Review: Toy Story 3

The third movie of the Toy Story franchise had me worried when I first heard about it. Pixar had been so emphatically against any future sequels that I feared being forced into this one would result in an inferior movie that would be nothing more than a waste of time and money.

I was happily mistaken. Toy Story 3 had all the heart and excitement of its predecessors.

For the first time, we see a toy as the antagonist thoughout the movie. The Prospector was a great antagonist to be sure, but we don't see his true colors until very late into the second film. The toy store owner was clearly the primary adversary. But in this movie, human villainy is virtually non-existent. The franchise stops being about people who treat toys badly (Sid and Al) and moves to toy against toy. This gives a new dynamic to the motivations. Both Sid and Al could almost be excused with "Well, they didn't know that toys have feelings." Now, it's not so cut and dry.

This also presents the opportunity to show off some very complex ideas for a kids' movie. How easy it is for good toys (or people) to be driven to do bad things when they choose a strong leader with bad motives; the danger of "just following orders."

The story also pulls hard at the heartstrings. We see the pain of toys who are no longer played with, have lot friends to charity/trash/garage sales. Uncertain what the future holds for them, and their friendship.

Some aspects were a little cheesy, and could come off as rehashing rather than saluting the previous installments, but this was minimal, and for me didn't distract from the story.

Props, Pixar. Another fine film.

Then Just Roll A Tank

This post could also be titled "Why I hate being DPS at times".

In World of Warcraft, there is a sweeping attitude that DPS are second class citizens of Azeroth. Whenever a DPS objects to a Tank's behavior (like not letting the DPS get mana, skipping bosses the majority of the group wants to do, etc) they are told they'll be kicked. I've been told many times that I wasn't needed (despite pulling the highest DPS) and that I was more expendable than a penny.

Few people would think twice before kicking a DPS (at least, before the most recent changes to the Vote to Kick system, but even then...) But kicking a tank will rarely pass, as long as the tank can stay alive, he can be as terrible as he wants to be. Waiting 30s for another expendable DPS? No worries. Waiting for 20 minutes for a new tank? No chance. Unless he is making the instance unfinishable, he can be as big of a jerk, as arbitrary as he wants to be.

Few tanks see a problem with rolling on DPS gear (if they do, it's only to avoid seeming hypocrisy). However, if a DPS who is trying to round out their tanking set to start tanking Needs a tanking item, then the Tank throws a hissy fit.

I'm of the opinion that anyone in the group (5-man, raids are different and should be handled by the raid leader) is just as important as anyone else. However, whenever I, or anyone else, protests against the attitude of the tanks, and asks for things to be changed, the most common response seems to be "Well, if you want to be able to ______ (kill optional bosses when you need them, get a more reasonable queue time, etc) then roll a tank."

This, to me, is the most annoying response I could get. My Hunter, Mage, Rogue and Warlock all lack the option to tank (or even heal). And even though my Ret Pally and Unholy DK can tank, I don't want to. So I enjoy the playstyle of DPS.

Why is this a crime? Why am I constantly finding myself punished for it?

Now, I have a tank. Level 76 Druid. It's not that hard. Can it be frustrating and aggravating? Sure. And yes, DPS can piss me off a lot. But, do I think I deserve to force the group into whatever I want, just because I'm the tank? No.

Now, I don't mind the long DPS queues. I do other things during the time, and I understand that it's just one of those things for which nothing can be done right now. I accept it.

I remember once, while doing normal Azjol-Nerub on my Pally, the Healer was "bored" and decided to Leroy the first boss, wiping us all. When he complained that no one else found it funny, I pointed out that I didn't spend 20 minutes in the queue to have my time wasted, and I didn't appreciate his antics.

His response: "Lol. u don't get to complain about queues.ur a pally, just roll tank."

Again, this attitude that DPS are not deserving of respect for their time, or their effort. That as DPS I am at the mercy of the whims of the tank and healer, and if I don't like it, my own fault for being DPS and not one of their high and mighty ranks.

