A Review: "Wreck-It Ralph"

A Review: "Wreck-It Ralph"

Oh, Disney. I thought we had lost you for a bit there. After Pixar became legendary, you were just kinda left there pooping out movies like "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little". You had gone from "amazing" to "meh", and, for a while, it seemed as though there was no going back. However, like many characters from your movies, you pulled yourself up, dusted yourself out, and started pumping out great movies again. "Princess and the Frog", "Tangled", and now this.

"Wreck-It Ralph" tells the story of Ralph, a classic video game villain from the arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." On the game's 30th anniversary, Ralph isn't invited to a party being thrown by the citizens of the video game. He had already been disillusioned with the concept of being forced to be the bad guy by the game's programming, but this was the last straw. He sets out to other video games in the arcade in an attempt to win a medal and prove his heroism. However, he doesn't realize that he has set in motion a plot that may just ruin his own game and get several other unplugged for good. 

This movie's strengths lies mainly in it's characters. Our leading quartet is very likeable (and the villain is very interesting, but I don't want to spoil anything). You always root for Ralph to succeed, even when his actions cause more harm than good. John C. Reilly is perfect at playing the misunderstood sad sack who just wants people to notice him (see also, "Chicago"). Felix is the perfect foil to Ralph. He's so pure and perfect (even when he doesn't want to be) that it becomes simultaneously hilarious and endearing. Jack McBrayer brings just the right amount of peppy and old-fashioned heroism to the role, while still knowing when to tone it back for more emotional scenes.

I did have a few issues with Vanellope, the glitchy outcast of a "Mario Kart"-esque racer called "Sugar Rush". She's meant to be the annoying sidekick who the viewers are supposed to grow to love. The problem is that she's a bit too good at being annoying. It's not so much her demeanor or her character; it's just that some of her jokes go on for too long. This lead to her rubbing me the wrong way in her first appearance, which kept me from liking her as much as I wanted to later. To the movie's credit, though, emotional scenes revolving around her still work, and I never wanted harm to befall her or anything. I just wish they'd toned her down just a bit. I don't dislike Sarah Silverman, but she needs to be used correctly.

The clear standout of the four leads is Jane Lynch's Sergeant Calhoun. As an amalgam of Samus Aran, female Commander Shepard, and pretty much every other "strong, independent woman" character in video games, the irony lies in that she probably is better written than most of them. She has an interesting backstory which actually informs her actions as she proceeds through the story and interacts with other characters. Not to mention that she has many of the best jokes, and Jane Lynch is a pro when it comes to snappy one-liners. Many of my personal favorite scenes were the ones between her and Felix which examined their different game styles and personalities.

The story is also great. It goes by at a decent clip, though it does get a bit bogged down in the middle while Ralph is trying to help Vanellope get a kart and learn to drive. Other than that, though, this is an original and interesting story, with a few more twists and turns that I was expecting. It's also very good at getting legitimate emotion from the audience. There were a couple of moments where I was questioning one or two things, but the movie is so good at world building that I could let it slide and just allow myself to be immersed in the world of the arcade.

Speaking of the world of the movie, it is beautiful. Everything is beautifully and diversely animated. Different characters and games are done very differently, down to the way that the citizens of Ralph and Felix's game move very choppily while characters from "Hero's Duty" are animated hyper-realistically. There's so much care put into every characters and detail, especially during crowd and panoramic shots and in Game Central Station. I just wish that we'd have had the opportunity to visit more game worlds. If there's one reason I would want a sequel, that's it.

I would be remiss to end this review without mentioning the various video game cameos. As a gamer, it was a lot of fun to point out all of the references that popped up. I was impressed by how numerous, varied, and accurate they were (for the most part). I also give the movie credit for letting them occur naturally and not allowing them to bog down the movie or make it purely a game of Spot the Reference. I don't know if they would alienate anyone who doesn't play video games as intensely as I do, but I think Disney managed to strike a very good balance.

"Wreck-It Ralph" is superb. You don't need to be a gamer to get it, though it does add a bit of an extra layer to things. It's full of great characters, amazing visuals, and real emotion. It's wreck-tacular (that's the tagline on the poster, and I really couldn't think of a way to end this...)!

P.S. The short that accompanies the movie, "Paperman", is really cute. I thoroughly enjoyed its story and its interesting animation style. I sense an Oscar nomination in this short's future.

P.P.S. You can download an actual version of "Fix-It Felix, Jr." for your phone that looks and plays exactly like the 8-bit version featured in the movie. It's free and a lot of fun. Check it out if that sounds cool to you.

