Reviews

This is a documentary mainly aimed at the casual fan, and trying to condense 75 years into three hours is always going leave holes. Let's start with the good stuff.

Liev Schreiber is a great host and narrator. He sets the tone well. Not all actors are good narrators, but Schreiber delivers.

The interviews are an excellent cross-section of folks from across the years. In this time where superheroes dominate the culture, it's eye-opening to remember the humble beginnings.

The odd stuff: For a film that seems to want to be an overview for the masses, it does dive deep into the weeds at times, notably with an extended focus on 1986, and the one-two punch of Dark Knight and Watchmen. Yes, those are two utterly pivotal books, but I'm not sure they require as much screen time as they were given. This also leads to one of the omissions: We should at least have a passing mention of Camelot 3000, the 1982-1985 DC maxi series that paved the way for the direct market. Since the documentary spends time talking about the collecting bubble of the '90s, it's surprising to leave out this book.

The omissions: In addition to ignoring the direct market, there is no mention made of the black-and-white indie explosion of the '80s. I think there is one brief glimpse of an Eastman/Laird TMNT cover. Not a mention of Dark Horse comics. In fact, the only modern company mentioned outside of DC and Marvel is Image.

While some mention is made of Black Panther and Luke Cage in the 70s, not mentioning Milestone seems odd. After all, Static Shock brought that universe into the mainstream, and that's kind of the point of the series: comics gone mainstream.

I could go on, but every documentarian has to make choices. Suffice to say this: what's on the screen is superbly done. But there's more to tell. Hey, Ken Burns! I've got an idea for you...

What sets this version of "A Christmas Carol" apart from so many others is the sheer believability of Scrooge's transformation. So many times, Scrooge is played as a cartoon character, all miserly and mean, and then POOF, all is well at the end.

With Sim, you see Scrooge as a fully realized character. His descent takes time. Even his seizing of the counting house seems nothing more than an incredibly shrewd business move. Fittingly. his redemption also occurs slowly over time. Even when the final Spirit has left, you can tell he's not quite sure he deserves this second chance. His glee in the "morning after" meeting with Bob Crachit is palpable, particularly as it's mixed with his confusion over his newfound state of grace.

Grace. That's at the heart of this tale. Another reviewer tried to paint this as "socialist propaganda." Completely off-mark. Nowhere is it said in the movie that Government should help out. The appeal is to the individual. That's not a governmental appeal. That's a suggestion from a Higher Authority.

Watch the original B&W. It's gorgeous. Every year I revel in watching Alastair Sim rescue Scrooge from all the bad versions out there, and restore him to his place as one of our classic characters.

Let's start with this: This movie made me care about a rolling trash compactor. Out of all the Pixar characters over the years, I've never felt a closer connection than I did with Wall-E. Just a simple, loyal, dutiful little 'bot and I was with him every step of the way. The emotional ties were every bit as real and moving as Jessie's "When she loved me" song in TS2, or Mr. & Mrs. Incredible fighting to save their family.

One of the greatest tributes I have to this movie is that it kept a theater of young children ENTHRALLED. They followed everything, and paid rapt attention. Even thru the credits!

This may also be the purest sci-fi film to hit the screen in ages. By all rights, it shouldn't work. Can you imagine the pitch session: "Yeah, our hero is an electronic garbage man on a desolate, abandoned Earth, and there's almost no dialog." If it wasn't Pixar, this movie would have never seen the light of day. But it did, and it's magic.

And do ignore the clones screaming about "thinly disguised environmental propaganda." "Wall-E" is like all good fairy tales: a story that teaches us something about the angels (loyalty, sacrifice, love) and devils (gluttony, apathy) of our nature.

In some aspects, Wall-E reminded me of Spirited Away. A slow-moving tale at times, but appropriately so. A family film to make you sit back and say, yeah, there's something more important than gag-a-minute writing, and bodily function humor. As others have said, this is the family film as art.

Wall-E brought tears to these 44-year-old male eyes. And it made me laugh uproariously. Somewhere, Charlie Chaplin is smiling, because The Little Tramp has been reincarnated, and now he's solar-powered.

Pixar has gone nine-for-nine. And just for chuckles, PRESTO, the short that precedes Wall-E, just might be the out-and-out funniest thing Pixar has ever made.

Wall-E is brilliant. If you're not moved by it, check your basement. There's probably a large pod there right now.

This movie is on my short list of great live action family films. If you believe that every girl is a princess, this is the movie for you. Beautifully staged and shot, well-acted, superbly directed. This movie works from start to finish.

