SECOND HELPINGS: The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

I’m going to come right out and say it- I was a little too harsh on this film the first time I rated it. New Moon is still just as chock-full of problems as its predecessor but it also shows a few signs of improvement. Where Twilight was laughably bad at times, New Moon comes across as just puzzling in its most awkward moments. While my opinion of this film has improved slightly, many of my original arguments stand firm.

In many ways, New Moon follows a similar framework as Twilight. Much of the first half of the film is slow and moody with a little bit of mystery mixed in. Then there is a little bit of tension building before a break-neck pace takes over the final quarter of the film. The big mid-film reveal (this time it’s that Jacob and his tribemates are werewolves) is, once again, a total anticlimax due to the marketing of the film, word of mouth, and obvious foreshadowing from the first film.

This time around, Bella isn’t alone in making sudden, nonsensical decisions. Edward breaks off their romance and cuts off all communication early on in the film when Jasper shows difficulty controlling himself when Bella gets a paper cut. Late in the film, Edward shows no common sense when Jacob tells him over the phone that Bella is dead. Instead of verifying this shocking news with his psychic-powered sister or even calling someone else back in Forks for confirmation, Edward decides to go off the deep end and expose himself to humans so he can be killed by the Volturi, a fascinating group of characters that are woefully underutilized. This would-be dramatic turn stands out as a sign that the author wasn’t paying attention while she was writing. Instead of building toward this event all along, it comes suddenly, out of nowhere and via a ridiculous spur-of-the-moment coincidence.

One of my biggest beefs with the story of New Moon is the inclusion of Victoria. In Twilight, her hunter vampire boyfriend was killed by the Cullens, leaving the vampiress thirsty for revenge. Instead of a firm revenge plot taking sail, Victoria simply stalks Bella from a great distance. It’s just enough for Bella to need a bodyguard detail in the form of her new werewolf friends. The problem is that Victoria never becomes a legitimate threat; she just lurks in the shadows to provide filler before Edward breaks out the Jump-To-Conclusions Mat. Maybe I’m going a little too Chekov’s Gun here but don’t bother teasing us with the possibility of Victoria seeking revenge if you’re not going to bring her back in full and finish that story arc. It’s lazy writing and strings the audience along.

The visual effects are better this time around but they are still a mixed bag. The budget for New Moon was 35% higher than that of Twilight. While it seems evident that some of that increase went to the visual effects, not quite enough of it did. The color palette is warmer this time, unlike Twilight’s terrible digital grading to sap most of the color out of everything. Had the filmmakers made this decision because Jacob and his werewolf brethren are hot to the touch as opposed to vampires being stone cold, I might have given the film some style points. Alas, it wasn’t as intentional as that. The director simply wanted to emulate the color palette of the Italian artwork he likes.

The visual effects for the wolves that Jacob and his friends turn into, however, fail to impress. Part of it may be due to the unnaturally large size of wolves they turn into. Their proportions are correct but their size registers in your brain as wrong. They also don’t look like they occupy the same space as the flesh-and-blood actors on screen with them or the real environments they are inserted into. That’s how it looks on my TV screen. Perhaps it looked better on the big screen, as many visual effects often do.

One of the few things that New Moon has going for it is a little bit of character development. Unlike the relationship between Bella and Edward, watching Bella and Jacob grow in their friendship is believable. Maybe it helps that their starting point is a place of friendship instead of mystery and bloodlust. Mystery is added to the mix after they’ve grown close and Jacob shuts her out of his life for a while. Their interactions and the chemistry between the actors feel natural and right, which is the complete opposite of how Bella and Edward felt in the first film.

I originally trashed this movie and gave it a lower rating than Twilight. After taking a second look at New Moon, I actually think it is a better film on the whole than its predecessor. Some of the technical aspects that were unwelcome in Twilight have been done away with. Sadly, New Moon is just as guilty for not rebuking Bella for her irrational behavior to the point of learning an actual lesson. By not having the heroine change and mature, the film legitimizes at least some of Bella’s moody, hormonal, teenage thought processes and actions in the eyes of some in the audience. Along with this, there are enough flaws to hold this film at the same level as Twilight but I think I would easily watch this one again over the first installment if given the choice.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Gravity* (2013)

It takes a lot for me to see a film in 3D. To date, this is only the second film I have watched in the 3D format. For most films, 3D is little more than a gimmick and does nothing to enhance the story being told. As with Avatar, this film was made specifically with a 3D presentation in mind. Few films truly merit 3D presentation but Gravity is certainly one of them. I think the film could be just as powerful in 2D but seeing it in 3D provided an even more immersive experience.

Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a biomedical engineer on a space shuttle mission to make upgrades to some of the Hubble Space Telescope’s delicate instruments. During her spacewalk, a debris field caused by an exploded satellite overtakes Stone, her crew, and their shuttle. Stranded in orbit, Stone and Lt. Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) form a desperate plan to survive.

Some people complain about a lack of plot and I can see why they might think so but I think this may be because they do not share my understanding of what constitutes plot and story. As a story, Gravity is a powerhouse sequence of events. Precious little time is spent on wind-up. In your typical disaster blockbuster, probably a good thirty minutes would be spent introducing us to the characters. Here, we get maybe five minutes before things go haywire. Only after the spectacular opening sequence do we get to know the two surviving characters. Even then, we only learn about the shell-shocked Ryan because Kowalski knows he needs to distract her from the high probability that they are going to die.

But these forced conversations open us up to Ryan’s emotional journey, which I consider the film’s plot. She goes from being terrified and helpless, to mustering the courage to fight for her life, to finding the will to live. She clings to some things as she lets go of others. As in real life, people tend to find out who they are and what they’re made of during times of hardship. In 91 minutes, we witness one woman’s gut-wrenching transformation amidst the most extreme conditions. We get to know Ryan Stone at her worst and at her best and it is so, so powerful to experience.

Sandra Bullock carries this film on her shoulders and makes it look effortless. In reality, she was rigged to a wire harness in a box covered with LED lights. While you might think this film was shot in space or like on a parabolic flight like in Apollo 13, Bullock actually spent almost all of her time as if she were a marionette puppet, with the filmmakers controlling her every move. To be able to give up control of your body while delivering such a frenzied performance is astounding and, for me, this beats even her Oscar-winning performance in The Blind Side.

This movie looks like it was filmed in space. What is most astonishing is that all of the exterior spacewalk sequences are 100% digitally created, save for the actor’s superimposed faces inside the suits. Seeing pictures of the crew filming interior scenes is amazing because you realize just how much detail was added digitally. The end result is gorgeous and marks an enormous leap forward in visual effects. There are a few places where you can spot something that looks a little fake but at least 99% of this film looks real.

Not only does director Alfonso Cuarón create a nearly seamless visual extravaganza, he also employs the 3D format in a way that adds weight to the story being told. I don’t think 3D is essential to telling this story but the added depth of 3D really hammers home just how distant and isolated Stone and Kowalski are from Earth and anyone who can save them. It also enhances a few of the scenes where Stone is fumbling along the outside of a space station or spacecraft trying to achieve her goals. Cuarón likes to put long takes into his films and have the camera follow one character or drift between cameras for minutes on end without cutting. These sequences where the camera follows stone as she maneuvers around and along things are also heightened by 3D.

For a film firmly rooted in science and the here-and-now, Gravity has a moment that is open to debate. Late in the film there is a scene that can be interpreted two ways. It can either be scenes as a biological/physiological phenomenon or it can be interpreted in a spiritual way. I can’t say any more than I already have without spoiling things and I strongly encourage you to see this movie. I appreciated this scene and interpreted it the way my own way. Some may complain that this moment is something of a deus ex machine but I find it beautiful and touching. Without it, Stone’s journey is not complete.

