Based on the absolute thrill of seeing Batman Forever for the first
time, I could not delay in seeing the epic Batman & Robin. It did
not disappoint - you know, except as a film.
So...
it really is as bad as everyone always said it was. Did you watch the
trailer? The movie is just... more of that! The terrible acting? Bingo!
The bizarre sets? You betcha! The horrible even for 1997 special
effects? Yes sir! The crotch shots? You just wait!
It doesn't even have as good a poster has Batman Forever.
Joel Schumacher pointedly, directly, obviously
intended for there to be an undercurrent of sexual tension between
Robin and Batman - or rather, not even sexual tension as in the first of
his films in the franchise, but actually a realized relationship
between the pair who bicker like a married couple throughout the movie,
but who love each other still. This is not a criticism, I wish that it
could have been more than implication - if Batman has a Robin, and that
Robin is a young attractive guy who lives with him, and they like to
share secrets and wear matching outfits and serve their community -
well, it isn't wrong to want to see them as being in a more-than-friends
relationship. They sound like a couple to me, and it's pretty naive to
assume that they aren't. But Schumacher, even though he clearly
interpreted that relationship the same way I do, he wasn't allowed to
say Batman and Robin have been dating since about 3 days after the last
movie ended. So instead, he acted out by putting in even more crotch,
nipple, and butt shots than last time!
This video repeats pointlessly, but the first two shots are legit.
George
Clooney took over from doughy Val Kilmer, finally giving Batman the
jawline he deserves. But whoa, what a terrible job he does in the movie!
This is a future Oscar winner, but he doesn't even change his voice to
sound more Batmanish! Listen, he's third here in the "I'm Batman"
supercut - He's not even trying!
Clooney seemed to adopt some of Kilmer's wardrobe from the previous film, even sporting an oversized turtleneck as Bruce Wayne.
Just going for a stroll with Val's turleneck.
Chris
O'Donnell returns as Robin, and he's still young and cool... But you
know, he was 27 when this thing came out. I'm not 27 yet and I am
certainly no longer young and cool. I wouldn't be even if I did say
things like cowabunga!
There
is someone undoubtedly younger AND cooler on the scene in Batman and
Robin though - it's Alicia Silverstone in the movie that demolished her
career! She plays Alfred's niece, who according to the deleted scene
"Alfred's Lost Love" isn't his niece at all, but his ex-girlfriend's
daughter. His ex-girlfriend shown as a photo of the old lady from
Titanic, so somehow Cher Horowitz's mother is a 90 year old woman.
Alfred's "niece" is also Batgirl, for some reason? And as I said she is
younger (but who knows how young, because she goes to "Oxbridge" but
dresses like a schoolgirl) and also cooler, because in one too-long scene she
street races, as you do.
Also, her "uncle" made her this costume.
It is also crucial to note, that because Batgirl is a teenager(?) in 1997, she is a master hacker. That's why when she had to hack into a password protected laser disc (1997!) of Alfred's, her first password choice is "Alfred". Later, she and Robin have a hacking race to reroute some satellites - it's all very Angelina Jolie and Sick Boy.
The
villains in Batman & Robin are some of the worst I have ever seen
committed to film. Uma Thurman in particular just shines at bad acting
as the chemically seductive Poison Ivy. Before she is attacked with her
own plant-and-animal based experiments which transform her into a
poisonous evil-doer, she was a nerdy dishevelled scientist - just like
The Riddler was... they might be the same person now that I think of it -
both get transformed into green suit wearing red heads. Anyway! Uma's
version of nerdy was just pointing her finger sharply and repeatedly. It
was very distracting. Her version of the slinky and dangerous Poison
Ivy was wildly inconsistent - she seemed unable or unwilling to hold the
same inflection of speech scene by scene. An amateur move by an actress
who should've done better.
Those gloves look like green dog boners.
As
I noted in my The Dark Knight Rises review, the character of Bane, whom
I had never even heard of before, made a great impact on me ("What a lovely, lovely voice")
- I had to be warned going into Batman & Robin that this simply
wasn't the Bane that I knew and loved. Nothing could have prepared me
for what in the blue hell this was:
No.
