Like the year before it, 2010 was a year of very many good animated films, all in very close competition. Which ones are the good ones? Which ones are the great ones? Which ones will last forever? Hey, I don't know. But I have a few ideas, all put in print below for your leisure. How to Train Your Dragon shows adherence to a formula, The Secret of Kells and Tangled show some alternatives. Toy Story 3 throws a new spin on a classic escape story, while Despicable Me takes the idea of anti-villain to a whole new level. So even you didn't catch most of these films, you can still get a fairly good description of them and decide whether they're worth your while, but hey, they probably are. And if you do watch them, you can decide for yourself what's hot and what's not, and maybe even get back to me on your verdict. Until then, here's mine:
1. Toy Story 3
Director: Lee Unkrich
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, John Morris
Release Date: June 18, 2010
Running Time: 103 minutes
Rating: 5/5
Toy Story 3 was the first of many Pixar sequels that didn't need to happen: Cars 2, Monsters University, and Finding Dory being apparently in the works, and though I love Toy Story 3, I think it's the reason the people at Pixar became overconfident in their abilities to do sequels. And while that sounds pessimistic, this is actually an enormous compliment to Toy Story 3. At the time of its release, the trailers and posters seemed to indicate that Pixar was holding out on original ideas to try for a safer, more bankable alternative. What it actually turned out to be was wonderful and surprising. The word that first comes to mind when talking about the strong show this movie gives is closure. The studio finds endless ways to demonstrate the amount of care and planning that it took to create this movie because there are endless ways that they could have messed things up. Instead, we have an ending to the story that ties together the enduring themes of the first two movies, an ending that convinces us that no other ending could have sufficed. When the toys realize that Andy is grown up and that they won't be played with anymore, they revert to an existential panic and decide instead to search out possibilities of a new life at Sunnyside, a day care center where the toy world is run by a strawberry-scented Lots-o-Huggin' Bear. At first, things seem friendly and idyllic, but soon the false appearances are lifted up to reveal a dark dystopia hidden beneath. A majority of the film actually focuses on the toys' efforts to escape, and in this way allows appropriate amount of time for the film's stronger emotional moments without bringing the sentimentality to the forefront, opting instead for a great escape plot that is sure to draw in the attention of adults as well as children. But what really brings the series full circle is Toy Story's ability to strongly connect with the first two films. The first Toy Story predates the third installment by 15 years, and there are at least 10 years between the second and third film. That Toy Story 3 should be able to keep alive the central message of the first two films is an unbelievable achievement; the central message being one of purpose. Where do I fit into the world? Where did I come from? Where am I going? These are questions that the toys in this movie ask themselves, and when you look past all the jokes, you find that these are the reasons that we all care about these characters so much: because across religious, ideological, and cultural borders these are questions and ideas that we can all connect to. And the ending to this movie- though I won't say what it is- is a simple yet satisfying answer. This film puts these figures in a darker and more intense situation than they've ever been in, and raises the stakes to their absolute limit in ways I didn't think were possible. Pixar, at this point, wasn't only competing with other studios, it was competing with itself. Its early films revolutionized the playing field at a time when Disney was running out of ideas, now it's set the standard for many of the films we see to day, and to date, I still think it's their last truly great film, because it's conscious of the fact that Pixar's winning formula is nothing new, yet it doesn't need to rely on the studio's reputation to rise above the crowd. The animation is endlessly imitated, but what we see here transforms the commonplace into the fascinating. It is heartwarming and heart-slaying, managing to stay above its grim presentation by maintaining a series of jokes that never miss a beat. So I invite you, put aside your fear of sequels and treat yourself to a film that is clever, engaging, and perceptive to the fears and longings residing in us all.
