"Wall-E": Debate with Tony D

So 9 days ago I met up with my personal friend Tony, to do something that we love best: go to the movies. For those of you that don’t know, I am back in the United States. The whole internship with my uncle didn’t work out. It’s a long story, and I really I don’t want to try and explain it. Anyways, being back in the exciting state of New Jersey (notice my sarcasm), all I wanted to do was visit my shitty, run-down AMC theater to view some over-priced movies and eat some $15 dollar popcorn.
Well, it was a triple-feature for Tony and me. And I swear… Tony and I are the only two people I know that will go to the movies for 6 hours, spend over $20 on movies, and another $15 on stuff that we just shat out of our asses a couple hours later. The movies on the agenda were Get Smart, The Love Guru, and the one, the only, Wall-E.

Now if you don’t recall, last week Tony posted his review of Wall-E on the site, calling it “the most romantic film since Casablanca” and “his favorite film of all time”. Of course, I got myself into some shit, because I just don’t know how to keep my mouth shut. I commented on his review, and it turned into a full-fledged debate. For those of you that don’t know, Tony is a personal friend of mine, and we are famous for our debates. We do them quite often, and they usually end up turning our quite interesting. Here is the debate we had on the comment log of his Wall-E review:

Randy // June 29, 2008 2:39 PM

Alright... I have to comment. Tony, you are getting carried away. Your favorite film of all time??? Are you kidding me??? It's an animated children's film! The most romantic movie since Casablanca??? What??? They're animated robots!!! Come on... Are you serious?

I did not like this movie. Its targeted audience was children, and like you said, the plot was very complicated. There is no way in hell that my 5-year old cousin could have realized all the things you pointed out in your review. All of this "deeper meaning"... Ask a 5-year old what “Wall-E” was about and he’ll tell you it’s about a robot. Not a love story.. not the devastation of earth.

God... I am really pissed by this movie... and by your review. People should go to these animated films for fun. To relax. For some fiction. Not to analyze them... and turn them into the best film of all time. Come on… There is no way in hell that this is the best movie of all time... and I cannot see how this could be your favorite.

Tony, I have lost all respect for you.


TonyD // June 29, 2008 2:59 PM

There is a difference between a children’s film, and a family film. A children’s film would be that “Veggietales” movie that came out this year, because only children and people who wear helmets can watch that movie. A family flick would be “Speed Racer,” “Kung Fu Panda,” and, yes, “Wall-E.”

It is the most romantic film since “Casablanca” because we can actually fall in love with these characters. Every romantic comedy that came out this year had at least one despicable character – “27 Dresses” had that Ackerman girl, “Over Her Dead Body” had Eva Longoria, and “Fool’s Gold” had the entire cast. Where in “Wall-E” is there a despicable character? The title character is so easily recognizable with the audience because he just wants the same thing that everyone else wants. The characters in those movies? They only want greed and hell. It doesn’t sound the least bit romantic to me.

The target audience was NOT for children. It was for families WITH children. Andrew Stanton once said that he never gave a shit what the audience thought while putting his thoughts into “Toy Story,” and “Finding Nemo.” “Ratatouille” had enough for everyone to like about it. Kids will love “Remy the Rat” and “Linguini” and adults will love “Anton Ego”. With “Wall-E,” most young kids want to see “Wall-E” and “Eve” save the day. Older adults want to see that, and they want to see some great sci-fi references. I dare you to go back again and point out all of the obvious references to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Star Wars,” “E.T.,” and the other Pixar flicks.

Oh, and if your 5 year old cousin can realize everything that I mentioned in my review, the kid must be smarter than you.

And yes, “Wall-E” is a love story. It has so many layers to it that saving the world is just a subplot when it comes to “Wall-E” and “Eve” spending time together. This world has gone to shit. We rely on the internet and technology so much nowadays that “Wall-E” spends time to display the negatives of it. Why get exercise when you can sit down on a chair that floats and takes you to places?

And if you honestly think that “Wall-E” isn’t one of the best films of all-time, you must have no taste in film. I never do say this unless if a time like that has to come around, but how in the hell can you like “Horton Hears A Who?” and “The Bucket List” but not “Wall-E?”


Randy // June 29, 2008 3:18 PM

Despite this being a "family film".. It is still targeted at young audiences. Older people only see these movies because they take their kids. Older people don't see these films on their own for their own pleasure... they would much rather prefer "Get Smart" or “Sex and the City” in a heartbeat. Let's face it... Pixar is known for their animated children's films. The only time adults go to these films is when they're with children. Except for, of course... you.

Now you mention that you can fall in love with these characters. Are you kidding me? They're robots... They are FAKE emotions... animated. The purpose of this film was not a love story. Children at that age do not understand love. This is not "Casablanca"... This is "Toy Story".

The purpose of this film was to give kids a chance to come out and see a neat animated robot, like you said, save the day. A film that even kids can understand. And yet... Pixar failed in even doing that much. I'm sorry to say... but the plot of this film is FAR too much advanced for its targeted audience.

What you said about how all we, as Americans, do is sit on the Internet... and watch TV and use up Earth's resources... as trash builds up and the Earth is pretty much going to shit...

Yes. I got that. YOU got that. However... we're adults!!! Wake up! Of course we realize what is going on... but like i said before, my five-year old cousin DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. HE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT A ROBOT NAMED WALL-E!!! Little kids do not realize plots and subplots… They don’t understand that this film is about saving the Earth… or about love. Tell a child this was a love story they will look at you like you're nuts. Ask them why everyone was forced onto a ship and why they're all obese and they will look at you like you're nuts. They simply do not understand.

You mention that I liked "The Bucket List" and "Horton Hears A Who". Horton only got 2 stars from me, which, last time I checked, isn’t a good rating. “The Bucket List” got 3 from me, because yes, I liked it. But, that isn't an animated film. If anything, that film was aimed at an older audience.

