Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

In 1963, Maurice Sendak released the Caldecott awarding winning children’s book, Where the Wild Things Are. While it is touted as being one of the best children’s books of all time, I feel that it is good, not great. Whatever your view of it is, it is a book abundant in pictures and minimal on words. The film adaptation of this book takes that modest book and transforms it into a visceral, poetic, fleshed out, and polarizing project.

The story begins with Max, a very imaginative young boy, who lives with his older sister and single mom. From the beginning, it is established that Max is forlorn, depressed, and mildly disturbed. Imagination is the gateway to his happiness. After Max acts out violently towards his mother (don’t worry, no one dies), Max runs away. He ends up at a pond where he finds a little boat. He gets on it and sails away to an island occupied by the Wild Things. The Wild Things don’t like the looks of Max until he convinces them that he was a king, to which they crown him their king and, as Max states, the wild rumpus starts.

An interesting thing about the Wild Things is that, let’s be honest, they are creepy. In fact, one flaw I have with the film can be found when Max first gets on the island and the Wild Things are suspicious about him. At one point, they all gang up on him and want to eat him, and the way they look and how it is handled is unrelentingly grim. Anyway, even though they look creepy, it’s what they say and do that makes them likable, minus the scene I mentioned. These weird-looking characters from the book have been turned into three-dimensional beings with personalities and genuine feelings.

Another thing I love about this film is how it hits all of the right nuances. The island is manic and yet it still sustains a sense of whimsicality. Like other exceptional films of the genre, it manages to precisely tackle two key elements: tragedy and comedy. What I adore about this film is that there is unpredictability in the sense that it is unknown whether a scene will go dramatic or funny. Even in a dramatic scene, they still throw in gently funny moments to keep us from going into a clinical depression. Also, if a character lies about who he is in a children’s film, you know you’re gonna see the “liar revealed” moment. However, when it happens, it hits all the right beats. Also, the ending. Just make sure you have a box of Kleenex with you. I didn’t cry, but I feel many of you will, so I jut wanted to prepare you. You’re welcome.

Max Records, who plays Max, is fantastic. I stated earlier how sad Max is and how he acts out violent towards his mother. Even though this makes him sound like a deplorable, creepy child, Max Records portrays him with such conviction and vulnerability that his actions seem almost forgivable. The filmmakers, also, hit the nail of the head with the voice casting. The voice talents include Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O’Hara, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, and Paul Dano, who all infuse their roles with charm and heart.

Of course, the standout voice talent is James Gandolfini as Carol, the leader of the Wild Things. Everyone knows him as a tough Italian mobster in The Sopranos, but I believe he could have a career as a voice artist. He can, impeccably, go from charismatic to profound creepiness.

This has the feel of an independent film, but not the look. This movie is visually spectacular. For the Wild Things, a wide scope of visual techniques was used (CGI, costumes, and puppets) to bring them to life. They look so convincing that you don’t even know what visual technique they are using at the moment. I’d like to think that the mouth movements were CGI, the Wild Things, themselves, were costumes, and these two owls in the movie were puppets, but I’m still not sure. Not only are they convincing, but also they are detailed. When Max jumps on one of them, the fur and body moves exactly how it would in real life, to the point where I could feel them.

I refuse to believe that this film was shot on a soundstage. These sets are some of the most realistic in movie history. Although, to be honest, there were times in some of the dune scenes where I almost knew that it was a soundstage, but majority of it is authentic. But the forest! This was shot on a soundstage? Seriously?

There is one key element that makes this film work: restraint. Restraint encompasses this film. From the many subtle interactions, the visuals and creatures that aren’t shoved in your face, the leisurely pace that allows you to soak in the characters and atmosphere, the inconspicuous score (akin to Juno) by Karen O from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs that perfectly compliments every single, solitary scene and helps establish the mood, to the laid-back, crystal clear cinematography.

Spike Jonze may be the ideal person to handle this kind of project. This idiosyncratic director’s credits include Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. Hell, he even produced all of the Jackass films and its television show. Did I mention that this film is polarizing? 

While there will be people who adore this film, there will be that group who is unhappily overwhelmed by the depressing nature of the film. What Spike Jonze brings to this film is calculated intelligence. He knows that it would’ve been expected to make the film kiddish. He knows that it would’ve been expected to directly use CGI and heavily rely on pop cultural references. He knows that these issues are adult. He knows that there may be some kids who don’t get it and some adults that may be puzzled by it.

