openapartment Reviews

Peter Pan (2003)

The most beautiful and poignant depiction of Pan.

[9/10 · 2 January 2006]

This rendition of Peter Pan may very well be better than the classic Disney rendition.

Everyone, by now, should know the story of Peter Pan. He runs away from home and is taken to Neverland by Tinker Bell. In this magical place, he and his band of Lost Boys play all day and never grow old. They do not deal with the tediousness of adult life, however they are very comfortable to talk about death and killing. Creating duality, we have Captain Hook. Unlike the Boys, he lives at sea with his adult band of pirates. His sole obsession is to kill Peter, having lost his right arm to Peter in an earlier battle.

There is an underlying darkness that is appropriate given the situation of the characters. Peter never grows up, however he experiences much. The movie presents us with a very useful question, "What is Peter Pan?" This is a question that Peter himself struggles with.

The casting is well done. Few would argue that Jason Isaacs is the star of this film. His dual role as Mr. Darling and Captain Hook is, as another reviewer put it, "brilliant." As Mr. Darling, he is shy but quite the gentleman. As Captain Hook, he is dashing and as evil as can be. Unlike Dustin Hoffman and the animated Hook in Disney's Pan, Isaacs is a lean mean pirate. Ultimately, he is as alone as Pan. For that reason, they rely so much on one another.

The weakest quality of "Peter Pan" is in Peter himself. Here we have a film of fine British actors (or actors with accents) and Peter is an American. While this works to distinguish him from the rest, his lack of an accent makes his dialogue disjointed in comparison. Could they not find a young British actor with the quality to play Pan? He seems as out of place as Hayden Christensen does in Star Wars. It's not that he's bad, it just doesn't feel right. Well, at least he plays a pan flute in this film.

There is a beautiful scene where Peter presents to Wendy a gathering of dancing faeries, followed by a touching scene in which Peter and Wendy dance, afloat amidst green trees and twinkling starlight.

Home on the Range (2004)

Reminiscent of Tex Avery, and I mean that as a very big insult.

[3/10 · 2 January 2006]

Roseanne is an obnoxiously loud cow. She also plays one in this cartoon. I saw "cartoon" because "Home on the Range" is just a notch better than the standard, Saturday morning fare. This movie is very reminiscent of Tex Avery, and I mean that as a very big insult.

The animation is as bad as Disney can get (which means that it is still somewhat decent). How can Disney even consider this film as its final send-off? Luckily, the actual last animated movie was "Pooh's Heffalump Movie," which I'm sure is a better movie.

The voice acting is well done. The casting is appropriate. Who can argue with the genius of Steve Buscemi, or the whiny attitude of Cuba Gooding Jr.? Patrick Warburton should be in every animated feature. The three cows have very distinct voices, each with its own major annoyances.

I am as big a Disney fan as anyone can be, but this is a film even a mother could not love.

Madagascar (2005)

Little to offer. A story of equal worth to Saturday cartoons.

[6/10 · 2 January 2006]

DreamWorks creates another animated feature that has very little story and ultimately very little resolution. I would place this movie well below Shrek, but significantly above the annoying "Shark Tale." The characters in this movie are very likable, although Chris Rock's zebra occasionally gets annoying. I found Ben Stiller's work to be very funny. The most unique and hilarious character is Julian, the king of the Lemurs. His off-the-wall strange comments add a lot to the movie. The penguins were also great additions.

The plot itself is very thin. The animals escape the Central Park Zoo to see the "wild." There are a lot of New Yorker jokes, and even a crack at Jersey. Occasionally there will be segments that are nothing but back-to-back gags with songs in the background. They would be more tolerable, perhaps, if the gags were actually funny. The abundance of gag-to-songs made me want to stuff my ears with popcorn (I was eating popcorn at the time).

An optimist would call the animation zany. It is angular in nature, very bright, and has very little shading. Unlike "Finding Nemo," there is little realism to the characters (which may be a good or bad thing).

