Sixth grader Greg Heffley learns important lessons about friendship, being a good friend and identity in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. A light-hearted, middle-school buddy movie, Diary of a Wimpy Kid is a perfect dump and run movie.
Entering middle school wasn’t as easy as Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) anticipated. Some of the kids are way bigger than him. The same things that are cool in elementary school become a badge of shame in middle school. Greg does everything he can to fit in and be a school favorite. He wants to change everything, including his best friend Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron). The harder he tries to fit in, the worse the consequences to his image.
I was never an eleven year old boy but I can see how Diary of a Wimpy Kid touches on issues boys have during the change from a kid to a teen and what it means. A kid of either gender faces many issues as they experience changes in their body, and social lives. How do I become a successful teen? Why is my body doing that thing? How can I be stronger? Are my friends holding me back socially? Is loyalty more important than popularity?
Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an utterly sterile look at this change. There are no controversial moments, nothing that a PTA mother might find too mature for their child. Even the most uptight ninny of a mother should have no concern. The most deviant part of the movie is a scene where Greg is trying to avoid his brother but really has to pee, so he has to hold it for an extended period. The horror. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an innocent examination of the age and sense of self felt by tweenie aged children.
Controversy and conflict are how more in-depth moral issues are examined on film, so adults may find the glossiness of Diary of a Wimpy Kid like wading through an intellectual kiddie pool. Then again, like kiddie pools, Diary of a Wimpy Kid isn’t for adults.
It is the non-odious script that makes it a perfect movie to not see with your tweenie child. Feel free to send your child into the theater with no fear of nightmares, offensive language or sexual content. If you time it right, you can see a rated R movie with your spouse, your kid can see the young buddy film Diary of a Wimpy Kid (without his stupid parents) and everyone can have a pleasant, age-appropriate time.
Just this once, you don’t have to feel guilty about dumping your kid and running off to do something grown up.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Shutter Island: You invest 2.5 hours and get 3 minutes in return
U.S. Marshalls go to Shutter Island, a mental hospital for the criminally insane, to find an escaped prisoner and stumble across a bigger mystery. Brief, but frequent moments of shoddy writing and cinematography damage the experience of what might have otherwise been a memorable and insightful film.
United States Marshalls Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are dispatched to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient who seems to have evaporated into thin air. Doctor Cawley (Ben Kingsley) shows them around, tells them about the facility and the patient, but seems to be hiding his true motives. While on the island, some of Teddy’s personal and war experiences come to the surface, affecting his ability to investigate effectively. A storm, both environmental and emotional, overtakes the grounds and reveals some painful truths.
Shutter Island has introspective moments that could shine lights on long forgotten skeletons in anyone’s closet. Sadly, just as one might be forced to ask themselves hard questions, the light goes out. Occasionally, it is because the writing or execution of the lines is unnatural. Even more frustrating are the dollar store green screen visuals.
Director Martin Scorsese and director of photography Robert Richardson pay meticulous attention to the lighting, framing and shadow in Shutter Island. Each location is lit to draw the viewers attention where the director wants it, where the story demands it be, and creates a deeply entrenching mood for the audience.
Then out of nowhere, while the audience is sitting obediently in the visual trench Scorsese dug for us, he throws dirt on our heads. The carefully lit scenery is replaced by green screen effects that would be rejected by the producer of any late night show. There are a few dream or fantasy sequences that are technically well done but leave the audience scratching their heads. Occasionally, Scorsese pays better attention to how the scene looks than how it is acted or written and it distracts from the overall film.
Much of Shutter Island relies on the relationship between Teddy and Chuck. For the most part, their relationship, streams smoothly across the screen. Just as you buy into the silky ride, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, and writer Laeta Kalogridis throw tires onto the road. They aren’t interesting; they are the nuisances of bad acting and unpolished writing. The phraseology used by Teddy is inconsistent and bizarre. Even when Teddy‘s dialogue is written within the believable range, DiCaprio occasionally overacts relatively tame scenes. Ruffalo and DiCaprio’s consistency lack chemistry or sincerity. As the film progresses, the nature of their relationship changes, but the feeling between them does not.
