As the first Disney Animated Adaptation of a Marvel property, Big Hero 6 has a lot to live up to, thankfully the film delivers and is a refreshingly original addition to the Disney animated canon.
Big Hero 6 is the story of Hiro, a young robotics genius who is forced to become a superhero after his invention is stolen and his brother is killed in order to save his city and avenge his brother.
Firstly the film is gorgeous, Disney developed new computers and algorithms to animate the world seen, this is apparent as the film features some of the most stunning photorealistic animation yet seen on film, even surpassing many of Pixar's best efforts, which in itself is no mean feat.
The film is based in San Franskyo, described as a mashup of San Francisco and Tokyo, which is more accurately a japanified version of The Golden Gate city. San Fransokyo is laid out entirely like San Francisco down to the placement of the painted ladies and indeed the film makers even dug through city archives to lay out the city exactly.
The result is a world so complete and holistic, so all encompassing that it looks and feels like a real place.
This film is only Disney's second attempt at a science fiction film after Meet The Robinsons, and where Robinsons, though fantastic is a film with obvious caveats, Big Hero 6 is an entirely more well formed work.
The film reinvents the original comic book characters to make them more relatable (and more easily marketable to children) the monster Baymax is now cuddly and lovable, and the weirdos who surround our main character are now a ragtag team of endearing scientists.
It should be said that unfortunately this film is not part of the marvel cinematic universe, it would have been interesting and unexpected to tie this film in with other marvel properties, so its a shame that it is instead segregated.
Overall I really liked Big Hero 6, finding it to be beautiful, thoughtful and entertaining, this is the Disney animated movie that those who typically hate Disney will love, and is amongst the best marvel superhero films.
Another stop motion film, directed by the
creators of Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run is a movie about a group
of chickens living on a battery farm in Yorkshire, led by Ginger, the
chickens launch numerous attempts to escapee, all of which fail, until
an american rooster named Rocky crash lands on their farm, having
escaped from the circus, the chickens launch a plan to fly out of the
farm. The film is a hilariously irreverent comedy, featuring quirky and
slightly twee animation, and great voice work.
The Adventures of Tintin
Stephen Spielbergs first animated feature, prodiced by Peter Jackson is a delight, adapted from the series of graphic novels by Hergé, the film uses motion capture to present a mixture of three of Hergés classic stories, woven together to create one exciting rollicking adventure. The film uses a hyperrealistic style of animation, bypassing the uncanny valley which befells so many motion capture films, and propelling it into a graphically stimulating adventure, which is a faithful update of Hergé's adventures.
Frankenweenie
Tim Burton directed this stop motion flick, which is a light parody and homage to hammer horror films of the sixties and seventies. The film, which is completely shot in black and white, is about a boy who successfully manages to resurrect his pet dog, only for the dog to set in motion a series of cataclysmic events which will lead to the destruction of his entire home town, the film contains some of the most beautiful and fluid stop motion work ever seen on celluloid, and the film is a tremendous achievement, and one of the best stop motion work seen in the past decade.
The LEGO Movie
One of the newer films on this list, and i can't escape the feeling that i am shooting myself in the foot as in five years this film will already seem dated, however despite it's obvious status as a marketing gimmick, The LEGO Movie is a fantastically fun film, whilst not shot in stop motion, the film attempts to replicate the look of a stop motion film, and does this surprisingly well, the film is colorful, fun and irreverent.
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Another film by Tim Burton, this time directed by Henry Selick,The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the first commercially successful stop motion films released, the story of a land where is is always Halloween, and a man who is the master of ceremonies, Jack Skellington uncovers a land called Christmastown, where it is always Christmas, and he attempts to bring this tradition to Halloweenland, an endeavor ending in disaster. The film features exquisite animation, and fantastic music by regular Burton collaborator Danny Elfman.
This may seem like a done deal, however it is actually much closer than i would like to admit. I have not been the biggest fan of Dreamworks over the years, and their history is much shorter than Disneys, so for fairness i will only be counting films released since 2000, as in this time they have made similar types of films, and they have both had a similar creative output quantitatively, and they both have had successes and failures in this period. I will compare these studios based on their critical success, the franchises they have set up and their box office returns, in addition to looking at the number of true 'hits' they have had in this time.
Critically it is not as clear cut as it would seem. Dreamworks started out the century well, releasing two critically acclaimed films in succession, then they stumbled a little, recovering with Shrek 2. After this they stumbled some more, finally releasing Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda in 2006 and 2008 respectively, both of which were mild critical hits. Dreamworks would wait until 2010 for their next hit with How To Train Your Dragon, finally releasing it's next critically acclaimed film 4 years later, a sequel to Dragon. Although Dreamworks have had their critical successes, they lack consistency, their films are too erratic.
