsical animation, The LEGO Movie proves a feast for the eyes as we behold just what you can do with the little bricks. Or at least, what you think you can do. Make no mistake, this film is not stop motion animated with little LEGO figures, it's all computer animation designed to look like the stiff toys are moving about. Deception is key here, but we are deceived pretty well by the fabulous look, as we witness smoke made of LEGO, explosions made of LEGO and even oceans made of LEGO. It's an awe-inspiring sight for everyone who has ever tried to make LEGO look the least bit realistic and ended up being several tens of thousands of bricks too short to get anywhere on that front. Any sense of jealousy on what the computer can create with LEGO is smothered in the film's great sense of humour, building jokes as easily as putting bricks on top of each other. Aside from the traditional number of safe but smart popcultural references, the best gags spring from our plastic heroes witty selfreflection as to being just that. Miller's and Lord's infective comedic talent, joined by the voice cast's audible delight, ensures everyone in the audience is quickly wearing a smile all too similar to those featured on the classic minifigures' faces.

That said, it isn't all fun and games, this is business too. The LEGO Movie takes its message of 'everyone should build whatever the heck they like' very seriously, clearly preferring random creativity over slavishly building stuff based on what the printed paper says it ought to look like. Which leads to a rather serious showdown as the actual status quo of the LEGO realms is revealed and a cheerful kid confronts his ruthless father, begging him to just let him run with his imagination. Being played by Ferrell too, clearly the unimaginative adult mind is in the same league as the childish destructive view of business as presented by the film's bad guy. Rather hypocritical, as the LEGO company is itself a major toy corporation that hasn't gotten to where it is now by giving kids their product to play with, but selling it to them instead for hard cash. Sure, kids can build whatever they want, but it's the business of the product and the parents that pay for it that provides that option for them. There's something eerily uneven between the movie's message and the actual state of affairs, as this movie certainly isn't about spreading the gospel of global creativity, but to make everyone involved in its production money (and then only those willing to cooperate: notice the lack of Marvel superhero figures opposed to those of DC, while both brands are available as buildable sets in every toy store). Of course, kids won't realize this and most parents will be too busy enjoying the movie to care, until their offspring start whining for more LEGO to play with and they have to pay the bills. And at that point it's hard to deny The LEGO Movie is something other than an insidiously effective 100 minute advertisement for the great LEGO product.

But while watching the movie, everything is indeed awesome, as our inspiration is fueled by the grandiosely detailed design of the various LEGO worlds and the sheer fun for young and old that inhabits them. And then the credits roll, and that itch to get some bricks to start building yourself is heartily felt...

Today's Top-10: Dinosaur Movies

Wrote another Top-10 list (sort of) for MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151798/historisch_tiental_dinosaurusfilms

I started this one as an intended 'companion piece' to my review for WWD 3D, before I had the actual displeasure of suffering that abysmal flick. Nevertheless, it now serves as a reminder to those who contemplate visiting that film in theaters, as well as to those that already have wasted 87 minutes of thier lives watching it, that there's plenty of good dinosaur movies in existence too. Why torture yourself with bland talking dinosaurs on the big screen if you can re-experience true tearjerking emotion in an all too similar plot at home with The Land Before Time? Why bother with talking dinosaurs at all, instead of seeing them fight cavemen and scantily clad ladies in Harryhausen's classic One Million Years B.C.? Or why not enjoy a movie that takes dinosaurs seriously while still delivering a solid suspenseful cinematic performance in that greatest of all dinosaur movies, Jurassic Park? Walking with Dinosaurs 3D may have been a true dud, but dinosaurs have survived bigger extinction events and will also recuperate from this severe blow to their image. And we still have Jurassic World to look forward to.

Incidentally, there was some editorial controversy about this particular Top-10 list of mine, as it didn't wholly fit the parameters. A true 'Top' list would rank these films from worst (10) to best (1) instead of in chronological order as I have done here, in an attempt to illustrate the evolution of the views of dinosaurs in cinema, as well as the techniques necessary to bring them to new life. It would have been jarring to read these ten expositionary pieces in another order, so I decided against that. Also, I think there's something inherently arrogant and egocentric about Top-10, since everybody is bound to have another opinion as to which one is best and which one is worst. So on MS, this article isn't called a 'Top-10', but a 'historical group of ten': who knows, it might inspire similar pieces from mine own hand or those of my fellow writers on the site and start a new category of article. Or it might prove to be soon an extinct form of arranging ten movies, because it was solely done for my personal convenience.