My biggest frustration when I reached the end of Shutter Island is that I never feel attached to the characters. The use of fantasy and the obvious secrets throughout the story made me feel like the filmmakers were keeping me at an uncomfortable distance.
Even given all the problems, Shutter Island does leave the audience with something to think and talk about at the end. For those of us who have skeletons hung amongst our skinny jeans, the ending may give pause and may even force introspection. My husband and I discussed the ending and its meaning for nearly two hours.
Shutter Island’s pay off did not feel worth the two and a half hour investment of my time. We can ask ourselves the same question and have the same honest discussion without the context of Shutter Island’s story. There is little, besides the last three minutes of the film, to really grasp onto as powerful, entertaining or interesting. It might be good for a discussion group but barring that, it has little to offer a general audience.
United States Marshalls Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are dispatched to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient who seems to have evaporated into thin air. Doctor Cawley (Ben Kingsley) shows them around, tells them about the facility and the patient, but seems to be hiding his true motives. While on the island, some of Teddy’s personal and war experiences come to the surface, affecting his ability to investigate effectively. A storm, both environmental and emotional, overtakes the grounds and reveals some painful truths.
Shutter Island has introspective moments that could shine lights on long forgotten skeletons in anyone’s closet. Sadly, just as one might be forced to ask themselves hard questions, the light goes out. Occasionally, it is because the writing or execution of the lines is unnatural. Even more frustrating are the dollar store green screen visuals.
Director Martin Scorsese and director of photography Robert Richardson pay meticulous attention to the lighting, framing and shadow in Shutter Island. Each location is lit to draw the viewers attention where the director wants it, where the story demands it be, and creates a deeply entrenching mood for the audience.
Then out of nowhere, while the audience is sitting obediently in the visual trench Scorsese dug for us, he throws dirt on our heads. The carefully lit scenery is replaced by green screen effects that would be rejected by the producer of any late night show. There are a few dream or fantasy sequences that are technically well done but leave the audience scratching their heads. Occasionally, Scorsese pays better attention to how the scene looks than how it is acted or written and it distracts from the overall film.
Much of Shutter Island relies on the relationship between Teddy and Chuck. For the most part, their relationship, streams smoothly across the screen. Just as you buy into the silky ride, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, and writer Laeta Kalogridis throw tires onto the road. They aren’t interesting; they are the nuisances of bad acting and unpolished writing. The phraseology used by Teddy is inconsistent and bizarre. Even when Teddy‘s dialogue is written within the believable range, DiCaprio occasionally overacts relatively tame scenes. Ruffalo and DiCaprio’s consistency lack chemistry or sincerity. As the film progresses, the nature of their relationship changes, but the feeling between them does not.
My biggest frustration when I reached the end of Shutter Island is that I never feel attached to the characters. The use of fantasy and the obvious secrets throughout the story made me feel like the filmmakers were keeping me at an uncomfortable distance.
Even given all the problems, Shutter Island does leave the audience with something to think and talk about at the end. For those of us who have skeletons hung amongst our skinny jeans, the ending may give pause and may even force introspection. My husband and I discussed the ending and its meaning for nearly two hours.
Shutter Island’s pay off did not feel worth the two and a half hour investment of my time. We can ask ourselves the same question and have the same honest discussion without the context of Shutter Island’s story. There is little, besides the last three minutes of the film, to really grasp onto as powerful, entertaining or interesting. It might be good for a discussion group but barring that, it has little to offer a general audience.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Lovely Bones - Toothpaste and Orange Juice
In The Lovely Bones, a young girl struggles to reach out to her grieving, self-destructive father as he tries to solve her death. Segmented bits of semi-connected subplots sever the audience’s connection to the story.