Disney manages to be more consistent, though they started the millenium fairly well releasing Fantasia 2000 and The Emperors New Groove, both of which were fairly well recieved, however they soon fell into a slump that they would take the rest of the decade trying to claw themselves out of. They would not have another hit until 2009's The Princess and The Frog, which would launch an era known as the Disney revival, a string of five critically acclaimed films that continues to this day, rising to a zenith with Frozen, which was proclaimed to be the greatest Disney musical since Beauty and the Beast.
Dreamworks has had significantly more success than Disney in creating franchises. Dreamworks has successfully launched the Shrek, Madagascar, Dragons and Kung Fu Panda franchises. Disney, on the other hand has struggled, their franchises have mainly continued through direct to DVD releases, merchandise, television series', attractions in the parks and stage productions. Disney have only released two sequels theatrically, during their whole 80 year history. However despite their merchandise sales and DVD's making the executives in Cinderellas castle very rich, this is a cinematic comparison, and on that level Dreamworks is clearly superior.
In recent years, Dreamworks have stumbled at producing consistent hits. They have released two films a year for the last three years, and in each one of these years, one of the films was a success while the other was a failure. Only one Dreamworks film has ever grossed over $800 million, and while films within their Shrek, Madagascar and Dragons franchises regularly gross well over $500 million, their only original commercial success outside of these franchises is The Croods. Disney, howere is considerably more successful, while their films, mostly being originals, don't always gross as much as Dreamworks films do, they are relatively consistent, and despite the failure of Winnie the Pooh (which was critically acclaimed), they haven't had a commercial disappointment since 2006's Meet the Robinsons.
Disney have produced considerably more 'hits' than Dreamworks have, the first example is Frozen. The highest grossing animated film of all time, a huge critical success, and has been credited with breathing life back into Disney animation. Tangled was also a huge commercial hit, as was Lilo and Stitch. Outside of their previously mentioned franchises, Dreamworks have had few hits. The last true 'hit' they produced that wasn't a sequel or spin off was Over The Hedge, released in 2006. So despite Disney having less franchises, they don't rely on franchises and sequels for commercial or critical success.
This prizefight is a great deal closer than i expected it to be, i knew that it would be close, however despite Dreamworks' films being less acclaimed than Disneys, they are far better at establishing franchises from a commercial standpoint, and they have produced quite a few franchises over the years. Their struggles come from creating original films outside of these films and in setting up new franchises, Dreamworks latest franchise was Dragons, which launched in 2010. Since then their only real original hit was The Croods, which was met with mixed review and was a reasonable commercial success. Disney have shown themselves to be much more consistent, whilst their transition to digital filmmaking was laboured and difficult, they nonetheless have had a recent string of critical and commercial successes, cementing their place as the best animation studio making films today.
The title may seem a little sensationalist, but i promise you that this blog is not about to turn into a tabloid, i make an attempt to steer clear of gossip on this site, however it is no surprise to anyone that Pixar is a little stuck at the moment, they haven't released a film this year, only the second year since their inception that they haven't released a film.
Pixar was supposed to release a film in 2014, The Good Dinosaur, however this film was pushed back to the end of next year, after Inside out will have been released, next summer. The film has been completely restructured, and its director has been replaced. For a while Pixar looked unsinkable, they had a string of critical successes which broke abruptly with the release of Cars 2. It was a very abrupt turning point for the company, and while box office returns are still up, they haven't had an acclaimed critical hit since 2010's Toy Story 3.
In this time they have also released a prequel and a sequel, the first franchises for the company outside of the Toy Story series. The first sequel was Cars 2, a sequel to the 2006 film. The film was badly received, almost gleefully so, and ended the studios streak of critical successes. Cars itself was not a particularly well reviewed film, while it wasn't reviewed as badly as Cars 2, nonetheless it was seen to be one of the inferior Pixar films, and the move to make a sequel and to turn it into a franchise was generally seen as one influenced by the copious amounts of merchandise the film sold, which generated over a billion dollars in it's first year.
The second film, which they released a prequel to was Monsters Inc, again, whilst Monsters Inc is a charming film, it's not their greatest film, and it doesn't have the best sequel potential, and while making a sequel to Cars seemed like a good move from a financial point of view, Monsters University was a perplexing choice both commercially and financially. The film didn't generate a huge amount of interest when the first was released in 2001, and the prequel slightly underperformed at the box-office. In choosing these films to mold franchises around, Pixar made bad choices critically, neither of these films were Pixar's best, and specifically Monsters Inc didn't have a huge amount of franchise potential.
