Br'er Kevin, of the Rooster Totem
-----------------------------------
Oh boy! It's only a couple of weeks until Pixar's "Brave" comes out on DVD! Now there was a movie about being magically transformed into a bear against your will that I would like to see again. This one, not so much. I didn't find it particularly annoying, but...well, if I were a hacky newspaper movie critic, I might go so far as to use the phrase "Aurora BORE-ealis."
Really, it's pleasant enough but just not engaging. It's like in Dinosaur, where I get what's going on but I'm just not captivated by it at all. At least it looks better than Dinosaur. And the humor is not as unfunny.
It's hard to describe what exactly it supposed to be going on emotionally through Kenai's* journey. First he's annoyed by Koda, and if you know your movies you know he'll warm up to him eventually. And he does, through a music montage. And you think, well, that was sooner than I thought. But then they get in a fight again. And now Kenai hates Koda. But they make up quickly after looking at a painting. Are you guys friends or not? Make up your mind and stick to it! Then there's the "yeah um I kinda may have sort of murdered your mom sorry about that" speech and Koda is understandably upset, but gets over it surprisingly easily. Man, he is the KING of forgiveness.
Now for my biggest nitpick about the alleged lesson of the movie. Kenai learns about looking at things from the bear's point of view instead of seeing them as murderous monsters or whatever, and that's all fine and dandy sure. But in the salmon run chapter, we see the bears killing and eating fish, and doing in such delight that the young ones laugh while making hand puppets out of the fish's heads! What kind of horror show is that? I know that there is a Brother Bear 2 and I have no idea what it's about, but if the filmmakers have any respect for addressing hypocrisy, it had better be the tale of a young bear who callously plays with fish corpse heads before he is spiritually transformed into a salmon. He would then realize who the real monster is, and so forth and such and yada.
Now to talk about Rutt and Tuke. I'm not crazy about them as they're written in the actual movie. But man, I have a soft spot for their DVD commentary! Maybe it's because I'm partial to cornball ad-libbed humor (I wonder how much of it is off-the-cuff? I hope most) like that, and also the very idea that they got through the whole thing on consistent steam. Some of it is dumb, but some is funny and plays to my dumb-pun sensibilities. Such as:
"Well if you go to the liquor control board of Ontario, they have wine and spirits. And you can talk to the spirits."
Considering that they managed to "riff" a family-friendly movie with only family-friendly jokes, Thomas and Moranis did a bang-up job at that commentary track. I'm gonna go ahead and say I prefer the movie with that audio track on. After all, you still get the beautiful imagery and animation, but with better jokes. I've listened to it twice (once years ago, before I had even seen the movie proper) and would listen to it again. And I'm slightly proud to say it.
Favorite character: Hearing Greg Proops talk uncharacteristically lovey-dovey was, for me, the funniest part of the movie.
Least necessary character: The chipmunk is supposed to present this idea that Kenai should be surprised to see a squirrel terrified of him because he doesn't realize he's a bear yet, but the chipmunk would freak out the same, maybe even moreso, at a hunter, wouldn't it?
Trivia: Another Pixar comparison. That I Spy bit where Rutt or Tuke (who cares which is which) "spies" a tree over and over sure is similar to Dory's "small and orange" bit from Finding Nemo, isn't it? Finding Nemo was released first, but only six months prior, so accusations of plagiarism might be stretching it. But I do think it worked better in Finding Nemo, since the joke there was that Dory was instantly forgetful and the ocean was mostly empty where they were too. In Brother Bear, Rutt/Tuke is just being...stupid? Or intentionally annoying?
Overall: Eh, eh?
*Does Kenai mean anything relating to his character? If not, it's a wasted opportunity that the guy whose totem is an eagle wasn't named Kenai instead, thereby making a pun on "keen eye." Ah well.
Something Amanda
--------------------
I'm going to be uncharacteristically concise for this one.
Brother Bear looks beautiful. The music isn't bad, but it's also not nearly as memorable as Collins' previous work in Tarzan. The voice acting was good considering what they were given. I love Rick Moranis, but the rest of the movie doesn't really send me.
Oh and by the way, Koda was way more annoying than cute. However, he did look really cute, and that sort of bothers me because his mother (for whom we are supposed to have sympathy) is by a wide margin the ugliest bear of all. I get that you want her to look monstrous for the first act, but couldn't you gussy her up a little for the sentimental climax? Ugh.
Favorite Character: I dunno. Uh. Silent Mammoth busses.
Least Necessary Character: Oh, let's say... um... Estelle Harris
Overall: I wasn't completely bored out of my mind, but I don't really remember all that much about it now that it's over. At least it looked pretty. Would it be wrong to suspect that it was one of those caretaker movies that's put into production just to make sure the animators and clean-up crew still know what they're doing?
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
D52 - Week 43 - Treasure Planet
Amanda's Loot
--------------
Treasure Planet is what happens when you take a classic that has been beloved by generations, and retold hundreds of times on film and on radio, and try to change all the parts that make it a classic in the first place.
Treasure Island was written in the mid 19th century about the 16th or 17th century. To me part of the draw is that the characters were living in a semi-primative time that was more violent, more simple, and colored with the kind of nostalgia of those who have only lived it through tales from an older generation. I get the same feeling when watching black and white reruns of I Love Lucy, but certainly not when the setting is of an unknown future. This is not to say the future isn't cool and interesting, but it doesn't give me the sense of glowing familiar adventure that I hope for through this sort of story.
Treasure Island had a much more sympathetic main character in Jim Hawkins. A poor kid who lost his father and dreams of helping his family and just gets roped into a big adventure. Treasure Planet's Jim may have been introduced as a bright eyed kid with big dreams, but when we meet him as we will have him for the remainder of the film, he's a teenage ruffian who is breaking the law and being hauled to his house by law enforcement! I don't want to root for this kid! I want him to go to Juvie and pay his debt to society! He doesn't deserve a fun adventure! Also he easily has the worst haircut I've ever seen on any Disney character ever. How does combining a "seagull" and a "rattail" possibly result in something attractive? It doesn't.
I'm also quite a bit concerned about our so called "villain." It's one thing to portray someone as good just to pull a gotcha in the end, but in Treasure Island, John Silver is found out as bad and stays that way to the end. In Treasure Planet he goes bad, goes soft, is still bad but gets set free. I just can't get behind this. Not only that, it really adds to my dislike of the hero character. He really ought to have turned him in. A Disney Hero ought not have such gray ethics at the end of the movie. At the beginning, sure, he's still figuring things out, but at the end A Disney Hero doesn't set a proven murderer free.
And as for Ben Gunn....Good Lord, Martin Short. I know you pretty much can't portray any character without making him eccentric and spastic, but this has got to be the least likeable portrayal I've ever seen you do. Stop trying to be funny because it's just too painful and annoying to watch. Why can't you go back to the late 80's and be a little more sincere? You were both funnier and more likeable then.
As for the structure of the movie, well, I'm glad that the plot was easy to follow. However, it must be said that there is a very fine line between a montage and a music video. Treasure Planet does not know where that line is.
Favorite Character: Ugh. I guess Morph was cute-ish.
Least necessary character: Flatulence Alien. WAY overused. Mind you, this is coming from someone who is utterly utterly comfortable with her own bodily functions, so to say that FA was too much really ought to tell you something.
Overall: Read the book and culture yourself, because watching this movie sure won't. Only for completionists.
Kevin's Treasure
--------------
Treasure Planet has a lot of good ideas going for it, but good ideas alone do not always a good movie make. I like the idea of John Silver being "updated" to have cyborg parts, his "bird" being a physical-and-audio mimic alien, the map being a... a whatever it was. There are many good ideas, but those ideas aren't used very well. In the book, Jim is warned of a one-legged man, and when John Silver, a man with one leg, comes into the picture, you figure, "Ah, hmm, that must be the guy." because you have a rough idea of how uncommon one-legged men are. In this movie, Jim's warned of a cyborg, and you see a cyborg guy, and...well you assume he's the guy because you figure that's what the movie's trying to tell you. But I find myself thinking at the back of my mind, "In this alternate science fiction fantasy, how common are cyborgs? There's all manner of aliens and such, and a lot of weird out-there technology, so maybe when Silver talks of so many other cyborgs around, it's not much of a stretch? As Amanda mentioned in the Atlantis review, when you want to use an incredibly fantastic fantasy world, the trick is in making the rules and history of that world clear near the beginning of the story. Treasure Planet latches us with a probably fascinating setting of a leash but yanks us with it, dragging us along non-stop while giving us a rushed tour of it all. At the climactic end Jim Hawkins seems to be done for as he falls down a pit on his jet board that he can't seem to be able to restart, but saves himself by reigniting it from the sparks of the wall and - well, even putting aside the Mythbusteretics of whether or not this could work this way... was I supposed to realize the thing worked on a fire ignition system? For all I know it was just a lawn mower type of start-up. Granted you need a fire somewhere to get a jet blast, but then again there's all of that glowing orb and portal technology that just exists and - well my point is, when he restarted his board, I think the movie expected me to think, "That Jim is clever and quick-witted! He figured out how to create the required sparks for his impromptu jet surfer under pressure!" but what I thought was, "How is he going to .. oh. I guess when he does that, the thing works that way."