Much like the Lord of the Rings movies did a decade before, Gravity sets a new standard by which to judge visual effects in films. It is also a hair-raising nail-biter that blasts your body with multiple adrenaline rushes. It took me at least an hour to recover from watching this film. All praise is due to Alfonso Cuarón for creating the technology necessary to will his vision onto the big screen. The fact that this film was a technical, critical, and box office triumph shows that Hollywood hasn’t completely run out of ideas yet. I can’t wait to see what Cuarón’s got in store for us next.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

The Muppets (2011)

As someone who grew up watching the original trilogy of Muppet movies and The Muppet Christmas Carol, I have to admit to being just a little turned off by this film. It’s great that it brings the Muppets back into the public eye but I can’t help but find it ironic that a film called The Muppets relegates its titular characters to supporting roles. It’s still a pretty fun movie to watch but this stroll down memory lane reminds you that they just don’t make them like they used to.

Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) and Gary (Jason Segel) are two very different brothers. Gary is a normal human being, while Walter looks more like one of the Muppets the two used to watch on TV as kids. When Gary and Mary (Amy Adams), Gary’s girlfriend of 10 years, surprise Walter with an extra ticket for their trip to LA, Walter dreams of meeting the Muppets and being asked to join them in their antics. When Walter overhears an oil magnate’s plan to purchase the old Muppet Theater and destroy it to drill into a rich oil deposit beneath it, Walter convinces Gary and Mary to help him find the Muppets, bring them back together, and find a way to save the Muppet Theater.

We can disagree on whether Gary, Mary, and Walter are the main characters of The Muppets but there’s not much room to debate whether or not they are enjoyable characters. None of them have much of a personality and that bugs me. Gary and Walter are both big Muppet fans living quaint lives in the fictional Smalltown. They seem too wholesome to be real, almost like what the Muppets were played up to be like in The Muppet Movie. But that’s the problem- Muppets stand out from the real world; humans aren’t supposed to. As a Muppet, Walter isn’t even that unique. He just looks like a Muppet version of a kid. Maybe he’ll come into his own in future films. Mary is just as equally 50s-esque innocent as Gary but at least her character understands more about the way things work.

In the original Muppet trilogy, there is no consistency to the origins of the Muppets as an entertaining group, so you can’t really knock The Muppets for recycling the ‘get the gang back together’ plot from The Muppets Take Manhattan. This time around, however, the gang are all washed up has-beens who have moved on with life after stardom. Naturally, none of the Muppets show any sign of aging but it is fun to watch them shake of the rust and band together from all sorts of interesting places.

Once we actually get around to re-assembling the original troupe, this film does get better and is quite satisfying. The problem is that we grow impatient for our dose of nostalgia as the filmmakers make us wait through the wind-up. I can see why the filmmakers decided to create a new Muppet to bring about this grand reunion. The Muppets have fallen out of relevance over the last decade or two, so to deny that would be dishonest. I still think it takes too long to get to the point though.

I can’t tell if The Muppets was necessary. Sure, it reminds us that the Muppets are great family fun but it also calls to memory just how much better they were back in the day. It’s fresh enough to keep the kids interested and nostalgic enough to do the same for adults. It’s a safe, harmless movie but it’s also not likely to make the Muppets matter again for very long.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Twilight (2008)

First and foremost, I want to apologize for the overlong rant that was my original review. Good Lord, what a mess! Much of my criticism still stands but I will try to make it a little more eloquent and far more concise. We’ll start with this: Twilight is a very flawed film. There are issues with just about every aspect, technical and artistic. The biggest problem, however, is that the popularity of the book takes all the surprise out of the movie, making this film boring.

When the young-adult novel this film is based on was breaking waves, nobody was describing it as a girl falling in love with a mysterious boy. No, they were describing it as a vampire romance, a Romeo & Juliet story with a vampire twist, or some other way that included the word ‘vampire.’ Even the marketing of the film spoiled the big reveal that the film spends an hour building toward. It ruins the suspense and leaves us with nothing to do but analyze the merits of the first hour. This is dangerous because there is plenty to gripe about if you’re not a Twihard (slang for Twilight die-hard, if it isn’t obvious).

More than enough has already been written about how poor the writing is for both the book and film but I have to comment briefly. The biggest problem I have with the writing in this film is that it presents a worldview where Bella’s wild teenage emotions are totally justified and presented as normal. I understand the importance of writing to your audience but you don’t need to validate poor decision-making. When your target audience consists of tweens and teens, I hold the author/screenwriters responsible for setting a few things straight to help readers/viewers to identify the mistakes of their heroine. There is none of that here.

Character development is another issue that plagues this film. By the end of the film, Bella knows herself and the world of vampires better but has her character actually grown? She is still the clumsy girl who makes bad decisions and can’t keep herself out of harm’s way. Edward certainly hasn’t changed either. He’s still the brooding, wannabe James Dean type. Now he just has a committed girlfriend to look after. It’s a good thing he never sleeps, because as accident-prone as Bella is, he’ll need to monitor her almost round the clock.

Chemistry between characters is hit or miss. Some of that is due to the writing, while some of it is also due some weak acting. Bella’s human friends think she’s super smart because she comes up clever ideas that work out great. Does any of this build up her confidence? Of course not. If it did, then she probably wouldn’t let Edward treat her like an object. Let’s be clear- he only grows to love her after he gets past his desire to drink her blood. There is no love at first sight- only intrigue from Bella and bloodlust from Edward. It’s a very messed up foundation for a relationship.

I think the biggest flaw of Twilight is that the filmmakers tried too hard to make up for the weak story without changing the story. Instead of making much needed improvements to the script, the studio embraces Twilight’s inherent mediocrity and runs with it. The end result is a mess of moody incidental music, spinning cameras, creepy glances, and a digitally-altered color palette that sucks a little too much color out of the world. Pile on top of this some really lousy visual effects and you have more than enough to make uninitiated folks like myself balk.

If you even out the pace of Twilight, you will end up with a better movie. Spend a little less time building up to the reveal that everyone already knows about and stretch out the cat-and-mouse game with the hunter vampire and this film may even become a taught thriller. Instead we have a whole lot of exposition and nothing happening for an hour and a half with a half hour of break-neck action at the end.

The filmmakers probably kept pretty close to the pace of the book to keep the Twihards of the world happy. Happy filmgoers generate repeat viewings and an instantaneous demand for an adaptation of the sequel novel. This is further evidence that the financial success of the book got in the way of making the film anything remotely close to an artistic success.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.5 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Help* (2011)

This sassy, and at times catty, tale of black maids anonymously dishing the dirt on their wannabe Southern belle employers succeeds on a number of levels. It’s is simultaneously entertaining and thought-provoking. It also boasts snappy writing and terrific performances from the entire cast. The film may be a little heavy on the warm fuzzies but The Help is the kind of emotionally satisfying film you stop to watch when you come across it.

When Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Emma Stone) returns home to Jackson, Mississippi from college with a degree but no husband, her local women’s circle try to take under their wing and find her a man. This is 1963 after all. Skeeter would rather focus on a career in writing, however, and lands a job for the local paper as a homemaking columnist. Not skilled in the subject herself, Skeeter seeks advice from Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis), the black maid working for a member of the local women’s circle. This leads the young and idealistic Skeeter to compile a collection of stories from the perspective of Aibileen and her fellow maids. Published anonymously, the book creates a firestorm of controversy and intrigue but the project’s anonymity only lasts so long.