Today's Mini(?)-Review: Frozen

Frozen: ****/*****, or 8/10

Say what you will about conservative Disney, there is some form of modernization in progress in that studio. You might even label it a feminist wave of sorts. Frozen marks Disney's first feature length animated film (co-)directed by a woman and only the second whose screenplay was written by such a creature. Not counting Pixar, since then it would have to contend with Brave, a movie where the girl power backfired, as did the quality of the piece as a whole. And while Frozen largely stays within the trite-and-true boundaries we've come to expect from Disney's fairy tale movies, including princesses, charming princes, faraway lands, comedic (animal) sidekicks and plenty of catchy songs, enough of such regularly exploited material is directionally changed to make the film feel as fresh and cool as the imagery the title inspires. Jennifer Lee's directorial debut introduces not one, but two beautiful young princesses, Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) and her younger sister Anna (Kristen Bell), heirs to the kingdom of Arendelle. Both are kind, independent and energetic spirits, but the older girl carries a terrible secret: she's basically a mutant with the power to control ice and snow, except she doesn't control it at all, since her fear to wield it controls her instead. She has cause to be afraid of her powers, as she nearly killed Anna at play as a child. Her parents tried to keep her out of harm's way by largely keeping her confined to her chambers, much to the dismay of her sister, who had her injury and memory of the incident erased by a nice wizard troll (this is a work of fantasy, need I say more?). After the death of their parents and the coming-of-age of the elder sister, a coronation takes place where Elsa is crowned queen and where Anna – hilariously – meets her apparent groom-to-be, the latter event uterly disrupting the former as Elsa unwittingly gets pushed so far she sparks an endless winter that covers the entire kingdom in frost. Fleeing the palace to built her own on a high mountain precipice where she finally starts to accept her powers in her moments of isolation, Anna is determined to bring back her sister and get her to undo her unintentional damage to the realm, which leaves her land vulnerable to the shady ambition of certain visiting foreign dignitaries. Accompanied by a simple but reliable young backwoods man named Kristoff, his carrot obsessed reindeer Sven and a wacky living snowman named Olaf, Anna sets out on a tough voyage to reunite with her wayward sister and bring summer back to Arendelle. And, in typical Disney fashion, to discover True Love in the process. But not in the usual sense of old.

Frozen proves a worthy successor to the similarly themed, equally wonderful Tangled (2010), which also re-established Disney's formidable talent to craft charming, adventurous and romantic fantasy films for all ages after over a decade of creative drought, as well as updating its female characters to the 21^st century, a time in which the main focus of a woman is no longer a man to marry (but also not excluding the possibility as not to upset the traditionalists in the audience). Frozen introduces two solid female characters who care first and foremost about eachother, though one of them does not allow herself to show said fact. Both women are sizzling with recognizable character flaws and strengths, familiar emotional family conflict and the talent to burst into song, so despite their ultimately antagonistic nature (though the traditional 'good versus bad' set-up is carefully avoided in their strained relationship), you root for them and their sibling affection both to survive against all odds. Simultaneously, while the sterotypical good looking prince to wed is not an image to be discarded, it develops into quite another direction than is usual, and the expected notion of cheesy True Love messages doesn't end up covering the usual sexual connection between boy and girl. The voice cast delivers impeccable acting and shares an audible chemistry, standout performances including a hilarious Scandinavian tradesman (jå!) and Olaf, the token sidekick, who is not nearly as irritating as he could have been and actually warms everybody's heart with his simple but unattainable desire. Similarly enjoyable are the clan of stone trolls, Kristoff's surrogate family, a group of Smurfesque creatures with the ability to succesfully camouflage themselves as rocks, and who unfortunately don't nearly have as much screen time or background exploration as we would have liked. And if you're afraid the reindeer talks (since animals with the ability to speak are an oft dreaded Disney staple still), fear not: his master does so for him to witty, almost self-reflective results. The songs are a welcome return to tradition; though for a moment at the start of the film they seem to comprise most of the dialogue, better balance to the music is applied later on. Apart from pleasing the aural senses, Frozen offers a delightful visual feast as well with its wondrous winter landscapes and ever present snow motifs, but considering the darkness of many scenes coupled with the obligatory 3D effect, not all the imagery ends up looking as amazing as it could have been. However, many of the 3D shots in the lighter scenes hit their mark, especially those involving snow and icicles, so seeing the 2D version instead isn't wholly recommended either.

