'Wolf of Wall Street'/'American Hustle' (2013): Short Review Double Feature

Last year, I did a double feature of ‘Les Miserables’ and ‘Django Unchained’ with my good friend, fellow movie fanatic, and co-panelist on ‘The Feature Presentation’, Matthew Goudreau. This year, the two of us did another double feature and like last year, because I’m currently busy working on my ‘Top 12 Best films of the year’ list, I’m just going to do a pair of short reviews.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

What do you get when you take Martin Scorcese, one of the best directors of all time, Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the best actors working today, and a script, which itself is based off of a true story, written by Terrence Winter, creator of the hit HBO show ‘Boardwalk Empire’? One of the best damn films of the year, bar none; this is one incredible movie. Basically, to sum it up in a nutshell, this movie can get absolutely crazy at times, but even though it’s about 3 hours long, it never gets boring. It’s also ‘riotously funny’ (I say that in quotes because I’ll be referencing it for my review of the second film); one scene in particular that I don’t want to spoil, but I will say that it involves DiCaprio and a car, was probably the most I’ve ever laughed in any movie. DiCaprio of course is excellent as usual in the lead role, as is the rest of the talented cast, including Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey. The latter is only in the film briefly at the beginning but was an absolute scene-stealer. In the case of DiCaprio’s character, the movie does not glorify him (which is apparently what some are thinking from seeing the trailer). His character is actually quite the scumbag… and yet DiCaprio’s charm is still somewhat present. This is easily one of the best films of the year; what else would you expect from the talent that is involved both behind and in front of the camera.

Rating: 5/5!

AMERICAN HUSTLE

The second film of this doubleheader is ‘American Hustle’, the newest film from ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ director David O. Russell and starring a pair of leads from both of his last two films; In this case, Christian Bale and Amy Adams from ‘The Fighter’ and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from ‘Playbook’. This film has been getting quite the reviews from critics, currently standing at a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes… but to be honest I think it’s a little overrated in that regard. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a bad movie. It’s just that it gets a little slow at times and I’m perplexed as to why some critics are viewing it as a ‘comedy’ because it really isn’t. The ‘general consensus’ on RT is that it is ‘riotously funny’. That fits ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ much better and in fact, I think that film deserves a better RT score (at the moment, it only stands at 77%). Heck, ‘American Hustle’ isn’t even classified as a comedy. It’s a crime drama, so what I am missing here? But despite that, the film does have really good things in it, like a great period piece design (being that it’s set in the 70’s), a really great soundtrack, and of course a great cast. As for the standouts, I’d give the honors to the two ladies in the film, Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence. Adams’ character is probably one of the most developed out of the leads and while Lawrence is not in the movie that much she is a scene-stealer. Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner are all great as well. Still, I don’t think this movie’s as good to garner a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes… and I don’t think it will make my Top 12. Perhaps an ‘Honorable Mention’ but I’m not entirely sure.

Rating: 3.5/5

Top 10 Worst Films of 2013: #5-1

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s list of the Top 10 worst films of 2013. This is Part 2; if you haven’t read ‘Part 1’ yet, I suggest you do so before reading this. Now, it’s time to look at my picks for the Top 5 worst films of the year and boy are these films bad. We have another comedy at Number 5, one of the many ‘parodies’ (I use that term loosely) that came out this year. It isn’t the worse of this bunch, but that still doesn’t mean that it’s any good.

5. A Haunted House

Now the reason why I say this wasn’t the worst comedy, or parody, of the year is because while it is a film that is part of a genre that has continued to die a most slow and painful death over the years thanks to the hacks known as Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (I pity those who actually watched their latest film, ‘The Starving Games’), at least this parody stays consistent in terms of what it’s parodying; the found footage horror films, specifically ‘Paranormal Activity’. Most of the parodies today are incredibly inconsistent because they just parody whatever’s popular but this film at least manages not to do that. Still, the movie’s not that funny at all. The big problem with this one for me is that it kind of feels too mean-spirited. It uses the ‘N’ word repeatedly to the point where it starts to get annoying; the characters themselves are equally annoying. But, in the end, this film was a success at the box office due to its low budget and now a sequel is set to come out next March… S***! You asked for it, folks.

At number 4 is the latest film in a long-running action film franchise. However, when watching it, you probably wouldn’t get the idea that it is a film in that franchise because all this film really shares to it in comparison is its title and nothing else. Ooh does this one piss me off.

4. A Good Day to Die Hard

For the longest time, I was certain that this film would be my pick for the Worst film of the year. 3 other films managed to be worse than this one, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to rip it a new one. This is easily the worst action film I’ve seen in a long time and a complete insult to the once-great ‘Die Hard’ franchise. I know that a lot of people weren’t really fans of the PG-13 rated ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ but I actually do like that one because while it did tone down the violence and John McClane was pretty much invincible for most of the film, it still felt like a ‘Die Hard’ movie, unlike this one. This movie may be rated ‘R’ like the first three films, but you wouldn’t notice. The PG-13 rated ‘Die Hard’ was more violent than this one. There are numerous sins to this film that completely go against what made these movies great in the first place.

First off, the villains are terrible, something that shouldn’t be the case with a ‘Die Hard’ villain. There are a total of four ‘villains’ in this movie; one of them is a guy who seemed to be the main bad guy as suggested by the trailer but in the end he isn’t. All he ever does in this film is eat a carrot and tap dance around. Then you have the daughter of this guy who John McClane and his son are supposed to protect who’s just… there, and then that guy they were protecting turns out to be the main villain in the end… too bad he’s completely boring and unmemorable. There’s this other guy whose like this corrupt Russian official, but he really doesn’t play any real part in this. So in total, there are as many villains as there were main villains in the last four films, and they all frigging suck. Actually, strike that, this film actually has some of the biggest villains in the history of the franchise… director John Moore and writer Skip Woods. The direction is terrible and the story is so convoluted; I mean let’s be honest, ‘Die Hard’ films have rather simple plots (a terrorist is trying to take over the world, and McClane has to stop him) but if you asked me to describe the plot of this film, I would have a real hard time doing so because there’s so much going on in this film and yet so little at the same time that I wouldn’t be able to give you a clear synopsis.

Another big problem with the film is that John McClane and his son are pretty much invincible in this film. ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ also started to lean towards this, but in this one, it’s far worse. For example, the finale takes place in Chernobyl, which is apparently safe to be in now that John and Jack go in without any protective gear despite, you know, that ‘meltdown’ that took place in 1986? Apparently, Woods didn’t know about that. Because of this, there’s absolutely no tension whatsoever. What made these films great in the first place was that John McClane was the ‘everyman’ who got caught in tough situations but persisted through them in order to save the day. That’s no longer the case now. No matter what is thrown at John and his son (who have absolutely no chemistry by the way… this is not the fault of Bruce Willis and Joel Courtney, for the record. It’s just the terrible writing), they come out with barely any scratches on them. If you haven’t figured it out yet, this is the worst film in the Die Hard series. Hell, it shouldn’t even be considered as a ‘Die Hard’ film; it’s just your typical average action film starring Bruce Willis… which earned over 300 million at the box office. UGH!!!! Somehow, three other films are worse than this.

Number 3 is another film that is the latest in its franchise. It’s a franchise that I’m not too familiar with, but after this one I don’t know if I want to be.

