Star Wars in Disney--Well, Pixar: Toy Story 2

MIKE SAYS Toy Story 2 is, on its own, a great film.  An extraordinary film, actually, especially for a children's movie.  Add it together with the other movies in the series and you get one of the most well-rounded, tightly woven and best-written trilogies ever made.

While -he film is by and large its own, self-contained and original story, the chance to play with Star Wars references, especially with the robotic Zurg, was just too good to pass up. Perhaps the coolest thing about this reference was its rarity.  At the time, pop culture references were fairly new, especially a direct shout out.  Disney and Pixar certainly led the charge on this, with Aladdin, Lion King, and others.

Since then, pop culture references have become rather commonplace, almost expected, and they have lost  a lot of their former luster.  While the references were fun surprises, it's important to note just what these references communicated:  the people who made this movie are products of the same culture as the audience themselves;  this is a film made by and for film junkies.  Which just makes it feel all that more personal.

Writing this review from the perspective of Fatherhood is difficult;  I love the film, and I would list it among the best children's movies of all time.  At the same time, I could probably go another ten years without the need to watch it.  This is probably due to my children watching it repeatedly.

But I still identify with the film:  The idea of nostalgic value being more important than monetary value, and the idea of preserving important aspects of our childhood.  For me, Star Wars will always be one of those childhood memories that will always have a special place in my heart.  Which may be why the Toy Story movies resonate so well:  they tap into those memories that most powerfully take us back to childhood.  

KATE SAYS this film is brilliant. It is one of those movies that has everything: a strong story with an actual ethical dilemma; clever dialog; engaging characters; and lots of spot-on cultural allusions that nevertheless don't overwhelm the story.

One of those great Pixar moments that make you cheer while

breaking your heart.

Before I get to the allusions, I must make a few shout-outs.

First, the story. The strength of Toy Story 2 is that Woody's dilemma is a real one. The "bad" side is not immediately obvious. The pros for going to the museum, lasting forever, giving generations of children (in the broad sense) something to look at and delight in combine to form a powerful argument. Woody has to fall back not on some easy answer but on his own sense of ethics. He also has to think outside the "box" (ha ha; sorry, more on this later) to deal with Jessie and Bullseye. Considering that this is a child's film, the philosophical debates at work are quite impressive.

Second, the dialog. It's hilarious and full of puns. At one point, Woody cries, "Stinky Pete, you're out of your box!" a great riff on "You're out of your mind." Also, like the first movie, Toy Story 2 contains neat little jokes that may go over a kid's head but make an adult yelp with laughter: my favorite from Toy Story is Rex's explanation of his origins:

REX: And I'm from Mattel. Well, I'm not really from Mattel, I'm actually from a smaller company that was purchased by Mattel in a leveraged buyout.

The excellently cast Wayne Knight.

The characters are just as strong as in the first movie. I love the "cameo" of the "Cleaner" (he's the guy from the Pixar short who plays chess against himself). Naturally, Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are excellent as well as lovable John Ratzenberger, but I have to give huge shout-outs to newcomers Kesley Grammer and Wayne Knight. Wayne Knight is so perfectly drawn and voiced, I feel like I'm watching, well, that guy from Jurassic Park.

Speaking of Jurassic Park . . . but no, I'll let you find that awesome movie allusion yourself.

There are, of course, a number of great Star Wars references. The opening sequence is more generic sci-fi than Star Wars-specific. However, there are a few very Star Wars-y moments and sounds. And it is just about the longest set-up for a truly great pay-off I've ever seen in a movie. The pay-off doesn't come until almost the very end with the release of Evil Emperor Zurg (played by James Earl Jones' sound-alike, Andrew Stanton). It is totally worth it!

This kind of thing--constant allusions to outside media and current events--has become de rigeur in movie and television scripts in the last few years. Such allusions run the risk of eclipsing the story, but Toy Story 2 combines its allusions so effortlessly with plot, characters, and gentle spirit, nothing is lost.

And what a great way to put one's Star Wars knowledge to use! I've always said it's worthwhile knowing one's popular culture!!

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Release Date: February 12, 2010

Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!

Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.

Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation

Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.

If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.

Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.

And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.

Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.

Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.

Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).

The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).

Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.

The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.

That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:

"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.

Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.

The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)

I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!

Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.

In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.

In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?

And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)

Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.

I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).

But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.

All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.

Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Release Date: July 15, 2011

Time Mike wanted to see it: About 6 months
Reason Mike procrastinated: I wanted to take my son Benji to see it, but trips to the movies have been disastrous in the past. And with his current obsession with dinosaurs, the need to rent it wasn't very high.

Category: Reboot/updated sequel

Mike says: I had a little anxiety about watching this movie for two reasons: First, I love Winnie the Pooh, and I treasure the original film (the following Pooh films through the years are cute but still inferior). Second, I watched this with my son, who hasn't watched any movie without a dinosaur for several months.

I was pleasantly relieved when I found that not only was I enjoying the film, but my son loved it as well! The film is super cute and clever, and I found myself chuckling through most of the movie. Winnie The Pooh is one of the recent films that reboots and updates a franchise, while still being a sequel. Think Fast & Furious, The Incredible Hulk, and Tron Legacy, but with cute stuffed animals.

I think the film succeeds in several ways. First off, the art is gorgeous. It really calls back to the original film while still utilizing modern methods. Second, they did a great job finding voices that come pretty close to the originals, and all the characters sound great.

The film is also really clever in its humor: All of the book gags are cute and funny, and Benji and I laughed every time something went awry in the pages of the book. Several of the gags and puns are also very clever, and the use of rhyme never really gets old.

From Benji's perspective, the film was perfect. While I really enjoyed the film and found it very cute, it did have a few flaws. Despite its best efforts, the musical numbers just aren't as catchy or fun as the original film. That the entire plot is built on a misunderstanding isn't new for the Pooh films, and is frankly silly (Benji, I should point out, thought it was brilliant). The over-arcing story is also something characteristic of the modern films. Which is fine, but I find myself missing the "story collection" format of the first film.

Probably the weirdest complaint I have is the subtle change in the type of humor used, where it's a little less innocent. Which is fine, but still a reflection of modern entertainment.

Overall, though, this is a very cute film, and does live up to the quality of the later sequels, if not quite meeting the original.

Kate says you know it is a Disney film when you have to watch 2 billion previews before you get to the movie.

Okay, that's a cheap shot. But true!


Winnie the Pooh (2011) does have a high standard to live up to. I was relieved that the film retained the lovely, classic look of the original. I was also impressed by the narrator choice. Could anybody be better than John Cleese?! The cool thing about John Cleese is that although he is frequently sardonic, he can do sweet and natural as well, and he does that in this film.

In general, the film is not as pop-culture-referential as many animated films are these days (think Shrek's references to Disney World, for instance) although there are a few (more, as Mike points out, than the original), including an odd little reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, I think the lack of references is actually a strength of the film and could have benefited from an entire lack. Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out that although parents prefer watching shows like Sesame Street because of the "adult" clever references, very young children actually prefer mind-numbingly boring shows like Blues Clues. That is, very young kids prefer literal, straight-forward, no-extra references humor.

Winnie the Pooh (2011) is, I think, aimed more at children than at their parents--which is unusual enough to make it really remarkable. (It is difficult to see, for example, how anyone not a teen or older could really "get" Tangled.)


And it is more interesting/watchable than Blues Clues. I agree with Mike that the songs are less catchy, but, as he states, the literal use of the "text" is very clever, and there are some other very literal, straight-forward, no-references humor sections that are surprisingly clever: the balloon's static electricity, the anchor (a number of physics lessons at work!), the "knot not" complication.


In fact, the film is probably stronger than it's initial impression. It is so light (with a lightly delivered message), its strength as an overall film is not readily apparent--sort of like how Olympic gymnasts make their contortions look easy when really they are the result of a 24/7 obsession.


And it is tough for those of us who have seen and remember the older film to fully appreciate the new. If I'd never seen the older film . . .


The one enormous thing in this film's favor is that the writers/producers obviously cared about the original. This, to me, makes a tremendous difference. I will excuse a lot of flaws in the Narnia movies, for example, because the writers/directors/producers care about the story. One of the neatest parts of Winnie the Pooh (2011) is at the end when the real stuffed animals are shown with household items that represent items in the movie. It reminded me of Toy Story 3's homage to the joys of child-play and imagination. Kudos!

The Neverending Story (1984)

Kate says it's confession time! I saw this movie when I was a young teen and thought it very boring. (I also thought the movie was much longer than it actually is.) However, the young boy I saw it with was enraptured. I wanted to see the movie again, mostly to see how much of my reaction was teen-angst and how much of it was, well, the movie.

Here's my most recent experience:

The opening is classic with a clearly defined problem (considering the movies on this particular list, all I can say for their writers is "Thank goodness for bullies.").

