Dragon Hunters (2008)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


Every so often, I like to watch movies.  I have a preference for animated movies.  When I saw Dragon Hunters, I thought it was How to Train Your Dragon and recorded it.  It wasn’t until months later, when I wanted to watch the movie, that I realized my mistake.  This doesn’t mean that I was disappointed.  (I’ll just have to keep scanning the various Encore movie channels and hope that How to Train Your Dragon comes on.)

Dragon Hunters was released in 2008 and, like How to Train Your Dragon, is animated.  As you might expect, it’s not about hunting dragons.  Instead, it’s about Lian-Chu, who hunts dragons, and Gwizdo, who tends to handle things like getting paid for dispatching dragons.  Along for the ride Hector, a little dog-like thing that can make fire come from something other than his mouth.

Now, when the movie says dragons, it apparently means a wide variety of creatures.  The movie starts with Lian-Chu fighting something that looks more like a giant caterpillar.  It takes him a while, but he is able to kill the creature.  When Gwizdo tries to collect payment, their clients try to back out.  It isn’t until Hector does his thing that they run away in fear.  Alas, poor Lian-Chu isn’t taken seriously enough.

As luck would have it, though, they happen upon Lord Arthur, who’s predicting the return of the World Gobbler.  He’s willing to pay a large amount of gold if they can get the job done.  Gwizdo is even able to secure an advance, which he intends to just take while disregarding their mission.  Lian-Chu, on the other hand, wants to fight the dragon.  He has dreams of living on a farm one day and the reward would go a long way to helping.  The only complication is Zoe, the Lord’s niece.  She idolizes a fictional dragon hunter and hopes to become one some day.

The movie is 80 minutes and most of that is their journey from the castle to the end of the world, where the World Gobbler is doing his thing.  What the movie lacks in plot, it makes up for in great animation.  This is one of the few movies where I think it might be worth it to see it on a better TV set.  I’m sorry that I didn’t see this in theaters.

I don’t think that this movie will win a lot of fans for animated movies.  It’s set in a medieval-looking world with some very interesting physics.  There are islands that float in the air, where people can hop on and go for a ride.  They range from small islands, big enough for a few people, to very large islands, containing parts of castles.  There are even spheroid islands that have their own gravity pointing towards the center.  (People and other objects seem to be of normal weight.)

One big complaint I’ve seen is a lack of plot, which I can’t argue with.  There are maybe a dozen or so people shown throughout the entire movie.  It was also a little confusing at times.  It might make more sense on a second viewing.  I think most of the problem is that it’s based on a TV series and may have been condensed quite a bit.  I’d like to look into renting the TV series, partly to see if this is true, but mostly because I liked the movie that much.

For the most part, it’s relatively kid-friendly.  The only thing I could see being scary is the World Gobbler, which is a giant undead dragon.  The scene is only a few minutes long, but small children may have issues.  It should be safe for teenagers and above, though.

As for the rest of the characters, they tend to have an exaggerated look.  If you can see the cover art, you should get a good idea of what I mean.  Lian-Chu is very big and top-heavy.  Hector is very hyperactive and bounces around a lot.  For those that like animation, I’d definitely recommend this movie.  For those that aren’t, all I can say is to go in with an open mind. 

IMDb page

Pee-wee's Big Holiday (2016)

It seems that history repeats itself.  That seems to be the case with movies these days.  There’s a new cycle of rebooted Star Trek movies.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are getting new movies.  There’s even a new Ghostbusters movie.  Netflix decided to get into the game with a new Pee-Wee Herman movie.  Yes, that Pee-Wee Herman, the childlike alter ego of Paul Reubens that started as a stage act in the early 1980s.  (Reubens is in his 60s now, even if Pee-Wee is forever young.)

The story is similar to Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.  Instead of a stolen bike, Pee-Wee is set off on his adventure after meeting Joe Manganiello.  Joe shows up in the diner where Pee-Wee works.  After becoming best of friends, Joe invites Pee-Wee to his birthday party in New York.  There’s just one problem:  Pee-Wee has no interest in leaving Fairville.  Joe leaves Pee-Wee to reconsider, which Pee-Wee does.  He sets out on a trip that takes a lot of unexpected turns.  He meets several interesting characters along the way.  The journey may not have gone to plan, but Pee-Wee ends up where he needs to be.

It’s strange how some movies or songs will always be enjoyable to some people while other people will have no use for them.  It seems like most of the people I know love Pee-Wee Herman or could do without him.  When I told my parents about the new movie, they weren’t all that excited, but I know that there are a lot of fans that won’t be disappointed.   Even if the movie is similar, it’s fun for me to see the character again.  Paul Reubens will forever be known for this character and still manages to play him well.  Throughout the movie, I was rooting for Pee-Wee to make it to New York.

The only real downside to the movie is that, so far as I know, you have to have (or know someone who has) Netflix to watch it.  I’m not sure if there were any plans to continue the franchise or if this was a one-off deal.   Wikipedia mentions some projects that may happen, but I don’t see anything new for the character on IMDb.  I don’t know if anyone will be signing up for Netflix just for this movie, but if you do, tell them Large Marge sent you.

IMDb page

Paradox (2016)

It’s hard enough defending a group from a gunman.  It’s worse when the gunman may be part of said group.  Add to that the realization that you might be the gunman and you have Paradox.

The movie starts with someone calling his boss to warn him not to come in to work.  He’s then gunned down.  We then see two government agents staking out a building.  One is telling the other who all the major players are.  Mr. Landau is the guy running Project 880.  On his team are Jim, William, Randy, Lewis and Gale.  Jim ends up being the one to go an hour into the future.

Once there, Jim finds the self-destruct sequence has been activated.  Everyone he sees is dead or dying.  Oh, and there’s the gunman on the loose.  Jim manages to take a video camera back with him, but the video gets corrupted on the trip back, making it almost useless.  So, two options present themselves.  The group can try to change the future by working on the video or they can accept their fate and die.  Oh, and someone might be a turncoat for the government.

This is one of those movies I stumbled upon while browsing Netflix.  Given the TV-MA rating, I’m assuming this was a made-for-TV movie.  The acting was pretty good, as were the effects.  I feel like it’s the writers that could have done better. The entire time-travel angle seems like just another plot device.  Jim tells everyone they’re going to die and has to watch them get hurt one by one.  Some people feel like changing the timeline might be a bad idea, but they can all agree that letting themselves be murdered sounds like a bad idea, too.