In a time where Pixar is increasingly going down the drain creatively because of its lack of inspiration and its current focus on prequels and sequels, a thoroughly wonderful and ideologically original pure Disney film like Frozen is a welcome sight. Even the coolest minds and the coldest hearts will find it hard not to melt due to this film's built-in warmth, and with the dominant motif of snow and ice, Frozen proves to be a perfect Holiday movie for old and young alike.

Today's Double News: to tease or not to tease

Trailer season continues, as indicated by these two news flashes I posted on MS the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152599/nieuwe_trailer_how_to_train_your_dragon_2

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152562/eerste_teaser_expendables_3

These two short previews differ enormously in their approach to entice their respective audiences, as illustrated by what they show, or rather, don't show. The vid for The Expendables 3 is as clearly a teaser if ever I saw one, making no use of actual material of the movie proper and telling us nothing about the film's plot. It's sole purpose is to reveal to the public that the movie for which it teases is currently underway, for those who were not aware from online or magazine sources. By now the 'Expendables' brand is itself a perfect indicator for what's in store and the main question on everyone's mind - at least, everyone that is interested in this project - is not so much what to expect but more so who to expect. The teaser acts on this anticipation by bombarding the spectator with names (last names only, since otherwise it would get a little too cramped on the screen): this information will have to suffice for now. In fact, the names are of greater importance than the men visually assembled for our entertainment, since even on the big screen it's hard to recognize them all in a window of only a few seconds. Personally I think the teaser would have benefited from the first names too, to avoid confusion as to which actor will participate in cases where that could be in doubt. For instance, the 'Gibson' here is Mel, not Tyrese. Of course Mel is more wellknown anyway, but Tyrese too has compiled a big enough resumé in action movies over recent years to warrant a place in a movie of this type (maybe for a third sequel then). Rest assured: 'Powell' is not Colin, it's Glen (whom I have never heard of before). Overall, an effective teaser with a cast of names to match. I'm looking forward to the appearance of Ford and Grammer too.

Now, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is another animal entirely. In fact, I daresay it shows too much, instead of the opposite like The Expendables 3 does. Not surprising we get to see more of the story and characters in this preview, considering this film has already passed the teaser stage (and tease it did) and the current Holiday season is perfect for getting people enthusiastic about family films due for release in the next six months. But after seeing this trailer I get the feeling there's little more to the story that what is presented here. I for one would have saved the identity of the mysterious female dragon rider, as well as half of the grandiose dragon shots, for the movie itself rather than taking away such surprises. But then, I haven't even seen the first HtTYD, so what the heck do I know... That said, this preview will certainly succeed adequately in piqueing the target audience's interests, especially since in this franchise's case too popularity has already been established. I hear the first film was quite good, even though the trailers failed to excite me. Maybe the same thing will happen here, since I'm not convinced yet, despite getting the feeling I already know what the movie is about. When a trailer gives you that feeling, you know it hasn't done its job properly, but since this film is geared mostly towards kids, that's not a total loss.