However, he doesn’t care. He didn’t want to patronize kids or insult their intelligence. He knows that when kids go to the movies, it should be a liberating experience and possibly a chance for kids to bond with adults. He didn’t conform to the typical standards of children’s films. He made the film he wanted to make. Once again, I understand that there will be some people who will be turned off by this film. As for me, I enjoyed every wild, funny, and dramatic moment of it.

RATING: Three and three-quarters stars out of four

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

If one were to ask me who my favorite director was, my brain would probably come up with an array of choices, to the point where the answer to that question would remain unanswered. In fact, to this day, that question is still unanswered for me. Until I start seeing more acclaimed films from acclaimed directors, I feel as if an answer to that question would be unwarranted. However, one of my favorite directors would definitely be Steven Spielberg.

Say what you will about some of the choices he makes, but there is no denying that he has established himself as a versatile genius. He has an apt for making stirring, visionary achievements (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Minority Report), intense, gripping dramas (Schindler’s List, The Color Purple), and light, human comedies (The Terminal). One example of a Spielberg film that isn’t great, but not even close to being middling is the light, offbeat, and profoundly compelling 2002 film, Catch Me If You Can.

The movie is a biopic about the life of Frank Abagnale, Jr (not Abagnahlee or Abagnyalee), played by Leonardo Dicaprio. In 1963, his rather happy life with his father (Christopher Walken) and his French mother (Nathalie Baye) is interrupted when his father gets into trouble with the IRS and his father and mother soon divorce. Frank runs away and, eventually, becomes one of the world’s most competent con artists, with his crime of choice being check fraud. Before he turned 19, he had already posed as a Pan Am pilot, a Georgia doctor, and a Louisiana lawyer. However, his breezy and seemingly effortless crime spree gets interrupted when FBI agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks) tries to track Frank down and he ends up on the run.

Right from the very opening of the film, you are shown that this film is going to be something special. Online reviewer Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) always says that filmmakers should use the opening credits to allure people in. He would be very proud of this film. Steven Spielberg and screenwriter Jeff Nathanson have successful incorporated three genres that I previously mentioned Spielberg as being particularly capable at: visionary, comedy, and drama.

Spielberg includes his distinctive visual style, but in a sly way, as opposed to the flashy effects we know him for. As opposed to CGI, he uses animation, clips from movies, and all sorts of cinematography tricks. He, also, fits in his brand of lighthearted, risible comedy and powerfully moving drama. Not only that, but it, also, provides a deeply engaging character study with a subtle cat-and-mouse game.

Like a lot of the great biopics, this film has a great sense of time and setting. After viewing this film, I felt like I had actually been transported to the 1960s. This film is two hours and twenty minutes long, but not once does it ever feel overwrought or protracted. It moves along briskly and easily. Another incredible thing that Jeff Nathanson has pulled off is the voluminous relationships present in the movie, such as Frank with his dad, Frank with his mom, the mother with the father, Carl with Frank, Carl with the other FBI agents, Frank with women, etc. While there is a surplus of relationships, they feel natural and don’t suffocate the viewer with the overwhelming amount. They all provide great interplay, whether it is humorous or melancholic.

Spielberg has assembled a remarkable cast. Leonardo Dicaprio gives a suave and complex performance. He and Nathanson takes a cunning, law-breaking man and infuses him with intelligence, innocence, and desperate guilt, as he slowly mentally digresses into insanity and obsession. These many nuances make his performance the best of his career so far. While he doesn’t look like the real Frank Abagnale, he, most likely, embodies the spirit and character of him, as opposed to his appearance. While DiCaprio displays eclectic emotions, the rest of the cast is serviceable, as well. Tom Hanks gives a strong, complex, and mildly obsessive performance as Carl. As an actor who has, also, appeared in some of Spielberg’s films, he has proved himself to have the versatility levels of Spielberg. I mean, he voiced a toy cowboy a year after he won an Oscar for playing a mentally challenged man. Come on.

Christopher Walken is, also, effective as the father. Walken has pulled off an incredible feat in Hollywood for years. He is one of the most eccentric actors in Hollywood, complete with bizarre mannerisms, physically and vocally. Yet, he still manages to, simultaneously, consistently find work in Hollywood and be a genuinely good actor, despite his awkward whispering and pauses. He can actually pull off dramatic moments. To be fair, while I call him out on being strange, at least he’s not starring in a Bob Clark film about a karate dog (read my previous review).

