MEOW Presents: BERNIE needs to teach DJANGO some manners--My ONE-LONG-PARAGRAPH reviews of both BERNIE and DJANGO UNCHAINED!

December 30th, 2012

MEOW!



Bernie could very well be a modern-day backstory to Les Miserables, which is, ironically, referenced during a court hearing near the end of the film. The crime our hero commits, however, is accidentally shooting a woman (Shirley MacLaine) four times in the back. Still, like Jean Valjean, Bernie Tiede (absolutely wonderful performance from Jack Black) seems to be a man of good intentions. And like Javert, D.A. Danny Buck Davidson (Matthew McConaughey--mom seems to be proud of that casting choice) strongly believes that everyone should respect the law, no matter how corrupt that it may seem to be. Bernie is another terrific film from Richard Linklater, the director of School of Rock, and the under-appreciated remake of Bad News Bears. Inspired by true events (yes, the body was buried in the freezer), this film cleverly mixes real-life documented interviews with those who had known or had heard about Bernie, and the dramatized (and funny) interpretations that presented Bernie's adventures and mishaps. It also delivers a refreshingly honest message: even though you have committed a crime, and you could easily go to jail, that doesn't mean you are a monster; you are still a human being, and you have to ability to change yourself and others for the better, whether you're behind bars or not. This is one of the most unexpectedly impressive gems of the year, and one that I hope more people discover soon. {NOTE: It's on Netflix instant que right now. If you have an account there, go for it!}



The first act of Django Unchained is a lot of fun, while the last two acts are boring, pointless, sickening and almost tortuous, both in a mental and physical sense. What went wrong? Well, let's start off with what went right, first. There's one scene involving people wearing masks that complain about not seeing too well; that...was comic gold. Christoph Waltz is also a lot of fun as Dr. King Schultz, who seems very comfortable of bringing a black man into an all-too-caucasian town. It's when we are introduced to Leonardo DiCaprio's character named Calvin Candie (He lives on a plantation called Candie-land. I slap people's knees for a quick buck.) that the film starts to go downhill, despite having Samuel L. Jackson's character--in very effective make-up, I might add--entertaining us for a little bit. The third act...good freakin' grief, I just wanted it to end. Too much dialogue. Too many acts of violence. Too many migranes in just one act of a film. It was just too much of everything; it loses the charm that the wonderful first act had, and it becomes a chore to sit through. I admire some of Quentin Tarantino's work ("That IS a tasty burger!"), and I don't hate anybody involved with this film, but you would honestly have to pay me to sit through this film again, even if it was seen at some traditional party in a college dorm. Skip Django; see Rango.

Oh, and Weinsteins: you lose this round. That's OK; have a tasty burger!



Until next time,

MEOW!

MEOW! Presents: Every cloud has a SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK!--My review right here!

December 29th, 2012

MEOW!

I've had my fair share of complaints about the Weinstein Company, and how I tend to believe that it likes to slap its distribution name on any film just to score some golden statues. Just because they can tell people that it's "the best film you will see all year" doesn't make it true to other people who may see it and disagree. And anybody who disagrees with that quote is more than likely to get looked down by the majority of people who claim it to be a work of art. You can't force opinions on people; the best thing to do is to help and encourage those attempting to  find something good, or great even.

And Silver Linings Playbook is one great film.

Mix Dirty Dancing with two of the craziest people you could ever meet, and you have Silver Linings Playbook--a terrific winner written and directed by David O. Russell. Leaving aside the brilliant performances of Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence for a moment, this film has an involving (albeit predictable) story with quirky humor and mature topics that are rarely covered in today's films, such as mental disabilites and the belief of, you guessed it, a silver lining! It's one of the easiest films to appreciate in a rather dreary and political awards season, so far.

When he is released from the Baltimore psychiatric ward eight months later, Pat (Bradley Cooper), a man with bipolar disorder, attempts to start his life anew by finding a positive outlook on life. He starts by trying to get back with his wife Nikki (Brea Bee) after an unfortunate incident that led him to being sent away from everyone that he knows. He finds out the only way to connect with her is through her friend Tiffany (Katniss Everdeen: THE GIRL ON FIRE!), a recent widow who not only lost her husband Tommy in a bizarre car accident; she also lost her job by having sex with most of the co-workers at her job (how many, I'll leave for you to discover.). She agrees to send a letter to Nikki if he is willing to perform in a dance competition with her, and so, the two form an oddball friendship that leads to something there that wasn't there before...OK, it's not Beauty and the Beast, but ya get the jist. There's also an interesting sub-plot that intertwines with Pat's story involving his father (Robert De Niro); he has an *O.C.D* with the Philadelphia Eagles, and believes that Pat would be a 'good luck charm' if he were able to watch the games with him.



Without question, every performance in the ensemble is a a sight to behold. Right off the bat, Bradley Cooper is brilliant as Pat (the rhymes--they chime like limes). Deviating away from his character from The Hangover, Cooper presents Pat as a troubled human being who is only looking for a silver lining, especially after reading a rather upsetting copy of Ernest Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms." Robert De Niro has a great turn as a father who, despite his obsession with his favorite football team, only wants to have a few moments with his son. Any father and son who watches this film can definitely relate to that. A really nice surprise comes from Chris Tucker, playing the role of Pat's friend Danny. Normally known for his karate-chop action in the Rush Hour films, it's nice to see him in a role that allows him to be comedic while also grounded in reality; it shows how versatile any actor can be, really.

And now we have Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany. It's kind of hard to describe her character, honestly. She's just...real. She's an absolutely goregous person, inside and out; she's the type of woman that us guys would fall head over heels for. And then we go back to the eyes. In her eyes, we see how much of a crazy life that she must've made for herself, and how personal that life must've been. How personal, we're not so sure. Because of that, we wonder if it was right to take the risk. We take it anyways, however. Because we're curious. We're fascinated. She's an enigma that deserves to open up her feelings to all of us, and no matter how crazy she gets with them, it's the passion that matters the most of all. An Oscar nomination is in her future, and if there isn't anybody else as good as her, she could possibly take home her first golden statue. It's so well-deserved, you have no idea.



Two people falling in love with each other is an easy sell to a mass audience. Add the words 'with mental illnesses' between 'people' and 'falling in love,' and you would have a difficult task that is just around the riverbend. Writer-Director David O. Russell does something incredible with the characters, something that I would never expect to be accomplished so well here: he makes both Pat and Tiffany absolutely likeable and relatable. I've seen a lot of films that focus on characters that had mental illnesses, and they've either ranged from bland to the purest definition of unlikeable (Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network comes to mind. Realistic or not, I couldn't stand him at all.). To FINALLY see a film, let alone a romantic comedy, that dives deep into both of the characters' psychological problems with a touch of humanity makes me extremely happy. There is good in this world; you just have to be crazy enough to find it.

