Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Waltz With Bashir
Year: 2008
Country: Israel
Director: Ari Folman
Watched through: Netflix
Also known as: Vals Im Bashir, Valse Avec Bashir, Walzer Mit Bashir
The scenario: A semi-documentary in which an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon invasion tries to regain his memories of the conflict. He interviews several people, including fellow veterans, a reporter, and a psychologist, trying to reconstruct his forgotten experiences, especially the details of two heinous massacres.
First impressions: This film has a lot of “firsts” in my movie-watching. It’s the first feature length Israeli animation I’ve seen, it’s the first feature-length animation I’ve seen that purports to be a documentary, and it’s also the first animated feature to be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. That being said, I was expecting a great deal. This is one of the most truly “adult” animated films I’ve ever come across, and it also has powerful subject matter with a sympathetic message. Surprisingly, however, I was underwhelmed when I actually watched it. I found it impossible to “get into” this film, partially because I lacked any knowledge about the events depicted and partially because of its odd structure. As such, it left me feeling rather empty, when I felt it should have had a great impact.
Plot and story: Most film scholars draw a definite line between “narrative film” and “documentary film”. To resort to a gross over-simplification, narrative films are meant to entertain and documentary films are meant to inform. This film tries to do both things, and in my opinion it fails on both levels: it’s neither entertaining nor informative. The reason for both of these shortcomings is the same, however. The story of the main character’s war experiences is told in disjointed, out-of-order chunks that are narrated by his interviewees; the very structure of these memory sequences, which includes voiceover dialogue, breaks the basic narrative rule “show, don’t tell.” In addition to this, we are aware throughout that we are only hearing peoples’ subjective memories, and that these memories are diluted by their expression in words. Because of this, the real events discussed are so far removed from any kind of “history” that it is hard to view this film as a documentary. The realness of the events is further removed from the audience by the very fact that everything is animated; I can’t help but think that another medium would have suited this subject matter better. And, in the end, because everything is told out of order, the plot is hard to follow and the film can’t hang onto a narrative thread. 8/20
Characters: I feel stupid referring to the people in this film as “characters,” when they are, in fact, real people, but they are put in a (sort of) narrative film. The main character, whom we spend the most time with, is surprisingly un-dynamic onscreen and doesn’t have anything exactly memorable about him. His quest to restore his memory starts out interesting, but even as he learns more and more disturbing things about his past, he doesn’t seem to go through any change, leaving him the same featureless guy he was at the beginning. The side characters and interviewees don’t manage to get much characterization either; it’s really hard to get a clear picture of who anyone really “is” in this film, and thus it’s hard to relate to anybody. 8/20
Voices: Most of the voices used in this film are actual audio taken from interviews, so there isn’t much traditional acting. The straightforward voice deliveries are the only thing that lend this film credibility as a documentary, and all of them sound good. 12/20
Music: Even if the plot and characters are lacking, the music in this film is decent. There are two actual songs sung by characters, which add a great deal to the atmosphere to their respective scenes. There are also some gimmicky bits that resemble music videos, which I wasn’t sure what to think of, as they didn’t really contribute anything. The score includes a lot of fast-paced techno and electronic stuff, which stood out most in the opening dream sequence. Overall, not half bad. 16/20
Visuals: What to say, other than “I thought the animation was rotoscoped but it actually wasn’t”? Throughout the film, I marveled at what I thought was exceptionally good rotoscoping, but the director’s commentary emphasized that fact that it isn’t. In any case, the human figures and backgrounds were very life-like, to say the least. Monochrome palettes are used for the memory and dream sequences, while a bold, full-color palette is used for the present. The animation isn’t quite like anything I’ve seen before, and the colors and designs were both great. Overall, even though this film didn’t have much of an emotional impact on me (because of the above complaints), I’d say it has great niche appeal and it’s certainly unique. 15/20
Overall grade: 59/100 (C+)
Country: Israel
Director: Ari Folman
Watched through: Netflix
Also known as: Vals Im Bashir, Valse Avec Bashir, Walzer Mit Bashir
The scenario: A semi-documentary in which an Israeli veteran of the 1982 Lebanon invasion tries to regain his memories of the conflict. He interviews several people, including fellow veterans, a reporter, and a psychologist, trying to reconstruct his forgotten experiences, especially the details of two heinous massacres.
First impressions: This film has a lot of “firsts” in my movie-watching. It’s the first feature length Israeli animation I’ve seen, it’s the first feature-length animation I’ve seen that purports to be a documentary, and it’s also the first animated feature to be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. That being said, I was expecting a great deal. This is one of the most truly “adult” animated films I’ve ever come across, and it also has powerful subject matter with a sympathetic message. Surprisingly, however, I was underwhelmed when I actually watched it. I found it impossible to “get into” this film, partially because I lacked any knowledge about the events depicted and partially because of its odd structure. As such, it left me feeling rather empty, when I felt it should have had a great impact.
