Dreamworks #4: Chicken Run

Chicken Run - 7.8/10

I remember when this first came out; there was a lot of buzz surrounding it because it was the first feature-length production from Aardman Entertainment, the guys who by now were already famous for their Wallace and Gromit shorts. Their particular style of animation was clearly evident here, as well as their distinctive brand of British humor. Even though I’d never really seen Wallace and Gromit, I still knew about them and thus wanted to see this movie.

It’s basically a POW flick with chickens and, though I didn’t know it at the time, it borrows heavily from such well-known films in the genre as Stalag 17 and The Great Escape. There are also several subtle references to other areas of pop culture, and more than one well-executed Star Trek jokes. Unlike a lot of the films of today, these references were not overdone in the slightest, and served to add to the comedy rather than detract from it. There were also a number of very clever puns, some of which were so clever you almost missed them. I love this, since while bad puns can ruin anything, good puns are gold – in my opinion, anyway.

The plot of the movie itself is pretty conventional overall, and common elements such as misunderstandings and the liar reveal are used in all seriousness. The greatness of this film comes in its unique setting. Being chickens, a lot of the escape tactics used in films like this had to be adapted, to great comedic effect. There’s also the fact that their gaolers, the farmers, believe (reasonably) that they are simply chickens and are not capable of organization. Some of the best comedy in the movie comes from the farmer trying to convince his domineering wife that the chickens are trying to escape, and her basically calling him an idiot for it. They’re just chickens, after all.

Common story elements aside, this is a charming film with some really good comedy and some really enjoyable homages to classic cinema. It’s not my favorite Dreamworks picture by any means, but I do quite like it.

 

Dreamworks #3: The Road to El Dorado

The Road to El Dorado - 7.8/10

I’d never seen this before, and I wasn’t expecting much. Wouldn’t you know it, I was pleasantly surprised. That’s sort of becoming a thing.

There’s nothing for me to get all deep over this time. There isn’t any underlying theme regarding political and sociological ideology, nor is it adapted from an ancient story upon which the faith of billions is founded…it’s just goofy fun. And you know, I welcome the change. 

This movie was really funny. They didn’t really tell any jokes; the dialogue was very witty and energetic and there were a number of visual and physical gags. I had a good time watching it. The two leads were very likable; they were quick and clever and their banter was always good for a laugh. For once I had no problem at all with the stunt casting; Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh were remarkable.

On the technical side of things, the animation was a little lower on the scale than The Prince of Egypt, but still good. The songs were decent for the most part but nothing special, with one exception. “It’s Tough To Be A God” was freaking great. I’m going to be singing it for weeks.

They surprised me a bit with the plot as well (and this paragraph will contain some spoilers if you’re worried about that sort of thing). Despite the name of the film, the majority of it takes place in El Dorado itself once they’ve arrived. Also, in the beginning it looked like they were setting up Cortes to be a villain, and then he barely appears or does anything at all. A bit of a curveball there, but I can’t say I mind. It would have been too formulaic and predictable and I prefer the way it turned out much more.

If there’s one complaint I had – and it’s a relatively big one – it’s the language thing again. At first it looked like they were going to do the unintelligible thing and I was really impressed for a fleeting moment…and then the natives started talking to them like it was no big deal. There wasn’t even an attempt to explain it; we’re just supposed to assume that everyone in the world speaks the same language and that’s the end of it. It really bugged me, but even that I was able to forget after a while because everything else was so much fun. And later on I realized - it took me a while, I admit - that this was in homage to the old Bing Crosby, Bob Hope "Road to..." movies. Once I figured that out, it bothered me a lot less.

So yeah, a good time was had by all, and by “all” I mean me, and from the sounds of it every actor who had a role in this movie. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s easily worth an hour and a half of your time.

