Frozen Review

Don't you hate when people hype things up? It almost always ruins whatever it is they're talking about for you. Like yeah, I know, Avatar wasreally cool in 3-D, and yes, Breaking Bad is the single greatest TV show of all time with impeccably-cast actors, heart-wrenching suspense, masterful pacing and dialogue and the best anti-hero/redemption story you've ever followed... WE GET IT.

Anyway, when I first heard of Frozen, I was extremely disinterested. Just seemed like another Disney movie. Then I saw the trailer, and I think it was the first time in the history of my cinematic endeavors when I was actually dissuaded even more by the trailer to see the movie. Up until its release, I thought the movie was about a mismatched, adventurous cutesy-Disney pair reluctantly working together to bring about the demise of the evil ice queen and save the kingdom while laughing at the hilarious antics of a reindeer and a talking snowman.

And I was right, except for the part about "evil" and "hilarious."

In case you were too busy seeking asylum in South America or fiddling around with the Obamacare website, Frozen is the latest flick from Walt Disney Animation Studios (NOT PIXAR for the billionth time) that favors CGI like Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph in lieu of traditional BORING 2-D animation like those stupid Snow White and Aladdin movies. What were they thinking, am I right?

But because children can't sit still for more than 12 seconds, we are constantly forced to trade in the values of interesting dialogue and diversified characters for 3-D, IMAX, CGI and other very short phrases that we, as adults, have to resort to (because we, as adults, also cannot sit still for more than 12 seconds).

I gave Frozen a chance because it was just a little ridiculous how much publicity it was getting, from being rated a 'Certified Fresh' 89% on Rotten Tomatoes to all of Facebook throwing riots if someone spoke ill of it.

I now understand why it received so much hype, and it upsets me. Because we've come to a point where children and adults have massive ADD/ADHD, most people are starting to catch on to the "save the princess" scenario that so many Disney movies utilize. Frozen's plot is less orthodox because it doesn't have a traditional "villain." The antagonist here is simply Elsa's inability to control her frosty powers.

Here's a basic outline of the plot:

1. Elsa and Anna are sisters who live in a castle.

2. Elsa has the power to control ice and snow, which progressively becomes more and more uncontrollable.

3. Elsa accidentally injures her sister, so her parents exploit the powers of trolls to erase Anna's memories and lock Elsa up in a room because that's what good parents do.

4. PLOT TWIST: The parents die. Very abruptly.

5. Anna and Elsa live on their lives being separated and Anna doesn't know why. Elsa, being the older sister, inherits the kingdom when she becomes an adult but doesn't want her subjects to know she's actually a member of the X-Men for fear of being labeled a monster, but things happen and everyone finds out about it and she runs away because the villagers basically go all Frankenstein on her so she sings a dramatic song and builds herself a pointy igloo to live out the rest of her days. LITTLE DOES SHE KNOW THAT THE KINGDOM IS NOW IN AN ETERNAL BLIZZARD, so even by running away, she's constantly fucking up. Elsa fucks up a lot in Frozen. Anna wants to help her and rekindle their sisterhood, so she chases after her and meets a guy and a reindeer and a talking snowman...

That's basically what you need to know. If it's a Disney movie that doesn't take place in modern times, you can bet it'll have a castle, dead/abandoning parents, talking animals/inanimate objects, and a villain that the heroes constantly run away from... oh wait, THAT'S what's different. No villain. The story revolves around the trek Anna and Kristof (the ice-miner, no, really) have to make to get to Elsa so they can stop the Winter from freezing everyone to death and ruining Kristof's business. Of selling ice.

Not all stories need a villain, and considering Disney is usually infamous for its witches and hunters enslaving humanity and killing things for no particular reason, this is a step in the right direction for their upcoming projects. I'm excited to finally not be able to call every single plot point (except for one big one that I don't want to spoil if you haven't seen it). The animation is also mind-blowing, save for some gimmicky "LOOK AT HOW 3-D THIS IS" moments. Particularly, the scene where Elsa is building her castle and absolutely slaying 90% of female vocalists in the world is such a wondrous and beautifully rendered few minutes that I simply could not look away. Her powers are also significant to the plot, so making them look incredible was a necessity, versus let's say Brave where Merida's hair jiggles more than other characters' hair jiggles.

