Malodorous Movie Monsters!
I dare say, old chaps, looks like I've gotten off me bum an' written up another bloomin' film review, eh? Blimey!
Right. False English Accent aside, let's dive into the wonders of cinema, this time with twice the movie reviewing power of my average reviews. Twice the wisdom! Twice the charm! Twice the length and cut-tagging! I'm like Doublemint, but all in one! And ostensibly less sexy than the Doublemint twins... but that's beside the point. Gaze into the power of my eeeeeeeevil verbiage!
Shrek 2
I look at the original Shrek as a serious milestone in animated filmmaking. The technical quality of the animation is suberb- most people will argue that Pixar is a superior animation studio, but I think the Dreamworks animators gave their animation a darker, grittier feel, while Pixar produces brighter, cleaner characters and images. I commend Pixar for the Toy Story movies- funny, lively, energetic and appealing. But Shrek went into a rougher direction than typical Disney fare (taking gratuitous potshots at Disney all the way), and that appealed to me on some primal level of snide meanness. So, with all that being done, how does the sequel live up to the original? Does it maintain freshness and energy? Is it still good?
Weeeeeeellllll... yes and no.
The plot: More wacky cartoon hijinks in a fractured fairy tale environment while spoofing and parodying myriad other pop culture references en route.
The pros: I already discussed the animation. Some of the music was fun and appropriate, although not all of it. The story is simple but still fairy-tale-ish: the quest for true love and true happiness, mixed in with the concept of accepting who and what you are, the "looks aren't everything" concept, and a dash of "meet the family". There are quite a few scenes that are impressively funny and memorable. Most of them involve Antonio Banderas as the show-stealing Puss In Boots. He clearly had a good time, and the writers and graphic artists designed a very enjoyable character with Puss. John Cleese is... well, he's John Cleese. Not much needs to be said there. The old characters are similar, having evolved from the first movie but still maintaining many of their personality quirks. "Look at all my mutant children!" The subtletly of some of the animation leaves many tiny details waiting to be found by sharp-eyed viewers, encouraging a second go-around. Can you spot the hidden Lo Pan reference? No? Well, there isn't one. What a shame, that.
The cons: Singing. I hate singing. Well, not entirely true. But there's a big musical number that goes on way too long. Some of the story details are a bit thin and fall apart under casual glances, much less intense scrutiny. The Fairy Godmother is the most annoying character, and unfortunately gets a lot of screentime. Jennifer Saunders is just not an appealing personality, even if only in voice. Eddie Murphy as Donkey is not quite as lively as he was the first time around, and even Princess Fiona is given less screentime and activity than expected. I think the comic energy was quite a bit lower in this one than in the original, but there are a lot of people who disagree with me on that. They are fools, I tell you! FOOLS! Ummm... oh yes, comedy. Could have used more of that.
The verdict: Funny, and fun, but not as good as the first. Doesn't mean don't go see it. You should. Just don't expect as much.
Disclaimer: Some people criticize Dreamworks' rampant Disney bashing in this film. I think beating on Disney is funny, so fuck them.
The Exorcist (Director's Cut)
The Exorcist is based on the book by William Peter Blatty, describing the gradual possession of a young girl by a malignant demonic force. Though that is the primary focus of the book, there are many other discussions on Satanistic rituals and practices, Church views on possession and the occult, and psychological factors involved in possession cases. As is almost always the case, the book is a far more detailed source of material than the movie, and should be read as well. This does not in any way mean that the movie is crap- I believe that, even to this day, this is one of the higher-end horror movies ever made. And for a film three decades old, that's saying a lot. See the movie. Read the book. Enjoy.
The plot: Sweet girl meets evil demon, they date, the relationship gets abusive, and they break up with the help of a kindly but melancholy local priest.
The pros: The direction in this film is what gives it the horriffic aspect. The mood, the atmosphere, the shadows, the lighting, all are well-blended and forged to create a setting that is harboring some sinister presence. No CGI or ILM special effects here- the creature designs are all done with makeup and lots of artificial fluids. Green vomit, blood, hot spittle, more blood, some urine, extra blood- you get the picture. Linda Blair to this day is remembered for her role as Regan MacNeil, the nice young girl turned vicious monster. The makeup effects they used on her for her transformation were impressive. Max von Sydow plays the part of the older, experienced priest with his usual presence and energy. He is an asset in this film, as he is in all his others. Yes, even Flash Gordon. Don't even think of mocking that movie in my presence! But that's beside the point. The "head spinning" scene is one of the more memorable in horror movie history, and the Director's Cut adds the "spider walking" scene for extra freakiness.
The cons: It is a long movie, with a lot of time spent in developmental scenes. This makes for a slow start and pace. There is not much music to help break up that slow pace either, aside from the well-known "Tubular Bells" piece. It is an old movie, thirty-one years old to be precise, and not everything stands up to the test of time. I personally think it is still a creepy movie, but not everyone has the same fear tolerance, and so others might find it unscary and maybe even ho-hum, although I'd doubt that. And, of course, the movie caved in to that dread disease, sequelitis. Exorcist II: The Heretic was pretty bland. However, I'll give some credit to Exorcist III for taking a slightly different turn, as well as starring George C. Scott as a character from the first movie, and also giving us Brad Dourif (yes, Grima Wormtongue himself) and, briefly, Samuel L. Jackson. Instead of being a demonic possession movie like the first, it is more of a murder mystery that gradually leads to the supernatural. I would recommend it.
The verdict: Creepy and disturbing, from my point of view. Watch the director's cut, and read the book. Worth it.
Disclaimer: Ladies, please show some respect and do not use the Crucifix as a masturbatory aid, as Regan did in this film. Perhaps I might interest you in one of these, instead?
