Disney’s Meet the Robinsons doesn’t start out like a Disney wonder, but it ends that way. If you can make it through the first 3/4 of the movie, you’ll be greatly rewarded (incidentally, I found that “Bridge to Terabithia” was the same way . . . is Disney using a formula here?) The story is spotty at the beginning and not much really makes sense. It reminded me of “Alice in Wonderland” at first the way it shifted from one (as Windows Vista ads would say) “wow” to another but without any real plot development. But just when you think it’s a random remake of Fantasia, a very sweet and human story about dreams and invention comes into focus.
This is a great movie for kids, but also for grown-ups (hmmm I find myself saying that a lot lately). The graphics, of course, are stellarly cool. Watching the spaceship alone is a marvel worth the 10 dollar admission. But there is much to marvel at in this movie. It is so complicated in art and story that it is one I’ll be buying on DVD so my kids can watch it over and over. As they get older they will come to understand it’s message about belongingness and believing in your own dreams. There are a lot of surprises in this one, and they all serve to make you more brave about being human with yourself and others. What does being “human” mean? Hmmm. That’s another blog altogether, but trust me, you’ll get it when you see it.
The movie closes with a quotation from Walt and it is like a perfect espresso after a delightful meal. This is one cartoon that won’t fall by the wayside with “Barnyard” or “Over the Hedge.” While those movies are good, they aren’t great like “Meet the Robinsons.” Did I mention I liked it?
Around here, however, we don’t look backwards for very long. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. -Walt Disney
Postscript 11-23-2010: Re-watching “Meet the Robinsons” with my kids today I noticed the villain when discussing henchman says “not a good Minion.” Interesting that the henchman in two huge blockbusters recently: Despicable Me and Megamind both have a henchman named “Minion.” Coincidence?
My wife suggested we see The Time Traveler’s Wife last night and so we had a late date night. The movie was slow at first but once it got going, I found it to be touching and human. It brought up a lot of things to talk about on the ride home.
My wife suggested we see The Time Traveler’s Wife last night and so we had a late date night. The movie was slow at first but once it got going, I found it to be touching and human. It brought up a lot of things to talk about on the ride home. The Time Traveler’s Wife (TTTW) is a romantic drama starring Eric Bana as the Time Traveler, Henry DeTamble, and Rachel McAdams as his wife, Clare Abshire. It was directed by Robert Schwentke. He has directed a proud set of films the most famous of them being “Flight Plan” with Jodie Foster. There are other cast actors of note you can find at The Time Traveler’s Wife IMDB page. Minor spoilers ahead.
Now for my DVD review: Henry “travels.” His wife might as well have a bumper sticker that says “travel happens.” They don’t have any idea why he does or when it will happen. This makes for a lot of stress in both their lives as they try and have a normal marriage and baby while he is “beaming up” all the time to certain locations.
One place he travels repeatedly is the meadow where he first met his eventual wife Claire. She was a 9 year old wandering off in search of imaginary friends. He knows what to tell her so she isn’t afraid because he is with her in the future. Theirs is a rocky relationship with some seductive kissing but far more moments of distrust, acute fear, and resentment. At one point he says to her, “You made a choice.” to which she replies indignantly, “I NEVER had a choice.” In a way I think that’s true because when someone comes from the future claiming to know all your desires, and you’re 9, it’s probably quite hard to resist that fantasy. In this case, the fantasy was all too real.
You see all the token time travel issues come up here. There is talk of how you cannot change certain things. There is foreshadowing of his death before it happens. There are some interesting twists that can only be possible when you have a time travel theme. The basic crux of the movie is Claire’s growth. She herself “travels” mentally from a 9 year old girl in love with a man who visits her in the meadow to a 30-something woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown married to a “spontaneous” time traveler. There are times he is in the room one minute and then there is nothing but his clothes collapsed on his shoes. Imagine going through a marriage that way?
Her undying love for him is what’s worth watching. Bana is a little bland in my opinion. I think just about anyone could play his role. Rachel McAdams, on the other hand, is perfectly suited for the role. As I watched I was impressed by the emotion she could summon in many of the scenes. I have a feeling when you see her cry, those are HER tears. I wouldn’t say her performance is Oscar worthy but it comes close, darn close. Part of the problem might be the writing. While much of it was poetic, there was a lot of the same stuff between man and woman we’ve seen again and again. Like I said though, once the uneventful beginning is through, the middle to end is a wonderful, sometimes difficult, always romantic human love story.
I haven’t fought back a tear since “Meet Joe Black” played in the theater. This one had that effect on me. I’d say this movie is mostly for married people in their late 20’s and up. Some of this stuff I have lived through and the time travel aspect really allows the movie to delve into relationships and love and purpose in life. I’d give it 8/10. Have you seen it? Care to comment on any of these topics I’ve mentioned? Please do comment below.
