This may be a turning point for Pixar. The naysayers who wrote off the studio ever since Disney took over often seemed right in their sweeping generalizations that Pixar's truly creative days of imaginary wonder where done. Sequels, that's what was in store for the audience ad nauseam. It worked well on Toy Story 3, few will deny. Not so much on Cars 2 though, or even Monsters University. So a new original project was definitely desperately needed to show Pixar has lost none of its dreaming potency, and this is it. Inside Out is as emotional and beautiful, not to mention innovative and soulful an animated movie as they come, and especially as they used to come in this company's own case.
It's not as perfect as the likes of Wall-E or Toy Story 3, I'll have you know, since it has some little flaws. Like Monsters, Inc. and Up, that makes it a classic Peter Docter movie. Those films, too, featured the occasional emotional highs that went coupled with some whimsical additions that had a bit of a trouble fitting in the whole. It was especially vexing in the case of Up, where the movie just never got as powerful as it proved to be in its first act. Inside Out equally knows a few moments where the magic diminishes, most notably when it concerns the elaborate logistics of the brain (though personally I found the forgotten imaginary friend rather an obnoxious sort as well, though I appreciated the notion). Docter has learned something from Up's experience though, saving the emotional climax for the end of the film. And it packs quite a punch, as Docter delivers his message that it's okay to be sad. Quite a rebellious act, since the movie still flies the banner of the Mouse House which usually tells us the exact opposite. While still an undeniably happy end, it's unlikely anybody will restrain their tears. As Docter says they shouldn't.
So is this a definite comeback for Pixar? The list of upcoming projects still consists mostly of sequels, with the only original tale for the foreseeable future presented by The Good Dinosaur. I'm more than a bit skeptical about that one, judging from the first teaser and its overly retro dinosaurs parading through near photo-real landscapes. I doubt an Inside Out 2 is out of the question, considering the film is doing fine at the boxoffice. Still, I like to think the naysayers remain in the wrong, and there's still a few tears of joy to be spilled over Pixar's films in the next few years.
And otherwise we'll still have the shorts preceding the main events. Hopefully they'll be as delightful as Inside Out's Lava, which also gets those eyes wet and thus perfectly warms us up for the main course to follow.
A great stop motion film for the whole family this turned out to be. Would you have expected anything different from Aardman? I certainly didn't and I'm glad the finest stop motion studio in the world once again hit its mark. I'm ashamed to admit I've never seen any of the episodes from Shaun's own television show, so all I knew him from was his debut in the terrific original Wallace & Gromuit short A Close Shave (1995). It's amazing how little Shaun appears to have changed since we first met him 20 years ago. He looks largely the same, doesn't talk and is still the smartest sheep around. I like how Aardman sticks to its all too British roots and knows beter than to needlessly update their own characters to modern times. Both the studio's characters and its masterful level of craftsmanship and the quality that comes with it, remain a beacon of stability and tranquility in this troubled world of ours. And if that isn't enough to convince young and old alike to take the trip to theaters, the lack of dialogue which prohibits the usual exasperatingly obnoxious Dutch dubbing process is thrown in as a bonus. I just wish they could have dropped that annoying rap song that runs over the end credits. And yes, there's some bonus footage shown after those.
Now for Shaun's TV show. All 130 episodes... It's Aardman, so I don't mind at all!
Well, this movie was totally fun! But I cannot say in all honesty it was any bit original. Much of the story and character development felt formulaic, but that never got in the way of the fun to be had. Especially since it was the Marvel formula. Heck, at times the movie nigh made fun of its own narrative make-up - best example: when the nerdy character exclaims 'ooh, it's an origin story!' - but I doubt much of the audience would care they might have seen most of this stuff before. Especially the target audience of kids won't mind, inexperienced with the inspirational material as they likely are. Interestingly enough, despite being a (successfully Disneyfied) Marvel adaptation adhering to a typical plot routine, the characters differ an awful lot from their comic book counterparts. In fact, the excessively cute articial Baymax, the character that singlehandedly raised this film from a three-star flick to a four-star sensation, looks nothing like the dragonlike droid from the original source. Major characters like Sunfire and Silver Samurai are missing, since Disney doesn't own the rights to those (they're presently part of Fox's X-universe). Thankfully, we're getting a new one in their place, namely the fictional city of San Fransokyo, which immediately suggests the uncanny mix of American and Japanese animation styles present throughout and makes for a wonderful looking backdrop for these characters to have their little adventure in.
But above all else, Baymax makes this movie work. The apparently minimalistically but on closer look brilliantly animated character provides the beating heart of the movie, as a healthcare robot created by the protagonist's deceased older brother, who finds himself ever more transformed into a heavily armoured battlebot by the main character out for revenge, until the emotionless but caring robot reminds him there's more to life than abusing your talents for mindless anger. Plus, he makes for 80 percent of the jokes and they all work. And that's even despite his hilarious attempts at catching a football from the trailer didn't make in into the final cut. Don't expect to be surprised by Big Hero 6, but like Baymax and his ball, just roll with the robot for good times' sake.
2015's first big trailer of course had to come from Marvel Studios. The ant-icipation for Ant-Man is slowly building, now that most fanboys have had time to get over Edgar Wright's departure. Seems Ant-Man as a project is still doing alright and traces of its original director's touch remain to be felt. The trailer sure hints at Wrightian humour, quirkiness and the necessity not to take this subject too seriously, which is reflected on the rather silly but appropriate minimalist teaser poster. Other than that, it appears a fairly thirteen-a-dozen superhero flick, with distinct overtones of a heist movie. The notion of the villain being equipped with the same powers as the hero is hardly a novel approach for Marvel, when the likes of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are taken into account. I guess any really new ideas that ought to set Ant-Man apart from his fellow superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to spring from his questionable personality and his resulting status as a former delinquent. None of the other superheroes have had a criminal record thus far. Of course, we have seen flawed characters, Tony Stark's being a prime example (being an arms merchant sadly doesn't come with a criminal record). Ant-Man's strength may lie in introducing a very unheroic hero, the kind that comes home after saving the world and abuses his spouse (as per the comics). I doubt Marvel has the balls to go as far as the hilarious Irredeemable Ant-Man character on the big screen - also because that persona is a whole other character, just with the same name and powers - but there's still ample opportunity for shying away from the superhero routine here by making the titular figure a recnognizable all-too human human being. And otherwise, we'll have to make do with his talking to ants to spice things up a little.
