A cutesy, fun-loving and brightly coloured animation about an evil villain discovering his softer nature.
What can be said about Despicable Me? I must admit I am grateful I knew next to nothing about what happens in it because honestly... not much! This is storytelling 101 stuff, and even giving you a simple synopsis will probably spoil it. Gru is an evil villain, in a world where super-villains are expected, and when he is superseded by a young villain who steals an entire pyramid, he vows to redeem himself as top villain! His plan: to steal the moon.
Unfortunately things go wayward when he needs the help of three orphan girls to aid him. Keeping his evil secret (and evil nature) might be difficult!
The film is very, very cute to look at. The colours and designs pop and shine with vivid colours and the action and slapstick comedy are powered by a child's sugar rush, yet it doesn't go so far as to be obnoxious or unpleasant. In fact the film's first half is surprisingly mellow at times; the camera slowly follows our brooding, dare I say despicable, villain (voiced well by Steve Carell) and the visual gags are given time and pacing for full effect. There's a sense of shot composition too, which is nice.
But... the story is mind-numbingly simple. In the first ten minutes the two worlds of super-villain and innocent children looking for parents scream the blatantly obvious pay off. I continued to watch of course, the film's bouncy energy holding my attention (and attention of all children, no doubt!) but nothing else really happened. It is a basic premise, it could even have been a short film! Briefly in the middle I found myself wondering... "I know what you are doing, get on with it" when we are given various superfluous distractions.
This reminded me of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, a good fun time with lots of colour and vibrant life. It is always nice to see original concepts getting big screen attention, perhaps the sequel this year can improve on the story-telling.
Additional Marshmallows: And yes, the minions are awesome. I especially liked the one that was hit by the shrinking ray and squeaked when squeezed!
Maybe a little too much "oh look, we can do 3D now!" effects and an awful pop song, over the end credits.
2011 had its fair share of total duds in terms of films, but 2012 has reset the balance with a spectacle of impressive movies!
There were a lot from my favourite genres and several returning and recurring franchises that I have enjoyed, so I want to stress how tight the top fifty or so films really are! In fact, there are very few films this year I would qualify as bad (expect some of the "worst" to simply be "deliberately bad") and so I've had to be strict with the higher levels! We are talking personal opinion and nitpicking galore here, and I know there are a couple that the general public would rage about!
It has been a year of high anticipation and gallons of hype what with Avengers, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit and Prometheus, let's see how it has resolved for Cinema Cocoa! The top ten and worst ten in descending order, along with the other seventy-seven films I have seen (both in the cinema and on DVD!) a total of ninety-seven films this year!
1. Skyfall
A defining moment in the franchise's fifty year history! Sam Mendes directs one of the most stand-out, kinetic and character based Bond films ever! I cannot fault it; characters are well written, the action is tight and streamlined, soundtrack is solid, and it honors its traditions with delicacy!
Could the best of Bond continue into the future??
2. Avengers Assemble (2D)
They said it could not be done, that comic continuity and bizarro-combinations could not make the transition to the big screen. Yet director Joss Whedon finally gets the recognition he deserves as a writer and director! Marvel Studios (and Disney!) combine several years' development and films together into a fun action romp!
3. Drive
I didn't know how I would feel about Drive, after everyone raved about it, but at the end of the day I cannot shake the mood and tone of the film from my mind. Ryan Gosling plays it cool as a heist driver, while a retro soundtrack fills your ears and glossy, dark and neon visuals sweep over you. A great thriller.
4. Senna
It is hard to rate a documentary beside films like Drive and Skyfall, but in terms of capturing a sport such as Formula 1, you cannot go wrong with Senna. The social and political dramas that ensue are shown using entirely stock footage from the sport, overlaid with voice-overs. It is a compelling and emotionally charged piece of storytelling.
5. Chronicle
In a time of such over-saturation of comicbook superheroes and stories in the film industry, it is nice to see an independently made film become so successful! Chronicle from the outside may appear generic (American High School, you say?) but the payoff and where the film takes its characters is unbelievably intense!
6. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (HFR 3D)
Looking at The Hobbit's sixth place honestly you can see this as a terrible loss. Following the jaw-dropping Lord of the Rings films with the same film-makers, The Hobbit should be at the very top! But while it is an extraordinary show of film making (and it should be seen!) and a visual feast, this first installment has split the crowd!
7. Looper
Like Chronicle, it is nice to see unique and non-franchise based science fiction getting some attention, and Looper is suitably up my alley in terms of themes, atmosphere and visuals! It uses time-travel in ways previously unexplored, and while it can never be perfect, I found it very convincing. Good to see old Bruce Willis can still pick his films well!
8. Dredd (3D)
A visual treat! Stunningly bloody, gory and oh-so violent, yet as it is often the case with these things, Dredd does not come off as cheap or phony; it becomes a piece of art. Much like the comics that it is based off, the film reeks of the 1990s grunge era, and it is so encased that you cannot help but admire its blood splattered, drug-abusing spectacle!
9. The Woman in Black
At last, a traditional horror/chiller movie that works. Daniel Radcliffe bounces easily away from the Potter franchise in this bump-in-the-night Haunted House movie by Hammer Studios. While some of the scares might be typical jump-scares, I was immersed, and I was also glad the film managed to shut up restless 12A teens in the audience!
10. Brave (2D)
My tenth place was extremely hard fought for. You could place any of the next four or five here, but... I don't know, I enjoyed Pixar's Brave a great deal. Yes, it is packed with Scottish stereotypes, but it has such a beautiful look; the atmosphere is thick with mysticism and... and damnit that hair! Just look at it!
The Artist
Bunraku
The Raid
Argo
Snow White & The Huntsman
The Dark Knight Rises
Prometheus (3D)
The Cabin in the Woods
Rise of the Guardians (2D)
Tyrannosaur
Arrietty
Into the Wild
Invictus
War Horse
Lawless
John Carter
Super 8
Real Steel
Captain America: The First Avenger
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Ted
The Muppets
The Conversation
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Men in Black 3 (3D)
Puss in Boots (2D)
Ice Age 4: Continental Drift (2D)
Iron Sky
Fahrenheit 451
The Grey
The Expendables 2
The Amazing Spider-Man (2D)
Sinister
Catfish
The Guard
End of Watch
In Time
Another Earth
THX 1138 (2004 Director's Cut)
Attack the Block
Win Win
Arthur Christmas
Adventureland
Fright Night
Borat
Haywire
Warrior
Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists
Everything Must Go
The Great Debaters
Limitless
Tetsuo: The Iron Man
50/50
Chico & Rita
The Thing (2011)
Trick 'r Treat
The Bourne Legacy
Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter (3D)
Total Recall (2012)
Wrath of the Titans (3D)
Unknown
Super
Broken Embraces
Mirror Mirror
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
Catch-22
Anonymous
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2D)
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
A Christmas Carol 2D (2011)
The Hunger Games
Submarine
The Town
Hostel
I Am Number Four
Subway
10. The Rum Diary
Described as a comedy, yet lacking completely in humour, Johnny Depp's return to Hunter S. Thompson's material proves to be directionless and totally disengaging. A non-threatening antagonist, choppy editing and perhaps made more "tasteful" for general audiences unlike Fear and Loathing. This rum has no kick.
9. Red Lights
Three of my favourite actors in one place, a great setup for an intense thriller, and yet... so... so tedious. Red Lights suffers from an asinine script, moving from blatant exposition drawl to simply missing any and all good sense; the film has no identity, what genre does it want to be a part of?? Dialogue that is heavy on jargon does not help either.
8. Cars 2
Hello, Pixar. I've not seen you down here before. I liked Cars, I think I am one of the few who did, but no I didn't think it needed a sequel. Here is the evidence! Cars 2 is an obnoxious waste of time. It is noisy, abrasive, frustrating and unintelligent, for some reason focusing on the character of Mater! Four words not associated with Pixar at all!!
7. Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Ugh. In light of recent events, could the Clone Wars movie actually be George Lucas' film swansong of franchise ownership? If it is... I cannot think of anything more suitable. An uninspiring kiddie-friendly romp through the Star Wars universe, sticking safely and soundly with familiar faces and settings with mediocre to poor CGI animation.
6. Season of the Witch
With the potential combo of Ron Perlman and Nicolas Cage, the film somehow squanders its opportunity by becoming a predictable bore. Somehow the fun is sucked out of it. Watch Sorcerer's Apprentice or Black Death instead! Uninspired and defused of excitement.
5. Species 4 - Awakening
Early in the year I went looking for a bad film, where better to look than the ludicrous Species series? While it is better than Species 3.... (that... isn't saying much) Awakening still has none of the get-up-and-go silly hilarity of the first film, none of the 1990s lovable nonsense. Ultimately, it is (obviously) poor and irrelevant.
4. Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus
Something of a cult favourite, and it put The Asylum studios on the map, this film has to be this far down simply because... well... its really really bad. It is deliberately bad to the point it is funny, and if you haven't seen Mega Shark attack an airborne plane yet I suggest you find it now on Youtube! Do it.
Now.
3. Insidious
Ugh... So, Insidious was stupid. Very stupid, to the point where it is laughable. I don't think I once found this sideshow attraction the least bit scary! Predictable and with some of the worst secondary characters I have seen in a horror film that is trying to take itself seriously. I wish it wasn't, but they are definitely playing this one straight!
2. The Machine Girl
A bit like Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus, The Machine Girl is a deliberate gore-fest involving a Japanese school girl with a machine gun for an arm. Now, I did watch this, and I expected more. It is just an hour of people with red paint squirting out of fake arm stumps. I was hoping for some decent gore, not student-level budget (even that is doing a disservice to student films...)
1. Devil
I won't get these eighty minutes back. Thank god it was only eighty though. What a load of timid, blatant lack of scares. This is meant to be scary?? The idea could have been an intelligent look at humanity, but instead it is a ham-fisted attempt at a generic horror cliche. It has no intelligence, no merit. Yes, the Japanese school girl making red paint burst out of people was more compelling than this!
There you have it! I am sure there will be plenty of arguments today about how Devil is your favourite film of all time, or that Drive really wasn't that good! But, this is my opinion, and I share it with you because it is entertaining to see the varying viewpoints of art.
Plus, this year has been surprisingly difficult with so many top quality films! Just because Dark Knight Rises didn't make the top 10 doesn't mean it is bad, it just means I felt it was missing that special something to elevate it as high as the others.
I was super excited for 2012's film line up and it has paid off in spades! 2013 I think we will get some more unique movies. Tarantino's Django Unchained, Lincoln, A Good Day to Die Hard, Iron Man 3, Oz: The Great and Powerful, and that's just naming a few!
It looks like it will be a year for variety!
"Refreshing", "quirky" and "funny" are not words I would use to describe this laborious trip into mediocrity.
Okay, so several of you will be shaking their heads in disgust, but honestly Submarine did not grab me... at all. Not as a drama and certainly not as a quirky comedic drama.
So we follow a youth in Wales called Oliver who is a socially weird, intelligent but reclusive school boy seeking to lose his virginity and gain some respect at school. The girl he has his eyes on is a serious girl who enjoys tormenting other kids. A match made in Heaven, for sure. In the meantime, the boy's parents face their own troubles as his mother could be having an affair with their neighbour.
All of this is relentlessly monologued over by Oliver, from his downright weird mindset.
So, if anything, Submarine does have great acting and directing talent, I can give it that much. The young actors are great and there are some subtle comedy and quirkiness coming through in the camerawork and direction...
But my god do I not relate to this kid, at all. He seems to me like an obnoxious know-it-all who thinks he is the centre of the universe! Okay, maybe a lot of kids think that at that age but I know that's why the kids are obnoxious! They don't know any better. Why would I want to watch a film from their perspective? Especially when I wasn't like that in High School! At all!