Director: Nathan Greno, Byron Howard
Starring: Zachary Levi, Mandy Moore, Donna Murphy
Release Date: November 24, 2010
Running Time: 100 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
After Mulan and Pocahontas, Disney seemed hesitant to make another princess movie; and that's understandable. For one reason or another, princess films kind of lost their audience and didn't show up on the screen again for a period of ten years. And though The Princess and the Frog was technically the first film to break the silence, Tangled is the film that people remember as having really made an impact. 2007's Enchanted signaled Disney's shifting attitude towards its traditional roots, and while The Princess and the Frog furthered the playful and creative inversion of classic fairytale tropes, it failed to garner the affection of its audiences by straying a bit too far from the normal formula. Tangled, on the other hand, satirizes fairytales by starting with a very old formula and turning it on its head in ways that are ingenious yet almost unnoticeable. Let's consider the characters and their situation in relation to the old formula. The Rapunzel story, at least as we know it today, centers on a witch who's kidnapped a princess and locked her in a tower. Enter the prince to come and rescue her by asking her to let down her long hair so he can climb up it like a rope. Strange how most people remember the story having a quick happy ending at this point; in the original story, he climbs her hair a second time only to have the witch stab his eyes out (stranger still, Disney pays something of an homage to this ending). In several places, Disney diverges from the traditional route- replacing the handsome prince with a rugged yet subtly offbeat outlaw, and replacing a motiveless witch with a beautiful mother figure who keeps Rapunzel in the tower because of her youth-restoring powers. Yet in other areas Disney pokes fun at its most revered classics by having characters adhere to tropes in exaggerated ways. Rapunzel is a commentary on the naivete and impulsiveness of Disney princesses because the story brings so much attention to her impulsiveness and naivete. The thieves and ruffians at the Snuggly Duckling pub aren't just warm and friendly; they're ridiculously so. Might as well throw in a "betrayal" cliche, a "misunderstanding before the climax" cliche, a "cute animal sidekick" cliche. Does anyone else notice how neither of Rapunzel's parents have a single line of dialogue within the film? It's not because the film is poor at crafting characters- the characterization of practically everyone else is too good and thorough for us to assume that. The things that seem like traditional mistakes are highly deliberate. Tangled is a gender-neutral all-ages action-adventure film masquerading as a trite girly kids' flick; it places very real characters within an intentionally contrived environment. On top of this, Tangled displays a great level of artistic excellence, creating a world of bright springtime colors, a world of flowering forests and pastel castles that might have emerged directly from the most vividly illustrated storybook. The bottom line? Tangled is very smart, and doesn't often get much credit for it. The humor is always on point, and every one of the film's elements pulls together to work towards a single purpose: to tell the story, and to do so in an entertaining fashion. When we see these characters interact, we want to be pulled into the story, and we're rewarded by a series of twists and turns that are all the more surprising within the "storybook" context that the film weaves around us. Certainly providing far richer material than Frozen ever did (and providing it much more modestly), Tangled is without a doubt worth a closer look.