This really isn't my thing. Peanuts never intrigued me much as a kid, nor does it do better in my adult years. This trailer, too, just seems to appeal too much to kids, feeling rather childish throughout, without containing any gags that would win over more mature audiences. The style of animation appears hardly enticing and not on par with contemporary animated films, though that may have something to do with the selfimposed limitations set by the producers to acknowledge the supposedly iconic style of the original comic book strips. I have to give the creators of this film credit for honoring the original work at least, rather than going all-out and making it look nothing like the Peanuts everybody knows. Maybe I'm just biased against this film because I'm a cat person.
Zero fascination for this film results from watching this trailer, either. There just doesn't appear to be anything new to this premise, other than that it combines the age-old Frankenstein routine of 'don't play God and resurrect the dead just because you can' with a sort of demonic horror element where the scientists in error are picked off by some ghostly apparition one by one. The PG-13 rating also won't help, since it won't allow the movie to go for particular strong moments of scare. Heck, Frankenweenie looks more scary and original than this bloodless B-flick! You wonder why the studio thought it would be a good idea to waste a budget on this film, or why decent actors like Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde and Evan Peters would bother performing in this one. Maybe there's just more than meets the eye here, and the trailer tells us it's one thing while the actual product turns out to be quite another. I very much doubt that though. I don't think I'll wake up for this one.
News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.
Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?
The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.
Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.
Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.
Looks atmospheric enough, particularly the international one (see above). That doesn't guarantee quality though, as plenty of B-movies know how to convey a Gothic mood without ensuring narrative fullfillment or an awarding viewing experience. Naturally this will never be even close to Universal's original horror classics of the Thirties and Fourties, but any movie at least paying hommage to those scores points with me. There's some good actors attached, while Luke 'Bard the Bowman' Evans surely isn't the worst choice for playing the notorious Vlad the Impaler. As for the 'Untold' aspect, it's basically an overt excuse to retell this tale that has been told countless times in countless shapes before. Doesn't matter really. There's certain ever fascinating fictional characters that are so firmly embedded in the human psyche they keep reappearing throughout time in hugely divergent guises to satiate the public's continuing love for them and spawn a meaningful reinterpretation that befits the current zeitgeist. Dracula is very much among those (while the likes of Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes and Godzilla are other noteworthy examples). I doubt there's very much truly novel material Dracula Untold will add to the overall history of the most beloved bloodsucker of them all. But that doesn't stop it from delivering a thrilling rollercoaster of a period horror film per se, if executed properly. And if it isn't, there's bound to be another incarnation that is in the long run, or we can revisit the classic takes on the character instead. No need to yell bloody murder if this one fails to serve us what its title implies.
Now that's more like it. The teasers were positively teasing and hardly showed any of the signature action and witty oneliners we were hoping for. This trailer certainly remedies that previous omittance. This is one hardcore romperstomper of a preview that acknowledges the fact this will be the final Expendables flick (though when lots of cash is involved, you never know) and suggests we may at last be getting that 100 million dollar explosion or excessively epic gunfight-to-end-all-gunfights the previous two installments just didn't provide. A few more expert tough guy actors have been added to make sure stuff gets blown up even bigger and more grandiose than before. The more the merrier, but it's still the duo of Stallone & Statham we love the most, as they also insert something reminiscent of a plot line and emotional attachment into the film (honestly!). And even if that element proves forgetful, there's still plenty of action heroes, throwing knifes and blazing bullets to look forward to.
What is it with the tendency of sidekicks to be awarded their own features? Sure, they're cute and lovable, but they were always intended as characters to play off other, major characters. Plus, they tend to be overused for often cringeworthy purposes of comic relief. Occasionally they do work better by themselves - ultimate case in point: the Smurfs - but more often than not, their spin-offs prove bland fare that never stands up to the material they derived from. Who remembers the Ewoks features compared to Return of the Jedi? Nevertheless, now that most computer animation series have run their course and people start to get bored by them, studios hope to milk these properties by exploring glorified background characters. Puss in Boots is already moving on to his sequel, while next year will witness a Minions movie. And during the winter Holiday season, we'll have the Penguins of Madagascar to look forward too. I didn't think these paramilitary penguins particularly entertaining to begin with, but I was clearly in the minority there. I'm still not convinced after seeing this trailer, sorry. Maybe it also has to do with the fact I'm just fed up with animated talking animals entirely. And I've always found penguins to be overrated. They've been featured in films over the last decade so often now, they're becoming dull. Why not do a movie about Kiwis, or Cassuaries for a change? Now those are some weird birds deserving of animated acknowledgment!
I gotta say, that trailer made me chuckle. That doesn't mean the movie will, as this is basically a thirteen-a-dozen raunchy studio comedy aimed at a predominantly adolescent audience, revolving about sexual (mis)conduct to get the public titillated in advance. There have been many similar movies over the last few years - among them Sex Drive, No Strings Attached, A Good Old-Fashioned Orgy, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Hall Pass and We're the Millers, though all took a hint from American Pie (which itself hearkened back to material from the Eighties like Porky's, so it's not all a new phenomenon) - and very few of them proved even the slightest bit memorable. As always, the best jokes appear to be in the trailer and once you've seen that, there's little reason to go watch the actual movie. Sex Tape's trailer is running long just under three minutes, so don't be annoyed if you watch it first and the movie second and find there's little surprises left in the film. Or perhaps that's just overly cynical. After all, the cast list mentions Jack Black and Jolene Blalock (T'Pol!) and neither of them is featured in this preview. Maybe they're just bit parts, maybe the trailer does keep some stuff from the final movie from our prying eyes. I reckon Sex Tape is just gonna be an average sexy Hollywood comedy that makes you forget your woes for two hours and remember you have any woes as soon as the lights turn on, because none of the movie sticks to mind for very long. And it's plausible it will do very well at the box office because there's conveniently no other comedies scheduled for that time of the year. Which means we can "look forward" to a second Sex Tape in two or three years time. Just as is the case with the previous movie from this director and his two main stars, Bad Teacher, which turns out to get a sequel nobody asked for. Considering sex sells, expect a trilogy soon.