I did not review Wall-E. So you cannot compare my thoughts on it to previous films I have reviewed. However, if I were to review Wall-E, I would give it 2 stars (out of a possible 4). Because... I as an adult... liked the movie. JUST THE MOVIE ITSELF. I, as an adult, liked “Wall-E”. However, the thing that is getting me, the thing holding it back, and why it is only getting 2 stars from me... is because it is way too complicated for little kids. They just don’t understand what happened. At least in “Horton Hears a Who” they know who Horton is, and what he is doing.

I honestly cannot believe that you like an animated, children's (family, whatever) film as your best film of 2008. And more so... of ALL TIME?

I'm sorry. But everyone has their own opinion. Don't judge my taste in film. People like different things. I have taste in film... it just may not be the same as yours. So don’t say I don’t have any taste in film.

And no. This IS NOT my favorite movie of the year. And this IS NOT my favorite movie of all time. And I DO NOT think that this is one of the most romantic love stories of all time. In my opinion to think any of these things is absurd.

TonyD // June 29, 2008 3:52 PM

Yes, but you don’t seem to get this – it is NOT intended for young audiences. It’s intended for FAMILIES. Older people take their kids to go see this movie not only for the kids, but for themselves also. Out of all the summer blockbusters, only three really delivered this year – “Iron Man,” “Kung Fu Panda,” and “Wall-E.” Older people go see films like “Get Smart” because they grew up with the television show, but didn’t they grow up with children films too? There was a thing called children’s films back in the 1950s too, you know.

Pixar isn’t known for their animated children’s films. Before they even made full features, they made only short films. Go back to their new DVD and watch the short film collection (yes, Randy, you can rent it at WOW). These were all made before they started to make full features, and their short films were intended for no one but people who were able to appreciate art. Even back then, kids didn’t understand half of the stuff that went on. They watched those short films to look at the funny faces that some of these characters did… which they still do now. Their new short film “Presto” is a perfect example of that.

The only time adults go to these films are only when they lug their children, huh? What explains you, me, and the 141 critics that went to go see it before it was released?

You can’t fall in love with robots, but yet, you can fall in love with an iron suit, a rat, or even a talking toy?! Isn’t the point of “Wall-E” to meet two robots that have personalities like a regular human being? And if kids don’t understand love yet, why are mommy and daddy still together?

It’s hypocritical of you to say how the film is far too advanced, but if kids can say that the film is about a robot after watching it, do you think it’s too advanced THEN? Pixar has always been the thinking man’s animation studio. “Ratatouille” examined rats in the kitchen and the art of criticism, but do you think kids understood that? And “A Bug’s Life” was about the diet cycle, but do you think kids understood that? You say that the problem with “Wall-E” is not that it is complex, but it has all sorts of messages too. Why should “Wall-E” not have a message about friendship, but “Monsters, Inc.” and “Finding Nemo” can?

And if we supposedly realized the problems with technology, don’t you think that we would do something about it instead of keep using it the way it is? Your five year old cousin doesn’t understand it because no one will explain it to him. Your cousin won’t understand a film like “An Inconvenient Truth,” so Pixar explains it in the nicest way possible, the same way “Arctic Tale,” “March of the Penguins,” and “Horton Hears A Who” has done – the earth is fucked, but if we pull together, we can do something about it.

Tell a child that it is a love story and they will look at you like you’re nuts? Dude, don’t you understand that it IS A LOVE STORY? Wall-E and Eve LOVE EACH OTHER. Kids understand that, you understand that, and I understand that. That is the main point of the film and that is the best part of the film. If you honestly think that the film isn’t about Wall-E and Eve’s relationship, did you watch the same movie I did? You sat right next to me!

You don’t have to review “Wall-E” if you are breaking down your thoughts here. If you look at “Horton Hears A Who” in an older person’s perspective, can’t you look at “Wall-E” in an older person’s perspective? You say that you liked “Wall-E,” but you give it two stars out of four because you think that it is too complicated for kids. You can say that if you are a kid, but if you are an adult, you can’t give it two stars and say that it is too complicated for a kid. Do you think that all of the great critics like “Wall-E” but give it a bad review because kids can’t understand it?

You came over my house last month and we watched “The Mist.” It supported no hope FOR our planet and you loved it. But you watch “Wall-E” and don’t like it because it supported just a little bit of hope left?

Your argument is that Pixar’s films are only about the children. So you expect that adults to go to the films to gut their eyeballs out by watching it? No, Pixar wants to give something to both audiences. They always have, and they always will do so. As long as adults keep seeing these movies, there will be things for them and children. Like it or not, you’re wrong. I might have criticized your taste and you told me not to judge yours, but what are you doing to everyone else’s taste?


Randy // June 29, 2008 4:10 PM

Alright. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said I hated “Wall-E” because there is hope for the planet in there. Hell, I didn't even say I hated “Wall-E”! Let alone for you to imply that I don't like the planet.

In a nutshell, all I am trying to say is that they could have done a better job making the film more... "child-friendly". Kids want to go to these films so they can understand them on their own, without having to have adults to explain it to them. Hell, if my cousin wanted to see a film, only to have it explained to him, I would show him "An Inconvenient Truth" and explain it to him. But FYI, there are ways to send messages to children, in ways that they can understand. You mentioned a film by the title of "Monsters, Inc." What did that teach? Kindness and friendship. Clearly. And it taught the lessons through example. Sully and Mike, monsters, demonstrated kindness and friendship by looking after Boo, and trying to get her back to her home, despite what all the other monsters thought of humans. Children got that. And I didn’t have to explain that one to my little cousin.