The film is dull too. I imagined perhaps that I might get a British answer to Amelie (one of my favourite quirky dramatic comedies) but nope, Submarine wallows in the depths of British boring-as-sin reality, and runs with it with sincerity and seriousness like we want to subject ourselves to more of it!
I think it is a stylistic thing; you will love it or hate it, and unfortunately I am more with the latter. It does have great acting (for what little they are given) and great direction (for what little it has to work with) but I found myself completely alienated by the characters, I neither laughed or even cried... not even a lump in my throat for any of them! Surely a drama should get at least one of those out of me??
Additional Marshmallows: This is the director's only film currently, asides television and features. Richard Ayoade, and if you think that name is somehow familiar, that's because he was acting beside Ben Stiller in The Watch this year. Huh...
This festive animation is somewhat hit-and-miss, but having found a lot of Aardman's recent CGI endevours very lackluster, Arthur Christmas proves to be at least good fun to watch!
The film sets about showing quite how Santa Claus delivers all the presents to children across the world and the different generations of Santa. Today, presents are delivered by a highly trained army of elves with high-tech gadgets from a gigantic space ship, everything is methodical, systematic and calculated. But meet Arthur, the bumbling idiot son of Santa who (pfft) believes more about the kindness and love that goes into giving a gift, rather than the requirement to give them. When just one child is accidentally missed, Arthur must prove the others wrong and deliver the single present before it is too late.
I tip my hat to the animators who worked on this film; upon seeing the first characters on screen I was immediately giving the film my attention. The designs involved are marvelous, from the covert, espionage elves, the super high-tech command centre, to the rickety old sleigh. The side characters are great too, from Grandsanta to Bryony, the elf who has top level skills in present wrapping!
It is great to watch, but a little hard to listen to. Arthur himself verges on unbearable (yet he is voiced by James McAvoy, weird eh?) so insanely enthusiastic about Christmas he is, its like the constantly yapping puppy you want to clobber. His unbridled joy is balanced by an overcompensating reluctance/ignorance from the other Santas. Yes, there are three generations of Santas in this film who have completely forgotten what it means to be Santa. Three! (Surely that is statistically impossible?)
This makes the film very predictable. Does Arthur regain dignity at the North Pole, does he provide what the other Santas lack with joy and whimsy? What do you think. Arthur is such a methodically uninteresting character that he needs his novelty slippers to save the day, and/or be more pivotal to the plot than he can! His slippers play a crucial role at least four times!
The rest of the film is a lot of festive fun and distraction with numerous one-time laugh-out-loud dialogue quips. I sure didn't dislike it, it is entertaining and will keep young children occupied without fail! For the rest of us, we may find a few flaws but the animation is pretty spectacular.
Additional Marshmallows: Did the film mention "Google Maps" within the first 90 seconds? That's... impressive product placement.
A very brief post here about the famed argument against J.R.R Tolkien's stories, about the Eagles and why they cannot simply fly our heroes across the huge tracks of land and end the adventure immediately.
Firstly, the Eagles are aloof, perhaps even more so than Elves and only help when they feel like it. But secondly I have a passage from The Hobbit itself:
"As Bilbo listened to the talk of Gandalf he realised that at last they were going to escape really and truly from the dreadful mountains. He was discussing plans with the Great Eagle for carrying the dwarves and himself and Bilbo far away and setting them down well on their journey across the plains below.
"The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew,' he said, 'for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! We are glad to cheat the Goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains.' "
So there you go, the Eagle argument simply explained away. I am not sure if in Lord of the Rings this is given explanation, I cannot recall, but I am sure there this something.
Just for all you smarty-pants out there!
The first entry of the Lord of the Rings' prequel trilogy based off Tolkien's children's book proves to be greatly embellished (for better and sometimes worse) but provides excellent spectacle and detailed fantasy adventure.
Oh lord, this will be a big review. First, some history. The Hobbit was the original book that Tolkien wrote for children while he was a teacher marking school papers back in the 1930s, and he offhandedly wrote the immortal opening line: "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". The book was short, forgiving and easy to read (by Tolkien's infamous standards!) and all together innocent. Afterwards, publishers asked him to write a follow-up story and to make it more adult driven. The Lord of the Rings was born.