Plot and story: Most film scholars draw a definite line between “narrative film” and “documentary film”. To resort to a gross over-simplification, narrative films are meant to entertain and documentary films are meant to inform. This film tries to do both things, and in my opinion it fails on both levels: it’s neither entertaining nor informative. The reason for both of these shortcomings is the same, however. The story of the main character’s war experiences is told in disjointed, out-of-order chunks that are narrated by his interviewees; the very structure of these memory sequences, which includes voiceover dialogue, breaks the basic narrative rule “show, don’t tell.” In addition to this, we are aware throughout that we are only hearing peoples’ subjective memories, and that these memories are diluted by their expression in words. Because of this, the real events discussed are so far removed from any kind of “history” that it is hard to view this film as a documentary. The realness of the events is further removed from the audience by the very fact that everything is animated; I can’t help but think that another medium would have suited this subject matter better. And, in the end, because everything is told out of order, the plot is hard to follow and the film can’t hang onto a narrative thread. 8/20
Characters: I feel stupid referring to the people in this film as “characters,” when they are, in fact, real people, but they are put in a (sort of) narrative film. The main character, whom we spend the most time with, is surprisingly un-dynamic onscreen and doesn’t have anything exactly memorable about him. His quest to restore his memory starts out interesting, but even as he learns more and more disturbing things about his past, he doesn’t seem to go through any change, leaving him the same featureless guy he was at the beginning. The side characters and interviewees don’t manage to get much characterization either; it’s really hard to get a clear picture of who anyone really “is” in this film, and thus it’s hard to relate to anybody. 8/20
Voices: Most of the voices used in this film are actual audio taken from interviews, so there isn’t much traditional acting. The straightforward voice deliveries are the only thing that lend this film credibility as a documentary, and all of them sound good. 12/20
Music: Even if the plot and characters are lacking, the music in this film is decent. There are two actual songs sung by characters, which add a great deal to the atmosphere to their respective scenes. There are also some gimmicky bits that resemble music videos, which I wasn’t sure what to think of, as they didn’t really contribute anything. The score includes a lot of fast-paced techno and electronic stuff, which stood out most in the opening dream sequence. Overall, not half bad. 16/20
Visuals: What to say, other than “I thought the animation was rotoscoped but it actually wasn’t”? Throughout the film, I marveled at what I thought was exceptionally good rotoscoping, but the director’s commentary emphasized that fact that it isn’t. In any case, the human figures and backgrounds were very life-like, to say the least. Monochrome palettes are used for the memory and dream sequences, while a bold, full-color palette is used for the present. The animation isn’t quite like anything I’ve seen before, and the colors and designs were both great. Overall, even though this film didn’t have much of an emotional impact on me (because of the above complaints), I’d say it has great niche appeal and it’s certainly unique. 15/20
Overall grade: 59/100 (C+)
Friday, August 7, 2009
Kiki's Delivery Service
Year: 1989
Country: Japan
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Maho No Takyubin, The Witch’s Express Mail
The scenario: As a thirteen-year-old witch in training, Kiki has to leave home and strike out on her own. She ends up in a seaside town, where she decides to set up a flying delivery business.
First impressions: My first exposure to this film was the Disney channel; I recorded the dubbed version and thought it was alright, but several years later I mentioned the film to a friend, who insisted that I borrow her DVD and watch the subtitled version. And, wow, what a difference it made. The different versions of this film could be a case study in how a character’s voice can change their personality; there were some pretty surprising story differences, too, which make it hard for me to recommend the dub. Overall, the original version is vastly superior, so seek out the subbed version if you’re interested in seeing this film.
