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)
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Sword in the Stone
Year: 1963
Country: United States
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Watched through: library DVD
The scenario: A powerful but rather bumbling Merlin tries to educate a young page named “Wart,” who eventually becomes King Arthur.
First impressions: This is one of several Disney features to be directed by Wolfgang “Woolie” Reitherman, and it has two things in common with his other work: the plot is noticeably episodic, and detailed stories take a backseat to character-based humor. The latter is not necessarily a weakness, but the former certainly is. Reitherman has been called un-ambitious in his storytelling by animation historians, and while his films are not without charm, they are definitely not as strong as some of the studio’s other productions.
Plot and story: The problems with this movie start off right away, as we are dropped into a scene with Merlin the wizard; he has predicted that some boy will come dropping through his roof, and he is prematurely obsessed with educating this unknown boy. Little Arthur arrives just as predicted, and he goes along with Merlin’s propagations in a kind of passive bewilderment that doesn’t make for a very gripping introduction. The rest of the movie consists of Merlin’s hare-brained attempts to better the young page so he can “amount to something.” The main sequences that make up the plot can be called choppy at best and nonsensically disjointed at worst, as none of the three major “learning” scenes have any sort of effect on the central story (the last is particularly pointless). The final sequence, in which Arthur pulls the sword from the anvil and is declared king, has no thematic or story-based connections to anything that has happened previously in the film, and the film ends very suddenly with everything fine and dandy but no lessons learned by anyone. Was this film being written as it was being made, or did the writers just not care? 10/20
Characters: This is the film’s main strength. The plot may be poorly thought out, but most of the characters have great appeal. The best parts of the film are the biting dialogue plays between Merlin and Archimedes, the highly educated talking owl. Merlin is intelligent, but is also rather inept and gets flustered frequently. Archimedes, on the other hand, is critical and curmudgeonly, but shows a friendlier side as the film progresses. Even without a strong story, it is very funny to see Merlin get his beard caught in doors and have trouble remembering his own spells. By comparison, the rest of the cast is kind of dull. Arthur is very passive and rather bland for a hero. Kay and his father Sir Ector have one-note personalities, as do the rest of the minor characters. The villain, Mad Madame Mim, is granted some personality, being delightfully macabre and humorous neurotic, but she is not very threatening. While these characters are fun to watch, it is both disappointing and rather baffling to see that not a single character is given a whit of development; everyone is just the same at the end as they were at the beginning. 14/20
Voices: One thing that bothered me while watching this film is that Arthur’s voice sounds different almost every time he appears; sometimes it was even different within the same scene. At first I was willing to chalk this up to his actor going through a vocal change, but the cast list on iMDB reveals that he was actually voiced by three different people. Um, why? Also, why did the sound editors feel the need to use the exact same, “whoa, what, whoa” exclamation seven times during the film? It doesn’t sound good even the first time. Anyway, the rest of the cast is good, but Merlin’s voice is the best by far. A fair job on voices overall. 15/20
Music: This film is a musical, but it doesn’t have any of the same spectacle as the Disney films before or after it. The songs are sung by a narrator, by Merlin, and by Madame Mim. The songs sung by Merlin are somewhat pedantic affairs with lyrics that relate to the lesson he is trying to teach, Madame Mim sings a jolly song about how evil she is, and the narrator sings the backstory in the film’s opening. These songs get passing marks for being pleasant and sometimes funny, but they are neither catchy nor memorable. The instrumental score is even more forgettable. 13/20
Visuals: Since this film was made in the wake of an expensive failure for the studio (Sleeping Beauty), it had to be relatively cheap to produce. And the difference really shows. The characters are more static, the animation is less smooth, and the colors and backgrounds seem somewhat slapdash. The palette has a distinctly 60s vibe—lots of blue and orange—that makes the film look dated, and the physical animation is not up to snuff with the studio’s better films. It’s not horrible, but the visuals (along with all the other aspects of the film) compare very unfavorably when stacked up against Disney’s better-known productions. Though is has many loyal fans and is bound to remain a nostalgic classic, this film shouldn’t be confused with the Disney Masterpieces. 14/20
Overall grade: 66/100 (B-)
Country: United States
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Watched through: library DVD
The scenario: A powerful but rather bumbling Merlin tries to educate a young page named “Wart,” who eventually becomes King Arthur.
First impressions: This is one of several Disney features to be directed by Wolfgang “Woolie” Reitherman, and it has two things in common with his other work: the plot is noticeably episodic, and detailed stories take a backseat to character-based humor. The latter is not necessarily a weakness, but the former certainly is. Reitherman has been called un-ambitious in his storytelling by animation historians, and while his films are not without charm, they are definitely not as strong as some of the studio’s other productions.
