Frankenweenie

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Frankenweenie.

Directed by Tim Burton.

Written by John August.

Based on a screenplay by Leonard Ripps.

Screen Story by Tim Burton.

Review #182

MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements, scary images and action.

Run Time: 87 min

Cast

Catherine O'Hara...Mrs. Frankenstein / Weird Girl / Gym Teacher (voice)

Martin Short...Mr. Frankenstein / Mr. Burgemeister / Nassor (voice)

Martin Landau...Mr. Rzykruski (voice)

Winona Ryder...Elsa Van Helsing (voice)

Charlie Tahan...Victor Frankenstein (voice)

Atticus Shaffer...Edgar 'E' Gore (voice)

Robert Capron...Bob (voice)

Conchata Ferrell...Bob's Mom (voice)

James Hiroyuki Liao...Toshiaki (voice)

Tom Kenny...New Holland Townsfolk (voice)

Tim Burton as we all know has a quirky, kooky personality. That same personality comes through in every film he's directed. He also has a unique visual style that is an acquired taste to say the least. You either like it or you don't. There is no middle ground with him. I myself am on the fence with him. I like his stuff at times. Then I don't. He makes it easy that way. Mostly because his films can on occasion be mind numbingly boring. Even his Batman films dragged at points. That has become the biggest factor in me not being completely on board the Burton bandwagon. So with this latest entry to his catalog. Mr. Burton finds himself perhaps needing a vacation to recharge his batteries.

Because the creativity is falling fast.

Plot

Young Victor conducts a science experiment to bring his beloved dog Sparky back to life, only to face unintended, sometimes monstrous, consequences. 

In traditional Tim Burton fashion. He subscribes to the S.O.S method. This film already has that going for it because it's stop motion. Those films are already stylish so it's vital to surround that style with a balanced story with rich characters. Frankenweenie fails on both counts. The story which was based on Burton's first film he made as a kid has a very choppy story. The main plot point is there along with a very good life message. The rest in between is just all over the place and it hurts the overall structure. The only worthwhile aspect of the story is that it cleverly homages Frankenstein in every memorable way. From reviving the dog to the Igor type character to the angry torch weilding mob chasing after the "monster". I don't understand why Burton didn't just write the script himself. It's his idea to begin with. He knows the material better than anyone else.

It might have made a difference.

The character designs were also very creepy. No surprise there....It's Tim Burton. Be mindful of that when bringing the little ones. Their voices are kiddie sounding but their look is so weird and out there that it's impossible to feel for any of them. This is a direct result of the lack of story/character depth. The film gives you glimpses of what you expect to see from the characters then it just goes away. Again this is typical of Tim Burton. This is why I can't be a full on fan of his. He's so concerned with being "different" that he sacrifices important elements like plot/character development.

Frankenweenie was just another Burton film that misses the mark in a lot of ways. The time for style is over. Try making a movie instead.

On the 5 star scale. Frankenweenie gets 1 star. With a "Netflix It!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Argo.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Taken 2

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!



Today's review is Taken 2.



Directed by Olivier Megaton

Written by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen

Review #181

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sensuality.

Run Time: 91 min

Cast

Liam Neeson...Bryan Mills

Maggie Grace...Kim

Famke Janssen...Lenore

Leland Orser...Sam

Jon Gries...Casey

D.B. Sweeney...Bernie

Luke Grimes...Jamie

Rade Serbedzija...Murad Krasniqi

Kevork Malikyan...Inspector Durmaz


Taken was a by the numbers action thriller that I ripped to shreds when I reviewed it. Then after watching it on HBO I found an appreciation for the film and realized that it wasn't as bad as I thought. In reality, Taken was a pretty good action movie that plot holes aside was extremely entertaining. Fast forward 4 years and we have the inevitable sequel. Now does a Taken sequel make any sense other than to increase everyone's wallets? Of course not. So that's why they made it and that's why it soils the good name it's predecessor worked so hard to keep.

Plot

In Istanbul, retired CIA operative Bryan Mills and his wife are taken hostage by the father of a kidnapper Mills killed while rescuing his daughter.  

If I were to ask you to come up with a possible plot for a sequel to Taken. Your choices would be very limited if your goal was to continue the continuity from the first story. And that ladies and gents is the biggest flaw of this unnecessary film. The bad guy's kidnap the good guy's daughter. The good guy kills all the bad guy's so now the bad guy's daddy sets out for revenge.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm in no way suggesting that you had to go a different direction with the story. I'm saying the film should never have been made in the first place. Taken was a stand alone film that was such a surprise hit that greed set in and here we all are. There was no need to go another round. But if the powers that be were compelled to do so then a better effort was necessary.

