Tangled - Review

Can somebody please explain to me how Disney has been telling the same story for 73 years and still manages to make it entertaining. The first animated feature of all time, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, was released in 1937, and solidified what is known as the "Disney Princess" routine.

The formula works like this... you have a beautiful yet eccentric princess, colorful characters consisting of either strange looking people and/or semi-anthropomorphic animals, a handsome prince and/or suitor, a scary villain with some connection to the protagonist (typically a step/foster mother), and of course... a happy ending. Whether it be Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, and now Rapunzel, Disney has done little to alter this formula. To be fair, some movies like Beauty and the Beast and a few others have changed it up a bit, but the writing's on the wall. My question isn't why does Disney keep using the same story arc, but rather why does it keep working? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Tangled is a loose retelling of the Brothers Grimm fairly tale, Rapunzel. An evil old woman named Gothel kidnaps the newborn Princess Rapunzel after discovering the infant's hair has magical healing powers. She raises the young princess as her own, keeping her hidden in a tower while using Rapunzel's continually-growing hair to stay young. On Rapunzel's 18th birthday, while Mother Gothel is away, a cocky thief named Flynn Rider sneaks into the tower after stealing a valuable crown from the nearby castle. Rapunzel takes the crown from Flynn and agrees to return it after he guides her around the kingdom outside the tower. What follows is a journey of self-discovery when Rapunzel steps outside for the first time in her life.

While this is far from the first Disney princess movie, it is the first one to use 3D animation as opposed to its traditional 2D counterpart. While the Disney-owned animation company, Pixar, has been making one classic after the other, the non-Pixar branch of 3D animation from Disney has been more hit and miss. Even though Tangled's storyline isn't nearly as compelling as what Pixar has been churning out, its still a really fun movie. The characters are admittedly generic, the plot has no surprises, and the whole thing feels way too familiar... but for some reason it still works.

Rapunzel is your standard by-the-books Disney princess with a few differences. One thing I've never liked about the typical Disney princess is this underlying theme of them wanting more. Princesses like Jasmine from Aladdin, Ariel from the Little Mermaid, and others are never satisfied with what they have... despite the fact that they live in a palace, are loaded with riches, and... well you get the idea. Rapunzel is technically a princess, but she doesn't know it at first. And seeing how she's been cooped up with her evil mother, you can understand why she would want more. Aside from that, she's quirky, eccentric, all while being beautiful.

The male protagonist, Flynn, is an enjoyable character also despite his lack of originality. He's not a prince, but rather a good-looking and adventurous anti-hero. He's almost kind of a good-guy version of Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He starts off as something of a selfish jerk but by the end turns into a decent and honorable guy. No big surprise there, but for something like this, it works. He does have most of the funniest gags and jokes in the movie, so that's something right there.

Disney villains are usually what I look forward to the most. The roster has ranged from silly and cowardly (Captain Hook & Prince John) to dark and disturbing (Scar & Maleficent). Mother Gothel is just kinda there. She's a woman with the combined traits of the arrogant jerkiness of Gaston from Beauty and The Beast and the psychotic obsessiveness of Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The problem is that she's not as memorably psychotic as Frollo nor is she quite as amusingly arrogant as Gaston. A passable villain, but nothing particularly special about her. Will she go down as a classic Disney villain... probably not.

The music is Tangled is definitely good, but again not up to the standard of some of Disney's previous outings. You first get the typical, "I want more" song from the princess. Only this time its more of a rock or pop ballad. There's also your usual villain song, a love ballad, and a couple of songs for the supporting characters interspersed through the run-time. There was, however, one lyric-less dance number with an Irish-folk kind of sound. It took place about halfway through the movie during an impromptu dance scene. It had a really cool sound and stood as a catchy number in a sea of otherwise decent yet ultimately forgettable songs.

So the script and songs are just okay but if there's one thing Disney still dominates, its quality animation. I can't think of one animated Disney movie with bad or even average animation. Whether it be 2D or 3D, Disney animators are still a force to be reckoned with. The settings are beautiful and the scenes are wonderfully drawn (or rendered?). If there's one complaint I do have with the animation, its that the character models just look a bit too... dare I say... plastic! Sure the facial expressions are great, but I can't help but feel like they were trying to kill two birds with one stone by designing the characters for the movie along with their respective toy counterparts. Its a small nitpick, but its still there. The voice acting is quite great too. Mandy Moore as Rapunzel, Zachary Levi as Flynn, and Donna Murphy as Gothel are all solid. Nothing to complain about there.

I could complain about how Disney still keeps using the same formula, how the supporting characters aren't there for the plot so much but rather merchandising, how the stories have some holes, or how their usually "Happy Endings" don't exactly equate to great screenwriting, but that would kind of defeat the purpose. There's definitely an audience for these kinds of flicks, and for some reason they're just really fun to watch. While I do enjoy seeing family movies that go into darker territories (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for instance), you do need movies like this too. This is a quality movie, and I enjoyed it quite a lot. I would totally recommend it for everyone, especially families. Kids will definitely love it as will the adults who watch it with them.

