They say January/February is the time of the year where movies are sent to die.  Studios will often shelve projects that don’t test well until then, since audiences tend to not go to movies in that time frame.  This creates a double-edged sword for romantic comedies.  On the one hand, studios want to take advantage of Valentine’s Day to boost interest; on the other, studios have to find a place for the stinkers.  That is what happened last year with Ashton Kutcher’s last attempt at a romantic comedy, Valentine’s Day.  Unfortunately, the movie bombed because it tried to hard to be like Love Actually, only without the interesting stories.

Fast forward a year and we find him trying again, this time with Natalie Portman.  The story is fairly simple: two people meet at different times over the years; they start having sex; and then love gets in the way…

Wait a sec – I’m not reviewing a DVD of When Harry Met Sally…

Sadly, the story is predictable; about the only thing that makes the movie worth watching is the charm of Portman and Kutcher.  There are moments where you can tell they are having fun with the roles and that translates well onscreen.  Cary Elwes is wasted in a supporting role as a doctor at Portman’s hospital.  Kevin Kline does well with what he is given as Kutcher’s dad, but it feels like he has done it before.  The rest of the cast is does well with what it has, but many of their parts feel like they could have been played by anyone.

What was interesting for me was when the movie had me reflecting on one of my early relationships.  Of course, if she is reading this, I will pay for the following paragraph.  There comes the predictable point in the movie where Portman’s character calls things off.  Soon after, she decides that she wants back in, but Kutcher summons his male pride and says no.  Of course this is how my relationship ended: she broke up with me; wanted back in; and I refused due to hurt feelings and pride.  Of course, I did not have Ivan Reitman directing my love life, so as you can imagine there was no happy ending for me or the girlfriend involved.  Portman and Kutcher faired much better – shocker.

My advice: see it at the dollar theater or matinee; if you need a date movie, it is serviceable, but not ideal…

One of a few reviews left over from 2010…

I am lucky to have been born when I was.  I am not entirely certain that everyone of my generation appreciates the specialness of our timing of birth in relation to Disney animation.

Huh?

I was born in 1970, at a time when Disney was known for its animation and family programming more than its theme parks.  Animation is what had fed the Disney coffers for decades and is what sustained it as attempts were made to break into other entertainment areas.  I spent many of my formative years watching hand-drawn stories from the “9 Old Men” unfold on movie screens.  Home video was not prevalent, so seeing a Disney animated classic on the big screen was a big deal.  In the 80s, audiences felt that Disney was not as important to animation as it once was.  Even then, Disney was trying to find ways to incorporate new techniques to lure audiences back.  The release of Oliver and Company saw the first use of computers in animation.  Even in its crudeness, Disney saw the potential power of the computer on the animation industry.  Each animated feature that followed used more and more of the computer.

Of course, Pixar took us to the next step: believable computer animation with deep stories.  Disney was wise to sign on as Pixar’s distribution arm.  However, Michael Eisner let his ego almost destroy Disney animation completely.  He could not stand the fact that Pixar was becoming talked about as Disney’s equal in the world of animation – no other studio had come even close to that comparison.  Something had to be done since traditional animated features had not been as successful as they had been in the heyday of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.  Despite the Orlando successes of Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear, Eisner shuttered the East Coast animation studio and moved everything out west.  On top of that, he decreed that everything had to be computer-animated the way Pixar did it.  He hoped to use this as leverage against Pixar in a “we don’t really need you” scenario.

The first entry from this new path was Chicken Little.  While it had good visuals, the story was too weak to sustain a box office run.  It also served as Disney’s first run at 3-D that involved a depth to the screen versus things coming out of the screen.  The 3-D was what made me recommend it to others.  Meet The Robinsons was better in all categories, but still not the equal of Pixar.  With Bolt, things started going right – but there was a reason for that.  Eisner was no longer in charge, and Pixar was now part of the company.  Those that had guided Pixar’s success were now applying similar principles to Disney.

Which leads us to Tangled…

Tangled was originally titled Rapunzel, but was retitled after the release of The Princess and the Frog.  Why?  Well, Disney realized that boys were not interested in watching animation that appeared to be centered around princesses.  So the story was reworked to emphasize Flynn Rider’s role and the promotional materials changed to reflect a more neutral style of story.  I believe that it is this shift in viewpoint that yielded the strong story that movie-going audiences ended up getting.

