Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Monday, 20 February 2012

The Secret World of Arrietty (A Review)

Whimsical...I've really overused that word to describe Studio Ghibli films... but damn it! Seeing as how I've misplaced my thesaurus, I'll just go on and say it. The Secret World of Arrietty is one frickin' whimsical piece 'o film!

The mere fact that I see posters for this movie fills me with joy
I have so much to thank Hayao Miyazaki and John Lasseter for. Miyazaki for making such fantastical films, and Lasseter for bringing these gems to western audiences. The Secret World of Arrietty is the latest film to pop up from Miyazaki and the hard working folks at Studio Ghibli, and it's everything you'd expect from a Studio Ghibli film in terms of quality. And with Arrietty, Lasseter and Disney are making the biggest push yet for a theatrical release of a Ghibli film outside of Japan (1200 screens in the US alone.) From a producer's standpoint it might be seen as a bit of a gamble, not only because it's a foreign film, but also because it's a 2D animated film in a culture where currently CG toons reign supreme. But Disney has faith this film will do well with western audiences, and after seeing the film myself I would to. Simply put, it's up there with some of Studio Ghibli's best works yet, and that truly is saying something.


First, just a quick note about dubs. I know this film isn't exactly new, having been released in 2010 in it's original Japanese. I also know that some theatres had a choice between the Americanized dub or Japanese with subtitles. Now, normally with anime I'm a "subs b4 dubs" kind of guy, but with a limited release like this I only had the option for the dubbed version where I'm living, so that's the version I'm reviewing. That being said, Ghibli is known to put extra time and effort into quality dubbing, and the voices here (for the most part) weren't distracting and actually fit the characters quite well. Apparently there's also a dub featuring UK voice actors, and I'd be interested to see that version as well as the original Japanese in the future. Now, let's get on with the film!

This picture practically oozes whimsy!
They really couldn't have picked a better source material to push to western audiences. The story is loosely based on the much loved book by Mary Norton, The Borrowers, about a race of miniature people who live in houses and take small things that human's won't notice missing in order to survive. It's a source material many western audiences would have already known growing up, and as luck would have it, it also happens to fit Ghibli's whimsical (there's that word again) style like a glove. 

In just the couple of minutes we're introduced to our titular character, Arrietty, and she is chock full of the type of zest and charm that Ghibli is known for when portraying their heroines. Soon we meet her family: the worry-sick mother and stoic father. And again, I'm reminded of why Ghibli is just a master when is comes to characters, because I instantly love this miniature family. Ghibli knows how to combine a solid script with top notch character animation, making these characters really seem unique, quirky and special. And even though the cast is small (no pun intented) it goes on to give every character a moment to shine, like meddlesome caretaker Hara, her chubby cat, or the wild borrower, Spiller. Shawn, the human boy character was the only character who took me a bit of time to warm up to, but I think that's mainly due to the dubbing, making some of his earlier lines walk a line between charming and creepy. But hey! Without spoiling anything, it's hard not to feel for the guy by the time the end credits roll.

And everybody's jealous of Arrietty's whimsical room
The tone of the film is any interesting one. It's not exactly an "action packed adventure" like Ghibli's Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, nor is it the graceful, daydream-like pace of My Neighbor Totoro: it's somewhere in between the two. It's a good balance that I feel will appeal to a wide range of people, having quiet moments about loneliness and friendship balanced out with a fight for survival in epic miniature proportions. All of this is wrapped up in a beautiful package. The backgrounds look painstakingly beautiful (especially when seeing the grass and plants from the miniature size of a borrower.) The music is warm and lighthearted. It makes it hard not to get sucked into this tiny world.


If it's being shown where you are, I highly suggest checking this one out in theatres, not only to promote foreign animation, but to show Disney that there is still in fact a market for quality 2D works. This is a true gem for family films. The story is wonderfully heartwarming, and it's a welcome change of pace from the onslaught of American done animated features both in terms of tone and hand drawn beauty. Every element is a joy, and it all works together to make this a charming and magical little story. (That time the pun was intended.)


