Shaun the Sheep

Written and directed by Mark Burton, and Richard Starzak. Also written by Nick Park. Starring Justin Fletcher (Shaun/Timmy), John Sparkes (The Farmer/Bitzer), and Omid Djalili (Trumper).

Bottom line: Really cute, happy, and fun though it works better as episodic shows rather than a full length movie

3/4

Shaun the Sheep is a full-length movie from the makers of Wallace and Gromit. I didn’t realize, until later, that this was based off of a show of the same name. In retrospect, it makes sense why it is named Shaun the Sheep: The Movie.

The film opens with a montage of the daily routine of the sheep, the farmer, and his dog. It’s day after day of the same thing. After a while, the sheep get tired of the monotony. With their adorable and charismatic leader, Shaun, the sheep hatch an innocent plan to get a little vacation. They just want to trick the farmer into thinking it’s still night time so he stays asleep. Unfortunately, the plan goes awry and the farmer finds himself in the “Big City” with amnesia. Shaun, his fluffy friends, and the farmer’s dog have to find a way to rescue the farmer, all while avoiding the hazards of city life, most notably the Animal Control Guy.

The animation is the main component of Shaun the Sheep and it’s wonderful. It’s colorful and soft but expressive and cute. There are a number of fabulous little details like a bit of a tongue to emote concentration or making the eyes feel slightly more open to show surprise. Over the past couple years, I’ve been slowly warming up to Claymation as a medium but this seals the deal. I love it.

I always forget how important sound is to a movie until I see a movie with really good sound. Shaun the Sheep is one such movie. The buzz of clippers, the sound of water, and the rustle of fabric really add to the experience.

Shaun the Sheep has little to no dialog; it’s more of a pantomime but with the characters saying gibberish. Like the sound, the lack of dialog makes Shaun the Sheep more fun and forces you to focus on the animation. There are a couple of exceptions like the music. There are a couple of songs played at different points in the movie that have English lyrics. I wouldn’t have considered this but, because there is no dialog, I subconsciously latched onto the English lyrics and it felt forced. I think it would’ve been more successful if they sang in gibberish or simply had instrumentals.

I found the TV Show on Amazon TV Prime or whatever it’s called. It’s available for streaming there. In the case of the TV show, each episode is broken down into independent segments. I like this format. How much complexity do you really need after all? The show is about cute little sheepies doing cute little sheepie things.

To be honest, I wasn’t really looking forward to this movie. The trailer seemed to highlight burp jokes and crude humor but, fortunately, they weren’t a major part of the film. (Of course they were still there).

Overall, I’d recommend Shaun the Sheep. I’d definitely recommend the show. I’d give the show a 3.5/4 instead of the movies 3/4 because the characters and “plot” lend itself to a segmented show but, with this in mind, I still really enjoyed the movie. The animation is adorable, the sound is great, and the story is ok. Before ending this review, I’d like to mention something else that I liked but, mind yourself of spoilers for this next part.

From the introduction, where we watch Shaun and his friends grow weary of their routine, there was a little knot of dread in my stomach. How were they going to handle the ending? When the Shaun and company gets the farmer back, what were they going to do? Were they going to say, “We had our adventure but let’s get back to what we truly like, the routine?” That would be really depressing!

But it was such a relief when they tore up the schedule and went to the park. Sure, they would still probably have to do stuff, it is a farm after all, but the relationship between the farmer and his sheep had development to something greater than it was at the beginning of the movie. It’s that relationship is part of a larger point that I’d also like to discuss.

There is a really pleasant sense of humor in Shaun the Sheep (both the film and show). It isn’t malicious (the sheep don’t resent the farmer or do any mean tricks) but there isn’t a particular hesitancy when performing tricks or carrying out schemes. One episode, for example, Shaun kicks a soccer ball into the farmer’s kitchen and see’s a bunch of cakes and deserts. He gets the soccer ball, a couple bites of cake and then grabs a bunch of deserts for his friends. I suppose it’s stealing but it feels so innocent. It’s like there is this laid back attitude towards everything that I find really relaxing. Sure, they shouldn’t be eating the sweets but, it’s ok; the farmer had a ton and he can easily make more.

Have you seen Shaun the Sheep (the movie or the TV show)? Again, the TV show is on Amazon and, if you have Prime, it is free to stream. I’d highly recommend them both. Thanks for reading!