The first film that one would think of producing a sequel to would be The Incredibles, the film is a light parody of superhero films and comic book adaptations, this type of storytelling is episodic by nature, and many Hollywood franchises are now based around superheros. This film was perfect for a franchise, and disney finally announced a sequel to this film, which, in my opinion, is long overdue. The other sequel which has been announced is Finding Dory, a sequel to Finding Nemo. While Finding Nemo doesn't appear to have a huge amount of franchise potential, and while the film seems to wrap itself up pretty neatly at the end of Finding Nemo, the films breakout character was Dory, the forgetful fish played by Ellen DeGeneres, and the director has made the smart choice to base the next film around her.
This is a good choice from a narrative standpoint and commercially, the character of Dory was by far the most interesting and funny part of the original film, and it makes sense to base the film around her, it also takes into account the bankability of Ellen DeGeneres, since 2003 Ellen has become a huge star, and although her ability to become bankable at the box office has never really become tested, she has a huge fanbase, is popular with families and her talk show is the most successful daytime show in the US. The future seems brighter for Pixar, despite the impending release of Cars 3, with three original films being released, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur and Dia De Los Muertos (based around the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico), and the release of two promising sequels, Pixar looks to be back on the right track, at least for now.
I love Pixar, as do many others, and this should be a fairly easy list to compile, despite Pixar having produced only 14 films, they are mostly excellent, and even if they haven't produced a really good film since 2010's Toy Story 3, up to that point all their films were excellent, and there is a wide variety of films to choose from, in addition to their narrative successes, Pixar's films are also visually stunning, use a subtle blend of photo-realism and quirky distinctive character animation.
The Incredibles
Pixars first film featuring entirely
humanoid characters, The Incredibles are a group of superheroes, who
attempt to live covert, undercover lives, hiding their powers. The
Incredibles is a fantastic example of why animation is so important, as
this film could just as easily be a live action film, the film walks a
fine line between a parody and an homage to superhero films and comic
book adaptations, the fact that it is an animated film makes that all
the more clear, and gives it a fun twist. The Incredibles features some
of the most well rounded and imaginative Pixar characters ever, creative
and subtle, these characters have sets of well defined powers, and are
an almost iconic crime fighting group.
WALL-E
The opening hour of this film is a testament to
the beauty of Pixar's character animation, despite being
anthropomorphic, the characters do not communicate with human voices,
but instead with gestures, subtle facial changes and sounds. The two
characters of the film, despite not being able to speak, are really well
rounded and subtle, and despite not containing any speech during its
first hour, it is gripping and subtle, and it is the best silent film
work since the thirties. The rest of the film is a testament to our
future if we do not change our ways, a future where we are fat,
emotionless, and when we will have to leave earth because of our
reliance on consumerism and commercialism. WALL-E is beautiful, poetic
and nostalgic.
Up
The first Pixar film to be nominated for best picture at the oscars and only the second animated film ever to be nominated. Up is a film about life, a film about never giving up on life, and never stopping the adventure of life, beautifully animated and heartwarming, the opening sequence alone, showing Carl and Ellie falling in love and growing up makes it worthy for this list, the film is winsome, fun and emotional, visually beautiful and thrilling, Up is truly a classic film.
Finding Nemo
Setting an animated film entirely underwater is tough, Disney have done it only once with The Little Mermaid, and particularly doing it in a photorealistic way is virtually impossible. With Finding Nemo, Pixar succeeded with this whimsical treasure, a visual delight featuring a fully realized underwater world, of colourful creative characters. This film also features some fine voice work, Albert Brooks plays Marlin, Nemo's father, and Ellen DeGeneres plays Dory, a regal blue tang with short term memory loss, her performance is hilarious and distinctive, and was partially improvised. Finding Nemo features a stunning, expansive ocean as a backdrop for its complex subtle characters.
Ratatouille
In my mind this is the best Pixar film, and one of the best films of all time, food is incredibly difficult to animate, and to make it look appetizing, and rats are hard to make look cute, however amazingly this film successfully does both, the film is a foodie's delight, featuring inventive and elegant dishes, and the fact that the two main characters never speak to each other, yet have an intimate connection is impressive. Ratatouille is an odd children's film, from the outside it seems difficult to market or merchandise, as neither rats nor food are particularly appealing to children, however the film succeeds despite all these obstacles, and Ratatouille is witty and charming.
