Wreck it Ralph (2012)

Teaser Artwork for Theatrical Release

 Fun, plain and simple.

Not a fantastic film, not even a classic, or a much memorable film, except in concept, but a good film and a lot of fun.  So if that's what you go to the theaters for, than you'll enjoy this a lot.

Apart from some interesting art direction, and only occasionally, it is simple in cinematographic aesthetics.

Simple in plot and narrative structure, often to the point of tiresome cliché.

Even simple in character development, and that's really the greater sin.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, animation cannot be a simple vehicle for clean animation any more, that's way too easy to do, even for an amateur.  And when a film is lacking originality in everything except the concept, than there's a bigger problem.  And that would be the final crux, except that I think the filmmakers could care less about legacy, and are more interested in pure escapism, and there it succeeds.


Which leads me to believe that this film was hoping to make a bucket load of money and quietly disappear into the background, so go into it with respective expectations.

Having said that it is very well done, and still manages to make you fall in love with the precocious little girl Glitch, who in a film with no goals of kid domination, would have cursed up a hell storm, and who ultimately eclipses Wreck It Ralph as the character you end up rooting for to succeed.

The interplay between real video game characters and the new characters is good, but not great, even if you end up wishing there was more to be had.

Artwork for Theatrical Release

The audio was OK, but not complex or innovative, and too traditional in sound design to matter much.

The acting was mismatched sometimes, particularly with Jane Lynch's character, but I think the fault there is more that of the animators and less of Jane Lynch herself.

The gigantic flaw in this animated tale is the seemingly huge flaw of most of its contemporary, they can't seem to handle plot exposition in any other way than slapping the audience smack in the face with it.  I don't care how the characters travel from game to game, I really don't, and once you explain it, than you open yourself to ridicule and anachronisms.

But having said all that my daughter loved it, and so did my wife:  And if nothing else, I have my Halloween costume for next year.

Wait for it to make it's way to a rental unit near you, not worth the $32 I paid for three non-3D tickets...blah!

Ice Age 4: Continental Drift (2012)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

Kids will watch just about any piece of crap that's animated.  That's really the only way to explain this anachronistic bit of anthropomorphism that is as far off from reality and excellence as Twilight is from acceptable acting.

Truth be told, I came into this film with a bit of prebuilt ambivalence.  I have not cared about this series since the first film, and to be honest, you can actually treat the first film as a completely different universe from this (i.e. since when were there neanderthal men in Pangaea?).

The film suffers from even more problems than Brave (2012) which at least focuses all its energies on two main characters.  Here on the other hand, there are at least twelve characters that are treated as main characters and about two dozen secondary and even more tertiary characters. 

Almost all, and here really lies the problem, are voiced by supposedly A-list actors, although you would be hard pressed to name a great project most of them have been involved with in the last five years. 

And the problem, just like Kelly Macdonald's instance in Brave (2012), is that most of the voices transcend the characters they are playing, and you're most concerned or entranced by the grandeur of the voicee than that of the narrative or the film aesthetic, which the series seems very much intent on decreasing the quality of as the films push through.

Yes the film is really funny.  Yes the stylized characters are well done.  Yes the plot is stupid (really, pirates!).  But most importantly there are huge swaths of the film that are boring as all hell.  My three and a half year old daughter was bored out of her mind in the middle of the film enough to ask to go to the bathroom three times in the span of forty minutes.  And that's a shame, because kids will watch just about any piece of crap that's animated.

Although maybe not this one.

Wait five years until it makes it's way to network TV, unless you or your kids are a fan of this series or animated films as a whole, then catch it on DVD, it's really not worth the Blu-ray price.

Brave (2012)

I've said it before [Kung-Fu Panda 2 (2011)], and it seems that today at least, I shall say it twice.

Here alas is the first.

Which is a shame, because I really wanted to love this film.  As a father of a precocious 3 1/2 year old girl, I yearned deeply for a strong female heroine, and there at least it didn't disappoint, just don't look for much else.

Hopefully I will proclaim this for the last time:  A beautifully executed film is no longer an excuse for a sub-par film.  Beautiful animated films are now a dime a dozen, with Dreamworks, Pixar, Disney, and a seemingly myriad of other major and minor studios, here and abroad, churning them out incessantly.  It must become a priority to request more from these films than simple innovation and sheer beauty.

There are few gorgeous shots in the film but the rest seem shallow and unimaginative, and certain elements don't seem to fit the larger aesthetics of the film; more specifically, the three little boys after the change.  It's almost like Pixar, under the helm of Disney, could not remedy the schism between anthropomorphism's and reality, and that's a shame.

Otherwise the film is pretty good.  It has it moments of pure joy.  Its moments of utter sympathy.  And a heart larger than the titular character's entrancing hair.

But again, that cannot be enough.

I guess one could sum the problems as one of formulaic constance, and that is the easy part to fix.  The harder part is the seemingly uninventive story arc, but there you can judge for yourself.

It seems like Disney, or Pixar, it really is hard to see whose balls are bigger here, searched hard and in vain for the few Scottish actors that were well known, and although I have adored Kelly McDonald ever since I fell in love with her watching Girl in the Cafe (2005) and Gosford Park (2001), here she gives the character's voice a sense of surrealism.  And it might just be that I recognize her distinctive voice, but when I hear the main character, I can't help but see Kelly Macdonald, not the feisty redhead I'm supposed to see.