Dreamworks #2: The Prince of Egypt

The Prince of Egypt - 8.3/10

Talk about ambitious. For your second project, you’re going to tackle a story that probably 98% of everyone in the Western world is at least nominally familiar with, and to a good number of them it’s more than just a story. Imagine the nerd rage whenever a comic book or fantasy adaptation film gets even the slightest thing wrong. Now crank that up to eleven and multiply the nerds by a couple million or so. This movie could have gone horribly wrong.

On the plus side, if you do a good job, just like those comic book and fantasy adaptations, you’ve got a pre-existing fanbase. And on the whole I’d have to say they did a pretty good job.

This was a big one for the Dreamworks team. They had a good start with Antz, but this is where they needed to prove they weren’t a one-hit-wonder. You could tell they were putting a lot of effort in for that as much as to do justice to such an iconic story. And as an outsider – that is, someone for whom the story has no special meaning beyond simply being a good story – it was fun for me too, so they managed to avoid the pitfall of being too preachy. An impressive feat.

They really went with the human angle on this one. A must, really, unless you’re making a film for Sunday School. We got a good look at who Moses was, what kind of person he was and his relationship with his family. In this too I was pleased that the royal family of Egypt were not portrayed simply as heartless villains, but as real people in their own right who simply let their privilege blind them to the needs of others.

Moses’s transformation to a better man was well played, and even though it was mostly via montage, they managed to portray his developing relationship with his wife with a degree of tenderness that kind of makes you wish the whole movie was about them. The plagues were impressive, but I wish more time had been spent on them. They kind of happened all at once in another montage, when I think delving into them one at a time would have been more powerful. Then again, it could have made things drag on too long, so I’m not sure what the happy medium would be.

The final plague was of course played out in full, and throughout the whole ordeal Pharaoh was given very realistic reasons for refusing Moses repeatedly. The seeds of this were planted early on, when we see the two princes interacting with their father. Pharaoh was a complex character who was as much concerned about his legacy and that of his kingdom as much as he was the here and now. 

The visuals were spectacular as well, even down to just the scenery of the Nile River and the kingdom that thrives upon its banks. There were some great songs too, but I will say this: I think there was too much singing. A couple of them I really liked, as I said, but you couldn’t go five minutes without some character bursting into song about something or other. It had me rolling my eyes after a while. I kind of wonder if some Dreamworks producer was looking at the successful Disney films of the day and thinking, “They’ve got songs. We’ll have songs too! All the songs anyone could ever want!” And then there’s some maniacal laughter or something, I don’t know.

Once again they had some celebrity stunt casting, but it wasn’t so much distracting this time as it was not all the actors fit the characters they portrayed. In particular I really wasn’t feeling Steve Martin and Martin Short as the high priests, but for the most part everyone performed their roles at least adequately. Makes me wonder what could have been if they’d gone for real voice actors, though.

All told, a solid second outing. Enjoyable, impressive to look at, and does justice to an ancient story. Well done, Dreamworks. You’re playing with the big boys now.

 

Dreamworks #1: Antz

Here we go with Round 2. These are going to be a little different from the write-ups of the Disney films, owing chiefly to the fact that Dreamworks is not Disney and (with a few exceptions) doesn't try to be. The films themselves are different and the write-ups will reflect that accordingly. The other major difference is that the vast majority of these films I have seen either recently, multiple times, or both. It's kind of different that reviewing a bunch of films I mostly saw for the first time as a child.

With all that being said, let's get this self-aggrandizing pomp underway with...

Antz - 8.1/10

It’s a Woody Allen movie. With bugs. 

I could stop there and you’d pretty much know everything you needed to know about this movie. There is, however, a whole other layer underneath that’s truly fascinating, and it explores concepts like collectivism, individualism and dogmatic adherence to authority in a way that a movie about human characters just couldn’t pull off.

I think what I like best about this movie’s approach is that it’s just that: an exploration. Collectivism vs. Individualism is the major theme, it’s true, but the movie does not declare which is superior, or even if there is a better option between the two. Personally, I interpreted it as saying that a balance between the two is most ideal, though that’s likely just me projecting as that’s my own philosophy already anyway. 

