#60 - A Troll in Central Park

Now that lights are turned on for a new theatre on the shores of Green Bay in Wisconsin, and now that my mosquito bites have begun to stop itching, and now that I have a decent internet connection that I dont have to be in a lobby of a Best Western to use, I can get back to writing reviews of crappy movies. I know you have been waiting, anticipating, and damn near beside yourself for this review. I know you are thinking that Rock a Doodle was such a bad movie that there is no way that Don Bluth could make anything worse. Well my friends, he made something worse. That something is A Troll in Central Park.

I know I have said this before, but I will say it again, it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, the premise of the movie is that in a land filled with ugly, nasty trolls, there is one troll that looks like a cross between a leprechon and Dopey. Where the evil nasty queen troll has a purple thumb that creates nasty stuff, this little tub of goo has a green thumb that has the power to create plant life, but most importantly, beautiful flowers. Kill me already. Please, kill me already. The queen troll hates flowers cause they are pretty and so she banishes him to a nasty place, the nastiest place of them all, New York City. Apparently, this mythical troll community is in the general vicinity of EUROPE and this fat little troll basically immigrated to Central Park. Which he loves at first, but then hates cause its scary and cries himself to sleep in a trememndous cavern that he finds in a crack under a footbridge. THATS RIGHT!!! A tremendous cavern that is under the hills, trees, and lawns of Central Park and is only accesible from a little crack under a footbridge!! Are you freaking kidding me? I know its a cartoon, but its set in a real place. How about a little bit of reality to that world. I know its asking too much of a cartoon with a troll in it, but if you take something from a fantasy world and put it into a real location, try to make that location realistic, unless the fantasy characters change it. Oh, and they change it. This little fatty takes him green thumb and makes this cavern into a lush garden of beautiful flowers and whatnot. It sickening really. The whole love of beatiful flowers was really quite nauseating. What was even more nauseating was the musical number that went along with the flowering of the cavern. As well as the musical number that went along with his proffession of love for flowers that is sung to the girl that stumbles into the cavern. Here is what I don't understand, in Rock a Doodle you have Glen Campbell playing a singing rooster and you cover up his songs with crappy action sequences, yet in this movie you let Dom Deluise, of all people, sing his freaking heart out about the loveliness of flowers. There was no covering up of the songs, just a bunch of pretty flowers blooming all over in a pretty little garden of cavern buried under Central Park and only accessible from a crack under a footbridge. Oh, and the crap about the dreams coming true really gets annoying when a toy boat gets turned into a huge vessel that floats through the air in a huge fantasy sequence that all takes place in a cavern...blah...blah...blah. And of course the queen troll comes to Central Park, tears the place apart into a wasteland which is explained by an amazing tornado and the kids have a happy ending. The cuteness level of this cartoon is vomitous. The cliches of the angry kid, having dreams, and that pretty and nice things win over ugly and mean things is so badly iverdon in this thing that I wonder how these people sleep at night. It's ridiculous. It's bad. It's overdone. It's ill conceived. It's not entertaining. It's poorly written. It has annoyingly sappy songs. The villains are annoying and over the top. The main character is way too sweet and happy to even be remotely palatable. The big sequences are disgustingly fantastical and unrealistic in what is suppossed to be a realistic world. I mean it when I say that no words I put down here can do justice to how bad of a cartoon this was. Hideuosly repulsive. A waste of time for everyone involved. I'd rather vote to make sure that my favorite Big Brother All Star makes it back into the house this summer. I'd rather watch Matt Lauer interview Brittney Spears and mistake it for legitimate journalism. I'd rather watch Jay Leno ask Trace Adkins to elaborate on what he was going for with Honky Tonk Badonkadonk as if there was some sort of hidden meeting or social commentary we may not have been able to pick up on without an explanation...oh wait...I did happen to see that. This review is over.

#59 - Rock a Doodle

When I said that Disney was trying to copy Don Bluth cartoons when they were making Oliver and Company, this is not what I had in mind. You see, Disney was copying the good and/or successful Bluth cartoons. This is and was neither. This is bad writing, overdone storyboarding, and a series of individually bad ideas that add up to a great big steaming pile of poo.

