My First Marvel Movie: BLACK PANTHER

Hi, everyone!

I know, it's been forever.  I've had an issue resulting in limited...geographic mobility, and then over the holiday season I got sick. I honestly didn't even get to go see the parks at Christmas, which is a first for me in a long time.

But, I'm back because I absolutely have to talk to you all about Black Panther.

Those who know me, know that I'm...anti-Marvel. Generally, not a comic or superhero person overall. OK, a little bit of Batman, but that's about it.

My recent interest in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is probably a story for another day (and a therapist), but Black Panther was certainly the catalyst.  For one thing, look at this cast! Chadwick Boseman (who has inexplicably been ignored by the Academy for playing Jackie Robinson, James Brown, and Thurgood Marshall), Oscar ® Winners Lupita Nyong'o and Forest Whitaker, Nominees Daniel Kaluuya, and Angela Bassett (how has this woman not won?! I blame Meryl), Emmy winner Sterling K. Brown, and Michael B. Jordan, who also has snubs on his record with Creed and Fruitvale Station.

Now, even while watching, I knew there was no way to cover everything I felt about this film and all thing worthy of discussion about the movie in one post. Plus, again, being a novice to Marvel, I'm sure I'm going to miss something (yes, I stayed for the end credits scenes, I know that much!).

Therefore, I'm just going to sum up a little, and address a couple of things I'd like noted.

OK.....first the obvious part.  This movie is the story of, and populated by, a group/nation, of intelligent, strong BLACK leaders. This is a bit of an anomaly in Hollywood (I know, big piece of news here). And it's making money hand over fist.

I have kind of a mixed perspective on the concept of representation.  As a kid, I didn't really need it, because there wasn't someone who looked like me.  I look white, but I'm Hispanic. I just never really thought about it as much as it seems other do. When I was 8, I was a Ghostbuster for Halloween, not because I saw my race or my gender in these characters, but because I liked them and wanted to be with them. I don't know where or why my own perspective comes from (but just in case, I'll thank my mom) but I'm grateful to have such a healthy lack of concern.

On the other hand, I can understand why those who feel underrepresented feel the way they do about it. Where is your world? Your perspective? I can sympathize with that.  Frankly, a good representation of the neighborhood I grew up in is Stand and Deliver! (I know, old reference. I'm old.)

While I agree representation is a great thing, I don't believe in making it the #1 priority over story.  I'm a screenwriter.  Story is paramount! And you see a lot of movies come and go trying to be a United Colors of Benetton catalog, neglecting the story.  I feel like this sort of thing hurts the cause.  If you can make a great movie with various peoples, you have the potential to do so much more in the long run.

At this point, I'd like to declare this movie a TRIUMPH of representation.  These characters are intelligent, thoughtful, three dimensional, funny, interesting, and will ALL equally kick your ass.  Even Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger has his own sympathetic side. He's not just a straight villain.  The women of this movie aren't just set pieces (though these are the epitome of beautiful strong black women), they drive the story, and they provide the assistance T'Challa needs.  Literally, Black Panther would just be an eccentric king in a lame cat suit if not for his mother, sister, love interest, and general.

Now, this is incredible for Black Cinema. I think (and hope) this signals a turn of the tide, although I also get the feeling an up tick in "ethnic themes and characters" in mainstream film and television has previously come and gone in waves.  Let's hope this tide is here to stay.  And I'll tell you why....

This is a victory for Black culture.  No doubt. And in what I'm about to say, I am not in any way intending to take that away from anybody.

But this is a victory for ALL people of color.

I've long felt like black representation in film and television is, in a way, a representation of ALL people of color in film and television.  I can only speak from my own experience, but I've always kind of perceived it that way. Any person of color represents ALL people of color.

There is a great flip side to the concept of a black superhero.  Yes, it goes without saying how awesome it is that a black child can go to this movie and take their pick of role models.  But even before the movie was released, star Chadwick Boseman mentioned in an interview that (white) executives in Hollywood told him how excited their kids were to be Black Panther for Halloween.  And he was delighted at that response.  Yes, he's gratified to be a role model to young black people, but the idea we live in a world where white kids can look at a black man as a hero was just as exciting to him. I've seen comments online from people insisting that white people restrict their potential costumes to the white characters, but these people are obviously missing the point. And I have even more respect for Boseman that he can see the forest for the trees.

