It is perhaps fitting that the final feature by Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki looks back in time. Departing from the fantasy films that make up the bulk of his work, he tells the story of Jiro Horikoshi, whose real-life counterpart designed Japanese aircraft used in World War II. Jiro literally dreams of flying long before the war. The charming sequences in which he converses with the dream-conjured Italian aeronautics pioneer Giovanni Caproni have a touch of the whimsy that characterizes Miyazaki’s other work.
A key element of the story captures the 1923 earthquake that nearly destroyed Tokyo, but most of the film takes place later, when Jiro has begun working for an aircraft-design firm. Looking at the more advanced work being done in Europe and America, he burns with an ambition born of what the film suggests was a national inferiority complex. Arguably, this complex translated into an ugly nationalism, but in Jiro it merely translates into a desire to build better airplanes. The contradiction between Jiro’s pure desire for engineering perfection and the military uses to which his designs will be put is a subtle theme of the film, and the understatement enhances rather than detracts from the bittersweet conclusion.
I don’t think this film is quite the masterpiece that Miyazaki was perhaps going for, given the historical sweep and dramatic themes. In the English-dubbed version, anyway, some the dialogue and its overly bright delivery gives the proceedings the feel of a old-fashioned “family” film. The love story is unusual in its particulars, but conventional in its telling, close to Nicholas Sparks territory. However, if this is the director’s last feature, as he has said it will be, it is not unworthy, and a good choice for those who will enjoy the lovely hand-drawn images but are wary of the spirits and demons that populate many of Miyazaki’s earlier films.
IMDb link
viewed 3/16/14 3:45 at Ritz Bourse and posted 3/16/14
Showing posts with label animated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animated. Show all posts
Friday, March 7, 2014
Friday, August 31, 2012
A Cat in Paris (***1/4)
This charming, Oscar-nominated animated film, which I saw in its US version (dubbed with American voices), is about a literal cat burglar. By night, the cat is the non-human partner complicit in a series of thefts. This cat must sleep a lot less than most. By day, he is the companion of a young girl traumatized by the death of her father. She doesn’t speak. (Neither does the cat. It’s not that kind of movie.) The girl’s mother is a police detective responsible for investigating the thefts. And so these worlds must collide.
This film isn’t particularly meant for kids, but some may enjoy it. The touches of film noir and playful homages to Quentin Tarentino, Martin Scorsese, et al will be noted by adults. The band of ruthless but hapless crooks bound up in the story will amuse all, and there’s just enough emotion (as when the detective, alone, weeps over the memory of her murdered husband) to bind it all together.
IMDb link
viewed 9/5/12 7:15 pm and reviewed10/10/12
This film isn’t particularly meant for kids, but some may enjoy it. The touches of film noir and playful homages to Quentin Tarentino, Martin Scorsese, et al will be noted by adults. The band of ruthless but hapless crooks bound up in the story will amuse all, and there’s just enough emotion (as when the detective, alone, weeps over the memory of her murdered husband) to bind it all together.
IMDb link
viewed 9/5/12 7:15 pm and reviewed10/10/12
Friday, April 27, 2012
Pirates! Band of Misfits! (***)
What director Peter Lord calls “a schoolboy version of history” with a gloss of silliness is the unifying principle of British author Gideon Defoe’s series of novels, the first of which Lord has adapted here in appropriate cartoon form.* In Defoe’s history, Charles Darwin is a short geek wishing he had a girlfriend and employing a well-trained monkey butler/henchman who, in one of the funniest contrivances, communicates via title cards. (It’s also anachronistic, as Darwin had by the date provided, 1837, concluded his sailing days.) Queen Victoria is a wobbly, pirate-hating Machiavellian who, incidentally, looks nothing like Emily Blunt.**
The pirates themselves are led, naturally, by the Pirate Captain, whose crew includes the Albino Pirate, the Pirate with Gout, and so on. They are not all fearsome so much as not fearsome at all. The Pirate Captain is unusually kind and unusually bumbling. He’s the sort of pirate who, were this a live-action film, might be played by Hugh Grant, who instead merely lends his voice.
Though Defoe himself has crafted the screenplay, the movie differs with the book in important particulars. For example, in the book, the Pirate Captain’s crew conclude that the best part of being a pirate is the sea shanties, whereas, in the movie, they agree that it is “Ham Nite.” However, in both cases the humor, frequently, stems from infusing the story with modern sensibilities. The “pirate of the year” and “scientist of the year” presentations, upon which much of the plot revolves, become parodies of awards show. The latter is held on Blood Island, so named “because it’s the exact shape of some blood.” That bit also gives the flavor of the amusements.
Visually, the film has much appeal. The 3-D theatrical release is nice and bright, and the animation seemed flawless. As with Lord’s previous film, Chicken Run, it employs stop-motion animation. It’s remarkable that most of this was done shooting puppets frame by frame, yet you may well not notice and assume it was done by computer. I enjoyed these Pirates! but, although the comedy, as with Rango! or Bugs Bunny, has some elements pitched more at adults than kids, its appeal is slightly on the “cute” side, a problem I didn’t have with the superior Chicken Run.
_______________________________
* Gideon called his book Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! That title was used for the UK version of the film. Perhaps it was thought that Americans (and Australians) might be frightened by the (unfounded) suggestion that there was actual science in the film.
** …who played her in Young Victoria.
viewed 4/17/12 at Rave UPenn [PFS screening] and reviewed 4/17–4/28/12
The pirates themselves are led, naturally, by the Pirate Captain, whose crew includes the Albino Pirate, the Pirate with Gout, and so on. They are not all fearsome so much as not fearsome at all. The Pirate Captain is unusually kind and unusually bumbling. He’s the sort of pirate who, were this a live-action film, might be played by Hugh Grant, who instead merely lends his voice.