The
worst bit is that apparently Bane is supposed to be one of Batman's
more brilliant matches, but instead, there was that guy, doofin' up the
joint.
I
think that the Mr. Freeze character, played by the terrifically
terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger was probably the most entertaining role
to write - almost all of his dialogue is inane one liners all vaguely
cold-themed. Someone clearly just wrote down all that they could think
of, and used them in the script even when they didn't make any sort of
sense to the plot. Or even if they didn't make any sort of sense for
anything ever, like "What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age!!!" - no, Mr. Freeze, not even true.
If
you had four minutes and you watched that (you should, it's great),
you'll see Vivica A. Fox's one and only scene in the whole movie,
playing a bimbo who for some reason wants to bone Mr. Freeze. Poison Ivy
also wants to bone him. And he has a hot deadish wife. I wonder if that
was all part of Schwarzenegger's contract?
For a guy who has a cyro-frozen wife and strong criminal desires, Mr. Freeze is having the time of his life. In spite of his situation (he really loves that wife), he constantly cracks wise throughout the movie, and enjoys a hearty chuckle. In one bizarre scene, he even attempts to lead is chilly minions in a sing along while wearing fuzzy slippers.
Mr.
Freeze, by the way, is a doctor. I don't know why he isn't called Dr.
Freeze. I feel like they really missed out there. He needs diamonds to
stay cold because of this time he fell in a cold pond. Why diamonds, you
say? Well diamonds are really cold, didn't you know that? Yeah, way
cold, super cold. That's science.
Wait a second, how are you going to light that cigar?
Obviously
he wants to steal some diamond (a cold, cold diamond) and Batman needs
to stop him, and Poison Ivy is around using poison-pheromones to
convince Batman and Robin that they want to have sex with a woman, and
Robin wears some rubber lips, and Batgirl tries to be cute and it
doesn't work, and Alfred gets sick and scares me by taking off his
glasses, and gets better, and Poison Ivy jealously kills Freeze's
deadish wife, and Batman saves the day, and that's the plot of Batman
& Robin in no particular order. At the end, Mr. Freeze is allowed to
share a cell with Poison Ivy even though that is clearly a disgusting
violation of every code of ethics because he is obviously going to
destroy her. It's pretty gross.
It's a genuinely
terrible film. At one point Batman & Robin surf though the sky on
bits of rocket. And for the climax, the team changes into ice themed
suits even though they didn't have time for that. And then Robin changes
back. At one point Poison Ivy says "Come join me. My garden needs tending" and surely she is talking about her pubes.
It's a nuanced film.
Much
like on the DVD of Batman Forever, there is a selection of excellent
music videos included with Batman & Robin. The first:
This
is R. Kelly with Gotham City. It is painfully clear that R. Kelly has
never seen or read or heard of anything Batman related in his entire
life. The lyrics indicate the opposite of anything that Gotham City has
ever been described as. Also, nice hat. ALSO, I don't recall ever
hearing this during the movie.
And the second, exactly as I am showing you here:
Yes,
Jewel's Foolish Games. This video and song have even less to do with
the movie. I didn't hear it in any scene or at least the first part of
the credits. The music video contains no clips from Batman & Robin.
She does look a little cold. I think Joel Schumacher just likes this
song.
I have such a lady-boner for The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers that I wanted you to know with confidence that I am not a tramp for just any ol' superhero movie suddenly. In earlier reviews, I touched on the fact that I had seen very few comic book films before - but I had seen Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns. I had not seen Batman Forever... that is until last night.
I like Robin in this.
For some, this film is nostalgic, but it was brand new for me. And more ridiculous than I ever suspected. I am not entirely sure what anyone was thinking in 1995 when the Batman franchise was spiced up with a new director, new lead actor, and an even firmer commitment to wackiness - apparently it had something to do with Burton's Batmans not being family orientated enough. Regardless, what occurred was something super campy - seemingly to the screaming delight of everyone involved.