The point is this: I have clearly stated my opinion. You have stated yours. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. I would not say it is the best film of the year. I would not say that is is "fucking brilliant". It is most definitely not my favorite of all time. Hell, it's not even my favorite ANIMATED film of all time. I think if it really wanted to teach the message of preserving Earth... then it could have done it in a better way that children could understand.

I am not denying that there was a subplot about love. Of course there fucking was!!! However, I think it is a little... fucked up to say that this animated... children's family movie is the most romantic film since Casablanca... that the emotions of the robot touched you... come on... it's fake, completely animated! No, you DON’T FALL IN LOVE WITH TALKING TOYS OR A RAT, LET ALONE A FUCKING ROBOT!

Neither one of us has any right to judge each other's taste in film... However, after reading your opinion of “Wall-E”, I must say I have lost a great deal of respect for you.


TonyD // June 29, 2008 4:29 PM

What I said was not to put words in your mouth, but to continue my argument. You said that everyone knows about the world going to shit, but you never said about ways that we can fix it. “The Mist” was to show how we can survive the world going to shit, whereas “Wall-E” is how we can fix it. “Wall-E” said it best to join together and help fix the Earth so future generations can live again. “An Inconvenient Truth” said it so scientifically that no wonder that a kid wouldn’t understand it. And I never said you hated “Wall-E” and that you didn’t like the planet.

The film is as child friendly as any Pixar film could possibly be, but there has to be ways to get the adults interested. By presenting a problem and offering a solution to the problem, it will make ways so that adults are more cautious. A kid can’t understand that we have to fix the Earth? I don’t think “Monsters, Inc.” is about kindness as much as it is about friendship, but to each of their own.

How can you think that it is fucked up to say that “Wall-E” is the most romantic film since “Casablanca?” I said it before and I’ll say it again – all of the characters here are LIKEABLE. You haven’t even SEEN “Casablanca.” So yes, “Wall-E” is the most romantic film since “Casablanca,” and if not that, then “Gone With the Wind.” It doesn’t matter if it is computer animated or not. Love is love, and if a cynical man like I can say it, you can too.

You can lose as much respect as you possibly can. I don’t give any rat’s ass if anyone does, but I hate it when someone can criticize how wrong my opinion is without backing up any facts. I got a few out of you, but truly, you know you like it, and each time you post a comment, it shows that you like it more and more.


Randy // June 29, 2008 5:31 PM

I did not criticize your opinion. Was I not the one who said that we shouldn't criticize each other's opinion? Read above. And if I'm not correct... I already said that I liked Wall-E!!! Read above. I said it.

So your point is moot. I did not “criticize how wrong your opinion was”. I simply disagreed with it. And dude, check back. I presented man, many facts to support my opinion.

Yes, a kid can understand that we have to fix the Earth. However, I don't think that children can understand that “Wall-E” was about the fact that we have to fix the Earth. They don't relate the two.

I may have not seen “Casablanca”. However, it is famous for it being a romance film. I may have to go and rent it tonight now. However, my point is this:

I FIND IT VERY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU FIND A CARTOON ROMANTIC. Actually, no… I lied. Because guess what. “Lady and the Tramp” is a romantic cartoon. I don’t find it hard to believe that you found a cartoon romantic. Cartoons can be romantic. I find it hard to believe that you find a cartoon, “Wall-E”, as romantic as “Casablanca”. “Casablanca” has characters that are real people. It is famous s for being romantic.

I'm sorry. Yes, I did lose some respect for calling it your favorite of all time. If you had said favorite animated of all time, then this conversation wouldn't exist. However, I find it hard to believe that it is your favorite of all time.

I did not criticize your opinion. I simply said I lost respect for you. Read above. And I did say I liked “Wall-E” from an adult’s perspective. The only bad in it is that I think that they could have done a better job "teaching a lesson" to the youngsters.
Regardless, great review. Even though I disagree with your opinion greatly, you stated your opinion well, with many facts. Kudos for that.


TonyD // June 29, 2008 9:42 PM

Read your first two three comments. Yes, you did criticize my opinion and called it absurd. And yeah, I know you said that you liked “Wall-E,” but you can’t give it two stars and say that you liked it. You gave the same score to “Horton.” Care to elaborate?

Oh, and it is my favorite animated film of all time too, if you wanted to know it that far.

If “Wall-E” can’t teach a kid to do something about the earth, and if they are too young to understand everything that went on in “Inconvenient Truth,” what can a kid find out about the Earth and how to save it?

Oh, and as far as Pixar's true intentions with their films, watch "The Pixar Story" on Starz.

Oh, and one more thing - rent “Casablanca”, watch it, and then go see Wall-E with me once more before it leaves theaters. Then compare how romantic the films are. I can guarantee you that you will think the same thing.


Randy // June 30, 2008 8:26 AM

Yes, I’ll elaborate. 2 stars – I liked “Wall-E”. I didn’t love it. I liked it. And I already explained why I knocked off two stars. Because it was complicated. I think I am being harsh.. because whether or not children understand every single subplot… they still loved the movie. So kids liked it… adults liked it… and yet I gave it two stars. Am I being harsh? Maybe. When I review films, I give it a rating last. So maybe if I had reviewed this film, my rating would have been a little different. However, I felt that the film should only get 2 stars because of the complicated plots.

We just have to remember: Opinions are opinions. There is no right or wrong opinion. And everyone is entitled to theirs.

Thanks for the debate, Tony! It has been fun! I look forward to the next one! =)



So there you have it. Me, running my big mouth. And I got myself into some serious shit this time. Because 2 days later “Wall-E” was number 9 on IMDB’s Top Films of All Time. And of course, Tony had to call me, and rub it in my face. He just had to take that damn picture with his cell phone and send it to me, and post it on FilmArcade for all to see. (Bastard). And the day after that… it was number 6. Go figure.

