You Lucky Dog

Plot: Kirk Cameron plays a dog psychiatrist who used to be able to read dog's minds, but has since lost the ability. He is hired to use his skills to interpret the wishes of Lucky, the titular canine, and recent heir of his master's large fortune. Kirk Cameron begins to regain his ability, and unravels the truth behind the sudden death of Lucky's wealthy owner.

Also, whenever Kirk Cameron reads the mind of the dog, he himself starts behaving like a dog. This last part isn't just a plot point, it's a majority of the film.

My thoughts: I did not like this movie. If you did, well...continue to enjoy this movie! You don't have to agree, or even read what I wrote. Free will, and all that jazz. These 'reviews' (I use this term loosely), are just my observations. I'm sure there are films heading my way on this list that I will enjoy, despite them being quite terrible. Okay, enough disclaimers-

This movie is intended for children. And not for adults. This is, in essence, a live action cartoon. I can see how I might have enjoyed it as a young kid, especially if I had never seen any "human acting like a dog" shtick.

The dog is the best part of the movie, and the second best actor behind Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince. On the other hand, Kirk Cameron fluctuates between boring and absolutely ridiculous. His character is introduced ripping off people by pretending to still have his psychic abilities and nothing redeems him from that during the movie. We just have to follow him throughout the movie while he acts out of his mind. and all the others characters seem just as fed up with him. He is wrong for this role, and it feels written for a much younger actor.

In true DCOM fashion, the villains are complete idiots. And yet, I relished any of their scenes, because it provided some refuge from the absolute insanity of the main story. I almost wanted them to win, and have the dog psychic committed.

Also, I thought Kirk Cameron was having some sort of sexual moment every time he 'channeled' the dog. Well, that's what I get for being way too old for this movie. Even with an understanding of the movies intent and target demographic, it was still too mindless and predictable to be fun.

I'm going to try avoiding writing such negative reviews in the future, because the internet is already up to its neck in an attitude of 'THIS BLOWS'. And I don't want to contribute to that anymore than I have to. I just needed to get it out of my system. Next up: Brink!

Under Wraps

Plot: Three kids accidentally discover a friendly mummy (whom they name Harold) in a neighbors basement. They soon learn that if the mummy is not placed back in his sarcophagus before Halloween, he will...die? It will be bad news, is what I'm saying. So, it's a race against time to return Harold to his coffin and reunite him with his mummy girlfriend. I'm serious.

Pictured: Seriousness

My thoughts: This could have been bad. Really bad. I mean, did you read the plot synopsis? The movie was surprisingly great. Likable characters and decent performances from the kids. I never found the mummy to be too annoying either, which I attribute mostly to great character actor Bill Fagerbakke (the voice of Patrick Star).

This dude. 

There were many funny moments (particularly the dialogue) and some genuinely touching moments as well. Definitely feels more like a Disney Channel product this time, but a clever one. The next one...not nearly as good.

Northern Lights

This movie was slightly obscure. I had to do a little searching to find it. Northern Lights premiered on the Disney Channel in 1997 and is actually based on a one-man play about an eccentric small town. And not based on Nora Roberts' novel about sex in Alaska. Or Phillip Pullman's novel about polar bears and zombie children and awesomeness.

Plot: The story revolves around a tightly wound New Yorker (Diane Keaton) who arrives in a small town where her estranged brother (Tom Cavanagh) lived to attend his funeral after a freak accident. The town and the people are all slightly kooky. After the ceremony, she learns that her brother not only has a son, but that she has been left with the responsibility of caring for the child. She doesn't want to care for this child. And then SPOILERS she changes her mind and does. Twist!

My thoughts: I liked this movie much more the second time. The first time I watched it, I kept waiting for something to happen. The whole feel of the movie gave me the sensation that something magical was going to happen. As if the movie was building to a revelation about the mystical nature of the town and its inhabitants. That never happened, and then the movie was suddenly over. Watching it again, already knowing that there was basically no plot, it became a character study. How these characters interacted with each other. How the people of the town affected the outsiders, as well as the relationship between Diane Keaton and her nephew.

Knowing the source material definitely made it clear that this was meant to be about people, not plot. So if you decide to watch, I have to warn you that the story may feel clunky and kind of thrown together, and the side plots are even less cohesive: the stuff about the northern lights, and the bellhop who looks like a rat (yup, that's a thing) --feel half-baked. Cause they are. Just watch the acting.

The acting is very good. Diane Keaton is great (as always). Tom Cavanaugh plays her brother in a couple of flashbacks, and is perfect for the role. The kid is very, very good and the scenes with him and Keaton are wonderful. The town is this odd mixture of Pleasantville and Twin Peaks. At times it works well, other times it just seems quirky for sake of being quirky (which I sometimes find irksome). The townsfolk are intriguing, but never really fleshed out, so they just remain intriguing.

This doesn't feel like a Disney Channel original movie at all. It is certainly a movie that Disney would make, but it doesn't seem to have that Disney brand over everything. It's not full of Disney Channel actors, it takes it's time, it's pretty much a drama. It's almost as if the production team got this idea, and made this little movie, but then Disney had no idea how to market it, so they just put it away on TV. And I'm glad they did, because then it feels like this little strange gem that got hidden away on basic cable. It is quaint, and it is intriguing, and it's just delightfully atypical. So if you're curious, feel free to check it out. And tell me what you think!

The Disney Channel Original Movie

I'm going to look at Disney Channel Original Movies. Why? Because I'm bored. And I have a fondness for pop culture. And screw you. I don't have to explain myself! Anyways...

There are certain channels like Sci-Fi, Lifetime, or Hallmark that have garnered a certain expectation with the original movies they produce. Mainly the expectation of unintentional hilarity and/or sappiness. The Disney Channel Original Movies seem to invoke a response of fondness for them-even while acknowledging their silliness. These movies (and The Disney Channel itself) are relatively new arrivals to the world of pop culture, but something that summons such strong nostalgia to this newest generation of adults may be worth taking a look at. Also, they are silly and that is usually fun.

Personally, I have not seen as many Disney Channel Original Movies as others, and the last one I saw was a few  years ago. So, I'm curious. As an adult (technically, not emotionally), will I like these movies? Are they any good? And not just for children, but for anyone. What was it about those movies that made them enjoyable, and are they still as enjoyable now? First up: Northern Lights.