And speaking of technology, isn't it funny the way things in the TP world are so advanced that people use holographic story devices and projection orbs instead of paper but haven't gotten past a more complex form of rope than...just plain ol' rope? And how the spaceship has the expense and technology to propel itself and create an artificial gravity but passes on any form of automated dish-washing system? It is funny, but in the sense that I hope it's intentionally meant to be funny. So maybe it's not all so bad if you look at it as a "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" or "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"-esque outrageous retelling. But even then I think I'd still even rather choose Tim Curry and Muppets.
Favorite character: The narrator. Heck, can't I just listen to Tony Jay read Treasure Island instead?
Least necessary character: Was there any helpful help provided by BEN that the others wouldn't have been able to do themselves?
Overall: Have you ever had someone describe a dream they just had the night before to you, with such excitement that you feel you should be excited for them about it too? But they're so excited that they include unnecessary details? And you can't quite find it as interesting as they seem to, even though you know the events of the dream should be exciting by their very nature? Treasure Planet is like that.
--------------
Treasure Planet is what happens when you take a classic that has been beloved by generations, and retold hundreds of times on film and on radio, and try to change all the parts that make it a classic in the first place.
Treasure Island was written in the mid 19th century about the 16th or 17th century. To me part of the draw is that the characters were living in a semi-primative time that was more violent, more simple, and colored with the kind of nostalgia of those who have only lived it through tales from an older generation. I get the same feeling when watching black and white reruns of I Love Lucy, but certainly not when the setting is of an unknown future. This is not to say the future isn't cool and interesting, but it doesn't give me the sense of glowing familiar adventure that I hope for through this sort of story.
Treasure Island had a much more sympathetic main character in Jim Hawkins. A poor kid who lost his father and dreams of helping his family and just gets roped into a big adventure. Treasure Planet's Jim may have been introduced as a bright eyed kid with big dreams, but when we meet him as we will have him for the remainder of the film, he's a teenage ruffian who is breaking the law and being hauled to his house by law enforcement! I don't want to root for this kid! I want him to go to Juvie and pay his debt to society! He doesn't deserve a fun adventure! Also he easily has the worst haircut I've ever seen on any Disney character ever. How does combining a "seagull" and a "rattail" possibly result in something attractive? It doesn't.
I'm also quite a bit concerned about our so called "villain." It's one thing to portray someone as good just to pull a gotcha in the end, but in Treasure Island, John Silver is found out as bad and stays that way to the end. In Treasure Planet he goes bad, goes soft, is still bad but gets set free. I just can't get behind this. Not only that, it really adds to my dislike of the hero character. He really ought to have turned him in. A Disney Hero ought not have such gray ethics at the end of the movie. At the beginning, sure, he's still figuring things out, but at the end A Disney Hero doesn't set a proven murderer free.
And as for Ben Gunn....Good Lord, Martin Short. I know you pretty much can't portray any character without making him eccentric and spastic, but this has got to be the least likeable portrayal I've ever seen you do. Stop trying to be funny because it's just too painful and annoying to watch. Why can't you go back to the late 80's and be a little more sincere? You were both funnier and more likeable then.
As for the structure of the movie, well, I'm glad that the plot was easy to follow. However, it must be said that there is a very fine line between a montage and a music video. Treasure Planet does not know where that line is.
Favorite Character: Ugh. I guess Morph was cute-ish.
Least necessary character: Flatulence Alien. WAY overused. Mind you, this is coming from someone who is utterly utterly comfortable with her own bodily functions, so to say that FA was too much really ought to tell you something.
Overall: Read the book and culture yourself, because watching this movie sure won't. Only for completionists.
Kevin's Treasure
--------------
Treasure Planet has a lot of good ideas going for it, but good ideas alone do not always a good movie make. I like the idea of John Silver being "updated" to have cyborg parts, his "bird" being a physical-and-audio mimic alien, the map being a... a whatever it was. There are many good ideas, but those ideas aren't used very well. In the book, Jim is warned of a one-legged man, and when John Silver, a man with one leg, comes into the picture, you figure, "Ah, hmm, that must be the guy." because you have a rough idea of how uncommon one-legged men are. In this movie, Jim's warned of a cyborg, and you see a cyborg guy, and...well you assume he's the guy because you figure that's what the movie's trying to tell you. But I find myself thinking at the back of my mind, "In this alternate science fiction fantasy, how common are cyborgs? There's all manner of aliens and such, and a lot of weird out-there technology, so maybe when Silver talks of so many other cyborgs around, it's not much of a stretch? As Amanda mentioned in the Atlantis review, when you want to use an incredibly fantastic fantasy world, the trick is in making the rules and history of that world clear near the beginning of the story. Treasure Planet latches us with a probably fascinating setting of a leash but yanks us with it, dragging us along non-stop while giving us a rushed tour of it all. At the climactic end Jim Hawkins seems to be done for as he falls down a pit on his jet board that he can't seem to be able to restart, but saves himself by reigniting it from the sparks of the wall and - well, even putting aside the Mythbusteretics of whether or not this could work this way... was I supposed to realize the thing worked on a fire ignition system? For all I know it was just a lawn mower type of start-up. Granted you need a fire somewhere to get a jet blast, but then again there's all of that glowing orb and portal technology that just exists and - well my point is, when he restarted his board, I think the movie expected me to think, "That Jim is clever and quick-witted! He figured out how to create the required sparks for his impromptu jet surfer under pressure!" but what I thought was, "How is he going to .. oh. I guess when he does that, the thing works that way."
And speaking of technology, isn't it funny the way things in the TP world are so advanced that people use holographic story devices and projection orbs instead of paper but haven't gotten past a more complex form of rope than...just plain ol' rope? And how the spaceship has the expense and technology to propel itself and create an artificial gravity but passes on any form of automated dish-washing system? It is funny, but in the sense that I hope it's intentionally meant to be funny. So maybe it's not all so bad if you look at it as a "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" or "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"-esque outrageous retelling. But even then I think I'd still even rather choose Tim Curry and Muppets.
Favorite character: The narrator. Heck, can't I just listen to Tony Jay read Treasure Island instead?
Least necessary character: Was there any helpful help provided by BEN that the others wouldn't have been able to do themselves?
Overall: Have you ever had someone describe a dream they just had the night before to you, with such excitement that you feel you should be excited for them about it too? But they're so excited that they include unnecessary details? And you can't quite find it as interesting as they seem to, even though you know the events of the dream should be exciting by their very nature? Treasure Planet is like that.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
D52 - Week 42 - Lilo & Stitch
Experiment K114
------------------
I cared much for this one.
Stitch is an interesting character, not just as a movie character, but as a merchandise character. I just find it interesting how often you see him on stuff. Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Donald, they've been around forever; that makes sense. Princesses, very understandable. Winnie the Pooh and friends, okay. Pixar characters. And then there's Stitch. It just seems odd because I never got the impression that the movie Lilo & Stitch was a huge enough breakaway everlasting hit that would warrant still seeing his face on stuff ten years later. But now that I've actually watched the movie in full, I do find myself with a strange desire to have some small representation of Stitch, like a keychain or something. Maybe a fluffy one. But that would be silly. No, a pin. That's more manly and grown-up.
The film just hits me in just the right ways from start to finish. There seems to be a running theme in this blog of deeming not-actually-princesses to be Disney Princesses, and it would be easy to do that here too. You still get a character who finds he* wants more in his life, and he ends up falling in love with the first person he meets (though despising the interest at first, which would be the thing to do for a couple of future Disney Princesses), it's just that in this case it's family love.
I love the character designs, from the inevitable far-out aliens to the cherubic humans. And the scenery does a great job of selling Hawaii as a place that people call home, whereas usually it's only seen in travel documents as a heavenly vacation spot. I mean, it still looks like a great place to be, but at least L&O acknowledges that the beaches can get crowded (unless you happen to have an alien to scare everyone away) and that you might see big dudes in tiny swimwear (at least Lilo can find appreciation in it). Try to find those things in the glossy brochure photos (big entertainer locals in swimwear do not count). And I'll always take cartoonish science fiction* over the straight-forward kind, because it makes it easier to overlook things like sound in space and how exactly all of the aliens besides Stitch were able to communicate with the Earthlings. And..was Stitch always able to understand English, and just not able to speak it well until learning it, or did he not speak much until the end because he was trying to learn, or...nope, no. I won't get into that.
I do love that I get to see the complete opposite of the alien-destroying-a-huge-city cliché. And the way playing against that cliché is a vital part of the plot itself. And the way the humor just happens to hit the sweet spot of my character-based humor sensibilities. It's a nice break to get characters who happen to be funny, rather than ones who come across as deliberately playing for laughs at the screen. And blending that humor with the moments that need to be taken seriously. I don't want to hype it up too much as to say it's a perfect movie, but it might just be an example of my perfect movie.