Despite all the flaws I've nitpicked, Tangled is a solid movie! Go see it!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - Review

Unlike some people, I don't immediately dismiss remakes. Sure, the lack of originality in Hollywood is kind of lame, but I'm all for seeing a talented filmmaker bringing his or her unique vision to a previous work... if they do it right. I thought A Nightmare On Elm Street was a good candidate for a remake. The original is one of my favorite horror movies of all time, and the series is overall quite entertaining. The movies has their various ups and downs. Probably the most hated move was turning its classic villain, Freddy Krueger into more of a comic killer as opposed to a scary dream demon. So it did kind of run its course. Still, a fresh look at the series that would take it to darker and less comedic territory seemed promising. Finally the movie was released... and the disappointment began.

One big red flag I should have caught was that the movie was made by Platinum Dunes. This is Michael Bay's production company (huge red flag there) that is mainly dedicated to remaking horror movies. Their previous releases include mediocre horror remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, The Hitcher, and The Amityville Horror. Even though Bay didn't direct this piece of garbage, you can generally bet that anything that comes from his company will turn out poorly.

The storyline mainly follows the same suit as the previous entries. A grossly-scarred bogeyman named Freddy Krueger is haunting the dreams of teenagers in the town of Springwood, OH. In their dreams, he taunts and attacks them while wearing a glove with four knives on the fingertips... and if he kills you in your dreams, you die in real life. This has been the general premise for the last eight movies and it hasn't changed much here, except for a couple minor differences.

In the original series, Freddy was a notorious child killer who is burned alive by the parents of his victims. In this version, Freddy isn't a child killer, but a purported child molester. Like before, he's burned alive by the town's parents, but after being killed, the townsfolk come upon some evidence to suggest he might have been innocent. That could actually sound interesting if they didn't totally cop out on the ending. I won't spoil it, but lets just say its totally predictable. Their first chance to breathe some originality into this new series... and its a no go.

Like I said, I was all for reinventing the series... or at least taking it back to its darker roots. Unfortunately, the film ultimately sucks out any enjoyment by forgetting exactly what made the previous films so endearing... creativity. The original was such an innovative film, including an original concept, great set pieces, and a scary villain. While the following sequels ranged from fun to not-so-good, they were all entertaining on some level, even if only a little. The remake is either too generic, uninspired, and worst of all... BORING!!! Believe me, that's probably the biggest insult you can ever give to a film. Even the worst of the Elm Street series had creative kills and dream sequences, but not this one. I didn't think it would be possible to make a boring Nightmare on Elm Street movie... looks like I was wrong.

Director Samuel Bayer is an accomplished music video director, with his most notable work being the video for Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Unfortunately, his first feature film just didn't cut it. While some of the camerawork is admittedly good and every so often he'll show some visual flair. Bayer comes off too uncomfortable to try anything new or different. Most of the movie's most notable kills or dream scenes are shamelessly ripped off from the original. Anything new or different is either bland or generic. Most of Freddy's kills involve him just stabbing someone in the gut. Rule of thumb for a nightmare scene... ANYTHING can happen. Seriously, there is absolutely no limit to anything in a dream. Like I said, every other film in the series delivered on some creative nightmare scenes. These ones are just boring and dull.

The only thing that might be worse than the weak nightmares is the casting... with one notable exception. In spite of all the bad things I've said or will say about this movie, they did find a great actor to be the new Freddy Krueger. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach in Watchmen), is enjoying one of Hollywood's most notable actor comebacks of the 21st century. This being the first Elm Street movie to feature a new actor to portray Freddy, Haley really does a bang up job. His voice, intensity, and overall skill is what keeps the movie from being a total dud. Unfortunately, he's given practically nothing to do on such a meager script. I knew they were going to downplay the one liners and humor (which is a good thing). Unfortunately, Freddy has hardly any personality this time around. Even before he became a cackling comedian, he still had a very dark sense of humor, whether he would cut his own fingers off or try to kiss one of his victims over the phone. He was creepy and scary, and had that personality to differentiate himself from the other silent-brute slasher villains like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. Again, Haley is great but he's just given nothing to do. What a waste!

The rest of the cast is just lame. I know I keep saying "boring", but that's the best way to describe these actors. Were they given any direction at all? Or did Bayer just keep telling them, "What ever you do, make sure you don't emote! Seriously, never show any emotion!" Not to keep comparing this to the other movies, but the characters in the previous flicks were generally fun and diverse. Even if the acting was bad or they weren't well written, they were at least engaging on some level. This crew was so bland, I was practically falling asleep.