Though Defoe himself has crafted the screenplay, the movie differs with the book in important particulars. For example, in the book, the Pirate Captain’s crew conclude that the best part of being a pirate is the sea shanties, whereas, in the movie, they agree that it is “Ham Nite.” However, in both cases the humor, frequently, stems from infusing the story with modern sensibilities. The “pirate of the year” and “scientist of the year” presentations, upon which much of the plot revolves, become parodies of awards show. The latter is held on Blood Island, so named “because it’s the exact shape of some blood.” That bit also gives the flavor of the amusements.
Visually, the film has much appeal. The 3-D theatrical release is nice and bright, and the animation seemed flawless. As with Lord’s previous film, Chicken Run, it employs stop-motion animation. It’s remarkable that most of this was done shooting puppets frame by frame, yet you may well not notice and assume it was done by computer. I enjoyed these Pirates! but, although the comedy, as with Rango! or Bugs Bunny, has some elements pitched more at adults than kids, its appeal is slightly on the “cute” side, a problem I didn’t have with the superior Chicken Run.
_______________________________
* Gideon called his book Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! That title was used for the UK version of the film. Perhaps it was thought that Americans (and Australians) might be frightened by the (unfounded) suggestion that there was actual science in the film.
** …who played her in Young Victoria.
viewed 4/17/12 at Rave UPenn [PFS screening] and reviewed 4/17–4/28/12
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Secret World of Arriety (***1/2)
In the beginning of this charming tale, Arriety, now turning 14, bravely ventures outside in daylight, returning with a huge bay leaf that her mother says will last a year. But she has also been seen by a boy, though he is around her own age. This will mean trouble, because the boy is a “being” while Arriety, living with her parents in a small corner of a basement, is a borrower. Borrowers, as introduced in the Mary Norton novel of the same name, are tiny people who subsist on what full-size people don’t need, or won’t miss. This is one of at least five adaptations of Norton’s novel, including a 2011 BBC version, but it’s the first to use another title and, perhaps surprisingly, the first to be animated. In this way, the story becomes as natural as a fantasy, one that is also a coming-of-age story, can be.
The look of the film should seem familiar to those familiar with the work of Hayao Miyazaki (Sprited Away, Ponyo), who adapted the novel but left the directing chores to Hiromasa Yonebayashi, one of his animators. It’s less frenzied and has few of the grotesque touches common to Miyazaki’s other work, but the colors are just as gorgeous, and there’s a warmth to it. (The dialogue of the adults, at least in the dubbed U.S. version, is similarly stilted at times.) Incidentally, while the larger humans appear to be Japanese, the borrowers do not. (Arriety’s dad, voiced by Will Arnett, seriously reminded me of a young Harrison Ford. Amy Poehler is the voice of her mom.) They are in a foreign land. Compared to mainstream American animation, this is not necessarily slower, but it’s much quieter, content to carry the story forward visually at times. The plot is simpler than other versions of the story; the tone is sincere, not comedic. (A mildly villainous human, voiced by Carol Burnett, does seem a little goofy, though.) Although it gently raises the subject of death, it should be enjoyable to beings of most ages.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Illusionist (***3/4)
This nearly silent gem—nothing to do with the 2006 Illusionist starring Edward Norton—goes into the Oscars as the biggest of underdogs in the animated feature category, where it’s competing with Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon. But it’s a lovely, gentle reminder that the format is not merely the province of talking toys and flying lizards.
The filmmaker, Sylvain Chomet, is best known for the kooky Triplets of Belleville, also animated. But Chomet adapted a script cowritten by the late Jacques Tati, and those familiar with Tati classics like Mon Oncle and Mr. Hulot’s Holiday will recognize the nearly wordless style of storytelling. I confess I’ve always found the notion of a story without dialogue charming, perhaps first in Mad Magazine’s old Spy vs. Spy cartoons. More recently, Mr. Bean’s Holiday owed an obvious debt to Tati.
The hero of the story is indeed a magician, modeled after Tati himself and given his birth name, Tatischeff. Unlike Norton’s character, however, he is no longer young, and merely competent rather than brilliant. He plays for audiences that are often meager or indifferent. But on a visit to a Scottish island so poor that electric light—in the late 1950s—seems like a gift, he finds an appreciative crowd as well as a poor maid whom he takes away. They live in Edinburgh and there make new lives. (His relationship with the girl is fatherly rather than romantic.)
Chomet does take advantage of the animation form. The Edinburgh here is beautiful to look at, and the exaggerated body shapes of the minor characters provide some of the humor. However, the story is much more character-driven than in most “cartoon” films. Tatischeff is a loner, his kindness mixed with a certain diffidence. Only a photograph he carries hints at a different sort of past. The movie is no tragedy, but it is melancholy at times. Chomet’s lovely piano score sets an elegant mood in both the comic and the sentimental moments.
IMDB link
viewed 1/30/11 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 1/31–2/3/11
The filmmaker, Sylvain Chomet, is best known for the kooky Triplets of Belleville, also animated. But Chomet adapted a script cowritten by the late Jacques Tati, and those familiar with Tati classics like Mon Oncle and Mr. Hulot’s Holiday will recognize the nearly wordless style of storytelling. I confess I’ve always found the notion of a story without dialogue charming, perhaps first in Mad Magazine’s old Spy vs. Spy cartoons. More recently, Mr. Bean’s Holiday owed an obvious debt to Tati.
