Astro Boy (2009)

Film: Astro Boy
Release: 2009, theatrical
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Freddie Highmore, Donald Sutherland
Directed by: David Bowers
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When his son is killed in an accident, the minister of science Doctor Tenma puts his memories into a revolutionary new robot lookalike - the powerful Astro Boy.

Hans' thoughts:

In the 1950's, a man named Osamu Tezuka created the comic series "Tetsuwan Atom", or "Strong-Armed Atom" (known as Astro Boy internationally). The series was a tremendous succes, kickstarting japanese animation and setting up a lot of the aestethic choices that we now consider "anime" and "manga". Years later, in 2009 an American adaptation was created using CG animation, that's the one we're looking at. Astro Boy is essentially a science fiction version of the classic tale of Pinnochio, the titular character Astro is built in the image of a scientists deceased son and giving all of his memories. However Astro is not a perfect clone of the child named Toby, he has his own personality and dreams so his creator decides to get rid of him. Now in the original story, Astro loses all memory of ever being called Toby and establishes his own life while becoming a powerful crime fighter in the ongoing ethical battle about the laws of robotics and the rights of robots as citizens. In the movie they decided to downplay the superhero aspect of the character, and instead focuses on his search for an identity.

If I had to be downright blunt about it I was not so fond of this movie. It feels kinda stilted, as if some of the energy of the original work has been removed in favor of misguided subtlety. The otherwise really energetic Nicolas Cage plays a very quiet, at times even awkward Doctor Tenma and the same can be said for most of the other actors. The movie also suffers from way too many secondary characters. Astro is quickly pulled from one situation to the next and in some cases we barely get to know a character before we're sent along to the next scene. In one particular example of this, a group of kids were introducing themselves and then Astro is pulled into a completely different scene for 2 minutes to be introduced to even more secondary characters. As if the writers suddenly got bored with one scene and decided to simply start writing the next one. It does the movie a giant disservice of us not really caring about when a character we've only seen for a minute or two suddenly hijacks the movie to be put into focus again. Nevermind the very blunt scene transitions that's already apparent in the product.

This lack of discipline when it comes to what exactly they wanted to do with this movie is very disheartening, and it isn't helped by the fact that the movie has a tacked on environmental message which has no grounds in the original series, nor is it used as part of the ongoing narrative at all. At one point it seems as if they also wanted to talk about class warfare but once again they bring up the subject and then drop it again as soon the next scene starts. At the very least, I liked the art-style. They took the original style and made it more culture-neutral and streamlined. Characters are still recognizable but a lot of the exaggerated features from the comics and cartoon is downplayed severely. Likewise the color scheme and environments of the movie is beautiful and I really wish that the attention to detail in that department had been carried over intro the rest of the production. It's really unfortunate that such a gorgeous looking movie ended up with such a lackluster script and direction. It seems rushed, which is weird considering that there was no large demand for a western adaptation of Astro Boy - a 50 year old series. As it stands I can really only recommend the movie to curious fans of the original series.

Up (2009)

Film: Up
Release: 2009, Theatrical
Starring: Edward Asner, Jordan Nagai, John Ratzenberger 
Directed by: Bob Peterson, Pete Docter
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: To fulfill his late wife's dream of high adventure, the elderly Carl Fredericksen ties thousands of balloons to his house in order to fly it to South America.

Hans' thoughts:

Few modern animation companies has had as long a stride of success as Disney Pixar. This can be attributed to quite a few things, their imaginative stories, their absolutely beautiful animation or, perhaps the most important, their ability to level with children while holding the attention of adults. 

In this case, we're talking about one of their biggest successes: "Up". When I first heard about the plot this movie has, I was convinced that it was based on a childrens book or something to that effect. As it turns out: This is an original work through and through! Stunning actually, that this movie is so simple on the surface, but already in the introductory sequences it is made clear that this movie has so many layers underneath. 

What the story is about is up to anyone to decide, although personally I would have to guess that it is about loss. Loss as a subject matter is a pretty dark piece to put into, what seems like, a simple childrens movie. This is where the movie shines, because while it has it as one of the facets of the story, it manages to tell it's story in such an uplifting and step-by-step oriented manner. 

Mixing up the story with just the right amount of comedy, and this is one of the most desperate Disney villains I've seen yet. Right up there with Claude Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame. The story manages to show us what he's doing and sets up a believable reason for what made him go over the edge. Of course, without approving of his actions: He's still believable as a villain and the audience still root for the heroes.

Another thing that really shone through for me in this movie is the score, while very simple, we see early on that a change in something as small as rhythm can make the main theme convey a lot of different emotions, the same song that can make you happy and cheering for the heroes can get you down and, personally, I actually got kinda misty eyed at times. That's a sign of a strong connection between picture and sound.

Up is one of those "complete" movies. All loose ends are tied, the story is told in a very sweet manner and the fact that they made the audience convey emotions about a building is quite a feat. I could never imagine a sequel to this movie, so take it for what it is. A story that just might go ever-green.

Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Film: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince
Release: 2009, Theatrical
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by: David Yates
Previous in the series: Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix
Next in the series: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Returning for his sixth year at Hogwarts, Harry receives a hand-me-down book for potions class. In it is several notes that is written by a former student - so naturally Harry uses them. But who exactly is The Half-Blood Prince?

Hans' thoughts:

So we're back in the world of wizards, this time not bothering with the Dursley's at all. Let it be known though, it's been quite a while since I read the book of this one. Let's get to it.

After two, fairly weak movies things are finally starting to look up again. Gone is the desperate attempts to look like Prisoner of Azkaban and back are the ambitious beautiful shots of Sorcerer's Stone. Yes, overall this actually feels a lot more close to the original three movies. It's got the darker, somber tone of Prisoner, but the at the same time the good sense to try and filter out the teen drama of the series. Trust me when I say, Harry's love life was subject to much more drama in the book-series than the movies would have you believe. I'm also very fond of the lack of characters. Granted, a good adaptation should always strive to keep it as true to the source material as possible but around this era of the books, the story became very much crowded. Suddenly, you had to remember a lot of names of characters that in actuality wouldn't play that big of a part in the larger scheme.

Order of the Phoenix was the worst in that regard, with it's Dumbledore's Army subplot. If you've only bothered to watch the movies, you'll most likely be glad to hear that we finally get some insight to the motivations of Voldemort, who also otherwise not present in this movie. Instead, we're actually giving Draco Malfoy something to do after building him up as the Anti-Potter for five movies. He actually sets the framework for most of the good eerie imagery that the movie has to offer. I found myself going "WAIT, Go back to Malfoy! I wanna see what HE'S doing!" this time around. Which is more than I can say for the former movies where he was just sorta.. there.

As for the actors, I feel that a lot of the veterans has hit a bit of a slump. All three of the main personas seem to be just going through the motions in this movie, with the worst case being Daniel Radcliffe. Now, just to clarify, behind the scenes things weren't going so well at this point. Several of the involved actors had announced on several occasions that they wouldn't stay around for the remainder of the series. Only to be bought back in by Warner Bros. come shooting day. Increasing demands for payments, coupled with some of the stereotypical mandatory former child actor substance abuse must've made these last couple of movies a living hell for a lot of crew. But I digress. Just to say something positive about the acting, I'm sad to admit I've neglected to highlight the talent of actress Evanna Lynch who played Luna Lovegood. In all of her appearances she manages to steal the scene, portraying the character perfectly.

Overall, the presence of actual competence in this movie is a well-needed breath of fresh air for a series that had been going very much downhill. With only two movies left, it wasn't a minute too soon.