Underappreciated Musical: "Carrie"

"Carrie" is that special kind of bad. It's a bad that causes it to be remembered throughout time as one of the worst things that ever happened to popular culture. What made it that special kind of bad, and why do I think that maybe it got less credit than it deserved?

Based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, "Carrie" tells the story of Carrie White, an outcast who is bullied by both her peers and her psychotic, insanely religious mother. When she gets her first period in the locker room showers and thinks that she's dying, all of the other girls make fun of her. This one event snowballs into a climax involving the prom, telekinetic powers, and the death of almost every character in the show.

"Carrie" originally opened in 1988 to some of the worst reviews Broadway has ever seen. It closed after only 5 performances, causing it to be considered one of the biggest bombs in Broadway history. Many critics pointed to the odd directorial and choreographing choices. One of the interesting things about "Carrie" was how it took supernatural things and put them into a realistic setting. The original production didn't seem to realize this, putting all of the actors in weird space age bodysuits and being extremely literal with some of the "Greek Tragedy" aspects of the plot. All of these decisions, however, led to "Carrie" earning a spot in Broadway history as a benchmark for bad musical theater.

Over time and thanks to recordings taken of the original performances, people have begun to think that "Carrie" may have gotten more than its fair share of ridicule and shame. I am one of those people. Lately, I've found myself watching clips from the original musical repeatedly, and, while I do find the directorial and choreographing choices extremely out of place at times, I find myself oddly entertained and enthralled. I haven't seen the entirety of the original production, but the bits that I have seen have been fun and interesting to watch. The performances are good, particularly those given by Carrie (Linzi Hateley) and her mother (Betty Buckley), and the songs are surprisingly well-written and tuneful. Of particular note are the songs given to Carrie's mother, Margaret White, which include "And Eve Was Weak" and "I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance," two of my favorite songs in the entire show.

Recently, a completely revamped revival was put on Off-Broadway. Being incredibly interested in the original production, I refused to allow the chance to see it live pass me up. I went to see it and was very surprised. It was great. The performances were strong and the new choices made by the new director really helped tone down the camp value of the original. I did have a few problems, however. I didn't like some of the cuts they made to certain songs. For example, during "The Destruction," the scene in which Carrie kills everyone at the prom with her telekinetic powers, Carrie sings reprises of several songs from earlier in the show. In the original production, Carrie sang a bit from the chorus of "And Eve Was Weak" as she began her murderous rampage, giving the audience and the other characters the impression that this was their comeuppance for all of the stuff that they put poor Carrie through and that the judgmental hand of God was coming down upon them. In addition, it showed that Carrie had snapped to such an extent that she was agreeing with her insane mother. In the revival, she stops after reprising a bit from the song "Carrie." While the whole scene still works, it doesn't have the same intensity or bravura that the original did.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the revival, and the cast deserved the standing ovation that they got at the end. However, I do get this certain feeling when I think about it.The original was memorable because some of the more out there decisions during production created an oddly attractive monster to be born. It was bad enough to be remembered for as long as it has been remembered, but good enough to have fans and supporters. The revival, on the other hand, was great, but it didn't really have anything that made it stand out. It was better in some ways and worse in others, but the sum of its parts didn't equal the horrible greatness of the original. It attempted to modernize everything while firmly grounding it in reality. It was obviously looking to rid itself of all of the camp that made the original a cult classic.

The revised "Carrie" didn't last that long either. Maybe "Carrie" just isn't meant to appeal to a broader theater-going audience. I, however, will always appreciate "Carrie," both for its legitimately bad and legitimately good qualities. There's never been a musical like her.

State Of Mind: "'Community': Why I Love One Of The Most Frustrating Shows On TV"

Upon the request of a friend, I watched the entirety of the TV series "Community". It was amazing, and I am now a full-fledged fan. However, there are still certain things that bug me about the show...

The show follows a study group (nicknamed the Greendale Seven) as they come together to take classes at Greendale Community College. This group is made up of seven people (hence the nickname): Jeff, the not-as-apathetic-as-he-seems leader; Britta, the incapable and overenthusiastic rights activist; Troy, the fallen high school football star; Abed, the odd and media-absorbing savant; Annie, the tightly wound, yet sugary sweet, heart of the group; Shirley, the devoutly Christian and secretly rage-filled mother; and Pierce, the racist, homophobic, and cruel old guy.

