PG

Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World Review

March 5, 2015 by JD Hansel

(MINOR SPOILERS)

When I first saw the trailer for this movie years ago, I thought it was a remake or reboot of some sort. I really couldn’t figure out how Spy Kids could be remade since it is so unique, or why it should be since I’ve always found it kind of stupid. I think I found it stupid because I saw it as a movie, or movie franchise rather, as one that used a bizarre, off-putting, artsy style to make up for a lack of quality. Over the past month or so though, I have been thinking that the bizarre, off-putting, artsy style had just been keeping me from seeing all the quality that’s there.

This is a weird movie series. Maybe the weirdest I’ve ever seen. It has a ridiculous story running throughout based on a ridiculous concept; it has a lot of heart and messages about family balanced with crude and edgy humor and images far too freaky for kids; it takes place in a nonsensical world filled with nonsensical characters, but doesn’t quite feel cartoony enough or satirical enough to pull it off; it’s a special effects film series with loads of CG, but it looks far too cheap be believable, and yet not silly enough to be funny; continuity is out of the question since the storyline throughout the series makes hardly any sense and the editing is as sloppy as that of a college project. So why the heck do I enjoy these movies so much?

I enjoy the Spy Kids series because I enjoy a challenge, and I see the films as a challenge. I find the movies to be kind of ugly, with strange shots, lousy effects, and poor editing, but I understand that this is a stylistic choice. I think Rodriguez could have made these films properly if he wanted to, but he felt like making them weird, so he did. Heck, it’s a weird concept – a combination of the spy genre and the kids’ movie genre – so why not make a weird world for it? What this ultimately does is challenge the moviegoer to appreciate the more important things in the movie than technical correctness and beautiful shots. The films have great characters, good dialogue, interesting stories/conflicts, effective surprises, strong themes, and clever details out the wazoo. So, I was hoping the fourth film would hold up to the standards set by its predecessors.

Thankfully, it’s a good movie. The plot has more holes than there are Fooglies, but the challenge of the movie series is to choose not to care about that stuff. What matters is that the characters are likable, the story is interesting, the angle is original, the villain is fascinating, and the twists are pretty darn good. Oh, and did I mention that Carmen and Juni come back to make it an epic nostalgia fest?! I was still thinking it might be a remake until I saw Carmen, and when I saw her, I totally freaked out. My excitement continued as I saw all the old spy gear from the previous films, and the feels were just too strong for me to take.

Yeah, it makes no sense and looks kinda crappy, but it makes me feel like a kid again, so who Flooping cares?!

Sleepless in Seattle Review

February 26, 2015 by JD Hansel

I find this movie to be simply pleasant. There isn’t much about it that is spectacular, but nothing about it is necessarily bad. It has a very nice soundtrack, and not a bad plot, but both of these are shamelessly borrowed from other movies. Still, it makes it sentimental in a way that I think is okay.

The characters are likable enough, and they’re written pretty well. Their motives and desires are pretty understandable and relatable. The one thing that bugs me is that the movie talks enough about destiny, magic, and fate to make the audience accept that these are all working in favor of the protagonist, and we are supposed to like that. This gives the writers “permission” to fill the sucker with Dius ex machina, while also showing faith in destiny to be a very positive thing, with which I personally disagree. This kind of comes across as lazy writing, especially since it’s the writer’s job to make it seem like nothing can possibly work out for the protagonist, and this movie seems to proclaim from the beginning that destiny’s going to ensure that everything works out.

For that reason, and the fact that the plot doesn’t strike me as anything absolutely outstanding, I think the movie is a little weak. However, in its simplicity it manages to be remarkably pleasant, and I see why it’s a classic.

Back to the Future Part III Review

February 9, 2015 by JD Hansel

I love the Back to the Future series, and I recognize that this is the finale that brings everything to completion, but I think it is probably the weakest of the three. Still, it’s a chance to see Doc and Marty on the screen again, and they are still as enjoyable as ever, so I love it. It’s fun, funny, and, as usual with the BttF franchise, keeps the audience in suspense and wonder. (Honestly, the only reason it doesn’t get an extra half a star is that I wish it were as good as the first movie in the series, which may be a little too much to ask of a sequel that a studio demanded.) It unfortunately does not have as many beautiful shots as the first two, but it still has a neat look and feel. I like getting to see the ancestors of the characters, and the things and people that shaped the town. The writing is absolutely brilliant, as one would expect, but it does leave me with one question: how could the future not be influenced at all by the passengers on the train not making it to their destination?

Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure Review

February 1, 2015 by JD Hansel

Boy, was I ever excited to see this movie. It’s a cartoony ‘80s comedy directed by Tim Burton! And did you see its trailer? It’s bound to be great!