3. Scary Movie 5

I’ve never seen any of the ‘Scary Movie’ films; I guess that’s because I really hate the new ‘standard’ for parody films these days as brought on by Seltzerberg, who ironically were co-writers with the Wayans brothers on the first ‘Scary Movie’. In a sense, you can kind of argue that the first ‘Scary Movie’ was the film that was responsible for this current trend but I’ve heard generally okay things about it. Anyway, now we come to ‘Scary Movie 5’. You know, it just blows my mind that there are five of these films. In fact, it’s been about 7 years since the last ‘Scary Movie’ came out and this one does not feature some of the same people from the last one, so why bother? To milk the franchise, I’m guessing. That’s what studios tend to do with big franchises these days. Again, I haven’t seen any of them, but after this one, I kind of don’t want to. First off, even as far as recent parodies go, this one feels really dated. Some of its ‘parodies’ include ‘Inception’ and ‘Black Swan’, films that came out 3 years ago. There are some ‘parodies’ of more recent flicks, like ‘Cabin in the Woods’ and the ‘Evil Dead’ remake (in the case of the latter, a film that came out just a week before this film) but on a whole, as you might guess, it’s not funny. Perhaps the biggest reason why this one in particular is so high up on the list is that some things that happen in this movie are just… weird. That’s not a good sign when my response towards most of the movie is ‘what the hell am I watching?’ Like ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’, this one looked like it would be my pick for the worst film of the year, but then we have the next two.

For many critics, this is easily one of their worst films of the year. Obviously, I share the same sentiment but this one had more attention than the next film on this list. Still, this one is just horrible and it’s really sad considering that a lot of talented people were attached to this one.

2. Movie 43

You know, looking back, this one really doesn’t piss me off as much as it just saddens me. Here is a movie with a gigantic cast of very talented people, with stars like Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Richard Gere, Terrence Howard, Halle Berry, Dennis Quaid, Greg Kinnear, and many more. But the whole film itself is just painfully unfunny. It’s trying to be the next big ‘sketch comedy’ film but it just fails in every regard. What’s even worse is that it has all of these talented actors/actresses doing extremely degrading material; Hugh Jackman plays a man who has a pair of testicles on his neck (why do I have the sinking feeling this cost him the Oscar?), there’s a sketch involving this product called the ‘iBabe’ which is an MP3 player shaped like a naked woman, and… good god, I don’t want to go any farther than that. From what I hear, a lot of these actors/actresses did not even want to be a part of the film… but unfortunately this film is a stain on their careers now. For a while, I thought this would be the worst film of the year, but…

(Sigh), finally we’ve come to Number 1 and… the following film… is the worst piece of s*** I’ve ever seen in my life. I’ve seen some bad movies (the Seltzerberg films, Sucker Punch, half of the films on this list) but this is just an utter abomination and embarrassment to not just the film industry itself, but to anyone who loves movies. If you thought ‘Movie 43’ was bad, wait until you get a load of this.

1 Inappropriate Comedy

There are two kinds of ‘bad movies’. Films like ‘Batman and Robin’, ‘The Room’, and the previously mentioned ‘Sharknado’ are films that, while bad, do have some entertainment value to them because of how bad they are. But a film like this is just plain horrendous; there’s absolutely nothing in this that is the least bit entertaining. Like ‘Movie 43’, this is trying to be a ‘sketch comedy’ but here we have nothing but down-right rip-offs of other successful movies/TV shows. There’s ‘Flirty Harry’, which is a rip-off of Dirty Harry trying to be a parody where former Oscar-winner Adrien Brody (oh, how some have fallen from grace) tries to do a Clint Eastwood impersonation and all of his dialogue consists of double entendres. There’s ‘The Porno Review’ which is like ‘At the Movies’, only here the movies are pornos. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel must be rolling in their graves because of this. There’s ‘Blackass’, which is ‘Jackass’ just with a black cast.

But the worst is easily ‘The Amazing Racist’, where this guy, Ari Shaffer, goes around in the style of Borat acting very racist towards Asians, African Americans, and Jews. One scene has him acting like a driving school instructor and making fun of Asian stereotypes and the ‘victims’ of them give him the proper angry response that he deserves. WHO THE HELL WOULD PUT UP WITH THIS A-HOLE? It’s not like ‘Borat’ because while he too was acting weird and a little racist (albeit in Borat’s case, more in his portrayal than his actions towards other people) at times, at least Sacha Baron Cohen has more decency than this guy. There’s another scene which is part of the ‘Blackass’ sketch where a woman goes to a new baby store and is told that the store has some babysitters for hire. It turns out that these ‘sitters’ are the ‘Blackass’ crew. It’s not a good sign if, during this scene, I have a sinking feeling that the woman is going to be either raped or murdered and these men are going to take her baby. That’s all I have to say because I really don’t want to remember anything more about this. Stay away from this horrendous piece of crap by any means necessary. I think this movie needs a new title; would ‘Cinematic Torture’ work?

F***… THIS… MOVIE!!!!

…

And those are the worst films of the year. Thankfully, now we can move on to the good stuff. Check back soon for the first part of my ‘Best films of the year’ list.

Top 10 Worst Films of 2013: #10-6

As 2013 comes to a close, it’s time to look back on the year in film at large. But before we get to honoring the best films of the year, first we have the list that every person loves to do; the worst of the year list. This is the first year where I’m able to do a full Top 10 list because while I do see a lot of movies every year, I find that I usually don’t see many ‘bad movies’ because I sort of tend to stay away from them until they are out of theaters. Last year, I didn’t even do a ‘Worst of’ list; I did do a post where I talked about my pick for the worst film of 2012, which was ‘This Means War’, but at the time I did that post, that was the only film that I had seen all year which I just didn’t like. Ironically, a few weeks later I saw another film that would have ended up on my list as well, the remake of ‘Red Dawn’. Still, that wasn’t enough for a full list. This year was a little different; I did see a couple more bad movies this year and, well, let me just say that this year the bad movies were REALLY bad. How bad? We’ll get into that when we look at these 10 films further.

There will be some spoilers regarding each of these films, but because this is a ‘Worst of’ list, I’m not even going to bother warning you folks because I do not recommend any of these movies whatsoever. This is Part 1, which will cover #10-5. I don’t have any ‘Dishonorable Mentions’ this time so we’ll just get started with Number 10. At this spot is a film that quite honestly isn’t as bad as some of the other films on this list. There’s just one thing about it that really pisses me off about it, which is more related to the move the studio made before it was originally supposed to be released last year than something in the actual movie itself.

10. G.I. Joe: Retaliation

‘Retaliation’ is the sequel to 2009’s ‘Rise of Cobra’, a film that received pretty negative reviews from both critics and audiences… but looking back, I’ll admit that I did like it. Sure, it’s stupid, has some terrible special effects, and probably has little to do with the actual G.I. Joe franchise (being someone who didn’t really grew up with it, I couldn’t tell). But in the end, it was a fun little popcorn flick; nothing more, nothing less but in the case of this movie, there was some anticipation and hope that this would be better than the previous film. In a way, it pretty much is; it’s not as over-the-top as the last film, has better effects, and has some great action scenes (although the first fight between Roadblock and Firefly has some extremely poor editing). Dwayne Johnson does a good job in the lead role of Roadblock along with a few other members of the cast. However, it still gets pretty nonsensical at times (the revival of the character Storm Shadow is never really explained after his apparent death in ‘Rise of Cobra’), some of the characters get little to no character development, and the villains aren’t that threatening (Cobra Commander just stands around acting all menacing). This film may feature Bruce Willis in the role of the original G.I. Joe, Joe Colton, but it’s an extremely minor role that could have been given to any actor without making any difference (and as you’ll see in Part 2, Willis did not have a good year).