In the days running up to the release of the movie, it was getting rave reviews.  But there were also concerns that the reviews were so glowing just because it was a black cast and a black superhero.  I can tell you, as a skeptical non-Marvel person who hates representation with lazy story, that wasn't the case.  And to those on social media who insisted anyone critical of the movie is racist, shame on you (though I doubt you're reading this). This film deserves to be viewed on its own merits, and comments like that reinforce the idea that this movie was well-reviewed for reasons other than its filmmaking and storytelling.

That being said, it's a great movie.  Full of action, interesting characters, snappy dialogue, a multi-layered story.  If I got the impression the MCU movies were like this, I'd be more inclined to see them.

At the moment, I think that's all I have to cover at the moment.  Again, if I missed something, I'm sorry. I'm new at this! Please, if you haven't, go see this movie.  It is proof Hollywood can make a movie with people of color in front and behind the camera that is engaging and smart.

P.S. To all the people who went to the theater dressed as characters from Coming to America, you are fabulous!

Pixar's Coco in the Parks

Hi, everyone!

With the frost on the pumpkins and the Halloween pumpkin spice lattes now pumpkin pie spiced lattes, I thought we'd take a look at what DCA did for Pixar's upcoming Coco.  What we saw is just so special, it needed its own post.

The preview for Coco is apparently moving to the Bug's Life Theater for the actual preview of the movie starting this past Friday.  I believe, with Christmas (the season at least) upon us, the ¡Viva Navidad! mini-parade will most likely take its place. I hope that Disney decides to integrate Coco into that celebration, they've put such loving care into the props and decorations they have now.

All of the decorations related to Coco were so specific to the film's art, and it was just fantastic.

Besides face painting, Disney had the beautiful Árbol de la Vida, or Tree of Life, where you could leave a remembrance of a family member who has passed. To see all the names and memories, not just in English and Spanish but Asian languages, nicknames and memories.  It's really a simple "activity" that, if you go about it with the right intention, can be absolutely meaningful. 

To see that in a theme park is exactly what does and should set Disney apart. 

Someone make me these....please.

And, further into the Plaza, there is a recreation of the ofrenda Miguel has made for singer Ernesto de la Cruz.

Please note, I'm trying to give accurate information while remaining as spoiler free as possible. I want to see this with as much of a blank slate as I can.

I can't lie, I teared up.  Not just because I'm a big baby who cries at everything (because I am), but it was just so moving to see, for something temporary, the care taken by Disney.

Like in Carsland, the Papel Picados are specific to the film. Those are the strings of flags you see up there.

Flameless candles, both safe and pretty!

Not real marigolds, I checked.

In the gazebo, the two Mariachi groups come to perform at various times in the day.

I didn't get to see the Coco celebration mini-parade, but I got to see the performers head out there!

Also, I'm including the videos I Periscope'd of both Grammy-Award winning Mariachi Divas, a female group (in case the name didn't make that clear), and Mariachi Espectacular, a wonderful men's group.

The Mariachi Espectacular performance was quite long, so YouTube made me post it in two parts, by the way.

So, how did Disney portray Hispanic culture? 

Well, as an American of Hispanic descent....it was incredibly moving.  If Coco is half as good as this display makes it look, it will be huge in so many ways.  It will really shine such a positive light on Hispanic culture.  While sitting for both Mariachi groups on two different days, I was amazed at a few things....

• Hispanic people enjoying the music of their own culture,
• Children of all colors stopping, and enjoying the music,
• Adults of all races stopping to take pictures and video as they passed by the performers. 

The response people of all stripes had to the music and the performers was astonishing, and a beautiful picture of what the world is, people being interested and entranced by another group's culture, or their own group, for that matter.  in my opinion, this is what Disney can do and be. THIS is what Epcot Center was meant to do, not just educate people, but to excite their interest. Coco has already succeeded as an ambassador of a culture, and if I could thank directors Lee Unrich and Adrian Molina for this, I'd be thrilled. 

Pixar is known for their research and attention to detail.  The French, wary of outside depictions of their culture, actually embrace Ratatouille to the point where a land dedicated to the film had to be built in Disneyland Paris.  I have always had faith in Coco, but to see it actually coming to fruition has excited more than I even thought it would. 

And I sincerely hope this movie does well enough to warrant a land. I don't think that's asking too much.....

I will criticize Disney where I need to, but here, they've knocked it out of the park. Thank you to ALL those involved in putting the Celebration of Coco together and I'm so looking forward to the film.