The "book" story itself is radically less impressive. A few Muppet-like creatures go a very long way, and I got my surfeit with Labyrinth.

But my reaction to the Muppet-like creatures did help pinpoint my problem with the movie when I was a teen (and, unfortunately, now). I'm just not that interested in non-human antagonists (the Muppets being a notable exception since they are so very funny, humanoid, and play opposite humans).

I've also never been all that interested in the adventures of children. Even as a kid. Keep in mind, at age 6, I was smitten with 26-year-old Mark Hamill playing Luke. (Granted, he looks about 17 in Star Wars IV, but at least he wasn't some cutesy, mop-haired kiddie bragging about his stupid robots.) After all, the Pevensie kids (Chronicles of Narnia, my standard) act like adults (thank goodness the movies increased their ages!).

Plus screaming children make me want to slap them. Atreyu screams a lot. (So do mop-haired kiddies--see above.) Bastian, the reader of the "book," is far more interesting. The ending with him and the empress, she of the adorably quirky smile, is quite memorable.

The strength of Bastian's arc has made me wonder if the extraordinarily bad dialog and acting in the "book" is on purpose--that the film is supposed to be a story as told, understood, and experienced by the young boy.

This possibility does bring up the theme of the movie, which is rather cool: stories--"mere words," as Jose Chung would say--are enough to carry us through all the extremities of emotion and experience. I am currently reading a 2-book series about time traveling in World War II. Each book is about 500 pages. I've measured out my reading simply because I know I can't finish the books in 1-2 sittings (I do have to work!). This means that for over a week now, I've been living in this author's world. "Escapist" is the last word on my mind. Escape? I can't escape from the freaking books!

C.S. Lewis once wrote, "But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself . . . Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do." The power of fiction is a magnificent power indeed!

And I can see how this movie--which floods us with images and tests and trials and emotions--could captivate viewers while proving the power of being caught up in story.

It just doesn't work so much for me.

Mike says I'm not entirely sure when I first saw this movie. All I really know is that for as long as I can remember, this was one of the family's favorite movies. The actor who played Bastian was also a staple from my childhood...he was in at least half a dozen movies we re-watched often.

As a kid, I think I enjoyed the movie because it was full of magic and adventure. I also loved Bastian's story. I've always loved to read, and as a kid, this was the one movie that really seemed to capture that feeling of being lost in a story, to the extent to where you almost feel a part of it.

Watching it now, the movie doesn't really feel old or dated. Instead, the magic has worn off a bit. While I was enthralled with the landscape and the scope of the story and quest as a kid, watching it now as a cynical jaded adult makes me question the basic premise in a rather silly way. "They want him to go on a quest with no idea of what to do?" "Bastian can hide in the school attic with no one noticing? really?" And so on.

But the film does explore a really cool idea. That there exists a place where all things of the imagination live is a very cool idea, and that books are our link to that world is something I can totally get behind. The film itself is also fairly well-made, and the scope of it is actually quite impressive. A giant turtle that doesn't look fake? A full size dragon puppet? WOW! My favorite touch is the murals showing Atreyu's quest.

Overall, I think the film is a great bit of magic for kids and families. And I own it for that very reason. But watching it alone as an adult leaves me a little bored and disappointed. But I don't think it's the film. This time, it's probably just the viewer. But I am curious to see what my sons think of it.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Book: The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, The Wide Window by Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler)

Gap between first publication and film release: 5 years--1999 (The Bad Beginning) to 2004

Closeness to original characters: Kids-90%; Olaf-10% (Mike)
Kids-90% (except Sunny); Count Olaf-55% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 70% ( Mike) 60% (Kate)

Kate says the movie starts out beautifully. Violet (Emily Browning) is perfectly cast. Liam Aiken doesn't match Brett Helquist's Klaus, but he is an extremely talented young man (he shows up in Law & Order episodes now and again). Jude Law as the narrator has exactly the right tone. Timothy Squall makes an excellent Mr. Poe. The 19th century clothing and landscape are wonderfully evocative.

And then Jim Carrey shows up.

Jim Carrey was actually not an entirely bad choice for Count Olaf. He has the skills; he does a good job adopting different personalities. He has the look (although he really can't hide his comparative youth).

But he MUST be controlled. He is extremely funny when he is on the screen, but he is funny as himself. As Count Olaf, he changes the tone and focus of the story.