I really enjoyed this film, even after IMDB and RT gave it poor scores. This is one example of when you shouldn’t listen to the critics 100%. It’s a mystery and thriller with Emily Blunt, one of my favorite actors. This film is a winner in my book.
R | 1h 52min | Drama, Mystery, Thriller | 7 October 2016 (USA)
A divorcee becomes entangled in a missing persons investigation that promises to send shockwaves throughout her life.
Director: Tate Taylor
Writers: Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay), Paula Hawkins (novel)
Stars: Emily Blunt, Haley Bennett, Rebecca Ferguson
Whodunnit? That’s what we have here. I think it’s close to impossible to guess until about 1/2 way through. At that point people are likely to have differences of opinion. Blunt’s figure is trying to find out why she is so afraid of herself. To start, we find her fear is based on listening to the bad others say about her, including her ex-husband. The stuff she hears is so awful, she drowns herself in drinking. Most people would just drink themselves to death but not her. She sets out to figure out why these people say these things. To her, they don’t “seem like her.”
It’s a thriller for sure and one of the best of 2016 in my opinion. The unfurling of the truth is a bit melodramatic, I was hoping for more, but certainly exciting. For fans of Emily and the thriller genre in general, I highly recommend this.
Why are gifted musicians crazy? It’s true, they really are. Wolfgang Amadeus was among the most loopy. He had a woman in his life who truly cared for him but basically his private life was a train wreck but didn’t he make beautiful tunes?
R | 2h 40min | Biography, Drama, History | 19 September 1984 (USA)
The incredible story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, told by his peer and secret rival Antonio Salieri – now confined to an insane asylum.
Director: Milos Forman
Writers: Peter Shaffer (original stage play), Peter Shaffer (original screenplay)
Stars: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge
Another item we see in this film is the evil mentor, the Obi Wan who seeks to take down and destroy his apprentice. You can’t blame Salieri for hating Mozart, after all he was practically composing out of the womb. He had “an ear” while others only had hard work and traditional training on their side.
In Mozart we see an annoying freak. We also so a tortured young man who was “above” us all. He heard the songs of the gods and brought them down to us. This is a highly entertaining film, despite a few lagging and questionably accurate segments. If you think it looks boring because of the classical music though, think again. I recommend this film to lovers of music, history, and passion filled biographies.
IMDB’s number one movie shouldn’t be fucked with right? Well, it has its imperfections. The reason they picked Tim Robbins will always be a mystery to me. All the other casting is good. It’s an inspired Stephen King novel and that’s why it’s good (and the only reason why), in my opinion.
Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency. Director: Frank Darabont Writers: Stephen King (short story “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption”), Frank Darabont (screenplay) Stars: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton
Most people who see this film have a visceral reaction. It’s not boring in any way. I like prison films and this is sort of a sing-song one. Still, it’s a great prison film and I like it a lot.
You get to see what happens on the inside from a kinder, gentler, machine gun lens. Part of that is due to Stephen King. You know, he is very tame compared to some of the other horror writers. There is a bent in a lot of his stuff against traditional religion. I can definitely relate with that bent.
There is also a lot of Murphy’s Law. I probably don’t need to recommend this since it’s done quite well for decades on its own. Still, I recommend it to fans of prison movies and Stephen King’s outlook on things. Beware of a sing-song nature. This isn’t the hard, deep stuff of life as it claims to be.
Everybody knows the Godfather right? Well, that isn’t necessarily true. I think people about my age take it for granted as an amazing classic. We assume all movie fans have it memorized. I know my podcast cohort isn’t fond of it. As strange as that sounds, I must accept it is true. I’ll tell you what appeals to me about it.
R | 2h 55min | Crime, Drama | 24 March 1972 (USA)
The aging patriarch of an organized crime dynasty transfers control of his clandestine empire to his reluctant son.
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Mario Puzo (screenplay), Francis Ford Coppola (screenplay)
Stars: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan
There’s something powerful about Don Corleone. He’s amassed wealth and an empire entire outside of society’s machine. He has become a new machine. He does “favors,” usually entailing crimes, for the butcher, the baker, and the candle-stick maker. Then they owe their allegiance to him and his family mafia. What we see in the film is a powerful crime family made up of those people, built one by one.
There is a bunch of violence but it’s righteous. You get me, I get you back. That’s how it works in the mafia. This film changed the world and especially changed movies. The way things are done now is warped in a twisted and beautiful way little bit because of the Godfather. I recommend this film to people who can take righteous violence and who enjoy amazing period pieces with thick character development. Also, who can miss the best of Marlon Brando?