I mentioned before that Spielberg has worked with Tom Hanks previously. At the time, the only other film they’ve done together is Saving Private Ryan. However, Spielberg has, also, reunited with composer, John Williams, who may be the best film composer ever. He’s usually known for composing the grand, epic scores for Indiana Jones and Superman, but here he helms a smooth, casual score that’s both exciting and is an evocation of lounge music.

As I previously mentioned, the movie does get really dramatic, including during the last twenty minutes. I can’t spoil anything, but believe me when I say that they include some of the most heartbreaking and elegiac moments I’ve seen in film. The conclusion of the film, while not dramatic, is such a perfect way to conclude a film of this type, even if it had to be put in, seeing how it really happened. Once again, I can’t reveal it, but all I’ll say is the way they project the idea that a down-and-out man, who was popular for all the wrong reasons, can rise for all the right reasons will warrant a grin on your face.

Now, as much as I praise the film, it isn’t great and there are a few times where Frank’s motives are a bit opaque. Nevertheless, in conclusion, what do you get when you combine an amazingly versatile director with two wonderfully versatile leading actors? You get one of the most thoroughly entertaining Spielberg films ever. While it isn’t an A-caliber film, I definitely feel you should “catch it if you can.” Ba dum bum!

RATING: Three and a half stars out of four

The Karate Dog (2004)

Oh, Bob Clark, what happened to you? I may not have seen all your movies. In fact, I’ve only seen a few of your movies. However, I’ve seen your resume and reviews of your films to know that you have two sides, akin to Gollum. The first half of your career, from what I can tell, was awesome. Your credits included the 1974 Christmas horror film, Black Christmas, the 1982 comedy, Porky’s, which is one of the most notable and influential teenage sex comedies of the 1980’s, and, how I first knew you, A Christmas Story, that good ol’ Christmas classic you see on TBS for 24 hours that has proudly found a place on my top 10 favorite films. Around this time, the general public saw you as a versatile genius.

Apparently, you wanted to abandon that image of yourself, because a year after A Christmas Story was released, people began to see a different side of you until your untimely death in 2007. A side that left many people confused, baffled, and scratching their heads. A side of you that directed movies such as the 1984 Razzie-nominated film, Rhinestone, the little-seen 1990 film, Loose Cannons, which has gained minor notoriety for placing on Siskel & Ebert’s Worst of 1990 list, and, what many people considered to be the low point of your career, the Baby Geniuses movies.

One of your worst years, other than 2007, was 2004. Around this time, people considered you to be a man who was formerly brilliant, but then, sadly, lost his way. In other words, you never again needed to take a bath, because you were already washed-up. I guess this new image exasperated you, because your final curtain call was a one-two punch of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (currently unseen by me) and The Karate Dog. While this film may not be one of Bob Clark’s low points, it is most definitely not one of his high points.

The movie begins when a Chinese man named Chin Li. I guess that’s an alleged joke or maybe it’s not, but I digress. He tries to obtain a biochemical formula, but he, unfortunately, gets murdered trying. Enter detective Peter Fowler, played by Simon Rex, who is trying to solve the case. Oh, and here’s his character arc. He’s the man who discovers something and tries to help, but nobody believes him and he’s ridiculed by the big man (a.k.a. his boss). However, he works hard and eventually, he is called a hero. How original.

Under circumstances I won’t explain, he eventually gets Chin Li’s dog Cho Cho and discovers that he is the only dog that can talk to humans. Cho Cho requests that he helps Peter out on this case and they eventually encounter the villain, Hamilton Cage, who is not only a dog racetrack owner, but is also planning to sell the biochemical formula, a.k.a. Lot 99, which, unknowingly, has some hazardous effects. However, there’s a flabby subplot involving Peter trying to win over co-worker Ashley (Jaime Pressly), which results in that classic Cyrano de Bergerac joke. Ha ha.

I don’t exactly know what Bob Clark was thinking, but he ended up making a low-rent version of Good Boy. And Good Boy is the low-rent version of Good Boy (even though, Good Boy is a good movie). However, I went into watching this expecting an atrociously inept miscalculation. However, it’s actually not that bad. It’s just middling.

