The Princess and the Frog (2009)

The Princess and the Frog is Disney’s attempt to recapture the magic of their cel animated musicals of the ‘90s, even hiring Ron Clements and Jon Musker as directors (due to their track record of Disney hits including The Little Mermaid and Aladdin). Apparently accomplishing this is easier said than done, due to the problems this movie went through during its production like title changes, controversies over character names, controversies dealing with the prince not being black and the use of a black voodoo witch doctor as the villain, and a controversy about using New Orleans as the setting after Hurricane Katrina. The real question is, despite the setbacks, does The Princess and the Frog manage to rise to the heights of its 2D predecessors, or does it fall short? 

Based on the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tale, The Frog Prince, and E.D. Baker’s novel, The Frog Princess, the story is set in New Orleans during the 1920s following Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a young black waitress trying to make her deceased father’s dream of owning a restaurant come true. Granted, this is the Disney version of the ‘20s in the south, so racism and segregation are non-existent. The closest she comes to running into prejudice is when the people who own the building she wants to buy imply that she's poor. While I didn’t expect to see any sort of reference to the problems of being black during this time period, it’s hard to ignore the fact that this was not the best time in US history and the way Disney pretends racism never happened makes me think they should have just set this in modern times. Tiana is overworked and has no time for fun, which puts her in stark contrast with Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) of Maldonia. He’s from a made up country, but he sounds sort of French and looks vaguely Middle Eastern. He’s also a carefree playboy with no sense of responsibility and has recently been cut off from his family’s fortunes. It’s an obvious romance where opposites attract and they each learn to be a little bit like the other and…whatever. Anyway, he and his valet travel to New Orleans to marry an heiress (Jennifer Cody) and become wealthy again. The plot unfolds when he runs into Dr. Facilier (Keith David), a voodoo witch doctor, and gets turned into a frog so that his valet, Lawrence (Peter Bartlett), can take his place as prince and hand the city over to Facilier. Later at a party, mistaking her for a princess, Naveen kisses Tiana and turns her into a frog as well. The rest of the movie is spent with them trying to find a way to be turned back into humans before Facilier captures them. 

Dr. Facilier (Keith David)

The plot feels familiar at times, and at one point they team up with an alligator named Louis (Michael-Leon Wolley) and set off to find a witch who will fix each of their respective problems. I half expected the song they sing about it to be something like “We’re off to see the Witch, the wonderful Witch of the bayou.” The story is obvious for the most part and fairly predictable, while much of the charm relies on the animation and musical numbers. The musical numbers are okay. Both the songs and score are done by Randy Newman and honestly, it really feels like it (there were times when I could have sworn that the background music was ripped right out of Toy Story). While even the best of the musical numbers don’t compare with Disney classics like “Be our Guest” or “Under the Sea”, the jazzy songs are suitable for the setting and time period, but are mostly forgettable with two major exceptions. The first one is a song called “Almost There”, which is about Tiana imagining her restaurant coming to life. The animation used for the scene changes style completely to match that of a fancy 1920s ballroom restaurant. The style and look of the entire number makes it a highlight and to be honest, made me wish that this had been a musical about a young black woman in the ‘20s trying to buy a restaurant. The second song is the villain’s song, “Friends on the Other Side”. Facilier is an interesting villain and Keith David’s voice only makes him more so, capturing the deep threatening tone with a significant amount of charisma. This song is catchy but also visually striking, possibly the most colorful musical number in the entire film; he summons shadow monsters and singing voodoo masks with lots of smoke and magic. These two songs have a lot of spectacle and take advantage of the animation, resonating with you longer than the majority of the songs, which usually just have the characters walking around in their own environment while singing. 

Another thing worth mentioning is the supporting cast. It’s a staple for all Disney animated musicals to have a few sidekicks, even when they don’t need them (The Hunchback of Notre Dame's gargoyles for instance). There's Louis, a fat trumpet-playing alligator, Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis), a blind witch, and Ray (Jim Cummings), a Cajun Firefly. Louis is pretty useless. He's only there for comic relief and contributes next to nothing when it comes to plot related events, most of which he's left out of entirely. Mama Odie has only a small part and serves as little more than a minor source of exposition. Other than that, she tells the two protagonists nothing they don't already know or couldn't easily learn for themselves. Ray is a little bit different. His character was invented as a forced means of getting audience sympathy. You can tell that the filmmakers desperately wanted him to be likeable; aside from all his jokes, he even gets two songs to himself. It feels unnecessary and makes his involvement in the final part of the film feel artificial and manipulative. I know that's a lot of nitpicking but if there’s one thing that's worth praising in this movie, it’s the animation. The characters are all colorful, very expressive and have terrific character animations, be it the way the frogs move around or the interactions between Facilier and his own sentient shadow. The manner in which the evil shadows he summons move around the environment is very cool, as they blend into other shadows and slide over buildings and trees. 