I'm hoping with CC supposedly making a comeback in Cataclysm that the attitude will change. It should also help that with the Defense stat being removed, that tanking will be a little less gear-intensive and more people will be able/willing to tank, allowing for less of the attitude of "I am the irreplaceable tank. Suffer my whims, or wait 20 minutes for a new tank."

Review: Inception

Inception was a masterful movie. It's so hard to say everything I want to say about it without giving away a lot.

The story was told masterfully. Christopher Nolan weaves together concurrent storylines and locations (moving through layers of a dream) while never making the audience feel lost or confused. Each thread is unique in look and feel and action that even with constant cutting between the layers, the audience never has to stop and figure out what's going on.

The action was constant, while not making the audience feel tired. The special effects were incredible, without being flashy. Nolan even forgoes computer graphics in areas and does things the old fashioned way (in one scene, there is a spinning room. The set actually spun, a la Fred Astaire type effects rather than using CGI). Each location was carefully constructed with it's own unique color undertones, themes, and other design choices.

As for the acting, I could find no complaints. Leonardo DiCaprio put forth the same first-class performance that anyone would expect from him. His character is complex, driven, and very expressive. You have no difficulty buying his character as real, and pulling you through the story. As a pleasant surprise, Joseph Gordon-Levitt also put out a very strong performance. I wasn't expecting him to be bad or lacking, but all I've seen him in have been (500) Days of Summer, 3rd Rock from the Sun and a few other movies and shows when I was a kid. I've never seen him in this kind of movie, but he managed to hold his own, and keep his character performing the task he was meant to. The two female leads were just as masterfully portrayed by Ellen Page (Ariadne) and Marion Cotillard (Mal). Each brought a unique sense and manipulated DiCaprio's character in exactly the right way.

The only flaw to this movie was a largely unavoidable one. A lot of the dialogue was a little forced and filled with exposition. But, really, it couldn't have been done any other way. There is so much background that is vital for the viewer to know that can't really be expressed in any other way. While it could have been written so this information comes forth more organically, it would add a great deal of time the already 2.5 hour long movie. So it wasn't a huge issue for me.
 

The ending leaves you with something to think about and consider. For this first viewing, I just kicked back and enjoyed the ride. But I'm greatly looking forward to viewing it again to unravel the deep clues and symbols that I grasped the edges of on my first viewing.

If you haven't seen it yet, go now.

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The fourth and most recent installment of the Indiana Jones series again loses it's way. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but I do want to point out (and counter) some of the problems I and others seem to have in the movie.

First, many have said that the scene where Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator was incredibly unbelievable. I'm willing to buy it, just because that refrigerator was made from 2 inches of solid lead. That will protect you from quite a bit. And it's no less believable than using a self-inflating raft to safely coast down a mountain and off a cliff.

Shia LeBouf plays Mutt. While his acting was hardly high-caliber, his character was still endearing on many levels. As most "bad boys" in the 50s, he was a James Dean wannabe; a Rebel Without a Clue. His obsessive nature over his image was very believable as an adolescent young man that had no direction in his life. So not great, but not so bad as to be irredeemable.

I could even buy the man-eating ants in South America. I'd buy a lot of weird creatures from that region of the world. There is some seriously fucked up shit in the Amazon. Mother Nature was definitely PMSing when she populated that area.

Even the story itself wasn't terribly unbelievable. Both Russia and the US in the 1950s were studying telepathic warfare. Aliens have long been theorized to have had connections to the Mayans, given that their gods were white, and the pyramids they built sprung up in similar forms around the world, at about the same time. But yet, these things just aren't the Indiana Jones kind of stories. El Dorado is rich enough in legend and mystery that we didn't need to bring Science Fiction into the equation.

The legion of monkeys that come to our heroes' aid as Shia LeBouf leads them Tarzan-like through the trees was a little far-fetched. The fact that the skull was shown to be highly magnetic (even to non-magnetic metels like gold) seemed to come and go as it suited the story. Sometimes it effected weapons, wielded by good guys and bad guys alike. Other times, it conveniently didn't.