The voice acting by Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell is perfect as are the rest of their songs; they're all very well-written and performed with excellent charisma and chemistry. Which is good, because they're the only two characters you end up caring about. Which, in turn, brings me to Olaf...

I'm all for comedic relief in a movie, but when you have a character that literally adds nothing to the plot and is just there to pander to the 5 year olds high on cotton candy, I have a problem. Yes he's cute and the slapstick is funny when you still think eating boogers is funny, but it dumbs down the rest of the movie to such a pitiful level that his moments were hard to watch. He has his own song, and there are moments where he is given considerable screen-time for very little payoff. I really detest when characters are inserted into a plot for either a deus-ex machina, a MacGuffin or comic relief when they don't offer anything else to the story. Frozen could've stood on its own without Olaf, and it already had the adorable antics of a mute reindeer to hold the kids over on the physical comedy front.

This following paragraphs contains a couple of big spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie yet, skip it:

Then of course, a villain is revealed about four-fifths of the way through, because we can't have a movie that strays from the conventional AFTER ALL. A minor character introduced at the beginning turns out to have ulterior motives for his actions with Anna and it is revealed that he wants to kill Anna and Elsa and take over the kingdom for himself, lying that he and Anna get married. Despite having a few opportune chances to kill two princesses with one stone, he doesn't. Why? WELL HE HAS TO EXPLAIN HIS MISCHIEVOUS EVIL PLOT FIRST! I don't know if Disney thinks we're all too stupid to put a puzzle together, considering there's only a handful of pieces to it and it's just one solid color, but the hackneyed "explain my plan" thing has been beaten dead for years now, so much so that it's a huge part of Disney's Phineas & Ferb show. Do you understand? Disney makes fun of doing this in virtually every episode of one of its most popular TV series, but does it in the movie anyway. It's revealed when the only way to save Anna's life, after things happen, is for her to experience an act of "true love." Since keeping the PG-rating meant cutting the incestuous, bestial orgy scene originally intended, they had Anna try to kiss her would-be fiancee only for him to pull a slick "JUST KIDDING" and tell her he just wanted to bang her to inherit the royalty. And you thought all Disney princesses were sweet and 1-dimensional, huh?

Also, the villagers turn on Elsa once they discover her mutant powers without even giving her a slight chance to prove herself capable of running the kingdom. Elsa is also the only character seen or mentioned to have any sort of affinity for sorcery, and the origin of her powers is never touched upon at all. All the other characters react negatively without, seemingly, ever having seen or heard about such things before. Once everything is settled, the villagers act like nothing happened and love her again, just be-fucking-cause.

At the end, Anna almost dies trying to save Elsa from being killed as she is frozen solid for eternity. This happens because Anna gets hit by a powerful ice blast earlier in the movie and it slowly freezes her heart. As is heard exactly 2,005,432 times after this, "Only an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart." Elsa has a bitch-fit about her sister being killed (god she's so dramatic) and gives her corpse one last hug, which in turn unfreezes Anna because it's an act of true love. This teaches Elsa that the only way to control her powers, apparently, is to let others in and accept herself and everyone around her for who they are. This makes no sense because if that really were the cure for her uncontrollable powers, she would've never had the issue to begin with because of her closeness with Anna and their parents when she was younger. At that point, the villain (and his fucking ARMY, by the way) has a chance to kill Elsa, but chooses not to because... dramatic pauses are crucial, I guess.

SPOILER over, continue on:

This movie would've gotten a high recommendation from me had it axed Olaf completely, done away with the 'big twist/reveal' towards the end, hadn't felt the need to repeat and explain certain points and cut the gimmicky 3-D portions. Perhaps the hype killed it for me and I felt the need to extract the most negative aspects of it, but I don't think my opinion would have been skewed either way. Frozen is still good and a step in the right direction for where Disney movies should be going, but it's one small step where it could've been a big leap.