Some reviewers here on IMDb have slammed the film as overly sentimental. If you don't like movies with a sweet disposition, this isn't your film. Let's put it this way: if you think Frank Capra was the bane of American film-making, you're gonna hate this movie. If you judge films on a "the darker, the better" scale-why are you even watching this? Another caveat: I haven't read the book. The movie apparently takes great liberties with the book. If this kind of thing bothers you, stay away.

Alfonso Cuaron shows a deft handling of the sense of wonder here. When he was announced as the director of Harry Potter 3, his work on Little Princess made me confident he'd deliver the goods. One reviewer tried to declare that "Princess" was a calculated attempt by Cuaron to to get a gig on the Potter series. Impossible. "Princess" was released in 1995, and "Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone" was PUBLISHED in 1998.

This is a small, quiet, sweet little film the entire family can enjoy, without insulting Mom & Dad's intelligence. It is the next step for all little girls who are starting to outgrow Belle/Ariel/Jasmine and the rest of the animated princesses. This Little Princess is real, and her story is worth watching.

Side note-little boys might not find the film engaging. It is kind of chick-flick for the tween set. That doesn't mean it's totally male-unfriendly. Fathers of daughters will be hard-pressed to avoid shedding a tear or two.

If you have a tween daughter, save some rental money and just buy it! She's going to watch it over and over.

My family just got back from an advance screening at Mall of GA, sponsored by the Gwinnett Daily Post. (Saturday, 6/18/05-10:00am). In attendance: My wife & I (40 & 41 respectively), our ten-year-old daughter, and her ten-year-old friend. All four of us had a blast! The audience was completely into it. First time I've heard people clap *during* a film in a very long time.

Let's get one thing out of the way: if you're looking for realism: run the other way. This is a fantasy! But, like most good fantasies, it only asks you to suspend disbelief on a few points: Herbie has a mind of his own and can do outrageous things, including outrun a stock car. The biggest pill to swallow: NASCAR would let a VW Bug into a race!

It comes down to this: if you liked the coming attractions, you'll enjoy this movie. Obviously, this is not a film for the art-house set. Judge it for what it is: a summer popcorn flick the whole family can enjoy. I laughed myself sick at times, and even found some of the scenes where Herbie's in trouble to be quite moving.

Lindsay Lohan does a good job: not quite to the level of her Freaky Friday performance, but then again, this script doesn't give her as much to work with. Michael Keaton underplays the father nicely, and Matt Dillon chews a bit of scenery as Trip Murphy, the reigning NEXTEL Cup Champion. Most pleasant surprise: Justin Long (Warren from TV's "ED") does a great job in the role of Kevin, the dutiful love interest for Lohan's character. If you're a NASCAR fan, the driver cameos are a bonus.

Nitpicks: for the most part, you know this plot, and you know where the story's going at all times. Also, product placement tends to get out of hand, and the movie starts to feel like a NASCAR/ESPN/BassPro infomercial.

Bottom line: the movie delivers what the trailer promises. With decidedly little G-rated fare on the horizon this summer, this thing's gonna make a mint. And deservedly so.

Scott

I am a HUGE fan of Gary Larson, but I've got to admit, this one creeped me out. I only watched it once, on its original airing, but I remember walking away from it thinking "I'm not sure I really liked that."

Something about the translation from printed page to animation didn't quite work. It took on more of an air of a horror flick as opposed to the strip's sense of on-the-edge humor.

In some ways, it's kind of like a creepier, less funny version of the Simpsons "Treehouse Of Horror" episodes. Another way to look at it: an animated "Tales From The Crypt."

Worth a look if you can find it, but expect more "ewww" than "ha-ha."

I grew up in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, and was there when this movie was being filmed. It was really quite the local event. On Golden Pond not only showcases the stunning scenery of that region, but Henry Fonda & Kate Hepburn's dynamic performances truly capture the New England spirit. I can't tell you how many Ethel Thayers I met growing up!

There were three lakes used in the filming. Squam-where the cabin was. Newfound-where Henry fell into the water while fishing, among other shots, and Winnipesaukeee, for most of the aerial shots, and the mail boat. While they did combine the lakes into the fictitious `Golden Pond', what you see on the screen is what those places look like. No post-production trickery here.

There haven't been a ton of New England movies made. Good Will Hunting and Perfect Storm got a lot of attention, but On Golden Pond, in addition to being one of the finest character studies in film history, perfectly captures New England: beautiful, contemplative, with an understanding that newer isn't necessarily better, and that still waters truly run deep.