Today's Review: Walking with Dinosaurs 3D

Oh my! Look what movie I rated 2 out of 5 (or 4 out of 10) stars on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152438/walking_with_dinosaurs_3d_-_recensie

I really wanted to like this movie more than I could (since it's a dinosaur movie!), but it made it impossible to do so because it was so hugely disappointing. However, I was emotionally prepared for the disappointment by increasingly disturbing trailers and related marketing material that indicated the renowned BBC dinosaur documentary suffered from severe dumbing down under the shameless supervision of  the conservative 20th Century-Fox studio (do execs there even believe dinosaurs once existed for real, instead of only in the easily exploitable minds of innocent children?). So I knew the end result would not be to my liking, and it sadly proved to be true. This movie was just nothing like the original WWD series and everything like Disney's Dinosaur (but worse). Interestingly enough, it's the second 3D movie I reviewed this week that consists of a poor mix of drama and documentary, both featuring animals and using spectactular nature photography (WWD at least has made good use of fabulous landscapes, I'll grant them that). At least Amazonia didn't overly anthropomorphize its non-human protagonists, though in that film's case the addition of a narrative was also used to attract a younger audience.

So that's one new dinosaur film down the drain. I have better hope for Pixar's The Good Dinosaur and Jurassic World, but this certainly does not bode well for a dinosaur popularity revival. Says the guy who bought most of the new WWD action figures regardless. Hey, at least those don't talk, they roar, as dinosaurs ought to.

Today's Mini-Reviews: giant robots, Kaijus and super-villains

Pacific Rim: ****/*****, or 7/10

Guillermo Del Toro's epic hommage to the Japanese 'Kaiĵu' movies, produced on a bigger budget than all such giant monster movies of the last fifity years combined. Del Toro obviously has a great love and respect for the genre, resulting in a very catchy action flick, undoubtedly the best American counterpart to its Japanese predecessors. One might almost say Hollywood has redeemed itself for the 1998 version of Godzilla, but such a statement had better be held back for another year, until the next American reboot of Godzilla hits theatres in 2014. In the meantime, Pacific Rim works well as an appetiter to the big G's resurrection. An extra-dimensional rift opens on the bottom of the Pacific and huge beasts come pouring out, wreaking havoc on mankind as they lay waste to cities and obliterate our armed forces. Humanity quickly sets aside its internal differences and joins forces in creating big robots to fight the creatures on their own terms. Piloted by a pair of human Avatars, these so-called 'Jaëgers' effectively combat the beasts, but the life of a Jaëger pilot as Del Toro reveals is filled with personal loss. When the monsters emerge ever more rapidly from the Breach, as it is named, Jaëger command develops an intricate and dangerous plan to halt the Kaiĵu threat once and for all. Del Toro briefly explores the history of the first Kaiĵu assaults and the development of their robotic antagonists and afterwards spends more time getting us invested in the human characters than is usual for this type of film. It does make the movie feel like its dragging its feet for a while, until he unleashes the action the audience craves with a vengeance, resulting in over an hour of nigh endless monster bashing. Unfortunately he cannot help but inserting a few characters that are supposed to deliver some much needed comic relief to make sure we don't take it all too seriously, but sadly these characters – stereotypical geeky scientists as ever we've seen them – are so mind-boggingly annoying (Charlie Day particularly) they make you wish for a Kaiĵu to step on them to end their endless whining. Del Toro's talents are beter suited in delving deeper into a world where Kaiĵus are not only a threat to world peace but also big business: toy companies produce action figures of them, creepy cults worship them and in Hong Kong, a 'Bone Town' is established, a black market for Kaiĵu products for shady purposes, similar to the disgusting existing South-East Asian trade in animal parts. Run by Ron Perlman (always a joy when paired with Del Toro), some of the funniest, wittiest and anatomically most unsettling scenes take place here. Though the dealings and the history of the Jaëgers are fleshed out to the fullest, their enormous alien adversaries, ever the most important ingredient in a Kaiĵu film, do remain somewhat underexposed by comparison. Unfortunately their motivations – they're really foot soldiers out to cause as much damage to mankind as possible, in order to pave the way for an invasion from their (smaller) intelligent overlords – remind us of the recent Shyamalan flop After Earth, a movie we'd rather forget entirely. Usually, Kaiĵu are more antiheroes than full-out villains, but Del Toro opts to keep them a simple threat to be wiped out instead of embuing them with a more sympathetic character like their forebears Gojira, Gorgo and Rodan, who were always the victim of human (nuclear) folly, transforming them into avenging gods to remind us of our place in the world. The movie is dedicated to Ray Harryhausen and Ishiro Honda, two people who only too well understood the need to layer their creatures and make them charm you so you feel more for them, but in this instance, Del Toro decided not to go with such wisdom. As a result, Pacific Rim at best is a highly likeable action flick, but not necessarily an apt lesson for western audiences into the true nature of the Kaiĵu genre. Then again, there's only so much you can do with the notion of giant robots bashing giant monsters. Let's say Guillermo gets as much out of that premise as we could hope for.

