 It all begins in 1985, when a boy named John Bennett (Bretton Manley/Mark Wahlberg) makes a Christmas wish for his new teddy bear to come to life and become his best friend. The wish comes true, and the talking teddy bear, aptly named "Ted" (Seth MacFarlane), becomes a celebrity for a short time. Eventually, however, his popularity wanes, and 27 years later, "nobody gives a sh*t". Now 35, John lives with Ted and his girlfriend, Lori Collins (Mila Kunis) in an apartment in Boston.
With John and Lori's 4th dating anniversary, Lori wants to get their lives underway, but John is still very attached to Ted. After an incident in the apartment involving Ted and a few prostitutes, Lori has the last straw and convinces John to make Ted move out. The film's general premise has to do with John being torn between his life of leisure with his best friend, and growing up and being responsible for the woman he loves. In the meantime, Ted has to adjust to a new apartment, a new job, a new girlfriend named Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth), and a creepy stalker named Donny (Giovanni Ribisi) and his kid, Robert (Aedin Mincks). This is pretty much the typical "tug-of-war" movie in which the lead has to make a decision between two extremes - in this case, the best friend and the girlfriend. It's all done in the 'Family Guy'-like style that only Seth MacFarlane can deliver, and if you're a 'Family Guy' fan, I see no reason why you wouldn't be into it. All in all, 'Ted' is a lot of fun for those of us who can somehow appreciate the often low-brow, potentially offensive, yet clever and satirical humor of Seth MacFarlane. I would probably sooner recommend this one over the second to a general audience, but there is something about 'Ted 2' I personally like just a bit more. 'Ted 2' is often ranked lower, if only because it makes all of the events of the first film seemingly meaningless. I totally get the criticism, as I've criticized other sequels for doing this - my go-to example being 'Alien 3'. With that said though, this is still a Seth MacFarlane comedy, and I personally feel that comedy is the most flexible genre for something like that. You wouldn't take 'Ted' and call it "the best story about a man torn between his friend and his lover" as much as you'd call it "a comedy about a man and his talking teddy bear". So the sequel never bothered me in that sense. They take time to explain, the explanation makes sense, and things move on. John and Lori get a divorce, pretty well based on Lori always wanting John to be something he isn't. It seems mutual, but John is nevertheless sad about it, and Ted's wedding to Tami-Lynn doesn't really help the way he feels. One year passes, Ted and John remain best friends, but Ted's relationship to Tami-Lynn starts to get rocky. Based on this, the couple decide to try to have a baby. This reaches complications based on Ted not having the appropriate gear, and Tami-Lynn is scarily infertile, so no sperm donor will do. The main plot comes into play when Ted and Tami-Lynn finally decide to adopt and find out, based on background checks, they can't adopt because the state sees Ted as "property" and not a "person". All sorts of complications follow this situation, so John and Ted seek legal help in attempting to fight the state. They seemingly get stuck with a fresh-out-of-school lawyer named Samantha (Amanda Seyfried), who will take their case pro bono. They are reluctant at first, but as the drug tends to do, they bond over their love of marijuana and their mutual disagreement on the War on Drugs. And yes, she is predictably the new love interest for John, which may or may not lead to complications in Ted's case despite the fact that she's trying her best. It's probably just me, but I tend to like Samantha over Lori. Lori was good for him in many ways, but Samantha is just more fun. John can just be himself without any issues around her, and Seyfried is really able to roll with the punches in this - she's made fun of a few times and just sportingly goes with it; something one ultimately HAS to be able to do, working for someone like MacFarlane. Meanwhile, Donny makes a return as well, working as a janitor for Hasbro. When he gets wind of Ted being seen as property, he convinces the CEO, Tom Jessup (John Carroll Lynch) to hire an expert attorney to make sure Ted remains "property". With this, they'd be able to take Ted, dissect him, and figure out what makes him tick so they could potentially make a whole series of him. Donny would keep one for himself, and Hasbro would rake in the profits. Again, there's a bit of a cliche thing going on here with "cutting him open to see what makes him tick", but at least it connects with the plot this time and isn't just some creepy stalker cameo to create a threat. There is something I like about 'Ted 2' a bit more, and if I had to try to place my finger on it, I'd say it's more about the subject matter than the jokes. I thought it was interesting and new to have the toy-come-to-life fight for his rights. These movies parody the child-like wonder situation by asking "what happens when they grow up?" I think it's funny that they go to such extremes which you feel could be real honest to God problems with the living toy situation. This one makes me laugh, but the jokes still may not be as solid as the jokes in the first one. So much of what made the first one hilarious was the very idea of it. 'Ted' was a trailer that came along and caught everyone off guard. 'Ted 2' didn't catch anyone off guard, it was simply fans wanting Ted's further adventures. Whether you like the first one or the second one more, one can still have a fun time just playing them back-to-back. I personally can't watch one without following it up with the other. There's something about MacFarlane's fast and loose comedy that I can't help but admire - it's the same idea I have with Trey Parker and Matt Stone in that their humor isn't afraid to just "go there". Audiences kind of accept them for who they are, and are able to decide they aren't their cup of tea without stirring up a whole lot of controversy (although don't get me wrong, it happens). I wouldn't just recommend this material to anyone and everyone, but if you enjoy MacFarlane's humor, I say treat yourself - just remember that you're bound to hear or see something that might get under your skin.
