|
Post by AD on Dec 31, 2010 21:21:57 GMT -5
A few hours early, but I’m sure nobody will be offended by that.
Straight to business:
Watch any animated movie and review it by the end of the month.
Well, with Project [Animation] and Project [Animation] Too hopefully coming out sometime this month, I thought it would be fun to do sort of a crossover with the MMC. Hand drawn, stop motion, computer generated, anime, it’s all in play. Short films are fine, too.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Jan 1, 2011 20:47:11 GMT -5
Should be an interesting month. Hopefully it'll encourage more participation. I know i'll be seeing My Dog Tulip and, if a screener surfaces before the month's end, The Illusionist. This would also be an appropriate time to revisit Svankmejer's Alice and fill in some gaps with Anime features. I'd encourage everyone to look into the Brothers Quay, or atleast see their masterpiece, Street of Crocodiles. It's only twenty minutes long, although if it affects you as much as it did me i'd imagine that you'll want to watch it over and over again. Here's a link where you can watch it for free. There are other versions online and on YouTube, although I feel that this one has the best score.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Jan 6, 2011 18:12:49 GMT -5
I saw the trailer for Rita and Chico today. 7/10.
I'm surprised there isn't a screener for The Illusionist yet, it played over here a few months ago in a good number of cinema's. I got really excited when I was looking in the newspaper the week before Christmas and saw a picture from it in the TV listings guide, as "The Illusionist" was playing on TV at night. Obviously it was 2006's The Illusionist though. But for a free newspaper at the train station, what do you expect.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Jan 9, 2011 16:03:15 GMT -5
Well, I had to watch this for my part in Project [Animation], so why not write about it, too? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONSTERS, INC. (Pete Docter, 2001) Netflix product description: When I hear people talk about their favorite films from Pixar Animation Studios the titles “Wall-E,” “Ratatouille,” “The Incredibles,” “Finding Nemo,” “Up,” and the “Toy Story” movies are almost always mentioned before anybody even thinks of saying “Monsters, Inc.” Well, I’m hear to tell you that they’re dead wrong. While I would agree that “Wall-E” and “Up” represent the pinnacle of modern animation, “Monsters, Inc” is not far off. At least on par with “The Incredibles” and well ahead of the other films mentioned, which are all wonderful in their own way. Like all the best animated films, it works on multiple levels. On the surface we have a cute story about a couple of friendly monsters who form an unexpected bond with an adorable little human girl. Hijinks ensue, an emotional roller coaster ride is taken, and by the end plenty of tears are shed. But, when you look just a little harder at it, you realize that you’re actually watching a film about a dystopian society, not unlike Francois Truffaut’s “Fahrenheit 451.” A city that is literally powered by the misery of children is actually a pretty horrifying thought. The film’s humanism is still it’s greatest quality, though. Pete Docter is able to put tears in the eyes of his viewers like few other directors these days. I believe this is the film that represents the beginning of the shift in the way we’ve thought about animated films in the 21st century. Animation is no longer strictly used as a tool for creating cute little anthropomorphic critters. Among other things, animators are now allowed to get a little “high concept” and to create fully realized fantasy universes. “Monsters, Inc.” is the movie that started that trend, unless I’m overlooking something. It was ahead of it’s time by just a few years, and the fact that it lost the Oscar race to the very overrated “Shrek” is a good indicator of that fact. I think history will decide the real winner, though. You already know my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Jan 12, 2011 6:16:41 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: January 2011My Dog Tulip (dir. Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009) My Dog Tulip is far from what one would expect from a film about a dog. We're a long way from 101 Dalmations or Marley & Me - in fact, if you were intending to sway a child away from wanting a dog, i'd suggest that you show them this film. The relationship between the old man and his adopted Alsatian is heartwarming, however the film doesn't exclude the details regarding the dog's excrement or it's owner's efforts in finding a breeding partner. Disney doesn't often dwell on the, you know, Vaseline lubricated dog sex. This is purely adult entertainment - i'd imagine that if a child happened to see it, he would be completely disenchanted with the entire prospect of pet ownership. After such a description, it might come as a surprise when I say that the film really snuck up on me and I found myself tremendously moved by the end. Adapted from an eloquently written memoir and spoken by Christopher Plummer, the film is one that doesn't merely discuss the ways in which a dog has aided the life of this lonely man, but it also, in depicting the world with such vibrant honesty, affectionately redeems the man whose own arrogant specificity in finding a life partner made him the recluse that he has become. The film is not cute in any way, although it'd be unfair to suggest that it doesn't have it's charms. The animation, which for most of the run time has the visual aesthetic of a beautifully smudged watercolor painting, takes some stylistic diversions to yield humorous results. Perhaps the directors took too many risks with a rough pencil-sketch technique that serves as the man's imagination, but most of these segments are effectively hilarious. My Dog Tulip, unlike many of it's kind, is not a tearjerker - atleast not in the way that one would assume this sort of film would be - it is instead a beautiful memoir recounting the most important relationship of a man's life. My MMC History:
01/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/5 12/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/5 12/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/5 12/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/5 12/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/5 12/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/5 12/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/5 12/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/5 10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by RyanGoslingFan99 on Jan 13, 2011 2:14:38 GMT -5
Despicable Me (Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud,2010) Despicable Me takes the viewpoint of the villian (Gru) and his many failures to gain infamy and also focuses on his daily life and where exactly all these villains get the money to build their lasers and weapons. When Gru latest nefarious deed depends on a shrink ray that is currently in the possession of his arch rival Vector (Jason Segel) he comes up with a fiendishly(?) clever plant to adopt 3 little girls to help him steal the weapon. As is always the case, the girls turn Gru's world upside and make things difficult for the world's greatest villian. This is a very light-hearted comedy that is great for the whole family. I fond the characters to be very interesting and Gru tiny minions kept the laughs going with their antics. Despicable Me also has some very touching moments as Gru grows attached to these kids and how that affects his villian lifestyle. Despicable Me may not be remembered as one the great animated pictures, but I found it very entertaining if not alittle predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Jan 14, 2011 15:47:02 GMT -5
Persepolis | Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud | 2007In any coming of age story, it's essential that the protagonist is a likeable character for the audience to engage with on an emotional level. Unfortunately, in Persepolis I only found myself being seduced by Marjane in the early stages of the film because of her childlike innocence and charisma, such as her chanting of "Down with the Shah!", being told to go to sleep, but continuing the chant in a whisper as she marches towards he bedroom. Once she begins puberty, her charisma somehow becomes depleted leading to a very temperamental and self-deprecating personality. This is arguably a part of most teenage lives, but was presented here with insufficient justification in my opinion. Most of her sympathy seems to be garnered through the situation she finds herself in - opposed to any genuine empathy for the character herself - rendering her fairly interchangeable. Even as interested in politics as I am, it's difficult to maintain a vested interest in the film without a main character to create a strong connection with. Moments like her surviving a war and revolution but a trivial romance being the thing to ruin her life have a special ironic poignancy, as do the moments when the writers' wit can prevail, but sadly like her romances they are only fleeting and a consistency cannot be developed for the film to have a lasting effect. Seeing as this is animation month! The animation is extraordinarily simple and emotion is hard to capture in terms of facial expressions, but it can only be seen as a visual and creative success because the style of execution is effective in terms of the setting and the story. Despite never reading the comic, I'm sure it is an excellent representation of the artwork featured in it. Obviously the film possesses some deeply powerful moments and messages and it does very well to contain such a mass of story into just over 90 minutes, but the whole thing because of that feels unnecessarily cramped and rushed. There's little smooth flow between the moments and sadly nothing is given time to sink in and allowed to breathe for a stronger impact. 7/10.
|
|
|
Post by Maf on Jan 18, 2011 17:40:14 GMT -5
How To Train Your Dragon Eh, I found this movie to be a bit of a disappointment. After seeing how everyone hyped up the movie I was expecting something along the lines of Toy Story (Although I was foolish to think that). The movie is entertaining, but the story never really connected with me...probably because I don't think much of pets. If you haven't seen it and you're a pet lover then do so, otherwise it's just an okay time waster.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Jan 26, 2011 0:14:39 GMT -5
Coraline | Henry Selick | 2009The consensus of Coraline being well crafted and effectively creepy is one that I won't sway from, but despite my efforts I never really found an opening to immerse myself in the story. Perhaps it's because Coraline isn't exactly the most likeable character; she's petulant, cynical and at times disrespectful. Pretty much any young child then, which I did actually like about the film. But its honest depiction was sadly at the expense of any caring towards Coraline's plight on my part. She disregards warning after warning and continues to escape her disappointing reality into the dream world of all her fondest desires, and when the consequences of her actions begin, it's almost as if she's screaming at us with demands of emotional investment like a needy, self-righteous child. She just doesn't come off innocent enough. The enjoyment derived from the film comes solely from the experiences of the growing intensity and the never ending sources of eerie imagery. The stop motion animation aids the atmosphere of the film and gives it a distinctive feel, but I never feel at all welcomed by it. 7/10.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Jan 31, 2011 21:52:23 GMT -5
Well... the month had a slightly better turn out in terms of the number of participants, although it wasn't exactly a rousing success.