I'll go ahead and embarrass myself here. Bambi was sad, but...maybe because I knew what was coming, I wasn't terribly fazed. Dumbo, more depressing than tear-jerking. But Lilo & Stitch, man. Maybe it was because I didn't expect it to be that emotional (spaceships! creatures! hula dancing!), but it actually got to me. Lilo and Nani have a believable relationship and react to each other in an appropriately believable way. And even though I've had no outside experience with any experiment 626s, I'm strangely convinced that that's how one really would deal with his own emotions in that scenario. As odd as that sounds. So his struggle to find his Ohana is surprisingly compelling. It beat against the tear ducts, and I could've held it together, if not for that one line that broke my "I will not tear during a cartoon alien movie" barrier:
"I hear you cry at night."
~stream~ OH GOD that's so sad. Why'd you have to go there, movie? He...he...I'm gonna need a moment.
~deep sigh~
So, how about that music, huh? The soundtrack isn't as all Elvisy as I was expecting it to be, not that it would necessarily be a bad thing if it was. Elvis Presley-heavy would still be better than, say, Phil Collins-heavy. Yeah, I should stop bagging on Phil Collins. But hey, how about that Alan Silvestri? That's pretty much the only thing left for the movie to seem tailor-made for me: Hire the guy who also did the soundtracks for four of my long-standing personal favorite movies, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the Back to the Future trilogy. I feel like I should personally thank the producers for that, on top of everything else.
I was preparing to and hoping to enjoy this movie (based on what I already knew about it), and I was not at all disappointed - I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. If I had to come up with anything negative to say about it....hmmmm. How about....Nani's thighs are distractingly hefty.
Favorite character: How often have I voted for a title character? I feel like I should stitch some sort of counted cross stitch Stitch.
Least necessary character: I like David, but he doesn't get to do much.
Overall: Lilo & Stitch joins The Hunchback of Notre Dame in my D52 Movies I Wish I Had Seen Much Earlier list, though for different tonal reasons.
*He's called a "he" throughout, but if he's a completely unique species with no relatives, isn't Stitch basically genderless? Or does Jumba create his experiments with a gender in case he plans to breed them with other creations? I expect this is addressed in one of the sequels, none of which I have seen yet?
**By the way, I count Star Trek TOS as cartoony science fiction. Some of the time. But not the actual animated series. That's just hard to watch at all.
Amanda's Galactic Treatise
-------------------
Lilo and Stitch falls very squarely in the unlikely winner category. Recent Disney movies up until this point have been lackluster, without focus, confusing, forgettable and so forth, so thank goodness for Stitch, because it's the Disney Savior of this generation. It's about darn time someone got around to making a movie that he or she would want to watch instead of trying to pander to the crowd. I guess what this movie has going for it that the last handful of films did not is sincerity.
Suspend your disbelief enough to accept that aliens exist, can speak English, and are hiding among us and you open yourself up to a very giving and vibrant piece of work. I'm thrilled that the makers brought Hawaiian culture to the masses in a way that wasn't so hokey and tourist mongering. They really managed to make something interesting without being insulting to the native people and without going too far with the political correctness and so ending up incredibly bland (Pocahontas team, I'm looking at you!)
The tiny family of Nani and Lilo is believably represented and just as believably broken, and yet the hurt and confused love that they share feels as real as anything you would experience in real life. Everyone can relate to the fear of uncertainty that Cobra Bubbles' presence represents. And Stitch is as touched by Ohana as anyone who has ever felt loneliness could be.
And yet as heavy as the themes are, there is somehow plenty of room for humor. Pleakley's obstinate rule following is a bit of a joke at the expense of the government. Stitch's Elvis impersonating feels to me like a good hard jab at pop culture's constantly changing (and yet still somehow static) view of "a model citizen." Even David as a cliche lovestruck kid is good for a few laughs. And really, who doesn't get a good chuckle from a little bit of mayhem now and again.
It's such an off the wall idea that any summarizing I were to try and do would never do justice and be detrimental to my glowing recommendations so suffice to say that Lilo and Stitch is an excellent movie and you won't really know how good it is until you've seen it for yourself.
Favorite Character: Jumba Jookiba is the winner for me. His voice was excellently cast and you can always rely on him to help you along with the story with a little talking to himself in his evil genius sort of way.
Least necessary character: Pudge the Fish. I'm just not really convinced that he controls the weather at all.
Overall: Excellent in so many ways. It's beautiful to look at. It's beautiful to listen to. There is so much engaging story and all of it so precisely told without relying on a heavy handed story before bedtime around the fire. Insert an annoyed glare at Atlantis here.
------------------
I cared much for this one.
Stitch is an interesting character, not just as a movie character, but as a merchandise character. I just find it interesting how often you see him on stuff. Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Donald, they've been around forever; that makes sense. Princesses, very understandable. Winnie the Pooh and friends, okay. Pixar characters. And then there's Stitch. It just seems odd because I never got the impression that the movie Lilo & Stitch was a huge enough breakaway everlasting hit that would warrant still seeing his face on stuff ten years later. But now that I've actually watched the movie in full, I do find myself with a strange desire to have some small representation of Stitch, like a keychain or something. Maybe a fluffy one. But that would be silly. No, a pin. That's more manly and grown-up.
The film just hits me in just the right ways from start to finish. There seems to be a running theme in this blog of deeming not-actually-princesses to be Disney Princesses, and it would be easy to do that here too. You still get a character who finds he* wants more in his life, and he ends up falling in love with the first person he meets (though despising the interest at first, which would be the thing to do for a couple of future Disney Princesses), it's just that in this case it's family love.
I love the character designs, from the inevitable far-out aliens to the cherubic humans. And the scenery does a great job of selling Hawaii as a place that people call home, whereas usually it's only seen in travel documents as a heavenly vacation spot. I mean, it still looks like a great place to be, but at least L&O acknowledges that the beaches can get crowded (unless you happen to have an alien to scare everyone away) and that you might see big dudes in tiny swimwear (at least Lilo can find appreciation in it). Try to find those things in the glossy brochure photos (big entertainer locals in swimwear do not count). And I'll always take cartoonish science fiction* over the straight-forward kind, because it makes it easier to overlook things like sound in space and how exactly all of the aliens besides Stitch were able to communicate with the Earthlings. And..was Stitch always able to understand English, and just not able to speak it well until learning it, or did he not speak much until the end because he was trying to learn, or...nope, no. I won't get into that.
I do love that I get to see the complete opposite of the alien-destroying-a-huge-city cliché. And the way playing against that cliché is a vital part of the plot itself. And the way the humor just happens to hit the sweet spot of my character-based humor sensibilities. It's a nice break to get characters who happen to be funny, rather than ones who come across as deliberately playing for laughs at the screen. And blending that humor with the moments that need to be taken seriously. I don't want to hype it up too much as to say it's a perfect movie, but it might just be an example of my perfect movie.
I'll go ahead and embarrass myself here. Bambi was sad, but...maybe because I knew what was coming, I wasn't terribly fazed. Dumbo, more depressing than tear-jerking. But Lilo & Stitch, man. Maybe it was because I didn't expect it to be that emotional (spaceships! creatures! hula dancing!), but it actually got to me. Lilo and Nani have a believable relationship and react to each other in an appropriately believable way. And even though I've had no outside experience with any experiment 626s, I'm strangely convinced that that's how one really would deal with his own emotions in that scenario. As odd as that sounds. So his struggle to find his Ohana is surprisingly compelling. It beat against the tear ducts, and I could've held it together, if not for that one line that broke my "I will not tear during a cartoon alien movie" barrier:
"I hear you cry at night."
~stream~ OH GOD that's so sad. Why'd you have to go there, movie? He...he...I'm gonna need a moment.
~deep sigh~
So, how about that music, huh? The soundtrack isn't as all Elvisy as I was expecting it to be, not that it would necessarily be a bad thing if it was. Elvis Presley-heavy would still be better than, say, Phil Collins-heavy. Yeah, I should stop bagging on Phil Collins. But hey, how about that Alan Silvestri? That's pretty much the only thing left for the movie to seem tailor-made for me: Hire the guy who also did the soundtracks for four of my long-standing personal favorite movies, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the Back to the Future trilogy. I feel like I should personally thank the producers for that, on top of everything else.
I was preparing to and hoping to enjoy this movie (based on what I already knew about it), and I was not at all disappointed - I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. If I had to come up with anything negative to say about it....hmmmm. How about....Nani's thighs are distractingly hefty.
Favorite character: How often have I voted for a title character? I feel like I should stitch some sort of counted cross stitch Stitch.
Least necessary character: I like David, but he doesn't get to do much.
Overall: Lilo & Stitch joins The Hunchback of Notre Dame in my D52 Movies I Wish I Had Seen Much Earlier list, though for different tonal reasons.
*He's called a "he" throughout, but if he's a completely unique species with no relatives, isn't Stitch basically genderless? Or does Jumba create his experiments with a gender in case he plans to breed them with other creations? I expect this is addressed in one of the sequels, none of which I have seen yet?
