World Invasion: Battle LA

So, World Invasion: Battle L.A:

U.S military film with the alien invasion really just being an excuse for fighting in America. Immensely American, patriotic and arrogant (America only country managing to fighting back of 20 cities/countries attacked).

Way too big cast of indistinguishable marines and few known/good actors.

Main role - the staff sergeant carries the film; kamikazes himself through the plot, and is the only one showing some initiative to learn about the aliens.

Token though girl (Michelle Rodriguez) having to prove herself as a worthy soldier.

Not the worst military film I've seen, bot not very unique or creative either.

Late night randomness

Some evenings I get this huge urge for unspecified sweets. I do not know what I want, but I know we don't have it in house. So I resist as long as possible, but end up giving up and going to the nearby store, usually an hour/ half an hour before it closes.

There are several problems with this:

I do not like the dark, and get jumpy over strange shadows in my periferal vision. And footsteps freak me out. So after half running to the store, I walk around with a basket, having no clue what I want and just putting in randomness.

Feeling in no way up to shopping I don't manage to follow a shopping list or go to any great effort, but I can't just buy junk either, because then the shop assistant might think I'm only there to buy fatty things (which I am), so I end up picking up random things I can remember from the shopping list.

Not that I really have anything to worry about, as the Rema up the street is the chosen student shop, and really, everyone that was there shopping seemed to be doing the exact same thing I was doing, and picking up some "normal" items just for show, based on their shopping baskets.

So, though I pick up some random things we need, I can't muster to do anything else with them, like putting the bread in the cutting machine. For some reason I really did not want to do that with every fiber of my body.

Also, because I just have an unspecified urge for sweets, I end up buying many different things just to have options.

One last problem, I do not like being in stores when they're about to close. I feel like I'm in the way and causing them to not be able to go home, so when I hear/see things hinting to the store closing (like the shop assistants clearing away baskets) I get really stressed and feel like I have to finish as soon as possible and get out. Which makes going out late at night to shop a rather stressful experience, with really no good reason for doing it..

So tonight I came home with:

sour citrus lips (pick candy)

chocolate pudding

onions

a toothbrush

instant noodles with shrimp flavor (only store that has them in the vincinity, so I always stock up)

cherry tomatoes (offer)

foccaccia w/tomato

two ice creams

mozzarella

bread

chocolate and vanilla cream twist

garlic

Smoothie

Cupcakes

(20. Febuary 2011, Imported from Facebook)

I made (American) cupcakes recently, that turned out great, which is strange, considering my inability to bake.You see cupcake mix should just be gently stirred to mix the ingredients before baked. The thing is, I did not know this, and spent both batches of cupcakes mixing the batter like a mad woman, before giving up and just using it. (it said it should be lumpy, but I assumed they where talking about the chocolate pieces).

So, this tells me two things:

1. I suck at stirring,

2. This works to my benefit with cupcakes..

I've been using ready made packs from the store, but I found an easy cupcake recipie online, and have decided to try making them from scratch next time (somewhat spurred on by the cupcake mix packages costing around 50kr).

So far I've made chocolate cupcakes with chocolate bits and blueverry cupcakes. Would like to try making more healthy cupcakes with hole grain, but I'm afraid of jinxing it.. Oh, and really want to make redcurrant cupcakes!

Disney's 50th animation is worth watching

Tangled was great! It drew inspiration from the whole history of Disney fairy tales, keeping a very traditional art direction and story telling.They managed a classic fairy tale that, while not having a very original plot, managed to tell an original story.

Loved the return to a more musical driven film, loved that they weren't afraid to tell a very traditional story, with a traditional ending, and I love that they distinguished themselves from Shrek and Dreamworks, while still keeping faithful to the Disney heritage.

I'm also fond of Disney's continuing path of creating secondary characters with depth, heaps of personality, and flat out lovable. Though, Rapunzel was very fleshed out, and was really created with respect, kudos to Disney for honouring their female lead.

Emperor's New Groove

Decided to rewatch this one recently, and it's still one of my favourite Disney films, and surprisingly so, because I don't usually like that form of humour.
It's also the only film I know of that I actually think has a better name in Norwegian than English; Et kongerike for en Llama, A Kingdom for a Llama, which is much more descriptive and suitable for the film.

A Kingdom for a Llama is one of those films I go back to and rewatch every time I'm sick of pretentious animation trying to be more than its plot/humour opens for. Kingdom is nothing like this. It's a purely silly and funny film, and it's fully aware of both its humour type and its target audience, which makes it able to pull off humour, plot, character development and touching moments without jarring from the overall feel.