I probably shouldn’t blame Bob Clark for everything about this movie, seeing how Steven Paul and Gregory Poppen wrote it. I, sometimes, appreciate when a movie has silly dog jokes (i.e. Marmaduke and a FEW, but not all, jokes from Cats & Dogs 2), but here the jokes just aren’t very funny, albeit they could be at least passable, if not funny, in another helmer’s hands. To be fair, while there are two urine jokes, these writers don’t delve into too much gross-out, bathroom humor. The humor is just, kinda, insipid and when it tries to be self-referential (for example, when dogs are playing poker at a party and Peter says, “I should’ve seen that coming!”), it comes across as cheesy, inane, and clumsy. There’s even a moment where the film even rips off Baby Geniuses. At about an hour and nine minutes into the movie, a bunch of dogs sing a song, similar to a bus scene in Baby Geniuses, if you closely pay attention.

To the credit of the film, though, there are about two amusing moments in the movie and the script doesn’t include a lot of “epic fail” moments, EXCEPT for an inappropriate joke involving a puppy, an unnecessary moment in the movie that’s supposed to be emotional, but it’s just clunky in the way it’s handled, and a WTF music sequence at the very end that makes the end scene in Furry Vengeance look like Hairspray.

It completely baffles me how Bob Clark can get big-name actors to be in his two-bit films. The role call here includes Chevy Chase as the voice of the dog, Pat Morita (Mr. Miyaki in the Karate Kid) as the deceased old man…

…and then there’s Jon Voight, who plays the villian. 

Why? I haven’t seen many of YOUR films either, but looking at your track record and the fact that you won a freaking Oscar, I suppose you are a competent actor. At this point in his life, I don’t know if he’s trying to intentionally tarnish his reputation or just prove that he’s out of his mind and hope for some psychiatric help, but based on this and Bratz, three years later, he is not on a winning streak, minus his cameo in Tropic Thunder. To be fair, maybe he did Bratz to show that a) he doesn’t need Bob Clark to ruin his career and b) to tribute Bob Clark, seeing how Bob Clark died the same year Bratz was released

He is, honestly, making Christopher Walken mentally sane by comparison. Also, I love the fact that whenever Jon Voight is in a bad movie, he allows himself to looks ridiculous. Hence his big nose in Bratz and his character in this movie, which looks like a cross between Kenny Rogers and Billy Ray Cyrus. However, I’m sure all three of my readers are wondering what I actually think of his performance, seeing how I am just talking about his looks and mental insanity.

Well, he does try, but he’s misguided and awkward. The performances, with the exception of Pat Morita (R.I.P.) are lackluster at best, grating at worst. Even the lady over a loudspeaker in the beginning is monotonous. Chevy Chase, while has a tolerable delivery as a voiceover guy, sounds embarrassed that’s he doing his role. The two performances that were grating, to me, were Simon Rex and Jaime Pressly. Simon Rex is very flat and monotonous. At times where he tries to show emotion, he can’t do it sincerely. Hell, he can’t show emotion, at all. Jaime Pressly, of course, has a nice smile and is very photogenic, but she’s pretty much on the same note as Simon Rex, but at least she shows emotion…when she smiles, but still. Just think of Jaime Pressly after she went to the Kelly Clarkson School of Acting and you’ll get the idea.

The film is, also, technically mediocre. The mouth moving effects on the dogs are actually passable. They could’ve been a lot cheaper looking, seeing the decrepitude of some of his films. Although, I think the people who did the mouth effects were ashamed because in the first five minutes of the movie, he talks, but we never see his mouth move. We don’t even see his face. While there are times where his mouth and voice aren’t in synch, it certainly isn’t the worst I’ve seen. 

Cho Cho, in general, is spotty (no pun intended). At one point he’ll look real, other times he’ll, transparently, be a puppet, and at other times, he is CGI, terribly and transparently so. Mental note to Bob Clark: CGI is NOT your strong point. The fight scenes are amateurishly done. You can tell that the actors are on harnesses. It looks as cheap as when the dog is fighting. That’s really saying something. At times, you can even tell that feet or fists haven’t even struck at certain actors.

The editing is weird and rubbery. There are times where the camera speeds up and even slows down for no reason. I don’t blame the cinematographer, though there is one spinning shot that was redundant. However, the editing is not just flawed visually, but also audibly. There are pointless, childish sound effects thrown in and the score, while at times decent, seems uncomfortably extemporaneous. There are times when the score is just there for a certain situation, even going as far as putting in the “wah-wah-wah” sound effect in one scene. It's so annoyingly pandering.