The effort was piss poor at best.

Clearly they felt that suckers like myself would just go see it because the first one was so good. They were right because it's made a ton of cash at present. The difference between those other suckers and my sucker self is that I knew walking in that this flick was going to be a train wreck. Many in the theater didn't. Judging by their positive reactions to the nonsensical stuff that was going on. I was just hoping for some cool action and maybe a scene or two of plausibility.

I got neither.

This was just a run of the mill, get through 90 minutes as quickly as possible endeavor. I'm sure many of you will see this and enjoy it and that's more than OK. Just know that if you had any issues with the first one. You might want to jam a crayon up your nose to make you stupid. Just like Homer did in that episode in The Simpsons. The loss of I.Q. points might help you get through this drivel.

On the 5 star scale. Taken 2 gets the goose egg. 0 stars. With a "Save The Loot!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Frankenweenie.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Looper

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!



Today's review is Looper.



Written & Directed by Rian Johnson

Review #180

MPAA Rating: R for strong violence, language, some sexuality/nudity and drug content.

Run Time: 118 min

Cast

Joseph Gordon-Levitt ...Joe

Bruce Willis ...Old Joe

Emily Blunt ...Sara

Paul Dano ...Seth

Noah Segan ...Kid Blue

Piper Perabo ...Suzie

Jeff Daniels ...Abe

Pierce Gagnon ...Cid

Time travel movies have always been an interesting breed in the sci fi world. It's also a delicate medium to tackle. Thinking back there are 3 films in my opinion that truly respected the genre while maintaining discipline with the "rules" of time travel. The first two are obvious no brainers. The third might come as a surprise.

The Terminator

Back To The Future

Timecop

Keep this in mind. I'm not mentioning Timecop with those other 2 stellar films as part of a holy trilogy if you will. I'm pointing out that despite it's lackluster effort. Van Damme's film was very mindful and respectful of the principles of time travel. It was the concept, not the execution that earns Timecop's right to be on the list. I'm sure there are many more that I haven't mentioned and for that I apologize. Looper manages to both respect time travel while taking liberties. Unlike other films that have done the same thing.

It worked here.

Plot

In 2072, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self.  

Going in, this film it appeared very original and at it's heart it is. But further into the story you can clearly see some references/homages to some previous time travel films. I won't say which ones but here's a hint. One or more were just mentioned. There is a whole lot to like here. The story does a good job balancing both old and young Joe. The beginning is told to us through voice over exposition by young Joe. Then when old Joe hits the scene the film does a very cute job of showing us his life from the "other" side. It explains a ton of questions that come up before the two Joe's meet up.

It was these little touches that give Looper it's creativity and originality. Another scene comes to mind is when a looper's older self is being dispatched through the torture of the younger version. The things that happen to him are creepy and at times tough to watch but very very creative and ingenious. Think the fading picture from Back to the Future only much more intense. Another nice scene was the conversation between old and young Joe in the diner. Their meeting sets up what is going to happen the rest of the time. The rest of the film is pretty much a color by numbers chase film with a twist or two mixed in.

Looper gives you a chance to breathe after some rather bland action beats so the rest of the plot can play out. This is where the secondary characters come in. Emily Blunt (my new goddess) and her son Cid lay out the final 2 acts of the film setting up the final clash. Johnson tries his best to hide the obvious but if you're awake, you know exactly who the kid is and how important he is to the story. This seems to be an issue with a lot of sci fi films. When kids are in them they do one of two things.

1) They either distract you from the story/annoy the hell out of you.

2) They play a pivotal role in the narrative that is transparent to the blind.

Cid follows one of these blueprints but it's not as bad as I may make it seem. He's a really cute kid that made me feel for him. Then later on he becomes really creepy. It makes complete sense to the story but seeing him "hulk" out when he does was a bit unsettling at times. The final act plays out exactly as you would expect it to.

Predictable yet plausible and satisfying.

Overall, Looper isn't going to make the list of greatest sci fi films of all time. It does however deserve a ton of credit for trying to be different while still being the same and still be entertaining. It's not an easy thing to pull off. It's a lot easier to get wrong and Johnson did just enough to be right.