Plot and story: The story of this film is very loosely constructed, and the plot has a deliberate pace that suits the “slice of life” content well. After Kiki leaves her parents’ house and arrives in her new city, the rest of the film shows her daily struggles with her job, her peers, and her own confidence. Kiki goes through swells of self-assuredness and self-doubt, just like any young teen, and the film’s most dramatic point is when her loneliness and homesickness cause her to lose her magic. She manages to pull herself together in the end, however, and the epilogue confirms that she has “found herself,” so to speak. More than anything, this is a coming-of-age story, with the emotional ups and downs, difficulty fitting in, and importance of finding one’s place in life played out superbly in the story. 18/20
Characters: Among other things, Miyazaki is known for his realistic, appealing heroines, and Kiki is no exception. As mentioned above, she acts a like a real thirteen-year-old, and responds to the pressures of her life in realistic ways. You can’t help but root for her, whether she’s cheerful or depressed. Her cat, Jiji, is her foil in some ways, being aloof when Kiki is intent and skeptical when Kiki is certain; their interactions are always interesting because of this. The secondary characters, such as Tombo, the artist, the bakers who take in Kiki as a tenant, and the elderly woman she befriends, are all likeable, and they all eventually help Kiki find herself. 19/20
Voices: This is a review of the original Japanese version of the film, so judgments about the English dub don’t apply. However, I feel I have to mention my biggest beef with Disney’s version: the casting. I mean, don’t get me wrong, Kirsten Dunst is a good actress, but she is extremely wrong for Kiki. Primarily, she sounds way too old. Secondly, she’s too high-pitched, changing Kiki from a plucky adolescent to a whiny teen. Even stranger, though, was the choice for Jiji. The late and great Phil Hartman did the voice of Jiji as his last film role, and I can’t say his performance is bad. It’s great, in fact. But it changes Jiji into an entirely different character. In the original, Jiji has a cute voice, and occasionally has sardonic dialogue. By contrast, the Hartman Jiji is a cynical smart-alec with a drawling northeastern accent. Overall, the dub can’t hold its own when compared to the original. All of the original actors perfectly suit the personalities the characters were meant to have, and the performances are great all around. 18/20
Music: The original film features two Japanese pop songs (“Message in Rouge” and “Surrounded by Gentleness”), but neither of these was used in the dub, probably for licensing reasons. This is yet another thing that hurts the quality of the dub, since the original songs are more fitting in both theme and tune than the pale imitations used in the English version. The score is great as well, with the most memorable music being in the scenes with Jiji and the dog. 18/20
Visuals: Studio Ghibli is incapable of producing a bad-looking film; this film showcases the sumptuous color, simple character design, masterful movements, and beautiful backgrounds that the studio is known for. It lacks the computer-aided flair that some of their more recent films have, but what else can I say? Fantastic animation for a fantastic film. 18/20
Overall grade: 91/100 (A)
Country: Japan
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Maho No Takyubin, The Witch’s Express Mail
The scenario: As a thirteen-year-old witch in training, Kiki has to leave home and strike out on her own. She ends up in a seaside town, where she decides to set up a flying delivery business.
First impressions: My first exposure to this film was the Disney channel; I recorded the dubbed version and thought it was alright, but several years later I mentioned the film to a friend, who insisted that I borrow her DVD and watch the subtitled version. And, wow, what a difference it made. The different versions of this film could be a case study in how a character’s voice can change their personality; there were some pretty surprising story differences, too, which make it hard for me to recommend the dub. Overall, the original version is vastly superior, so seek out the subbed version if you’re interested in seeing this film.
Plot and story: The story of this film is very loosely constructed, and the plot has a deliberate pace that suits the “slice of life” content well. After Kiki leaves her parents’ house and arrives in her new city, the rest of the film shows her daily struggles with her job, her peers, and her own confidence. Kiki goes through swells of self-assuredness and self-doubt, just like any young teen, and the film’s most dramatic point is when her loneliness and homesickness cause her to lose her magic. She manages to pull herself together in the end, however, and the epilogue confirms that she has “found herself,” so to speak. More than anything, this is a coming-of-age story, with the emotional ups and downs, difficulty fitting in, and importance of finding one’s place in life played out superbly in the story. 18/20
Characters: Among other things, Miyazaki is known for his realistic, appealing heroines, and Kiki is no exception. As mentioned above, she acts a like a real thirteen-year-old, and responds to the pressures of her life in realistic ways. You can’t help but root for her, whether she’s cheerful or depressed. Her cat, Jiji, is her foil in some ways, being aloof when Kiki is intent and skeptical when Kiki is certain; their interactions are always interesting because of this. The secondary characters, such as Tombo, the artist, the bakers who take in Kiki as a tenant, and the elderly woman she befriends, are all likeable, and they all eventually help Kiki find herself. 19/20
Voices: This is a review of the original Japanese version of the film, so judgments about the English dub don’t apply. However, I feel I have to mention my biggest beef with Disney’s version: the casting. I mean, don’t get me wrong, Kirsten Dunst is a good actress, but she is extremely wrong for Kiki. Primarily, she sounds way too old. Secondly, she’s too high-pitched, changing Kiki from a plucky adolescent to a whiny teen. Even stranger, though, was the choice for Jiji. The late and great Phil Hartman did the voice of Jiji as his last film role, and I can’t say his performance is bad. It’s great, in fact. But it changes Jiji into an entirely different character. In the original, Jiji has a cute voice, and occasionally has sardonic dialogue. By contrast, the Hartman Jiji is a cynical smart-alec with a drawling northeastern accent. Overall, the dub can’t hold its own when compared to the original. All of the original actors perfectly suit the personalities the characters were meant to have, and the performances are great all around. 18/20
Music: The original film features two Japanese pop songs (“Message in Rouge” and “Surrounded by Gentleness”), but neither of these was used in the dub, probably for licensing reasons. This is yet another thing that hurts the quality of the dub, since the original songs are more fitting in both theme and tune than the pale imitations used in the English version. The score is great as well, with the most memorable music being in the scenes with Jiji and the dog. 18/20
Visuals: Studio Ghibli is incapable of producing a bad-looking film; this film showcases the sumptuous color, simple character design, masterful movements, and beautiful backgrounds that the studio is known for. It lacks the computer-aided flair that some of their more recent films have, but what else can I say? Fantastic animation for a fantastic film. 18/20
Overall grade: 91/100 (A)
Thursday, August 6, 2009
the scores so far!