It ends up being a way of making us wonder who it could be.  Since it could be anyone, the killer can be in two places at once.  All of the characters can’t really claim innocence since they don’t know if they’re going to become the killer.  Instead of using this to make the story interesting, it ends up becoming a run-through of all the clichés you’d expect to find in a time-travel movie.  When it’s revealed who the killer is, we get to see a series of you-are-me arguments.  The future version of the character knows what the past version of the character was thinking, implying that there’s no choice in what’s going to happen.

We also find out that several people came from the future to capitalize on knowledge of the stock market and build the time machine, thus leading to a bootstrap paradox.  Did someone really invent time travel or did someone bring the basics back with them?

With movies like Time Lapse and Timecrimes, we see that time travel can be used to further the story and provide something to think about.  Here, it’s just something to move the story along.  The whole thing seems like an exercise in futility.


IMDb page

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

There’s something that I like about an epic tale.  I had known of The Chronicles of Narnia as books since I was a child, but I never read any of them.  When the first movie came out, I eventually rented it on DVD.  I decided that I liked it enough to want to see subsequent movies as they came out.  When this movie came out, I wasn’t able to see it in theaters, but was able to rent it from NetFlix.

The movie starts out in Narnia with a Telmarine (human) Prince Caspian being told that his aunt has given birth to a male child and that Caspian’s uncle (King Miraz) will now kill him so that Caspian’s cousin might become king.  Caspian is able to escape, but hits a branch shortly thereafter and falls off his horse.  He’s rescued by two dwarves and a badger.  As they’re distracting the search party sent to get Caspian, Caspian blows a horn to summon help.

A year has passed on Earth since the first movie.  The four Pevensie children (Edmund, Peter, Lucy and Susan) are on a subway platform going to their boarding school.  They’ve had to adjust to being children again.  (In the first movie, they had grown to adults in Narnia, but became their younger selves upon returning home.)  Shortly after getting on a train, everything breaks apart and is blown away.  They find themselves in Narnia again, where 1,300 years have passed.

They come upon some ruins and realize that it was the castle that they had used in the previous movie.  Much of the rest of Narnia has met a similar fate.  In the intervening 1,300 years, humans have taken over Narnia and have pretty much ruined everything.  Most of the nonhumans have been wiped out.  Those that remain fear for their lives.  Some of the animals have even forgotten how to talk.  The children find that they have to fight for Narnia once again.

It’s a fairly complex plot.  When they rescue a dwarf, he explains to the siblings what has happened since the first movie and leads in to the rest of the movie.  Once again, the four siblings are fighting for Narnia, but they have another human on their side and the help of a lot more animals and mythical creatures.

Some of the movie won’t make sense if you haven’t seen the first movie, The Chronicles of Narnia:  The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.  You’ll be able to follow most of it, but you may not understand some of the references and history behind some of the comments.  If you haven’t seen either yet, I’d recommend watching them in order of release.

The movies are based on a series of books.  Not having read them, I’m not sure how closely this movie follows the source material.  From what I understand, C. S. Lewis put Christian themes into the movies among others.  (Lucy has a strong belief that the lion, Aslan, will return despite not having evidence on her side.)

Overall, the movie was entertaining.  There were a few battle scenes, which shouldn’t come as a surprise if you’ve seen the first movie.  (For those that have seen the first movie, I don’t think that much of what I’ve said or what you’d see should be a surprise.)  I could deal with the religious aspects since they weren’t really overbearing.

The third movie, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, has already been released with the rest of the books set for future dates.  I’d be interested in seeing The Voyage of the Dawn Treader if I can get it on DVD. 

IMDb page

 

Primer (2004)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

I like science-fiction stories because of the possibilities that they open. This is especially true of time-travel movies. The problem with time travel is that it can be very easy to lose the audience. Pile on too much jargon and techno babble and you almost need a degree to follow along. Make it too simple and people lose interest. I’m not saying it’s impossible to write a good time travel story. It’s just that you have to do it right.

Shane Carruth wrote, directed and starred in Primer, which is a story about two guys that accidentally create a time machine. They’re part of a group of four guys working out of a garage on various projects. The project that they’re currently working on is an alternate source of energy. They spend their days working at ‘regular’ jobs and evenings tinkering with stuff, hoping to make something that’s marketable.

When an item placed in the chamber of the device grows some sort of fungus, they realize something’s amiss. It isn’t until one of them takes it to a lab that they realize that something’s really amiss. There’s way more fungus on it than should have accumulated in a short period of time. We’re talking several months’ worth in a few minutes. It doesn’t take long for them to realize that they have a time machine. If only they could make it bigger…

So, they make bigger boxes and rent some storage space. The primary limitation on the time machine is that it has to be on the entire time you’re in there. This means that you can’t go back to a time before you last turned it on. Not a big deal, since the two guys want to use the device to make money in the stock market using the ultimate in insider information.

They both agree to avoid themselves for fear of really screwing things up. It’s bad enough just going back in time. They have no idea what would happen if they met themselves. However, it is an interesting concept for them to ponder. What would it be like to do something you’ve always wanted to do, but were afraid to do? Could you, say, hit your boss, then go back and tell yourself not to do it?  They don’t do it literally, but they do go back and try to change major events, such as a party where someone gets shot.

Things get really strange when it’s revealed that they have a fail-safe machine. One of the guys built a machine that he just left running in another storage unit the whole time. This way, they could go back and undo everything in case things got botched beyond belief. This means that he thought of changing major events the whole time. It’s basically an escape clause of sorts. That’s where the movie got a little strange. They do go back in time to the beginning. One wants to stop them from inventing the machine while the other’s not so sure.

I don’t want to give away the ending, partly because I don’t fully understand it. By the time the movie was over, so much had happened that I couldn’t follow it all. The movie packed in a lot of story for just 80 minutes. I think that’s where the movie fails. It tries to tell a fairly complicated story in a short time frame. I was paying attention to the movie and I am technically inclined, relatively speaking. I still had a hard time making sense of the movie.

It’s not that the movie tries to hit you over the head with the science or math. It’s just that the two main characters go from trying to get alternate energy to time travel. Then, they go from the stock market to saving people. In the middle of the movie, they realize that someone else has used the machine to go back in time, but they’re not sure what the person has done nor do they really seem to do much about it. The entire subplot takes up maybe a few minutes in the movie. I totally didn’t get the ending at all.

Overall, I’d give the movie two stars. It started out strong, but went way to weird, even for me. It has a low-budget look. (This is probably do in part to the low budget.) It also had a very strange feel to it. It wasn’t quite movie and it wasn’t quite documentary or even mockumentary. It was definitely a different look. Since I watched it on the IFC, I can’t really complain. It wasn’t bad for something I didn’t pay for. 