The hero of the story is indeed a magician, modeled after Tati himself and given his birth name, Tatischeff. Unlike Norton’s character, however, he is no longer young, and merely competent rather than brilliant. He plays for audiences that are often meager or indifferent. But on a visit to a Scottish island so poor that electric light—in the late 1950s—seems like a gift, he finds an appreciative crowd as well as a poor maid whom he takes away. They live in Edinburgh and there make new lives. (His relationship with the girl is fatherly rather than romantic.)
Chomet does take advantage of the animation form. The Edinburgh here is beautiful to look at, and the exaggerated body shapes of the minor characters provide some of the humor. However, the story is much more character-driven than in most “cartoon” films. Tatischeff is a loner, his kindness mixed with a certain diffidence. Only a photograph he carries hints at a different sort of past. The movie is no tragedy, but it is melancholy at times. Chomet’s lovely piano score sets an elegant mood in both the comic and the sentimental moments.
IMDB link
viewed 1/30/11 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 1/31–2/3/11
Summer Wars (***1/2)
Hollywood may be churning out more animated films than ever, but still hasn’t sold Americans on the idea that they don’t need to be family films. (The grown-up oriented, US film My Dog Tulip managed to make about $200,000, or nearly 1/2000 of what Toy Story 3 did.) But the Japanese have no such reservations and made a big hit out of this. Not that it’s altogether serious. In a perfect world, it would have captured the same audience that went to see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, although the fantasy element is more of a sci-fi thing here. (The version I watched was dubbed very competently, though I didn’t recognize the actors’ names.)
The main character, Kenji, is the sort of nerdy boy who’s often the hero of this type of story. He’s a math expert with no romantic skills who earns some money as a “code monkey” working for the giant computer network Oz. (Think Facebook on steroids.) Of course, there’s a pretty, popular girl, Natsuki, who recruits Kenji for an errand. That turns out to involve taking a train to Nagano, a less-populous area where Natsuki’s family is about to celebrate her great-grandmother’s 90th birthday. All goes well until Kenji’s math wizardry accidentally unleashes a malevolent computer program (Love Machine) that threatens to foul up the family holiday, much of the world’s Internet connection, and worse.
Who is behind this malfeasance? Kenji? Natsuki’s bad-boy uncle? The United States military? And who will be able to stop it? Maybe Kenji. Maybe great-grandma, who humorously wields her rotary phone and list of contacts going back 60 or 70 years. In a world where the electronic infrastructure has gone haywire, the low-tech wizard rules. And when you can’t play computer games, you can always play cards, like the Japanese favorite koi-koi, which is woven into the plot. Alas, only a little is done with the idea of our over-reliance on technology.
The whimsical plot is perfect for animation. The villain’s avatar kind of reminded me of one from the TV show South Park, though the artistry is much better, and the humor is less vicious. The hand-drawn style helps gives the film a warm feel that is well-suited to the story. While the idea of the geek saving the day is fairly familiar turf, the originality lies in Natsuki’s truly colorful clan, who are sometimes at odds, but ultimately come together when the chips are, literally, down.
IMDB link
viewed 1/27/11 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 1/28/11
The main character, Kenji, is the sort of nerdy boy who’s often the hero of this type of story. He’s a math expert with no romantic skills who earns some money as a “code monkey” working for the giant computer network Oz. (Think Facebook on steroids.) Of course, there’s a pretty, popular girl, Natsuki, who recruits Kenji for an errand. That turns out to involve taking a train to Nagano, a less-populous area where Natsuki’s family is about to celebrate her great-grandmother’s 90th birthday. All goes well until Kenji’s math wizardry accidentally unleashes a malevolent computer program (Love Machine) that threatens to foul up the family holiday, much of the world’s Internet connection, and worse.
Who is behind this malfeasance? Kenji? Natsuki’s bad-boy uncle? The United States military? And who will be able to stop it? Maybe Kenji. Maybe great-grandma, who humorously wields her rotary phone and list of contacts going back 60 or 70 years. In a world where the electronic infrastructure has gone haywire, the low-tech wizard rules. And when you can’t play computer games, you can always play cards, like the Japanese favorite koi-koi, which is woven into the plot. Alas, only a little is done with the idea of our over-reliance on technology.
The whimsical plot is perfect for animation. The villain’s avatar kind of reminded me of one from the TV show South Park, though the artistry is much better, and the humor is less vicious. The hand-drawn style helps gives the film a warm feel that is well-suited to the story. While the idea of the geek saving the day is fairly familiar turf, the originality lies in Natsuki’s truly colorful clan, who are sometimes at odds, but ultimately come together when the chips are, literally, down.
IMDB link
viewed 1/27/11 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 1/28/11
Friday, March 26, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon (***)
Staples of kid-film plots—the underdog/non-conformist who must prove himself (rarely herself), the kid who’s smarter than the adults, and the boy who must prove himself to his dad—come together with the novel element of dragons. The particulars are that the kid (called Hiccup and voiced by Jay Baruchel) is a brainy, scrawny Viking in a society where brainpower is not prized and the dad is a burly behemoth (Gerard Butler) who would prefer a son like himself. Loosely adapted from the first in a series of kid novels by Cressida Cowell, the plot has Hiccup forced to learn the old Viking ways, but quickly discovering that those ways are wrong. (Cowell’s a Brit, but the Hiccup and the other kids sound American, while the adults have Norse accents.)
It’s probably because the movie was shown in 3-D that it made me think of Avatar, but it also shares the theme of humans treating the unknown with fear and violence. The dragons are not an alien race, but nor are they the threat the adult Vikings assume. Given that the plot that had seemed to be about condemning mindless slaughter, the destructive conclusion to the story (not present in the book) seemed wrong to me; it also makes no sense if you believe in the theory of evolution, but never mind. The most entertaining scenes are watching Hiccup learn the ways of the dragon and, on a visual level, watching the dragons soar against a backdrop of mountains and sea. The 3-D effects, as good as I’ve seen, seemed more prominent than in Avatar.
IMDB link
viewed 3/4/10 at Bridge [PFS screening] and reviewed 3/28/10
It’s probably because the movie was shown in 3-D that it made me think of Avatar, but it also shares the theme of humans treating the unknown with fear and violence. The dragons are not an alien race, but nor are they the threat the adult Vikings assume. Given that the plot that had seemed to be about condemning mindless slaughter, the destructive conclusion to the story (not present in the book) seemed wrong to me; it also makes no sense if you believe in the theory of evolution, but never mind. The most entertaining scenes are watching Hiccup learn the ways of the dragon and, on a visual level, watching the dragons soar against a backdrop of mountains and sea. The 3-D effects, as good as I’ve seen, seemed more prominent than in Avatar.
IMDB link
viewed 3/4/10 at Bridge [PFS screening] and reviewed 3/28/10
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Coraline (***)
Bits of other movies—Pan’s Labryrinth, The Spiderwick Chronicles, and especially The Wizard of Oz—came to mind as I watched this mostly charming adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s novella. Director Henry Selick, best known for The Nightmare Before Christmas, uses that film’s stop-motion animation to craft another dark fantasy, this one with a girl (Dakota Fanning) at the center. Familiar fantasy elements abound, from the big old house she moves into with her parents to the house’s hidden tunnel to the alternate universe she finds on the other side. In this place, her mother’s (Teri Hatcher) benign neglect is replaced by the fawning of her “other mother”; her suddenly less-dull dad (John Hodgman) gardens instead of merely writing about it; her annoyingly chatty new friend doesn’t talk, but his cat does. And so on.
Selick’s visual flair gives the film a distinctive look. Although many of the backgrounds are similar to traditionally animated films, the people’s movements look slightly puppetish; their spindly limbs almost resemble those of spiders. A couple of modern touches, like the presence of cell phones, put the film in the present time, but there is no attempt to seem especially current or hip. Some of this seems a little like a blend of common fantasy themes, and young Coraline seems to save the day too easily, but imagination outweighs familiarity in a way that should please those who like this type of story.
IMDB link
viewed 3/4/09 at Riverview and reviewed 3/5/09
Selick’s visual flair gives the film a distinctive look. Although many of the backgrounds are similar to traditionally animated films, the people’s movements look slightly puppetish; their spindly limbs almost resemble those of spiders. A couple of modern touches, like the presence of cell phones, put the film in the present time, but there is no attempt to seem especially current or hip. Some of this seems a little like a blend of common fantasy themes, and young Coraline seems to save the day too easily, but imagination outweighs familiarity in a way that should please those who like this type of story.
IMDB link
viewed 3/4/09 at Riverview and reviewed 3/5/09
Friday, January 23, 2009
Waltz with Bashir (**3/4)
This movie that its creator, Ari Folman, calls an animated documentary, is nominated for an Academy Award, but not in the animation or documentary categories, but as foreign-language film. Folman is an Israeli who, spurred by a conversation with a friend, realizes that he’s almost completely forgotten the details of his service in the military during the country’s 1982 war with Lebanon. Interviews with men he knew on the battlefield are the basis for the film.
Animation frees Folman to use “footage” and “camera angles” that would not otherwise be available. (The animation, partly based on live footage, utilizes a realistic, but simplified, style). Flashbacks, dream sequences, and the creative use of music, too, make this seem more like a narrative film, although it’s organized around interview segments (mostly using the actual voices of Folman’s old comrades). Folman provides few details about his life before or after the war, and no geopolitical details about the war. It is possible to see the movie as anti-Israel, I suppose, in that Israelis are shown killing civilians. However, the clear point is that such atrocities are the natural by-product of war and the fear and confusion that it produces. The director is Everyman.
Even while realizing that Folman’s choices were deliberate, for me they made the film a little too abstract. Some sequences are quite striking, like the one in which a solider is separated from his unit and has to swim to avoid running into his enemy. But it if a movie is not going to provide a storyline in terms of why the war was being fought, then it should have given a more significant one in terms of its central character.
IMDB link
viewed at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 2/1/09
Animation frees Folman to use “footage” and “camera angles” that would not otherwise be available. (The animation, partly based on live footage, utilizes a realistic, but simplified, style). Flashbacks, dream sequences, and the creative use of music, too, make this seem more like a narrative film, although it’s organized around interview segments (mostly using the actual voices of Folman’s old comrades). Folman provides few details about his life before or after the war, and no geopolitical details about the war. It is possible to see the movie as anti-Israel, I suppose, in that Israelis are shown killing civilians. However, the clear point is that such atrocities are the natural by-product of war and the fear and confusion that it produces. The director is Everyman.
Even while realizing that Folman’s choices were deliberate, for me they made the film a little too abstract. Some sequences are quite striking, like the one in which a solider is separated from his unit and has to swim to avoid running into his enemy. But it if a movie is not going to provide a storyline in terms of why the war was being fought, then it should have given a more significant one in terms of its central character.
