The Polar Express Review

        Finally, I will get off my butt and talk about a holiday movie. This one is interesting in terms of its age. I’m starting to see that its reaching that apex of becoming a holiday classic and also having its critics. Don’t worry I’ll go easy on it. Any time I go to either Target or Wal-Mart, I see the DVDs on sale alongside the older holiday movies. And of course, I’ll talk about its divisive computer animation. 

1. The Children’s Book Adaptation Dilemma

        Something I’ve noticed whenever a short children’s story is adapted to film, is that the source material is usually short. So, the problem is how do you stretch out a story that’s approximately 30 pages long to a feature length movie? Simple, expand on the elements of the characters so that it at least follows the essence of the book. 

        Well, that’s the not the case for this movie. This is the first instance with any movie that I saw at a young age where the main characters don’t have an actual name. While it’s not a detriment in of itself, I think it’s one of the flaws for the movie. And to the book’s credit, the character’s didn’t have any names as well, so there’s that. In terms of story, a young boy is invited to board The Polar Express to see Santa Claus in the North Pole. 

        There’s some level of depth for the boy. It’s explained visually that he doesn’t believe in Santa. He has in his collection articles and magazines of mall Santas being exposed as fakes. So, he joins to see if St. Nick is indeed real. What’s interesting is that the boy is that two actors portrayed the kid. Josh Hutcherson, you might know him from The Hunger Games trilogy, did the motion capture. And Daryl Sabara, who was in Spy Kids, voiced the kid. 

        One thing I want to mention is that Hutcherson was in another movie that was adapted from the author’s work. He’s in the movie Zathura, a severely underrated movie and I personally think is better than Jumanji. The latter whose author also worked on this movie’s source material. 

        Anyways, since the whole story is about as simple as you can get. There are moments where there’s tension. Such as the train speeding too fast and one of the characters forgetting her ticket. During these moments, it feels like something that is attempting to show off the animation. While appreciative and to me just interesting with how many hours it must’ve been working on it. I feel that it gives a movie too much padding and tension.

        Like duh, the moments feel like a theme park. With the camera zooming by and seeing the level of attention in the animated details. It didn’t bother me when I was younger when I found it engaging. Nowadays, I kind of just wanted to be like get to the point. At the same time, it gives the movie more since the kids can be bland.

2. The Uncanny Valley

        Aside from Tom Hanks stealing the show by portraying three characters in the whole movie, the main point of contention of the movie is just the animation. To put it into context, this is Robert Zemeckis’ second film dealing with animation. His first Who Framed Roger Rabbit changed animation and special effects. This one is no exception, but the way it went about it is off putting. 

        This style of computer animation is called motion capture. How they do it is that the actors wear a suit that has sensors that a computer detects. They then act and their entire movement is recorded to be animated. Back then, the closest equivalent is a style called rotoscoping. Which is a film or a piece of film that is drawn to have a distinct style. 

        With that, the animation can be beautiful at times. Especially the shot of the train stopping in front of the boy’s house. The kids and pretty much anything looking human just looks odd. It’s what’s dubbed the uncanny valley. Anything that looks life-like but the dead giveaway is the eyes. The kids have it worse. There’s a moment where the girl is scooting closer to the boy, but the way she looks appears older than what they’re going for. Don’t even get me started on the elves.

        This is the first film where Zemeckis started his short-lived animation studio Image Movers. He dabbled some more with this style of animation with his adaptations of Beowulf and A Christmas Carol. Progressively they got better, but the baggage of motion capture also followed. It would be years later when the Nickelodeon film Rango, with its motion capture but having animal characters winning the Academy Award for best animated feature. 

3. Legacy

        As I mentioned earlier, this film is starting to begin its classics phase whenever the holidays roll around and the numerous copies appear on the shelves. Surprisingly, there’s been moments with Amtrak and other countries equivalents where they had trips centered around the whole story. The U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom’s train stations all had at one-point trips that commemorated the story. As of now, I don’t believe that they do it anymore but I could be wrong. 

4. Overall

        This film’s enjoyable and for a while the animation didn’t creep me out. Though it lacks any sort of character depth, or just caring in the grand scheme, it’s fun for just this holiday season. 

 

Uncle Buck Review

        This is probably the hardest month I have to do now. In case you haven’t seen any of my reviews from the past, I’ve practically covered some of the best holiday movies. And that’s gotten me thinking, what now? Well, it took awhile of twiddling my thumbs and I’ve decided to look at an underappreciated John Hughes film Uncle Buck. It’s not Christmas, but it’s in the winter. So close enough. 