It is possible that he was allowed to be so off-kilter to offset the horribleness of the story's underlying theme--society abandoning the children to an abusive and greedy man; frankly, a little off-kilter would have been clever and relieved the tension. Unfortunately, too much off-kilter breaks the story wall.

Here's the thing about comedians like Carrey: you give them an inch, they take twenty miles. Consider this story from Carrey's youth: to control him, one of his Junior High teachers allowed him to do stand-up comedy for the last fifteen minutes of every class (I'm greatly summarizing). That is, comedians like Carrey are constantly telling jokes, improvising, going off the wall-the-story-be-damned. Robin Williams did this in Aladdin, and it was very funny. But it was funny once.

Lemony Snicket breaks the narrative wall, much like the grandfather in Princess Bride, but he never breaks the story wall. The story remains consistent to itself. Saying deadpan, "I'm terrified of realtors" is funny within the story. Sunny thinking, "Is she desperate?" or "Schmuck" breaks the wall.

I'm guessing that once Carrey broke the wall, the director--instead of reining him in--started incorporating his material into Sunny's "dialog."

Consequently, Emily Browning, Liam Aiken, and Timothy Squall become the most consistent and dependable characters/actors in the movie.

In terms of the story, I don't really understand why the plot of the first book wasn't kept (even with the added train scene, burned up marriage certificate, and the final letter from the parents). At first, I thought the scriptwriters got rid of it because Hollywood didn't want to entertain the whole child-marrying-adult possibility. But the movie ends with The Marvelous Marriage.

I did quite enjoy the images from the other books, and Meryl Streep does a great job (as always). However, combining the books destroyed any possibility for a strong narrative arc. Since the single books are quite tightly plotted, not using one seems such a waste. I've never understand why Hollywood buys books, then doesn't take advantage of the already finished work. The arrogance of Hollywood producers never ceases to amaze me. (Granted, the books are quite short and a single book would need to be expanded but adding in scenes--the train sequence is nicely done--is different from cobbling stuff together; besides, the movie didn't need to be 100+ minutes.)

Using more than one book would really work better as a television series than a movie!

Overall, the movie wasn't as horrible as I expected, but then, my expectations were somewhere in the sub-sub-sub-sub basement. Which is not a bad way to approach a film! I'm very, very, very, very glad I didn't see the movie when it came out in theaters.

The more I think about it, the more I think the movie was done by two sets of producers. One set got the books, the nuances, the art, the idea, etc. The other set didn't care as long as it was a kid's movie with Jim Carrey and lots of laughs. The first set did all the casting, set design, music, graphics, and children's scenes. The other set did everything else. I'm not even sure they filmed on the same days! So sometimes the movie is 100% accurate to the original idea and sometimes much, much less --hence, 60%.

Mike says that unlike Kate, I had the unfortunate experience of catching this flick in the theater. And it was, by far, the worst theater experience I EVER had. *sigh* In fact, that's kind of what saved the movie for me. Because I was so physically uncomfortable, the movie didn't seem nearly as bad as it would have in ideal circumstances.

My introduction to the book series was rather unconventional... and unexpected. While serving a mission for my church in the Southwest, I received an ominous box from a friend (I'm not saying who) marked "Warning! Contraband!" Inside I found the The Bad Beginning and thoroughly enjoyed it, despite its exclusion from a missionary's approved library.

I enjoyed the book enough to be excited for the movie, hence the theater trip. Anyway, I love how the children are portrayed in this movie. Each of the actors were well chosen, and I think they embody the traits of the kids very well. Even the baby does a great job (despite being robbed of her hilarious side comments spoken in gibberish from the books!).

If I were to set about planning a movie of this series, I would focus on the children. I would make sure each one had the right look, and could carry the film. In my mind, if you have the kids right, the movie would be a triumph. Sadly, this line of thought is proven false, even fool-hearty, when compared with the end results. Despite wonderful performances from the children, in the end the movie falls flat.

One said reason, in fact, perhaps reasons one through five, are all Jim Carrey. Oddly enough, earlier today, I had the opportunity to watch another children's book adaptation starring Jim Carrey, Mr Poppins Penguins. Despite being a very cute movie, I found my interest waning and my patience nearing its end toward the end of the movie. Despite being hugely talented, Jim Carrey just seems to overwhelm whatever movie he's in. If the director is unable to keep Carrey reigned in, the film becomes nothing but a big budget comedy routine. While this was done for the first 3/4 of Popper's Penguins, toward the end Carrey seemed to have finally overwhelmed the director.