Given the Disney musicals of the ‘90s, The Princess and the Frog doesn’t meet the high standards set by movies like The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. Instead, it probably ranks amongst those found in the later years like Tarzan and Hercules. If anything, it made me aware of how much I miss seeing hand-drawn cartoons in a time when computer animation has dominated the way we see animated movies.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen’s ode to the city of romance, bringing it to life through the world of writing, music and art in the 1920s. The opening shots are just of the city, not unlike the opening to Manhattan, which sets the mood and romanticizes Paris in the same way he romanticized New York City. It has the makings of one of his great romantic comedies, and all the familiar elements are there: the protagonist, Gil (Owen Wilson), is a liberal upper-class writer struggling to move away from his main stream commercial movie scripts and complete his novel. His fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) doesn’t understand him (or care to), her parents don’t like him, and she’s friends with intellectual snobs who think they know everything about everything and are only too happy to display their infinite knowledge (Michael Sheen plays a spectacular ass). He’s unhappy and yet deeply inspired by Paris, the city he and his fiancée are vacationing in. One night, after having too much wine, he gets lost and ends up alone on a set of steps outside an alley. At the stroke of midnight, an old car approaches and its occupants urge him to enter. He does and finds himself whisked away to the night life of Paris in the ‘20s, where he meets famous writers and artists. He parties with F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), he discusses his book with Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll) and Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), he even encounters Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody). The most alluring feature of the ‘20s turns out to be a woman he falls in love with named Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard who illuminates the screen like one of the great beauties of classic Hollywood. 

Owen Wilson & Rachel McAdams

The whimsy and tone of the movie is perfect, making his nightly trips through time feel as natural as his frequent daytime walks in the city. Like the sights during the day, the timeless aspect of the Paris night life is just another part of the city. These scenes are shot with a slight yellow tint, making every image look like it’s illuminated with a golden glow, heightening the romance of the period. Paris in the ‘20s is shot to look exactly as the golden age Gil dreams it was, a place where geniuses could be found on every street going to lavish parties with the city at its best; full of charm and splendor. Seeing the historical characters talking and interacting is surreal to both the audience and Gil himself. He spends most of his first visit completely mystified by his surroundings, but soon allows himself to accept and enjoy it. Owen Wilson is the obvious stand in for Woody Allen, but he doesn’t feel like a simple replacement. Owen Wilson is very laid back and low key compared to the more neurotic performances of Woody Allen in the past. Even though many of these traits can still be seen and heard in the dialogue, Owen Wilson makes it his own. His delivery and timing is uniquely his and combined with the dialogue he becomes a more original character, as well as one of Owen Wilson’s best performances. The rest of the cast is interesting as well, with Rachel McAdams playing a very unlikable fiancée, constantly ordering Gil around and being condescending to him nearly every time he speaks. Her parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy) are no better, but quite funny with their open dislike of Gil. The onslaught of performances that make up the many famous names Gil encounters in his travels are amusing, with the most memorable being Corey Stoll as the disgruntled and outspoken Ernest Hemingway. The dialogue is sharp and witty, making for some very humorous scenes. Gil has a great exchange with the surrealists as he tries to explain his bizarre situation to them and they understand it perfectly. Though all of their scenes are fairly brief, they are no less entertaining. 

At the heart of the movie is Gil’s attachment to the past, his love of a time long before his, when everything was “better”. The people who lived during what we may see as a golden age probably saw an earlier time as a golden age. The idea of an earlier time being better than the present has always been around. It’s certainly easy to agree with Gil’s romantic notions, given the people he’s around during the present, but the real lesson comes when he’s ready to accept and find happiness in his own time; to be content and feel fulfilled in his own surroundings. It’s something that can apply to anyone, and one reason why Gil is an easy character to relate to. It’s one of the best Woody Allen films in recent memory and although Midnight in Paris is a beautifully shot and whimsical film it’s still one that has a strong undercurrent of emotional value and truth.

Once Upon a Time in China III (1993)

Once Upon a Time in China III begins some time after the conclusion of the second film, as Wong Fei-hung (Jet Li) and “Aunt 13” Siu-kwan (Rosamund Kwan) are now planning to be married and arrive in Peking seeking the approval of Wong Fei-hung’s father, Wong Kei-ying (Lau Shun). Unfortunately, Peking is in a state of chaos because the Empress Dowager and Governor Lee Hung-cheung, in an attempt to show off the national pride and strength of China to the foreign presence in the country, have commissioned the Lion Dance Competition; a competition where lion dancers from all over China are invited to compete for the title of “Lion King”. This competition, as it turns out, is a highly competitive one leading to various factions of martial artists basically going to war with each other to try and eliminate competition. The most aggressive and powerful of these is the Tai Peng Oil Company, led by the cartoonishly evil Chiu Tin-bak (Chiu Chin) and his powerful henchmen, Clubfoot (Hung Yan-yan). As if things weren’t complicated enough, the Russians are also planning something sinister to coincide with the final round of the competition set in the Forbidden City.

There’s a lot going on in this movie and much like the first one, the story structure isn’t tightly woven together. While Wong Fei-hung involves himself in the conflicts going on all around him, he’s also dealing with his desire to marry Aunt 13, which is sort of a taboo due to their relation (in title only). Their romantic relationship is strained by the presence of Tomanovsky (John Wakefeild), a Russian diplomat who previously knew Aunt 13 from her time abroad. This subplot is consistently referred to throughout the film and provides the majority of the central character development. The scenes dealing with Wong Fei-hung and Aunt 13’s romance are fun to watch as Wong Fei-hung, invincible fighter that he is, is not immune to very human character traits. He’s shy, stubborn and, as it turns out, very susceptible to jealousy. Once again, Leung Foon (Siu Chung Mok) provides most of the comic relief (which is often cheesy), though this time around his part seems dwarfed by the introduction of new characters, especially in the case of Clubfoot who, as a vicious henchman turned ally, is a scene stealer. He fights almost exclusively with his feet, climbing up walls, flying through the air, and even challenging the skills of Wong Fei-hung. They fight only briefly, which actually brings attention to the aspect of this movie which sets it apart from the previous installments in the series.


Jet Li as Wong Fei-hung

Unlike Once Upon a Time in China I and II, where the climax is an elaborate duel between Wong Fei-hung and the villain, there are no real duels to be found in this movie. But what this movie lacks in epic duels, it more than makes up for in sheer spectacle. Jet Li gets plenty of fight scenes to display his unparalleled skills and he never seems to fight fewer than twenty people at a time, kicking and punching his way through huge crowds of other fighters. I noticed that the camera keeps a bit more distance from him and allows the viewer to see more of his entire body as he pulls of his amazing moves uninterrupted. While his fight scenes are always entertaining, they’re only made more so when combined with the Lion Dance.

The Lion Dance is a traditional Chinese dance that has multiple dancers in a large costume where one person carries the head while the rest follow with the body. This colorful dance bookends the film and establishes itself as a major and recurring plot point. I need to explain some of the Lion Dance action set pieces here because they’re unbelievable. The first major sequence is a parade of sorts, where the various dance troupes in the Lion Dance competition march through the streets in their large costumes in order to catch the prize. The scene is packed with hundreds of extras, lining the streets watching as this takes place. It becomes all too obvious that these competitors are also beating the hell out of each other with knives, spears, and other weapons. This scene quickly escalates into pandemonium when Wong Fei-hung tries to break it up and Foon, while attempting to elude Clubfoot, unleashes a stampede of horses into the crowd. They run and trample through all the dancers creating utter chaos. The Lion Dance is such a captivating performance by itself, but to make this installment in the series stand apart from the rest, director Tsui Hark combined the spectacle of the dance with martial arts on a scale that I’ve never seen before. The final action scene takes the familiar design of a complex wooden-pole structure, which is seen in some form or another in the previous films, and combines it with both the Lion Dance and pure martial arts madness. It’s chaotic, colorful, crammed with breathtaking stunt work, and just a lot of fun to watch (as is the rest of the movie). In view of the trilogy, Once Upon a Time in China III is a great addition to the series and has some of the most bizarre and crazed visual fight scenes in a martial arts film.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

X-Men: First Class is the fifth installment in the franchise and quite possibly the best one so far. The story follows the meeting of a young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), who are destined to become Professor X and Magneto, as they form a team and try to prevent Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) from starting a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The concept of mutants dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis is certainly a fun one, as it hearkens back to the kind of action found in classic ‘60s comics, where many super heroes had to deal with the Red Scare.

