disney
When it comes to cinema, buzzwords such as ‘breathtaking’ and ‘genius’ are batted around all too freely. Oscar buzz, awards nominations, and sequels just seem to be part of the course for films that are favourably received or turn a profit.
In the case of Pixar’s latest offering Up, all the above catchphrases apply.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Pixar is infallible. Cars proved to be little more that a formula driven vehicle and while the opening of Wall-E was sensational, things went downhill from there.
Yet with its latest film, Pixar reaches new heights and taps into the charm and beauty of golden-era Disney animation.
So what’s it all about….?
Up opens with a stunning dialogue-free sequence that traces the progression of Carl and Ellie from childhood to old age.
Laughter, sorrow, and moments of breathtaking beauty ensue as we see the trappings of life thwart the couple’s dream of exploring the legendary Paradise Falls.
After the passing of his wife, Carl resolves to honour her memory by tying thousands of multi-coloured balloons to the roof of their ramshackle house and floating off on an expedition of epic proportions.
Universal appeal…?
The film, of course, is not without its problems. Much like Wall-E the second half becomes more formulaic than the first, relying on convention rather than invention.
Unlike its predecessor though, Up maintains a humanistic backbone that never wavers in the face of ensuing action. This is largely down to the complexity with which director Pete Docter draws his characters.
Sure they are cute and goofy, but like real people they have problems, obsessions, needs and desires; some of which are never fully resolved.
Up also veers away from the two-tier custom of delivering laughs for kids and laughs for adults. The film instead spins on a universal axis which appeals to young and old alike simply because it deals in the currency of life.
That’s not to say the film is unfunny. There are plentiful sight-gags, one-liners, and amusing scenarios. But Up’s real genius resides in its ability to seamlessly mesh this sophisticated and intelligent humour with a storyline everybody can relate to.
Blown away or over inflated…?
Up leaves little doubt that Pixar is leading the charge when it comes to animation.
The studio’s tenth and best movie to date packs more emotional punch than the majority of Hollywood films combined.
Beautiful, stirring, and sorrowful all rolled into one, I can’t recommend this film enough.
The 2009 adaptation of the classic Dickens tale. It shows off one of the newest elements to filmaking: performance capture, and is presented for theater audiences in 3D. Directed by Robert Zemeckis who was behind 2004's Polar Express and 2007's Beowulf.
Acting - 6
I was quite impressed with Jim Carrey's performances in this movie. He portrays a multitude of characters and the performance capture techniques employed by the director do a good job of masking their appearance and really making the characters come to life. In fact, a very enjoyable part of the viewing experience was attempting to decipher who played whom. His take on Ebenezer Scrooge was not unlike many portrayals in the past. Where he really shines is in the parts of the three primary ghosts in the film. Gary Oldman's Bob Cratchit is an unassuming optimist with not an ounce of ill will in his heart. Oldman also appears in the role of Jacob Marley, the former business parter of Scrooge who haunts him on Christmas Eve. The majority of this role is geared around special effects so it's hard to say where the acting is actually impressive and where it's made to look impressive. Not the best performance by Oldman, but a solid one at that. Colin Firth appears in a relatively minor role as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. All in all, a typical showing from Firth who seems content to appear in movies surrounded by big names without trying to stand out. Bob Hoskins, Cary Elwes, and Robin Wright Penn appear in small roles which add to the movie quite nicely.
Story - 5
The greatest thing about the story and dialogue in this film is that it was willing to stay true to the original text found in Dickens' novella. Old English is frequently used and the movie, which seems to be geared towards children at first, never does dumb down the dialogue or the themes chosen for the story. The only thing that I was bothered by were the various chase scene's speckled here and there in the movie in an attempt to make the movie more viewable for casual movie-goers. The story is a classic for a reason, and while it does not do anything new, it presents the story to a newer audience in a more appealing shuttle.
Audio - 4
I was mostly disappointed by the audio because of the bland cookie-cutter carols found in just about every Christmas film ever. I would've been much more drawn to the music had I not been presented with the same songs that I learned to associate with Home Alone over 15 years ago. Just because the appearance of the movie is quite dazzling is no excuse for subaverage music selections.
Visual - 9
The performance capture in this film did more than make the movie look astonishing. It allowed for things to be done which normally would be impossible in any other movie. The ghosts are able to appear in very classical form, but without looking at all cheesy. The actors were able to seamlessly play multiple characters and forget the difficulties of changing or freshening up for every scene. The 3D performance (which was my first 3D viewing experience) made for important supplements to the overall product. I would say that if viewers are planning on seeing this movie at all that they should do it in theaters and in 3D because I'm not sure that it would be at all the same anywhere else.
Product - 6
I was pleasantly surprised in watching this movie. The group I was with decided to see it as a last minute decision and I ceded my vote in an attempt to make the process go a bit faster. I did not go in expecting much, but I enjoyed myself. The 3D action was more than enough to make just about any movie good in that situation, and the anachronistic presentation sat well with me. I was even able to drown out the song selections by trying to find out which actors were playing who and by reveling in the visual splendor. This movie is worth seeing if you are willing to see it in theaters.
Overall Score:
6.0 stars out of 10
The 2009 adaptation of the classic Dickens tale. It shows off one of the newest elements to filmaking: performance capture, and is presented for theater audiences in 3D. Directed by Robert Zemeckis who was behind 2004's Polar Express and 2007's Beowulf.
