Review: DARK SHADOWS

The Tim Burton / Johnny Depp collaboration has, by now, become a genre of its own. Originally it was a fresh new take at the gothic horror story as a comedy of manners. But what was once fresh has now become so conventional that Burton-esque is indeed an adjective. Usually filmmakers strive for their name to become an adjective  but when you can apply it to their own work, it means their work is becoming repetitive and uninspired. Dark Shadows is very Burton-esque; it is exactly what you expect from a Burton/Depp summer blockbuster- nothing less than, but sadly, not much more either.

Regarding Alice

Just like when Coraline was released, I am here to counter Ezra's unwarranted generosity towards Alice in Wonderland.

Let's start with the title, because it pretty much sums up what is wrong with this movie. The title, like the movie, is a complete cop out. It's Burton's lazy attempt to fool people into thinking that "he's at it again" by remaking one of the most iconic animated films of all time. This movie is not a remake of Lewis Carroll's "Alice In Wonderland", but an imagining of a sequel.

So why not just call it something else. I mean, it's not like the studios would have allowed New Moon to be called Twilight. It doesn't make any goddamn sense.

Not only is the movie not the story of "Alice in Wonderland", the characters specifically state that the world in which it takes place is not called Wonderland, but Underland. So even if it wasn't based on the sequel, it would still be incorrect to call it that, because Wonderland is not actually a place - by that logic it should be called Alice in Underland.

Let's move on.

The number one key to an enjoyable film is a likable main character. Tim Burton knows this, because he's given us so many in the past. Yet we're given an Alice who is bored with her life, and for the majority of the film, doesn't care about what's going on because she is convinced it is a dream. If she doesn't care, are we supposed to care? In fact, the only time we see her smile in the entire movie is when someone tells her to smile.

There are two enjoyable characters. The most enjoyable is a dog named Bayard, voiced by Timothy Spall. The only reason I like him is because he acts like a dog, and I like dogs. I was frustrated though, to see that he spends most of his time taking orders from Alice he doesn't agree with. That's too bad. The other person I liked was Helena Bonham Carter's character, The Red Queen. You know Tim Burton did something wrong when the antagonist, the person you are not supposed to like is more likable than the protagonist.

The third act of this movie exhibits the most blatant and irritating Deus Ex Machina I've seen in a long time. The sheer laziness of this only reflects how much this movie truly failed.

I don't want to nitpick the movie to death (that is a lie), so I'll throw out one more thing that has been bothering me since Burton's disaster Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; essentially, the prostitution of Johnny Depp. Tim Burton has turned one of the most talented and likable actors in Hollywood into a vehicle for his weirdness. The Mad Hatter is not funny. Like Depp's Willy Wonka, he is creepy and strange. He is given years worth of backstory, yet it is all rushed and squished into a tiny flashback that doesn't last more than a minute and a half. It's an insult to the character of the Mad Hatter himself, an insult to Depp, and worst of all, and insult to Carroll.

What I wouldn't give to see Tim Burton do something original again. His constant "daring" new remakes just seem to falter. Sure, Sweeny Todd was good, but you'd really have to be an idiot to mess that one up. I long to see something like Edward Scissorhands or Big Fish again. I know he's got the imagination for it. He's holding himself back by not doing what he does best.

The only reason I give this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is for the visuals. They are, I cannot deny, spectacular. However, we live in an age where almost every movie's visuals are spectacular. It is simply not enough anymore. The Transformers franchise has taught us this. You need a coherent story and well developed and likable characters.

Come on Tim, I know you know this.

Review: ALICE IN WONDERLAND

It's been 12 years since little Alice tumbled down the rabbit hole and lived the story many of us know and love, yet ever since that day she has been having terrible nightmares of the preceding events in Wonderland. Now, 19 years old and at her own "surprise" engagement party, she spots the white rabbit again, and in a moment of overwhelming pre-marriage stress, decides to run after him. She ends up tumbling down the rabbit hole again, but this time, things in Wonderland are very different.

Shane Ackers 9 -Original Short

Hello all,

Since the new movie 9 (scroll down for a couple of days to find the trailer) is based on a short, I have decided to post the original short for all to see, so everyone can better understand this movie trailer that blew my mind when Wilder posted it a few days ago.

So - without further ado - the original short by Shane Acker (God the sound design is incredible) 9:

9 Nine Shane Acker Short Animation
Uploaded by FrFKmeron

9

Hello all, and merry Christmas.

I have just one little blurb for you today. I just saw the trailer for Shane Acker's new animated film, 9, and I nearly wet myself.

Maybe it's just me, but this looks like one of the most beautiful, original, and epic animated films in quite some time.

Check it out.

Merry Christmas from The Movie Watch

Alongside the Christmas tree, Nativity Sets, Wreaths and Cookies, nothing defines the Christmas season more than the movies that are traditionally aired year after year on Television. Each year, November has at least a two or three Christmas movies with some being forgettable comedies like Surviving Christmas and others being future classics like Elf. With Christmas Eve being tonight and Christmas day following soon after (not to mention being a few days into Hanukkah for our Jewish readers) and slow news from the world of Hollywood there's no better time to list Chris Cookson's top ten Christmas flicks.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolves?

In today’s world, or at least in Hollywood, movies are made by large studios. These studios along with many other non-filmic companies form conglomerates called corporations. In a previous entry, About the Indie Film, I spoke about the difficulties in labeling a film as independent. The economic gears and systems of today’s world are so intrinsically complicated that the only way to survive is to conglomerate into a corporation. Is there anything wrong with this? Definitely not, if a good film has to sacrifice the honor of being called Indie for it to still exist I’ll call it a studio film just so I can see it. Plus without the money coming from corporations, we wouldn’t see Iron Man kick the shit out of the Iron Monger this past summer. (Although, I could have saved myself from watching the Hulk and Abomination make loud noises in the rooftops of New York). We would also not have a franchise like Batman, which has given us two continuities to choose from: Nolan’s physiological thrillers or the highly stylistic Burton/Schumacher pieces of the last decade. What about Wall-E? Without the Disney Empire there is no way we could enjoy animated films like Wall-E or Bolt. Nevertheless something has been lost. For every one new original piece we are getting a dozen rehashes of old stuff, and the value of a lot of previous originality has been lost.

Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E; these are all great studio films, and they could have not been made unless a studio had done them. It is when a studio steps out of its territory when problems start arising. Several films come out every year that studios should not be releasing. This year was no exception. here are a few.

Anticipating the success of Juno, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist had to be produced. Both films offer an Indie feel to their audiences, and in the past only a small independent crew would have ever ventured into producing a film about teenage pregnancy or about “wild night” in the music scene of New Jersey. The problem here is that instead of being made by an underground group of people who probably suffered the hardships of both situations, such movies are being written by office desk writers who know little of either situation. Yes, a former prostitute wrote Juno; but street touch did not go past script level. Lots of money went into the production of both movies but they were marketed as independent films. Instead of getting the fruitful flavor of an Indie film we were expecting when we walked in we walked out with a bland taste of wanabe quirkiness. Nevertheless, both films were enjoyable up to a point, and who knows maybe in the future we will see a good product come out of this new Indie looking style. However there is one new style, corporations have created this year, which I could live without: the color saturated neuron-popping mesh that was Speed Racer

Speed Racer's plot, if you could find any, dealt around a family that wanted to keep a small home owned business a family home owned business. There used to be a time when films with such plots were created by small family owned business, and thus meant something. It was a small statement of , “stick it to the Man” but not anymore. Speed Racer was created for the sole reason to make money of nostalgic baby boomers to take themselves and their kids to see a rehash of an old and not very good cartoon. Corporations have begun to exploit and make profit from what once defined a product anti-corporate.

Similarly, our enjoyment of high-end art works has been blended down and spoon-fed to the masses. Call me an elitist, but it's true. A couple of decades back, an incredibly blood-filled musical was made, by who was then considered one of theater’s most avant-garde writers. I’m talking about "Sweeney Todd" by Steven Sondheim, based of an incredibly obscure novel/play of the same name. The musical was of course praised by art critics and was soon moved up into becoming something a little bit more commercial: a Broadway musical. Three decades later and the show is revived as a Hollywood Holiday movie by no other than Tim Burton. Is there a problem with this? Well the film was indeed a beautiful film but something on it felt terribly wrong. First of all it lacks the unique Timburtoness of other Burton films, and at the same time it lacks the obscurity of an intended only for theater buffs movie. It just lags in the middle quite not being anything. Like other things corporations have stolen from us, it lacks flavor.