Director: Chris Sanders, Dean DeBlois
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera
Release Date: March 26, 2010
Running Time: 98 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
Despite all of the other animated films being released at the time, somehow it was How to Train Your Dragon that wound up being the most talked about. I still have no idea how How to Train Your Dragon wound up garnering more attention than stuff like Toy Story 3, Tangled, or Despicable Me, but I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that studios like Disney, Pixar and Blue Sky were delivering to us the kinds of stuff we were used to seeing from there, while Dreamworks seemed to be breaking out of the mold. From its first film Antz to its then most recent blockbuster Kung-Fu Panda, Dreamworks had presented an unmistakable attitude of witty visual jokes, rude humor, and a tone that was characteristically emotionally detached. This brand of aloof satire and snide edginess had carried the studio through the 2000's with social commentaries such as Madagascar and Over the Hedge, not to mention three Shrek films. How to Train Your Dragon got people talking because it was on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. How to Train Your Dragon was warm, uplifting- instead of having a token "friendship-conflict" moral shoehorned in, it instead presented honest character dynamics centered on family and community and built the story around that, taking off with enough heartwarming emotion to put a Disney film to shame. That isn't to say that How to Train Your Dragon itself is anything new for animation as a whole. Okay, I'll admit that from a technical standpoint, the animation is really unparalleled, especially during the flying sequences (granted, they're intended to be seen in 3D, but they look pretty darn good without 3D as well). But the story is something that we've seen a thousand times before... and this isn't necessarily an insult. I mean take a look at the recipe's basic ingredients: there's the boy and his pet that he has to keep secret from his family, there's an overbearing father who wants a manly life for his son that the son, being a bit of geek, disagrees with. There's a group of rowdy peers that the young hero is socially isolated from, there's a race of creatures that is misjudged and prejudiced against based on their appearances... all of these things, in any other film, I would rail against as horrible cliches. But here, they come off as archetypal. And it's hard to say exactly what makes them that way, other than that they're executed with a lot of intelligence and craft. There's never a moment that feels unnecessary, and despite the very old ideas presented, we feel like it's new because of how real all of the people are. I think the environment of the story has a lot to do with it as well: who would have thought that someone would have taken the dragons from Norse mythology and turned that into a multi-million dollar idea? The world of vikings and dragons as this movie presents it to us is so fascinating and visually gorgeous that now we can't think of vikings without thinking of dragons. What we see in this film is great simplicity working towards great success. While Tangled treats its fairytale formula with great skepticism, How to Train Your Dragon uses a formula that is just as old, but adheres to it in great faith that it will hold the movie together. And fortunately, it does. It's bound to please kids; but more than that, I just think it's a fun ride for everyone, all around. If you missed out on How to Train Your Dragon the first time around, I highly recommend going back and taking another look at this one. You won't be disappointed.
Director: Tomm Moore, Nora Twomey
Starring: Evan McGuire, Brendan Gleeson, Christen Mooney, Mick Lally
Release Date: March 19, 2010
Running Time: 75 minutes
Rating: 4/5
The first thing that grabs one's attention when watching The Secret of Kells is the intense emphasis the film places on its own visual style. In an age where computer animation is driving more traditional methods into extinction, it's good to see independent studios adopting memorable and experimental styles that would be considered bold and unthinkable even at the height of 2D animation's renovation era. The Secret of Kells is a reminder that innovation in form and design is still taking place in the world of animation, even though the colorful images are probably the only thing that most people will remember after seeing it. That shouldn't be interpreted as a remark to the film's discredit: I'm legitimately trying to say that the artwork is good enough to obscure the rest of the film entirely. I've never really seen a film that draws so much from medieval artwork- The Secret of Kells seems to collect equal inspiration from tapestries, murals, frescoes, and illuminated manuscripts. All of the drama occurs in two-dimensional spaces, and I don't mean in a theatrical sense like Wes Anderson's films. These characters aren't moving on a stage- they're actual two-dimensional characters living in a two-dimensional environment, like painted figures on a wall. Rooms, towns, and forests are scaled down to small spaces full of distorted perspectives. The mystery is that it all works so incredibly well. It takes an idea that seems restrictive and uses it to open doors that before could have never been opened. Like I said, the style is medieval, and thus it transports us to the world of the medieval. In setting and story alike, the film seems to contain elements of Christian history side-by-side with an atmosphere of Gaelic mysticism, reminding us of what the ideology of the Dark Ages was like: a blend of Catholic tradition with local culture. It doesn't fall prey to the myth that the Dark Ages were caused by the Catholic church, but rather sees the group of monks as protectors of culture, science, and heritage in the face of the lawless barbarism of the Vikings. And yet, this is I think where the film suffers its greatest disconnect- it properly shows the conflict and the coexistence between two worlds, yet it's caught between two stories itself. The poster tells us little to nothing about what the film is about, in fact, I would say it's downright misleading. Part of the story is about growing up in a world full of magic and happiness, that is, the story of the young Brendan and his relationship with forest playmate Aisling (who, unbeknownst to him, is a fairy). Yet there's a totally separate half of the story that actually takes the forefront: this is the story of the adults of Brendan's world, a group of monks who must defend a village against destructive outside forces. Despite their vocation as monks, Christianity is hardly discussed at all, even though the entire film kind of serves as something of an origin story for the legendary historical artifact known as the Book of Kells, a beautifully illustrated copy of the four Gospels in Latin. Given its historical-fiction nature, the magical elements to the story kind of come in as disjointed: even if they do serve well towards the creation of a world, they come in as a detriment to the story as a whole. Even though the film could no doubt be shown to children, the parts of the film that could possibly be appealing to children are very quickly overshadowed by the more adult portions of the film- namely, the brutal violence and the grim nature of several scenes. But despite the fact that it's more for adults than for children, it still comes off as a very beautiful piece of artistry, highly deserving of recognition in a platform crowded with many other highly celebrated independent art-house experiments.