**By the way, I count Star Trek TOS as cartoony science fiction. Some of the time. But not the actual animated series. That's just hard to watch at all.
Amanda's Galactic Treatise
-------------------
Lilo and Stitch falls very squarely in the unlikely winner category. Recent Disney movies up until this point have been lackluster, without focus, confusing, forgettable and so forth, so thank goodness for Stitch, because it's the Disney Savior of this generation. It's about darn time someone got around to making a movie that he or she would want to watch instead of trying to pander to the crowd. I guess what this movie has going for it that the last handful of films did not is sincerity.
Suspend your disbelief enough to accept that aliens exist, can speak English, and are hiding among us and you open yourself up to a very giving and vibrant piece of work. I'm thrilled that the makers brought Hawaiian culture to the masses in a way that wasn't so hokey and tourist mongering. They really managed to make something interesting without being insulting to the native people and without going too far with the political correctness and so ending up incredibly bland (Pocahontas team, I'm looking at you!)
The tiny family of Nani and Lilo is believably represented and just as believably broken, and yet the hurt and confused love that they share feels as real as anything you would experience in real life. Everyone can relate to the fear of uncertainty that Cobra Bubbles' presence represents. And Stitch is as touched by Ohana as anyone who has ever felt loneliness could be.
And yet as heavy as the themes are, there is somehow plenty of room for humor. Pleakley's obstinate rule following is a bit of a joke at the expense of the government. Stitch's Elvis impersonating feels to me like a good hard jab at pop culture's constantly changing (and yet still somehow static) view of "a model citizen." Even David as a cliche lovestruck kid is good for a few laughs. And really, who doesn't get a good chuckle from a little bit of mayhem now and again.
It's such an off the wall idea that any summarizing I were to try and do would never do justice and be detrimental to my glowing recommendations so suffice to say that Lilo and Stitch is an excellent movie and you won't really know how good it is until you've seen it for yourself.
Favorite Character: Jumba Jookiba is the winner for me. His voice was excellently cast and you can always rely on him to help you along with the story with a little talking to himself in his evil genius sort of way.
Least necessary character: Pudge the Fish. I'm just not really convinced that he controls the weather at all.
Overall: Excellent in so many ways. It's beautiful to look at. It's beautiful to listen to. There is so much engaging story and all of it so precisely told without relying on a heavy handed story before bedtime around the fire. Insert an annoyed glare at Atlantis here.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
D52 - Week 41 - Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Kevin's Discovery
------------------
I didn't care much for it.
Amanda's Findings
-------------------
Wow, Kevin, thanks for that stellar and concise review.
Well, I for one think there's a lot more to say here. First and foremost, let us immediately bring to the forefront that Joss Whedon was one of the writers for this film/ TV-show-hopeful. I can't personally say much this way or that about it because I really don't know a whole lot about Joss Whedon's body of work. With the exception of Toy Story and Dr. Horrible, he doesn't mean a whole lot to me. However, I'm not so far gone from society that I don't recognize his name and know that it relates to a number of other outstandingly popular science fiction series. Atlantis itself feels to me like it would have been a fabulous TV series and here's why:
Atlantis is stuffed full of interesting characters with presumably rich backstories. The downfall in my opinion is that it was in fact stuffed full. There just isn't enough time in a film with this much exposition to dedicate to all the side characters. Had this been a TV series from the start, there would have been no need to force character arcs into a quick set of 12 second bedtime stories.
Atlantis involves an entire society heretofore unknown to the rest of civilization. This of course leaves a great deal of room to expand on the history, culture and way of life of the society to which we've been introduced. A nice big handful of episodes would have been great, but as a movie it felt like the 4 minutes of cramming before a high school class that was having a big test.
Atlantis included a lot of pop culture-y stylistic choices such as "hippie," "steampunk," and "Victoriana" which could easily have been used to death in hypothetical conventions in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.
But most of all, Atlantis had a rich, potentially interesting story with a lot of detail and it just didn't come across in the final film. There just plain wasn't enough time to build up the kind of suspense that was needed for such a heavy piece of work. You need a lot of time not only to tell the story in the first place but also for the audience to allow all that information to sink in. I for one don't remember any of the names of any of the characters outside of Milo and Kida. What I do remember: Fast Talking Black Guy, Dirty Man, Jim Varney, TNT Dude, Grandma Smokes, and Holy Freaking Huge Freaky Lips Latina. Even the villians had potential considering for most of the film, you're kept mostly in the dark as to who is going to turn on the group. It's pretty obvious, to tell the truth, but had this been a series, I suspect that it would have been a huge, ground-breaking, surprise in the season finale.
Shoot, you know what? It all went by so fast, I don't really remember what DID happen! Something about flying fish cars and a lava pit and Kida was God? Bah, it's all a wash.
Favorite Character: I guess Milo, because I don't remember enough about the others. I liked Grandma Smokes though. She was just cliche enough to love.
Least Necessary Character: For the sake of a series, they all were pretty necessary. For the sake of just one movie, All of the nick name side kicks could have gone and it wouldn't have affected the plot in the least little bit. Seriously, anything they did could have been reassigned to the two villians. Anything.
Overall: I mean, it looks pretty, and it was a cool premise. It just didn't gel. All it boils down to is what Kevin said earlier.... I didn't care much for it.
BONUS: For the record, Blind Chief of Atlantians was voiced by Leonard Nimoy.
------------------
I didn't care much for it.
Amanda's Findings
-------------------
Wow, Kevin, thanks for that stellar and concise review.
Well, I for one think there's a lot more to say here. First and foremost, let us immediately bring to the forefront that Joss Whedon was one of the writers for this film/ TV-show-hopeful. I can't personally say much this way or that about it because I really don't know a whole lot about Joss Whedon's body of work. With the exception of Toy Story and Dr. Horrible, he doesn't mean a whole lot to me. However, I'm not so far gone from society that I don't recognize his name and know that it relates to a number of other outstandingly popular science fiction series. Atlantis itself feels to me like it would have been a fabulous TV series and here's why:
Atlantis is stuffed full of interesting characters with presumably rich backstories. The downfall in my opinion is that it was in fact stuffed full. There just isn't enough time in a film with this much exposition to dedicate to all the side characters. Had this been a TV series from the start, there would have been no need to force character arcs into a quick set of 12 second bedtime stories.
Atlantis involves an entire society heretofore unknown to the rest of civilization. This of course leaves a great deal of room to expand on the history, culture and way of life of the society to which we've been introduced. A nice big handful of episodes would have been great, but as a movie it felt like the 4 minutes of cramming before a high school class that was having a big test.
Atlantis included a lot of pop culture-y stylistic choices such as "hippie," "steampunk," and "Victoriana" which could easily have been used to death in hypothetical conventions in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.
But most of all, Atlantis had a rich, potentially interesting story with a lot of detail and it just didn't come across in the final film. There just plain wasn't enough time to build up the kind of suspense that was needed for such a heavy piece of work. You need a lot of time not only to tell the story in the first place but also for the audience to allow all that information to sink in. I for one don't remember any of the names of any of the characters outside of Milo and Kida. What I do remember: Fast Talking Black Guy, Dirty Man, Jim Varney, TNT Dude, Grandma Smokes, and Holy Freaking Huge Freaky Lips Latina. Even the villians had potential considering for most of the film, you're kept mostly in the dark as to who is going to turn on the group. It's pretty obvious, to tell the truth, but had this been a series, I suspect that it would have been a huge, ground-breaking, surprise in the season finale.
Shoot, you know what? It all went by so fast, I don't really remember what DID happen! Something about flying fish cars and a lava pit and Kida was God? Bah, it's all a wash.
Favorite Character: I guess Milo, because I don't remember enough about the others. I liked Grandma Smokes though. She was just cliche enough to love.
Least Necessary Character: For the sake of a series, they all were pretty necessary. For the sake of just one movie, All of the nick name side kicks could have gone and it wouldn't have affected the plot in the least little bit. Seriously, anything they did could have been reassigned to the two villians. Anything.
Overall: I mean, it looks pretty, and it was a cool premise. It just didn't gel. All it boils down to is what Kevin said earlier.... I didn't care much for it.
BONUS: For the record, Blind Chief of Atlantians was voiced by Leonard Nimoy.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
D52 - Week 40 - The Emperor's New Groove
Kevin's Groove
----------------
The best thing The Emperor's New Groove has going for it is that it's not Dinosaur. It is kind of funny, isn't it - both films were released in the same year, so there must've been a long overlap during which both were being made at the same time. One a "realistically" styled computer-animated story told straightly, the other a very VERY very cartoony hand-drawn feature-length Saturday morning cartoon done with only scant traces of seriousness at all. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd easily pick TENG, but it would be rather like choosing a handful of rock candy over a bowl of wilted lettuce.
It certainly looks a lot nicer. There are some fascinating character designs and animations, including the awkward way newbie llama Kuzco tries to walk. It's funnier, in the sense that there are some bits worth laughing at, and Dinosaur had none.
But there's this thing that they both have in common. I'll warn you. I'm going to ramble yet again!
Again, we get a character who is presented as a Bad Guy because...well, because she's the antagonist of the title character. She does try to have Kuzco killed, and that does make her a bad person. However, to have a good reason to root for Kuzco to triumph over Yzma, you would have to ignore that one scene in which Kuzco himself has a guy killed. Yeah, when Little Adorable Piglet-voice Man is thrown from a tower window, it's played for laughs in a toon slapstick fashion, so you assume he'll be okay, but what bothers me is that you have to be consistent about this sort of thing. Because not too much later on, Kronk is seen being legitimately concerned when Kuzco is close to... also falling from a great height. There's no precision to the comparison since it's not clear just how high both of those heights are, but ... come on. If the frail old man was able to survive his collision from the sky onto the ground, I'm sure the young, healthy emperor will be fine when he hits the water. Or maybe this all makes more sense if you try the notion that Kronk is too stupid to realize you can't kill a cartoon character that way?
But even so, I actually don't see why Yzma is more evil than Kuzco is. Plotting to kill a guy isn't "worse" than casually having a guy killed, is it (Well, we'll let the Incan justice system sort out the degrees of murder involved)? Yzma is ... not the nicest person, personality-wise, but then again Kuzco was also a jerk. Really the only important difference is that we later find out that Kuzco is... not a complete jerk. But who's to say Yzma wouldn't have changed her ways had she not met Pacha herself and had to undergo a coming-of-age-new-buddies road trip, complete with cliché waterfall (I'll admit I do at least like that a joke acknowledges it being a cliché) and unreliable rope-bridge (there was something awfully familiar about that guy trying to cross a dangerously high broken rope-bridge with a llama... intentional homage, yes or no?)? And the lead-up to the climax of the movie suggested that there was something at stake for Kuzco to reach Yzma and reclaim his rightful place on the throne, but was there really? Maybe I missed it, but was there any indication of what would be different with Yzma in the emperor's place, other than the egotistical cosmetic changes
We also get an animal-transformation sequence that probably could've had a lot of potential for creativity and fun, but isn't played out anywhere near as well as the Merlin-Mim duel from The Sword in the Stone.
Anyway, I'm running out of time and might add to this later but Amanda has plenty to say anyway., so let me end mine for now with....
Favorite character: If you can't get Vincent Price for your comically weird "villain," get another 60s Batman series villain portrayer: Eartha Kitt!
Least necessary character:
Overall: A movie that tries too hard to be funny too often and occasionally succeeds is at least better than a movie that tries to be too seriously and emotional and fails completely.
Amanda's Groove
------------------
I'm so glad TENG became a Saturday morning cartoon series because that was clearly its calling. The slapstick, the breaking of the fourth wall, the comic "villian" without a backstory, the heavily stylized characters. It just all fits so perfectly.
Now here I have to reference Kevin's post and voice my disagreement through the use of hoity toity theatrical blabbity. There are a small handful of traditional conflicts that are recognized in classical theater and a few of them are as follows: Man vs. man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Beast, etc.
I think the folly that Kevin has fallen under is the idea that this movie has a Man vs. Man plot in which Kuzco as the protagonist is pitted against Yzma as the antagonist. To this I say nay-nay. In reality, I think this falls somewhere in between Man vs. Self and Society vs. Man. Kuzco's main problem isn't Yzma, because for three quarters of the movie he doesn't even know she's out to get him, his main problem is his own bad attitude as pointed out by Pacha (Society). Yzma is merely one of the plot devices providing convenient turning points for Kuzco's self discovery.
Turning points of course are any points within a story that change the situation or condition of the main character. Turning points that Yzma and Kronk provide: Turning Kuzco into a llama (changing his physical being); accidentally tossing him onto a cart so that he ends up with Pacha (changing his physical location and societal group); being overheard plotting his death (changing his emotional state); and so forth.
Even at the end when he's facing off against Yzma while trying to get the Essence of Human, it's all down to a conflict against himself as he decides between his personal desire to become human again and the societal correctness of saving his fellow man.
Most unfortunately this has become more of a lesson than a review. Yet, it feels a bit like a compliment to the film. While on the surface it's a slap-sticky, nonsense-filled, David-Spade-starring, piece of fluff, there is actually a lot of structure under the surface that gives it some sense and makes it oddly relate-able. The terribly interesting character design makes it very watchable, and the music might not add a whole lot but it's not detracting either and Tom Jones is always good for a laugh.
Favorite Character: Yzma. She's voiced by Eartha Kitt with every bit of camp that we loved her for as Catwoman and that take she gives the camera/Kuzco while Kronk talks to his shoulder angel/devil made me laugh out loud.
Least necessary character: Pacha's family. I just don't think we needed his family at all to understand his plight of feel for him. Plus those kids were a little bit insufferable.
Overall: Seems like a movie I would have hated, but I actually enjoyed. But you don't have to take MY word for it!
----------------
The best thing The Emperor's New Groove has going for it is that it's not Dinosaur. It is kind of funny, isn't it - both films were released in the same year, so there must've been a long overlap during which both were being made at the same time. One a "realistically" styled computer-animated story told straightly, the other a very VERY very cartoony hand-drawn feature-length Saturday morning cartoon done with only scant traces of seriousness at all. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd easily pick TENG, but it would be rather like choosing a handful of rock candy over a bowl of wilted lettuce.
It certainly looks a lot nicer. There are some fascinating character designs and animations, including the awkward way newbie llama Kuzco tries to walk. It's funnier, in the sense that there are some bits worth laughing at, and Dinosaur had none.
But there's this thing that they both have in common. I'll warn you. I'm going to ramble yet again!
Again, we get a character who is presented as a Bad Guy because...well, because she's the antagonist of the title character. She does try to have Kuzco killed, and that does make her a bad person. However, to have a good reason to root for Kuzco to triumph over Yzma, you would have to ignore that one scene in which Kuzco himself has a guy killed. Yeah, when Little Adorable Piglet-voice Man is thrown from a tower window, it's played for laughs in a toon slapstick fashion, so you assume he'll be okay, but what bothers me is that you have to be consistent about this sort of thing. Because not too much later on, Kronk is seen being legitimately concerned when Kuzco is close to... also falling from a great height. There's no precision to the comparison since it's not clear just how high both of those heights are, but ... come on. If the frail old man was able to survive his collision from the sky onto the ground, I'm sure the young, healthy emperor will be fine when he hits the water. Or maybe this all makes more sense if you try the notion that Kronk is too stupid to realize you can't kill a cartoon character that way?
But even so, I actually don't see why Yzma is more evil than Kuzco is. Plotting to kill a guy isn't "worse" than casually having a guy killed, is it (Well, we'll let the Incan justice system sort out the degrees of murder involved)? Yzma is ... not the nicest person, personality-wise, but then again Kuzco was also a jerk. Really the only important difference is that we later find out that Kuzco is... not a complete jerk. But who's to say Yzma wouldn't have changed her ways had she not met Pacha herself and had to undergo a coming-of-age-new-buddies road trip, complete with cliché waterfall (I'll admit I do at least like that a joke acknowledges it being a cliché) and unreliable rope-bridge (there was something awfully familiar about that guy trying to cross a dangerously high broken rope-bridge with a llama... intentional homage, yes or no?)? And the lead-up to the climax of the movie suggested that there was something at stake for Kuzco to reach Yzma and reclaim his rightful place on the throne, but was there really? Maybe I missed it, but was there any indication of what would be different with Yzma in the emperor's place, other than the egotistical cosmetic changes
We also get an animal-transformation sequence that probably could've had a lot of potential for creativity and fun, but isn't played out anywhere near as well as the Merlin-Mim duel from The Sword in the Stone.
Anyway, I'm running out of time and might add to this later but Amanda has plenty to say anyway., so let me end mine for now with....
Favorite character: If you can't get Vincent Price for your comically weird "villain," get another 60s Batman series villain portrayer: Eartha Kitt!
Least necessary character:
Overall: A movie that tries too hard to be funny too often and occasionally succeeds is at least better than a movie that tries to be too seriously and emotional and fails completely.
Amanda's Groove
------------------
I'm so glad TENG became a Saturday morning cartoon series because that was clearly its calling. The slapstick, the breaking of the fourth wall, the comic "villian" without a backstory, the heavily stylized characters. It just all fits so perfectly.
Now here I have to reference Kevin's post and voice my disagreement through the use of hoity toity theatrical blabbity. There are a small handful of traditional conflicts that are recognized in classical theater and a few of them are as follows: Man vs. man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Beast, etc.
I think the folly that Kevin has fallen under is the idea that this movie has a Man vs. Man plot in which Kuzco as the protagonist is pitted against Yzma as the antagonist. To this I say nay-nay. In reality, I think this falls somewhere in between Man vs. Self and Society vs. Man. Kuzco's main problem isn't Yzma, because for three quarters of the movie he doesn't even know she's out to get him, his main problem is his own bad attitude as pointed out by Pacha (Society). Yzma is merely one of the plot devices providing convenient turning points for Kuzco's self discovery.