The Good:
+Excellent voice acting and singing
+Incredibly animated and rendered
+Likable lead characters
+Unconventional for a Disney film

The Bad:
-Olaf.
-The "villain" and stupid plot twist
-Nonsensical ending
-Too much exposition
-The parents die for seemingly no reason and we are forced to watch the short scene where they die, very abruptly

6.0/10

Heart Not Thawed,
Kyle
PS. As with any opinionated article I post, I'm always open for discussion =)

PPS. If your argument is that “it’s a kid’s movie” and therefore shouldn’t be criticized or observed any deeper than face value, you have a very twisted mentality. There are plenty of “kids’ movies” that are great and don’t need to pander to the ADD in our youth to be so (like most Pixar films, How To Train Your Dragon, Howl’s Moving Castle, etc.). If this movie won an Academy Award, OR had I reviewed it more favorably, you probably wouldn’t have said anything like that, but your argument should still stand because whether I review it positively or negatively, I’m looking deeper into the film and criticizing it. This sort of argument would have to negate practically any film that’s rated under PG-13 for consideration of review in virtually any medium for it to work.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

I finally watched the fourth installment of the preposterously lucrative and popular "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, entitled, with barely a breath to spare, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." They should have divided it up into parts just to be a little extra ridiculous, and acknowledged which installment. Imagine: "Pirates of the Caribbean Four: On Stranger Tides: Part 1: The Fountain of Youth." 


But no, seriously, Pirates 4 (much easier) is not very good. Or "good" for that matter. In a nutshell, Pirates 4 mirrors the last film in many ways: the special effects still dazzle, explosions abound and astound, sword-fights are exquisitely heart-pounding, and there is a lot of water. Unfortunately, most of the cons have carried over as well: needlessly overwrought dialogue, an overly ambitious plot, a weak script with weaker performances, and new characters we could care less about. Perhaps the most glaring failure of this installment as well as its predecessor is how tiresome [Captain] Jack Sparrow has gotten over the years.


As far as I know, most people will concede that the first "Pirates" film is still the best. Of course, when confronted with the ever-astounding "Why is that so?" I'll probably get a blank stare and an explanation not unlike "because it's the original. Duh."


Albeit, most franchises tend to hold the first installment most prominently - the shiny trophy that everyone still holds the standard to. Yet there are plenty of trilogies and what-have-you that improved with time, and even if this weren't true, this doesn't mean that just because something came first, it is automatically better. How many parents consider their oldest child their most sacred? Practically none. And don't even get me started on middle-children.


It's usually the "only" children who get the best treatment. They don't have to comprise quantity for quality or vice-versa because they get A LOT of AWESOME things. Thus, while I certainly have enjoyed all the Pirates films up to this point, even "On Stranger Tides," not only do I vastly prefer the original but I think it should have been left alone.


Leave it to our industry to milk one good thing for all its worth, though. I'm looking at "The Hangover 2" or "Part 2" or "The Same Movie You Saw 2 Years Ago but in Asia." Okay, I haven't seen it, but that's what I'm expecting and that's probably what I (i.e. we) will get.


But you're not reading this because you want to hear me moan about a movie that hasn't come out yet! No! You're probably here because I guilt tripped you into reading and "liking" this because I fear no one cares about my opinion! And also to (maybe) hear more about Pirates 4.


Everything I've just said applies to the new "Pirates" so far, though. It's giving us more of what we want... it's not giving us pirates and the open sea and the hilarious antics of a monkey; it's giving us Captain Jack Sparrow. Realistically, the film might as well be called "Pirate of the Caribbean." Throughout the years, I've still held Captain Hector Barbossa as the best character and the scene-stealer, from the beginning up to now. In the first film, Sparrow and Barbossa were about on equal footing, but due to my instinctive need to be "different," I gave Barbossa the upper-hand. And I've proudly stood my ground. Jack Sparrow (oh, sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow, because that joke hasn't gotten old) has just lost his touch. He chimes in with a witty one-liner here and there, and Depp's acting is impeccable, but those are his best characteristics. In the original Pirates, top billing went to Bloom and Knightley before Depp. Of course, Sparrow is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than "Will Turner" and "Elizabeth Swan" in almost every respect, but using him as a secondary character worked tremendously better than putting his face on EVERYTHING and up-selling it. 


