The Day After Tomorrow

Initial Thoughts

            The overall idea of this movie is simply terrifying. Unlike other apocalypse movies where the world is overrun by a horde of zombies, monsters or aliens, this movie throws the world into a realistic apocalypse situation. This realistic atmosphere interests the audience more, as does the realistic political writing.  

 

            And in this apocalyptic world, there are heartfelt death scenes, fantastic character development, and great atmosphere. As you can tell, I am very excited to get into the meat of the movie, so without further ado, here's The Day After Tomorrow.

 

Story/Plot: 25 out of 25

            Although on the surface it may seem like your everyday apocalypse storyline, what makes it stand out is how it goes about telling the story and which plot devices it uses to help interlock the different substories into one functioning storyline. That’s what makes it different.

 

            One aspect of the story that could have been bad, was actually good, and that was how many main characters it had. I felt that there were a lot of characters in this movie; however because of the pacing of the story, the number of characters was not a burden to the story at all.

 

Characters: 22 out of 25

            All of the characters were very realistic, and made decisions that make sense given the apocalyptic circumstances. A character making dumb and non-realistic decisions is a common error made by other movies of the same genre. Most of the characters were developed well, which is surprising considering the number of characters.

 

            Laura and Sam's relationship seemed downplayed, and to me it should have been one of the more important aspects, as in an apocalyptic situation, people will tend to turn to either religion or love to cope. In World War Z, for example, Brad

Pitt is fighting for his family almost all the way through.

 

            Overall, great actors, each one adding their own little spin on the characters. making them more relatable and more likable.

 

Special Effects: 11 out of 25

            I am not going to lie. To me, the SG was dated, enough to make the audience notice. In addition, while the apocalypse scenes still filled the viewers with awe, it wasn't really the SGI that created that feeling; it was the scale and magnitude of the catastrophe.

 

            While these special effects might have been slightly better than the SGI in Battleship: the movie, they are still far below par.

 

Writing: 25 out of 25

            The overall writing is very clever, adding tons of political disputes, but in the end, everyone ends up failing. This shows that in a real apocalyptic situation, politics won’t do much to fix the situation; all of this adds to the already heavy atmosphere in the movie.

 

            The writing of the complex storyline is a welcome change from the average everyday apocalypse film. In other films of the same genre, the main characters who are in danger usually have a place they are trying to get to, a place where they will be truly safe, but in this movie, they have no such place; they need to survive until help arrives.

 

            Sure there are a few clichés here and there, but with all of the refreshing changes, they are hardly noticeable.               

 

 

Final Verdict

83/100

Above Average

 

With an interesting and complex storyline, interesting characters, and clever writing, this movie definitely is above average. The only thing that keeps it from being any better is its dated SGI. In other movies that wouldn't have hurt so much, but seeing how it’s an apocalypse movie, special effects are pretty important.

 

If you haven't watched it yet, give it a go, it is definitely worth your while.   

           

 

Dear John

Dear John: Movie Review

Initial Thoughts

Last week I polled my Facebook page “Kenneth’s Reviews” which movie they would like me to review, the winner of the poll was a chick flick by the name of “Dear John” a movie about a solider on leave who falls in love with a local college student. Being a teenage male, I disliked the idea of even watching the movie, but after viewing…I still don’t like it, but I now see why so many women fall in a love with the movie.

Romance: Writing/bond/etc 18 out of 25

Although the Writers cleverly added many issues and problems in John and savannas relationship, creating tremendous romantic suspense, something that makes women flip. The actual romance itself isn’t very realistic, as in reality no one could call in love, have an argument and make up from the argument, all within two weeks, its simply not realistic.

            The overall romantic story defiantly improves as the movie progresses, adding break ups, and even a few twists (no spoilers) but the story is actually very un interesting in the first 20 minutes. 