12 O’Clock Boys

Written and directed by Lotfy Nathan. Starring Pug, Coco, Steven.

Bottom line: 12 O’Clock Boys illuminates a complex social atmosphere in North Baltimore but it does so in a way that feels incomplete, not to mention a little exploitative.

2.5/4

12 O’Clock Boys is the name of a motorcycle group (one might argue that they aren’t quite a gang) in North Baltimore. Their name arises from the fact that when they do wheelie’s (that is, riding on the back wheel of their motorcycles) their wheels are straight up and down like the hands of a clock.

12 O’Clock Boys is also the name of a documentary which follows Pug, a thirteen-year-old kid who wants to eventually join the illustrious (or notorious, depending on who you ask) aforementioned group.

Many documentaries I’ve seen about gangs focus strictly on the gang: its origin, current members, former members, and police. 12 O’Clock Boys incorporates those but, as it follows the development of Pug, we come to see the larger ecosystem of Baltimore; not only do we see the gang and its relationship with the police but also we get to see how the gang operates with Baltimore and the poorer districts of the city, and even its relationship with future members, i.e. children.

Pug’s home life is such that I can see how one might be drawn to the 12 O’clock Boys and the resulting sense of community. It’s kinda sad to watch over the course of the movie how Pug gravitates towards an angrier lifestyle. He wanted to become a veterinarian and he had a bunch of pets but by the end of the movie he says that he wants to become a dogcatcher (I suppose because it sounds tougher). It’s too bad too because, when he talks about animals, he sounds rather knowledgeable about them.

I read in an interview that Pug and his mother participated in the documentary because they wanted to shed light on the group. If people had a place to ride their bikes, like a park, they argue, then the problems would go away. But, is that really the case? Thinking about this is one of the more interesting questions to come out of the movie.

On one hand we have the founding members saying that they just wanted to ride, because when they ride they forget about their problems, yadda yadda yadda. Former and current members interviewed, insist that the gang doesn’t do anything like guns or drugs or whatnot; they just want to ride their bikes. And, yet, they break traffic laws and intentionally ride past the police department to exacerbate the already tenuous relationship with the police.

We see Pug practicing with a child-size ATV and, eventually, in the park on his dirt bike. The plan is always to practice and ride until he gets to the point where he can ride with the group in the streets. There’s the rub.

What would the dynamic be if the group had a venue for their riding? Would it be the same or is part of it the experience breaking the law?

At one point, the group is riding up and down a street and in a nearby park when the police come. The environment is electrified by the clash between the bikers and the police. So it’s not “just about riding,” but the movie doesn’t really explore what it really is about.

If you’ve read my previous reviews, you might recall that I generally dislike children in movies. More often than not, it’s a cheap way to force an emotional response from audiences. 12 O’Clock Boys is pushing it. With Pug, we see this kid come of age and watch his development. But because he’s a kid, it feels mildly exploitative.

With respect to following Pug, there are a couple standout sequences. First, when Pug finally gets a dirt bike. He is practicing in the park near a group of kids playing basketball and one comes over and asks if he could try out Pug’s bike. After some hesitation, Pug lets him. Sure enough the kid says, “I’m just going to take it around the block.” The kid speeds away. After a few minutes, Pug runs around the corner to see if he’ll return. You can see fear, desperation, embarrassment, and frustration wash over his face as he looks at the camera and then the cameraman. It feels like a really great moment to capture on screen.

At the end of the movie, Pug has spiraled further into the hood mentality. He had just gotten in trouble for fighting in school. The cameraman asks what Pugs intends to do about his bike. “Steal it back,” Pug answers matter-of-factly. As he explains the plan, footage of the robbery plays. The movie ends with a shot of Pug in the back of a van dressed in black, with his bike, looking silently at the camera. It’s depressing but well executed.

I’ve spent a lot longer thinking about this movie than countless other’s that I’ve seen and I can’t quite figure out why. I think it has something to do with why I found it unsatisfying. We watch Pug spiral downwards into the subculture of the 12 O’Clock Boys, which is depressing, right? We hear positive messages from the current and former members but we see contradictory images: a guy kicking the tail light of a police car, for example. The stories and images paint of picture of this group and it’s surrounding city but it’s not getting anywhere.