What makes this show great is that these seeming disparate characters grow together over the course of the three (going on four) seasons. Though each may seem like a cardboard character trope, they grow out of their molds rather quickly. "Community" may seem to be too cool for school on the surface, but its characters always provide a window into its big, warm heart. However, it is these same characters that cause me to have issues with the show. I'll give each character of the Greendale Seven their own section (along with an extra two sections for the incompetent Dean Pelton and the outright insane Ben Chang) to explain my grievances.

Jeff Winger: Jeff is supposed to be the straight man on the show. He's supposedly too cool to be bothered with the problems of the rest of the group, but we all know that, deep down, he cares. The issue is that he keeps regressing to the point that it seems as though the lessons he's supposedly learning at the end of each episode are pointless. Because he's the straight man, he also sometimes ends up being the least interesting (though not the worst) character on the show and the one that it's hardest to get emotionally invested in. I actually don't have many problems with Jeff beyond his occasional blandness and inability to learn lessons, though.

Britta Perry: I may stand in a minority here, but I love Britta. That may come down to Gillian Jacobs jumping through flaming hoops to make the character great, but I just can't bring myself to dislike her as much as the characters on the show (and certain portions of the fanbase) do. I do, however, take issue with her characterization. She started the show as a smart, capable woman who could see right through Jeff's crap. She was the original heart of the group, as well as it's voice of reason. As time went on, however, she got significantly less capable and more idiotic. It didn't make her any less funny, but it did make it harder to take her seriously. She had suddenly become the buffoon character, and she can't do almost anything without messing it up. I still like her, but I do wish that they'd bring back a bit of that intelligence and cunning that made her so appealing to Jeff in the first place.

Troy Barnes: Troy is probably the character I have the fewest issues with. He's funny and ditzy, but he's grown significantly since the series began. If I do have an issue, it's that sometimes Troy just becomes Abed 2 as opposed to staying his own character. That's been becoming less and less the case now, though, as Troy is growing to realize that he has to grow up, not only for his sake, but for Abed's as well. Other than that, though, I don't really take issue with Troy, even if he's not my favorite character on the show.

Abed Nadir: Abed is the resident "meta-guy", the one who points out all of the hackneyed plots and tropes that the Greendale Seven go through. My main problem with him is that he can be kind of a dick. I understand that he has some issues, but, at the same time, he still sometimes recognizes the bad consequences of his actions and continues with them anyway, hurting his friends in the process. The show has begun to address this more, which I like, even if it does seem to be making a bigger deal out of Abed's condition than it was in the first two seasons.

Annie Edison: I really like Annie. She's sweet and tightly wound, which makes her great for certain comedic set pieces. I also really like Alison Brie, who does a great job with this character. My issue with her, though, is that the show kinda forgot what made her great for a bit in the middle. She became not much more than someone to stare at Troy and later Jeff. As with Troy, however, she's begun to grow back out of this through he moving in with him and Abed and her positioning of herself as the heart and matchmaker of the group.

Shirley Bennett: I think Shirley is really underrated and underused. I love Yvette Nicole Brown, and I sometimes feel as though she's being underutilized. That's not my issue with her, though. My issue is that she is probably the least fleshed out of these characters. She hasn't gotten a chance to branch out too much beyond the Christian mother stereotype she started with. The show has gotten slightly better with this with the foosball and marriage episodes, but she stills feels a bit underdeveloped, especially when surrounded by other characters who are as rich and rounded as these characters are. Hopefully, the show will give her a bit more rounding in the coming season.

Pierce Hawthorne: Pierce is in a two-way tie for my least favorite character on the show. He's hateful and villainous and has almost no redeeming qualities. That's my problem with him. His jokes are almost completely one-note (yeah, we get it, he's old and bigoted), and this is despite numerous episodes fleshing him out. To be perfectly clear, he's not a flat character; he's just an extremely annoying and almost infuriating character. He also got a bit better in the third season, but I still don't like him nearly as much as I like the rest of the Greendale Seven.

Dean Craig Pelton: I used to dislike this character a lot more than I do now. The zombie episode almost pushed him off the deep end for me, but he managed to claw his way back into my heart. My issue with him used to be that he was so stupid that he was putting people in danger (and also his one-note jokes, but, for some reason, it never bothered me as much with him as it did with Pierce), but that seems to have been evened out a bit as time goes on. By the time the second fake clip show with the therapist rolled around, I was rooting for him to make it out okay. I even started to like his different outfits after a certain point.

Ben Chang: Here's my other pick for least favorite character. I don't quite understand why this character exists. I almost never find him funny, and he doesn't fit in with the rest of the show's universe. When a character is too crazy for a world as ridiculous as the one created by "Community", you know something is very, very wrong. By the time he was living with Jeff, I had basically decided that this character was pretty much beyond me liking him, and this is one case where the third season probably made him worse in my eyes.