I loved reading The Hobbit story as a child, so much so that I remember starting Lord of the Rings and despising Frodo initially because he wasn't Bilbo! Imagine that. I'm re-reading The Hobbit now and I can say that I remember it beat for beat, and the news of Peter Jackson's trilogy gave me a lot of room for trepidation... The Hobbit simply isn't as epic or trilogy-worthy as Rings.
The film therefore strikes on a knife edge of over embellishment and fine detailing; playing a dangerous balancing act of several audiences' expectations at once!
Set sixty years before the Rings trilogy, we see Bilbo as a sheltered, ignorant and contented Hobbit, who is set on an adventure by Gandalf the Grey. In a party of thirteen dwarves led by the mighty Thorin Oakenshield in a quest to retake their kingdom from the dragon Smaug, Bilbo must first come to terms with his destiny and the wider, exciting world beyond his home comforts.
Where to begin. The film is a marvel to watch. It is visually astounding and each frame is crammed with beautiful details and compositions that relay book illustrations; we have been here before, Jackson, his crew and WETA special effects people have never made something more fantastical and wonderfully rendered. The casting and acting are great; they are doing what comes naturally to them now, but the newcomers (especially Richard Armitage as Thorin) are bringing their A-games also.
As I re-read The Hobbit, I saw the obvious desire from Jackson to exaggerate. Tolkien himself writes huge events very casually... almost absurdly so... The Mountain Giants for example. Huge rock giants who are (in the book) casually lobbing massive rocks around while our waddling heroes pass by completely unhindered. Read it, it happens. In the film, this mere sentence is given a full action sequence! Is that wrong? No... it makes more sense in the way the film portrays it, it is danger and it is happening nearby, and makes for very creative sequences. But did it need to be in the film at all? That is a harder question to answer... and Jackson's (wayward?) desire for a trilogy may answer it for some cynics...
This example can be said about nearly all of the scenes in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, except for those that people remember fondly, and these are naturally given the most attention! From the three trolls who attempt to cook our heroes to of course The Riddles in the Dark, which is frankly amazing to see on the big screen as one of my favourite pieces of fictional writing (Gollum himself looks jaw-droppingly real here, even more than in Rings!)
But it is not all about Bilbo (much to my inner-child's slight disappointment) as the story is given direct ties to the Rings trilogy. This isn't as bad as one may theorise. Tolkien himself edited The Hobbit after publishing Rings to accommodate. The appendices of the Rings books are carefully added and suggest greater things to come in The Hobbit trilogy. This does give the otherwise simple story more subplots than traditionalists would ask for; you can say that the filmmakers wanted to make The Hobbit somehow bigger than Rings, even make it as serious as Rings, which it simply isn't! These grand sequences and serious subplots can be seen as huge deviations from what the book was about, and that perhaps there is a nicer version of the story yet unmade. But when considered fully, you can appreciate the choice. It aids consistency for cinema goers and adds lore that Tolkien readers will happily devour.
I could go on and on, but there are two more films after all!
Wow, this review has gone on hasn't it.
- Should you go and see The Hobbit in the cinema, you ask? Yes, absolutely, definitely yes.
- Is it a faithful adaptation of the original book? Yes and no, it is embellished to accommodate the massive cinematic event that was the Rings trilogy, and if you expected anything other... you may want to re-address your expectations.
- Should you see it in 3D and/or HFR? The 3D doesn't feel necessary, so you don't need to splash out to experience more. The HFR is a new experience and takes some getting used to. If you suffer from motion sickness or similar you may want to reconsider as you may feel uncomfortable... But if you are keen to see developments in film-making I would highly recommend it. It is unique to say the least, and you will have an opinion on it afterwards (see above!)
I was happy to dive back into Middle Earth once again, and I love consistency within films. Learning more about the world (through added details I've not read up on) I can safely say I want to see the next films and conclude the tale! Some may find it too ponderous, biding time before things really kick off, but I came out of this film with a smile on my face.