More than any other Disney film, Kingdom is carried by its actors, and would probably not have a place among my favourites without David Spade. He's funny, arrogant, and pulls off Kuzco to perfection. His comic timing is also totally on point, and works really well together with John Goodman (Pacha). Warburton is also great as Kronk, though rather type-cast.

Some of the physical gags don't work that well on repeated viewings, especially after having seen the Disney channel series, where the "wrong lever, Kronk!" and "I didn't order any [soft or bouncy objects]" gags are rehashed every episode. But, the film is still funny, Kuzco is still a really interesting character, and the plot is well-written (I love the whole "we're totally aware of this big plot hole and we're going to comment on it instead of ignoring it" when Kronk and Yzma reach the lab before Pacha and Kuzco).

It's interesting to watch how they manage to develop lovable, deep characters in a gag comedy like this, and it's also a very good example of good script writing, both plot and lines, within a physical-based humour film.

And my favourite line is still, after at least 4 viewings; "Yay, I'm a Llama again! Wait.."

Plan 9 from Outer Space

I've finally sat down and watched this, one of the most known bad films ever made, by one of the worst script writers ever.

And, wow, what can I say? Why do all the actors deliver their lines without any hint of feelings? How come nobody seem noticeably shaken up by small, flying hats tumbling across the sky?
Why do the really advanced aliens have no way of communicating with the humans, and when the humans finally build a way to understand the aliens, the aliens don't want to talk any longer, and then they happen to have a translator in their spaceship?
Why do Eros and Tanna have to kill the humans so that they won't tell the world, when the aliens had been trying to get the humans to acknowledge their existence?
Disregarding the stupid physics, why would humans make a bomb that would ruin the earth?
Why don't the aliens just animate all the dead on the graveyard(s?) instead of just one and one?
What happened to the scars from the "puma-like" attacks Vampira were supposed to inflict on her victims (and why are her arms/hands bigger than her waist?)? What happened to the grave diggers? Why are the animated dead vampires? Why do the people in the film have such horrid night vision that they can only see a few inches in front of them?
Why doesn't time pass for people not in shot (police men talking about looking for the inspector, we see the inspector attacked, then the police decide to go look for him)?
Not mentioning the changes in night and day shots, why is the Trent couples' car in front of a black wall? Why did the dead turn into skeletons when the space ship went away? "Dracula" only turned into a skeleton after being shot with a ray.
Why do I even bother to ask questions about this film?

Watching it you just end up being amazed that nobody spoke up about the horribleness of the film. I have a hard time believing so many actors can play that badly. The film is so horrible that it ends up seeming like a parody of bad sci-fi films, and several of the lines would have worked if they were uttered sarcastically (or with a pretense of feelings).
My favourite character has to be "Patrolman Harry" who's been cast as the "dumb cop" and plays so unconvincingly that he seems to be making fun of his lieutenant.
If nothing else the film serves as a "how to not write or direct a film" and seem to have been used as a blueprint for several newer films, most prominently the norwegian/french "Lies. Inc".

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Hmm, I'm not sure how to feel about this film. I've been complaining lately that so many animation films try to target too many audience groups and end up not targeting any, but this film is clearly aware of who it's made for; children.
The humour is mostly physical-, sight- and word gags, that work surprisingly well within this film, and is suited for the bright and colourful design.
The film's lowest moments are actually when the script writers are trying to be smart or do grown-up comedy. Most of the films emotional moments are driven by childish comedy, and it works.

Plot-wise it's very simple, adding a black-and-white villain for really no purpose at all, and the film is really driven more by the animation and gags rather than any real plot. In that way it's very similar to "Meet the Robinson's", Disney's second non-Pixar 3d film.
The film wavers between just being a funny, silly film, and actually trying to take it's plot seriously, and that is it's downfall, especially since most of the actors seem clearly aware that this is a silly, children's film, and do their lines in that style. Neil Patrick Harris is the real shining gem here, even if he only says a few words throughout the film.

As a children's film the moral is also very obvious and in your face, with the usual "being special is good" and "realizing yourself" developments for the main characters. It also includes the overly-used Disney favourite of single dad not being able to communicate with his son and alienating him. I'll give them props for the creative solution though.

As it is it's a good film, but it had potential to be just a really silly, amusing children's film, and it's a bit sad that it fell short by, as all recent (non-Pixar) animations have done, trying to take itself more seriously than its script allows. You're not Pixar, Sony, try to make your own twist on animation instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to copy what has come before. But, based on Sony's previous track record with animation, this is a huge step up (Don't even get me started on "Open season"..), and I'm interested in seeing where they'll go from here.

And now I'll try to wash my brain of the image of feet trapped inside polymer for over 15 years.. Bleergh!