Ultimately, this movie has little to offer except the occasional gag.

Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas (2004 Video)

Entertaining enough to own on DVD.

[10/10 · 5 December 2005]

I normally dislike CG animation. Its graphical perfection makes it too artificial for me. "Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas," however, is perfectly suited for CG animation. There is a colorful vibrancy and liveliness to it that makes it much more festive. Consider the sad alternative: second rate hand-drawn animation rivaling that of Saturday morning cartoons. That being said, the animation here is top-notch. Disney is no-doubt attempting to flex its CGI muscle as it transitions away from hand-drawn animation (also, see the theme park commercials, Mickey's Philharmagic, etc.). Also, it should be noted that comparing the quality of this animation with that of a big budget Pixar movie is extremely ignorant. CG animation has its own costs and it would be poor budgeting to spend that much on a video feature. Regardless, it does not suffer from the lack of that detailed a polish.

The stories themselves are entertaining, and there is a surprising amount of wit and imaginative storytelling written into the script. My only complaint is that it would be nice for Disney to create a full feature Mickey Mouse film. Short stories work fine, but it ends and starts again too soon to create any audience involvement.

Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County (2004–2006)

An excellent documentary about the degradation of human society.

[29 October 2005]

Chances are such that no one will read this post given the number of happy reviews that precede mine. Regardless, I would just like to say that, in my honest opinion, this is by far the worst television show I have ever seen. It isn't the production, but the content that sickens me. As if reality television wasn't bad enough, we are given a show where kids bicker over prom and dates and sunshine and farts. What makes matters worse is that thousands/tens of thousands(choose quantity based on current week's ratings) of people actually care. Go out and live your lives instead of watching spoiled kids ruin their own.

I place this show in the same league of "The Andy Milonakis Show." The only positive comment I have is that I now know to stay away from Laguna Beach when I travel south.

Baten kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean (2003 Video Game)

3/5 stars; Very Tiresome and Mixed Game (Not really spoiler, but goes into details.. I haven't finished disc 1 yet anyway...)

[19 July 2005]

I was very excited to purchasing Baten Kaitos, as it seemed to receive great reviews. After a few hours at the game, however, I became more and more tiresome of it.

The use of Magnus in the game is inspired. There are so many different types and combinations that I didn't even bother to experiment with them. Lots of detail went into them, and some of the descriptions are hilarious. The battle system is done pretty well. It doesn't lose excitement (especially since you cannot pause at some points).

A lot of hype went to the graphics. Yes, the graphics are good, but most of the scenes involve nearly static images. Also, the characters are at most two inches tall (with the exception of battles). When you visit the church, you can barely see the priest standing at the end of the room. Maybe it would look more impressive on a large HD TV... Like the last person said, no FMVs to be found save the intro. "Cut-scenes" involve little figures lightly moving limbs around.

The story is stilted at best. Why do the characters insist on battling monsters to obtain End Magnus when the Empire just shows up and takes it. Can't they take a hint?! Let the Empire fight the monster, then take it from THEM! The names of the End Magnus (and the meaning behind the names) is dumb. The characters spend endless amounts of time talking about nothing, or explaining the oh-so-simple story.

The voice acting has mixed results. Because the cut-scenes are so uninvolving, we rely on the voice acting to absorb us into the scene. It works most of the time. I found the voices of Kalas and Savyna to be tolerable. I absolutely HATE Xelha's voice. Her intonation is so undramatic. Mizuti is pretty neat, even though you can't understand him... or it. Gibari sounds goofy but tolerable. Lyude either has an annoying voice or is annoying himself... I cannot decide.

Gameplay is pretty linear. Explore island by island, visit a couple of cities, fight through a few paths, then face an End Magnus guardian, Empire shows up when you're done and steals the End Magnus, you rush off to the next island and repeat. Sidequests are pretty interesting, but involves traveling and gathering Magnus from all over.

By the way, there are NO random battle encounters which is nice. However, enemies reappear on screen if you leave and come back. Corridors are usually so narrow that you'll fight them anyway.

