African Cats

I am not a big nature documentary kind of guy. I never watched all of Planet Earth and don't have an interest in National Geographic. I know someone is asking why I would ever go see a nature documentary and it is simple; I have a love for cats. Whether big or small I love cats - they are considered bubbies to me; adorable cats that have big whiskers and cute faces.

African Cats is the story about three different tribes of felines; a weak older lion desperately hanging on to his herd, a young king and his three sons looking to take over new territory and a single mother trying to take care of her children in a dangerous environment. The three stories are compelling and all intersect at different points. The story is overall good although the ending is a little lack luster but I would gather that some nature documentaries are like that. Considering the story is not written and planned but rather filmed and then pieced together, the story holds originality and strength with characters.

Like most docs about nature, the cinematography is usually the biggest selling point, and this film is no exception. The shots were gorgeous and most importantly the animals were photographed beautifully as well. I won't forget watching this film when Cullie, the king lion, and his sons ran up on the African plain with their dreamlike manes blowing in the air- it was a most magnificent site.

I know this review is going out too late for someone to run to theaters and see it. I have to start posting reviews faster but I would suggest seeing this at the dollar theater at least before it is out on DVD. Disney Nature did a good job at making this picture. It is entertaining for children and adults. It is a beautiful family film.

Overall I give this a solid: B

Arthur

Remakes are similar to the circus: you know what you're getting, but wonder what will be unique this time around?

Every time someone mentions that a remake is coming out - which seems to be happening more and more these days - the first thing I think of is Jesus. Well, not Jesus himself but more Jesus as in films about Jesus. Every film about Jesus is a remake. The earliest one being King of Kings from Cecil B. Demille, up to the most recent being The Passion of the Christ from the violent imagination of Mel. The point is that the story of Jesus is the same every time, but depending on who is telling it, whether it be Gibson and his violent/beautiful version, Scorsese's version about Jesus the man and not the God or Cecil's silent version; it is still the same story. Jesus is a great man, persecuted and then murdered but succeeds admirably. When you remake a story about Jesus, the director or Producers walk in to a room and provide a pitch for their film. Their slant, if you will. (I'm sure there are a handful of directors who just tilted their head at the word slant) The word slant is the directors personal view on the story. What is he going go to do that is different from everyone else? Martin Scorsese would say that his film is going to be about Jesus the man instead of Jesus the God. That is a great slant and works for his movie. PROBABLY WHY IT WAS SUCCESSFUL. Arthur is a prime example of the opposite and is probably why it is not that good.

I grade films like I got graded in Elementary School; therefore, this movie gets a C- due to a lack of solidarity in story telling. The audience is intelligent and do not want to be force-fed as if they were five. All I ever ask for as a movie goer is to be entertained and understand the storyline, which is traveling from point A to point B, and if there can be some jokes on the way, I'll be tickled.

Arthur is the story of an heir to royalty, who chooses to drown himself in cognac and bubble baths rather than attending meetings and charities that will benefit his company. The immature actions of Arthur have cost his mother great discomfort and public embarrassment, which in turn cuts him off from all family funds UNLESS he marries the woman of his (nowhere near) dreams. The plot thickens when he actually falls in love with the girl of his dreams and has to make the decision; will he take the money and an unhappy life or the love of his life and poverty?

Now, that sounds like a great pitch, and it is, because the movie is based off of great material, like the above, but in this modern version with Mother Alien lookalike Russel Brand, the paper falls short from the porch. For starters, Russel Brand may be an extraordinary actor but right now he is in a small funk like Paulie Shore. So, a note for my buuuuuudy, I really want to see what you will do in ten years from now and hopefully you do a great rendition of Hamlet instead of Dogberry next time around, but until then I'd brush up on being drunk because you are no Dudley Moore. Personally, it is a problem for me when Nick Nolte is playing a better drunk than you are and he is not even trying. (Note: if Nolte acts like that in Warrior it will be a tremendous comedy)

I found a problem with the character Hobson as well. She seems angry at Arthur for the majority of the movie and then when you realize she actually enjoys his company, she's out of the picture. Pick a side: does she dislike the cat and then fall in love with him at the end of does she like the guy and enjoy the playful sarcastic relationship they have? A choice must be made and unfortunately that choice needed to be made in the writing room, and it wasn't.