Despicable Me 2: ****/*****, or 7/10

Simply fun sequel to the animated surprise hit of 2010. Gru and his legions of minions are back, but no longer driven by the need to exact evil schemes on an unsuspecting world, as Gru (still voiced with a outrageously hilarious accent by Steve Carell) has taken to his role as a father figure for his three orphan girls Edith, Agnes and Margo quite seriously. The big question on the girls' minds of course is – much to Gru's chagrin – 'when will there be a surrogate mother too'? Apparently several thousand minions are not enough to fill that particular role, so Gru has to endure countless matchmaking on their part. Fortunately for him, he quickly finds himself abducted by agent Lucy (Kristen Wiig returning for the sequel, but voicing another character) of the AVL, the American Vampire League Anti Villain League, who means to recruit him to smoke out a threat to world peace apparently hiding in a shopping mall, potentially posing as one of many goofy shop owners. Gru hesitantly accepts the job, if only to escape his girls' endless romantic pestering. Needless to say, Lucy and Gru soon get romantically entangled while attempting to stop the outrageously stereotypically Mexican baddie El Macho (Benjamin Bratt) from completing his vile scheme to unleash thousands of vicious purple monsters (most of them harvested from Gru's own minions) on mankind. Though the plot leaves little room for narrative surprises, the infectious charm of the characters and a plethora of witty jokes for young and old make for a thoroughly enjoyable animated flick. As before, it's the endearing minions that steal the show – a fact that has already been confirmed to deliver them their own movie next year, which may not be such a good idea – but thanks to the effective emphasis on Gru's own plot line, including a flashback to his youth which is both sad and superbly funny, it also becomes ever more evident just what a droll character he is himself, considering he spends most of his time without his minions and vice versa, while the movie doesn't end up either boring or less hilarious whenever either party takes center stage (also thanks to Wiig's obvious enthusiasm). Though more attention on an original plot would be welcome for the unavoidable next installment, I can unabashedly say I'm looking forward to a Despicable Me 3 regardless. Preferably with both Gru and minions together once more instead of one or the other.

Today's Review: Monsters University

Here's my latest review for MovieScene, of a certain recent Pixar movie no less:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148393/monsters_university_-_recensie

The review basically says it all. If you're too lazy to go through 900 words, here's as good a summary as I can ever give you: Monsters University is a fun Pixar movie, but it's not a particularly good Pixar movie. Though the movie looks great and is filled with all kinds of likeable little details as well as good jokes for both adults and kids, the story leaves much to be desired, as it's filled with every kind of college cliché imaginable, simultaneously being all too predictable. It's not a sheer work of genius as Pixar used to deliver (the predecessor Monsters, Inc. among those), but it's just a damn entertaining piece of work regardless. I guess that's all we can hope for from Pixar from now on, now that Disney's dominion and its tight creative grip is choking the originality out of the animation studio, thus having ended its golden age. But hey, we'll always have Monsters, Inc.! And The Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Plus Ratatouille. And let's not forget the Toy Story trilogy. Or Up, or Wall-E. There's a lasting legacy for ya. Too bad about all the upcoming sequels to those...

This Ice Age has lost its cool

Ice Age: Continental Drift: **/*****, or 4/10

Say what you will about the writers of the Ice Age films, in hindsight they're not afraid to admit the faults in their previous work. When Sid the sloth is visited by his family in the latest addition to the series, Ice Age: Continental Drift, he states 'we had an adventure with dinosaurs, it made no sense but it sure was exciting!' and he hits the nail on the head. That description fits the predecessor Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs perfectly, since it did feel rather nonsensical to have Ice Age mammals meet dinosaurs, but it did result in a decent amount of fun (though as a dinosaur fan, I could be biased in this opinion). Sadly, throwing yet another random element in the mix in the fourth entry into the franchise, pirates in this case, unfortunately backfires completely, leading to a rather dull series of events loaded with dirty jokes and preachy life lessons we would have preferred to do without.