What also sells (segue!) is delightfully animated family entertainment, and Disney is back on top in that game. Pixar, under the Mouse House's wings, is continuously letting us down creatively, forced to focus on unneccessary sequels, so now the new Walt Disney Studios Animation department can fill that inspirational gap by exploring new ideas and fresh avenues. Or basically doing what Disney always did best, cannibalizing a classic fairy tale of sorts and Disneyfying the heck out of it (though in a bit more modern fashion these days, as it happens to be the 21st century). It's an age old routine that proves as effective and lucrative today as it did before, as Frozen shows. Beating Toy Story 3 from the top spot, there's your new Highest Grossing Animated Movie of All Time. For now, as such records have a tendency to be broken every odd year lately. Blame the studio's increasing insistence on 3D to raise admission costs (again). Or admit Frozen was simply a good movie, a welcome reprieve from Pixar's last few letdowns. And don't be alarmed if you see a Frozen 2 popping up somewhere in the next few years: you don't honestly think Disney can let this success slide without milking more money out of it by pushing sequels on us?
Speaking of milking (another seque! I'm on a roll here!), Harry Potter is over and done with but there's still more dough to be made from the brand name, so let the spinning-off commence! Studio Warner has J.K. Rowling's permission to do so, and even her assistance in fact, as she will pen the screenplay for the first installment of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Even though it remains to be seen whether a coherent story line as gripping as the Potter proper stories can be distilled from what was basically a fun little exploration of the Potterverse that was never intended to be made into a major motion picture, the studio is moving ahead on a trilogy of films. A cautious studio would start with a single movie and see how that works out, but as the blockbuster studio system is increasingly relying on tentpole franchises - and their various spin-offs - to keep itself going, caution isn't something they feel they can afford. So now we'll see whether a Potter movie can do without the actual Potter element, by revealing magic and monsters are enough to keep us going to theaters, or whether it was the life and times of the Boy-Who-Lived himself that proved the quintessential compelling ingredient of the franchise, not to be omitted so easily on second attempts. If "her" movie fails, this trilogy could come crashing down like a house of cards, so Rowling will have a tough job working her magic a second time.
Cloudy
with a Chance of Meatballs 2: ****/*****, or 7/10
Cloudy
with a Chance of Meatballs remains an overlooked piece of
animation from recent years. Maybe because it's not a Pixar movie,
maybe because it doesn't have as distinct a style as the likes of
Aardman or Laika's stop motion features, maybe it's because it does
have a somewhat generic quality to it at first glimpse. That said,
it's a blast of a film, a great joy from beginning to end. And
apparently it did well enough at the boxoffice to spawn a successor,
as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 has now thundered into
theaters.
Its
title is a work of deception, aimed to convince audiences this is
indeed a sequel. There's few meatballs to be found here, while the
meteorological aspect has been toned down significantly. What remains
is the characters from the first film, as well as the delightfully
whimsical humour and offbeat visual design that characterized the
previous movie. Though the directors of the original film decided to
do The LEGO Movie instead, they left the project in the
capable hands of people who understood and appreciated the quirky
subject matter.
Cloudy
2 swaps food weather for food animals. That's not a bad thing, as
it avoids lazy repetition. No more zany weather patterns like
spaghetti tornadoes, now we have 'foodimals' like shrimpanzees and
hippotatomuses. It will come as no surprise that a lot of the jokes
are provided by such play-on-words, some ingenious, others less
clever. Nevertheless, the wonderful look of these beasties –
including the cutest strawberries ever! – clearly shows the fun the
animators must have had while designing this film. At the same time,
the characters we came to know and love from the previous film are
left intact. Sadly, not all of them are given their due, as the
emotional core of the movie is personified by Flint's idol on one
side and his father and girl on the other. The remaining supporting
characters are doing just that, without contributing to the whole
much. Though the energetic cop Earl and the multi-talented cameraman
Manny are still good for a laugh or two, they could have been left
out altogether, in favour of developing the new antagonist more
closely. No mistake is made from the beginning on that the expert
sillywalker Chester is the bad guy, though in the end, the
motivations of his diabolical schemes leave something to be desired,
considering his supposed intellect. Cloudy 2 can definitely be
accused of putting more focus on the look of the film than on the
development of its characters.
Such
slights are easily forgiven, as the film provides an excellent second
course in terms of visuals. The fabulous forests of foodstuff, the
clinically clean Live Corp headquarters, the quirky cityscapes, it
all looks delectable to behold. Whereas the beasts of the jungle are
obviously Jurassic Park inspired, their dwelling place takes a
note or two from Avatar's pages, adorned with bioluminescence
and all manner of bizarre features. This visual feast definitely sets
Cloudy 2 apart from its predecessor, which proved more simple
and primitive in this regard, giving it a look and feel all its own.
As the plot was inspired by JP, so too the eye candy is only
loosely based on Cloudy 1, instead of merely carbon copying
it.
The
elaborate visuals notwithstanding, there's a thing or two to be said
against the film's morality. Its message is one of ecological
respect, speaking out against the rape of nature for the sake of
making money. However, as cute as the foodimals may be, they remain
aberrations. An ecosystem has formed on this island, but what of the
original ecosystem that had to make place for it? Our heroes connect
to these creatures, seeing them as more than food, because they have
grown to be living, breathing entities. But what of the sardines they
happily consume, which were living, breathing entities to begin with?
Should they not also fall under the same category? Where do the
protagonists draw the line in deciding which creatures to stand up
for, and which to see as mere food? Uneasy questions like these are
formed when they do not eat animals made of food, but teach them how
to fish for normal lifeforms instead.
It
seems such questions never occurred to the writers, as the story of
Cloudy 2 is subject to the execution in terms of jokes and
visual flair. The latter works its magic throughout, awing us with
one spectacular sight after another and charming us with their
inhabitants, both human and food. The former is good for a smile all
through the piece: though the number of truly memorable jokes remains
somewhat limited compared to the previous installment, most gags
prove effective in the short bursts they seem designed for. If the
first movie was the main course, Cloudy 2 is a fine dessert, a
four-flavoured sorbet, comprised of your favourite taste, two others
you like fine, and one you never really cared for.
