I'll admit I've been looking forward to this one since I first saw the trailer back at Christmas. I know, I know, I'm a mom and it's a kids' film and I want to see it as badly as I want to see "Star Trek: Beyond..." Sue me.
All I have to say is GO SEE IT. Fans of the old Bugs Bunny methods of slapstick humor and inside jokes meant for grown-ups are going to love this film. I took two twelve-year-old girls and could hear them laughing constantly. And snorting. It's a good film when the self-absorbed tweens snort.
If you happen to have been living in a box and missed all the trailers for this film, the run down is this "tiny dog" with the highly original name of Max is living the happy, spoiled life of a Manhattan pet in the typical hipster walk-up. Just as he's done bragging about how close he and his owner are, she shows up with Duke, I giant fur ball with an attitude, and presents him as Max's new "brother." Max is not pleased. Duke is a bully. Chaos ensues.
Each of the characters is both a sketch of a prototypical comedy persona and a dead on impression of at least one of the pets living in my house today. Even the evil villain bunny is adorable and unstable in that psycho way every fluffy bunny owner secretly believes their little long-eared friend must be. People are barely character sketches in this film, which leans on a formula that only Disney seems to have pulled of successfully in the past.
Unlike its competition, this film makes almost no attempt to pull at the heartstrings. There's a split-second hint of bittersweet, but seriously, only for a moment. This one is pure end-to-end movie fun, with or without the 3D aspect. (You don't need it to enjoy this one.) It was incredibly refreshing to just sit back and enjoy a kids' film that didn't slap me in the face with a "message." Sure, there's the typical theme of loyalty and friendship you find in most family films, but it's subtle and done so smartly as to be almost invisible. The "Secret Life of Pets" was also glaringly devoid of the usual brainless fart jokes and bathroom humor lazy writers lean on when it comes to most formulaic kid crap released lately.
Fair warning - the "scary" aspects will probably be too much for the average feint-hearted four year old. There is definitely a lot of cartoon violence and some frightening creatures run with the bad bunny. There are car chases, massive accidents and some bad-a** poodle ninja action. Grade school and junior high kids will find it hilarious, pre-schoolers will probably cry, hence the PG rating. Oh, and grandpa won't fall asleep and snore like the old guy we sat next to earlier this year. (It was a G movie.)
So, buy your tickets early - even the previews are selling out and for good reason. "The Secret Life of Pets" opens nationwide tomorrow, July 8th.
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Jul 7, 2016
Review: The Secret Life of Pets
Super geek, single Christian mom balancing a full time job, a tween with ADHD, my film world and a house full of pets. In my past life, I fronted local cover bands and played sports for fun. Still involved in indie film, photography & hi-tech. My hobbies & work take me interesting places and hopefully provide experiences worth reading about. Inexplicably, I have an IQ that rivals Hawking, so may be prone to chasing theoretical rabbits and waxing philosophical.
Jan 1, 2016
2015 Juggernauts: The Secret Sauce
2015 saw box office records shattered not once, but twice. First, "Jurassic World" broke the opening record in grand fashion with a $208M opening weekend take and pulled into third place with it's $652M theatrical gross. Then came "Star Wars, The Force Awakens" with it's stunning $238M opening weekend, unprecedented $1M in IMax pre-sales, and incredible $651M two-week run in 2015. The "Star Wars" reboot sits just $400K shy of "Jurassic World's" total gross as of New Year's Eve and is positioned to quickly overtake "Titanic" in total sales before it leaves theaters in 2016.
So, what's the secret? Rising ticket prices? Amazing CGI? Rich 3D experiences?
Nope.
What Spielberg and Abrams have figured out is how to crack the code of true mass appeal without selling the soul of the story.
Both films have two critical factors in common - They're both great, simple stories and they appeal to all ages. Where films like the much panned "Pan" (yeah, bad pun intended) and the excruciatingly gross "Pixels" failed is to take a story that appeals to children and slap on a layer of adult-only language, themes and violence. They alienated their adult audience with the kid-attractive story and hobbled sales to families with inappropriate sexual content and foul language or adult-level violence and themes. ("Pan" was far too violent for the elementary school set and "Pixels" was way too high school locker-room.)