IMDB link
viewed at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 2/1/09
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wall•E (***1/2)
Another year, another brilliant movie by Pixar Animation Studios. This was written and directed by Andrew Stanton, who performed the same chores for Pixar’s Finding Nemo and wrote screenplays for Monsters, Inc. and the Toy Story movies. Here, he may have come up with his most original effort yet. Like I Am Legend if Will Smith were a robot, or like a less-dystopic A.I., Wall•E imagines an Earth fallen victim to its own folly. A battered, rusty old machine, Wall•E patrols the land stacking garbage, “working to dig you out,” as a left-behind billboard broadcasts to no one. For fun, Wall•E watches very old movies on an ancient VCR salvaged from the day job.
I could’ve watched this opening segment, mostly silent except for music, for much longer than it lasts. There’s something intriguing about watching what someone, even a sentient robot who looks like an R2D2 knockoff, does alone. (I love Cast Away.) Earth is so realistically rendered in its fetid glory that I only slightly wondered what happened to all of the people, and was mildly disappointed when the movie literally goes off into space. This happens shortly after a newer robot called EVE crash lands looking for life. Wall•E, on the other hand, is looking for love, and if it sounds corny to have a robot romance, Stanton keeps it so low-key, and nearly wordless, that even (or especially) adults will be charmed. The hovering, sleek EVE looks like nothing so much as a robot designed by Apple computer. (Apple CEO Steve Jobs also was Pixar’s main shareholder until its recent acquisition by Disney.) Scruffy Wall•E reboots using the Microsoft Windows startup sound, so much of the story resembles kind of a computer version of Romeo and Juliet.
But it’s Romeo and Juliet sent to a world that resembles a odd cross of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Idiocracy, the latter being the Mike Judge comedy in which machines take over and human intelligence devolves. It won’t do to give much away here, other than that Stanton rather hilariously satirizes modern consumer culture. Back on earth, we had already learned that a giant corporation called BNL controlled nearly all aspects of human existence before everyone disappeared. This is taken to its logical conclusion.
Even more than other Pixar films, Wall•E can be enjoyed by adults, as a straight sci-fi film with a satirical edge. Smaller children are actually likely to have trouble following the plot, especially the first half. Only the last part seems like familiar warm-and-cuddly family film territory.
It’s worth noting that each and every one of Pixar’s main characters has been a male, even when it’s a male car. (The Incredibles has no single lead character, but male characters outnumber female ones.) It seems incredibly depressing that studios so clearly see girls as box-office poison, and even more so that they may be right. Wall•E may be sexless, but even so has a male-sounding name and voice, and EVE, an acronym, sounds female; it would have been more daring to avoid any hints of sexual identity. Leaving this aside—I don’t mean it as a criticism of this movie in particular—Wall•E is a mostly remarkable film.
IMDB link
viewed 6/28/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 6/30/08
I could’ve watched this opening segment, mostly silent except for music, for much longer than it lasts. There’s something intriguing about watching what someone, even a sentient robot who looks like an R2D2 knockoff, does alone. (I love Cast Away.) Earth is so realistically rendered in its fetid glory that I only slightly wondered what happened to all of the people, and was mildly disappointed when the movie literally goes off into space. This happens shortly after a newer robot called EVE crash lands looking for life. Wall•E, on the other hand, is looking for love, and if it sounds corny to have a robot romance, Stanton keeps it so low-key, and nearly wordless, that even (or especially) adults will be charmed. The hovering, sleek EVE looks like nothing so much as a robot designed by Apple computer. (Apple CEO Steve Jobs also was Pixar’s main shareholder until its recent acquisition by Disney.) Scruffy Wall•E reboots using the Microsoft Windows startup sound, so much of the story resembles kind of a computer version of Romeo and Juliet.
But it’s Romeo and Juliet sent to a world that resembles a odd cross of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Idiocracy, the latter being the Mike Judge comedy in which machines take over and human intelligence devolves. It won’t do to give much away here, other than that Stanton rather hilariously satirizes modern consumer culture. Back on earth, we had already learned that a giant corporation called BNL controlled nearly all aspects of human existence before everyone disappeared. This is taken to its logical conclusion.
Even more than other Pixar films, Wall•E can be enjoyed by adults, as a straight sci-fi film with a satirical edge. Smaller children are actually likely to have trouble following the plot, especially the first half. Only the last part seems like familiar warm-and-cuddly family film territory.
It’s worth noting that each and every one of Pixar’s main characters has been a male, even when it’s a male car. (The Incredibles has no single lead character, but male characters outnumber female ones.) It seems incredibly depressing that studios so clearly see girls as box-office poison, and even more so that they may be right. Wall•E may be sexless, but even so has a male-sounding name and voice, and EVE, an acronym, sounds female; it would have been more daring to avoid any hints of sexual identity. Leaving this aside—I don’t mean it as a criticism of this movie in particular—Wall•E is a mostly remarkable film.
IMDB link
viewed 6/28/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 6/30/08
Friday, June 6, 2008
Kung Fu Panda (***1/4)
Yet another animated animal movie with a you-can-do-anything message, this is nonetheless fairly entertaining, with well-executed action sequences. The title character is infused with the persona—and, roughly, the physique—of the actor who voices him, Jack Black. A little bit paunchy, he mixes hapless bravado with a deeper insecurity. Being raised by a humble Chinese noodle maker who is also a bird, he fantasizes himself the venerated “dragon warrior” with enemies who “were no match for his bodacity.” But when an accident of fate—the juxtaposed emphasis on both fate and controlling one’s destiny makes no sense, but never mind—actually gives him his wish, he thinks there is a mistake. The aid of a reluctant kung fu master (Dustin Hoffman) and a multi-species posse called the Furious Five, perhaps in tribute to early rapper Grandmaster Flash, gives him the courage to face the excellently voiced villain, Ian McShane’s leopard.