            However the aspect, which kills the romance for me, simply comes down to the main lovers age. Simply the fact that two very young adults are thinking about each other that much, doesn’t make any sense. It seems as if they have nothing else to do, espically savannah, a girl who is in college, and lives in what seems to be a pretty lively little town, complete with partys, and fun loving teens her age. And yet for some reason, she explains that she thought about him non-stop everyday. Same thing with John, even though he doesn’t have very many close friends in the town, he is still in the army, and you would think that he would have made some friends in the military, or have other problems or issues on his mind, now later in the film his perspective does change, however in the beginning this problem still stands.

Story Line – 20 out of 20

The story line is kind of interesting and new in some ways, the majority of the storyline occurs while the two are apart from each other, opposed to many other chick flicks which occurs while the two lovers are together.

            Also in many chick flicks there is usually the role of the “antagonist” is played by a rich lover who also wants the main female love interest. However in Dear john, the role of antagonist is played by life, and the hardships that come with being away from home as a solider. Many women can relate to this aspect of the movie if their husbands or boyfriends have a dangerous job or works a lot, or simply doesn’t talk to them as frequently as they should be, this clever plot device, attracted many women because they could relate to savannah and even though many of the scenes when they are apart are focused on john, the women audience is thinking about what the savannah is going through, and how worried she must be. To a female viewer this makes the story much more real, especially if they are going through a similar situation.

Characters 12 out of 20

Many of the character’s are in quiet a predicament, where their personality’s are realistic and actually kind of interesting due to their past and present circumstances, especially the main characters. However the only characters I actually felt any emotion for, was johns father, and Tim. Why? First the acting quality for some characters (especially john) was simply below par, secondly Amanda seyfriend portrayed savannah more like a silly immature teenager, even when she was trying to be serious near the beginning of the movie, someone who is immature at the beginning will simply not be taken as seriously near the end of the movie. And when someone is immature the audience will simply not care as much about what their problems are. If it weren’t for the fantastic story, this character would have “died.” 

Acting quality 10 out of 15

I have already covered many of the acting quality notes in the last section. So just to recap, channing tatum (John) was by far the worst actor in the movie, I am aware of his role as a solider, but the last time I checked, soliders still had souls, throughout most of the movie he speaks in monatone and gives very few human emiontions. Even when hes angry and punching people it seems fake. Amanada seyfriend played savannah way to childish, and immutere even when it was supposed to be sierious. Richered Jenkins who played johns dad, did a very nice job potaringing someone who was autstic, his persoanality is kept mostly a secret and is revealed slowly through the movie.

Overall writing/directing 9 out of 20

One aspect that made me mad was all of the freaking time laspes! More than half of the movie is spent seeing boring time leasps with stupid chliched monotone dialoge played over the top, whats more, they monolge most of the dear john letters all at once, leaving no suspence for any others. The writing does get better as the movie moves forward, adding some interesting plot devices. However as the writers add more and more interesting plot devices the pacing gets worse and worse. Making it harder and harder to follow the story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The final verdict for Dear John is a

69/100

Mediocre

Pros

Fantastic and interesting story

Clever romantic writing

Cons

Irritating time lapses

Poor pacing late film

So-So’s

Mediocre acting quality

Characters are either poorly acted or poorly written  

Any man would cringe at this film, however almost every women will almost instinly fall in love with it. Men even though you might(will) hate this movie (trust me) I highly suggest seeing this movie with your sweetie on a date, she will think of you much more highly!

  

102 Dalmatians

Initial Thoughts

            When I watched the trailer I didn't think the movie was going to be that great (not a good sign). It seemed similar to the original, not too many new plot devices, and some plot holes. However, when I actually watched the movie, I was shocked to find out that they had changed almost nothing from the original. The acting was horrific, there was virtually no character development, and the sub storyline was totally pointless.

            Even though this movie on its own should be better than movies like Battleship or Ice Age 4, it truly hurts a lot more, because it’s based off of a classic children's film, the original 101 Dalmatians, that everyone knows and loves. Whenever you touch or change a classic film, you always run the risk, of angering your fans and confusing your fan base.   