The characters and performances in this film are wonderful. Many characters could have been very cookie-cutter in nature but they aren’t. All of the black maids have personality. They are not all bitter towards their white employers, nor are they pushovers either. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer give exhausting performances that showcase the emotional duality of working a job where you are treated as if you don’t exist half the time and less than a person the other half.

Bryce Dallas Howard is equally excellent as the scheming racist ringleader of the town’s young women. She could have been your stereotypical Southern belle who doesn’t understand the depths of her racism but she is so much more. Here is a power hungry woman bent on wielding whatever influence she has to keep those she finds inferior on a lower rung of the food chain. In today’s era, she would be a nightmarish politician.

Emma Stone’s character, though the facilitator of the whole thing, is actually the weakest in the entire story. She is very much your stereotypical young adult Baby Boomer full of idealism about social change and challenging the norm. Without the stellar mix of characters driving the story around her, The Help would descend into cliché. Had the story focused too much on Skeeter and put her up on a pedestal for her boldness in writing the book, audiences would have gagged. White liberals have trumpeted their work for minorities for decades so another dose of ‘see, we care!’ would have left everyone wanting more.

The Help does leave you wanting more though. It leaves you wanting more movies with acting as fabulous as you find here. This film shows that women in Hollywood do not have to settle for being a second-tier attraction. With the right story and the right talent, women can carry a film that matters and moves you. The Help does both. It may give in to a few too many heartwarming moments for its own good but we’ve almost come to expect that from movies about Baby Boomers and social justice. If you like great acting and uplifting stories, this one’s got them both in spades.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Cars (2006)

There is a significant age gap between me and the oldest of my cousins. I remember several of them and their parents absolutely adoring this movie for years after it came out. Having finally seen Cars, I am left wondering what all the fuss is about. Sure, it looks fantastic but this film feels a little too much like style over not enough substance with a bloated runtime and a story that suggests the writers put this one on cruise control.

Lightning McQueen is the hottest up-and-coming racecar in the Piston Cup circuit. He can back up all of his cocky swagger on the track but he has a hard time looking past his own greatness. After insulting his pit crew and pushing his hauler to the limit to reach Los Angeles first for a tie-breaking race for the Piston Cup championship, McQueen finds himself alone in a washed-up town called Radiator Springs. His arrival tears up the town’s street, for which the local authority sentences him to community service. While he works off his debt to the town, McQueen gets to know the colorful locals and learns a thing or two about the importance of teamwork as he preps for the big race.

From the glossy shine of Lightning McQueen to the dust and dirt of Radiator Springs, the animation in this movie represents another step forward by Pixar. At times, certain environments look almost photorealistic. The racing scenes in particular are exciting and they capture the energy and danger of the sport. The anthropomorphic characters all look good, even if they do play into stereotypes. The animators do a great job with how light reflects and bends off certain cars, while Mater really does look like he is made out of rusting metal. While most of the cars have the same textures, the filmmakers make up for it with the environments of the film.

The story, however, disappointed me. To me, the cocky-hotshot-gets-a-lesson-on-teamwork plot has been done enough times before that you can predict a lot of what’s coming. I’m okay with the winning-isn’t-everything message conveyed here because it is a valuable lesson for kids to learn. Otherwise, the overall message of Cars is be nice and work together. That’s a surprisingly simple and bland message for a Pixar film.

One serious problem with the film is its length. For a story about a racecar, Cars is anything but speedy. At almost two hours long, this is still the second-longest Disney and/or Pixar film ever made. Only Fantasia is longer. Most Disney films keep within the 80-90 minute range, though several have pushed the 100-minute mark lately. The Incredibles is only a minute shorter than Cars, but at least The Incredibles has more plot behind it and an antagonist. Cars is long on story and short on plot. There is no external antagonist. McQueen wants to get to the race and he needs to learn to get over himself. That could work in an 86-minute film. I think the lack of a true antagonist left the filmmakers to meander a little in order to bring all the story elements together in the end and that is a substantial problem.

Stories don’t always need a villain (case in point- Finding Nemo) but it is advisable to include one when your story is on the simple side. Cars could have used an active villain role, not just the other racecars he wants to beat for the championship. Introspection has worked well as an ingredient in Pixar films before but perhaps this film boasts too large a dose of it. Conflict is necessary, so making nice with the locals to get to the big race comes up very short. Several scenes are fun and exciting, and the whole film looks great but improved animation can’t save Cars from being the weakest Pixar film I’ve seen so far.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Grumpy Old Men (1993)

Despite relying on some clichéd gags and audience familiarity with their particular brand of comedy, seeing Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau on screen together is a real treat. Timing is the essence of comedy and both men show they’ve still got it in spades. It helps that they worked together before because throwing just any two aged actors into these roles could have been a disaster. While the end product may not be the highlight of either of the stars’ careers, what we get is a delightful comedy that will more than likely put a smile on your face.

Wabasha, Minnesota neighbors John Gustafson (Jack Lemmon) and Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) have been rivals for decades since John stole Max’s high school sweetheart. John is long since divorced and Max is a widower, which leaves them ample time to torment each other with pranks. When a beautiful widow (Ann-Margret) moves in across the street, both men vie for her attention and affection, escalating their rivalry to new heights.

While the story isn’t all that unique, Grumpy Old Men has a lot going for it thanks to the characters and the talent bringing them to life. I don’t have to say much else about Lemmon and Matthau. They’re icons of comedy and they do a fine job of balancing their boyish antics with the limitations of their aged bodies. Ann-Margret’s character could have been something of a throwaway but she makes the role more than just a pretty face. She succeeds at the subtle things that drive her suitors crazy while also maintaining a firmness that puts them in their place. Then there’s Burgess Meredith as Lemmon’s father. He steals the show every time his character is allowed to go off on a tangent and talk dirty.

Rather than be just a slew of raunchy retiree antics, the filmmakers slow the pace down a little with a side plot involving John’s daughter and Max’s son kindling some romance as her marriage concludes its death spiral. I guess it gives younger viewers something to connect with and it is treated with enough care so that it doesn’t fall into standard rom-com trappings. It’s the completely forgettable part of the film and, while you never want a part of your film to be forgettable, at least the sidebar characters that miss the mark rather than the main characters. These scenes are not bad; they just fail to make an impression.

Maybe that’s one way to describe this film as a whole. You aren’t likely to remember particular scenes in great detail but you remember the overall experience. If you were to make a list of 90s comedies worth watching again, Grumpy Old Men should be on that list. It’s not one of the all-time greats but it is consistent enough to make you forget about a few minor flaws and remember it fondly.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Airplane! (1980)

Here’s another film that some people were shocked to learn I never saw before 2013. Spoofing Hollywood’s obsession with disaster flicks in the 1970s, Airplane! still holds its own. My generation has had this film’s brand of sarcastic genre humor played to death thanks to the Scary Movie franchise and countless other one-off attempts at genre spoofing. Younger viewers, those who don’t watch older films, and anyone who tends to look down on silly humor will probably feel like this is a waste of time. If you can put things in context and forget that all the other inferior genre-spoofing films exist, you will have lots of fun.

Despite his fear of flying after a war, Ted Striker (Robert Hays) boards a commercial jetliner to win back the heart of his girlfriend (Julie Hagerty). After the in-flight meal, dozens of passengers grow ill. When the cockpit crew all succumb to food poisoning, the flight crew is desperate for a pilot. Ted begrudgingly volunteers and works through his trauma to save the lives of all on board with the help from control tower staff.