Wait for it on DVD or Blu-ray, just be warned that some of the emotions elicited might be too strong for some kids.  If you insist on watching it on the big-screen, then try to avoid the Sony 4K digital version that I saw, the compression manages to make some of the fast pans too hard to watch or discern.

Otherwise enjoy!

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

Not the best movie...far from it.

Not the best Steven Spielberg film, although close to it.

Not even the best treasure-hunting Spielberg film, although as far as Indiana Jones films go, it comes pretty good.

Oh wait, it's not an Indie film.  That's a shame.

The best thing about this film is by far the animation, and there I only have one complaint; flawlessness.  It relies too heavily on making everything very detailed, which is phenomenal, even if it feels awkward at times.  But in coming that close to reality, even if altered, it highlights the fault of CGI and that is it's reliance on perfection. 

One of the exciting things about film is serendipity, and this film lacks it, and that makes it a bit tedious marvel to watch.

Having said that, the animation is refreshing.  And that, in conjunction with the music, are astounding.  Between the two, Spielberg could have done a story about anything at all, and that feels like a huge let down. 

At times it seems that the decision to make Tintin into an animated film (Spielberg's first) was in part due to the fact that it allows Spielberg an excuse to do what he normally couldn't.  A prime example is the cranes épée scene, which is stunning to see, but in the end, what is gained. 

Truly gained?

Nothing really.

My problem with this film, is not that it's bad.  Because it's not.  It really isn't.  But it's not outstanding, and that it could have been.  It does, though, stand as a true testament to Spielberg's total fixation with the technical and technological side of film.  And that's OK.  There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to know that going into this film.

Although a minor blip, 2011 will ultimate be known as the year of the fetish.  Most notably for two of films' greatest directors venturing into uncharted territory usually reserved for more pop-style fare.  One is the heretofore mentioned Tintin, the other is Scorsese's glorious 3D wonder blast of a film Hugo (2011).  But whereas Martin Scorsese's film comes across as an academic and nostalgic look at the history of film, carefully planned and executed.  Spielberg's film comes across as hedonistic, and even self-aware (read: narcissistic).

In true Spielberg fashion, the action and drama are punctuated with really funny dialogue and interactions, as well as jovial sequences which help to break down the fact that the film is too long for what it was trying to do.

Rent this film, don't stream it, it's worth the better quality although not the $20-$30 to buy it.  If you can rent it in Blu-ray, even better.  Otherwise wait until the price goes down, and considering that two sequels are already planned, the price will precipitate soon, keep an eye out.

Enjoy.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Artwork for the Theatrical Release

It used to be, even in my short lifespan, that animated films were far and apart enough not to warrant the audience to request anything more than something pretty.  That is obviously not the case anymore, so things must change, and Kung Fu Panda is the perfect example.

That is not to say that the film has any substantial flaws, far from it.  But apart from the stunning 2D animation, the rest of the movie does not stand out at all, which is a shame.

What seems to be ultimately lacking, is inspiration.

The movie is average.

If it had been a live action movie with humans instead of CGI animals, it would fall short on many people's lists of movies to watch, and so I will judge it as such.

It's not a bad movie, and the kids will enjoy it, but if you are looking for something more inspired and more cinematic, go and rent The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) you will not be disappointed.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

I love this film, so often an animated film is a schtick away from a haiku, but here the story comes first and the great animation follows, and that makes a huge difference.

The textures on the costume designs were extraordinary, and a pleasure to watch, the depth of the art direction was awe-inspiring, and the voice acting was nothing like voice acting.

I realize that people watch Wes Anderson films for Jason Schwartzman (at least it seems like this is all he successfully does) Bill Murray (ditto, although less so) and all in all in funky quirkiness.

It is to this last point that I continues to hearken back to whenever I think about this film since seeing it. 

It seems that Oscar buzziness is a pen name for stuffiness, but this Wes Anderson film was enjoyable through and through, and not just to me.  My daughter loved it (3.5 years old) and my nephew loved it (almost 10 years old).

This animated film will sit solidly on my shelf next to Coraline (2009) and The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993).

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

Marketing poster for the 2011 theatrical release. 

The movie was OK, a bit slow and tedious at the beginning, but the third act between Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling more than makes up for the rest of the movie.  They are natural and funny, and enjoyable to watch, which is a shame.

I half expected to be more in love with Julianne Moore, but she seemed more in tune as the disjointed and unsatisfied wife in Chloe (2009) than she does here, although her acting is still impeccable.

Steve Carell was still funny and charming, but isn't given the broad spectrum to enthrall the audience as the dimwitted and surprised bachelor.

Marisa Tomei as the sexy middle-aged woman and Kevin Bacon as the antagonist to Steve Carell are both solid choices, but they fall to stereotypes because they simply were not given the time onscreen.

The ensemble is phenomenal, and they are all great actors, but the camera work and the fast cut editing that attempts to replace it, doesn't allow them to flex their timing chops, and what's worse is that they often make the acting seem forced.

Hopefully this becomes the jumping off point for a Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone rom-com, which I would go watch (full disclosure, rom-coms are my secret kriptonite).