David O. Russell's direction with the camerawork isn't as crazy as the concept of its story. Unlike Les Miserables, however, where most of the intimacy is inappropriate for the subject matter, here it's appropriate, and allows you to invest in the characters' dilemmas. It especially works whenever scenes take place in Pat's household with his family, where the overlapping dialogue overwhelms both the characters and the audience observing the action. Speaking of dialogue, the film's script is swimming in it, and brilliantly so. Every bit of dialogue between two or three characters, which mostly runs about five to ten minutes, just keep the eyes glued to the screen  There's an interesting moment when Pat explains the origin of the word 'OK' at the dinner table, which provides a few laughs and a bit of history in the process. It's also a stroke of genius of having Pat and Tiffany go as 'themselves' while everyone at the diner is all dressed up in costume. Irony still has a few tricks up its sleeve, I see.

If I had to nipick one aspect of this otherwise wonderful film, it's that, no matter how much it seems to be unique and different from the genre, it's still a traditional romantic comedy at the end of the day. That's not a bad thing, FAR from it, but if you read the plot synopsis that was in the second paragraph, you pretty much know what you're going to expect within the first five minutes. Heck, just reading the title can give away everything without even seeing it. So, why still see this film? Because as much as the conventions still shine like the top of the chrysler building, there are still plenty of genuine surprises to be had. There's one scene where I thought it was going in the oh-so-predictable direction that plenty of romantic comedies do nowadays (Ya know, the traditional "You-did-this-to-me-so-I'm-going-to-leave-you-for-now-and-we-can-both-mope-in-our-separate-ways-until-we-conventionally-apologize-so-we-can-please-the-masses" formula? I guess not.), until Tiffany enters Pat's house for the very first time. I won't spoil it for you all, except that it put the goofiest grin on my face when I first saw it.



Well, all I can say is this: Weinsteins, you definitely win this round. Silver Linings Playbook is a film I look forward to hearing about more when Oscar season arrives; with outstanding performances from the ensemble, particularly Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, and a wonderful direction and script by David O. Russell, it is one of the easiest films I can reccomend to you right now. It's crazy to think that I'm reccomending something like this--a romantic comedy where two people with mental illnesses fall in love. Yet, here I am. This is one of the year's best films.

SIDE-NOTE: I would also reccomend this film to any mature 13 or 14-year-olds. They've seen worse imagery in PG-13 films. I mean, have you NOT seen what has been going on around the Capitol?

Until next time,

MEOW!

MEOW! Presents: All of THAT for a Loaf of Bread??--My Review of LES MISERABLES here!

December 27th, 2012

MEOW!

A little bit of history about me and Les Miserables before we carry on. I have not seen the production live, nor have I read the novel written by Victor Hugo. I was, however, introduced to it by watching the 25th anniversary concert on Television, and have returned to it on numerous occassions online. I fell in love with the music, the performances by everyone involved were just a joy to watch (Yes, even Nick Jonas. Go ahead, society.), and the themes ring true and are relevant to today's society as a whole. I also sang "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" for not only my senior solo at my last Chorus concert, but also for a scholarship that would go towards my tuition at the college I now attend. And of course, I've watched other renditions of the songs, such as Philip Quast's rendition of "Stars," and Colm Wilkinson's rendition of "Bring Him Home." So naturally, when I saw the first trailer of Anne Hathaway singing "I Dreamed a Dream," I was hooked from the start. It was easily one of my most anticipated films of the year, and EASILY my most anticipated film of the season. Still, I went in understanding that it's not going to be exactly what I expect, so I gained an optimistic attitude that it would still be a great adaptation to one of the most beloved musicals ever written for the stage. So, did my optimism pay off?

Um...somewhat?

I guess this is yet another example of The-Dark-Muppet-Rises syndrome. What is that, you may ask? Both The Dark Knight Rises and The Muppets were films that almost everyone was excited for, including myself. At the end of both films, everyone around me went absolutely bonkers for them while I sat in my seat sulking because I saw a completely different film. I didn't understand it. I felt like I was being surrounded by people that I couldn't talk to because if I said what I had to say, they would reject me as if I were some sort of alien. I didn't get it. Les Miserables is, sadly, one of those films. In fact, I would dare say that the audience reaction to this film would top both of the films previously mentioned before. When this film ended, people went unbelievably nuts, while I had to grit my teeth and bear it so I didn't spoil anybody's fun, even though it certainly wasn't a lot of fun for me.



In no way am I saying Les Miserables is a bad film, however. Let's start off with the positives first before I get to the major problems I had with this adaptation. First of all, I thought it was a bold choice of having every actor sing their songs live on set. Of course, singing live in a film is not as new as some people are claiming it to be (I think Once had their performers sing live everywhere they went.), but it's comforting to know that these types of musicals can still be filmed today when everything else is lip-synched and so-called *fake.* That said, I honestly prefer some of the so-called *fake* movie musicals over this, such as Hairspray and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street; they also cared about the material at hand while focusing on the endless possibilites of filmmaking. That not only makes for a great movie musical; that makes for a great movie, period.

Wait, wasn't I going to focus on the positives first? Anywho, back to them. The ensemble works really well together. Hugh Jackman makes for a fine Jean Valjean; whenever he belted out his '2460111111' moment at the end of "Who Am I?," I just had to perform an automatic 'OOHRAH' with my fist in the air. Good thing I was in the very back of the theater when that happened. Anne Hathaway as Fantine...yeah, what else can you say about her? She performed "I Dreamed a Dream" in no more than two shots. How many times it took to get those shots perfectly remains in question, except that it is easily one of the highlights of the film. and one of the best interpretations of the song in years. And ya know what? I liked Russell Crowe as Javert. Could there have been a better actor to portray him? Perhaps, but as is, I easily admired the choice. I thought his rendition of "Stars" was absolutely wonderful, and his voice really complimented the orchestra incredibly well.



As for the younger folk in this film, Samantha Barks is just a joy to watch as Eponine; it's great to see her film acting career get started with a character that she originally portrayed before on stage. Eddie Redmayne, while having a wonderful voice as Marius, has a distracting quality as to how he sings; it almost seems like he's nodding to every emotion that he makes. Still, it's a nice performance, and he sells "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" well enough. It's also great for Aaron Tveit, not a stranger to the broadway stage if you've seen him in Next to Normal, to get his chance to shine as Enjolras. And the two child actors, Isabelle Allen as Young Cosette and Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche, have really nice voices and suit their chracters really well.

Oh, and having Colm Wilkinson cameo as the Bishop is a genius move by the casting directors. Well-done.

The stand-outs, however, are Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thenardiers. I swear, any scene with them in it almost had me on the floor. Yes, they should've belonged in something like Sweeney Todd, and yes, they almost seem out of place in a film that should make us feel, oh, the shades come on again, *miserable* to be us. But...my lord. It's just comic perfection. When they perform "Master of the House," it makes us cringe in the way that Borat makes us cringe--that is, in the funniest way that you could imagine. There's a reason why this number becomes an audience favorite in the musical, and this will definitely become one when people see this film. Though I really, REALLY hope that cat grows his tail back. Ya know, something like this:



So, alright. The casting seems to be more than OK. The music is EASILY more than OK. What seems to be less than OK that really brings this film farther away from home?