A lot the dialogue felt forced and unimagined, particularly a useless scene where Indy is arrested by a government agency. The entire scene does nothing but give us some exposition about how Indy was involved in WWII and got all kinds of medals and so on and so forth. This could have been easily covered in other ways and did not need a 5 minute scene.

Finally, the main antagonist, a Russian KGB scientist was two-dimensional, poorly acted, and just altogether thrown in as a villain without any depth or interest.

One thing that I got a huge kick out of, however, was Indy saying "I have a bad feeling about this". Star Wars references always make me feel warm and happy inside.

So, overall, this movie would have been fairly decent if it wasn't an Indiana Jones movie. Enjoyable action, fairly funny, however it was still very much flawed.

But honestly, anyone who says that it was the worst movie ever made, and that it ruined the Indiana Jones series and left it a broken mess should really go back and re-watch Indiana Jones and the Temple of Cheap Plot Devices. For me, I still found far and away better than the second movie, even it trailed the first and third installments by just as much.

Review: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

In the third installment of Indiana Jones, Spielberg comes back to the series to provide an excellent tale. We open up with a flashback to Indy's childhood where we discover what led him to become a swashbuckling archeologist, see the inspiration for his iconic fashion sense (and see why that hat is do damn important to him) and get the first glimpses of a father who's obssession would cause a distant relationship between them.

After we return to Indy's present-day life, we discover that his father (who spent his life chasing the Holy Grail) has gone missing. What ensues is a long mystery, full of secret societies, hidden clues, and a lot of great entertainment and humor.

The acting was well done. Harrison Ford, as always, pulls off his character with complexity and depth, as always, with that trademark humor that makes the Indiana Jones character such an icon. Sean Connery was perfect as Indy's father, a mix of humor, distantness, fatherly love and absent-mindedness. Their interactions were plausible, filled with just the right amount of emotion, and truly gave a new depth to the character of Indiana Jones.

The female lead, Dr Elsa Schneider, provided the first strong female lead of the series. While Marion was not a damsel in distress to be sure, Elsa was a whole level above. She was smart, quick, calm under pressure, and more than able to take care of herself.

I don't want to give away too much for the few people out there that haven't seen this yet. But it brings back what an Action/Adventure movie is supposed to be. Action, good plot, a hint of mystery, and great underlying humor.  A most worthy sequel of a timeless franchise.

Review:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

This movie was hard to watch, even for a sequel. Spielberg seemed to lose everything that made the first movie great in such a short time.

The movie opens, not with an exciting archeological find, but with Jones negotiating with Chinese mobsters in a Shanghai nightclub. This whole scene, while amusing at parts, seemed more fitting for a James Bond movie than an Indiana Jones.

The other two primary characters, Short Round and Willie, were two-dimensional, shallow, and largely unnecessary. Short Round was a young orphan Jones saved and let tag along and help on his mission to deal with the mob.While perky and relatively funny, he served almost no purpose except for towards the end of the movie. Willie was a night-club singer in the club where Jones was going through his dealings. She was a bimbo, unhelpful, unproductive, uncatalystic to the story outside of providing a love interest. After the better depth and development Marion had, (and it irked me that she wasn't even mentioned, just vanished) it was disappointing to see such an uninspiring female lead.

To escape the Chinese mob, Jones (taking Willie as a hostage) boards a plane that happens to be owned by the mob. It crashes, and how does our trio save themselves? By jumping into a self-inflating raft, falling a good hundred or more feet, landing safely on snow, rocketing down a mountainside without crashing, off a cliff, dropping even farther down, yet still everyone comes out just a little damp. Um.... what? My suspension of disbelief is straining and we aren't even 20 minutes in.

We then end up in a small village who is suffering greatly because they lost their Mystical Stone of Happy Goodness, but Indy is too busy and needs to get back to the States (subtle foreshadowing is subtle....).

The group continues on and stops at a city that is known for bizarre worship and all kinds of nastiness. Oh, but they don't do that anymore....