While much of the appeal is found in the plot and setting, the strongest element is from the two protagonists. James McAvoy plays Charles as a much more human and interesting character. Though he certainly has his ideals developing about a peaceful way for mutants to become part of society, he's not above using his vast mental powers to pick up women. His strongest scenes are definitely those in which he helps others use their powers better, be it the X-Men or Erik. Michael Fassbender is an especially memorable part of this movie, making his intense version of Magneto so much more realised and developed than ever before. His anger drives him and it feels more relevant to a character so much younger, with the mental and physical scars still fresh in his memory. His scenes with Charles are highlights and their clashing ideals make for a great dynamic between the two of them. I wish there had been more scenes devoted to their discussions. Unfortunately, the events of the central plot span a only few weeks, so it’s a bit of a stretch to buy that Erik and Charles develop their lasting friendship and camaraderie in such a short period of time. Director Matthew Vaughn, who previously directed Kick-Ass, gives the entire movie a rapid and fairly erratic pace, as within the first several minutes we are shown multiple time periods and what feels like a dozen different locations. There’s also a flashy training montage that apparently only chronicled the events of about a week.

Michael Fassbender as Magneto

Although some of the characters are a bit different here than seen in previous films in the franchise, there are many references to its continuity. There are a few familiar cameos and this movie even opens with an almost shot-for-shot remake of the opening scene of the first X-Men movie, showing Magneto using his powers as a child in a Nazi concentration camp. This continuity is more of a detriment to the film than it is an amusing nod to the fans because there are several glaring inconsistencies with what is shown in the other X-Men movies. For instance, as seen near the beginning of X-Men: First Class, it’s revealed that Charles Xavier and Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) lived together since childhood. This creates a relationship that's never mentioned nor even implied in the other movies. There are other smaller examples such as the origin of the Cerebro (and based on the way this movie ends, I have to assume certain plot points in X-Men: The Last Stand were completely ignored), but overall they’re minor complaints.

While the characters of Charles and Erik are engaging and well developed, it’s difficult to say as much for the rest of the large cast. There’s Agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), who becomes sort of a love interest for Charles (still not sure when that happened) and, with the exception of Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and Mystique, the rest of the X-Men aren’t really characters as much as they are special effects. They each have their distinct abilities and that pretty much defines who they are. Havok (Lucas Till) is found in a prison when he’s recruited but it’s never explained why he was in there in the first place, and he never seems like he’s especially angry or troubled. Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones) can fly and scream. That’s about all I can say for him. There's another mutant who joins the team, but his only contribution is his death. The best example I can think of for having a paper thin personality comes in the form of Angel (Zoë Kravitz). She’s a stripper who has insect wings and can spit fire. While there’s never any reason to think she’s more or less likely to join the villains than anyone else on the team, she does so almost instantly. The same lack of characterization can be said about the villains working for Shaw. There’s Azazel (Jason Flemyng), a red teleporter, Riptide (Álex González), who doesn’t even speak, and Emma Frost, played by January Jones (though her performance is somehow less stiff when she turns into a CG diamond). Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw is a pretty amusing villain, albeit one who isn’t especially threatening. Despite all his deadly powers and ability to speak several languages, it's just impossible to ignore the fact that Shaw is being played by Kevin Bacon.

Even though the side characters are barely developed, I would argue that this is still a better X-Men movie than its predecessors. For one, the side characters seem to have been chosen more for their abilities than their popularity or place in the comics. This is actually a good thing since, during the action packed finale, each of the X-Men gets his moment to shine due to the way they’re written into the action. This is much better than seeing certain characters in the previous films simply have nothing to do on-screen; their presence being merely to meet what's expected from fans of the comics. The fact is this franchise has always been plagued with having too many characters and seeing this one with a more specific focus on the relationship between Charles and Erik, the entire film benefits. X-Men: First Class is a significant improvement over the previous films and an entertaining super hero movie with great special effects, some impressive action sequences, and strong performances from the lead actors. As far as X-Men movies go, it feels like a step in the right direction.