Well, you may have noticed that I forgot to mention one character in an earlier paragraph, and that's the older version of Cosette (Amanda Seyfried.). I love Amanda Seyfried in this. She has a wonderful singing voice, and brings an otherworldly dimension to her character...that is, for the fifteen-to-twenty minutes of screentime she only has. I mean, seriously? This whole story was leading up to the relationship between her and Jean Valjean, and it was a solid relationship so far, albeit somewhat creepy (If I was a child under the age of ten, and some middle-aged man came up to me asking what my name was, I would say "I'd rather be eaten by the flying cows I have in my nightmares inspired by The Little Vampire."). There was even a nice song titled "Suddenly" that attempts to flesh out their relationship even more, though that seemed to end up like unnecessary filler. So, what happens? Well, apparently the good-ol' June Rebellion decides to screw up the development between the two characters. Once we 'hear the people sing,' we hear everyone except Cosette singing.



And actually, Jean Valjean gets sidestepped by the June Rebellion for a bit as well. There's a section of the film that goes on too long to the point of making me ask myself "OK, Jean Valjean is in this film, right?" He becomes a secondary character in the story, as well as Javert. OH. NO. That's a *BIG* NO-NO when crafting a story like this, no matter how ambitious it aspires to be. YOU DO NOT make your two main characters secondary to the story, especially when the other characters are not even developed in the slightest. And even when the film completely focuses on the two, when you come down to it, all of these events in this story happen because Jean stole a loaf of bread. I mean...really? I understand this is supposed to represent how insane Javert is, but..I'm sorry. To paraphrase my buddy Al: "All of THAT for a loaf of bread??"



Because of this, and because of some of the choices Tom Hooper made with his direction, it was almost impossible to feel as emotionally involved as I could have with this film. Only a couple of moments toyed with my emotions brilliantly: anything involving Fantine, and a child's death that could make any parent involved in the Newtown shooting walk out of the theater (I wouldn't reccomend a child under the age of 11 seeing this film.). Aside from that, I don't know what happened. When I listened to the "Epilogue" on Spotify (Thank You, Andrew Kohanski), I was shaking afterwards; it was incredibly emotional. I had no idea how I would fare out when I would hear it in the theater. Now it could be because of how the sound wasn't as spectacular as the other theaters at the RAVE in Buckland, but I got through it without feeling like a mess. That's a problem either way, as a film should work to its emotional advantage even with a less-than-powerful sound system.

I've heard many go on, and on, and on, and on, and OK I'm going to stop, about the filmmaking style Hooper applies for this film. While I appreciate the close-ups when it comes to observing the performer's emotions, there are times where I would want to just take the camera and exploit the epic wonder that an entertainment like Les Miserables truly deserves. There a couple of moments that happens, however. One is "Stars." There is one shot when Javert is looking up at the night sky, and the camera moves as if we are looking from his point of view; it's one beautiful moment. The other moment occurs immediately after Jean Valjean belts out his 'begin' in the prologue. As the incredible music plays during that scene, the camera follows the ripped paper of his parole flying in the wind, which signifies that his new life is about to commence; it's one awesome moment. If only Tom could've lived up to those moments, and then, we would've had a wondrously epic adaptation on display. Intimacy does not equal Les Miserables in any way, shape, or form; it's difficult to take a film as is when the filmmaking could've been something exceptional and extraordinary--the two ex's, my friends and neighbors.

One last thing: If William Nicholson, the screenwriter of this film, was 100% committed to a movie musical adaptation of Les Miserables, he would've gone all the way by having at least 95% of the lines being sung, and not 85%. There shouldn't be any scenes with just dialogue; it takes away from the overall feeling that this is a SUNG-THROUGH movie musical universe. Some moments, such as when Hugh Jackman is performing "Who Am I?," work well when a sung lyric is spoken for emotional depth, but when one scene of Jean Valjean looking for work is entirely unsung, it can pull some people out of the universe entirely, and it would be tough to get back in. I won't question whether or not it plays as an attempt to rope in a wider audience, but considering that over 30 million people worldwide have seen the production before, having dialogue in certain scenes causes a severe distraction.

Even though I've had some problems with the musical version of Les Miserables in the past, they were easily overshadowed by performances of emotional depth and some of the craziest technical theatre that I've ever seen in my life. I reccomend this film, but with some reservations (No, not reservations to the theater, you silly ducks. Quack!). Most of the performances are terrific, and I do admire that films like these can still be made today. For a film adaptation of such a well-known musical like this one, however, Hooper should've gone that extra mile and made it sung-through the whole way, and even when it is staying faithful to the source material, there could've been a few tweaks to make the story all the more powerful. Still, I guess for what it is, it should please many 'miserable' fans out there. Advice? Just don't go in expecting the most heart-rending film of the year, and you'll be OK. In fact, go in with that expectation, and you could actually prove me wrong. Who knows? Just how 'miserable' are you?

To conclude...A LOAF OF BREAD??? REALLY???



Until next time,

MEOW!

Meow Presents: "Can't we all just get along, little monsters?" A.K.A. I've had enough.

December 26th, 2012

Meow.

OK, so originally I was going to write a review for Les Miserables, and probably will sometime in the near-future. But if you spare me for a few, brief moments, let me just say: I've had enough. Of what, you may ask? I've had enough of people thinking that it's OK to have a higher superiority over others by writing offensive comments to the writer of his/her opinion. I've been reading a lot of them lately, especially when the comments are under some of the mixed opinions for The Dark Knight Rises. I'll be honest, the reason why I didn't write an opinion for that film was because of how much flack I would possibly get if I did. If you want it, I thought the film was OK. I liked some of the more tender moments when Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) was involved, and it's great to hear the exhilarating compositions of Hans Zimmer. However, there were some parts that almost bordered on awful for me. For instance, the minute I heard Bane's voice, I knew I was in trouble; it was clearly intended to please those that weren't happy with his voice when they heard it in the prologue alongside Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol--The IMAX Experience.

So, that was what I would have originally written down if I had released my review about five months earlier. Had I posted a review of that on Rotten Tomatoes, I probably would've gotten at least 500 comments that either revolved around 'Yo Mamma' jokes or how 'I shame myself as a critic and how I don't deserve to review films because I do nothing to contribute to society.' And honestly, those complaints are PG-rated compared to the nastiest of complaints I could have gotten. I mean, look at how many comments that Christy Lemire got on this page just because she gave it a rotten review:  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/comments/?reviewid=2095695. This was the review that caused the Rotten Tomatoes manager to cancel any more comments that would land under any of the reviews on the site. {NOTE how some of the comments have been removed. That's how bad it was.}

It's one thing to have an opinion and disagree with it, and yes, maybe that opinion isn't always an open window to the heart, mind, and soul. But it's another to unashamedly offend a person just because it wasn't the opinion that YOU so desparately wanted to hear. Whether you probably know it or not, that person has a life, a family, and probably doesn't even read the comments that you write. That being said, the person who writes his/her own opinions is also human. If he/she happened to read the comments that you put so much unnecessary thought to, it could possibly lead to a broken heart from that person, and he/she may even decide to quit that job. It's also the exact same thing as cyberbullying; we don't want that person experimenting with death because of something that could've easily been held in. I die a little inside when people start questioning the strengths and weaknesses of one person when they can't express what they really thought to begin with.