Oscar nominated animation

Have finally finished watching the Oscar nominated animation shorts.
Interesting combination of animation styles and subjects, not sure what I think about Logorama, the winner. It has too crude humour for me, and I spent the film wishing the Big Boy (?) kid would just die. At least I understood the usage of the logos, as opposed to the previous imdb featured comment, which accused the film of being a marketing vehicle trying to shove as much commercials as it could in 16 minutes..

Of the 5 nominated I personally prefer the Italian "The lady and the reaper", even though it has too much "Benny Hill running around" and the ending was really sad. I seem to prefer animation that tries to convey an emotion, and takes its subject matter seriously, even if it's in a comedy form.

Granny O'Grimm's sleeping beauty is well animated and well voiced, but I wish it had been longer and a bit more complex.

French Roast is a situational comedy, which I actually think should have been shorter, and Wallace and Gromit's "short" (at 30 minutes it's way longer than all the other nominees) follows the standard "Wallace and Gromit" set up. I did like the introduction of some real feelings with Gromit and Fluffles and I think it has improved greatly from the first "Wallace and Gromit" shorts, but for some reason I'm still not very fond of them.

Now I just have to see "The Secret of Kells", and I've seen all the nominated animated films this year, though, the Golden Globes also nominated "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs" which I haven't seen yet, and the Baftas nominated completely different animation shorts.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

I'm not sure what to think about this one. I think my one, general reaction is; I'm underwhelmed.
"Alice in Wonderland" is such a huge and quirky world, there's so much to work with, so much to build from, and this film just isn't creative.

It seems to be targeting people that have some idea of what Alice in Wonderland is, having maybe seen the disney (animation) version many years ago, but not read the books or know the story.
It also tries, like so many films lately, to cater to both children and adults, but fails to find a middle ground. I would not take young children to see this film.
If you take away the wonder aspect and just look at the film, it's a very standard fantasy/action film with all the usual elements; growing up, finding themselves, moral (being special is what makes you great), great big monster to fight, tasks to overcome and a romantic interest.
Besides the "young girl making her mark in a time where women shut up and act pretty" theme, the film doesn't bring much new to the fantasy genre.
Looking at it from a wonder aspect, there's so much more that could have been done. I want surrealism, I want quirky, I want mad! I don't want a hatter that's practically normal and a queen that's just evil.

It's also sad because the (supporting) cast is a.m.a.z.i.n.g! Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Christopher Lee.. *swoons* I'm also fond of Mia. She's a good actor, and it's nice to see an actress that's normal pretty looking, instead of a model beauty. I also think Anne Hathaway does a good job with the role she's been given. she's obviously been told to play a queen that's over-acting. The "real" white queen shine through a few times, though not really enough to show us who she really is.

Johnny Depp on the other hand.. I love Depp, he's a master of quirky characters, but I have to agree with others; we've seen this one before. I would have liked less Jack Sparrow and more Willy Wonka.

I didn't hate the film, by no means, I'm just, disappointed. Again, I seem to be disappointed with the lack of imagination and surrealism. And I hated, hated, HATED the romantic sub-plot!

I'm also seeing a worrying trend with Tim Burton's later films. It's becoming more and more Burton, and less about the original material. I love you Burton, I love your vision, your art direction, but you're starting to put a bit too much of yourself into your films. I want to see a real Tim Burton original again, written, directed, even produced by you, where you can really go all out and show us who you are. Just don't do it with a source material a lot of us love.

Wanted - Did you say action?

First impressions right after leaving the cinema:
I've just watched 1 hour and 50 mins pure action, and I didn't react badly to it,
I would rather be trained by these professional assassins than by V (from V for Vendetta) which I find a bit funny,
and I feel so bad for those rats!

The good: the direction and art direction in this movie is amazing. Instead of making a gritty, dark action film, he made a stylized, shiny and over the top action film, that despite all the horrible things that happen still seem rather light, which I think it had to be, to be able to sit through it. The action sequences feature bullet time, rewinding, experimental camera angles and effective zooming. Everything from the shooting to the cgi works perfectly together and if you are interested in art direction and/or action direction, it's a must see. And.. that's really the only reason to see it.

The plot is very basic, with no fleshed out characters, and plot twists you can see a mile away. I understand that the film is based on a comic book with no real story, but I would think it would be possible to write an action film script with actual plot twists. The predictable plot twists also ruin the few moments in the film that are supposed to be touching. The big supposedly touching moment in the film, right after the most spectacular shooting yet, ends up just being a "meh" moment. Besides for Wesley, an account manager that doesn't care about anything, not even the fact that his girlfriend is having an affair with his best friend, but for some reason has a very strong will to live, none of the characters have much personality. They're there to do their thing, being an expert knife fighter, or a bomb expert or the devoted romantic interest, and their one dimensionality ends up making you not care at all when the big fights ensues.