Now, here I have to do a little ranting on an issue in children’s entertainment that really irks me. Why in the world does children’s entertainment send out a false message to kids that dogcatchers are bad people? Ever since Lady and the Tramp had a dogcatcher character that was actually authentic and humane, children’s entertainment has produced dogcatcher characters that are heartless, cruel, and even inept people. They never have real feelings or reasons for what they do; they are just monsters. Why is that? It may seem like nit picking, but I have rarely seen a kid’s film or television show with a nice, competent, and reasonable dogcatcher. The way the majority of dogcatchers are portrayed in phony, immature, and it’d oughta stop.

Overall, this may not be Bob Clark’s worst film. Until I see his other movies that are allegedly bad, Baby Geniuses takes the prize for his worst film. However, out of all his films, this is most definitely not the one to see. If you want my opinion, I recommend A Christmas Story, as I mentioned earlier. It may be old-fashioned, but it is not only funny and keen, but it evokes a bittersweet sense of nostalgia. The Karate Dog evokes a sense of ennui.

RATING: Two stars out of four

Millions (2005)

Danny Boyle has established himself as one of the most unique voices in Hollywood working today, with credits such as Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, The Beach, Sunshine, and Slumdog Millionaire. Of the four films I have seen from him (28 Days Later, The Beach, 75% of Slumdog Millionaire, and the movie I will soon be discussing), he can manage to take any genre and, not only put his original stamp on it, but he can find a way to incorporate another element in it.

For example, when he made 28 Days Later, it started as a zombie film and turned into a political allegory and a showcase of evil military men. From what I heard, Sunshine is a film that started as a science-fiction piece and turned into a horror film. Between the two films I just mentioned, he decided to tackle another genre: the children’s film. Thus, we have the 2005 film, Millions.

The film centers around two boys, Anthony, played by Lewis McGibbon, and Damian, played by Alex Etel, who move to the suburbs in Windes with their recently widowed father. One day, after playing around in what Damian calls his hermitage, it is destroyed by, seemingly out of nowhere, a bag of money Damian believes is a gift from God. He shows it to his brother and they both have different views on what to do with it. Anthony wants to spend the money, while Damien wants to give it to the poor.

However, two obstacles come in their way. First of all, it is around the time where euros are being converted to pounds and the currency of the money in the bag is pounds. Second of all, it turns out that the money is from a heist and the robber is out looking for it. Duh duh duh!

As you may have guessed, this story has been done before in movies, such as Blank Check, but it’s never been done this creatively and this authentically. I love how there are two kids who get the money and the fact that they have differing personalities. They offset each other perfectly. Screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce provides probably the most accurate representation of this situation. He, also, adds some wit and some surprising complexities. For example, one of the focal points of the movie is that the mother is dead. They find a way to make it humorous and serious and, at times, you don’t know which way it’s gonna go. Plus, you think that humor around someone’s dead mother would be tasteless, but they find a way to make it light-hearted.

The movie takes place around Christmastime, but it’s not a Christmas movie. Here in America, we, almost, feel obligated to turn everything into a Christmas movie if Christmas is merely in the movie. Here it’s just when the movie takes place. Not only is Christmas in the movie, but it’s a movie that discusses the possibility of miracles, which is a favorite of Christmas films. However, in this film, they don’t go for any of the cliched Christmas-type tug-at-your-heart-strings moments. Any emotional moment in the movie is natural and well-deserved.

I, also, appreciate the issues they try to tackle. Not only of the loss of a parent, but, also, of the parent moving on and finding love and, even, the greed that would imprison us all from a high amount of money. These issues have been tackled in previous films, but, at the same time, they do capture the sadness, confusion, happiness, anger, and frustration that kids would probably go through from these issues. Danny Boyle ties together these issues in an effective and tender moment near the end that I won’t dare ruin for you, but believe me when I say, it’s perfect.

The ending is very satisfying. I will not spoil the ending, but all I will say is that the film ends in a place other than England and that moment is one of the most heartwarming and perfect endings of a movie of this ilk that you can imagine. Also, the heist portion of the film works. It doesn’t feel gratuitous. It’s executed very naturally and, at times, the heist part of the movie is tense.

The performances are very good. Alex Etel and Lewis McGibbon are earnest as the two precocious, joyful, and intelligent children. I don’t know if they are this intelligent in reality, but props to them. James Nesbitt is very natural and, also, convincing as the father. Also, this movie is one of the most stylistic films I have ever seen. There are so many magnificent visual strokes here. It is a treat to look at, editing wise and cinematography wise. Not only are the visual transitions great, but also the camera work is so clean and beautiful.