Jack Salmon’s (Mark Wahlberg) world comes crumbling down around him when his daughter Susie (Saoirse Ronan) disappears on her way home from school. Even as time passes, he cannot let her go and obsesses about where she is, if she is alive and who killed her if she was murdered. Susie Salmon chooses not to cross into heaven and to stay in her own world between heaven and the world of the living. She looks down on her father, occasionally able to make contact. They both are haunted by the life of her killer.
In an attempt to create a surreal experience, writer-director Peter Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens make The Lovely Bones uncomfortable and unbelievable. Separately, the story styles may have worked: one a magical, overly-exaggerated, yet tragic world of grief and beauty; the other story a cutting examination of the power of grief to tear a family apart and strength of love to glue it back together. Together they are nothing less than a cinematic see-saw. When one side goes up, the other plunges down and the audience is left wondering what and where they should be paying their attention. The unpleasant confusion and the nauseating back and forth murder any of the pleasantries in the film.
The absolute worst part of The Lovely Bones is the non-heaven in which Susie lives. The landscape is always in transition and the meaning of the place seems to change. Susie speaks in riddles when the subject of the world creep forth. There is a cast of useless characters who visit Susie in her segregation. Her personal resting point was less ethereal and more commercial break.
The real shame of the really poor decision making by the director and writers is that it takes away from some surprisingly resonating acting. Mark Wahlberg’s grief requires no weapon to remove your heart from your chest. Rachael Weisz, who plays Susie’s mother, Abigail, has a breakdown that could anger the most stoic in the seats. I was most fond of Rose McIver, who plays Lindsey, Susie’s little sister. Her performance is subtle, but genuine. She reminds me a great deal of my own little sister, in personality, and courage.
Personal sentiment aside, The Lovely Bones is an exercise in toothpaste and orange juice. Both may be refreshing alone, but together, they make drinking bleach a real option – no matter how nice the packaging.
Jack Salmon’s (Mark Wahlberg) world comes crumbling down around him when his daughter Susie (Saoirse Ronan) disappears on her way home from school. Even as time passes, he cannot let her go and obsesses about where she is, if she is alive and who killed her if she was murdered. Susie Salmon chooses not to cross into heaven and to stay in her own world between heaven and the world of the living. She looks down on her father, occasionally able to make contact. They both are haunted by the life of her killer.
In an attempt to create a surreal experience, writer-director Peter Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens make The Lovely Bones uncomfortable and unbelievable. Separately, the story styles may have worked: one a magical, overly-exaggerated, yet tragic world of grief and beauty; the other story a cutting examination of the power of grief to tear a family apart and strength of love to glue it back together. Together they are nothing less than a cinematic see-saw. When one side goes up, the other plunges down and the audience is left wondering what and where they should be paying their attention. The unpleasant confusion and the nauseating back and forth murder any of the pleasantries in the film.
The absolute worst part of The Lovely Bones is the non-heaven in which Susie lives. The landscape is always in transition and the meaning of the place seems to change. Susie speaks in riddles when the subject of the world creep forth. There is a cast of useless characters who visit Susie in her segregation. Her personal resting point was less ethereal and more commercial break.
The real shame of the really poor decision making by the director and writers is that it takes away from some surprisingly resonating acting. Mark Wahlberg’s grief requires no weapon to remove your heart from your chest. Rachael Weisz, who plays Susie’s mother, Abigail, has a breakdown that could anger the most stoic in the seats. I was most fond of Rose McIver, who plays Lindsey, Susie’s little sister. Her performance is subtle, but genuine. She reminds me a great deal of my own little sister, in personality, and courage.
Personal sentiment aside, The Lovely Bones is an exercise in toothpaste and orange juice. Both may be refreshing alone, but together, they make drinking bleach a real option – no matter how nice the packaging.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Red Cliff (Chi bi) - Exquisite
In Red Cliff (Chi bi), the people of China’s southlands face a power-hungry Prime Minister bent on taking over the entire country. Compelling story telling, exquisite visuals, and captivating battle scenes weave together to create a brilliant cinematic tapestry.