But those aren’t my main problems with the film. My big problem is actually the film’s marketing campaign, which pulled off one of the biggest bullshit marketing ploys that I have ever seen. The story goes like this; although Channing Tatum was set to reprise his role of Duke from the last movie, the first trailer for the film (released when it was still set to come out in June 2012) suggested that his character would be killed off early on. After all, the film seemed like it would be focusing on a new cast of characters, seeing how most of the cast from the last movie did not return. Well, after that, the film’s release was delayed to March 2013. The official reason was so that Paramount could apparently convert the film to 3-D, but other reports stated that there would be reshoots so that Tatum would have more screen-time, pretty much confirming that he was going to be killed off. The marketing even began to include him in the advertising; something that really wasn’t being done in the initial marketing before the delay, at least not to the extent of what they did after it. Well, in the end, I’m not sure if they even did any reshoots because Duke is killed off only ten minutes or so into the movie. Maybe they did, but I wouldn’t know.

Not only does this mean that Paramount might have just wasted nine months just to convert the film to crappy post-converted 3-D (mind you, I didn’t see the film in ‘3-D’ but let’s be honest, that kind of 3-D usually sucks), but I actually think killing Duke off was the wrong idea. For one thing, I have to give Tatum credit because he was doing a better job here than in the last movie. His camaraderie with Johnson was terrific, which I think the film lost when he was killed off. In his place is a generic good-looking white guy named Flint, who lacks Tatum’s charisma. Also, his death itself is rather unfitting for the guy who was the main character in the last film. All that happens is he’s next to a truck that explodes and that’s it; he’s dead. When they pull the tags off of his body, it’s so obviously a stunt double. I mean, I’m guessing Tatum must have been busy on another project (I can’t blame him; he’s doing much better films than this one) so he couldn’t be as involved with this one as much, but come on couldn’t they have given him a much more dignified death?

Again, I don’t think this is the worst film of the year (as you’ll see, the next 9 films are much worse) but in the end, I feel that Paramount was lying to us when they promised that Tatum would be playing a bigger role in the film.

At number 9 is the film that somehow became a cult phenomenon ever since it debuted on the SyFy channel back in July (and it was released in theaters for a limited time, so it counts). It became so popular that a sequel is now in production. But really, when you look at it, this movie is just not that good; even with its completely ridiculous premise.

9. Sharknado

Yeah, the title says it all, doesn’t it? It’s a movie about a tornado that picks up sharks from the ocean that ravages the city of Los Angeles… what do you expect? The tagline for this movie, ‘Enough said!’ pretty much sums this movie up in a nutshell. So, on a whole, the movie’s just stupid. It has a stupid premise and there are multiple moments that defy all sorts of logic and physics. For example, in order to stop the ‘sharknado’, the main characters decide to drop bombs into it. I’m no science expert, but I’m pretty sure that you can’t do that. On top of that, the acting is bad and the effects are terrible, but then again what else would you expect from ‘The Asylum’, a company that has produced multiple direct-to-video films in order to cash in on major blockbusters (like ‘Transmorphers’ at the time that ‘Transformers’ was released). But despite all of that, this movie ends up being one of those ‘so bad it’s good’ movies that is perfect for a Rifftrax or something along the lines of that. Something that particularly cracks me up in this movie is how the main character Fin is apparently Superman. What do I mean by that? Well, he does the following things in the movie; he shoots down a shark that is thousands of feet above him with only one shot from a pistol, cuts another shark somewhat cleanly in half with a chainsaw, and jumps into another shark’s mouth with the chainsaw and manages to not only not get eaten, but manages to cut his way out along with another one of the main characters who coincidentally was just ‘eaten’ by the same shark. Damn! So, in short, this is one of those movies that must be seen to be believed… but don’t get me wrong it’s still a bad movie nevertheless.

I’m just going to come out and say it; 2013 was the worst year of comedies that I have ever seen. How bad of a year was it for the genre? There will be 5 comedies on this list. I can only think of two comedies this year that were actually really good. One of them might just earn a spot on my ‘Best of’ list if partially out of pity for being in such a crappy year for the genre. Starting this set of ‘comedies’ off at number 8 is a sequel to a film that I’ll admit that I did like, but I question why it was necessary to make a sequel to this film, especially when the sequel… sucks.

8. Grown-Ups 2

I’m just going to go on record saying that I am a fan of Adam Sandler. Sure, not all of his movies have been that good but some of his earlier films are comedy classics (‘Happy Gilmore’, ‘Billy Madison’, ‘The Waterboy’, etc…). His track record has been less than stellar in the last few years (2011’s ‘Jack and Jill’, need I say more?) but he’s still made some entertaining films, like ‘Click’, ‘You Don’t Mess with the Zohan’, and of course, 2010’s ‘Grown-Ups’; yes, I did like the film. Sure, it had absolutely no plot whatsoever but on a whole, it was still pretty funny. Sandler and his pals clearly have great camaraderie, and it at least seemed like the cast was having fun making it. But why in the world was it necessary for them to make a sequel? Like I said, the first film had no plot so why even bother… especially when in the end, this film pales in comparison to its predecessor. I mean this one just looked bad going in.

While the first film may not have had much of a plot, it at least gave a reason as to why the events in the film were happening; the main characters were reuniting with each other after their Basketball coach died. This movie doesn’t have that… it’s just a day in the lives of these characters with a whole bunch of random things happening lacking any sense of a cohesive narrative structure. Sure, the camaraderie between Sandler and his buddies is still there, but the humor isn’t. I mean, to be honest, most of Sandler’s humor is fairly juvenile but here it’s at its worst. There were hardly any moments where I laughed at what was happening on screen. The only thing in the whole movie that had me laughing was Shaq, who plays a cop here. All in all, ‘Grown Ups 2’ is the second out of three of the last films Sandler’s made that I’ve seen that have been terrible (no I have not seen ‘That’s My Boy’ because considering the reception I’ve heard towards it, I don’t even want to bother with it). But, in the end, the four other comedies on this list are far, far worse.

What do you get when you take a director whose career has been in decline for the last few years, one of the most charming actors in Hollywood, and his untested son and put them all together to make a sci-fi film? You get… this…

7. After Earth

You really have to feel bad for M. Night Shyamalan, and I mean that. Here’s a director who, early in his career, was a force to be reckoned with after making hit films like ‘The Sixth Sense’ and ‘Unbreakable’. But then, starting in 2004, everything changed and his films ended up getting worse and worse; ‘The Village’, ‘Lady in the Water’, ‘The Happening’, and worst of all, ‘The Last Airbender’. So at this point, it seemed like there was nowhere for Shyamalan’s career to go but up… but in the end, his latest film, ‘After Earth’, once again slows down his once-promising career. You also have to feel bad for star Will Smith. He’s one of the most charismatic actors working today and yet unfortunately his reputation will most likely be tarnished with this film, one that he was actively involved with having developed the story. Oh, how the mighty can fall.