IMDb page

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

I had wanted to see The Chronicles of Narnia in the theaters, but I wasn’t sure how much of a kids’ movie it was. I didn’t really want to go by myself if there would be a theater full of kids and there weren’t any people that I thought would be willing to go with me to see what I knew would be a fantasy movie.

For those that don’t know, this movie is based on the first of seven books by C. S. Lewis. It tells the tale of four children sent away by their mother to protect them from the onslaught of WWII. (Their names are Edmund, Peter, Lucy and Susan.) They’re living with a professor that they’re told not to disturb. They’re also told not to touch anything, but it isn’t long before Lucy finds a wardrobe that leads to Narnia

At first, no one believes her. Not only does she find a wardrobe that leads to another world, but she meets a faun and when she returns, only a few seconds have elapsed. Yes, all four children do eventually go through and learn that Lucy was telling the truth. There’s also supposed to be a prophecy that four children of Adam and Eve (humans) are supposed to end the reign of an evil witch.

The White Which is that evil witch and wants to thwart the prophecy. She tries to get Edmund to betray his siblings and kidnaps him when he fails. It’s up to the remaining siblings to find a lion named Aslan to get him back and to stop the White Witch’s rule on Narnia.

It’s an interesting story and definitely has a fantasy element, so a few adults may be turned off by this. Many of the animals talk, which is definitely aided by CGI. There’s also magic and even an appearance by Santa Claus, even though there’s been no Christmas in Narnia for over 100 years. The thing I found odd was that he gave three of the children weapons to help fight, which you wouldn’t expect from someone who’s known for giving out toys.

I didn’t find the movie to be too overbearing in terms of any sort of moral. While it was fun and there is the sense that good will prevail, it wasn’t like someone was being very obvious about anything. If anything, the fantasy may be a bit much for some people. There are all sorts of creatures that you’d expect from fantasy, like fauns. It’s a little complicated. If you miss part of it or if you miss the first half, you may be lost later on in the movie.

This movie is based on the first of seven books. I’ve never read any of them, so I have no idea how closely the story follows. The biggest indication of how much people like the movie may be how well the sequels do. Granted, since the movies are based on books, there will be a built-in audience. However, if the first two movies don’t translate well, they may not do the remaining five. However, I will be waiting for all of the remaining six movies and may even see if I can pick up the books.

I do recommend this movie. The only downside for some people may be the violence that comes about due to a war. I would think it’s safe for children ten and up, but it is something to consider. The second movie is currently in production, which I may see in the theater depending on when it comes out. 

IMDb page

Sigma DC 201940 10-20 mm F/4.0-5.6 HSM EX IF ASP Lens

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

When I first got a digital SLR, my brother gave me some great advice. He told me to wait a few months before buying any new lenses. At the time, I had a Sigma 28-90 and a Nikkor 35-135. Those should be enough for a while. Eventually, I’d figure out what, if anything, I needed to get. It didn’t take me long to realize that I wanted to get wide-angle shots. 28mm was pretty wide, but there were shots that I just couldn’t get.

The day I decided to buy something, I was in North Carolina. There was a bus station I wanted to photograph, but I had a building to one side and a building behind me, so I couldn’t get into a position where I could photograph the entire building. I knew it was time to buy something wider.

I knew that I wanted to get really wide shots and didn’t want to have to go out and buy yet another lens, so I decided to go all the way. I looked at several lenses, including the Nikon 12-24. I finally decided on the Sigma 10-20 for several reasons. (The most important was that the Nikon 12-24 was more than twice the price of this lens at the time.) I had looked at lenses that weren’t as wide, but I was afraid that it wouldn’t be enough.

When set to 10mm, I get an extremely wide shot with this lens. It ranges from 63.8 to 102.4°, which is pretty good. My mother wanted me to take pictures of various tents. I was standing so close to one that my mother wanted me to stand back. I actually moved a little closer so as not to include a fence in the picture. I’ve also found that it’s hard to take pictures without people because they often don’t realize they’re in the picture.

The lens is f/4-5.6, which means that it’s not letting in as much light as other lenses. Then again, I intend to use the lens mostly outdoors. If you’re indoors, you’ll have to get an SB-600. I have a Nikon D50 and the onboard flash isn’t enough. You can actually see where the on-board flash falls off.

I have tried using the lens on occasion for nighttime photography. It’s a little trickier because you need a tripod and no flash. You’re better off using a tripod and going for a long exposure. If you go to my Flickr account, I’ve actually tagged many of my Sigma 10-20 shots as such. Many came out good, but not as good as they could have been.

The lens works better with nature photography than with architecture, the reason being that it’s tending towards a fisheye lens. The distortion is somewhat noticeable at 20mm and very noticeable at 10mm. (The distortion can be compensated for in Photoshop.) When I had the lens at work the other day, a coworker was using the lens to take pictures of our faces. It looked almost like a funhouse mirror.

If you’re at 10mm and you’re taking pictures of a room, you have to have the lens aimed perpendicular to the wall. If you do point the lens perpendicular, you’ll notice that the room seems deeper than it really is. If you don’t, you may see some of the vertical lines tilting. This is true for any straight line, really. If you can go into a store and test out the lens, point the lens at a wall and move the camera left to right. You’ll see what I’m talking about.

One interesting aspect is that it’s a HSM lens, which is the Sigma designation for High Speed Motor. If anyone reading this has a D40, D40x or a D60, you’re thinking to yourself that the salesman may have said something about having to use Nikon DX lenses. This is because those cameras don’t have a lens motor. You have to buy lenses that have motors, such as the Nikon DX lenses or (drum roll, please) Sigma HSM lenses. Yes, this lens will work on the aforementioned cameras. (In retrospect, I should have tried it on one of those cameras the other day, as I work in a camera store.)

If you have a full-frame camera, like a Nikon D3, you’ll see cropping. The lens was intended for digital cameras. If you’re wondering if they make a VR version of this, it would really be pointless as you don’t need it with smaller distances. You have to really move a lens to get shake at 10mm. As for color fringing, I have noticed it on one or two photos, but the lens has been pretty good at not having it. This is especially important for outdoor shots.

Overall, the lens gets five stars. The lens is exactly what I want and, while expensive, was worth every penny.

Contact (1997)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


Jodie Foster plays Dr. Elli Arroway, a radio astronomer. She was raised by her father, who gave her a strong interest in astronomy. She spends a great deal of her adult life looking for extraterrestrial life, mostly with SETI. Things are rough. Most government bureaucrats aren’t willing to finance the search for little green men, so Dr. Arroway has to spend a lot of time looking for funding. Fortunately, she’s able to secure enough to rent radio telescopes, which scan the heavens for some sort of coherent signal.