After conquering the entire Chinese northlands in the name of the Emperor, ambitious and ruthless General Cao Cao (Fengyi Zhang), who appoints himself Prime Minister, sets his eyes on the southland. In order to get there, he has to enter the territory protected by Liu Bei (Yong Yu). Desperate to protect the lives of his people, Liu Bei asks his strategist, Zhuge Liang (Takeshi Kaneshiro) to ask the leader of the southern province Zhou Yu (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) for help. When it’s impossible to ignore the realities, Zhou Yu decides to join the fight against Cao Cao. They make their stand at Red Cliffs, their stronghold.
The plot flows like water from a pitcher. The writers, Chan Khan, Kuo Cheng, Sheng Hyu, and writer-director John Woo chose the speed and temperature of the water. As the audience sits and watches the story unfold, they can feel the warmth of the characters, the crashing of the shields and the cool calm of strategy. There isn’t much emotion they can’t extract from the audience. At one point I found myself with my mouth wide open, sitting on the edge of my seat, my heart pounding, and my eyes furrowed.
The costuming adds incredible depth to the film. The elite are so clean, their clothing flowing and regal. The soldiers’ uniforms are cheap and dirty looking. The soldiers’ shields glimmer in the beginning of battles and dull at the end. The subtle changes in costuming as the story moves on gives the movie depth and makes the story believable, because the unconscious red flags are not going off.
Woo takes the time introduce the ideas of formations, discipline and tactics to the watcher. They don’t just out-fight the enemy, they out-think them. He has enough respect for the audience that he is willing to cut them in on the how, as much as the what and why.
The war heroes in the story aren’t supernatural, they aren’t magical; they are just extraordinary men doing extraordinary things. Their hand to hand combat is noticeably better than all the rest of the soldiers but it doesn’t cross the line into fantasy.
The martial arts in Red Cliff kick ass. (Ok, I had to.) I found myself dodging spears, stepping left and right to avoid northern soldiers. Everyone who takes up most of the frame in any battle sequence knows how to get the audiences’ heart rate up. Heck, there is even a man who mows through horses like a dwarf – and that will make perfect sense once you see the movie.
There’s real humor in Red Cliff too. It is obvious that Woo doesn’t throw it in there just for the sake of making the story funny, but that even in little slices of life, like those in Red Cliff, life presents little bits of humor. In order to make a complete story, even a war story, humor must be present.
Girly-girls will enjoy the sensual and romantic aspects of the film. More non-traditional women will enjoy the active role women play. There are two women in the movie, one with unrestrained femininity and one tomboy. Both do their part for the war.
The battle scenes captivate, not only because of the graphic violence but because of the subtle emotion, steely strategy and attention to visual details. Do not miss this movie. It’s worth the time to go to the small-run theater and see this film. Man or woman, old or young, everyone will enjoy this masterpiece.
After conquering the entire Chinese northlands in the name of the Emperor, ambitious and ruthless General Cao Cao (Fengyi Zhang), who appoints himself Prime Minister, sets his eyes on the southland. In order to get there, he has to enter the territory protected by Liu Bei (Yong Yu). Desperate to protect the lives of his people, Liu Bei asks his strategist, Zhuge Liang (Takeshi Kaneshiro) to ask the leader of the southern province Zhou Yu (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) for help. When it’s impossible to ignore the realities, Zhou Yu decides to join the fight against Cao Cao. They make their stand at Red Cliffs, their stronghold.
The plot flows like water from a pitcher. The writers, Chan Khan, Kuo Cheng, Sheng Hyu, and writer-director John Woo chose the speed and temperature of the water. As the audience sits and watches the story unfold, they can feel the warmth of the characters, the crashing of the shields and the cool calm of strategy. There isn’t much emotion they can’t extract from the audience. At one point I found myself with my mouth wide open, sitting on the edge of my seat, my heart pounding, and my eyes furrowed.
The costuming adds incredible depth to the film. The elite are so clean, their clothing flowing and regal. The soldiers’ uniforms are cheap and dirty looking. The soldiers’ shields glimmer in the beginning of battles and dull at the end. The subtle changes in costuming as the story moves on gives the movie depth and makes the story believable, because the unconscious red flags are not going off.