I should flesh-out my thoughts on Peter Jackson's HFR (Higher Frame Rate) 3D. Most films are shot in 24 frames a second, as a rule, since the human eye can only see so many still images in one second to convey motion. However here we have 48 frames per second (since in actuality the human eye can perceive more) and the effect is... curious. Initially I feared I would hate it; characters appeared to move too quickly, from the simplest nod of the head to walking appeared rapid, as if a fast-forward button had been pushed. I wouldn't handle three hours of that!
However as my eyes adjusted, it settled into regular motion, and details (especially in motion) became alarmingly precise and crystal clear. Similar to comparing Standard Definition to High Definition, only more so. The only issue I had was (curiously) during "tracking shots", when the camera moves laterally through a set or room, my eyes knew they were seeing more than usual, and would try to take it all in only to see an almost shuddering motion while doing so. This was however only during long tracking shots.
The 3D effect therefore did not hinder the film; there was no strain on my eyes or blur present, everything snapped and popped out. Maybe a little... too much. At times characters appeared as though they were in front of a flat background, like they were before a matte painting or theatre backdrop. Again, curious. I couldn't tell if this was the HFR adjustment, poor 3D use or both! I actually took my 3D glasses off at times, and I could see the 3D was only slightly used...
I can see HFR becoming the norm, or at least with 3D films; the motion is incredibly fluid and you feel immersed even further and details strike out more. I will say that The Hobbit does not use 3D nearly as well as it could have, we are not watching the same quality as Avatar (speaking of which, James Cameron should look into HFR for his future Avatar sequels) but that said, it means the 2D version will not suffer! I think I counted one 3D "gimmick" moment.
So I don't need to explain the story of A Christmas Carol, because surely everybody knows the immortal Charles Dickens tale by now? It is the definitive story to be adapted into film for Christmas time, and as such it has been given many iterations over the decades, so many in fact that people have their own favourites. Often the one they grew up with. I have mine, and it is in this review!
What makes the story timeless is that everybody, everybody can relate and sympathise with the characters involved in greater or lesser degrees. Whether you take Christmas with all of its religious significance, or as a holiday with tonnes of shopping and being given stuff, everyone ultimately appreciates it as a coming together of friends and family. At least I would hope they still do, and the story of A Christmas Carol always reminds me of what's important (in almost all the appearances it takes) and leaves me with a warm feeling inside.
I also enjoy A Christmas Carol stories because of its surprisingly dark and psychological twists and turns it throws at its main character. It isn't burdened with a deliberate twee or gaudy Christmassy feel, but it always ends with happy, joyful relief.
Now I have probably said everything that needs to be said about the films already! But I find myself with three celluloid apparitions: one from the past, one not exactly from the present but I love it, and one that represents some of cinemas futuristic endevours!
A Christmas Carol (1984)
(Oh ho, I happen to get a film from the year I was born too!)
I have been duped for the second time in renting a film that was actually a television production (the last one was Snow White: A Tale of Terror) and so this will not feature in my final year summary. But I feel inclined to include it as I found this rendition surprisingly well made for television.
George C. Scott gives a powerful performance as Ebenezer Scrooge, set in the classic Victorian settings, as he is set upon by three spirits that are intent on changing his foul, cold and uncompromising nature.
I should have guessed this was a television production upon the reveal of Marley's spirit, Scrooge's late business partner, whose face is merely transposed on top of a door knocker. However the film's spirits provide to be effective and exciting to watch, especially the Spirits of Present and Future (mind you, I always like the Spirits of Christmas Yet to Come)
The soundtrack is a little too obvious for my liking and things can feel a little twee at times, this could be me being uncompromising about Christmas myself! It does make it have a definitive Christmas feel, and really Scott's performance is the thing to watch, especially in the more subtle moments.
I found it a nice watch, and the dialogue and treatment felt accurate to the story. I would recommend it as an all-rounder Christmas movie.