And before you ask, yes, I will review the film once I get to see it.  

Have you also gone to Plaza de Familia? Did you enjoy it? Please let us know in the comments.  If you like this post or the blog, PLEASE share it on the social media platform of your choice. 

I'll be back soon, depending on what I can get done in the meantime.  Any suggestions? Questions? Again, head over to the comments here at the bottom. 

Have a great week! 

Life's Like a Movie: Cars 3

KA-CHOW!

I'm so sorry to have been absent lately. I was trying to wrap up some screenwriting projects for a contest, and it was just hard to do both at once.

BUT, I'm gonna review Cars 3 today, hopefully get us on track with the goings on at the parks, and get you all prepped for the D23 Expo!

So, how is everyone doing? Good? Great....

Now, I'm going to try to be spoiler free as usual (if you prefer I provide spoilers, let me know in the comments section below).

Now, let's be honest, Cars isn't Pixar's most...beloved franchise. And I kind of get it. Talking cars. But, like Pixar, there is never any detail left untouched, and THAT'S what makes the difference.

And then Cars 2 happened. And I'd like to say I understand what Pixar was trying to do, but I can't fully justify it.  I love Mater, don't get me wrong, but he can't carry a movie.  Especially when you spend half the movie insulting him and the other half attempting to justify the insults.

Although, "Is the Popemobile Catholic?" will never NOT be funny....

Cars 3 was obviously intended to redeem the franchise, and I feel like it did that in spades.  For one thing, the story isn't about Mater, it's about Lightning McQueen. Plain and simple, and getting back to that is important.

And Cars isn't a story ABOUT cars as much as it's about sports.  The athlete just happens to be a car. Which is why it's so smart Cars 3 is essentially Rocky IV with cars. Not to mention, one of McQueen's friendly competitors is Carl Weathers, in reference to the actor who portrayed Apollo Creed. See? That Pixar, always thinkin'!

And to the point of friendly competitors, from the get go, what I loved about this movie was a sense of McQueen's own growth.  Yeah, he's still speed, he still psyches himself up the same way before a race, but now his personal space is full of pictures of his friends from Radiator Springs, and even when he doesn't win, he's got friends ON the track to play pranks on (and get a few pranks in return). What kind of bothered me in Cars 2 was McQueen seemed to backslide a little bit...and that's not really his fault, I think the problem was you need conflict and to make Mater more sympathetic emotionally, McQueen's kind of got to be the bad guy.  But here, he's learned it is more fun to race with friends. And that's such an emotional pull as his friends all start retiring because of new cars like Jackson Storm.

By the way, Jackson Storm is just....to put it nicely, he does his job well. I hate him. And I hope they don't bring HIM into the parks for a meet & greet, because I'll be tempted to kick him...right in the fender. You do NOT be mean to McQueen! You just don't!

Alright, sorry, got a little emotional.

According to Rottentomatoes.com, Cars 3 is considered 66% fresh, barely passing muster, and I feel like this is a mistake.  Besides giving Lightning McQueen a nice deep story, the cinematography for the Cars movies has consistently been mind-blowing. There are plenty of shots in this film, with the cars facing away from the camera, you'd think it was a live action film.

One thing I want to make sure I mention is the demolition derby.  Another strength of the series is its ability to pull from so many varied aspects of car culture.  Radiator Springs, NASCAR racing, etc. Cars 3 was no exception.

Another strength of the series has been its diversity.  It's such an odd place to find a nicely diverse cast, with Kerry Washington and comedian Cristela Alonzo in addition to Cheech Marin (crazy, huh??) and Jennifer Lewis already staples of the series, Cars seems to do a bit of a better job than a lot of popular franchises of transcending race and gender (there are plenty of tough, varied, complex female characters throughout the series) while not letting any of those current hot button issues take over the story.

So, that's about it.  Go see and enjoy.  Great job, boys and girls at Pixar!

Cruz Ramirez IS already showing up in Carsland.  The Welcome Sign at the front of the land has been altered to welcome her.  I haven't had a chance to get into the parks to see her.  I'll be in the parks this week to get a look at the re-opened passageway between Frontierland and Fantasyland (thank GOD! My feet have been killing me!), so maybe I'll take a look and see if I can meet her....

Oh! Before I forget...as usual, Pixar paired with Cars 3 a LOVELY little short called "Lou".  If this isn't their next Academy Award winner for best animated short, I'd truly be surprised.  Especially since Disney decided to pair a Frozen related short to Coco in November.

I don't want to give much away, because it's hard to describe without doing so, but Pixar has a great talent for taking a "villain" and giving the villain an emotional journey.

So, we're going to be experiencing a few changes.  In the next couple of weeks leading up to the Expo, we'll be switching over to our own Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram feeds, so keep an eye out for that.

And speaking of the Expo, I WILL be there covering it as best I can on my short little legs, and I'll have buttons if you happen to find me.  Another little project leading up to the Expo, I'm going to preview some designs and I'd like everyone's input.

Have a great week!

Life's Like a Movie - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Hi, Everyone!

Sorry to be so absent.

BUT, let's talk about Pirates really quick.

They should have called it Pirates of the Caribbean: Saving Will Turner. But other than that, I'll be as spoiler free as I can manage.

I wouldn't say a single Pirates movie has truly been a disappointment to me, but the fact that I don't remember very much of On Stranger Tides might indicate it was a little disappointing. My brain just neglected to catalog it....

I'll say, in retrospect, the problem was the loss of Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightley.  It appears Jerry Bruckheimer has figured this out, in a rather ingenious way. (Again, no spoilers, I'll keep my mouth shut!)

This movie both got back to its roots and set new standards of large action-based set piece moments.  Plus, the writing is very clever. Since I saw the movie on Friday, I've been trying to ascertain what about it was different from On Stranger Tides, and At World's End. I think both of these movies failed (as much as a Pirates movie can fail) in that they played too much to Jack Sparrow.  The reason Johnny Depp got his first Oscar nomination for Curse of the Black Pearl was because the script was just written and Johnny used the space to paint a more vivid character.

And don't misunderstand, I'm not blaming the writers (Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio for all except this recent entry, Just Rossio and Jeff Nathanson).  As a screenwriter, if I blame anyone in the sequel game, it's the studio (You heard me, Iger!).

But, it's kind of a moot point anyway, since this movie fared so much better in Jack Sparrow's balance onscreen.

On thing I'd love to point out, Sir Paul McCartney's cameo.  I heard about it early on,....then forgot about it...until his official Instagram posted the promotional photo of his character.  Again, not giving anything away, but it's a better cameo match than one thinks.  Keith Richards, though the inspiration for Jack Sparrow, isn't an actor. No matter how good his episode of The Simpsons is...

Anyway, Paul's cameo is oddly a bit of light, and a plot point, which made his presence more...useful?

Really, when does one ever NOT need Paul McCartney?

For symmetry's sake, here is Paul on the Simpsons.


To the critics who insist "Why did we need another Pirates movie?"...I say why not? Do we need another Fast and Furious? Another Guardians of the Galaxy? I understand the repetitive nature of the movie business these days.  I believe I've even commented on it previously on the blog....but in the spirit of the Donnie and Marie.....You're a little bit Furious, and I'm a little bit Pirate-y.

And I have always thought of Pirates more in the vein of the old serials from the 40s and 50s.  There are supposed to be a few in one continuing story.  And Pirates movies were and are a perfect setting and theme for a serial.  I realize this may seem like being a Disney apologist, but I doubt anyone could look at my Tower of Terror blog and call me that.

Did you see Pirates this weekend? Any questions? Comments? Theories? Do you think, assuming the movie does well enough at the box office, Disney might rescind calling this the "final chapter" of the Pirates tale? Let us know in the comments below! (Below, as opposed to Facebook...)

Have a good week!

Life's Like a Movie: Beauty & the Beast

Happy Monday!

I got to rush off and take my aunt's children to see Beauty & the Beast! Let's dig in, there's a bit to unpack.  Grab your grey stuff...!!!

Tale as Old as Time

Now, with this film in particular, the same question has come up.  To quote Cogsworth, "If it isn't Baroque, don't fix it!"  Why remake a near perfect film in the first place?

It's a good question, no doubt.  A lot of people are simply chalking it up to the creative bankruptcy of Disney and Hollywood in general.  The answer is more complicated.  We're in the middle of a sort of vicious cycle that's affecting the creative bank of Hollywood, and Disney's no exception.

The problem starts at the movie theater.  The average married couple with 2.3 children (like my aunt), pays a ballpark of $60 to get seats in a theater. And if you think my aunt's ravenous children will see a movie without snacks, you're crazy.  Like locusts, they are! A family night at the movies isn't any less than $100. So families aren't going to make a bet on seeing a movie that they're not sure their kids are going to enjoy.  Hence the glut of remakes, reboots and adaptations.