Joel Schumacher took over the franchise with some wild changes to the gothy aesthetic of previous two films - it would be like if Adam Shankman took over from Christopher Nolan, now. That isn't to say that 1989 and 1992 editions weren't campy... after all, they included a human penguin and this version of the Joker:
Why so ser... oh wait.
But compared to Schumacher's version of the Gotham universe, Burton's is down right gritty. Collectively it was as if everyone on the set simply forgot the definition of subtlety, from the writers to the actors to the costume designer. It is so baffling as to be entertaining, for the most part. Not good, mind, but entertaining.
Val Kilmer took over from Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Keaton was an interesting choice in the first place, because he is Mr. Mom.
"Jack's going to have to start from the bottom up"
But I guess Kilmer seemed like a nice choice in 1995. I mean, he was in Willow, after all. And had a sweet moustache in Tombstone. If the ability to grow facial hair and saving babies with a dwarf doesn't qualify you to play the Dark Knight of Gotham, than what will?
In this, Batman looks like an angry girl.
Even in the mid-nineties, though not as shockingly bloated as he is today, good ol' Val was in the early stages of Fat Head syndrome, and his marshmallow-soft face was, while just sweet in a turtleneck, decidedly un-Batman-like.
Clenching your jaw doesn't make it more manly, Turtles.
The usually reserved Tommy Lee Jones did his best Jack Nicholson as the Joker impression while playing one of the main villains of Batman Forever, Harvey Two-Face Dent... or rather, Harvey Two-Face as they kept calling him in the movie, as if Two-Face were his surname. It cannot be denied that Jones obviously had an absolute ball while not giving one solitary fuck about the quality of film he was participating in. No, not one fuck! And he's gleeful about it.
Acid dyed my hair pink!
Jim Carrey was at the height of his wacky-comedies career, and brings everything you'd expect to the table. I remember when I was a kid, my mother saying that she couldn't stand Carrey's Fire Marshall Bill character... this might have been why we never watched Batman Forever... he uses the same inflections repeatedly. But to be fair, his Riddler character is just a mash up of all his other characters, different scene by scene.
Nicole Kidman plays Dr. Dogname Meridian, an extremely horny criminal psychologist who wants to bone Batman... so... bad. It is a wonderfully wooden performance by Kidman, who tries to just breath all of her lines, and who is clearly having trouble feigning attraction for Val Kilmer - their lack of chemistry is the cherry on top of some awkward scenes where Bruce Wayne decides it must be love.
We're very uncomfortable.
Someone not having any sort of difficulty with their Batman related chemistry is Chris O'Donnell's Robin aka Dick Grayson because the world is cruel. Oh they are so into each other it is the best! Twenty-five year old O'Donnell assumes the role originally created for a minor, but instead of trying to explain that away, Batman Forever just convolutes the whole situation. He's constantly referred to as "young" with no specific age given, he's told that he should go to college, but for some reason after his family dies he is brought by Commissioner Gordon (who in this film only has two jobs - delivering orphans and manning the bat signal insufficiently) to be taken care of by Bruce Wayne, "once social services is done with him". Very little of that matters, I suppose. All you really need to know is that Dick is cool (he wears an earring), and wild (he rides a motorcycle), and he and Bruce Wayne become very committed to each other.
Even before I saw the film, I remember that just historically, the costumes in the Schumacher Batmans were supposed to be quite kinky. I wasn't disappointed:
Mercy!
I decided that while I could go into the plot line of Batman Forever, literally everything that happens in the movie can be found in its theatrical trailer:
And no, not jut the best parts... everything!
Actually, the best parts of my Batman Forever watching experience were found on the DVD extras. Two things spring to mind, specifically the scene starting at around 2:55, after Bruce Wayne discovers in a cave that he need not blame himself for the death of his parents:
What the... they paid money for that thing!
And of course the next best thing on the DVD extras is this:
Word on the street is that Batman and Robin was somehow an even worse movie than Batman Forever. Suddenly, I can't even wait.