Dirty Harry (1971)

Everyone has seen, in some form or another, the bad-ass cop who crosses the line in pursuit of justice. It’s a cliché that’s been around for decades and somehow never gotten old. There are plenty of iconic characters that symbolize such a policeman like Frank Bullitt, Jimmy Doyle and John McClane, but there's one name that probably stands above them all: Harry Callahan, or as he’s better known, Dirty Harry.

The first movie was released in 1971 and solidified Clint Eastwood as a complete bad-ass whether he’s in a western or a modern drama. The plot's simple enough, following the San Francisco Police Department as they try to bring in a homicidal maniac calling himself Scorpio (Andrew Robinson). Harry Callahan is the police inspector in charge of bringing him in, and the two of them play cat-and-mouse while several people get killed in the process. At one point he even forces Harry to run all over the city answering pay-phones only to beat him up at the end. The plot gets especially interesting when Harry does finally bring him in and the killer is set free on a technicality.

Harry is a relentlessly determined cop who can best be described as having an aggressive moral integrity. He knows what’s bad, and it’s his job to stop it. He’s called Dirty Harry for a number of reasons, and all of them apply to the character. One of the reasons is that he does any “dirty job” that comes his way. This reason definitely proves true as he goes around doing just about everything. If there’s a man about to commit suicide, call Dirty Harry. Killer on the loose? Call Dirty Harry. Need someone to deliver ransom money with no back-up? Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood is as flawless as always in a role like this. He plays these characters so effortlessly and you buy it without question. His squinted, beady eyes and cool voice command respect and bring attention to the fact that he’s not someone to be messed with. He’s placed in stark contrast to the world around him in this film, but it’s made all the more obvious when comparing him to the villain.

Andrew Robinson as Scorpio. What a nut.

Scorpio is a complete psychopath who's so unhinged that he can’t even wait until his body heals from its wounds before he commits another murder or kidnapping. His level of insanity is so over-the-top that in one instant he's a clever and threatening killer, outwitting the cops and eluding even Harry and his partner Chico Gonzalez (Reni Santoni), and in the next he's a giggling freak jumping around like he’s completely off his meds (which he probably is). By the end of the movie you want Harry to just flat out murder this guy, to hell with reading him his rights. Of course this is all done on purpose with one idea in mind. Dirty Harry is an incredibly right wing character, and the film’s morals seem to side with him. For the audience to sympathize and root for Harry (who's practically a fascist), the villain must be completely evil with no shades of grey. The higher ups, in this case the mayor (John Vernon) and district attorney, don’t support Harry because he doesn’t play by the rules as strictly as they do. For this, they are shown to be mostly incompetent or just ineffectual. The funny thing is: they’re right. When Harry arrests Scorpio, he does so by completely violating his rights, torturing him, and breaking into his home without a warrant. Does the guy deserve it? Sure, but that doesn’t make it right. And there’s always an excuse for his actions. Harry was working under a time limit, thinking that if he didn’t get the killer in time a young girl would soon be the next victim. Everything in the plot is so carefully arranged to make Harry and his methods the only real solution to the problem presented. The villain is two dimensional and everyone else can only think of ways to meet his demands in a pathetic attempt to appease him. If you don’t root for Dirty Harry to win, then you root for the bad guy. Simple as that.

Despite the simplicity of the narrative and the somewhat shallow attention given to the story’s themes, Dirty Harry is still an entertaining and exciting crime drama. The movie is shot in a fairly gritty style, showing off the darker side of San Francisco’s night life. While it’s not quite New York City in Taxi Driver, it’s still a place shown to have no shortage of lowlifes and gratuitous nudity. Some of the darkness is even a bit distracting on occasion as during several of the night scenes, which seem to have been shot using natural lighting, it’s difficult to tell what’s happening on-screen at all making it a relief when the characters wander into places with lights on. Despite some of my issues with this film, there's no denying the entertainment value. There are some great action scenes and the stunts are impressive, but the real highlight is Clint Eastwood. There's not one other actor in history who could deliver the famous line from this movie as well as he does, and he does it twice.