Where The Wild Things Are- A Review

Plot, Where the Wild Things Are: Not as easily pegged by its title, even if you have read the extremely short children’s novel that is its counterpart. Why? Because this film has expanded the novel’s intention to portray the wild nature of the child with character, the thing the original book never thought to do. The story is about a young child named Max (played by the merely coincidental Max Records, I think not), who chooses to run away from home after he finds his family not spending enough time on him. Yes, the film center on a selfish child, but since that was viewer at one point of their lives, we accept him as our unlikely protagonist. Anyways, he sails to the shore of an island full of wild hairy beasts, but child-like in spirit. The rest of the film is the interaction of the characters, which grows with equal parts love and tragedy. Everything is great about this film; it’s a classic in the making.

WTWTA (I guess that is what I will call it from now on because the title's length hurts my hand) is full of beautiful visuals and natural landscapes, and surprisingly good performances...although they mostly arrive from animatronic suits. Many critics will argue a well made family film is one that, well, not to sound monotonous, but one that the whole family can enjoy. Now when it comes down to it, I didn't come to argue if this is a good film. Cause it is. But like I said, how about those parents and children? I am not so certain critics understand the media that children enjoy. Films like Prince of Persia, Despicable Me, and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, are more targeted to children. Somebody need to find some true middle ground for family cause I would find children hard pressed to enjoy the dramatic sequences of a child crying and biting his mother's boyfriend. Although children can relate to Max's child-like sense of wonder, they will question and ponder whether anything substantial occurs throughout the movie (growing up metaphors always used to fly right over me). Okay, so maybe that was the point, relation for kids, nostalgia for parents. But that's not a family film. Spike Jonze, the genius he is, cheated. In this war between the right ratio of parent-child in family movies, he chose to get critical acclaim over the money of little children. And it's great to witness a director that still has that integrity. But in the end, this isn't going to be the movie your average family rents on a rainy day or weekend, unless every 6 year old child these days are hipsters looking for something in the independent film realm.


Where the Wild Things Are: More enjoyable for an adult

- Jeff Bassin

The Sorcerer's Apprentice- A Review

Okay, let’s get the point across here. Obviously Nic Cage's new movie from the director of the "National Treasure" series (Jon Turteltaub) is not going to compare to most of the more mature films in theaters. But that is not where I find my argument.

Plot, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Yes, it may be a little bit obvious, but the film stars the bit too nasally Jay Baruchel as a NYU Physics student who becomes the Apprentice of an ancient Sorcerer named Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage, in a kind of tame performance…well at least by his standards) in order to defeat another Sorcerer named Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina, with great comic timing). There’s your classic love interest (Teresa Palmer), a witty roommate (Omar Benson Miller), an evil Sorceress named Morgana (Alice Krige), yes, that’s her name, and a whole bunch of other stereotypes. But it’s all in good fun, I can tell Disney spent their money’s worth on the SFX, and some of the joke had enough set up to actually make me laugh. I’m sure people would disagree, but I kind of had fun with this movie, at least this time around. Plus, I may be on my own, but I enjoyed the homage to Fantasia. Well, I guess it's not really a homage if the movie was based on the premise of that bit with Yen Sid.

Either way, kudos Bruckheimer, for making another disposable piece of popcorn entertainment to eat and drink up (which I did, had a popcorn and a soda).


The Sorcerer's Apprentice: More enjoyable for a child...or the child in you

- Jeff Bassin

Toy Story 3 Vs. The Princess and the Frog

Now, let's get down to business. I have chosen "Toy Story 3" as my first review because it is a conclusion to a film series, and a start to my reviews. So there you have it, with every end, there is a beginning.

Since this film has opened to an amazingly universal positive acclaim, it would be pointless and boring for me to describe what I like about the film. It was brimming with beautiful sequences, lush color, emotion, and most of all heart. And the 3D was pretty great as well.