The art of opinion is what you make of it, my friends. My advice: See something first and form your own opinion, and eventually comment on another opinion with insight and maturity. Think thrice before you speak, and if he/she's available for coffee, allow yourself to have a real conversation about that opinion with him/her so that we can continue on living in the great Circle of Life.

Have a good day,

Meow.

MEOW! Presents: TIME TO COMPLAIN!: The 10 Lumps of Coal of 2012!

December 23rd, 2012

MEOW!

2012

TIME TO COMPLAIN! Here are the 10 lumps of coal of 2012!




10.) Snow White and the Huntsman--Now, there were a couple of aspects that proved to work more than it should. Some of the performances, such as Charlize Theron as the Queen and Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman, were actually pretty good for the disappointing material that they were given with. Most of the technical aspects, especially Florence + The Machine's "Breath of Life" at the end credits, were absolutely breathtaking, and should be considered for a couple of Oscar nominations come January. The reason why this is a part of the unofficial worst-of-the-year-list, apart from the so-called-stick ending that this film will forever be haunted for, is that there is little to no emotional investment towards its characters. Snow White (-feh- Kristen Stewart) is locked up in a tower for, what, nine years after the Queen takes control of the kingdom? We're supposed to feel the pain and anguish of Snow's suffering, and we get none of that here. When one of the dwarves dies, we express our sorrow like how Bella Swan feels about the paper cut she gets on her finger in New Moon. Yeah...it's THAT emotional, folks. Get ready to bring some tissues. With such beautiful imagery, it should be expected to have an emotional chord to go along with it. To be fair, I did feel something at the end of this film, and it was the wrong emotion: -_-



9.) John Carter--Also known as "the flop that almost destroyed Disney forever," I don't think John Carter is that much of a disaster. Much like Snow White and the Huntsman, there were a couple of moments that proved to be worthwhile. One is when the title character (Taylor Kitsch) has a flashback of him burying his wife while he battles the aliens, and then there's those last five minutes. I mean...yeah...it gives me chills. Of course, it helps to have a composer like Michael Giacchino tagging along, so perhaps that's the case. What makes John Carter self-destruct, however, are two components of filmmaking that one must focus on in order to make a great film: pacing and storytelling. Boy, is the pacing all over the place. At one point, there can be a flying bat-pod-like(what?) chase on Mars, but in the next scene, there would be one gigantic expositionary sequence that isn't worth a buck, let alone eight. And while we're on exposition, there's a ton of it in this film. And sadly, there's no point to emotionally invest in it all; it becomes a frustrating chore to sit through. It's a shame that this was made by Andrew Stanton, the same guy who directed a small fish ta(i)le titled Finding Nemo. Unlike that film, something was truly fishy during the process of filming John Carter.

 

8.) Journey 2: The Mysterious Island--What else can you say, really? I mean, the one thing that stood out from experiencing Journey 2: The Mysterious Island was the Looney Tunes short before the film, which was AWESOME, by the way. The only reason I saw this was that I needed an escape from the scholarships that I completed. Other than that, it was just one forgettable film, with the exception of having to write about it. I remember seeing the first Journey film in 3-D, which came out at a time when 3-D was becoming *the new thing.* I have to be honest, it was an awesome treat; there was nothing awesome about this. Did this really have to be made? Is there an actual purpose regarding its existence? It was cheaply put together, lacked a spirited sense of adventure, and...oh yeah, now I ironically remember, it was forgettable. C'mon parents, HUGO was out in theaters somewhere at that time. You could've taken the kids to see that instead! Meh, I have nothing else to say about this film. It's just not worth your time when there's so many good films out there. That is, unless you want to experience Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson' woo the ladies with his 'pectoral' routine. Cherries, watch out.



7.) Men in Black III--I'm a sucker for really good three-quels, as both Toy Story 3 and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King have proved in the past. This is not a really good three-quel; it's a pointless and uninteresting three-quel. Most of the jokes fall flat on its face, while the dull story and its environments give no reason for us to care. Not even the performances can be able to make us to care about what's going on. I mean, come on, it's about TIME TRAVEL! You're meeting the past version of someone that you have known for a long time! Why not get to know K (Tommy Lee Jones)'s family a little more? And regarding the third-act twist, why not focus on that relationship and the problems that they had while connecting it all together? Heck, instead of making Men in Black III, why not make a bloody Fresh-Prince of Bel-Air film, and have it come out on Will Smith's birthday (September 25th--the same birthday as MINE!)?? Oh, never mind, let's focus on the film as is. . . .Wow, it's truly difficult to focus on a film as is when there are so many possibilites that you can create when it comes to TIME TRAVEL! And the choice that these filmmakers chose to tell this story is an insignificant one to say the least. See Looper instead.



6.) Pitch Perfect--I love music. I like Anna Kendrick. I absolutely love going to the movies. I almost *hated* Pitch Perfect. A woman vomits twice in this film, and the result is more cringe-worthy than hilarious. Most of the men and women represented in this film are caricatures that you would never, ever, EVER come across in your life. It also contains one of the most obligatory references to The Breakfast Club you will ever see in a film. Above all else, however, this film is surprisingly mean-spirited. You know a muscial-comedy is in trouble when one of the first jokes in the film is a mark against women, and it causes an awkward "ooooh" from the audience. That said, there are people who are going to like this film for most of the reasons that I don't, and I understand. But if this film is going to become a quotable cult-classic like Mean Girls, then I want no part of it. At least Mean Girls has a brain, a heart, and a brilliant script by Tina Fey. This film doesn't know Aretha Franklin that well to understand what R-E-S-P-E-C-T is.



5.) Rock of Ages--I love the music to this. It's rockin' music, which makes the cliched pun all the more valid. And I can see people being attached to this film; I went with a couple of friends to see this, and they absolutely loved it. I...did not. Not even close. I actually thought it was bad to the bone, which is another wonderfully cliched pun. It was a painful chore to sit through. The music is fun at first, and I was bopping my head to classics such as "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" and a mash up of "We're Not Gonna Take It/We Built This City." But honestly, I could listen to those songs on YouTube, and get a real kick out of them by itself. There's no point of sitting through a one-hour rock concert mixed with a one-hour story of sheer pointlessness, especially one that doesn't give you any emotional investment toward its characters, or, at the very least, a sense of joy. Also, there are some scenes that are not only tough to endure; they also made me cringe in ways you couldn't imagine. There's one scene with Tom Cruise singing "Wanted Dead or Alive," and let me tell you, it ain't a pretty sight. Let's just say this: theories have been made that Katie Holmes divorced Tom Cruise due to her enduring any scene of him making out with other women (OK, there was only one theory, and that was mine. But...hey, it could've happened.). And you know a film is in trouble when Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand can't convince us that they're a couple. Sorry folks, this is a definite skip-skip-de-doodlee-doo.