I don’t think a movie should necessarily a definitive position but I feel like it would be helpful to provide a starting point and, perhaps, a direction for conversation. It you watch fluffy tupolev’s Youtube video entitled "12 O'Clock Boys", you’ll have just as much of a conversation starter as 12 O'Clock Boys. If you are interested in watching it, currently, it can be found on Youtube.

Somm

Written and directed by Jason Wise. Starring Bo Barrett, Shayn Bjornholm, Dave Cauble, and Ian Cauble.

Bottom line: Somm is a stellar documentary about the fascinating world of sommeliers.

3.5/4

A sommelier is an expert of wine. Sommeliers assist restaurants in wine selections and wine pairings. There are several levels of official sommeliers with the highest rank being the Master. In the decades that the test has been around, only a couple hundred people have passed around the world. Somm is a documentary that follows a group of guys as they complete their year of preparation for the exam to become Master Sommeliers.

Somm does a wonderful job of balancing the magnitude of the test (by establishing its difficulty and significance) as well as the emotional impact of the test. We come to feel (not just understand) how hard people study for the test and the stress it creates. Each of the students are presented in such a way that you root for them all. Initially, I thought Ian came across as abrasive and obnoxious but by the end, I was rooting for him just as much as I was rooting for everyone else.

The test itself is broken into three sections: a theory test, a serving test, and a blind tasting. You can’t focus on all three sections, so which one do you choose? Before watching this movie, that’s a question that never would’ve occurred to me but I think Somm nails it. I read a comment somewhere that the film doesn’t really emphasize the importance of the serving portion. I agree but I have a potential idea as to why.

The Theory portion requires an extensive knowledge of wine. One must know the names of countless wineries and regions, historical details, and details about the creation of wine. It is however, a test. Everyone knows what tests are like and nobody likes ‘em. The rigorous study for this part is the main vehicle for coming to relate to the characters, but the theory element itself isn’t emphasized.

Unless you’ve worked in the service or food industry, the Service portion of the exam probably won’t mean much to you. We do get to see one practice test where a couple master sommeliers pose as difficult customers. “We want something between a red and a white that goes with our fish,” orders the customer, “but we want it cold. Ice cold.” The hopeful trainee gives a selection suggestion, must handle the realization that he doesn’t have that particular wine, then must quickly chill the wine. This one scene is sufficient to capture the name of the service portion of the test.

In the Tasting portion, the examinees are given three reds and three whites. They have to smell and taste each and name-say everything there is to be said about them: the alcohol level, the sweetness, the fruits and flavors incorporated into the wine, the region if not the winery, and a potential year.

The Tasting portion is a major point of interest in the film and it’s a brilliant decision. We all know wine. Many of us, I think it’s fair to say, enjoy wine. The image of a person who can taste a wine and provide incite into the elixir is one of character and class.

I can tell you a red from a white. As a slight aside, we got a bottle of five-dollar wine one night instead of the normal Three-Buck Chuck from Trader Joe’s. We decided that Three-Buck Chuck is just bad (but you know, you’ll have that for three dollars) and the five-dollar wine was still bad but at least it tasted like wine. It gave us the feeling that somewhere out there exists wine that actually tastes good. I’m practically a sommelier!

Anyway, with this basis, the film is able to build from a subject to which we can all (in varying levels) relate.

There was one point, however, where the film slipped a bit. During a practice tasting, the one person said a Chardonnay was some other type of white wine. The point of the scene was emphasis how he was cracking under pressure but the simplicity of his error almost undermined the difficulty of the test.

If he said a wine from Nepal was from California or a region with completely different style of wine, it would be accomplishing the same task. It would show that he was cracking while maintaining the difficulty of the test. How can this guy be an expert if can’t tell a Chardonnay from a categorically different wine?

That said it was a very brief scene that didn’t detract from the film all that much. Somm manages to navigate an esoteric subject in a compelling way. It is a beautifully crafted documentary that I highly recommend.

Please let me know what you think of my assessment and/or Somm in a comment below! Do you have a favorite wine? I think mine is Vodka…alright maybe I’m not a sommelier. Thanks for reading!

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!

Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante. Written by Thunder Levin. Starring Ian Ziering (Fin Shepard), Tara Reid (April Shepard), Cassie Scerbo (Nova Clark)

Bottom line: Not as fun as the second but it was still a fun event.

1.5/4 (for the movie) -> 2.5/4 (for the event)

There isn’t too much to say about Sharknado 3. I’ll bet that you know what this movie is about. There are tornadoes and they go over the ocean and now have sharks in them.

