AndyDursin wrote:I might go and check out Despicable Me 2 simply because I'm not interested in Pacific Rim or (obviously) the Sandler sequel. Very interesting to see its grosses though. It might just end up being the highest grossing film of 2013, or come close to it.

It's kind of shocking they only spent $76 million on this, considering the first film cost a similar amount three years ago and sequels tend to cost exponentially more with each installment. Then again, a lot of the "work" for CGI animation is done for the first film, so if a sequel is on tap, they have all of the fully-rendered character designs and environments ready to go.

Anyways, Despicable Me 2 is cute and funny and worth seeing, but it just lacks the dramatic highs of the first. Certainly nowhere near as tying for adults as something like The Smurfs 2 looks (ugh!), but had I not seen this in theaters (on a free ticket), it probably would have been just as enjoyable at home, and without a roomful of giddy kids hopped up on sugar giggling madly through every Minion gag.

Monterey Jack wrote:Despicable Me 2 (2013): 6.5/10

Pleasant sequel lacks the wit of the first movie, replacing it with the bland "family values" stuff that sank the later sequels to Shrek and Ice Age. It's fun to see a former baddie gradually recant his evil ways when confronted with a gaggle of adorable young girls...it's less amusing to simply see him for the entire sequel as a doting suburban dad with all of his former edges shaved off. Steve Carell's Gru voice is still fun, and the jabbering, incomprehensible Minions are good for scattered laughs (although a spin-off feature devoted entirely to them is a terrible idea), but the villain is a total blank...maybe due to the fact that original voice Al Pacino left the project due to "creative differences" barely two months ago, forcing the studio to hire the considerably less-dynamic Benjamin Bratt to re-record the entire part and synch it to already-finished animation. The whole idea is bizarre...what, Al, you were fine with appearing in Jack And Jill, but drew the line at something as innocuous as this? Kristen Wiig is daffy fun as a potential love interest for Gru, but other ideas end up going nowhere, like one of Gru's Minions falling immediately in love with her...and the movie acknowledging this exactly once afterwards. And Gru's oldest daughter falling for the son of the baddie also goes nowhere, getting dropped like a bad habit long before the climax to the picture. Still, the movie is fun and looks great, but it won't appeal to adult viewers as much as the first one (which wasn't a classic to begin with, just a lot better than one might have expected). Kids, of course, won't mind.

I went to see this with my wife and kids today. I agree with almost everything in MJ's review except that I love the minions and definitely look forward to a Minions movie. Those guys crack me up!

I love the minions and definitely look forward to a Minions movie. Those guys crack me up!

I agree with you John. I think this film's breakthrough success is because the minions, more than anything else, have been totally embraced by most viewers. Everywhere you go, kids LOVE the minions -- they were also my favorite part of the first film, and my wife loves them also. I think you're right -- I'm certain a minion movie would be a huge success, provided it's handled properly.

I'm sure a Minion movie will make HUGE money, but I just think 90 minutes' worth of incomprehensible jabbering and pop song sing-alongs will get old really fast. It'd be like making a spin-off of the "Scrat" from the Ice Age movies...funny in small doses, but not enough to support a feature. At least Puss In Boots could speak, making his spin-off from the Shrek series logical (and better than the last two entries in that franchise).

I think personally the Minions appeal is wider than the Scrat character...but even if it doesnt work out, were talking kids movies here. What you may not want to tolerate for 80 minutes is something they might love. And thats the worst case scenario. If it is handled properly it could be a huge hit.

AndyDursin wrote:...but even if it doesnt work out, were talking kids movies here.

Being a movie intended for children is no excuse for it not being any good.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:...but even if it doesnt work out, were talking kids movies here.

Being a movie intended for children is no excuse for it not being any good.

Of course, you're right, but but not every children's movie has to be something that equally appeals to 20-60 year olds necessarily. Is your criteria for a good children's film strictly that it's something adults will enjoy? Because I can think of many movies kids love that aren't necessarily beloved by adults. The best ones are, sure -- but that doesn't make it an abject failure simply because adults don't care for it, or that it can't be a success at the box-office (as we've seen).

AndyDursin wrote:Of course, you're right, but but not every children's movie has to be something that equally appeals to 20-60 year olds necessarily. Is your criteria for a good children's film strictly that it's something adults will enjoy? Because I can think of many movies kids love that aren't necessarily beloved by adults. The best ones are, sure -- but that doesn't make it an abject failure simply because adults don't care for it, or that it can't be a success at the box-office (as we've seen).