Movies
based on pre-existing toys are often the stuff of anxiety for those
that grew up playing with them, especially when it concerns brands
that have been around for decades and thus have proven to be
multigenerational. Will the alliance between movie studios and toy
manufacturers, always driven by mutual profit first and foremost,
yield a final viewing experience that not only serves to push kids
into nagging their parents to go get them some but also to remind the
older spectators as to why they themselves enjoyed the toys so much
they feel their kids should continue playing with them, too? So far,
few toy based films have succeeded on both fronts, as most of them
are pretty dreadful: compare films the likes of Transformers and
Battleship for example. Fortunately, The LEGO Movie
doesn't fall into that same category of failure at all, as it
enhances the feeling of joy and excitement experienced by everyone
that ever built something from scratch out of the colourful little
bricks. That said, from an ideological perspective, the motives
behind the film's plot cannot helped but be questioned by mature
audiences when the film is over.
Of
course, a movie about toys can't feature the toys themselves being
played with for two hours, it needs a narrative structure to suck
audiences in. The LEGO Movie introduces the character of Emmet
(voiced by Chris Pratt), about as generic a LEGO minifigure as they
come: typical old fashioned yellow head, not much physical
accessories, wearing the same smile almost all day every day. He's
got reasons to be smiling, as he believes himself to live in the
perfect utopia, courtesy of President Business (Will Ferrell) who
provides everyone with instructions to live their full life by,
ranging from morning exercises, breakfast, buying overpriced coffee
(37 dollars, awesome!) and carrying an eternal sunny disposition. The
catchy national anthem 'Everything is awesome' not withstanding, it
goes without saying this existence is one big lie and no good will
come of its continuation.
Emmet
is soon drawn into a wholly different life style altogether when he
accidentally touches an unusual item that soon sticks to his back,
meets a beautiful girl who looks nothing like all the other
minifigures he has known and is promptly declared an enemy of the
state, necessitating him and the girl named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth
Banks) to go on the run. Basically a little plastic version of The
Matrix, Emmet soon learns there's another realm beyond that which
he always took for granted, as many dimensions, each with a theme of
its own – including Western and 'Middle Zealand' – peacefully
coexist alongside each other. Unless President Business destroys them
all by gluing everything together permanently, according to his own
rigid instructions. Fortunately, Emmet may be the 'Special', a
minifigure with extraordinary master builder skills, who is the only
one able to stop the shady schemes at hand. And so he teams up with the
blind wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a pirate composed of various
random parts called Metal Beard (Nick Offerman) and of course, Batman
(Will Arnett), who is kind of a dick, to save the LEGO worlds from
blind, obedient universal conformity, to let creative freedom ring.
Directed
by the duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have proven themselves
to be experts in whimsical animation, The LEGO Movie proves a
feast for the eyes as we behold just what you can do with the little
bricks. Or at least, what you think you can do. Make no mistake, this
film is not stop motion animated with little LEGO figures, it's all
computer animation designed to look like the stiff toys are moving
about. Deception is key here, but we are deceived pretty well by the
fabulous look, as we witness smoke made of LEGO, explosions made of
LEGO and even oceans made of LEGO. It's an awe-inspiring sight for
everyone who has ever tried to make LEGO look the least bit realistic
and ended up being several tens of thousands of bricks too short to
get anywhere on that front. Any sense of jealousy on what the
computer can create with LEGO is smothered in the film's great sense
of humour, building jokes as easily as putting bricks on top of each
other. Aside from the traditional number of safe but smart
popcultural references, the best gags spring from our plastic heroes
witty selfreflection as to being just that. Miller's and Lord's
infective comedic talent, joined by the voice cast's audible delight,
ensures everyone in the audience is quickly wearing a smile all too
similar to those featured on the classic minifigures' faces.
That
said, it isn't all fun and games, this is business too. The LEGO
Movie takes its message of 'everyone should build whatever the
heck they like' very seriously, clearly preferring random creativity
over slavishly building stuff based on what the printed paper says it
ought to look like. Which leads to a rather serious showdown as the
actual status quo of the LEGO realms is revealed and a cheerful kid
confronts his ruthless father, begging him to just let him run with
his imagination. Being played by Ferrell too, clearly the
unimaginative adult mind is in the same league as the childish
destructive view of business as presented by the film's bad guy.
Rather hypocritical, as the LEGO company is itself a major toy
corporation that hasn't gotten to where it is now by giving kids
their product to play with, but selling it to them instead for hard
cash. Sure, kids can build whatever they want, but it's the business
of the product and the parents that pay for it that provides that
option for them. There's something eerily uneven between the movie's
message and the actual state of affairs, as this movie certainly
isn't about spreading the gospel of global creativity, but to make
everyone involved in its production money (and then only those
willing to cooperate: notice the lack of Marvel superhero figures
opposed to those of DC, while both brands are available as buildable
sets in every toy store). Of course, kids won't realize this and most
parents will be too busy enjoying the movie to care, until their
offspring start whining for more LEGO to play with and they have to
pay the bills. And at that point it's hard to deny The LEGO Movie
is something other than an insidiously effective 100 minute
advertisement for the great LEGO product.
But
while watching the movie, everything is indeed awesome, as our
inspiration is fueled by the grandiosely detailed design of the
various LEGO worlds and the sheer fun for young and old that inhabits
them. And then the credits roll, and that itch to get some bricks to
start building yourself is heartily felt...
I started this one as an intended 'companion piece' to my review for WWD 3D, before I had the actual displeasure of suffering that abysmal flick. Nevertheless, it now serves as a reminder to those who contemplate visiting that film in theaters, as well as to those that already have wasted 87 minutes of thier lives watching it, that there's plenty of good dinosaur movies in existence too. Why torture yourself with bland talking dinosaurs on the big screen if you can re-experience true tearjerking emotion in an all too similar plot at home with The Land Before Time? Why bother with talking dinosaurs at all, instead of seeing them fight cavemen and scantily clad ladies in Harryhausen's classic One Million Years B.C.? Or why not enjoy a movie that takes dinosaurs seriously while still delivering a solid suspenseful cinematic performance in that greatest of all dinosaur movies, Jurassic Park? Walking with Dinosaurs 3D may have been a true dud, but dinosaurs have survived bigger extinction events and will also recuperate from this severe blow to their image. And we still have Jurassic World to look forward to.
