How To Train Your Dragon and Shrek 4

"How To Train Your Dragon" was a fun adventure. Unlike other recent releases ("Iron Man 2") this movie actually has a sense of wonder. We are transported to another place and time. We meet a interesting cast of characters and variety of unique dragon species. There is a simple story, yet this isn't so much about what or why, rather it's a movie about who and how. The relationships, between father and son, girl and boy, and human and dragon, this is the good stuff. The fact that the people here are vikings made everthing all the more entertaining. The voices, the attitudes and the beards, all made this movie better. The main dragon and his human counterpart are the center of the movie, and I liked them both. The drogon reminded me of Stitch (from "Lilo and Stitch") and since I really love that character, it worked here as well. The emotion and communication is so dependent on facial expression and body language, I believe that can either make or break the effectiveness of a film, and here it works amazingly well.

"Shrek 4" may not be as bad as "Shrek 3" (it's hard for me to say since I've tried to erase most Shrek from my mind). Sure there are funny moments. The filmmakers know the funniest material because they actually use a time warp element in order to ensure we return in time to see the funniest part a second time. Unfortunately, like with so many sequels, what made the first one truly original, barely exists in this fourth installment. Should I talk about the animation or the voice work or even the music? What's the point? Blah, blah, and a little more blah. How in the days after "Ratatouille" can animators make "Shrek 4" and bare to look at themselves in the mirror? I guess (to answer my own question) it must be the paychecks sitting on the table next to the mirror in their grand hall of their Hollywood mansions. Maybe if I didn't help support these second rate artist wannabes, crap like "Shrek 5" won't get made...

Lost

Here's my problem tonight...

I believe that there is no ambiguity when it comes to eternity. I believe that peace can be found through only one path. And when the end comes, it will not be subtle, no one will doubt at the end.

Now I have enjoyed "Lost" with all its twists and turns. I like wondering what's going to happen next, then after seeing what happpens, wondering what in the world I just saw. I enjoy that the show always left room for discussion and it was refreshing to see television that was truly interesting.

In the end I'm afraid that the show took the easy way out. Kind of like the Obama advisor who will not acknoledge Islamic extremism as a threat. It would be nice to live in a world where every belief leads to some euphoric afterlife. Can't we all just get along? Unfortunately the truth can be hard to swallow. What do they say about broad and narrow roads? Anyways, maybe "Lost" would have finished better taking sides. I kind of thought that's what the show was about.

Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood

Now most of you reading this probably saw "Iron Man 2" with me, so it'll be old news, but sometimes it's good to make a solid copy as a reminder (or a warning) as a lasting reference... I would guess that there are two basic camps; those who liked the original "Iron Man" and those who didn't. Those who did, should be disappointed by the sequel. Those who didn't like the first will have far less expectations and therefore be less disappointed. Sure I was still disappointed, I believe that I am a movie optimist, I always hope the movie is going to be good. (I'm a realist too, realizing that my hopes are usually quashed by the Hollywood machine). This movie has no style and no substance. Sure it's amazingly crafted, the artists and technicians earned their share of the take. But no matter how many suitcase Iron Man suits transform, no matter how many, wait a minute... This movie wasn't even that cool. The special effects weren't even that amazing. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't funny, it wasn't anything, just blah. Very expensive blah. To top it off, apparently they hired Mickey Rourke to repeat his performance from "The Wrestler". He must have read the script and thought to himself, "This will be a nice little mental vacation". If I can praise the movie for anything it would be consistency. The actors, the story, the dialogue, the setting, etc. all were equally blah.

Let me set up my review of Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" talking about the true Robin Hood for a moment. Howard Pyle wrote a little book called "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" which for me is the standard by which all things Robin Hood should be measured. My childhood had its references too, the Errol Flynn film and of course the wonderful Walt Disney version featuring Roger Miller. That being said, Ridley Scott seems to know a little about Robin Hood. Enough to use him as a cultural reference in telling his own tale and relaying his own message. This very easily could have been very upsetting to me, yet I found myself liking the film and going along with this retelling. I think he avoided making any definitive statements, like "this is what really happened" or "my version is better than that version". Scott tells a story with convincing characters (played well by great actors) and uses the legend for a backdrop. Really this film could have been an original story that took place in the time of Robin Hood and it would have been just as good. My complaints about Scott in the past have been lack of originality ("Gladiator") and frustration to the point of annoyance ("Black Hawk Down"). With "Robin Hood", although it never achieves greatness, he at least makes his own film, and tells a compelling tale that pays tribute to its source material.