All aboard

One of the things I found kind of funny about a bunch of the Disney Land rides was that they gave "boarding pass"es to people getting on them.  I don't know if it's changed since the last time I was there, but they certainly didn't have these at Disney World.  Maybe it's just me, but they feel kind of... goofy.

Oh, and if you look closely, you'll see that this one is for the Dumbo ride.  Worst line we had the entire day (a bit over 45 minutes), for a one- or two-minute ride.  Not one of our better decisions (especially as they had a virtually identical ride in the space area).  Still a good day; just not one of the high points.

It's like Greased Lightnin'

After the Caps game ended, I finally relented to watching a movie with my daughter, and pulled out Bolt. I didn't know too much of what to expect; my only knowledge of it was from a trailer I'd seen before it came out. It looked funny, with significant likelihood of the hamster stealing many scenes, and that was enough for me to buy it (once I found it pretty cheaply, that is).

Oh, I think I knew some of the basic plot, too. I knew that he was a TV dog who didn't realize that it was SFX giving him super powers; I don't think I knew why he was outside of the TV show.

Basically, then, I knew almost the entire movie. The plot isn't exactly deep; Bolt needs to find "his person" (owner, the Miley Cyrus character), and finds out, in the process, that he isn't so super-powered. And yeah, the hamster he finds along the way stole many scenes (almost every scene he was in, in fact).

One thing that took me a while to spell out, in my mind, were the parallels to Inspector Gadget (Penny and her dog save her father). I realized there was something there I was missing as soon as they named the Miley Cyrus character, but it took me a while to figure out what it reminded me of.

Was the movie good? I enjoyed it quite a bit. As I said, not deep, but funny, frequently silly, and a little bit of feeling (though mostly of the sappy, Disney sort). I'll watch it again, sometime. Probably with my daughter, as she also liked it. Actually, before the end credits had finished, she was asking me to replay it, which is a first, for her.

Not So Amazing

The first several times I watched it, The Incredibles was easily my favorite Pixar movie. I was anxiously awaiting its blu-ray release, and it was only the second one that I bought on the day of release (well, I preordered it on Amazon). So last Tuesday it showed up on my doorstep.

Maybe it was just that I've seen it too many times, but while I still enjoyed it, it wasn't as amazing as previously. Before this, I was greatly hoping for a sequel (frankly, I'm pretty disappointed that they're doing a Cars sequel this year), but now I'm not so sure about whether it would be worth it.

Part of it was the whole "super vs ordinary" subplot. I'd pretty much ignored that part previously, but I paid more attention to it this time, and it bugged me. It especially bugged me in the "Dash athletics" scenes. Athletics is about competition, and if someone is so much better than everyone else, it isn't a competition. Nobody involved will learn anything, or become better people because of it.

Someone might be tempted to bring up how much better some people are than others in certain fields and that's true, but the difference between Dash and his classmates is bigger than the difference between Wayne Gretzky and myself in hockey (and I haven't been on the ice with a hockey stick since I was seven). No amount of luck (short of a meteor hitting Dash) would allow those kids to beat him.

For a kid with arrogance issues to begin with, this would not help. If anything, it would just reinforce those issues, as he sees himself as so much better than them.

And the line about "Everybody's special, Dash" "Which means no one is" also bugs me. Yes, everyone is special. But not all in the same way, which rather negates the part about nobody being so.

Anyway, the whole thing is disturbingly Rand-ian. And she might well have been the most self-centered person ever. Or, at least, she's managed to make complete selfishness socially acceptable, which is sad. Frankly, without her, the current political debates would be much more heavily influenced by reality. And that would certainly be a good thing.

A Whole New World

I showed my daughter Aladdin yesterday, for the first time. I've always liked the movie; it's just so much fun. But I did notice a couple of things I hadn't, before.

I've always liked the in-movie version of A Whole New World better than the Regina Belle/Peabo Bryson version at the end. I assumed it was because they had the same people singing, but it turns out that they didn't. I believe (which is to say that that's what I remember from the credits) it was Lea Salonga and Brad Kane, where the actors are Scott Weinger and Linda Larkin.

I definitely did find myself wishing that it was on Blu-ray at times. Well, most of the time it didn't matter, but around the computer-generated Cave of Wonders it felt soft. I'm kind of curious what this toy would be able to do with it, but I don't see myself being able to buy it, so I'll just have to keep wondering.

Also, I've always liked Gilbert Gottfried as Iago in the movie, although I don't think I was ever before able to connect him to any other roles he's done. He's usually incredibly annoying, but he did a great job here. In fact, this might be the only role I've seen him in where I liked him.

But most importantly, my daughter did enjoy the movie.

Snarled

I ordered Tangled a while ago; we had planned to try taking our daughter to see it when it came out, but it never happened. So I was looking forward to it arriving last Tuesday, but we still didn't watch it until yesterday.