First, the writing, of which there are two egregious sins. To start off, what the hell kind of a name is Chanticleer? This is the hero of the whole movie. The guy who brings up the sun. The guy they go to the city to find so that they can save the world...or at least the barn. I shouldn't have to get on imdb.com to find out what the hell the hero of the movie is. Try something simple, like Buck, or Clucky, or Big ol' Chicken Guy. Hell, I would have taken Feivel over Chanticleer. And while we are on the topic of this hero, lets talk about his singing. Voiced by Glen Campbell, you would think that there would be a number of songs in the movie that Chanticleer would have, and there were. Problem is, EVERY song was covered up by a crappy action sequence as the rag tag farm animals tried to reach this dipshit. How do you do that? You go out of your way to get a legitimate musician, and then cut him off with crappy, overdone action sequences? Which leads me to the overdone sequences. Just because you have the capacity to draw and create massive, energetic, a hugely sweeping action sequences does not mean that you have to fill the entire movie with them. There had to be at least six or seven of the standard action sequences where animals are flying everywhere, things are breaking all over the place, close calls and narrow escapes are happing and all that usual crap. Maybe one or two beyond the obvious final sequence is neccessary, but COME ON!!! It was muddy. It was confusing. I had sensory overload. It took away from time that could be spent with an actual story. And another thing, can't you draw an owl any other way? The big ol evil owl looked WAY too similar to the Great Owl from Rats of Nimh. I can accept a drawing style that animators have, but when you have a villain from one movie look like a non-villain character from another, that just weak. You know what else is weak? The decision to make the main character a live action child turned into a cartoon cat by a cartoon owl walking on a real tree. What the hell was that? A real life barn is gonna be saved by a fake rooster in a cartoon world? Stupid. Oh yeah....I almost forgot....the main character....played by a little kid....

Whoever is responsible for this little kid needs to be punched in the face. That person needs to be pulled out of their beds in the middle of the night and beaten with reeds. I could not stand the annoying voice of this annoying little kid. It was okay when I thought he was just gonna be a live action kid at the begining and end of the movie. Imagine my dread to find out that he turns into a cartoon cat and is there the whole time. My head hurt and my bones shook every time I heard that kid pronounce his R's in that suppossedly cutesy kid way. It's funny if you are Homestar Runner. It's annoying as hell when you are a stupid little kid/cat thing. You know what else doesn't help? The fact that the writers didn't feel the need to give the kid anything more than a loud "Oh no!!" every time he was near impending doom. This is especially troublesome when he is in the middle of EVERY single overdone action sequence. I am thinking of taking a hammer to my head right nut just thinking about it. DAMMIT!! This movie was painfully bad.

#58 - Oliver & Company

For those of you who have been reading these reviews every other day for the past few months, you may have noticed that there was no review yesterday. Well, I was north of Green Bay, Wisconsin in a motel with no internet. That's the way it goes. But hey, after this review I only have three more to write before I am caught up with my DVD viewing. That means that a review every other day is soon coming to an end. Maybe its time to ween you off of the teet a little bit. It's not always best to quit cold turkey. But hey, we've got a movie to talk about.

I actually learned something while watching this cartoon. I learned why they used to call the 80's the dark days of Disney. There's a nice laundry list about what is wrong with this movie. First and foremost, I'm just wondering why Disney felt the need to stray from their proven formula for making cartoons and tried to copy what Don Bluth was doing. I know Don Bluth used to work for them and all, but when he left, he went on to do his own thing. Disney should have kept doing their own thing, because it worked. Sure, there were hits like The Rats of Nimh(one of my faves from my youth), An American Tail, and Land Before Time, but that doesn't mean you try to copy it. Once you start copying someone else's style you lose what makes you unique, and you lose me. In no way does the story and style in this movie resemble any other Disney cartoon that I have ever seen. I am confused as to why it was felt this kind of thing was neccessary.