I'm just sick and tired of the "Well, my kids liked it, and that's what important...!" excuse parents make when they take their kids to a piece of dung like Alvin & The Chipmunks, Yogi Bear and The Smurfs. I'm sorry, but kids deserve quality entertainment as much as they deserve quality food, shelter and education. I don't have kids -- I will never have kids -- so when I see an animated movie, I'm seeing it for my enjoyment, and if the film doesn't deliver, then yes, it's a creative failure. True "family" movies appeal to every member of the family, from eight to eighty, while "kiddie" movies appeal only to the very young, and are extremely trying for a thinking adult to sit through. The Shrek series creatively nosedived as it went along, but each one was still a major hit, because parents will bring their kids to anything they whine enough to see. It's just sad when an exquisite jewel of a film like Secret World Of Arrietty was barely larger than an art house release, while a shrill, charmless film like The Lorax raked in countless millions.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:Of course, you're right, but but not every children's movie has to be something that equally appeals to 20-60 year olds necessarily. Is your criteria for a good children's film strictly that it's something adults will enjoy? Because I can think of many movies kids love that aren't necessarily beloved by adults. The best ones are, sure -- but that doesn't make it an abject failure simply because adults don't care for it, or that it can't be a success at the box-office (as we've seen).

I'm just sick and tired of the "Well, my kids liked it, and that's what important...!" excuse parents make when they take their kids to a piece of dung like Alvin & The Chipmunks, Yogi Bear and The Smurfs. I'm sorry, but kids deserve quality entertainment as much as they deserve quality food, shelter and education. I don't have kids -- I will never have kids -- so when I see an animated movie, I'm seeing it for my enjoyment, and if the film doesn't deliver, then yes, it's a creative failure. True "family" movies appeal to every member of the family, from eight to eighty, while "kiddie" movies appeal only to the very young, and are extremely trying for a thinking adult to sit through. The Shrek series creatively nosedived as it went along, but each one was still a major hit, because parents will bring their kids to anything they whine enough to see. It's just sad when an exquisite jewel of a film like Secret World Of Arrietty was barely larger than an art house release, while a shrill, charmless film like The Lorax raked in countless millions.

I am reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote: "it is certainly my opinion that a book worth reading only in childhood is not worth reading even then."

My wife and I try to steer our kids toward quality movies and TV shows but there are times when we give in and let them watch stuff we know is not that great. My rationalization is that you can't truly know what a good movie is unless you've seen some bad ones to make the comparison. They'll eventually figure out what's good and what's bad (and it's part of my job as a parent to help them get there.)

Of course that doesn't mean I'm deliberately going to take them to every kids movie that omes out. Some I avoid at all costs and others I'll take them to if we absolutely MUST get out of the house.

I'm certainly not an advocate for terrible children's movies and never have been. However, not every children's film has to be E.T. or THE WIZARD OF OZ in order to placate younger viewers and be a success on that level for them. The target audience for these films is kids -- not adults. So long as it's not a totally mindless, vacant, worthless pile of garbage (and some of these animated movies are burping piles of fart jokes, and I couldn't STAND the later Shrek movies), then you have to try and look at the mindset of KIDS in reviewing these films.

Roger Ebert used to have that argument with Gene Siskel, when he would basically pan most every children's film he would see, and would advocate them watching THE BLACK STALLION instead. At some point, you have to acknowledge not every picture has to be a 4-star classic in order for it to be entertaining for children.

Again, I understand that what kids (especially very young kids) like is a far cry from what adults like, but when I watch an animated movie, it's for my entertainment, so I have no use for the token "my kids liked it" excuse. Kids like sticking their fingers into electric sockets and eating the bright-colored powder they find under the sink...it doesn't mean you should let them. Maybe I'm just bitter because a lot of what I liked as a kid is virtually UNWATCHABLE by adult standards, or at least a lot less enjoyable, so I try to prevent that when gifting my nieces and nephews with movies for birthdays and Christmas by only giving them films that can conceivably still be entertaining -- in addition to nostalgic -- for them twenty years from now. Ever try watching an episode of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon lately?

As far as the Studio Ghibli stuff goes -- those films are aimed specifically, for the most part, at the Japanese market. Their thematic concepts, at times, appeal most specifically to audiences in the Far East. Not all of it adapts here. Expecting western audiences to embrace those films wholesale -- and especially younger viewers who won't always 'get it' -- is asking a lot. Frankly there are times I've had to read more about the specific stories being rendered in those films in order to fully understand what the point was.

I think older kids and especially adults will get more out of those pictures than younger viewers will, for the sheer reason that the mythology a lot of Miyazaki's pictures embrace is relevant mostly to the Japanese culture, in both thematic content and aesthetic design. Why people are surprised that they aren't huge commercial successes in the U.S. (or elsewhere for that matter) is baffling to me, no matter how thoughtful and well executed they are.

GI JOE RETAILIATION
5/10

Nowhere as entertaining as its ridiculous but colorful predecessor, this tired and decidedly lower-budgeted sequel tries to restart the franchise with Dwayne Johnson as Roadblock -- one of the last remaining G.I. Joes who has to save the world, and clear the troop's name, after Cobra wipes out Duke (a 10-minute cameo for Channing Tatum) and unseen members of the prior movie's cast. Jonathan Pryce is back in a dual role as the President and the Cobra-copycat version, who schemes to spring Cobra Commander (obviously not Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who had better things to do) out of prison in order to launch a satellite that will give the bad guys control over the entire world. Joining Roadblock in opposition are Snake Eyes, Lady Jaye (Adrienne Palicki) and Sgt. Joe Colton, the original "Joe" who, as played by Bruce Willis, looks like he just rolled off the set for "Red 2" or any number of other direct-to-video flicks the actor has been appearing in of late.