Beyond the characters, this show's writing is impeccable. It mixes intelligence with heart and never talks down to its audience. I know that "Community" is known for its high-concept episodes (and, trust me, "Epidemiology", "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons", "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", and "Remedial Chaos Theory" are possibly my four favorite episodes), but I think the show is just as good when it has its feet firmly planted on the ground. I like when the show calms down a bit and really puts its characters under a microscope. For as crazy as this show can get, it's the realness of the characters that keeps you coming back for more.

The reason that the title of this article is what it is is because this show really does frustrate me sometimes. I know that it's capable of so many amazing things, so when it kinda half-asses an episode or does something that was obviously meant to appeal to a wider audience, I just have to shake my head. I understand that it needs more viewers, but I'd honestly prefer a shorter show that was great the whole way through than a show that compromised its ideals for a few more episodes that ended up being only mediocre. There's also the occasional character moment (or character in general, in the case of Pierce and Change) that I just can't get on board with.

For now, though, I'm glad it got a fourth season. I'm interested to see what happens with the Greendale Seven. I'm a bit worried that Dan Harmon is around anymore, but I'm confident that the show can still stay good. While I don't know if the show can (or should) make it to six seasons and a movie, I'll enjoy it while it lasts. "Community" is an experience that should be had by everyone. I can't count the reasons I should stay.

State Of Mind: "'Smash': Its Rocky First Season And Its Bright Future"

"Fade in on a girl with a hunger for fame and a face and a name to remember." So begins one of the most thrilling show tunes in recent memory. Interestingly enough, it's not from a musical, at least not one on Broadway. It's from "Smash", one of the best shows to premiere in recent memory.

"Smash" is about "Marilyn: The Musical", a fictional Broadway musical about the life and hardships of legendary actress and sex symbol Marilyn Monroe. More specifically, the show details the production end of the musical, from its inception to its casting to rehearsals to its premiere in Boston. The two main characters are Ivy Lynn, a veteran Broadway actress who's ready to sink her teeth into a leading role, and Karen Cartwright, a newcomer who the production team believes may have the chops to star in the show despite her inexperience. Other leads include Julia Houston and Tom Levitt, the show's book writer and composer, Derek Wills, the show's director, and Eileen Rand, the show's producer. The show follows these characters and their hardships as they try to cobble together a show in a unusually short amount of time.

The show's pilot was one of the most critically-acclaimed premieres for a show that I've ever seen, but critical and fan opinion of the show turned sour unbelievably quickly. People thought that the show became too focused on the personal lives of the characters as opposed to on the show. They also thought that the show was too reliant on viewers feeling a certain way and attaching themselves to certain characters. Many people jumped ship as the show decreased in quality. Why do I still watch it then? Why did it get so "bad"? How can they fix it for the now guaranteed second season?

I love this show, even if the pilot was the best episode thus far. The critics are right, though, it is at its best when it's focusing on the musical and its production. Anyone who read my ramblings on "Glee" know that I thought the first thirteen episodes were near perfection, while the rest of the first season was very good, but not quite as good. For "Smash", the first two episodes were "Glee"'s first thirteen, while the first seasons of these two shows as a whole matched up pretty well. The first two episodes of "Smash" focused on the casting of Marilyn Monroe in the musical and made clear the show's focus before it got muddled in personal stories and unimportant side characters. Ivy's cover of "Crazy Dreams" was the perfect capstone to that perfect little arc, with Ivy' s years as a chorus girl paying off and Karen realizing that she still has a ways to go before she gets her chance to shine. It was a fitting end, so what happened?

I was hyped about the third episode. However, that was when the show started getting kinda soap opera-y. New love interests and affairs came rapidly into play. No couple was safe, no matter how stable they had been up to that point. As the season went on, I began to wonder if I had accidentally switched to "Desperate Housewives" with musical numbers. Ironically, plot lines like these are exactly the reason that I've never watched "Desperate Housewives" and shows like it. Therefore, there must have been something special there that kept me watching despite the increasingly ridiculous story lines. I think I can pinpoint, at least for me, the reasons why I kept watching.

The first is the premise. I love Broadway, particularly musicals. To see a show that was this knowledgeable and true to its Broadway roots was like a dream come true.  It was like "Glee" before it sold out and began doing hit songs almost exclusively. It was completely and unabashedly about Broadway, and it consistently contained show tunes (both original and well-known), Broadway actors, and theater references. I love the world that "Smash" puts a spotlight on.