Finally, just as everyone’s about to give up hope, a signal comes in. It’s these loud, booming noises. Dr. Arroway and her team realize that the noises are grouped in prime numbers. Prime numbers are numbers that are divisible by only themselves and one, such as 2 and 5. (1 isn’t considered a prime number by many for reasons I won’t go into here.) Any intelligent civilization should know what a prime number is because primes are independent of what base we use for our numbering system. The signal is very interesting. It’s so interesting that the government wants a part of it. Dr. Arroway and her team are allowed to research it, but at the governments direction.

Some interesting things are learned about the clip. First, there’s a clip of Hitler speaking at the 1936 Olympics. The 1936 Olympics was the first TV signal strong enough to go into space. The aliens, whoever they are, apparently recorded the signal and sent it back to us. Is this an endorsement for the Nazis or is it simply a way of saying, “Hey! Look what we found!” After a little more digging, dozens of diagrams are uncovered. No one can figure out what they are. Finally, Dr. Arroway gets the nudge she needs to figure out how they work.

They’re actually blueprints. America is able to construct this big sphere that sits atop a device that can (presumably) send it through space. The scientific community is at a loss to explain how it works. No one is really sure that it will, but we decide to try anyway. After a lot of hard work and sacrifice, we finally manage to get Dr. Arroway into the sphere and through the device.

Here’s where I’m going to end the plot review. There’s still a significant portion of the movie left, and there’s really no way I can handle it without giving away too much. The movie does a good job of setting up the story and leaving us wondering what will come of the events. In a way, I’d like to see a sequel, but it’s just as well that there isn’t one. I think to try and answer the questions I have might spoil the fun.

There’s a constant theme of science vs. religion throughout the movie. Elle Arroway needs proof. She can’t fully accept religion because it offers no real proof. Then there’s Palmer Joss, who’s religious and tries to make the case for religion without trying to force it upon anyone. It almost seems that religion and science are polar opposites. The X-Files did a better job using Scully, who was both religious and a scientist, to stage the question and to show that you don’t have to be one or the other.

The movie is based on the book of the same name by Carl Sagan. In writing the book, Sagan had to deal not only with how a race would contact us but with the logistics of how a meeting would take place. The nearest star to us is 4 light years away. That means that it takes light 4 years to cover the distance to that star, and there’s no way that we can pass the speed of light with our current understanding of science.

The movie doesn’t really explain too much the science. As I said, we’re presented with an option that might turn out to be a fraud. It’s really a story that’s accessible to anyone, regardless of their understanding of physics or astronomy. I think I could recommend this movie to just about anyone.


IMDb page
 

Chuckles Candy

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

How the heck do you write a review on candy? Normally, many varieties of candy are so ubiquitous that explanation is really unnecessary. Add to that the fact that most candy cost less than a dollar unless you’re buying the family size. There really isn’t much of a need to do reviews on candy. You buy a single pack, take a bite and at worst, you’re out a few dollars. Then, I came across a review for Chuckles. It occurred to me that I hadn’t seen them in a while. (Not that I’ve been looking that hard…)

It’s pretty rare these days that I take a serious look at a vending machine. Usually, they’re overpriced. When I go into a convenience store or supermarket, it’s not to buy candy. However, when I did buy candy a lot, I noticed that there are some candies that are neglected. Chuckles happens to be one of them.

When looking online, I noticed that they are available for purchase. (Just do a search on Google and you should be able to find at least one vendor.) I noticed that to save on shipping, you have to spend a lot. (Who wants to order just one package, anyway?) That leads me to another good question: How the heck do you review Chuckles? I mean, it’s a candy. You’re basically looking at oversized, flattened gumdrops that have more flavor.

For those that have never seen the package, each one contains five different misshapen gumdrops. The candies come in a three-sided cardboard tray and are wrapped in plastic. Each candy is roughly rectangular in shape and you get each of five flavors, with those flavors being lemon, lime, cherry, licorice and orange. This selection has never varied when they were more common. I’ve never seen any special holiday flavors nor have I ever seen them individually wrapped.

This is odd, considering that I seem to be the only person that really likes the licorice. (Note: The objection to licorice seems to stem mostly from the flavor in general rather than from the specific Chuckles licorice.) My favorite is the lime flavor, but lemon and orange are pretty good, too.

They’re pretty chewy, but not like gum. They have consistency similar to that of a gumdrop and are also covered in sugar the same way. The comparison to gumdrops basically differs in the intensity of the flavor, from what I can recall. They’re also pretty fun to eat, although it’s pretty quick. Each one takes no more than three bites if you’re trying to go slowly, and that’s pushing it.

Writing the review makes me want to go out and buy a pack. I don’t know why I never got it more as a kid. I think it’s mostly because my parents weren’t that big on sugary stuff. Maybe next time I’m at Publix, I look for some. 

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Who doesn’t like a good vampire movie? I saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer on sale in Best Buy and decided to get it. I figured it couldn’t be that bad. Well, it wasn’t that bad, but it’s definitely not for everyone.

Kristy Swanson plays Buffy Summers, you’re typical valley-girl-type blonde high-school cheerleader. She keeps having these strange dreams about strange people. She’s in the dreams, but has no idea really what’s going on. Then, she meets this strange guy named Merrick (played by Donald Sutherland) who tells her that she’s The Chosen One. It’s The Chosen One’s lot in life to slay vampires.

It’s Merrick’s lot in life to find The Chosen One and train her to slay vampires. It takes them a while, but Merrick finally gets Buffy ready. It’s just in time, too. Lothos is the main vampire and he feels it’s time to regain control of Los Angeles. He sends out his right-hand man, Amilyn to rebuild their army of bloodsuckers. (Amilyn is played by Paul Rubens of Pee-Wee Herman fame.) Buffy manages to take on all of these vampires while being a cheerleader and planning the senior dance.

Ultimately, the movie is a bizarre vampire movie. (When you see the scene with Amilyn dying, you’ll know what I mean.) It’s hard to believe that someone was trying to make a serious movie. For starters, why is the person that’s chosen to do something called “The Chosen One”? It would be funny to have someone called “The Preferred One” or “The Elected One” or something just to be a little different. Also, ‘chosen’ implies some sort of process. Movies that have a Chosen One never seem to explain how the person was chosen.

I also don’t understand why Merrick knows so much. Admittedly, he’s been born and reborn several times, each time with the knowledge about The Chosen One. Wouldn’t it be more direct to simply have Buffy be born with the knowledge? I suppose that would cut out a good chunk of the movie. Buffy has to go through the process of accepting Merrick and training with him. The relationship between them is really the only one that’s developed to any extent. Sure, there are other characters that Buffy deals with, but few of them seem to build up to anything.