Turning points of course are any points within a story that change the situation or condition of the main character. Turning points that Yzma and Kronk provide: Turning Kuzco into a llama (changing his physical being); accidentally tossing him onto a cart so that he ends up with Pacha (changing his physical location and societal group); being overheard plotting his death (changing his emotional state); and so forth.
Even at the end when he's facing off against Yzma while trying to get the Essence of Human, it's all down to a conflict against himself as he decides between his personal desire to become human again and the societal correctness of saving his fellow man.
Most unfortunately this has become more of a lesson than a review. Yet, it feels a bit like a compliment to the film. While on the surface it's a slap-sticky, nonsense-filled, David-Spade-starring, piece of fluff, there is actually a lot of structure under the surface that gives it some sense and makes it oddly relate-able. The terribly interesting character design makes it very watchable, and the music might not add a whole lot but it's not detracting either and Tom Jones is always good for a laugh.
Favorite Character: Yzma. She's voiced by Eartha Kitt with every bit of camp that we loved her for as Catwoman and that take she gives the camera/Kuzco while Kronk talks to his shoulder angel/devil made me laugh out loud.
Least necessary character: Pacha's family. I just don't think we needed his family at all to understand his plight of feel for him. Plus those kids were a little bit insufferable.
Overall: Seems like a movie I would have hated, but I actually enjoyed. But you don't have to take MY word for it!
Saturday, September 29, 2012
D52 - Week 39 - Dinosaur
Kevinosaurus
--------------
This one is just so weird. First of all none of it even really seems like "a Disney movie." Which is why I wasn't surprised to see no recognizable names in the credits (save a few of the voice actors). It's not even like a third-party-created-but-released-by-Disney movie. It's not even like watching leading competing animation studio's work (I'll get to Atlantis and Treasure Planet later). It's like this foreign-made film that has nothing to do with Disney and isn't even trying to be like Disney. So the very experience of watching it, expecting "a Disney movie," while it seems to constantly contradict that, is a weird one. It's not even just the animation quality, or even the story too, but ... everything about it.
But let me start with the animation. I believe back near the beginning of the year I commented about the use of hand-drawn animation over live action footage from Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. In those cases it seemed like a gimmick, but at least it was a fairly fun gimmick, and it paved the way for better use of the technique. In "Dinosaur," we get computer-generated animation over live non-action footage, which comes across less as a gimmick even and more as just a way to save time and money on having to render all of the scenery. And it's hard to say it was even particularly novel at the time, since the audiences of the year 2000 would have already seen that sort of thing - computer dinosaurs transposed over actual footage - seven years earlier in "Jurassic Park." And the computer animation in "Dinosaur" isn't even a whole lot better. I know it's easy to criticize graphics many years later after huge advances have been made, but even Toy Story 2, released in '99, holds up pretty well today. I realize in Toy Story's case it helps that most of the characters and environments were artificial in nature and of course simulated more easily, but that is the point I'm going for here. Since animation technology at the time apparently wasn't sufficient enough to make believable animals in believable organic environments, Dinosaur suffers with off-putting models that I don't want to spend the entire length of a feature seeing.
Maybe it wouldn't so bad if the story itself was interesting in some way at all. But it's pretty darn cliché-packed, what with the young idealistic kid having trouble exposing his novel and ground-breaking ideas to the thoughtless masses, and the girl he meets who he should get with on the grounds that it's the first girl he meets despite her having to warm up to him, and the HORRIBLY UNFUNNY sidekick AGH YOU ARE SO UNFUNNY IT'S PAINFUL. To summarize the plot, various events happen. It's another weird thing about this movie, and I'm not even sure how much of it is due to the weird visuals. But I never really feel like I'm "in" the movie. And I can get "into" even a bad movie, like The Black Cauldron. But for this one it was more like I was just ... seeing things happen. I get what's going on not because I'm feeling the situation through the eyes of the characters but because I see the characters doing things and I understand what feelings I'm supposed to have for them. Like, there's this bad guy named Kron. Here's where I get lost in moral grey areas. Still feel like reading? I won't blame you if you feel like skipping at any point. Okay. So. One of the things that separate humans from animals is a separate set of morals. It's a society thing. For us helping the less fortunate and differently-abled is just plain the right thing to do, because we're at the point where we don't need to worry about protecting our species and letting only the fittest survive and all that. It just doesn't apply to us. So we might witness a small rodent-sized pet mother who, say, eats its own young, and that's horrible, but only really because we're applying it to our social structure. We don't even want to think of the possibility of a human parent doing anything like that, because obviously that would be horrible to us. It would be morally reprehensible because he or she should know better. But when a wild animal in a natural environment sacrifices the weak for the good of the survival of its own kind in the long run...well, that instinct is there for a reason, isn't it?
The reason I bring this all up is, the lesson we're supposed to learn in Dinosaur is a bit hinky to me. Aladar believes it's wrong to leave the slower members of the herd behind, and Kron is painted as being evil for believing only the strong should survive. If Aladar and Kron were people, I would have no problem with this. But they're dinosaurs! In the wild! Walking on four legs and foraging for food! And their very existence was even endangered at the time! It's one thing when it's anthropomorphic animals in a human-style setting (like Robin Hood) but when they're very animal-like animals in an animal setting, applying human morals seems as out of place as...well, any historical inaccuracies you may have noticed.
Talking point: Is Kron evil, or is he just an animal doing what an animal would be expected to do? If your housecat attacks a field mouse that finds its way into the house, does that mean your cat is evil?
Favorite Character: Kron, but only for the single reason that the same voice actor was also Sebastian the Crab, and that fact is so far the most and only amusing thing about this movie.
Least necessary character: "The love monkey." Get out of here with your exasperatingly unfunny trailer comments that don't fit the tone of everything else in the movie.
Overall: While there was certainly a lot of work put into the visuals of Dinosaur (strangely the "making of" features make it look better than it does when I actually watch the movie), they just don't play well enough to save the lackluster story and its unlikeable characters.
So it's come to this: I am now looking forward to watching a movie starring David Spade.
Amandadon
------------
Ughh.
UUUUGGHGHHHHHHGHGHHHH....
The Love monkey? Oh kill me now. That meteor can't come fast enough.
Dinosaur seems like the red-headed step-child masquerading as a genuine Disney movie. There are so many aspects to it that cause it to stand apart from the entirety of Disney's other works and let's not consider it a compliment.
Aladar is an iguanadon who was lost as an egg and was raised by a family of slightly wonky-moving lemurs. This would be interesting and possibly enhance his character somewhat if we were allowed to see some of his challenges growing up and witness any of his interactions with his family so that the cast would have some character to it. Unfortunately while taking advantage of some technology that is as jarring as it is beautiful (blending live-action footage with CGI characters), we skip from baby is found straight to mating day in the clan. This movie could have taken a cue from Tarzan and been about Aladar's isolation growing up with no one else like him. During the first few scenes, it seems like it might be going that way.
Suddenly a meteor! The (now abbreviated) family of lemurs and Aladar escape explosive destruction and run into a large mixed species herd who are headed towards a breeding grounds which escaped the fateful cosmic catastrophe. Once again we have an idea introduced that attempts to be the theme of the movie: Successfully travel from point A to point B. This alone could also be a successful concept. However, Aladar as an outsider doesn't understand the rules of the pack and as a result meets some eccentric characters near the back of the line who are less abled do to age and intelligence issues than the rest. The theme is now Help Others and Work Together.
Aladar feels for these poor misfits and places himself among them and the sexy female Iguanadon is apparently impressed by this, so the theme has changed once again: Kindness is a virtue most especially to the less fortunate. It's a good thing the horrible jokes from the unlikeable lemur don't cause permanent damage. This one holds on for a while until they all get separated and end up in a cave cowering from big meat-eaters and as Aladar almost throws in the towel and the big elderly Dino gives a lecture, the theme suddenly shifts to Never Give Up.
Or... maybe it's Show Personal Responsibility in Your Community because Aladar runs off to lead the herd to his new found path and they all Work Together to fight off the meat-eater and Family is Who You Love and Who Loves You because Aladar has babies and the lemurs are there to help him.
OHHHHH Forget it!
TL;DR
This movie has no focus. The use of live animation is more distracting than enhancing. The characters are either bland or unbearable. The character animation and design hovers in this weird animal uncanny valley. The story is unoriginal, poorly told, and not terribly interesting to begin with. Have I found a movie I disliked more than Black Cauldron? Yes. I think I have.
Favorite character: The horned old lady. She may have been a bland character with cliche lines, but Della Reese acted the hell out of them!
Least necessary character: ALL of the freaking LEMURS, but that incredibly unfunny ugly one with no girlfriend is the most putrid.
Overall: Snoozefest, Rageparty... take your pick.
Saving Grace
On the upside, I bet that "Dinosaur!" the ride in Walt Disney World might not have come to fruition without this movie. I love the ride and I believe that a lot of the success of this ride is based on the fact that the imagineers made no attempt whatsoever to adhere to the plot.
