Saturday, May 30, 2009

Up


Directed by Peter Docter
Written By Bob Petersen
Starring Ed Asner, Jordan Nagai, and Christopher Plummer



Pixar has the credibility that few other studios have ever achieved. Every film that they have produced has been both a commercial and critical hit. Other studios have probably spent time and money trying to figure out how Pixar is able to do what they do. Let me save you some time. Pixar makes great movies by hiring great artist to tell great stories and I'm thrilled to report that their latest film Up, is no exception. 

Up is the story of an old man named Carl Fredricksen who for the first time since childhood finds himself alone. As a young child Carl was obsessed with adventures. He just so happened to meet a young lady named Ellie who shared that love for adventure. The two of them grew up, got married, and shared a life together in a multi-colored home. When Ellie passes away Carl finds that his house is under siege by a development company who wants to tear it down. He eventually loses his fight to keep his home and instead of giving in he rigs it to hundreds of balloons and flies away.  Unfortunately, a young Wilderness Explorer named Russell was trapped on his front porch and is now along with him for the journey. 

The opening montage displays the entire marriage between Carl and Ellie without using one word of dialogue. The story is told through the characters, their actions, and the musical score of Michael Giacchino. Through this montage we find out everything we need to know about the characters. There marriage flies by in a matter of moment on the screen but resonates deeply with the audience. We feel the excitement and joy of buying their first home. We understand the comfort that Carl felt as Ellie tied his tie for him every morning. We watch as they lose their unborn child and mourn with them. Finally when Ellie passes away I actually felt her loss on screen. 

I feel like at this point I should mention that I was in an theater filled with children. Because the film features cartoon characters and is released by Disney children will want to see it. Still, the film doesn't water anything down for them. They are telling their story and a large part of this film deals with either losing your dream, getting over grief, or being disappointed by somebody you love. What was even more impressive was that the kids in the theater were on the same page as the filmmakers. 

The voice actors are cast not because they are marquee names but because they are the perfect actors for the role. While watching the film I was taken back by how genuine and authentic the characters felt. The actors are playing the characters and not simply reading a script into a microphone. 

The animation is certainly very visually stunning. The sky is a majestic blue while the sunset is full of vibrant and beautiful reds and oranges. The sight of hundreds of balloons being released into the air is every bit as wonderful as you would have imagined it as a child. When they are initially released they create beautiful colors on all the buildings and people around them. All the onlookers stare in wonder and I can't blame them. 

Earlier I mention that the score was one of the driving forces of the first few moments of this film. Giacchino also did the score for Star Trek  and also for the television series Lost as well as other Pixar films. Traditionally composer for movies have their own distinct score. Regular movie goers can pick out scores done by John Williams or Hans Zimmer. What I'm starting to really appreciate about Giacchino is that he creates specific music based on the project. There are no similarities between this score and Lost.  

While the performances, score, and animation is impressive it wouldn't be engaging without the story. Yes, I'm coming back to the story because it is what sets this film apart from all the other paint by numbers kid's movies. While the characters in this film are constantly being reminded that "adventure is out there," this is a story about how to deal with grief and disappointment. At the end of the story this movie is about moving on and not being afraid to make life an adventure. This is an important lesson to learn at any age. 

Finally, I was able to view this film in 3D and I have to say it was worth the price of admission. There is nothing particularly flashy about the 3D. There are no gimmicks associated with the 3D it just enhances the viewing of the film. 

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Brothers Bloom


Written and Directed by Rain Johnson
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Adrien Brody, and Rachel Weisz



The Brothers Bloom is the second feature film from writer/director Rain Johnson. With this film and his first film, Brick (2006) he has established that if nothing else he can create his own world within his films. In Brick he took a film noir story and set it in high school. The film worked because he created a world in which that was the reality and there was no other option. The film had all the familiar aspects of a film noir story but took place among, lockers, school plays, freshmen, seniors, parents, and principals. 

In Brothers Bloom Johnson has created a world in which quirky is the complete norm. Every child wears all white clothes to Church on Sunday morning. A small town has one of everything from one dry cleaner to one kitten with only one leg. An eccentric millionaire can spend her whole life completely isolated because she had an allergic reaction to the metal needles used to figure out why she had allergies. That same eccentric woman can spend her time collecting hobbies, which means she collects the hobbies that other people do. 