I have been struggling with how to begin this review since Tuesday
night. A very real act of horror will always be associated with the Dark
Knight Rises, and it would be insensitive not to touch on that. I will
only do so briefly, just to say that it's all incredibly sad. I want to address the film on it's own merits separate from that unpredictable tragedy.
The Dark Knight Rises is also difficult to write about
because of the risk of spoilers and also because it is so hard to
articulate all my feelings about it - and I have so many feelings! But,
for instance, when asked my feelings directly after the movie I said
"I... eihj.. um...."
This review might be unjustly sparse.
The simple fact is, The Dark Knight Rises is a brilliant film.
I wasn't expecting it. I am not a big fan of Batman Begins, and
while Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight was absolutely
spectacular, the rest of the film was good but not great. So I was
expecting something entertaining, but not overwhelming. But it just was so good. Overwhelmingly satisfying and entertaining and excellent.
Whereas in the previous films of the trilogy, some casting choices fell flat *cough*katieholmes*cough*
- DKR boasts one hell of a cast. I am a big Christian Bale fan, who
looks a bit more The Fighter than Batman here - he seemed to put more
into his performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman than he did in the last film,
and the payoff is great. Other returning cast members continue to
shine. Gary Oldman slips occasionally in his American accent, but is
able to give more depth to Commissioner Gordon. And of course, Michael
Caine as Alfred Pennyworth (ha, Pennyworth) is touching and at times
heart-wrenching. A surprise appearance by another returning performer is
also a delight.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (my heart of hearts) joins
the cast as an earnest young police officer named Blake, able to see the
truth where others can't. I'd watch that guy eat a bowl of soup and be a
happy girl, but he really is suitably cast for this role.
Anne Hatheway is a god damned revelation as Selina Kyle. Nolan's
characterization of Catwoman is so much more human than previous
incarnations - less camp, more intelligence, less crazy-bitch-trope,
more realistic will for survival. Her point of view is one to be taken
seriously, Hathway's performance utterly empathic, yet still devious.
When I first saw images of the Catwoman costume, it turns out I didn't
know what I was looking at. It's actually a costume that makes total
sense.
Bane voiced my inner-monolog for literally days after watching the film.
Lest
you think that I could ever believe any film is entirely perfect, of
course there are some quite minor issues - some discord between the ages
of certain actors and their character's ages, a question as to why no
one thought about spreading out their body weight, and where on earth
Alfred could have gotten his eternal non-youth (he never ages!). And on the subject of Alfred, I think any movie that allows Micheal Caine to seem sad is just a cruel one! Cruel, I say!
I bet he'd scream if that suit moved by itself.
There are some things to say about the politics of the
film itself - again, without going into spoilery details, Gotham is a
city with a wide gap between their Bruce-Wayne level elite, and their
disenfranchised middle and lower classes. Much like we have seen in the
real world, some of those lower classes are trying to stand up against
the rule-bending, unfairly rich - the 1%, if you will. Selina Kyle and
Blake both represent two sides of the same not-obscenely-rich coin - he
believes that hard work and honor are the key, she has a more desperate
sense of self-preservation. Neither of them desire the change that Bane
brings - but much like the protestor suddenly standing in the middle of a
violent riot, there are some things outside of their control. It might
seem quite conservative that the silver-spoon-born Bruce Wayne is the
key protagonist - but it is key to note that it isn't Bruce Wayne after
all. It's Batman.
First off, let me apologize for my absence lately. I've been busy expanding my resume of tiny proportions. But, that's all done now so here I am!
Last summer saw the release of one of my favorite films of 2012, Woody Allen's Oscar winner Midnight in Paris. That movie hard charm, whit, it was surprising and it captured the city so beautifully that it left it's audience swooning over Paris so much that I'm sure French tourism saw a major increase of like 1000%. Truly a great, magical little film.
Now, embarrassingly, I will admit that up until last week I had only seen three Woody Allen films. Midnight in Paris, Hannah and Her Sisters and the classic Annie Hall. So I was pretty anxious to get that total up to four with his newest release To Rome With Love. And even though it is my least favorite out of the four Woody Allen films I've seen, I'm still happy to have seen it.