We don't want to ignore the importance of savvy marketing leading up to the releases of both films. Jurassic World teased us with a barrage of trailers and plenty of press well-ahead of the film. Star Chris Pratt was a natural draw because he was just rolling off the massive success of "Guardians of the Galaxy," making casting a critical part of the marketing effort. Disney has been building momentum toward the franchise reboot since purchasing the rights from Lucas in 2013. Not only did they build loyalty among the 8-12 year old set through their animated tie-ins and merchandising, but restored parents' loyalties with adult-targeted merchandising and Star Wars-themed attractions at their parks. By attaching their name to the project, parents could feel good that the latest film would appeal to their kids just like it did for them when first released in 1977.
Juggernauts like 2015's big winners enjoy the wise choices made by screenwriters who are able to tell a great story without any of the sex, language and graphic violence that terrorizes those 10-12 year olds most likely to convince their parents to make multiple trips to the cinema. By the way, those kids buy tie-in merchandise like crazy, so the studio wins on every front.
The almost unprecedented success of these two films just goes to prove that America has moved beyond the Tarantino generation. Sex is no longer a big box office draw. Foul language may be ubiquitous in Hollywood, but still repels most families. Bloody, graphic violence is no longer shocking to those old enough to watch it and is at risk of becoming blasé. Audiences are tired of reboots that are nothing more than a rehashing of an already well-told story with better effects.
The predecessors to both of these franchise reboots were both major successes in their time, and were long-time favorites of my generation as well as my parents' generation. Now my generation has kids of our own and long for the chance to show our kids the kind of epic stories that we remember changed our whole perception of movies and filled our childhood fantasies. As George Lucas proved with the somewhat maligned prequels to "Star Wars," when you start dinking around with childhood favorites, you need to keep the magic intact but tell a new story.
"Jurassic World" may be a transparent update to the original story told by "Jurassic Park," but layers on the excess and conceit of our modern, capitalistic society along with a healthy dose of fun and comedy relief, subtly poking fun at Hollywood's tendency to remake a story to death. Rather than being yet another lame remake, though, it sets out to prove that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it without shoving that lesson down our throats. Thankfully, the filmmakers chose to keep it clean and 10+ friendly so that the group most likely to want to watch a movie about dinosaurs could do so without torturing mom or dad in the process. You never see a body spurt blood or gratuitous private parts throughout the entire film, despite the romantic side story and voracious dinos. Instead, Treverrow pulls a page from Hitchcock's play book and lets the audience imagine the carnage rather than throwing it in our faces.
"The Force Awakens" will trample most box office records not because of it's amazing acting or novel concepts, but because it takes a familiar, favorite story, holds true to the world it constructed while advancing the fantasy. It pays homage to what we already loved by bringing back our favorite characters in a way that makes sense, gives us new believable characters to attach to and a new story line to invest in. Plus, it does an amazing job of expanding the "Star Wars" universe to appeal to girls without being obvious or cheesy about it. Rey isn't some video game heroine who's basically a guy with boobs - she's a believable, real girl with the innate soul of a hero. Oh, and she gets to live the fantasy of every little 70's era girl who dreamed of being Han Solo instead of the somewhat boring Princess Leia.
What Hollywood is only just beginning to understand about modern audiences is that girls want to be a part of the action but don't want to be treated like boys. Parents want to take their kids to the movies but remain kids in the process. Audiences in general are bored with overused shock & awe formulas and dying just to be told a great story. In short, we just want to be entertained, and we'll spend more money if we can bring our kids and their grandparents with us.
So, what's the secret? Rising ticket prices? Amazing CGI? Rich 3D experiences?
Nope.
What Spielberg and Abrams have figured out is how to crack the code of true mass appeal without selling the soul of the story.