Director John M. Chu, subbing for Stephen Sommers, has no choice here but to dial back on the spectacle: with a reduced amount of special effects, it takes nearly 45 minutes for "GI Joe: Retailiation" to get things going. When the "action" finally does start, it's distressingly bland, uninspired stuff, without all the gadgets and wild comic-book fun of the original movie, and dominated by bland Louisiana shooting locales. The script by Brett Reese and Paul Wernick is likewise no more than workmanlike in its approach, and the movie has a decidedly fragmented feel to it -- no surprise with the film having gone through publicized reshoots and a release date that pushed the movie back from Summer 2012 to this past spring. The delay may have polished the final product, yet the band-aids are obvious at times, and sequences that should've been entirely discarded (such as The RZA's hilarious performance as Snake Eye's "sensei") are still retained in an abbreviated form. There's also a notable lack of chemistry between the actors, with Willis' would-be rousing appearance as the original G.I. Joe coming off as little more than an afterthought -- evidence of a wider lack of vision that permeates every element of this by-the-numbers sequel.

"G.I. Joe Retailiation" ended up performing well at the international box-office, thereby ensuring future sequels -- hopefully the next installment will be considerably livelier than this one.

Pacific Rim (2013): 7.5/10

Wanted to love this, as a huge fan of both Guillermo Del Toro specifically and giant monster films in general, but it's merely good. Energetic, packed with action, but the characterizations on leads Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi (finally allowed to have dialogue in a movie) are tissue-thin, and I grew weary of just how dark most of the action sequences were. Shakey-cam wasn't the problem this time, but why was virtually every monster scene set at night and/or in the rain? Funny, I remember most of the Godzilla films of my youth having fight scenes set during the day, so you could actually see the monster combatants. Plus, the monsters themselves are disappointing...given Del Toro's penchant for innovative creature designs, the similarity of each Kaiju here is a letdown. This is kind of like the first Hellboy, where Ron Perlman fought the same generic Lovecraftian self-replicating tentacle monster over and over. At least there, the film's modest budget could excuse the thrift, but with around $200 million to play with, Del Toro should have given us more variety (like Hellboy II's innovative orgy of monsters). The film is more recognizably Del Toro-ish in the smaller details (an obsession with icky creature innards and goo) and quirky supporting performances (was Charlie Day intentionally made up to look like J.J. Abrams?), but I wish more of that wit was put into the monster battles. There are plenty of nifty details on the "Jaeger" robots (I liked the four-armed buzzsaw one), so why was the only one that got any significant amount of action the lead one manned by Hunnam and Kikuchi? I would have preferred to see more tag-team action...even Godzilla needed the occasional assist from Jet Jaguar or King Seesar. It's still a fun movie, but anyone who didn't grow up on a steady childhood diet of Creature Double Feature mayhem will likely find themselves scratching their heads. This is a total fetish piece, and anyone not on Del Toro's wavelength will likely be left wanting.

OBLIVION
7.5/10

After the "summer of mass destruction" we've had with one loud assault on the senses after another, there's something refreshing about an old-fashioned, hard-core science fiction film like Joseph Kosinski's "Oblivion." Granted, portions of this film have been assembled out of other sources, but this is nevertheless a visually enthralling and entertaining sci-fi adventure.

“Oblivion” is a throwback science fiction movie – refreshingly, it doesn’t offer a frenetic succession of CGI chases, shaky cam, or desaturated cinematography. Kosinski and cinematographer Claudio Miranda have packaged a strikingly designed post-apocalyptic world where gorgeous, wide open natural vistas clash with the occasional landmark from an old, dying civilization. The approach is effective, and the movie likewise employs a moody, haunting tone to complement Kosinski’s expert use of the full widescreen frame. The screenplay, adapted by Karl Gajdusek and Michael DeBruyn from Kosinski’s original graphic novel, is admittedly familiar, and viewers resistant to sci-fi might want to stay away, but “Oblivion” kept me glued because of its believably rendered atmosphere and dramatic arc. Some critics carped about star Tom Cruise seemingly “disengaged” in terms of his performance, but they seemed to have missed the point entirely in that regard.

Universal's Blu-Ray comes out next week and looks sensational. Among the extras is an isolated score track (I didn't hate the score either, though it's not as memorable as Daft Punk's Tron Legacy effort), short featurettes and just a few minutes of worthless deleted scenes, plus a commentary with Cruise and the director.

Maybe if I saw this film in the spring I would've been harder on it, but after the likes of Star Trek, Man of Steel, etc., I very much enjoyed "Oblivion".