It stunk. The movie dragged on forever with characters I did not care about and a plot that seemed pointless in the worst possible way. I know that it’s not right to judge a screenplay based on the movie having not read the screenplay itself, but this movie seems terribly written. Each scene seems to be without purpose, even to the point that many scenes in the film could be rearranged and it would make no difference. The plot doesn’t built, the twists are dull or insignificant, the beginning is a waste of time, and the climax, while containing some strong elements, has a scene with Pee Wee rescuing animals from a burning pet store that has nothing to do with anything else in the entire film. Why in the world should the climax be unrelated? Who thought this was a good story?

That being said… this movie is so beautiful. The darkness, the colors, the lights, and all the theatrical visuals make it a distinctly ’80s Burton work of art. So, so, so many shots in this film are breathtaking, and they inspire me to try to reach their level of majesty should I ever become a filmmaker. I almost wish that this film did not have Burton as a director. Had he not done this piece of junk and instead worked on a project with a good story during this time period, he might have made a movie I would have adored. However, if it led to the ’89 Batman, I guess this movie was meant to be.

The Road to El Dorado Review

January 22, 2015 by JD Hansel

(MINOR SPOILERS)

Does anyone remember the DreamWorks 2-Ds and hand-drawns? Anyone? You may remember Prince of Egypt, but for the most part, people seem to only remember the CG movies, such as Shrek, Antz, and Madagascar. However, I think my favorite DreamWorks film is probably the one that I just saw for my first time a few days ago: The Road to El Dorado. I remembered seeing little bits and pieces as a kid, but I never actually watched it all the way through. Honestly though, I don’t think I would have appreciated it as much in my youth as I do now.

From a writing perspective, it is clearly a carefully built and structured film, that perfectly exemplifies the “correct” way to write a Hollywood narrative movie. This is exactly what I would expect from the people behind the screenwriting website Wordplayer.com, which I highly recommend to everyone who has an interest in film. The characters in the movie are strong, and the story is one that frequently connects to itself, if that makes sense. (I mean to say that elements that appear early in the film connect to events later in the film, and every scene is there for a purpose.) One of the writers did acknowledge that the middle of the film suffers from a bad studio decision to keep the protagonists “laying low” for a while, or in other words, actively doing absolutely nothing while waiting for their boat to be built. Still, the situation is handled in a way that makes it bearable. The screenplay seems to get a bit to edgy or dark for young children at times, so I do not recommend that the li’l ones are shown this film, but for an adult, it surprisingly adds to the fun.

That being said, even if the writing had been terrible, the music and animation are so wonderful that the film would arguably be good anyway. Once the protagonists enter the mysterious city of El Dorado, you can expect every scene to look gorgeous from that point on. The music is by Elton John and Tim Rice, so I don’t need to say anything else about that. While I personally did not relate with the characters very much (which is a pretty typical problem for me when I watch movies) I can still say that this is a very enjoyable film that made me gape with wonder multiple times, and it is sure to be a joy for anyone who loves a good animated flick.

Into the Woods Review

January 15, 2015 by JD Hansel

What do you call a movie that feels much longer than it really is, and yet stays very interesting throughout? You call it Disney’s Into the Woods. (About two thirds of the way through the film, my friend joked that they must still be making it and sending footage to the theater as they go along, creating a literally never-ending story.)

You should see this movie.

Let’s talk flaws first. Between the lighting, set designs, and color grading, the woods look like a slightly fantasized version of… well, the woods. Like the woods by the park where you used to play, or at least the way they might have seemed to a reasonably imaginative child. That’s nice and all, but this was a missed opportunity to create unique woods in a unique fantasy world, like they did in Jim Henson’s Labyrinth. And, while on the subject of visuals, the way the film opens is essentially a modified jump scare, which I found incredibly annoying.

Because of the nature of the stage musical upon which this film is based, the story structure is a bit odd. Without giving too much away, the film gives few warnings that its structure is going to throw off some viewers. I… don’t know how I feel about this. It is certainly one of the many thing about this film that had me saying, “Woah, are we really doing this, movie? Are we really doing what it looks like we’re doing? Wow. Okay then.” Honestly, that reaction wasn’t really a bad one – it meant I was intrigued and surprised, mostly in a positive way.

Now that we are talking about things I liked, I think the casting was pretty good, and the film featured one of my very favorite Johnny Depp performances. I also really liked the way that Little Red Riding Hood was written and performed; her voice is the one that was stuck in my head afterwards because it stands out in much the same way that her bright red hood does. Which, again, is mostly a plus. Since the story and music are, for the most part, right out of an impressive Sondheim musical, it’s pretty much a given that they are impressive in the film. Even the look of the film, in spite of my rant above, has a lot to offer (and you can click here for Exhibit A).

The story, characters, music, theme, and other elements are strong in this film. This is amazingly dark, with moments that are hard to believe Disney would keep in, and I think that makes it all the more memorable. It has a couple of little problems, but it sticks with you.