In conclusion, this game is an above average RPG to widdle your time away on. In my opinion, it doesn't come close to any of the PS FF games (except maybe 9, which I did not care too much for in the end). The lack of FMVs made more of a difference than I would have thought, and the linear gameplay, stilted story, and poor directing leave much to be desired. On the other hand, the extensive Magnus system, inventive worlds, and impressive graphics (though static and distant) make it worthwhile to play.

3/5 stars

The Lion King 1½ (2004 Video)

Funny, witty, avoids most of the standard Disney sequel clichés

[12 September 2004]

Unlike other Disney sequels, this film is pretty good throughout. They make no attempt at making cheesy, subpar songs. Instead, they use real songs, even Lebo M's rendition of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" from his CD inspired by the Lion King (an excellent album).

Also unlike a few other Disney sequels, this film has an excellent animation style and good use of shading. The jokes are also absurd and fun. Excellent voice cast (Jerry Stiller!).

I think I enjoyed this film a little more than Lion King 2, mostly because it's so much fun and overlaps with Lion King 1. Of course, neither of the follow-ups can compete with the first.

www.festizio.net award-winning

Justice League of America (1997 TV Movie)

Are you joking?

[24 August 2004]

David Hasselhouf is the antithesis of Batman... and Lucy Lawless is a bit old to be Supergirl (probably wouldn't make a good blond either, but I guess they could make Supergirl a brunette). Anyway, I think it was a stretch to make this show, seeing as their only recently beginning to figure out superhero movies on the big screen...

As far as the Justice League animated series goes, I think it is one of the finest cartoons out now. The stories are typically serious, many very imaginative (episode where Superman goes forward in time to meet Randall Savage). With the recent Justice League Unlimited, they should have more story options to play with, but I'm uncertain how interesting the stories will be when they add in so many superheroes, many second rate (and second rate DC characters are the worst!). Teen Titans, on the other hand, is a bit too silly to be taken seriously. It's fun and has interesting stories, but it's annoying how one minute they're goofing up and the next their all powerful (many scenes Beast Boy is useless, and in others he's incredibly agile and quick witted).



www.festizio.net award-winning

King Arthur (2004)

GOOD BUT NOT GREAT, WELL EXECUTED AND ATMOSPHERIC

[22 August 2004]

"King Arthur" is a good movie. It's strongest aspect is it's performance. Clive Owen is the perfect arthur for the Dark Ages. The other knights are equally as well presented, each displaying individual traits, but not so much that it's derivative. Personally, I am glad that they disposed of the Lancelot's betrayal aspect of the Arthur tale. I think the reason this film wasn't greatly received was because it wasn't a huge epic like Braveheart, but a smaller, more grounded epic like The 13th Warrior. It blends "magical" insinuations into a realistic presentation. We understand that Excalibur holds some meaning, but it is an emotional and symbolic meaning, not supernatural. The atmosphere was also criticized, however I felt it added to the feel of the film and of their feeling of hopelessness, fighting for "a cause not of their own." However, like some critics mentioned, this film is "good but not great." It lacks the big epic feel of Braveheart or Glory, but I believe it is due to it's attempt to make everything realistic. I love the character qualities. Arthur is a Roman and a Christian, and he must deal with his Sarmatian knights who have conflicting (and in Lancelot's case, almost confronting) ideals. He is also as flawed as he is strong, as conflicted as he is brave and sure.

Again, I have to say how well executed this film is. The acting is great, they don't attempt to over-villianify (real word?) the Saxons. They are simply an invading army... just a little more vicious. I think this may have driven some viewers away. In Braveheart, Longshanks is to be despised and hated. We want Wallace to triumph over him. In King Arthur, we root for Arthur because he is Arthur, just and glorified, not because we hate the Saxons. This could also be seen as a flaw...