IMDB link
viewed 6/7/08 and 6/21/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 6/27/08
IMDB link
viewed 6/7/08 and 6/21/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 6/27/08
Friday, May 9, 2008
Speed Racer (**1/2)
In The Matrix, the Wachowski Brothers demonstrated their ability to create a stylish special-effects thriller built around a smart sci-fi premise. They redeemed themselves for its lackluster pair of sequels with V for Vendetta, another parable of totalitarianism for which they wrote the screenplay. And, in this, they shoehorn their obsession with opposing great power into an adaptation of a semi-forgotten 1970s cartoon that makes a pitch toward a family audience. That pitch will probably strike hardest at teenage boys. The younger ones may be put off by the fairly complicated plot and some of the darker textures, which somewhat harken back to the Japanese origins of the cartoon. This adaptation animates everything except the actors. Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) stars as Speed.
For those who missed Speed, or were born too late, he’s, well, a racer. In childhood flashback scenes, we see that his obsession with driving began at an early age and runs in the family. (“Mom” and “Pop” are played by Susan Sarandon and John Goodman.) He has a childhood sweetheart called Trixie (Christina Ricci), drives a car called the Mach 5, and has a mysterious friend/rival called Racer X. But the movie’s main storyline concerns Speed’s opposition to a giant corporation that seeks to control the sport for financial reasons.
Of course, technology, not the story, is the draw here. On that score, it’s a mixed bag. The Tokyo-insired meglaopolis where villain, Royalton, runs his megacorporation is suitably futuristic, but the race course was unimpressive. It makes perfect sense that the movie has a product tie-in with Hot Wheels—the speedways where the racers do their thing looks like nothing so much as digitally manipulated film of a Hot Wheels set-up, complete with loop-the-loops. The scenes give you neither the feel of racing nor even the feel of watching a race. It’s more like watching a video game. Nothwithstanding all of the psychedelic graphics and swirling colors that illustrate the crashes, it’s all very…cartoonish.
It’s not only the look of the movie, but yes, that story that make the big-screen Speed seem like only a little more than what it is, a retread. For all I know the Wachowskis could have dusted off a few of those 1970s scripts. Mom, Pop, brother, Trixie, and even Chim Chim, the family chimp, seem like the cast of a forgotten old sitcom. The humor runs along the lines of Trixie saying “Was that a ninja?” and Pops replying “More like a non-ja!” Okay, it’s not all that corny. Most of it is perfectly serviceable, and the centerpiece of the movie, a dangerous cross-continental race in which Royalton drivers try to take Speed out, is exciting. Hardly anyone will call the movie slow. But in a couple of months, hardly anyone will be calling it anything at all.
IMDB link
viewed 5/10/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 5/15–16/08
For those who missed Speed, or were born too late, he’s, well, a racer. In childhood flashback scenes, we see that his obsession with driving began at an early age and runs in the family. (“Mom” and “Pop” are played by Susan Sarandon and John Goodman.) He has a childhood sweetheart called Trixie (Christina Ricci), drives a car called the Mach 5, and has a mysterious friend/rival called Racer X. But the movie’s main storyline concerns Speed’s opposition to a giant corporation that seeks to control the sport for financial reasons.
Of course, technology, not the story, is the draw here. On that score, it’s a mixed bag. The Tokyo-insired meglaopolis where villain, Royalton, runs his megacorporation is suitably futuristic, but the race course was unimpressive. It makes perfect sense that the movie has a product tie-in with Hot Wheels—the speedways where the racers do their thing looks like nothing so much as digitally manipulated film of a Hot Wheels set-up, complete with loop-the-loops. The scenes give you neither the feel of racing nor even the feel of watching a race. It’s more like watching a video game. Nothwithstanding all of the psychedelic graphics and swirling colors that illustrate the crashes, it’s all very…cartoonish.
It’s not only the look of the movie, but yes, that story that make the big-screen Speed seem like only a little more than what it is, a retread. For all I know the Wachowskis could have dusted off a few of those 1970s scripts. Mom, Pop, brother, Trixie, and even Chim Chim, the family chimp, seem like the cast of a forgotten old sitcom. The humor runs along the lines of Trixie saying “Was that a ninja?” and Pops replying “More like a non-ja!” Okay, it’s not all that corny. Most of it is perfectly serviceable, and the centerpiece of the movie, a dangerous cross-continental race in which Royalton drivers try to take Speed out, is exciting. Hardly anyone will call the movie slow. But in a couple of months, hardly anyone will be calling it anything at all.
IMDB link
viewed 5/10/08 at Moorestown; reviewed 5/15–16/08
Friday, March 14, 2008
Horton Hears a Who! (**3/4)
On the fifteenth of March, a theater was where,
I saw Dr. Seuss as animated fare,
Horton’s an elephant, as you probably know,
With voice by Jim Carrey, he’s the star of the show,
What Horton hears is a barely heard yelp,
A speck on a clover is calling for help,
And so Horton tries to help out a bit,
But all of the others think he’s just full of it
Now more plot is needed than supplied by the book,
So Whoville's wee mayor gets a much longer look,
Seuss’s cartoon version took a half hour on TV
This remake seemed padded, a bit long to me
Just as Horton makes folks apoplectic,
Whoville’s mayor finds everyone a skeptic,
Each can’t convince folks of the other’s existence,
Ideas they can’t see, are met with resistance
The villain kangaroo’s played by Carol Burnett,
Her henchman’s an eagle, voiced by Will Arnett
The mayor’s shrill voice is that of Steve Carrell,
Who sounds too Dana Carvey, but otherwise does well
The movie’s no classic, but it’s better by far
Than Cat in the Hat, which was clearly subpar,
Though true to the book, from what I’ve seen,
It’s better to read than to see onscreen.