But that's Disney, isn't it? They've become so successful because they know how to milk. If the Disney corporation was a farmer's company, we would be drinking milk out of our faucets. And speaking of milk, that's what I'm comparing Jack Sparrow to. A lot of people love him! Some think he's gross. Others just don't care or can't really get into him (probably due to a medical condition). But he's only great for so long and in spurts; you leave him around for a whopping EIGHT years, he's going to grow gross and he'll need to be thrown away. At that point, the only people that will like him are the same who prefer chunky moldy milk.. you know, the weird people.


Alright, no offense to the Jack Sparrow devotees. I still like him and, as stated before, Depp's performance is brilliant. There's only so many times he can stumble around in an effeminate matter, get a close up on his gold teeth, and make fun of anyone and everyone he can. That got pretty old in the second film, let alone the third and fourth. But nothing "piratey" is going to sell unless Depp's mug is all over it, so what else can you expect?


Also stated above, all the effects and blockbuster elements are there and just as good as ever, despite lacking a whirlpool vortex of doom. The action sequences are all directed superbly, though the film delved into camp territory with the whole mermaid sequence. Also, I'm sure plenty of people were excited for the idea of "zombies" in Pirates 4, but they're not there. I mean, they are, but nary a zombie-related concept is referenced. They serve as loyal, super-strong subordinates of Captain Blackbeard, and that's it. I think there is a scene where someone stabs one of the zombies through the heart, and then the zombie doesn't die. Awesome.


Speaking of Captain Blackbeard, what the f***? Here's a list of what Captain Blackbeard can, allegedly, do with his mystical sword of God:

-Shrink objects
-Create weather
-Telekinetically control inanimate objects
-Raise people from the dead (and then give them the power of super strength and receive eternal loyalty)
-Voodoo
-Probably something else that I forgot

A good argument, one that I uphold, against most of my grievances is the simple "It's a movie, get over it!" Alas, everything in a film has to go together and be consistent. So while the "Kraken" hasn't been proven to exist and Tia Dalma can summon thunderstorms and grow into the 50-foot woman at will, excuse me for being taken aback when Blackbeard can f***ing control things with his mind. If he had a white beard, people would have thought this was a Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings/Pirates crossover, except not knowing who was who. Blackbeard was never referenced before this (much less his superpowers), so yes, it's shoddy writing when that's how they pose him as a threat. These powers don't even help him accomplish anything! Each of these magical abilities are exposed once, then forgotten. So who cares if he's psychic? Barbossa and Davy Jones were way more iconic and they didn't resort to raising the dead to do it. Sure, knock them for being supernatural since one was a REAL zombie and the other was a fishman, but these were both concepts that were referenced and kept consistent throughout the films. The world of Pirates of the Caribbean, despite being far from "realistic," has mostly posed plausible situations (at least within its own territory). I don't think any pirates escaped being hung or shot in the manner (or as many times) as Jack Sparrow has, but at least he didn't just summon a cloud that took him away as it rained fire on his enemies. No, he (more or less) cleverly utilizes his surroundings to his advantage to flee from his pursuers, only using lethal violence as a last resort. He's kind of like Batman. Batman is awesome. So is Jack Sparrow (when he's doing stunts).


His main nemesis in the film? Everyone, I guess, but his main-main nemesis is Blackbeard. It's beyond me why Blackbeard even has a sword when he can control ropes with his mind to hang a dozen people or just shrink them to the size of a shilling and the squash them. Or, better yet, why didn't he just kill everyone and then raise them from the dead? He would have an unbeatable army of pirates who obey ONLY HIM. If Sparrow is like Batman (who is awesome), then Blackbeard is like an evil Superman (who is overpowered and awful).