Plot and story: The problems with this movie start off right away, as we are dropped into a scene with Merlin the wizard; he has predicted that some boy will come dropping through his roof, and he is prematurely obsessed with educating this unknown boy. Little Arthur arrives just as predicted, and he goes along with Merlin’s propagations in a kind of passive bewilderment that doesn’t make for a very gripping introduction. The rest of the movie consists of Merlin’s hare-brained attempts to better the young page so he can “amount to something.” The main sequences that make up the plot can be called choppy at best and nonsensically disjointed at worst, as none of the three major “learning” scenes have any sort of effect on the central story (the last is particularly pointless). The final sequence, in which Arthur pulls the sword from the anvil and is declared king, has no thematic or story-based connections to anything that has happened previously in the film, and the film ends very suddenly with everything fine and dandy but no lessons learned by anyone. Was this film being written as it was being made, or did the writers just not care? 10/20
Characters: This is the film’s main strength. The plot may be poorly thought out, but most of the characters have great appeal. The best parts of the film are the biting dialogue plays between Merlin and Archimedes, the highly educated talking owl. Merlin is intelligent, but is also rather inept and gets flustered frequently. Archimedes, on the other hand, is critical and curmudgeonly, but shows a friendlier side as the film progresses. Even without a strong story, it is very funny to see Merlin get his beard caught in doors and have trouble remembering his own spells. By comparison, the rest of the cast is kind of dull. Arthur is very passive and rather bland for a hero. Kay and his father Sir Ector have one-note personalities, as do the rest of the minor characters. The villain, Mad Madame Mim, is granted some personality, being delightfully macabre and humorous neurotic, but she is not very threatening. While these characters are fun to watch, it is both disappointing and rather baffling to see that not a single character is given a whit of development; everyone is just the same at the end as they were at the beginning. 14/20
Voices: One thing that bothered me while watching this film is that Arthur’s voice sounds different almost every time he appears; sometimes it was even different within the same scene. At first I was willing to chalk this up to his actor going through a vocal change, but the cast list on iMDB reveals that he was actually voiced by three different people. Um, why? Also, why did the sound editors feel the need to use the exact same, “whoa, what, whoa” exclamation seven times during the film? It doesn’t sound good even the first time. Anyway, the rest of the cast is good, but Merlin’s voice is the best by far. A fair job on voices overall. 15/20
Music: This film is a musical, but it doesn’t have any of the same spectacle as the Disney films before or after it. The songs are sung by a narrator, by Merlin, and by Madame Mim. The songs sung by Merlin are somewhat pedantic affairs with lyrics that relate to the lesson he is trying to teach, Madame Mim sings a jolly song about how evil she is, and the narrator sings the backstory in the film’s opening. These songs get passing marks for being pleasant and sometimes funny, but they are neither catchy nor memorable. The instrumental score is even more forgettable. 13/20
Visuals: Since this film was made in the wake of an expensive failure for the studio (Sleeping Beauty), it had to be relatively cheap to produce. And the difference really shows. The characters are more static, the animation is less smooth, and the colors and backgrounds seem somewhat slapdash. The palette has a distinctly 60s vibe—lots of blue and orange—that makes the film look dated, and the physical animation is not up to snuff with the studio’s better films. It’s not horrible, but the visuals (along with all the other aspects of the film) compare very unfavorably when stacked up against Disney’s better-known productions. Though is has many loyal fans and is bound to remain a nostalgic classic, this film shouldn’t be confused with the Disney Masterpieces. 14/20
Overall grade: 66/100 (B-)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
My Neighbors the Yamadas
Year: 1999
Country: Japan
Director: Isao Takahata
Watched through: Netflix
Also known as: Hohokekyo Tonari No Yamada-kun
The scenario: A series of vignettes about a suburban family in modern Japan, based on a popular comic strip.
First impressions: Having neither the expected anime drawing style nor traditional cel-based animation, this is one of Studio Ghibli’s most commonly overlooked films. In addition, it doesn’t have a central story, or even a single theme to unite the vignettes (unless you count “the foibles of living in suburban Japan” as a theme). It’s still a perfectly coherent and very charming film, however, and the settings, characters, and situations are appealingly relatable. Overall, I’d say this film deserves more attention from anime fans.
Plot and story: There really isn’t any, as mentioned above. n/a
Characters: Interesting characters are an important part of any film, but they have double the importance when they must carry a film with no story. Fortunately, the mother, father, brother, sister, and grandmother who comprise the Yamada family are well-rounded, funny, and very realistic; each tries their best, but no one is perfect. My favorite character is the proud, opinionated grandmother who is never afraid to be rude; she isn’t scared to cover other peoples’ posters with her own, insult the neighbor’s flower garden, or confront the motorcycle-riding hooligans that tear through the neighborhood. My next favorite is the caring but sometimes lazy mother who cuts corners in her housework so she can watch more romance movies on TV. The frustrated father, harried teenage son, and indomitable young daughter complete the family, and they constantly bounce off each other in unexpected and humorous ways. To say more would spoil some of the vignettes, but suffice to say that most of them are both touching and funny because the characters are so real. 19/20
Voices: I didn’t have time to watch the English dub of this film, which has some famous voice actors, but the original Japanese has wonderful voices. They’re just great parts of already great characters, and there isn’t a bad performance to be heard. 18/20
Music: Because of the “slice of life” nature of this film, non-diegetic music is de-emphasized. The sparing use of music works well with the realism of the film, and most of what we hear is existing classical pieces. There is also a charming karaoke number sung by the mother and father, and swells of music highlight the poems that accompany some scenes. 16/20
Visuals: This film stands out in the Studio Ghibli repertoire because of its unique style. Rather than using the hyper-realistic style that most Ghibli films (and, indeed, most anime films) have, this film seeks to imitate the style of the comic it’s based on. The figures and backgrounds are very simply drawn, and only the most important areas of the screen have color. Everything is rounded and friendly, with a lovely pastel color palette. Though the scenes look like watercolor paintings, the film was actually drawn digitally, which was a first for the studio. The visuals are cute while being quirky, and overall they help make the film memorable. 18/20
Overall grade: 71/80 = about 89/100 (A)
Country: Japan
Director: Isao Takahata
Watched through: Netflix
Also known as: Hohokekyo Tonari No Yamada-kun
The scenario: A series of vignettes about a suburban family in modern Japan, based on a popular comic strip.
First impressions: Having neither the expected anime drawing style nor traditional cel-based animation, this is one of Studio Ghibli’s most commonly overlooked films. In addition, it doesn’t have a central story, or even a single theme to unite the vignettes (unless you count “the foibles of living in suburban Japan” as a theme). It’s still a perfectly coherent and very charming film, however, and the settings, characters, and situations are appealingly relatable. Overall, I’d say this film deserves more attention from anime fans.
Plot and story: There really isn’t any, as mentioned above. n/a
Characters: Interesting characters are an important part of any film, but they have double the importance when they must carry a film with no story. Fortunately, the mother, father, brother, sister, and grandmother who comprise the Yamada family are well-rounded, funny, and very realistic; each tries their best, but no one is perfect. My favorite character is the proud, opinionated grandmother who is never afraid to be rude; she isn’t scared to cover other peoples’ posters with her own, insult the neighbor’s flower garden, or confront the motorcycle-riding hooligans that tear through the neighborhood. My next favorite is the caring but sometimes lazy mother who cuts corners in her housework so she can watch more romance movies on TV. The frustrated father, harried teenage son, and indomitable young daughter complete the family, and they constantly bounce off each other in unexpected and humorous ways. To say more would spoil some of the vignettes, but suffice to say that most of them are both touching and funny because the characters are so real. 19/20
Voices: I didn’t have time to watch the English dub of this film, which has some famous voice actors, but the original Japanese has wonderful voices. They’re just great parts of already great characters, and there isn’t a bad performance to be heard. 18/20
Music: Because of the “slice of life” nature of this film, non-diegetic music is de-emphasized. The sparing use of music works well with the realism of the film, and most of what we hear is existing classical pieces. There is also a charming karaoke number sung by the mother and father, and swells of music highlight the poems that accompany some scenes. 16/20
Visuals: This film stands out in the Studio Ghibli repertoire because of its unique style. Rather than using the hyper-realistic style that most Ghibli films (and, indeed, most anime films) have, this film seeks to imitate the style of the comic it’s based on. The figures and backgrounds are very simply drawn, and only the most important areas of the screen have color. Everything is rounded and friendly, with a lovely pastel color palette. Though the scenes look like watercolor paintings, the film was actually drawn digitally, which was a first for the studio. The visuals are cute while being quirky, and overall they help make the film memorable. 18/20
Overall grade: 71/80 = about 89/100 (A)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Triplets of Belleville
Year: 2003
Country: France
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Les Triplettes de Belleville, Belleville Rendez-Vous
The scenario: After Madame Souza notices that her grandson, Champion, is happiest on a bicycle, she trains him to compete in the Tour de France. Not all goes well in the race, however, as Champion and two other cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia. Madame Souza sets out on her own to rescue her grandson, but is soon assisted by three elderly jazz-singing sisters known as the Triplets of Belleville.