On another note, the woman that Arthur is trying to not marry is a terrible person in general. I wouldn't want to marry her either and I sympathize with Arthur (it's only cheap points though) but I don't know if that really helps with the story. This is the first time I have to jump back to the original as a "for instance" but, in the original the woman that Arthur is supposed to marry is just like the rest of the society that Arthur can't stand; this aristocratic universe full of snobs. In our 21st Century retelling, she is a diabolical witch who wants to take over the company for her own personal agenda. Nobody would like that, first of all, and secondly you don't find out she wants the company for herself until the end. That is just poor story telling. That character is not developed. In the words of Bill Cosby, "It needs more time to cook".

The characters and story are not developed due to poor writing, and you can't blame the original concept because that film is great. The original Arthur had around ten scenes being ten minutes in length at most and this remake has twenty scenes all three minutes in length at most. The original played off of Dudley Moore being one of the top ten screen drunks and Hobson being a sarcastic butler with a heart of gold, while this remake plays off of Russel Brand being Russel Brand and bad a love interest with blonde hair...? I don't know why films today feel a need to write more scenes at shorter length. It doesn't add anything to the story or make it more entertaining.The resolution was ten minutes instead of one minute. It dragged at the end and in my personal opinion I think it needed another draft or three before it hit production. I know why it was made though, someone said Russel is an up and coming star and we must make more movies with him. I feel bad for ya Russel. Get a better agent, and Nolte, stay off the drink.

In the end it all comes back to bad story telling. It is no different than telling the story of Jesus. We know the story. There's nothing new. The question is what can be showed that is unique? Keep the audience entertained, show them something they haven't seen, and if you can whip a little message in there. With this recent remake you have to deal with cheeky performances, lots of production value and good cinematography, but this is no Terrence Malick masterpiece, so don't hold your breath. Today, in Hollywood, you could photograph me taking a dump and it would look fantastic. Just because you spend a lot of money on production value does not make it worth watching. Tell me a good story next time.

In the end, I say, wait til Redbox.

Grade C-

Insidious

Last night's view of Insidious began with Martinis at Bar Louie. I arrived promptly at ten after six - ten minutes late, but when I got there for happy hour the place didn't look so happy. Sunlight bounced off the dark wooden surfaces, and Josh was nowhere to be found. I took a seat at the bar and was tricked in to a half off martini from the bartender. I ordered a caffeinator, which is something similar to Starbuck's coffee if the coffee had liquor and was served in a saucer. I texted Josh letting him know I had arrived. For the first time, I was on time, yet still late.

As I began to indulge in my coffee martini, my phone sounded with Sex Raptor by HORSE the band; Josh was calling. After answering I knew he had forgotten completely about going out. It's a weekly tradition to get martinis and movies during the week, and when martinis are only five dollars from five to seven, you might as well go. He hung up quickly to make up for lost time but it didn't matter, the traffic would be horrendous. Sip your martini slowly, I told myself, but before I knew it I was sipping the caramel whip cream out of the bottom of the glass. I rested it on the table and did anything I could to wait patiently for Josh.

Suddenly, two dollars landed in front of me and another bartender said, "I owe you for pizza". I hadn't noticed him right away but suddenly....ANDY. One evening he needed money for pizza and, at the time I had nothing, so I hesitantly gave him two dollars. This sparked our friendship nonetheless and although I hadn't seen him in two months, he offered to make me a drink and still give me the two dollars. I agreed, as anyone would, kept the money for the bartenders tip and still waited patiently, and not just for my drink. Then it was placed in front of me. It was a concoction of something yellow, salt and wine all in one. I slowly drank it. It was awful but free, and since it was free...it was delicious.