Overall, the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street is a total bust. Despite any bias I have for the others in the series, its still just a very weak horror movie. Aside from Jackie Earle Haley, there's practically nothing innovative, creative, or clever about it. Just go watch the original instead... its basically the same movie only done much much much better.

My Score: 1 Out of 5!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Review

Writing a review for any Harry Potter film, let alone one as monumentally hyped as this one, is about as pointless as it gets. 7 films, 10 years, a legion of fans of both the books and the movies as well as a handful of haters aren't going to be swayed one way or another by a review written by an independent film critic like myself. Honestly, you know whether you're going to see this movie, and if you have even a remote interest in the Harry Potter series, you've probably seen it already... maybe even more than once. Still, I feel compelled to write this review for one reason, to express exactly how AWESOME this movie is.

I've always been interested in Harry Potter, but never a fanboy. They're decent books turned into good movies, but to be honest, they've never really risen above a level much greater than fun. Don't get me wrong, the movies have all been solid. Good actors, fun storylines, quirky characters, great special effects, and commendable filmmaking have all been staples of the series. They've ranged from awesome (Prisoner of Azkaban) to mediocre (Goblet of Fire), but now have hit their stride with Deathly Hallows. I can't really call this one the best quite yet, since the story is only half finished, but director David Yates has started Part I off with a bang.

The characters have matured along with the mood, atmosphere, and themes.. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are now young adults, Dumbledoor is dead, and Voldemort has his sights set on killing Harry and creating a world ruled and controlled by wizards/witches. Aside from The Neverending Story, I can't think of a kids fantasy movie as utterly dark, gloomy, and melancholy as Deathly Hallows. Now, the trio seeks out to destroy the source of Voldemort's power as well as a mythical sword that will defeat him once and for all. The stakes are high and the threat is real, and the clock is ticking until it all comes down.

Okay, the storyline on its own is somewhat generic. Its a fairly standard fantasy adventure that, in some ways, resembles a video game plot. It does, however, have the advantage of a good array of characters, plus six movies worth of development. Little exposition is provided for Deathly Hallows, as the previous six movies have provided all the neccessary plot points and details to set this story in motion. You know who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, the situation, and what is at stake.

Deathy Hallows manages to solve a previous problem that has plagued the stories of the previous HP flicks. Most, if not all, generally carry out the plot in the first 30 minutes or so and wrap it up in the final 30 minutes, with what is largely filler in the middle of the movie. Whether it be scenes set in a classroom, a quittich match, or coverage of a tacked on sub-plot, did leave the storylines feeling somewhat imperfect. A lot of that filler was typically pretty fun, but I can't help but shake the feeling that the stories could have been better had most of the middle act helped develop the plot.

One of the reasons Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite in the series was because the story felt more complete. The classroom scenes, supporting characters, and suplots all contributed to the central story. Plus it had the best character development in the series. Deathly Hallows continues in the same vain as POA, by primarily focusing only on the three central characters. Seriously, a majority of this movie exclusively features Harry, Ron, and Hermione. The supporting characters are barely on screen this time around, the settings are mostly new, even Hogwartz isn't shown. It develops the characters and has a story working toward something... in this case an ending.

The actors have really outdone themselves this time around. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) have grown into their characters over the last 10 years, and this time delve into deeper and more dramatic territory. Whether the three are turning on each other, facing the seriousness of the situation, or being attacked by one of the villains, they all deliver. Each of the three embodies their respective character flawlessly, without falling into melodramatic territory but rather providing realistic and believable deliveries. The supporting cast was so seldom feature in this one, that it is kind of difficult to critique them. The cast from the previous movies is all mostly present and they continue to do the solid job they started with in the previous six movies.

The look of this movie is arguably the best yet. There are a few returning locales, but for the most part, Deathly Hallows breaks from the previously established places into some new settings. There's some fantastic cinematography, featuring some some somber Bergman-esque shots and a somber color scheme. The action plays a smaller role this time around aside from a couple of exciting sequences in the beginning and the end. I imagine they're saving most of the epic sequences for the final part. This one is taking its time, providing more of a character-driven piece. Some might say that's a bad thing, but personally I enjoyed it. The action that did make it into this one was up to the standard set by the previous movies... complete with great special effects. In short, its a great looking movie.

There's not a whole lot I didn't like about Deathly Hallows Part I. Obviously the story isn't complete, so it ends on a huge cliffhanger. There's still plenty more to see, and the movie as a whole can't be properly critiqued until we know how well Part II turns out. This is easily the darkest and most intense entry in the series. The stakes are higher, the villains are scarier, and characters are hurt, tortured, and a some are even killed. Some might be turned off by such a grim tone, but for me, I enjoyed it.