Yay! I made it through ten reviews! Anyway, I'll probably post a "best to worst" list of all my reviewed films every ten posts or so.
My Neighbors the Yamadas 89/100
The Triplets of Belleville 88/100
Fehérlófia 85/100
Anastasia 83/100
Catnapped! 79/100
James and the Giant Peach 69/100
The Sword in the Stone 66/100
The Tune 49/100
Waking Life 28/100
Alice 19/100
My Neighbors the Yamadas 89/100
The Triplets of Belleville 88/100
Fehérlófia 85/100
Anastasia 83/100
Catnapped! 79/100
James and the Giant Peach 69/100
The Sword in the Stone 66/100
The Tune 49/100
Waking Life 28/100
Alice 19/100
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Tune
Year: 1992
Country: United States
Director: Bill Plympton
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: Songwriter Del is given 47 minutes to write a hit tune, or else. However, on his way to present his material, Del gets caught up in the surreal town of Flooby Nooby, where he learns some lessons about life and music. He then presents his songs to his boss and wins the girl of his dreams.
First impressions: This was both Bill Plympton’s first feature-length film and my first exposure to his work, but after seeing it, I’m not exactly eager to rush out and see his other stuff. First and foremost, the story is barely there, so what fills in the running time is lengthy and unfunny visual gags. In fact, these gags have so little to do with each other that the film seems like a slapdash collection of shorts, rather than a film with a single narrative.
Plot and story: I wish I could say that my “scenario” up there is just a bare-bones synopsis, but that is literally everything that happens. And yet, the film is more than an hour long. The barely-there story is padded with musical numbers and overlong visual gags; the former sometimes advance the plot, but the latter never do, and thus come off as a desperate attempt to extend the film’s running time. In the end, when the story is boiled down to its essential elements, it is surprisingly paint-by-numbers and isn’t the least bit interesting. 5/20
Characters: Again, due to the distractions of the pointless visual gags and elaborate transformation sequences that dominate the film’s running time, we spend very little time actually getting to know the characters, and they are barely more than one-dimensional. The only characters that get significant screen time are Del, his love interest, and his boss; they all go through some slight changes over the course of the plot, but are never made particularly relatable or even likeable. 8/20
Voices: No famous voices here, and I can’t say that the voices used manage to elevate the one-note characters. None of them are bad, however, so I’ll give them a middle of the road score. 10/20
Music: Without an interesting plot or developed characters, the musical numbers become the centerpiece of the film, and they are nothing if not surreal. The lyrics and subject matter are bizarre (one song is about a man without a nose), and each song is done in a different musical style, including blues, folk, country, and even surf rock. These songs work well on their own level, but they aren’t really strong enough to save the film and they aren’t catchy enough to make me want to listen to them again. 13/20
Visuals: Being an independent animator, Plympton can’t very well replicate the style of big-budget Hollywood animations; fortunately, he doesn’t try to. His films seem to be a study in economy, with only six to eight frames comprising every second of film (most animation uses at least twelve frames per second). He also makes careful use of still frames and repeated movements, presumably to save time. The simple, “sketchy” style of this film is reminiscent of a crayon drawing, as is the pastel color scheme, and the economized visuals serve as a reminder that cheaper animation doesn’t necessarily look worse than its big-budget counterparts. However, the creative animation in this film (particularly in the surreal transformations mentioned above) is posited as being dominant to the story, when the visuals aren’t actually strong enough to carry the entire film. Thus, while I can imagine that this film was a labor of love for everyone involved, it’s flawed enough that I can only recommend it with reservations. 13/20
Overall grade: 49/100 (C)
Country: United States
Director: Bill Plympton
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: Songwriter Del is given 47 minutes to write a hit tune, or else. However, on his way to present his material, Del gets caught up in the surreal town of Flooby Nooby, where he learns some lessons about life and music. He then presents his songs to his boss and wins the girl of his dreams.
