wyldwezl Reviews

Shrek 2 (2004)

excellent sequel for those who don't like sequels

[20 May 2004]

My family and I attended this last night, kind of as a last-minute affair. I am glad we all went, since I would have to say there's something for just about everyone in Shrek 2.

[Possible Spoilers]

The first thing that grabbed me, I think, is the improvement in CGI animation in this film. Having a houseful of kids, I've viewed the first movie several times. Small details jump out at you-- the crowds look almost real, not contrived. There's a scene where Shrek and party are taking shelter during a rainstorm; watch the water as it runs off the edge of the roof-- I had to do a double-take and remind myself that this film came from computer workstations, not from cinematography! Another scene that comes to mind is when Shrek overhears a conversation among the king, queen, and Fiona; the detail in the window glass is remarkable. A definite cut above the original. And that's but two of the smaller examples out of many.

There's the whole gamut of one-liners and innuendo from Donkey and other fairy tale sidekicks. And some blatant visual gags from some diverse and unrelated films (Lord of the Rings, Alien) that I wouldn't have expected. Not to mention that Far Far Away looks an awful lot like parts of Beverly Hills, especially Rodeo Dr. (or Destin Commons, if you live in the FL Panhandle). You will want to see this film more than once (I know I do) just to see what you might have missed the first time around (and we didn't stay for the end credits and the scene in there either!).

The added voice talents of John Cleese, Julie Andrews, Antonio Banderas, and others are just great, very well cast. The animated characters even take on some characteristics of their real-life vocal counterparts-- I could easily see some of John Cleese in the king's face and mannerisms. Puss n' Boots (Banderas) adds a needed bit of expansion to the main characters, and it is difficult to tell if we're going to see him as Zorro or a feline from one moment to the next!

The story isn't complicated, but at least follows the thread from where the last film ended. That will make it easy for kids (and those of us who still sometimes think like kids) to get hooked right back into the story. The one-liners come fast and furious and both my teenage sons, my Mrs., and I had some great laughs out loud, something I don't often do in a crowded theater.

What a great way to start off the summer film season-- (and Harry Potter just around the corner!)

Brother Bear (2003)

Typically Good Disney

[12 November 2003]

I won't waste time expounding on the plot. As others have said, it's pretty much typical genre for the Disney crew, which is of course, not bad at all. Don't get me wrong there.

As a child of the Hanna-Barbera heyday of lame cartoons, when I watch an animated film now, one of the things that has to really grab me is the care and craft that goes into the artwork. In that sense, this film is a definite winner. One of my favorite benchmarks for art is, oddly enough, Snow White. Look at the really great art in that film-- the look of the queen's castle (the detail in the blocks and windows) and especially the scene at the well-- the effects with the water. Now that is well done craft. So too is the art in this film. The motion of the water, the waterfalls, the stunning scenery. The Disney crew has always had the ability to take already beautiful scenes and make them into something that looks like it's from Faerie. There was some real care taken with this, and I doubt it was done with microprocessors. Kudos to the art department!!

It was good the hear the "McKenzie Bros." back in action, eh? They certainly haven't lost it much from their SCTV days. There was enough comic relief there for us adults to stay awake.

Summary: a really Good Disney film,**** of *****. Beauty, eh?

The Road to Wellville (1994)

it helps to be in the trade

[29 October 2003]

*Spoilers*

Lots of negative comments here about the "bathroom" humor and general naughtiness. Some of it may be valid, but most probably isn't once you know what's going on. The bathroom humor here is about as naughty as Edwardian-era people got in public. What they did elsewhere is, well, human. If you can tolerate most of Mel Brooks' movies, you can handle this without too much trouble.

It helps to be (or in my case, have been) in the holistic therapies trade, in my case Massage Therapy. A lot of folks see some of the odd machinery and treatments portrayed in the movie as absurd today, but in their time it wasn't so. Even today, we still dip hands or feet or other sore areas in hot paraffin wax, use hydrotherapy (hot and/or cold baths), and, in some modalities, use enemas of various types for internal cleansing. There are even stranger treatments around today, which I need not elaborate here. It all probably works about as well today as it did just after the turn of the century.

The film addresses our continuing fascination with treatments for our many maladies. Little has changed in 100 years, in some ways. The book was a bit more serious in tone than this film, but I don't think that detracts from the screenplay. I think the story shows us our addictions and obsessions, whether that is with new diets, exercise, alcohol, drugs, or enemas.

Speaking of which, one of my favorite lines in the film is after Dr. Kellogg's scatological exam of Will:

Dr. K: "I prescribe 15 gallons of yogurt."

Will: "15 gallons?! I can't eat 15 gallons of yogurt!"

Dr. K: "Ohhhhh, your not gonna get it in that end, Mr. Lightbody . .."

The movie seems to have a bit more sex in it than the original book (the whole business with Miss Muntz and Will is missing in the book, among other things), as was a lot of the business with George. I admit the additions made for a more amusing and interesting film.

The side stories here add color. I'm always amazed at how poor Will must have felt, once he busts out of the San and heads for the Tavern, where there's nice thick Porterhouse steaks sizzling and beer and potatoes and gravy. Imagine eating gerbil food and gravel for a week and then heading for, say, Outback. The breakfast food business is enlightening too. Perfoo? Where do they get these names? And then there's the business of Dr. Spitzvogel and "handabung" therapy. I admit I was a bit aghast at finding the former transporter chief O'Brien from Star Trek TNG butt naked in the woods.

Dr. Kellogg was a real person, and was definitely a man of conviction (or obsession depending on your viewpoint) and he had his eccentricities, as many of us do. I'm not certain of all the facts presented in the movie about him, but like anything else probably at least have some basis in truth.

School of Rock (2003)

good but certainly not great

[22 October 2003]

I'll give Dewey credit. He certainly does know his rock n' roll history and who the great names in guitar and drums are. We'll not discuss that bassists get the short end of the stick (here as well as elsewhere). As a bassist myself, I admit to some smoldering resentment for the film's neglect of this detail. I could give a laundry list of names that could have been mentioned. But I digress.

As for the plot, *POSSIBLE SPOILER* let's just say that it is highly unlikely that someone of Dewey's caliber is going to land a sub's job at an expensive private school without an extensive background check. And why aren't these kid's parents wondering about their homework in math and English and such? And NO ONE in that school could hear a set of drums being played? Please . . .!

OK-- leaving out the implausible plot, the movie was a lot of fun. And that Dewey was able to find something for everyone to do is a tribute to his compassion. And the band's encore was just excellent. Apparently, these kids did do their assigned homework!

I'd give it 3½ of 5 stars for fun and remarkable acting by Jack Black and his young minions. It loses marks due to the implausible plot. Call it a B-.