4.) Premium Rush--Over the past couple of years, we have seen Joseph Gordon-Levitt portray some interesting characters. In Inception, he was Dom Cobb's right-hand man whenever the dream was collapsing. In 50/50, he was a man who had cancer, and had to learn to live a good life through a difficult situation. And in this year, he played a Looper in...well, Looper, which was absolutely phenomenal. He was also in Premium Rush, and he plays a biker with a package that connects to two other characters in NYC. He doesn't do a bad job here; he's just in a REALLY bad film. Sure, some of it was very well-visualized, such as when he knows how to get through a jam a few seconds before it happens. I'll make a confession, however, and I swear this will be the only time that I will EVER do this. Mid-way through this film, I had to go use the loo. The bladder just couldn't take it for an old whipper-snapper like me! And when I got back, guess what? I didn't miss anything. This film is THAT uninteresting, and, suffice to say, somewhat god-awful. Michael Shannon's subplot in this film is by far one of the worst aspects of any film I've seen all year. Not only is it about as dull and pointless as the chum I refused to eat at the Chum Bucket; it's about as cheesy as the Easy Mac I ate a couple of months ago, only in the complete opposite direction of its cheesiness.  This film would've been so much better had it been focused just on Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, but as is, it's one of the worst films of the year. You may never want to go to NYC again.



3.) Dr. Seuss' The Lorax--There are five minutes of this film that works, and they are at the very end. Those five minutes are b-e-a-utiful. It's the only part of the film that doesn't make me cringe and ask "Santa Claus...why? Why are you taking our Christmas tree? Why?," and then the Grinch says that he's "taking it back to his workshop" and all of that hypocritical jazz. That's what the rest of The Lorax feels like. It feels like one big joke that is meant to torture the corpse of Theodore Giesel until it turns into ashes. I mean, what happened? I LOVED Horton Hears a Who! Of course, they had to expand the universes of Horton and the Whos, but it remained faithful to the original source material 100%. It also made "We Are Here! We Are Here! We Are Here!" EPIC again! I mean, my god, that scene gave me chills! This film...I don't know how they got it wrong, but they really did. There are jokes in The Lorax that are almost borderline offensive. "That's a Woman?" Yes, the wise-ol' Lorax, who is meant to respect every little detail of the environment (Yes, humans count, too.), actually offended a human being. Yes, kids. It's OK to make fun of gender-confused human beings, as long as you respect the trees. Because, ya know, the trees are more important than people, and they are ESPECIALLY more important than your parents who will pay for your college tuition someday. And as it turns out, it's also OK to make fun of fat people, or in this case, fat bears that can also represent a fifth grader getting picked on for his/her weight. What a wonderfully hypocritical message you're trying to send, Illumination. Speaking of hypocrisy, I could go on all day about how the environmental message means NOTHING when you count all of the SUV commercials The Lorax graciously supported during its marketing campaign. But hey, I'll just end here. As an animation fan, I'm angry that an animated film has to end up as being one of the very worst films of the year. But, there you have it. How Despicable is that?



2.) Dark Shadows--Good thing I admired Frankenweenie, because had that not came out, I would have officially considered Dark Shadows to be Tim Burton's finest sell-out. As of right now, I'll consider it one of the worst films of the year instead. How? I mean...H.O.W did this film possibly fail? You had Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Michelle Pfeiffer, and HUGO's very own Chloe Grace Moretz. You also had a pretty decent art direction team, and a pretty groovy selection of songs. Plus, Danny Elfman? What an amazing composer, that man is! So again, H.O.W. could this film have failed so miserably with such a talented group of actors? Oh...easily. When a film uses ungodly cheap product placement such as McDonald's as a joke in the script, it truly lands in the darkest of shadows. But when a film bores you, and uninterests you like the plague, then it's almost a crime and sin at the same time against vampire lore. Nothing in this film is enjoyable. Not even Captain Jack can save the Black Pearl this time from the Kraken. Not even Mrs. Lovett can save her beloved meat pies from being tossed into the garbage. Not even Isabelle can read something that can lead her to something magical, unless if she reads a spell that, when deciphered, actually says something like "I"m going to unnecessarily turn into a werewolf for no reason whatsoever so that it can please the Twilight generation." I mean...REALLY? Is that the best you can do, Burton? Did you not read the script beforehand? Did you think that anything you could touch can turn into green? Did you think that a PG-13 rated sex scene between Johnny Depp and Eva Green would NOT be unintentionally hilarious? I hope that your next live-action project is a success, because this film is the lowest point of your career.

You're never going to read this, are you, Tim?

And so, we have come to #1. I'm just warning you film lovers right now that #1 will come as a shock to you, as it does to me. This film is said to be a contender for Best Picture. If this is intended to win that award, then I don't want to watch the Oscars this year. It's a shame, really. Filmmaking is hard. It takes money to make a film, and there wasn't a lot of money in this budget. They cast inexperienced unknowns to play the parts, particularly the little girl, and they were OK at best. And it revolved around a truly imaginative concept that, if executed incredibly well, could've been the masterpiece that everyone has been praising it as.

Which pains me to say that Beasts of the Southern Wild is not only the worst film of the year; it's probably one of the worst films that I've ever had the displeasure of viewing.



Now I knew how my sister felt when she saw Where The Wild Things Are for the first time at the Cinestudio in Hartford. This film is deplorable. The style of filmmaking Benh Zeitlin goes for here turns people off right away. It is a test of endurance to sit through thanks (or no thanks) to an unbeweavably slow pace, and zero interest for the characters of its story. And the story...there's no story. And if there is one, it makes no sense. Oh, forgive me, I need to emphasize. It makes *NO SENSE AT ALL!* If THIS is what counts as pure storytelling nowadays, then I guess I'm one of those people that needs to go watch Ted again, don't I? At least that film had a relatable story with relatable characters; this film...yeah, a wonderful story with a strong, young female character that *stares* for that Oscar win. Sorry, hun. Staring doesn't get you anywhere unless you have a reason to do so in the story. And if there is a reason, then make us feel something instead of making us stare as well. It's no fun to have a staring contest. It's just weird.

You see what boredom can cause? It can cause a human to write things that they wouldn't normally write because no charm is set for the experience to entirely succeed. It is SO difficult to capture that charm. Beasts of the Southern Wild, along with the rest of the films that I have mentioned in this post, have no charm. They're examples as to why, at times, I regret wasting a couple of dollars and hours in the discomfort of a movie theater. So that's my list of the worst films I have seen this year. If you have picks for the worst films you have seen this year, comment below, or if you have a Facebook, like my Facebook page titled "Patrick Connolly (or P-Con), and you can comment down there. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/thiswillbeagreatday?fref=ts

Until next time,

MEOW!