So I went back and spent another $7 on “Wall-E”. (Jesus…) And I saw it again. I also took Tony’s advice and watched “Casablanca”. And goddammit.. I knew right away that I better start backpedaling or I was going to be the ass of FilmArcade.net for a long time.

So here’s what I have to say. I liked “Wall-E” a lot better a second time than I did originally. I wouldn’t give it 2 stars… rather my new rating would be somewhere between 3 and 3 ½.

I got a lot more emotion out of the film a second time. I saw some of the things that Tony and I pointed out in a different perspective.

So now there’s the question: What happened the first time? And I think I have a theory to that. As I mentioned before, Tony and I saw three movies that day: Get Smart, The Love Guru, and Wall-E, with Wall-E being last on our list. Get Smart was good. I enjoyed it a lot. It was funny. Now the thing that went wrong was The Love Guru. I went into it expecting it to be good. I was looking forward to seeing it. I thought it would be funny. And it was! But… it was stupid. It was like an Adam Sandler film. I was pissed. I was extremely disappointed with it.

So going into Wall-E I was in a bad mood. The Love Guru disappointed me, I had no more money for popcorn, this guy that I call “Popcorn Boy” pissed me off, and Tony wouldn’t give me his free soda coupon. So throughout the whole film, I had a negative outlook on “Wall-E”.

The second time through, I liked “Wall-E” a lot more. It was a lot less confusing than I thought, and I felt the movie was a lot cuter. It was a happy film, and honestly, I felt happy at the end. Now, the conclusion. “Wall-E” isn’t my favorite movie of all time. It doesn’t get 4 stars from me. It also isn’t my favorite animated film of all time. (Sorry, but I’m a “Toy Story” buff). However, it is up there. It was a good movie. Good for children, and good for me. I would definitely say it is my second favorite animated film of all time. One more point: I saw “Casablanca”. And even though these robots export a great deal of emotion, I find it hard to compare “Wall-E” and “Casablanca”. Yes, “Wall-E” is obviously a love story. I recognize that it is about love. However, it is probably just me, but I can’t take this animated film seriously, and call it romantic, like I can say about “Casablanca”. I see a love story, but I don’t see the most romantic film of all time.

So that’s it! Hey Tony, can I ask a favor?

REMIND ME TO KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT THE NEXT TIME I HAVE A BUG UP MY ASS ABOUT SOMETHING. THANKS.

Diggin' Into the DVD Archive: "Cloverfield"

Hey guys! You’re reading a brand new edition of Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive, written by myself, Randy. Greetings from the UK! So now I am officially on a different continent. And I must say, London is pretty nice. I am fitting in well here. My internship starts in a little less than a month, and so I am getting prepared for that one day at a time. School has ended out here already, and I’m glad I wasn’t stuck going to school in London for 2 weeks. Even more so, I am glad I will be returning to the States just in time for school to begin there in September. Anyhow, things are going good for me. During the days I mostly go out, and look around, explore the city. I’ve seen some really cool sights since I’ve been here. I had some free time on my hands today, and figured I’d sit down and write an article for you Arcaders to read. I think tomorrow I may go down and visit Abbey Road. =)

For this edition of DIDA, I profile a recent film that got split reviews. Even more so, a film that has the honor to be inducted into my four-stars club. So that’s it, here it is, enjoy! Until next time, this Randy signing off from London.

“Cloverfield”
2008
**** out of ****

Oh boy. Every since the trailer before the Transformers movie last summer, I looked forward to one date and one date only: 1-18-08. I tracked the clues, kept up with the rumors, anticipated, and followed the film along the way. I was reading for clues and news on the film constantly and checking 1-18-08.com daily. I was honestly extremely excited for this film. Then it came: 1-18-08. The day I had been waiting for for 6 months... It came... and it passed. I didn’t see the film. Why you ask? I have no goddamn clue! I just never got around to getting to the theater. And then, I just never took the time to go and get it from Wow Video.

However, I did watch it this week, and it was absolutely amazing. It was 100 percent what I expected, and it is now in my four stars club. I am not going to go into a long plot synopsis of the film, seeing as most of you have probably already seen it. However, it is about a guy who is having a going away party when something attacks New York City. The whole this is shot (and viewed by us) on a video camera, by a guy who is supposed to be documenting the night of the party. Instead, however, he ends up documenting the most surreal footage ever.

I am personally not a fan of monster movies. However, I don’t know whether it was the hype, or the fact that it was shot with a camera, or that I was in a good mood when I watched it last night... but I loved Cloverfield. Now I feel even worse that I totally disregarded this for 5 months. However, great acting, an ok plot, and amazing film techniques came together to create this JJ Abram-kissed classic of the year. For me it has 4 stars. It has joined the club. 5 months into 2008, and my thoughts of Cloverfield:

It is the best movie, by far, or the year thus far.

With this killer lineup of movies this summer, including “The Dark Knight” and “Indiana Jones”, we will see if any film can truly surpass the awesomeness of “Cloverfield”.

Diggin' Into the DVD Archive: Tom Hanks Edition - "Forrest Gump" and "Apollo 13"

Good evening everyone; you’re reading the 3rd edition of Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive, aka DIDA, written by myself, Randy. Now let me just start off by saying that I have worked out my reviewing schedule. It has been awhile since you have seen ANYTHING from me… and I apologize for that. I planned on reviewing “Drillbit Taylor” and “Leatherheads” for FilmArcade and “Prom Night” for my blog, however, never got around to doing any of them. Things have been extremely hectic these last three weeks, and I have been unbelievably busy, and so I have been doing my best here. However, here is what I have worked out:

DIDA will be posted EVERY OTHER Saturday. Yes, I realize today is Monday. However, for some reason, the last two nights when I went to post this, blogger would not let me log into my account. I contacted them last night via email, and everything has been fixed (I needed to reset my password). But from now on, you can look forward to DIDA every other Saturday. That means the next edition will be posted Saturday May 3rd. As for theatrical releases, my schedule is clear until May, in which I have Indiana Jones to review right here on FilmArcade. I will also be doing some others for my blog, however, none of that is important now.