I saw Dr. Seuss as animated fare,
Horton’s an elephant, as you probably know,
With voice by Jim Carrey, he’s the star of the show,
What Horton hears is a barely heard yelp,
A speck on a clover is calling for help,
And so Horton tries to help out a bit,
But all of the others think he’s just full of it
Now more plot is needed than supplied by the book,
So Whoville's wee mayor gets a much longer look,
Seuss’s cartoon version took a half hour on TV
This remake seemed padded, a bit long to me
Just as Horton makes folks apoplectic,
Whoville’s mayor finds everyone a skeptic,
Each can’t convince folks of the other’s existence,
Ideas they can’t see, are met with resistance
The villain kangaroo’s played by Carol Burnett,
Her henchman’s an eagle, voiced by Will Arnett
The mayor’s shrill voice is that of Steve Carrell,
Who sounds too Dana Carvey, but otherwise does well
The movie’s no classic, but it’s better by far
Than Cat in the Hat, which was clearly subpar,
Though true to the book, from what I’ve seen,
It’s better to read than to see onscreen.
viewed 3/15/08; review posted 3/19/08
IMDB link
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Enchanted (***1/4)
With movies as diverse as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, 300 and Beowulf bringing the worlds of live action and animation ever closer, it makes perfect sense for this Disney movie to make this collision of sensibilities its very subject. Starting off with a romantic cartoon sequence so intentionally cliché-ridden it’d leave Walt himself groaning, it both tweaks and celebrates the Disney legend. There is a princess, called Giselle (Amy Adams), a prince (James Marsden), and an evil queen (Susan Sarandon) so diabolical that she casts Giselle into a place, on the opposite side of the world from a fairy-tale paradise, called Manhattan that’s lively, but not animated.
Immediately she is nearly run down, stolen from, and lost in a seedy part of town, until she’s rescued by a native (Patrick Dempsey). When, by way of explaining her troubles, he says “Welcome to New York,” she misses his intention and replies with a sunny “Thank you!” Because while there is plenty of evil in fairy-tale land, there is no sarcasm. The rest of the story plays out as the prince and the queen’s henchman (Timothy Spall) race to catch up with Giselle, Dempsey’s single dad tries to figure out where she came from, and she tries to adapt. The prince’s chipmunk friend tries to help too, but humorously finds he’s lost his voice. It’s just enough of a story to keep things interesting while not getting in the way of the central fish-out-of-water comic motif. (The script is by screenwriter Bill Kelly, who’s done genre parody before with Blast from the Past.) Adams follows on the promise of her underseen, Oscar-nominated Junebug performance with a role that should give her a much higher profile.
Non-ironic musical centerpieces by Disney vets Alan Mencken and Steven Schwartz (who last collaborated on The Hunchback of Notre Dame) provide the most charming scenes. In the first, Giselle pays seriocomic homage to Snow White as she singingly summons a menagerie, including local cockroaches, to clean up her rescuer’s bachelor pad. She learns from his world, he learns from hers, and an overblown finale (it reminded me of Ghostbusters) sets everything right. Inevitably, the last half is not quite as good as the first, as you’ll have figured where things are headed, and Giselle has had time to adjust to three-dimensional life. It is nice that the princess ideal gets retooled for the post-feminist age; in the real world, being the heroine sometimes means not waiting for Prince Charming to rescue you.
IMDB link
reviewed 12/01/07
Immediately she is nearly run down, stolen from, and lost in a seedy part of town, until she’s rescued by a native (Patrick Dempsey). When, by way of explaining her troubles, he says “Welcome to New York,” she misses his intention and replies with a sunny “Thank you!” Because while there is plenty of evil in fairy-tale land, there is no sarcasm. The rest of the story plays out as the prince and the queen’s henchman (Timothy Spall) race to catch up with Giselle, Dempsey’s single dad tries to figure out where she came from, and she tries to adapt. The prince’s chipmunk friend tries to help too, but humorously finds he’s lost his voice. It’s just enough of a story to keep things interesting while not getting in the way of the central fish-out-of-water comic motif. (The script is by screenwriter Bill Kelly, who’s done genre parody before with Blast from the Past.) Adams follows on the promise of her underseen, Oscar-nominated Junebug performance with a role that should give her a much higher profile.
Non-ironic musical centerpieces by Disney vets Alan Mencken and Steven Schwartz (who last collaborated on The Hunchback of Notre Dame) provide the most charming scenes. In the first, Giselle pays seriocomic homage to Snow White as she singingly summons a menagerie, including local cockroaches, to clean up her rescuer’s bachelor pad. She learns from his world, he learns from hers, and an overblown finale (it reminded me of Ghostbusters) sets everything right. Inevitably, the last half is not quite as good as the first, as you’ll have figured where things are headed, and Giselle has had time to adjust to three-dimensional life. It is nice that the princess ideal gets retooled for the post-feminist age; in the real world, being the heroine sometimes means not waiting for Prince Charming to rescue you.
IMDB link
reviewed 12/01/07
Friday, November 2, 2007
Bee Movie (**3/4)
Jerry Seinfeld’s entry into the world of animated animals splits the difference between his adult comedy and typical kid fare. The storyline has him voicing the main character, Barry, who has just finished school, which has lasted several days, and is now ready to choose the job he’ll be stuck with the rest of his life. Like Z in Antz, he rebels against expectations and tries to fly with the big bees who leave the hive to spread pollen. Like Remy in Ratatoille, he ignores admonitions to stay clear of humans. Evidently, bees speak English but have prudently chosen not to speak to us. But Barry speaks to one (Renée Zellweger). There is the hint that he is in love with her, but only the hint. Where can that go? Why is it okay for animals to be attracted to humans but somehow the reverse seems much creepier?