While staying the night, we discover that they actually do continue to do bizarre sacrifices, and everyone there is evil. Oh, but their mind control can be broken by touching them with fire. Because this is clearly not an issue in a place lit brightly by torches. You seriously want to tell me that no one ever accidently burned themselves and figured this out before now?

But can Indy and Co escape this cult's vile clutches before the worst happens? To find out you'll have to sit through the crap like I did.

The entire movie is cheap special effects, and a loosely threaded storyline. Worth missing altogether unless you are really wanting to watch the entire Indy saga. But if you skip it, you're not missing much.

Review: Shrek Forever After

Shrek: Forever After is the fourth and final chapter in the Shrek tale. While it, like the other sequels, failed to capture the inspiration of the first, it was still solid and enjoyable.

The story starts at the triplets' first birthday. And Shrek is suffering under being a new dad. He's frustrated that he's hailed as a hero, stuck in routine, and missing the days of being the fearsome and hated ogre he once was. So he makes an ill-fated deal with Rumplestiltskin and gets transported to a paradoxial world where nothing is how it was before. In many ways reminiscent of the second film, yet still with enough twists to make it feel a little less repetitive.

Rumpelstiltskin is a fun villain, though not any more menacing than Fairy Godmother or Prince Charming. His army of witches reminded me a lot of the third movie, but again it didn't feel like a complete repetition. The Pied Piper was certainly the coolest flute-playing bounty hunter ever. they did well with his music where it was varied both in style and tone, and was able to convey a lot when he used it to communicate.

The biggest difference between this and prior iterations of the movie trilogy was this focused less on the idea of "be yourself, no matter what" and more on the importance of love. While the former lesson is still present, much of it is more in the undertone that accepting your situation and finding happiness with it is important. More important, is Shrek learning to reprioritize his life. Learning that repetition and a loss of his "evil ogre" image is far less important than his family and friends is the heart of this story.

The enjoyability of this movie really comes down to whether or not you enjoyed Shrek 2 and 3. If you enjoyed these, then you'll enjoy this latest installment. If Shrek 2 and 3 left you feeling blah, then you probably won't enjoy this one either, as it offers no more than these.

As far as 3D, I would say not worth it. I saw it in 2D, and didn't feel like I missed anything without the 3D. So save yourself a few bucks per ticket and just see the 2D version (if it's even still playing in 3D in your area).

Review: Despicable Me

Despicable Me has the perfect mix of humor and heart. It tells the story of Gru, a less than successful super-villain attempting the biggest heist in history: the moon. He adopts 3 young orphans to help him foil a rival villain, and the story revolves around how he balances these young children and his villain career.

The story, as I said, is filled with humor. From his little yellow minions that are incredibly funny, and full of sight gags, yet without being crude or over the top. Gru himself is humorous, especially with antics like using his Freeze Ray to cut to the head of the line at the Coffee Shop (come on, who of you wouldn't).

The characters are well developed, and believable within their universe. Heartfelt moments will tug at your heartstrings, perilous scenes will leave you worried (even though as a children's movie, you'll know things will work out all right) and the humor will keep you laughing.

The three orphan girls, particularly the oldest, are portrayed as reasonably complex, and are diverse in their personalities.  They're enjoyable to watch, and their interactions are both fun and believable.

The only problem I had with the entire movie was the physical appearance of Gru's mother. She looked too much like the granny from Hoodwinked, and that got on my nerves. A little more originality in looks would have helped greatly.

It's hard to say more without spoiling the movie, but if you have kids, be sure to take them. If you don't have kids, be sure to go anyway. It's a great film that is a lot of fun for everyone, and well worth the cost of a ticket, even for 3D.

Review: Little Big Planet

Little Big Planet has been a smash hit for a while. I finally got to play it last month, and I fell in love instantly.

You play a little sack person, navigating through the world of Little Big Planet. You go through a wide variety of zones, each with 3 main levels, and numerous bonus levels. These worlds are lumped together into themes, based around a theme, related to the location and the "Creator Curator" of that subsection of levels.