1. Buck

        After the success of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, it only made sense for John Hughes to bring back John Candy in another film. Well, it wasn’t the first time where the John’s had collaborated again. The first instance was in National Lampoon’s Vacation, albeit Hughes was the screenwriter and John Candy appeared near the end of the film. 

        With that, the film is mostly straightforward and including the many hallmarks of the typical John Hughes movie. You can call them motifs, but it’s simple to spot. The film takes place of all places Chicago, in a somewhat fancy neighborhood, and the non-diegetic music sounding like Vangelis. Hell, the various sports teams have to show up.

        Anyways, we see Buck being called in by his brother. There’s a family emergency and Buck is tasked with house sitting and taking care of his nieces and nephew. From there, we get to see him slowly changing himself from a slob to a responsible person. Candy does a good job for portraying the uncle. I think what sells him is that he has that awe-shucks persona, with a no-no sense feel.

        The scenes with him and the kids is heartwarming. I think the best moments is when he goes head-to-head with his older niece Tia. From the start, we see her being upset about living in Chicago instead of Indianapolis. She’s the rebellious one and the one that only John Hughes could write and direct. We see that Uncle Buck manages to hold his own when he gets in Tia’s skin. 

        More importantly, his whole character arc or when we see him from the start to the end is kind of interesting. The thing going against him is that people have a notion about him being a slob and a gambling man. Especially, since he has a woman in his life that doesn’t trust him to be committed to a relationship. Which prompts him to act like a dad to his younger niece and nephew. 

        The one problem that I have with the film is that I think the film would’ve been interesting if it explored more on his background. There’s one scene where he sorts through his brother’s marriage album. Buck sees a picture where his profile is folded to fit into the page. I think it shows just the level of uneasy that he had with his family. To me, I think it would’ve been explored more but the film would’ve gone longer. Personally, that scene showed just how much Buck had to do to change his image. 

2. John Hughes’ Waning Quality

        Another thing about watching John Hughes’ films is that you start to notice that the level of quality started to slowly go towards mediocrity. He certainly hit his apex with hits like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off to name a few in the 80s. From the late 80s to the 90s is when you start to see the shift. It’s mostly attributed to him going back to his screenwriter position. While he did write Home Alone, I consider that one to be his last great project. That point forward you had loads of bad movies where it seemed like the level of quality was just appalling.

        So, what does Uncle Buck have anything to do with that? Well, I can certainly see it as a film where it’s the beginning of the drop in quality. For one thing, there are moments where it feels cartoony sometimes. Like that one scene with Buck and the clown acting like a drunk. The whole thing could’ve ended with just one punch. Having the character shake his head like a toon just feels off. 

3. Overall

        Uncle Buck is an underrated film that is sandwiched between John Hughes’ great films. It’s a good watch for seeing the late comedian being a great Uncle. 

Spider-Man (2002) Review

 

        It’s about time I talked about Spider-Man from 2002. Hard to believe that it’s 20 years old and it’s one of my personal favorite comic book films. Considering of what came after and how the whole genre changed Hollywood in the years to come. I remember distinctly that my mother took me and my brother in on my town’s movie theaters. It’s one of those experiences that doesn’t leave my mind. 

1. Hero’s Journey

        Before I start, this wasn’t the first time I was exposed to the wall crawler. I remember moments in the late 90s and early 2000s when the animated show was on some networks. Occasionally, I tuned in to see what adventures happened to him. I even remember that there was some VHS compilations that came out and one of my family friends had one and we’d watched it. This and a video game helped my eventual fandom of the hero. 

        The movie is I think the 2000s generation of Superman: The Movie. In the 70s, people believed a man could fly. In 2002, audiences saw a teenager spin a web and save the day. Overall, the film does a good job of portraying the origins of Spider-Man. We see him played by Tobey Maguire, be just a typical nerd has the hots for Mary Jane Watson. 

        It’s the characterization of Peter Parker that makes him so relatable and beloved among comic book fans and the casual viewers. I love that we see him in his lowest and just how much he grows as person when he gets the powers. The best moment is when he has that conversation with Uncle Ben. Ben tells Peter probably the most quotable line ever associated with the hero. Peter is obviously in the wrong to talk back to him. After getting his “killer”, it gets complicated when the 3rd movie comes out, he figures out how to handle his new powers. 

        After watching some of Sam Raimi’s films, I was surprised that the studio was willing to let him helm a high-profile property. With all that, I think he was perfect for helming the project. It’s always a thing to see his directorial touches that are sprinkled in. Especially the moments of horror that’s in the film. While not over the top as in his Evil Dead films, most of the camera work is kinetic. Especially when Spider-Man swings, the camera moves with him. 