Half a glass later I felt like a marble in the labyrinth board game. Looking up at the entrance I saw Josh stroll in casually with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles hoodie and shorts. He was practically an hour late but made up for it by slamming his hand on the bar and yelling, "A cable car and two shots of Jack". The martini and shots materialized in front of him. He worked on the drink, toasted the shot, gave me the other, and we gulped it down. Jack goes down rough for a whiskey. After some conversation and a cigarette we decided to have another martini and two more shots of Jack, only this time Josh specifically asked for Honey Jack, which thankfully they just stocked that day. I was prepared for a harsh sensation but this went down smooth...like honey. It was delicious.

Josh turned to me with urgency, "what time is our movie?", he asked. We didn't even know what movie we were going to! After looking up times on Fandango, I chose the closest movie on our schedule. We took two more shots of Honey Jack, which went down smoother the second time, and tiptoed out the door. The tigers were loose and the tigers were seeing Insidious

The topic of conversation outside the theater was wanting Christopher Nolan to blow up Melon Arena, when suddenly I looked at the time. We were late by ten minutes. He stopped me from going in to the AMC as he looked for an ash tray for his cigarette. I flicked mine in the road. If you're gonna smoke who cares if you liter? He said he needed another smoke, so we sat outside while he had another. The movie hour was closing, the previews were almost over and there was no time to bullshit.

The line to the box office is always annoying. Either people will be standing waiting for the movie in a long line similar to the bank or nobody will be in it at all. Either way, you have to walk around the line like a mouse in a maze. I chose to duck under the elastic band. Josh chose to slap the band from the connecting pole and just walk through. A few patrons laughed at us. We were the show tonight. Just get to the ticket booth and order ONE FOR INSIDIOUS. I found I did that with great ease. So did Josh. That wasn't the problem but containing our bladders was.

Moments later I found myself peeing in a urinal meant for a ten year old as I heard splashing of piss on the floor. "Oops", I heard from two meters over. He had missed the bowl entirely. We were twenty minutes late as we left the bathroom and the doors were shut to the theater. Entering the darkness, Josh shouted, "I hope we didn't miss the beginning", in crescendo. We had. Stumbling to find our seat in the stadium rising theater we could tell this movie was serious, and we were the wrong people to be taken seriously. The last thing these audience members need is a drunk duo finding their seats in the dark and on top of that a giggle fest, and we were chock full of that.

It got embarrassing. Within twenty five minutes we moved seats twice and were yelled at for talking. We also laughed for fifteen minutes straight, and after leaving we somehow found ourselves back to Bar Louie. Our bartender was disappointed, but Josh ordered more shots. Two more Honey Jack followed by two more Honey Jack. The night ended with me taking one more Honey Jack than Josh. He had knocked my shot over in drunken stupidness and gave me his because he couldn't handle drinking it. We talked for a while and parted ways.

Insidious was good. At least what we saw.

Seriously, I did see this movie though. I went back two days later with my girlfriend to learn a different lesson than don't drink before your movie; don't buy child tickets cause you'll get caught by Rowanda. In short, Insidious was not a bad movie. It had scary scenes and great jump factor, along with haunting usage of "Tip Toe through the Tulips", by Tiny Tim. There are a few issues that rest with the film and again it is in the writing. The most cliche trick in the book is used in the middle of the movie when the father is told that what is happening to his son happened to him when he was a boy and he doesn't remember it. I would have been satisfied if this man remembered this happened to him and decided to astro project himself in the world of the further and save his son but instead he doesn't remember that it happened, that he can astro-project and then DOES it at the end. That and some of the acting was just poorly done, for instance; put Barbara Hershey in a movie and suddenly you know trouble is around. She's type casted and will never play Mary Magdalene again. Other than those two things, I think the movie is pretty solid. It is definitely scary, definitely creepy and definitely another movie to add to James Wan's list of well done horror films, but James, you have these moments that knock your movies from A to B- and it is killing me, man. Quit doing it.

Grade: B-