Director: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: Steve Carrell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Miranda Cosgrove
Release Date: July 9, 2010
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Okay, sure, Despicable Me isn't the greatest movie ever- but it's a heck of a lot of fun. It takes a brilliant idea (which, though done before, was still something novel at the time) and brings it to its quintessence through likable characters, a coherent atmosphere, and insane humor. "The supervillain with a soft spot who, with a little bit of love, can become a good guy" was somehow a popular trope in children's entertainment at the time, but Despicable Me carries it off incredibly well, for what it is. And it does this through the use of multiple winning tactics. Yes, the voice cast is fantastic, but what I'm really talking about is aesthetic. The pictures that come together here are like those that you won't see anywhere else: tiny beds made out of old missiles, a glass floor with a shark tank beneath it, a gun that shoots squids at people's heads. This movie transforms supervillains and evilocity in general from a plot device to a lifestyle of freeze rays, medieval torture devices, minion armies, rocket launchers, and death lasers. Consider how the whole thing begins: we see a tourist family getting out of a bus to take pictures of the pyramids of Giza. Their young child wanders off and winds up falling off of a scaffolding, hurtling down ten or twenty feet towards the stone steps of the largest pyramid... yet instead of breaking his leg, he bounces off of it "safely", and we discover that the real pyramids of Giza have been stolen and replaced by inflatable decoys. Seriously, what other movie would go to such limits of gleeful insanity as to have this ridiculous event as the first main plot point? Of course, this sets the standard for the kind of logic that the rest of the narrative will employ and we're happy to suspend our disbelief for the uproarious 90 minutes that are to follow. Naturally, the world goes into a panic, placing increased security measures around every treasured national monument- who could have committed such a foul deed? Yet among the world of thieves, mad scientists, and standard evildoers, everyone knows who's responsible: Vector, up-and-coming criminal genius (who carefully hides the Great Pyramid in his backyard by painting it blue to camouflage with the sky). The story centers on the actions of Gru, who, desiring to cement his status as the world's #1 bad guy, mounts a plan to steal the moon. Why his plan requires him to adopt three young girls is something nearly too complex to explain at this point, but the family that he starts by becoming responsible for them soon becomes the central point of the movie, and regardless of how many unnecessary sequels this film desires to have, this movie will continually triumph as the original because of the strong core values of family and redemption that lie at its center. But don't let all that fool you: this is, above all, a comedy film, and I would hesitate to call it anything else. It's impossible to recommend because everyone that I could recommend it to has already seen it. You shouldn't expect any deep material from this movie, but then again, Despicable Me clearly illustrates that deep material isn't really needed here- the cute girls, unruly minions, non-stop gags, and of course the lovable scoundrel at the center- that's what makes this film enjoyable for what it is. Yeah, it's not a classic or anything (as far as kids' movies go), but it's not easily forgotten, either, largely due to its devoted following and quotable one-liners.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment