Monsters (2010) - 6 stars out of 10

Monsters (2010) - 6 stars out of 10

"Monsters" is an alien film that is more about people than it is about aliens.  The film is set against a backdrop of enormous alien beings that inhabit an "infected zone" on the border or Mexico and America, but the focus of the story is the developing relationship between two survivors as they journey to the American border.  There are a few moments of intense alien attacks but the majority of the film is conversational in nature.  The acting of Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able is decent but the unique setting is the real draw for this film.  There is something compelling about this abnormal-yet-not-quite-post-apocalyptic world in Mexico.  The imagery of gas masks, warheads, and giant squid-like aliens is contrasted by the typical lifestyle that the residents of Mexico live as they accept the threat as a part of their reality.  The unanswered questions regarding the aliens are definitely more compelling than the actual plot.  Also, the ending created some compelling questions to be answered by a sequel but Rotten Tomatoes tells me that the sequel missed its mark and is not worth wasting your time.  There are better alien movies and better dramas than “Monsters,” but this film is worth seeing for its creepy imagery and presentation of a world where humans attempt to live with inevitable alien attacks.

[Pictured: The giant alien monster carcasses laying on top of buildings are a bit unnerving]

We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story - 2 stars out of 10

We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story - 2 stars out of 10

If I mention an animated Steven Spielberg film about dinosaurs, what is the first thing to come to your mind?  I doubt that it is “We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story.”  This is just another cheap attempt to get a piece of Disney’s success during the Renaissance.  How did Spielberg get sucked into this one?  It has plenty of big names, a score by James Horner, and a song performed by Little Richard, but the entire thing is painfully cheesy and trite.  When you consider that this film hit theaters between Disney’s releases of “Aladdin” and “The Lion King,” it emphasizes its lack of quality in an era of critically acclaimed animation.  Even better: this film was released the same year as “Jurassic Park”!  Was it meant to be a companion piece to Spielberg’s box-office shattering dinosaur thriller?  This is probably the first time that one studio managed to create a box-office smash AND a box-office bomb about dinosaurs in the same year.  The main issue is the film’s shallow story.  The sight gags, stereotypical 90’s children, and simplistic plot probably appeals to kids but leaves the adults feeling like they were conned into watching something that is (frankly) stupid.  The concept of running away to join the circus was popular in the early 20th century but seems awkward in a 90’s setting where kids enjoy technology and skateboarding.  Not to mention the inevitable disappointment when any young viewer expects to see living dinosaurs at the Museum of Natural History.  They tried to make up for the plot with big names like John Goodman (good choice, good man), Martin Short (but as a dimwitted clown with strong convictions?), Jay Leno (an awkward choice for an animated film), Julia Child (also awkward), Kenneth Mars (King Trident, stolen from Disney), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, also stolen from Disney), and Walter Cronkite.  Even with a great plot, this random group of actors (and news journalists?!?!?) would have struggled to build chemistry.  The entire film feels disjointed, pointless, and lacks the heart of Disney’s animated output.  But it has a Ferris Bueller-proportioned parade, so there’s that.  “We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story” is able to hold the attention of young kids and make them terrified of the circus, but certainly not a film that will please the entire family.  If you are really craving an animated Steven Spielberg film about dinosaurs, stick with “The Land Before Time.”

[Pictured: Cute cartoon dinosaurs running around New York City: so much potential, so much disappointment]

The Core (2003) - 4 stars out of 10

The Core (2003) - 4 stars out of 10

“The Core” is an average science fiction movie.  Emphasis on the fiction.  I really enjoyed the concept and feel that it is strongly acted, but these positive attributes are offset by the far-fetched moments that create a constant challenge to maintain our suspension of disbelief.  Following the film’s release, many scientists weighed in on the complete lack of scientific accuracy from start to finish.  While the film brings about feelings of nostalgia toward sci-fi films of old, it completely goes against the movement to bring more real science into science fiction movie.  It is laughable when comparing “The Core” to films like “Interstellar” and “Primer.”  Even with its inaccuracies, this concept probably would have fared better in an era of more advanced CGI.  Every exterior shot of the Virgil tunneling through the earth looks cartoonish, and the lava is even worse!  The effects create disconnect with the realism of the drama inside of the ship.  Unfortunately, most people miss out on the interesting social themes of the film because they are watching for the action sequences.  It makes sense that quality actors like Hilary Swank, Aaron Eckhart, Stanley Tucci, Delroy Lindo signed on to bring this script to life.  They did their part but the effects added in postproduction did not.  In the name of science fact, most critics were quick to condemn any person who enjoyed this film; however, I will pass no judgment on any person who enjoys “The Core” for its acting and feelings of nostalgia.  Just don’t try to convince anybody that this could actually happen.

[Pictured: So many good actors inside of the ship, so many bad special effects outside of the ship, and so many scientific inaccuracies jading the entire film]

Mascots - 6 stars out of 10

Mascots - 6 stars out of 10

"Mascots" is the latest mockumentary by Christopher Guest.  It shares many similarities with his film "Best In Show," particularly the format of interviewing various contestants in a competition, following them as they travel, and chronicling the inevitable disasters that develop during the actual competition.  The difference is that the dogs are swapped out in favor of absurd mascots from various countries and cultures.  Many of the usual suspects from Guest's films are back including Bob Balaban, Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins, Jennifer Coolidge, Parker Posey, Ed Begley Jr., and Fred Willard.  A few of the characters (Mike Murray who is played by Zach Woods and Corky St. Claire who is played by Guest himself) were completely underutilized.  Any fan of "The Office" loved Woods in the role of Gabe and when his interview opens the film, it opens our imaginations to the endless possibilities of awkwardness that he could achieve as a mascot.  When he turns out to be a minor character in this ensemble cast, those possibilities became missed potential in my mind.  Conversely, I understand that Corky St. Claire (the beloved character that Guest played in "Waiting for Guffman") was intended to be a cameo appearance.  The issue is that this character is so hilarious that any inclusion smaller than a lead role was going to leave us wanting more.  The most absurd character in the film is Tommy "The Fist" Zucarello, a stereotypical Irish boozer whose hot-headed personality/womanizing is perfect for a hockey mascot that is a giant fist.  Chris O'Dowd brings the perfect attitude and grit to the role.  The show-stealer is Tom Bennett as the legacy hedgehog mascot for a British soccer team.  Amidst the chaos, he undergoes a coming-of-age experience that ties together this series of absurd vignettes.  The mascots and corresponding personalities of each character are creative but don't gel together as well as the characters in many of Guest's other stories.  I would definitely recommend "Mascots" for its entertainment value and unique story but, after fans of Christopher Guest mockumentaries have seen it once, they will likely leave it behind in favor of "Spinal Tap" and "Guffman" as their go-to dose of stupid humor.

[Pictured: Guest came up with a great variety of mascots, some believable but most absurd]

Walt Disney Presents: Disneyland 1961 - 9 stars out of 10

Walt Disney Presents: Disneyland 1961 - 9 stars out of 10

“Disneyland 1961” delivers everything that I am always hoping for out of a park grand opening tv special.  This program provides a behind-the-scenes look at the creation of the park, an explanation of expansion from Walt Disney, and then an extensive look at the rides and attractions throughout the park.  It truly feels like a visit to Disneyland is like experiencing your favorite Disney movies and tv shows.  It would have been impossible to watch this back in 1961 without getting an immediate and strong desire to pack up and go.  A modern viewing captures a classic perception of the world’s first theme park while still creating an intense desire to visit the park.  I was particularly taken with the detailed looks at the Matterhorn, train, and submarine voyage.  The special is filled with catchy songs about the rides and a fireworks finale!  I would love to have some Disney World specials like this one to share with my children before their first visit.  Whether you are looking for nostalgia or a historic look at the growth of Disneyland, “Walt Disney Presents: Disneyland 1961” is a must watch!

Watch the special here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgug68QQxls

[Pictured: We can all look up a POV of The Matterhorn on YouTube, but it’s just not the same as this tv special’s high-speed compilation]

London Has Fallen - 5 stars out of 10

London Has Fallen - 5 stars out of 10

"London Has Fallen" tells a great counterterrorist, rescue-the-president story in the ilk of "24."  Even though it is an entertaining action film, it is often overshadowed by excessive language (dozens of f-words) and extreme violence.  I actually found the squishing of knives being thrust into the abdomens of bad guys to be significantly less offensive than the onslaught of profanity that detracted from the scenes instead of enhancing them.  The film works independently of "Olympus Has Fallen," requiring very little prerequisite information or connection to the characters of the first film.  The writers actually learned a lesson from Olympus’ oversaturated plot.  They take an interesting concept and allow it to drive the momentum of the film instead of creating cumbersome subplots that are barely related.  The story isn’t going to blow anybody’s mind but it certainly rises above the expectation for your typically summer blockbuster action film.  The thing that draws attention to this film is the stunning shots of London’s destruction.  Even if you have never been to London, landmarks like Big Ben and Parliament are recognizable that everyone can appreciate the shock value of seeing them destroyed.    My favorite part of the film is the tremendous tracking shot through a gunfight in the streets of London that had to have lasted at least two minutes.  But even when you have the intensity of Gerard Butler and the awesomeness of Morgan Freeman, and endless barrage of profanity will leave you feeling like the film was dirtier than necessary.  I would love to see an edit of this film.  The story is interesting and the acting sequences are filmed well, but the crew couldn’t trust their product to please and audience so they resorted to extra gore and vulgar dialogue.  I enjoyed “London Has Fallen” but I would have enjoyed it a lot more if the writers had just trusted their story to be good on its own.

[Pictured: The film is pretty good until the profanity hits its stride]

Destino - 7 stars out of 10

Destino - 7 stars out of 10

What do Walt Disney and Salvador Dali have in common?  The answer to this cryptic question is the surrealist animated short, “Destino.”  While the style of this short is fascinating, its 58-year production history is even more interesting.  In 1945, a collaboration began that would combine Disney’s storytelling with Dali’s artistic style.  It was storyboarded over an 8-month period when the fallout of World War II took its toll on the economy and permanently shelved the project.  With the eventual deaths of Disney and Dali, the project was seemingly lost forever until Roy E. Disney stumbled upon the project in 1999.  The completed short only contains 17 seconds of footage from 1945 but keeps the story intact.  Before you approach “Destino” with an expectation of a traditional Disney short, the animation looks nothing like Disney.  It is more like a combination of cubism and Dali’s signature melting clocks.  Also, the story is used mainly to tie together the interesting imagery.  This film is more like a work of art than a child-friendly cartoon.  There are some fascinating visual moments where a silhouetted shape suddenly becomes something else.  It’s too difficult to describe and worth watching the 6-minute short to see these transformation.  The surrealism is further enhanced by the antiquated musical soundtrack that contrasts the modern computer animation.  Even though I find the film to be trippy and difficult to follow, I was glad to see it receive an Oscar nomination to bring acknowledgement to Disney for resurrecting this abandoned project.  “Destino” probably won’t leave you wanting Disney to make another short in this style, but it is worth seeing if you have an interest in Dali’s artwork. 

Watch “Destino” here: https://youtu.be/1GFkN4deuZU

[Pictured: These faces come together to reveal a ballerina in the middle]