You wanna know what bothered me the most? It was the fact that there were clashing animation styles. The backgrounds of the docks, alleys and streets of NYC were well drawn, well textured, and well colored. But the lines used to draw all of the characters did not match that background. They just didn't. Usually the animated characters stand out a bit from the background, but they fit into their surroundings. Oliver, Dodger, and all the other mutts did not. And then to top it off, they have all of the vehicles. I know that this was one of the first cartoons to use computers in the animation process, but in the middle of a world with a textured background, and mismatched, yet free moving characters, there are stiff, rigid, and angular vehicles. Nothing matches with each other. Sure, you have to start the computer technology somewhere, but man, you could have done better than this.

Here's another thing...where's the memorable characters? There isn't any characters that you could see in a parade down Main Street in Disneyland. The only performance that is even mildly entertaining is Cheech Marin, and it's only just okay. And come on!!! Billy Joel? A dog with shades on? You've got to be kidding me. And hey, Dom Deluise is much better as a bird than he is a warm hearted street urchin. Shame on you Disney. You tried to do something cause you got scared that you didn't rule the cartoon world anymore, and you ended up making a big old pile of steaming crap. Thank god you've gotten it together since then.

#57 - The Yearling

This was dangerous territory here. The trepidation towards watching this movie was quite high. Why? Take a look at that picture. We are talking about a high potential for annoying child actor here. I flashed back, all the way to A Hole in the Head. I was certain that there wasn't going to be a crappy song in the middle of the movie, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to grind my teeth away listening to an annoying kid in a sappy movie. But that's not what we got. Believe it or not, the kid wasn't completely annoying. There were definitely times when he tried my patience. A few too many uses of the words "Pa" and "Gee", and not necessarily in that order.

This kid undertook an extremely hard task. He had an unbelievable range of emotion that he had to portray throughout the entire movie. I would imagine that going from youthful innocence to the harsh realities of life and death is a hard thing to express for anyone, much less someone so young. And he does it quite well. A little unbelievable at times, but he is committed to what he is doing which is admirable. And since he is the main character of the movie, you might think that he has the daunting task of carrying the whole thing. Oh, no. For that, we turn to the rock. The foundation. Gregory Peck. You probably already know this, but this guy is amazingly good at what he does. You see, I haven't seen to many of his films, so I just don't know. Blown away at his wisdom and stoicism in To Kill A Mockingbird, I was floored to see him be the foundation of a family yet again, but in a completely different way with a completely different character. And no less effective. And Jane Wyman was solid too with a mother dealing with the heartache of lost children and a hard life in general. This ain't Falcon Crest.

Let's talk visuals here. This movie was made in 1946 and the color is absolutely amazing. The lost art of film studio sky cyc's is on full display in this movie and they tremendously well done. And the nature shots are amazing. Particularly the scene with the running deer. It was beautiful and breathtaking. Check it out. You could be pleasantly surprised like I was.

#56 - Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I tell you what, don't go into this movie expecting to anything that you have ever seen before. I went into it expecting a Harry Potter type of movie, and that is not what I got. For the first part of it, I was stuck in that mindset and wasn't really enjoying what I was watching. Once I caught on to what was going on in the movie, it blew me away with it's uniqueness and imagination. You see, I haven't read any of the books that this was based on, so I had no idea that it would even be possible to mix a dark comedy and a family movie. That's right. That's what I said. A dark comedy mixes with a family movie. I never even imagined that the two things could be put together, and then work so well together.

I'm not gonna bore you with a plot summary because most of you reading this have probably seen the movie. The fact that the meat of the whole movie is the kids avoiding being killed by their evil uncle Olaf is amazing to me. Most family movies have kids getting captured by the bad guys, but they usually aren't in too much danger. Besides, the bad guys in those movies have something else on their mind other than the kids and they just want to capture them so that they can't ruin their plans. Count Olaf wants to kill them!! That is his objective. Someone tell me of another family movie where the main focus of the bad guy is to kill the kids. And I'm not talking about killing the kids so that they stop interfering with their plans for something else. I am talking about their deaths being THE objective. You can't do it. Especially in a big budget Hollywood movie.