When it comes to Unfortunate Events, it seems the director didn't even try. Carrey completely takes over the film, trading the quiet sinister nature of the Count for, well, Jim Carrey. I'm not even sure what the film makers were thinking, aside from using a big name to draw in families. If I had to cast the role, I think I would have gone with Dustin Hoffman, or Gary Oldman. These are actors that can disappear into a character. For Carrey, the character disappears into him.

The story adaptation is well, so-so. Of the three books, the climax of The Bad Beginning is certainly the strongest, and I can see why it was moved to the end of the film. Breaking the first book into half in order to allow the second and third books to be inserted was certainly an interesting plan, and I can see the reasoning behind it.

The problem, however, is that too much necessary and fun information was cut from each story in order to shoehorn all three into the film. The one saving grace of the film, however, is the added intrigue of the parent's lives and the spyglass. These additions give the film a sense of purpose that the books don't really gain until later.

If the film really soars in any particular category, it has to be in tone and visuals. The world that the children inhabit in the films is always how I imagined it. Dark, twisted, and Victorian! I just wish we could have seen more of it. Overall, it's no surprise this film was unable to start a series of movies. It fails in telling the story and bringing the character to life in a way that is harmonious and faithful to the vision of the book. Much of this can be blamed on the sheer volume of material in one movie. Kate's right: one book per movie might have saved the franchise.

Walt Disney's Mary Poppins

Book: Mary Poppins by P.L.Travers

Gap between first publication and film release: 30 years

Closeness to original characters: 86% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 83% (Kate)

Mike says what a difference a TV makes! While it has nothing to do with the movie, I recently used some of the extra money I earned from my extra summer hours to buy a 43" plasma TV for my living room (which I got for a GREAT deal) . Since then I've been enjoying watching TV more than I have in ages, and Mary Poppins was no exception!

I work with children everyday, and I always find inspiration when I watch Mary Poppins. Mostly due to the fact that Mary's methods are just as correct and effective today as they were when the movie was made, no matter how much parents may think we've "evolved" and learned about childcare!

While it is true that child psychology really had grown in the years following Mary Poppins, children really work the same way now as they did then--Kids are still distracted by the world, still crave love and affection, and still look for and respond to the magic that exists in everyday activities and events. Mary's tactics really aren't all that different from how I perform my job! Just don't tell my client's parents!

As a movie, Mary Poppins is masterfully done. Not only is it gorgeous to watch, all the classic Disney actors of the day perform magnificently, displaying a level of talent that is not seen nearly enough in today's films. Between the acting and the writing, the characters spring to life, even though "real" characters are pretty few and far between. In fact, the only real characters might be Mary and Bert! Even Mr. Banks, who is, as Kate points out, really the main character, is just a sketch, an archetype of characters found in everyday life.

What really brings the characters to life, especially the Father, is the Music. The music of Mary Poppins is truly amazing. Each theme and song serves as an illustration of each character. The best example is the Father's song. When he makes his first appearance, George sings "The Life I Lead," discussing the structure of his home, family and work, with a solid militant marching beat to accompany him. When describing his ideal nanny, he descends into the same tune, emphasizing order and structure over love and tenderness. When George is about to fire Mary, unable to understand her ideas, she speaks to him fluently in his own language, singing in his own tune about law and order. George again uses this tune when he tries to covert his children to his point of view at his bank.

He later returns home, baffled, angry and confused at his inability to reach his children through his firm and logical approach. Then Bert, in the wonderful scene also mentioned by Kate below, begins to sympathize with George, singing to the same tune of "The Life I live." But, slowly and tenderly, Bert bridges the divide between the Father's approach, and Mary's, merging the militant march of the Father's song into the lovely, tender song of "A spoon full of sugar" showing George that children need love and sweetness just as much as law and order. From this point of the movie onward, George only sings "A Spoon Full of Sugar" and "Let's Go Fly a Kite," symbolizing his conversion to Poppins' teachings.

This clever use of song is threaded throughout the movie, showing characters' thoughts, loyalties and philosophies. In fact, Mary's ability to switch easily between any theme in the films, whether it be the Father's, Bert's, or any other, shows her ability to empathize with anyone. Combined with the actors' portrayals, the score of the movie really fleshes out and sells the characters of the film.

I LOVE Mary Poppins; it is a truly amazing film, and I hope that I can remember to always blend love and compassion with order and responsibility like the movie teaches.