First impressions: Having heard this movie described as “blissfully bizarre,” I was eager to see it when I first about it around 2004. I rented to the DVD to watch with a friend, but my rather conventionally-minded pal found the imagery in the opening scene too gross to watch and made me stop the movie after seeing only two minutes. Needless to say I was disappointed, but I re-discovered the film a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
Plot and story: This film is a sort of surreal mystery/drama/musical/gangster film/comedy, which is to say that its story is pretty stand-out in the animated film arena. Everything in this film is so deftly original that there isn’t a single uninteresting second. The simple but nuanced plot unfolds with admirable clarity (especially considering there is almost no dialogue), and not a second is wasted in the short running time. The race to save Champion from the mafia is suitably gripping, and everything is fittingly (if bizarrely) resolved at the end. 18/20
Characters: I’ve seen many people complain that since this film lacks dialogue it doesn’t have much in the way of characterization; I disagree. Because the visual storytelling and character animation are so good, a great deal comes across without ever hearing the characters talk. Some of the characters don’t go beyond one-note personalities (most notably the mafia agents, but more disappointingly, Champion); however, our main protagonists have very distinct personalities. Madame Souza is resourceful, determined, and courageous, even when she is out of her element in the strange city of Belleville. The Triplets are an odd but compassionate bunch, and their dinners are quite hilarious. Even Bruno the dog has a personality, being a loyal but rather lazy companion. It is really clear how much thought and effort went into these characters, and they give the film its heart. 17/20
Voices: There are hardly any, as mentioned before. Champion and Madame Souza have only one spoken line each (though Madame Souza sings briefly), and most of the remainder of the talking is just incidental TV broadcasts, radio noise, or sports announcers. The Triplets do most of the singing, but they never speak. This sparing use of voice is another element that sets this film apart from its animated feature brethren. Though some may find this approach jarring, and others may even find it dull, I thought it was another of the film’s strengths. The one thing I didn’t like was Madame Souza’s singing voice. 16/20
Music: Again, since most of the storytelling is visual rather than dialogue-based, the music has to work extra hard to convey the mood of every scene. And, in this respect, the background score works excellently. The Triplets’ signature song, “Belleville Rendez-Vous,” which appears several times, is repetitive yet properly catchy. The most interesting bits of music, however, are the instrumental jams improvised by the Triplets and Madame Souza. With a refrigerator, a vacuum clear, as newspaper, and a bicycle wheel, these four create some of the most original, catchy, and quirky music I’ve ever heard in any film, period. 18/20
Visuals: Both the characters and the settings of this film are stylized to the point of caricature, and some have complained that the visuals are a bit on the grotesque side. Again, I have to disagree. Though the designs may be unusual, the visual creativity of every character and background leaves something to smile about in every frame; Madame Souza’s two different shoes, the fact that her house bends to accommodate a monorail line, the absurd steepness of the streets, the ocean liner that’s bigger than the town it harbors in, the parody of the Statue of Liberty. . . all of these details add something to this film’s peculiar mix of wit and heart. So, with great designs, darn near perfect animation, and a fantastic color palette, the wonderful visuals are the icing on the cake of this wonderful film. 19/20
Overall grade: 88/100 (A)
Country: France
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Les Triplettes de Belleville, Belleville Rendez-Vous
The scenario: After Madame Souza notices that her grandson, Champion, is happiest on a bicycle, she trains him to compete in the Tour de France. Not all goes well in the race, however, as Champion and two other cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia. Madame Souza sets out on her own to rescue her grandson, but is soon assisted by three elderly jazz-singing sisters known as the Triplets of Belleville.
First impressions: Having heard this movie described as “blissfully bizarre,” I was eager to see it when I first about it around 2004. I rented to the DVD to watch with a friend, but my rather conventionally-minded pal found the imagery in the opening scene too gross to watch and made me stop the movie after seeing only two minutes. Needless to say I was disappointed, but I re-discovered the film a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
Plot and story: This film is a sort of surreal mystery/drama/musical/gangster film/comedy, which is to say that its story is pretty stand-out in the animated film arena. Everything in this film is so deftly original that there isn’t a single uninteresting second. The simple but nuanced plot unfolds with admirable clarity (especially considering there is almost no dialogue), and not a second is wasted in the short running time. The race to save Champion from the mafia is suitably gripping, and everything is fittingly (if bizarrely) resolved at the end. 18/20
Characters: I’ve seen many people complain that since this film lacks dialogue it doesn’t have much in the way of characterization; I disagree. Because the visual storytelling and character animation are so good, a great deal comes across without ever hearing the characters talk. Some of the characters don’t go beyond one-note personalities (most notably the mafia agents, but more disappointingly, Champion); however, our main protagonists have very distinct personalities. Madame Souza is resourceful, determined, and courageous, even when she is out of her element in the strange city of Belleville. The Triplets are an odd but compassionate bunch, and their dinners are quite hilarious. Even Bruno the dog has a personality, being a loyal but rather lazy companion. It is really clear how much thought and effort went into these characters, and they give the film its heart. 17/20
Voices: There are hardly any, as mentioned before. Champion and Madame Souza have only one spoken line each (though Madame Souza sings briefly), and most of the remainder of the talking is just incidental TV broadcasts, radio noise, or sports announcers. The Triplets do most of the singing, but they never speak. This sparing use of voice is another element that sets this film apart from its animated feature brethren. Though some may find this approach jarring, and others may even find it dull, I thought it was another of the film’s strengths. The one thing I didn’t like was Madame Souza’s singing voice. 16/20
Music: Again, since most of the storytelling is visual rather than dialogue-based, the music has to work extra hard to convey the mood of every scene. And, in this respect, the background score works excellently. The Triplets’ signature song, “Belleville Rendez-Vous,” which appears several times, is repetitive yet properly catchy. The most interesting bits of music, however, are the instrumental jams improvised by the Triplets and Madame Souza. With a refrigerator, a vacuum clear, as newspaper, and a bicycle wheel, these four create some of the most original, catchy, and quirky music I’ve ever heard in any film, period. 18/20
Visuals: Both the characters and the settings of this film are stylized to the point of caricature, and some have complained that the visuals are a bit on the grotesque side. Again, I have to disagree. Though the designs may be unusual, the visual creativity of every character and background leaves something to smile about in every frame; Madame Souza’s two different shoes, the fact that her house bends to accommodate a monorail line, the absurd steepness of the streets, the ocean liner that’s bigger than the town it harbors in, the parody of the Statue of Liberty. . . all of these details add something to this film’s peculiar mix of wit and heart. So, with great designs, darn near perfect animation, and a fantastic color palette, the wonderful visuals are the icing on the cake of this wonderful film. 19/20
Overall grade: 88/100 (A)
Friday, July 17, 2009
Alice
Year: 1988
Country: Czechoslovakia
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Watched through: library VHS
Also known as: Neco z Alenky
The scenario: A very bored Alice falls asleep in her room and then follows the elusive White Rabbit through a desk drawer into a sinister, surreal dream land.