Now, while audiences won't go for anything unfamiliar (i.e. a safe bet for their children), there is another wrinkle.  Can't Disney just re-release their movies like they used to? Walt had a theory that if you released a movie back into theaters every 7 years, you have a new generation of children to enchant.  But....now we've got home video (ok, DVD/Blu-ray.  I'm old, I get it.)  You don't have to go to the theater anymore.  You don't have to endure the families who don't discipline their children and allow them to talk the entire movie...

So, that lets out re-releases. Even a few years ago, Disney attempted 3D releases of Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo. After Beast, Nemo, and Monsters Inc.,they cancelled the Little Mermaid....which made me sad despite the fact that I saw it at the El Capitan in Hollywood for my 25th birthday.....yeah, my 25th....

In a sense, what Disney is doing with these...re-imagings, is genius.  They aren't intending to replace the original films. With the new outpouring of merchandise from various outlets, it proves they're as interested in the nostalgia as they are the new film, because it's not just merch from the new movie, but the old.  I'm not saying whether this is all necessarily the most artistic move on Disney's part, but they're working within the parameters they have.

The good...

With a $170 million opening weekend, seems like Disney is making the right move.  Overall, the film  is beautiful and tries very hard to flesh out an original film made in a nine month period, a ridiculously short amount of time for a hand-drawn animated film.

The 1991 original is, without question, a masterpiece.  But as I said before, Disney isn't trying to improve on it, or imply it wasn't good enough.  Nevertheless, director Bill Condon did use the opportunity to further color the characters and modernize the story a little....

If you want information about the making of Beauty and the Beast, I cannot recommend more the documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty.  It chronicles the Disney Animation Studio from 1984-1994, including the struggles surrounding the production. So, for now, I won't go down that rabbit hole.

Again, the movie is beautifully and lovingly put together, there is no doubt about that.  The cast is just an incredible mix of people. I mean, who else could have played Belle but Emma Watson? And in this age where there are many polarizing "celebrities", Disney assembled a large and universally loved group.

And, I could swear, there are moments the crew of the film watched the original and said, "Now, people are going to cry....how do we make it worse?" In the interest of being spoiler-free, I'll leave it at that.

There were moments, again, no spoilers, where I feel certain there was an intention to re-create the original animation from Disney Legend Glen Keane.  As an animation geek, this kind of thing really hit my heartstrings.

As to the music, I'm glad none of the songs added to the Broadway show made it, but that Alan Menken was brought in to add new songs.  His and Howard Ashman's work truly made the movie (Please see Waking Sleeping Beauty), allowing the music to continue to drive and change the story.

Before we get into the more...critical end of things, I'll just say, if you're going to go, just enjoy it and don't overthink anything.

The Beastly....

Now, for the not-so-good. 

I have to say, if the movie truly failed anywhere, it was in the moments where they tried to re-create dialogue heavy scenes from the original, a little too hard.  One of the funniest scenes in the original is the Beast attempting to bend to Belle as he asks her to dinner...and it just felt as if these actors were trying too hard to make their lines sound different from the original, instead of focusing on the situation itself.  I think another reason for this issue...it tended to happen with the actors playing the objects, Ewan McGregor, Sir Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson...so I'm wondering if the aspect of recording the dialogue somehow stilted the performances...

On that note, I feel the addition of more objects left many well-known and talented actors with less to do than their worth. Sir Ian McKellen, in particular, I feel had a real uphill battle.  And no offense to the masterful actor he is....but you kind of can't beat David Ogden Stiers, who's best lines in the movie were essentially ad libs. 

The film is an additional 40 minutes long, and yet its cast hardly has time to really give it the moments the original had.  Even some of the additional lyrics in "Gaston" were lost to what I felt was a bad mixing moment.  I couldn't understand the lyrics half the time at all. I'm not sure if it's where I was in the theater or what...I'm hoping so. 

And the Controversial...

OK...so everyone appeared to lose their minds over the fact that LeFou might be gay. 

Let me make this simple...CALM DOWN.

Your kids won't even notice. 

Josh Gad is, on camera, quite interesting, because he really adds layers in his performance to a fairly one-dimensional character.  He's got some of the funniest moments in the movie.  He either worked the hardest to get those moments in, or was just the most successful.  