Well summer is back, and with summer comes mindless action movies featuring cars, babes, and CGI robot porn, yeas, another Transformers movie is here. I am honestly not a Michael Bay hater, i loved Pain and Gain, and nBad Boys was perhaps one of the most defining film of my childhood. I posted last year about films featuring too much CGI looking hyperreal and fake, but this post is not a critique of the CGI itself, it is more a critique of the way modern action films use CGI, and the fact that nothing in cinema is real annymore.
Films used to be sort of thrilling, watching a 16 wheel semi truck get flipped over in The Dark Knight or watching a man bungee jump off of a bridge in GoldenEye was thrilling, as both of those were done for real, no computer involved, and the thrill of danger adds a slight frisson to the audience's excitement. 3D has managed to regain some of this excitement and sense of danger, by making the audience feel like they're in danger by having giant robot penises two inches from their nose, but audiences watching these moves on their iPad don't have this effect, rendering the films dull and lifeless.
Transformers is typical summer movie popcorn fare, but the lack of reality, coupled with a lack of heart, means that no one really cares. Toy Story 3 wasn't real, there were only computers involved, but the audience cared, because the story contained heart and emotion. Thus the Transformers films are like Toy Story 3, with the pathos removed. Giant imaginary robots flying at each other with the subtlety of a Miley Cyrus concert surrounded by humans that are entirely indistinguishable from each other leave a product that just ends up feeling pointless. If all the alien robots are obviously incredibly fake, and all the robots are indistinguishable from each other, then why should i care?
Filmmakers have this idea that action films don't need emotion, but they are wrong, the reason that Frodo hanging off the parapet in mount doom or the loss of Rachel Dawes are so visceral, is because we learn to care about these characters, and we feel their loss and their suffering, i can't honestly say that i cared any more about Sam Witwicky at the end than i did at the beginning. The main problem with modern action movies, is that they don't give us a reason to care, there is no emotion, no loss, and nothing is real anyway, so watching giant alien robots grapple over a cube, is oddly pointless, because there is nothing real either in my head registering emotion, or on screen, and i can watch with the passive bemusement of a roman citizen watching gladiators fight.
I will start today's post, like so many, with a story, the other night i decided to watch Tim Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland, a happy accident lead to me actually watching the Walt Disney 1951 animated classic. I had seen the animated film before, but not for some years, and in re-watching the movie, i discovered it to be an interesting an beautiful picture if not a particularly watchable one, i watched the Tim Burton version the following day, and found it to be again a beautiful picture but nonetheless a flawed one.
Disney adapted Alice in Wonderland first in 1923 as a 21 year old student, however the film, which was part live action was never released to the public, and after the success of Snow White in 1938 he decided to make the film, Disney made several attempts to streamline the story and convert Carroll's nonsense literature into something less episodic and more suitable for film, however with limited success, as the movie still feels highly disjointed. Tim Burton's Alice is far more successful, however i use the word more with caution, as the story still has problems, despite being far more effectively streamlined, the story still lacks an emotional connection, and we never really get to know Alice Kingsley as a person, despite her being given a slightly more fleshed out back story than in the original film. The plot of the film is more successful, Burton creates a trajectory and a story arc for Alice that is lacking in the original version, unfortunately the plot, although successful uses a plot device about a character embracing their destiny which at this point is incredibly overused.
Visually both films are stunning, the 1951 film was designed mainly by Mary Blair, who would subsequently become renowned for her work on the theme park ride Its A Small World, the film is a visually delightful psychedelic adventure, no doubt slightly LSD inspired, however the imagery in this version remains reasonably light, the 2010 adaptation is another story. Tim Burton's film, is, to put is simply, a Tim Burton film. The film is visually quite dark, and the world of wonderland was created entirely on a green screen. This was not entirely de rigeur at the time like it is now, and Alice In Wonderland was really only the second film after Sky Captain to use this technique.
Extensive green-screen usage is seen to be incredibly easy, but it is actually incredibly difficult and can be jarring if not used properly, Oz the Great And Powerful used a similar effect for the Brick Road sequences, and with no reference point between the actors and their environments, and no interaction, everything looks out of perspective, and the actors look oddly small, this effect is absent from Alice, and this is partly due to Burton successfully blending the actors with their environments, some characters are entirely CGI, some are a blend of CGI and live action, some are live action that has been modified using CG, such as the Red Queen's head and Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The film is a seamless blend, and although being visually spectacular, the effect was never jarring.
Both films were hugely influential, the 1951 film which rode on the wave of fairy tale adaptations started by Snow White, and it later convinced Disney to search for the rights to other literary works such as Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins. The 2010 film was responsible for the recent wave of fairy tale live action adaptations which include the recently released Malecifent and Oz, The Great and Powerful. The film was also responsible for studios taking fairy tale heroines and making them warriors in armour with a sword, a trend which is rarely well achieved. However both of these films remain visually delighting adventures.