Both films have two critical factors in common - They're both great, simple stories and they appeal to all ages. Where films like the much panned "Pan" (yeah, bad pun intended) and the excruciatingly gross "Pixels" failed is to take a story that appeals to children and slap on a layer of adult-only language, themes and violence. They alienated their adult audience with the kid-attractive story and hobbled sales to families with inappropriate sexual content and foul language or adult-level violence and themes. ("Pan" was far too violent for the elementary school set and "Pixels" was way too high school locker-room.)
We don't want to ignore the importance of savvy marketing leading up to the releases of both films. Jurassic World teased us with a barrage of trailers and plenty of press well-ahead of the film. Star Chris Pratt was a natural draw because he was just rolling off the massive success of "Guardians of the Galaxy," making casting a critical part of the marketing effort. Disney has been building momentum toward the franchise reboot since purchasing the rights from Lucas in 2013. Not only did they build loyalty among the 8-12 year old set through their animated tie-ins and merchandising, but restored parents' loyalties with adult-targeted merchandising and Star Wars-themed attractions at their parks. By attaching their name to the project, parents could feel good that the latest film would appeal to their kids just like it did for them when first released in 1977.
Juggernauts like 2015's big winners enjoy the wise choices made by screenwriters who are able to tell a great story without any of the sex, language and graphic violence that terrorizes those 10-12 year olds most likely to convince their parents to make multiple trips to the cinema. By the way, those kids buy tie-in merchandise like crazy, so the studio wins on every front.
The almost unprecedented success of these two films just goes to prove that America has moved beyond the Tarantino generation. Sex is no longer a big box office draw. Foul language may be ubiquitous in Hollywood, but still repels most families. Bloody, graphic violence is no longer shocking to those old enough to watch it and is at risk of becoming blasé. Audiences are tired of reboots that are nothing more than a rehashing of an already well-told story with better effects.
The predecessors to both of these franchise reboots were both major successes in their time, and were long-time favorites of my generation as well as my parents' generation. Now my generation has kids of our own and long for the chance to show our kids the kind of epic stories that we remember changed our whole perception of movies and filled our childhood fantasies. As George Lucas proved with the somewhat maligned prequels to "Star Wars," when you start dinking around with childhood favorites, you need to keep the magic intact but tell a new story.
"Jurassic World" may be a transparent update to the original story told by "Jurassic Park," but layers on the excess and conceit of our modern, capitalistic society along with a healthy dose of fun and comedy relief, subtly poking fun at Hollywood's tendency to remake a story to death. Rather than being yet another lame remake, though, it sets out to prove that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it without shoving that lesson down our throats. Thankfully, the filmmakers chose to keep it clean and 10+ friendly so that the group most likely to want to watch a movie about dinosaurs could do so without torturing mom or dad in the process. You never see a body spurt blood or gratuitous private parts throughout the entire film, despite the romantic side story and voracious dinos. Instead, Treverrow pulls a page from Hitchcock's play book and lets the audience imagine the carnage rather than throwing it in our faces.
"The Force Awakens" will trample most box office records not because of it's amazing acting or novel concepts, but because it takes a familiar, favorite story, holds true to the world it constructed while advancing the fantasy. It pays homage to what we already loved by bringing back our favorite characters in a way that makes sense, gives us new believable characters to attach to and a new story line to invest in. Plus, it does an amazing job of expanding the "Star Wars" universe to appeal to girls without being obvious or cheesy about it. Rey isn't some video game heroine who's basically a guy with boobs - she's a believable, real girl with the innate soul of a hero. Oh, and she gets to live the fantasy of every little 70's era girl who dreamed of being Han Solo instead of the somewhat boring Princess Leia.
What Hollywood is only just beginning to understand about modern audiences is that girls want to be a part of the action but don't want to be treated like boys. Parents want to take their kids to the movies but remain kids in the process. Audiences in general are bored with overused shock & awe formulas and dying just to be told a great story. In short, we just want to be entertained, and we'll spend more money if we can bring our kids and their grandparents with us.
Super geek, single Christian mom balancing a full time job, a tween with ADHD, my film world and a house full of pets. In my past life, I fronted local cover bands and played sports for fun. Still involved in indie film, photography & hi-tech. My hobbies & work take me interesting places and hopefully provide experiences worth reading about. Inexplicably, I have an IQ that rivals Hawking, so may be prone to chasing theoretical rabbits and waxing philosophical.