0 Comments
 This is one of those movies that has a personal history with yours truly. Some time in my grade 8 year, I was home with a flu that gave me a temperature of 102 (that's about 39 for those who use celsius), and a whole week off school. My Mom rented this movie for me, and I watched it so many times through that week that I consider it to count towards the collection of movies that made me appreciate fantasy altogether. I loved this movie when I was 13, but once that flu was done, I never really came back to it until now.
The story goes that on Omri's (Hal Scardino) ninth birthday, his older brother gives him an antique cupboard, which he takes a real liking to. You come to like Omri pretty quickly with how polite and kind he is, but I always kind of thought it was odd that a 9-year-old boy was so into something you might find at Pier 1 Imports He also gets a Native American figure from his best friend, the somewhat less likeable Patrick (Rishi Bhat). He's not what you'd call a bad kid, but he is honestly a bit of a brat through a lot of the film. Going back to Omri, one should probably know that he does have one extreme moment where you kind of want to reach through the screen and smack him, involving a rat in a ball. So he's not perfect either, but in reality, no rat was harmed in the making of this. Anyway, getting on with it, Omri's Mom gives him a key from her key collection that just so happens to work with the small cupboard. He puts the "Indian" inside, and locks it in for the night - really just to put something in the cupboard and test it out. He soon comes to realize that whatever plastic thing he puts in there turns real, when he opens the cupboard back up to reveal an Iroquois Native by the name of Little Bear (Litefoot). It turns out the figurine has his own personal history as well, which really adds something interesting to the whole story. The figure doesn't come to life just confused, it seems that the figure develops a sort of spirit that comes from some specific place and time. In this case, Little Bear was in the midst of the French and Indian War in the 1700s. So it's kind of neat that each toy/figure has its own backstory. Omri befriends Little Bear, and decides to keep him alive in his room as a secret, all the while learning of Little Bear's culture. Omri finds himself helping out quite a bit, giving him things like tools and weapons along with materials to build a longhouse that he miraculously hides behind his toy chest. He soon realizes, however, that bringing these characters to life isn't just playtime fun. First, he brings some other characters to life like Robocop and Darth Vader, only to scare himself with how dangerous these characters are. But soon enough, things get a bit deeper, and it's more than just his collection of action figures he has to consider. Through Little Bear, Omri actually (presumably) learns about things like death, and I'd even go so far as to say that by the end, the "playing God" lesson is taught in a way kids can really relate to it. Part of the "Playing God" lesson comes from Patrick, wanting to bring a cowboy named Boone (David Keith) to life. He succeeds, and Boone adds a bit of humor to the whole thing (humor mainly aimed at kids while using curse words). The main reason for Boone's existence is to have another small character for Little Bear to play off of, but they do a good job of keeping him somewhat interesting. Without spoiling anything, let's just say that with Boone's character, there's eventually a message of peace and understanding to be taken away from the film as well. A lot of the film's general appeal happens to be that it teaches kids quite a bit in such a small span of time, but while remaining interesting. At no time does it ever feel like a lecture, it just sort of flows from one thing to another. Director Frank Oz did a great job with things here. I tend to think that this still holds up pretty well, especially for the younger crowd. Considering the film's title (based on the book of the same name by Lynne Reid Banks), I worried this might get into that uncomfortable territory, like 'Peter Pan' did. But honestly, even this time around, it's pretty cool in teaching kids a thing or two about Native American culture - especially when you consider this particular Iroquois is played by a guy named Litefoot. This was 1995, and the filmmakers were good enough to find Litefoot for this particular role - his first role, I might add. Sadly, he'd be Nightwolf a bit later in 'Mortal Kombat: Annihilation', but it's cool that he got his foot in the door with a pretty respectable role to his own background. On this watch-through, certain things did stick out as not so great, but there was still a special something about it. I made the connection to when I was sick, and watching this through, and the answer is simple, but perhaps a bit odd. The film is, in a word, "comfortable". It generally takes place in Omri's room, and a lot of it is just Omri's interactions with Little Bear, getting to know him. I suppose, in a way, it's a good way to transport yourself back to those times you just played with your action figures and/or dolls, and were perfectly happy doing so. I would have even felt that back when I was 13, so in a way, even at the time there was something nostalgic about it. I'd consider it very much a "comfort food" movie, if only because watching it reminds me of laying on the couch, wrapped up in a blanket, and consuming some hot, chicken noodle soup.  