On the 5 star scale. Looper gets 3 stars with a split "Give it a shot/Netflix it" recomendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Taken 2.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Hotel Transylvania

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!



Today's review is Hotel Transylvania.



Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky.

Written by Peter Baynham & Robert Smigel.

Screen Story by Todd Durham, Dan Hageman & Kevin Hageman.

Review #179

MPAA Rating: PG for some rude humor, action and scary images.

Run Time: 91 min

Cast

Adam Sandler ... Dracula (voice)

Andy Samberg ... Jonathan (voice)

Selena Gomez ... Mavis (voice)

Kevin James ... Frankenstein (voice)

Fran Drescher ... Eunice (voice)

Steve Buscemi ... Wayne (voice)

Molly Shannon ... Wanda (voice)

David Spade ... Griffin (voice)

CeeLo Green ... Murray (voice)

Jon Lovitz ... Quasimodo (voice)

No genre of film is exempt from over saturation. CGI animated movies broke through with a vengeance at first. Then a host of bad films began to hit the pipeline which caused the popular brand to lose steam. At one point Pixar was the only company that made good films. Then Dreamworks animation gave Mickey a run for his money. Then Sony got into the picture and they have turned out some pretty impressive films.

Hotel Transylvania can be added to the list.

Plot

Dracula, who operates a high-end resort away from the human world, goes into overprotective mode when a boy discovers the resort and falls for the count's teen-aged daughter. 

With films of this nature the first thing you're drawn to is the animation and flow of the characters movements. How do they look, how do they act and how does the action play out. This is what makes animated films stand out against live action. You literally get the performance you want from the characters. You don't have to worry about an actor not being able to give the director the look or expression that he or she needs to get the point across. That happens without fail through the animators. What separates animated films from others of their kind are their stories and their overall design.

Hotel Transylvania does a fabulous job in both departments.

The best part of Hotel Transylvania is that this a film for us. Meaning us big kids. All of the characters in this film are from our childhood. Depending on their ages, your kids can't relate or have no idea who Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein or The Mummy are. There are so many childhood monsters in this film that it was nostalgic. Bigfoot, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Invisible Man round a roster chock full of former friends of fright. This may seem like a cause for concern because of the lack of relate-ability or identity but Tartakovsky does something here that he's known for in the animation world. He alters the character designs to give the kids today a better sense of who they are even if they don't know who they are. He also makes them funny looking to give them a higher comedic value.

If you don't know who he is. Tartakovsky was the creator the the amazing Samurai Jack cartoon. He also created a series of animated shorts in the Star Wars universe called The Clone Wars. Those mini episodes were the basis of the CGI series Star Wars : The Clone Wars that currently airs on the Cartoon Network. His animation style is very unique. It's whimsical yet smooth at the same time. He cut his teeth with Samurai Jack. Enhanced it with The Clone Wars and it has shown here in Hotel Transylvania. The animation here is close to flawless and extremely detailed. The character designs are perfect for a family film. My favorite was the Wolfman. Just seeing him makes me laugh.

Incorporate stylish animation with cool character designs and a pretty funny and original story and you get a really good film. The plot of Hotel Transylvania is so simple it's brilliant. It gives Tartakovsky and company so many opportunities to take the ball and run with it. The film has a ton of comedy but it also has some heart. None of the monsters are monsters at all. They are no pun intended cartoon characters. That's what makes this movie work so well. None of the characters are taken too seriously while homage is paid to each and every one of them in subtle and not so subtle ways. These terrific moments allow the story to move at a brisk pace. You never drag or spend time waiting for the film to get to the point. If there was one issue with the story is that it tends to get a little repetitive when Dracula tries to get rid of Jonathan. Aside from that it was pretty seamless and a lot of fun.

Finally the voice acting is as expected with an animated film. The performances are pretty fun with possibly the exception of Adam Sandler as Dracula. He was really good but there were a few instances when it appeared he was having a little too much fun and over acted his lines. These moments detracted from what was on the whole a really good and funny performance and The Count. LOVED Steve Buscemi as The Wolfman his character was so neutered (pun intended) that his look with the delivery of his lines were just priceless. Can't get enough of that guy. Everyone else was fine with their parts.

A good ensemble cast.

One final note. Be wary before bringing the kiddies to this one. The film isn't scary per se but there are some moments when Dracula goes berserk and snarls at the camera with his fangs out. The moments are meant to draw laughs which they did but they come out of nowhere so if you have a little one that's a bit skid-dish then prepare yourself.  There are also some scenes with zombies that once again are designed to be comedic but I'm not sure how you're babies will take the sight of a zombies head falling off. For the most part Hotel Transylvania is a harmless movie but you know your kids better than I do.