Probably the worst thing about this movie is the fact that the series is almost over. Its a bittersweet feeling for sure, but all good things must come to an end. It is, however, nice knowing that if the second is part is even half as good as this, this will be a finale to remember.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!!!

Easy A - Review

When the iconic writer/director John Hughes died, he left behind a legacy of phenomenal teen comedies from the 80s. Most of them have since become classics, and are loved by both teens and adults to this day. Throughout the 90s and 2000s, a slew of teen comedies came and went, and while some were quite good (Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, plus a few more), most lacked the charm that made movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off or The Breakfast Club so endearing. Now, up-and-coming actress Emma Stone brings her comedic chops to Easy A, a teen comedy written by Bert V. Royal and directed by Will Gluck. Is it a new classic or just another forgettable teen flick?

Easy A takes inspiration from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It centers around Olive Penderghast, a clean cut high school student invisible to most of the student body. After Olive's particularly nosy classmate, Marianne, overhears (and misinterprets) a conversation between Olive and her friend Rhiannon, Marianne starts a rumor that Olive lost her virginity to a college student. Soon, the rumor spreads like wildfire, with numerous variations on the story. Soon Olive receives the reputation as the school's most promiscuous student and Olive suddenly becomes the most talked about girl in her school.

Right up front, Emma Stone is a very talented actress. With supporting roles in movies such as the enjoyable Superbad and the awesome Zombieland, Stone has already established herself as one of the industries most talented up-and-coming stars. With Easy A being her first lead role in a feature film, she is well on her way to becoming a highly successful actress. I really do hope Stone becomes a success but I'm crossing my fingers that she doesn't pull a Lindsay Lohan and become a teen star-trainwreck. She's a legitimately skilled actress who carries this movie basically on her own. Don't get me wrong, there's others to enjoy, but Stone is easily the best thing to come out of it.

The supporting cast is a lot of fun, even if most of them don't get used to their full extent. Seriously, with a quirky cast consisting of Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Stanley Tucci, Patricia Clarkson, and Malcolm McDowell, its not unreasonable to expect some seriously hilarious scenes. On one hand, whenever one of the aforementioned cast members is on screen, they're pretty damn funny, but their scenes are typically too short. Thomas Haden Church gets some good laughs in as Olive's eccentric English teacher. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci portray Olive's bizarre and usually supportive parents. The two have decent chemistry together and have some pretty scenes. Malcolm McDowell as Principal Gibbons is probably the funniest out of the supporting cast, and wouldn't you know it, he has less screen time than anyone. Seriously, this is Alex from A Clockwork Orange, one of the most enjoyable actors in the industry, and Easy A totally blows the opportunity. There should be a rule, whenever you have Malcolm McDowell acting in a movie, make sure you give him a memorable part.

The the teenage cast is kind of a mixed bag. The only one featured prominently is Amanda Bynes as Mariann, a judgmental religious-freak who leads a campaign of other devout Christians against Olive. I'll get to my thoughts regarding Easy A's portrayal of religion in a bit, but strictly based on Bynes' performance... she's just okay. The girl is trying, I don't doubt that for a second, and she does have some enjoyable scenes. Still, I can't help but get this notion out of my head that she's still stuck doing the same shtick from her days on Nickelodeon, and hasn't really grown as an actress. Its kind of unfortunate, since she is definitely talented.

The storyline is clever and usually enjoyable, but all too often it feels like a by-the-numbers teen movie. Its like the screenwriter, Bert V. Royal, had a generic checklist for "How to write a teen comedy." Step 1, base it off a piece of classic literature. Step 2, include references to John Hughes movies. Step 3, include quirky and fun supporting characters but don't let them overshadow the main character. Step 4... ah you get the point. I only mention this because I felt like Easy A had potential to be a truly memorable teen comedy had Royal added a little more flair to his script. Instead it comes off as a formulaic teen comedy albeit with a clever concept overshadowed by previous (and better) teen comedies.

There's one more thing I have to address. The closest thing Easy A has to a true antagonist is Amanda Bynes' hyper-religious character, Mariann. I know in The Scarlett Letter, the main character was chastised by religious fundamentalists, hence where Easy A's inspiration derives. Still, Hollywood's portrayal of Christianity has typically been flawed, and Easy A is no exception. Listen, I'm not dumb, nor do I deny that hypocrisy is prevalent among religious institutions. Its just when I see Christian characters reduced to a stereotypical persona of predictable, judgmental, and shallow figures, it makes me wonder why. I wasn't offended by anything I saw in Easy A, nor does it lower my opinion of the movie, its just one more thing to comes off to me as another missed opportunity for this flick.

Overall, despite its flaws, Easy A is an enjoyable flick. I meant to post this review earlier, as its probably not in theatres anymore. If it is still playing in your area, check it out. Otherwise, it'll make a good rental when it comes out on DVD.

My Score: 3 out of 5!