Aug 11, 2015
Review: The End of the Tour
I am only slightly embarrassed to admit that I was expecting a comedy when I first walked into the theater, bucket of M&Ms and popcorn in one hand and a giant soda in the other. I like to avoid any pre-conceived notions regarding movies I plan to review, to ensure perfect candor, so I'd only read a three-line synopsis that basically told me it was about the road trip Rolling Stone journalist David Lipsky (played by Jesse Eisenberg) took with professor/author David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) at the end of his Infinite Jest book tour. Given Joan Cusack's appearance in the cast list, "comedy" was a natural assumption.
It wasn't long into the film that I realized it was pretty much a drama about two guys sitting around talking to each other. Sometimes they walked around and talked to each other. Briefly, they talked to other people or Wallace's two adorably overweight Labradors. By most measures, the movie should've been incredibly boring.
It was not.
Before we'd even gone in, my friend and I had vowed to sit on the end of the row and quietly depart if the film turned out to be below our expectations. Instead of sneaking out, we forgot to eat our popcorn, even with the unhealthy dose of chocolate we'd dumped inside. My soda remained nearly full. Not only was this little film about two guys talking to each other vastly interesting, it was entertaining and moving. I forgot to eat.
As expected where Segel and Eisenberg are present, there were moments of humor and awkwardness. Eisenberg's delivery was his typical tic-laden quirky nerd. No real surprises there. Segel, on the other hand, disappeared and was replaced by someone who easily could've been mistaken for the 90's era Wallace. (Okay, his hair wasn't quite as awesome, but we can overlook that.) Segel's performance was not only believable, but nearly invisible, and that is the perfection every real actor should strive to achieve. Thanks to that perfection, it was easy to understand how people could form the type of bond toward Wallace that his "DFW" fanatical followers seem to possess. (Many have vowed to skip the movie because they believe DFW would never have sanctioned such a narcissistic endeavor. Wait, didn't he agree to the original interview, book tours, speaking engagements...? Never mind. I don't want to stir up trouble.)
In the end, this film WILL tug at your heart strings, if they are there to be tugged. It will appeal to those who want to get insight into Wallace through Lipsky's eyes without taking the time to read the book (Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself). It will appeal to indie film lovers, bio and book lovers, and anyone who simply enjoys a good drama. It won't make tons of money, but the best films rarely do. If you're not one of those previously listed folks, go see it for the outstanding cameo performances by the inimitable Joan Cusack and Mamie Gummer, looking more like mama Meryl Streep than ever before.
If you're over 18 and have half a brain, seek this film out. Order a small popcorn and soda, sit down and watch it with a pal, then feel smarter and a little more human when you walk out. For you DFW fans who refuse to see this film because you don't believe it can possibly do him justice or may conflict with his wishes, get over it. Unless you knew him personally, you really have no more right to claim knowledge of what he would've wanted than the filmmakers, who, by the way, honor his memory very well while helping us understand why he both savored and avoided the spotlight. (He might have even been ashamed of your arrogance and uninformed pre-judgment, being such a fan of moving pictures and overall open-mindedness himself.)
During his life, Wallace may have avoided the camera because he struggled with the trappings of fame and the dangers of inadvertently branding himself, but this film absolutely does everything possible to paint him as human as he'd want to be, and as brilliant and wonderful as he was. It treats his foibles and wishes with every bit of the deference he would've wanted and deserved. It also serves to introduce a whole new generation to him, drawing them toward his amazing work. If anything, DFW fans should be happy he is finally getting the type of widespread respectful treatment he never allowed himself to receive. So what if it's only a snippet of his life? It's a work of art and rare insight into a brilliant but (mostly) reclusive artist.
The End of the Tour opens in Houston on August 13, limited release.
It wasn't long into the film that I realized it was pretty much a drama about two guys sitting around talking to each other. Sometimes they walked around and talked to each other. Briefly, they talked to other people or Wallace's two adorably overweight Labradors. By most measures, the movie should've been incredibly boring.