In my opinion, at lot of these "moments" of concern played out like an episode of Boy Meets World where Cory and Shawn's friendship is at stake as a girlfriend keeps them apart.  The dialogue deliberately veers off into this tone that sounds like a relationship.  It's a nice cheap little sitcom joke, but doesn't lead you to believe anything else other than Cory and Shawn miss each other.  If your kid didn't realize what's potentially up with LeFou...then it's just funny. 

And we're gonna put that one to rest, people! Go have a glass of wine...

Conclusion

The movie, overall, is a great compliment to the original.  Disney's chosen to create an interesting side catalog to its animated classics in live action.  It does not exceed the original, but it wasn't meant to.  It made my family happy, it made me happy.  It was a nice moment to share all together.  That's all it needed to be. 

Oh, one more thing....why did Disney have to use John Legend and Ariana Grande to sing the title song? I'm just so sick of them both.  Celine Dion was fairly new to the industry when she and Peabo Bryson sang the title song in 1991 (and she came back to sing one of the new songs, nice full circle).  The choice of artist is entirely uninspired here....

So, I will leave you with the original version, to make us all happy. 

And if you're in DCA, go check out the preview in the Hollywood Pictures Backlot.

Have a good week, everyone! 

Life's Like a Movie.....Finding Dory

Hello, All!

OK, so while I've been collecting interesting content for you all, the pacing has been a little funky.  Fred has a frolic for you this week (it's a doozy!), and I have a few Disney related reviews for you all.

BUT, since I took my favorite test audience to see Finding Dory today, I figured I'd get it out fast.

By the way, HERE is my test audience, in all their glory...

Naomi (12), Olivia (5), and Reuben (7).  Aren't they the cutest things?

So, we couldn't wait to see Finding Dory.  Lemme just push up my sleeves.  Wait, I don't have any sleeves.  How am I supposed to emotionally prepare for this without sleeves?!

We were, in all honesty, prepared for an emotional experience.  Truly, as excited as I was, there was also a little fear in there.  Not that I thought Pixar would ruin anything, but...you know how they are.  They like to encourage feelings we can neither understand nor explain (Much like Lightning McQueen).  

If anyone hasn't heard the impetus for the sequel, director Andrew Stanton reportedly said after Dory's line in the original, wondering about her family, his paternal instinct activated and he felt compelled to help her find her family.  Every ounce of that real feeling went into this film, and it shows.

On a mere technological level, it's beautiful.  Utterly.  As in many Pixar sequels (Or, prequel) the team takes the opportunity to step up the visuals a notch.  That's saying something when so much of the original looks like an IMAX nature film.

Story-wise, it is Pixar's usual solid story.  I really can't see a problem with it.  It's tone was light (and HILARIOUS) enough to keep the heavy from getting too heavy, without undercutting it.  

Seeing it with the kids, everyone had a marvelous time.  The two little ones tend to be quiet anyway, but neither found anything emotionally disruptive.  Oh, how I long for the days of going along for the story's ride and not being effected by it.  (Well, who are we kidding, I was an 8 year old who cried during A League of Their Own, I've always been like this!)  They all LOVED the finale, which, yeah I won't give away, but was a stroke of GENIUS.

I feel like this review is a little disjointed, but remaining spoiler free and attempting to find criticism with this film is incredibly difficult.  Time will tell how it holds up to Finding Nemo, but I think it will do just fine.  Pixar has had a habit of letting the side kick become the protagonist of a sequel.  Here, it was a perfect concept.  The movie's emotional heart is, naturally, Dory herself.  It would have been easy to continue to make Dory's short term memory loss, her disability if you will, a continued hindrance to the story.  It's allowed to deepen her character, a film intended for the audience to understand her.  Hence, heartbreak. 

What I saw in theme was really a lesson of .....well, just keep swimming.  For one thing, Dory, though accidentally, didn't let her memory loss stop her.  She just kept trying. In all things.  I'll just leave it at that. Also, I could see the analogy of disability here.  You see Dory's parents try to help their daughter through her memory loss and it emotionally pays off so beautifully in theme. 

The only criticism I can think of is from Reuben.  No sharks.  He was unhappy there was no Bruce, but that was the only disappointment expressed. 

OH! One other note.  If the short that came with it, "Piper", doesn't get the Oscar for best Animated short, I'd be surprised.  It was a perfect compliment to the film, theme wise.