Woo takes the time introduce the ideas of formations, discipline and tactics to the watcher. They don’t just out-fight the enemy, they out-think them. He has enough respect for the audience that he is willing to cut them in on the how, as much as the what and why.
The war heroes in the story aren’t supernatural, they aren’t magical; they are just extraordinary men doing extraordinary things. Their hand to hand combat is noticeably better than all the rest of the soldiers but it doesn’t cross the line into fantasy.
The martial arts in Red Cliff kick ass. (Ok, I had to.) I found myself dodging spears, stepping left and right to avoid northern soldiers. Everyone who takes up most of the frame in any battle sequence knows how to get the audiences’ heart rate up. Heck, there is even a man who mows through horses like a dwarf – and that will make perfect sense once you see the movie.
There’s real humor in Red Cliff too. It is obvious that Woo doesn’t throw it in there just for the sake of making the story funny, but that even in little slices of life, like those in Red Cliff, life presents little bits of humor. In order to make a complete story, even a war story, humor must be present.
Girly-girls will enjoy the sensual and romantic aspects of the film. More non-traditional women will enjoy the active role women play. There are two women in the movie, one with unrestrained femininity and one tomboy. Both do their part for the war.
The battle scenes captivate, not only because of the graphic violence but because of the subtle emotion, steely strategy and attention to visual details. Do not miss this movie. It’s worth the time to go to the small-run theater and see this film. Man or woman, old or young, everyone will enjoy this masterpiece.
Twilight: New Moon - Yeah, like, whatever
Twilight: New Moon is a 14 year old girl’s dream movie. It reminded me of the romances I had as a teenager – a wreck.
Something happened before Twilight: New Moon began, what that was, the audience doesn’t know. It’s obvious there is a romance between Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and they really love each other. Oh yeah, and Edward is a vampire but we never actually see him chew on anyone so we know that because…they told us so. All of the sudden, Edward leaves Bella unprotected from Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) but it’s not clear why. The whole Cullen family is there, but I don’t know why they matter. Then Edward get sad. There is Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who Bella leads on for most of the movie. He has a dark secret. Then Bella, Jacob and Edward do some stuff and get ready for the next movie. Uhm, that’s like…pretty much it.
Now before you ask me, “Didn’t you see the original?”, no I didn’t and that shouldn’t matter. I have a ten buck rule. If I have to pay ten bucks, it better be worth ten bucks. If I have to pay to rent the movie before, and then pay to see the movie, it’s not worth it. Each movie, even a sequel, has to have a beginning, middle, and an end. Twilight is one hundred percent middle. It’s insulting to the audience that they can’t be bothered to put together an entire movie.
The one plus side is there is a pack of half naked hunky-boys that run around the forest. Unfortunately for me, they are playing teenaged kids, so it’s hard to think of them of as sexy little beef cakes without feeling dirty.
What they do put together is a slapdash bit of soap opera drama. There is no real drama, no real romance, no tension, no real danger, not much of anything. The only thing is has in spades is intense eye contact.
They stare at each other from afar. They stare at each other up close. Their eyes dart back and forth. Their eyes melt. They go cold. They open wide. They close. In extreme cases, they turn away. I’m going to watch the out-takes on the DVD because I will bet dollars to doughnuts there are moments where the actors couldn’t hold it together when they were close and staring at each other and started to break up laughing. It will probably be the most entertaining part of the DVD.
There’s just nothing to Twilight: New Moon. There’s no plot and horrible acting. There is certainly nothing worth watching.
Something happened before Twilight: New Moon began, what that was, the audience doesn’t know. It’s obvious there is a romance between Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and they really love each other. Oh yeah, and Edward is a vampire but we never actually see him chew on anyone so we know that because…they told us so. All of the sudden, Edward leaves Bella unprotected from Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) but it’s not clear why. The whole Cullen family is there, but I don’t know why they matter. Then Edward get sad. There is Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who Bella leads on for most of the movie. He has a dark secret. Then Bella, Jacob and Edward do some stuff and get ready for the next movie. Uhm, that’s like…pretty much it.