As an audience member I had to decide whether or not I would go along with this quirky little world that Johnson created. To be perfectly honest, even as I write this review the jury is still out. I appreciated and respected the commitment that he had and his actors had to this world but I can't tell if I find it engaging or distracting. 

The story is about two con men that go by the name The Brothers Bloom. They include the older brother Stephen and the younger who goes by the name Bloom. In the opening sequence we are told (through a narration by great narrator Ricky Jay) that the brothers were orphans that spent their childhood bouncing from foster home to foster home. The brothers eventually end up in a small town (that has one of everything.) It is here that they learn they have the ability to con people out of money. Stephen finds that he is in love with the story that he can tell while conning people. Bloom, who appears to be a very shy and lonely boy, finds that during a con he is able to relate to people and even become their friend. Of course, when their foster parents discover that they are conning the neighborhood kids out of money they are sent off to another foster home. 

The opening sequence is only about four minutes long but it is very effective in setting up the story, characters, and theme of the film. It is very heavy on the quirkiness that later defines this film but it is very engaging and almost plays like a fairy tale. I found myself very enchanted by this four minute sequence and if nothing else would recommend the film just for it. The desires of the characters were so obvious that in the case of little Bloom it almost broke my heart. I'm not quite sure why the rest of the film didn't have the same effect on me.

After the opening sequence we are in the present day and the brothers have decided on doing one last score before they go their separate ways. Stephen, always the man with a plan, sets his sights on a rich young millionaire named Penelope. Bloom is reluctant to go along with this plan because A) he is tired of pretending he is somebody he isn't and B) feels bad for Penelope. Eventually, he goes along with the swindle and the story goes from there. 

It's a fairly entertaining story and I can't quite put my finger on the reason that I couldn't go along with all the quirkiness. All I have is a working theory that I couldn't get into the film because I felt like they were running a con on me. Please, allow me to explain. 

A con man needs to be a fairly charismatic fellow. They need to disarm you with a twinkle in their eye and their flattering words. The whimsical characters and scenes in this film charmed the pants off of me but the whole time I was looking for something more. I kept trying to figure out Johnson's angle and for some reason I didn't quite trust this film. 

When it is stripped of all the quirkiness you are left with a fairly standard con man movie. I admire that Johnson added all those things into the film but I never could rest in them. In the end I think he put on a good show and told me a good story but didn't really leave me with anything else.

Still, I could be wrong. As I mentioned before the jury is still out on this film. Maybe I just had my guard up because I didn't quite know how to feel about the film. I am looking forward to watching this film again to see if it will win me over. 

Friday, May 22, 2009

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian


Directed by Shawn Levy
Written by Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant
Starring Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, and Hank Azaria




This film is a sequel to Night at the Museum which was also directed by Shawn Levy and written by Thomas Lennon and Robert ben Garant (from Comedy Central's Reno 911.) Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daley, who since the first film has become the founder and president of Daley's Devices. For those that don't remember in the first film he was going from job to job trying to find some direction. At the start of this film he has found success but isn't quite happy. Work is going great but keeps him from visiting the museum to spend time with his friends. If you haven't seen the first film his friends are museum exhibits who come to life when the sun sets thanks to an ancient Egyptian artifact.

Larry finally has time to visit only to discover that many of the exhibits are on their way to the Smithsonian. The curator of the museum, played by the great Ricky Gervais, has decided to use holograms to do the work of the old wax figures.  Long story short the exhibits arrive, come to life at the Smithsonian, and then run into trouble. It's up to Larry to come to their aid along with the help of new friends including, Amilia Earhart played by Amy Adams.

 Stiller is a talented actor and for the first time in awhile I noticed that he wasn't relying on ability to play the slightly uncomfortable guy. He plays Larry with a sense of confidence and purpose but doesn't take the role too seriously. Amy Adams is great as the fast talking Amilia Earhart and she clearly is having a lot of fun with the 1920's lingo. She also plays the character with a sense of awareness about her existence. Even though she never comes right out and says it she knows that she is an exhibit at a museum but she is enjoying her adventure. She is also aware that her slang is out of date but she doesn't care either. She knows who she is and she loves it. 

