My own self

This animated science fiction movie from 2000 has an incredibly impressive list of directors and writers - a list I was not aware of myself until after I'd seen it. The directors? Gary Goldman and Don Bluth - the two ex-Disney animators (both were involved in the animtaion of The Rescuers and Pete's Dragon, Bluth additionally had his hands in Robin Hood, The Sword in the Stone, and others) who's made such major animation successes outside of Disney together as The Land Before Time, An American Tail, The Secret of NIMH and Anastasia. And the writers? John August (Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride), Ben Edlund (Firefly, Angel(he wrote Jaynestown and Smile Time!), Point Pleasant and Supernatural) and, well, Joss Whedon.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but I can't help but wonder if I'd have been a little let down had I known about this rooster of brilliance before I sat down to watch it due to incredibly high expectations. Heck, I wasn't even aware it was animated before it started up.

So what is it? Well, it's basically the sci-fi-movie everybody who hated the Star Wars-prequels have been begging for. The movie starts with an alien destruction of Earth, where a very influential scientist must stay behind to save the incredibly important Titan-project. His very young son is hurried off planet with other refugees just in the nick of time. Cut a good decade ahead, and the son is grown up. Then an old co-worker of his father's shows up and tells him he has to save mankind and find the lost Titan-project.

The movie is flowing over with odd and funny aliens, something the Star Wars-crowd probably likes but an issue for me. I never like universes where you only see one single individual from three quarters of the alien species you encounter. It feels phony. Still, they're on the whole rather well made.

Despite this, it's a little dark. Not scary horrid dark, but it's closer to Empire Strikes Back than Return of the Jedi, if you know what I mean. This works well though. It's got a somewhat predictable plot, mediated by some twists you see coming and others you might not. The world that's built seems rich and, with the exception of the ridiculous amounts of different kinds of sentients, believable. There was a couple of choices towards the end where I felt they should've gone darker and less child-friendly, but on the whole the movie was surprisingly daring for an animated movie that clearly doesn't exclusively cater to an adult crowd.

Some characters stand out - the father's old co-worker is a distinct Han Solo-rip off (no attempts are made to hide that), but he works well. His first mate Preed is nothing like Chewie, though, but rather a cold, superior, even omnious alien with a posh English accent. The crew on the ship - and thus the cast that gets mentionable screentime in the movie beyond the main character - is filled out with another human, the main character's love interest, another alien, this one female, the grumpy weapons expert that seems to be fifty per cent Zoe, twenty per cent Kaylee and thirty per cent Jayne, and the incredibly eccentric green-skinned scientist Gune who is just so thoroughly lovably silly you have to like him.

The main character himself is very much the traditional hero-in-the-budding type, but maybe a good bit more reluctant and selfish at first than one'd expect, originating with his abandonment issues with regards to his father. He's not going to stick with you for long after the movie, but he works well enough and isn't annoying like such characters often end up being.

The movie of course looks beautiful - I mean, Don Bluth is involved, it had to - and I'd highly recommend to check it out if you're at all interested in entertaining sci-fi movies. It doesn't reinvent the wheel by a long shot, but it gives it a very good spin.

Weak 8.5/10

I know. You had it sorted.

- King Edmund of Narnia

Well, what do you know. I liked it.



Turns out I didn't really expect that. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe started out really well, and then turned mediocre at some point around the beavers' cabin and stayed that way. While I did have higher hopes for Caspian - BBC only gave the book two episodes in their otherwise stellar adaptations of the series, so this was the one place Disney could actually look like the better attempt - I still didn't really think I'd go "huh. Pretty good." But I did.

The story is much, much darker than that of the previous movie, and the themes and characters, while still children and aimed at children, are of a much more adult nature. It also feels much more realistic - the human nation of evil looking interestingly realistic compared to the flashy armour of the good-guys brought back from the first movie. In this and other ways, the first movie serves as a backdrop for the viewer of how Narnia could be, how beautiful and safe it used to be, compared to how it is now, in the movie, in much the same way as their memories of their previous stay does the same to the Pevensy-children.

They keep up a decent level of humour, which works very well in the otherwise darker plot. The action-scenes, unlike those of the first one, are quite interesting and engaging. The characters also, though with the weaknesses you have to accept when the story is about children trying to act as adults and with memories of being such.