Just as a heads up, I will not be writing a little end-of-the-month update for April. There hasn’t been that much going on in the last month (or, at least not enough to make an article out of it), so we’ll see what May will bring. As always, we have had absolute excellence from our FilmArcade reviewers. And as it gets closer and closer to summer, and as the summer blockbusters begin to come out, I can only expect better and better.

Ok, so let’s get back to this edition of DIDA. I got two emails with suggestions for this week’s issue: One was from an old friend from a previous website I had written for, and the other, surprisingly was from a FilmArcade reader, who wanted me to review his favorite movie: “Forrest Gump”. In my friend’s email, he actually suggested about twenty movies, but one especially caught my eye: “Apollo 13”. It was really the only one that appealed to me (sorry, Ron!), and I knew that Tom Hanks played a role in it. So, I suddenly got an idea: to do a special, Tom Hanks edition. So, I put the two movies together for this special edition of DIDA: All About Tom Hanks.

So there you have it! This week, you get a special themed edition of DIDA. So enjoy, leave your comments if you so choose, and check back on May 3rd for the very next edition.


“Forrest Gump”
1994
**** out of ****
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Cast: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright Penn, Gary Sinise

Forrest Gump… an old one. However, my favorite movie of all time. And what’s more, one of the very few movies that can brag to its fellow movies that it is a part of my four stars club. For those of you that don’t know me, I am very critical with movies, and you will hardly ever see me give a film four stars. However, there are a select few that have made it into the four stars club, and this is one of them.

Tom Hanks takes on the tough role of playing a mentally challenged man in this clever parody of historical events, and Tom Hanks does an excellent job. Forrest Gump is a mentally challenged man whose character is cleverly written into major historical events throughout the 60s and 70s. Gump finds himself fighting in the Vietnam War, going to a Black Panther party, and investing in Apple computers to make millions. He creates the slogan, “**it happens”, and was responsible for the first yellow shirt with a smiley face on it. He also became a world-famous table tennis player, and founded his own shrimping company, Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. All the while he is wishing that he could be with the woman he loves, ah, sweet Jenny. All throughout the movie as we hear of Forrest’s adventures, we also hear of how he constantly thinks of Jenny.

This is an amazing movie. I recommend it to all. This film is serious, funny, and touching all at the same time. As Forrest goes on telling us his life story, we cannot help but to laugh, or to feel sorry from him. And the way they put his character into actual historical events was probably the cleverest thing I have seen in a film (other than the ending to “The Sixth Sense”). Tom Hanks does an excellent job portraying the role of the mentally challenged man trying to carry out a normal life. However, Forrest Gump is far from normal. And I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way.

Superb. 4 out of 4.


Apollo 13”
1995
** and ½ out of ****
Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon

“Apollo 13” is not a fictional film. It is based on a true story. On April 11th, 1970, the space shuttle Apollo 13 left Earth on a mission to land on the moon. With three men, James A. Lovell, John L. Swigert, and Fred W. Haise on board, there was an explosion that damaged their craft badly. Their oxygen tanks were the primary source of their trouble that April’s day: They had been damaged during the explosion, and now the three astronauts were running low on air. With their heat shield also banged up during the explosion, it would be difficult to reenter the atmosphere without incinerating in the fire.

Tom Hanks (Lovell) and his co-stars Paxton and Bacon (Haise and Swigert) do an excellent job of portraying the fear and emotion of what was actually going on in that shuttle that day. We get a great look at what the conditions were like in the shuttle, and how the astronauts were affected by the explosion. We feel emotion from the movie: As you watch, you are hoping along with everyone else that they can get this ship to work. This was the 1970s… The Russians were all over space by then, but the Americans were new to this stuff. This was a new thing to them, and they were all trying to figure out how to get those three men home.

A very suspenseful film. Excellent acting by all three of the stars along with great special effects and visual and you have a good movie. I did enjoy this. There were some things that didn’t appeal to me as much, such as the NASA crew. To me, (and I don’t know if this is bad acting or inaccurate portrayal) they seemed like a bunch of blubbering idiots! I find it very hard to believe that the same people that could get a 10,000 pound spacecraft into the air, out of Earth, and into space would be such morons when it came to this. Like I said before, NASA was new to this space stuff at the time; however, you would think they would be prepared for things to go wrong.

I liked this. This is also an emotional film, especially if you lived while this was happening for real… you look back and remember the news and the radio broadcasts. All in all, I think it’s a good film. Better than I a lot I have seen. 2 ½ out of 4.

Looks like that does it for this edition of Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive. I still am looking for films to do for the next edition. If you would like to suggest a movie for me to review here for DIDA, leave your comment on this post, or send me a quick email here at pittsburghboy36@hotmail.com and I would be glad to review it for you.

Well, that’s all folks. Check back on May 3rd for the next edition. I hope everyone has a wonderful next couple of weeks. Until next time, you know what I say: Happy reviewing!

Diggin' Into the DVD Archive- "Fun With Dick and Jane" and "Mr. Woodcock"

Good evening folks, and welcome to the latest edition of “Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive” with me, Randy. Tonight, I am going to take you on a journey through two fairly recent films: “Fun With Dick and Jane” (2005) and “Mr. Woodcock” (2007). In this week’s edition you will have the opportunity to read my opinions on two films that while in theaters didn’t necessarily do too well in the box-office, and when released on DVD, got mixed reviews. In just a few moments, you will be able to read my insights on both. However, before I begin, I feel the need to quote my good friend TonyD in saying:

“The opinion of the reviewer is strictly his. If you don’t like my review, eat my ass.”