While the structure of the film is straight-up drama, Airplane! infuses every scene with as much humor, irony, and wacky randomness as possible. Many of the background characters portray ludicrous stereotypes or are celebrities playing against type. Some of the jokes are subtle but the zany stuff never stops escalating. Some may complain about this but disaster films have a knack for not lightening up on the tension until the very end. Why should a disaster spoof be any different in its mechanics?

The faux-serious delivery of the film only amplifies the humor. Everyone in this film acts all serious despite the outlandish things they say, do, and see happening around them. I think this is probably where most genre-spoofs lose steam. They tend to go for the obvious references and situational jokes but fail to sustain any kind of mood between jokes. Airplane! builds up a mood and plot and inserts the jokes around that. That is why this film continues to be held in high regard despite all the topical imitators that have followed.

Is this movie for everyone? No. My wife didn’t see what the big deal was and even I have to admit that I can only rate this film as high as I do because I can see past the years of lame spoof films. Though Mel Brooks was making genre comedies for a decade already, this film was a first-of-its-kind in terms of sheer random silliness. In this day and age of genre spoofs and Family Guy randomness, you couldn’t make this kind of film a success anymore. The filmmakers caught stupid-humor lightning in a bottle with this one.

RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Chicken Little (2005)

After a string of underperforming flicks that garnered critical reception that was lukewarm at best, you would think that Disney’s decision to go back to the well of time-honored children’s fables would be a good thing. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that we were very, very wrong. Chicken Little is not only Disney’s worst film to date, it commits a sin far worse than simply being boring or lacking quality animation. This film is obnoxious and insulting. I dreaded re-watching this film and all of my fears were justified.

As a fan of context, I’d like to provide some here. When this film came out, Disney was in heated negotiations with Pixar. Their contract was almost up and Pixar was using Disney’s lackluster performance streak as leverage to sweeten their end of any deal. Disney had yet to enter the fray of computer-animated films and interest in their traditionally-animated product waned as audiences craved the new hotness. All of this converged into Chicken Little. It was Disney’s way to say that they were still relevant and that they could compete with not only other studios but also with Pixar. It was almost as if Pixar told Disney ‘you need us’ and Disney said ‘no we don’t and we can prove it.’ Disney was dead wrong, scrapped the negotiations, and flat-out bought Pixar less than a year after this film was released.

As far as the animation goes, it’s not Pixar quality but it’s also not terrible. In fact, Disney should get a little credit for spending enough on their animation software that their end product looks better than a handful of Pixar’s imitators. Some of the characters look like they were designed to be as simple to work with as possible, which calls into question whether Disney was really ready and willing to take the full plunge on computer animation. Much of the movie is spent teetering back and forth between rich textures and few, if any, textures. It’s pretty clear that the animators used this film to work out all the bugs and to get used to the new-fangled technology.

In its push to bring the technological heat, Disney forgets one important element. The story sucks. The classic fable is only long enough for a short film, so after running through said fable in the first five minutes, the filmmakers have to make up an additional 75 minutes of story. Instead of something interesting, like a lesson against needlessly spreading fear or putting your trust in those who capitalize on it, we get a combination lecture and public service announcement on the importance of communicating with your children.

Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than a lesson about the spread of fear, Disney flips the story on its head. As it turns out, Chicken Little was right- part of the sky did fall! More random yet, it’s aliens! Once an outcast, now only Chicken Little can save his town, and Earth, from certain doom! To fill in the gap, we get sad attempts at making the juvenile characters clever, funny, and mature beyond their years. What this results in is a rehash of coming-of-age movie clichés where the kids are smart and capable but the adults are dopes who can barely get out of their own way.

The spastic antics of our tightly wound kiddie characters may entertain children on the most superficial of levels but that’s only because they won’t realize they aren’t the target audience. Chicken Little sets its sights on mom and dad. It seems like a first to me but it is also a problem. Can you imagine paying to take your kids to see a movie in the theater only to have the movie lecture you, suggesting that you’re not spending enough time with or listening to your own children? With this film, Disney is basically thanking you for buying a ticket and immediately questioning whether you really love your kid. I’m surprised there weren’t riots like you see at Chuck E Cheese.

I think one of the chief reasons that this film feels so insultingly inferior is that Finding Nemo was so great. There you had similar father-son communication issues being resolved but in a way that showed character growth. With Chicken Little all you got is a Big Dumb Parent saying, “Gosh! I guess I should have listened to and believed my own kid a little more.” The animation may be better than the average studio attempt to catch up with Pixar but that story sets up any number of puns. Is Chicken Little a bad egg, a rotten egg, a story that never fully hatched, one in need of a little more incubation, or not all it’s cracked up to be? Take your pick and please don’t watch this stain on the legacy of Disney.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Big (1988)

This is the film that cemented Tom Hanks as A-list talent even before he moved away from comedy. Watching this film for the first time in over a decade, it’s not hard to see why both Hanks and this film became so popular. Big takes an emotionally honest look at the struggles that come with growing up by plunging its main character into adulthood overnight. The growing pains may be fantastical but they are familiar enough to make one ponder just how we survive that transition at slow-speed.

When 12-year-old Josh Baskin makes a wish to be big on a carnival fortune teller machine, he gets much more than he bargained for. The next morning he wakes up with the body of a 30-year-old man (Tom Hanks). Unable to explain his transformation to his freaked-out mother, Josh has no one to help him but his best friend Billy (Jared Rushton), who believes Josh’s tale. Together, they find Josh a job and an apartment in New York City while Billy tracks the carnival so Josh can reverse the spell. As Josh climbs the ranks at a toy company he finds it harder to live a double life and struggles to choose between which one matters most to him.

Sometimes these sorts of one-trick-pony films irk me for being completely reliant on one actor to carry the entire film. More often than not, you find this kind of overreliance on a star player in biopics and very weighty dramas requiring the kind of stirring passion and powerful oratory skills that are now clichéd for the most part. With Big, however, we have a delightful break from the norm. This film has to rely on its main star to keep the illusion of a child in a man’s body alive but the illusion being preserved is every bit as important as the performance that Hanks delivers.

The age-change conceit wasn’t exactly fresh when Big hit theaters but most films using it involve two people switching bodies and aimed for easy laughs. Few if any actually involved a full-body transformation or contain subtle commentary as our youthful protagonist comes of age in an adult’s body. Big never takes the easy way out and that matters. Credit goes to the writers for crafting such an emotionally real film. Director Penny Marshall deserves plenty of credit herself for keeping that emotional honesty alive in Josh Baskin.

Tom Hanks pumps all the right youthful energy and naivety into his performance. All of his mannerisms, reactions, and gestures are exactly what a child would do, which adds to the humor of his most expressive scenes. Even when the character starts to drift into accepting adulthood as his reality, there is enough 12-year-old body language to remind us that Josh does not belong there yet.

There are a few clunky story elements that have to be aired, lest you think this film is perfect. Obviously the fantastical storyline is pure fiction and some of the things Josh does to get by in the adult world are hard to swallow. Even in the 1980s, I have a hard time believing a major company would hire someone without discovering a bogus social security number, a falsified degree, and made-up references. Then there is the really-icky-if-you-think-about-it romance between Josh and a colleague.

Even still, this film has enough innocence and fun to make up for these kinds of details. Big manages to say a lot of insightful things about both childhood and adulthood without getting preachy or cliché. That makes for a pretty impressive 104 minutes. The world of children and adults seem light-years apart, yet this film reminds us that some aspects of both are closer than we think or would like to admit. The emotions are the same but we hold them in check better and feel those emotions about different things. Big defies the Hollywood coming-of-age film odds and smashes through the cynicism of adulthood. The fashion and technology are dated but this film is timeless and could not possibly be remade without losing some of the magic. Leave this one alone, Hollywood.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Home on the Range (2004)

To be completely honest, I had to look up this film online to refresh my memory of the plot points. That sentence alone should tell you loud and clear what kind of impression this film makes on its audience. This is pretty much lowest-common denominator Disney. It may satisfy visually but without memorable characters or a compelling story, there is nothing to recommend here outside of a momentary distraction.

