MGabbard Reviews

The Muppets (2011)

Not at all what I had hoped for...

[4/10 · 26 November 2011]

I really, really, really wanted to like this movie. I love the Muppets, and Jason Segal is a talented guy who also really loves the Muppets. They had everything there for a great film, and somehow it just fell apart. The start was cute, the middle was numbing, and the end was not great. It dragged. In some places it really dragged. And the end was anti-climactic.

I have to place this firmly at the feet of the director and the producers. This is the directors first feature length film. Up to this point he has been directing episodic cable television programs (The Conchords and Da Ali G Show). It's hard to move between the mediums of TV and film, as well as between the genres of semi-adult TV comedy and family movie. I have to say I more blame the producers (and Disney) for letting this director cut his feature length teeth on something as big as the Muppets on his first try.

I recommend waiting for it to hit cable.

Inception (2010)

Don't walk - RUN to see this film!

[9/10 · 17 July 2010]

Many people are saying that Christopher Nolan may be the best film maker of his generation. I thoroughly enjoyed Memento, thought Batman Begins was great, thought The Dark Knight was fantastic, and after watching Inception I think the man is a cinematic genius and can't wait for his next project. But I will have lots of enjoyment watching Inception many times over until then.

He supposedly honed this script for 10 years and it definitely shows. The story is quite complex and has not a plot hole in it that I was able to observe. It has everything - loss, redemption, amazing action, great character development, mind-blowing effects that serve the story and not the other way around as many films do nowadays, and at the core is a love story not too unlike Orpheus and Eurydice. But unlike the myth the underworld is a damaged soul. And when it looks like the story is wrapped up, there's a last second twist that will throw you for a loop.

What the Matrix did for virtual reality - Inception does for dreams and takes it even deeper. This is a film where spoilers might ruin your sense of wonder and discovery watching this film for the first time so I won't give you any. But what I will say is that if you took What Dreams May Come, crossed it with the Matrix, Mission Impossible, and threw in a good measure of a Phillip K. Dick quality science-fiction story - you would be heading in the right direction.

The hype is real. You will not be disappointed. Go see this film!

A Legacy of Filmmakers: The Early Years of American Zoetrope (2004 Video)

One of the Best Film Documentaries Around

[10 November 2004]

Another documentary from Leva FilmWorks, and one of the best film documentaries I've ever seen. I give it 9.5 out of 10.

Did you know that if it werren't for Francis Ford Coppola, there would probably be no Star Wars? Did you know that Apocalypse Now was originally intended for George Lucas to direct? Did you know that if it werren't for the financial failure of THX:1138, and the insistence of George Lucas, Coppola would not have made The Godfather?

This is not just a documentary about a film. It tells the story of how some of the greatest films of the 70's (and possibly all time) came to be. But it also tells the story of a revolution or re-birth of the film industry. It's not just about George Lucas and Francis Coppola (who are the main focus of this documentary). It's the story of where the people that went on to craft The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Black Stallion, American Graffiti, Conan the Barbarian, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, and Apocalypse Now all came from.

Plus you'll find out where the name American Zoetrope came from.

If you are a fan of films of the 70's (or filmaking in general), I highly recommend this documentary. It's 60 very well spent minutes.

Artifact from the Future: The Making of 'THX 1138' (2004 Video)

A Well Done Documentary

[10 November 2004]

This is another great documentary from Leva FilmWorks. It very much stays on topic, gives lots of good information into how THX:1138 was made from multiple perspectives, and doesn't stray too much into obscure subjects and minutia. While there are appearances by other notable filmmakers, this does not turn into a love fest. If you are a fan of THX, you'll smile quite a few times.

I give it 8.5 out of 10.

If you are really interested in some of the more personal aspects behind the making of THX:1138, be sure to see A Legacy of Filmmakers: The Early Days of American Zoetrope - found on the same bonus DVD as Artifact from the Future in the Directors Cut DVD release of THX:1138.

Solaris (2002)

The most intelligent Science Fiction film I've seen in a long time...