I came in to this film expecting nothing more than a good, entertaining, supernatural tinged thriller. What I (and my thriller-loving wife) got was derivative and predictable.

Western Union couldn't have telegraphed the plot points any better. One cliche seemed to pop up after another. No real scares, not even truly creepy.

Whose fault? Bad writing, mostly. The cast gave it their best shot, the sound work was great, and Stan Winston studios provided some excellent work. But, I think I can honestly say I found this to be the worst film Bob Zemekis ever directed.

Looking for a better thriller? Try Jagged Edge or Wolfgang Peterson's highly underrated (IMO) Shattered.

Finally, a live-action family movie that entertained me and my wife immensely, while my six-year old daughter had a blast too!

The most obvious (and fitting) comparison film is Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Amazing fantasy world, some true menace, and a great message about being true to yourself and your family.

Spy Kids as a family movie for the post-Matrix age. It's witty, but never falls into that oh-so-hip faux-ironic self awareness that plagues so many movies today. It hands you a fantasy world, and encourages you to believe in it.

It has a great deal of action and slapstick, but (thankfully) was completely missing the mean-spirited undertones of the slapstick in Home Alone.

Like all great children's literature or entertainment, Spy Kids doesn't talk down to kids. It assumes they're intelligent and can pay attention. Having said that, there are sections of the film that are hyperkinetic, but they flow naturally.

It has something of a similar vibe to the Pixar films (Toy Story 1&2, Bugs Life), without as many in-jokes. There are some wonderful adult-only laughs, mostly stemming from the trials and tribulations of being a parent.

It's PG for a reason. It's not for the youngest moviegoer. A mature 5 or a six-year-old is about as young as I'd recommend. There are some scary moments, ala Willy Wonka, or The Wizard of Oz. But that's "good scary" in my book, as opposed to needlessly scaring folks to death.

The message of family is delightful. The Cortez family is a *real* family. They have disagreements, but they love each other. Thankfully, Rodriguez avoids the sit-com smartmouth syndrome, and gives us kids we can believe.

And I love the fact that Rodriguez never downplays the Latino heritage of the family. Hey, I'm so Anglo I'm practically translucent, but it was such a refreshing change to not have typical whitebread heroes out to save the world.

Not since Bob (Porky's) Clark pulled A Christmas Story out of his hat has a director come up with such a pleasant surprise in a genre you'd never imagine. Summary? A cup of Bond, a splash of Willy Wonka, and a dash of The Matrix. Sit back and watch the fun!

Once again, John Lasseter and the gang at Pixar have outdone themselves. Toy Story 2 is that rarest of creatures, a sequel that just might be better than the original.

The gee-whiz factor of the computer animation is undeniable, but what holds the movie together is a great story. I saw this film with my wife, and my four-year-old. We all had a great time. Great slapstick for the kids, incredible in-jokes for the adults. Look for all sorts of Pixar characters sprinkled throughout the movie, plus great homages to other popular films.

Perhaps the biggest treat: Before the movie, (at least when I saw it in Suburban Atlanta), they showed Pixar's first short: LUXO, JR. What a wonderful opportunity to see this gem that spawned Pixar's hopping-lamp logo mascot.

The third consecutive winner from Pixar. Not just a great animated film. A great film, period.

I rented this mostly for my 4-year-old daughter, who enjoys both the 1963 original "Incredible Journey", and the 1993 remake. She thought the sequel was very funny, particularly some of Sassy the Cat's antics. I must admit, the movie took me in as well.

The sequel is a little heavier-handed than the 1993 remake. Not only do our three main characters have to get home, but they have to defeat a gang of city dogs, outwit two dognappers who are trying to sell strays to the "The Lab", rescue a child from a burning building, and find true love on top of it all!

Still, not a bad way to spend 89 minutes. Michael J. Fox is again excellent as Chance, Sally Fields is full of indignation as Sassy, and Ralph Waite does an eerily accurate recreation of the late Don Ameche's characterization of Shadow. Sinbad is wasted as Reilly, their new city dog friend. The character seemed to be more of an afterthought than anything.

Most pleasant surprise: Al Michaels, Tommy Lasorda and Bob Uecker as three dogs "broadcasting" a pee-wee baseball game. If you are looking for a movie to enjoy with your children without feeling totally insulted, Homeward Bound II is a solid bet. A few tense moments, but nothing that should upset anyone beyond the Teletubbies set.