Saving Mr Banks is a 2013 adaptation of the making of the film Mary Poppins, and of the 20 year legal battle that preceded it. Mary Poppins was released in 1964, however Walt Disney first attempted to secure the rights in the 1940's, he repeatedly asked every year for twenty years, until the author of the story PL Travers finally acquiesced, mainly due to the fact that she had no money. Disney brought Travers to Los Angeles for a two week story meeting in order to discuss the project, and ended up attaining the rights and making the movie.
Mary Poppins is one of my favorite movies, and i was intrigued to see this film, to discover the story behind one of the most iconic movie musicals of the century, i had absolutely no idea that it was such a laborious and torturous process, Travers was fiercly protective of her creation, and didn't like the idea of Walt Disney changing it, in fact she was so enraged by the finished film that she refused all ideas of a sequel, and in fact started to write more Mary Poppins novels as a result. The fact that the film was released by Walt Disney Pictures is also significant, this is the first time that Walt Disney himself has been used as a character in a major motion picture, and yet the film makes no attempt to sugar coat him or objectify him, he is shown to be a smoker, to be overly familiar and to be conniving. Towards the end of the film Disney is openly shown to have crossed Travers, and he is not always shown in a highly positive light.
That said, the entire film is coated with a sickly sweet sap of melodrama, in reality Travers never came round to the film and was angry with the way she had been treated by Disney, the entire film is aggressively sentimental, and implores you to like it, but it pays off, there is a real emotional weight to the film, and i found myself getting teary eyed on more than a few occasions, the entire film has a parallel storyline structure, with Travers' experiences in Burbank mimicking her experiences as a child with her alcoholic father, although this structure allows us to connect emotionally to Travers, the parts which take place in her childhood are significantly less interesting than those taking place in Los Angeles, and the flashback's seem to take the audience out of the moment.
The film is impeccably acted, Emma Thompson gives an Oscar worthy performance as the grouchy, moody muttering Travers, a woman who is deeply complex and barely human, Thompson turns Travers into a complex and difficult woman, a woman scarred from her experiences as a child and who is not hard-hearted, but merely protective of her beloved creation. Tom Hanks is also fantastic as Walt Disney, Hanks has some pretty big shoes to step into, playing such a well known, well liked and iconic man, yet Hanks manages to perfectly portray the man as clearly good-natured and likeable, but also cunning and conniving.
Despite being aggressively good hearted and sentimental, Saving Mr Banks is a story with real emotional weight, which could push even the most emotionally constipated person to tears, the film is an interesting exploration of a little known story, and despite it's jettisoning of the facts for something more dramatic, Saving Mr Banks succeeds of impeccable performances and an interesting plot. Rating: B
P.L. Travers:
You think Mary Poppins is saving the children, Mr. Disney?
Last week the internet almost imploded with the news of the release of the cast of the upcoming episode 7, and the list pleased me somewhat, the stars of the original trilogy are all returning, which seems like auspicious news. Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac, two of my favorite current actors, have also joined the cast. Also joining the ensemble is Andy Serkis, an actor mostly known for playing CGI characters such as Gollum , King Kong and Captain Haddock. Serkis' presence in the cast suggests that he will perhaps be playing a CGI, motion capture character, which is incredibly de rigueur right now. Also returning are C-3PO and R2D2, in addition to Chewbacca, all of whom are fan favorites.
However, this post is not specifically about Episode VII, but about the recently announced animated television series, airing on Disney XD in the autumn of 2014. Since reaching an licensing agreement with LucasFilm, and especially now since acquiring the company for 4.05 billion in 2011, Disney has developed a number of animated series based around the star wars characters and universe. During the 1990's these were developed by LucasFilm in conjunction with ABC or Cartoon Network, however since 2008's The Clone Wars, they have aired exclusively on Disney owned channels. Early series had limited success, and The Clone Wars, despite running for six seasons could only be described as a partial success. A few early episodes were bundled together as a feature film and released to cinemas, a move which rarely works and concurrently the film was panned by critics. The latest season was aired on Netflix instead of on cable, and will be the end of the series.
Although i try to keep television posts on Popcorn@Movies to a minimum, and i would normally never dream of writing about an animated television series, the trailer, recently released for Star Wars Rebels succeeded in piquing my attention. The trailer, which lasts all of 15 seconds (and which can be found HERE) features some pretty stunning animation. The series looks almost photo-realistic, with the exception of the human characters, who are animated in an asian inspired manga style. It seems that the merger with Disney has been good news for LucasFilm's animation department, as the quality of animation looks to be extremely high, particularly for a television budget.