First impressions: This was both Bill Plympton’s first feature-length film and my first exposure to his work, but after seeing it, I’m not exactly eager to rush out and see his other stuff. First and foremost, the story is barely there, so what fills in the running time is lengthy and unfunny visual gags. In fact, these gags have so little to do with each other that the film seems like a slapdash collection of shorts, rather than a film with a single narrative.
Plot and story: I wish I could say that my “scenario” up there is just a bare-bones synopsis, but that is literally everything that happens. And yet, the film is more than an hour long. The barely-there story is padded with musical numbers and overlong visual gags; the former sometimes advance the plot, but the latter never do, and thus come off as a desperate attempt to extend the film’s running time. In the end, when the story is boiled down to its essential elements, it is surprisingly paint-by-numbers and isn’t the least bit interesting. 5/20
Characters: Again, due to the distractions of the pointless visual gags and elaborate transformation sequences that dominate the film’s running time, we spend very little time actually getting to know the characters, and they are barely more than one-dimensional. The only characters that get significant screen time are Del, his love interest, and his boss; they all go through some slight changes over the course of the plot, but are never made particularly relatable or even likeable. 8/20
Voices: No famous voices here, and I can’t say that the voices used manage to elevate the one-note characters. None of them are bad, however, so I’ll give them a middle of the road score. 10/20
Music: Without an interesting plot or developed characters, the musical numbers become the centerpiece of the film, and they are nothing if not surreal. The lyrics and subject matter are bizarre (one song is about a man without a nose), and each song is done in a different musical style, including blues, folk, country, and even surf rock. These songs work well on their own level, but they aren’t really strong enough to save the film and they aren’t catchy enough to make me want to listen to them again. 13/20
Visuals: Being an independent animator, Plympton can’t very well replicate the style of big-budget Hollywood animations; fortunately, he doesn’t try to. His films seem to be a study in economy, with only six to eight frames comprising every second of film (most animation uses at least twelve frames per second). He also makes careful use of still frames and repeated movements, presumably to save time. The simple, “sketchy” style of this film is reminiscent of a crayon drawing, as is the pastel color scheme, and the economized visuals serve as a reminder that cheaper animation doesn’t necessarily look worse than its big-budget counterparts. However, the creative animation in this film (particularly in the surreal transformations mentioned above) is posited as being dominant to the story, when the visuals aren’t actually strong enough to carry the entire film. Thus, while I can imagine that this film was a labor of love for everyone involved, it’s flawed enough that I can only recommend it with reservations. 13/20
Overall grade: 49/100 (C)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Anastasia
Year: 1997
Country: United States
Director: Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
Watched through: library DVD
The scenario: An elaborate “what if” fantasy that speculates on what might have happened if the fourth daughter of Czar Nicholas II had survived the Russian Revolution. . . as well as what might have happened if the Revolution has been caused by an evil sorcerer.
First impressions: I remember going to see this at the movie theater when I was a kid. I didn’t really recall anything about the film, however; what I remembered more vividly was my mom’s reaction when we walked out. She was complaining that this film wasn’t a Disney movie, saying that it had been advertised as one. I don’t know of anything from the advertising which might have implied this (does anyone?), but it certainly looks like a Disney film. This is not surprising, considering that both of the directors used to work at the Disney studio. This film, with its singing princesses, cute sidekicks, whirlwind romance, and dastardly villain, is certainly one of my most obvious Disney rip-offs of the 90s, but it’s also one of the best. It has its flaws, though, as we shall see.