Incidentally, there was some editorial controversy about this particular Top-10 list of mine, as it didn't wholly fit the parameters. A true 'Top' list would rank these films from worst (10) to best (1) instead of in chronological order as I have done here, in an attempt to illustrate the evolution of the views of dinosaurs in cinema, as well as the techniques necessary to bring them to new life. It would have been jarring to read these ten expositionary pieces in another order, so I decided against that. Also, I think there's something inherently arrogant and egocentric about Top-10, since everybody is bound to have another opinion as to which one is best and which one is worst. So on MS, this article isn't called a 'Top-10', but a 'historical group of ten': who knows, it might inspire similar pieces from mine own hand or those of my fellow writers on the site and start a new category of article. Or it might prove to be soon an extinct form of arranging ten movies, because it was solely done for my personal convenience.
Say
what you will about conservative Disney, there is some form of
modernization in progress in that studio. You might even label it a
feminist wave of sorts. Frozen marks Disney's first feature
length animated film (co-)directed by a woman and only the second
whose screenplay was written by such a creature. Not counting Pixar,
since then it would have to contend with Brave, a movie where
the girl power backfired, as did the quality of the piece as a whole.
And while Frozen largely stays within the trite-and-true
boundaries we've come to expect from Disney's fairy tale movies,
including princesses, charming princes, faraway lands, comedic
(animal) sidekicks and plenty of catchy songs, enough of such
regularly exploited material is directionally changed to make the
film feel as fresh and cool as the imagery the title inspires.
Jennifer Lee's directorial debut introduces not one, but two
beautiful young princesses, Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) and her
younger sister Anna (Kristen Bell), heirs to the kingdom of
Arendelle. Both are kind, independent and energetic spirits, but the
older girl carries a terrible secret: she's basically a mutant with
the power to control ice and snow, except she doesn't control it at
all, since her fear to wield it controls her instead. She has cause
to be afraid of her powers, as she nearly killed Anna at play as a
child. Her parents tried to keep her out of harm's way by largely
keeping her confined to her chambers, much to the dismay of her
sister, who had her injury and memory of the incident erased by a
nice wizard troll (this is a work of fantasy, need I say more?).
After the death of their parents and the coming-of-age of the elder
sister, a coronation takes place where Elsa is crowned queen and
where Anna – hilariously – meets her apparent groom-to-be, the
latter event uterly disrupting the former as Elsa unwittingly gets
pushed so far she sparks an endless winter that covers the entire
kingdom in frost. Fleeing the palace to built her own on a high
mountain precipice where she finally starts to accept her powers in
her moments of isolation, Anna is determined to bring back her sister
and get her to undo her unintentional damage to the realm, which
leaves her land vulnerable to the shady ambition of certain visiting
foreign dignitaries. Accompanied by a simple but reliable young
backwoods man named Kristoff, his carrot obsessed reindeer Sven and a
wacky living snowman named Olaf, Anna sets out on a tough voyage to
reunite with her wayward sister and bring summer back to Arendelle.
And, in typical Disney fashion, to discover True Love in the process.
But not in the usual sense of old.
Frozen
proves a worthy successor to the similarly themed, equally wonderful
Tangled (2010), which also re-established Disney's formidable
talent to craft charming, adventurous and romantic fantasy films for
all ages after over a decade of creative drought, as well as updating
its female characters to the 21st century, a time in which
the main focus of a woman is no longer a man to marry (but also not
excluding the possibility as not to upset the traditionalists in the
audience). Frozen introduces two solid female characters who
care first and foremost about eachother, though one of them does not
allow herself to show said fact. Both women are sizzling with
recognizable character flaws and strengths, familiar emotional family
conflict and the talent to burst into song, so despite their
ultimately antagonistic nature (though the traditional 'good versus
bad' set-up is carefully avoided in their strained relationship), you
root for them and their sibling affection both to survive against all
odds. Simultaneously, while the sterotypical good looking prince to
wed is not an image to be discarded, it develops into quite another
direction than is usual, and the expected notion of cheesy True Love
messages doesn't end up covering the usual sexual connection between
boy and girl. The voice cast delivers impeccable acting and shares an
audible chemistry, standout performances including a hilarious
Scandinavian tradesman (jå!) and Olaf, the token sidekick, who is
not nearly as irritating as he could have been and actually warms
everybody's heart with his simple but unattainable desire. Similarly
enjoyable are the clan of stone trolls, Kristoff's surrogate family,
a group of Smurfesque creatures with the ability to succesfully
camouflage themselves as rocks, and who unfortunately don't nearly
have as much screen time or background exploration as we would have
liked. And if you're afraid the reindeer talks (since animals with
the ability to speak are an oft dreaded Disney staple still), fear
not: his master does so for him to witty, almost self-reflective
results. The songs are a welcome return to tradition; though for a
moment at the start of the film they seem to comprise most of the
dialogue, better balance to the music is applied later on. Apart from
pleasing the aural senses, Frozen offers a delightful visual
feast as well with its wondrous winter landscapes and ever present
snow motifs, but considering the darkness of many scenes coupled with
the obligatory 3D effect, not all the imagery ends up looking as
amazing as it could have been. However, many of the 3D shots in the
lighter scenes hit their mark, especially those involving snow and
icicles, so seeing the 2D version instead isn't wholly recommended
either.
In
a time where Pixar is increasingly going down the drain creatively
because of its lack of inspiration and its current focus on prequels
and sequels, a thoroughly wonderful and ideologically original pure
Disney film like Frozen is a welcome sight. Even the coolest
minds and the coldest hearts will find it hard not to melt due to
this film's built-in warmth, and with the dominant motif of snow and
ice, Frozen proves to be a perfect Holiday movie for old and
young alike.