The main problem with this film is that it’s just plain boring. It has a generic plot that’s pretty much ‘go from Point A to Point B’, resulting in a lack of tension and suspense because we know what’s going to happen. It’s also a bad thing when the extremely charismatic Will Smith is stuck in the bland, unemotional role of Cypher Raige, which also sidelines him for the majority of the film because his character gets injured, leaving his son Kitai (played by Smith’s real-life son, Jaden) to do all of his work. Jaden Smith’s performance has been widely criticized and while I’m not as critical on him as everyone else is, he just wasn’t ready for a lead role of this magnitude yet. I think he did a great job in ‘The Karate Kid’, but that’s because he had a great performance from Jackie Chan to work off of. Here, he may be working alongside his father, but it doesn’t have the same effect. Will’s character lacks his charisma and doesn’t get anything to do over the course of the film. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that both of them were miscast and with this film, Shyamalan’s career is still stuck in the gutter. Basically, a bad career move for all involved.

At number 6 is a film that does have a rather noteworthy premise. Too bad it’s ruined by the writing. What else should you expect from the author of ‘Twilight’?

6. The Host

The thing about ‘The Host’ is that it does have an appealing premise to work off of; alien parasites known as ‘souls’ invade Earth and take over the bodies of the humans. However, when one of the Souls is transferred to a girl named Melanie, her consciousness manages to resist the control of the Soul that is now in her body. Sounds interesting, right? How this could possibly go wrong? Well it can, seeing how this is based off of the book of the same name by Stephanie Meyer, the author of the ‘Twilight’ books. If you’ve seen the ‘Twilight’ films, you know what to expect to see in this film; a hokey/bland love triangle and moments/lines that are supposed to be serious, but in the end they just come off as hilarious; there’s a line in here between the female lead and one of the male leads where she tells him, ‘kiss me like you want to get slapped’. I’m not kidding; that’s actually one of the lines in this film. I’m sorry, but Stephanie Meyer is a terrible writer.

But that’s not the worst thing about this film. Its biggest sin is that it is ungodly boring. This movie is about a little over 2 hours, and most of it takes place in a cave where the remaining humans who haven’t been taken over by the Souls are taking shelter, with little to no action whatsoever over the remaining course of the film and for the record, that’s about 75% of it. There was like one action scene before that and that’s about it. Sure, Saoirse Ronan does a really good job in the lead role, especially considering that she’s basically playing two different characters at the same time, but as a whole, the movie is just too long which is not good when nothing at all happens in it. I’m just perplexed as to why Andrew Niccol (the director of ‘Gattaca’ and writer of ‘The Truman Show’) was picked to helm this film and to also write the screenplay as well. Talk about a film to ruin your career with.

Check back tomorrow for Part 2, where we’ll delve into the Top 5 worst films of 2013.

Rankin-Bass Christmas Specials Retrospective

Christmas will soon be upon us, and to celebrate the holiday I decided to go ahead and do a Christmas-themed retrospective. At first, I was initially considering doing lists of both the Top 10 Christmas Movies and Top 10 Christmas Specials, but I decided that I will wait for next year to do those two lists. Instead, I’ll be looking at a bunch of specials that are near and dear to many of us… the stop-motion animated television specials produced by Rankin-Bass, the company founded by Arthur Rankin Jr. and Jules Bass. Sadly, the company shut down in 1987 but their specials, despite the fact that most of them were made nearly five decades ago, still stand as some of the best Christmas specials ever. So without further ado, it’s time to look back at the Rankin-Bass specials.

I’m not really going to be looking at these specials in any real chronological order (in other words, by the years that each special came out). Instead, I’ll be doing it more in the order that I personally experienced them. Also, I’m not sure if I’ve seen every Rankin-Bass Christmas special, so this is not really a ‘complete’ retrospective of their work. I won’t be covering specials like ‘Pinocchio’s Christmas’ or ‘Nestor, the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey’. However, for the most part, I have seen most of them, at least the ones that most people will remember. Still, some of them I think are rather underrated and are just as good as the most revered of their lineup. As a kid, I really only saw three of these specials on a yearly basis; these three in question are arguably the most famous of the company’s lineup. They are…

RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER

Of course, we kick things off with the first of Rankin-Bass’ stop-motion Christmas specials and the one that effectively put them on the map; ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’, based on the song, written by Johnny Marks, and the 1939 poem both of the same name. It’s currently the longest running Christmas special and has now been running for 50 years and for good reason. It probably has aged a bit since it first came out (again, like most of these specials might be), but nevertheless it’s still a classic, one that many of today’s parents will no doubt remember watching when they were kids, which they’ll hopefully show to their kids, making this special quite timeless. It has a nice story with a well-handled message of nonconformity, a whole bunch of memorable songs (most of them sung by Burl Ives, who also serves as the narrator, Sam the Snowman), and plenty of memorable characters. As for the best of these characters, that’s easy. That honor goes to Yukon Cornelius, ‘the greatest prospector in the North’ who’s out looking for gold… and then later silver (he changed his mind). All in all, this is not only one of the best Christmas specials, but one of Rankin-Bass’ best. In fact, it might just actually be their best.

FROSTY THE SNOWMAN

Unlike most of the other Rankin-Bass Christmas specials, ‘Frosty’ is a traditionally animated special. Regardless of this change in the animation style, it is another classic in the studio’s lineup. This is mainly because of the main character, Frosty (voiced by Jackie Vernon, who would reprise the role in the other Rankin-Bass specials that the character starred in). He’s like Winnie-the-Pooh in that I find it impossible that anyone would not like him. In fact, these two are even more similar in that while they’re not that smart, they both are extremely likable and kind. This character is what makes this special the classic that it is; I’ll admit that it’s not really my personal favorite but nevertheless it is still a very good special.

Also, while this next one isn’t technically from Rankin-Bass, I saw this special a lot during my childhood so I’ll include it as well.

FROSTY RETURNS

This was not made by Rankin-Bass. This was made by CBS and was directed by Bill Melendez and Evert Brown, who are mostly known for directing the ‘Peanuts’ specials. It may seem like this is a sequel to the original special, but if you go into this for the first time expecting that, you’re going to be disappointed. It bears little resemblance to the original; for example, whenever Frosty loses his hat in this special, he doesn’t revert back to being a normal snowman. Also, it seems like the people in the town of Beansboro (where this special takes place, also not like the original) are perfectly fine with the idea that a snowman is alive and walking around. Compare this to the original where everyone in the town was startled to see a living snowman. So, because of all this as well as an environmental message that, let’s face it, is pretty heavy-handed, it seems like most people don’t really like it that much and considering all of the things that I just mentioned, that does make sense considering the original’s status as a Christmas classic.