 My favorite scene was when Stiller has a confrontation with another guard played by Jonah hill. The two very funny performers have a lot of fun with the scene and at the same time it serves a purpose in the larger plot. Which is why the performances and ultimately the film works. 

The greatest strength of Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian is the performances. The cast is stacked with great comedic actors who are all given a chance to shine. The reason the film works is because of the actors but the credit goes to Shawn Levy who knows how to use their talents to form a great ensemble. It would have been easy for Levy to just hand it over to the actors. He could have easily sat back and let the funny people do funny things in front of the camera. Instead he plays them off each other and gives us just the right dose of their antics. 

The result is a very fun whimsical adventure full of laughs and a good amount of heart. I had a good time with this film. 

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Terminator Salvation


Directed by McG
Written by John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris
Starring Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, and Anton Yelchin



In Terminator Salvation there are a lot of interesting things to look at but at the end of the day it is flat and boring.

Director McG demonstrates that he understands the technical side of filmmaking but he doesn't appear to know much else. His CGI scenes are good and the look of the film is unique, but that's pretty much it. This is his fourth feature film and is only his second without the words "Charlie's" or "Angels" in the title. It might appear unfair to bring up up his past films but they give an insight  into his work as a director. Those films were empty popcorn fluff with pretty girls and interesting visuals. His third film was We Are Marshall (2006), an emotional story about a Texas college rebuilding their lives and football team after a tragedy and told completely without emotion. 

So when it comes to Terminator Salvation, McG is able to take great iconic pop culture figures and make them completely uninteresting. This is actually a bit of an accomplishment given the opening of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) which was directed by Terminator creator James Cameron. This was the first glance of the future war between man and machine. In a brief opening scene we see humans struggling to fend off an attack from the machines. Toward the end of the scene we follow a character shrouded in shadows and watch as everyone else stares at him with awe. We see the character survey the battlefield and then we realize this is John Connor, the future leader of the human resistance. 

This iconic scene lasted only a few minutes but made a lasting impact in the minds of Terminator and movie fans for nearly twenty years. Despite that fact McG can't even come close to doing the same thing with a 120 minute feature film, even with the great Christian Bale playing John Connor.

So what went wrong?

Honestly, the blame all comes down on the shoulders of McG. He knows what looks good on screen but he doesn't know when it's appropriate to use it. For instance, he knows that rain is very effective in a dramatic scene so he uses it often. The first time he uses it we quickly go from a dry desert heat to a heavy rainfall complete with thunder and and lighting just as a main character is introduced. The man doesn't have the word "cliche" in his dictionary.

Also, McG understands that his audience is going to primarily be composed of males. Because he understands his audience he wants his female actors to look good.  Of course they all have great hair and perfect skin. The only problem is his story takes place in a bleak future where man is struggling to survive. Also, all his male actors have dirt, sweat, and stubble on their faces so it's a little confusing. In McG's future if humanity is to survive maybe the woman shouldn't worry about hair and make up so much.

The film follows two main character one being John Connor and the other being Marcus Wright. As mentioned before John Connor is the leader of the human resistance. At this stage in the story he is at the cusp of embracing that destiny. He never really goes through any sort of hero transformation though people just start following him. I couldn't figure out why he wasn't the leader yet accept they want to milk more sequels out of this franchise.

The other main character, Marcus Wright is a former death row inmate who at the last minute before execution volunteers to be a part of a science experiment that will give him a second chance at life. He is executed but science gives him another shot at life. He wakes up fifteen years later and soon discovers that he is now both a man and a machine. He is a prototype for the new model of Terminators. 

 Since the narrative couldn't settle on which character to follow it was difficult to become attached to any of the supporting characters. The whole group isn't united until half way through the film so they sort of pop up from time to time. John has a wife named Kate played by Bryce Dallas Howard. Kate is a doctor and is also pregnant. I would have loved to see more of this relationship but we just didn't have time. For whatever reason Marcus needed a romance as well and other relationships suffered as a result. This too can be contributed to director McG. He has some pretty strong actors in his cast but the characters are not interesting. 