Now, just one last note, something that's irked me for some time, but was further brought to my attention at my..screening.  This isn't a "kid's movie".  Well, it's a family film.  Two different terms.  Do NOT think because you took your family to see a movie geared towards families and children, that your children shouldn't have to behave in a theater.  I might do a full blog on this later, but just because a movie is animated or made by Disney doesn't mean it's stupid or just for children.  That was never Walt's intention.  Don't devalue the intense artistic and technical artistry here because of its supposed content. 

That's about it.  GO.  Now. Bring 1 tissue.  I think you'll do ok with that much. 

Oh, and STAY through the credits! (Why aren't you already doing that?)

Have a great weekend.  Just keep swimming.....

Life's Like a Movie...Alice Through the Looking Glass

Hello, Readers!

I just barely got home from seeing Alice Through the Looking Glass, so while it's fresh in my mind, let me give a review.

First off, I try not to read reviews, but the one I did read mentioned how the story was kind of thin, a lot of style and not a lot of substance.  I really take issue with this because I'm tired of movies being judged by only one measuring stick.  This review calls to mind the bad reviews for Muppets Most Wanted (same director, James Bobin), where at least one reviewer called the plot merely a device to string Muppet jokes and gags together.  The answer to that being, "Yes, and...?" Some movies are about other things than plot (as a screenwriter, that can be a difficult fact but here we are).  Also....it's Alice in Wonderland, the less sense it makes, the more true to the original material it is, so clam up, reviewers!!

The story, not to reveal any spoilers, focuses a little more on the real world than the original, as Alice is pulled back to Underland to help an ailing Mad Hatter, while at home, her family's future is in its own turmoil.  In order to help Hatter, she must go ask a favor of Time, played by Sasha Baron Conan, who was a tolerable addition to what I consider a cast of favorites.  I almost don't want to comment on Johnny Depp's performance, because he is always fantastic.  I will say his performance here does anchor the emotional underpinning of the story, properly motivating Alice's journey.

And, frankly, I've always liked Anne Hathaway as the White Queen because it seems like she's channeling Stevie Nicks.  Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen was undercut slightly, but all for a good cause in the end.  One of those "bigger picture" issues.

It's hard to know what I really can say, in total.  Again, if you're going for a particular story being paramount to the whole, you might be in the wrong theater.  I admit, I wondered why a sequel was necessary in Disney's eyes.  What I can surmise is the need to rejoin these characters, and director James Bobin did a great job of letting you have that.  This particular Burton interpretation (and while he didn't direct, he did produce) is much more character based, in my opinion.  The sequel was made to reunite an audience with good characters.

On the basis of good characters, one place I think the movie really hits it out of the park is with Alice herself.  In the three years interim in the story, Alice has grown and changed in her own right, much to her mother's chagrin, as well as society's.  This interpretation of Alice as a strong woman of her own will in the 1870s really doesn't get enough credit for the necessity it is even in our modern world.  My goddaughter loves both versions of Disney's Alice, and I can't wait to take her to see this one just so she gets an added reminder that she really can do the impossible.

PLEASE, go see this movie and just enjoy yourself.

See you in Wonderland/Underland/Fantasyland!

Life's Like a Movie.....Zootopia and The Jungle Book

Hello, Everybody!

Thank you for your patience during my absence... With all the movies out and coming soon, I thought I would introduce my new segment, "Life's like a Movie, Write your Own Ending" (Brownie points for those who get the reference and comment at the bottom of the page).  I plan to review movies from a few different angles.  They won't always be 100% timely partially because I'd like to see the movies with my Aunt's children (Naomi, 12, Reuben, 7, and Olivia, 5) to give a more well-rounded review.  Plus, being a student of the art of screenwriting, I feel like i can give a different point of view.  This will be a photo free blog, but (hopefully) worthy in content.

Zootopia
This is Disney Animation's latest entry into the legendary animated canon.  Now, to backtrack a little, when co-director Byron Howard was at the helm of 'Tangled', he explained the reasoning behind the production as trying to do the best version of what Disney already unapologetically did best, a princess movie.  I feel the same philosophy went into Zootopia (with equally capable 'Wreck-It-Ralph' director Rich Moore), only in terms of the anthropomorphic characters.

Zootopia somehow manages to be incredibly modern ("A rabbit can call another rabbit cute, but others can't") but still manage to tackle a more widespread theme of accepting and understanding others' differences. You could certainly discuss the themes with your children either way, and I appreciate that philosophy.