However, as much as I talk positively about the film, I don’t love it. I have a few quibbles with it. First of all, I had trouble with the scenes of the saints. I guess they are there to show Damian’s imagination and to provide some religious undertones, but that’s the problem. Why put in religious undertones? Aside of the fact that I am not a deeply religious man, there’s really no point to them. You could’ve easily put in some quiet, imaginative moments or atmospheric scenes where the camera could be put to greater use, in place of those religious scenes.

Second of all, sometimes Damian was handled poorly. I wish Danny Boyle allowed Damian to have a little more emotion. Aside from that, at times, the character was grating. At times, he’s too much of a goody two-shoes, to the point where it feels phony. At times, it just feels like he’s the only person who’s supposed to have “values,” but unrealistically so.

Finally, one of my major issues was the British dialect. I have nothing against it and I could understand it, mostly, but the problem is that the accents are so thick and, at times, they speak a little too fast that I could comprehend what the characters were saying. However, flaws and all, this really is a special and unique children’s film. Will kids embrace it? I dunno. However, they should be given the option to watch levelheaded entertainment over mindless hollow rubbish. By the way, I’m curious to see what Danny Boyle will think of next? A film noir that turns out to be a documentary? An animated film that turns out to be a murder film? The sky’s the limit, Mr. Boyle!

RATING: Three stars out of four

Future Kill (1985)

There have been many Hollywood examples of incongruous elements being combined to form a cohesive whole. For example, action comedies (i.e. the Rush Hour films), dramatic comedies (i.e. Juno), and even, horror comedies (i.e. Return of the Living Dead). Actually, let me re-phrase that first sentence. There have been many Hollywood examples of the comedy genre and an incongruous element being combined to make a cohesive whole. Sometimes, more than two of these elements become combined, but they are usually pretty natural and not shoved in your face. What I am driving at is that combining these kind of incompatible elements, especially more than one, is definitely tricky. However, it can either work to the film’s advantage or can be so clumsily put together that it doesn’t work. The 1985 sci-fi/horror/comedy film, Future Kill, can be categorized under the latter.

The story takes place in…uh…insert some place here. The movie doesn’t really have a specific location. It’s just, maybe kinda sorta the future. Maybe kinda sorta, I dunno. There’s nothing about it that screams the future and I am pretty sure it is not the future, but I digress.

Essentially, it takes place in a time where the Mutants, a group of pretentious anti-nuclear protesters, have taken over the inner city streets of large cities. They dress weird to show the effects of toxic poisoning. Of course, a simple slideshow would suffice. Eddie Pain leads the group. Meanwhile, a group of fraternity brothers have angered the whole fraternity by tarring and feathering some fraternity member. Instead of being kicked out of their frat house, they are sent out to kidnap Eddie Pain. Although, they’ve made it clear that he will be let go, so the menace of that plan is lost.

The frat boys go out to proceed with this plan, but they are confronted by the evil Splatter, who is the top-guard of Eddie Pain, who has been affected by radiation poisoning. He not only kills one of the frat boys, but kills Eddie Pain, as well. However, Splatter frames the frat boys for murder and the Mutants are now on their tail.

As much as I heard bad things about this movie from a friend of mine, I had kinda high hopes for it, because of the pretty epic poster, designed by acclaimed artist, H.R. Giger, and of how the movie is described on the back of the tape. I think looking at the front and back of the video box would be much more entertaining.

The first problem with this movie is what I described in the first paragraph. Director, associate producer, and writer, Ronald W. Moore, has combined three different genres of film. The problem is that the film doesn’t know what it wants to be. The film is really separated into thirds. The first third is the comedy aspect. The second third is the science-fiction aspect. The last third is the horror-type aspect. All these thirds feel like completely different movies with the same cast.

I’m not going to talk poorly about the characters, especially being that they are not particularly one-dimensional, even though I could care less about them. Also, I am not going to blame the script, even though there are some bad lines of dialogue. The reason being is because even if you have the most fleshed out characters in the world, accompanied by a Steven Spielberg-caliber script, the acting, which is laughably bad, would just bog it down.

Most of the actors are very flat or stiff. Even Edwin Neal (Splatter) and Marilyn Burns (Dorothy Grim, a sidekick of Eddie Pain), both of whom being from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, seem to be just in it for the paycheck. These actors are so bad that some of them can’t authentically pull off simple acts, like dying or being turned on by a woman.