I loved the art direction of this movie. The Victorian style is already unsettling and disturbing, but when you skewer, and twist, and tweak it, you have stepped it up another level. Olaf's mansion and the house on the cliff are especially well designed. It just creates a magically dark world that sets the tone for whole movie. Well done there.

And let talk about one of my favorite subjects: child actors. Well, no problems here. All three of the kids were well cast, and good actors. Maybe the boy was a little stiff, but he's a quiet bookworm, so it's okay. The girl was an interesting balance of sadness and sweetness. And that baby. I know they used a pair of twins, but how in the hell did they get those babies to do all of that stuff. I've never seen a baby that was so much fun to watch. From the smart ass comments translated from baby gibberish to the shot of her hanging off of a table with her choppers, I enjoyed every part of that kid.

As far as the other performers go, everyone did a great job of commiting to the world that was being created. Jim Carrey playing a number of interesting characters, especially the Italian scientist. Glenn Close(Check that - Meryl Streep) playing the ultimate worry wart. Billy Connelly playing...Billy Connelly. And how about Jude Law getting paid to be in shillouette the entire time and never having to learn lines since all of his dialogue was recorded narration. Nice gig there.

Like I said before, most of you reading this have probably already seen it. But in case you haven't, DO IT!!! It's absolutely unique. Like Falling Angels, I wanted to watch it over again right away. I also wanted to watch the DVD extras which I rarely take time to do with these rentals. The fact that I watched any of them is saying something. WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!

#55 - Ring of Bright Water

From the makers of...and the actor of...and the actress of...Born Free, it's a movie about another animal in another part of the world. Instead of lions in Africa, it's an otter in England. Seriously, you did some happy ass movie about lions in Africa and then follow it up with some happy ass movie about an otter in England? The only thing that could make that more annoying would be if the main actor and the main actress were married. Oh..wait.

Actually, once you get over the sappiness of the married couple making another animal movie, you realize that it's not that bad of a movie. I'm still not sure why anyone would go see this in a movie theatre, but it was made in a time without cable television and you couldn't see anything like this on the TV. I guess it makes some sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is how the main relationship of the movie got started, the main relationshi[p being the one between the man and his otter. You see, the man works in some office in London and isn't happy with his empty desk job. One day he walks by a nearby pet store and is mesmerized by the otter in the window. Over time he decides to purchase the otter as a pet....hold on, let's go back. Did I just say he saw an otter in the window of a pet store in London? Are you kidding me? Was it common to find non-domesticated animals for sale in pet shops in one of the largest cities in Europe? Am I completely off base to think that this situation seems a little out of whack here? It's an OTTER, and it's in a PET SHOP, and it's in the middle of LONDON, ENGLAND!!!! And the way he acts around it is kind of odd too. Trying to take a look at it without the otter knowing he's looking. The begining of this movie didn't sit well with me because I thought the guy was an idiot. Luckily he buys a cabin somewhere in the Highlands or something.

Once we get into the hills, the movie gets okay and we get the usual man/animal relationship movie. Not a Turner & Hooch kind of a relationship, but an Old Yeller kind of relationship. Apparently this movie was based on a book that I can only imagine is in the same vein as a Where the Red Fern Grows kind of book is. In other words, lots of adventures based around someone and their best buddy animal. I don't know, it's not that it's bad, it's just not too terribly exciting. We arent talking about My Side of the Mountain kind of boring, but it's along those lines...just no stupid kid. Oh, and the otter gets whacked, but in these kinds of movies the animal always dies. So I didn't ruin anything.

#54 - Falling Angels

You may have to bear with me on this one. Not only am I writing this on my birthday, but I went to a Cubs game earlier and then boozed it up a little afterwards. (Reds won, Griffey Jr. got a HR, and Jaque Jones the former Twin hit a HR too, so I was pleased) But it's late, my typing skills are a little rough, but I will do this review dammit.

And let me just say, this is a good movie. It definitely is one of those ones I wouldn't have picked on my own. The DVD was released by this group called The Film Movement. They release monthly DVD's of art house type movies. Kind of in the way Time Life does business. The reason I probably wouldn't have picked it is because I can only go so far with art house movies. Most of them are foreign because apparently, only foreign countries make art movies. And they are independent too, and there is a huge level of pretentiousness surrounding art house and independent movies that I just don't want to be a part of. But this is a good movie, and its from Canada too, ya hoser.