Kate says I'm not sure how much Walt Disney respected P.L. Travers vision, but the studio certainly knew how to use the material! Some of the book's classic images, such as jumping into the sidewalk picture, are beautifully rendered, and many of the characters, such as Miss Lark's Andrew, make nice cameo appearances. The movie is a family narrative rather than a series of stories, but, of course, creating a cohesive narrative is part of creating a film.

Regarding Mary Poppins herself, I have a confession to make--I disliked the books intensely as a kid (Mary Poppins was followed by three sequels), and it was mostly due to the character of Mary Poppins. I thought she was mean and, more than that, dismissive of the children. At the end of every chapter, when they try to talk about their adventures, she sniffs and acts offended, even contemptuous.

She does this a little in the movie but, well, in the movie, it's Julie Andrews! and her sweetness and love for the children comes through. But growing up, I just hated another adult--even a fictional one--acting like whatever children have to say is unimportant or wrong. (As Mike points out above, the movie's message is quite different.)

Having reread part of the first book for this review, her behavior doesn't bother me as much--the children love her because she is a reliable presence in their lives--though it's hard to shake that youthful reaction. Mary Poppins of the book is a more angular, vain, and disdainful than film Mary Poppins, but the physical descriptors plus the sternness mixed with the magic of the unexpected correspond between film and book.

Interestingly enough, out of the entire movie, my favorite scene doesn't involve Mary Poppins at all. It is the scene when Mr. Banks returns from the bank where he lost Jane and Michael. He and Bert (the twinkling Dick Van Dyke) discuss parental duties. I love how compassionate Bert is as he half-sings/half-says gently, "You have to grind, grind, grind at that grindstone." In many ways, the movie is more about the father than any of the other characters (which certainly makes it different from the books)!

This film is a deserved classic. I can think of very few musicals where I remember all the songs and all the songs are equally singable. And, as Mike illustrates above, they are used with true artistic insight!

Fantastic Four will be reviewed Friday, August 5, 2011.

The Kid

Time Travel Device: Man's younger self "travels 30 years across time" to visit him.

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To help make Russell's next 30+ years a success

Coolness Factor: The idea of change being a real, not instant, possibility. The cast!

Paradox: Avoids the Grandfather paradox since Russell doesn't "fix" his past but starts anew from forty.

Mike says I have a duel problem: Not only do I wait to the last minute to do these reviews, but I have a brilliant, insightful, and talented blogging partner who very often says exactly what I wanted to. While it's my turn to go first, please enjoy Kate's delightful review below, and I'll add a few awkward lines (and my two cents!) after.

Kate says this is a delightful movie. I hadn't seen it in several years, and from the opening scenes, I laughed my head off. Then I got a little weepy. Then I "hoorayed" my way through the ending. It is a great ride!

First, the movie has an excellent cast. I quite like Bruce Willis. Unlike other action heroes, he has aged with not grace, perhaps, but hutzpah. And he has explored less action-type roles within his range. (Christian Bale can just passably switch between action and arty roles; few actors can or should. Also, Bruce Willis is one of the few action heroes who is still cool as an aging tough guy. Harrison Ford just makes me wince.)

Bruce Willis has strong comedic talents with great timing and deadpan looks. Lily Tomlin is hilarious. Emily Mortimer is sweet. And Spencer Breslin . . .

Spencer Breslin is impressive. I love how normal his character, Rusty, is. Cute, yes. Adorable, yes. But ultimately completely, believably normal. He is also a plausible younger version of Willis. I don't know if he copied Willis or Willis copied him, but their inflections and tones match up perfectly.

Before I move on from the cast, I have to mention Jean Smart (who plays Deirdre, the anchorwoman Willis meets on the plane). I'm a fan of Jean Smart (she plays Lana on Frasier), a very talented comedienne. I admire how she is used in The Kid. Her appearance in the beginning of the movie is paid off neatly towards the end. One of the nice things about PG movies is that issues must be resolved platonically or complexly. An "R" movie would have fallen back on a fling between Russell and Deirdre which wouldn't have worked. But a friend giving advice (returning a favor) at the right time/right place works perfectly.

Regarding the theme, I enjoy Back to the Future, but I admit I consider The Kid a more realistic approach to life. Russell and Rusty hope that resolving the confrontation with the childhood bully will make their future life perfect. But the pains of childhood aren't so easily resolved. What Russell can give Rusty is an adult perspective. "Did I do it?" Rusty asks regarding his mother's coming death, and Russell can say, "No" and can even understand where his father's anger came from.