Now, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is another animal entirely. In fact, I daresay it shows too much, instead of the opposite like The Expendables 3 does. Not surprising we get to see more of the story and characters in this preview, considering this film has already passed the teaser stage (and tease it did) and the current Holiday season is perfect for getting people enthusiastic about family films due for release in the next six months. But after seeing this trailer I get the feeling there's little more to the story that what is presented here. I for one would have saved the identity of the mysterious female dragon rider, as well as half of the grandiose dragon shots, for the movie itself rather than taking away such surprises. But then, I haven't even seen the first HtTYD, so what the heck do I know... That said, this preview will certainly succeed adequately in piqueing the target audience's interests, especially since in this franchise's case too popularity has already been established. I hear the first film was quite good, even though the trailers failed to excite me. Maybe the same thing will happen here, since I'm not convinced yet, despite getting the feeling I already know what the movie is about. When a trailer gives you that feeling, you know it hasn't done its job properly, but since this film is geared mostly towards kids, that's not a total loss.
Guillermo
Del Toro's epic hommage to the Japanese 'Kaiĵu' movies, produced on
a bigger budget than all such giant monster movies of the last fifity
years combined. Del Toro obviously has a great love and respect for
the genre, resulting in a very catchy action flick, undoubtedly the
best American counterpart to its Japanese predecessors. One might
almost say Hollywood has redeemed itself for the 1998 version of
Godzilla, but such a statement had better be held back for
another year, until the next American reboot of Godzilla hits
theatres in 2014. In the meantime, Pacific Rim works well as an appetiter to the big G's resurrection. An extra-dimensional rift opens on the bottom of the
Pacific and huge beasts come pouring out, wreaking havoc on mankind
as they lay waste to cities and obliterate our armed forces. Humanity
quickly sets aside its internal differences and joins forces in
creating big robots to fight the creatures on their own terms.
Piloted by a pair of human Avatars, these so-called 'Jaëgers'
effectively combat the beasts, but the life of a Jaëger pilot as Del
Toro reveals is filled with personal loss. When the monsters emerge
ever more rapidly from the Breach, as it is named, Jaëger command
develops an intricate and dangerous plan to halt the Kaiĵu threat
once and for all. Del Toro briefly explores the history of the first
Kaiĵu assaults and the development of their robotic antagonists and
afterwards spends more time getting us invested in the human
characters than is usual for this type of film. It does make the
movie feel like its dragging its feet for a while, until he unleashes
the action the audience craves with a vengeance, resulting in over an
hour of nigh endless monster bashing. Unfortunately he cannot help
but inserting a few characters that are supposed to deliver some much
needed comic relief to make sure we don't take it all too seriously,
but sadly these characters – stereotypical geeky scientists as ever
we've seen them – are so mind-boggingly annoying (Charlie Day
particularly) they make you wish for a Kaiĵu to step on them to end
their endless whining. Del Toro's talents are beter suited in delving
deeper into a world where Kaiĵus are not only a threat to world
peace but also big business: toy companies produce action figures of
them, creepy cults worship them and in Hong Kong, a 'Bone Town' is
established, a black market for Kaiĵu products for shady purposes, similar to the
disgusting existing South-East Asian trade in animal parts. Run by Ron Perlman (always a joy when paired with Del Toro),
some of the funniest, wittiest and anatomically most unsettling
scenes take place here. Though the dealings and the history of the
Jaëgers are fleshed out to the fullest, their enormous alien adversaries,
ever the most important ingredient in a Kaiĵu film, do remain
somewhat underexposed by comparison. Unfortunately their motivations
– they're really foot soldiers out to cause as much damage to
mankind as possible, in order to pave the way for an invasion from
their (smaller) intelligent overlords – remind us of the recent
Shyamalan flop After Earth, a movie we'd rather forget
entirely. Usually, Kaiĵu are more antiheroes than full-out villains,
but Del Toro opts to keep them a simple threat to be wiped out
instead of embuing them with a more sympathetic character like their
forebears Gojira, Gorgo and Rodan, who were
always the victim of human (nuclear) folly, transforming them into
avenging gods to remind us of our place in the world. The movie is
dedicated to Ray Harryhausen and Ishiro Honda, two people who only
too well understood the need to layer their creatures and make them
charm you so you feel more for them, but in this instance, Del Toro
decided not to go with such wisdom. As a result, Pacific Rim
at best is a highly likeable action flick, but not necessarily an apt
lesson for western audiences into the true nature of the Kaiĵu
genre. Then again, there's only so much you can do with the notion of
giant robots bashing giant monsters. Let's say Guillermo gets as much
out of that premise as we could hope for.
Despicable
Me 2: ****/*****, or 7/10
Simply
fun sequel to the animated surprise hit of 2010. Gru and his legions
of minions are back, but no longer driven by the need to exact evil
schemes on an unsuspecting world, as Gru (still voiced with a outrageously hilarious accent by Steve Carell) has taken to his role as a father
figure for his three orphan girls Edith, Agnes and Margo quite
seriously. The big question on the girls' minds of course is – much
to Gru's chagrin – 'when will there be a surrogate mother too'?
Apparently several thousand minions are not enough to fill that
particular role, so Gru has to endure countless matchmaking on their
part. Fortunately for him, he quickly finds himself abducted by agent
Lucy (Kristen Wiig returning for the sequel, but voicing another
character) of the AVL, the American Vampire League Anti Villain
League, who means to recruit him to smoke out a threat to world peace
apparently hiding in a shopping mall, potentially posing as one of
many goofy shop owners. Gru hesitantly accepts the job, if only to
escape his girls' endless romantic pestering. Needless to say, Lucy
and Gru soon get romantically entangled while attempting to stop the
outrageously stereotypically Mexican baddie El Macho (Benjamin Bratt)
from completing his vile scheme to unleash thousands of vicious
purple monsters (most of them harvested from Gru's own minions) on
mankind. Though the plot leaves little room for narrative surprises,
the infectious charm of the characters and a plethora of witty jokes
for young and old make for a thoroughly enjoyable animated flick. As
before, it's the endearing minions that steal the show – a fact
that has already been confirmed to deliver them their own movie next
year, which may not be such a good idea – but thanks to the
effective emphasis on Gru's own plot line, including a flashback to
his youth which is both sad and superbly funny, it also becomes ever
more evident just what a droll character he is himself, considering
he spends most of his time without his minions and vice versa, while
the movie doesn't end up either boring or less hilarious whenever
either party takes center stage (also thanks to Wiig's obvious enthusiasm). Though more attention on an original
plot would be welcome for the unavoidable next installment, I can
unabashedly say I'm looking forward to a Despicable Me 3 regardless. Preferably with both Gru and
minions together once more instead of one or the other.
