GeekReads

Why defy gravity when you can make it work in your favour?

For a long while, Dreamworks played second fiddle to Pixar in the animated feature stakes, with movies skewed towards the adult demographic through the use of celebrity voices and “street smart” humour, but lacking in heart. But then they delivered Kung Fu Panda – the story of a young, adopted panda named Po, who discovers the value of self worth through a combination of dumb luck and kung fu – and Dreamworks emerged from Pixar’s shadow in a flurry of fur, feathers and awesomeness.

Yet the elation was shortlived. That Dreamworks decided to make a sequel immediately brought the cynicism back, with expectations of a cheap cash-in (which they’d already done with Secrets of the Furious Five). But like Po’s teacher, I should’ve had more faith in the power of awesomeness. Kung Fu Panda 2 is at least as good, if not better, than its predecessor.

Firstly, mad props to the writers of the original for creating a world so rich with potential that gave rise to this new story. Did you notice in the first one that Po was the only panda? I didn’t. But Panda 2 starts to elaborate on that tale, working it into a much larger story that takes the story from that of a panda trying to save his town from the evil Tai Long, to trying to save the whole of China (and kung fu) against the threat of Lord Shen and his arsenal of weapons equipped with gunpowder.

What I loved most was the attention to detail in the character designs. Everything about them, from their form to the way that they moved, showed the care and craftsmanship that went into them, resulting in characterisations that in the real world, would be analogous to great acting. The humour was also razor sharp, recalling many of the gags from the first movie (e.g. the heart-to-heart between Po and his dad), and delivering completely new and unexpected punchlines that make the joke even funnier the second time around.

Sadly, the movie ends with the promise of a sequel, although maybe just this once, I might park my cynicism.

I’m fairly tardy with my reviews at the best of times, so I was quite chuffed to discover that my 3 most recent reviews had a thing in common, allowing me to knock off all 3 in one go. Righto then. Toodle-pip. On with the show, wot wot!

Nation, by Terry Pratchett

It might look like a Discworld book, but it ain't a Discworld book

Terry Pratchett is a prolific author by any account, with 38 Discworld novels to his name and several childrens’ books on the periphery (although I say this in the same sense that one would refer to The Hobbit and The Silmarillion as “merely” peripheral works to The Lord of the Rings). It’s a decent body of work, selling over 65 million books worldwide, so when he was diagnosed with early onset alzheimers disease he could’ve just stopped there, having left a pretty decent legacy (also, his daughter Rhianna is a distinguished writer in the interactive space; which is to say video games). But no, Sir Terry just keeps on cranking them out, and not just in his Discworld comfort zone either.

28 years spent crafting a fictional world naturally gives one respectable insight into what makes them tick, and Pratchett unleashes the full brunt of his experience in Nation. In just over 400 pages he brings to life an entirely new world (albeit based on the real one), and a roster of characters every bit as rich and ripe with potential as any he’s ever created for the Discworld.

Another great thing about seasoned authors is their efficiency with words. Pratchett doesn’t waste a single letter; the narration in the first couple of pages contains more story than lesser authors muster in an entire chapter.

The King’s Speech

C-c-can you hear th-th-the drums, F-f-f-ernado?

If I didn’t have a self-imposed rule about writing something for every movie I see in the cinema, I’d have skipped reviewing The King’s Speech. Yeah, the movie was enjoyable and the acting was OK but it didn’t have anything I’d singled out as a “wow” factor. So Colin Firth did a good impression of a guy with a stammer – that’s what actors are paid to do. For some reason this reminds me of the scene in Tropic Thunder where Robert Downey Jr. is lecturing Ben Stiller about going “full retard” and I reckon Firth’s going to go home empty handed (my money’s on Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network).

Also, there’s something I want to ask: girls, please tell me, is Colin Firth really a good actor, or do you like him because he’s the embodiment of Anglophilia due to his having been – and remaining – the definitive “Mr. Darcy”?

To me he’s one of those actors where I can’t see the character for the man. Whenever he’s on screen I have no trouble thinking “yep, that’s Colin Firth” whereas y’know how in some movies, you get so engrossed in the character that you struggle to remember the actor or actress’s name? Yeah, he’s not one of them.

Gnomeo & Juliet

Oui, c'est en français. J'aime mieux que la version anglaise.

What! An animated feature that isn’t from either Pixar or Dreamworks?! And it’s not half bad either, you say? Yet it’s true, I actually enjoyed this one very much.

Firstly, let me dispel what’s likely to be the biggest fear for those considering this movie: Gnomeo and Juliet isn’t a remake of Shakespeare’s play with gardening puns. Neither does it get bogged down in the seriousness of its premise of having garden gnomes that come to life when humans aren’t around – it’s not Toy Story, but in a good way.

The whole thing is played for laughs, and never takes itself seriously at all, which makes it a buckets of fun all round.

Call me strange, but my favourite thing about the whole movie was how every time the characters touched, or made contact with another object, there would be a little stony “chink!” sound that I found really satisfying for some reason.

Or Rapunzel, as it would've been called, if the marketing meatheads hadn't gotten to it

The Disney Animated Classics seem to go through cycles of good and bad, with a few good ones (Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, The Emperor’s New Groove and Lilo & Stitch, etc.) padded out by a bunch of forgettable fluff (The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, Dinosaur, Home on the Range, etc.) With Tangled, the 50th animated feature in the series, Disney’s at the top of its game again – the fairy tale game, that is – with an update on the Rapunzel story. Not that The Princess and the Frog was bad, it’s just that this is better.

It’s hard not to think that Pixar‘s had a very positive influence on Disney since they were “acquired” back in 2006. Starting with Meet The Robinsons (which would have been in preproduction at the time the Pixar crew came onboard), each subsequent film has improved on the last.