And just because every movie ever released absolutely has to have a romantic sub-plot (which, if you read any of my other reviews like a real friend, you'd know I hate), you have two to tango with: Jack with Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and some mermaid who was named, like a newly bought puppy, "Syrena" with a crazy religious fellow named Philip (Astrid Frisbey and Sam Claflin, respectively). I find it peculiar and a bit funny that Philip is heavily referenced as being a man of God, always donning a bible and talking about saving one's soul and whatnot, but the guy gets stabbed twice, is tied to the mast of a ship for a veiled amount of time, and is even patronized for his beliefs. Realistically, though, he is the only "good" character with the only "good" morals and objectives. I was always a fan of Sparrow's ever-ambiguous side-taking, but in the end he's just selfish and trusts no one. Despite never really liking Swan or Turner from the older films, their innocence and naiveness were charming and complimented Sparrow's performance and hilarious lines, usually at their expense. If you've seen the last three films, you'll know it's bad when you start to miss Swan and Turner.  Every other character is virtually the same, with the small exception of Angelica, but even she double-crosses a few times. 


And she's a pirate so by default she's going to hell. But back to Syrena and Philip, their ..."relationship" is severely underplayed. Philip apparently loves her, but with no justification. She's a bone-munching version of "The Little Mermaid," and even Ariel was a thief and an idiot. In the end, he falls for her for her looks... which, coming from a morally positive man of the Lord, is a pretty shallow reason to fall in love with someone. And a stupid one, at that, considering that's their feature that kills people. They lure men with their angelic beauty, and then eat them. That's like if you became infatuated with Freddy Kreuger because he's the man of your dreams. So why would you trust her, Philip? I'm still convinced she killed and ate him at the end, for the record. 


You know what, though? None of my words matter. None of the words of any critic or any person in the world will matter. If you've seen the last three films, you will most likely be watching this one for the shameless popcorn-movie that it is. Several instances of the film make absolutely no sense (both physically and psychologically), none of the characters are interesting, certain questionable elements (like a certain accident that has befallen Barbossa) are flat-out explained to the audience like an end-user license agreement, Sparrow's funniest moments aren't in this film, and it just feels rushed and haphazardly thrown together. I totally approve of another installment of the "Pirates" franchise, but I sincerely wish they downplayed Sparrow a bit, had a more interesting and well-developed story, more interesting characters (Blackbeard is hardly a villain, especially compared to Davy Jones) and made it less than two hours. I enjoyed the film, mainly by pretending I was a 5 year old boy who was permitted to watch a "big boy" movie by my mom, but upon realizing I have quadrupled in age since then, I also realized my intelligence and dignity have as well.


...Even if I still threw $8.50 at Disney for this movie. But I did it angrily.


4.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Summer Threeview!

Okay, you're asking yourself (if you're reading this) "What the f!$& is a 'Summer Threeview?"

Well, loyal and/or not-so-loyal reader, let me tell you! "Threeview" refers to the fact that Summer is 1/3 of the way over! So, I've picked my top 3 movies of the Summer so far as well as the top 3 movies I can't wait to see.

So, let us begin with the top 3 movies of Summer so far:

3.The Hangover
Yes, the story of a bachelor's party gone terribly awry due to alcohol actually garners my respect. In fact, its my favorite comedy of the year thus far. Why? Because The Hangover isn't an insult to the American lifestyle and traditions we hold unlike most movies of the same genre/style. Actually, it kind of is, but more than an insult its a tease and a commemoration of just how ridiculous the antics of our society really are. It's not a stupid movie; if you can fathom this, its a dumb movie done intelligently. The Hangover is hysterical, continuously comedic, and entertaining through and through. There's tigers, Mike Tyson, a baby, Andy from The Office, a metrosexual Asian mafia leader, and plenty of nudity. And hey, if you liked Old School or American Pie, you're gonna love The Hangover. If you didn't like either of those, you're STILL gonna love The Hangover because its better.