--------------
This one is just so weird. First of all none of it even really seems like "a Disney movie." Which is why I wasn't surprised to see no recognizable names in the credits (save a few of the voice actors). It's not even like a third-party-created-but-released-by-Disney movie. It's not even like watching leading competing animation studio's work (I'll get to Atlantis and Treasure Planet later). It's like this foreign-made film that has nothing to do with Disney and isn't even trying to be like Disney. So the very experience of watching it, expecting "a Disney movie," while it seems to constantly contradict that, is a weird one. It's not even just the animation quality, or even the story too, but ... everything about it.
But let me start with the animation. I believe back near the beginning of the year I commented about the use of hand-drawn animation over live action footage from Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. In those cases it seemed like a gimmick, but at least it was a fairly fun gimmick, and it paved the way for better use of the technique. In "Dinosaur," we get computer-generated animation over live non-action footage, which comes across less as a gimmick even and more as just a way to save time and money on having to render all of the scenery. And it's hard to say it was even particularly novel at the time, since the audiences of the year 2000 would have already seen that sort of thing - computer dinosaurs transposed over actual footage - seven years earlier in "Jurassic Park." And the computer animation in "Dinosaur" isn't even a whole lot better. I know it's easy to criticize graphics many years later after huge advances have been made, but even Toy Story 2, released in '99, holds up pretty well today. I realize in Toy Story's case it helps that most of the characters and environments were artificial in nature and of course simulated more easily, but that is the point I'm going for here. Since animation technology at the time apparently wasn't sufficient enough to make believable animals in believable organic environments, Dinosaur suffers with off-putting models that I don't want to spend the entire length of a feature seeing.
Maybe it wouldn't so bad if the story itself was interesting in some way at all. But it's pretty darn cliché-packed, what with the young idealistic kid having trouble exposing his novel and ground-breaking ideas to the thoughtless masses, and the girl he meets who he should get with on the grounds that it's the first girl he meets despite her having to warm up to him, and the HORRIBLY UNFUNNY sidekick AGH YOU ARE SO UNFUNNY IT'S PAINFUL. To summarize the plot, various events happen. It's another weird thing about this movie, and I'm not even sure how much of it is due to the weird visuals. But I never really feel like I'm "in" the movie. And I can get "into" even a bad movie, like The Black Cauldron. But for this one it was more like I was just ... seeing things happen. I get what's going on not because I'm feeling the situation through the eyes of the characters but because I see the characters doing things and I understand what feelings I'm supposed to have for them. Like, there's this bad guy named Kron. Here's where I get lost in moral grey areas. Still feel like reading? I won't blame you if you feel like skipping at any point. Okay. So. One of the things that separate humans from animals is a separate set of morals. It's a society thing. For us helping the less fortunate and differently-abled is just plain the right thing to do, because we're at the point where we don't need to worry about protecting our species and letting only the fittest survive and all that. It just doesn't apply to us. So we might witness a small rodent-sized pet mother who, say, eats its own young, and that's horrible, but only really because we're applying it to our social structure. We don't even want to think of the possibility of a human parent doing anything like that, because obviously that would be horrible to us. It would be morally reprehensible because he or she should know better. But when a wild animal in a natural environment sacrifices the weak for the good of the survival of its own kind in the long run...well, that instinct is there for a reason, isn't it?
The reason I bring this all up is, the lesson we're supposed to learn in Dinosaur is a bit hinky to me. Aladar believes it's wrong to leave the slower members of the herd behind, and Kron is painted as being evil for believing only the strong should survive. If Aladar and Kron were people, I would have no problem with this. But they're dinosaurs! In the wild! Walking on four legs and foraging for food! And their very existence was even endangered at the time! It's one thing when it's anthropomorphic animals in a human-style setting (like Robin Hood) but when they're very animal-like animals in an animal setting, applying human morals seems as out of place as...well, any historical inaccuracies you may have noticed.
Talking point: Is Kron evil, or is he just an animal doing what an animal would be expected to do? If your housecat attacks a field mouse that finds its way into the house, does that mean your cat is evil?
Favorite Character: Kron, but only for the single reason that the same voice actor was also Sebastian the Crab, and that fact is so far the most and only amusing thing about this movie.
Least necessary character: "The love monkey." Get out of here with your exasperatingly unfunny trailer comments that don't fit the tone of everything else in the movie.
Overall: While there was certainly a lot of work put into the visuals of Dinosaur (strangely the "making of" features make it look better than it does when I actually watch the movie), they just don't play well enough to save the lackluster story and its unlikeable characters.
So it's come to this: I am now looking forward to watching a movie starring David Spade.
Amandadon
------------
Ughh.
UUUUGGHGHHHHHHGHGHHHH....
The Love monkey? Oh kill me now. That meteor can't come fast enough.
Dinosaur seems like the red-headed step-child masquerading as a genuine Disney movie. There are so many aspects to it that cause it to stand apart from the entirety of Disney's other works and let's not consider it a compliment.
Aladar is an iguanadon who was lost as an egg and was raised by a family of slightly wonky-moving lemurs. This would be interesting and possibly enhance his character somewhat if we were allowed to see some of his challenges growing up and witness any of his interactions with his family so that the cast would have some character to it. Unfortunately while taking advantage of some technology that is as jarring as it is beautiful (blending live-action footage with CGI characters), we skip from baby is found straight to mating day in the clan. This movie could have taken a cue from Tarzan and been about Aladar's isolation growing up with no one else like him. During the first few scenes, it seems like it might be going that way.
Suddenly a meteor! The (now abbreviated) family of lemurs and Aladar escape explosive destruction and run into a large mixed species herd who are headed towards a breeding grounds which escaped the fateful cosmic catastrophe. Once again we have an idea introduced that attempts to be the theme of the movie: Successfully travel from point A to point B. This alone could also be a successful concept. However, Aladar as an outsider doesn't understand the rules of the pack and as a result meets some eccentric characters near the back of the line who are less abled do to age and intelligence issues than the rest. The theme is now Help Others and Work Together.
Aladar feels for these poor misfits and places himself among them and the sexy female Iguanadon is apparently impressed by this, so the theme has changed once again: Kindness is a virtue most especially to the less fortunate. It's a good thing the horrible jokes from the unlikeable lemur don't cause permanent damage. This one holds on for a while until they all get separated and end up in a cave cowering from big meat-eaters and as Aladar almost throws in the towel and the big elderly Dino gives a lecture, the theme suddenly shifts to Never Give Up.
Or... maybe it's Show Personal Responsibility in Your Community because Aladar runs off to lead the herd to his new found path and they all Work Together to fight off the meat-eater and Family is Who You Love and Who Loves You because Aladar has babies and the lemurs are there to help him.
OHHHHH Forget it!
TL;DR
This movie has no focus. The use of live animation is more distracting than enhancing. The characters are either bland or unbearable. The character animation and design hovers in this weird animal uncanny valley. The story is unoriginal, poorly told, and not terribly interesting to begin with. Have I found a movie I disliked more than Black Cauldron? Yes. I think I have.
Favorite character: The horned old lady. She may have been a bland character with cliche lines, but Della Reese acted the hell out of them!
Least necessary character: ALL of the freaking LEMURS, but that incredibly unfunny ugly one with no girlfriend is the most putrid.
Overall: Snoozefest, Rageparty... take your pick.
Saving Grace
On the upside, I bet that "Dinosaur!" the ride in Walt Disney World might not have come to fruition without this movie. I love the ride and I believe that a lot of the success of this ride is based on the fact that the imagineers made no attempt whatsoever to adhere to the plot.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
D52 - Week 38 - Fantasia 2000
Kevin's Piece
--------------
Remember watching the original Fantasia back in the third week of January? It kinda seems like forever ago. Now trying to imagine the gap being 59 years, now that's something else. I went back to my Fantasia post and was surprised at how little I had to say about it. I did write shorter reviews earlier in the year, and there's not much to say about less plotty features, but it was just over two hours long. Then you have Fantasia 2000, at...75 minutes? Huh. And yet - and Amanda will disagree with me - I found I enjoyed it more. Fantasia did have many great segments, but for me the only one that really stands out in my recollection is The Sorceror's Apprentice...which is in Fantasia 2000 as well anyway! Speaking of which, geez. I thought we were past the recycled animation era. The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia 2000 blatantly copies so many animation sequences directly from The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia! But seriously, it's an interesting choice to include that in the 2000 version. Similar to how I found Finding Nemo 3D a worthwhile additional experience even after having seen it many times on home video, I would've liked to have experienced The Sorceror's Apprentice in full theatrical sound. er, The Sorceror's Apprentice the short, not the Nicolas Cage movie. I mean, not to judge the Nic Cage one. For all I know its music might be quite good too.
As for the new segments, while not every piece is a home-run, the ones that are, are hit out of the park and into the stratosphere. The Rhapsody in Blue cartoon actually reminds me of Looney Tunes, but if they were done to a perfect Disney polish. If there's anything wrong with it, it's that the animation is timed so well with the music, that I'm distracted by my amazement at how well it's timed with the music. The Steadfast Tin Soldier has got the right idea with working around then-CGI's limitations through stylization. The Carnival of The Animals is short but sweet. My favorite's gotta be Donald Noah's Ark. I get a kick out of Donald's reaction to the other ducks on the ships. It's about time a Disney character has directly acknowledged the strangeness of Disney toon species, even if...no, especially because it was done as a fleeting gag. It even leaves more questions unanswered, like were Mickey and Minnie and Goofy somewhere on that ark and...well my point is it's a great philosophical piece.