Speaking of characters - I was again vastly impressed with Edmund. By far my favourite character of the series of books and the BBC-series alike, he keeps it up in these movies. His calm, understated presence, his vast self-control and quick head for one his age in beautiful contrast to his personality before the scarring experience of his own betrayal in Wardrobe. Whenever Peter and Caspian had their (quite understandably motivated if childishly played out) feuds and conflicts, Edmund looks even more the gathered, reasonable grown-up.

I was very happy with what they did with all the four children, actually. This is the last trip of the eldest two to Narnia, and the entire movie was built around how Susan and Peter had various issues and problems with being back there whilst Lucy and Edmund - in very different but equally effective ways - was very much at home and at ease. I'd actually go so far as to say that this was done better than in the book, where their final expulsion from Narnia in the end seems a little out of nowhere. Here, you understand why.

The movie had really only two issues. The least jarring one was the strong sense of a Lord of the Rings-rip-off in the end where we get both the march of the Ents and the washing away for Isengard and the Ringwraiths by Rivendell heavily alluded to.

The other one was the Christian symbolism propaganda. I don't think I've ever seen a movie where the plot was so intrinsically dependent on the viewer accepting certain Christian doctrines and values, foremost of which the blind trust in God. What's worse is, I honestly don't know if I can say that this is a problem with the movie - after all, this only means that it is staying true to the original story. If they skipped this in the movie or toned it down, it'd not be as faithful an adaptation by far. Still, it strongly diminished my enjoyment of the movie - to my mind, the idea of the best option being to sit still and do nothing and trust God to come and help you out is ridiculous and insulting, even if you do believe in Him. Still - in this story He is real, and within the frames of the story, the plot is very well done.

All in all a much stronger movie than the previous one - remember the scenes the first one had with Tumnus the Faun? Well, most of this movie is almost at that level of well done. They've even improved upon the book, primarily by adding a political intrigue subplot in the court of King Miras.

Recommended. I was impressed. A very strong 8/10 if you think you can stomach the Trust In Aslan-plot.

Wow. Never thought I'd live to see the day.


Indiana Jones is more than a franchise, it's Culture, it's Common Background, it's one of those things that are so deeply embedded into the cultural consciousness that the idea of the thing, the concept of the thing, is greater than the actual thing.

Don't get me wrong - I love the old Indiana Jones-movies. Well, I love two of them and think the middle one is alright. But not nearly as much as I love the concept of them. Harrison Ford as the ultimate geek-adventurer hybrid searching for lost treasure and solving mysterious riddles is Epic and, as Barney would say, Legendary.

The odd thing is, he doesn't really do that much of that. Yes, there's a big Mystical Treasure in each movie - but the only one where the main part of the movie is really the actual search for it is the third one. The death-traps are mostly present only in the opening scenes of the original movie and the finale of the third one - and in the latter case, they're honestly not that impressive. National Treasure has got way more of this stuff than Indiana Jones ever did, and will still never become anything more than a decent rip-off (with a somewhat disappointing sequel) in just about anybody's head. That's not the point - they ARE Indiana Jones. The geeky, at times awkward, at times awesome action-hero will always be Indiana Jones, or some form of copy. And movies with hidden treasures, vast ruins and clever clues in dead languages will always be Indiana Jones. The fact that the movies really used that stuff rather sparingly is utterly irrelevant.

So there is a large expectation to this kind of sequel. It can't really be equated with anything else - not even the Star Wars prequels, as they, by their very nature as prequels, was an entirely different animal. This is a sequel to three stand-alone-movies that needs to do three things; justify itself as a movie in its own right, justify itself as a continuation of the three movies everybody in the audience has seen at least once each, and justify itself as an Indiana Jones-movie - which as I said might have less to do with the second point than you'd think.

Surprise! It does all three. Which quite frankly WAS surprising, at least for me. I was feeling sceptical - I went in to see this movie thinking that, oh, well, as long as I'd get to hear the Most Awesome Theme Ever at least once, it'd be worth the ticket. (I did, too.) But I walked back out feeling happy, satisfied, at ease. And actually, joyfully, craving more.

Now, by all means, it doesn't do them all equally well. Mostly the movie lives up to the second point of the three - which, quite frankly, as a rather huge geek, is the most important one for me. But it's really not that far behind on neither the third nor the first. The movie is very entertaining - the beginning in particular is quite splendid, and while it does get a little less sizzlingly fun for the rest of the movie it's still on the whole a very good ride. And it's definitely Indiana Jones. There are dead languages, there are death-traps and hidden chambers, and lo and behold, there is a mystical treasure. (I believe that with this movie on top of the others, Indiana Jones has personally witnessed that there must be some form of core of thruth to Ancient Egyptian religion, Ancient Mayan religion, Judeaism, Christianity, Shivaism and Kali-worship. That's a rather impressive list, right there.)

