Movie Review: The Great Alaskan Race

The story has been told before. Hollywood has made its spin on the heroic story of the Serum Run several times over the past 90 years. Each time it has been deemed as not dramatic enough as is, and they add to the story. Each time Balto, the dog who would lead the final team on the final leg into Nome, is the named canine hero - and Gunar the heroic human.

This time the independent film with a nationwide release takes a greater look at the Serum Run canine hero Togo and his human Leonhard Seppala. This is typically not the route the story tellers go. After all, it was Balto who ran the AntiToxin Serum down "front street", but it was Togo who ran the furthest distance. Only true historians and mushing enthusiasts even seem to know the name Togo, so it was no surprise that the child I went to this movie with was confused when "Sep" kept talking about his awesome lead dog Togo.

The film starts with the note that the film is "Based on the True Story". This is Hollywood Speak for "yeah we didn't find the story compelling enough without embellishing". If you're a history buff, the "warning" can make you cringe because you expect the worst. The movie does change Seppala's story a bit with becoming a widower early in life and being angry at the world for it. It feels like they felt they needed to humanize a man that is more legend in history than human. The pacing of the film as they bring this emotional part of the story to light goes a little slow, but works to establish what motivates the film's hero.

Playing Leonhard Seppala is Brian Presley, who also wrote, directed and produced the film. He looks a little like Stephen Amell (Arrow) with the mountain man appearance. Presley's take on Seppala is as a romantic turned hard due to the loss of his wife. He grumbles, seems angry all the time, and runs head strong into danger. The one constant is his love and loyalty to his dog Togo and his daughter whom he has to save from the Diphtheria outbreak.

The movie does not fully go into the history of the dogs in the relay and the danger they faced. They do make mention of the storm and how dangerous negative temps can be, but we don't see a whole lot of the struggle the teams faced other than Seppala shivering in the cold and his face getting frostbite sores. The film only shows one child passing, but doesn't fully grasp the full impact. While there was the drama of getting the serum in time, it sometimes was lost as the film continued to focus on Seppala's grief (most of his flashbacks involve his late wife).

If you're worried about seeing trauma or death to the dogs - none of that is shown. Togo becomes tired and needs to rest in the sled but it's split second, blink and you miss it. There isn't anything that should trigger emotion based on the dogs - until the end when the real dogs are tributed through historic footage and photography. I dare any dog or mushing enthusiast not to have a sense of pride for what these four legged athletes accomplished. Working dogs are incredible.

The most positive part of the film is the spotlight brought to Togo and Seppala. Sitting with a 10 year old movie goer, she was very confused at the beginning when the focus was on a dog named Togo. After several questions of "but where is Balto" I finally leaned over and said he comes in only at the end. She was emotionally invested in the plight of the children - and was quite upset when one of them died - and cheered as the team ran into Nome (I did manage to point out that Balto was leading). When the film ends with some factoids about the dogs and mentions the Balto having a statue in New York City's Central Park, my young friend got on her soapbox and declared it completely unfair that Togo did not get the honor considering how far Togo traveled.

The film is supposed to be about the amazing feat that the teams of sled dogs accomplished in saving the town of Nome, but a lot is focused on Seppala's grief. A lot of the politics of the event were also rushed through. It would have been interesting to meet some of the other players, they did give a couple of the mushers a few lines - and some great musher attitude - but the film bounced quickly back to Seppala's plight as a father and widower. One of the more interesting parts of the story was the governor's battle over who was going to get the serum to Nome: the dogs or an airplane. The Governor of Alaska makes mention of "the lower 48" not understanding how Alaska works, while the pro-airplane guy (the news paper editor? I couldn't figure it out) kept saying that Alaska was the laughing stock of the world because they wouldn't fly planes.

Creative license is always the right of the storyteller, and while I may have done it differently, Presley's film hits the mark in most ways. The mispronunciations of Alaskan towns and villages will give Alaskans a chuckle, but will be lost on those not familiar. The historical inaccuracies are mainly ones that have been around for decades - and probably existed as history was unfolding. One fact that needs pointing out is the film claiming that the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is run each year to commemorate the Serum Run - while this "fact" is often shared, it is not true. Official News of the Last Great Race detailed the history of the start of the race in a recent article to clear up confusion.

The film is a good matinee, and one worthy of the big screen. It has a nationwide release in the states with a hope to expand into Canada judging by their comments on social media. If nothing else it's a good excuse for a trip to get movie popcorn, but I feel most movie goers will be happy with the film. I hope this review doesn't come off sounding too down on the film, because I did enjoy the movie for what it was.

Have you seen The Great Alaskan Race? Tell me what you thought in the comments below.

Movie Review: Disney-Pixar's Finding Dory

Opening weekend for any highly anticipated summer film is always busy. When it’s a Disney-Pixar film, you can guarantee families will come out in droves to catch a peek at the latest greatest animated film. Funnily enough, however, audiences have had just as many adults as kids attend the showings. Why? Well, aside from it being a Pixar film (they almost always appeal to audiences of all ages) it’s Dory that loveable forgetful blue fish voiced by Ellen Degeneres. When she first swam into our hearts back in 2003 no one imagined her backstory… but oh a story it is.

The film begins with a flashback to Dory’s childhood, she has suffered from Short Term Memory Loss her entire life it seems. In Finding Nemo, Dory says that it runs in her family – however that doesn’t seem to be true in Finding Dory. Her parents try very hard to teach their child little helps to hold on to her memories, but it proves futile when Little Dory is swept away from her family and is lost out in the open ocean.

She swims around looking for her family from childhood into maturity and that’s when she runs into Marlin. The rest of her past is documented in Finding Nemo. We find Dory happily settled into life in the Reef with Marlin and Nemo, when the topic turns to family and legacy and belonging. Dory doesn’t think she has memories of her family – her parents – but she begins having pieces of memories flash through and it’s both confusing and inspiring. Dory decides she must find out who she is and where she comes from.

I’ve seen a lot of reviews online warning that if you are a parent of a foster or adopted child that you should stay away from this film. I am not a parent, and I was not a child in need of a family, but I really didn’t see it as bad for that type of family. It may be with the way that the parents did not give Dory up, that she was just lost and they were waiting, and that can bring up some very difficult emotions, but I don’t think it’s a horrible adoption story. A lot of adoptions are open or otherwise positive to both the biological and adoptive families. I think, like any film, one should go into it knowing their child and what they can handle. If their adoption is a very emotionally confusing part of their life, maybe skip it and wait for the DVD. (But, then, I also did not agree that Tangled was a negative film for families of adoption, but I was told I was wrong then, too.)