The greatest living legend of special effects lives no more, but the legend remains forever.
It's ironic to know that, even in this effects saturated age where audiences have been completely spoiled by an overabundance of computer generated imagery, there's very next to no effects pioneers whose names have become household terms to the realm of special effects in the same regard as 'Harryhausen' has become over the years. Truth is, Harryhausen was just one man responsible for some of the most memorable fantasy action sequences in film lore, whereas his contemporary fellow effects technicians remain a vast, faceless army of pixel pushing drones. Their work, though at times undeniably impressive, just lacks the utter charm and persona of Harryhausen's stop motion creatures that have thrilled and inspired audiences for decades, and will for many decades to follow. Though never truly realistic - which was not particularly the master's intent since he realized full well the limitations of stop motion photography and generally aimed for a dream like atmosphere to add to the feeling of fantasy - his creations always felt more alive than most of their later counterparts.
Harryhausen was always a guarantee for a thrill ride of a movie experience, and even though he only worked on sixteen theatrical movies in total from 1949 till 1981, they are sixteen of the finest Sci-Fi and fantasy pictures ever, really the Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park equivalents of those days. Though I am saddened by his death (even though he lived to an appropriate old age), I am glad his work will survive him and will always be remembered with general enthusiasm, not so much because it has withstood the test of time but because it has surpassed the test of time, proving that true effects craftsmanship doesn't have to be photorealistic to make for mesmerizingly exciting action sequences and leave a lasting impression.
My only regret when it comes to Harryhausen? I should have went to that masterclass of him in 2005... Oh well, at least I got some autographs on my copies of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. I should go and have myself a Harryhausen monster movie marathon now.
Moviebuffs
familiar with Tim Burton's oeuvre will probably remember how one of
his earliest projects for Disney backfired on him, though it ended up
setting him in the right direction for a very fruitful career. In
1984 Burton directed a 29 minute family film named Frankenweenie,
an homage to the iconic original Frankenstein films from the
Thirties, involving a boy who loses his beloved dog but revives him
via electricity, to the shock of his neighbourhood. Though it was a
simple horror story for all ages, Disney was dismayed and deemed the
short film too disturbing and scary for its target audience, denying
it a theatrical run (but for some reason still giving it a home video
release). Burton was fired from the studio and looked for jobs
elsewhere, soon setting himself on the right track as he directed a
number of smash hits, including Batman (1990), Edward
Scissorhands (1990) and Batman Returns (1992), eventually
becoming a major player in Hollywood despite (or because) continuing
to utilize his own unorthodox visual style and displaying his love
for outcasts and their encounters with the bizarre. Leaving Disney
may have been the best thing that ever happened to Burton, but it
didn't stop him from revisiting the failure that basically started
his career, remaking his own short into a theatrical movie in an even
darker and more off-beat fashion 28 years later, but still for the
same Walt Disney Studios that didn't think much of him or his work
all those years ago. Apparently Burton's acclaimed career, plus an
earlier cooperation between the pair when doing the highly successful
Alice in Wonderland (2010), ensured Disney gave Burton the
benefit of the doubt and the chance to bring Frankenweenie back
to life in an even more spectacular way than the dog in the story is
reanimated.
For
despite the film now running 87 instead of only 29 minutes,
surprisingly little has changed in terms of story. Warning!
Spoilers! The protagonist is still a little boy named Victor
Frankenstein, a nerdy and imaginative kid whose best buddy in the
whole world is his dog, called Sparky (there's more than a little
'nomen est omen' in there somewhere I reckon). Together they
do anything from just playing around on the streets to making home
movies wherein the canine stars as a dinosaur slayer protecting
cardboard cities from plastic monsters. Of course with hobbies like
that, Victor isn't the most popular kid in school, but as long as he
has Sparky, he doesn't mind. But soon, tragedy strikes and Sparky is
fatally run over by a car and laid to rest, leaving an inconsolable
Victor all alone, despite his parents' assurances Sparky moved on to
a special place in his heart. However, when he learns of electricity
and its effects on dead tissue at school, the boy turns to the dark
art of science to bring his pet back to life by having its soulless
body struck by lightning. Against all odds, the experiment is a
success and his best friend is given a second chance at life, though
not in a perfect physical state as parts of him occasionally come
loose. Despite his efforts to keep Sparky's resurrection a secret,
the rest of the town soon finds out and is appalled by this
abominable obstruction of everyday life, turning into a typical angry
mob out to make sure the dead dog stays dead this time. Tracking the
pair to an old windmill, the construction catches fire and traps
Victor inside until Sparky gives his second life to save his young
master. Touched by his courage, the townspeople are convinced Sparky
deserved to live, after which they help Victor restoring him to life
once more in a total feel-good happy ending only Disney can deliver
(though it's maybe a bit too cheerful for a Tim Burton picture).
Though
the plot has hardly changed, there couldn't have been a bigger
difference in execution, as Burton turns to the much admired art of
traditional stop motion animation for his second incarnation of
Frankenweenie. Hardly a stranger to this type of filming,
having produced The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and
directed Corpse Bride (2005) before, Burton's use of stop
motion turns out fully justified as it gives the movie a stylistic
and visual edge over both the movie's predecessor as well as many a
“regularly” animated Disney movie. The film's look is simply
stunning, with some of the smoothest stop motion work to date, and it
also fits into Burton's oeuvre in a completely consistent manner: the
various characters, both human and animal, are all typically
Burtonesque with their big eyes, pale faces and generally
caricaturized physical features, while their brooding, often Gothic
surroundings make no mistake Tim Burton's signature stamp is all over
this film. Frankenweenie might as well be called Corpse
Bride's twin sister, were it not for the fact that, unlike that
film but like the original short, Frankenweenie is also shot
in black and white to make it appear even more distinct, as well as
perfectly in sync with the horror classics of old – particularly
James Whale's brilliant original Frankenstein (1931) and The
Bride of Frankenstein (1935), to which the movie knowingly owes
more than a little, on the narrative side – the movie keeps
referring to throughout the piece. While many a gag referring to such
narrative and stylistic forebears, albeit visual or in dialogue, is
undoubtedly missed by younger members of the audience, those even
slightly versed in the genre will recognize a multitude of little
nods and in-jokes softening the overall gloomy mood the style and
story prescribe. That doesn't mean there's no fun to be had for the
kids or the more uninformed spectators, as they too are treated to
many an outrageously zany moment triggering a few good laughs.