The plot was decent - it had some twists that were obvious, some twists that were not, and it mixed the nostalgia and self-referencing in just the right portions with the new stuff, which was a balanced I'd been worried they'd not be able to keep. But they proved me wrong. Another one of the touches I was very sceptical about - having Shia LeBoeuf join the cast as a young, boisterous sidekick - also worked out very well, all things considering, and the movie would've been a very different one and possibly less interesting one without him. The character brings a dynamic to Jones that's new for the character, and additionally makes the action-scenes with the elderly Jones a good deal more believable when he has a young man at his side.

As with any Indiana Jones-movie that's not the original, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sorely misses Belloq. A competator that's Jones' equal hasn't been seen since, and that's a damned shame. Cate Blanchett does do a more than decent job as the Russian überspy, though. After the awesomeness that was The Last Crusade, Sean Connery as Henry Jones Sr. also leaves a void, though he is referenced with great respect (and often to great effect) at multiple points. Also, this movie features the indubitably best of Jones' love-interests returning from obscurity and filling out a lot of blanks.

It's not God's Gift to Cinema by an entire series of long-shots. Nor is it the best movie I'll see this year. But all in all, I'll say this movie is well worthy of being called part of the - I'll say it again - legendary series that is - far more so, actually, than Temple of Doom has ever been. To me, it felt as much as an Indiana Jones-movie as the old ones did. Is it as good as the other two? Hard to say after only having seen it once. Ask me again in five years. In which time I'm likely to have watched it at least another five times.

Because, let's face it, people, while Indiana Jones might get old, Indiana Jones does not. And this, quite certainly, was just that.

Indiana Jones.

A tentative - and very strong - 8,5/10

The Hulk was kind of artsy and dark and weird, and though it had some cool moments it'll hardly go down in history as an example of a successful attempt at making a movie of a Marvel superhero. The Fantastic Fours sadly kind of put themselves on a more kid-movie sort of level, but they weren't as bad as everybody says they are. (Alright, maybe a little bit, but I'll maintain that the casting was pretty good) Elektra, however... And just when Daredevil stood a good chance to redeem himself through the impressingly improving director's cut. But, you know, Spider-man was a pretty darned good movie. And though Dafoe was sorely missed, Spider-man 2 was probably even better. X-men was rather unimpressively decent, but laid a fantastic foundation for the brilliant X-men 2. Both franchises kinda limped their way through the third installments, though Spidey did so remarkably well, but the point is, Marvel's really done some pretty darn good superhero-movies before. Heck, I even liked The Punisher, though I'll accept that while a decent movie it wasn't that good a portrayal of the character.


But this... this buggers those "decent attempts" up the arse, if you'll pardon my French, wipes the floor with Spider-man and gives even Spidey 2 and God Among Insects X-men 2 a run for their money. Even DC's Batman Begins should get a little uneasy seeing Downey Jr. donning his armor.


Because of THIS is the result when Marvel decides to finance their own movies, then I need to look into getting some kind of moviegoing discount card.



Iron Man is the kind of movie that had me go home feeling guilty that I hadn't gotten a premiere ticket to see it. It had Robert Downey Jr. in the main part, and I knew from the second I heard that that I was in store for something good. Now, I'm one of those losers who only really know the man from his relatively short run at Ally McBeal, but he made a strong and lasting impression on me there as one of the funniest and most charming characters the show had (and this was a show sporting the infamous duovirate of Cage & Fish) and I spent every episode the show had after he left hoping he'd come back on. And something in my head just clicked when I heard he was signed on as Tony Stark, instinctively I just knew he'd do a stellar job of portraying the guy who's probably my favourite Marvel character. (Yes, I have a thing for billionaire control-freak geniuses with eccentric alter egos, it's TV2's fault for airing Zorro every weekend when I grew up, let's move along?)

So, my favourite character played by an actor I felt unusually confident would do a good job - and from Jon Favreau, the guy who directed the very funny Elf and was hilarious as Foggy Nelson on Daredevil. Then came the mindblowingly awesome trailer. And suddenly, the movie was out, and people were going crazy praising it. Reviewers, people I knew, online acquaintences with very good tastes, fans of the comics and uninitiated alike. They were all jumping through hoops to tell me how much fun this movie was. It simply had to disappoint, and all that remained was hoping it only did so somewhat.