I think more disturbing is the somewhat bullying of those that are “different” or “special needs” that was more blatant and kinda sat funny. There are two Seal Lions (both male however with the way they were animated, one should have been female, but I digress) hanging out on a rock. They’re just chillin’ pretty helpful to Nemo and Marlin, and then another Sea Lion swims up to get on the rock. They mention that Gerald has some special needs, and he definitely has a look about him that suggests he’s not “all there”, and the Sea Lions bark at him to get off the rock. They tease him, call him names… now I know this was supposed to be this movie’s version of the Sea Gulls in Finding Nemo (the Sea Lions shout “Get off! Get off! Get off!” and it sounds like the “barking” Sea Lions do), and it’s funny. But why did the one that they didn’t want on their rock have to be the one that was “different”? These two Sea Lions were part of the heroic conclusion. It shouldn’t have been praised.

And I’m not one of those that sees a bully around every corner or thinks that we need to make everything about bullying. I probably classify as a bully half the time. I’m just saying if it made ME come away with a weird feeling, I can’t be the only one to notice it and wonder if Pixar missed the mark a bit with that one.

The third issue that’s made its rounds around the internet that I’d like to address is the Lesbian Couple. Honestly, if there hadn’t been a big stink about it online and throughout certain circles, I’d have never thought that they were a couple. It was not a family – not that I noticed – it was a couple of girls/women at a Sea Life Center. If THAT is what makes them Gay, then I’ve had several “gay days” at the local Sea Life Center in Seward with my girls over the years. So if THAT is what is keeping you from this film – and not the fact that the main character Dory is voiced by a loud and proud Lesbian (who is extremely talented and one part of her life is not enough to suggest otherwise) – then get over it. It was blown WAY out of proportion by all sides.

What was more offensive or wrong about the film was how ridiculous a lot of it was. Some scenes were trying just a little too hard. I think a lot of it was they didn’t want to use the same jokes and plotline as last time, but that fell a little flat. Still, it was a solid Sequel and not the worst film Pixar has put out. I went in expecting to be extremely disappointed, but came away with those lovely Pixar emotions we’ve all come to expect (if you don’t cry for Baby Dory then I don’t know that we can be friends). I laughed so hard I cried in a couple of spots – just like when I first saw Finding Nemo.

Characters that just didn’t work, for me, were the whales. I honestly don’t know why either of them were really there. It was a little too far-fetched how they worked into the climax and conclusion. But that’s just me. I’m sure many more were in love with them. I was excited to see a Beluga, though, I have to admit.

If you haven’t gone to see it, when you go watch through the end of the credits. It’s probably one of the best scenes of the whole movie. I won’t give it away other than to say I was so excited to see the characters they used for that scene. Epic.

This movie deserves a view in the theaters – we saw it in the regular format, not 3D and it was enough. I will admit in 2003 I saw Finding Nemo four times in theaters, but that movie was THAT GOOD. It was a feast for the eyes and the heart. This film takes place mainly in a Sea Life Center and it just isn’t as colorful, bright, nor is it as much fun.

Have you seen the movie? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Movie Review: The Finest Hours

Who doesn't love a good historically based film, especially when it's Disney so you're pretty sure that the outcome will be uplifting and inspiring. The Finest Hours does not disappoint - and I don't feel I have to worry about spoiling anything because, hey, history! But seriously, this is probably one of the most exciting and fascinating Rescue At Sea stories I've ever read up on - so I was excited for the film.

Okay, really I was excited because Eric Bana and Michael Raymond-James both had supporting character roles in the film... but shhhhh! that's not what this is about.

The film is based on the book written by Casey Sherman and Michael Tougias, and follows the heroic story of the Coast Guard rescue of 32 men from the Pendleton which split in two during a blizzard off the coast of Massachussetts in 1952.

In February of 1952, one of the worst storms to ever hit the East Coast struck New England, damaging an oil tanker off the coast of Cape Cod and literally ripping it in half. On a small lifeboat faced with frigid temperatures and 70-foot high waves, four members of the Coast Guard set out to rescue the more than 30 stranded sailors trapped aboard the rapidly-sinking vessel. - Walt Disney Production Company

Chris Pine is our unlikely hero in the story - and if you're expecting his typical pretty boy role you will be shocked. He is by far the standout of this film, he isn't recognizable. He is an unsure, shy, awkward guy from the first scene until he pulls back into the pier after an insane night out in the storm. On the ship side, you also have a solid performance from the de facto leader of the survivors in Casey Affleck. I don't normally care for him in film (can't put my finger on why) but I found myself cheering for him to succeed in getting the group of men working together to keep the stern afloat (literally all that was left of the boat was its butt). Both men had the challenge of some of their coworkers not having much faith in their abilities - not understanding their need to follow rules.

One such character on the Pendleton is D.A. Brown played by Raymond-James. If you know his work, you know this is a character he's played before. Maybe not by that name in that situation, but a hot head with a lot of swagger. He quickly becomes the antagonist and you kinda hope he falls off the boat. Again, a solid performance (but I admit I'm biased), and a very needed voice in the movie.

We get a little bit of a love story with Pine's character, and while some have said that it was what is wrong with the film I disagree. It gave us more backstory for the way Pine's character (Bernie Webber) responds to thing. Webber is as straight laced as they come. He's not confident in himself even though he knows he's good - he just doesn't show that or have the courage to show it. He's a rule follower and if there aren't rules he fumbles around trying to figure out what he can and cannot do.

This comes to a head as the men head out on the rescue mission because they lose contact with the mainland and suddenly he is in control and has decisions to make. Not only is his life in the balance but so are the three other men with him - plus all the potential lives on the Pendleton. Once he realizes that rules and regs are just guidelines, that a lot comes to instinct and sheer determination, he comes into his own.

I really enjoyed the film, and my parents definitely did. My mother was on the edge of her seat with her hands covering her eyes (all the while screaming) during the ocean scenes (so for 90% of the film). My dad said he gave the movie two big thumbs up - and wanted me to tweet the cast that I follow (including MRJ lol) that he cried. It was that good.

Is it Oscar worthy? Probably not - though the graphics of the split ship were impressive (blows Titanic out of the water IMO, but we've come a long way in technology). It's a solid film - it's PG 13 for the intense ocean sequences, there's only one or two curse words that I remember and unless kissing is too graphic for you no sex. So older kids should be okay watching this film.

Definitely make plans to see it - if not in theaters then on DVD. It's worth the couple of hours.

Movie Review: Road to Paloma

I have a confession, I wouldn't have watched this movie all the way through (or at all) had it not been for the fact that I wanted to see Michael Raymond-James in something other than Once Upon A Time or Terriers. If you're an MRJ fan like me wondering if it's worth it or not, this review will probably be more for you than anything else.