2. Up
Of course, how could someone not include a Disney-Pixar feature when they're talking about their favorite movies? Besides Dreamworks at least...copycats. Just kiddin, Dreamworks, we loved Shrek! And Shrek 2!.......Just the first two..take a hint.

Anyway, Up is a fantastically imaginative story that is whimsical as it is mature. Kids will love it, Adults will love it, and everyone in between will love it. It's just one of those lovable movies from almost every aspect, and Up is certainly no let-down from Pixar. Where kiddish movies like Night at the Museum and Land of the Lost weren't so hot in the "That movie was really good!" department, Up is just the type of film to take kids to...over and over again. I mean, c'mon, what's not to love about a cute and grumpy old man, a clutzy asian Boy Scout, a talking dog, and a peacock/emu/dodo bird hybrid called a "Snipe" who can say more without even making a noise than most can do with an entire speech.


1. Star Trek
You probably saw this coming...as far as Summer blockbusters go, Star Trek is that money-hording thrill ride everyone wants. But wait, there's more! It's not bad! Sure, everyone loves comic book movies or Transformers, but not all of these films really live up to the hype. They're flashy, dazzling, and have that nuance of nostalgia we all crave, but in hindsight, they were just "okay" in the sense of a well-rounded movie. But Star Trek takes the cake from the gimmick bakery and and boldly goes...well you know. A fantastic cast, expert direction, and a witty and bombastic script combine to form what is, ultimately, the perfect movie experience. You leave content and have your expectations shattered into zillions of pieces. Its that movie you recommend to all your friends...and for many, it was a surprise hit (due to the "Trekky" fanbase that seem to be the only ones to actually get excitement when an announcement like this is made). So kudos, Sir Abrams. May your sequels live long and prosper.



Intermission!

Just kidding...unless you actually left this article and did something else for a few minutes before reading on. In that case, in all seriousness. Here we are to my, personal, top 3 contenders for most anticipated Summer movie of 2009 as of June 8! Let it begin!


3. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
G.I. Joe. If you were a kid in the 80's or 90's, just hearing that name gets you inappropriately aroused. So when Paramount Pictures announced an official G.I. Joe movie, well, you can imagine the reaction. All those secret agents, ninjas, robots, mech suits, jet planes, guns, superpowers, terrorists, and weapons of mass destruction are back in superior special effects for its Summer blockbuster debut. Why am I excited? I'll admit, I was never the biggest fan of G.I. Joe...but, I did love the toys and watched the cartoon here and there. Its just one of those childhood remembrances that I can't get rid of, so I'm just naturally ecstatic. But what gets me more is the action packed trailer. Now, if that trailer just doesn't scream "COOL" right at your face for all two minutes, then I seem to have forgotten what "cool" is. As an actual all-around cinematic feature, we'll see if it has what it takes. But as a Summer blockbuster filled with combustible everything from start to finish, its looking to keep me on the edge of my seat through and through (due to fear of an ejection seat going haywire).

2. Public Enemies

Well, this entry isn't so much a Summer blockbuster as it is just a Johnny Depp declaration of "Aww shi*." The man is back as the main baddie/goodie in Public Enemies, the story of John Dillinger. If that poster doesn't already pull you in, check out the trailer. And if THAT doesn't make you want to see it immediately, well then go watch a movie about a forbidden romance between two star-crossed lovers that takes place during the Renaissance or something. Michael Mann looks to be the Man in this feature which he directs. On top of the in-your-face badass style which Public Enemies seems to be heading towards, the soundtrack is engaging and enthralling, or so it seems. This is the kind of movie I'm going to walk out of pretending to shoot up the theater with the justification that the other patrons just "don't understand me." Don't worry, it makes sense. If you love crime dramas, gangster, and/or Johnny Depp, get ready to get your ass kicked on July 1, 2009. (No androgynous drunk pirates were harmed in the making of this film).