So, yeah, no, seems like someone decided they'd just skipped the hole conforming to reality-thing with this movie and in an astonishing feat of improbability worthy of Zaphod Beeblebrox, Iron Man lived up to the insane expectations and was all kinds of awesome.

Sure, the plot is rather predictable, particularily due to the very conventional and orthodox use of an overused badguy-formula without any real twists. (Though they do have some half-hearted attempts at throwing you off track) Also, the badguys of the movie are rather flat and uninteresting in their own rights.

It just doesn't matter though. This movie is solid through and through, and aside from whoever wrote the script and the fantastic dialogue, the main credit for that HAS to be given to Downey Jr.. Tony Stark is not just any ass, he's a brilliant ass, and watching this movie, you love him for it every single step of the way. You coo like a fanboy at his (often incredibly lame) jokes and chuckle merrily when he treats people like crap from the very first scene he's in - a scene, incidentally, that's somehow the best scene in the movie without ever making anything coming after it seem like a downer. Spider-man's constant quips were probably one of the more poorly treated aspects of the character in the movies, but that slight has not been done here. And it's even funnier than Spidey's quips, because Parker is too much of a goodguy to mock anybody but the badguys he fights. Stark has no such qualms. You might be the only person in the world mattering to him, and he'll still treat you like your very existance is basically there to convenience him and set up the occasional joke at your own expense.

Which brings me to Gwyneth Paltrow, who surprised me a lot in this movie by being very memorable in her portrayal of Mr. Stark's personal assistant Pepper. I've never disliked her in anything, but I also cannot remember every really noticing her that much. Here, she has a presence on screen that sticks with you, and while nothing bad is to be said about the other major cast members, she is probably the only one who manages to have a scene with Downey Jr. without his stealing it completely away.


All in all, a highly funny and vastly entertaining movie that, ironically, just feels like a set-up to something bigger once it is done. The sequel(s! please?) cannot come soon enough.

A weak 9,5/10


(The only problem is that after this, Dark Knight is kind of forced to look worse, isn't it...)

Supposedly a movie far truer to the source material, this sequel to the first D&D-movie is apparently generally more liked by fans of the game.


Well... that might be. I don't think I'd agree that it's that much of an improvement, though. Of course, I liked the first one far more than most.


The only character from the first movie returning is Bruce Payne's Damodar, now the main villain. While he is referenced in dialogue, Jeremy Irons' character Profion is still sorely missed. And while Damodar was indeed quite awesome in the previous installment, oddly, being the main villain in this one, I felt he actually had LESS personality and LESS iconic moments. Which is too bad.


This movie keeps the stereotypes going, but in a way much truer to D&D specifically, the classes and species of the different characters more spelled out in D&D-terms, and D&D-classics like the evil undead lich (probably the coolest character in the movie) show up as well. I'll admit the main characters of this one are far more interesting than in the first one, and I'll admit the plot is, probably, in its essence, a tad more interesting as well and has a more believable sequence of events to it.

And yet, I didn't really feel it did anything. Damodar is just... there. The political intrigue in the first one, while dreadfully flat, was at least present. Here, there is just Big Powerful Evil, let us Go Stop Him.

I'll give this one a strong 5,5/10 too. It's good, clean, fantasy-adventurous fun that should appeal a little extra to those who, like me, squeal happily when things like liches and dragons are involved on the screen. I mean, nobody said every movie had to be brilliantly multi-layered and original.

Amuck! Amuck, amuck, amuck, amuck, amuck...

- Sarah Sanderson, dancing happily around

Somehow, I've never watched this movie before. I have to say, that's too bad. I think I'd have rather liked this way back when. Still did, of course, but probably less than my twelve year old self would have.

On the surface, it's a pretty well-tried out recpe for a children's fantasy movie. A boy and his sister, interestingly joined by the young lad's love interest, has to fight three ancient witch-sisters awakened from their slumber. It does some things that spice it up, thugh, for instance by having the traditional "odd" part of the evil trio (seriously, name one that doesn't have it) be so wacky as to remind me thoroughly of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Drusilla, very amusingly played by Sarah Jessica Parker. Absolutely the show-stealer of the movie.

That being said, it holds a rather high niveu of quality throughout otherwise as well. The children were entertaining, the undead hilarious and the witches both thoroughly silly and scary at the same time. The double-set up of the kids defeating the witches twice in the movie was a clever little twist which freshened up an otherwise rather straightforward plot.

