Rango

This week I watched the film Rango. Rango stars a CG animal cast, lead by a chameleon that loves to act. After being let loose in the desert he finds himself in an old western town facing a drought that threatens their livelihoods. Through a series of events the newcomer that calls himself "Rango" is named sheriff and given the task of solving all of the town's problems. As far as the film goes, I enjoyed it's offbeat humor and numerous references to films of the past. It's animation, although highly detailed, still maintained a "cartoony" look and I felt that the use of CG brought life to the setting in a way that a 2D image can't. I recommend this film to anyone looking for an amusing suspenseful comedy or anyone who just wants to hear Johnny Depp give his best Kermit The Frog impression.

Let Us Not Forget

I'd like to take a moment to talk about documentaries. I had never really paid attention to documentaries, besides the average docudrama (noun: a fictionalized drama based primarily on actual events). Then I enrolled in Documentary Workshop the rest, they say is history. Within the last week I've watched at least four documentaries. Here are two of my favorites from the week:

A subjective documentary directed by Larry Charles and starring Bill Maher that tackles the always touchy subject of religion. I appreciate how this documentary doesn't target one single religion, but rags on them all. Also a bonus to this film is watching political and religious figures stumbling over their answers. And now, the trailer:

 

And now onto something completely different (but not really):

Freakanomics is a documentary based off of the book (with the same name) written by journalist Stephen J. Dubner and economist Steven D. Levitt. This film was directed by Heidi Ewing, Alex Gibney, Seth Gordon, Rachel Grady, Eugene Jarecki, and Morgan Spurlock. The reason for so many directors is because this documentary is actually compiled of a series of mini documentaries with the same theme: with the correct data you can determine the true outcome.

I feel like a lot of kids in our major never give documentaries a second thought. And why should we? Leave it to the journalism and doc studies kids! Well my fellow peers, believe it or not there is a lot of potential in documentaries. It's actually a bonus if you come from a creative/fiction background because it helps to form creative shots, help development a sort of story line with your main character (if you go with a story driven documentary), and you can help bring an important issue to light.

I Chipwrecked All Over The Movie Screen, Sorry Guys

Hello, everyone!

I suppose by now you're all sitting comfortably in your homes with a piping cup of tea by a fire reading your Christmas stories and spinning your dreidels and singing Kwanzaa songs. But I, being a heathen and a soulless man-fellow, have arisen from the dead to bring you a movie review. And oh, is it just in time for the season to be jolly... it's so bad even Santa will want to cry.

Witness the above and weep with me.

Chipwrecked is good in one respect; it's got the Chipmunks! How incredible is it that in today's world we can digitally render Alvin, Simon, and Theodore into reality? How titillatingly tubular that we can incorporate the virtual with the practical? ...Well, not really. This kind of animation isn't new anymore; and even though it's still cool to watch this magic in action, it's nothing to flip any lids about.

The problem with Chipwrecked is that it totally bastardizes the Chipmunks. Their mischievousness takes a back seat to pop culture references and covers of recent hits, making this movie seem more like a long episode of Glee than anything. The story is so plot-driven that instead of the characters I knew and loved in my childhood, we're left with one-dimensional cardboard cutouts of them. Odd, since the movie's being shown in 3D. I would have expected different. And then there's the Chipettes. They sexed up the Chipettes. How could you do that to anyone anywhere ever.

See, Chipwrecked is family-comedy schlock 101. It's got corny jokes, cheap plot devices, a light-hearted story, loud noises, bright colors, and the music is so poppy and sweet that your ears feel sticky. You want a good fam-com? Go see The Muppets. Or take your kids to see Breaking Dawn. (Jeebus, I can't believe I'm recommending that.) But at least with Breaking Dawn, you're taking your kids to see a film instead of 80 minutes of vapid saccharine.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Peace out, Hanukkah-scouts.

~Will

STARZ's "Boss" and "Once Upon A Time"

Consider this a "tip of the hat, wag of the finger" style post.