You've been warned.

On the 5 star scale. Hotel Transylvania gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.

This film was more for me than it was for the kids of today so most of you should appreciate the trip down memory lane. I did.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Looper.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Dredd

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!



Today's review is Dredd.



Directed by Pete Travis.

Written by Alex Garland.

Based on the comic book. Judge Dredd created by John Wagner & Carlos Ezquerra

Review #178

MPAA Rating: R for strong bloody violence, language, drug use and some sexual content.

Run Time: 95 min

Cast

Karl Urban ... Judge Dredd

Olivia Thirlby ... Anderson

Rakie Ayola ... Chief Judge

Lena Headey ... Ma-Ma

Warrick Grier ... Caleb

Wood Harris ... Kay

Back in 1995. Sylvester Stallone gave us all one of the worst comic book adaptions of all time. Judge Dredd was beyond Dredd-ful. There was so much wrong with the film that it sent a firestorm of hatred and venom towards Buena Vista and Hollywood Pictures. The fans were so pissed off and rightfully so that it's taken 17 years for another try at the property.

Well good things do come to those who wait because this film was a lot of fun to watch.

Plot 

In a violent, futuristic city where the police have the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner, a cop teams with a trainee to take down a gang that deals the reality-altering drug, SLO-MO. 

Before I get into this one. I feel the need to mention that I know absolutely nothing about the Judge Dredd universe with the exception of two things. He's a bad ass, emotionless judge and he never takes off his helmet. These were things that for the most part were completely ignored by the first attempt to adapt the popular comic. The only part that Stallone got right was the emotionless part but let's be real about it. When it comes to Stallone and action roles.

Emotionless is his specialty.

The biggest sin committed in the original film if there was a bigger one than actually making it at all was the fact that Dredd spends about 80-95% of the film without his helmet on. In fact most of the judges spend the film helmet less. This was an egregious error on the part of the brain trust that adapted this title. What makes the Dredd universe so popular is the fact that the judges are faceless agents of the law. It no pun intended shields them from the world they are forced to keep in order. It also served as an intimidation factor among the criminals they mean to stop. The original was a campy, lackluster attempt to bring us to that world.

This version is the exact opposite.

The first thing to note here is that Karl Urban owns this character. Not once is his helmet removed so you can't see his face. Just his mouth. His performance had to be carried through tone and delivery, and he nails it. In fact he was the exact opposite of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. Tom Hardy had to convey his menace through ocular means. Here Urban has to give us an angry, strong, unsympathetic Dredd without every seeing it. It was a fine performance. You respected his authority while maintaining discipline in his presence. This was a quintessential portrayal of Judge Dredd. Urban immediately washes away the stink Stallone gave all of us way back when.

The rest of the cast is serviceable. No major highlights with possibly the exception of Olivia Thrilby as Anderson. Her character has an interesting back story and history that plays a very essential role in the story and for Dredd. As a Judge in training she spends the entire film without her helmet. Normally I would be killing that decision by the film makers. Especially after my rant about how Stallone didn't keep his on. However, her character required her to keep it off. It was such a simple explanation that would be considered hokey but I bought it.

A nice segue to the story.

Also simplistic at it's core but entertaining and well structured. Watching this film instantly reminded me of a film with a very similar concept. The Raid: Redemption. The main plot in Dredd is a carbon copy of what happens in The Raid. Aside from that. Both films deviate from the traditional exploits that the narrative supplies them. The action in Dredd is ultra violent and gratuitous in the bullet department. Necessary for a film of this genre but man did the guns go off in this one.

My only major complaint with this film is the 3D. Once again it was completely and utterly USELESS. The only thing 3D does is enhance the ticket price. Dredd had no scenes that gave you a reason to go 3D.  It takes away from what was a pretty cool film. Just a complete waste of time. Im sad to say that 3D isn't going anywhere. As long as studios believe that people are dumb enough to go see a film in 3D then they'll keep making them.

Overall, Dredd was a solid film that represents the source material pretty well. This is mostly due to Garland's script and Urban's performance at the titular character. If they plan to franchise this. All parties involved are off to a good start.

On the 5 star scale. Dredd gets 3.5 stars. With a "Go See It!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Hotel Transylvania. 

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"