It was not.
Before we'd even gone in, my friend and I had vowed to sit on the end of the row and quietly depart if the film turned out to be below our expectations. Instead of sneaking out, we forgot to eat our popcorn, even with the unhealthy dose of chocolate we'd dumped inside. My soda remained nearly full. Not only was this little film about two guys talking to each other vastly interesting, it was entertaining and moving. I forgot to eat.
As expected where Segel and Eisenberg are present, there were moments of humor and awkwardness. Eisenberg's delivery was his typical tic-laden quirky nerd. No real surprises there. Segel, on the other hand, disappeared and was replaced by someone who easily could've been mistaken for the 90's era Wallace. (Okay, his hair wasn't quite as awesome, but we can overlook that.) Segel's performance was not only believable, but nearly invisible, and that is the perfection every real actor should strive to achieve. Thanks to that perfection, it was easy to understand how people could form the type of bond toward Wallace that his "DFW" fanatical followers seem to possess. (Many have vowed to skip the movie because they believe DFW would never have sanctioned such a narcissistic endeavor. Wait, didn't he agree to the original interview, book tours, speaking engagements...? Never mind. I don't want to stir up trouble.)
In the end, this film WILL tug at your heart strings, if they are there to be tugged. It will appeal to those who want to get insight into Wallace through Lipsky's eyes without taking the time to read the book (Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself). It will appeal to indie film lovers, bio and book lovers, and anyone who simply enjoys a good drama. It won't make tons of money, but the best films rarely do. If you're not one of those previously listed folks, go see it for the outstanding cameo performances by the inimitable Joan Cusack and Mamie Gummer, looking more like mama Meryl Streep than ever before.
If you're over 18 and have half a brain, seek this film out. Order a small popcorn and soda, sit down and watch it with a pal, then feel smarter and a little more human when you walk out. For you DFW fans who refuse to see this film because you don't believe it can possibly do him justice or may conflict with his wishes, get over it. Unless you knew him personally, you really have no more right to claim knowledge of what he would've wanted than the filmmakers, who, by the way, honor his memory very well while helping us understand why he both savored and avoided the spotlight. (He might have even been ashamed of your arrogance and uninformed pre-judgment, being such a fan of moving pictures and overall open-mindedness himself.)
During his life, Wallace may have avoided the camera because he struggled with the trappings of fame and the dangers of inadvertently branding himself, but this film absolutely does everything possible to paint him as human as he'd want to be, and as brilliant and wonderful as he was. It treats his foibles and wishes with every bit of the deference he would've wanted and deserved. It also serves to introduce a whole new generation to him, drawing them toward his amazing work. If anything, DFW fans should be happy he is finally getting the type of widespread respectful treatment he never allowed himself to receive. So what if it's only a snippet of his life? It's a work of art and rare insight into a brilliant but (mostly) reclusive artist.
The End of the Tour opens in Houston on August 13, limited release.
Super geek, single Christian mom balancing a full time job, a tween with ADHD, my film world and a house full of pets. In my past life, I fronted local cover bands and played sports for fun. Still involved in indie film, photography & hi-tech. My hobbies & work take me interesting places and hopefully provide experiences worth reading about. Inexplicably, I have an IQ that rivals Hawking, so may be prone to chasing theoretical rabbits and waxing philosophical.
Aug 6, 2015
"Home" = The Perfect Screenplay
While many screenwriting gurus vary greatly in the advice they give, there is one thing they agree on consistently for a feature-length screenplay: plot structure. If you're a budding writer, hopefully you've seen this basic rule:
It's simple, tried and true...and often ignored by screenwriters and filmmakers, especially in the independent side of the industry. (Hey, sometimes this works, sometimes it leaves audiences scratching their heads.)
For a new screenwriter, sometimes it's difficult to see this structure in modern films. (Try watching action films - they usually throw it in your face.) Since I'm a mom, though, I was compelled to see "Home" with my daughter, who absolutely LOVED that movie. I will be the first to admit, I did, too. So we watched it again and to my everlasting surprise, I realized why: that writer was a genius when it came to adherence to classic plot structure. Okay, and the film was a lot of fun to watch in general.