Ice Age: Continental Drift picks up some time after the occurrences in Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Warning! Spoilers! Mammoth couple Manny (still voiced by Ray Romano) and Ellie (still voiced by Queen Latifah) are in the process of raising their daughter Peaches (Keke Palmer), who's hit puberty and proves to be quite feisty and headstrong. Like human teenage girls she's constantly irritated by her father's overprotection, and just wants to have fun with kids her own age, but needs to be accepted by them first. Her friendship with the cowardly but cute mole hog Louis (Josh Gad) makes that kinda hard, since everybody thinks little of him, but to nobody's surprise she'll eventually find he was always her best and most loyal friend to begin with, while the other teen mammoths are just a bunch of intolerant jerks. All very recognizable for teenagers, who undoubtedly will consider this film a Louis itself, since it's clearly aimed at a younger audience that still enjoys gags revolving around natural body wastes. Such an audience at least will not stop to think about the grotesquerie of a mole hog falling in love with a mammoth (interspecies romance? Eeewww!!).

Meanwhile, Sid (still voiced by John Leguizamo) gets a surprise visit from his family, a disgusting batch of smelly, unsympathetic characters that fortunately exit the film as suddenly as they entered it, but sadly leave Sid's grandmother (Wanda Sykes) behind, an extremely old and weathered sloth which soon becomes the target of every conceivable geriatric cliché, like Peaches provides the sterotypical teenager routine for this herd of prehistoric animals that have banded together over the last three movies to form an overly extended family, which in itself has become a narrative problem: there's now so many characters the movie can hardly accomodate them all into the plot (it's only running 94 minutes), which leads to many returning characters' involvement being reduced to bit parts, a few lines here and there. Fortunately the writers realized which characters remain the most important, namely the original trio of Manny, Sid and sabre tooth tiger Diego (still voiced by Denis Leary). And so the plot of the movie takes care of separating these three bosom friends from their family, tasking them with finding a way back to their loved ones to make sure the movie ends on a happy note. Unfortunately Granny tags along with them to make sure the writers' stream of lame smelly jokes flows uninterrupted.

The key to getting the story in motion is, as always, Scrat. Still the most beloved character of the franchise, his never ending quest for his nut and the usual catastrophes this leads to kickstart the continental drift of the title, splitting both the plot lines and the herd in two (our heroes and Granny on the one hand and the rest of the herd on the other) and once again keeping Scrat from attaining his seemingly simple goal, which continues the tradition of funny intermezzos this franchise has firmly established from day one, in which the squirrel continues his hunt for his nut, all the while enlarging everybody's problems because of his natural tendency towards causing major calamities in the process. His other talent, getting the best jokes, is also reaffirmed, as Scrat's appearances interrupting the main plot make for a sporadic hilarious moment in a movie otherwise filled with cringe worthy situations resembling attempts at humour, plus dreary moral lessons. The moment of calm the movie delivers when the protagonists are cut off from their family proves all too brief, as we witness one overload of characters being substituted by another in the shape of the pirate crew that forms the movie's main antagonist (not counting that darn nut). The notion of adding pirates to the franchise seems an attempt to capitalize on Disney's major successes with Pirates of the Caribbean, just a few years too late to successfully jump on that particular bandwagon.