Missed out on some more of my massive movie wisdom? Check this out!
Right. False English Accent aside, let's dive into the wonders of cinema, this time with twice the movie reviewing power of my average reviews. Twice the wisdom! Twice the charm! Twice the length and cut-tagging! I'm like Doublemint, but all in one! And ostensibly less sexy than the Doublemint twins... but that's beside the point. Gaze into the power of my eeeeeeeevil verbiage!
Shrek 2
I look at the original Shrek as a serious milestone in animated filmmaking. The technical quality of the animation is suberb- most people will argue that Pixar is a superior animation studio, but I think the Dreamworks animators gave their animation a darker, grittier feel, while Pixar produces brighter, cleaner characters and images. I commend Pixar for the Toy Story movies- funny, lively, energetic and appealing. But Shrek went into a rougher direction than typical Disney fare (taking gratuitous potshots at Disney all the way), and that appealed to me on some primal level of snide meanness. So, with all that being done, how does the sequel live up to the original? Does it maintain freshness and energy? Is it still good?
Weeeeeeellllll... yes and no.
The plot: More wacky cartoon hijinks in a fractured fairy tale environment while spoofing and parodying myriad other pop culture references en route.
The pros: I already discussed the animation. Some of the music was fun and appropriate, although not all of it. The story is simple but still fairy-tale-ish: the quest for true love and true happiness, mixed in with the concept of accepting who and what you are, the "looks aren't everything" concept, and a dash of "meet the family". There are quite a few scenes that are impressively funny and memorable. Most of them involve Antonio Banderas as the show-stealing Puss In Boots. He clearly had a good time, and the writers and graphic artists designed a very enjoyable character with Puss. John Cleese is... well, he's John Cleese. Not much needs to be said there. The old characters are similar, having evolved from the first movie but still maintaining many of their personality quirks. "Look at all my mutant children!" The subtletly of some of the animation leaves many tiny details waiting to be found by sharp-eyed viewers, encouraging a second go-around. Can you spot the hidden Lo Pan reference? No? Well, there isn't one. What a shame, that.
The cons: Singing. I hate singing. Well, not entirely true. But there's a big musical number that goes on way too long. Some of the story details are a bit thin and fall apart under casual glances, much less intense scrutiny. The Fairy Godmother is the most annoying character, and unfortunately gets a lot of screentime. Jennifer Saunders is just not an appealing personality, even if only in voice. Eddie Murphy as Donkey is not quite as lively as he was the first time around, and even Princess Fiona is given less screentime and activity than expected. I think the comic energy was quite a bit lower in this one than in the original, but there are a lot of people who disagree with me on that. They are fools, I tell you! FOOLS! Ummm... oh yes, comedy. Could have used more of that.
The verdict: Funny, and fun, but not as good as the first. Doesn't mean don't go see it. You should. Just don't expect as much.
Disclaimer: Some people criticize Dreamworks' rampant Disney bashing in this film. I think beating on Disney is funny, so fuck them.
The Exorcist (Director's Cut)
The Exorcist is based on the book by William Peter Blatty, describing the gradual possession of a young girl by a malignant demonic force. Though that is the primary focus of the book, there are many other discussions on Satanistic rituals and practices, Church views on possession and the occult, and psychological factors involved in possession cases. As is almost always the case, the book is a far more detailed source of material than the movie, and should be read as well. This does not in any way mean that the movie is crap- I believe that, even to this day, this is one of the higher-end horror movies ever made. And for a film three decades old, that's saying a lot. See the movie. Read the book. Enjoy.
The plot: Sweet girl meets evil demon, they date, the relationship gets abusive, and they break up with the help of a kindly but melancholy local priest.
The pros: The direction in this film is what gives it the horriffic aspect. The mood, the atmosphere, the shadows, the lighting, all are well-blended and forged to create a setting that is harboring some sinister presence. No CGI or ILM special effects here- the creature designs are all done with makeup and lots of artificial fluids. Green vomit, blood, hot spittle, more blood, some urine, extra blood- you get the picture. Linda Blair to this day is remembered for her role as Regan MacNeil, the nice young girl turned vicious monster. The makeup effects they used on her for her transformation were impressive. Max von Sydow plays the part of the older, experienced priest with his usual presence and energy. He is an asset in this film, as he is in all his others. Yes, even Flash Gordon. Don't even think of mocking that movie in my presence! But that's beside the point. The "head spinning" scene is one of the more memorable in horror movie history, and the Director's Cut adds the "spider walking" scene for extra freakiness.
The cons: It is a long movie, with a lot of time spent in developmental scenes. This makes for a slow start and pace. There is not much music to help break up that slow pace either, aside from the well-known "Tubular Bells" piece. It is an old movie, thirty-one years old to be precise, and not everything stands up to the test of time. I personally think it is still a creepy movie, but not everyone has the same fear tolerance, and so others might find it unscary and maybe even ho-hum, although I'd doubt that. And, of course, the movie caved in to that dread disease, sequelitis. Exorcist II: The Heretic was pretty bland. However, I'll give some credit to Exorcist III for taking a slightly different turn, as well as starring George C. Scott as a character from the first movie, and also giving us Brad Dourif (yes, Grima Wormtongue himself) and, briefly, Samuel L. Jackson. Instead of being a demonic possession movie like the first, it is more of a murder mystery that gradually leads to the supernatural. I would recommend it.
The verdict: Creepy and disturbing, from my point of view. Watch the director's cut, and read the book. Worth it.
Disclaimer: Ladies, please show some respect and do not use the Crucifix as a masturbatory aid, as Regan did in this film. Perhaps I might interest you in one of these, instead?
Missed out on some more of my massive movie wisdom? Check this out!