It’s a three-star movie. If it comes on one of the movie channels, go for it. As for renting it or buying it, you’d have to have a reason. There are some people that I’d recommend it to, but I don’t think it’s for everyone.

IMDb page

Castle in the Sky (1986)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


I’ve never really been big on directors. Sure, there are movies that were well-directed, but I’ve never really been one to seek out movies based on a director or production company. Then, along came movies like Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and The Cat Returns. I was hooked on Studio Ghibli’s movies. I began renting as many as I could find on NetFlix.

Castle in the Sky seems to be one of the earlier works, but wasn’t released in the US until recently. The story revolves around several people looking for a lost city called Laputa. The military wants this city for its technology. Pirates want it for untold riches that are bound to be there. Then, there’s Sheeta and Pazu, two children that are out to find the city, as well. (Sheeta has a special connection to the city.)

The thing that makes Laputa hard to find is that it floats above the Earth, hidden from view pretty well. Some doubt that it even exists. Pazu’s father died trying to prove its existence. Sheeta has the ability to find it, which makes her valuable to both the military and the pirates. Together, Sheeta and Pazu might just be able to find the lost city which floats above the planet.

There’s this great debate between Sub vs. Dub, or subtitles versus the English dubbing. I’ve always preferred the dub, mostly because the English voices are usually well-known actors. In Castle in the Sky, you have Mark Hamill, Mandy Patinkin, Richard Dysart and Cloris Leachman. From what I understand, the translation of some of the earlier works, like this movie, led to a ‘No Cuts’ policy, forcing a more literal translation of the movies. I’d love to learn Japanese to see the difference.

As I’ve said with other animated movies, there’s so much more you can do with animation. What would require special effects in a live-action movie is bound to look seamless in an animated movie. Castle in the Sky is a great example of such a movie. You’ve got all manner of flying ships. To look at Laputa is to see exactly what I’m talking about. Imagination is the limit with anime and animation Despite a somewhat complicated plot, I found it was easy to follow and understand. The story is as well crafted as the animation.

I never really thought the comparison of Ghibli to Disney was fair. Yes, both have produced a lot of great films, but both are radically different. Ghibli has produced a wide range of films, some being meant more for children and others that are better suited to adults. (Granted, Castle in the sky is probably better for children, but look at movies like Grave of the Fireflies.)

At just over two hours, it’s not too long. Everything about it is genius. I’d recommend it to anyone. 

IMDb page

Aventura Mall Food Court Sign

Last month, I found out that Aventura Mall is renovating the food court.  (Actually, they're replacing it with a new wing that will include a new food court.)  I know this is more local interest than anything else, but I'm posting it for two reasons.  First, I want to see how easy it is to embed photos from Flickr.  Second, the picture is of a sign that has been at the mall for as long as I've been going to that mall.

I'm not sure what will become of the sign, so I wanted to share what might be one last photo of it.  It's been there since they last renovated the food court. They may well keep it.  I don't know.  Anyway, here it is.

Starman (1984)

It’s a big universe out there.  Within our own galaxy, there are something like 200 billion stars.  The number of galaxies in the universe could be of a similar magnitude.  It’s hard to imagine that there’s no life orbiting one of those countless stars.  Of course, as the Fermi Paradox points out, there should be some proof, or at least solid evidence, of alien life by now.  Then again, the distance to the nearest star is four light years.  Any civilization capable of traversing the vast space between stars could probably disguise themselves so that we would never know, unless something went horribly wrong.

Such is the case with Starman.  An alien crash lands on Earth.  He makes it to a nearby house, where he finds Jenny Hayden.  Existing only as a ball of light, he’s able to clone her dead husband and use the resulting body to interact with her.  He sends a distress signal, then gets Jenny to help him to the rendezvous point for pickup.  The body is temporary, so if he doesn’t make it, he dies.  Add to this the fact that the U.S. military is after him.

The two have to travel across the country from Chequamegon Bay, Wisconsin, to Meteor Crater near Winslow, Arizona.  It’s not easy at first, since Starman’s knowledge of human languages is limited to what was onboard the Voyager 2 probe.  (This is odd, though; he states that his people have been to Earth before.  You‘d think someone would have written a phrase guide or something.)  He eventually learns English and she eventually learns to trust him.  It’s still not an easy journey.  He does still have the government after him.

One offshoot of the Fermi Paradox is that, given the vastness of space and the probability that there may be life out there, it may not be wise to broadcast our location.  Starman came to Earth because his race found the Voyager 2 probe.  His seems to be a peaceful race, but what if the probe had been found by a race that saw us as a threat?  Iut may not go as well as The Day The Earth Stood Still.  (For those wondering, I’m referring to the 1951 version.)

It would have been interesting to see how Starman’s mission would have gone had he not been shot down.  Apparently, he was planning on sticking around for a few days anyway.  I’m not sure if his species had taken human form to study our planet or what level of interaction they’ve had.  This is a case where leaving us to wonder works best.  I’m curious to check out the TV show.  (Amazon has Starman - Complete Series on DVD, but I don’t see it on Netflix.)

I’d say for movies from the 1980s, this one held up pretty well.  I think what stuck out most about the movie were two things: The simplicity of the story and the distinctive soundtrack.  I remember a creative-writing professor saying that you could start and end your story however you felt best.  The movie frames the story during Starman’s three-day visit.  He meets a human woman who helps him, despite some setbacks and mistakes.  We don’t need to go into all the details about humanity.  Starman knows that we’re not perfect, but we’re worth studying.


IMDb page
 

Tomorrowland (2015)

There are all sorts of source material for movies.  Books are a natural choice, as the plot and structure are already there.  TV shows are also popular for a similar reason.  I’ve always wondered what the most difficult source material would be in terms of pulling a feature-length film.  Battleship is a good candidate for this, as it came from a board game.  I have to admit that I would have pegged Tomorrowland as a close second.  The movie seems to draw its name from the similarly named attraction found at the Disney parks.  You can see the influence in the sets and designs, but the story is largely original.

It begins with Frank Walker and Casey Newton telling their story, ostensibly to the audience.  Frank insists on beginning the story with his trip to the 1964 New York World's Fair.  A young Frank has a jet pack that he invented.  He shows it to an official named David Nix, but Nix dismisses the prototype, as it doesn’t actually seem to work yet.  Frank does draw the attention of a girl named Athena, who gets him passage to the futuristic Tomorrowland.