After the rest of her herd is stolen by the dastardly Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid), Maggie (Roseanne Barr), is sold to the Patch of Heaven farm, where she butts heads with two prim and proper cows named Grace (Jennifer Tilly) and Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench). When Patch of Heaven is threatened with foreclosure, Maggie convinces the other cows to band together and find a way to raise enough money to save the farm. Upon learning that the bounty on Alameda Slim is the exact amount needed to save their home, Maggie steers the trio headlong into an adventure that is as revealing as it is dangerous.

The basic plot of this film has been done more times than I can count. Whether it’s winning a contest, putting on a show, or (in this case) finding something to claim a reward, we’ve seen this outline too many times before to even mistake it as original. Using an archetypal story isn’t a sin, however. The real problem is that Disney fails to give Home on the Range any satisfying twists on said archetypal story. Oh sure, there are outlandish deviations from the blueprint but perhaps a yodeling cattle rustler is a little too out there to be accepted by anyone who has finished elementary school.

The timing of Home on the Range is tragic. Computer-animated films had taken over and Disney, reading the writing on the wall, decided to make one last traditional animated film for nostalgia’s sake. The animation in this film showcases the sad slide in quality that befell Disney over a half-dozen years. It’s not bad but it’s often no better than Disney’s TV cartoons (if they even still made them for afternoon and Saturday morning TV by 2004).

The characters in this film are hit or miss. Roseanne Barr’s sassy, blue-collar wit is something I grew up with, so that may explain why I’m okay with Maggie. She is a little paint-by-numbers but the personality injected by the voice actor goes a long way. I cannot say that the same goes for the rest of the cast. Grace and Mrs. Calloway fall under the typical goodie-goodie types who grow to appreciate their boisterous colleague but never really approve of her behavior. It’s more solidarity than sisterhood. Everyone else is just there to fill a role and provide their own brief moment of uniqueness but they fail to leave a mark.

When a film alternates between trying too hard and not trying hard enough, it makes it hard to know what to think. This review feels almost like a collection of incomplete thoughts but maybe that’s less of strike against me and more of a strike against the film. As far as Disney films go, Home on the Range is terrible. Fortunately, terrible for Disney is still a mostly-harmless way to kill some time if you absolutely must.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Ernest Goes to Camp (1987)

Just like Short Circuit, this is a film that I watched on a regular basis growing up. My grandparents had recorded it off one of those free movie channel previews and my sister and I probably pushed that poor VHS tape to its limit by the time we were old enough to stay at home on our own after school. It’s far from great cinema but Ernest Goes to Camp is great fun.

Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) is the facilities handyman at Kamp Kikakee, a summer adventure camp for boys that was once the site of a Native American tribe known for its trials for ushering boys into manhood. Longing to become a camp counselor, Ernest gets his chance when no one is willing to take charge of a group of delinquents from a nearby juvenile detention facility. While Ernest struggles to engage the defiant youths, he also inadvertently gets used by a local mining executive who wants to steal Kamp Kikakee from Chief Saint Cloud, who speaks no English.

I don’t think any of the Ernest films qualify as anything but a guilty pleasure, but I don’t see any harm in liking this movie. This was the first true Ernest film, coming on the heels of a successful string of commercials and a few direct-to-video releases. Despite being dimwitted and klutzy, Ernest lets down his wide smile several times to show a caring sincerity that is absent in many of the other adults around him. He may have the enthusiasm of a child, which is why many people in this film disregard him, but it is also an innocent enthusiasm. Part of this man wasn’t forced to grow up, providing a spastic and hilarious conduit between children and adults.

While Varney obviously commits to his role with zeal, credit has to be given to the child actors working most closely with him. They do a good job selling the tough-guy delinquent attitude their characters need, even if none of them seem particularly imposing or muscular enough to actually be in juvie. They may be based on delinquent stereotypes fitting of late-teen thugs but they do their best with what they’ve got. Their slow turnaround from apathy doesn’t feel as phony as some kid-focused movies. That’s probably because the filmmakers focus more on entertaining audiences than trying to inspire them with clichéd aww-shucks moments.

The story isn’t very original or compelling (David v. Goliath, standing up for what’s right, and learning responsibility) but it is very fun to watch. Ernest constantly breaks the fourth wall, which signals to the audience that Ernest is aware of how crazy all his antics really are. This breaks down the forced sense of objectivity that the fourth wall represents, allowing us to take the film as seriously or lightly as we choose. I choose to take it lightly and I think that makes all the difference.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Best Years of Our Lives** (1946)

As I write this review of a film following three World War II veterans struggling to reacclimate into everyday life, a heated debate is raging about a film that looks at the same issue. While I have yet to see American Sniper, I have to wonder if this film sparked any controversy upon its release. Re-entry into civilian life was either taboo or not on Hollywood’s radar before The Best Years of Our Lives was made. Granted, the golden age of Hollywood was in the roaring 20s, when glitz and glamour were in vogue and long after the end of World War I, and production codes restricted a wide range of content from being put on film. The content of this film feels like it should have been risky, which is why I think it is so powerful.

Three servicemen meet while heading home after World War II and discover that they all live in the same town. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) returns to a loving upper-middle class family and a job as a loan officer at a bank. Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) lost his hands in the war and is nervous how his fiancée and their families will react to his disability. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) returns to an unskilled job and a wife who is tired of scraping by. The three men find themselves leaning on each other as they all struggle to rejoin civilian life.

This is a very honest film in its presentation of civilian America. All of the sets were built to real size as opposed to the oversized architecture common to Hollywood films of the day. All of the costumes are real off-the-rack items instead of designed and perfectly tailored by a costuming department. All of this adds up to a tight, authentic look that feels almost like a documentary at times. If you don’t know these facts, then you might find the aesthetic elements of the film to be lackluster. I don’t hold this against the film but the length of it made me restless at times.

The Best Years of Our Lives comes in at just under three hours long. I think any viewer would get fidgety in that final hour because the film lacks any external conflict or rising tension. Instead, it’s like a three-hour case study of three veterans struggling to figure out who they are and what they believe after the war. What we do have are three genuinely interesting men struggling internally with how they want to define themselves. As the film goes on, each of these characters develop in their own way. Harold Russell provides a completely honest portrayal of struggling with disability but he also struggles with his more emotional scenes (this was his first experience as an actor).

Perhaps this film avoided any controversy over its subject matter because it was treated with respect and earnestly raised awareness of the struggles of veterans. Had it been more exploitative or made veterans look bad there probably would have been a row. Still, I was shocked to see Al’s daughter declare her intentions to break up Fred’s struggling marriage in a film made in the 1940s.

Its length and slow but true-to-life pace may turn some off but this really is an excellent film. Other than a few deep focus shots, there isn’t much to see in this film that will dazzle you but that is by design. The film appeals so well to the emotions that one can’t help but root for each of the three principals to find their place in the world. Younger audiences may not care for The Best Years of Our Lives but this is certainly a case of slow and steady winning the race.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Brother Bear (2003)

The three years separating this film from The Emperor’s New Groove feels like an eternity. Other than the mildly entertaining Lilo & Stitch, Disney seems to have lost its magic. Had Pixar been a rival to Disney rather than a business partner during this time frame, the House of Mouse would have been on life support. While Brother Bear seems to check off some of the surefire ingredients that served Disney well over the years, the end result feels more like a misfire.

In a prehistoric time, a young man named Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix) is displeased with the sacred totem (a bear) bestowed upon him by his tribe. Seeming to confirm his disapproval of bears, a wild bear steals food from the tribe during the ceremony. When Kenai and his older brothers hunt the bear down, the eldest brother, Sitka (D. B. Sweeney), gives his life to save his brothers. Kenai kills the bear but the Spirits the tribe worship transform him into a bear. To regain his human form and achieve manhood in his tribe, Kenai must learn from his mistakes and help a young bear cub find his way through the wild.

I do have to give this film some credit for a little bit of trickery. When the film begins, it is presented in one aspect ratio and the art direction portrays the animals and environments very realistically. After Kenai is turned into a bear, the aspect ratio is wider and the environments and animals have a more cartoonish look. It’s not exactly Dorothy walking out into a Technicolor Munchkinland but it’s a clever trick involving a change of perspective, which Kenai needs to appreciate his totem.

Other than that, this film is forgettable. In the time that has passed since I saw Brother Bear, I completely forgot that this film even has songs in it. That’s a cardinal sing for Disney movies that use songs. My lapse in memory is probably in part because most of the songs were used during montage segments, rather than having the characters sing them movie-musical style. More often than not, this musical direction choice hasn’t worked out well for Disney.

When you have a fairly simple story, as in this film, it helps to have complex characters to make up for it. I was not engaged by any of the characters in Brother Bear. Kenai and Koda are too paint-by-numbers and the plot twist that befalls them is predictable from early on. The filmmakers even bring back the goofiness of Bob and Doug McKenzie by way of Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas voicing two sarcastic moose. This is an obvious throwaway joke for parents when the film came out but probably half the people my age don’t even remember that comedy act. Those not in the know just assume they’re a pair of stereotypical Canadian moose. I like Bob and Doug but I did not care for the moose bit.

The prehistoric setting probably helped prevent Native Americans, anthropologists, and history buffs from getting upset when this film was released. Pocahontas certainly irked a number of people but that’s because it butchered a true story. Brother Bear is fiction and I doubt it will elicit a strong response from very many people. It’s cute and colorful but it’s also low-quality Disney. That doesn’t mean it’s bad but being boring is usually worse.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Clue (1985)

In what is said to be the first film based on a board game, audiences are handed a delightful mad-cap dark comedy with plenty of screwball antics. It may be easy to dismiss Clue as little more than a gimmick, what with its source material and three different endings, but it is also a lot of fun to watch. A good viewing experience counts for quite a bit and Clue is more than just a guilty pleasure.

Six strangers attend a mysterious dinner event at a secluded New England estate. The butler reveals that a seventh guest, Mr. Boddy, is the one secretly blackmailing them all and informs them that the police are on their way. Boddy counters by encouraging the guests to kill the butler, destroy the evidence, and everyone walks away. When the lights go out, Boddy is killed, leaving the guests to sort out whodunit before the police arrive.

This film was a mixed bag with critics when it was released and I can see why, if you assume that those critics only got to see one ending of the film. On home video, two endings are presented as possibilities and the third as the real ending. The two false endings involve a single mastermind behind all the killing. In the ending listed as the real one, there are multiple murderers for multiple reasons. It’s hard to swallow the two false endings because they border on ridiculously intricate to pull off. The mass chaos of the third ending is both amusing and much more believable.

The more familiar you are with the murder mystery genre, the more you will probably appreciate this film. Most of the characters are based on stereotypes from the genre, so there is actually quite a bit of subtlety and nuance to Clue. If you’re not familiar with the genre much at all, you will still find it amusing for the witty banter and physical comedy. Either way, there is something to like here.

As for the other aspects of the film, they all do their job but they don’t stand out. The sets give off the right stuffy-mansion-playing-host-to-murder vibe and the music is appropriate to the genre as well. The combination of ingredients makes this film a good time for most, which elevates it above mere guilty pleasure status. It’s harmless fun that no one should fault you for watching or passing over when you come across it on the TV.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ray* (2004)

When I watched this film with my wife, it was the first biopic I watched in over a year (no, Magic Mike doesn’t count) and the first good biopic I had seen in almost two years. Watching Ray reminded me that biopics can be more than just Oscar bait. The filmmakers certainly sugarcoat Ray Charles’s life toward the end of the film but they do not shy away from dragging us through the mud and muck that Charles endured. Disability, racism, womanizing, and addiction haunted Ray Charles through much of his life but his ability to overcome most of his personal demons is every bit as inspiring as the talent he possessed.

The film starts out when Ray Charles is a young boy growing up on a sharecropping plantation. As if growing up in poverty and watching his brother drown in freak accident weren’t enough, Ray started losing his sight at just seven years old. Determined to prevent her son from accepting a life of helplessness, Ray’s mother forces him to adapt to his new world and trains him to listen and feel his way around a space. Upon discovering a knack for the piano, Ray surprises many on his way to the top of the music business. Blindness may not hold him back but other demons haunt him every step of the way.

Like most biopics, Ray is almost always focused exclusively on its titular character. We learn and see very little that does not take place within the immediate vicinity of Ray Charles. It’s a limiting perspective but also a necessary one when a film tries to cover as much time as Ray does. What the film lacks in introspection from its supporting cast is made up for in Jamie Foxx’s performance.

One of the biggest gripes against biopics comes when the lead actor or actress doesn’t look enough like the film’s subject. It can be even more trouble for musical biopics when characters cannot bring the stage presence or signing ability of the film’s subject. Neither is the case here, as Jamie Foxx looks, moves, sings, and howls like the late Ray Charles. Foxx benefits by having half of his face covered by Ray’s signature dark sunglasses most of the time but looking the part is only part of making a biopic work. Foxx is believable and infuses his character with humanity, both the good and bad parts.

If you know little about Ray Charles’s life beyond his music, this movie will probably leave you thinking a little less of him. Yes, it shows how Charles overcame a number of obstacles in his life but it also shows his stubborn unwillingness to give up a few too. This is not the squeaky-clean, Diet Pepsi-hawking Ray Charles you know from TV but biopics are all about showing a little dirt and a few rough edges. Had the whole film had been as hagiographic as the on-screen epilogue (basically saying he was a wonderful man the rest of his life), audiences would have revolted and the film would have been a disaster.

Overall, Ray is a very strong film built on Jamie Foxx’s exceptional performance. There are a few odd, almost trippy visions that Charles has that don’t make a lot of sense and are never fully explained. Most of them are designed to send us into a flashback but it’s a very weird way to segue through an otherwise normal dramatic film. Foxx alone makes the film worth seeing but tidying up a few of the other pieces would have nudged this film into my ‘great’ category.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Little Fockers (2010)

Call me crazy, but I’ve always enjoyed Meet the Fockers over Meet the Parents. Some try to argue that the sequel brought down the quality of the series but I think it holds its own just fine. This poorly conceived dud, however, deserves all the criticism thrown at it.

Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) are preparing for their twins’ fifth birthday party while also nearing the completion of building a new home. When Greg’s father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) approaches him about becoming the heir of the Byrnes-Focker family throne, Greg reluctantly accepts. This leads to even more scrutiny and opinion from Jack about how Greg’s children should be raised. As if brochures for private schools and delayed construction schedules aren’t enough, Jack inadvertently uncovers aspects of Greg’s secret promotional work for an erectile dysfunction medication. Rather than question Greg about the few pieces of evidence he finds, Jack assumes Greg is having an affair and sets off on a mission to bring down his son-in-law.

