When Owls Say More than “Who”

Title: Legend of the Guardians

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away: This is, up until now, the only Zach Snyder movie I had not seen.   There are some pretty noteworthy voices in here as well, but try not to think about them that way and just get lost in the moment.

Introduction:  I got this movie on DVD, for free, from my local library.

Location:  This is animated, so it’s not really relevant here.

Plot:  Some owls fall out of their nest and are about to be eaten, but then they are saved by bigger owls that sort of bring them into a life of slavery.    Our two main owls go on a quest to find the Guardians and along the way, they become heroes themselves.

                This is based on a book, which I haven’t read, so it probably get a lot of its story ideas from there.

Acting:  The owls sound right on and let me say that usually in voice over movies there is a character or two who really stands out where you just can’t buy into him being anyone other than who he is in real life, but this isn’t the case here.    Everyone uses their voices appropriately because I never stop seeing the owls as who they are supposed to be instead of going, “He sounds like that guy from The Matrix”.

Production:  This was a seemingly big budget movie that was in theaters and all, yes.

Sex/Nudity:  No, haha.   This is still somewhat of a kids’ movie.

Special Effects:  The owls in this look real enough to eat.

Overall Verdict:  Gina said she felt that this was too dark to be a kids’ movie, but I reminded her that she is a big fan of Harry Potter.   I really did enjoy this movie but maybe it’s just because I like owls.    Added bonus:  There are songs in here (or at least one played more than once) by Owl City.    Makes sense, right?

She’s the Titular Character

Title:  Hanna

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve reviewed this movie before or not.   I tried to watch it once before and only made it halfway through, so I might have given it an inaccurate write-off review.   I am here to correct that now by giving it a proper write-off review.

Introduction:  Once again, I got this movie on DVD from the library for free.

Location:  They go to a bunch of places with a bunch of climates, so yeah, I’d say that they had a budget.

Plot:  Hanna is a young girl who grows up in isolation because, as it clearly explained to us in the beginning of the movie, if she is revealed she will be hunted until either her or her hunter is dead.   Her hunter is played by Cate Blanchett.    Of course Hanna goes out into the world and gets hunted.    So it becomes this cat and mouse game where you know one of them will not be alive by the end and, well, you can guess which one lives and which one dies.   Movies aren’t named after losers.   Well, except for “The Losers”, but that’s different. 

Acting:  Aside from the woman who once portrayed Bob Dylan, we also have Eric Bana and, yes, that girl from “The Lovely Bones”.   For what it is, the acting is convincing.    There are seemingly a handful of pale blonde actresses that could have been the lead.   What about that one from Arrested Development, Archer and Love & Other Drugs?   Or Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3?   Or was that the same actress?  I don’t know, pale blondes are a dime a dozen in Hollywood.

Production:  It was a big budget motion picture, yes.

Sex/Nudity:   Not really, no.  Too much action, but not that kind of action.

Special Effects:  They are good for what they are, but more on that below.

Overall Verdict:  It’s funny that this movie stars the same young actress who was in “The Lovely Bones”.   Why, you ask?   Simply because this movie was to me what I felt after watching “The Lovely Bones”.    This movie had a fairly simple, typical plot that you could see coming from miles away if you’ve ever seen movies before this.    However, the big claim to this movie (as with “The Lovely Bones”) must be the visuals of it.   It is pleasing to the eyes, even if not the mind.   For that, yes, it is good, but why can’t we have a visual spectacle and a movie with a plot that makes you think?   I guess Hollywood just thinks audience are too dumb or suffer from a.d.d. to the point where they cannot have both.   I find that to be false, but my opinion doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to big budget movies like this one.