4.5/5

- Moo

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Thoughts on The Oscars: 2012

Ok, just a quick thing on the Oscar noms for best animated feature in 2012. The nominations are A Cat in ParisChico and RitaKung Fu Panda 2Puss in Boots, and Rango
Here’s my thoughts. First of all, let’s touch on the movies that didn’t make it. I’m glad Cars 2 didn’t slip on by this year, even with their previous Pixar cred. That movie was bad, and maybe it’ll be a nice wakeup call to Pixar. Winnie the Poohis sadly missing, which is another blow to Disney continuing hard-drawn animation. That’s a bit of a shame; I wish it took the place of one of the Dreamworks movies. Tintin is probably the biggest surprise though, having it already won the Golden Globe for animation. While lots of the animation community is happy it’s not there, stating how motion capture isn’t true animation so it shouldn’t even be considered for the category, I still think it should have been up there (again, instead of one of the Dreamworks movies.) And either way, I think it just wasn’t nominated based on it’s merit as a film, and not because of the use of mo-cap. So anti mo-cap people: you can take this as a victory if you want, but at the end of the day I’m pretty sure Hollywood’s still going to qualify this as animation. So tough cookies.
I’m glad to see 2 indie flicks on there with A Cat in Paris and Chico and Rita. I’ll need to track those down as soon as I can. But at the end of the day, usually the mainstream still wins, so my money’s on the winner being Rango. It’s not a perfect film, but it was a great blend of something new with something old, and of course it looked amazing. We’ll see if I’m right come February. 
- Moo
(Also…”Man or Muppet” from The Muppets got nominated for best song…there is some good in the world…)

Thursday, 22 December 2011

The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn (A Review)

Tintin is an interesting property indeed. It’s one that, even though people know about it, isn’t all that popular in North America. Or at least, not nearly as popular as it is in Europe. I admit, if I didn’t take French classes as a child, my knowledge of this character would have been almost non existent. And yet, here we are! With a high budget Hollywood adaptation of the property done by, arguably, the poster director for American blockbuster cinema, Steven Spielberg. So how did that happen?
Well, let’s go back in time to 1981, when the first Indiana Jones film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, was released. The adventure flick, inspired by the pulp adventure serials that Spielberg loved as a kid, was receiving excellent reviews, but one in particular compared the film to Tintin. Curious, Spielberg searched for the books, and even though he didn’t understand the language they were in, he became a fan. Likewise, Tintin creator HergĂ© became a fan of Spielberg’s work. The fit between source material and director seemed almost made for each other, and indeed this film works because you can tell Spielberg’s having fun with it. He’s in his element. 
The story isn’t life changing, or deep, or anything like that. But it is a family friendly adventure done right. It’s a basic globe trotting treasure hunt wrapped in a thin mystery with plenty of memorable characters and superbly planned and executed scenes of action, chases and slapstick. In other words: it’s just plain fun! The sets are extravagant and varied, the action is creatively choreographed, and even though the movie is still family friendly it never feels like anything is dumbed down to make things seem “safer.” The enemies are still a threat and very dangerous, and Captain Haddock’s trademark alcoholism is in full effect. 
Speaking of the characters let’s talk about them, because while the plot is a great excuse for moving from one excellent chase scene to the next, it’s these classic characters that will stick with you after the credits roll. The most forgettable of the bunch actually being our titular character. Tintin (played by Jamie Bell) probably wins the award for being the coolest square that ever lived. He’s an ambitious journalist who has an interesting mix of curiosity and bad luck which leads him into some very dangerous situations. But aside from having frequent full-on conversations with his dog, Snowy, Tintin isn’t a very flawed character. And while it’s nice to see a bright and optimistic action hero for a change, it doesn’t really make him all that interesting. The people Tintin does surround himself with, however, are a blast! Nick Frost and Simon Pegg are a true joy as the bumbling inspectors, Thomson and Thompson, but the true star of this film, and indeed the force that carries the plot along to its conclusion, is Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock. The drunken Captain is the only one who actually goes though a true story arc, trying to do right by his family’s name. Serkis’ amazing physicality brings so much nuances to the character that it only furthers my belief that Serkis was born to live inside of a motion capture suit. 
Which brings us to the elephant in the room, and the most controversial part of this movie: the fact that it’s a mostly motion captured film. As the story goes, Spielberg went to Peter Jackson (who ended up producing the flick) to get his VFX company, Weta Digital, to create the CG for the film, including a CG Snowy. Jackson, being a longtime fan of Tintin, suggested that a fully animated version might be truer to the source material. The two settled on a motion capture performance from the actors, which allowed the film to be animated, but also allowed Spielberg to direct the actors in the same way that he’s used to for his live action films.
My thoughts on mo-cap animation is truly mixed. Part of me loves how you’re able to translate a performer’s action into a stylized and animated world, but part of me knows that the technology still isn’t fully here yet, resulting is some shots that just falls flat of looking realistic and as a result breaks the illusion completely (otherwise known as the uncanny valley effect.) That being said, while the tech still isn’t perfect yet, Tintin is the best example of a mo-cap animated film to date. The source material is so cartoony and fun, that a live action cast would still need heavy CG (like an animated Snowy) and instead of having CG bits stick out like a sore thumb (which I like to call the Garfield effect,) I’m glad they went this route and did it fully animated. It led to some great comedic moments which I felt would only work in an animated world, as well as an amazing “one shot” chase scene down a mountain, which can only be seen to be believed. 
What does bug me a little is the design choice, having the character’s faces still look vaguely realistic. I would have preferred the characters to look a little more stylized like they do in the books, as characters who are more stylized like Haddock and the Thompsons are a lot more fun to look at then the eerily baby-faced Tintin. But that might just be a case of personal taste. And to those who wanted this film perfectly in HergĂ©’s style, we already had the Tintin TV show like that, so I’m glad they at least tried something new. 
All in all, Spielberg’s first animated project is a wonderful whirlwind of an adventure which truly harkens back to the olden days of Indiana Jones…but funnier. The set pieces are a joy to behold, and the pacing is so perfect that as soon as you want another dose of action, the film will gladly oblige. If you’re looking for a wholesome adventure that doesn’t skimp on the production value, check it out. And if you’re not familiar with these characters, there’s no better time then now to get acquainted. 
4/5
- Moo