First impressions: This is one of the innumerable film versions of Lewis Carroll’s famous book. So, my first impression was, why bother? This story has been done almost as many times as Cinderella and Peter Pan; what’s different about this version? Well, the atmosphere is certainly different. The whimsy of the original is replaced here with a vague sense of dread, and the grotesque aspects of the dream land are played up in every scene. While it seems like a creative approach to a familiar story, the film itself is actually very dull. I’m aware that this film has a large cult following, but I don’t see anything likeable in it. Also, though it claims to be for children, any kid who watched it would probably alternate between being bored and being grossed out.
Plot and story: While it would seem obvious that this film has a story, since it is, after all, based on a book, it can’t hold a narrative thread to save its life. Alice enters the dream world while chasing the White Rabbit, and what follows is a series of long, dull, and ultimately pointless scenes showing how she navigates the dream world (all white fruitlessly pleading for the Rabbit to wait for her). The scenes have little to no bearing on each other, and could probably be re-arranged in any order without affecting the conclusion. I don’t know how faithful the plot is to the book, and I don’t care. When it comes down to it, there is no suspense, no meaningful connections between the individual scenes, and no real narrative. The result is a ridiculously dull movie that feels like twice its 85 minute running time. 4/20
Characters: What characters? Sure, we have our protagonist and the bizarre inhabitants of the dream world, but none of them come close to having anything resembling character development, or even a personality. Alice is bored and rather impetuous, but not much else. The White Rabbit frets a lot and makes demands, but has no characterization beyond this. The rest of the puppet cast is even flatter. As a side note, why does Alice start out wanting to follow the Rabbit, then trying to kill him, then wanting to follow him again? It makes no sense. 3/20
Voices: I actually have to talk about this one in the singular: there’s only one voice. Now, this film is originally in Czech, and I watched it in English. This wouldn’t seem like a problem but for the fact that part of the film (and all of the dialogue) is live-action. The bottom line about dubbing voices onto live-action film is, it doesn’t work. There’s very little talking, but all of the dialogue, no matter who it’s attributed to, is spoken by Alice, in uncomfortable close-ups of her lips. Having Alice say, “oh my, said that White Rabbit” gets tiresome very quickly, and the English-speaking actress isn’t that good. 1/20
Music: There isn’t any, oddly enough. n/a
Visuals: One might assume that this is the real reason to see this film, as macabre stop-motion always seems to find an audience. However, neither the designs nor the physical animation are anything to write home about. Some of the puppets are very creative in appearance, but most of them are pretty damn ugly. The backgrounds and settings are intentionally gross and sinister, but none of them are terribly interesting. The frame-by-frame animation is extremely jerky and looks astoundingly amateur in places. Furthermore, the combination of live-action and stop-motion doesn’t work at all. The transitions between the two are glaringly obvious, and the difference in frame rates only makes the animated parts look worse. I can’t imagine that this was anything but a labor of love for the creators, but the film seems somehow unfinished, and since the visuals can’t make up for the film’s other shortcomings, I have to recommend that you skip this one. 7/20
Overall grade: 15/80 = about 19/100 (F)
Country: Czechoslovakia
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Watched through: library VHS
Also known as: Neco z Alenky
The scenario: A very bored Alice falls asleep in her room and then follows the elusive White Rabbit through a desk drawer into a sinister, surreal dream land.
First impressions: This is one of the innumerable film versions of Lewis Carroll’s famous book. So, my first impression was, why bother? This story has been done almost as many times as Cinderella and Peter Pan; what’s different about this version? Well, the atmosphere is certainly different. The whimsy of the original is replaced here with a vague sense of dread, and the grotesque aspects of the dream land are played up in every scene. While it seems like a creative approach to a familiar story, the film itself is actually very dull. I’m aware that this film has a large cult following, but I don’t see anything likeable in it. Also, though it claims to be for children, any kid who watched it would probably alternate between being bored and being grossed out.