I am oddly excited for this series, whilst i would previously never really care about a series airing on Disney XD, this looks to be a well produced, exciting and fun animated series, wit unusually high production values. As the first real product of the merger between Disney and LucasFilm, it looks to be an auspicious start, and should give Star Wars fans high hopes for the upcoming Episode VII.
The Lego Movie is the kind of incongruous phrase that sounds a little like a hoax, but fortunately it's not. The Lego Movie is a 3D computer animated movie based around the franchises formed of Lego construction toys. I was a huge fan of Lego as a kid, as i suspect so were most people of my generation. Lego has the kind of all round appeal that only Adele and Harry Potter can also hold claim. I find it rather saddening that young people today don't play with Lego, and i hope that this film will reignite interest in the historic danish brand, if the box office receipts are anything to go by, it already has. The film is about a construction worker named Emmett who lives in Bricksburg, and who is mistaken for the "special". The film then details Emmet and a girl he meets, called Wildestyle with whom he escapes Bricksburg, finds a god like figure called Vitruvius and Wildestyle's boyfriend; Batman. They, with a group of outlaws, hatch a plan to defeat the evil lord business and disable the kragle, a mysterious substance that Lord Business is going to use to glue all the bricks together. The film's plot is essentially a loose parody of The Matrix, with Emmet being The One, Wyldestyle being Trinity and Vitruvius being Morpheus. The film is fantastic fun, and the plot allows for many fun cameos from other Lego franchises and characters. The film starts in Bricksburg, which is essentially a generic colorful representation of corporate america, then it moves to The Old West and on to Cloud Cuckoo Land, based on cute and colorful Lego franchises. Then into the ocean, and under the sea. In addition to cameos from Middle Earth, Star Wars and DC Comics.
The movie looks fantastic, and the whole world featured looks exactly like it was made out of Lego, the sets look huge, and although the film was not made using stop motion, the film is deliberately given that feel, and everything in the film looks as if it is real and tactile. The film is so faithful to looking absolutely real that even water is made using Lego beads, laser bolts using lightsaber rods, and jet's using plastic flame pieces. Explosions are made using grey small Lego bricks and waves using blue and white Lego pieces. Dust trailing the batmobile is made of beige bricks and puffs of smoke are ice cream pieces, this separates the film from other direct to video Lego movies which are much lower budget and which generally do not look as if they are made entirely out of Lego.
The film also feels like it has something interesting to say about capitalism and about modern western life. The film depicts a world not unlike america today, where all the people look alike, they all listen to the same music, they all dress the same, they live in identical apartments and they are essentially indistinguishable, in appearance and in personality. Their lives are dominated by capitalism and business. The film is essentially about how capitalism leaves us devoid of any personality, and how we are essentially being corrupted by our ability to all buy and own the same things. The film is smart, the dialogue is witty and the plot is streamlined and unexpected. This is a film with heart, a quality sadly missing from a lot of modern animation (looking at you Dreamworks and Toonstudios) and a film that makes you think. The use of 3D is also superb, i have often proclaimed that animated films work best in 3D, and here is a prime example, the 3D was never used in an obnoxious way, but i was glad of the extra depth!
Overall i have nothing negative to say about this film, it's damn well near perfect, looks beautiful and has a great story and a good heart. A witty script and some funny gags make The Lego Movie supremely entertaining. It goes above and beyond what one would expect, and the Lego movie is far better than a two hour toy commercial has any right to be. Rating: A+
President Business:
Hi, I'm President Business, president of the Octan corporation and the
world. Let's take extra care to follow the instructions or you'll be put
to sleep, and don't forget Taco Tuesday's coming next week.
I was
re-watching “Waking Sleeping Beauty” the other day, the 2009 documentary about
the Disney renaissance, and heard Peter Schneider proclaim: ‘ever since Walt’s
death, the country has demanded “who is the next Walt Disney, the country
demands a central charismatic figure”’ The answer is a bit of an enigma really,
for despite their being plenty of candidates, there is really no one who
embodies completely what Walt represented, but the good news is that there are
plenty of plausible men who embody, at least part of what Walt Disney stood
for.