It's obvious that Bekmambetov went into this project wanting to create a pure, visually stunning action film, and that he has managed admirably, but you end up wondering if the film had been better if they'd just cut out all the plot elements put in to try to make you care, and make the plot seem stronger. No plot is actually better than a weak plot, but is it really impossible to write a good plot for an action film?

Star Wars: the Clone Wars

The Clone wars is the newest production from Lucasfilm, a company known for beating dead horses. And they don't disappoint with this animated feature. Set between the second and the third film, this one tells the story of Anakins and Obi-Wans fight to save a little Hutt child together with Anakins new apprentice, the fiesty Ahsoka Tano.
Featuring already known characters in a different filmstyle is dangerous enough on its own, and the voice actors trying to sound like Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen manage to make the experience completely unreal. While the animation on its own is very good (though the characters look more like puppets than animated characters) the strange similarities and differences in the animated characters as opposed to their actors takes some time to get used to.

The biggest problem with this film isn't its voice actors or animation, it is its story. This film is a film made for children, through and through. There is no context, no conflict and no psychology. Set between the second and the third film, this film could have given us a strong storyline further describing Anakins path to the dark side, especially considering his trip back to Tatooine, or at least a bit more about the war. As it is it introduces a completely new character that has no impact on the story or the world (or Anakin for that matter) and tells us how the Jedi secured the flight routes through Hutt territory, which apparently gives them a big advantage and might even win the war for the Republic (have you ever heard about this before?).
Riddled with plot holes, the relationship between Anakin and Ahsoka develops hugely in what is shown as only a few days, with Ahsoka learning Anakin's character and actions by heart after their first fight, to such a degree that she can predict his moves and thoughts.
The war parts are also disappointing with extremely old tactics and with the whole droid army as comic relief. With all their faults, slow reactions and general stupidity (a droid not understanding coordinates?) you end up wondering why the clone army is loosing. Even when taking their low numbers into consideration, the enemy's uncanny ability to get themselves and others killed should give a low-numbered smart army the upper hand.

The story and the idea is on its own not a bad one, but it is badly executed. If the point of the film is to recruit new, young Star Wars fans, why put it in-between two films with a story line that requires some knowledge of the Star Wars universe to follow, but if the film is for the old fans, why make such a disconnected story that doesn't develop the world or the characters we know? I also question if the Clone wars are the right place for a children's story. Is watching one and a half hour with non-stop violence and war okay for children as long as we make the ones killed comical and stupid, and remove the blood?

Wall-e the new pixar production

Well, it seems only natural that Pixar's new production is the first film I talk about here. Now, since I live in Norway, I'm a bit behind when it comes to new releases, so I haven't actually seen this yet, but boy, am I looking forward to it!

Wall'e has to be one of the cutest Pixar creatures today, and I'm especially impressed by the catastrophe and neglect theme that Pixar has chosen. They are showing that they're not afraid to comment on the big political issues we're facing, while still managing to make a touching and cute story.
Trailer can be found here.

I also find it facinating all the work they've put into looking at familiar objects in a new way. Both in the trailer, and in the various clips you see Wall'e curiously looking at and trying out objects that are very familiar to us, but completely new to him. It is hard to sit back and try to figure out "what would I think this fire extinguiser does if I'd never seen it before", and from the clips I've seen so far, they've done a very good job here.

Well, I'm very much looking forward to going to this one the 29, august, and see if it is as good as the other Pixar films, and how they toggle between the catastrophe setting and the cute story.

Why I'm starting a blog

I've been thinking about starting a blog for a long time now, but never really managed to toughen up enough to do it. And really, there are so many blogs on every other subject now, so why start another?
Well, these last years I've had a big change in preferred viewing material. While I before liked to watch horror film and drama, I've now turned towards more lighter films, and especially animation films. I'm a big fan of Pixar and studio Ghibli, and also Dreamworks animation and Disney. But since turning my interest towards these types of films, I've missed a community and reviews targeted towards adults.
The film industry, especially here in Norway, has desided that the only adults that are interested in animation, are adults with family, and those "strange" people that watch animation rated 15 and above, who are about as normal as sci-fi people, and we don't want to target those.
Animation films arn't made solely for children. Why would they include so much humour, easter eggs and hidden references that kids completely miss, if they were?

I want to use this space to write about animation films, review them, and look at their themes, without having to write it for children.

-Panthera