Story/Plot: 9 out of 25

            The main storyline is an absolute mess. The storyline consistently jumps all over the place, from Cruella Deville to one of her minions, to Kevin and his GF, to the dogs, etc.

            In addition, the plot devices do nothing to help further or correct the storyline whatsoever. Many of the plot devices and plot twists come out of nowhere, without any sort of build up, which confuses the audience and takes away from the story.

            There is a sub storyline about Kevin and Chloe and how they fall in love, and their pets’ interactions with each other. This is completely pointless, and out of place as well, because we came here to watch a mad woman chase puppies, not to see to people fall in love. And even that is poorly done because the pacing is crap! Many scenes are way too short, and when they end it cuts to another sub storyline that has nothing to do, with Cruella or the puppies. In other words, half the time you will be scratching your head and will have no clue what is going on. 

            The first 30 to 45 minutes of the movie is completely inane. This is the time when everyone thinks that Cruella Deville has been cured. Why is it pointless? Because they show in the trailer that she turns evil again, this totally eliminates any possibly of a plot twist.

            Perhaps they were trying to add more elements by adding several sub storylines on the side, or perhaps they were trying to please more audience members; either way, it doesn't work.

Characters/Acting Quality: 9 out of 25

            Many, if not all of the characters are dangerously underdeveloped.  They are also stupid,  making tons of idiotic decisions (going over to Cruella Deville's house for supper??!! Didn't she try to kill your puppies in the animated film?). Add that to the fact that the characters have not a single original bone in their bodies, and that they have not matured or grown in any way in since the last film, or since the classic animated films.  

            The acting quality is definitely below average, specifically Cruella Deville. Glenn Close does a horrible job portraying the villain, and believe me, there are a ton of reasons outside of the fact that she overacts every scene. I know Cruella Deville is meant to be overacted so the audience sees what a mad woman she is, but Close does this very badly and isn’t at all believable in the role of Miss Deville.

Villain (Cruella Deville): 2 out of 25

            In the original animated film, the villain was amazing; she didn't care about anything but getting the fur. I mean nothing could stop her. Road blocks, police cars, even when her car was being ripped to pieces by something, she would just step on the gas and continue her terrifying pursuit of the puppies.

            In this film, she always goes out of her way to make sure the people still believe that she's cured, which makes no sense given the characters’ past experiences. In addition, for the first 30 minutes of the movie, she is "cured", which makes her nice to everyone, and not want puppy fur. This plot point alone pretty much destroys the character for most viewers, especially those who grew up watching her in the animated film.

           

            Also she is too clean, and seems too calm most of the time, even after she turns back to her regular self. Even though this character has been in a live film before, she still started in an animated film, which is where both of these live films should be getting their research. The original Cruella Deville was crazy, with blood shot eyes, and was always smoking a huge green cigar. They could have edited it to make her look at least a little ugly and gruesome. (And the excuse that they couldn't because they didn't have the technology is false as Disney's Dinosaur came out the same year, and had amazing SGI.

Writing: 13 out of 25

            I have already covered most of the writing, so I will just recap.

            The writing is lazy and barely has any original concepts; almost all of the story elements are stolen from previous films, and anything new they add is confusing and comes out of nowhere.

            There is one aspect of the movie which doesn't make any sense either. Where are the 102 Dalmatians? All throughout most of the movie, we see maybe 5 until the very end when 100 other puppies randomly appear without any explanation as to who owns them, where they came from, or how they got there.

            However, outside of that, the overall writing of the movie feels generic and also has a very similar atmosphere and feel of the previous films.

           

Final Verdict

33/100

Bad

This movie should never have been made. A very confusing and lazy storyline, crappy characters, and the insulting attempt to recreate Cruella Deville, is truly disappointing. The only thing that stops this movie from being any worse is the generic overall writing style of the movie, which it ripped off from the previous ones. When it’s hard to duplicate a movie, don't duplicate the movie. It is very difficult to remake a film with such basic yet impressive elements such as the original 101 Dalmatians. When you try to add more stuff to a basic and classic film, you will screw up the pacing, which in turn will affect pretty much everything else in the movie.