Walt Disney
Michael
Eisner seems like a good place to start, seeing as he was chairman of the
company, like Walt was, and was CEO during Peter Schneider’s tenure, Eisner,
despite being a fantastic businessman, isn’t the visionary that Walt Disney
was. During the nineties the Walt Disney Company experienced a period of
unprecedented growth, animation experienced a renaissance, theme parks were
built in Tokyo, Paris, Florida and California, and Disney acquired ESPN and
ABC. Eisner transformed the company from a film studio making movies for
children into a multi-national corporation selling movies, music, merchandise
and amusement parks, Eisner coined the Disney Decade, ten years of
unprecedented growth for the company. Eisner is often unfairly criticized for
the way he ran the company by fans, however I feel we need to start recognizing
his achievements, without Michael Eisner having helmed the company for 15 years
the Walt Disney company wouldn’t be what it is today. Despite Eisner making a
huge success of the company, and the animation department especially, Eisner
wasn’t the visionary that Walt Disney was, he’s a businessman, always watching
the purse strings, and never attempting the unreachable, in this sense he is
the opposite of what Walt was, for Walt often made financial gambles, most of
which fortunately paid off. So Eisner, despite being fantastic for the Walt
Disney Company and a charismatic leader, isn’t the visionary risk taker that
Walt Disney was, and thus is simply not “the next Walt Disney”.
Michael Eisner
The other
possible candidate, from the same era is Jeffrey Katzenberg, despite Katzenberg
being very out-front on the films of the renaissance era, just isn’t a
visionary. While yes, the animation department at Disney was very successful during
his tenure there, it is debatable how much if this is due to him, Jeffrey
Katzenberg subsequently left Disney, and is now running Dreamworks, helping to
turn that animation studio into a true financial success. Despite Dreamworks
Animation Studio being a success financially, they have yet to produce a real
critical, and few of their films have endured the test of time. Only Shrek,
which won the first Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and which was
subsequently ruined by its numerous disappointing sequels, showed any promise,
and it was downhill from there. Dreamworks mostly produces films that are okay,
without being original or intelligent, and without having any kind of beauty.
What separates Walt Disney from Jeffrey Katzenberg is that Disney took huge
risks, and made films that might not have huge commercial potential, if they
were great art. The most obvious example of this is Fantasia which was a
commercial failure, but a huge critical success, and which has gone on to be
one of the most beloved Disney films. Fantasia is the kind of film which would
never have been green-lit under Jeffrey Katzenberg, as it was too much of a
gamble, Dreamworks have never made an experimental animated movie, and is
highly reliant on sequels to bring in the money. The one way in which Jeffrey
Katzenberg is highly similar to Walt Disney is in behavior and showmanship,
like Walt Disney, Jeffrey Katzenberg was incredibly strong in promoting Disney
movies (and himself), and eh was often found to be taking credit for the most
successful Disney films, even claiming to have come up with the idea for The
Lion King (only after the movie was successful of course, before the films
release he told all the animators that the most successful film of that period
would be Pocahontas, which went on to be the renaissance’s only real flop).
Overall despite being hugely charismatic and incredibly out-front, Jeffrey
Katzenberg isn’t the risk taking, visionary artist that Walt Disney was.
Jeffrey Katzenberg
Current
Disney CEO Robert Iger is a bit of a disappointment really, he’s a bean counter
and a caretaker at best. The Disney company’s animation department is currently
experiencing a revival, but it really isn’t due to Iger at all, it’s due to the
people he hired and the acquisitions he made, Iger oversaw the buying of PIXAR,
Marvel and Star Wars which despite costing the company each in excess of 7
billion dollars, paid off over time. But Iger, like Eisner, is a businessman,
and like all businessmen, Iger refuses to take risks, and will only give if assured of a solid rate of return
Bob Iger
This is not
a post without an answer, and I do have an idea, of who embodies Walt Disney
the most completely. John Lasseter started, during the nineties, a small
computer graphics firm which was then hired by Disney to produce CAPS, a system
for coloring animated films using computer software which was subsequently used
on the film “Rescuers Down Under”. The firm was called “PIXAR”. After Disney’s
acquisition of PIXAR in 2007, John Lasseter was hired as the head of the
animation department of The Walt Disney Studios, and is largely responsible for
the revival Disney animation is experiencing. John Lasseter is nothing short of
a genius, he transformed PIXAR from a small company to an animation powerhouse
producing a string of unprecedented critical and commercial original hits, he
then transformed Walt Disney animation. John Lasseter, despite not being the
charismatic showman that Walt Disney was, transformed animation with the
production of Toy Story. Lasseter took risks at PIXAR, and most of their films are
original stories, similarly at Disney, Lasseter took risks, producing a mixture
of hand drawn and computer animated films, most of which were critical and
commercial successes. John Lasseter, despite not being the showman that Walt
Disney was, is nonetheless the new messiah of animation, a man who seems to
turn to gold all that he touches, and who has revitalized Disney animation a
second time.
