bullseye_au Reviews

Madagascar (2005)

A nice surprise

[9/10 · 14 June 2005]

The mood you're in when you see a movie has a big impact on how much you enjoy it. I saw this in a cinema packed with young families and it went down well. I laughed a lot, so did my kids, and so did the cinema. I explained to my daughter that pansy meant softy, so I even felt useful.

Having young children means I have sat through quite a lot of this genre, and the use of computers in animation makes things a little over-refined. I seem to be the only person who finds Pixar movies too polished, faultless, and stale. This film can be abrupt and patchy, but in my opinion that makes it more spontaneous.

The movie looks great, the penguins are funny, the king is funny, and the pace and energy are good. About 90 minutes is also the correct length. The plot may be thin but the survival concepts that pepper the movie are good intellectual fodder for children.

Team America: World Police (2004)

Hot and cold

[5/10 · 6 June 2005]

I enjoy South Park, but I'm not a huge fan. The "Thunderbirds" look is also fun, and given that I generally enjoy animation and puppetry I expected to like this movie.

The problem is that the deliberately immature (schoolboy) nature of this kind of humor is always going to struggle to satisfy for an extended period :) A lot of the movie is very funny, but there are also some tediously unoriginal lengths, such as the "this is a montage" song, which pull the movie down.

Most of the subject matter is political, and from that point of view I think right wing types would enjoy this more than lefties. If this is meant to be an "even handed spray" there are many obvious issues and right wing targets that are conspicuous by their absence.

Those of you who rejoice in the language will enjoy the vulgar metaphor used to summarise the "Team America war on terror".

Blade: Trinity (2004)

I'd rather watch Snipes shave

[1/10 · 4 June 2005]

This movie assumes that its audience will think its "cool"... it isn't. Obviously aimed at impressionable youth, the makers have a low estimation of the people they expect to watch it, including a particularly patronising pause for an iPod product placement. But they obviously know more than me, the IMDb rating is a ridiculously high 5.7 as I write.

About the only reason you may want to watch is if you hold a candle for one of the actors. The fighting is "poser grade B" with lots of punching while looking the opposite way. A minor hero enjoys his torture with a few "poser quips", mind you, the villains are so forgettable you can understand why he wouldn't take it seriously.

The movie has no mood, atmosphere or detail, and feels bland, like the light industrial estate it appears to have been shot at.

Johnny English (2003)

What a waste

[18 August 2003]

What could have been? Being a fan of the great ham, Rowan Atkinson, this was very depressing to watch. Being an Australian, the only funny bit was the irony of England becoming a penal colony. But the Jokes are all very weak.

What I noticed most about this movie is what it missed. A `master of disguise' scene was begging for Atkinson's talents. A James Bond sex scene, with Atkinson fighting a condom, was also missing.

Not to mention a complete lack of layers. Johnny, hopeless at everything, manages some spectacular driving. Why not have him fighting with his shoelace, and accidentally become a driving ace?

Instead we have to put up with the endlessly one-dimensional Johnny actively `covering' himself, clueless but cunning ala Mr Bean (and NOT working). Further are the repetitive situations where Johnny has driven up the wrong path, again borrowing without success from the hapless Mr Bean.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mr Bean, but he belongs in a 10-minute format. This movie needed to think more about Peter Sellers and James Bond, and add some layers. Surely the English don't need to leave the good homage's to Mike Myers.

Don't get me started on John Malkovich, who I love, but he is no Dr. Evil.

Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001)

You don't have to be perfect

[10 July 2003]

Having heard average reports of this movie I put off seeing it until it hit the cheaper shelves of my local video shop, and I was pleasantly surprised.

NO PLOT

The `no plot' complaints are fair enough as there is little character development. Our Hero Jimmy starts and ends the film being a self-confident brat. His personal battle with his own height is trite because of this, he should have started the film with more self-doubt.

Also, there is no kid/adult device to endear us to him. Most family movies play on a theme of `good heart wrongly accused' or similar such romantic notion. No such convolution here, our hero Jimmy learns `not to talk to strangers' for a very simple morale.

HOWEVER

It is obvious the creators did not bother being the `cutting edge' of CG. This is a good thing because instead of boring studies into the treatment of hair and fabric they concentrated on getting a rich image. The bold use of colour, texture and lighting affects comes together in a very appealing visual style.

Also, I personally found the musical sequences to be a lot more fun than the generally adult centric Toy Story and Shrek sequences (O.K `Jessie's Story' from TS2 still wins).

The ultimate compliment for this film is that my children (5 and 7) thoroughly enjoyed its fast pace and cartoon style. If people their age voted at this site, I'm sure it would get a better rating. My kids also enjoyed the `chicken bum' (mentioned by another review).

SUMMARY

Not in the Class of Toy Story or Shrek (it is cheaper in many ways), but it looks great, the kids will love it, and parents should vicariously enjoy. 7.5/10.

Pi (1998)

Simple Idea, made complicated, then made simple again.

[10 July 2003]

The theme of this film is very simple. Discovering the `meaning of life' is a very self-destructive process.

ART-HOUSE OR NOT?

The main problem I have with this film is that it ultimately operates on an `art-house' level, but whets our taste with `mainstream themes' that are never realised.

At an `art-house' level the film works well, with our hero becoming more self-destructive as he nears his goal. Each time he gets closer to coming up with the mathematical `meaning of life' it becomes clearer that he must destroy himself (or his brain).

The problem with the film is that on the way to his `self-realisation', our hero becomes the object of `wall street' and `religion' in a very ominous and `mainstream' way. Both of these themes are instituted and dissolve without satisfaction, leaving the viewer wondering why they had been included at all.

SUMMARY

Simple philosophy expressed as something deep. Quite well done. 6/10.