Acting - 6
I was quite impressed with Jim Carrey's performances in this movie. He portrays a multitude of characters and the performance capture techniques employed by the director do a good job of masking their appearance and really making the characters come to life. In fact, a very enjoyable part of the viewing experience was attempting to decipher who played whom. His take on Ebenezer Scrooge was not unlike many portrayals in the past. Where he really shines is in the parts of the three primary ghosts in the film. Gary Oldman's Bob Cratchit is an unassuming optimist with not an ounce of ill will in his heart. Oldman also appears in the role of Jacob Marley, the former business parter of Scrooge who haunts him on Christmas Eve. The majority of this role is geared around special effects so it's hard to say where the acting is actually impressive and where it's made to look impressive. Not the best performance by Oldman, but a solid one at that. Colin Firth appears in a relatively minor role as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. All in all, a typical showing from Firth who seems content to appear in movies surrounded by big names without trying to stand out. Bob Hoskins, Cary Elwes, and Robin Wright Penn appear in small roles which add to the movie quite nicely.
Story - 5
The greatest thing about the story and dialogue in this film is that it was willing to stay true to the original text found in Dickens' novella. Old English is frequently used and the movie, which seems to be geared towards children at first, never does dumb down the dialogue or the themes chosen for the story. The only thing that I was bothered by were the various chase scene's speckled here and there in the movie in an attempt to make the movie more viewable for casual movie-goers. The story is a classic for a reason, and while it does not do anything new, it presents the story to a newer audience in a more appealing shuttle.
Audio - 4
I was mostly disappointed by the audio because of the bland cookie-cutter carols found in just about every Christmas film ever. I would've been much more drawn to the music had I not been presented with the same songs that I learned to associate with Home Alone over 15 years ago. Just because the appearance of the movie is quite dazzling is no excuse for subaverage music selections.
Visual - 9
The performance capture in this film did more than make the movie look astonishing. It allowed for things to be done which normally would be impossible in any other movie. The ghosts are able to appear in very classical form, but without looking at all cheesy. The actors were able to seamlessly play multiple characters and forget the difficulties of changing or freshening up for every scene. The 3D performance (which was my first 3D viewing experience) made for important supplements to the overall product. I would say that if viewers are planning on seeing this movie at all that they should do it in theaters and in 3D because I'm not sure that it would be at all the same anywhere else.
Product - 6
I was pleasently surprised in watching this movie. The group I was with decided to see it as a last minute decision and I ceded my vote in an attempt to make the process go a bit faster. I did not go in expecting much, but I enjoyed myself. The 3D action was more than enough to make just about any movie good in that situation, and the anachronistic presentation sat well with me. I was even able to drown out the song selections by trying to find out which actors were playing who and by reveling in the visual splendor. This movie is worth seeing if you are willing to see it in theaters.
Overall Score:
6.0 stars out of 10
Bottom Line: Recycled TV musical will please its fan base but won't win any new converts
The enormous success of "High School Musical" and its sequel on Disney Channel made it practically inevitable that the studio would try to recycle the concept for feature films. If producers can make movie versions of such ancient TV shows as "Starsky and Hutch" and "The A-Team," it's a no-brainer to reproduce this kid-friendly franchise that scored phenomenal ratings in this millennium.
Disney has re-assembled the cast, along with director-choreographer Kenny Ortega and screenwriter Peter Barsocchini, to provide the same mix of innocent teen romance and eye-popping musical numbers. The result unfortunately has the blandness of a mediocre TV sitcom, but that won't deter young audiences, who should turn the movie into a major hit at the boxoffice.
The movie begins with a blast of energy as basketball star Troy (Zac Efron) not only leads his team to victory but also belts out a song while he's shooting hoops. When the story kicks in, well ... it never really does kick in.
It tells the story of a rat named Remy, who is a rat fascinated by good food, and wants to become a chef. It follows him from his home to a restaurant, where he befriends a young busboy who is the son of a famous chef, and dreams of becoming one himself.
The first shot is one of the prettiest shots in the film. It is a wide shot, and depicts Remy looking out over Paris, seeing the sights that he had longed for, for all of his life. The shot composition has Remy sitting on a mailbox, staring directly at the Eifel Tower, with the buildings of Paris in between. It is well proportioned due to the fact that Remy is close up, and the tower is far away; rendering them the same size. This shot is trying to show Remy’s love for Paris. Another way that Remy’s joyful wonderment is shown is the contrast between his grey fur, and the bright lights of the city.
The next shot is a medium wide shot; when Linguini first catches Remy adding spices to a soup. Linguini looks shocked to see a rat near soup, and Remy looks shocked to have been seen. The shot is well proportioned, having a shocked human on one end, and a shocked rat on the other, with a pan of soup in between. Remy’s hand is open and outstretched, as he has just dropped a ladle in surprise. Remy is in the foreground, with Linguini in the background, which signifies that the leader of the next will be Remy, who is about to run away. This shot was made in order to introduce you to the next main character, and also carry along the storyline in a way that makes sense both visually and to the story itself.
The final shot is a medium wide shot where Remy is walking along for the first time in Paris, with hands outstretched, talking to himself. The composition is very creative in this one. The background in blurred, showing the intent that Remy is the main focus, and that he has entered from the blur, and into the clear. He has left behind his old life and come into the new. This point is further supported by having Remy in the foreground, having stepped out from the bleaker times of his boring past as an ordinary rat. He is thrilled to be in Paris, and he takes his passing with courage. The shot shows his excitement by the cocky thumbs up Remy gives as he passes. His right foot is also raised, showing that he heads onward, and is looking forward for the future.
This movie is wonderfully done, and all of the shots do their jobs perfectly. The story is captivating, and through carful transitioning with shots, the animation is very well designed.