Unfortunately I got lazy and never made the time to review in length the other films that I watched. I may catch up on them within the next few days, although schoolwork demands much more immediate analytical attention.
I had a Miyazaki triple feature and watched the following films:
CASTLE IN THE SKY (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1986): 6/10
This film would benefit from a revisit because I loved the second half as much as I hated the first. Whereas I tend to associate Miyazaki with more mannered, methodical pacing, long stretches of this film seemed to be action sequence after action sequence, none being particularly memorable or startling. There are a few exceptions - the scene with the old man in the cave near the beginning has the beautiful, hushed tones of the best scenes in Spirited Away and Ponyo - but I was frankly bored by a lot of it until they landed on the castle itself. It's a majestic setting, memorable in it's surrealism and visual splendor. Miyazaki pauses to allow the amazement to settle in before he attacks us with a climax. I would have loved the film had the first half devoted more time to exposition and character development rather than action-packed set pieces.
MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1988): 7/10 It's unusual to see this film after having had experience with Miyazaki's later works. This film was obviously incredibly important in his career, and for many it's a revered classic and the epitome of nostalgia. Watching it after having already been exposed to the more mature Miyazaki films that would follow, I found it a gorgeously crafted and entertaining diversion, but not a particularly memorable one. There is one tremendous sequence - Totoro's appearance in the rain - however I couldn't overcome the fact that he would later make films with more memorable characters, more intricate suggestions of the themes of environmentalism and the relationship between man and Earth.
KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE (dir. Hayao Miyazaki, 1989): 10/10
This may be my favorite of Miyazaki's films. It's his least fantastical and I found that to be quite refreshing (i'm speaking comparatively to his other works - of course witches and their talking cats is not exactly gritty realism). Thematically I think it's the strongest of his films. Whereas most of his films largely deal with environmental sentimentalism, this film is about the act of being an artist - where one finds artistic inspiration from, and how one struggles to cope with the relationship to their art. It's a meta film, then, as Miyazaki is demonstrating his own self as the auteur of his work, and it's also the film that I most personally responded to as an artist.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Jan 31, 2011 23:59:12 GMT -5
Shit! I thought Wednesday was the last day of the month for some reason. What kind of idiot can't even keep track of the date? Oh well, I'll probably be posting a few reviews in the next few days regardless. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois, 2010) Netflix product description:This is by far my new favorite film to come out of the Dreamworks Animation department. While it lacks the high concept quality of the best Pixar films, it more than makes up for that with a magical adventure which at times reminded me of what it was like watching movies as a kid. You remember that feeling of being completely transported to another world that you can only get when you’re still free of the cynicism of adulthood? I nearly had that feeling on at least two occasions while sitting through this film. During the rest of the film I had thoughts like “oh, that was funny,” and “oh, what a nice looking explosion.” If there is one major weakness with this movie it is that the filmmakers are too reliant on action sequences to drive the story. I understand that action goes hand in hand with animation, but I would argue that the real magic of animation is in creating the illusion of life, not just the illusion of motion. The frustrating part of watching “Dragon” is that it does, at times, achieve that illusion of life, but then it rushes back to more action. The quieter, more interesting moments aren’t afforded the time they deserve. I hate to compare all other animated films to those of Pixar, but I feel compelled to point out that Pixar movies don’t make that mistake. I don’t want to end on a negative note, because I did genuinely enjoy this movie. I just wish we got to spend a little more time with the characters and a little less time watching things blow up.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Feb 4, 2011 18:19:25 GMT -5
Getting this out of the way, then moving on to February... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A TOWN CALLED PANIC (Stephane Aubier & Vincent Patar, 2009) Netflix product description:Movies like “A Town Caled Panic” are always going to be pretty polarizing. You might watch it and wonder how a professional movie studio could ever allow such a film to be released under their banner. But, if you can accept that the stop-motion animation is worse than an old “Gumby” cartoon, the plot details sound like they were made up by an eight year old, and that the whole experience is basically the equivalent of watching grown men play with toys (the voices of the characters reflect this) for seventy minutes, then you just might have a blast watching it. Personally, I had a blast watching it. I wish I could write more, but this isn’t a film that lends itself to deep analysis, and I’m just not that talented as a writer. It’s goofy, outrageous, sort of surreal, and a lot of fun. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|