The strengths and pitfalls of a collectivist society are both laid out pretty straightforwardly. Likewise, the benefits and dangers of a self-oriented mindset are clearly shown as well. The two leads, Z and Bala, are both incredibly selfish people when we meet them, though in different ways and for different reasons. And of course they live in a society that is by definition a collective. Their escape from and eventual return to this society and the way they change both it and themselves is the central pillar the movie is based upon.

And the society itself grows as well. The corrupted version of collectivism we see at the beginning – really just a totalitarian state with a rigid class structure – is reformed during the climax of the film when all parties involved finally realize that though the collective as a whole is the priority, every individual within that collective has value. Ironically, the villain made this point best when giving a speech to rally people behind him (and of course it was all BS as far as he was concerned). I could go on about this crap for ten more pages, but as I'm not trying to impress any professors, let's move on.

Toning down the pretentious ramblings a bit, there was some good humor in here as well. A lot of the jokes were actually pretty passive, and took their humor from the vastly different view of the world insects have. A mound of garbage is the most beautiful place they’ve ever seen, magnifying glasses and sneakers with gum on them are cosmic horrors, and crap is delicious. There’s also a hippie commune at the garbage heap, which is funny and ties into the central theme. And they had some good jokes with the collective concept as well, such as everyone at a bar dancing in unison at a pre-specified time.

The stunt casting of various celebrity voices was a little distracting – most notably Jennifer Lopez and Sylvester Stallone, but others like Gene Hackman (and of course Allen) fit their characters perfectly. And I loved the music. When I first saw it as a kid and still today, the main theme for this movie is one of the catchiest I’ve ever heard.

If you like Woody Allen, you’ll probably enjoy this at least a little. If you don’t, it’s likely going to be hit or miss. And don’t make the mistake of thinking that because it’s animated it’s for kids. I mean, I saw it when I was a kid, but the dialogue and various other aspects are only partially toned down from Allen’s live action films. I for one welcome that. It signaled a change in the role of animated films – that they could be anything we wanted them to be and didn’t have to choose between weird cult hit or kiddie movie. The fact that it came out at the same time as the not-nearly-as-interesting A Bug’s Life only served to drive home just what a different turn they were taking.

 

DAC 52: Wreck-It Ralph

Wreck-it Ralph - 8.8/10

Is this Toy Story with video games? Well...yes and no. The concept is the same, in that it's about video game characters who come to life when the people who play with them go away, but the similarities end there. The first act of this movie is very simple. In fact, I found myself scoffing at just how simple it was. Ralph is unhappy with his lot, there's a thing he can get that will make things better, he tries to get that thing and it's very important...etc. etc.. Looking back though, I can actually appreciate this. Ralph's game is of an era when that was how things worked. There's a goal, it means everything, and you will do what it takes to reach that goal. End of story. It was also a nice way to contrast the rest of the film, once Ralph realizes that things are sometimes more complex than just getting that one shiny thing and making everything great.

There are a lot of cameos from real game characters past and present, and while they were funny, they were also kind of distracting and so I'm kind of glad they too were relegated to the first act of the film for the most part. A lot of video game-based jokes were also sprinkled all over the place, which anyone familiar with gaming history and/or culture would appreciate.

Most of the rest of the film was a friendship piece. Kind of like Bolt, only more of a big bro/little sis kind of way. In any case, it was actually really sweet, despite what the trailers would have you believe. Naturally, Ralph's epiphany comes as a result of this relationship, but not exactly in the way you'd expect, and again it was really sweet. There was a surprise near the climax that really shouldn't have been a surprise if I'd been paying close attention, but I count that as a point in the movie's favor. It means I was so invested with what was going on that I wasn't trying to figure out all the plot twists ahead of time. That doesn't happen to me very often and it's always fun when it does.

I'm glad they didn't just make this a straight comedy. The jokes were good, as I said, but the emotional and relationship aspects were the best part of the film. It wouldn't be nearly as good without them.

God, I'm such a sap.