        Lastly, I just love the overall characterization of all the main characters. It gives the film depth and all the characters are three dimensional. I think the moment that best represents it is when we see that montage of some New Yorkers reacting to seeing the new hero. All of them are different, especially that one person who doesn't like the new savior. To me, it's a New York film through the lens of the citizens living there. It gives it a blue collar feel to it. 

        But the one who steals the performance is of course Norman Osborn. He’s a bullish businessman and scientist. He has a son, Harry, but it feels like a forced relationship that’s distant. When Norman is the Goblin, it’s a scene stealer. I just love that voice and that iconic cackle. He just manages to pull off being friendly, to just cruel in an instant. Like, yes, his costume does look silly, but it makes sense that he wears a mask since there’s a scene where he has a collection of indigenous ones.  

2. Fathers 

        This is one of those rare comic book films where it there’s some level of interpretation. It’s something I noticed on some viewings of the movie and it’s a poignant one since it relates to Peter Parker. Anyone who hasn’t picked up a comic book knows that Uncle Ben is the father figure to Peter. In the film it does that well, and having moments of Norman being one as well when he’s impressed by Peter. 

        Throughout the film, Norman feels that Harry is inadequate in comparison to Peter. Who has the same level of love for science. I feel that it gets more involved when Goblin and Spidey meet. Osborne wants Spider-Man to join him in his reign of terror. He obviously rejects it, and obviously gets worse for Peter later in the film. Little things like that, makes the film timeless since it has that factor going for it. 

3. The Film America Needed

        When the teaser came out, it had this one shot of a helicopter stuck in a web in between the World Trade Center. No one could’ve imagined what would happen months later after the trailer came out. In some way, the film works to assuage the anxiety of what happened. There’s even that moment between the first confrontation where the Goblin comes in and his glider is emitting the afterburner smoke. 

        Additionally, the people of the city come in to help Spider-Man when the Goblin is attacking him. That scene, whether it was planned ahead of time or reshot practically represented the American people stopping the villain. Like the whole film could’ve been a nationalistic propaganda film just after 9/11. But I’m glad that it can be interpreted that way, and give the American people a way to be proud that a hero with the same colors managing to fight back. 

4. Legacy: Reboots and Return

        This film obviously made bank in the box office. It was for a while the highest grossing film in the summer at that time. For reasons that I just explained. And it launched a media franchise that had tie-in merchandise. With the film’s success, more studios came out with other Marvel heroes, such as Daredevil and Hulk to name a few. While the others except for the X-Men didn’t meet the same reception as Spider-Man since it felt like the other studios wanted to make the same money as the web head. 

        The series spawned two sequels, and a third one that was abruptly cancelled. It was from there where Sony rebooted the hero again for the next generation. I didn’t understand it, until I was older as to why they had to reboot the character. If they hadn’t rebooted for 5 years, the rights would revert to Marvel and it’s obvious that Sony wouldn’t let their cash cow go back. Which is strange since the studio is willing to make films about the bad guys of Spidey. To horrific reception, but still bankable. 

        Spider-Man as whole is a bankable superhero property. People will go out and see a film, either live-action or animated to see the wall crawler. It was only appropriate where the live-action Spider-Men would meet for the first time. While I was expecting it to happen in the recent film, the way they went about it was just perfect. Seeing Tobey back, just shows just how much of an influence he had in being the first exposure to the beloved hero. 

5. Overall 

        Spider-Man is a movie that represents the early 2000s and still feels timeless. While it’s corny in some places, I think it was the point to lift America up and show that anyone can be a hero. 

The Sandlot Review

        The 90s were full of sports movies. Specifically, there was at least one movie dedicated to one of the big four popular sports in the country. Mostly some were made into dramas like Love and Basketball and Hoop Dreams to name a few. Though there were loads of kid sports films, you had the entire Mighty Ducks trilogy and Little Giants. The Sandlot is the most beloved among all the kids sports films of all time. 

1. Summer of ‘62

        This is the first sports movie that I was ever exposed to, second only to Space Jam. In terms of movies, this is the one that I always associate my brother with. I think it’s his favorite since we would watch it a lot growing up back in the day. Seeing it now is like a punch of nostalgia since the movie is memorable and quotable. And I think that’s the whole M.O. of the movie, imbuing that sense of innocent memory in a by gone time. 

        With that, we follow the new kid in the neighborhood, Smalls. He gets involved with a group of boys who play baseball at the sandlot. The main highlight is just watching the camaraderie of the kids playing ball and just spending the summer amongst each other. It’s clear that the film is shown in Smalls’ perspective. Told in a nonlinear fashion, since we see the grown-up version of him going to his work and recollecting on his best summer moment.