Plot and story: While it would seem obvious that this film has a story, since it is, after all, based on a book, it can’t hold a narrative thread to save its life. Alice enters the dream world while chasing the White Rabbit, and what follows is a series of long, dull, and ultimately pointless scenes showing how she navigates the dream world (all white fruitlessly pleading for the Rabbit to wait for her). The scenes have little to no bearing on each other, and could probably be re-arranged in any order without affecting the conclusion. I don’t know how faithful the plot is to the book, and I don’t care. When it comes down to it, there is no suspense, no meaningful connections between the individual scenes, and no real narrative. The result is a ridiculously dull movie that feels like twice its 85 minute running time. 4/20
Characters: What characters? Sure, we have our protagonist and the bizarre inhabitants of the dream world, but none of them come close to having anything resembling character development, or even a personality. Alice is bored and rather impetuous, but not much else. The White Rabbit frets a lot and makes demands, but has no characterization beyond this. The rest of the puppet cast is even flatter. As a side note, why does Alice start out wanting to follow the Rabbit, then trying to kill him, then wanting to follow him again? It makes no sense. 3/20
Voices: I actually have to talk about this one in the singular: there’s only one voice. Now, this film is originally in Czech, and I watched it in English. This wouldn’t seem like a problem but for the fact that part of the film (and all of the dialogue) is live-action. The bottom line about dubbing voices onto live-action film is, it doesn’t work. There’s very little talking, but all of the dialogue, no matter who it’s attributed to, is spoken by Alice, in uncomfortable close-ups of her lips. Having Alice say, “oh my, said that White Rabbit” gets tiresome very quickly, and the English-speaking actress isn’t that good. 1/20
Music: There isn’t any, oddly enough. n/a
Visuals: One might assume that this is the real reason to see this film, as macabre stop-motion always seems to find an audience. However, neither the designs nor the physical animation are anything to write home about. Some of the puppets are very creative in appearance, but most of them are pretty damn ugly. The backgrounds and settings are intentionally gross and sinister, but none of them are terribly interesting. The frame-by-frame animation is extremely jerky and looks astoundingly amateur in places. Furthermore, the combination of live-action and stop-motion doesn’t work at all. The transitions between the two are glaringly obvious, and the difference in frame rates only makes the animated parts look worse. I can’t imagine that this was anything but a labor of love for the creators, but the film seems somehow unfinished, and since the visuals can’t make up for the film’s other shortcomings, I have to recommend that you skip this one. 7/20
Overall grade: 15/80 = about 19/100 (F)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Fehérlófia
Year: 1982
Director: Marcell Jankovics
Country: Hungary
Watched through: streaming
Also known as: Son of the White Mare, Son of the White Horse
The scenario: A beautiful white mare gives birth to a baby boy, then tells him a story about three curious princesses who unleashed hell upon the world, and were then trapped underground. Upon hearing this, the young boy becomes determined to rescue them. As soon as he is strong enough, he sets out on his quest. He is joined by two helpers, and the three of them work to save the captured princesses.
First impressions: Having read in Jerry Beck’s Animated Movie Guide that this is widely considered one of the best animated films of all time, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. The fantasy and folklore elements sounded like my kind of thing, though, so I was overjoyed when I finally got the chance to watch it online. Upon seeing it, my first impression was just, like, wow. Though the story is based on a traditional folk tale, both the narrative and the visuals are highly experimental, and it literally defies comparison to any animated film I’ve seen.
Plot and story: In many ways, this is a straightforward Hero’s Journey tale: the young hero grows up far from civilization, sets out on his quest as an adult, gathers followers, obtains magical items, beats down all who stand in his path, wins the girl, etc. So, it’s a familiar tale but a well-told one, easy to follow but not sophomoric. I must confess, however, that I was confused by some parts. There’s a plethora of information thrown at the viewer in the first ten minutes, and I had to watch it several times to keep track of who was who in the story. Furthermore, there are some plot elements that I thought weren’t explained adequately. For example, what was that white glowing thing that freed the white mare in the beginning? Why did the queen turn into a mare in the first place? Why did she give birth to three sons who were identical to the sons she had before she was imprisoned? How did the first two sons survive from birth with no one to take care of them? I’m not trying to detract from the film by asking these questions; I’d love to know. If someone out there is more familiar with this film, or with the story it’s based on, could you lend me your savvy? 17/20
Characters: As with the archetypal story elements, we have archetypal characters. But, again, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Each major character has a distinct personality that has a distinct effect on the story (as demonstrated best in the three scenes with the hungry goblin). The hero, Treeshaker, is our straight man, though he has a bit an anger issue. His two brothers, Stonecrumbler and Ironrubber, are more goofy and more suave, respectively. The three princesses have only one character trait each, as do the villains. So, we definitely have one-dimensional characters, but they work well within the framework of the story. 16/20
Voices: Well, they’re good, and that’s all I can say. Each voice is spot-on in bringing out the trait respective of each character, and all of them sound clear and genuine; not an awkward delivery among them. 18/20
Music: This is one of the ways the film is most obviously experimental. Many scenes use no music at all, which is pretty bold. There are also many sounds that are synchronized to actions which could be music or could be diegetic sound effects, depending on your point of view. While this is certainly interesting, and a great way to complicate the relationship between diegetic and non-diegetic sounds, I didn't find it particularly appealing. 14/20
Visuals: The real star of the show, no matter which way you slice it. Every frame of this film could stand on display at the MoMA; expressionistic blocks of color, almost no black outlines, startlingly original character designs, sparse but beautiful backgrounds, and brilliant effects. The animation style is, to my knowledge, unique to this film. The closest comparison I could draw might be Te Wei’s Chinese watercolor animations (which this film matches in elegance) or perhaps Alexander Stitt’s limited cut-out animation (which uses color similarly). Overall, I think this is one of the only films I can honestly say has “eye-popping” animation, and the use of color alone makes this film worth seeing. 20/20
Overall grade: 85/100 (A-)
Director: Marcell Jankovics
Country: Hungary
Watched through: streaming
Also known as: Son of the White Mare, Son of the White Horse
The scenario: A beautiful white mare gives birth to a baby boy, then tells him a story about three curious princesses who unleashed hell upon the world, and were then trapped underground. Upon hearing this, the young boy becomes determined to rescue them. As soon as he is strong enough, he sets out on his quest. He is joined by two helpers, and the three of them work to save the captured princesses.
First impressions: Having read in Jerry Beck’s Animated Movie Guide that this is widely considered one of the best animated films of all time, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. The fantasy and folklore elements sounded like my kind of thing, though, so I was overjoyed when I finally got the chance to watch it online. Upon seeing it, my first impression was just, like, wow. Though the story is based on a traditional folk tale, both the narrative and the visuals are highly experimental, and it literally defies comparison to any animated film I’ve seen.