The second is, interestingly enough, the characters. As much as people say that the characters are random and inconsistent, I've found the characters (or at least the performances of the actors portraying them) to be engaging. It's rare that shows elicit as much of a reaction from me as this show does, and I believe that the characters and their actions play a large part in that. Ivy Lynn, no matter what the writers make her do, will always be my favorite character on the show. I think she really does make the better Marilyn, and Megan Hilty deserves an Emmy nomination (at least) for her amazing performance. On the other hand, there's Karen, played by Katherine McPhee. I've liked her a lot more than I thought she would. Even if her character isn't as complex as Ivy, she's still talented and a surprisingly good Marilyn, even if her incorrect body type and pop voice kind of kill the image for me. I love Tom (Christian Borle), Julia (Debra Messing), and their relationship, even if I could do without the intense focus on Julia's love affairs and home life. I even love Derek and Eileen, despite their opposing personalities and apparent divisiveness among the fanbase.

The third, and possibly the most important, is the moments of sheer imagination and awesomeness that shine through the occasional murkiness. The original musical numbers are almost always bright spots, with songs like "Let Me Be Your Star", "Let's Be Bad", "The 20th Century Fox Mambo", "On Lexington and 52nd Street", "Second Hand White Baby Grand", and "Don't Forget Me" being constantly repeated on my iPod. There are also character moments and rehearsal and production scenes that prove that this show has the potential to be the most compelling thing on TV. The show is just too bogged down with the relationships and the personal lives of the characters.

I think the main problem with the show are these personal stories. I understand that personal stories are important and that most of the character dimension and development coming from these subplots, but it was getting kind of ridiculous. I also get some people may want to see what happens in the personal lives of these characters. That's fine, and I admit that I did find myself becoming invested in some of these subplots. It's just that the show got  bit carried away. As the side stories became more and more outlandish, I found myself caring less and less. The show's supposed to be a realistic backstage drama, so realism is key. I don't mind the personal stuff, but they just need to bring it back down to Earth a bit. There is a such thing as a stable relationship, and not everybody sleeps with everybody else.

The show was written and filmed before the first episode aired, so the writers couldn't change anything based on fan reactions and backlash. Therefore, the writers were writing based on assumptions about what viewers would want to see and which characters they would like or be interested in. Ellis was obviously written as the villain viewers would love to hate, but everyone just ended up loathing every second he was on the screen. The writers also assumed that the we would be more interested in Julia's home life than "Bombshell" itself.

Possibly the most egregious error they made, though, was assuming that everyone would be on Karen's side. While it is true that a large portion of viewers did side with Karen for various reasons, a huge part of the fanbase was immovably in Ivy's corner, myself included. This wouldn't have been so bad if the writers had been a bit more subtle, but it was clear from the very beginning that the writer's loved Karen and didn't care much for Ivy. This left viewers with scenes full of characters applauding Karen's unbelievable talent and perfection while Ivy became crazier and more cartoonishly evil with every passing episode. I think the writers actually ended up achieving that exact opposite of what they set out to do. By giving Ivy the short end of the stick in almost every situation, she quickly became a Woobie, and people began feeling sorry for her instead of hating her. Here's a woman who's struggled for her entire life to get where she is today. She's been overshadowed by other, and she has an overbearing mother. Here comes her one chance at the starring role she's waited her entire career for. She even gets the part at first, only to have it ripped away from her by the total newbie who hasn't paid her dues in the business yet. Now, don't get me wrong. I like Katherine McPhee. She has an amazing voice, and she's very pretty. However, I know that even some of her fans admit that she's just not right for Marilyn. She's too tall and thin, and her voice is too "pop". She'd do better in either a different musical or as a pop star. I want success for Karen; I just don't think this musical is a good fit for her.

The news recently came out that certain characters, including Ellis, Frank (Julia's husband), Dev (Karen's boyfriend), and Michael (Julia's lover), will not be returning next season. Personally, I think this is a good omen. Hopefully, this means that the writers are listening to the fans and that there will be more "Bombshell" and fewer personal stories next season. I know that I'll be watching this show until it gets cancelled, even if the second season still has its flaws.

"Smash", you already are my star.

Just Saw "The Hobbit"!

My friend got me into an advanced screening of "The Hobbit"! I won't spoil anything here for those who don't know what happens, but it was very good, and did its job of living up to the "Lord of the Rings" name. Spot-on performances, great sense of humor, stellar special effects, and all of the epic shots and battles (and walking) that we've come to expect from the series. I think I sense another Best Picture nomination in this series's future...