Now before you ask me, “Didn’t you see the original?”, no I didn’t and that shouldn’t matter. I have a ten buck rule. If I have to pay ten bucks, it better be worth ten bucks. If I have to pay to rent the movie before, and then pay to see the movie, it’s not worth it. Each movie, even a sequel, has to have a beginning, middle, and an end. Twilight is one hundred percent middle. It’s insulting to the audience that they can’t be bothered to put together an entire movie.
The one plus side is there is a pack of half naked hunky-boys that run around the forest. Unfortunately for me, they are playing teenaged kids, so it’s hard to think of them of as sexy little beef cakes without feeling dirty.
What they do put together is a slapdash bit of soap opera drama. There is no real drama, no real romance, no tension, no real danger, not much of anything. The only thing is has in spades is intense eye contact.
They stare at each other from afar. They stare at each other up close. Their eyes dart back and forth. Their eyes melt. They go cold. They open wide. They close. In extreme cases, they turn away. I’m going to watch the out-takes on the DVD because I will bet dollars to doughnuts there are moments where the actors couldn’t hold it together when they were close and staring at each other and started to break up laughing. It will probably be the most entertaining part of the DVD.
There’s just nothing to Twilight: New Moon. There’s no plot and horrible acting. There is certainly nothing worth watching.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Who is the newest writer for Skeptical Inquirer? I AM!
Over the past few weeks I've been talking with Skeptical Inquirer Magazine about writing reviews for skeptics on their website. I'm elated to say the kinks have been worked out and it's official; I'm their voice in the dark (theater). This is a fantastic opportunity for me to write for people like me and I couldn't be more excited that it is with SI. It's more than a little embarassing how much I've been dancing around my house, the store, in bed, at the DMV, and in my car.
This is a huge opportunity for me, no only because this jumps me from strictly online reviews to potentially print but it also puts my foot in the door to write about things that really matter to me in the future. I am by far the most average person at the magazine, which is mostly written by phd's, professors, and well respected scientists, etc. It essentially spring boards me into a new league of both writers and skeptics. It is an amazing jump in status, credibility and opportunity. I'm psyched.
I hope you read some of my reviews or even subscribe to the magazine.
http://www.csicop.org/publications
This is a huge opportunity for me, no only because this jumps me from strictly online reviews to potentially print but it also puts my foot in the door to write about things that really matter to me in the future. I am by far the most average person at the magazine, which is mostly written by phd's, professors, and well respected scientists, etc. It essentially spring boards me into a new league of both writers and skeptics. It is an amazing jump in status, credibility and opportunity. I'm psyched.
I hope you read some of my reviews or even subscribe to the magazine.
http://www.csicop.org/publications
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A Christmas Carol - More Like a Christmas Crisis
Animated and in 3D, Charles Dickens’ beloved holiday story, A Christmas Carol, spills onto screens again. A garish demonstration of the capabilities of the new 3D technology, the story only pops out when it possesses an opportunity to show off the technology.
Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is a miserly old man who holds tight each penny in his pocket. After his business partner, Marley (Gary Oldman) dies, Scrooge loses all perspective, turning even surlier than he was before. Devoid of all Christmas spirit, Scrooge tries to drain the spirit out of everyone around him. The spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (All voiced and drawn to look like Jim Carrey) warn him about the consequences of inhospitality and holding on to his money too tightly.
Robert Zemeckis should hold his head in shame for such a disgusting display of technology driven plot. He both “wrote” and “directed” this version of “A Christmas Carol.” A responsible director-writer would make Marley, the Spirits and Scrooge feel like they within hands reach by re-arranging the 3D to places in the plot that are enhanced by the extra dimension. Instead, he created a masturbatory mess.