Keep that in mind while reading.


“Fun With Dick and Jane”
2005
**1/2 of ****
Director: Dean Parisot
Cast: Jim Carrey, Tea Leoni, Alec Baldwin

A remake of a 1977 film, “Fun With Dick and Jane” was released in 2005. This was around the time I started to really get into movies, you know, as more that just entertainment. I refer to it now as my “Tom Hanks and Jim Carrey Era”. Those two being my favorite actors at the time (and still to this day), these were the days where I would sit at home and watch my favorites over and over again on DVD. My “usuals”? “Liar Liar”... “Bruce Almighty”... “Cast Away”... and lest us not forget the famous “Forrest Gump”.

Well, when I saw the commercial for this on TV, I thought it looked pretty funny. But that fact that my boy Jim Carrey was in it sold it for me. I went to see it opening weekend. And I actually liked it. In a rather hilarious plot, Dick Harper (Carrey) loses everything: his job, his car, his money, all the way down to his front lawn, when his company, Globodyne, crashes. So, he and his wife Jane (Leoni), after trying numerous things to make money, must resort to stealing to get what they want. Everything they lost: their money... car... TV... they stole it all back. They continue to live their lives this way, stealing what they need, until they see their friends, also ex-Globodyne employees who lost everything, get arrested for holding up a bank. They finally realize that they cannot keep living their lives the way they are.

In the meantime, ex-CEO of Globodyne, Jack McAllister (Baldwin) is living it large. The crash of Globodyne didn’t affect him at all. In fact, he has 400 million dollars put away in a bank while all his ex-employees are either on the streets or in jail. So instead of stealing the money, they devise a scheme to get McAllister to unknowingly wire-transfer 400 million dollars to them.

This movie is an absolute riot. On top of the naturally funny plot, the little things that happen in between make the movie so enjoyable. Jane takes an experimental drug as part of a clinical study and her face blows up like a balloon. She can barely talk and looks like a chipmunk. Dick ends up getting arrested by immigration officials, when of course, he is an American non-immigrant. The two of them go in to stick up a coffee shop, but instead of stealing money rip off a muffin and two cappichinos! The fact that they are two average, normal individuals trying to carry out a criminal lifestyle is funny, because they are so amateurish. The fact that they stick places up with a water gun is hilarious. The whole concept of it if just plain, out and out funny.

This is still a favorite of mine to this day. I always laugh when I watch it, and never mind seeing it over and over again. 2 and ½ stars for me. I recommend it to those with a good sense of humor and like to laugh.


“Mr. Woodcock”
2007
*** out of ****
Director: Craig Gillespie
Cast: Billy Bob Thornton, Seann William Scott, Susan Sarandon

“Mr. Woodcock”. Many of you may remember the title. It wasn’t all that long ago... about a year now. I remember seeing a trailer for it for the first time, and if I recall correctly, almost pissing myself. It looked funny from the beginning, however, I didn’t get to see it in theaters.

And then I forgot about it for awhile. Actually... for a LONG while. I hadn’t even REMEMBERED the film “Mr. Woodcock” until I was browsing through WOW Video last week. So I read the back of the case, laughed again, and took it out.

And boy do I regret missing this one on the big screen. This is probably one of the funniest films I have seen since Clerks 2. John Farley (Scott) grew up the fat kid. He was always pushed by his gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Thornton) to succeed. However, Woodcock wasn’t the friendliest gym coach. When I say “push”, I mean it in the literal sense. Woodcock pushed kids to their limits. Some kids considered it torture, and Farley was convinced that Woodcock had ruined his life.

Well, years later, Farley is a successful author of his book “Letting Go”, which is about his childhood struggles, and how he worked to get past all of it. A major part of the novel was inspired by Woodcock himself. Well, it turns out that when he comes home to visit mommy, Woodcock is engaged to her. Talk about a conflict? After that, the rest of the film is about Woodcock and Farley competing and butting heads.

A very funny film. I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. It seems that, years later, Farley is trying to get his revenge, and do now, what he couldn’t do then: To beat Woodcock. They make each other’s lives hell, and Woodcock hasn’t changed one bit. Farley goes to the ends of the earth to prove that Woodcock is a bad guy. He accuses him of cheating on his mom, killing a cat, and killing one of his childhood friends. Woodcock beats John with a bat, “mistakenly” thinking he was an intruder, even though John had identified himself.

The settler: They wrestle, in one of the funniest scenes I have even seen in a movie. If you at all get bored with this, skip to the wrestling scene. I can guarantee some laughs from it.

I loved Mr. Woodcock, and as of now it is now under the title of “Randy’s Favorites”. 3 out of 4 stars for me. I really enjoyed it, and since last week have watched it 3 times. Everyone I have watched it with has also enjoyed it. Excellent writing and dialogue make this film a complete success.




Well, that’s gonna do it for this edition of Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive. I hope you’ve enjoyed my reviews. I’m not entirely sure what’s in store for the next edition, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to comment this article and let me know. Suggestions are always welcome, and if I can, I will review it for a future installment. Well, that’s all for now. Until next time, happy reviewing!

Diggin' Into the DVD Archive: "The Mighty Ducks" and "D2: The Mighty Ducks"

Welcome to the very first edition of Diggin’ Into the DVD Archive, a brand new segment here on FilmArcade written by me, Randy. Twice a month, I will be “digging” into my archive of DVDs and randomly selecting a few to watch and review for this special installment. My purpose for this segment is to give everyone a little bit of insight on some good films out now on DVD: Whether they be recent releases, or forgotten classics. I will try and mix it up. This way, not only will our readers be able to log onto FilmArcade.Net to find out what’s good in the theaters, but also what they can check out at their local neighborhood Blockbuster.