The story was written and directed by its star Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones), and follows Robert Wolf as he goes on a journey to spread his mother's ashes at a lake of special meaning to the family. Problem is Wolf is a fugitive - he's wanted for murdering the man who raped and beat his mother (ultimately causing her death).

Wolf's mother was attacked on the reservation by a white guy - meaning he would not see tribal justice, he would go through a federal court. Somehow the guy got off, so Wolf took matters into his own hands (towards the end of the film he confesses to his sister, "I'm not sorry for what I've done, I'm sorry for what I've lost.") Wolf's father (Wes Studi) is tribal law enforcement and did not approve of Wolf's actions, but understands them. He does his best to keep the law while protecting his son. The system failed their family, so he's not as trusting of the system as he once was.

The Feds want Wolf, and are unhappy with how the local law enforcement has handled the situation (he is slow to find and apprehend Wolf, and even suggests in several scenes that Justice has been done in his mind). They send one of their best agents, who is a brutal guy, to go after him. And go after him he does, he'll stop at nothing to get his man - including threatening Wolf's family with jail or worse. The local guy tags along giving help where needed, but drags his feet as much as possible.

After meeting with his father on the reservation to tell him of his plans and ask about his mother's ashes, he finds out that his sister is the one who has them. He heads her way, coming across another down on his luck guy (named Cash) and together they make their way. Honestly, I don't understand why Cash is brought along or what his story is (he keeps calling a woman about selling a house but that's never fully explained). I guess Wolf just didn't want to be alone?

There are a few significant scenes as they make their way across country (state?) as well as just some beautiful cinematography of the area. Pretty inspiring photography, actually.

Wolf's sister is married to Wolf's best friend Irish (Michael Raymond-James). While Irish is mentioned many times throughout the film by many of the characters, he isn't in the film until close to the end. This is disappointing for fans of MRJ who are looking to watch this movie for his performance, but at the same time he doesn't disappoint. (Note, as a fangirl, I realize I am biased.) Irish and Eva (Wolf's sister played by Sarah Shahi) are happily settled with a new son when Wolf shows up at their door. Irish is overjoyed in seeing his friend and the scene is genuinely happy. (Seriously, who doesn't want an MRJ hug? I hate hugs and I want one!) Irish introduces Wolf to his "godson" (and nephew) named... Wolf.

Wolf's reunion with his sister is equally happy, but quickly turns serious as they discuss his lack of future. He asks her for their mother's ashes, and while she agrees that scattering them at the lake is what their mother wanted, she isn't ready to give them up. Wolf assures her he only wants to take a little bit - the rest can be scattered on Eva and Irish's property. The two agree, and share an embrace and tears. Meanwhile, the Feds have figured out where Wolf is headed - and where Irish lives. They're quickly making their way to catching up with the fugitive.

After some bro time late into the night, Irish asks Wolf if he's ready. The guys, along with Cash, hop into Irish's truck and he takes them out to the lake. Irish returns to find Eva and baby Wolf inside and they have company. The scene that comes next is intense and horrible. The Feds have found them, and when they don't get the answers they want out of Eva and Irish they arrest Irish, and take Eva out of the house - taking baby Wolf away from her. While holding the child - threatening to take the child away permanently - Agent Williams continues to badger Irish with questions on where he took Wolf.

Michael Raymond-James gives off a very emotional performance as a man who is torn between protecting his son, and protecting his friend and brother. Knowing the Federal Agent has the upper hand and can and will make good on his threat to throw Eva in jail and revoke their parental rights, Irish relents and agrees to show Agent Williams where he took Wolf and Cash. It's a heart breaking scene, and every other word out of MRJ's mouth is pretty foul (and even Agent Williams quips "your daddy has a potty mouth.") It's dark and ugly and both actors are intense in their roles. It's probably one of the better scenes in the film, all things considered.

*Highlight below to see my take on the ending*

Wolf is able to make good and scatter his mother's ashes. Irish does his best to give Wolf enough time, but Agent Williams prods on. Williams asks Schaeffer (local law guy) to bring along a gun, presumably to stop Wolf from running. As they come up on the ridge Irish yells out to Wolf to watch out that they were there. Agent Williams knocks Irish out (hey, at least MRJ doesn't die this time, right?) and orders Schaeffer to take the shot. After a brief argument - during which Wolf begins to run - Schaeffer takes the shot. He doesn't shoot to kill (I think he takes out a leg), but Wolf does not want to be caught. He stabs himself and bleeds out in Cash's arms. And that's the end of the film.

Overall this movie is not a feel good movie. It's well directed from a cinematography standpoint, but in places it's rather slow. The story, while interesting, has a few "squirrel" moments that don't fully get explained and left me with wondering what the heck they went down that path for. My biggest question mark is the character of Cash - I just don't understand the need for him (presumably since he was played by one of the other writers the need came from the guy needing a part in the movie ha ha) and there were parts of his character in scenes that seemed to be significant - but it was never explained why it was significant.

I honestly would not have watched the entire film had it not been for the fact that I wanted to see what MRJ brought to the table. Aside from the scenes with Wes Studi (Wolf's Father), the Irish & Eva scenes had the most heart and were the most "enjoyable" (I can't think of a better word, but not all scenes were enjoyable). Most scenes leading up to the Irish/Eva scenes I think are written to humanize Wolf and show that he's not a bad guy - that he was somehow justified in killing his mother's rapist/murderer.

The movie touches on the Native American community's distrust of the Federal Government. Hey, I get it. The same tensions are here in Alaska with Native Alaskans and the rest of the world/Government (shoot, most Alaskans no matter what their ethnic background share those feelings!)  I also understand first hand how rape is treated in our judicial system, in so many cases it seems they bend over backwards to protect the rapist and ignore the victim. And I, somewhat hypocritically, love a good vigilante story (I'm a big fan of the TV show Arrow, based on the DC comic Green Arrow... and I grew up loving Batman). I think the movie could've focused more on the subject, and been a little less one sided (how/why did the guy get off, for example).

The family scenes/emotions/themes in the film really drive this film. Momoa is a big dude, and has an intimidating look, but his character for all his rough ant tumble qualities seems to have a big heart and it shows in the different scenes with friends and family. As I said earlier - I really loved Wolf's reunion with Irish and Eva. They are the only *warmth* in the whole film (and that's shown not only in the acting but the lighting of the film as well). Not really surprising that MRJ was cast as Irish. He had great chemistry with everyone on screen. Very believable. Actually most everyone in this film was spot on.

Overall from a storytelling/acting/movie perspective I give it a solid 3/5. This is NOT a film for someone looking for a clean dramatic film. There's some nudity/sex... and a LOT of language. I didn't try to keep count of the F-bomb... and they went further than that in their language. It wasn't really needed to get the point across (though in all honesty I don't blame Irish for going nuts in the scene with Agent Williams). But I knew going into the film to expect it (I mean when several actors are fans of being on shows on HBO and FX because they get to curse, an R rated movie for them is a dream! haha).

I actually expected more offensiveness in the movie, and was surprised that it was mainly language that was bothersome. The other stuff that I was expecting was very short or non-existant. So if language is your thing use your best judgement at whether or not to watch - I'd rank it pretty similar to "Book of Eli" content wise... but with a less wholesome/positive message at the end.

For MRJ fans specifically wondering - like I did - if the movie was worth getting/watching/renting. Yes, it is. Not just for Michael's performance (which was far too short) but for the movie itself it's worth it. If you can stomach the language (which I assume most can) then you should get a lot out of the movie. Irish is a great character (and is a typical MRJ role), and Mikey lights up the screen like always. I really really liked his scenes. They come at the end of the movie so you have to be patient but it's worth it. I didn't get emotional in the parts that were supposed to be emotional, but that's because I'm dead inside - not because they weren't well acted.

You can rent the movie from Netflix if you want to check it out (I would), or it is now on sale on Amazon and in stores. I might look at adding it to my collection.

31 Days of Film - Day 4: A movie that makes you sad

Well if you've followed my blog long enough you know Toy Story 3 and War Horse both scarred me for life (I haven't watched War Horse since seeing it in theaters, and I've only watched Toy Story 3 twice since getting it on DVD). Those would be my easy choices (or Homeward Bound, or Dead Poets Society, or The Yearling). But I wanted to give a shout out to a movie that doesn't get as much love and respect as I feel it should.

Reign Over Me is, to me, the best Post 9-11 themed film Hollywood has made to date. It's also the only movie Adam Sandler has starred in that I've enjoyed. Though I'm not sure "enjoyed" is the right word. Sandler plays an incredibly sympathetic character, though for most of the film he comes off as a nutcase who is frustrating to deal with. Don Cheadle (whom I adore in just about every role he's been in) plays his former college roommate who, as life got away from him, lost touch.

They run into each other be chance, but Sandler does not recognize his old buddy and blows him off in a very... odd way. Cheadle tracks him down and tries to mend fences, while his homelife seems to be crumbling around him. Through meeting with other people in Sandler's character's life, Cheadle learns that his friend had a mental breakdown after 9-11 and the loss of his family.

There's a part towards the end of the film where Sandler explains to Cheadle why he is so despondent and "odd" and not the same person Cheadle remembers. He recounts those hours of 9-11 and reveals that his wife, daughters, and dog were all on one of the planes that hit the Trade Center... and he watched them hit the tower. Guilt and loss keeps him from wanting to live in reality. So he just ignores it and "lives". It's a touching moment, and a powerful yet understated performance by Sandler. Who knew he had it in him.

This movie is not a happy or hopeful movie. It's a good one, but not uplifting. I'm always left feeling sad and even a little empty. So I don't watch it often, but it's in my collection of films and once in a blue moon I get the courage to watch it. Because it's a very real movie. One that needs to be seen and told.


**Warning, there's "hard language" in this scene... but it's beautifully tragic.**

Movie Review: Snow White & The Huntsman

Save the money and rent the movie on DVD this fall.

The tagline for Snow White and the Huntsman should be "Never believe the hype." A film that was supposed to be a fantastically dark retelling of the classic Snow White story is a garbled mess of special effects, CGI creatures, and missing storyline. The film leaves the viewer creeped out - and not in a good way - with it's topics of incest and life stealing.

The cast is promising, Charlize Theron is always certain to get people in the seats. Chris Hemsworth is riding high after his turn as Comic Hero Thor, and do I really need to remind you what Kristen Stewart is known for (hint: she was in that vampire/werewolf series of movies). However, "Monster", "Thor" and "Bella" do not make a good casting trio.

Theron, of course, was the big gun during promotion of the film. The Oscar Award winning actress (for her role in "Monster") has the chops to pull off the Evil Queen hell bent on killing the princess - still the rival for the throne and title of "fairest of them all" - but she's limited due to the film's need to have her turn into tar puddles and ravens. If you've seen the previews you've seen the majority of her contribution to the film.

Thor actor, Chris Hemsworth, plays the drunkard huntsman who - of all the characters - is the most fleshed out... but that's not saying much. He is forced to hunt down and bring back Snow White after she escapes the tower the Evil Queen locks her in. We find out that his wife has died and he's lost the will to do or be anything. He is hired for his knowledge of the dark forest (which is not as intimidating as they try to make it out to be), and off they go. Within the first few minutes of meeting his quarry he is talked into changing sides. So much for scary, right?

Kristen Stewart is no rookie to the simple and overhyped films. Her role as Snow White seems similar in most ways to that of Bella from Twilight. She says very little, but is the one everyone is after. Typecast? Maybe a little. Snow White spends most of her time running, feeling guilty, sympathising, and looking stoic. Not your typical Princess. She's supposed to be the heroine of the story, but honestly it's such a jumbled mess I can't tell who really wins - though I do know it was not the audience who claimed a win.

The actors should not be blamed for the flatness of the film, that sits squarely on the storyline. Which, as noted before, there is none. The story does not hold up against the many scene changes which looks to be 85-95% CGI. We meet secondary characters flippantly and never really learn who or what they are. There are scenes that make absolutely no sense, and do not advance the storyline. The graphics are incredible, but the cost seemed to be that the story no longer fit with what they wanted to do in the computer.

My friend and I were left with a very high creep factor and disappointment. We had such high hopes for the film and had been waiting for days to go see the movie, only to be met with a story that went no where. The only entertainment we had for the more than two hours in the theater was our own snarking.

This movie is not family friendly for the darkness and incest (the Evil Queen has a brother who... um... is very creepy... like Dateline Predator creepy), and I was surprised at how many children were in the theater. Like the previews didn't give you enough heads up?!

My advice? Skip the boxoffice and netflix it when it comes out later this summer on DVD. It's not worth the price of admission.

Movie Review: Big Miracle

It only took twenty five years for Hollywood to tell the story that brought Alaska to the forefront - well before Sarah Palin even dreamed of becoming the Vice President. The story is all Alaskan - three tourists get themselves lost and stuck out in the frigid ice of the Northern most part of the state. Instead of leaving the outsiders to their own fate, Alaskans and outsiders alike come together to save them. The most interesting part of the story? They're three whales that are in need of saving.