MEOW! Presents: Peter Jackson is taking those HOBBITs to Isengard...or somewhere else...once again!: My Review of THE HOBBIT in GLORIOUS 24 FRAMES PER SECOND!

December 15th, 2012

MEOW!



There's a moment in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey when Bilbo Baggins (a terrific Martin Freeman) is being offered a delicious appetizer by the first dwarf that enters into his home. That appetizer just so happens to look like the Cheddar Bay Biscuits from Red Lobster. It got me thinking: could there possibly be an overabundance of Cheddar Bay Biscuits in the shire? Assuming that the shire is a real place for the time being (or a gigantic set as part of a lucrative $270 million budget), is it possible that it's the original birthplace as to where the Cheddar Bay Biscuits were first created?



I bet Stephen Colbert would know the answer to that question, as he is said to have lived in the shire once in his life. Yet, I couldn't find him. He could've been one of the villagers that was watching Bilbo run anxiously to catch up with Gandalf and the rest of the dwarves. Or the legend could be wrong. Perhaps he was one of the merchants working peacefully until Smaug flew by and screwed everything up. Or he could've been one of the elves. After all, the elves living in Rivendell are as tall as Buddy hims-elf (OW! THE KNEE!). Stephen would probably fit right in. Or he could've been in the next film that we would have to wait *a year* for, Oy, drink with me to days gone by (Wait, that's from something else that's coming out in a couple of weeks. Just ignore my fanboy-isms.).



So what does Stpehen Colbert and Cheddar Bay Biscuits have to do with anything in Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth? Well, unless if Colbert IS in one of the next two films of the trilogy to come out, they are pretty much like most of the first half of this film, really; it's just...there. It's there before your very eyes, to be sure, but there isn't a whole lot that is justified as purposeful or remotely interesting. There's nothing emotionally involving or any fish that needs to be eaten. It's just...there. And when it's just...there, why should we...care? Why should we care about a bunch of dwarves that sing their merry little tune at the dinner table when we've barely even begun to know them? In fact, why should we care about the concept of their adventure when they seem to be happy and sleepy and grumpy and...I'm getting ahead of myself. Most of all, why should we care about Bilbo? We know he's timid and homesick, but there's no depth and exploration to his character. All he does is wish to return home, while he and his merry fellowship of dwarves (Hehe...Tolkien Puns) almost get eaten by trolls that represent the exact opposite of integrity.



Turns out the second half answers my questions beautifully, though most of those answers will not be spoiled here. What I can say is that the second half of this film redeems any flaws that the first half had, and when it's over, you may yearn to skip a year and just get straight to The Desolation of Smaug. This is no spoiler, however: Andy Serkis returns in all of his motion-captured glory as Gollum, and he delivers one of the best performances of his entire career. Without going too much into the east (or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgcoBKWTW14), there is one remarkably beautiful moment with his character that proves just how much you can get away with in a motion-captured suit. It only lasts less than a minute, but in that moment, we see Gollum not as a corrupted monster, but as a tortured soul who realizes that one little object has changed his life for the worst. Motion-Capture Animation should be used to capture the emotions of the performer, and in this film, Serkis has perfected it.



This film was shot in 48 frames per second, even though I saw it in 24 frames instead. I remember walking into a SEARS at the Enfield Mall to get to its movie theater, and on the way there, I took a glance at one of their high-definiton televisions. One television was displaying the film CARS in what seemed to be the 48 FPS format. It looked strange to say the least, as it felt as though you were watching a live performance of a show instead of a traditional film. Yet, it was fascinating at the same time. The animation didn't feel as choppy as some of the animation in their films nowadays, so I'd say if there ever was a future for 48 FPS, then animation should do just nicely.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, on the other hand, is a live-action film mixed with CGI-animation, so it's unclear as to whether or not it works for that style. I'll give it a chance eventually.



From what I saw, some of the visuals in the first half are surprisingly less vibrant than what the location of the Shire desires the most. It's understandable that the interior of Bilbo's house is more of a dark yellow, which represents the adventure that Bilbo will eventually become a part of, and the Dwarves' desire of taking back their kingdom full of treasure. Still, the lighting does not reflect the mood of the Dwarves, who seem too happy and merry to achieve a darker tone that this film is trying to achieve. Some of the visuals in the second half, however, are absolutely breathtaking. There are some long, swooping shots, especially when they're inside the cave of goblins, and they almost make one feel as if they're flying through the air like an eagle. Speaking of eagles...I'll say no more about that.



Howard Shore's score is, for the most part, a terrific accompaniment for this unexpected journey (Tom HardyHarHar), though when he's trying to create an original composition, at times it feels as if he's borrowing a bit too much from his compositions for HUGO. I should know. I've seen that film...what...twenty-one thousand times? Still, it's nice to hear the LOTR themes that us dwarves, elves, and hobbits know and love. Also, the end credit title, "Song of the Lonely Mountain," is another wonderful song to add to the musical selections of Middle Earth. All in all, it's one successful soundtrack.



Still love that film to bits.

If you are able to exercise patience through the all-too deliberate first half of its 169-minute runtime (Oh my Lord of the Onion Rings!), the rewards are as rich as the gold the Dwarves are longing to reach for. Overall, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a solidly entertaining start for what seems to be another exciting trilogy(?) ahead of us. And come on, who doesn't want to have an adventure during the holidays? We need to get out of the house, stop writing reviews, and just journey down Squatch Road, and--

Oh...I don't think that's helping my case.

*I can't stress enough how much pain I have for those suffering through such a horrific event as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I also believe that the cinema allows anyone, especially children, a chance to believe in the power of pure imagination once again. If you are one of those people who needs an escape from the harsh realities of that event, then this (for mature and/or older children anyways), Rise of the Guardians, or ESPECIALLY Wreck-It Ralph would be preferable options. These films understand that the cinema is for all-ages, and I invite all of you to take advantage of them if you can. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope you all have a great holiday season.*



Until next time,

MEOW!

MEOW! Presents: BELIEVE IT, PEOPLE: An Extended Thought on the Absolutely Wonderful RISE OF THE GUARDIANS!

November 26th, 2012

MEOW!

Reader, I was probably like you when you saw the advertisements for Rise of the Guardians. It looked uninteresting, downright bizarre, and possibly a little too scary for younger audiences. When I first saw the teaser poster on ComingSoon.net, I thought it was a joke. THIS is the type of animation that Dreamworks was displaying for a wide audience? It almost felt like that it was inspired by a low-rent animated Ten Commandments that was released five years ago.



Well, OK, maybe not that bad, but you get the jist.

To make matters even more drastic for Dreamworks, a few weeks before the release of this film, Disney released Wreck-It Ralph, which I still consider to be one of the most delightful films I've ever seen in my life. As I've said before, it was a fireworks display of creativity, imagination, and wonder--something that Disney was all about in the past when they produced The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Beauty and the Beast in the 90s. So as you can see, I came into Guardians rather biased and selfish after seeing something so marvellous and wonderful as Wreck-It Ralph.