Plot and story: In many ways, this is a straightforward Hero’s Journey tale: the young hero grows up far from civilization, sets out on his quest as an adult, gathers followers, obtains magical items, beats down all who stand in his path, wins the girl, etc. So, it’s a familiar tale but a well-told one, easy to follow but not sophomoric. I must confess, however, that I was confused by some parts. There’s a plethora of information thrown at the viewer in the first ten minutes, and I had to watch it several times to keep track of who was who in the story. Furthermore, there are some plot elements that I thought weren’t explained adequately. For example, what was that white glowing thing that freed the white mare in the beginning? Why did the queen turn into a mare in the first place? Why did she give birth to three sons who were identical to the sons she had before she was imprisoned? How did the first two sons survive from birth with no one to take care of them? I’m not trying to detract from the film by asking these questions; I’d love to know. If someone out there is more familiar with this film, or with the story it’s based on, could you lend me your savvy? 17/20
Characters: As with the archetypal story elements, we have archetypal characters. But, again, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Each major character has a distinct personality that has a distinct effect on the story (as demonstrated best in the three scenes with the hungry goblin). The hero, Treeshaker, is our straight man, though he has a bit an anger issue. His two brothers, Stonecrumbler and Ironrubber, are more goofy and more suave, respectively. The three princesses have only one character trait each, as do the villains. So, we definitely have one-dimensional characters, but they work well within the framework of the story. 16/20
Voices: Well, they’re good, and that’s all I can say. Each voice is spot-on in bringing out the trait respective of each character, and all of them sound clear and genuine; not an awkward delivery among them. 18/20
Music: This is one of the ways the film is most obviously experimental. Many scenes use no music at all, which is pretty bold. There are also many sounds that are synchronized to actions which could be music or could be diegetic sound effects, depending on your point of view. While this is certainly interesting, and a great way to complicate the relationship between diegetic and non-diegetic sounds, I didn't find it particularly appealing. 14/20
Visuals: The real star of the show, no matter which way you slice it. Every frame of this film could stand on display at the MoMA; expressionistic blocks of color, almost no black outlines, startlingly original character designs, sparse but beautiful backgrounds, and brilliant effects. The animation style is, to my knowledge, unique to this film. The closest comparison I could draw might be Te Wei’s Chinese watercolor animations (which this film matches in elegance) or perhaps Alexander Stitt’s limited cut-out animation (which uses color similarly). Overall, I think this is one of the only films I can honestly say has “eye-popping” animation, and the use of color alone makes this film worth seeing. 20/20
Overall grade: 85/100 (A-)
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Waking Life
Year: 2001
Country: United States
Director: Richard Linklater
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: An unnamed young man is hit by a car, then is trapped in a frustratingly long dream sequence where pretentious thinkers bombard him with dreary, self-indulgent monologues on topics including evolution, the question of free will, and the imprecise nature of language.
First impressions: Having been looking forward to seeing this film for quite some time, I have to say it was a huge letdown. The synopses I read in various places made it sound interesting; a man has a series of quirky conversations with various people, while not knowing if he is conscious or dreaming. Well, the film isn’t like that. Nowhere in the 100 minute running time does the protagonist actually “converse” with anyone. People just chatter at him endlessly, in one boring, overwrought talking head sequence after another. The people who love this film claim it is eye-opening, thought-provoking, worldview-changing. Its detractors say it’s a load of pretentious twaddle. I am in the latter category.
Plot and story: At first, I thought I would have to leave this category out and score the film out of 80 instead of my usual 100, because there didn’t really seem to be any story to critique. Well, there is sort of a story thread, but it’s barely there and doesn’t affect anything that happens. Wait, maybe I should take that back. There’s a story, but nothing happens. The protagonist is hit by a car, listens to some boring monologues, learns some stuff about lucid dreaming, and continually wakes up only to find that he’s still in a dream. After a while, he begins to wonder if he is actually dead and will never wake up. If this is what death is really like, then I plan to stay alive for a very, very long time. Oh, and there’s no conclusion. Don’t you just love that? 3/20
Characters: Well, the people in this film are definitely “characters” in the sense of being eccentric, but none of them are the least bit interesting. Most of them just come across as self-important twits or blowhards. Beyond that, there’s really not that much to say. Though they talk a lot, the monologue-givers have no characterization, and the protagonist is bland beyond belief. He has barely any dialogue, and most of what he does say contains the phrase, “hey, man.” Fascinating. Not. 5/20
Voices: The only remotely famous actor cast in this film is Ethan Hawke, who gets passing marks for his role as a chatty boyfriend. In spite of the boring-ness of the characters, most of the voice deliveries are pretty good. Since this film is supposed to feel like a candid conversation, most of the performances sound very relaxed and natural, rather than sound like “acting.” So, this category rates highly in comparison to the rest of the film. 10/20
Music: Let’s see, music. . . there’s barely any. Most of it is dull, just like the story and the people. There is some pleasant and fitting ukulele music during the scene that pertains to lucid dreams, though. 6/20
Visuals: Oh, good god. Rotoscoping. This process is one of the dirty little secrets of animation; it’s always there as an option, but it’s rarely used. And when it is used, it’s hardly ever used well. The rotoscoped animation in this film alternated between looking pixilated and sloppy, and being so unnaturally, off-puttingly “right” that it entered the Uncanny Valley. Some of the characters were creatively distorted, but most of them were either ugly or were so realistic it was hard to look at them. Worse than the character designs was the frequency with which the backgrounds moved. Yes, most of the film is supposed to be a dream, but the moving backgrounds were distracting and even made me feel nauseous in places. What were they thinking?? In fact, this whole film is just one big “what were they thinking?” I think I’ll leave it at that. 4/20
Overall grade: 28/100 (D)
Country: United States
Director: Richard Linklater
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: An unnamed young man is hit by a car, then is trapped in a frustratingly long dream sequence where pretentious thinkers bombard him with dreary, self-indulgent monologues on topics including evolution, the question of free will, and the imprecise nature of language.
First impressions: Having been looking forward to seeing this film for quite some time, I have to say it was a huge letdown. The synopses I read in various places made it sound interesting; a man has a series of quirky conversations with various people, while not knowing if he is conscious or dreaming. Well, the film isn’t like that. Nowhere in the 100 minute running time does the protagonist actually “converse” with anyone. People just chatter at him endlessly, in one boring, overwrought talking head sequence after another. The people who love this film claim it is eye-opening, thought-provoking, worldview-changing. Its detractors say it’s a load of pretentious twaddle. I am in the latter category.