 

DAC 51: Winnie the Pooh

Winnie the Pooh - 7.0/10

To be honest, there isn't a whole lot I can say about this film that I didn't already say about the first one. They're pretty much exactly the same in tone and theme: very low-key and relaxed. There was humor in this one - some of it genuinely funny, but not over the top. The medium awareness thing was still in effect, and the characters' interactions with the narrator and the book itself were entertaining.

A couple of key differences caught my attention, the first of which being the voice cast. Obviously they're all replacements, and the problem with that is that they're imitating the performances of others instead of creating their own characters, and so at times the performances seemed rather forced. The only one who seemed natural the entire time was Pooh himself, and I think that's because he's such an iconic character that he's easy to do.

There was also some CGI, which was honestly quite jarring. This is probably the only time you'll ever hear me express a preferences for the old "sketchy" style. It just works with this setting, and the animation for much of this film, even the non-CG, was too clean.

Maybe these criticisms are based solely on a "they changed it now it sucks" mentality, but to be honest I was never really all that invested in Pooh to begin with so it doesn't bother me all that much.

All in all, a pleasant film and not a bad way to spend an hour, but kind of an anticlimactic one to go out on.

DAC 50: Tangled

Tangled - 8.7/10

I've seen this before, of course. I saw it in theaters when it first came out (I was really excited about it), and I've seen it a few times since. I am quite fond of it for several reasons.

If Tiana was the most admirable of the Disney princesses, then Rapunzel is the most badass. I mean seriously, she saves the day more than anyone else in this film: swinging on her hair like a rope, getting an entire bad guy bar to burst into song, stopping a rampaging horse on a mission...it's awesome. And really, everyone in this film is badass in their own way. The male lead fights off a whole band of palace guards with a frying pan, and then proceeds to sword fight the horse with it (which is hilarious). And the horse - my god, the horse. He is perhaps the most badass of them all. It was a pretty badass movie for a fairy tale, that's all I'm sayin'.

And what an interesting take. Besides the whole stolen at birth, locked in a tower, long hair thing, most of this story was pretty much original on Disney's part. I like that; it sets it apart from their other classic fairy tale movies which were, let's face it, kind of similar. The computer animation was on a whole new level as well and while part of me will always prefer the hand-drawn style, I gotta admit it was some of the most impressive I've ever seen in Western animation. The hair alone was simply spectacular.

Despite my gushing, there were a few aspects of the film that were in the "good, not great" territory and thus caused it to fall just a *bit* short of other modern fairy tale pictures like Beauty and the Beast and The Princess and the Frog. The songs were good and I liked them all, but nothing spectacular like "Almost There" or "Be Our Guest". Certainly nowhere near "Under the Sea". Also, while Mandy Moore has a great singing voice, I'm not sure Zach Levi can quite measure up to her. Again, he wasn't bad by any means, but when paired with a former pop star the contrast in their ability is kind of noticeable. Finally, there weren't any anachronisms or anything, but there were one or two instances of modern-style speech. But at this point I'm really just nit-picking.

One more thing I'd like to touch on: the villain. She is very similar to Lady Tremaine in that her villainy mostly involves taking complete control over another person's life, but unlike the former she chooses to do it with prolonged emotional manipulation. She warns Rapunzel about the selfishness and cruelty of the world, while we the viewers know (and Rapunzel eventually learns) that she herself exemplifies these traits far more than anyone else in the film. What's more, while it is made quite clear that what she cares about most is Rapunzel's magic hair, it is left ambiguous if any of the affection she shows towards Rapunzel is genuine or all just an act. I really like that - especially because if it is real, that makes her actions so much more heinous since she is essentially putting herself before someone she loves rather than just manipulating a naive girl for her own benefit. Kind of like if Long John Silver in Treasure Planet had gone the other way.

In short then, the story was great, the characters were great, the animation was great, and everything else was pretty darn good. Disney magic, plain and simple.



P.S. After watching all 50, I watched this, which was awesome.