The movie is based around 4 plots that never mix. 2 were wonderful, 1 was okay, and 1 was...meh. It also saw the return of Allen in his first screen role in six years. And you know how people say that his movies are always better when he's not in them, well, his plot was my favorite! Allen's story was about a retired opera director (Allen) meeting his future in-laws for the first time, and he discovers that the patriarch of the family has one of the most gorgeous baritone voices he's ever heard.. But there's a catch that I won't go into because it hilarious and will ruin the plot. This story also stars Judy Davis, Alison Pill and a bunch of Italian people.
The other plot that was just freaking hilarious was Roberto Benigni's where he played a man who suddenly became the most famous person in the country. This story was all about the sudden rise and fall of fame. Hilarious I tells ya.
What didn't work for me was the love triangle storyline with Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page and Greta Gerwig. I found this one confusing, and it wasn't really clear to me what exactly what conventions Allen was trying to use. Watch the movie, and if you get it- please let me know. Also, I don't know about you, but I can't take Alec Baldwin seriously! Everything that comes out of his mouth sounds sarcastic and I laughed- when I wasn't supposed to!
When I left the movie I didn't have a burning desire to hop on a plane and go to Rome like I did with Midnight in Paris. I don't think the movie explored the beauty and wonder of the city. There wasn't any magic or spark. Unlike Paris, Allen could have set this movie in any location and it would of been fine. Rome was a setting, not a character, and for me that was what I was really missing.
To Rome With Love: 3 E-squsa-me-a's / 5 Hey-a you-a's
I have several things to write about now that I have the time
9:44 AM Marg: good, we need to make up for lost time
what did you think?
Matt: Sure do-
I liked it- It wasn't amazing- but I don't know if I will ever think a superhero movie is amazing- It just isn't my genre.
9:45 AM Marg: Yeah, I didn't think "amazing" either
Matt: however, when I was 13 I did see X-Men 3 times in theatres.
I found out why they made this reboot so soon after the last one
Marg: why?
9:46 AM Matt: Well, Disney bought Marvel, but Universal owns the rights to Spiderman, so as long as they always have a Spiderman project in development Disney can't take the rights away.
and it's a huge cash cow for Universal-
9:47 AM So basically, spidey is here to stay
Marg: so there will just always be a spider-man on the go?
Matt: most likely-
BUT, a movie can be "in development" for years
Marg: like, after three movies with Andrew Garfield, they'll just reboot it again?
weird
Matt: It's essentially what they did with this new one.
9:48 AM But, I was trying to think of Spiderman villains last night, and I only counted 3
But, I don't really know much about it...
Marg: Lizard-guy, green goblin, doc oc
9:49 AM Matt: hob goblin?
Marg: hahaha
I think that's the green goblin... unless there are just a hell of a lot of goblins in the spider-man world
9:54 AM Matt: who knows
9:55 AM But
anyway- the movie was good- surprisingly funny & clever. But when I
left I didn't have the need or desire to talk about it
9:58 AM Marg: I just like Andrew Garfield quite a bit
9:59 AM Matt: He's very adorkable
10:00 AM Marg: he is
I like his face.Matt: What if Peter Parker had gotten bit by a lady bug? Think about it.
And now I am back to civilization and it's too hot to think or move or type, and I would rather just be in a river please.
My fella took me out to see the new Spider-Man movie while we were away. I took him to see Moonrise Kingdom, which Matthew wrote about before and which I loved.
But Spider-Man! The Amazing one!
It was okay!
I don't know beans about Spider-Man, heads up. But aforementioned fella made me fall asleep to two of earlier incarnations some time ago.
Mainly, I liked it much more than I liked the obviously-far-too-recent-previous Spider-Man franchise. I think Marc Webb is just a dandy director, and it was clever and entertaining. Most importantly, the leads in The Amazing Spider-Man are just so much better than the leads in 2001's Spider-Man and its sequels.
