In the past I have drizzled praise all over Pixar, specifically the fantasy-realist films that Brad Bird has made with them. There are many reasons to heap laurels on the Disney-owned animation studio: its innovation in the field of computer animation before such a thing even existed, its creative use of all available tools at any given point in their history, its ability to captivate the minds and pocket books of children and adults alike. “Wall•E”, however, is something different, something more than any of us thought these imagineers were capable of.
Read on…
Another year has flown by, far too fast I might add. So in the great tradition of the new year, I too will toss my hat in and break the year down to a list. What follows is a list that I thought very little about before writing. They are in some sort of order, but in truth, it makes no different. By reading my lengthy blurbs, you’ll notice that direction and impact make up a huge percentage of my grading criteria. 2007 is one of the best years in the history of the movie business, and the audiences get to benefit from that cashflow. That means there’s more money for better films to come along, but also more demand for franchise crap. When you look at my list, you’ll see some of those franchise bits can be amazing. Enough preamble, enjoy and leave comments with your thoughts. Happy New Year. Read on…
Don’t be an idiot. Go see Beowulf. See it on the biggest flippin’ 3D screen you can find. For those of you fortunate enough to live in the center of the universe, that means the Lowes IMAX at 68th and Broadway.
You have to see this move in the theater. It’s that simple.
Robert Zemeckis, a graduate of the Steven Spielberg School of Showmanship, has put together a rather enticing reason NOT to wait for the DVD. In the end, that’s all that this film amounts to, but still, that’s quite a feat. It has the thrills for both the action/fantasy fan and the cinéaste trying to follow modern progressions in filmmaking. This is the film of the future, but we’re not quite there yet. The technology is in its infancy, and it is exciting to see the possibilities of it, even if the intended effect falls flat on its face right now.
As for story, writers Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman have put together a solid, if foolish, script. They’re a good match: Mr. Gaiman being a modern representative of fantasy intellectualism, himself turning into the 21st Century J.R.R. Tolkien; and Mr. Avary having become Hollywood’s goto man for pulpy comic-booky stories, specifically in the realm of video game adaptations. The narrative is tight enough, and the tone matches with cartoonish form of the film rather nicely. In another director’s hands, perhaps pure gold could have been spun out. Read on…
Outside, the writers’ strike rages on. Going into its second day, it has now become clear that the battle between the WGA and the AMPTP is unquestionably an uphill one. And I cannot write about film without mentioning it. But now that I’ve done that, let’s put our thinking caps on.
As many of you may know, Robert Zemeckis has been on a mission for most of his film career. A student of Spielberg’s (read P.T. Barnum’s) school of larger-than-life-cinema thought, Mr. Zemeckis has made a point of utilizing cutting edge technology in nearly all of his films. In this sense, among others, he has left a prolific footprint in the annals of film history.
His Back to the Future series pushed our imaginations to a new limit, while his Who Framed Roger Rabbit? changed the possibilities of live actors mixed with animated characters. (Remember that last film, it’ll be important shortly.) Toning down the kid in him, he earned an Oscar for his American opus, Forrest Gump, the first film to take advantage of the more realistic possibilities of digital technology. When you sit and think about it, the scope of his contributions is far-reaching. Read on…
<IMG src=“http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bluealbino/SYP/images/bart-skate.gif” align=left>So here’s the skinny kids: shut the hell up! I’m tired of hearing it’s going to suck and the eponymous “I’ll see it on DVD”. Go to the theater for goodness sake! You’ve been watching The Simpsons on TV for nearly 2 decades now, why simply watch it again on the small screen when you’ve been given this gift, this different and special opportunity to watch the show with hundreds of other people on a giant screen!?<BR><BR>Will you be disappointed? Of course. These are not the Simpsons of the early 90s, nor the rest of that wondrous decade. Homer’s dumber and less sympathetic than ever, Bart’s without an emotional curve anymore and not pulling off the neighborhood badboy, and the plot twists and turns at dizzying paces between attempted political rants and gay jokes (never lesbian jokes). But that’s what The Simpsons are in 2007. It’s been an odd ride for the show over the years, but nothing can stay the same after 17 years (even Law & Order got sexier of late). In an alternate universe, I wonder if any of us would be any happier if the Simpsons had continued down the same staid path.<BR><BR>This doesn’t mean I didn’t like the movie, which feels a lot more like 3 episodes. I had a handful of decent laughs, and like I said, it was a real treat to see the yellow family finally up on the big screen in glorious 35mm. It looks like the animators had some trouble getting used to printing their colors back to film again, but after a bit you get used to the slight color shift from the small screen version. And as tends to happen with any hand drawn 2D skein that goes to theaters in the computer age, the animators have a ball with all the tools at their disposal trying to make it more cinematic: often to the detriment of the experience. Take a look at the Rugrats Movie for a reference.<BR><BR>Vector based 2D animation running through 3D camera software always causes confusing things to happen. The camera will dolly in and the character outlines will become exaggerated, or they’ll lose detail as you move past them closely. For large sweeping movements you feel quite out of place. What’s so odd is that one can in fact acheive the same effects with hand drawn animation, and Fox would cough up the scratch for such an endeavor. But for some reason they choose to go the quickest and cheapest route. I don’t know enough about Matt Groening to go pointing fingers, but in many ways I wish he had the heart of Mike Judge, that great defender of animated arts.<BR><BR>As for the plot…Just like the show, part of the reason the emotional curves don’t develop is because the plot is so improbable. Back in the olden days of the show, the conflicts were real and the actions were, shall we say, “cartoonish”. Take “Bart the Genius”. The conflict is that Bart can’t keep up in his new school because he lied on an IQ test. The action is he mixes the wrong chemicals in science and turns himself green. the film’s plot, I kid you not, is that the family must save Springfield from destruction after a dome has been placed around the town by the EPA after homer dumps a silo of pig crap in Lake Springfield. The animators don’t even give us a chance to believe this improbable plotline, as the dome doesn’t seem to make a real circle if you consider where in Sprinfield it intersects (The Simpsons backyard is the edge of Springfield?)<BR><BR>The diehard Simpsons have been waiting a long time for this, but we know that it’s a show for a different generation now. Many of us had hoped the film would be a rebirth, but knew that it would have to stick to the show’s current formula. The good news is that all of Springfield makes it into the film. Still, it’s hard to resist the allure of the film. I mean, it is The Simpsons, probably the second greatest export the US has next to computers. Look, there was always going to be a Simpsons movie. Would you rather it be now or in 30 years when it’s lost its signicance completely.<BR><BR>The potential is clear even when the film falls short. So you writers out there working on spec scripts, maybe, just maybe the show’ll be on long enough for you to join the long list of writers. The gauntlet is laid down between Law & Order and The Simpsons to see who will become the longest running TV show in history (Gunsmoke’s 1 with 20 years, but Simpsons is 1 Sitcom). I’d say Bart’s probably got more lead in his pencil than E.A.D.A. Jack McCoy. only time will tell.