Then, I realized something kind of crucial about Dreamworks: whenever it came to marketing their films, such as How to Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda 2, they've always ended up being the opposite from what I cynically expect. They are truly wonderful films that always need the optimistic word-of-mouth in order to become a success in the future. It's a real shame that, in this economy, it needs to be like this--the fact that one person has to spread the word in order to assure moviegoers that they get their money's worth.



Look, folks. I'm not a professional film critic along the lines of somebody like Roger Ebert or Gene Shalit. I'm like you. I actually pay for every movie I go to see, and I write my reviews because, well, I have a passion for writing something like this. It allows me to express and share my thoughts with you whether you're looking for entertainment or understanding. That said, I'm a curious and optimistic moviegoer, and I take a chance on discovering the wonders of cinema so that you could possibly have the same experience as I had (That, and there's Rotten Tomatoes, but oh-ho-ho has it been wrong before.).

Which leads me to why I'm going to become that one person for a few minutes, and ask that you take a chance on believing in the power of imagination once again. Not too long ago, I took a chance by paying $11 to see Rise of the Guardians in 3-D with my good friend Sarah Veilleux (I call her Kitty. You'd probably understand if you've seen Monsters, Inc.). She was extremely excited to see this film, while I was more excited about seeing Wreck-It Ralph a fourth time afterwards. Still, I remained cautiously optimistic that it would be a good time at the movies.



About ninety minutes later, the credits roll, a song called "Still Dream" starts to play, and the tears of joy start to form in my eyes.

It's not a sad film. It's not Toy Story 3 where you are forced to say goodbye to your own childhood and never look back. Instead, it's a film that understands what it means to have a childhood. Any adult who grew up believing in either Jack Frost (Jack--Chris Pine) Santa Claus (North--Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Bunnymund--Hugh Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Tooth--Isla Fisher), and/or the Sandman (Sandman--uh...Sandman) will understand the message it's trying to teach to children, and unless if they have seen something like The Polar Express, they might be processing that message for the first time in their lives. It's an absolutely beautiful thing to give. I guess that's why this was released during Thanksgiving.


I would dare say that Rise of the Guardians is one of the best children's films to be released in the past decade. I emphasize the word children because that's exactly what the target audience is for this film. This film understands children. It understands their hopes, their fears, and above all else, their ability to dream every night when they go to sleep. What they believe is the complete opposite of what anyone over the age of 12 believes. They still view the world as a hopeful place--an opportunity to have an adventure whether it is playing with their imagination in the backyard, or reading a book such as "Rainbow Fish," where it can take them under the sea and back before the day is done.



As for you adults...well, I must admit that it will depend on your ability to release the child within you. If "Still Dream" has the ability to form tears in your eyes by the end of the film, then I think it has done its job. At that point, you realize that you can still hear the bell ringing after all. You can still feel as if you can fly through the air, even if you're just walking around flapping your wings inside your house. Most of all, as the end credit song encourages, you can 'still dream.' Even when a nightmare seems to loom around your doorway, a dream can appear and become something entirely different. Something beautiful.

I can't imagine seeing Rise of the Guardians being filmed in live-action. Unless if an insanely talented artist worked on a live-action project of this concept, there's no way a film like this would be suited for a realistic environment. Animation seemed like the proper choice when creating a film like this. Along with Wreck-It Ralph, there's an astonishing amount of freedom that is exploited through the creative imagination of its animation. And man, if there's one thing that Dreamworks knows what to masterfully create, it's a 3-D experience that is nothing short of miraculous! A day before seeing Guardians, I saw Life of Pi in the 3D format, and while it was used exceptionally well at times, I was constantly searching for a purpose as to how the 3D fit with the overall theme it was trying to send. With Guardians, its purpose was clear from the moment I was trying to reach for the snowflake coming toward my nose. It's one of the best uses of 3-D animation I've ever seen in a film, and some of the best animation of snow I've ever seen.



The story? It's about as simple as childhood itself, which I think is kind of the point. So many animated films I have seen in the past few years--with a few exceptions--have been so obsessed on making it heavy for such a young audience, that it feels like they are being introduced to the cold, cynical world of reality a little too early. Not the case here. In fact, my skepticism flew out the window when we meet the Boogeyman (Pitch Black--Jude Law). Before seeing this film, I was worried that the Boogeyman and his league of black beauties (horsies) would make the parents pay for their child's therapy bills. Unless if they are really, and I mean REALLY impressionistic children, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. If they know that the Guardians will always be there to protect them, then parents, congratulations, you may be earning yourself a few extra hours of sleep for the next few months!



That being said, the writers have not sidestepped some rather bold and mature topics, even if  they are simple enough for children to understand them. For instance, Jack Frost lives alone in a normal town full of children who never seem to notice him because, well, nobody believes in him as much as North or Bunnymund. There are three traits children have that question their existence: a.) they feel as if they are lonely and that there is no one to talk to, b.) they feel as if no one believes them in an intensely difficult situation, and c.) they feel as if they're invisible, and anybody would look through them as outcasts. Any child who sees this film will probably relate the most to Jack, and once they see what caused him to become Jack Frost, the amount of inspiration they will have afterwards could be overwhelming.  

Jack Frost also knows how to have fun when performing such a difficult task as saving the world from the Boogeyman. That's another moral it isn't afraid to throw at your face, which is that it's alright to have fun. And this film. is. F.U.N. When we are introduced to the Guardians, it almost plays out like a series of breathless 3-D tracking shots. Then there's a moment when Jack creates a snow day for the children of the town, and Jacks helps a boy named Jamie (Dakota Goyo) ride his sleigh through the ice like a motion simulator. And then there's the climax and the final sequence afterwards. Yeah, it must've been in 3D, because the chills were all over my body at that point. Without giving too much away, think of The Avengers.



DRAT! I thought I would get away with writing this review without having to use The Avengers as a reference.



Rise of the Guardians is a sur--sorry, wrong flick.



Rise of the Guardians is a surprise on nearly every level. It's not only one of the best animated films to come out this year, but also one of the best films of the year in general. It's visually breathtaking, has fantastic themes for children, and above all else, it allows the young and young at heart to "still dream" once again.  If you've already seen Wreck-It Ralph about twenty-thousand times in theaters (twenty-thousand-and-one eventually for me), please support Dreamworks by seeing this wonderful film; it's one of their best films to date. I plan on seeing it again sometime soon.

Until next time,

MEOW!

And because you've all been so nice during this review, here is a gift for you all. Happy Holidays! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTy0sOb3nsI

A sampling of USHER--The Musical

November 20th, 2012

MEOW!

(Robert sniffs the air)

Joey: Robert, what is it?

Robert: I smell (sniff) something.

Joey: Something?

Robert: No wait. (sniff) I smell...Taco Bell.

Joey: Taco Bell?

Robert: Hold the phone! (sniff sniff sniiiiiiiiiiff) A.T.C.

Joey: Wh-- (Realizing who this person is) Oh no.

Robert: A.

Joey: T?