I've genuinely liked Kristen Dunst in exactly three films - Drop Dead Gorgeous, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and a movie called Strike! which nobody else has ever seen, apparently. As a general rule of thumb however, she isn't my favourite. I have nothing against her looks, as many of her detractors do, but superficially, her voice really annoys me. And I strongly disliked her as Mary Jane in the Spider-Man films.
I hate that effin' kimono.
I dig Emma Stone a great deal, however. And her turn as Spidey's love interest Gwen Stacy is a predictable delight. Gwen got to be really involved in the action, which also impressed me.
Not a great hair-do, though.
Almost anybody could have played the titular role and I would have preferred it to Tobey Maguire. I complained about Kristen Dunst's voice above, but I am hard pressed to find any actor whose voice I despise more strongly than that total-turd Tobey Maguire's. I hate it! That anyone ever let that man do a voice over is mind boggling to me - and he is continually permitted to do so! Someone needs to intervene. As a lead actor, he is just so damn weinery!
Ugh, that guy.
Andrew Garfield on the other hand, is all kinds of wonderful. He's charismatic, and awkward, and he has a wonderful face. Again, I know beans about Spider-Man, but he made a fine Peter Parker to me.
That's my kinda face!
The biggest issue I had with the film is that it didn't feel very "eventy" for a superhero movie. The Avengers was an event, the Dark Knight Rises sure as hell feels like an event, but it almost seemed like too small a film for its subject matter. Perhaps die-hard fans will disagree, since it's their event to have.
Based on that, it is pretty obvious that Dementia 13 is pretty terrifying. Yes sir, you could become so shocked by the experience of watching the film that you go on a killing spree yourself! And since I've seen the film, I guess everyone is lucky that I haven't tried to axe everybody I see. Frankly, I waited a few days to write this review just so that I wouldn't make a liar out of myself in saying that. I certainly didn't want to claim to be unaffected only to have the influence of Dementia 13 hit me seventy-two hours later in the grocery store.
Oh, but of course Dementia 13 is just nothing like that preview at all! Not a bit! It's an attempt at a horror movie, sure, and certainly lacks the tongue-in-cheek appeal of the films directed by Roger Corman himself - this wasn't one of his directorial projects however - Dementia 13 belonged to none other than the eventually great Francis Ford Coppola. Only in his early twenties, this was Coppola's first time in the director's chair for a mainstream film, and he was basically hired by producer Corman to make a Psycho-esque picture.
Coppola had yet to find his feet as a director, and was not in love with the material. There is little indication that the director of Dementia 13 could go on to achieve The Godfather less than a decade later. It wasn't an entirely clunky film, with a few skillful shots:
Wasn't raining.
Much of the film was over dubbed in post production at Corman's insistence, along with additional footage which Coppola had no part in directing. The story itself was infuriatingly convoluted, full of plot holes, and all sorts of other typical B-Movie junk. For example, the film is set in Ireland, and the main characters are an Irish family - and yet, not an accent to be heard. Not even a shitty attempt at an accent!
Essentially, the plot is that the Irish family (a mother and her three sons) gather together every year to mourn and recreate the funeral of the daughter who died years ago as a little girl. This year, one son brings his scheming, greedy wife, who covers up his unexpected death by heart attack in a bizarre attempt to convince his mother to change her will or something? Another son is about to be married, so he brings his fiancee along even though the two young women look basically identical, so it's very confusing to people watching the film nearly 50 years later. And the youngest son is a little... off. And the mother is a little... also off. Her daughter-in-law (the scheming one) tries to convince her that the little girl is a ghost now. And then a bunch of people get axed.
Spooky stuff.
Picking her right up by the noggin!
My favourite continuity goof (of which their are many) in the movie is during a scene where the daughter-in-law, in an attempt to trick everyone into believing that the little girl ghost is sending messages from beyond, dives into the pond where the girl died to plant haunting evidence (some dolls on strings). She strips down before going into the water and is wearing white underwear and bra. She jumps in the pond, and in the underwater scene, is clearly wearing darker under garments. I get it, the white would have been too naughty looking while wet... but why on earth didn't they think of that before giving her a white costume for the dry part of the scene?