[27 February 2004]

This is one of those movies that leaves you stunned when it ends. It's what Science Fiction used to be before special effects became all the rage in the late 70's and 80's.

Many who have commented on it call it cerebral or intellectual. Those are both very accurate words to describe it. If you liked 2001, or some of the older science fiction from the 60's and 70's, I think you will enjoy this film.

The hardware is very realistic, but isn't shown off. The vehicles remind me of Space: 1999. The CGI effects of the planet / entity (Solaris) are incredibly beautiful and the score is eerily perfect. The cinematography is really something.

This version of Mr. Lem's novel has a few twists at the end that I think make this one actually better that the original Solyaris. Almost a 'Sixth Sense' kind of twist that will pull a lot of things together - someone isn't who (or what) you think they are. There were some parts of the original Solyaris that made it drag way too long in parts. This version - while still slow gets to the point quicker. You really have to pay attention because much of the heart of the story is told through flashbacks / dreams, and the main character's mental exhaustion can confuse things quite a bit.

If you have to have big special effects, phaser battles, lots of explosions - this film is definitely not for you. If you not only liked 2001, but also actually understood it, I think you will like this story even better in some respects. For those that have commented that there is no plot and it doesn't make sense - it's not Mr. Lem's or Mr. Soderbergh's fault that you don't get it.

Anyone who has lost someone very important to them should definitely understand the heart of this story. You won't be disappointed.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Go See This Film !

[9/10 · 17 December 2003]

*** Possible Spoilers ***

Go see this film.

Mr. Jackson has successfully, and sometimes incredibly, pulled off something that many thought was impossible. He, with the help of an extremely talented crew of actors, designers, craftsmen, artisans, and more; has brought the Lord of the Rings to the screen in a way that does more justice to Mr. Tolkien's epic story than has been attempted.

Anyone who has read the books knows that to bring every detail to the screen could have taken a trilogy dedicated to each book and still some things would have to have been left out. And you have to grant Mr. Jackson some creative leave to add his own touches. But I have to applaud Mr. Jackson for expertly piecing the story lines together in such a fashion as to make this a very entertaining, and gripping set of films. Go see this film.

As for The Return of the King, is it the best of the three? I don't think anyone will be able to accurately compare it to the first two until its final extended form is released on DVD - hopefully before next November. I think many people that have expressed disappointment still have the extended versions of the first two films fresh in their heads. It this theatrical version, quite a lot of things have been cut from the story - just as in the other two films. Don't believe me? Go read the first reviews of the other films here on IMDB.com. The way many of the scenes abruptly end, and the 'false endings' a lot of people are talking about tells me that the extended version of this film is going to be Mr. Jackson's redemption in the eyes of many of his critics just as the extended versions of the other two films have been. You'll get your showdown Saruman, you'll get your expanded Legolas and Gimli, you'll get a better winding down and parting of friends, you'll most likely get your Arwen and Faramir romance, you'll get more of Sean Astin's Oscar-worthy performance, and I hope you'll get Theoden's funeral, and more on the new bonds between Rohan and Gondor as well.

Go see this film. If you are a Tolkien loyalist, take it for what is presented at this point and don't worry about what's missing, I am confident Mr. Jackson will make it up to you next November. If you haven't read the books - you need to. There is so much richness, depth, detail, and beauty in this story that no matter how good the extended version ultimately is it will never be 'perfect'.

This adaptation (especially in it's extended DVD versions) will go down as one of, if not the, greatest movie trillogies of all time.

Go see this film.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

WOW! Although not perfect, a visually amazing film!

[14 May 2003]

I got a chance to see this at a preview showing this morning, May 14th.

Anyone who goes to see this film needs to have seen the first Matrix or they will be totally lost.

Many of the mysteries not tied up in first film are revealed in this installment, and many more unanswered questions are presented to be taken up (hopefully) in the 3rd film due out later this year.