All in all highly enjoyable. 8/10.

[Note that I saw this movie in its (quite excellent) Norwegian dub)

I had very high hopes and very low expectations to this movie. My expectations panned out, sadly, but the movie wasn't a complete waste as with certain select scenes, so did my hopes.

Why high hopes to begin with? Well, the first live-action Asterix-movie was an excercise in blandness. It was alright. It was decent. It was half-amusing and semi-exciting. It was worth the cinema-ticket. It didn't feel like a wasted two hours. And yet I can't remember a single good thing about it. The second, however, was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant, in point of fact. Surreal, silly, funny, almost Monty Pythonsque at times, and, I suspect, very French.

This third one kind of falls between the two chairs. It tries to do what the second one did, but mostly ends up feeling forced and excaggerated. When it does succeed, however, it's quite funny and delightful to watch. It never captures the feeling of perfectly sense-making surreality of the second one, though, which is a great shame. It also feels - maybe due to this - more juvenile and flat than either of the previous movies.

Like the second one - but unlike the first - Asterix at the Olympic Games finds its source material not in an amalgam of the comic book series as a concept, but in one specific volume of the series. (There are, however, references and scenes from other books as well) Also like the second one did, there are quite a few different approaches to the story when compared to the comic book. Completely unlike the second one, it butchers the comic book quite thoroughly. The only things kept from the book feel overly forced and badly pulled off, which is such a shame as it makes the book appear bad. It is not.

While the comic book mixes together everything from the entire Classical era to make as many jokes as it can, it stays true to the history of it in its own way. This movie did absolutely everything BUT that. That being said, after ten-fifteen minutes of cringing, I got used to it and moved on.

The plot had next to nothing to do with the plot of the book beyond the "Asterix and Obelix competes at the Olympic Games"-premise. Instead, they inserted a Brutus-character (decently well done if not at all like neither the historical Brutus nor the Brutus of the comic books) in love with a Greek princess invented for the movie, and a Gaul from our heroes' hometown who has somehow mysteriously fallen in love with this same princess - despite her living on the other side of Europe where he's apparently never went and her being some twenty-odd social steps above him. I'm assuming there's supposed to be a slight hint of the incredibly well done animated movie's "Asterix and Caesar's surprise" (I refuse to use the American title which is apparently "Asterix Versus Caesar") romance-plot and its corresponding storylines in the comic books in this, but nothing of the genuine affection or interesting twists in it is called back to in any way. What's left is a couple of mildly amusing scenes with Gerard Depardieu's ever-awesome (and ever-rottenly dressed up) performance as Obelix as Cupid's assistant and an excuse to put the plot in motion.

Ironically, the one truly superb, brilliant, hilarious thing about this movie is the one character who didn't even appear in the comic book volume it's based on; Julius Caesar. Beautifully (that's a pun, by the way) portrayed by Alain Delon, who's apparently really famous for people who watch French movies without moustachy Gauls in them, his every single scene was ingenious.


So, what did I think of the movie? 6,5/10. 3 points out of which are brought to the table by Julius Caesar's scenes, out of which I'm giving none a lower score than 9.

That was... enchanting.


The only really bad thing about this movie is how it pretty firmly puts a stop to any tiny lingering chance there might have been of Disney ever doing another prettily animated fairy-tale-movie - because they parodied every single thing they use to do in them in this one, and very well too. It's funny, it's silly, it's pretty, and it's even downright sweet. It manages to be both a parody of your standard Disney fairy-tale animated movie as well as a very nice addition to them in its own right, with the added niceness of a ton of both subtle and blindingly obvious throwbacks to their old classics, particularily Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Sure, it's somewhat predictable - but that's half the point with this kind of movie, isn't it? The comfort of knowing that everybody but the meanie will be happy on the last flip of the page?


And James Marsden is absolutely fabulous as the melodramatic Prince Edward. I also quite liked Patrick Dempsey as the surprisingly kind-hearted New York divorce-attorney, special mention to him as well.

The chipmunk rocked. But the dragon could've been cooler. Which says a lot about what kind of a movie this was.