The movie is very loosely based on the true story of a young family of three California Grey Whales that, for reasons unknown to this day, found themselves a little further north than they should have been and later than they should have been. Grey Whales spend their summer in Alaska feeding in the northerner seas, before returning back to California in the winter to hang ten. When Inupiat whalers found the three fighting for air in the closing ice, they were surprised as they weren't the whales they expected. The Inupiat leaders wanted to do the humane thing of killing the animals - their people could eat for the winter, and the animals wouldn't slowly die. The greenpeacers and outsiders wouldn't hear of it.

The movie takes a few different turns, instead of the whalers it's a local television reporter (played by John Krasinski) spots the whales while filming a segment on snowmachine "stunts" (which is one of the first "jokes" of the film). But all in all, it's a good hollywood retelling of the story. Ted Danson plays a convincing oil tycoon J.W. McGraw who only helps the whales as a PR Stunt, but finds the bigger picture. Drew Barrymore is greenpeace advocate Rachel Kramer - and it's not a stretch of a role for her fighting for "animal rights" and skewing the other side. Most enjoyable are Ahmaogak Sweeney who plays Nathan - the boy who wants to see the world, but comes to realize he has so much more in his little home of Barrow - and John Pingayak playing Malik, Nathan's grandfather and an elder of the Inupiat tribe in Barrow.

Pingayak, a native to Rural Alaska - though not Barrow - seems to be made to play his role. Malik is all about teaching his grandson the ways of Alaskan life, and like many elders is frustrated that all Nathan wants is to move away from tradition and rural life for the "adventure" that the outside boasts. Malik sees Adam Carlson (Krasinski) as a representation of the bastardization of his people. The white man who comes in with his fancy gadgets and woos the youth away from tradition for something "better." Krasinski and Sweeney's chemestry on screen was believable and fun. Carlson is Nathan's mentor of sorts, his key to the outside world. As much as Nathan learns from Carlson, however, Carlson equally learns from Nathan and Malik. Carlson contends heavily for their way of life to the other big wigs surrounding the whale debate, all the while playing a voice of reason to all.

Alaskans will love the jabs to the outsiders - film crews come illprepared for the temperatures, and the natives take advantage. There are many "Where's Waldo" moments where you find local celebrities as extras/small roles. Pretty sure, too, that most - if not all - Alaskans have at least one person in the movie that they know personally. The Alaskan extras are featured mightily. (I saw a former coworker and she was the ONLY ONE in the shot!) To see the Alaskan life featured in such a positive - non stereotypical way - is refreshing in film.

The film is not Oscar material - though I would contend that the CGI whales are some of the best graphics out there - it's your typical February fare, but it's feel good. The audience clapped for the whales, and I'll admit I choked up. My movie buddy of the day - no, not my dad - teared up. Chances are it's a kleenex worthy movie. Be warned. It's not War Horse rip your heart out, but it still has the emotional impact one gets when animals are in trouble and "need our help."

This film will definitely make it into the collection - if for no other reason that it was filmed entirely in Alaska, or that I just love John Krasinski. Is it a must see in theaters? Probably not, but what else are you going to do this month? I'd watch it for no other reason than the end when they show the actual footage next to the movie footage to show you the "real people" of the story. You'll see just how OFF hollywood can be, and then how spot on they are. And, there's a "cameo" by Sarah [would be later in life] Palin. That got the entire audience going!

Movie Review: War Horse

Whenever Steven Spielberg is in the director's chair you're guaranteed a nearly flawless storytelling. War Horse is no exception. The care to the story that movies goers have come to expect, as well as amazing cinematography, is ever present.

If we've learned anything over the course of Spielberg's career, it's that he knows how to tell a story. That he can so easily manipulate an entire theater's emotions is part of his gift. He's warmed our hearts with an alien's love and friendship with a young boy (E.T.), given rebirth to our inner child (Jurassic Park), and brought the horrors of World War 2 to our consciousness.

Based on the novel by the same title, as well as the London Theatre play; War Horse follows the story of Alby, a boy on the cusp of adulthood, and Joey, his horse. In order to save the family farm, the young man sells the horse without warning to a British Cavalry Captain preparing to go off to battle with the Germans in World War 1. In a heart wrenching scene, the young captain promises Alby that he will do his very best to return Joey as soon as the conflict is over. Alby bids Joey farewell promising him that he will find him and they will be together again.

For the next two hours or so the audience is bombarded with emotion packed scenes both beautiful and grotesque. Joey changes hands - and sides - multiple times, and is on the edge of death more times that one can count. For most of the film, the audience sees the story from Joey's perspective. We see him make friends with a fellow war horse, and sacrifice himself for his friend. We see him learn things that no one believes him capable. We see Joey do what many would only describe as "the impossible."

Highlight for spoilers:

I am not a cryer. I know I say that and then two of the last movie reviews I've done have me tearing up or uncontrollable tears. But I've never had raking sobs in a movie theater. I'd heard about them in relation to Schindler's List or Titanic (the first one I get why, second one I still can't take seriously) and always wondered why people couldn't control it. How they could let themselves be so emotional in public.

Let me tell you, I now understand. When your emotions are so manipulated by a master director or story writer, you have no control. The climatic scene of Joey's friend losing his life (not Alby, but a fellow horse) and Joey's running away to the No Man's Land Scene had me in hysterics. I had never felt the need to just cry... at a movie. I couldn't watch, I couldn't breathe. I couldn't sleep after the movie was over and I'd been home for a couple of hours. The last 45 minutes is not for the faint of heart. Bleeding hearts don't stand a chance. My best friend cried through the whole film. As did my mother.

While the war scenes are not as graphic as Saving Private Ryan, the violence towards animals are graphic. The violence towards humans is not near a dramatic as that of Schindler's List, but the horrors that the horses of WW1 faced are. Animal lovers in general, and horse enthusiasts in particular, will have many problems watching this movie for that reason. Horses are brutalized by the German soldiers, and are killed in a faulty ambush by the British.

Overall, this is Spielberg's finest piece to date. He very rarely takes a step backwards, and each serious piece is just a training run for the next big piece. That War Horse did not get the Golden Globe is a travesty. This is a must see for all movie goers.

Movie Review: The Muppets

Jim Henson's Muppets are back in a star studded tribute to the original Muppet Gang. The group that starred in the Muppet show and classic films like The Muppet Movie and The Great Muppet Caper are back with a vengence in Jason Segal's new[ish] story that is basically a love letter to a group over fourty years old.