Consequently, Russell's life isn't "fixed." Although that type of solution works with Back to the Future, it completely fails with 13 Going on 30 where the horrible, conniving, deceitful woman becomes a happy, decent one simply by making one right decision when she was 13. I don't buy that.

Instead, in The Kid, Russell is given the opportunity to move forward. The story becomes less about who he used to be and more about what he can do in the years to come. It is about loving, not despising, that little dweeby kid in all of us--"a dogless, chickless guy with a twitch"--precisely so we can let that kid go.

Truly one of the best movies of all time.

Mike Says (again) that this is a wonderful movie, and a fantastic example of using Time Travel in a way the avoids nearly all of the snags and plot holes time travel usually brings. The problem is, all of the things I'd love to point out about this movie, Kate already did! And so well, I don't have much to add!

My favorite thing about this movie (in addition to the humor, the cast, and the music) is that the Time Travel itself is so simple, yet so effective. Russell and Rusty quickly rush past the "how" to tackle the "why?" And it's in the search for the why that everything plays out. Even in the end, when Rusty and Russell meet Russ (old guy), he acknowledges that Russell might have some questions. Instead of launching into techno babble, he just nods, and says, "Well, I wouldn't worry about it. You have thirty years to figure it all out." Awesome. Tightly written, simple, and avoids everything that would, frankly, ruin the tone and distract from the point of the movie.

Watching the movie this time around, something that kept going through my mind is how much Russell dislikes Rusty and the things about himself that Rusty reminds him of. Something I've been known to say quite often is that I'd love the chance to go back in time and beat the crap out of my younger self. Why? I was a socially inept, blundering and clueless blockhead. And I made a lot of mistakes I wish I could forget. Russell, it seems, wants the same thing. He doesn't want to face his past, or resolve it. He resents it! He wants it to go away, so he can just live his life.

The problem is, living your life and MOVING ON with your life aren't the same thing. Rusty gives Russell the chance, or more accurately, FORCES him to look back, understand, and accept those thing he didn't like. I Love, Love, LOVE, that despite all of their efforts, Rusty and Russell don't change a single thing about the past. Instead, Russell gains that perspective that Kate mentions, to see his life as it was, and apply it to the now. And with that, he's able to leave his old self views in the past, and move on to be the adult he wanted to be when he was a kid. And the idea that this opportunity is ultimately set in motion and offered by Russell's older self really shows how the wisdom gained from life and age really help us to see everything in its proper perspective.

If only all of us could have that same chance!

Full House

Mike says that the mullet's popularity proves beyond a doubt that the end of times are upon us. While watching Full House, John Stamos' mullet constantly reminded me why the earth would eventually be purged by fire. I mean, how else can we rid ourselves of something so evil?

BRRRRRRRRR.

ANYWAY, sorry. So, Full House. Yeah. For eighties sitcoms about non-traditional families, Full House was really the benchmark and mold for the lot. As Kate says later, it has all the required elements, and all the stereotypes such a show would have. As such . . . it's rather painful for me to watch.

While much easier to look at production-wise, Full House really comes from the same place as Family Ties, but much more bubble gum. Sickly sweet dialogue and moral, happy endings, quick judgments and quick apologies, and a good dose of the warm fuzzies. Yikes. I quickly popped in the most violent movie I could find to cleanse the pallet.

Seriously though, Full House is pretty well-crafted. The characters and cast balance well, and the idea is pretty solid. There is a reason this show became the powerhouse that it was. As family programing, the show really had something for everyone (well, except for the fathers in the audience... they probably just liked it when it was over). Cute kids, even cuter baby, smoking sexy rock star, super-sensitive Bob Saget (so . . . did they ever reveal if his character was gay?), and silly comedy guy. A diverse group that really had mass appeal.

As a kid, I think I liked it . . . I know my Mom did. Watching it now, however, I can say I honestly wouldn't mind my son watching it. It has good values, and it's a show I feel safe about him watching. But if I was in the living room with him? Well . . . we would be watching something else.


Kate says the main thing I remembered thinking about Full House when it originally aired was "Will John Stamos ever cut his hair?"

Yeah, I've never been a big fan of a the mullet.

I still wish he would cut his hair (he eventually does).

Aside from hair, Full House is the ultimate cutesy sit-com. And it has all the ingredients:

GUYS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE DIAPERS (as Leonard says to Penny, "What's up with that?")