Plot and story: Well, it’s. . . ludicrous. Yeah, as if you didn’t know already. Now, I can buy a story in which Czarina Anastasia survives the revolution and escapes the country. But a story in which Anastasia develops amnesia after escaping from the evil sorcerer (?!) Rasputin (who somehow caused the revolution), gets picked up by two con men who want her to pose as the person she ironically IS, travels to Paris to meet the beloved grandmother she forgot she had, eventually gets reunited and regains her memory, and falls in love with the con man who wanted to use her, all while being menaced by the ill will of Rasputin? Well. . . in the end, I bought everything except the evil sorcerer bit. The main plot is carried out with enough grace and wit that the preposterous premise actually works. Interestingly enough, I don’t think this film even really needed a central villain; there’s enough conflict and intrigue between the main characters that the whole “evil sorcerer” thing becomes extraneous. Overall, the story is good, except for the insulting and unnecessary portrayal of Rasputin. 15/20
Characters: We’ve already established that the villain is sorely lacking (in motivation, personality, threatening presence, and everything else that a villain should have), but the main characters fare much better. Anastasia is warm-hearted but also feisty, and has a dry sense of humor. The two con men, Dimitri and Vlad, are a study in contrasts, with the latter being sentimental and the former being more cocky and cynical. Anastasia’s grandmother is perfectly regal, being both proud and kind. There’s also a dog thrown into the mix, as well as a flamboyant cousin of the grandmother. All of these characters bounce off each other in believable ways, and it is the film’s personal struggles, rather the physical ones, that really push it along. 17/20
Voices: They literally aimed for the stars when casting this movie; every major part is done by a celebrity. Angela Lansbury is perfectly cast as the grandmother. Bernadette Peters is a bit annoying as the French cousin, but pulls off the part well. Kelsey Grammer, as Vlad, is the only one who sounds remotely Russian, but luckily this isn’t a distraction. Christopher Lloyd tries his best as Rasputin, but since the character is badly written, the dialogue can’t really save him. Kirsten Dunst is annoyingly high-pitched as the child Anastasia, but Meg Ryan pulls off her adult voice without a hitch. Finally, John Cusack doesn’t miss a note as Dimitri. This is reasonably inspired casting, and most of the acting is top-notch. 17/20
Music: Since this film is a Disney imitation from start to finish, it wouldn’t be complete without songs, right? It certainly has a lot of them, but some are better than others. The musical centerpiece is “Once Upon a December,” which easily holds its own against Disney’s best songs. “Journey to the Past” earned the film an Oscar nod (the score was nominated as well), and “Learn to Do It” is great fun. Unfortunately the song sung by the villain is crap and never should have been included. Really good and memorable music overall. 17/20
Visuals: I’ve already mentioned that it looks like a Disney film, both in design and movement. There were some small things that bothered me, like the French cousin’s design and Dimitri’s incredibly angular ears, but overall this film is successful at maintaining subtle realism. The color scheme is bold, even sumptuous, and the backgrounds are beautifully detailed. There is also some CGI which is used to great effect in the song sequences. But, again, back to Rasputin, and how much he sucks in this movie. His design is mildly grotesque but not the least bit interesting or menacing, and although the animators tried to be creative by having his appendages fall off once in a while, he drags the film down every time he appears. So, as mentioned in all the other categories, Rasputin is what keeps this film from being a masterpiece; suffice to say that it’s really good. 17/20
Overall grade: 83/100 (A-)
Country: United States
Director: Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
Watched through: library DVD
The scenario: An elaborate “what if” fantasy that speculates on what might have happened if the fourth daughter of Czar Nicholas II had survived the Russian Revolution. . . as well as what might have happened if the Revolution has been caused by an evil sorcerer.
First impressions: I remember going to see this at the movie theater when I was a kid. I didn’t really recall anything about the film, however; what I remembered more vividly was my mom’s reaction when we walked out. She was complaining that this film wasn’t a Disney movie, saying that it had been advertised as one. I don’t know of anything from the advertising which might have implied this (does anyone?), but it certainly looks like a Disney film. This is not surprising, considering that both of the directors used to work at the Disney studio. This film, with its singing princesses, cute sidekicks, whirlwind romance, and dastardly villain, is certainly one of my most obvious Disney rip-offs of the 90s, but it’s also one of the best. It has its flaws, though, as we shall see.
Plot and story: Well, it’s. . . ludicrous. Yeah, as if you didn’t know already. Now, I can buy a story in which Czarina Anastasia survives the revolution and escapes the country. But a story in which Anastasia develops amnesia after escaping from the evil sorcerer (?!) Rasputin (who somehow caused the revolution), gets picked up by two con men who want her to pose as the person she ironically IS, travels to Paris to meet the beloved grandmother she forgot she had, eventually gets reunited and regains her memory, and falls in love with the con man who wanted to use her, all while being menaced by the ill will of Rasputin? Well. . . in the end, I bought everything except the evil sorcerer bit. The main plot is carried out with enough grace and wit that the preposterous premise actually works. Interestingly enough, I don’t think this film even really needed a central villain; there’s enough conflict and intrigue between the main characters that the whole “evil sorcerer” thing becomes extraneous. Overall, the story is good, except for the insulting and unnecessary portrayal of Rasputin. 15/20
Characters: We’ve already established that the villain is sorely lacking (in motivation, personality, threatening presence, and everything else that a villain should have), but the main characters fare much better. Anastasia is warm-hearted but also feisty, and has a dry sense of humor. The two con men, Dimitri and Vlad, are a study in contrasts, with the latter being sentimental and the former being more cocky and cynical. Anastasia’s grandmother is perfectly regal, being both proud and kind. There’s also a dog thrown into the mix, as well as a flamboyant cousin of the grandmother. All of these characters bounce off each other in believable ways, and it is the film’s personal struggles, rather the physical ones, that really push it along. 17/20
Voices: They literally aimed for the stars when casting this movie; every major part is done by a celebrity. Angela Lansbury is perfectly cast as the grandmother. Bernadette Peters is a bit annoying as the French cousin, but pulls off the part well. Kelsey Grammer, as Vlad, is the only one who sounds remotely Russian, but luckily this isn’t a distraction. Christopher Lloyd tries his best as Rasputin, but since the character is badly written, the dialogue can’t really save him. Kirsten Dunst is annoyingly high-pitched as the child Anastasia, but Meg Ryan pulls off her adult voice without a hitch. Finally, John Cusack doesn’t miss a note as Dimitri. This is reasonably inspired casting, and most of the acting is top-notch. 17/20
Music: Since this film is a Disney imitation from start to finish, it wouldn’t be complete without songs, right? It certainly has a lot of them, but some are better than others. The musical centerpiece is “Once Upon a December,” which easily holds its own against Disney’s best songs. “Journey to the Past” earned the film an Oscar nod (the score was nominated as well), and “Learn to Do It” is great fun. Unfortunately the song sung by the villain is crap and never should have been included. Really good and memorable music overall. 17/20
Visuals: I’ve already mentioned that it looks like a Disney film, both in design and movement. There were some small things that bothered me, like the French cousin’s design and Dimitri’s incredibly angular ears, but overall this film is successful at maintaining subtle realism. The color scheme is bold, even sumptuous, and the backgrounds are beautifully detailed. There is also some CGI which is used to great effect in the song sequences. But, again, back to Rasputin, and how much he sucks in this movie. His design is mildly grotesque but not the least bit interesting or menacing, and although the animators tried to be creative by having his appendages fall off once in a while, he drags the film down every time he appears. So, as mentioned in all the other categories, Rasputin is what keeps this film from being a masterpiece; suffice to say that it’s really good. 17/20
Overall grade: 83/100 (A-)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
James and the Giant Peach
Year: 1996
Country: United States
Director: Henry Selick
Watched through: library VHS
The scenario: Little James lives an idyllic life until his parents die and he is forced to live with two terrible aunts. Even when his life is bleak, however, he still maintains his ultimate dream of going to New York City. His dream comes true in the most unusual of ways: a giant peach grows outside his house, and together with six kooky bugs, he is able to fly it across the ocean.
First impressions: I saw this film in theaters when it first came out; considering that it was directed by the same guy who gave us The Nightmare Before Christmas and is based on a book by the always-brilliant Roald Dahl, one would think that this film would leave a lasting impression. Somehow, however, it didn’t. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs way up, but after re-watching it last night, I have to admit that I don’t get what they saw in it. It’s just as forgettable to me now as it was when I was seven.
Plot and story: Having never read the book this film is based on, I can’t comment on how faithful the plot is. I am, however, inclined to think that the plot of the original is somewhat more gripping and makes a good deal more sense than the film does. After a lengthy and very cheesy live-action introduction, we get into the main adventure of the film, which is, of course, the journey to New York. Since the conflict between the members of the main cast is minimal, most of the danger and tension has to be dropped in from outside sources. Unfortunately for the film, these sources include a giant mechanical shark and horribly-rendered ghosts in a sunken pirate ship, neither of which are there for any logical reason. The story, overall, is very thin and the way it plays out on screen is pretty boring. The plot dragged despite the film’s short running time, and even the climax was stretched beyond its limits of interest. Some parts of the story are simply baffling as well, including the quickly passed-over detail about how James’ parents die. Overall, even though this is obviously a fantasy, suspension of disbelief never took hold, and I was never really engaged with the story. 11/20
Characters: Although the story is so-so, the characters don’t fare too badly. We certainly have a colorful cast, including a solitary spider, a pompous grasshopper, a snide centipede, a dainty ladybug, a neurotic worm, a deaf glow bug, and, of course, generous and thoughtful James. Most of them manage to learn something and change for the better within the story (especially the centipede and grasshopper, who initially don’t like each other), so they get points for being dynamic, and all of them are generally likeable. James himself is a cute hero, but is fairly dull when compared to his bug companions. The villains were also pretty lame, having neither motivation nor any detectable personality outside of the mean things they do. The decent characters redeem the thin story somewhat, but not all of them are great. 16/20
Voices: Though we have an unknown in the title role, there are several “name” actors in this film. Susan Sarandon, for example, provides a sultry, accented voice for the spider, and left me wondering why she doesn’t do more voiceovers. Richard Dreyfuss lends a lot of character to the centipede, Joanna Lumley gets passing marks for her live-action role as evil Aunt Spiker, and David Thewlis (whom you may know as Lupin in the Harry Potter movies) does a good job as the earthworm. Not bad overall. 16/20
Music: Well, it’s a musical, but don’t expect any Disney material. The songs were written by Randy Newman, who also did the songs for the overlooked Cats Don’t Dance and the much-anticipated The Princess and the Frog. The songs are okay, but they all bring the story to a screeching halt, and in the end they’re very forgettable (subjects of the lyrics include what the characters want to find in New York and the different ways they can eat the giant peach). The score in equally bland, and the music overall is just as empty as the plot. 11/20
Visuals: The stop-motion is great, that’s for sure. So it begs the question: why aren’t the puppets used for the entire film? The live-action segments that bookend the film don’t even nearly achieve the stylization or visual interest the animation does, and they make the film look corny and dated. I haven’t got any complaints about the quality of the animation; good character design, smooth movements, decent special effects. Without the live-action, the look of the film would have been SO much more appealing. 15/20
Overall grade: 69/100 (B)
Country: United States
Director: Henry Selick
Watched through: library VHS
The scenario: Little James lives an idyllic life until his parents die and he is forced to live with two terrible aunts. Even when his life is bleak, however, he still maintains his ultimate dream of going to New York City. His dream comes true in the most unusual of ways: a giant peach grows outside his house, and together with six kooky bugs, he is able to fly it across the ocean.
