Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Okay, here again. Hopefully this stupid thing's working right again *slaps computer* and I can get on where I left off in my last entry.

Where was I? Ah, that's right. Disney.

The Princess and the Frog (Disney):
Plot and Content: B+
Visuals: A
Imagination and Creativity: A-

Okay, I don't want to bash this movie mainly because it's a Disney film. Seriously, do you want to stomp on childhood dreams and fantasies about being a princess? Really? Okay. Well, this one is about a young, African American woman named Tiana wishing and working her way towards her own restaurant, something she wished to do with her daddy before his untimely death. Of course, that is, until she gets turned into a frog by Prince Naveen, who messed with shadowman, Facilier.


This movie has plenty of meandering plot on it. At first you begin to wonder where it's going, but it hits you pretty straightfowards after the first couple of minutes. The content is pretty much Disney mush all around. There's lots of stuff over the whole 'look inside yourself and see who you really are'crap, but then again this is a kids' movie. Things begin to pick up towards the end of the movie, but then it also starts to slow down. It has some funny parts to it, and definitely some sad parts as well, an unusual part in Disney where they try and dress everything up with nice pink frills and cutesy fluff.

The visuals for this movie were also pretty good, honestly. It is one of Disney's animation films where they actually draw the characters, such as in Tarzan and the Goofy Movies. The overall movie was incredibly smooth for having been drawn, though I have a feeling that there was some computer demographic cosmetic work all over this movie to make it just that much better, though I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it didn't use too much as to be a Pixar film instead.

Finally, imagination and creativity: how did they do? I think they did a pretty good job. They put a new twist on the story, and made it kid friendly by using animals, which has been a Disney gimmick for a long time to get kids to understand life values and such in the way of parables and fables. They also got creative with 'Evangeline's' star-to-the-right origin. The characters (on the part of the Shadowman and perhaps Lotti) couldve been a little better, and so could the songs. I can't remember any of them save for 'Dig a lIttle Deeper' and 'Almost There.' HOwever, they get a thumbs up for bringing voodoo into the picture, as well as taking responsibility for your actions, as shown by Facilier as he's dragged into the netherlife by his 'friends on the otherside.'

Cloverfield:
Plot and Content: D
Visuals: A-
Imagination and Creativity:C+

Okay, I watched Cloverfield once, only once at a friend's house and I rewatched it at my house with my dad. I can say that the movie lost its touch. At first I thought this was the best monster movie ever-- that is, until I looked at it more closely. I hadn't really watched it, only glimpsed the better parts (such as a girl exploding). A monster infiltrates New York City, and the US have no choice but to carpetbomb the entire Manhattan island if they want to kill it (and some even say that it's still alive).

The plot and content of the movie, however sucked. It sucked, plain and simple. It didn't make ssense for the first twenty minutes of the movie. If I'd been in the theater, I'd've been out of there fast as a twitch. It was plain boring until the building suddenly shakes . After that, it's mostly running around, some screaming, some shouting, the monster, some more screaming-- that's basically the movie. Not much by way of message, huh? There were choice good parts, such as when one of the character basically explodes from the inside out. However, you don't actually get to SEE it, which really sucks because I wanted to see some real blood and gore here. I mean, it's a monster movie. Duh.

Visuals were pretty good. I actually liked the visuals for the most part. I mean, yeah, they were really crappy because they were using a home-video camera, but the monster and the head of the Statue of Liberty didn't look too fake. Also the New York decimation was pretty good as well as the effects to make it look like the video was coming out of the US military's archives. Also, I liked hte Cloverfield monster, plain and simple. It looked awesome, and therefore I commend that. However, the jolty camera and the view made me sick and I didn't get to see much, therefore I ain't happy. I wanna see some blood, damnit!

Imagination and Creativity, hmmm. Okay, I liked the fact that these guys tried to make a monster film with this new idea of using a home-video camera. I like dhte idea of a monster attacking New York City. However, I do NOT like the fact that the origins of the monster, the actual monster itself, the medical liabilities caused by said monster, and aftermath were left out. There was SO much you could do with this movie, but guess what-- they did NOTHING with it. So, I stick my tongue out at them and I shall call them half-bred hamsters with no use for sci-fi imagination. Sci-fi is all about info, and if you don't ive the sci-fi/horror geeks something to chew over, they aren't going to like it.

However, with the money they made with the film, they're thinking of doing a sort of sequal where they do it with a traditional camera and the carange should be better. if not, I'm going to get pretty angry.

Again,I 'm taking comments. If you want to comment on any of these movies, feel free to do so. I'll read them or post them or whatever, or better yet I'll answer them with views of my own. I might not do the latter, because I might create an Internet feud, so don't expect me to do that last part. Okey-dokey.

Docotr Jax, signing off.