So why am I including it in this retrospective then, you ask? Well, for one thing, despite the fact that this is not Rankin-Bass, it’s always packaged with the original both on TV and in the home video releases. The whole situation of the owners of all of Rankin-Bass’ work is a little complicated (from what I can gather, DreamWorks owns everything they made pre-1974, and Warner Bros. owns everything after that), but basically CBS currently owns the rights to ‘Frosty the Snowman’ and as I mentioned earlier, they were responsible for this one despite the fact that this has little to do with the original. Also, despite the fact that it is clearly not as good as the original, I don’t think it’s that bad. Sure, I might be a little biased because I saw this special a lot during my childhood but as for the special itself, I think it’s harmless. I don’t think that there’s anything in this that’s bad for children, and John Goodman does a really good job as Frosty, filling Jackie Vernon’s shoes quite well. But while the original felt more like a true Christmas special, this one kind of feels more like a Saturday morning cartoon (in fact, I think I remember seeing this one time on a Saturday morning). So basically, this special may not be that good, but it’s not that bad either. Just don’t go into this expecting the same level of quality as the original. You won’t find it here.

SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN

‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’ is my personal favorite out of all of the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials. Is it the overall best in the studio’s lineup? Probably not, but I just love this one for numerous reasons. The story of Santa Claus is told in the style of a traditional origin story but one that feels down-to-earth and not too overtly fantasy-like in nature. Again, like most of these specials, it has a great collection of songs, including the iconic ‘Put One Foot in Front of the Other’, a duet between Kris Kringle and the Winter Warlock (or Winter as he later prefers); that one has become a classic. It is kind of interesting to note that when this special is aired on TV nowadays on ABC, they usually cut two songs from it namely to save time for commercials, though one of the songs they cut, ‘If You Sit on my Lap Today’, I kind of understand why because it is a little, um, rather politically incorrect by today’s standards. However on ABC Family, the two songs are put back in, albeit by having a couple of other scenes cut in its place. I guess you have to stick to the home releases to see this whole thing in its uncut form.

Mickey Rooney does an excellent job in the lead role of Kris, providing both the charm and kindness that one might expect from this role, one that he would reprise in a couple other Rankin-Bass specials. But like Kris, the whole cast of characters is memorable, from the previously mentioned Winter (who actually starts off as a quite terrifying villain until Kris warms his cold heart) to the main villain with the hilarious name, Burgermeister Meisterburger (voiced by the talented Paul Frees, a voice actor who, like Rooney, also appears in multiple Rankin-Bass specials though, in Frees’ case, as different characters). This special also has one of my favorite narrators out of all of these specials. Now to be frank, they all have pretty good narrators, but S.D. Kluger (played by Fred Astaire) is my favorite. I can’t really explain why, but I do like how he covers pretty much every aspect of Santa’s origin, from how he began to put toys in stockings to where he got his name. So in the end, I wouldn’t say this is the best Rankin-Bass special, but this is probably the one that I come back to the most.

As I grew older, I began watching some of the other Rankin-Bass specials; ones that I now appreciate just as much as the ‘Big 3’.

THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY

Here’s another one of my personal favorites from Rankin-Bass. Why? Well, because I consider this special to pretty much be a masterpiece. I can’t think of anything that is wrong with the special; the stop-motion animation is great, the songs are great (especially the performance of the title song by the Vienna Boys’ Choir, easily the highlight of this whole special), and it has a terrific character arc for the main character, Aaron the ‘Little Drummer Boy’. Once the happy son of a shepherd, Aaron began to hate all humanity after bandits attacked his family’s farm, resulting in him becoming an orphan and it is only through his experience witnessing the birth of Jesus when he begins to change his views on people. ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ is still a classic and timeless special, but this one is just as good as that one. In fact, dare I say it; it might be a tad bit better.

THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY: BOOK II

In 1976, Rankin-Bass produced a sequel to ‘Little Drummer Boy’ in ‘The Little Drummer Boy: Book II’. Having just said that I am a huge fan of the first special to the point where I’d argue that it just might be the best Rankin-Bass special, what are my thoughts on the sequel? It’s good, but I can’t say it’s as good as the original. Then again, the same can be said for pretty much any sequel to a great film, despite some exceptions. Anyway, I’m impressed that they were able to do a sequel to ‘Drummer Boy’ and I’m fine with the fact that the animation looks different than it did in the original; it had been a few years since that special was made. Zero Mostel is a scene-stealer as Brutus, the leader of a band of greedy Roman soldiers who steal a bunch of silver bells that were made in honor of Jesus’ arrival. My only complaint is that for Aaron, they have a different actor than the original who sounds much younger, which is a little jarring coming off of the original. Still, it’s an enjoyable special that may not be as good as its predecessor, but it’s still pretty good.

THE YEAR WITHOUT A SANTA CLAUS

Well, I can’t talk about this one and not start by saying the best thing about the whole special; the mischievous brothers, Snow and Heat Miser. I mean, odds are that these two are the first things that come to mind when you talk about this special and for good reason. They are the standouts of the special, thanks to their fun rivalry, their clashing personalities, and their iconic musical numbers. But aside from them, the special itself is still pretty darn good. It’s a nice tale of keeping the spirit of Christmas alive for at first it seems like people no longer believe in it. This initially compels Santa to take the year off, along with the fact that he wasn’t feeling too well. Mickey Rooney returns to voice Santa and is once again excellent as he was in ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’. The special has its fair share of good songs, and the bit where they play ‘Blue Christmas’, where Santa reads a sad letter from a little girl, is both touching and sad at the same time. Obviously, this is a must-see if only because of the Miser brothers, but as a whole, the special is just as good as its two standout characters.   

JACK FROST

‘Jack Frost’ (not to be confused with either the family film starring Michael Keaton or the B-horror film about a killer snowman (no, I’m not joking; that latter film does exist), both of the same name) is probably the funniest out of all of the Rankin-Bass specials. That is mainly because of the main villain, the wicked Cossack king Kubla Kraus (voiced by Rankin-Bass regular Paul Frees). He may not be exactly menacing, but he is very funny. He has this sidekick named Dummy, who is literally a ventriloquist dummy, a whole army of robotic creatures (including his ‘horse’, Klangstumper, and an army of ‘Keh-Nights’), and a fun musical number, ‘There’s the Rub’ (Rub-a-dub-a-dub-dub, the rub). He’s the most memorable character in the special although admittedly everything else is in it may not be as memorable as him. Still, it’s another very enjoyable special from the Rankin-Bass lineup with a lot of humor but also a lot of heart as well (the ending is quite touching).

RUDOLPH’S SHINY NEW YEAR

For the first sequel to ‘Rudolph’, everyone’s favorite red-nosed reindeer went from saving Christmas to saving the New Year. Sure, this special may not exactly be Christmas-related, but it is still a pretty good special as far as Rankin-Bass is concerned. This is mainly because of this special’s really creative premise. Here, Rudolph goes on a quest to rescue Happy, the Baby New Year, who ran away because he was ridiculed for his big ears. If he is not returned by December 31^st, then it will stay that date forever. Happy runs away to a place known as the ‘Archipelago of Last Years’, a group of islands where the Old ‘New Years’ retire when their time is done. These islands are styled to resemble the year that they ruled in. For example, the island belonging to 1023 (a knight voiced by Frank Gorshin; probably the most memorable character in the whole special, mainly because he shouts everything he says) is represented as a medieval land where all of the fairytale characters (e.g. Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood) reside. This special stands out because of all of the creative places, characters, and designs that appear in it, and overall it’s one of my personal favorites from Rankin-Bass for that reason.