“The Mighty Ducks”
1992
*** of ****
Director: Stephen Herek
Cast: Emilio Estevez, Lane Smith, Joshua Jackson

When I was younger, The Mighty Ducks movies were always favorites of mine. My mom always had a basket of VHS tapes (back in the day) that she considered “classics” (Or in other words, movies that the family wouldn’t mind watching on a rainy Saturday afternoon), and the Mighty Ducks tapes were always in there. (Along with Toy Story, of course!)

It had occurred to me when I began thinking of movies to do for this segment that I hadn’t seen any of the Mighty Ducks movies in years, and so I decided to watch and review them for my very first edition of this installment.

Coach Gordon Bombay (Estevez) becomes coach of “The Mighty Ducks”, a pee-wee hockey club, when he is forced to do community service. Take a coach that doesn’t want to be there, a bunch of diverse kids, and put them together. What do you get? The Mighty Ducks. (Uh.. wait. I mean CHAOS!)

The whole first film is about how everyone learns to work together as a team. You have a group of diverse kids, ranging from bullies, to geeks, to average kids, to the fat goalie from Philadelphia. You have hockey skills ranging from amazing to “you suck” on the talent meter. All of these kids are joined together in one place, and unified as one through the Mighty Ducks. Not only do the players have to learn to get along with one another, but as a whole they need to get along with their un-enthusiastic coach who they butt heads with constantly throughout the film. In the end, the Ducks rise above adversity to win the Pee-wee hockey championship.

Like I mentioned before, always a favorite of mine. It has a great plot, it was funny, IT ENTERTAINED ME. That is what I look for with movies like this (family movies, sports films) TO BE ENTERTAINED. And I was. So I was happy, and still am to this day. Adults are not the target audience, however, watch this with your families. As my mom would say, this is a good one for a Saturday afternoon.

3 Stars. A good one, but my favorite of the 3 comes with the sequel, “D2: The Mighty Ducks”.

“D2: The Mighty Ducks”
1994
*** out of ****
Director: Sam Weisman
Cast: Emilio Estevez, Kathryn Erbe, Joshua Jackson

Ahh, the sequel. My favorite of the three, and from a critical standpoint, the best of the three. In this one, Coach Bombay is back again for more, only this time, he isn’t coaching the Ducks. Nope. He is coaching none other than Team USA.

Remember that group of kids that learned to work together so well last year and can now call themselves a team? Well now that same group of kids have to find a way of getting along with some MORE kids, this time from all over the United States. The Ducks, joined together with kids from all over the country, and coached by Bombay, make up Team USA.

You’ve got girls, cowboys, Asian figure skaters, and Russ “from da hood” with his special “Knuckle-puck”, all mixing together with the Ducks to form Team USA. And if you think getting along with one another last season was tough, just imagine what this year will be like. The goal this year: To work as a team to beat Iceland, the toughest team in the world. But with bad attitudes and things distracting Bombay, it doesn’t seem possible, and the team starts to give up. Bombay needs a wake-up call, and the Ducks (whoops, I mean USA)..... need some faith. The whole sequel is about how The Ducks (whoops, I mean USA).... overcome adversity to become champions of the world.

This one is my favorite, for a few reasons. First, it is the most realistic of them all. The hockey scenes, even for a bunch of kids, looked real, not staged. Second, this one has a good over-riding message. Never give up. Shoot for your goals. (Get it, shoot? haha) Rising above adversity. Common themes played perfectly into a family/children’s type movie. On top of that mushy crap, it was entertaining. It is a fun family film. I recommend that if you and the family are looking for something to watch together one afternoon, do a double feature, and see the first 2 “Ducks” movies.

Don’t bother seeing the 3rd. It is crap. Totally pointless, irrelevant crap. But as for “D2”, it gets 3 stars from me. Very good.


Well, that does it for this edition of Diggin Into the DVD Archive. I hope you enjoyed it. The second edition will follow shortly. In the next edition, you will have a chance to look at my thoughts on “Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) and Mr. Woodcock (2007). I know a lot of you groan at those titles, however, read Edition 2, because I believe that a lot of you will be surprised at what I have to say. Until next time, this is Randy. Happy Reviewing!

"Horton Hears a Who" Review

"Horton Hears a Who”
2008
** out of ****
Directors: Jimmy Hayward, Steve Martino
Cast (voices): Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Seth Rogen

Horton Hears a Who, yet another Dr. Seuss classic. But what’s more, another book that was ruined by the film industry. Congratulations, 20th Century Fox and Blue Sky!

Oh boy, was I disappointed with this one. Although this wasn’t as bad as How the Grinch Stole Christmas was back in 2000, I was extremely dissatisfied with it overall. I left the theater shaking my head and thinking I can’t believe I spent 8 bucks on this crap. However, don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t terrible. But the fact of the matter is: The hour and a half I spent in the theater this afternoon watching an elephant was not worth the 8 bucks I spent.

Horton is an elephant. One day, while walking along the forest, he hears the faintest sound coming from a speck of dust, and swears that it is calling for help. The speck begins blowing away, and so, he begins to chase it . When he finally catches it on a “clover” (The characters in the movie call it a “clover”, but in actuality, its a flower of some sort.) he listens closely, and does in fact hear tiny voices.

Meanwhile, the little people Horton heard are Whos, and the town on that little speck is Whoville. In the Whos’ minds they are not tiny. They have no idea that their whole civilization lay on a tiny speck. Whoville has been experiencing some weird things lately: Violent bumps, rapid changes from dark to light, abrupt weather patterns. However, nobody thought much of it.