One of the interesting aspects of the story is that despite facing annihilation at the hands of machine humans still fight with one another. This is actually a pretty fascinating idea in this film and because the script went through no less than seven rewrites by seven different writers I'm not sure who to credit this too, but good job. It's touched on in a couple scenes but we never see fleshed out or even resolved. An interesting test for John Connor would have been to have him unite humanity in their fight for survival. Maybe in the next film.

Terminator fans will probably enjoy the homages to the earlier films in the series. The final confrontation takes place in a factory just like in the first two films. Some of the classic lines such as "Come with me if you want to live" and "I'll be back" are said. Even the Governor of California allowed a pretty impressive CGI likeness to be used in this film.

All that being said it doesn't hold a candle to the first two films that were written and directed by James Cameron. This film along with Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003), which was directed by Jonathon Mostow make a pretty strong case for letting the original creator of a series have the last say about when it  should end. 






Saturday, May 16, 2009

Angels and Demons


Directed by Ron Howard
Written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsmith
Starring Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, and Ayelet Zurer



What is the motivation of Robert Langdon? Who is he? Do I need to read the book to know for sure? In this film we know that he is portrayed by Tom Hanks. Is that enough? Is it enough that he is smart and makes jokes from time to time? We don't know why he accepts the task to come to the aid of the Vatican except that he is interested in solving a puzzle for them. Still why does he put his life on the line for them?

It's important to know the answers to these questions because without them we are just following plot points. Unfortunately, the film doesn't answer them so all we are doing is following plot points. There is nothing for the audience to be interested in aside from seeing what happens next. If you aren't interested in that then there is not much else in this film for you.

Angels and Demons is the sequel to the Da Vinci Code (2006). Both films were based on the Dan Brown novels of the same name. This film revolves around both the selection of a new Pope and the discovery of antimatter. It's is about the classic clash between religion and science. Essentially the film is about how religion is intimidated and scared of advances in science and how science will not be stopped. It could be interesting but in the hands of Ron Howard it just comes down to a paint by numbers thriller. 

The film opens with the death of the Pope and as the Vatican meets to select the new one villainous forces prepare to make them pay for their crack down on science. A shadowy character who from here on I will refer to as the "Boogie Man" steals antimatter and plans to use it to destroy the Vatican. Robert Langdon is called in to stop him by trying to decipher the mysterious symbols the "Boogie Man" is using to commit his crimes. While watching the film I often wondered why he just didn't use the antimatter to complete his task. Did he really have to taunt them? It seemed like by doing that he just made it become more and more possible for his scheme to be foiled. 

Of course if he didn't do that then we wouldn't have a story. Not that we have much of one anyway. All the standard thriller movie characters are used. We have our hero, we have a girl, we have the before mentioned "Boogie Man," we have the guy who helps out, and we have the police chief who gets in the way of the heroes' task. We have all the standard twist and turns. The film follows the formula to the letter. 

The actors don't really have much else to do in this film. All they really have to do is play their character type and they don't try for much else. They go where the story leads them and act the way they need to act. They serve the story and that is all you can really say for them. I'm not saying that they were bad in their roles, they just were very adequate in them. 

As I mentioned the film is directed by Ron Howard. Howard is a good director. He doesn't really challenge his audience as much as he serves the story. He is very good at delivering exactly what is asked of him. If the story is great he can give us a film like Apollo 13 or Cinderella Man. If they story is fair he can give us Ransom or Backdraft. This past year he directed Frost/Nixon. That film never really resonated with me because he didn't tell me about the two characters, he just took them through the motions. He followed the story to the letter and I never connected with them. The same thing is happening with this film. He just followed the story and didn't do anything with it. I'm not accusing him of being a bad director at all, he is actually quite good. He just gives you whatever the story gives him. 

That isn't to say that I wasn't entertained by Angels and Demons. For awhile I did get caught up in the story but it couldn't keep me hooked for 2 hours and 20 minutes. After about an hour I had lost interested in what was happening. It didn't deliver any surprises and all the twist felt manufactured. 

I do want to give credit to Cinematographer Salvatore Totino. In one beautifully shot scene he uses light to reveal the motivations of the characters and foreshadow their actions. This is as closes as the film came to engaging me. I don't want to go into too much as it will give away the ending but it is beautiful and deserves to be applauded. This scene also gives us our greatest insight into Langdon's character as he answers a question about his belief in God. It's a very authentic answer to the question and had me longing for more insight. 