BABIES WHO LOOK LIKE PRECIOUS MOMENT DOLLS!

PRECOCIOUS CHILDREN!

THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE CUTE AND FUNNY MAKING CUTE AND FUNNY NOISES!

THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEXY BEING SARCASTIC AND LOOKING HOT!

A LESSON!!!

The LESSON is the ultimate purpose of this type of show: D.J. moves back into her room! D.J. and Steph learn to like school! Jesse and Danny learn to be friends with women!

And here's the thing--I might not have a yen for this type of show anymore (I must have once since I've seen a number of Full House episodes), but Full House does it better than just about any other sitcom of its type and era. The scripts just barrel towards that lesson at a million-miles-per-hour (the pilot is something of an exception, but then pilots always have to expend time on establishing who is who).

As you know, if you've read the Star Trek review, while I have outgrown my yen for playful (as opposed to witty) dialog, I still have a yen for tightly plotted television. Act I (problem), Act II (rising action), Act III (solution). It makes me happy at a very aesthetic level.

And not all the Full House lines are completely lacking in wit. I got a kick out of the girls saying to Uncle Jesse, "We only took advantage of you because you had absolutely no idea what you were doing." And the singing stuff is actually very funny and clever.

And, okay (I might as well be honest), I can be very girly and coy about sticky-sweet-sentiment. In any case, Full House sentiment bothers me less than Night Court sentiment. I think this is because Full House sentiment is anticipated. It is what it proclaims itself to be ("Hi, we are a squishy family show about squishy family values involving three unrelated men who spend way more time together than most men do and all in a really stellar townhouse!"). But Night Court starts to go in the sarcasm direction and then suddenly Harry is hugging people right and left.

Again, as Leonard would say to Penny, "What's up with that?"

(By the way, Night Court is worth watching for John Larroquette and his very long legs but also for Brent Spiner's reoccurring role as Bob Wheeler.)

Sarah Jane Adventures: Pilot Special

Mike says that, believe it or not, it does get better! The episode is fun, and pretty well done as an intro to Sarah Smith and her Life, but It must have been a later episode that really got me excited about the show. Now, in truth, when I started this series I had just finished watching the last of Doctor Who, and was in withdrawal pains something fierce. And this seemed to ease the pain.

All in all, simple and cute. It's interesting to me that Maria was definitely the focus of the special, especially over the name sake of the show. But the "outsider" is always a great way to bring the audience into a new situation, learning along with the character. I think Maria is also a great audience surrogate, since Sarah Jane is an adult, and Luke is a newborn.

I also like that the show has a little bit of bite: The creatures are just scary enough to offer real danger (at least to a kid; we "Who" fans have seen far too much to be phased by a crawling eyeball, no matter how big it is), and the evil plot just crazy enough to be believed.

The show does get stronger as it rolls along- A friend for Luke helps matters a lot, and Maria and Sarah Jane form a great big sister/kid sister type relationship. Overall, I like the show quite a bit, and think I'll eventually pick it up so my son has his own "Doctor Who" show he can watch on his own. The show is really wholesome--but not TOO wholesome. I'm a firm believer that it's okay to be a little scared sometimes.

Kate says Invasion of the Bane totally reminded me of early Saturday Morning kids' show from my childhood. This is not to put it down at all! It's very cute, but if you watch it thinking Dr. Who or Torchwood, don't be surprised when you get "Saturday Morning kids' show."

It is very clever. In some ways, it is an homage to the older Dr. Who, which I think is quite fitting. The camera work reminds me of 60's shows like classic Trek and The Avengers.

The special introduces some of the main characters. I like Alan and hope he continues. I'm a big fan of Samantha Bond and was very pleased to see her (as Mrs. Wormwood). I was disappointed, on checking IMDB, to find that Maria only shows up for 15 episodes. She is far and away the strongest character out of the bunch. In fact, I hate to say it, but I think Luke Smith is a fairly weak character. Maria is far more interesting. I noted that an older actor, Daniel Anthony, shows up pretty soon. Hopefully, he provides a good mirror to Elisabeth Sladen. It seems kind of a waste to only give her kids to react against—besides, I'm not sure pre-teens really go for shows that are completely devoid of adults. If I remember correctly, as a pre-teen, I was always partial to shows that involved OLD actors—you know, ones in their 20's!

I LOVE the sonic lipstick.

All in all, it's a watchable, cute show—though I'm not sure if is being marketed to pre-teens or to adults suffering nostalgia.