This is a live action-adventure film unusual because it’s entertaining for adults and kids alike. It is distributed by Walt Disney Studios. It brings to mind the tradition of films such as Old Yeller. It’s an exciting film that will keep you involved for the duration.
Set in Antarctica, it follows the adventures of guide Jerry Shepard, played by Paul Walker, and his team of sled dogs. Jerry Shepard is sent on one last trip into the frozen land of Antarctica before the scientific team is pulled from the station for the 6 months of winter. Jerry has doubts as to the safety of the undertaking and his instincts prove right with disastrous results. The dogs get left behind to attempt survival through Antarctica’s brutal winter.
The animals are smart, fearless, loyal and lovable as well as fallible at times. They show growth and change. They are as important a part of the cast as the human actors. The dogs have such personality that you will find yourself cheering through their adventure and opening your heart to leader Maya and young dog in training Max. This film is rated PG for two scenes that had tears in our eyes and one scene that is scary enough to elevate you a couple of inches out of your seat. The adults had tears, the nine year old cheerfully reminded us later that we cried and he didn’t.
The cinematography is breathtaking. Antarctica is a land that is shown in all its cold beauty and harshness. The scene during an aurora borealis is worth the price of admission. You will grin and sigh at the same time.
This is not a perfect film. There are a couple of slow moments during the human scenes when they are separated from the dogs. Paul Walker is likeable as a man who loves his dogs as much if not more than any humans. The sidekick, played by Jason Biggs, is too goofy and quirky, but younger children may enjoy him. Bruce Greenwood is excellent as usual as a scientist trying to make his mark in his field with an exciting discovery. His character could be one dimensional, but his portrayal makes you see there is more than you first believe to this man.
Grab the kids, the popcorn and drinks and settle in your local theater seats for a fun family adventure opening February 17.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
Oscar Nominations; Major Misses
Tuesday morning pinching myself in front of the TV to stay awake at 5:30 AM while waiting for the Academy Award nominations. The annual wait is about to be over. Which films, actors, directors, and screenplays are about to be nominated? Are they the best in film from 2005?
There were some mild surprises in the nominations. Capote being nominated in the Best Picture and Directing categories was a surprise to me. Munich didn’t seem to have the buzz going in to receive those same nominations. Crash was the most satisfying of the nominations personally since I feel that is truly the Best Picture of 2005.
In the acting categories there were not a lot of surprises in the nominations except perhaps William Hurt’s Supporting Actor nomination for his memorable but very small role in A History of Violence and Keira Knightley’s Best Actress performance in Pride and Prejudice. Both are worthy performances, but were not favored by many critics as a pick going into the nominations.
The real surprises seemed to come in the missed nominations much more than those that were nominated by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For the film and directing category, I wondered where the Academy members were toward the end of 2005? It seems not in the theaters seeing and enjoying Walk the Line like a lot of the movie going public since that film was not nominated. This was certainly one of the best five films of the year and how could it have been overlooked except in the acting categories? As said in a line uttered in Shakespeare in Love, “It’s a mystery!”
And what happened to Cinderella Man this year? Did it’s poorly timed June 2005 release as well as the title doom the very excellent and successful combinations of Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Russell Crowe and Akiva Goldsman from Oscar glory? It was a wonderful film that should have had all the elements of success, yet garnered nominations only for Paul Giamatti in the Best Supporting Actor category and Best Editing.
Which brings me to the acting category misses. There seems to be a big problem for lead actors or actresses this year to be nominated if their film came out too early in the year. In the actress category Joan Allen should not have been ignored for The Upside of Anger. Hers was a terrific performance. Keira Knightley gave a good likable performance in Pride and Prejudice, but she should not have been nominated over Joan Allen. The young actress’ turn should have waited for another year and performance.
Anyone who has seen Cinderella Man must feel that Russell Crowe deserved a nomination for his role as fighter Jim Braddock. It is one of the most amazing dramatic performances ever given and certainly in the top 2 of the year in film. Was it a snub to the best actor in film today because of a phone he aimed at the head of NYC concierge earlier this year? Aren’t the Oscar’s supposed to be about best performances, not pitching ability or popularity? Who exactly was Paul Giamatti playing opposite in his best supporting actor turn? I challenge anyone to watch the scene where Crowe as Braddock begs for money from boxing promoters to turn back on the electricity so he can get his kids back home and not declare it is one of the best scenes an actor has ever put on film. Brilliant. Sadly ignored by Academy members.
On March 5th I’ll once again be before the TV eagerly awaiting the winners. I recommend film fans to go to the theaters or rent DVD’s to see as many nominated films as possible before the ceremonies. Also don’t miss a trip to the theater to see Walk the Line and a run to the video store to rent Cinderella Man and The Upside of Anger.