        The whole film feels like the time it represents. Since it takes place in the early 60s, it manages to pull off the illusion of making everything authentic. Right down to the individual caps that the boys wear. One of them even wearing a cap from a defunct league. It wouldn’t be years later that I went to my local Lids store and find the exact same cap that the character wears. Again using the nostalgia and having the kids chemistry when they talk among each other.

        With most things, there must be a conflict that the group has to resolve, and it involves a baseball. Throughout the film, we hear the tale of the neighborhood dog dubbed The Beast. How the kids describe it along with a scary tale, it seems to be a mutant dog twice as tall as the fence. Within that sub-plot, I love how the group try various methods to get a signed Babe Ruth ball back. Each going wrong and seeing the monstrous dog catch it. 

        Lastly, the movie is like a love letter to the sport and how ingrained it is in American culture. It taps into the simulacra that shows just how simple things were for the kids. And that’s what its all about, all of them get into trouble and do stuff that they’re not supposed to. It’s that idea of growing up where it lacks the subtext which doesn’t deter the movie for a moment. 

2. Legacy

        It’s now a beloved movie for my generation and I can see why. It’s surprising that the reception to the movie has warmed as time went on. It got mixed reviews due in part that the movie was compared to Stand by Me with its narration and sometimes coarse language. Now that’s on my parents for exposing me and my brother to bad words. Even though one of them used them a lot on weekend day.

        For some odd reason, years after the fact it got a direct to video sequel. And I don’t know if I consider myself lucky, but I watched it when I was in Elementary. It involved a new cast and was basically the same thing plot wise. Only this time involving a space shuttle, even though the film took place in 70s, I like things NASA so that was a big pet peeve. And I guess it was so successful that there was yet another sequel. 

3. Overall

        The Sandlot is soon to be a classic among the sports film genre. Still beloved even if you’re not a fan of the sport. 

Holes Review

It was only inevitable that a good live-action Disney movie would creep up in this look at the movies I grew up with. People tend to think that Disney only handled just animated films. Every now and then, they dabble into live-action, and it tends to be good. And it’s rare to see a good live-action film that isn’t an adaptation of their animated movies. Since in the early 2000s, they made a killing for their sports films such as Remember the Titans. With that, Holes is a good adaption of the y/a book. 

1. Stanley Yelnats 

Hard to think that this was Shia Lebouf’s film debut. My first exposure to him was in the Disney Channel show Even Stevens. So, at that time it was hard to believe him not being goofy in a movie where he must dig for punishment. Well, to be more specific. After a pair of baseball cleats lands on him. Stanley must serve his punishment in Camp Green Lake. As a penalty, he and the other campers must dig holes. 

The film is one of those rare adaptations where the author had a hand with the making of the film. Such as the fact that he wrote the screenplay, which makes the film a sort of literal adaptation of the book. Although, I did read that movie does fixes some of the plot holes that plagued the book.

It’s interesting seeing how Stanley changes when he’s in the camp. With most things, he starts off as being the sore eye in comparison to everyone wearing an orange jumpsuit. He’s witty in some situations but polite to the other campers. Slowly he becomes one of the gang and even earning a nickname. 

And that’s the main highlight in the film is the overall camaraderie between Stanley and the campers. Everything between the dialogue feels authentic and doesn’t feel off. I don’t know how to explain it but seeing them deliver the lines sounds right without it being forced or inauthentic. All of them even have distinct personalities which makes the believability more realistic. 

If there’s one thing I noticed in the film is the overall use of nicknames. Mostly all the campers in the “Camp” have distinct nicknames that describe who they are. I think since the boys see themselves as slave, they decide to just give each other nicknames since the task is inhumane. Especially with the camp counselors who have their nicknames, albeit ones where it’s ironic given the film’s ending. 

2. Story within the Story

Aside from Stanley digging, we get two other stories that tie into the bigger plot. The first one is mostly about how the Yelnats family is cursed, due to the Dad creating an invention to stop the supposed curse of foot odor. The second one is about an outlaw named Kate Barlow. You would think that the whole entire story would be haphazard. 

The other best thing about it is that it all ties together seamlessly. For one thing, I love how the film uses its flashbacks to give clarity with Stanley’s ordeal and with the camp itself. I think it gives the film a lot of depth, because if it was just one character giving an elaborate explanation as to why the boys dig. Then it wouldn’t be effective. For what it is, it adds more and it doesn’t feel jarring, at least to me. 

3. Overall

Holes is one of many Disney’s underrated live-action films. It’s a good time and I strongly recommend it.