9/10

Did a rewatch of these some months back and haven't gotten around to posting before now:

In the Beginning
Very, very well done. Sinclair's old flashback-clips are tied into the movie despite the actor's absence, and just about every other central character of the show gets his or her time on screen - and yet this sequel/prequel to the Babylon 5-series works better than any other movie in the franchise. The old, respected Minbari-leader is a great part of why, but Sheridan manages to carry his considerable part of it too. And then there's the frame-story of Mollari telling the whole thing, which is simply splendid. The movie is highly recommended to anyone who's seen the first four seasons of B5 and liked it.
A very strong 8/10

Thirdspace
Basically, this is an extended stand-alone episode of the show. Little special about it beyond that, and the grade is corresponding. Still, decent entertainment.
6,5/10

River of Souls
Now THIS I liked. Ian McShane and Martin Sheen in a B5-movie, for crying out loud. The plot isn't that extraordinary, but still, this is a solid addition to the B5-verse. Additionally it's very pleasing to see a big thing like the Soul Hunters being re-used and not forgotten as a one-ep-thing like you'd expect from that kind of one-episode-plotmechanism.
7,5/10

Legend of the Rangers
This isn't really a movie, but a pilot for a spin-off that never happened. Basically, it introduces some potentially interesting characters, sets up a new big looming threat to the galaxy, and then ends. And yet, you do get some extra insight into Ranger-doings, which is always fun.
6/10

A Call To Arms
Also kind of a pilot, this one for Crusade, but not quite - only two of Crusade's vast cast appears in it, the movie is mostly carried by B5-characters Sheridan and Geribaldi. It's carried very well though - and this actually gets some form of continuiation, too, even if it's nowhere near a conclusion when the continuation gets cancelled. A very well built up movie about the final spasm of the remains of the losing side of the Shadow War, and the dreadful consequences this spasm will have.
A weak 8/10

Well, that was good, clean fun, wasn't it? Will Ferrell is Buddy the Elf, who's like Mowgli if you substitute India with the North Pole and the wolf-pack with Santa's Elves. And he's funny, too. And James Caan does a splendid job as his cynical biological dad. Because the plot? Buddy finally learns he is no Elf, and he decides to go to the Magical Land of New York to find his real dad and make candy and go ice-skating with him and such.

Alright, so a little sappy, a little cheesy and rather simple - but it works, and it's fun. Ferrell and Caan are both excellent in it, and quotes like "Smiling is my favourite" and "No Santa?! Riiiight. What about Santa's cookies? I suppose parents eat those too?" makes you really remember why you love the character of Buddy the Elf.

A weakish 8/10 and a jolly ho-ho to go.

Wow, this was very good indeed.

I don't think there was a single thing about this movie I didn't like. I love the way the line between the Tall Tales and the reality and the facts is never quite defined, and how the Tales all were weaved together into a grand mythology that the father maintained his entire life. And the ending is pure prettyness.

Weak 9,5/10. Best movie so far this year, and challengers have quite a bit to live up to.

Strangely, this movie reminded me a little of "A Knight's Tale", albeit with blending modern music with a fairy-tale environment instead of a medieval one.

"Ella Enchanted" is a funny little movie about a girl who's a quarter Sleeping Beauty, half Cinderella and the rest your average politicially interested teenager. The plot is very much in tune with this.

In a fairy-tale-land the king has died and his brother reigns while the king's son comes of age. Blaming the ogres for the old king's death, this uncle, played by the alwyas splendid Cary Elwes, installs a policy of strong segregation agains all non-humans. Giants are used as slave labour, Ogres are outlawed, and Elves are kept from pursuing any form of careers outside of the entertainment-sphere. The young Ella is among the very few young humans who even cares, holding your standard useless demonstration-ralleys of two people, making government-critical presentations in school, and the like. However, something's up with Ella, all secretly - when she was born, her rude and self-absorbed fairy godmother felt she was too noisy, and gave her "the gift of obediency". Ella is incapable of refusing any direct order. Add to this a horrible bitch of a stepsister, a manipulative hag of a stepmother and a order from her mother on her deathbed not to ever tell anyone, even her best friend, about her "gift", Ella's life is a little bit on the complicated side.

I enjoyed this movie - it's good in a very Disneyan fashion. While the premise isn't all that original, it still manages to be rather fresh and at times even a little surprising despite the obvious fairytale plotting of the thing.

A very strong 7/10.

A while back, I watched The Day Watch, sequel to The Night Watch, Russian fantasy-movies set to the present.