The groundbreaking visuals that amazed many people when the first Matrix came out almost 4 years ago will be pleased to find that this film delivers what it was tempting them with: the visual effects presented in this film are of a magnitude greater than the first Matrix. CGI and live action are for the most part flawlessly intermixed. The courtyard scene with Agent Smith(s) just keeps going, and going, and going. And the amount of those visuals are also a magnitude higher.

The martial arts displayed are (once again) a magnitude greater than the first film as well. This film must have been a nightmare to choreograph. The love scene / party scene could have been chopped down a bit, but otherwise a solid action film all around. And the film ends with a cliffhanger. Our heroes are in a very bad way and the movie ends with "To be concluded..."

And a word to my fellow Matrix fans - BE SURE TO STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a trailer for the next film tied into the end of the credits depicting the final showdown you will definitely want to see.

Death to Smoochy (2002)

I wish I had gone to see this in the theater !

[8/10 · 29 March 2003]

When I first saw the promos for this film, and that it was Robin Williams in a Danny DeVito film, I knew it had to be pretty good. But it got such bad press that it left the theaters very quickly and I didn't get a chance to.

I just caught it on cable tonight and I laughed uncontrollably at least 10 times. Yes, it is very dark. Yes, it is sometimes disturbing. No, it is not Oscar material. But I found it very enjoyable and am still grinning as I type this. There were a lot of funny moments, but overall Robin Williams' performance was hysterical. There's quite a bit of violence, but you don't see any blood and there's no gore to speak of. Great script. Great acting. Lots of dark fun.

If you like dark comedies like Pulp Fiction, you'll like Death to Smoochy.

Dinosaur (2000)

The 'Titanic' and / or 'Pearl Harbor' of CGI animated film

[13 September 2002]

My first glimpse of this film was an extended trailer (which is essentially the first 5 minutes of the film) in front of The Phantom Menace a few years back. Everyone in the audience was stunned at the incredible visuals. And when it was over, there was a simultaneous "Whoa..." from everyone in the theater including myself.

Then there was all this hoo ha about the inappropriateness of a Kate Bush song so the movie was re-edited and when it finally did come out, it came out rather quietly so I never got around to seeing it in the theater.

I just caught the end of it tonight broadcast on the Disney Channel while doing some channel surfing. They were gracious enough to show it 2 times back-to-back so I sat there and watched it all the way through on the second run. I'm really mad at myself for forgetting to go and see it in the theater. Broadcast cable television quality is garbage and what I saw on my television tonight blew me away - I can just imagine how it must have looked in the theater.

Is this story a rehashed mix of Tarzan with a dinosaur and a pack of lemurs, and Land Before Time? Yes. Does it use the same technique of meshing CGI and live action backgrounds as Discovery Channel's Walking with Dinosaurs? Yes. But given it took 12 years to make this film, I would believe that it was Walking with Dinosaurs that copied from this film.

I am a big fan of CGI animation and I have to say that the first 20 minutes of this film that are set in mostly lush, tropical settings are some of the most impressive CGI / live action scenes I have seen yet. It looks so real that I found myself having a hard time trying to figure out which elements were CGI and which were live action.

Just as James Cameron's Titanic was a visual masterpiece, so is Dinosaur. If you'll remember Titanic won tons of awards for special effects, set decoration, and music. 'Best Background' if you will. The story was predictable and boring (and I'm not talking about the fact that everyone knew the ship was going to sink either) and the dialogue was flat. Same thing with Dinosaur.

Just as Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor's attack scenes were visually spectacular and the rest of the movie pretty much was a waste - the same could be said for Dinosaur. I really like the middle hour of Pearl Harbor (from where the Japanese fleet attacks to shortly after they withdraw). I don't bother watching the rest of the movie. With Dinosaur the first 20 minutes are incredible up until shortly after the asteroid hits and the last 10 minutes are also visually impressive. Skip the middle.

If you are looking for a perfect movie - this definately isn't it. But if you are looking to see some incredible animation, there's a good 30 minutes of jaw dropping visuals that every CGI animation fan must see.

Watch only the first 20 minutes and the last 10 minutes and this is a 9 out of 10. Watch it complete and the middle drags it down to about a 5.