This movie just reeks of classic Disney – and I mean that as a compliment. Maybe they rediscovered what it means to be a Disney movie from making the self-parodying Enchanted, but from the animation style to the zany characters, you can’t help but remember back to the good old days. At one stage, I swear I was watching a new Aladdin. Almost.

The musical numbers, although written by the legendary Alan Menken, aren’t especially memorable or catchy. Oh, and Rapunzel’s and her “mom’s” huuuuuuuuumongous eyes. Oh. My. God. Seriously, she’s very pretty in that Disney Princess kinda way, but man if her eyes were any bigger you could literally drown in them (especially if this ever comes out in IMAX). If you’re not a fan of anime-style googlies, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Other than that, Rapunz… er, I mean the artwork… is exquisitely beautiful and a delight to look at. The makers spent an obscene amount of money (it’s either the 2nd or 5th most expensive film ever made depending on which way you choose to fudge the numbers) making Tangled look like it was drawn/painted despite being computer generated 3D.

See those saucer plates she's got for eyes?

It’s the usual love found, betrayed, lost, redeemed and restored cycle but of course don’t get too hung up on the simplistic plot, remembering that this is a kids movie. It’s great how Disney has made something that appeals to all ages without relying on parading its street smarts and adding sly “nudge-nudge-wink-wink” jokes for the grown-ups. still, one little thing niggled: at the start of the movie an old woman discovers a magic flower and keeps it secretly to herself by hiding it and tending it so that it would keep her young forever. But when the royal family discovers the flower, they kill it to save the Queen. So the woman was a little selfish maybe, but the royal family was outright neglectful. Disney won’t exactly win over environmentalists with that one.

My faith in Disney is restored, even though it’s likely to be the peak of this cycle considering that the 51st feature will be another Winnie the Pooh movie. As it is, Tangled is a great film to mark a major milestone in this chapter of Disney’s history.

A poster from the "Meet the characters" series

Toy Story 3 is a triumph for Pixar in so many ways: overcoming sequel-itis, thwarting the evil empire, and simply maintaining an unbroken string of hits – which is a lot easier said than done.

Andy is all grown up, and Woody, Buzz and the gang find themselves looking forward to either a life of retirement in the attic, or the threat of being thrown away. Instead, they’re accidentally donated to a kids’ centre where they find a new lease on life with an endless supply of kids to play with them, but all is not as well as it seems…

I found the movie to be a lot closer to the original than Toy Story 2, which is to say that I rank this one higher (but the original is still the best of course). This third and final instalment in the series does what it has always done exceptionally well, which is to combine imagination and the sense of wonder with an emotional core based in reality (unlike that other franchise, which presents vapid parables of adult issues dressed in kids’ fairy tale clothing). Only a person with the coldest heart would be unmoved at the conclusion of the movie.

The core cast of the Toy Story series

The plot of Toy Story 3 is not only entertaining in and of itself, but provides a most satisfying conclusion to the trilogy. Like everything about the series’ contrivance that allows toys to come to life when we humans are not looking, the resolution is neat, plausible and leaves nothing to be desired.

By the way, don’t waste your money on 3D for this one. It was not specifically designed for it, not does it add much to the experience, unless you really love the novelty of it, and aren’t troubled by the encumbrance of the glasses and the dimness that they cause.

And so we bid a sad, but fitting farewell to Woody and the gang (at least until they release the trilogy on blu-ray…)

—-

* Huh, I discovered that “integrous” – the adjectival form of “integrity” – is actually a neologism, one of those non-words that entered the lexicon through common usage rather than a respectable etymological history. Ah, the perils of an ever-evolving language.

The final showdown

Cast aside your doubts: the fourth and final chapter in the series isn’t too bad, although I must admit I may be slightly influenced by the fact that I got my tickets for free through work (I probably wouldn’t have watched it otherwise). It’s also mercifully short, with Shrek dealing with the consequences of signing a magical contract with Rumpelstiltskin and dealing with his domestic problems, all in a brisk 93 minutes.

The contract grants Shrek one day where he can return to being a real ogre, loathed and feared by the humans, and in exchange, the trickster Rumpelstiltskin takes one day from Shrek’s past. Naturally, there’s a built in gotcha, and the day that “Rumpel” takes is the day on which Shrek was born, thereby changing everything – Shrek never rescues Fiona, and her parents sign the rights to the land of Far Far Away over to the trickster in the misplaced hope that he could help save their daughter.

You could say that Forever After is a reboot of sorts. Shrek starts out alone all over again, and the movie loses all of the excess baggage accumulated through the earlier sequels. Other favourites like Donkey and Puss-in-Boots are also given clean slates, so that even the occasional rehashed joke felt fresh again.

But it’s not all good news. The original Shrek kicked off the franchise as a kids movie with adult smarts – the inverse fairytale of the ugly ogre who turns out to be the hero – but as the series progressed, the grown-up humour and story elements encroached further and further, until the point where we now have an adult movie that has the occasional amusing bit for kids. It’s still presented as a kids movie (especially with the pointless, gimmicky 3D), but the main theme deals with Shrek’s mid-life crisis, and there’s a scene where sexy witches dance to Beasty Boys music in a pseudo nightclub. Riiiiiiight.

Dreamworks just doesn’t get it. The original Shrek was charming and original, but Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third proved that they had no idea why, by dishing up smarm dressed up as charm. In spite of the above gripes though, I enjoyed this chapter more than the previous two because this time around I didn’t feel so much like as if the movie was watching me back with a smug grin, constantly digging me with its elbows going “Geddit? Geddit?”

And there’s no arguing with free.