One day the mayor of Whoville hears rumbling in a drainpipe just outside his office. He puts a horn into there, and he can hear the voice clearly: The booming, overpower voice of Horton the Elephant. Horton begins to explain to the mayor that Whoville is but a tiny speck. The mayor begins to explain to Horton that their world is in danger, and that he needs to get them into stable conditions. So, Horton makes it his obligation to get that speck up to the top of the mountain. However, the big bad kangaroo, who is like the head of the forest, feels that Horton is corrupting the minds of the children by putting false ideas into their heads, and tries to stop him with all she has. However, Horton insists through it all, A person’s a person, no matter how small.

The Dr. Seuss book was always a favorite of mine as a child, and so, I was really hoping that this would turn out great. However, my final verdict is that it turned out ok. The animation was great, the voices were great (the actors were perfect), there were some funny lines that made me laugh. However, during some scenes I felt myself subconsciously dozing off. The rhyming could have been placed much better. And when it was used, it annoyed me.

However, the success of this film is through the roof! It made $45 mil. in its opening weekend. The guys over at 20th Century Fox are geniuses. The trailers they put out for this were funny, and they placed the release of this film right before Easter. Is that not genius? All of the kids will be home from school, and all of them are going to want to see Horton. Can you say, Cha-Ching! Overall, it only gets a ** from me though. I wasn’t pleased. They could have done so much more with this.

--- SPECIAL 2nd OPINION ---

I wanted to include this here to give readers a little bit of insight of what kids think of this movie.

My little cousin saw Horton last weekend. His name is Ben, he is 6 years old, and I asked him what he thought of it.

His rating: **** out of ****

His review: It was funny.

Well, there you have it, folks, a future reviewer here on FilmArcade!

"3:10 to Yuma" Review

"3:10 to Yuma"
2007
*** 1/2 out of ****
Director: James Mangold
Cast: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Logan Lerman

Way back in September, I remember hearing great things about Russell Crowe and his role in "3:10 to Yuma". I also recall reading quite a few positive reviews on the film itself. It was tagged "Oscar-worthy" by the critics, but I wasn't biting. To me, it was just another cowboy movie, and what's more, just another movie I wasn't paying to see in theaters.

Now, it's 6 months later, and the film is nominated for 2 Oscars. Go figure. Just another film I mis-judged by the trailers.

Well, I saw it on Blu-Ray, and have concluded that the nominations are well-deserved. Nominated for "Best Achievement in Music" and "Best Achievement in Sound", "3:10 to Yuma" was, in fact, pleasing to the ear. The music was absolutely amazing, and in some scenes, gave me chills. When Ben Wade and his gang
ride into town in one of the opening scenes, the music got so tense that I gave a little shake myself. This was excellent foreshadowing for what was to come. It did not end here. The drama and emotion of the music lasted throughout the entire film. In the very last scene, the music was so dramatic that it really set the mood for what was happening. It intensified the emotion of the scene. Pretty amazing.

I truely thought that this was going to be another classic cowboy movie that we would be watching on the Hallmark channel in 10 years after "Walker, Texas Ranger." Another "Tombstone" that was a good movie, but not really anything special. Now this is coming from a guy who never saw the original, so everyone may not have had the same outlook. However, at this point, all I know is, I was wrong.

Dan Evans (Bale) is a pretty normal cowboy. He has a small farm, some cattle, and a family. But that's about it. He is an everyday cowboy trying to make an honest living. When Ben Wade and his crew ride into town, his barn gets burned and he loses some of his cattle. So Dan confronts Wade about it in a saloon, and Wade compensates him. Just then, a swarm of calvary burst in and place Wade under arrest for holding up a pinkerton (an armored stagecoach, more or less), which he had apparently done 21 times. His punishment: To be sent on a 3:10 train to Yuma prison. The sheriff asked for three men to accompany them, so Dan volunteers, for 200 dollars. He is desperate, needs the money, and at this point, will do anything. He proclaims to his wife in probably one of the saddest lines in the movie: "I'm sick of watching my boys go hungry." So Dan, a horse doctor, and an old man Wade shot take off with Wade, in the hopes to get him to the 3:10 train to Yuma. Dan's eldest son will eventually join them, and will play a huge role in the outcome of the film. In the meantime, while the group is putting up with Wade's crap while transferring him by horse to Yuma, Wade's gang is on their way to rescue him.

I was thoroughly pleased with this film. The music was amazing, and the special effects were phenominal. I was sitting in my recliner with the blu-ray on, a 52 inch TV, with high quality surround sound, and during the shoot-outs, I sware I felt like I was right in the middle of it. The whole room shook. It was exceptional sound. Nomination well deserved, and it has my vote in this category.

The plot was very nicely set up. As the story continued, they didn't give much away, and in some parts, mis-leads you. This keeps you guessing throughout the entire film. It made the movie itself more enjoyable, seeing how wrong you were and laughing at the unique twists.

I absolutely cannot review this film without saying anything about Russell Crowe. Come on. He was totally and completely amazing. I have seen Crowe in so many movies, and it seems, he was excellent in all of them. He has played a variety of characters, and excelled in them all. In my opinion, Crowe is what I call a professional actor. In my dictionary, this means that he knows what he is doing, and is extremely good at it. In other words, Crowe could play any role. Put a script in front of him, chances are he'll be able to be that particular character. In "3:10 to Yuma", his acting was phenominal as Ben Wade. His expressions were funny, serious, or tired. He fit in the role, and became the character. He was totally convincable as the big bad bully cowboy of the West. He was awesome. He is awesome. Russell Crowe.

*** 1/2 stars from me. I liked it a lot, and regret not seeing it in theaters. I would reccommend this to anyone who likes adventurous films, films with amazing music, and Westerns. I was having trouble ending this review properly, so I will just go with TonyD's advice: "3:10 to Yuma" was a f****** awesome movie. The end.