(The Angry Theatre Critic enters with an entrance...rather angrily with whip and beef burrito in hand. NOTE: This character is a man portrayed by a woman.)

Angry Theatre Critic: C, which stands for crack, which is what I'm about to do with my whip! (Cracks whip)

Joey + Robert: THE ANGRY THEATRE CRITIC! (Hugs each other in fright.)

A.T.C.: Why, hello Joanne and Roberta. Long time, no see, eh? (Eats the rest of her..uh..his beef burrito)

Joey: What do you want, A.T.C? If that IS your real name.

A.T.C.: I must speak to your house manager.

Robert: Cathy's not here as of this--

A.T.C.: I MUST SEE HER NOW. I'VE NOW COMPLETED MY DELICIOUS BEEF BURRITO, SO I AM NOW ASKING POLITELY FOR A WENDY'S FROSTY! FROSTY? (Cracks whip)

(Random usher brings a Wendy's frosty to her...ahem...him, and then leaves in panic. He/she then tastes the frosty.)

A.T.C.: Mmm...cold. Just like me. (Evil Laugh) I kill.

(Cathy enters.)

Cathy: Alright, I heard screaming, what is going o-- (She notices the A.T.C.). You.

A.T.C.: We've got some business to take care of, Bacon.

Cathy: My last name is not Bac--

A.T.C.: IT'S BACON! (Cracks Whip)

Cathy (whimpers): OK. What business?

A.T.C.: Well, I've read the lineup for this upcoming season at the performing arts center. All seem to be very well-chosen events, such as the Shaolin Warriors, the Ballet Folklorico, and Sylvia. What a wonderful bitch. (GASPS from all of the ushers and Kathy) Oh SHUT IT! (Cracks whip.) YOU ALL KNEW I MEANT FEMALE DOG. IT'S IN THE CONTEXT. GOSH, YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES! HYPOCRITES, I SAY! BAH! (Brief pause) Anywho...all seem to be perfectly valid. But you seem to be missing one teeny, tiny tim. Do you know who that teeny, tiny tim might possibly be, Bacon?

Cathy: Let me guess...Tiny Tim?

A.T.C.: Oh, you silly girl.

Cathy: I'm a woman, just so you kn--

A.T.C. YOU'RE A SIX-YEAR OLD AND YOU WILL LIKE IT, YOU SILLY GIRL! (Cracks whip.)

Cathy (whimpers again): Justin Bieber?

A.T.C.: Why, how did you guess Baby? (Evil Laugh) I kill.

Robert: No wait, you're kidding, right? Justin Bieber is one of the worst influences in entertainment histor--

A.T.C.: ARE YOU EVEN QUESTIONING THE MAGICAL WONDERS OF JUSTIN BIEBER?

Robert: Sure am! He's nothing more than just a hip-hop wannabe Beatle-Boy.

(As the A.T.C. gets closer and more intimidating, Robert starts to shrink until A.T.C reaches him and pokes him on the shoulder. Robert cries as if there is no tomorrow.)

Joey: Robert, are you alright?!

Robert: Alright??? I'm past the poke of no return! If I get another poke, I'm done for!

Joey (to A.T.C.): How could you? You know that Robert has a psychological disorder called 'DaPoka?' It's highly dangerous!

A.T.C.: EVEN THOUGH I'M THE unpaid ANGRY THEATRE CRITIC, I AM ALSO A CUSTOMER, AND WHEN BACON OVER THERE SAYS THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT, SHE IS 1,956% CORRECT ALL. OF. THE. TIME! (Cracks whip) Now then, back to business. A metaphorical curse is laid upon you all who work at this dump. One way or another, Justin Bieber will become a part of this upcoming slate of events, and if you do not attempt to retrieve him by the time he is forced to perform, which is, I don't know, the night of October 5th...

Robert: October 5th? That's one week, from now!

A.T.C.: SHUT IT, ROBERTA! I'M HERE TO CREATE PLOT! (Cracks whip as Roberta--er, Robert whimpers.) Anywho, if he does not perform on the night of October 5th, this performing arts environment will recieve a passionately negative review courtesy of yours truly.

Joey: But that's impossible. You can't just write a passionately negative review for something we fail to bring to the line-up of this season's events.

A.T.C.: SILENCE, JOANNE! YOU'RE MESSING UP THE MEAT OF THE STORY! (Cracks whip)

Cathy: And if we do happen to retrieve him?

(A.T.C. laughs hisAHEMher evil laugh)

A.T.C.: Oh, you silly girl. This is reality. Even in the most fantastical of adventures, the nature of reality sets to rise like the evening sun. Ya know, around 9pm.

Cathy: Uh...meaning?

A.T.C.: The odds of retrieving Justin Bieber in Hollywood, a town full of insignificant tots as of this moment, are 927 to 1. And speaking of 927, I might as well get started early with writing the 927th negative review of my career. Enjoy your time at your jobs, ladies (points to Joey and Rob) and...meh...gentleman (points to Cathy), because in more than a week, you'll become nothing more than what you are as of this moment.

Joey: And that would be?

A.T.C.: What else? Human. (Evil laugh) Take care, my foes. (Cracks whip)

MEOW! Presents: The Fantastically (Un)Official 58 Favorite Animated Films List!

November 18th, 2012

MEOW!

58.) Rio



57.) Hoodwinked



56.) The Spongebob Squarepants Movie



55.) The Road to El Dorado



54.) The Wild Thornberrys Movie



53.) Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron



52.) Treasure Planet



51.) The Great Mouse Detective



50.) Anastasia



49.) The Emperor's New Groove



48.) Howl's Moving Castle



47.) Aladdin



46.) Meet the Robinsons



45.) Shrek 2



44.) The Incredibles



43.) The Rescuers Down Under



42.) An American Tail



41.) The Little Mermaid



40.) A Bug's Life



39.) Tangled



38.) Cats Don't Dance



37.) A Goofy Movie



36.) The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh(1977)/Winnie the Pooh(2011)



35.) The Nightmare Before Christmas



34.) Flushed Away



33.) Hercules



Share the love. Movin' on...

32.) Tim Burton's Corpse Bride



31.) ParaNorman



30.) Over the Hedge



29.) Kung Fu Panda



28.) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs



27.) Pinocchio



26.) The Polar Express



25.) How to Train Your Dragon



24.) Fantasia/Fantasia/2000



23.) Mulan



22.) Kung Fu Panda 2



21.) Monsters, Inc.



20.) Lilo & Stitch



19.) Rango



18.) Toy Story 2



17.) Toy Story



16.) Bambi



15.) Tarzan



14.) Ratatouille



13.) Toy Story 3



12.) UP



11.) The Princess and the Frog



10.) Dumbo



9.) The Land Before Time



8.) Beauty and the Beast



7.) The Prince of Egypt



6.) The Lion King



5.) The Iron Giant



4.) Chicken Run



3.) Wreck-It Ralph (Yes. It's. THAT. GOOD.)



2.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame



1.) Finding Nemo (I love you, dad.)





Until next time,

MEOW!