Everything that made the original films quirky and a little bit like a trip on whatever drug the muppeteers might have been on seems to have come together in the latest film. While Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppet Treasure Island (and, okay, even Muppets from Space) had their moments of hilarity, they lacked the Henson-ness that seemed to have been lost with the death of creator Jim Henson.

But, with the script carefully created and supervised by Muppet fanatic Jason Segal, it was almost as if - for a moment - Henson himself was back.

There are flaws with the film. The most glaring are the incorrect voices of Miss Piggy (no longer voiced by Frank Oz, who did not sign off on this film) and Rowlf. Some of it was corny, even for the Muppets, and the story is not new. The idea that the Muppets have to save their theater has been a storyline for at least one of their TV specials in the last ten years or so.

Having been disappointed by the Muppet TV specials and their last feature film, I went into the idea of a new movie with a lot of hesitation. In fact, I was not planning of seeing the movie in theaters at all. But, then, the movie hit theaters and fans nationwide (as well as many of my friends) began pushing it as a MUST SEE. Even with that knowledge, going into the film my expectations were low.

The storyline is simple. Jason Segal is older brother to a muppet looking character. They grew up loving the Muppets and trek out (along with Segal's longtime girlfriend played by Amy Adams) to LA to visit the Muppet Studios only to find that the theater is condemned and the studios are broken down shells of what they once were. To make matters worse they find out that Oil has been found under the property and an evil tycoon is going to buy it out from under them and drill. They have one last chance, to collect 10 million dollars to keep their property. How better to do this than a Muppet Show Telethon. But first, Kermit has to get the gang back together.

Classic characters who were more or less background characters in the last three films are back in their starring roles that they relished in the 70s. Muppet Show favorites also make apperances. It's probably the best tribute the Muppets could ask for.

There really wasn't a lot to complain about in the film. Some of the jokes were beneath them (Fozzie's fart shoes as well as Jack Black's genetalia joke), and without Frank Oz, Miss Piggy just doesn't have the same sassiness. For those of us who grew up after Henson's death I guess the difference in Piggy's voice for me is the same feeling that folks had when Kermit was forced to have a different Muppeteer (granted Whitmire is amazing). Not sure I will ever get used to a new Piggy.

Overall this film is FANTASTIC. I loved it from beginning to end, and yes, I cried when they sang Rainbow Connection. The ending also gave me a lump in my throat. If it's still playing in your area, then go see it. It's well worth the cost of admission, and is a GREAT family memory to be made. It's time the Muppets are welcomed back.

DVD Review: What's In The Bible 5: Israel Gets A King!

My parents and I watched the latest volume of Phil Vischer's What's In The Bible series this past weekend. I received my copy of the video earlier in the week and we immediately popped it in to see what the team had come up with. This video did not disappoint.

What's in the Bible is VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer's new Children's Video series. After watching his dream die when he filed bankruptcy and lost control of the beloved Christian Children's video veggies, Vischer says God got through to him and gave him a second chance. What that gives families is a fantastic series of Biblically sound and educational videos taking a more indepth look of the Bible.

This isn't your typical "Sunday morning values, Saturday morning fun" series. This is meaty goodness that is sorely lacking from Children's ministries. As a former Sunday School teacher, I can say that I've never seen children taught in this way. Yes, I've seen puppets used, but instead of just teaching the story of David - as the fifth volume does - Vischer's cast of colorful puppets digs deeper into the significance of David's life as well as why his story is so important to the bigger picture of the Bible. This isn't your typical David and Goliath story.

Movie Review: Disney Animation's Tangled

Disney Animation's latest CGI film came to us this Thanksgiving with the story of Rapunzel. As with all of the classic Fairytales, Tangled presents the story with a few Disney twists. This is also, reportedly, the final Disney Princess film according to recent articles quoting the Company's head - John Lassetter - as saying they were going to go in a different direction.

If Tangled is to be the final Princess film, well, then Disney did not disappoint. In a decade filled with hit or miss films, the company has ended on a high note with their latest animated films (Princess and the Frog, Bolt, and now Tangled). The story is timeless, the story seamless, and CGI animation -while not Pixar standards- is spot on.

The story itself is familiar. Rapunzel (voiced by singer-actress Mandy Moore), a princess, is wisked away by an evil old woman to live in a tower where her hair grows long and - as Disney tells it - has magical powers that keep her captor young and beautiful. Rapunzel knows not that her "mother" is really the villian, or that the lanterns she sees from her tower window every year on her birthday are for her.

Meanwhile, a local fugitive - Flynn Rider (voiced by "Chuck" actor Zachary Levi) - has a bit of trouble on his hands when he finds himself in possession of a stolen crown and is now persued by the King's army. While escaping, he finds himself facing a hidden tower deep within the forrest. Naturally he climbs said tower only to find himself face to face with... a frying pan. The frying pan, naturally, is wielded by our heroine who decides to "hire" Flynn to take her to the lanterns so that she can see them in person. This is her only birthday wish, and at age 18 she feels she is more than deserving. So she lies to her "mother" and sets off on an adventure.

The young duo find themselves at odds almost immediately. Rider is more interested in the crown - which Rapunzel has hidden in order to get him to take her to the lanterns - and tries to convince Rapunzel to give up the notion and go back and forget the whole thing. Rapunzel, herself, is at odds with her decision to leave - feeling guilty for lying to her "mother" - but curiousity wears out... as well as begins a love story.

By the end of their journey, our duo finds themselves completely infatuated with one another and with life lessons learned. Flynn reveals truths about himself that he's shared with no one else, and Rapunzel lets down her guard to share her hair's magical gift. This charming love story is easily believable and enjoyable to watch unfold. Even though the viewer pretty much knows it's going to happen, you're still pleasantly surprised to find that you were right in your assumption.

The plot quickly turns dark as Rapunzel's true identity is revealed to her, and the climax has a couple of twists you wouldn't expect from the Disney storyline. It departs dramatically from the original telling the further along you go in teh story, but is brought 'round right by the end.

Many Disney purists have been skeptical of the CGI films over the years. Some - including myself - believe that the medium should be left to Disney's partner company, Pixar. Other's don't seem to mind the medium so long as the story is good - which Disney has been hit or miss with since the early 90s. However with the change of command in Pixar's John Lassetter, Disney has seemingly made it's way back to the light with classic stories being told - and being told extremely well. The Disney Magic is fully evident in the 50th feature animation.

A couple of criticisms: the music was lacking, this is very disheartening considering Alan Meinken was at the helm and he's produced many classic scores over the years for the animated features. There were too many "small" songs that just seemed to be there because the director thought "it's a disney film we need a song here, and here, and one here, and oooo this is probably where one goes, too." The songs lacked a bit of heart, though some of that may be due to Mandy Moore.