In the end Angels and Demons plays it safe by simply presenting the story from beginning to end. It might make for good pop literature but it doesn't translate to an exciting film. It just is what it is and is nothing more. 

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Star Trek


Directed by JJ Abrams

Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman

Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Eric Bana

 


 

I'm going to start by saying that you don't have to know who Kirk, Spock, and Bones are to enjoy this film. You don't need any background on the origins or inner workings of the United Federation of Planets. If you are hearing about the Kobayashi Maru for the first time you will be okay. You might wonder why half the audience laughs when the guy in the red suit dies fairly early in the mission, but that's as inside as the references get in this remake of the popular series.

 I have always been a casual admirer of the Star Trek universe. I respect the mythology, themes, and characters but I find the Star Wars universe is more relatable. It always felt like the Star Trek universe was keep me at arm's length. This version, directed by JJ Abrams walked right up to me, gave me a hearty handshake, put it's arm around my shoulder, and led me right into the party.

 Excitement, humor, drama, action, great performances, and even heartbreak are the key ingredients of this film. These elements are on display and vividly felt in the first five minutes of the film. The joy of the film is that they only expand in the next two hours.

 In the hands of JJ Abrams the ingredients are added so masterfully that they only enhance one another and the experience as a whole. Abrams has gone on the record as saying that he was never a Trek fan because he felt disconnected from the characters. He deliberately sets out to remedy that problem by fleshing out the characters by giving them history, emotions, and personality. 

 Of course a great deal of credit for making the characters real goes to the cast. This talented assemble is led by Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and ZoĆ« Saldana while being anchored by Bruce Greenwood, Eric Bana, and...wait for it...Leonard Nimroy. There is not a weak link in this cast. Even supporting roles that are filled by Simon Pegg, Johnny Cho, and Karl Urban are both rich and engaging. 

 Remember, these actors are playing iconic characters and it would have been easy for them to give into the temptation to simply do an impression of what we have already seen. Instead, Abrams gives his cast permission to make the characters their own. They play the classic characters they don't play the actors who did the role before them. 

 Of course, I can't help but "gush" over director JJ Abrams. With his second feature film he is proving that he is a master of his craft. He really demonstrates a clear vision for this film. He never tries to illicit a shallow "wow" moment from his audience. Instead of using gimmicks he uses all the tools at his disposal to create a fully realized world. He introduces the audience to dozens of alien creatures but never as a spectacle. In the Star Trek universe humans and aliens live and work together side by side. The characters don't marvel at their neighbors so why should the audience? Instead, they are simply inserted into the scenes. The one exception being when Kirk is being chased by two alien creatures, but they are the focus of that scene. 

 From what I understand the film doesn't follow Star Trek cannon to the letter. Evidently, there are a few departures. However, Abrams gives a reason for them. This is just another example of the depth of his vision. He introduces the reason in the story and the universe he created supports it. He leaves it up to the audience and the true Trek fans to decide whether or not they want to accept it. The important thing is that he gives you the choice. 

 Obviously, I'm a huge fan of this film. Popular theory suggests that the even numbered Star Trek films are good and the odds are well, bad. This is the eleventh Star Trek film and it proves that theory false. 

 As a side note this entire film felt like it was from another time. It felt like it was from the early Spielberg, Lucas, and Donner days of the late seventies/early eighties. Those are the films of my childhood and they always fill me with a sense of wonder. Films like Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of The Lost Ark, ET, and Superman were full of spectacle but also heart.  It feels like there is a crop of directors coming up who were also raised on those films, and Abrams is one of them. Hopefully, our contemporary blockbusters films will continue to feel like these classic ones. 