1. Inglourious Basterds
Okay okay, so I'm a bit of a Quentin Tarantino fanboy. But, can you blame me? Tarantino stands tall amongst today's directors as one of the best and most beloved. Unfortunately, he likes to have a decent hiatus between his films, usually between 2-3 years. So finally, after a 2 year hiatus after Death Proof, Tarantino returns in his violent and overblown form with a story of Nazi annihilation. Yes, its a World War II story directed by Quentin Tarantino. I'm not quite sure I have the words to describe how perfectly suited he is for such a role. The trailer shows Brad Pitt simply being a badass and ordering the acquisition of 100 Nazi scalps...and he wants his scalps. This trailer shows that Tarantino isn't messing around and this is meant to be one of his masterpieces to show off from his repertoir. What else could be a more perfect end to Summer than a movie about collecting Nazi scalps in France? A movie about collecting Nazi scalps in France directed by Quentin Tarantino and starring Brad Pitt and Ryan from The Office...yes, really.


Aaaaaand there you have it! Kyle Shelton's Summer Threeview! Now, I know a lot of you are probably all ancy because I didn't include X-Men in my favorite films nor did I include Transformers 2 or Harry Potter in my anticipation part...well, I love X-Men, but more like that family member that gives you presents every year and you'd be sad if he/she died but you're not exactly psyched to go see when mom and dad decide its their house's turn for Thanksgiving this year...

Long analogies aside, X-Men was great but didn't hold up to the first 2 X-Men films nor the the overall comic book counterpart of a storyline. As for Transformers, I'm going to go see it, as is 99% of the United States' population, but if I didn't, I really wouldn't be that disappointed. I only liked the first Transformers, and the trailer for this second one really hasn't gotten me in a twisted bundle like the other films I mentioned. In fact, I'm more stoked to see "Funny People" than Transformers 2, but I'm still excited. What can you hate about giant robots beating the bejesus out of eachother, right?

And Harry Potter...well, I haven't finished all your films, and I've only completely read 2 of your books. The movie certainly looks promising, but considering its an adaptation of a craze I never got too into, I'll let it slide as just a mild intrigue rather than full-fledged midnight premiere-worthy fiasco.

The Princess and the Frog Preview

Lately, Disney is pretty neutral on the "love it" or "hate it" scale amongst most people. Kids love it. Adults...not so much. Most of this conflict is due to the Disney Channel's rather mediocre quality of shows and movies (I'm lookin' at you, Hannah Montana), versus the fantastic masterpieces that Disney cranks out on the big screen alongside Pixar. From Toy Story to Up, they've all been high enjoyable and held in the most prestigious regards of cinema in general. But, just when it seems Disney is evolving into a new age, they harken back to their haydays with their newest old-school animated installment, "The Princess and the Frog."

You can watch the trailer here.

Basically, it takes the story of the age-old princess kissing the cursed prince who's been turned into a frog so that he returns to human form and they live happily ever after formula and spins it with the teaser: "No one knows what happened after the kiss."

It's reversed!

The princess turns into a frog and hilarity ensues.

But here's the biggest feature of this film: will this princess hold up to the standards of all the other Disney princesses? Can Tiana be as lovably radiant as the likes of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Arielle, or Jasmine? And another kicker...she's Disney's first black princess. Taking place in the French Quarter of New Orleans, this promises to be an original and stylistic approach to the hackneyed story we've all heard, AND its presented in the same old school musical fashion as The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and The Little Mermaid.

Alas! Disney is doing a throwback...and personally, I think it has what it takes. Then again, I did just go to Disney World for the weekend and I had my flame for Disney rekindled after watching the parades and fireworks, but nonetheless, this looks to be a fairly interesting concept that we'll anxiously await for around Christmas time. Not too mention the writers and directors of Aladdin, Hercules, and The Little Mermaid will be heading the project (Ron Clements and John Musker).