Additional Marshmallows: I was amused to see David Warner as Bob Cratchit. I knew I recognised him... as Ed Dillinger / Sark from TRON! Ah, fun facts.
Scrooged (1988)
Yep, Scrooged is surely my favourite Christmas film, despite how it may be finally dating now.
From the man who directed, deep breath: The Goonies, Superman, Superman 2, The Omen (1976), Ladyhawke and the Lethal Weapon series, this film is a riot of good cheer, black comedy and an completely energized Bill Murray.
Murray plays Frank Cross in this modern take on the Christmas Carol story. Frank is a television executive whose cynical and selfishness summons three spirits of Christmas to show him the errors of his ways and make him a better person.
The modern adaptation has levered in a romantic plot for the younger Cross character, but it is a warm and well played relationship and only adds to his losses and his redemption. In fact, the character of Claire is one of the strongest here.
The supporting cast are all energetic and manic with humour. From the unfortunate subordinate that Frank fires, who loses everything and proceeds to hunt Frank down with a shotgun, to the spirits themselves, a train-smoking New York cabby, a bruising, punching fairy and a goblin infested specter of Death, are all incredibly imaginative. The film barrels along with heaps of humour, sincere moments and just enough bleak reality to tie it all together.
Scrooged has to have one of the silliest, wildest and happiest finales I have seen, and it always makes me feel good. All of this energy pours off Bill Murray in waves, while the script and direction is so snappy and quick that it all becomes infectiously fun. If you haven't seen Scrooged, I highly recommend it.
(you just have to forgive those funny people in the late 80s who become super-excited over the "state of the art VCR".)
A Christmas Carol 2D (2011)
This appears to be the definition of what I can love and what I can hate.
So Disney tries its hand on adapting A Christmas Carol, with Robert Zemeckis directing another of his 3D "photo realistic" animated films. I say "photo realistic"... because it isn't. Zemeckis, what happened to your brain?
Yes, I am going to bang on about the animation because it slams into your face with the full force of the uncanny valley. The quality of animation varies: Scrooge is finely detailed, yet side-characters look positively cartoonish. This uncanny feeling is exaggerated with Jim Carrey voicing Scrooge and all of the Spirits of Christmas, throwing voices and crazy accents for each of them. I had to adapt to Scrooge sounding like The Emperor from Star Wars...
The 3D... is hideous. It is that blatant 3D that ruins watching a film like a normal person (in 2D) Scrooge's lesson in humanity is punctuated with over the top transitional scenes where the Spirits show off 3D effects by flying him over towns and countrysides. They even throw poor Scrooge into the upper atmosphere! Now... that's unique, granted, but when I see Scrooge wailing through the clouds in his night clothes, I just wonder what Charles Dickens would have said!
It sounds like I hated it. But that's because everything I dislike is in my face all the time. However, I was impressed by the dedication to the original material; the language is virtually unchanged and traditional, many of the stories visual cues are exaggerated lovingly, the Marley knocker, and some of the Spirit of Christmas Future for example. The soundtrack is also really nice as it is almost exclusively classic Christmas Carols, making the film very festive indeed. The Spirit of Christmas Future has some great use of light and shadow, and the climax is hauntingly grim (the transition from Present to Future was amazing).
However the film's climax was shot to pieces when it has to follow a ghastly... ghastly action sequence where the Spirit of Future miniaturizes Scrooge and chases him through London. Clearly designed by Disney to wake up the restless children of modern society. Ugh.
So yeah, it is mostly a miss. What will people say about these 3D films in ten years? This already looks old and it was released last year! I will say it has plenty of redeeming features, but it would have been great to see this in live action. Less Christmas Spirit and more... Dated 3D Tech Demo.
Additional Marshmallows: And... someone please tell me how that fat woman spun around so fast in midair during a dance that her head was blurring? I understand the Spirits causing otherworldly things to happen... but... that was "real life", and nothing that zany happens again. WHY was it in there?? Why was there a fat-lady-spinning-top sequence?? What did I just witness!?