FROSTY’S WINTER WONDERLAND

Now we go from Rudolph’s first sequel to Frosty the Snowman’s first sequel; by that I mean the first ‘true’ special from Rankin-Bass, not counting ‘Frosty Returns’. The two characters would each make one more appearance in a Rankin-Bass special (that’s coming up next), but for now let’s look at ‘Frosty’s Winter Wonderland’, another traditionally animated special where we are introduced to Frosty’s wife Crystal (voiced by Shelley Winters). As for the special itself, it’s okay. That’s the thing about this one; I don’t think there’s anything bad in it, but at the same time there’s nothing in it that really stands out aside from, once again, Jackie Vernon’s performance as Frosty, who’s just as likable as always. It’s basically just your typical sequel that is good, just not as good as the original. Still, it’s good enough for the family to watch, though I think this one’s suited a little more towards kids.

RUDOLPH AND FROSTY’S CHRISTMAS IN JULY

After they each appeared in two of their own Rankin-Bass specials, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman would unite for ‘Rudolph and Frosty’s Christmas in July’. Not only was this the snowman’s first appearance in stop-motion, but at over 90 minutes, it’s practically a full-length feature. Overall, it’s pretty good, but there are two things that bug me about it. First of all, even though it features both Rudolph and Frosty, it gets pretty dark at times. There is quite a bit of frightening imagery as well, namely from the main villain Winterbolt and his minions; his pair of ice dragons and his ‘genie’, which is pretty an ice version of the mirror from ‘Snow White’, though a lot more freakier. Not only that, but for a long stretch of the special, there’s a surprising lack of joy and cheer. This is because Rudolph gets framed for a crime because he was tricked into doing it, resulting in him becoming an outcast and losing the glow in his nose, effectively facing his lowest of lows. It’s not like the original ‘Rudolph’ special; Rudolph experienced some low moments, but they were only for a little while. Here, it goes on for at least 8-10 minutes making that certain part of the special rather depressing. That’s not something I want to see from a Rankin-Bass special. Now, this isn’t a bad special. It’s cool to see Rudolph and Frosty on screen together, especially considering that this is the only special where that happens. However, the special itself sort of suffers from scary imagery and for being rather depressing. Also, on a side note, I think this one might need a new restoration as far as video and audio are concerned.

THE STORY OF THE FIRST CHRISTMAS SNOW

This is probably the most underrated out of all of the Rankin-Bass specials. I say that because I have a feeling that even some of the biggest Rankin-Bass fans might be unfamiliar with this one. Unlike the other Rankin-Bass specials, I rarely see this one airing on TV. It wasn’t until last year when I saw it for the first time and overall it’s a really nice special. The story centers on a boy shepherd named Lucas who gets caught in a lightning storm, becoming blind as a result of it. He is then taken in by a group of nuns from the local abbey and, after being told about snow (having never seen it before) by the head nun, Sister Theresa, Lucas wishes that he will be able to experience it one day even if he would be unable to see it. Lo and behold, a small Christmas miracle occurs when Lucas is chosen to be an angel in the abbey’s annual Christmas pageant. The standout of this whole special is Angela Lansbury as Sister Theresa. She imparts a sense of love and compassion into the role and also does a really nice cover of Irving Berlin’s ‘White Christmas’. If you’ve never seen this one before, then I highly recommend you do because it’s just as good as the other Rankin-Bass specials. Hopefully it gets more recognition in the next few years.

THE LIFE AND ADVENTURES OF SANTA CLAUS

Finally, we have ‘The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus’, which also serves as the final stop-motion animated special from the company; it was released in 1985. Now, originally I wasn’t going to cover this special in this retrospective (my original intro reflected that as an example of one of the specials I hadn’t seen). But, I finally did see it so I decided to include it as well. Like ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’, this special is an origin story of Santa. However, while ‘Coming to Town’ had a more traditional story, this one has a lot more fantasy elements in it. That makes sense considering that the story for this was originally written by L. Frank Baum, the author of ‘The Wizard of Oz’. In this story, the man who would become Santa is raised by the creatures of the forest of Burzee. The story is told by Ak, the Master Woodsman, who tells the tale to a council of the Creatures of the Forest in hopes that they will grant Claus immortality. I still sort of prefer ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’, but then again this is the first time I’ve seen this one. Still, I found this take on the story very interesting and this special has a whole bunch of unique character and location designs. Overall, this special delivers; like ‘Christmas Snow’, there might be a chance that this one is also rather underrated, although it airs more frequently on TV. Still, if you haven’t seen this one, I recommend checking it out if you’re interesting in seeing a more fantasy-like take on the story of Santa Claus.

And with that, this Rankin-Bass retrospective has come to an end. I wish you all a Very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) review

In 2004, we were introduced to the legend that is Ron Burgundy, the anchorman from San Diego with ‘a voice that could make a wolverine purr and suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo… in other words, Ron Burgundy was the balls’. ‘Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy’ is one of the best comedies from this last decade, mainly because it’s so quotable thanks to both its great cast and its great writing, although in reality most of it was actually improvised. But as for a sequel, that took a while to get going. At one point, Paramount even passed on a proposal for it, and it seemed like the project was officially dead… until now. It may be nine years since the original film came out, but everyone’s favorite news team is now back for ‘Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues’. But can Will Ferrell and Adam McKay deliver a rock-solid follow-up to probably their best film together? After all, as films like ‘Hangover Part II’ and ‘Grown Ups 2’ have proven it’s fairly common for most sequels to hit comedies to be incredibly inferior to their predecessors. However, in the end, ‘Anchorman 2’ manages to be that rare exception. It may not end up being as good as the original, but it comes pretty damn close.

After the events of the first film, Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and his wife, fellow news anchor Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), are enjoying massive success in New York as co-anchors for one of the city’s prestigious news networks. However, things start to change when Ron is fired from his job, while Veronica is promoted to be the first female nightly news co-anchor, due to the fact that, according to famous anchor Mack Tannen (Harrison Ford), he’s one of the worst news anchors ever. This puts Ron in a serious depression for a few months until he is approached to work for a new network, GNN, which is set to be the first 24-hour news network. Ron accepts the job and rallies up the old Channel 4 news team to join him; field reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), and meteorologist Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Together, they hope to capture the former glory that they once had back when they worked in San Diego.

First, let me just say that like the original, this is a very goofy movie. There are plenty of ridiculous moments that occur in this movie that I don’t want to reveal for those who haven’t seen the film yet. If you can accept this film’s very silly tone, then you’ll have a good time with it and I will go on record saying that I did laugh consistently throughout this movie. Sure, as with most comedies, not all of the jokes were bull’s-eyes, but for the most part they worked very well. It doesn’t really feel like a repeat of the first film. Sure, there are certain callbacks to the original but it’s not like this is a note-for-note copy of the previous film. But this film, like the last one, wouldn’t have worked if it wasn’t for the outstanding cast. The returning players, Ferrell, Applegate, Rudd, Carell, and Koechner all fit back into their roles with ease even after nearly a decade and the camaraderie amongst them is top-notch, as it was in the first film. The new members of the cast, including James Marsden as a new rival for Ron and Meagan Good as the manager for GNN who becomes another love interest for Ron, are welcome additions as well.