Monday, 28 November 2011

The Muppets (A Review)

WARNING: This review is being written by an insanely huge fan of The Muppets, so I’m already kind of biased. That being said, it’s clear that this movie was aimed at crazy Muppet fans like myself, so everything kind of works out. 
Yes, The Muppets. That wonderful gang of fur and felt are back after 12 years without a movie. And after much online love in the form of viral videos, trailer parodies, and other goodies, the true next Muppet movie is here. So how is it? Does this movie have a true “Rainbow Connection?” Or should you be “Movin’ Right Along.” (Muppet fans see what I did there? Wocka wocka!)
The plot fits perfectly for how long The Muppets have been out of the limelight. Basically sometime ago the Muppets split up, and now it’s up to Gary (Jason Segel,) Mary (Amy Adams,) and Gary’s brother Walter (a new Muppet/superfan of the Muppets) to work with Kermit to reunite the old gang and raise enough money to save their theatre before the evil tycoon, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper,) tears down the theatre to drill for oil. The “get the gang back together” story has been done before, but it works so well here because…well….it’s the Muppets! And that comes with what you’d might expect from the Muppets! Tons of forth wall breaking jokes, vaudevillian type slapstick, celebrity cameos up the wazoo, and emotional songs that know exactly how to tug on the heartstrings. It’s hard really to go into too much detail without spoiling some of the jokes, but there were some great moments with some of the new songs, written by one half of Flight of the Conchords, Bret McKenzie, and an extended cameo by Jack Black. 
But of course, the true stars are The Muppets themselves, and the plot makes it so they’re in a situation where they flourish. It’s back to the basics: a bunch of crazy weirdos trying their best to put on a show, only this time the steaks are much higher. I felt a unique blend of excitement, nervousness and nostalgia going into the third act that I don’t think I’ve ever felt from a movie before. 
That being said, let’s call this movie out for what it truly is: Muppet fan servis. There are countless references and in jokes from past Muppet works, specifically to the Jim Henson years of The Muppet Show and the first Muppet movie. Hell! Even the choice of Muppets to get screen time was very specific, choosing not to have newer fan favorite characters like Pepe the King Prawn to have much screen time, instead bringing back characters that haven’t had time to shine in years! Characters like Marvin Suggs and Uncle Deadly!
Yes! Uncle Deadly! This guy! Obscure, yes. Awesome? Double yes.
The point being this was written by a rabid Muppet fan (good ol’ Jason Segel) for rabid Muppet fans. Hell! Even the new Muppet, Walter, is a rabid Muppet fan himself! So of course we’re going to immediately love him.
All in all, the bigger fan of the Muppets you are, I feel the more you’ll love this movie. And if you’re not a fan of the Muppets? Well…you’re reading the wrong review then. I’m also really curious to see how kids will react to this movie; kids who have never even seen a Muppet movie before! I hope it manages to capture the same wonder and fun that I experienced as a child. So go see this movie already! It’s pure concentrated Muppety fun!
Welcome back Muppets. It’s about damn time! 
5/5
- Moo