Also, throughout the film I found myself wanting this movie to be done with the classic 2D animation that all other princess films had been done. Again, this goes back to personal preference, and the fact that compared to Pixar, the animation just doesn't come close, but no where in the film did the CGI seem to stand out as something that could only be done with computer graphics. You could possibly argue the lantern scene, but then they could have Beauty and Beast styled the movie and let that scene be part 2d and part CGI. Still, the computer animation was sound, and very few scenes seemed unfinished to my untrained eye.

Over all this was an enjoyable addition to the Disney family. It's a great family film - my nearly five year old neice enjoyed it - and surprisingly does not talk down to the audience at all (which I found even Princess and the Frog did). There's slapstick humor, very little potty humor (if any), and it is - of course - clean. Parents worried about the magic aspect will be happy to note that it's minimal and at the end is done away with entirely.

In true Disney form this story is a keeper.

Video Series Review: Phil Vischer's What's In The Bible

VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer is back with an all new children series focussed on the Bible. Entitled "What's In The Bible with Buck Denver", Visher has once again made important Biblical principles accessable to children and adults in a fun family friendly format. Instead of Vegtables bringing familiar Bible stories to life, a cast of puppets are answering the tough questions that surround The Word of God.

The host of the "show" is Buck Denver "Man of News". He's a semi bored little news reporting puppet, and relies heavily on Vischer for guidance in each show. His costars include Sunday School Lady, Pastor Louis, Pete the Pirate, and Michael a little boy puppet on his way to grandma's house driving cross country with his mom (we never see or hear her) and his little brother Pierre (we never see him, but he does throw things from time to time at Michael). There are other characters who bring in information as well as random bits of humor as Buck, Phil, and Sunday School Lady basically work most of the meat of the shows.

Like VeggieTales, Phil is starting out small and voice many of the characters within the show. He is also featured in each "episode" to help keep the puppets in line or to help Buck answer the tough Biblical questions like "How old is the world", and "Why did God want people to die"? Phil does a very good job at explaining what we understand and believe about God and the Bible in a way that everyone can follow.

The format of the show is very similar to that of Sesame Street and other children's puppet shows, short quick segments, but it never talks down to the kids. There are lessons upon lessons and it's not just the same stuff you get year after year in sunday school. It bolsters those teachings with a deeper understanding.

They don't get into denominational battles, where the denominations differ is not so important as the basic Truths we all believe. This is pushed heavily throughout the series.

Over all this is a must have for any family, sunday school, or children's program. It's a fantastic resource, and I've learned several things myself! Be sure to order the DVDs and check out their side website for Jellyfish Labs.
The series is still in the works, with a planned 13 one hour DVDs in all, so far they've released the first four which takes us from Genesis through Ruth. http://www.whatsinthebible.com/

Movie Review: Disney-Pixar's Toy Story 3

The toys that started it all are back in the final chapter of their wild ride. Their owner Andy is all grown up and packing up for college and the core gang is all that's left of the young man's childhood. Memories, photographs must all be packed up and stored in the attic, donated, or thrown away. But what of Woody, Buzz and the rest? This is the question that we're faced with in the beginning moments of Toy Story 3.

Pixar does not disappoint in the third and final installment of the Toy Story series. They were hoping to only have two films, but it was thanks in large part to their original contract with Disney and the threat that if Pixar didn't do it, Disney would, that brought about a long wait for fans to have what we've all been waiting for. The wait was worth it.

Woody and the gang are faced with the cruel fact that all toys must go through: children grow up and move on from their playthings. Over the years the band of toys shrank as they were tossed away, sold, or donated. Even Woody's girl, Bo Peep, has moved on to a new home. All that remains are the classic characters that we've come to know and love (oddly enough the three green aliens were kept). Their one hope to all stay together is if Andy decides to store them in the attic and they will one day again be played with (the hope is that Andy will have children and they will be brought out when that time comes). But, in classic Toy Story style, Mom mistakes the bag of toys (minus Woody, whom Andy has decided to take to college) as a bag of Trash and puts them on the side of the road for pick up. Seeing this, Woody goes to save the day. The toys, after rescuing themselves, believe Andy to no longer care.

The toys run for the box being donated to the daycare, and so begins their adventure. They meet several new characters: Ken (voiced by Michael Keaton) whom we're never quite sure if he's straight, gay... or bisexual. Pixar does its best to keep it family friendly and Ken is definitely attracted to Barbie (and in the end she stays with him), but he's definitely a METROsexual. Basically think Ryan Seacrest as a Ken doll. We also meet Lotso, another toy from the 80s, who is plush and loveable and smells like strawberries... but don't let his exterior fool you. He may seem all soft and cuddly, but deep down he's a heartless and evil mastermind. Think Stinky Pete (Toy Story 2 voiced by Kelsey Grammer) but softer.

[spoilers ahead: highlight to read]

After some hilarity ensues during their escape - Woody, upon entering the daycare, leaves via a kid at the daycare taking him to her house where he relives a few moments of his time with Andy and finds out via another toy that Lotso isn't so loveable and goes to rescue the rest of "Andy's Toys" and vows to take them all back and live in the attic - the toys eventually make it home. Though first they find out the horrors of the garbage dump and nearly are destroyed in a gut wrenching heart in your throught moment. They are reunited with Andy who is still bent on taking Woody to college and leaving the rest in the attic. In the final moments before the box is taken upstairs to be stored, Woody grabs a sharpie and a sticky pad and writes a note ("from mom") to Andy that says he should donate the toys (it's later implied that the note gives him Bonnie's name and address). Andy struggles in the decision as he drives the toys to their new home.


Upon meeting Bonnie he introduces her to the new toys, telling her they meant a lot to him growing up and that she has to promise to always love and take care of them for him and to keep them together. If you don't tear up in this moment of the movie, well, I can't say what exactly that means, but tears were streaming down my face for the rest of the movie. He introduces each toy one by one, and finds Woody at the very bottom. Bonnie recognizes Woody and begins quoting the different sayings that come when you pull Woody's string. Andy once again struggles with letting go, but finally comes to terms that Woody needs to be played with and not just sit on a shelf. He speaks of Woody like an old friend in a hearttouching, tearjerking moment. And then, one last time, he plays with the toys with Bonnie before driving off to start his new life. Woody and the gang watch after him and Woody wishes him a fond farewell (I'm choking up as I write this. It is THAT much of a moment.)