First impressions: I saw this film in theaters when it first came out; considering that it was directed by the same guy who gave us The Nightmare Before Christmas and is based on a book by the always-brilliant Roald Dahl, one would think that this film would leave a lasting impression. Somehow, however, it didn’t. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs way up, but after re-watching it last night, I have to admit that I don’t get what they saw in it. It’s just as forgettable to me now as it was when I was seven.
Plot and story: Having never read the book this film is based on, I can’t comment on how faithful the plot is. I am, however, inclined to think that the plot of the original is somewhat more gripping and makes a good deal more sense than the film does. After a lengthy and very cheesy live-action introduction, we get into the main adventure of the film, which is, of course, the journey to New York. Since the conflict between the members of the main cast is minimal, most of the danger and tension has to be dropped in from outside sources. Unfortunately for the film, these sources include a giant mechanical shark and horribly-rendered ghosts in a sunken pirate ship, neither of which are there for any logical reason. The story, overall, is very thin and the way it plays out on screen is pretty boring. The plot dragged despite the film’s short running time, and even the climax was stretched beyond its limits of interest. Some parts of the story are simply baffling as well, including the quickly passed-over detail about how James’ parents die. Overall, even though this is obviously a fantasy, suspension of disbelief never took hold, and I was never really engaged with the story. 11/20
Characters: Although the story is so-so, the characters don’t fare too badly. We certainly have a colorful cast, including a solitary spider, a pompous grasshopper, a snide centipede, a dainty ladybug, a neurotic worm, a deaf glow bug, and, of course, generous and thoughtful James. Most of them manage to learn something and change for the better within the story (especially the centipede and grasshopper, who initially don’t like each other), so they get points for being dynamic, and all of them are generally likeable. James himself is a cute hero, but is fairly dull when compared to his bug companions. The villains were also pretty lame, having neither motivation nor any detectable personality outside of the mean things they do. The decent characters redeem the thin story somewhat, but not all of them are great. 16/20
Voices: Though we have an unknown in the title role, there are several “name” actors in this film. Susan Sarandon, for example, provides a sultry, accented voice for the spider, and left me wondering why she doesn’t do more voiceovers. Richard Dreyfuss lends a lot of character to the centipede, Joanna Lumley gets passing marks for her live-action role as evil Aunt Spiker, and David Thewlis (whom you may know as Lupin in the Harry Potter movies) does a good job as the earthworm. Not bad overall. 16/20
Music: Well, it’s a musical, but don’t expect any Disney material. The songs were written by Randy Newman, who also did the songs for the overlooked Cats Don’t Dance and the much-anticipated The Princess and the Frog. The songs are okay, but they all bring the story to a screeching halt, and in the end they’re very forgettable (subjects of the lyrics include what the characters want to find in New York and the different ways they can eat the giant peach). The score in equally bland, and the music overall is just as empty as the plot. 11/20
Visuals: The stop-motion is great, that’s for sure. So it begs the question: why aren’t the puppets used for the entire film? The live-action segments that bookend the film don’t even nearly achieve the stylization or visual interest the animation does, and they make the film look corny and dated. I haven’t got any complaints about the quality of the animation; good character design, smooth movements, decent special effects. Without the live-action, the look of the film would have been SO much more appealing. 15/20
Overall grade: 69/100 (B)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)