The only actor who tries in the film is this one guy, whose name I can’t think of. However, that is actually a mark against it, because he tries way too hard, to the point of utter annoyance. How would I describe him? Take Jim Carrey and make him a tad bid more frenetic, but take away his comedic abilities. I can feel the fearful aura coming from my readers (all two of you).

The only character I will talk badly about, however, is Splatter, simply because he’s not a threatening villian. Not only because of the monotone acting, but also because of how laughable his costume is. While his Wolverine-like blades look cool, the aesthetic quality of the costume, overall, looks like RoboCop’s aborted love child. However, all of the costumes are lame. I don’t care that the Mutants are supposed to look weird. They still remind me of a Black Swan costume made by a 4-year-old with Down’s syndrome.

Speaking of the Mutants, why in God’s name are they CALLED THE MUTANTS! I mean I understand if that how society labeled you, but no. They called themselves that. Is it because they look so bizarre? Even then, it’s still weird. It’s like the Environmental Protection Agency calling themselves the Wussies, or the CIA calling themselves the Stalkers.

Another major flaw with the movie is the poor cinematography and editing. Apparently, Ronald W. Moore is secretly an owl, because 90% of the movie is murkily shot in the dark. I understand shooting in the dark adds a little more menace, but when there is moments when it is almost pitch black while characters are just walking, you fail. The editing isn’t incomprehensible, but at times, it feels awkward, especially near the end where something happens to Splatter. The camera shows Splatter and then it cuts to Splatter again right afterwards, just with his mouth open. Also, the fight scenes aren’t really impressive. They range from, at worst, lethargic to, at best, mediocre, and it doesn’t help that some of them feature amateurish and pointlessly protracted, drawn-out moments of slow motion. Even Zack Synder would tell Ronald W. Moore to tone it down.

The movie is, thankfully, rated R. I say thankfully, because there are some titillating nude scenes. However, it is somewhat a disadvantage to the movie, as well. While they are hot, it makes the movie a tad bit misogynist. Not Ugly Truth misogynist, but a tiny bit misogynist, seeing how, with the exception of the two main women, all the other women in the movie are just there to be hot and flash you, much to the joy of us men, however.

Also, on the plus side, there are a few funny moments and I thought I was going to enjoy the film as a guilty pleasure because of those flaws, but it lacks two crucial elements to be a so-bad-it’s-good movie: energy and magnetism. This film makes 83 minutes feel 30 minutes longer. The film is so sluggish and unimpressive that, as such, it is utterly slack. A killer combination, and I don’t mean the good kind of killer.

RATING: Two stars out of four

Additions to my rating system (also, guess what my least favorite film is)

Well, if you guys read my review of The Cat Returns (let's be honest, no one has, but let's pretend that you did), you noticed my bizarre choice of rating the film. Well, I have decided to make some additions to my rating system. I have noticed that I can sometimes emphasize or water down the meaning of a rating with 0.5 in it. Example: A low half a star or a high three and a half stars. So, here are the additions and their meanings:

One quarter of a star (A low half a star)

Three quarters of a star (A high half a star)

One and one quarter stars (A low one and a half stars)

One and three quarters stars (A high one and a half stars)

Two and one quarter stars (A low two and a half stars)

Two and three quarters stars (A high two and a half stars)

Three and one quarter stars (A low three and a half stars)

Three and three quarters stars (A high three and a half stars)

While we're on the subject, I have also decided to add two ratings lower than zero stars. Zero stars is the perfect rating for a horrendous movie. However, my least favorite movie of all time doesn't deserve to have a rating of zero stars, so because of that, here are two additional ratings, which will probably be rarely used, if used at all:

-1 stars (pure torture with not one redeeming moment or resemblance of effort)
-0.5 stars (not as bad as -1 stars, but doesn't deserve to be called zero stars)

Once again, I highly doubt these ratings will be used. However, in case I come across a film that fits these ratings, they'll be here.

Also, I have a challenge for you guys, if you choose to accept it. I said, earlier in this post, that my least favorite film can be labeled as -1 stars. Well, who knows when I will review it, though I assure you that I will. However, I'm curious to know what you guys think my least favorite film is. So, why don't you guys take some guesses until I actually review it. Go on! Fire away! See ya!