Some seem to believe DreamWorks animated films do more to make their films fun for adults as well as children by throwing in adult jokes that go right over the children's heads (until much later, and then you question your whole understanding of the world!).  Personally, Zootopia did a far better job of integrating adult and innocent humor for the benefit of the story and for all audiences.  Naomi didn't really get the Godfather references, but enjoyed the humor of it nonetheless.

As far as demographics, the children all loved it.  Naomi remarked more than once that she wasn't too impressed with the trailers but really enjoyed the movie.  Reuben asked when the movie would be released on DVD as we were leaving the theater.  High praise, indeed.  My grandmother, however, had other impressions.  She found the humor a little too mean for her taste, and my grandmother is an avid movie goer with varied taste.  So, I hope it gives you a little bit of a range of feelings if you're still considering seeing it, or purchasing the DVD/Blu-Ray upon the June 7th release date.

The Jungle Book
Let me just start with this: it's wonderful.  As a Disney history fan, these live action remakes present an interesting dilemma.  Does Disney intend to somehow replace the animated canon, or is the intention for these films to stand alongside their animated counterparts? Certainly Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' departs greatly from the film, as well as Don Hahn's 'Maleficent'.  In what appears to be the other school of thought, Kenneth Branagh's 'Cinderella' seemed to take the issues of the original and reconcile them (with no offense intended to the glorious original).  'The Jungle Book' fits beautifully in a third category.  It utilizes the original, borrows more heavily from the book's story-wise, and creates its own space on the shelf next to the animated classic, instead of leaning on it.

The echoes from the original are great and varied, while maintaining its own visual identity.  Speaking of which, if there is any danger of seeing this movie, it creates the overwhelming urge to pet wild animals.  The computer generated effects on all the animals, enabling a realism while even speaking like humans, astounds the viewer.  Obviously, a lot of time and care was taken to ensure a balance.  Director Jon Favreau certainly didn't slouch in the storyline either.  As previously mentioned, the story does take more from the book than the 1967 original did, but only to its benefit.  In a sense, the story felt like the deleted scenes of the animated version.  In the beginning and the ending (not to spoil it), there are more direct visual echoes to the original that truly succeed in honoring the original.

The last thing I feel I need to mention in lightness music.  Favreau so artfully integrated not just the Sherman Brothers/Terry Gilkyson/George Bruns songs and score, it's seamless.  Admittedly, Branagh's use of music in 'Cinderella' seemed more of an afterthought, while Favreau knew the best way to honor the original was through the music, even asking Richard Sherman to add new lyrics to one of the songs.

Now, I'd like to discuss a couple more serious matters regarding the film that were brought to my attention.  I saw this movie with only Naomi, age 12, so she will be my basis for my comments.  For one thing, I sensed some concern from others about how appropriate this was for children, some of the trailers being a little more dark and intense than the original.  Let me answer this simply...sure, it's a little more intense, being live action, but it has not suddenly been turned into a slasher flick.  That being said, you should know your children and I strongly suggest you see the trailer for yourself, or even with your own children, and make a decision together.

One last subject I feel the need to touch on is the theme of adoption in the film.  Now, my aunt's children are all adopted, the girls from China, Reuben from Korea.  The idea of taking on the responsibility of a child who is not like you (a "man cub" amongst wolves) is part of the storyline, certainly,  so the idea of differences and sameness is discussed, on both sides, right and wrong.  I'd like to emphasis the "wrong" aspect because, again, not to spoil, but some villains in life like to use misinformation to gain the confidence of others.  'The Jungle Book' is an example of that.  If you are looking for a movie that doesn't invite discussion and questions, just don't go.  Despite the discussion on both sides, by the end of the film, the opinion of the filmmakers is entirely clear.  I suggest, should you see the movie with your adopted children, use it as an opportunity to create a dialogue with them.

Naomi is an intelligent young lady, and she didn't notice this "theme" at all.  So, on the other hand, if you get the impression the kids didn't notice....don't worry about it! The theme of the film is individuality, and facing fear, and understanding you are a composite of elements, not simply your species or your family...


I hope these thoughts have been enlightening to anyone still unsure about these films.  The Walt Disney Company is firing on all cylinders in the film division, and I look forward to sharing thoughts on the upcoming 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' and 'Finding Dory' (I'm REALLY excited about this one!)

Have a great week, and.....Just Keep Swimming!