Marie
There were some mild surprises in the nominations. Capote being nominated in the Best Picture and Directing categories was a surprise to me. Munich didn’t seem to have the buzz going in to receive those same nominations. Crash was the most satisfying of the nominations personally since I feel that is truly the Best Picture of 2005.
In the acting categories there were not a lot of surprises in the nominations except perhaps William Hurt’s Supporting Actor nomination for his memorable but very small role in A History of Violence and Keira Knightley’s Best Actress performance in Pride and Prejudice. Both are worthy performances, but were not favored by many critics as a pick going into the nominations.
The real surprises seemed to come in the missed nominations much more than those that were nominated by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For the film and directing category, I wondered where the Academy members were toward the end of 2005? It seems not in the theaters seeing and enjoying Walk the Line like a lot of the movie going public since that film was not nominated. This was certainly one of the best five films of the year and how could it have been overlooked except in the acting categories? As said in a line uttered in Shakespeare in Love, “It’s a mystery!”
And what happened to Cinderella Man this year? Did it’s poorly timed June 2005 release as well as the title doom the very excellent and successful combinations of Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Russell Crowe and Akiva Goldsman from Oscar glory? It was a wonderful film that should have had all the elements of success, yet garnered nominations only for Paul Giamatti in the Best Supporting Actor category and Best Editing.
Which brings me to the acting category misses. There seems to be a big problem for lead actors or actresses this year to be nominated if their film came out too early in the year. In the actress category Joan Allen should not have been ignored for The Upside of Anger. Hers was a terrific performance. Keira Knightley gave a good likable performance in Pride and Prejudice, but she should not have been nominated over Joan Allen. The young actress’ turn should have waited for another year and performance.
Anyone who has seen Cinderella Man must feel that Russell Crowe deserved a nomination for his role as fighter Jim Braddock. It is one of the most amazing dramatic performances ever given and certainly in the top 2 of the year in film. Was it a snub to the best actor in film today because of a phone he aimed at the head of NYC concierge earlier this year? Aren’t the Oscar’s supposed to be about best performances, not pitching ability or popularity? Who exactly was Paul Giamatti playing opposite in his best supporting actor turn? I challenge anyone to watch the scene where Crowe as Braddock begs for money from boxing promoters to turn back on the electricity so he can get his kids back home and not declare it is one of the best scenes an actor has ever put on film. Brilliant. Sadly ignored by Academy members.
On March 5th I’ll once again be before the TV eagerly awaiting the winners. I recommend film fans to go to the theaters or rent DVD’s to see as many nominated films as possible before the ceremonies. Also don’t miss a trip to the theater to see Walk the Line and a run to the video store to rent Cinderella Man and The Upside of Anger.
Marie
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Somebody there is insane if I came out closest to Gwyneth Paltrow.
Gwyneth Paltrow  You've got pedigree and class, that's for sure. But despite your distinguished upbringing, you've built your adult life around proving yourself to doubters while tossing in surprises, such as marrying a rock star and naming your kid after a fruit. You might have settled down a bit, but you can still stir up some buzz. |
Friday, January 27, 2006
$9.75 for a Ticket, $4.00 to Park and $3.50 for a Drink; was this movie worth it?
Are new trends in the movie theater experience over the last couple of years driving movie patrons to watch from their living room couches? Spiraling costs, commercials before films and increasingly rude behavior by patrons with cell phones are three good reasons for some to stay home instead of stepping into your local movie house. How do you want to watch a film?
I’m a film lover. I enjoy movies in the theater at a rate of one to three every week. I don’t believe that you can beat seeing a film in a theater such as the Paseo in Pasadena, California. Nice big curved screens. Comfortable seats in a stadium seating format. Good sound. Good quality prints most of the time. Cherry or Coke Icee available at the concession stand. And the fun of meeting a friend for a night out. These are the things that make me go to a movie theater.
The payoff is seeing a really good film. I’ve seen some great films lately such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Brokeback Mountain, Match Point and last weekend Munich. The answer in the title question above would have been yes. The answer to the question as I thought of it in reference to the film King Kong would have been no. Why are more people answering no to that question now? Hollywood has been asking that question all 2005 with the declining box office receipts.
Costs have become prohibitive for many. The total of $17.25 for one person (with no popcorn) is likely to keep most families at home in front of the TV instead with a film from Netflix or Blockbuster. You can rent a film for the cost of the parking and view with the number of persons you choose with some cheap microwave popcorn and a few sodas. A family of four could watch a film with popcorn and soda for about $10.00. To enjoy the same film in the theater with soda alone could easily run $51.00 for that same family of four. Is Hollywood ever going to lull that family back into the theater? Probably not. They’ll have to wait till the kids are older and the parents can drop them off at the theater on a Saturday afternoon with a group of their friends.