Saturday, May 2, 2009

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Directed by Gavin Hood
Written by David Benioff and Skip Woods
Starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schrieber, and Danny Huston







 For the last thirty years Wolverine has been the most popular member of the X-Men.  He is know for being hairy, smoking cigars, being able to heal from any injury, his rage, his mysterious past, and last but not least his claws.   He has appeared in dozens of comic book titles and was the focus of all three  X-Men movies. In X-Men (2000) the plot revolved around Wolverine joining the team and trying to uncover the mystery of his past.  In X2: X-Men United (2003) the plot revolved around Wolverine discovering more about his past. In X-Men: Last Stand (2006) Wolverine more or less was the leader of team, at the very least Hugh Jackman was the star of the film. One could make a good case that the character launched Hugh Jackman's career more than Hugh Jackman made the character come to life.

Audiences are intrigued by the character. They want to see more of him and they want to know more about that mysterious past. 

The films opens with Wolverine as a young boy at this point we learn that his real names is James. After a tragedy James goes on the run with his brother Victor who grows up to become the villain named Sabertooth. During the title sequence we are shown that James and Victor spent most of their life fighting in American wars. For some unexplained reason Victor decides that he really likes killing people. This happens around the same time that James discovers that he doesn't really like death all that much. This is the beginning of their conflict. 

In Vietnam Victor murders a superior officer because he tried to stop him from rapping somebody. Again, we aren't really sure why Victor turns into a murdering rapist other than it serves the purpose of the plot. James and Victor are to be executed but because part of their powers include an accelerated healing factor, it doesn't really work out.  It's at this point that the two of them meet William Stryker who is putting together a team of mutants to do covert government work. That work appears to involve each member individually displaying his mutant abilities while everybody else watches on and waits for their turn. 

Eventually, James leaves the team because he doesn't like killing and everybody else does. He abandons them, goes by the name of Logan, and settles down with a nice woman who tells him a Native American legend that gives him the later give him the idea to go by the name Wolverine. Of course that doesn't last long.

It doesn't feel like this film had a director, Gavin Hood is given that title but I question it. Instead, I get the feeling that this film was a real team effort. Of course that team consisted of a bunch of Fox executives that really wanted to make some money this summer. To that end they decided the best way to do that was to have this film feature a parade of X-Men fan favorites. Each of them show up for about ten minutes of screen time, do something "cool" and then walk away. 

This is a very shallow film. The plot is very paint by numbers. As events happen you get the feeling they are being crossed of a checklist. The characters don't really do much more than go through those motions. They act and react to one another and just move the film along. Occasionally they stop for some kind of cliche action, word, or scene. As the audience we don't ever get the sense of who they are and what motivates them. We know that Wolverine doesn't like killing innocents because he makes eye contact with innocent people and is the hero. We know that he is sad when somebody dies because he drops to his knees and yells to the heavens on three separate-occasions. We know that Stryker is the bad guy because he lies to people and stands in shadows. We don't know what motivates him but we don't have too, we can watch the far superior X2: X-Men United to understand. 

Another thing that really stood out to me was how bad Wolverine's claws looked. Wolverine's first appearance on film was in 2000. How did they manage to take a step backwards nine years later? I know that Hugh Jackman can't really extend metal claws from his hands, but I shouldn't be thinking that every time he uses them. In fact, all the CGI in the film doesn't help as much as it turn it into what's real and what's fake game. It's kind of like a Highlights for Kids game. A very easy Highlights for Kids game.

The action scenes are unbelievable and not in the good way. Of course anybody seeing a movie about mutants needs to harness their own  ability of willing suspension of disbelief. That being said there's a difference between accepting somebody can heal from a gun shot to the head and that somebody can soar through the air after a truck explodes underneath them. The former invites the audience to enter their world of fantasy. The latter is just plain silly. 

Still, I found myself being entertained by the film. That credit falls squarely on Hugh Jackman. There are very few true blue movies stars and luckily for this film Mr. Jackman is one of them. As silly and flat out ridiculous as the film can be the main character is always engaging. He is able to deliver the cliche' action quips with conviction. He might not be given a lot to do but he does what he can with it.  One might says he is the best at what he does. Of course if anyone says that they are letting their nerd flag fly, it's one of Wolverine's classic lines. 

At the end of the day I believe audiences will be entertained by the film but not necessarily satisfied. As I was leaving the theater I heard another audience compare the entire film to when little Ralphie finally is able to use his Little Orphan Annie decoder in A Christmas Story (1983).

Be sure to drink your OvaltineOvaltine? A crummy commercial?"

Yep, that sounds about right.