This movie is a bit of a dark comedy that deals with what happens when people don't deal with tagedy and try to ignore it. But it's not so much about the people who are denying the tragedy, it's about the impact it has on those around them, most notably the three daughters in this movie. I can't stress enough how dynamic the relationships in this movie are. There is a level of love overshadowed by a level of disdain in this movie that is really powerful. The three daughters each deal with the unspoken missing truth in their family's life in a different way. The mom is a zombie of regret and the father is overbearing and cold. I really want to talk about it more, but I don't want to say too much about it because the truth unfolds so well that I really don't want to ruin it.

I read something about it on imdb.com that was titled, "Blame it on dad, again." That couldn't be further from the truth. If you just take what you are given at the begining of the movie, then yes, it is a blame it on dad kind of thing, but towards the end there is a level of acceptance, redemption, and repentance that let you know that this is more than just a blame it on dad festival.

Another note about the DVD: WIth each Film Movement DVD they have a short film on the disc. The one on this disc is about three minutes and it is about a guy who breaks each of the ten commandements in about...three minutes. It's quite funny and is a good complement to the film. Rent this movie and come back and tell me what you think, because it is really well done. I wanted to watch it again right after I first watched it, and that's saying a lot.

#53 - The Three Musketeers

Oh boy. Those of you who read these reviews on a regular basis know that I am no fan of made for TV movies. But there is a category of movie that may actually be worse, and that is direct to video. It's interesting though, made for TV movies, except for those on certain networks, are usually all very crappy, whereas direct to video is either suprisingly okay, or the worst piece of garbage you have ever seen. I think that makes the direct to video movies a much risker undertaking. The odds are against both, but the direct to video movie has more potential to be worse. If you haven't already figured out why I am talking about all of this, it's because this little cartoon is a direct to video movie.

How did this movie stack up with so much going against it? Well, honestly, it was more on the suprisingly okay side. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really saying that it was that good or anything, but it didn't completely suck. First of all, it clocked in at barely over one hour, which is a tremendous benefit to all. It also had some moments of decent humor, some of which was more inspired by Looney Toons that classic Disney, but still humorous. It's really odd. I can't say that I have ever seen anything that I was expecting to be awful, but turned out better than I thought, yet still wasn't that great. Normally when you say something is better than you expected it to be, that means that they like it. But this is not the case. If your expectations are way low, then everything else scales down to meet that expectation.

Don't be confused by the title. This is not another version of the Dumas story. It's an all new story that plays out after the original story. Did someone mention that they didn't need to do write anything new? Dumas has been dead for a little while. It's called public domain. It's why they didn't get sued over the title. The story is different, but it may as well be the same. Seemed like a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

Here's the most shocking thing about it all, the animation isn't that bad. They didn't really cut any corners with the characters animation. It's thought out well, and mixed with writing that isn't as bad as you would expect, they actually pull off a slick looking cartoon. It's not groundbreaking by any means, but definately a capable effort. I'm in a realy quandry about this one, I wanna hate it, but I can't. I don't want to recommend it to anyone, but I can't say that it was a complete waste of time. So don't watch it, but don't not watch it because I said it was bad. Not watch it because there are better things to watch, but always remembering that there are worse things to watch as well. That doesn't make any damn sense. Stupid movie.

#52 - The Spongebob Squarepants Movie

I'll come clean here. I haven't watched very many episodes of Spongebob Squarepants. It's not that I don't like the cartoon, I just never really went out of my way to watch it. Because of this I wondered if I should go forward with watching the movie, kind of thinking along the lines of my not watching sequels first rule. Well, I obviously watched it, otherwise I wouldn't be writing a review here. (Think about it, dummy) You see, I am of the opinion that movie versions of television shows should stand on their own. For example, South Park and Beavis and Butthead both stood on their own as good movies. I also expect that the overall scope of the movie be WAY amplified from that of the TV show. It is the big screen, time to go big, or go home.