While I quite enjoyed The Night Watch (it even had a kid watching a Buffy-episode!), it also confused me. I'm not sure if it's these particular movies or simply the Russians having different movie-flow-conventions than the west, but I sometimes didn't really follow the plot-points, which is a drag. Being dark and gritty visually doesn't really help with following everything that's going on, either. Also, the characters never really made an impression on me. The main character didn't really ever register as particularily interesting, nor did the traditionally Cool characters such as the Head Good Guy and the Head Bad Guy. Still, decent film, and I liked it well enough. Think that I'd probably have given it a strong 6 or somesuch.

This sequel was easier to follow, but only somewhat. The ending was more conventional and obvious than in the first, which is a shame, but the characters, especially the big bad guy and the protagonist, finally managed to make a little bit of an impression. The world that's created is interesting, but sadly, the plots and characters as a whole, not that much. The flashbacks and the backstory was good, though, and I quite liked what little there was of quips and humour.

Don't really have more than that to say. Despite the not-as-good-ending, I think I liked it a wee bit better than the first one and I'll hand it a very strong 6,5/10.

In late August, I borrowed three movies from Obdormio, and it has been an embarrasing amount of time since I watched the first two.


This Saturday, however, I watched the third one: Spirited Away. Inevitably, this post will compare it to the other two (as linked above), so if you haven't seen all three, it could maybe be a little spoilerish. You've been warned.


First off, the visuals are awesome, I have to say. Everything looks way beautiful. But the scenery isn't as captivating and interesting in the other two with their big, grand landscapes, so I was generally less awestruck by it in this one.

And I think that's the general impression - "less awestruck". This was a very good and very entertaining movie, but it lacked something of the grandeur of the other two.

I still feel somewhat uncomfortable with the whole lack of the Hollywood "let's overexplain everything"-concept, not because I can't follow what's happening, 'cause I could, but because I quite like the world and get annoyed when I don't have its rules and backstory laid out for me on a silver platter. That being said, it's a very good way of telling a story, where the plot-points are connected as much by your intuitive understanding as with actual exposition. It allows for having richer stories and more characters in the short time available.

The characters were fun, but hardly epic and undyingly cool - there were far more memorable ones in the other two movies. My favourite by far was the old multi-armed mechanic, and he was too the one with the most depth, I thought. The rest of them served the story, but little else.

The plot was very... hm. It had unexpected twists, so I can't say obvious, but, it was very simple. It captivated me enough to keep watching, but not enough to keep thinking about it for days afterwards and making me want to revisit the universe, something I'm accustomed to experiencing after watching great movies of this kind - and something I felt with the other two.

All in all, an entertaining, solid movie which looks gorgeous, but didn't really Take Me Away like the others did. I'm torn between 7 and 7,5 here, but I think it'll have to end up being a (strong)

7/10.


And thanks to Obdormio! You'll finally get your movie back, eh?

It's been, what, two months and change since I saw this now, so bear with me that the review will be short and probably somewhat off the mark.


I quite liked it. Hugh Jackman does a very funny posh British accent, and Ian McKellen is, as always, fabulous as an over-the-top-villain. The movie also stars such names as Jean Reno, Andy Serkis, and Bill Nighy in what to me was a really unusual but cool part for him. Fun what you can do to typecasting in animation...

The plot of this movie is basically that a pet-rat is flushed down into the sewers, where he encounters an entire society of rats and similar creatures (as well as singing slugs that are awesome beyond words), falls in love and saves the world from the collective flushing during the half-time break of the national sportings event. And throughout it all, it's very funny.


And did I mention the singing slugs?


All in all, a pretty entertaining movie; I'd give it a very strong 7/10.

Wow.


Having seen most of the B5-stuff by now (I still haven't seen "Legend of the Rangers" or the Crusade-spin-off, but everything else), and that being some time ago, I figured I'd not be too impressed by this. And, okay, I wasn't blown away, but it was really interesting and it made me want to do a rewatch of the entire series, which is no mean feat. It also got me off my arse about LotR and Crusade, and I'll watch these sometime this fall, as well as do a rewatch on "A River of Souls" and "A Call to Arms", both of which I've forgotten the contents of. I might even rewatch "In the Beginning".

As for "Voices in the dark", it's an interesting in-between of a movie and two episodes of a show. Most accurately described it's probably the latter, but sown together to a whole. It first focuses on Lochley, with a plot containing a (to me, anyway) VERY new and interesting twist for this universe. Not sure if it's a good one, but it's most definitely new and interesting. And well done, too. The second half focuses on Sheridan and Galen, during the same time-span as we first follow Lochley, and in the end, Sheridan and Lochley meet up, joining the story together to a whole.