The other pieces...are very pleasant to watch and listen to, but...what else can I say? Space whales and Mother Earth Stag.
Favorite character: It's great to see Donald in a D52 role again, and not flirting with human ladies.
Least necessary characters: I'm unclear: What exactly were the other soldiers off doing when the steadfast one was fighting for his girl?
Overall: Maybe it's because I'm partial to funny toons over terribly classy ones, but I'll take the eye-and-ear candy of Fantasia 2000 over the refined palate plates of Fantasia any day.
Amanda's opus
----------------
Fantasia 2000 to me had so much more potential in planning than what was used in the final movie. I'm not saying it was bad, because it wasn't, but it plays out more like a cheesy clip show than polished, carefully planned movie piece.
Kevin was right when he said I'd disagree with him, but I think it's entirely based in the idea of education. I always felt that the original Fantasia was a way to not only entertain audiences, but to educate them in some of the older finer musical culture of the world and to do so with a spoonful of sugar that is visual stimulation. Let us consider the opening sequences in which there is no story and the music doesn't evoke concrete ideas. I felt that stylistically the original enhanced the idea of surrealism and abstraction through the use of unusual and infrequently used media within the context of animation. I noticed how the brush marks made me think of chalk drawings, pastels, oil paints and anything other than pencil to paper animation. And yet despite all the details that I noticed, I was never distracted from the music that inspired the design and I could hum a few bars if you asked me. In the more recent film opening sequence, I felt distracted by the visuals rather than feeling that they complimented the music. It was almost too concrete and I couldn't think about just the music and the colors; I was distracted by thoughts like "those triangles look like butterflies... oh I guess that's what they're going for." and "Is that a waterfall? So we're in the forest?" As a result, I can't tell you the first song nor can I hum a few bars.
I can't say I'm a fan of the celebrity introductions either. I almost feel like the filmmakers believed that if they didn't have celebrities that the film wouldn't be interesting enough and that's just plain insulting to my intelligence.
When it comes to each musical sequence, standing alone they are all very nice, but all together there's just too much story for my taste. It makes this feature feel more like a package film than a night at the orchestra. While I understand bringing back The Sorcerer's Apprentice and introducing Donald's Pomp and Circumstance as the two big story pieces, I feel overwhelmed when being presented with The Steadfast Soldier, The Rhapsody in Blue's New Yorkers wishing for Happiness, The Naughty Flamingo, Green Goddess fights Fire, and Whales go to Heaven. The original Fantasia only gave story to The Sorcerer's Apprentice and all the other musical sequences had a very vague theme at best and for my taste, that's a good thing because the music which let's not forget came first and was the inspiration never takes a backseat.
Now once again, let me say that none of the sequences were bad! Each one stands alone and each one would be a very entertaining short with which to present before any other movie, but because they are each so strong on their own, they feel as if they are clashing within this one film.
Favorite Character: I miss The Soundtrack... but I'll pick The Flamingo with his Yo-Yo. It's short, and it's a good laugh.
Least Necessary Character: All the Celebrities. I just don't see what was so wrong with a stoic narrator. He wasn't distracting and he wasn't trying to get a joke in and upstage everyone.
Overall: It's still good. There's a lot of beautiful animation and there's a lot of beautiful music and I just wish they could get along better instead of trying to play King of the Hill. It's still worth a watch and I hope very much that they come out with another Fantasia eventually because I really do enjoy a night at the Orchestra.
--------------
Remember watching the original Fantasia back in the third week of January? It kinda seems like forever ago. Now trying to imagine the gap being 59 years, now that's something else. I went back to my Fantasia post and was surprised at how little I had to say about it. I did write shorter reviews earlier in the year, and there's not much to say about less plotty features, but it was just over two hours long. Then you have Fantasia 2000, at...75 minutes? Huh. And yet - and Amanda will disagree with me - I found I enjoyed it more. Fantasia did have many great segments, but for me the only one that really stands out in my recollection is The Sorceror's Apprentice...which is in Fantasia 2000 as well anyway! Speaking of which, geez. I thought we were past the recycled animation era. The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia 2000 blatantly copies so many animation sequences directly from The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia! But seriously, it's an interesting choice to include that in the 2000 version. Similar to how I found Finding Nemo 3D a worthwhile additional experience even after having seen it many times on home video, I would've liked to have experienced The Sorceror's Apprentice in full theatrical sound. er, The Sorceror's Apprentice the short, not the Nicolas Cage movie. I mean, not to judge the Nic Cage one. For all I know its music might be quite good too.
As for the new segments, while not every piece is a home-run, the ones that are, are hit out of the park and into the stratosphere. The Rhapsody in Blue cartoon actually reminds me of Looney Tunes, but if they were done to a perfect Disney polish. If there's anything wrong with it, it's that the animation is timed so well with the music, that I'm distracted by my amazement at how well it's timed with the music. The Steadfast Tin Soldier has got the right idea with working around then-CGI's limitations through stylization. The Carnival of The Animals is short but sweet. My favorite's gotta be Donald Noah's Ark. I get a kick out of Donald's reaction to the other ducks on the ships. It's about time a Disney character has directly acknowledged the strangeness of Disney toon species, even if...no, especially because it was done as a fleeting gag. It even leaves more questions unanswered, like were Mickey and Minnie and Goofy somewhere on that ark and...well my point is it's a great philosophical piece.
The other pieces...are very pleasant to watch and listen to, but...what else can I say? Space whales and Mother Earth Stag.
Favorite character: It's great to see Donald in a D52 role again, and not flirting with human ladies.
Least necessary characters: I'm unclear: What exactly were the other soldiers off doing when the steadfast one was fighting for his girl?
Overall: Maybe it's because I'm partial to funny toons over terribly classy ones, but I'll take the eye-and-ear candy of Fantasia 2000 over the refined palate plates of Fantasia any day.
Amanda's opus
----------------
Fantasia 2000 to me had so much more potential in planning than what was used in the final movie. I'm not saying it was bad, because it wasn't, but it plays out more like a cheesy clip show than polished, carefully planned movie piece.
Kevin was right when he said I'd disagree with him, but I think it's entirely based in the idea of education. I always felt that the original Fantasia was a way to not only entertain audiences, but to educate them in some of the older finer musical culture of the world and to do so with a spoonful of sugar that is visual stimulation. Let us consider the opening sequences in which there is no story and the music doesn't evoke concrete ideas. I felt that stylistically the original enhanced the idea of surrealism and abstraction through the use of unusual and infrequently used media within the context of animation. I noticed how the brush marks made me think of chalk drawings, pastels, oil paints and anything other than pencil to paper animation. And yet despite all the details that I noticed, I was never distracted from the music that inspired the design and I could hum a few bars if you asked me. In the more recent film opening sequence, I felt distracted by the visuals rather than feeling that they complimented the music. It was almost too concrete and I couldn't think about just the music and the colors; I was distracted by thoughts like "those triangles look like butterflies... oh I guess that's what they're going for." and "Is that a waterfall? So we're in the forest?" As a result, I can't tell you the first song nor can I hum a few bars.
I can't say I'm a fan of the celebrity introductions either. I almost feel like the filmmakers believed that if they didn't have celebrities that the film wouldn't be interesting enough and that's just plain insulting to my intelligence.
When it comes to each musical sequence, standing alone they are all very nice, but all together there's just too much story for my taste. It makes this feature feel more like a package film than a night at the orchestra. While I understand bringing back The Sorcerer's Apprentice and introducing Donald's Pomp and Circumstance as the two big story pieces, I feel overwhelmed when being presented with The Steadfast Soldier, The Rhapsody in Blue's New Yorkers wishing for Happiness, The Naughty Flamingo, Green Goddess fights Fire, and Whales go to Heaven. The original Fantasia only gave story to The Sorcerer's Apprentice and all the other musical sequences had a very vague theme at best and for my taste, that's a good thing because the music which let's not forget came first and was the inspiration never takes a backseat.
Now once again, let me say that none of the sequences were bad! Each one stands alone and each one would be a very entertaining short with which to present before any other movie, but because they are each so strong on their own, they feel as if they are clashing within this one film.
Favorite Character: I miss The Soundtrack... but I'll pick The Flamingo with his Yo-Yo. It's short, and it's a good laugh.
Least Necessary Character: All the Celebrities. I just don't see what was so wrong with a stoic narrator. He wasn't distracting and he wasn't trying to get a joke in and upstage everyone.
Overall: It's still good. There's a lot of beautiful animation and there's a lot of beautiful music and I just wish they could get along better instead of trying to play King of the Hill. It's still worth a watch and I hope very much that they come out with another Fantasia eventually because I really do enjoy a night at the Orchestra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)