I really don't have a lot to say about it. The story type is about what you'd expect from Disney; though the Lasseter influence was pretty obvious as well. And there were no real surprises in the whole story (except the third musical number, which kind of came out of nowhere and didn't really make a whole lot of sense even after the fact. But it was still fun), except for Flynn's lack of concussions.

And yet, my daughter and I still enjoyed it quite a bit. I'll certainly watch it again sometime.

The only negative for me, I think, was that the witch's comments to Rapunzel were so cruel, and yet didn't hardly get a reaction out of her. I'm not sure that I should expect a reaction, given their relationship at that point, but it really bugs me that there wasn't one.

Well, and one other thing about it is that I haven't read the original (or, if I have, it's been too many years, and I don't remember anything more than the broadest of outlines of it), so I can't really compare it to that. If I had to guess, though, I would expect that there were very large liberties taken with the story.

Still, it was very well done. Oh, and I haven't watched it in 3D yet. We'll have to see if that makes any difference. Now that I think about it, I don't think it will, except maybe in the lantern scene. I would expect that scene to look really wild in 3D (it already looked mighty cool to begin with).

Persian Prince

My wife got me Prince of Persia recently, about which I was a bit curious.

I had played the original game (back in 1990 or '91), but none of the subsequent follow-ups. I really wasn't sure how they were going to make a movie out of it.

It did live up to expectations in visuals; they were very nice. And, for that, I was definitely glad to have gotten it on Blu-Ray. As far as the quality of the movie itself, though, it was about as expected.

That is to say, it was ok. Reasonably entertaining, little to no depth, and as good a grasp of history as you'd expect from a Disney movie. Seriously, Alamut was founded in 246AD, while the Persian empire dates from approximately the fifth to third centuries BC. And the Hashishayun, the assassins, didn't get there until the late eleventh century AD (Judith Tarr, incidentally, wrote a fantastic novel centered around the assassins called Alamut). And it was only under the assassins that Alamut was considered holy. Nor was it anywhere near as grand as portrayed.

Yes, it looked quite impressive in the movie, but it was not a huge place. It was mostly just a fortress, not a center of civilization.

And as far as adapting the game; it had a few nods to the original game, but not a whole lot.

Overall, I'd rate it as fair. It isn't worth going out of your way to see, but the visuals might make it worth catching it if it's convenient. Oh, and Alanis had a nice song for the closing credits (though I could have sworn it was Tori Amos).

Cinder-freakin'-rella

My in-laws bought my daughter a Chinese book a while ago that had the story of Cinderella in it. Although she couldn't say the name for a while (she just said, "'Bella"), she really enjoyed listening to it.

Finally, I went and got the movie for her, and we watched it over the weekend. It surprised me greatly, but I didn't recognize any of it (other than the story itself, of course).

A number of things struck me about it. One, and I'm sure I must have heard this before, somewhere: it's downright anti-feminist. "Just be nice, and wish for the best, and a Prince will sweep you off your feet, and carry you to happiness." Not really a nice message, other than the 'being nice' part. Nothing about doing something to actively improve your lot in life. "Just sit back, and someone will wave a magic wand, and your life will become grand". That's just total bollucks. It might not be impossible, but the likelihood is so small that it's downright stupid to live your life that way.

Two, there's no actual character growth in the story. Cinderella ends the same way she started, just in different circumstances.

Three, the stepmother was downright evil, and stupid, at that. She didn't even do a good job pushing for her daughters' advancement. When she figured out who Cinderella was, she really should have been nice to her. Even if Cinderella was going to snag the top prize, being around the royal court (which could happen if Cinderella forgave her past indignities, and which wouldn't happen with the way the actual movie turned out) would put her daughters in the way of other nobles.

I was looking for the original story just before writing this, and had thought it came from the Brothers Grimm's collection. But it wasn't there (other than a reference to the character in Mother Holle), so I followed up on the credit in the movie to Charles Perrault.

I was curious because I'd heard that the original was much bloodier (a friend, many years ago, described one of the stepsisters cutting off her heel to try to fit into the slipper, but being given away by the blood), and a little more involuted (the prince spreading pitch on the stairs to keep her from getting away; I think I got this idea from Sondheim's Into the Woods). Also, it seemed likely that the Chinese book was based on the Disney story, rather than the original. Certainly so, if those items I mentioned were there.

In any event, the original wasn't bloody, and the Chinese book probably was based on Disney, rather than Perrault. But the differences between the 17th and 20th centuries are certainly interesting. The father remaining alive, for instance. The stepmother being pretty much a non-character. The creation of relationship with the animals. The compression of the meeting of Cinderella and the Prince into one evening. The lack of re-appearance of the fairy godmother. The stepsisters not being quite as willfully cruel, but merely uncaring. And, as made a lot of sense to me when I mentioned the stepmother's stupidity, Cinderella's charity toward those stepsisters at the end.

I'm kind of curious about how it was reviewed when it first came out. I should dig up the New Yorker, and see what it says (and man, I shouldn't have bought that new, should I?).