Plot and story: At first, I thought I would have to leave this category out and score the film out of 80 instead of my usual 100, because there didn’t really seem to be any story to critique. Well, there is sort of a story thread, but it’s barely there and doesn’t affect anything that happens. Wait, maybe I should take that back. There’s a story, but nothing happens. The protagonist is hit by a car, listens to some boring monologues, learns some stuff about lucid dreaming, and continually wakes up only to find that he’s still in a dream. After a while, he begins to wonder if he is actually dead and will never wake up. If this is what death is really like, then I plan to stay alive for a very, very long time. Oh, and there’s no conclusion. Don’t you just love that? 3/20
Characters: Well, the people in this film are definitely “characters” in the sense of being eccentric, but none of them are the least bit interesting. Most of them just come across as self-important twits or blowhards. Beyond that, there’s really not that much to say. Though they talk a lot, the monologue-givers have no characterization, and the protagonist is bland beyond belief. He has barely any dialogue, and most of what he does say contains the phrase, “hey, man.” Fascinating. Not. 5/20
Voices: The only remotely famous actor cast in this film is Ethan Hawke, who gets passing marks for his role as a chatty boyfriend. In spite of the boring-ness of the characters, most of the voice deliveries are pretty good. Since this film is supposed to feel like a candid conversation, most of the performances sound very relaxed and natural, rather than sound like “acting.” So, this category rates highly in comparison to the rest of the film. 10/20
Music: Let’s see, music. . . there’s barely any. Most of it is dull, just like the story and the people. There is some pleasant and fitting ukulele music during the scene that pertains to lucid dreams, though. 6/20
Visuals: Oh, good god. Rotoscoping. This process is one of the dirty little secrets of animation; it’s always there as an option, but it’s rarely used. And when it is used, it’s hardly ever used well. The rotoscoped animation in this film alternated between looking pixilated and sloppy, and being so unnaturally, off-puttingly “right” that it entered the Uncanny Valley. Some of the characters were creatively distorted, but most of them were either ugly or were so realistic it was hard to look at them. Worse than the character designs was the frequency with which the backgrounds moved. Yes, most of the film is supposed to be a dream, but the moving backgrounds were distracting and even made me feel nauseous in places. What were they thinking?? In fact, this whole film is just one big “what were they thinking?” I think I’ll leave it at that. 4/20
Overall grade: 28/100 (D)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
First Review: Catnapped!
Year: 1998
Country: Japan
Director: Takashi Nakamura
Watched through: streaming
Also known as: Totsuzen! Neko no Kuni Banipal Witt!
The scenario: Brother and sister Yasuo and Meeko have lost their dog, Papadoll. Meeko is sure the dog was abducted by aliens, but they get some even stranger visitors in the middle of the night: anthropomorphic cats from an alternate dimension. In the alternate dimension, the children find a heap of trouble in the form of an insane princess, a misguided sorcerer, and their own beloved pet, who has been transformed into a giant monster. In a race against time, the children have to subdue Papadoll and get back home before they, too, morph into monsters.
First impressions: Well, my first impression was frustration, because this movie is pretty hard to find on DVD; luckily, the internet came to the rescue, and I was able to watch both the English dub and the original Japanese with subtitles. It’s creative, in a madcap sort of way, and as children’s fantasies go it’s pretty original. It’s not exactly perfect, however, so here’s the breakdown.
Plot and story: Well, the story is great, but the plot is. . . so-so. The biggest problem with the plot is the order some of the story information gets presented in. For example, we know that Papadoll is Yasuo’s pet, but we don’t really know anything about their relationship until the film is almost over, when we get a lengthy flashback right in the middle of a climactic action scene. Another important bit of the backstory was also given at an odd time. One interesting plot point is the villain’s ability to inflate people like balloons when she touches them, and the reason she can do this is explained in the middle of the film, through a dream sequence. Apparently, she caused a magician’s daughter to fall to her death, and the grieving father cursed her to turn every person she touched into a balloon. Um, okay. Apart from being a weird punishment for causing someone’s death, the odd placement of this information really slowed the plot down. Aside from the poorly-placed flashbacks, the film was also hampered by one story point that didn’t make any sense. The entire alternate world is physically supported by an enormous sleeping cat, and the world will be essentially destroyed if it ever wakes up. The evil princess has a grand scheme of constructing a giant rat to rouse the sleeping cat and pretty much destroy the world she lives in. And she wants to do this. . . why? It makes no sense in either the dub or the original. 14/20
Characters: This is the film’s strongest element. Though the plot is very action-driven, the characters all have distinct personalities, and many of them are fleshed out quite well. Meeko and Yasuo are appealingly normal (in the original, anyway; in the dub they both sound unnaturally smart), and act like real kids. Yasuo is lonely and somewhat sullen (though his good traits come out in the end), while Meeko is cheerfully indomitable. The princess is spoiled and hysterical, while her chief henchman, Doh Doh, is both evil, in a cackling sort of way, and goofy. The best of the supporting characters is Chu Chu, the tough cat girl who helps the mains in their quest. 17/20
Voices: Well, I can’t comment much on the casting, as all of the voices are unknowns, but I must say that the original voices are remarkably better than the dub voices. There isn’t a single bad performance in the original, but the English equivalents are. . . ugh. SO ANNOYING. Skip the dub and watch the original with subtitles. 17/20
Music: Not much to say here, as this isn’t a musical, but the score is decent. All of the music is appropriate and pleasant, but not outstanding. I must say I loved the song in the end credits, though. 15/20
Visuals: I’ve come to expect a lot from anime films, and this one delivered in terms of both design and movement. The characters are cutely drawn, the backgrounds are wonderfully imagined, and everything is very colorful. The animation is full and smooth, but there are no outstanding moments. 16/20
Overall grade: 79/100 (B+)
Country: Japan
Director: Takashi Nakamura
Watched through: streaming
Also known as: Totsuzen! Neko no Kuni Banipal Witt!
The scenario: Brother and sister Yasuo and Meeko have lost their dog, Papadoll. Meeko is sure the dog was abducted by aliens, but they get some even stranger visitors in the middle of the night: anthropomorphic cats from an alternate dimension. In the alternate dimension, the children find a heap of trouble in the form of an insane princess, a misguided sorcerer, and their own beloved pet, who has been transformed into a giant monster. In a race against time, the children have to subdue Papadoll and get back home before they, too, morph into monsters.
First impressions: Well, my first impression was frustration, because this movie is pretty hard to find on DVD; luckily, the internet came to the rescue, and I was able to watch both the English dub and the original Japanese with subtitles. It’s creative, in a madcap sort of way, and as children’s fantasies go it’s pretty original. It’s not exactly perfect, however, so here’s the breakdown.