You travel through levels based in Europe, Africa, South America, Latin America, USA, Japan, India and Russia, with a final boss level. The villain is the elusive Collector, who is stealing people from the other levels.

Throughout the levels, you have Goodies to collect. These include objects found in the instance, stickers, costumes and more. You can use these to decorate yourself, your home base, and create your own levels.

The story is loosely threaded, but really, the "Story" levels are just there to highlight what you can do. Everything you see in the levels can be recreated when you build your own levels.

Building your own levels is actually quite simple. Tutorials for every aspect can either be played through linearly, or the appropriate tutorial will play the first time you try to use a new tool.

Each of the levels (including bonus levels) offered on Story mode has 3 in-game trophies associated with it: Completion, All Goodies, and No Deaths (except for bonus levels that don't end until you die). This means that even after you've beaten all the levels, you have plenty of reason to go back.

Multi-player play is very well done. On your own system, you can play with those with their own account on your system, or as a guest. They just turn on a controller, select their account (or play as a guest if they don't have an account) and they pop in at the next save point. If they don't want to play anymore, then just turn off the controller, and they will disappear, without having to leave the level. Online play is supported where you can round off your group (you can play with up to 3 other people) with strangers from online. And very nicely, any goodies collected by one person is credited to all (which is actually necessary, as there are areas labeled with the number of players you need to move through the area and collect the goodies within.)

Replay value is very high. Between gathering all the goodies (which definitely requires multiple playthroughs of levels, as you'll find stickers to trigger the switches in later levels, or later on in the level), beating every level with no deaths, and a nearly unlimited amount of community-made levels, you will never get bored.

The faults in this game are few, but they do exist. First, the ending to the Story line is cheesily stupid. It reminded me of shows like Ni Hao Kai Lan or Dora the Explorer. While I get that the story levels are just to showcase what can be done, and that this is a very family-friendly game, it still was disappointing. Also, changing depth between foreground, midground and background could get a little touchy. But no so much so as to really interfere with the game. I ran into the issue primarily when trying to get a goodie that was hidden behind something else.

The game truly lives up to it's motto: Play. Create. Share. If you enjoy gaming at all, this is a must for your collection.

Review: The Last Airbender

 Even if you haven't seen it yet, you've probably heard a lot of criticism about it. While it certainly had some problems, I did not think it was without its redeeming qualities.

The problems stemmed mostly from the changes M. Night Shamylan made. I expected a lot of changes; you can't condense an entire season of television (over 6 hours) into a movie without making some adjustments. And not all of the changes were bad.

Changing the pronunciations of the names. This was annoying, but considering that M. Night specifically adjusted the names to the Asian pronunciation, I was willing to overlook it. He didn't change the names themselves, and I could understand the change at least.

Changing firebending to require pre-existing fire. Not something I was thrilled with. The fact that firebenders could generate their element was part of what made them such a threatening element. However, this is a reasonable change, and doesn't really change the dynamic of the story that much.

One change that really bothered me though was Fire Lord Ozai. We see him walking around his palace, not silhouetted behind a wall of fire which made him far, far more intimidating and evil looking. He also seemed to have a much softer feeling for his son than he did in the series. That really irritated me. One of the main driving forces behind the story was how much the Fire Lord disliked his son. I would have to say that this, above all else, angered me more than anything about the movie.

Another thing that really bothered me about the movie was how underdeveloped both Sokka and Katara were. Neither of them were clearly defined, nor given real purpose throughout the movie. For me, this was just a half-step behind the changes to Fire Lord Ozai in terms of causing anger and damaging the movie. They didn't even develop why Sokka and Yue fell for each other, it was just "love at first sight" happy happy. (Oh, and they made Yue an orphan who ruled the Northern Water Tribe. A meaningless change that while it didn't affect the plot at all, was unneeded.)

However, I felt that Aang and Zuko were well developed, especially given the limited scope of Season 1 in this regard. All the important groundwork was laid for future episodes. We see Aang giving over to duty, and Zuko's anger and desperation to regain his honor. Uncle Iroh was also well portrayed, even if his character lost the goofy manner he had in the series. I was actually very happy with his development, and his change to a more adult and less jokerly character.