This sorry attempt at a sequel is the single reason why we haven't heard anything about a 103 Dalmatians in the last 13 years.

Parental Guidance

Initial Thoughts

            The whole idea of the movie appeals to the earlier generation, because they can relate to the overprotected kids. Although the parents may be a little too protective, that merely drives the point home even farther, and the older generation, who may or may not have treated kids that way, can’t miss it.

            And besides that aspect, we have the fantastic actor Billy Crystal, who played the voice of Mike in Monsters, Inc. He adds so much comedic possibility to the movie.

Comedy: 19 out of 25

            The jokes in Parental Guidance tend to centre around either the grandparents interactions with the kids, or the kids interactions with the world. This, of course, leaves room for many comedic possibilities.

            The writers attempted to add some comedic dialogue and such to the parents, but the actors don't do a very good job delivering, and the parents tend to overact. Even though overacting is part of the parents’ character, it almost destroys any good comedy that could come from them.

             Don’t expect too many laughs when the parents are in the scene. Their comedy is just sloppy and almost clichéd.

            In conclusion, the movie definitely gets lots of laughs from me, thanks to the hilarious Billy Crystal, who plays the grandfather, and to the grandmother, played by Bette Midler. The comedy has its flaws, but over all, it’s well written, and well delivered.

Story: 9 out of 15

            Now let me make one thing perfectly clear, the story is nothing new: grandparents (or significant others) have lost contact with their son/daughter (or significant other) and then the son/daughter needs a favour; they get close together again blah, blah, blah. The morals of the story, which I will address later, are fairly new; in a nut shell, they address parents and basically how they should not overly protect their children, and how letting your kids get away with too much is also a bad thing.

            Now that we have that out of the way, how does the story itself hold up?

Well outside of the fact that it is full of clichés, it is okay. Like I mentioned before, the story is a very generic drama/comedy.

            Although the story doesn't give us anything new to see, the story doesn't drag anything else down either. (In fact, because the story isn't very interesting, it lets the viewer focus on other aspects of the movie, such as the writing and characters). Because of its generic nature, many audience members will probably fail to notice the story’s lack of imagination. This is why the story score isn't very high.

Morals: 30 out of 30

            One of the main points in Parental Guidance is the moral that you shouldn't overprotect your kids; that it is wrong to excommunicate them from the outside world, and for the most part, I agree with this moral. You shouldn't shield your kids from everything evil; if you did that, then the child would have no idea how to take care of him/herself when s/he gets out on his/her own.

            On the other hand, should you let them do anything they want? Even though this may seem like a no-brainer to many of you, this is still a very sensitive topic in today's society. Personally, it’s all a matter of balance; you shouldn't shield them too much, and you shouldn't let them walk all over you either. This movie shows both of these opposites. 

            The parents represent the overprotective parent, and the grandparents represent the open-to-everything parent. In both scenarios, the viewer sees why it doesn't work out if you go too far either way. Because of this consistent battle between the parents and grandparents, Parental Guidance shows how difficult being a parent really is and that making those tough decisions to balance the child’s experience is very important in their growing up.  

Writing: 20 out of 30

            The writing was very well done, for the most part. There weren't too many main characters, and by the end of the movie, you feel like you personally know each one of them (meaning they were fleshed out and developed). Because of the genre, the writers added clichés into the characters, even into some of the secondary ones. Sometimes they went a little overboard, but overall they did a fine job.

Final Verdict

78/100 - Good

With the new and interesting morals given in the movie, the big named actors giving hilarious physical and social comedy, along with two rivalling couples and chaotic kids, you've got one heck of a drama!

Not number one, but it’s definitely worth the watch! 

    

Disney's Dinosaur

Initial Thoughts

           

Well, here's our first Disney film, and it’s also an older film that came out in the year 2000.