Even the villain is different...although not all that different. He's a witch doctor who, apparently, follows the magical villainous vein of someone like Maleficent (with the whole curse thing). And there's even a trumpet-playing alligator...so really, where can this go wrong? Disney's not one to screw things up (unless they're gimmicky) but "The Princess and the Frog" seems to be heading in the right direction considering there's no gimmicky attraction applied to it yet. Its all old-school flare, and it'll be a serious disappointment if it fails to impress. Realistically, its head to head against Disney's recent repertoir like Wall-E or Finding Nemo, and it's in that lullish limbo between Up and Pixar's next humongous endeavor, Toy Story 3. Then again, it's also during holiday season, so its sure to rack up numbers at the box office.

Until then, though, we're left with a very intriguing and nostalgic trailer and a little backstory. Its definitely a contender on my list of most anticipated of 2009, so Disney, don't break my heart.

Up Review: Up Skyrockets

Disney-Pixar seems to crank out the best of the best animated movies nearly every year. In fact, from Toy Story to Wall-E, critics and audiences alike have praised the studios for their beautiful, insightful, comedic, imaginative, and nearly flawless works. Their newest outing, Up, just arrived, but does it have enough helium to rise up to the ranks of their previous works?

It rises beyond most, if not at least floating amongst them.

Up is the story of an old man named Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner) who wants nothing more than to fly to Pardise Falls in South America and live out the rest of his life. As time passes, his surroundings slowly become commercialized, and his house is the only suburban domestication left in a construction site smack-dab in the middle of business buildings. Threatening to impound his home for the land, Carl has no choice but to leave and join the community at the Shady Oaks retirement home. The day of his retrieval, however, he ties an enormous bundle of balloons to his chimney, fills them all up with helium, and flies away to finally achieve his goal. Accompanying him is a little boy scout named Russell (Jordan Nagai) who was on his porch at the time of his lift-off. Thus, an adventure ensues, where Russell and Carl develop a bond and befriend a talking K-9 companion named Dug (Bob Peterson) and a strange, rare bird whom Russell affectionately names Kevin.

Up follows the near-same story structure that most fantasy yarns, especially Disney ones, follow. There is a villain, it has some relatively mature overtones, and it has a special message to give out. The lesson of "following your dreams" is omnipresent throughout the movie, but not in an overbearing way. In fact, Up is quite possibly one of the most heartwarming films you could ever see in your entire life. It touches on so many emotional levels that are so difficult to emanate from a cartoon, yet Pixar figures it out year after year. Guaranteed, you'll at least tear up a little bit at certain parts, be immediately thrust into the middle of every suspenseful action sequence, and be filled with warmth and joy at any conflict resolution. This is where Up and its predecessors all shine; they truly evoke passion from anyone including the youngest of toddlers to the oldest of adults.

However, while Up is certainly a fantastic visual experience as well as an enthralling adventure, it suffers from one thing: redundancy. Maybe not so much within the film itself, but after a while, you realize that Up is not much different than almost any other cliche-ridden feature. The story itself is bold and original, that being about a flying house that travels to another continent...but when you mix in the all-too-obvious friendships that begin, the shallowly touched-on love story, and a villain as 2-dimensional as any other, Up begins to feel like you've been there and done that all too many times. For a younger audience, Up is sure to be perfect in their eyes, making them laugh and excited throughout the entire film. For an older audience, especially one who follows the success of Pixar so closely over the years, Up ultimately feels like its a filler squished between the masterpiece of Wall-E and the long-awaited sequel Toy Story 3.

At the same time, this is what we've come to expect from animated children's movies, especially born of Disney caliber. Up is certainly original, even in its storytelling (which explains the old man's grumpiness before the real story sets it rather than having a half-way epiphany about his life), but in the end, feels kind of the same. This, by no means, renders Up as any less of a beautifully written, directed, and animated feature film for any audience to enjoy. Just be aware that you may leave feeling a little less blown away than the first time you saw Toy Story, Finding Nemo, or Wall-E, but also be aware that you're still going to be blown up, up, and away.

8.5/10

-Kyle Shelton