Cut to the present where Casey’s trying to sabotage some NASA equipment.  Her father works at the base, which is being decommissioned.  Yes, it’s futile.  Yes, it gets her arrested.  However, after being released, she comes into possession of a pin similar to one Athena gave to Frank.  Casey is now obsessed with finding Tomorrowland, even after the pin’s battery runs out.  Her only hope to actually get there (and, possibly, to save the world) is to find a now-grown Frank, who has been expelled from Tomorrowland.

I found the movie to be more of a balance than I expected.  I thought that it would either take place mostly in Tomorrowland or mostly in our world, but the movie made the transition midway through the movie.  Because of this, the movie didn’t drag.  I knew that if the movie relied too heavily on our world, the movie would rely too heavily on suspense.  If too much time was spent in Tomorrowland, there would be a risk of it being all starry-eyed wonder, which could get boring quickly.  (I still would have like to see a little more of Tomorroland.)

On that note, I had also wondered how optimistic the movie would be, since the Tomorrowland attraction is supposed to be about making advancements that benefit mankind.  The movie used that optimism and balanced it with an invention of Frank’s that went too far.  We have the option of building a brighter future, but we have to be careful about it.  Not every invention should see the light of day.

Instead of a good-versus-evil theme, we get a dreaming-versus-apathy theme.  The real world is full of people who just go through the motions.  They worry about paying the rent and taking care of families.  Tomorrowland is shiny and is all about potential and advancing society.  Granted, each world isn’t entirely what it seems, but the question becomes at what point do you give up on your dreams?

Die Hard (1988)

Some movies change with age.  You might view it as a kid and think it’s an action movie only to realize as an adult that it had some deeper meaning.  Movies Like WarGames or Star Wars will look different as a kid than as an adult.  There were aspects of The Shawshank Redemption that I didn’t get as a child.  Even UHF parodied things that I missed the first time simply because I hadn’t seen the movie being referenced.  I had kind of wondered if this was the case with Die Hard.  Eh, not so much.

Primarily, Die Hard is an action movie.  It starts with John McClane, a New York City detective, visiting his wife, Holly, in Los Angeles.  They’re estranged, but hoping to maybe get back together.  Things are going not so well when a group of armed men take Holly and her entire office hostage.  John happens to be in the office, but is unseen by the gunmen, giving him an advantage.

Hans Gruber is the lead gunman.  He takes Holly’s boss, Joseph Takagi, into another room to interrogate him.  You see, Gruber and his goons aren’t terrorists, as one might think.  They’re strictly there for the bearer bonds that Takagi has in his safe.  Gruber has no problem letting the police think he’s a terrorist, though.  When Takagi refuses to cooperate, Gruber kills him.  Gruber then assures his associates that the police will help with Plan B.

Meanwhile, John takes it upon himself to kill Gruber and his henchman one by one.  This isn’t an easy task, considering that John is alone and has no guns.  For that matter, he spends a good part of the movie without shoes, having left them in his wife’s office.  It even takes a few tries to get the police to come out.  (Gruber does want the police to come out, just not too soon.)

Being that it’s an action movie, things don’t end well for Gruber & Co.  Yes, it’s very violent.  Yes, is a lot of blood.  Ask someone about the movie and they will probably remember John McClane walking across broken glass.  If you’re into that sort of stuff, it’s a good movie.  There’s just the right amount of story to tie the abundant violence together.

This is one of those movies that spawned a lot of sequels.  This is interesting in that the movie is based on a book called Nothing Lasts Forever.  The first book, called The Detective, was also made into a movie with the same name, starring Frank Sinatra.  Sinatra could have been John McClane, as being offered the part was in his contract, but he turned it down.  (It’s interesting to think of what it would have been like.)

The last time I saw this movie was shortly before the death of Alan Rickman, who played Hans Gruber.  This was his first feature-film role.  (He had previously been in TV series and TV movies.)  It’s hard for me to see him another role without thinking how he’s Hans Gruber.  This isn’t to say that it affects how I view the other movie.  It’s simply a testament to how diverse his roles have been.

Bully (2011)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Someone once said that men had two main theories on women and that both were wrong.  (I want to say Will Rogers, but I’m not certain.)   The same applies for bullies.  As a child, I was told usually one of two things.  One camp held that bullies were looking for someone to push around.  If I stood up, they’d find someone else to push around.  The other camp held that bullies were looking for a reaction.  If I ignored them, they’d get a reaction out of someone else.  Neither one really held true.

Yes, I had problems with bullies as a child, but not so much as the children in Bully did.  The movie follows several children who faced constant bullying.  In one case, a child named Alex was poked, choked, shoved and otherwise harassed on the school bus.  Another girl, Kelby, was ostracized when she came out as a lesbian.  She was even kicked off the basketball team because none of the other players wanted to touch her.  She was even deliberately hit by a minivan.  Two of the children committed suicide because they couldn’t handle it any more.

Here’s the thing.  Not doing anything isn’t solving the problem.  Alex’s mother sees the assistant principal of his school after being shown the footage.  The assistant principal claims that she’s been on his bus and all of the students were perfect little angles, despite what the footage shows and what Alex has said.  The bus driver is shown just driving, not doing anything to stop the children.  (The mother points out that her bus driver would have pulled the bus over.)  Another student is asked why he doesn’t walk away from a kid that torments him.  He does, only to have the tormentor follow him.

Standing up does seem to have limited success.  One student admits that he stood up to some bullies and they backed off.  However, that doesn’t seem to hold true for Kelby.  Her parents offered her the chance to move, but she felt that moving would have handed the town a victory.  She felt that she should stay and try to at least show everyone she wasn’t backing down.  She was eventually pulled out of the school system.  Yes, she does have a few friends that accept her, but most students don’t.

It seems like the biggest problem is that those in a position to do something don’t.  Either they’re ignorant of the problem or they’re unwilling to admit that it is a problem.  The assistant principal at Alex’s school has a bully and the bullied shake hands.  When the bullied kid refuses, the assistant principal tells him that he’s just as bad for not trying to play nice.  The bully is let off the hook because he was so eager to play nice.

The kids don’t always stick up for themselves.  In Alex’s case, he thought that this is just they way kids behave.  It’s also easy to see why the students think that nothing will get done.  In many cases, if anything is done, it may change a very specific behavior, but not get rid of other forms of bullying.

It’s hard to say what to do because each case is different.  There’s no one action that an administrator, child or parent can take that will eliminate bullying every time.  It’s mostly a matter of persistence and knowing that you can have someone to turn to.  Even if it doesn’t stop anything, many of the children either feel that they don’t have friends or don’t really know what it means to have a friend.