The story is a basic one:  Girl wants to experience the world; guy agrees to help in return for his treasure; hijinks ensue.  The animation is beautiful and you almost forget that you are watching a computer-animated feature.  The voice-casting features good use of Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi (TV’s Chuck).  What I really enjoyed was the sidekick for Rapunzel, a chameleon named Pascal; and the Looney-Tunes-esque feel of a majority of the action sequences.

What was disappointing was how similar it felt to Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  Not sure what I mean – take a look:

• Horse – both feature a strong horse (Captain of the Guard mount) that employ similar tricks.
• The use of the tower and isolation – I know that both stories have those as elements, but Disney went the same route in using those plot elements for both movies.
• The “I Want” song – very similar to the “I Want” song in Hunchback, both in lyric and music.
• The “Villain” song – again eerily similar to the “Villain” song in Hunchback.
• The way the sidekick was used – while not verbally helping, Pascal was all three gargoyles rolled into one.

Would most people notice those things?  Probably not…

My advice:  If it is still available, see it on the big screen; even the 3-D is fairly good…

As many of you faithful readers know, my love of movies was developed by my mom, with my dad making the occasional contribution.  With as many movies as Mom took me to growing up,  there were some that she would not go to.  Dad took care of this oversight with Star Wars and James Bond, but even he missed a couple.  I hate that I missed seeing Superman on the big-screen, and that I did not get to see Star Trek either.  Years later, Mom would admit that she thought I was too wrapped up in sic-fi, superheroes, and fantasy, so she thought it best to not encourage those interests any more than necessary.  So I did not get to see TRON when it came out; instead, Mom let me read the book since she always loved me reading books.  So I grew up with images of TRON coming only from the 8 pages of set shots in the book, the arcade game, and my imagination.  As a matter of fact, it was not until this year that I sat down and actually watched the original.  I know that seems sacrilege to some of you, particularly as I reveal having owned the DVD since it came out.  I have no excuse other than I never got around to it.  I enjoyed it, but it didn’t affect me the way it might have when I was 12.

Fast forward to this weekend.  My friend, Ken, and his wife, Amy, invited me to join them for the ETX/3D showing of Legacy at AMC Pleasure Island.  Let’s think about this for a sec: good company, one of my favorite theaters, and a movie I was interested in seeing – no brainer that I said yes.   Ken and Amy beat me to the theater, and thanks to Amy, we got some pretty good seats.  If you have not been to the AMC Pleasure Island lately, they have made some changes.  Stadium 1 (where we were) is now an ETX environment; while not IMAX-certified, certainly a better screen than at the other fake IMAXes and the sound system is very impressive.  Outside of Pointe Orlando’s true IMAX, this is probably the best screen in Central Florida to pay extra for on your ticket price.

Legacy is the continuation of the story of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges).  We find out that he has taken over ENCOM and has led it to major success until he disappears sometime in the 88/89 time period.  His son, Sam, is left orphaned and alone and resentful.  Of course, he chooses to rebel the way all stereotypical movie teenagers rebel: pranking his dad’s company.  What follows is a journey that reunites Sam with his dad while introducing him to the world of the Grid.

What was Good:

• Effects – This is a visually stunning movie.  Disney managed to keep the look of the original movie without making the effects appear dated.  Everything felt more fluid with more options in this movie than the first – which is a comparison for computers today versus 1982.
• Legacy – Legacy acknowledges its roots without necessarily being completely trapped by them.  The modification of the original movie poster and the appearance of The Black Hole movie poster were smart nods.

What was not so Good:

• Story – The story felt weak to me and left me at times with a lack of wanting to root for the main character.  This is because the “why” of the story seemed muddled, lost, or non-existent.
• Reliance on Previous Movie – Part of the story issues dealt with a bad assumption that everyone seeing this movie will have seen the first one.  While that may be true for some of the viewers, I have a feeling that a lot of people are going into this one cold.  With all of the action sequences, there is not enough space to get out the current story, much less a mini-summary of what happened in the first.  I have a feeling that there are going to be some scratching heads on this one.
• Lack of Fulfillment – Everything that appears onscreen in any movie can be construed as a promise of its importance.  Cillian Murphy is introduced as the son of the bad guy from the first movie, but is not heard of or seen again.  What a waste of a possible plot-line and actor.

My advice: Boy this is a tough one – it is worth the 3D surcharge; I would say matinee price in general.  It is one to see on the big screen once.  But definitely watch the first one before seeing this one…