Thursday, 10 November 2011

Puss in Boots (A Review)

Oh Puss in Boots! You are in an interesting position, aren’t you? You’re a spin-off of the Shrek franchise, which in my eye (for better or for worse) represents Dreamworks Animation as a whole (kind of like how Toy Story is the embodiment of Pixar.) But after 3 progressively worse sequels, and multiple shorts and holiday specials (Shrek the Halls? ugh…) the franchise is looking a little stale at this point. The only logical next step was to have a character spin off from the main franchise in hopes that it might bring a breath of fresh air to the company’s flagship fairy tale franchise. Enter Antonio Banderas reprising his role as the ever charming Puss in Boots, now in his own feature film.
It’s no surprise to say that after this Shrek overload, many people, including myself, have gotten a serious case of franchise fatigue. So does this adorable swashbuckler have enough substance to pull us back into their fairy tale littered world?
Probably the first thing to mention is that the movie isn’t a laugh out loud riot, and it clearly doesn’t mean to be. It’s not to say that it isn’t funny; the character of Puss is still his awesome mix of suave machismo meet cutesy adorableness, but that’s mostly at the beginning of the movie, and a little bit at the end. Most of the time this is a straight up action/adventure flick. That’s not a bad thing, but it does make the film feel slightly bi-polar, not really knowing if it wants to be funny or serious. A great example is my personal favorite segment of the movie, where we see Puss’ childhood growing up with Humpty Dumpty (played with earnest feeling by Zach Galifianakis.) Everything about the segment is great, and it shows some really dramatic moments, but before and after the flashback we have Puss’ new partner for the movie, Kitty Softpaws (a “meh” performance by Salma Hayek,) undermining the story in an attempt to get a small laugh in before and after the extended ”serious” part of the movie. The character’s disinterest (which I’m sure is supposed to be played as a joke) before and after the segment just doesn’t fit with the tone they’re going for in this part of the movie, and as a result it kind of ruins that nice dramatic moment we just had.
For the new characters, it does kind of feel like this film got the “left over” fairy tale characters that the Shrek franchise hasn’t already used, but they definitely made the most of it. The real issue here is the story, which is fun, but I can’t help but nitpick a lot about it. In the film Puss teams up with his ex-friend Humpty and new partner Kitty in a quest to get the magic beans from the “Jack and the Beanstalk” tale, which leads them to a castle in sky where they find a goose that lays golden eggs. There are plenty of good things in this tale, such as Puss’ quest to reclaim his honour. The fight and action scenes are a blast to watch. The art design for the giant’s castle in the sky is breathtaking. But for all this eye candy, the subsense of the story is lacking. Without revealing too much, there’s a twist in the third act that doesn’t make all that much sense, followed by a quick twist back for the final battle. Again, it’s like this movie wants to do something serious, but they’re afraid to stray too far from their formula. 
What it all boils down to is Puss in Boots is a good movie. But with a little more polishing and bolder story decisions could have been a great movie. I always thought Puss would make for a good spin-off character as he never was all that essential to the plot in Shrek movies to begin with (let’s face it, even though he had some of the biggest laughs in the Shrek franchise, he could have been easily taken out of the movies and the plot would have been the same.) Sadly, this movie is pulled between wanting to do a comedy or an adventure instead of finding a happy harmony of the two. And even the jokes get a little tiring after a while, reusing gags over and over again (Kitty stealing from Puss without Puss realizing was funny the first time…and only the first time…) And be prepared for A LOT of cat jokes and puns, of which I kind of got tired of near the end of this 90 minute feature. However, if you are a cat person, be prepared to fall completely in love with every gag and joke in this movie. 
After growing more and more tired of the Shrek franchise, I was pleased that this movie didn’t continue the downward trend in quality of those movies. However, after viewing Puss in Boots I still can’t shake the feeling that there were a lot of missed opportunities here. There’s lots of little things holding it back, almost as if it was afraid to try something new. And they really shouldn’t be! New is what they need! The bombardment of Shrek sequels have gotten so old, stale and crunchy. I’d love something new! And I almost got it with this spin-off, but at the end of the day we still end up with a very “Dreamworksy” animated movie here. One that has tired jokes, and that always has to end with a pop song and a dance montage. Always.
2.5/5
- Moo