I recall hearing about this documentary when it first came out.  It had to be edited to get a lower rating so that children could watch it.  I’d recommend that people watch this documentary as a starting point.  It’s available through Netflix on DVD and streaming, which will make it available to a lot of people.  If you do let your child watch it, I would recommend either watching it with them or watching it before them.  Even if they’re not bullied, you may want to be able to talk about the movie with them. 

Bruce Almighty (2003)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

 

 

Bruce Nolan is an ordinary guy. That’s the problem, though. Bruce feels that he’s stuck doing the human-interest fluff stories on Channel 7 while rival newscaster Evan Baxter gets all of the hard-hitting, important stories. Bruce gets stories on the city’s biggest cookie while Nolan gets stuff about health hazards. Bruce desperately wants a shot at the big time, but he’s just not cut out for it.

True to comedic films, Bruce has a really bad day. After flipping out on live TV, he’s fired. Then, he tries to protect a homeless guy, but gets beaten up over it. Then, he gets in a fight with his girlfriend, Grace, played by Jennifer Aniston. Plus, the dog keeps urinating on the furniture. To top it off, he gets in an accident that night. Finally, he has it out with God. Why would such a kind and merciful God pick on poor, poor, pitiful Bruce? Why does he have to suffer so much?

That’s when he gets paged. After several attempts, Bruce finally calls the number. He gets a recording. (The recording is actually specific enough to ask if his name is Bruce.) He goes to an address that turns out to be an abandoned building, but he goes in anyway. The outside is old and dingy, but the inside is pure white. There, he finds the janitor mopping. Bruce is directed to Room 7, which happens to be on the seventh floor. (The elevator’s broken, so he has to walk.) Upstairs, he finds the janitor fixing a bulb. Bruce doesn’t like having to walk up the stairs, but he lets it pass. He asks for the boss, which happens to be the janitor. (The janitor is Morgan Freeman; it turns out that God does all of His own work.)

It takes a few minutes for Bruce to accept who he’s dealing with. When he does, God makes a proposal. Since Bruce thinks that God’s not doing a good job, He’ll take a vacation and leave Bruce with all of His powers for a few weeks. (Hence the name of the movie.) There are two rules, though. Bruce can’t claim to be god and he can’t affect free will. (The first rule is more of a warning to avoid that kind of attention; the second is hard and fast.) Bruce accepts and starts by fixing his own problems. For starters, he gets revenge on the gang that beat him up. Then, he gets in good with his girlfriend and eventually embarrasses Evan into quitting.

After a little prodding from God, Bruce starts thinking about others. He hears voices, which turn out to be prayers. Not wanting to go crazy, he sets up a computer to be Prayer Central. Instead of reviewing each prayer, Bruce finds it easier just to say yes to everyone. This leads to problems. Everyone wins the lottery, but each winning ticket is worth $17. Riots ensue and the power grid loses stability. Also, Bruce’s newfound fame leads to other kinds of attention, thus leading him to break up with Grace. Bruce has to figure out how to get her back without affecting free will. In the end, all works out well. I won’t say exactly how, but Bruce learns his lesson.

What I will say is that the message isn’t overt. The movie doesn’t shove proverbs down your throat or try to make you believe. It’s more about Bruce and what he has to learn about himself. Carrey has it toned down a little bit. He plays the role more like The Truman Show than Ace Ventura. He does have a lot of goofy scenes, though.

As I mentioned in this review’s title, Bruce is in the details. Look for details. Some are obvious, as is the case with the Parting of the Soup. Some are subtler. When Channel 7 throws a party for Bruce, notice what’s in the container that Bruce is carrying. Pay special attention to it and what he’s pouring for the people.

Jim Carrey was the perfect actor for the part of Bruce and Morgan Freeman was perfectly cast as God. Morgan Freeman plays the role with all of the seriousness and dignity you’d expect from God whereas Jim Carrey is just this goofball that wants to do things his way.

Carrey also has Jennifer Aniston to play off of. Bruce can’t see past his own career whereas Grace wants a family and a happy life with the man of her dreams. The more Bruce tries to pull her his way, the more she resists.

Then, there’s Evan. Even is all that a serious reporter is supposed to be. Bruce is always the other guy. He’s the one you turn to with a story the city’s biggest cookie. Bruce is exactly where he’s supposed to be. He just doesn’t realize it. All of Bruce’s selfish acts have dire consequences. Even his altruistic ones have dire consequences. Bruce doesn’t realize that there’s a delicate balance to everything.

Bowfinger (1999)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


Sometimes, it takes a lot of determination to do what you want to do.  Robert K. Bowfinger (played by Steve Martin) wants to produce a movie and he has determination to spare.  What he doesn’t have is a good script, cash, or enough talent to go around.  One day, Bowfinger’s accountant/receptionist, Afrim, comes up with a script for a movie called Chubby Rain.  (The premise is that aliens come down in rain drops, making them bigger than normal.)

Now, Bowfinger has the script, but he still faces all of the other problems.  To add to his troubles, he can only get in with a studio if he gets Kit Ramsey (played by Eddie Murphy) to star in his movie.  Ramsey is the biggest star in Hollywood.  There’s one small catch: Ramsey doesn’t want to do it.  That’s no problem.  They’ll just film Ramsey without his knowledge.  After all, Bowfinger says that Tom Cruise didn’t know he was in Interview with the Vampire for several years.

So, now, Bowfinger has to lie, cheat and steal his way through the movie.  The only other person that knows what’s going on is Dave and that’s primarily because Dave has a small job at a big studio.  Thus, he can ‘borrow’ equipment.  Bowfinger also ‘borrows’ a credit card from one of the actors to rent or buy equipment.  Since no one else knows that Kit Ramsey isn’t actually involved in the project, Bowfinger has to invent a story as to why Ramsey isn’t to be approached for any reason.

The biggest obstacle is getting the shots of Ramsey where his character has to do something that he wouldn’t normally do.  For this, they hire a look-alike named Jiff.  (Jiff is also played by Eddie Murphy.)  Jiff’s primary job will be to do errands, which he says would be a big boost for him.  When the time comes, he’ll have to do several scenes in Ramsey’s place.  (One of the funniest scenes is the highway scene.  This alone is worth getting the movie.)

Since Bowfinger is a comedy, you have to know that the movie will work out in the end.  Yes, there are major hurdles, setbacks and obstacles, but where there’s a will, there’s a way.  When I had seen the movie, I hadn’t yet really heard of Ed Wood, but for those that know about Wood, you may notice some similarities.  Wood was known for making below-par movies with other people’s money and using a lot of stock footage.