The tip of the hat goes to "Boss", a new serial on STARZ. The show follows Kelsey Grammer as Tom Kane, a fictional "boss" mayor of Chicago who suffers from a degenerative neurological disorder. Only his physician knows; the rest of his team and family are too busy with their own lives to notice that anything is out of the ordinary.

Everything about this show screams subtlety. The cinematography is simple, but effective; color correction and eye-pleasing special effects don't intend to shock but instead enhance the viewer's understanding of the show. It's really in the acting and the story where the series excels. Kathleen Robertson plays it professional and sexy as Kitty O'Neil, Kane's aide, and Jeff Hephner plays Ben Zajac, Illinois governor hopeful, whose ambition bleeds through his suit so heavily you'd need to run after him with a towel to wipe it all up.

It's a great show with standards that most showrunners live to strive for. It stands in contrast to Once Upon A Time, a show where so many insane things are happening at once that it's hard to keep up with what's what.

Unlike Boss, which relies heavily on the realistic storytelling and minuscule intensity, Once Upon A Time takes no issue with going overboard on the fantastic. The production value in the show is catastrophic. That's not a bad thing; it's just that there's so much of it that it's hard to believe that ABC would let a show like this air. On second thought, they did have Pushing Daisies, which was also a pretty quirky show. So there's that.

But where Once Upon A Time fails is in its story. It's just a mish-mosh of fairy tales spliced together in some hackneyed attempt of a grown-up Disney story, mixed in with a little bit of reality to give the show some backbone. None of the characters have a real third dimension; by that, I mean that they are fully-formed, but not to the degree of absolute completion. It's as if all of the ingredients for a good character are there, but they haven't yet blended together to create that awesome character smoothie that I can easily digest.

And because the writing doesn't quite cut it, the entire show comes across as a lumpy mess of a fantasy series that doesn't quite sit well in my stomach.

I'd recommend both this and Boss anyway, just because it's up to you to decide what you like. And if neither of these shows seems like your cup of tea, there's always NBC Thursdays.

Doctor Who: The Girl Who Waited

I really want to make something like this for a Park production. Unfortunately, this is a work of art and cannot be replicated. Don't even try. Stop now.

The Girl Who Waited is a perfect example of the direction that new-Who has taken. It's less of a "monster-of-the-week" or "sci-fi" show and more of a "space opera." That's not bad by any means, of course. In fact, the fans in both the US and the show's native UK have been welcoming to the backstories of the Doctor, Amy, Rory, and River Song. While the show's main focus is still timey-wimey and spacey-wacey, it's nice to see three-dimensional characters and growing relationships.

Lots of tributes to the series here in both its classic and current incarnations. The title of the serial is a reference to Amy Pond's character, who as a child waited 12 years for the Doctor to arrive a second time. In one scene, Rory breaks the Mona Lisa over an android's head. This is a reference to the 1979 serial "The City Of Death." It's a story that will appeal to both classic and new-Who fans.

Technically, it shines. The cinematography and lighting are obviously great, so no coverage is necessary. What really stands out is the CGI in both the landscape and most of the characters. The Handroids, the main antagonists in the episode, were costumed actors whose faces were removed in post-production and replaced with sinister looking medical equipment. The landscape wasn't WYSIWYG; it was a mixture of tight set design and 3D. What comes out is a threatening facility with a sprawling labyrinth of halls and corridors.

Karen Gillan's older appearance was also a defining factor in this episode. Instead of using an older actress to play the part, Karen herself offered to play the part in prosthetics and aging makeup. This created a believable 60-year-old Amy Pond once it became mixed with Karen's subtle acting quirks and choices. It not only brings out the best in the show's production, it's a bright moment for Karen, who's becoming a big star with the success of the programme (alongside Matt Smith and Arthur Darvill, the latter of whom is doubtlessly the show's best male companion in years.)

This will be a memorable episode of this series, and maybe even of the Eleventh Doctor's reign. Next week: The God Complex, which involves more child nightmare shenanigans and perhaps a look into the Doctor's eventual fate... let's just hope the characters don't almost die again.