In these days of the Hunger Games, this movie makes a pale statement. Still, it was fun watching this 1976 film make its statement against the media, specifically the news. Some of it even reminded me of the stuff trump is pulling these days (lowercase is intentional).
The story is basically in a news station. A crazy newscaster who the world has grown used to and familiar with has a psychotic break and begins making promises that he will take his life on television. Instead of getting rid of him, the network sees the ratings go up and puts him on camera again and again.
We see the greed of the network from all angles. We also see the sheep-like nature of the audience. There is a culminating event that wraps the whole cynical point up nicely. There are some great classic actors in their 30’s like Faye Dunaway. I love films from 1976 and thereabouts. They are simply showing the buildings and attire of the day and yet it looks like the best retro modern films can offer.
I recommend this film mostly for political cynics. Besides that, it’s a tense but well made drama from 1976. I recommend to all.
I went into this film expecting too much I think. It’s getting unheard-of high scores on all the major rating sites. It didn’t merit that in my view. It looked like a romance, it isn’t. It looked like a chance for actors to shine for Oscars, it wasn’t.
The story here is fairly simple, though it’s presented in and out of sequential time. That makes it a little harder to get your head around. Casey Affleck is a handyman, a dad, and a husband. He does the unthinkable. He suffers the unimaginable. Of course it’s devastating and sad. It’s told by jumping around in time. When his brother dies, he is chosen to take care of his brother’s son. That alone could have been the theme of the movie but there is something else big, ferocious, sad, and overwhelming that almost overshadows it.
The problem with this film is that it only offers a surface image of it’s many situations. Stories are delved into and not fully developed through the characters. You’ll find tears well placed but it wasn’t enough to bring me into the movie. I saw it, heard it, and interpreted it but only to see what was happening. There was only one spot where I really felt what was happening. The scene way after the tragedy when Michelle Williams’ character meets up with Casey Affleck’s is certainly a tear-jerker moment.
I have always found Casey Affleck to be a flat character. In this film, he is once again flat. I’m very surprised this film has received so much acclaim. Specifically, I wonder why so much praise has been given to Casey. He does an ok job but I think almost any actor could walk in his shoes here. This is a decent film worth watching. I recommend it but not as high as the critics seem to be doing. But, art is relative and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My final word? It’s a decent to very-good drama, that’s it.
This one is tough to offer you a review of. The first hour is excellent. You see subtleties in McAvoy’s acting and M. Night’s directing that draw you in, entertain you, and even educate you about this mental illness. It’s all done in a respectful way. After that point, the movie becomes a slow trainwreck and culminates in the worst twist M. Night has ever offered.
We get a glimpse into the field of psychotherapy in the first half of the film. It’s intriguing to watch a therapist demonstrate trust with a client and test the boundaries between personalities in this case. Many reviewers are asking “who was your favorite personality?” Most are naming the 9 year old child because he’s innocent and fun and it seemed he had the most screen time.
This film could have had an 8/10 from me and stood as an amazing view into multiple personality disorder. The problem is the second half along with M. Night’s signature “twist.” There is no twist in the actual film. There are some supernatural things that can’t be explained away without one though. Therefore, there is a twist. It’s like eating sushi and oysters on the half-shell when all of a sudden you’re force fed an oversized Snickers bar. M. Night, how could you make such a connection? I wanted to like this film but I have more class and style than that. I am really let down by the twist in this film, it eradicates the movie as a stand-alone film. It might as well have never been made, after such a twist. I can recommend the first hour, no more.
This was a daring second movie about Steve Jobs. The first, you may know, failed miserably. This film has an urgency and a sour tone to it making it impossible to look away from. It presents Jobs the man as a mess socially and in personal relationships. Despite that, it shows how he developed the incredible imac. Instead of trying to tell the whole story, it focused on a slice in time.
The relationship with his daughter is the most notable here. It chronicles the beginning where he basically tried to deny she was his up to the end of the film that ends with the imac being unveiled. She holds out hope to really know her dad throughout the film but sadly, it is a very slow process of him accepting her. Some things he says about her are ice-cold, I found this part of the film very sad. I never knew this side of the man.
The film raises the age-old concept that geniuses are not good at personal relationships. In addition, it adds an element of Jobs being a shrewd businessman. Everybody knows shrewd businessmen aren’t good at relationships either. So, we are left with a vignette of a man who invented the Apple computer and alienated almost everyone around him. This film paints that picture and shows you a slice of time where you see how he was. It’s not a feel good film but it’s great nostalgia for computer lovers who lived through the 80’s Apple boom. I recommend this film as a drama with much to talk about over coffee afterward.