A chief problem in this film is that Greg’s children (the titular little Fockers) aren’t featured enough. The humor in the Meet films is largely situational and it works best when Greg is trying to impress his father-in-law. In Meet the Parents, Greg was trying to make a good first impression on his future in-laws. In Meet the Fockers, Greg is trying to give Jack a good first impression of his parents. This time around? It feels more like Jack is trying to cement his legacy rather than Greg trying to do anything impressive.

There are only a few scenes where Greg has humorous moments with his kids. The rest of the time he’s arguing with Jack or sneaking around to do his promotional work. I can see Greg finally being at the point of sticking up for himself and dishing it right back at Jack but sometimes these moments feel a little too mean-spirited for a goofy comedy. When, at long last, the two come to blows, the fight scene alternates between being too corny and too serious.

Greg is a nice guy and means well. Jack should know this by now, so his jump to the conclusion that Greg his a cheating scoundrel is unrealistic. What we really need from this film is Jack to make a few choice comments about parenting styles, Greg to try to impress Jack and fail, and conclude with Greg being himself and showing Jack that that results in a loving bond with his children. Instead, we get more cheesy post-CIA paranoia antics, a lot of crude humor stemming from the nature of Greg’s side work, and not enough of what made the first two installments work.

Astounding as it may seem, Little Fockers came just $20 million short of matching the box office haul of Meet the Parents. Ordinarily that may suggest an additional sequel but I highly doubt one will surface given the terrible reviews it got from critics and audiences alike. Maybe it was the change in director or a change on the writing team. Or maybe the concept and characters were milked for all they were worth after two films. Whatever the case, the well seems to be mostly dry and what little is brought up in the bucket is tolerable at best but leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Return of the Jedi (1983)

After the emotional gut-punch of The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas intended to wrap his Star Wars trilogy up with a crowd-pleaser. Instead, he delivered a film that still has hardcore Star Wars fans drawing lines in the sand to this day. For some reason, there is not much middle ground on Return of the Jedi. You either love it or you don’t. I’ve never understood the lack of middle ground but, then again, I happen to love this film.

When I was a kid, this was my favorite of the original trilogy films. As I grew up, I came to understand the flaws of Jedi and it fell to the bottom of the list (again, original trilogy only). I still think that this film is more fun to watch than Empire but that’s probably because I don’t mind the Ewoks as much as some people do. More on them later though. First we should consider the most important elements of the film.

The central conflict of the film is pretty lazy. A second Death Star certainly poses a threat to the Rebel Alliance but it’s nowhere near original. This latest time around, the stakes have changed what with the Emperor on board and no thermal exhaust port trenches to make easy work of destroying it. Having Luke aboard during the Rebel’s assault might have increased the tension but I realize now that I never honestly thought about Luke being in danger. I am not sure why that is. Perhaps I just assume the hero will survive.

The rescue of Han Solo from Jabba’s palace at the beginning of the film allows Lucas to add a plethora of exotic creatures to the Star Wars universe. It’s a fun portion of the film to watch without being too cutesy and includes a lot of good filmmaking. Luke’s escape from the rancor is an ambitious sequence but it hasn’t aged very well. Still, the whole first portion of the film serves to get the gang back together and charges up the audience for an almost unwinnable battle.

Luke’s mission to secure his father’s redemption is interesting, as it almost becomes an obsession that threatens his allegiance to the light side of the Force. Darth Vader and the Emperor push Luke to the edge, making for some very tense and emotional drama. The Emperor is an interesting villain because he does not look imposing or threatening at all like Vader, though he does unleash some terrifying Force skills near the end. He is brilliant but cocky. Sure, he managed to single-handedly start a rebellion that brought down the Republic and put him in a position of absolute power, but he relies too much on the strength of his Empire and not enough on the Force. Perhaps he felt he had grown strong and secure enough that the Force was irrelevant to maintaining his power.

Now for all the hate directed toward the Ewoks. What gives? I concede that they are overly cute and an unlikely victor over Imperial forces but they provide some much needed comic relief in what is otherwise a very serious film. And the Ewoks alone do not conquer the troops on Endor. They provide enough chaos and distraction to allow the Rebels to take the upper hand.

In some ways, Return of the Jedi is a more dramatic rewrite of the original Star Wars. The rescue of Han Solo mirrors the against-all-odds rescue of Princess Leia. Then there is the obviously parallel second Death Star and the triumphant ending. It’s not a total ripoff because the characters are much more developed by this installment but I can see why these elements might turn some people off. The music also isn’t as dynamic as Star Wars or Empire but I don’t know if that could be avoided as it incorporates many of the character themes from the other films.

In the end it matches the uplifting climax of the first film with a little more cheese along the way. I can’t help but think that the people who hate on this film probably hold Empire as their favorite. I’m not saying that is a bad thing but sometimes a happy ending can be a good thing. You just have to accept it and let it happen. I am more than okay with this film, even if I do think it is the weakest of the three. It’s a great closing chapter to a dynamite trilogy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Much like my Second Helpings review for Star Wars, I really don’t think I am capable of adding something new to the conversation about this film. Hopefully my personal musings will be equally, if not more, enjoyable to read as they were for Star Wars.

With Empire, George Lucas gives his Star Wars universe staying power by showing that the first film was more than just a one-off adventure flick. After all, blowing up a space station in the remote stretches of the galaxy would hardly bring the Empire to its knees. The audience is drawn deeper into the lives of Lucas’s characters. Luke is called upon to develop the Force sensitivity he displayed in the first film while Han Solo is forced to scramble against all odds to protect Princess Leia from the Imperial forces hot on their tails.

Pretty much everything in The Empire Strikes Back is better than the original Star Wars. There, I said it. The world did not come to an end, so let’s all agree that Empire improves upon its captivating predecessor. Lucas used his own money to produce the film and his doubling of the production budget is evident just about everywhere.

Shooting for an authentic look and feel over studio fakery, Lucas once again starts a Star Wars film out on location. The snowy wastelands of Norway provides a spectacular landscape for the Rebel Alliance’s secret base. I think shooting in the elements helps the brain buy into what it is seeing because the finer nuances of nature just can’t be faked. Lucas does pretty well at fooling us by crafting Yoda’s swampy Dagobah hideout though.

Speaking of Yoda, what an accomplishment! In our world he is just a puppet but you’d never know from watching the film. Between Frank Oz’s puppeteering and careful cinematography, Yoda is a fully believable and powerful presence in this film. I always wonder what it is like for actors to deal with inanimate costars on set. Obviously there are dozens of set crew members around but to be able to completely buy in and commit to interacting with a puppet takes skill. To make it all work out believably on screen is something special.

Had this film been another caper film like the first, Empire would have been a bust. Thankfully, Lucas and his co-writers push deeper into the lives and emotions of our main characters. Luke’s journey to study under Yoda draws out the awe and mystery of the Force while Han and Leia’s attempts to evade Imperial Forces has all the action we loved from the first film plus a little romantic heat. It really is great to have Han and Leia stuck with each other for much of the film. Their head-butting banter from the original was brilliant and getting more of it this time around is a pleasure. It reminds me of old school Hollywood like Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara’s bickering when all they really want to do is lock lips with each other.