So that’s all pretty typical. The original part of the story is what happens when Barry realizes that the humans have been stealing honey for themselves. Like Seinfeld, the story takes place in New York, so city bee Barry’s solution involves lawyers. This provides an opportunity for some humor that may go over the kids’ heads, and some stretches of the film may leave them, shall we say, antsy. (Seeing “Ray Liotta Private Select” honey on the supermarket shelf amused me but will probably bewilder kids born after Goodfellas came out.) Seinfeld shares writing credit with three others, and some of the humor sounds like him, and some sounds more like other animated movies. There are enough funny lines to humor both audiences, but my guess is that people will be watching Seinfeld reruns long after they forget about this Bee Movie.
IMDB link
reviewed 11/10/07
So that’s all pretty typical. The original part of the story is what happens when Barry realizes that the humans have been stealing honey for themselves. Like Seinfeld, the story takes place in New York, so city bee Barry’s solution involves lawyers. This provides an opportunity for some humor that may go over the kids’ heads, and some stretches of the film may leave them, shall we say, antsy. (Seeing “Ray Liotta Private Select” honey on the supermarket shelf amused me but will probably bewilder kids born after Goodfellas came out.) Seinfeld shares writing credit with three others, and some of the humor sounds like him, and some sounds more like other animated movies. There are enough funny lines to humor both audiences, but my guess is that people will be watching Seinfeld reruns long after they forget about this Bee Movie.
IMDB link
reviewed 11/10/07
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Simpsons Movie (***1/4)
Which is more likely, that it would take 20 years for The Simpsons to make it to the movieplexes, or that, with 400-plus half-hour episodes in the can, it would still be on the air as USA’s longest-running comedy series? But whether on small screen or large, the animated family is always pretty much the same.
Whereas the South Park movie was, unlike its TV progenitor, an animated musical, The Simpsons Movie wouldn’t have seemed out of place as a three-part episode on Fox. To be sure, the animation is a notch better, and they’d be three, or at least two, of the funnier episodes, but it doesn’t feel very new. And that’s okay.
As has been true of most episodes in recent years, the main plot’s driven by hapless household head Homer, while wife Marge’s choice winds up, as many times before, being deciding how much she can put up with. This time, Homer provokes a crisis so great that the whole town of Springfield’s angry at him, not just his family. Meanwhile, bratty son Bart finds a soft spot for goody-two-shoes neighbor Ned Flanders, while ordinarily mopey Lisa meets a boy. But these are minor subplots on the road to Alaska, of all places. If there is anything surprising about the movie, it’s the relatively straightforward storyline. There’s an environmental theme, and even a religious one, which doesn’t stop the movie from making fun of environmentalism, religion, and anything else that came into the screenwriters’—15 are credited—heads. (A certain environmental documentary is spoofed as An Irritating Truth.) At the end, Homer learns the same sort of lesson about selfishness that he learns and forgets with regularity on the series.
As a movie, this pretty much met my expectations. Despite being a work-in-progress for four years, it doesn’t feel worked over and processed. There’s only one celebrity voice cameo, excepting the band Green Day’s appearance in a pretty funny opening sequence. The mildly ballyhooed shot of young Bart’s private part turns out to be brief fodder for a clever sight gag. But we get to see Mr. Burns, Krusty the Clown, Moe, Lenny and Carl, and most of the other endearingly foolish residents of Springfield. (Sorry, Sideshow Bob fans.) So, after 20 years, Matt Groening, Jim Brooks, et al haven’t broken new ground, but have made a movie to please people who’ve seen the series and liked it. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a good starting point.
IMDB link
reviewed 8/2/07
Whereas the South Park movie was, unlike its TV progenitor, an animated musical, The Simpsons Movie wouldn’t have seemed out of place as a three-part episode on Fox. To be sure, the animation is a notch better, and they’d be three, or at least two, of the funnier episodes, but it doesn’t feel very new. And that’s okay.
As has been true of most episodes in recent years, the main plot’s driven by hapless household head Homer, while wife Marge’s choice winds up, as many times before, being deciding how much she can put up with. This time, Homer provokes a crisis so great that the whole town of Springfield’s angry at him, not just his family. Meanwhile, bratty son Bart finds a soft spot for goody-two-shoes neighbor Ned Flanders, while ordinarily mopey Lisa meets a boy. But these are minor subplots on the road to Alaska, of all places. If there is anything surprising about the movie, it’s the relatively straightforward storyline. There’s an environmental theme, and even a religious one, which doesn’t stop the movie from making fun of environmentalism, religion, and anything else that came into the screenwriters’—15 are credited—heads. (A certain environmental documentary is spoofed as An Irritating Truth.) At the end, Homer learns the same sort of lesson about selfishness that he learns and forgets with regularity on the series.
As a movie, this pretty much met my expectations. Despite being a work-in-progress for four years, it doesn’t feel worked over and processed. There’s only one celebrity voice cameo, excepting the band Green Day’s appearance in a pretty funny opening sequence. The mildly ballyhooed shot of young Bart’s private part turns out to be brief fodder for a clever sight gag. But we get to see Mr. Burns, Krusty the Clown, Moe, Lenny and Carl, and most of the other endearingly foolish residents of Springfield. (Sorry, Sideshow Bob fans.) So, after 20 years, Matt Groening, Jim Brooks, et al haven’t broken new ground, but have made a movie to please people who’ve seen the series and liked it. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a good starting point.
IMDB link
reviewed 8/2/07
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)