I’m just going to come out and say it; 2013 has not been a good year for comedies. As of now, my list for the Top 10 worst films of the year includes 5 comedies, which is an unfortunate sign of the declining quality of today’s comedies. Thankfully not all of the comedies this year have been bad. If I were to name the two best comedies of the year so far, in a currently unspecified order, they would be ‘The World’s End’ and this movie. Which one is the best of the year? It’ll take a while for me to figure that out but one thing’s for certain; ‘Anchorman 2’ is one of the best comedy sequels ever, one of the rare films in that group that manages to be almost as good as its predecessor. It may not end up being as funny or quotable as the original, but it is still very funny even though not every joke hits and is just as goofy as its predecessor. It may have been nearly a decade since ‘Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy’ came out, but Ferrell and director Adam McKay succeed at continuing the story, although I think the idea of another film is a little too much.

Rating: 4/5

Saving Mr. Banks (2013) review

It’s interesting to note that, in the years since his death in 1966, there haven’t been any films made that center around or feature Walt Disney. After all, he was the man responsible for some of the greatest animated films of all time and one of the biggest companies in the world is named after him. With credentials like that, it makes you wonder why there hasn’t been any attempt to do something along the lines of a biopic. But with this film, the man behind arguably the world’s most famous mouse finally makes his debut on the big screen, albeit through a portrayal by Tom Hanks instead of Disney himself. But Disney’s not exactly the star of this film. Instead, ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ is the tale of ‘Mary Poppins’ author P.L. Travers and her experiences working with Walt Disney during the production of the iconic film adaptation of the novel starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. It was the film that earned thirteen Oscar nominations and ultimately five wins and is considered to be one of Disney’s best films. However, as this film shows, the production didn’t really go as smooth as one might have expected but with the help of a talented cast and the proper focus, ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ ends up being one of the best films of the year.

In 1961, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) travels to Los Angeles to meet with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) so that they can discuss the development for the film adaptation of her novel, Mary Poppins. Travers, who has script approval rights, is concerned about Disney turning her beloved story into one of his ‘silly’ cartoons, although Walt assures her that he will do her story justice as he made a promise to his daughters years ago that he will make Mary Poppins ‘fly off the pages of the book’. Still, as pre-production begins, Travers remains very skeptical about the project, objecting to pretty much every decision made in bringing the story to the big screen by Walt, co-writer Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman (Richard) and B.J. Novak (Robert)). During this time, Travers also reflects on her childhood, when she was a little girl living in Australia in 1906. More specifically, she remembers her alcoholic but loving father Travers Robert Goff (Colin Farrell), who was her inspiration for the character of Robert Banks in the story.

While the film does take a little while to get going, it offers a very interesting look at the production of what is easily one of the most famous films of all time. Sure, it may have been a big hit both critically and commercially when it came out in 1964, but that doesn’t mean that P.L. Travers was happy about it. In fact, she was so angry about what Disney did to her story that she did not allow any future movies based on her stories to be made. As this film shows, there were multiple things that she was against, like the casting of Dick Van Dyke as Bert or having animation in the film via the dancing penguins. But in the end, most of her objections ended up being overruled by Disney who stated that he had final say. As one might expect from a film like this, it is a little dramatized (that ‘final say’ plot point I just mentioned isn’t in here) but it also allows us to see two well-renowned story tellers try to work together despite the fact that they each have different ideas about how the film should be made. I also like that this film did make Travers the main character instead of Disney himself. Don’t get me wrong, I would really like to see a biopic on Walt, but at its core, this story is about P.L. Travers, which I like especially considering that this is a Disney film. The filmmakers could have just made Walt the main character, but thankfully they decided to focus on Travers more. The scenes of her childhood in Australia are well-done and, at times, are rather heartbreaking (particularly this one scene that I don’t want to spoil that involves Travers and her father).

Emma Thompson is outstanding as Travers, conveying the author’s emotions with both skill and grace; her connection with ‘Mary Poppins’ feels real and you understand her hesitation, as I bet most authors would have whenever Hollywood adapts their stories to the big screen. Tom Hanks is just as excellent here. He may not exactly look like Walt Disney, but he succeeds at embodying the spirit and showmanship that Walt himself was known for. For the record, I know that some of you are wishing that they explore some of the more ‘controversial’ aspects about his life, like his supposed anti-Semitic views, but trust me, you won’t see that here (this is his studio we’re talking about here; I’m pretty sure they would not be too keen on doing something like that. They didn’t even want to show that Walt was a smoker.). The two leads work off each other very well and what’s also great about it is that the movie doesn’t try to dishonor either of them. There is obviously a lot more to this story than what we see in the film, but both of them are portrayed in a positive light. Of course, the rest of the cast is excellent as well; Colin Farrell in particular does some of the best work of his career as Travers’ father, who might be suffering from alcoholism but it’s clear that he really loves his daughter no matter what happens.

‘Saving Mr. Banks’, despite a rather slow opening, is easily one of the best films of the year. The tale of the production of ‘Mary Poppins’ is an interesting one, mainly because of some of the conflicting ideas between P.L. Travers and Walt Disney over how it should be made. But one of the great things about this film is that while it’s clear that these two are very different, both are portrayed in a positive way. I mean, considering that this is Disney, there might have been the possibility that the filmmakers would have just been supportive of Walt the whole way through and try to vilify Travers for not agreeing with his ideas, but thankfully they decided to have the story be about Travers, as it should be. A terrific cast certainly helps this film succeed, particularly from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, both of whom give extremely Oscar-worthy performances. Expect this film to be a key player in this year’s awards season race. I can’t say it’s the best film this year, but it’s extremely enjoyable nevertheless. Fans of the classic movie will no doubt be interested to see how it all came together.

Rating: 4/5

'Family Guy' Rant Part 2 AKA The Return of Brian

(Spoilers!)

Well, a few weeks ago, I expressed quite a bit of angry thoughts over the episode of ‘Family Guy’ called ‘Life of Brian’. It was the episode that was touted as the one that would be killing off one of the main characters of the show ‘permanently’ and, as that episode title suggests, it ended up being Brian, who got hit by a car. Obviously I wasn’t too keen on that decision, not only because Brian was one of the best characters, alongside Stewie, left on the show since it started to suck, but the episode itself was just tasteless. The writers tried to make us forget about him immediately by having the Griffins buy a new dog instead and apparently eliminating any possibility of Brian’s return. As for the new dog Vinny, it may have been only the first episode he was in but I didn’t care; you can’t replace Brian no way no how. On a show filled with insane/over-the-top and, let’s be honest, rather unlikable characters (mainly in recent seasons), he was the sanest character on the show and the most likable alongside Stewie.

Thankfully, I wasn’t the only one who was against this as pretty much every fan of the show was as well. There were numerous petitions filed (I will openly admit that I myself signed one of them) and several fans said that they would be boycotting the show unless Brian was brought back (I too was also one of them; I haven’t been watching the show for about two years but after this episode, I decided to have it stay that way). Two episodes later, during this past weekend’s Christmas-themed episode, ‘Christmas Guy’, fans received the Christmas miracle they were hoping for. After coming across a past version of himself while at the mall, Stewie was able to get a new time machine and traveled back to the precise moment where Brian was hit by the car and pushed him out of the way, effectively saving him from his death. For the record, I just watched the episode and I am glad that Brian is back. Sure, perhaps my initial reactions towards the character Vinny were rather hasty. ‘Sopranos’ alum Tony Sirico did do a good job in the role and while I found the character to be rather annoying at times, his final scene with Stewie (where he accepts the fact that by saving Brian he won’t be the Griffins’ pet anymore) was a pretty touching character moment.