 Finally, Aang says the Avatar is not allowed to have a family. Thanks to season 3 and knowing that Avatar Roku had a family (which, while able to be worked around, provides some very important insight to events following this revelation), this was obviously bull. It's been a while since I've watched the first season, so I don't know if Aang said it then, and the creators adjusted later, but with the series in its completion, there was no reason to put it into the movie. Aang had plenty of motivation with just the stress and pressures of being the Avatar to justify his running away.

However, it was not without its upsides. M. Night kept very close to the series, and it was cool being able to say "Omg, I remember this episode!" The scenery was beautiful, and matched, by and large, the vistas in the show. The 3D effects weren't needed, but at the same time seemed to work as the 3D in James Cameron's Avatar and simply added depth, without getting the vibe of "Omg! Look at my 3D!" (I have heard that many people had issues with the the 3D making it hard to see what was going on, but the only time I had this problem was with the Spirit Dragon that replaced Roku as Aang's mentor. But he was supposed to be hard to see. Your experience may vary.)

I also liked how he put larger chunks of description and exposition into voice over by Katara, keeping awkward dialogue to a minimum, though not completely absent.

All in all, if you go in knowing that the film is flawed, I think the enjoyment level goes up immensely over what others have said about the movie. M. Night was given the difficult task of adapting an entire television season (and a largely expositional one at that as the creators laid out the Avatar world) into a movie with a largely limited time frame. While he certainly did not hit the mark, I think it is undeserving of the hate that it has received. The largest cause of problems seemed to be that he waffled between laying out the world for new viewers, as well as trying to explain his changes to the fans. I think if he had just laid it out for new viewers, it would have been received better by the fans.

Review: Raiders of the Lost Ark

It's been a long time since I've seen the Indiana Jones movies. A good 15 years, so it was really great being able to come back and watch the movies again with a fresh pair of eyes.

This movie is one of the best I've ever seen. Everything came together flawlessly. And Spielberg really pushed to bring together every element that makes a film, and gave it meaning.

The characters were believable, in their own way. Indiana Jones was typecast as Harrison Ford (Indiana is truly the Han Solo of archeology). Through the movie we see a complex character. On the one hand we see a college professor, who is passionate, but reasonably mild-mannered. On the other, we see a hardened treasure hunter, how can be quick to anger, calm under pressure, worldly, funny, driven.

His well-known outfit of rugged leather and a fedora is both recognizable, and shows the adventuresome side versus his clean cut suit that he wears as a professor. The image gives such a dichotomy to this character. And of course, Harrison Ford is great no matter what.

His counterpart and primary antagonist in the film is Belloq, a fellow archeologist. Belloq is constantly one step ahead of Jones, and takes a far more mercenary approach to archaeology. Where Jones donates all of his finds to a museum, Belloq works for the highest bidder (private investors). However, he is not inherently evil. While he may have it out for Jones, he shows concern and compassion for others. As he himself says, he is what Jones could have become, and the contrast adds depth not only to Belloq, but to Jones as well.

Major Arnold Toht is the most visible of the villains. A vicious member of the SS, he is cold, cruel, and so undeniably evil. Even the guy's eyeglasses look evil. He provides a real sense of peril and foreboding for the main characters when they fall into his clutches. Reminiscent of Vader himself, he does a great job of making the audience's skin crawl whenever he's around.

Marion Ravenwood is the film's heroine. While not a swachbuckler herself, and one that often finds herself in need of rescue, she's not your typical damsel in distress. She's clever, fiesty, fiery and altogether a strong female lead.

The plot is full mystery, twists, excitement, and intrigue. Ending in a climax of epic proportions, it leaves the viewer satisfied. Loose ends are tied up, and the adventure comes to a satisfying close.

If you are like my husband and have somehow missed seeing this movie, you absolutely have to go out and see it. You won't be disappointed.