The Cat Returns (2002)

I love cats. My sister has had a cat for almost a year named Wednesday (or Stinky, as my sister insists on calling it) and I can tell you firsthand that they are great. They’re wild, they’re adorable, they’re tranquil. They’re just awesome. Also, I love anime. Who doesn’t (except for my sister, but she doesn’t count)? It’s realistic, beautiful, original. It’s absolutely wonderful. Now, whenever two beloved things are combined, the result can be either an excessive amount of fecal matter or a wonderful experience. I would categorize the 2002 anime film, The Cat Returns, under the latter. Mostly.

The plot revolves around a schoolgirl named Haru, who is having the type of day that the band, Limp Bizkit, describes in the song, Break Stuff. OK, maybe not that extreme, but she lives a pretty bland life. However, her life changes after she saves a cat from getting hit by traffic on the road. The cat she saves turns out to be Prince Lune of the Cat Kingdom, and the fellow felines of the Cat Kingdom decide to repay her. It starts out with them, constantly, giving her gifts and, eventually, she is offered Lune’s hand in marriage.

Unfortunately, Haru doesn’t want to marry a cat (how dare she!) and gets a message from a voice, telling her to find the Cat Bureau and, eventually, she is taken to the Cat Kingdom. Over the course of the movie, she meets many characters, including the formal Baron cat, Muta, a fat, agitated cat, and Toto, a wisecracking, smart aleck raven.

The phenomenal thing about this movie is the way the movie seamlessly blends an original concept with an almost Lewis Carroll-like story. This movie is, also, the wittiest movie Studio Ghibli has ever made. The script is jam-packed with sharp visual and written jokes. I, also, love some of the twists in the movie, especially ones involving Yuki, a white female cat, and Lune that I won’t dare spoil here.

Of course, the animation is spectacular as usual, although, not as awe-inspiring as previous anime films. The movie doesn’t really allow the viewer to soak in the realism as much and some of the animation is a little too pedestrian than usual. However, there were many moments, like walking up a tower or a tower diving down after being detonated, where I had an out-of-body experience where I felt like I was there. There are, also, some quiet, simple, atmospheric moments that are just as thrilling, such as Haru chasing Muta for the first time and the maze scene.

 The voice acting is great, as well. I watched the English dub and all the voice actors are funny and dead-on in their parts. The voice talent includes Anne Hathaway as Haru, Judy Greer as Yuki, Peter Boyle as Muta, Elliott Gould as Toto, and my personal favorite is Cary Elwes as the Baron, who has the perfect formal, sophisticated voice for the role.

However, as much as I praise the movie, the movie does not come without its flaws. I would blame it on the fact that this film was directed by Hiroyuki Morita and not by Hayao Miyzaki, but Miyazaki directed Porco Rosso, which wasn’t a great film either. First of all, there is one running joke that the Cat King says “babe” at the end of every other sentence. It stars out funny, but, eventually, becomes trite and annoying. I never thought I would say that about a Miyazaki film, but there it is.

Also, I thought that since the film is only 75 minutes, it would move at a nice brisk pace. For the most part it does, but it kind of drags in the middle. Another thing that I, also, have to praise and yet criticize at the same time is the fact that this film is a little more sophisticated than past Studio Ghibli films. However, because of that, it doesn’t have the drive that past Studio Ghibli films had.

Finally, there are two major flaws that I have to point out. The first flaw involves the villain, the Cat King, and his advisor, Natori. The Cat King becomes a villain when he tries to prevent Haru from leaving the Cat Kingdom and forces her into the marriage with the Prince. The Cat King does not make a very compelling villain. He is bland, uninteresting, and non-menacing. As far as Natori, I am not going to discuss him because he’s barely a character.

The second flaw revolves around the main character. Folks, we are screwed if one of the major flaws of the movie revolves around the main character. She just doesn’t have the magnetism of Kiki from Kiki’s Delivery Service or Chihiro from Spirited Away. She is pretty bland and doesn’t even change that much until the last four minutes of the freaking movie. Also, her character design is grotesque. The other characters are creatures are animated just fine, but Haru looks like an anime schoolgirl hooker. She should’ve been animated less crudely. I understand anime characters have large eyes, but her character design is more suitable for a manga that an anime film.

It sucks that I have to discuss all these flaws, because I want to love this movie. The concept is great and there are so many great elements, but it doesn’t come together as tightly as Totoro or Spirited Away, but it is definitely a very well made anime film and nowhere near mediocre or awful. It's just not, how do you say...purr-fect! (Yeah, I'm ashamed of myself)

RATING: A high three-and-a-half stars out of four