Does this movie stand on its own? Does it go way beyond the scope of the TV show? Well, sort of. If by adding live action elements to a cartoon and placing the animated characters in a live, non-cartoon world you are expanding the scope, then yes, it did do that. But I'm not convinced it was enough to satisfy me. The reason is because other than the live action moments, they didn't really go too far outside of the already established world of the TV series. Sure Patrick and Spongebob go on a long journey, but the shots of them were always the close up shots you have already seen. I want a big sweeping shot from far away that zooms in as it revolves 360 degress around the main character. You're on the big screen, make things BIG.

...you see, they are on a plane, and there are SNAKES ON IT TOO!!!...

Having said all of that garbage about the scope of the movie, I did enjoy it. The animators for Spongebob are very good at making a character look lighthearted and loveable one moment, and then hideously grotesque another. The contrast is very effective, very well done, and very funny. If you liked Ren and Stimpy, you should also enjoy this because it is in the same vein. Oh, and I had no idea that the voice of Patrick was done by Dauber from Coach.(M-O-O-N. That spells moon.) I think Patrick is my favorite character because of how over the top and insane he really is. "I LOVE BEING PURPLE!!!" Almost completely random, and very, very funny. And even though its a cartoon, I want to take this moment to tell you what you may already know: Scarlett Johansson is very, very hot. At times, mind numbingly hot. But I digress.

And the topper of it all. What was quite possibly the best and most entertaining performance of the entire movie was that of acting legend David Hasselhoff. That's right. I said it!! The shit eating grin that he puts on as he plays a caricature of himself is priceless. There's a difference between just knowing you are satirizing yourself and actually playing the part to its full effectiveness. He does the later, and it is a hoot. I guess to summarize the whole thing, it wasn't as much of a breakout from the cartoon as I would have liked to have seen, but it was entertaining and had the same type of humor and animation that you see on the TV show. Which is a good thing.

#51 - Shark Tale

It's finally happened. The day that I knew would be here has come. What I am speaking of is the day when full length CGI animated features hit the wall. When I first saw Toy Story I was amazed at how good it was. Ever since then I have been shocked that the quality of these films has remained at such a high level. From what I have seen, Pixar would have to work hard to NOT make a good movie. And Dreamworks has done well with their own. Antz wasn't bad, and of course there are the Shrek's. But in the back of my mind I knew that the people making these movies would run out of magic fairy dust and hit the wall. This movie is the wall.

Let me start off by saying that the animation of this movie did not hit the wall. It is top notch and is probably the best part of the whole thing. Where this movie falls short is in the writing department, the same department that was the strong point for all of the CGI toons that I have prior to this. The problem with the writing is that it heavily relies on two major aspects to carry the movie, both of which aren't that great. The first, and most important, is the performance of Will Smith. I know he has made a career on being a fast talking, smooth talking ne'er do well, but but there was so much of it in this movie that it wore out its welcome way too quick. And it never let up. From start to finish it was blabbity blabbity, a million miles a minute, non stop jabbering, and I just wanted him to shut up.

The second aspect of the writing that was annoying was the excessive use of taking common items or scenarios in the human world and transfering them into the fish world. What followed was a movie long series of play on words after play on words and bad fish puns. It was just too much. In the Shrek movies they only really did it when he was out of the woods or the swamp. In Shark Tale it was constantly happening and lost its amusement value around the same time Will Smith did. After that everything else was standard movie stuff, the best firend fish is in love with the main character fish, the super hot fish only loves him cause he is popular, the evil Italian shark mobster with the gay son, you know, all the usual stuff. Which means that all of the interesting writing I had come to expect in these movies was not there. The Rasta jellyfish were pretty funny, even if stoned out rasta's wouldn't make good mobster goons.

Unrelated side note: Is anyone else irritated at the WB's use of the word "fresh" as a substitution for the word "new"? It just reeks of middle aged marketing guys trying too hard to connect with a younger audience. Hopefully it stops with the creation of the CW(UPN + WB = CW????), but let's be honest, I rarely watched either one anyways, and I'm probably not gonna watch this one either.