This is a perfect send off to a series of characters that forever changed animated film. To be honest, I do not believe we'd even have the likes of Shrek without first Pixar making a market for this type of film medium with Toy Story. Toy Story is 3d animation's version of Snow White - yes, in a way it'd been done before, but Toy Story made it "okay" to do so and it reached all movie goers, not a select few. The final scene in Toy Story 3, I believe, is a message to those of us who have grown up with the classic Pixar films. It's okay that we've moved on to other things, it's part of life, but we will always have the memories to come back to. We can all still remember watching in the theaters and seeing the toys come to life for the first time. Now we share them with our neices, nephews, young cousins, and kids. It's a new era, and it's time to let go. (Of course, if you're like me, you are also of the Peter Pan mindset so that whole idea is a foreign concept as you will never be "too old" for Toy Story).

All in all, if you don't see this in theaters you will miss out. I paid the extra money and saw it in the new IMAX theater here in town, but you don't need the magic of 3D to appreciate the film. The story - like classic Disney films - is what makes the movie more than just another animated film.

Movie Review: He's Just Not That Into You

Just finished watching the Romantic Comedy: "He's Just Not That Into You". This was given great reviews, and had a star studded cast. Yay for them.

It's based on a best selling book on Romance and the modern woman's role within it. To me it makes no sense, as basically the moral of the story is - don't wait out for "Mr. Right" so much as "Mr. Right Now" and that anything goes. We have Scarlett (The Harlot) Johanson who is looked on with sympathy as she plays the knowingly "other woman" who helps destroy a marriage. And she gets upset after a while when she realizes the pig played by Bradley Cooper would rather have his cake and eat it too, why any 'other woman' feels this way is beyond me. The guy is a cheater, DUH! He cares for only himself!

Ben Afflec and Jennifer Aniston play a couple who've been together for seven years. Afflec's character does not believe in marriage and makes the argument that who needs a piece of paper to show love and committment. Aniston kicks him out because she needs a marriage. She goes through the rest of the movie feeling she made a mistake, that Afflec was right, and takes him back (he finally asks her to marry him, so it's somewhat positive).

All in all the movie forces morality out the window. At the end it seems those that don't follow God's laws are the ones that win teh most. The wife who's husband cheats on her, and lies about smoking, ends up in a small appartment but throughout the whole movie is the one to blame for why he's left the marriage. She is too strict, not fun, and sees all of this at the end of the movie. Cooper's character comes out looking like teh humorous champ.


This is probably the worst chick flick I've watched in a while. Definitely not one to pick up, IMO.

Movie Review: Death at a Funeral (2010)

Thursday night a friend and I had a girls night and went out to see the new comedy, Death at a Funeral starring Chris Rice. It definitely had us laughing - sometimes to the point of tears - but it is not for the faint of heart, and certainly deserves its R rating for language alone (there is also drug use, nudity, and sexual situations).

Chris Rock plays the dependable and responsible son who is tasked - as the eldest son normally is - with being in charge of his father's funeral. The first scene shows Rock waiting for the funeral home to deliever his father's casket to the living room, whereupon he remarks "that's not my father." which sends the Funeral Director out to "one of two locations that he MIGHT be." This, in turn, sets teh course of events that make the funeral go from bad to worse as Rock's family begins to arrive.

The first half of the film, for me, was rather slow as there were many characters teh film had to introduce. Each having their own issues, personalities, and mini stories that were to play out during the film. We meet Tracy Morgan and Luke Wilson - best friends who are also family friends of the deceased's family. Morgan is a hypocondriac who has about as many brain cells as he has fingers. Luke Wilson is an unemotional, self-absorbed workaholic who's main focus is on keeping up appearances without working at all. They are set up with the task of picking up the deceased's brother played by Danny Glover (who completely stole ever scene he was in). Glover is a grumpy old man whose body has failed him. He's in a wheel chair, but carries a cane, and doesn't have a nice word to say about anyone. Poor Morgan's character gets saddled with Glover throughout the film, and it's a perfect combination of insanity.

Zoe Saldana & James Marsden are a bi-racial couple who are on their way to pay respects to Saldana's uncle. Marsden is nervous because her father is none too happy with their partnership, so when they go to pick up Saldana's brother (played by Columbus Short) he takes what Saldana thinks is a valium. It's later revealed that Short's character - a pharmacy student - has a little drug making business on the side and what Marsden thought was a valium is infact ACID. Marsden's subsequent drug trip is probably one of the most comedic parts of the film.

There's also a scene involving Tracy Morgan getting pooped on by Danny Glover and the whole disgusting scene goes on for about four minutes in which the entire audience is laughing too hard to lose their cookies (but you really want to). Again this is just one of the few gems that made the movie actually worth watching.

The film is actually a remake of the 2007 movie of the same title which was directed by Frank Oz (you know, Jim Henson's right hand man... the voice of Yoda in the Star Wars films). That movie, like this one, is not something to really write home about. And sadly is not one I will be buying to add to my collection.

The movie MIGHT have made it to my collection if it weren't for the fact that the language is just thrown in there for, I don't know, a higher word count. The F-bomb and Mo-Fo phrase were used so many times that I couldn't even keep count if I'd wanted to. There was no reason to use it other than the fact that they didn't know what else to say. It could be argued that it made sense in a couple of scenes where road rage or indignation happened, but it was thrown around like a common every day word. This is by no means a family friendly film, and was not good enough elsewhere to be able to glance over the swearing.

Overall, if nudity, sexual situations (did I mention that the deceased had a midget gay lover?), and language don't bother you - wait and rent the film when it comes out on DVD. If not, skip it entirely.

Had a great time with my friend, though. We can make anything fun (we survived Anthro 101 that way!).

Movie Review: VeggieTales' Pistachio

The VeggieTales gang has been given a make over to finish out the new decade. This is showcased in the introduction to their newest straight to video release, Pistachio, The Little Boy Who Woodn't. I haven't laughed this hard during a VeggieTales video in a good long while, the Introduction was a spoof on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition - complete with a Ty Pennington look-a-like. Even if you don't watch the full video, watch for the introduction/spoof. It's perfection.

The story itself is also very well done. There is a lot of humor for little kids and adults alike - all in the clean Christian fun VeggieTales is known and loved for - and the message is pretty clear. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." (Ephesians 6:1-3 is quoted as the Biblical text for the story) Pinochio, which is what the Veggie movie is based on if you haven't already guessed, teaches the same basic principle - though the fairytale does not get into the Biblical aspect of why it's important. VeggieTales does.

Pistachio takes many creative liberties with the original Fairytale of Pinochio, but over all, it's a great veggietale on a classic story. It's definitely one I am now a proud owner of, and one I recommend to anyone who enjoys a good children's story.
Veggie Tales: Pistachio