The movie is never slow or boring.  There are a lot of jokes and funny scenes.  Kit Ramsey, for instance, seems to have mental issues.  He’s convinced that alien voices in his head want him to flash the Laker Girls.  (Since he’s already paranoid about aliens, unknowingly starring in a movie about alien invaders isn’t the best thing for him.)  Ramsey is also part of a group called Mind Head, which is a thinly veiled substitute for Scientology.

This is the kind of movie you could watch repeatedly.  There are very few movies I’d recommend buying; this is one of them.  (If you rent it, you’ll probably end up buying it anyway.)  There are so many funny scenes in the movie that you’ll probably miss most of the jokes only because you’re laughing so hard.  This is definitely a must-watch film.

The Last Starfighter (1984)

I remember a lot of movies from my childhood.  Some hold up pretty well.  Others don’t.  I think in a lot of cases, I was more easily entertained.  Take The Last Starfighter.  I remember liking it.  It wasn’t one of my favorites, but I was entertained by it.  I recently had the chance to rent it from Netflix to see how it held up.

The movie centers on Alex Rogan.  He’s an average kid in a trailer park.  His one hope to get out of there is college, but he can’t seem to secure the funding.  His one distraction is a game called Starfighter.  He’s pretty good at it.  In fact, he beats the game’s high score of 1,000,000 points.  (To give you an idea of how boring it is in this trailer park, everyone gathers around to witness this with great excitement.)

It isn’t long before Alex is visited by a mysterious man calling himself Centauri.  Centauri is the one who designed and placed the games as a test.  He takes Alex for a ride, promising a surprise when they reach their destination.  It turns out that a war is on and the game is testing for those with The Gift.  Those that pass the test on their respective planets are recruited to become actual starfighters.

Alex immediately wants to go home. The game said nothing about being recruited for an actual war.  So, Centauri begrudgingly takes Alex home.  After Centauri leaves, Alex is attacked.  Fortunately, Alex is able to call Centauri back.  They go back to the military base only to find it attacked.  Alex is now the only starfighter left.  It’s up to him and his navigator, Grig, to defend the galaxy.

The movie deals mostly with Alex being recruited and eventually fighting.  There’s no real commentary on war.  The closest thing is Centauri being reprimanded for recruiting on Earth, which is an unaligned planet.  Even the fact that Alex was essentially tricked into fighting is downplayed.  This is something that may have been dealt with if the movie had been made into a TV show or something.  Each week would have been some aspect of war.  It’s also possible that the movie was aimed at kids.  With the exception of one or two scenes, most of the violence is video-game violence.  Even the fighting with real ships is kind of cheesy by today’s standards.

When I first watched the movie, it seemed like a pretty decent story.  (I suppose for a 9-year-old, it was.)  Watching it now, it seems more like it was meant to set up either another movie or a TV show.  (There are rumors of a sequel to the movie, possibly detailing the adventures of Alex’s child.)  Yes, Alex saves the day.  He returns to Earth to get his girlfriend and let everyone know he’s ok.  In this regard, the story seems incomplete.

Had there been a TV show shortly after the release of the movie, I probably would have viewed the movie differently.  The story would have made more sense in that context.  As it is, I’m wondering if a planned sequel was cancelled or if the movie was released unfinished.  (Both scenarios have happened with other movies.)  If a series came to television based on this movie, I’d definitely give it a chance.

Ibotta

I’m always looking for ways to make some extra cash.  When I cam across Ibotta, I was hesitant.  You got rebates for buying stuff, but I’m not the one that does the shopping for the household.  It didn’t seem like I’d be redeeming a lot.  I downloaded the app just to see what it was like.

It’s a fairly simple concept.  When you go shopping at various stores, like your local grocery store or drug store, you go through the app to find items you’ve purchased.  If there is something you purchased, you scan the barcode, photograph the receipt and submit the information.  (You can also get a special link for shopping at certain online retailers.)  If the rebates are accepted, you have the corresponding rebates deposited into your account.  When you reach $10, you can have the money transferred to your PayPal account or you can save up for a gift card from retailers like Amazon or Best Buy.

You can also get bonuses through teamwork.  If you refer someone, that person is automatically on your team.  (You also get a few dollars after they redeem their first rebate.)  If you link your account to Facebook or Twitter, the app will search your accounts for people who have already signed up.  If you and your team meet certain goals, you get a bonus.  Usually, those on your team will have to pass a certain dollar amount in rebates whereas you might have to redeem a certain number.  (Each month, you’ll be given a new set of goals.)

With an app like this, I’d normally recommend just downloading it and trying it out.  However, this is one of the more time-consuming programs that I’ve tried.  First off, you have to unlock rebates.  This may mean watching a video or taking a short survey.  Some products have one task while others might have two.  (This shouldn’t take more than a minute per product.)

Then, scanning products can be difficult.  Some products, like bananas, you just check off and they look for it on the receipt.  If you do have to scan a bar code, you have to line it up within a box almost exactly.  I’ve had cases where I’ve had to stand there for a few minutes trying to get it right only to find out that it didn‘t scan right or that product didn‘t qualify for the rebate.

Some rebates are for specific products.  It might be for a certain brand of deodorant.  In other case, it might be for any brand.  If you tap on a product, it will give the details on what’s included.  Bread might include buns.  Peas may or may not include frozen peas or canned peas.

Dollar amounts vary.  Most products will have rebates around 25¢.  Others can have rebates north of $1.  If you buy a lot of beer or wine, it won’t be unusual to see rebates of $4-$6.  There are also certain stores, like Best Buy or Sephora, that simply give a rebate for total purchases.  American Eagle Outfitters, for instance, has a $5 rebate on a single $50 purchase.  Best Buy has a $5 rebate on $100 that can be across several in-store purchases.

The first few months, I was getting several dollars per week from my parents’ purchases at Publix.  Now, I’m lucky if I get a dollar.  I’ve also noticed that it seems like rebates for products are available on the weeks that my parents don’t buy those products.  I’ve seen them buy milk one week only to see the rebate the next week.  They’ll buy bananas that week and have the rebate two weeks later.  If you’re not buying alcohol or electronics, don’t expect a lot of cash.

The good news is that when you do cash out, the money comes pretty quickly.  Since no gift card allows for payment under $10, I’ve always done PayPal.  It seems like it’s always been at most a day or two to get the payment.  Gift cards may take longer.  I really don’t know.  Also, I’ve never had a rebate rejected.  It may take a while for me to reach the threshold, but I do get the money.

If you do most of the shopping, I’d recommend downloading it and at least trying it.  Right now, I may cash out every month or two and I don’t do a lot of shopping.  If you’re lucky enough to get one or two big rebates per week, you shouldn’t have to go more than a few weeks before cashing out.  At least there doesn’t seem to be any expiration on money earned.

Ibotta Web site