The merry band of pirates are just as diverse a bunch of characters as the ones Manny, Sid and Diego just left behind, they're just a little less friendly. The ship shaped iceberg they set sail on the seven seas with is run by a giant gorilla named Captain Gutt (pleasantly voiced by Tyrion Lannister Peter Dinklage, who balances well between insincere politeness and ruthless villainy) running a tight ship over his scruffy looking band of buccaneers, which includes an obnoxious killer rabbit, a thick headed elephant seal (Nick Frost) and a sultry, seductive female saber called Shira (voiced by Jennifer Lopez), who is introduced to (romantically) spice up Diego's character a bit: not a bad idea considering the poor pussycat has had no interaction with his own kind since the first film of the series, and has since felt more and more like a redundancy character wise, with little development or purpose other than saving his friends from imminent danger every once in a while. Shira herself is a typical tough girl with a rough past, who would like a change in her life style but is afraid of being hurt again. Of course it will surprise nobody when she switches sides and turns against her captain, much to his chagrin. Captain Gutt is a fairly straightforward bad guy, uncompromisingly dominating his underlings, ruling by fear instead of respect: in this regard he's the polar opposite of Manny, the gentle giant running his herd with love and integrity instead. Of course both characters soon find themselves physically at odds, with Manny winning the first round, making Gutt swear vengeance against him and – oh woe! – his family. Unfortunately Gutt's reason for being a short tempered vicious villain remains unexplored, making him a largely one-dimensional character, except in his few interactions with Shira, sort of his surrogate daughter (more by abduction than adoption).

Escaping the clutches of Gutt the first time, our heroes (and Granny) continue their journey home, which leads to the occasional nod to Homer's Oddyssey, including a confrontation with Sirens, monstrous creatures with hypnotic powers out to lure animals to their death. Though adding references to classic literature (Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner is also hailed at least once) to the already chaotic mix at least results in a suspenseful scene like this, it's not enough to keep the movie from becoming tiresome and continuing to feel like a string of random events, except for the scenes centering on Scrat. Unfortunately some of his scenes have already been used in the movie's trailer campaigns, so these will feel overly familiar. In fact, it might be a better idea altogether from here on out to ditch the rest of the Ice Age gang entirely and keep producing theatrical shorts of Scrat chasing his nutty dream attached to other family movies, as used to be the tradition with the classic Looney Tunes sketches this squirrel's shenanigans were obviously inspired by. Scrat's adventures as a castaway on a tiny island, his own Siren encounter and him causing the downfall of Scratlantis (featuring a delightful little voice role for Patrick Stewart as 'Ariscratle') prove insufficient to carry the whole film, but could easily carry themselves on separate occasions. No doubt, this would clash with the studio's financial interests, even though it would waste much less of everybody's time.

Though the quality of both the story and the gags has deteriorated progressively since the first Ice Age film, the same cannot be said for the animation. Whereas it could be called more than primitive in 2002, in this day and age it looks absolutely marvelous, courtesy of a vast army of nameless pixel pushing desk slaves no doubt. It almost feels cruel to realize such an amount of work amounted to such a disappointing final product, as if the animation talents had better put their efforts to use elsewhere. However, Continental Drift does not beat Dawn of the Dinosaurs on the visual front, since it's largely a return to the well known territory of the first two films as far as character and landscape style is concerned. While Dawn of the Dinosaurs opened up a whole new array of possibilities provided by the lush underground jungle realm populated by reptilian/avian creatures, Continental Drift returns to the icy vistas inhabited by furry mammals, its only addition numerous wide seascapes of water, water everywhere. Though adding dinosaurs to the franchise seemed silly from a narrative perspective (it was, really), it succeeded wonderfully in adding grandiose new environments and creatures to the whole, making it the most original movie of the bunch from a visual point of view. In every regard, be it in terms of story, humour or characters, the top of the franchise has clearly been reached before, and Continental Drift as such only goes over it, speeding downhill, snowballing its plot and gags to lower depths as it nears the end of 94 minutes of excrement jokes, pirate lunacy and worn out, tiresome family values involving sticking by your faithful friends and trusting in fatherly love.

Even though it's clear by now the writers are out of original ideas, the current box office results for Ice Age: Continental Drift will undoubtedly pave the way for a fifth addition to the franchise. This time, with aliens. Why? No reason. It makes no sense, but it might sure prove to be exciting! Or maybe the writers will admit to themselves there's little more to add to this Ice Age and finally melt it down for good. Ice Age: Extinction... sounds good, after this letdown of mammoth proportions!