Sure we had seen movies involving dinosaurs before (such as Jurassic Park); however, in the latter movie the dinosaurs were seen as the antagonists. We had never really seen a movie just about dinosaurs and their interactions with the environment.

Also, at the time, the special effects were groundbreaking, as it was one of the first movies in which the animators were able to go into much more detail with the animation. Animating each individual muscle allowed them to give each dinosaur its own personality simply by creating brilliant and unique facial expressions. 

However, is the story and plot as good as the special effects? Is it believable? Is the writing good? Let’s find out! This is Disney's Dinosaur!

Story/Plot: 8 out of 25

            Now, at the beginning of the movie, when the monkeys are on their island, the story was interesting. Aladar had an interesting background and the lemurs had their yearly rituals, which created good plot devices. But when they leave the island and are introduced to the other characters, the storyline falls apart and there are little (if any) plot devices or twists after that point. Which is pretty disappointing, seeing how I really did enjoy the storyline at the beginning of the movie.

            The storyline sort of just disappears; I believe this is because they introduced other characters. This is one problem Dinosaur has; they focus too much on character development, and not enough on developing the story. You see, most of the time, when a director or writer wants to show character development aside from the animation and issues in the characters life, they make the character interact with other characters. This allows the audience to see how the characters react in many different situations and also gives the screenwriter a chance to show off all the dialogue that s/he chose for the movie. However, most of the time these scenes do nothing to further the story, which is why many writers attempt to keep these scenes short but sweet. Here, these scenes are very long and abundant. They are still well done, which gives us interesting characters to watch, but the story and plot just aren’t as prominent as they should be (especially for a Disney film).

Characters: 25 out of 25

           

Even though the story is definitely lacking, one thing Dinosaur does get right, are the characters. The spectacular animations definitely help speed up and add to character development. Because of the unique way they were able to create great facial expressions, the audience is able to observe the character and watch its interactions with the world before his/her dialogue starts.

            Also, many of the characters seem real, not only in their dialogue, but in their actions, how they interact with everything. It’s quite clear that Disney really did their homework when it comes to knowing about dinosaurs. As each dinosaur acts the way its species would act, this is not only interesting, but really adds so much atmosphere to their prehistoric world.

            Finally, their dialogue seems real. This is also thanks to the work of the fantastic voice actors, who did a marvelous job on making their character seem natural. The writers also did a fine job of choosing dialogue that helped further develop each character. This is also why whenever a character is killed, you either feel sorry or satisfied. In addition, this movie has one of the most epic death scenes ever!  

Special Effects: 25 out of 25

           

As I have mentioned previously, the animators were able to make every muscle in every dinosaurs body move. This helped with character development and just making the movie a wonder to look at. Along with that, the special effects are also nice and crisp SGI, unlike other movies at the time (e.g. Battlefield Earth). They also added camera effects, such as a blur effect during the final death scene.

            Overall these special effects made the movie jump off the movie screen.

Soundtrack/Writing/Lasting Appeal:  17 out of 25

            The soundtrack was absolutely fabulous! Which is no surprise coming from Disney. Whether you recognize it or not, the soundtrack plays a much bigger role than in other movies. In every scene the soundtrack really helps bring out the important emotions. Yes, the dialogue and effects do a good job with that too, however it’s the soundtrack that ultimately puts the icing on the cake.

            The writing on the other hand was lacking, sort of the like the story and plot. The writing felt rushed. The overuse of filler is the main cause of this. However the strong writing for character development helps counter this, which is why the rating didn't get any lower.

            The lasting appeal is very strong. The main reason for this is that by the end of the movie, the characters have been so well explained, and so fleshed out that they could be real. And because of the emotional impact, the audience cares a lot about the characters’ heartaches, which makes it hard to forget about them after the movie is finished.

 Final Verdict

75/100

Good

I can safely say that many audience members will be delighted by this movie. Strong characters, groundbreaking animation, and a great emotional impact. Not everything is perfect, but what it does get right, it really gets right.