It jumps straight into the action. The hero is named Fin Shepard (Ziering) - Get it? Fin like a shark’s fin! He is in Washington DC stopping another sharknado. By this point, his ability to stop the weather anomalies has made him a celebrity. But it soon becomes clear that what was a freak weather accident is happening more often. What is he going to do?

Made for TV movies on the SyFy Channel are infamously cheesy. You have movies about giant sharks, giant squids, giant sharks fighting giants squids. In fact, looking at IMDB, it seems like there are some thematic groupings.

You have the animal hybrids movies: Sharktopus (Shark/Octopus), its sequel Piranhaconda, and maybe Dinoshark. Then you have sharks and sharks in different locations: Sand Sharks, Snow Shark: Ancient Snow Beast, Swamp Shark. And then you have the much larger section of “versus” movies: Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark, Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda, Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus. Sharknado, it seems, hasn’t spawned any spin-offs but I wonder when that will happen. Might we expect a Crococane?

In any case, the movies offer cheap thrills. The first Sharknado movie was kinda fun because it was a way for the SyFy channel to say, ‘Hey, we know these movies are cheesy, and we’re going to have some fun with this one.’ The second, Sharknado 2, was a continuation in the most logical way – two sharknadoes. Where else are you supposed to go? Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! went for a bunch more sharknadoes and more celebrity cameos.

My wife and I saw the movies at the local arena. One of the local radio stations sponsored the event. There were $2 hot dogs, cheap beer, and raffles. The experience was fun and that’s really the only way to watch it; it should be playing in the background as you laugh with friends. I wouldn’t recommend this to watch independently.

Terminator Genisys

Directed by Alan Taylor. Written by Laeta Kalogridis, Patrick Lussier, James Cameron (characters), and Gale Anne Hurd (characters). Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (Guardian), Jason Clarke (John Connor), Emilia Clarke (Sarah Connor), Jai Courtney (Kyle Reese).

Bottom-line: If you go in with the right expectations, this new addition to the Terminator franchise is kinda fun and actually it warmed me up to the franchise as a whole.

2/4

If you’ve ever heard of Terminator you can probably guess the plot of Terminator: Genisys. In the late ‘90’s or early ‘00’s, A.I. was born - yadda yadda yadda - Mankind vs. Machines war. The machines discovered a way to time travel so they sent a robot wrapped in human skin back to kill the mother of the guy who saves Mankind from the war so he is never born. The guy’s name is John Connor and his mother’s name is Sarah. The humans followed suit and sent someone back to save her. That was the first Terminator.

In the second one, the machines sent a liquid metal robot to kill John when he was just a kid. The third one was probably the same. The fourth movie in the franchise was set during the war against the machines, and that brings us to the latest film in the franchise.

It seems like a bunch of movies this summer bank on nostalgia to draw in audiences and Terminator Genisys is no exception. The film’s introduction uses fancy graphics to explain the premise of the series. There is a battle sequence while the humans take over the Machines’ time machine and then they send Kyle Reese (Courtney) back in time. Reese’s arrival in 1984 is a reenactment of the first film up until another liquid metal terminator reveals itself. Sarah Connor comes driving in and saves the would-be hero from the future.

I can’t really go into too much detail actually without giving away major plot points but the crux of the movie comes down to the fact that by sending people to the past, it actually changes the future.

I suspect there are two reasons why people will see Terminator Genisys: Arnold and action. Arnold is getting older but the movie finds a way to work that in; the skin around the machine is human skin so it ages. Boom. Done. They also have a running line that’s kind of endearing. “Old…but not obsolete!”

The action is pretty standard. There are lots of explosions and characters are only injured when it is needed for the plot. They withstand car crashes and fist fights and explosions that would maim anyone else but when a random character shoots them in the leg, they’re incapacitated.

Much like the action, everything, be it the graphics, or the dialog, or the plot, is pretty standard. Normally I’d give this type of movie a 1.5/4 because it doesn’t really do anything that other movies can’t do better. The reason I decided on a two was because of the film’s sense of humor. It’s stuff like the ‘old but not obsolete’ line that makes this movie a fun, pleasant experience. After all, by this point in the franchise I shudder to imagine what it would look like if it took itself too seriously.

EDIT: I have half a mind to knock off half a point for the stupid spelling.