Not only was the overall story an excellent blend of fun, silliness and heart-string tugging, but the plot was easy for both me and the 10-year-old I brought with me to follow. Our well-trained movie-loving brains subconsciously responded positively to the near perfect adherence to classic plot structure without the slightest thought the story might be formulaic in design.
Whether you're a new screenwriter or an experienced pro, try drawing up your chart (based on the above), pop "Home" into your DVD, and see if you can attach the scenes in this perfectly-designed kids' movie onto the right points in the chart. How does the timing align? (Tip #1: times in the chart are approximate but should divide your movie into thirds at each of the turning points.) Does the setup establish the rules of the world it creates? Does the story stay within those rules (to maintain believability)? Does the action build from each point to the next? Where does the action peak? (Tip #2: It happens twice, as formula demands.) Does the resolution actually resolve every open thread? Evaluate other screenwriting elements "Home" executes well: Does each character have a unique voice? Do we care about what happens to the primary characters? Can you identify the primary antagonist(s)? Does each primary character have a friend/advisor? If you don't find the answer to each question, I have a now 11-year-old who will be happy to help you. :)
If you're not a screenwriter but a burgeoning filmmaker, I encourage you to view this as a guide to identifying excellent screenplays. In the end, they should follow the formula without appearing formulaic. That, my friend, (along with a killer cast and toe-tapping soundtrack), is how you pull in a $54 million weekend box office with a kid-friendly film that doesn't feature a princess or well-known toy anywhere in the story.
It's simple, tried and true...and often ignored by screenwriters and filmmakers, especially in the independent side of the industry. (Hey, sometimes this works, sometimes it leaves audiences scratching their heads.)
For a new screenwriter, sometimes it's difficult to see this structure in modern films. (Try watching action films - they usually throw it in your face.) Since I'm a mom, though, I was compelled to see "Home" with my daughter, who absolutely LOVED that movie. I will be the first to admit, I did, too. So we watched it again and to my everlasting surprise, I realized why: that writer was a genius when it came to adherence to classic plot structure. Okay, and the film was a lot of fun to watch in general.
Not only was the overall story an excellent blend of fun, silliness and heart-string tugging, but the plot was easy for both me and the 10-year-old I brought with me to follow. Our well-trained movie-loving brains subconsciously responded positively to the near perfect adherence to classic plot structure without the slightest thought the story might be formulaic in design.
Whether you're a new screenwriter or an experienced pro, try drawing up your chart (based on the above), pop "Home" into your DVD, and see if you can attach the scenes in this perfectly-designed kids' movie onto the right points in the chart. How does the timing align? (Tip #1: times in the chart are approximate but should divide your movie into thirds at each of the turning points.) Does the setup establish the rules of the world it creates? Does the story stay within those rules (to maintain believability)? Does the action build from each point to the next? Where does the action peak? (Tip #2: It happens twice, as formula demands.) Does the resolution actually resolve every open thread? Evaluate other screenwriting elements "Home" executes well: Does each character have a unique voice? Do we care about what happens to the primary characters? Can you identify the primary antagonist(s)? Does each primary character have a friend/advisor? If you don't find the answer to each question, I have a now 11-year-old who will be happy to help you. :)
If you're not a screenwriter but a burgeoning filmmaker, I encourage you to view this as a guide to identifying excellent screenplays. In the end, they should follow the formula without appearing formulaic. That, my friend, (along with a killer cast and toe-tapping soundtrack), is how you pull in a $54 million weekend box office with a kid-friendly film that doesn't feature a princess or well-known toy anywhere in the story.
Super geek, single Christian mom balancing a full time job, a tween with ADHD, my film world and a house full of pets. In my past life, I fronted local cover bands and played sports for fun. Still involved in indie film, photography & hi-tech. My hobbies & work take me interesting places and hopefully provide experiences worth reading about. Inexplicably, I have an IQ that rivals Hawking, so may be prone to chasing theoretical rabbits and waxing philosophical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)