However, that doesn’t change the following fact of how pissed off I still am at the writers for doing this. According to show writer Steve Callaghan, the writers ultimately decided to kill off Brian as, and I quote, “a fun way to shake things up…” I don’t know why they thought this was a good idea because killing a character is not ‘a fun thing’, especially when that character is beloved like Brian is. Again, my problem with this storyline wasn’t that they killed him off. As proven by Joss Whedon shows/movies, it can happen. My problem with it was that the death itself was not handled properly. Also, now I’m left wondering this; was the decision to bring him back from death just part of the writers’ plan in the first place or because we as a fan base were very much against it? I seriously hope that this is the case of the latter scenario, because if it wasn’t, then this would easily have to be one of the worst marketing ploys that I have ever seen. To quote A.V. Club writer Eric Thurm in his review of this episode, “If anything, ‘Christmas Guy’ proves that Family Guy probably doesn’t have a heart except for Stewie and Brian.”, which is something I completely agree with.

Here’s the link to Eric’s review:

(http://www.avclub.com/review/christmas-guy-106514)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) review

In regards to the original ‘Lord of the Rings’ film trilogy, the hardest one to make would have to have been ‘The Two Towers’, basically because it was the ‘middle chapter’ of the story; it didn’t have a proper beginning or end. In fact, when Peter Jackson first pitched his adaptation of the story to Miramax (before the project was picked up by New Line Cinema), it was originally supposed to be two films, which then turned into only one due to budgetary concerns. But overall, ‘The Two Towers’ ended up being my personal favorite of the trilogy. It did manage to work around its ‘middle chapter’ status, it had some incredible action sequences, and it was the film that introduced audiences to Andy Serkis’ incredible interpretation of the creature Gollum (why the Oscars have never recognized Serkis for his work, we’ll never know). But anyway, as Peter Jackson continues the story of ‘The Hobbit’ with the second entry in this trilogy, ‘The Desolation of Smaug’, can Jackson deliver another satisfying ‘middle chapter’ like he did 11 years ago? Or, to be more precise, can this film improve on its predecessor’s major weakness; its pacing?

At the end of ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), and the company of dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) had escaped from both the Goblin tunnels and the pack of Orcs led by the hunter Azog with the help of the Great Eagles. As this film begins, the group continues their journey towards the Lonely Mountain AKA Erebor, the dwarves’ former homeland, in their quest to take back the mountain from the dragon Smaug (portrayed through motion-capture by Benedict Cumberbatch). While on their quest they come by new allies, including the elf warriors Legolas (Orlando Bloom, reprising his role from the ‘LOTR’ trilogy) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), and the archer Bard (Luke Evans), who help them along the way. Meanwhile, Gandalf investigates the hill Dol Guldur, where a mysterious Necromancer (also portrayed by Cumberbatch) could potentially spell doom for Middle-Earth and this string of events ultimately might have something to do with that mysterious ring that Bilbo found back in the Goblin tunnels.

As I’ve said before, the biggest problem of ‘An Unexpected Journey’ was its length and pacing. Yes, it was the film that was supposed to set up the story but as a whole it just felt too long, like we were already watching the Extended Edition of the film when it wasn’t supposed to be (and ironically there is a special Extended Edition now). Then again, this trilogy is based off of a book that is only about 300 pages long compared to ‘The Lord of the Rings’, a trilogy of books that were each at least 400 pages long so they did have to add plenty of stuff in to make it a trilogy (I’ll get into that more in a bit). Thankfully, this film fixes those issues to a certain extent. The film is still very long but the pacing is much faster, allowing us to get more engrossed in the adventure at hand now that the story and its characters been effectively established. Sure, you do still kind of feel the film’s length at times, but not really as much as the previous film. This one is far more exciting with a far greater scale.

However, perhaps the film is… too big. Again, this is going back to the whole idea of making a trilogy out of such little material to work with. So in order to deal with this situation, Jackson and the writers add in plenty of new characters, some of which were not in the book (like Legolas) and one of whom, Tauriel, is a completely original character. It is sort of like the previous trilogy in that there is a whole boatload of characters in this film, so much so that admittedly they start to overtake the movie. In fact, for a movie that is titled ‘The Hobbit’, the actual Hobbit himself, Bilbo, sort of becomes a minor character in fact for most of the movie. Not only are there starting to be far too many characters, there is perhaps too much going on in this film. For the record, I’m not saying that’s entirely a bad thing because it allows the film to have much better pacing than its predecessor, but that also means the film doesn’t really stop that much in the whole span of its 160+ minute runtime… and I must add, this film kind of ends rather abruptly. Still, considering all that goes on in this film, that was probably the best place they could’ve reasonably ended it at.

Like the last film, the acting is very good from all who are involved. The returning cast from the previous film (including Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, and the others who make up the company of dwarves) are excellent once again and the new additions for this film like Evangeline Lilly and Luke Evans are welcome additions as well. While his character may not have been in the book, the return of Legolas to the story is nice and I think Orlando Bloom has gotten a bit of a bad rep as far as these movies are concerned. He was perfectly cast in the role in the original trilogy and while he is sort of overshadowed by his fellow cast members in both trilogies, he still does a very good job in the role. The same can be said for Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel, who’s given a pretty good dose of character development, especially when considering that she’s an original character.

But then you have one of the most standout aspects of the entire film; the dragon Smaug. Not only is this dragon incredibly menacing and well-designed, but then you have the character portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, who is excellent as always. I’m impressed with how they were able to do a motion capture performance for a dragon, which is something that I did not think was even possible considering how most of the characters created through motion-capture are mostly human in form (e.g. pretty much character Middle-Earth alum Andy Serkis plays). There are quite a few times throughout this movie where you can certainly see Cumberbatch’s facial features in Smaug’s design, and you really have to hand it to the effects team for creating one of the best dragons ever to be put on film. Like the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ scene from the last film with Gollum, the scenes involving him are the best scenes in this movie, whether they’re just with Bilbo or with both Bilbo and the dwarves.

‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’ is a major improvement over its predecessor; a film which, for the record, I did like save for the fact that it was a bit too long. This film might be as long, but it does fix the pacing problem that plagued ‘An Unexpected Journey’. On the other hand, I’m now kind of worried that this trilogy is going a bit too far in terms of the number of characters/plotlines/action sequences that occur in this film. In fact, I’d argue that there’s enough in this movie that there could have actually been another whole movie considering how much is going on in this film. Still, this is another fine entry in Peter Jackson’s Middle-Earth film series as was the last film. Sure, they’re not really as good as the trilogy of films that came before them, but at the very least it’s just nice to be back in Middle-Earth. I eagerly await (though with some caution) to see how this series will come to an end next December with ‘The Hobbit: There and Back Again’.

Rating: 4.5/5