John Lasseter
I know that
this post might seem like a bit of an indulgence, and I don’t pretend that any
of this is anything other than opinion and waffle, but I honestly do believe that
John Lasseter is the only person who can possibly carry on the flame left
behind by Walt Disney, a true genius, who revolutionized the field of animation
once again.
“All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them.” Walt Disney
Frozen is a
2013 computer animated epic musical fantasy film produced and distributed by
Walt Disney Studios. The film is a loose adaptation of The Snow Queen, a
classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson. The concept has been in the
pipeline since the 1940’s, and was even pondered by Walt Disney himself, before
being dropped due to story problems. The film was directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris
Buck, and is notable for being the first Disney film ever to be helmed by a
woman (how is this possible?). The film features two sisters, one of whom has
the power to create ice with her hands. This power frightens her, and she hides
away from the whole world, including her sister.
Frozen uses
largely the same format as Tangled, and indeed the film was only greenlit after
the success of Tangled at the box office. The animation style is fairly
comparable and the characters are animated in a near identical style. The film
uses large epic vistas, and is the first Disney film to be made using ultra-widescreen
since Sleeping Beauty, this enhances the animation and gives the film epic
scope. The film is incredibly beautiful, and the animation is enhanced by 3D,
giving the film a tactile painterly feel. The 3D is particularly well handled
and the snowflakes really do seem to fall from the heavens, I am not the
largest fan of 3D and I feel that it is often superfluous, however animated
films of often work quite well in 3D, and frozen is no exception, and I was
glad to have seen it in this format.
Frozen is
also unique in its setting, in that it is the first Disney film to be set in
Scandinavia, and the first to have a particularly continental feel. Let me
elaborate, other Disney films, despite being nominally set in a certain
country, have no real character and could be set anywhere. Tangled is nominally
set in Germany, Beauty and the Beast and sleeping beauty in France. Frozen
belongs to another group, like The Princess and the Frog and Aladdin, Frozen is
grounded, and is set in a defined place, the wooden architecture with the steep
gables and Fjords remind one of the ancient architecture of Norway, and covered
in snow it is simply stunning. I feel that setting the film in a defined
culture is highly beneficial to this film, as it differentiates it from other
Disney films, and stops it becoming bland. The characters, though not designed
with particularly Scandinavian features, are dressed is a style similar to that
of traditional Scandinavian dress, with the patterns and silhouettes being
slightly modernized. The costume design of the film is fantastic, with Anna’s
coronation dress and Elsa’s ice dress being standouts. The clothes have a
tactile quality, and they feel real, despite being animated.
The story
differs somewhat from the original fairy tale, and like Tangled, it retains the
setting, concept and some of the characters of the original story, but features
a new plot. Frozen was canned multiple times since the 1940’s largely due to
the plot, the filmmakers struggled to find a link between the Snow Queen and
Anna, and struggled to find a way to connect the characters and explain The
Queen’s cursing of Anna, in Frozen this issue is ironed out with the characters
becoming sisters, and the Snow Queen being rewritten as a protagonist, this
creates an important connection between the two women, and means that her
action are out of fear rather than antagonism, and that in order to save
Arendelle, Anna must melt the ice around her sisters heart and allow her to
love again. The film is also notable in its depiction of love which differs
from other Disney films, whereas love in other films being between a woman and
her suitor, being able to conquer evil, in Frozen, the love between two sisters
is shown as being the vanquishing force, and it is only after Elsa learns to
love her sister that she can control her powers
The film
features some pretty spectacular voice talent, Idina Menzel stars as Elsa and
Kristen Bell as Anna. Jonathon Groff stars as Kristoff, a rugged mountain man
and wanderer. The film is a musical in the style of traditional Disney
musicals, and the songs are fantastic. The film uses new Disney collaborators Robert
and Kristen Anderson Lopez as songwriters, and the music is lyrical, catchy and
melodic. Overall despite the films setting, the music never strays far from
traditional musical theatre, the only exception is the first song, a chorus
with a fairly traditional feel and Nordic sound, and which is in some ways
reminiscent of the dwarfs’ song in Snow White. The highlights of the film
include Let it Go, an emotional powerhouse sung by Idina Menzel and a sure
winner for the academy award for best original song, and Who Wants to Build a
Snowman, a song accompanied by a montage showing the two sisters growing apart
as they grow and change.
Frozen
represents a huge return to form for Walt Disney Animation, and is currently
the high point of the Disney Revival period, in my mind even topping Tangled,
one of my favorite Disney films of all time. Epic beautiful animation, great
music and fascinating complex characters make this film a modern, instant
classic that will surely endure for years to come. Rating:
A+