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/iceagecontinentaldrift/

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Unnecessary and unwanted remake of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen classic. At least it acknowledges the charm of the original was based around the wonderful stop motion animation, which it predictably replaces with an abundance of digital effects, including several CGI monsters copied directly from its predecessor (though not necessarily present in the original Greek myth), including giant scorpions and a very snake like Medusa. The plot remains largely the same, though in this more modern look on mythology the gods are treated with much less respect, portrayed as interfering omnipotent beings leeching off of humanity's worship over them, which is rapidly diminishing, making Zeus (who else but Liam Neeson) angry enough to release the monstrous Kraken on mankind, though he still deems humanity worthy enough to allow his son Perseus (Sam Worthington displaying his usual poor acting skills) to successfully fight the terror. Meanwhile, Zeus himself is betrayed by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes playing yet another effectively scary bad guy), God of Death – who by now is undoubtedly used to play the villain in Hollywood's contemporary view on mythology – so Perseus also needs to save his daddy despite not carrying much love for him. Though fairly entertaining, this movie simply features too much digital creature fights to make any of them memorable, except maybe for the final Kraken battle. The film is infamous for its horribly poor post-conversion 3-D effects, adding little depth at all but instead messing up many a shot. Though the movie covers most of the original film and actual myth, the amount of money it made warranted a sequel, Wrath of the Titans (2012), which ixnayed the story altogether and focused almost exclusively on people fighting digital monsters, to predictably disappointing results. Despite the failure, a third Clash is in the works. It remains unknown what Ray Harryhausen thinks of all this, but obviously Hollywood can't care less about the opinions of former masters of movie making magic.

Starring: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson

Directed by Louis Leterrier

USA: Warner Bros, 2010

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Delightful, often overlooked and underrated animated family film about young inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) who lives on a depressing island where everything revolves around sardines, until he invents a machine that when shot up in the sky can make it rain food. Soon the town lightens up and a food theme park is created, but due to the mayor's humongous greedy appetite, dark clouds of junk food soon loom over the horizon as a food hurricane forms and threatens to destroy the island, if not the world. Together with an intrepid female reporter (performed by Anna Faris), who he has a serious crush on, Flint must find a way to turn off his machine before the whole planet succumbs to severe food poisoning. Features a host of fun supporting characters, including a local spoiled ex-child celebrity, Flints stern and less than enthusiastic father (James Caan) who can't stop talking in fishing metaphors, an overprotective cop/father (Mr. T. with a reverse tomahawk hairdo) who constantly bugs Flint for disturbing the peace with his cracking contraptions, and a talking monkey (of sorts). Though the typical thematic values the movie deals with, mostly about not being afraid to be different (i.e., a nerd) and believing in yourself, the film's strength lies in its abundance of quick visual gags and witty jokes, making it a fun fest for kids and adults alike. The 3-D version also holds up pretty well compared to many other animated films released in the same format. The Dutch dubbed version is notable for its ingenious use of Flemish and regular Dutch dialects: the island inhabitants all speak Flemish, the rest of the world speaks plain Dutch.

Starring: Bill Hader, Anna Faris, James Caan

Directed by Phil Lord, Chris Miller

USA: Columbia Pictures, 2009

Antz

Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

Delightful early computer animated movie about a lone ant, named Z, who lives in a huge ant colony and tries to get out of the oppressive life style he has endured all his life, while also falling in love with the colony's princess (voiced by Sharon Stone) which gets him on the radar of the society's military leader (performed by Gene Hackman) who is working on a genocidal reform plan to overthrow the colony and make it his. The voice role of the clumsy and neurotic but highly individualistic Z seems tailor made for Woody Allen, who delivers his performance with obvious pleasure. While the animation looks crude by today's standards, it seems appropriate for the film and does in no way detract from the film's enjoyable (though for a family oriented film, somewhat subversive) plot and a number of very funny, witty scenes and gags. It easily beat Pixar's insect film A Bug's Life, suspiciously released almost at the same time, on every level.

Starring: Woody Allen, Gene Hackman, Sharon Stone

Directed by Eric Darnell, Tim Johnson

USA: Dreamworks SKG, 1998