The Empire Strikes Back is a darker, deeper, and all-around more mature film than Star Wars. The fact that it lacks a triumphant ending like its predecessor may leave some viewers feeling deflated but without the dual cliffhangers of Darth Vader’s revelation and Han Solo’s imprisonment, the good guys would just be lucky to escape. Both cliffhangers force more action and emotion from our characters immediately and it also sets up the events for the eventual sequel. Even the music of Empire shows growth over the original film’s fantastic soundtrack (which I somehow failed to even mention in my Second Helpings review for Star Wars). John Williams gives us a second signature piece for the series with Darth Vader’s theme, “The Imperial March.”

I personally may still prefer the story arc and high adventure of Star Wars over Empire but I can no longer deny that Empire is an improvement over the original in many ways. But I still cannot grant it equal status on my rating scale just yet because without Star Wars, Empire never would have even existed. Maybe that means I am giving Star Wars a little extra credit because of its impact and influence on the industry and pop culture after all. Sue me. Maybe after a few more viewings I’ll be able to determine if Empire works as a stand-alone film. If it makes sense without the context of the first film, maybe it will slide up a notch. We’ll have to see.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.5 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars* (1977)

To say that I have anything new or original to add to the conversation about Star Wars would be lying. This is one of the most popular and most dissected films of all time. Seeing as it is approaching middle age, I think everyone else has covered just about every possible angle of this film well and good. This affords me the opportunity to casually reflect on a personal favorite.

Even before I got serious about analyzing and reviewing movies, I loved Star Wars on a number of levels. As a kid, your imagination runs wild and Star Wars was just the kind of fantastic adventure you might dream up running around the backyard: heroes, villains, damsels in distress, a longing for something outside of the ordinary routine- it’s all in there. Heck, it’s even got swords and dogfights. What more could a little boy ask for?

This brings up a very important point. Star Wars has always performed well for kids. Empire gets dark but Jedi returns to a more kid-friendly tone for the most part. George Lucas may have tried to replicate that wow effect for the younger set too much with the prequels because the story of Star Wars still holds up for adults in terms of quality. You cannot say that about the prequels.

I must admit that the story in the original Star Wars is much simpler than anything else that came later. Despite its straight-up action-quest saga trajectory, all of these elements are carefully crafted from archetypes from history, mythology, and literature that resonate with most people as long as they are written well.

The story structure itself is built upon story elements that we have all seen or read many times before. Lucas prevents his film from feeling generic and derivative thanks to the characters he populates his universe with. Luke is still your bland, wide-eyed kid who becomes a hero but everyone else is remarkable. Han Solo’s bad boy persona meets a worthy match in Princess Leia. More than just a damsel to save, she is strong and determined to have her say. As an added bonus, she’s a pretty good shot too. Darth Vader is menacing thanks to the dark costume and James Earl Jones’s booming voice. The droids provide comic relief and Chewbacca turns out to be more than just a reminder that you’re watching a sci-fi film.

While they may not look like a whole lot now, the visual effects in Star Wars pushed the movie industry forward. This film also changed what kind of movies audiences crave, for better or for worse. Hollywood has always crafted big spectacle films but they were always limited by effects capabilities of the day. George Lucas tossed the doors wide open on what could now be done visually. Personally, I still love the use of real, albeit miniature, ships with intricate structural detail. It makes all the close-ups look like the real deal.

In 1977, Star Wars was a breezy, exotic tale stitched together with visual flair and a lot of fun. To this day, it continues to be all of that (though visual effects have far surpassed what Lucas had ever dreamed of in the 70s) and there is something special and powerful about that. The Empire Strikes Back and, to a lesser extent, Return of the Jedi gave more depth to the Star Wars universe and the story unfolding before our eyes, so assertions that the original film is not the best of the three may in fact be valid.

However, I don’t think Star Wars is a film remembered more for what it meant or did for the art of filmmaking than for its content (as is the case for films like Citizen Kane). Nor is content more important than the technical aspect (as in High Noon). Both the story and its cultural and industry impact are at least equal in my mind, which justifies Star Wars retaining my highest ranking. Empire may be a better story but Star Wars came first and it was an all-around doozy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.75 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.75 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

After the big Star Wars hype machine let us down for Episode I and II, we hardcore fans tempered our expectations for this third and final prequel installment. It’s true what they say- if you keep your expectations low enough, you’ll never be disappointed. Episode III, while far from the concluding chapter I had hoped for, hits several of the prerequisite marks well enough to make it the only prequel film that’s actually worth watching.

The first prerequisite is Anakin’s turn to the dark side of the Force. This is by far the least satisfying story element in the film. While Anakin has always had a chip on his shoulder and a need to prove himself, his conversion just isn’t very believable. Chancellor Palpatine tells him the dark side holds the key to preventing death, a major concern of Anakin’s after a series of nightmares involving his wife’s death in childbirth. Then, after being placed on the Jedi Council by Palpatine, Anakin gets all huffy when he isn’t granted the title of Jedi Master. Well duh! You don’t earn that title via political appointment. In the original trilogy, Anakin was said to have been seduced over to the dark side. Based on what I see in this film, he more or less gets played like a sucker and is duped into becoming evil. That is an incredibly difficult pill to swallow.

The emergence of the Empire finally occurs after a lot of build-up over Episodes I and II. To be honest, I am still a little iffy on this element as well. I can see robots turning on their masters through a change of programmed commands but sentient beings? I have a hard time believing that a person can be conditioned and brainwashed to the point of lacking any independent thought. Sure, Palpatine now has a grand army at his disposal but it never feels like there is enough hierarchical structure on his side to pull off a galactic coup.

Sure, the separatist movement was a clever ruse to achieve absolute power but how many people can be expected to believe that the Jedi tried to take over? One does not simply smash-and-grab their way to power and hold onto it without a lot of people in on the plan. Kudos to Palpatine for playing both sides as suckers but who exactly do you move into power positions underneath you now? With Anakin killing all the separatists (unknowingly eliminating the only possible evidence to show him he’s a sucker), he doesn’t really have anyone visibly supporting him anymore. I have a hard time believing that there are any hardcore loyalists left. That and the fact that long-time Star Wars fans knew all along that Palpatine and Darth Sidious are one and the same takes away from the overall reveal.

Technically, we don’t really need to see the birth of Luke and Leia Skywalker but it is a nice inclusion. Lucas boogers it all up by having Padme die shortly after delivering the twins, thereby rendering Leia’s faint recognition of her mother in Return of the Jedi impossible. I think Lucas could have had a few more people working with him to maintain continuity but by this point, we really shouldn’t be surprised to see this sort of silliness in a prequel film. It was nice to see Obi-Wan and Yoda plot out how to hide the twins though.

You may be wondering by now how this film is worth watching if all these little details still fail to please me. The humdinger of all prerequisites for this film is the battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan that cripples Skywalker to the point of needing the iconic mechanized suit that defines Darth Vader. There had to be a battle, it had to be on a volcanic planet, and Anakin had to lose several limbs and get messed up pretty bad. Despite Lucas’s overreliance on visual effects, the long-awaited duel is done mostly right. Obi-Wan pours his heart out to save his friend but Anakin has slipped too far to the dark side. This is the only point in the prequels where Anakin’s story feels tragic, making it worth the wait.

Overall, the emotional arc of this film (and the whole prequel trilogy) is stunted. More time was invested in fancy visual effects than crafting the kind of emotional story arc audiences need. Yes, the first Star Wars film was fairly simplistic in its structure. Empire and Jedi made up for that. Lucas returns to his roots by giving us a feast for the eyes that is more dressing than meat. Anakin was never presented in a sympathetic light, which diminishes the entire prequel trilogy and the entire Star Wars saga should you choose to watch it in episode order. Lucas got that one critical scene right and for that I still give him kudos. If not for that, this film would probably score a half-point lower.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3 out of 5