Sometimes when I do these Screening Suggestions, the review will be on a movie I haven't seen yet, but has been highly recommended to me. In these cases, my readers can take the "suggestion" to come from my peers rather than me, but I won't post unless it's something I'm fairly certain I'll agree about. The point of Screening Suggestions is to suggest titles one might enjoy, while at the same time being sure it's something I'd recommend based on my own tastes.
In the case of '9', it seems people understand what it is I look for in movies. I went into it fairly blind, but all in all really liked it by the end. This one is fueled by the wondrous imagination of director Shane Acker, whose short film of the same name was nominated for an Oscar in 2005. This is essentially the "full version" of what he was going for, assisted by screenwriter Pamela Pettler, best known for movies like 'The Corpse Bride', 'Monster House' and the more recent animated 'Addams Family'. Together, they make a pretty good team. Even though this was pretty well met in the middle, as far as critics were concerned, it's just otherworldly and interesting enough of an idea that it didn't take much to rope me in. We start things off with a brief monologue about how "life must go on", and are soon introduced to 9 (Elijah Wood); a sort of mechanical sack doll, brought to life through a scientist (Alan Oppenheimer). It turns out the scientist has made 8 others as well, making up a pretty star-studded cast; the frail but friendly 2 (Martin Landau); the cycloptic engineer, 5 (John C. Reilly); the mentally unstable oracle, 6 (Crispin Glover); the stubborn leader, 1 (Christopher Plummer); two scholarly but silent twins, 3 and 4; and the somewhat mysterious and rebellious female, 7 (Jennifer Connelly). To make a long story short, the general plot has to do with their survival against machines that have wiped out mankind. While most wish to hide, 9's idea is to go on the offensive. There's a pretty deep setup to the film that is revealed more than half-way through, giving an explanation as to these sac people's existence. Things end up being a bit of a stretch, considering it's an alternative version of the 1930s and could just be "near future" for its general purposes. In the end, the message is essentially the idea that in the wrong hands, technology can be disastrous to mankind. In many ways, it's reminiscent of 'WALL-E', but this time around there's use of alchemy and magic, and it takes place in a war-torn past rather than the distant future. It's an interesting fantasy, and a sort of "what if" story, but you certainly need a fair share of imagination to get yourself through it. One thing I really liked about this one was just in how dark things tended to get. They've got such concepts in here as soul-sucking, death, what might lie beyond death, and I have to admit that it really earns its PG-13 rating. It's a decent title for anyone looking for a fun, animated adventure that has a sense of edginess and even a certain darkness to it. It's not at all long, so it's a very easy watch, and its atmosphere really brings you into its post-apocalyptic world - you're very much on this adventure with these sac people (or "Stitchpunks" as they have become otherwise known), and it does tug on every little emotion, even if only for a second. While the film isn't entirely what I'd call a masterpiece, it's very well done for what it is, gets its message across quite plainly, and even if you don't like this, there's always the Oscar-nominated short. Speaking for myself, the main draws lie in the all-star cast, the atmosphere and the overall adventure. Although It's perhaps something darker and edgier, complete with a scary scene or two, it's still something the whole family can watch and enjoy. Opinions will vary, but I for one loved it, and I can see it as something I may keep coming back to in the near future if I really need an escape. If you want to be transported to another world, it's a good place to look.  Here we have another fun title that seems to have split people right down the middle. Speaking for myself, I find it to be one of those titles I can just have some dark, twisted fun with; much like 'Gremlins'. This is fitting, considering this comes from same director Joe Dante. He seems to know how to hit that note just right, where something cute and/or fun has the potential to be pretty scary. Despite what it looks like in its marketing, this is a PG-13 flick, and it takes advantage of that. If you can put a lot of the cheesy dialogue aside, it works pretty well in answering the question; "What if we made 'Toy Story' really dark?"
Things start off pretty over the top when GloboTech; a top defense contractor acquires the Heartland Toy Company. Toy designers, Larry Benson (Jay Mohr) and Irwin Wayfair (David Cross) are given the job of developing fully interactive toys that will "play back" by Globotech CEO, Gil Mars (Denis Leary). Mars goes with Benson's "Commando Elite"; a group of tough-guy Army soldiers, and Wayfair's "Gorgonites" to be their enemies. Benson jumps the gun on providing the product with its "playability", and activates the toys with a very special microprocessor, which ultimately brings the toys to life, and gives them all a personality of their own. We soon meet Alan Abernathy (Gregory Smith), who signs off on a shipment of these toys for his family's toy store. Along with a friendly delivery driver named Joe (Dick Miller), they activate Archer (Frank Langella); leader of the Gorgonites and Chip Hazard (Tommy Lee Jones), not quite realizing what they were about to unleash. Chip is purchased by Christy Fimple (Kirsten Dunst), the object of Alan's affection, as a present for her little brother, Timmy (Jacob Smith), and Archer goes back to Alan's house in his backpack, where Alan realizes he's actually sentient. The lot of them soon learn what's really happening as the Chip activates the rest of the Commando Elite to hunt down and kill all of the Gorgonites, who they see as their sworn enemy. Meanwhile, the reality is that their roles are reversed, and Archer and the rest of his monster friends are the "good guys". Looking at it today, it's certainly one of those movies where you have to let the CG slide a bit. This was 1998, and CG was just getting good enough to get away with animation that looked a lot like plastic toys. This was one of those things that looked really good for its time, but we've also come a long way since '98, so I could see that being something viewers wouldn't appreciate as much today. On top of that, as mentioned before, there's a lot of dialogue here that's just corny and seems to cater to a younger audience, while some of the violence and action caters to the older, teenage crowd. In that sense, one might consider that it doesn't really know who it's for. From my perspective, however, this is one of those movies kids can watch that has a darker side to it. Again, comparing it to 'Gremlins', it's a good bit of a toe-dip into something that, while fun, is taken a bit more seriously. These soldiers actually do kill more than just a few Gorgonites. I don't see a lot of confusion in who it's catering to. Back when it was released, I considered it one for the kids looking for a darker side. 'Monster Squad' is another example I could throw out there where it's got some language and some violence, but it's something your parents would still let you watch. This doesn't come in as a super high recommendation, considering it seems very clear that this title has just as many disliking it as liking it. I would recommend indulging in your curiosity though, if you've always wondered what this one is like. You may be pleasantly surprised at some of the stuff it has to offer. I haven't even brought up some of the other appearances in this, which include Kevin Dunn and Ann Magnuson as Alan's parents and Phil Hartman and Wendy Schaal as Christy's parents. Hartman's probably the best part of this movie, honestly - his performance is very 'Simpson'-esque. While there are still a few cringe-worthy moments here and there, if you can just manage to make that part of the fun of it all, it works as something outlandishly fun and entertaining. |
Categories
All
Archives
September 2022
|
RSS Feed