Plot and story: Well, the story is great, but the plot is. . . so-so. The biggest problem with the plot is the order some of the story information gets presented in. For example, we know that Papadoll is Yasuo’s pet, but we don’t really know anything about their relationship until the film is almost over, when we get a lengthy flashback right in the middle of a climactic action scene. Another important bit of the backstory was also given at an odd time. One interesting plot point is the villain’s ability to inflate people like balloons when she touches them, and the reason she can do this is explained in the middle of the film, through a dream sequence. Apparently, she caused a magician’s daughter to fall to her death, and the grieving father cursed her to turn every person she touched into a balloon. Um, okay. Apart from being a weird punishment for causing someone’s death, the odd placement of this information really slowed the plot down. Aside from the poorly-placed flashbacks, the film was also hampered by one story point that didn’t make any sense. The entire alternate world is physically supported by an enormous sleeping cat, and the world will be essentially destroyed if it ever wakes up. The evil princess has a grand scheme of constructing a giant rat to rouse the sleeping cat and pretty much destroy the world she lives in. And she wants to do this. . . why? It makes no sense in either the dub or the original. 14/20
Characters: This is the film’s strongest element. Though the plot is very action-driven, the characters all have distinct personalities, and many of them are fleshed out quite well. Meeko and Yasuo are appealingly normal (in the original, anyway; in the dub they both sound unnaturally smart), and act like real kids. Yasuo is lonely and somewhat sullen (though his good traits come out in the end), while Meeko is cheerfully indomitable. The princess is spoiled and hysterical, while her chief henchman, Doh Doh, is both evil, in a cackling sort of way, and goofy. The best of the supporting characters is Chu Chu, the tough cat girl who helps the mains in their quest. 17/20
Voices: Well, I can’t comment much on the casting, as all of the voices are unknowns, but I must say that the original voices are remarkably better than the dub voices. There isn’t a single bad performance in the original, but the English equivalents are. . . ugh. SO ANNOYING. Skip the dub and watch the original with subtitles. 17/20
Music: Not much to say here, as this isn’t a musical, but the score is decent. All of the music is appropriate and pleasant, but not outstanding. I must say I loved the song in the end credits, though. 15/20
Visuals: I’ve come to expect a lot from anime films, and this one delivered in terms of both design and movement. The characters are cutely drawn, the backgrounds are wonderfully imagined, and everything is very colorful. The animation is full and smooth, but there are no outstanding moments. 16/20
Overall grade: 79/100 (B+)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Good day, everyone!
Alright, is everybody ready?
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Anyway, it's intro time. I am the Animation Cynic. I don't have a degree, I don't have any credentials, and I definitely don't have a life. I just love watching animated films.
Now, if you have gone through the trouble of digging up this post, I'll venture a guess and assume that you want to know one thing: Why do I do this? Why do I spend my free time watching an endless stream of animated films, then get on the internet and write reviews of them on a blog that few people will ever read or care about?
It's a pretty simple answer. And it all began with Youtube.
One day, I was wasting time on Youtube, looking at videos of foxes. I don't even remember why I was doing this. I do like foxes a lot, but in between the videos of red foxes jumping on trampolines and fennec foxes trying to dig through tile floors, there was something that interested me more. It was a very short animated clip of an anthropomorphic fox, who was apparently named "Fifi." Having never heard of this cartoon character, I looked for more videos; through a bit of curiosity-clicking, I learned that she was from a film called The Elm-Chanted Forest.
Now, the weird title alone was enough to prompt more curiosity-clicking. I tried to look up the film on my old standby for trivial information, Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia didn't have an article about the film. The only place it was mentioned on the site was an article I didn't even know existed: a list of every feature-length animated film ever created.
Simply put, this list boggled my mind. Before I saw it, I thought I knew jack about animation. After I saw it, I realized I didn't know anything. Sure, I had seen a few famous anime films and some avant-garde European stuff along with the usual Disney, but I had been among the general populace who assumes that Walt Disney, the world's most famous animator, had created the first animated feature; how many people actually know that the first animated feature in history was created in Argentina a full twenty years before Snow White saw the light of day? Looking at this list, I suddenly found out about dozens upon dozens of animated films that I had never heard of before.
After this, my curiosity was stoked; I started looking for animated films on Netflix, on Amazon, on streaming sites, at libraries, at used media shops, and everywhere in between. And now, having seen a great deal of animated films, both famous and obscure, I want bring a few opinions to the table. I want to incite discussions. I want to make people seek out stuff they wouldn't normally watch. And, more than anything, I want to make readers aware of films they would never know about otherwise.
So, regardless of whether you're a casual visitor, a hardcore animation fan, or a friend whom I have conned into reading this blog, I hope you enjoy it!
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Anyway, it's intro time. I am the Animation Cynic. I don't have a degree, I don't have any credentials, and I definitely don't have a life. I just love watching animated films.
Now, if you have gone through the trouble of digging up this post, I'll venture a guess and assume that you want to know one thing: Why do I do this? Why do I spend my free time watching an endless stream of animated films, then get on the internet and write reviews of them on a blog that few people will ever read or care about?
It's a pretty simple answer. And it all began with Youtube.
One day, I was wasting time on Youtube, looking at videos of foxes. I don't even remember why I was doing this. I do like foxes a lot, but in between the videos of red foxes jumping on trampolines and fennec foxes trying to dig through tile floors, there was something that interested me more. It was a very short animated clip of an anthropomorphic fox, who was apparently named "Fifi." Having never heard of this cartoon character, I looked for more videos; through a bit of curiosity-clicking, I learned that she was from a film called The Elm-Chanted Forest.
Now, the weird title alone was enough to prompt more curiosity-clicking. I tried to look up the film on my old standby for trivial information, Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia didn't have an article about the film. The only place it was mentioned on the site was an article I didn't even know existed: a list of every feature-length animated film ever created.
Simply put, this list boggled my mind. Before I saw it, I thought I knew jack about animation. After I saw it, I realized I didn't know anything. Sure, I had seen a few famous anime films and some avant-garde European stuff along with the usual Disney, but I had been among the general populace who assumes that Walt Disney, the world's most famous animator, had created the first animated feature; how many people actually know that the first animated feature in history was created in Argentina a full twenty years before Snow White saw the light of day? Looking at this list, I suddenly found out about dozens upon dozens of animated films that I had never heard of before.
After this, my curiosity was stoked; I started looking for animated films on Netflix, on Amazon, on streaming sites, at libraries, at used media shops, and everywhere in between. And now, having seen a great deal of animated films, both famous and obscure, I want bring a few opinions to the table. I want to incite discussions. I want to make people seek out stuff they wouldn't normally watch. And, more than anything, I want to make readers aware of films they would never know about otherwise.
So, regardless of whether you're a casual visitor, a hardcore animation fan, or a friend whom I have conned into reading this blog, I hope you enjoy it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)