Other factors have soured some on the theater experience. I know that one of my pet peeves in the last few years have been the increasing number of commercials before the previews (which are commercials themselves). I’m in there paying for the film, paying to park and for the food, why am I seeing commercials for products other than film? If I’m home and paying for premium channels, I’m paying not to watch commercials so why am I seeing them in a theater before the film. Last time at the Paseo there were 5 before the previews. Come on Hollywood and theater owners, give us a break. Ditch the commercials!
Kids and adults on cells phones. What part of the word rude do these people not understand? Talking on cell phones in a theater during a film or in the next bathroom stall is incredibly rude to others. This includes being rude to the person you’re talking to on the phone as they listen to you or someone else go to the bathroom or flush the toilet. Knock it off! Parents, teach your kids to knock it off. It’s called respect for others. The same goes for talking and yelling across the theater to your friends during a film. Don’t do it! They’ll be there after the film to talk to. I promise (unless I’ve clobbered them with my turned off cell phone).
The cost of seeing a film will never go down and only up in the future. Hopefully the other factors are something that can be worked on, but maybe the reality is the future of movie watching is changing forever or even evolving. It’s still a huge industry, but perhaps the home industry needs to have as much consideration as the theater when it comes to releases. Steven Soderbergh is one filmmaker who is actually doing a dual theatrical and TV Friday release then DVD release Tuesday of his film Bubble. The industry will be watching. The future may be a balancing act between those who want to watch films in a movie theater and those who prefer a home theater experience. There certainly is room for both.
Thanks, Marie (that was a writing class assignment)
I’m a film lover. I enjoy movies in the theater at a rate of one to three every week. I don’t believe that you can beat seeing a film in a theater such as the Paseo in Pasadena, California. Nice big curved screens. Comfortable seats in a stadium seating format. Good sound. Good quality prints most of the time. Cherry or Coke Icee available at the concession stand. And the fun of meeting a friend for a night out. These are the things that make me go to a movie theater.
The payoff is seeing a really good film. I’ve seen some great films lately such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Brokeback Mountain, Match Point and last weekend Munich. The answer in the title question above would have been yes. The answer to the question as I thought of it in reference to the film King Kong would have been no. Why are more people answering no to that question now? Hollywood has been asking that question all 2005 with the declining box office receipts.
Costs have become prohibitive for many. The total of $17.25 for one person (with no popcorn) is likely to keep most families at home in front of the TV instead with a film from Netflix or Blockbuster. You can rent a film for the cost of the parking and view with the number of persons you choose with some cheap microwave popcorn and a few sodas. A family of four could watch a film with popcorn and soda for about $10.00. To enjoy the same film in the theater with soda alone could easily run $51.00 for that same family of four. Is Hollywood ever going to lull that family back into the theater? Probably not. They’ll have to wait till the kids are older and the parents can drop them off at the theater on a Saturday afternoon with a group of their friends.
Other factors have soured some on the theater experience. I know that one of my pet peeves in the last few years have been the increasing number of commercials before the previews (which are commercials themselves). I’m in there paying for the film, paying to park and for the food, why am I seeing commercials for products other than film? If I’m home and paying for premium channels, I’m paying not to watch commercials so why am I seeing them in a theater before the film. Last time at the Paseo there were 5 before the previews. Come on Hollywood and theater owners, give us a break. Ditch the commercials!
Kids and adults on cells phones. What part of the word rude do these people not understand? Talking on cell phones in a theater during a film or in the next bathroom stall is incredibly rude to others. This includes being rude to the person you’re talking to on the phone as they listen to you or someone else go to the bathroom or flush the toilet. Knock it off! Parents, teach your kids to knock it off. It’s called respect for others. The same goes for talking and yelling across the theater to your friends during a film. Don’t do it! They’ll be there after the film to talk to. I promise (unless I’ve clobbered them with my turned off cell phone).
The cost of seeing a film will never go down and only up in the future. Hopefully the other factors are something that can be worked on, but maybe the reality is the future of movie watching is changing forever or even evolving. It’s still a huge industry, but perhaps the home industry needs to have as much consideration as the theater when it comes to releases. Steven Soderbergh is one filmmaker who is actually doing a dual theatrical and TV Friday release then DVD release Tuesday of his film Bubble. The industry will be watching. The future may be a balancing act between those who want to watch films in a movie theater and those who prefer a home theater experience. There certainly is room for both.
Thanks, Marie (that was a writing class assignment)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)