Taking a huge note from Psycho, she gets bumped off quite early too, despite being the character followed from the start. Also like Psycho, we immediately pick up with another blonde (the other son's bride-to-be), and the story goes on except she's not trying to convince anyone that they're being haunted. She just wants to get married to her haggard ol' boyfriend but also spend altogether too much alone time with his younger brother who keeps having murderous flashbacks.
Although chaste by today's standards, Dementia 13 is more explicit than the other Corman movies I've reviewed, with far more ax-gore and ladies in their knickers. This can be explained by a number of factors, not exclusive to the shifting mood of the 1960s, its young director's desire to shock, and Coppola's work on girly-movies even earlier in his then-short career.
So here is the straight truth as I see it - it isn't that Brave is a bad film, at all - but it isn't a Pixar film, you know? For their first female lead character, all Pixar has done is created a Disney Princess. For a studio renowned for their originality, they've just rehashed the same basic story that their parent company has been telling for the last 25 years (modern princesses, though some of the older ones fit too). That is, a mildly rebellious girl doesn't feel like living the life her parents/society have picked out for her, some magic happens, lessons are learned but said girl gets what she wants in the end anyway. It's not a bad story at all, Disney has done some wonderful and creative things with it. My critism here isn't with the story model, it's the story model being used incorrectly.
If they were owning Brave fully, and not calling it a Pixar movie, I think Merida would make an excellent addition to the Disney Princess cannon. She is a modern enough character to match the likes of other recent additions such as Tiana and Rapunzel. The only thing Brave "lacks" to fit the mould is a love interest, but I think it will be an important step forward for the Princess franchise to remove that factor anyway, if they want to move away from the very valid "the end goal is always to get a man" critisms of their past efforts.
Disney isn't calling this a Princess movie, unfortunately. It is technically a Pixar movie, and that's where the real disappointment sets in. Pixar as creators aren't flawless - Cars & Cars 2 are just the worst - but as a general rule they make great movies with wonderful characters, which makes it just a damn shame that Brave boasted their first lead female character, and even more of a shame that they didn't make the effort to give her a great original movie!
They've made 13 feature films, it's gross that this is their first female lead. And grosser still that they made a movie a) that doesn't feel like a true Pixar production and b) with a plotline that is so dependant on her being-a-girl-ness as opposed to her human-ness. As my movie going partner-in-crime Ben said "It sucks that they had to make such a big deal about it being their first female lead." I really would have prefered to see a film where it didn't matter the gender of the character, because leads of either sex should be the norm, not the exception. The little boy in Up for example, could have been a little girl and it wouldn't have intrinsically changed the point, plot, or mood of the movie. That would have been a better sort of way to introduce Pixar's first female lead, in my opinion.
All of that aside, I thought Brave was beautiful to look at (though, I gladly would have forgone the 3D), quite funny, and certainly there were worse ways to spend a rainy evening.
I liked Brave. It was nice to look at, and I have a fondness for gingers. So I liked it. But it wasn't what I was expecting.
Going into the movie I was anticipating an adventure story. Girl breaks away from what she is "supposed" to be, does something... well, brave, rescues a kingdom or something. And I guess that sort of happens, but it's really a movie about a relationship between a mother and daughter. Which is nice, but not what I was expecting.
As Marg mentioned above, it doesn't really watch like a Pixar film, this movie is all Disney. It's a story we have all seen before, and for me that was my biggest let down. The thing that makes Pixar movies so brilliant is that they tell interesting new stories. Look at Finding Nemo, Wall-E, all Toy Stories, Brave unfortunately doesn't deserve to sit on the same shelf. It's not that it's a bad movie, it just fails to do or say anything new. It really should of been promoted as a princess film, because it would fit in with that category brilliantly.
Also, what's up the resurgence of archery? First Katniss, now Merida. I'd be interested to see if there is a huge enrolment increase among girls age 12-18.