What strikes me most about this release is how intimate the stories are - there's no action-scenes, no big splashy explosions, no scenes with more than three characters at once (!), and most having only one or two, and it's really digalogue heavy. However, while this took me by surprise, I really liked and enjoyed it, and as mentioned, it reignited my interest in the universe.

I truly hope they'll make more of these, as Lochley and Sheridan are among my least favourite characters from the show and any subsequent installments probably will contain a more interesting core, like Bester, Lennier, Londo or Garibaldi. Or, of course, the wonderful G'Kar, but alas it seems Mr. Katsulas has passed away, so that's not likely to happen.

All in all, a pleasant and surprising watch. I'm glad this universe is still up and running.

Started out really good, I got high hopes that this one would be better than the first. Alas, halfway into the movie, it degenerated into a basic, plotless action-orgy and never came back.

More than anyone, including the new title character, this was the movie of the siblings Storm, and maybe especially Jessica Alba's Invisible Woman. Reed Richards got some focus through his obviously close relationship to her, but Ben Grimm was more or less nonexistant here. I could almost try some kind of "The Invisible Thing"-joke, but I think we should all be happy I won't.

The Silver Surfer's character was okay, but that was it. Galactus was a big scary threat, but without an accompanying personality that doesn't really do much that any run of the mill catastrophe-movie wouldn't give you.

Thank goodness for the return of Julian McMahon as Von Doom, by the way. As everything else, his character kind of disappeared halfway into the movie, and there was no form of conclusion to his character-arc or even his role in the plot, which is annoying, as he was the only interesting threat the movie had after the Surfer got niced down to a no-threat-level character by Susan. But he got almost nothing to do even in the part of the movie that WAS good, so... I hope he'll return for more screentime in a third one, 'cause this was just sad underuse of potential.

Everybody's acting-jobs were good, by the way. Not holding anything against any of the actors, I both liked and bought every central character of the movie. As with the first one, I can find no fault at all with the casting. But the script fell short. All in all this was an okay, entertaining spectacle of a movie which didn't blemish the record of the first one as it was just as mediocre, or possibly even more so.

5,5/10

So, there's this Hayao Miyazaki-guy who's apparently really well known for his anime-movies. I've now seen one. Obdormio (there is absolutely no reason to click that link, by the way, he never updates anyway) more or less made me, you see.

I don't have anything against anime as such. It is, however, the sudden outbreaks of overstated emotion , embarrasment or attempted humour coming out of nowhere characteristic in both anime and manga that fills me with distaste, it brings me out of the story and cheapens the characters involved.

Luckily, "Princess Mononoke" had little such. There were tendencies, but on the whole, not so much as to ruin it. It also helped to note on the cover that Neil Gaiman himselfest had done the English-translated script.

The movie starts out in an interesting fantasy-world (supposed to be a long-gone historical Japan I suppose), in medias res. Then it slows down a bit - as is to be expected - and you gradually get acquainted with the world. The main character is a pretty stereotypical protagonist hero all around good guy superdude who's an excellent shot with his bow, is extremely finely tuned together with his mount of choice, is incredibly butch and honourable, and despite being the strong silent type totally managing to befriend everyone on his way and being an outspoken voice of pacifism and tolerance.

The degree to which this bothered me, however, was extremely little, because the entire movie reeks of being a faery tale, and in a faery tale, that's how your main character's supposed to be. If anything, I was surpried and happy about just how outspokenly anti-war the warrior protagonist actually was, considering the context, you'd expect him to be slightly more blood-thirsty, methinks.

The title character, with whom, of course, our hero falls in love, is a Mowgli-adaption - a young girl adopted by a wolf and defending the forest against man's brutal progress of so-called civilization. Only main difference other than this Mowgli having a somewhat different physique is that no limping tigers were involved in the backstory and the wolf adopting her was incidentally also a god.

Tons of gods in this movie, by the way, which I liked. I'm a big fan of convincingly polytheist worlds, and I liked how it was done here. The main antagonist was also interestingly done, one of the more successful takes on the "disarmingly charming mysterious guy turns out to be villainous"-clichè I've seen.

I basically have little complaints at all on the movie, except that it maybe, just maybe, was somewhat too long. Parts of it moved a little too slowly, and cutting it twenty minutes or so would, I think, have made it even better than it was.

As is, it earns a very strong 8,5/10, and enough enthusiasm on my part to let Obdormio (still no point in clicking the link, I'm afraid) lend me the other two Miyazaki's movies of his.