I wasn't a fan of the introduction, or the obvious attempts of this film to be realistic. They mentioned it in the tagline and the trailers, no need to mention it in the movie! This film is also a bit lacking in the developmental qualities of Braveheart and Gladiator. There's also a lot of freedom talk that is suitable, but not as suitable as in Braveheart where they are painfully oppressed.

Ultimately this movie is an excellent movie, extremely well executed in my opinion, and exciting for those interested in knights and Arthurian legends.

www.festizio.net award-winning

The Road to El Dorado (2000)

Very good looking film.

[22 August 2004]

"The Road to El Dorado" combines vibrant animation, lots of fun and adventure, and bits of suggestive adult humor as expected of a Dreamworks film. Sadly, it seems that with the following success of the "Sinbad" film, Dreamworks may be taking the animation crown away from Disney, who said that the critical flop "Home on the Range" would be their last traditional animated film. As a huge fan of Disney, this is obviously very sad news, as many of the animators will no doubt find their way to Dreamworks.

Back to the film. The animation is great. The blend of computer effects and traditional animation give great energy to this film. "El Dorado" can easily compete, in terms of animation, with some of Disney's more big name ventures, however it seems to slightly lack the depth or artistry found in may Disney films. But what do you expect? This is a fun romp, not a deep epic. They go through many fantastic and somewhat unbelievable stunts that we really don't, and shouldn't, question.

The songs in "El Dorado" are instantly forgettable (in fact, I just watched it 5 min. ago and I don't remember what most of them sound like...). I would have really expected more from Elton John and Tim Rice. There are a two exceptions. I enjoyed the song played during the credits, and the main theme song. Personally, I think the song would benefit by omitting the songs, save the songs I mentioned previously. Unlike Disney films, the songs in "El Dorado" distract jarringly rather than enhance the moment. Perhaps this has to do with Elton John's rather distinct voice (don't get me wrong, I love his stuff), or it may have to do with the fluffiness of the lyrics and arrangement.

Overall, this is a fine film. I don't care for the songs, but they may grow on me the second time.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Much better than the first two.

[7 June 2004]

The first two HP movies were somewhat derivative and plain. PoA is a much better film, rather than just a movie. The direction is superb, the scenery is ten times more intricate (see the giraffe moving across multiple pictures in the background), and there is much better acting all around. A lot of people complain that a lot of information is left out. That's how it always is when a book is made into a movie. The medium is totally different. What Cuaron has given us is more lush scenery with excellent visuals. The film is grainier and darker and the special effects are much more exciting. Personally, I'm glad that Chris Columbus has taken a step back from directing PoA and GoF. This will give each successive HP movie its own distinct feel and ambiance.

I think it also helps to not read the book right before going to see the movie. Maybe put a year in between reading it and watching the movie if possible. Then you forget small plot twists which makes the movie much more enjoyable.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Your Favorite Scenes (in all three movies)

[31 May 2004]

I'm writing this in the TT section because one of my favorite scenes in all of the three movies is during Helm's Deep, when the Uruk-hai are banging on the ground and they show the women and children scared. It really gave a sense of the fear, and that's what makes a great movie: allowing the audience to feel the scene rather than just see it.

Another favorite scene is from the extended edition, the scene with Boromir and Faramir. "Remember today, little brother. For today, life is good..."

The extended edition is so unbelievably amazing. I can't wait until ROTK's extended edition. Hopefully there will be as much extended footage as in TT.

The Art of War (2000)

Not bad but not great.

[31 May 2004]

I'd actually like to see Wesley Snipes in a really good movie.

This was okay. Too much of it reminded me of Mission: Impossible, especially the plot twist.

Nice use of rain and flashbacks though. I really don't have 10 lines worth of things to say. This is one of those movies that I watch and don't remember that I watch. It's still better than most trashy movies, but I probably wouldn't be renting it again for a second watch. Of course I haven't seen it in awhile so I may be wrong. The things that stuck in my mind were the usage of rain and flashbacks, and many similarities to M:I. I don't remember what the other similarities are.