The visuals were so good, I'm on my way to buy Dinosaur on DVD first thing tomorrow and have no intention of watching the middle hour of it.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A technical achievement of the visual art that is unfortunately lacking of depth...

[9/10 · 13 September 2002]

Film is a visual medium. And this film definitely lives up to the hopes and dreams of Tolkien fans for its visual splendor. Technology has advanced to the point to make an attempt at bringing Middle-Earth to life plausible. This film does so quite valiantly and with very few visual flaws.

There were many things that I thought were done very well. The battle with the Balrog was perfect. Galadriel's tempting by the ring was also very good. The times that Frodo puts on the ring, the dark fury that envelops him was a superb interpretation. The glimpses we get of Gollum are fantastic - I can't wait for the Two Towers to see him in all his slimy glory. And when Bilbo sees the ring and wants it back and for an instant turns Gollum-like himself was disturbingly perfect.

But unfortunately as Mr. Tolkien is no longer with us, he could not at least have been a technical consultant on the project. I was moderately disappointed in the screenplay (read: adaptation for that's what this is - an adaptation). If they were to bring the story contained in the Fellowship of the Ring to the screen completely, this film could easily have been six hours long. I understand removing elements that do not carry the plot along, but I cannot fathom why so many character development elements were left out. And I am sorry to see certain plot elements now occurring for completely different reasons and certain minor elements that come into play later in the story omitted and glossed over.

And the verses were left out. Many of the characters in the story used verse to tell the others about various pieces of the back-story. The magical element of 'legends coming to life' is not allowed to appear. And so much of the emotion was left out. The development of the relationships between many of the characters is gone and I can understand why many that have written reviews claim that the characters are 2-dimensional. And the whole thing with Lurtz (the Uruk-Hai archer) was weird.

But one of the changes that I thought was well done from an emotional standpoint was Peter Jackson's / Sean Bean's version of Booramir. In the books, Booramir was pretty much a jerk to his last breath. But the fall of Booramir that we see on the screen was fantastic. The whole scene in slow motion as he keeps getting struck with arrows, one after another, and each time has to fight to regain his strength to defend the half lings still stuns me. I sat in the theater with my mouth hanging open and have had a similar reaction every time I have seen it on DVD since. The Booramir we see at the end is a valliant man, truly sorry for his failing, and his reconcilement with Aragorn were much better than originally presented in the book.

If you are new to the world of Middle-Earth, you will definitely want to see this film as it is truly a technical achievement. But do so with an interpreter (someone well versed in Tolkien lore). I went to see it with my wife and ended up explaining the film for several hours after it ended.

If you are a Tolkien fanatic as I am, you must see this film. But be warned that your experience may be like that of Luthien Tenuviel's - both sweet and bitter.

Legally Blonde (2001)

Cute and funny. One of the more entertaining movies this summer (2001).

[8 September 2001]

This is one cute movie. Reese Witherspoon was perfectly cast as the 'dumb blonde' who ends up being a lot smarter than she is given credit for. It's a nice mix of 'fish out of water', 'girly-girl', and 'stupid jerk boyfriend gets what he deserves'. The sexuality is apparent, but not tasteless. The girly-girl beginning is almost enough to make the average guy throw up, but is necessary to set the stage properly.

The story revolves around a sorority princess from Bel Air who tries to win back the boyfriend who dumps her and goes off to Harvard Law claiming that she's not smart enough or 'real' enough for him. Of course it takes awhile for her to realize that he's not worth chasing after in the first place. But in the end she proves to not only be a lot smarter than he thinks, but also more of a 'real' person than he is. I was shocked to find a film this year that has a good message that's not politically or environmentally driven, and wasn't on special effects overload. With all the crap that has come out this summer, I was pleasantly surprised with this film. Everyone had a smile on their face as they left the theater tonight.

Although it hasn't done all that well at the box office, I'm sure it's going to do very well when it hits the rental shelves. If it has already left your town, be sure to rent it when it comes out - you won't be disappointed.