At the
same time, despite the many humourous occurrences, the movie isn't
afraid to downplay its moments of grief, and much to the credit of
the animation crew such instances are shot with the full range of
emotion they necessitate, making even the toughest viewers feel sad
as we witness Sparky's death – which fortunately remains largely
obscured from vision, instead of seen in more detail than is
necessary, underscoring the power of suggestion which Burton has also
mastered – and the sorrow it inflicts on those left behind, the
high point of tragedy remaining a simple shot of Sparky's neighbour
dog, a female poodle with whom he used to play ball through a hole in
the fence separating them: the poodle nods the ball through the hole,
then waits for a return nod that never comes. Maximum emotional
effect achieved through stylistic simplicity, and nobody ought to
keep a dry eye.
Despite
the overall story remaining largely identical to that of the original
short film, a longer running time does warrant the inclusion of a few
subplots to flesh things out just a bit more. The most noticeable
difference in narration is the science contest dominating events in
Victor's class as his school mates are all attempting to outthink
each other in making the most spectacular contribution to science,
encouraged by their new substitute teacher with his unpronouncable
but decidedly Eastern European sounding name (impeccable voicework
done by Burton veteran Martin Landau, who won an Academy Award for
his role in Burton's masterpiece Ed Wood (1994)). When the
word gets out on Victor's achievements, even though they were a
personal project to be kept hidden from the rest of the town, the all
too natural reaction of the other kids is imitation, as they
understandably decide to resurrect their own deceased pets as well.
However, their actions are motivated more by the desire for fame and
glory than they are by heart, while their teacher explained to Victor
the outcome of his experiment was fueled primarily by the love for
his subject instead of the lust for self-enrichment. Naturally, the
various rival experiments result in the creation of many monstrous
mutations soon terrorizing the town, including a cat/bat hybrid and a
giant dinosauresque turtle, enabling Burton and his partners in
animation to go all out with the stop motion process, continuing the
age old tradition of stop motion applied for breathing life into
monsters, as pioneered by special effects legends like Willis O'Brien
and Ray Harryhausen. It also results in a grander overall scale of
the film, clearly setting it apart against the simpler original short
movie, plus it adds some dynamic action for those audience members
who find it hard to sit through all the genuine emotion the movie
keeps evoking, if any. Ultimately though, Frankenweenie doesn't need such spectacle since its core plot about a boy and his dog is moving enough in itself and remains the picture's heart and soul, despite the additions made to make a short film longer.
Only a
few months ago, I critiqued Burton's Dark Shadowsand feared
his signature style was overused by himself (and nowadays, by many others, too), which led to a
deterioration of quality in his recent films, culminating in Dark
Shadows ending up as one of Burton's biggest disappointments of
the last decade. I'm only too glad to find myself positively
surprised by Frankenweenie, one of his most delightful films
to date, which has proven this director is still fully capable of
delivering a satisfying viewing experience when his heart is truly in
it. Getting even at Disney while coming full circle from the start of
his career to the point where he is now clearly made sure Burton was
fully invested in this project, and he is proven right after a
quarter century: Frankenweenie was a thoroughly enjoyable
short movie then as it is a full theatrical film now, for audiences
both young and old. Apparently, in Burton's case revenge is a dish
best served dead, and revived.
Sidenote:
life is not without its cruel little ironies. For example, I got
to watch Frankenweenie the same week I had to let go of (yet another)
one of my cats. 2012 is not a good year for me, pet wise. Since I
happen to like animals more than people – if you know me and this
notion offends you, don't take it personally, it's just the way I am
– I'm having some trouble letting go, even though it wasn't my
favorite cat. In fact, the pet in question, poor little Akka, was
always drooling, generally unhygienic and somewhat obnoxious, but I
still loved her in her own right, and I will naturally miss her
presence (unlike the other cats, who don't seem to miss her at all).
Considering Frankenweenie revolves around the troubles of letting go
of your beloved pets, it got me thinking. If I were a creative little
boy and I lived in Tim Burton's imaginative world, I no doubt would
go for the solution offered in the film and resurrect the hell out of
my dead cat. However, I am not and I cannot, and even if it were
scientifically feasible, I would not. Especially not after the animal
in question had been rotting underground for a week (even if
protected by the cover provided by a wooden box, as Sparky was
given). After all, letting go when somebody or something dies is
just a part of life, the dark side of life of course, but still life.
What
would be achieved by keeping dead animals alive? Sure, you can stick
to their presence forever, but would it really be the pets you knew
and loved? As Frankenweenie showed, Sparky's resurrection, instigated
by love or not, was the result of a lucky shot, while the same
experiment failed with all the other ex-pets. Monstrous mutations
were the result, creepy crawlies and towering behemoths that looked
nothing like their living predecessors. Moreover, if they had been
healthy and happy like they used to be, death would lose its impact.
You could just keep on recharging your dead pet to breathe a
semblance of new life into it over and over again, which would keep
you from letting go and forming new special bonds with other animals.
But of course, new animals would still be born, and soon the number
of zombified creatures would grow to excessive rates and leave less
room for the living. Death may not be a nice thing, but there is a
definite natural purpose to it. My cat had a decent life for over 16
years and she got to live to a fair old age. It's more than I can say
for my previous cat, who succumbed to organ failure at age nine,
which was far too young for my taste. Instead of focusing on
resurrecting pets, it seems more reasonable to turn attention towards
extending the natural lifespan of pets, which usually lasts for only
one or two decades, while their masters' life outlasts them for many
more years. For the same reasons as stated above I feel it shouldn't
be attempted by artificial means though. Besides, natural human lives
last far longer nowadays than they did centuries ago. I reckon the
same is increasingly true for pets' lives, who receive better care
and food than they did in days gone by. Who knows, with a little luck
cats will eventually live for many more years than they do today. And
if not, the memories of a good cat will last a lifetime in that
special place in our heart. Even though we would have preferred them
to stay here with us in the flesh...