Ok, it’s time for plot time, Toy Story 3: Now the movie begins with Andy, the owner of all the toys, getting ready for his drive to college. Only he can’t bring all his toys with him, because he’s an adult now. Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang have been waiting patiently to be played with again, only now they are going to be forced into an attic for the years Andy is away (excluding Woody). Only, due to a odd set of circumstance, they end up being donated to a day care center. It all looks bright and shiny at first, but the dark corruption within the center of this paradise soon begins to show. The rest of the film plays like an interesting crime caper film, much like the work in Soderbergh’s “Oceans” films, as the gang race to get back to Andy.

This adventure is full of laughs and sweet emotional moments, and that’s what I love about Pixar films in comparison to the larger focus on the comedy within Dreamworks pictures. Lee Unkrich directs with and enormous amount of style and creativity. Think the scene with the children rampaging through the day care facility with the fast paced handheld camera style of Paul Greengrass’ “Bourne” films. Also the voice acting was phenomenal. It’s great to see Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, and even Joan Cusack, although most of her performances make me cringe from annoyance (think the principal from (School of Rock”). Everybody is back from the old film, except the characters Bo Peep and Wheezy The Penguin, which they cleverly mask with a brilliant line of dialogue (they were sold). The only problem I faced was the knowledge that I would not be hearing the voice of Jim Varney, the voice of Slinky Dog, who had passed away, but instead the voice of newcomer to the series, Blake Clark. In the end, Clark did a great job recovering the voice of the character and I am sure nobody will notice. But there’s a dark side to this film. In one way, I keep getting exactly what I expect from Pixar. They cease to surprise me. When I described that plot to you, it may have felt familiar, maybe a little Toy Story 2 or 1, anyone? In a sense, Pixar can do no wrong with their winning formula, but I am beginning to recognize the cogs behind this Pixar machine. Now for some reason, it bothers me. Why? You ask. Well, this is because of the enormous lack of 2D animated films.

There has got to be something wrong with that. The films that I grew up with as a child are slowly dying and withering away. Children of today will grow up on films like "Cars" and "Madagascar", and although they are not bad films, I feel almost distraught that they may miss all the classics that Disney pushed out for years. Years from now, I will most likely frown as I witness a child unable to recall the fantastical, if not darkly disturbing tale of Pinocchio, or how about if The Lion King was rebooted as a comedic film with a large focus on Timon and Pumba (they kind of already did that, oops). If anyone would just look at one frame of one of those hand drawn films, they would have the feeling of looking directly at a painting. This is because they were paintings, since they were thousands of hand drawn pictures put together and sped up on camera. Now let's think; "The Princess and the Frog", the most recently released 2D animated film, made around $270 Million dollars worldwide for its entire release. "Toy Story 3", after only 18 days, reached over $300 Million dollars. Things are not looking good for 2D. But I have hope in 2D animation since "The Princess and the Frog" has proven those films can still make tons of money. Although 2D will never be as big as it was, 3D is not a bad way for the animated business to progress.

Now it’s time for plot time once again, The Princess and the Frog: In the tradition of those classic princess films, the story begins with a girl who does not have what she wants in life. In this case, an African American girl named Tiana, who dreams of opening a restaurant in New Orleans. Due to the arrival of Prince Naveen, a plot is set afoot by the evil Dr. Facilier where the result is Naveen becoming a frog. Now this is where that old fairy tale comes in. When you kiss a frog Prince, he is supposed to be returned to his body. Only instead, Tiana becomes a frog herself. Then, the two set off on a journey to return themselves back to their original selves.

The majority of this film is the same old witty back and forth banter we are used to for all the romantic comedies of this generation. But this is better than that because of the animation. The drawing are just as vibrant and colorful as ever, which means it is just as enjoyable as ever. I had fun with this film, and I was also able to appreciate the beauty in every single frame (I actually stopped this film a few times and chose to play it frame by frame). This really brings you back to the old days with tons of nostalgia. Overall, it is the same Princess story we have heard before, but it’s just as great to look at now as it was back in the earlier days of 2D animation.
With Toy Story 3, Pixar provides children and adults the chance to spend an hour and a half together with a dark and emotional journey and I recommend everybody to see it. With The Princess and the Frog, Disney recreates those feelings you had as a child watching hand drawn animation and also gives children a chance to respond to their own Disney Princess. Either way you watch it, you don’t lose.

- Jeff Bassin