The plot is carved back to the bare minimum and stripped of all opportunity to connect with the audience emotionally. In fact, Zemeckis relies heavily on that fact that A Christmas Carol is so ubiquitous that he commits the sin of Cliff’s Notes. Taken on its face, having no prior knowledge of A Christmas Carol, a viewer would see it as shallow and infuriating. The plot is replaced with scenes meant to show off the remarkable 3D technology. 3D Scenes drone on twice as long as the plot they are supposed to enhance. The floor drops away, fingers are pointed at the audience, and characters are dangled from different angles. In fact, no opportunity to sacrifice the plot for the technology was missed.
Even still, the 3D is so good, it might have been fun to watch this tech demo if the voice acting was varied, interesting and sincere. It wasn’t. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge in all five stages of his life, as well as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future and he does it terribly. Scrooge lacks any depth, has no resonance, all changes seen seem forced and shallow. The Ghost of Christmas Past can only be appreciated by a herpetologist or a speech pathologist and I am neither of those. The Ghost of Christmas Present’s insipid laughter made me consider leaving the theater, but that would mean abandoning my mother-in-law in her seat, and even I’m not that mean. The only saving grace in Carrey’s performance is that the Ghost of Christmas Future barely talks.
Radio Disney brought teams of children to see A Christmas Carol at the press screening I attended. There were scenes that frightened the tiny so badly that they began to cry, scream and cuddle up in the arms of their mothers. There were times during A Christmas Carol I considered jumping into my mother-in-law’s lap and cry like a baby.
This may go down as a rumble worthy topic at family holiday parties because my hubby’s-mummy liked A Christmas Carol. I suggest instead of wasting money seeing such a despicable waste of a classic story, spend the same money seeing the play at a local theater.
Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is a miserly old man who holds tight each penny in his pocket. After his business partner, Marley (Gary Oldman) dies, Scrooge loses all perspective, turning even surlier than he was before. Devoid of all Christmas spirit, Scrooge tries to drain the spirit out of everyone around him. The spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (All voiced and drawn to look like Jim Carrey) warn him about the consequences of inhospitality and holding on to his money too tightly.
Robert Zemeckis should hold his head in shame for such a disgusting display of technology driven plot. He both “wrote” and “directed” this version of “A Christmas Carol.” A responsible director-writer would make Marley, the Spirits and Scrooge feel like they within hands reach by re-arranging the 3D to places in the plot that are enhanced by the extra dimension. Instead, he created a masturbatory mess.
The plot is carved back to the bare minimum and stripped of all opportunity to connect with the audience emotionally. In fact, Zemeckis relies heavily on that fact that A Christmas Carol is so ubiquitous that he commits the sin of Cliff’s Notes. Taken on its face, having no prior knowledge of A Christmas Carol, a viewer would see it as shallow and infuriating. The plot is replaced with scenes meant to show off the remarkable 3D technology. 3D Scenes drone on twice as long as the plot they are supposed to enhance. The floor drops away, fingers are pointed at the audience, and characters are dangled from different angles. In fact, no opportunity to sacrifice the plot for the technology was missed.
Even still, the 3D is so good, it might have been fun to watch this tech demo if the voice acting was varied, interesting and sincere. It wasn’t. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge in all five stages of his life, as well as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future and he does it terribly. Scrooge lacks any depth, has no resonance, all changes seen seem forced and shallow. The Ghost of Christmas Past can only be appreciated by a herpetologist or a speech pathologist and I am neither of those. The Ghost of Christmas Present’s insipid laughter made me consider leaving the theater, but that would mean abandoning my mother-in-law in her seat, and even I’m not that mean. The only saving grace in Carrey’s performance is that the Ghost of Christmas Future barely talks.
Radio Disney brought teams of children to see A Christmas Carol at the press screening I attended. There were scenes that frightened the tiny so badly that they began to cry, scream and cuddle up in the arms of their mothers. There were times during A Christmas Carol I considered jumping into my mother-in-law’s lap and cry like a baby.
This may go down as a rumble worthy topic at family holiday parties because my hubby’s-mummy liked A Christmas Carol. I suggest instead of wasting money seeing such a despicable waste of a classic story, spend the same money seeing the play at a local theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)