Because it is the end of the weekend, you get two "I Love the Whedonverse" posts from Erin in one crosspost!
I Love the Whedonverse #10: Freeze Ray
When I first watched Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog, I wasn't sure how much I would like it. I have to admit that the opening of it was a bit awkward, and I wasn't sure if it would be worth it. By the time "Freeze Ray" was over with it, I was hooked. I can't help but smile every time I hear it, and the way it sets up the story is so great. It's not my favorite ("A Man's Gotta Do" or "My Eyes" take that title), but it is certainly memorable.
I Love the Whedonverse #11: Hush
Hush holds a special place in my heart, as it was one of the first episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer I ever saw*. Sure, I wasn't completely familiar with the series at the time, but I could tell this was a great episode of TV. When I watched it years later during my marathon through the series, that feeling was confirmed. It was a cleverly written episode, considering how a giant section of it had no dialogue. Contrary to how it would seem, an episode without dialogue could not be easy to write, yet he found a way. The meeting mentioned in Erin's post was a highlight, and is one of my favorite scenes from the show.
*The others I remember watching years ago were "Once More With Feeling" and "Bargaining".
Monday, December 17, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Hobbit: A (Somewhat) Expected Movie
So here you go, 12 hours later from my Midnight viewing of the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I may add more or edit more as the day goes on as I collect my thoughts a bit more. I had so much I wanted to talk about last night after the movie but I was soooo tired when I finally crawled into bed at 4:45.
WARNING: SPOILERS! ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK.
When you sign up to see a Peter Jackson Tolkien film, you should already expect epic scenery shots, walking single file, and Gandalf talking to moths. It's just a fact, and it's really not a deterrent IMO. New Zealand has some amazing scenery and it deserves to be shown off as much as possible.
That being said, I was really quite pleased with the film in ways I didn't expect. I had read reviews that the pacing absolutely killed the film - however, many of the reviews also cited the film's lighter tone as being amiss from the more serious storylines and feel of the Trilogy. This leads me to believe that these critics have not read the book and therefore should be mocked.
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit is, at its very core, a book for children of all ages. The story centers around Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit with an inherent desire for adventure (thanks to his Tookish tendencies), and his adventures with a troupe of dwarves heading East to reclaim their kingdom under Lonely Mountain (also known as Erebor). Although he has no experience as a burglar, he proves to be clever and quiet enough to earn his place among the Dwarves, led by the ever-serious Thorin Oakenshield (he's seen some stuff, man.). It's an epic fairytale, at times cheery and sing-songy, and other times dark and solemn. Much of the story involves Bilbo's personal growth as he experiences, accepts, and desires adventures in the world beyond the Shire.
The first time I read the Hobbit, I was in 5th grade. I re-read it in 7th grade (along with my English class), and I grew up with the Rankin Bass cartoon (The greatest adventure is what lies ahead, after all). I really ought to have re-read it completely before I went to see the movie but I've been busy, you guys, lay off me, but I DID bone up on some of my favorite parts when I found my mother's old copy of the book the other night.
Okay, now to get to the nitty-gritty. The film opens with a flashback to Dale, a thriving town at the base of Lonely Mountain populated by humans. I remember Dale was known as the place to go for toys, and the city thrived because of the immense wealth of the Dwarves - even the least skillfull of the smiths had wealth beyond measure. Needless to say, it was a pretty bitching time. And then Smaug came. And the Dwarves fled. I understood the changes made here; in the story, Thorin was out in the woods gallavantin' around and thus he was spared from Smaug's destruction. In the movie, he was at the forefront of the defense. This gives him a more polished vendetta against Smaug - he's seen the destruction up close.
Of course, all of this information wasn't disclosed until Thorin retells the story to Bilbo at Bag End in the book. I actually believed this change in narrative was almost necessary - as it was, the dinner party scenes were starting to drag on. Aside from this shift, the movie then continues to the Shire, we see some familiar faces on a familiar day, and Bilbo starts recounting his adventures 60 years prior. From here, the film actually follows the book to a T - dialogue is directly from the pages of Tolkien's work and everything is just as described. The Dwarves arrive, are introduced, sing, and get the formalities of burglar hiring (and eating) out of the way.
There are some minor changes with narrative following - the beloved Mountain Troll scene, for instance, is under a different set of circumstances. Because much of the Hobbit relies on an omni-present narration, it's hard to visually convey what the character's thought process is (without resorting to internal monologue) and so the scene needs to be more action-oriented. It was different, but enjoyable none-the-less. But hey, the map they use is the one Tolkien drew up himself (I know, because it's the same one in my copy from the 70s). Peter Jackson needs to be given credit - he's not always spot-on, but dammit, he's not Lucasing up Middle-Earth either.
I felt that the only major killer for the movie was, and the stupid meanieface critics were right, the pacing. It dragged at some points and sped through battles in others. Giving Radagast screen time was amazing, though, and I actually felt like I could forgive Jackson a little bit for Tom Bombadil because of it. If you can get past the pacing issues then you will not be disappointed with the visuals, the musics, and the plot.
Familiar shots are re-tread, musical themes are replayed, and Martin Freeman, I'm fairly certain, mimicked Ian Holmes' "ring finding" flashback from Fellowship down to the smallest muscle twitch. It was old, but very well loved, territory for fans of the Trilogy. In a few years when the Hobbit trilogy is done, all of it will seem less like call back and more like giddy foreshadowing for what comes in the Trilogy. My favorite revisit was probably all of Rivendell. I just love Rivendell, you guys. Liek woah. (And yes, Laura, not all of the White Council was represented, but at least it was brought up).
Speaking of acting, the actors went above and beyond to accomodate for the kind of feel needed for a movie adaptation of a book like the Hobbit; Characters weren't afraid of being "silly" in moments that would have warranted a more serious reaction in the Trilogy. Again, this is a child-friendly story, which accounts for all those times Pessimistic Nerdlingers decry "surely a Dwarve or Two would be dead by now!". If you feel to yourself "this is silly. This is too whimsical for my tastes", please remember it is not the Lord of the Rings. (For instance, keep in mind that the Stone Giants are beating each other up for game.) One major thing missing? The Goblins taunting and singing about treeing the Dwarves in the pine trees....but I could see how that's a stretch.
Gollum and Bilbo's scene, Riddles in the Dark, was enjoyable and spot-on. That is all. Also, Jackson was correct; Martin Freeman was born to play Bilbo Baggins.
Overall, I really enjoyed the entire movie experience. I felt the movie was as faithful an adaptation that one could expect, and I look forward to the next installment. Fans of the book, I believe, will be pleased with the film - movie-goers not familiar may be confused with some plot points (what's the deal with the Necromancer, anyhow? Did they just kinda forget about him? Well...) but, again, if one can get past pacing then the movie should make for a great afternoon or evening.
EDIT: Thoughts After Second Viewing
Lolololol, Fili and Kili have fangirls on the internet...they're going to be so disappointed by the time the Trilogy ends...
Gloin is totally spot-on as the father of Gimli. Red hair, love for food, and everything!
Bofur is just full of dead-pan lulz. And his hat!
One of the goblins that falls to his inevitable death in Goblintown totally Wilhelm screams. It's kinda funny.
I realized that Jackson included an over-arching story that wasn't in the Hobbit, like, at all. In the book, the messes they get in (and inevitably out of) just kind of happen and move the plot along.In the movie, however, great pains are made to establish that this band of Dwarves are wanting to not just reclaim their gold but their home. They are a ragtag band of outcasts, few with any true skill in battle. Gandalf comes and saves them from many a pickle, but there's some visible changes; from their failed "battle" with the Trolls to the fight through Goblintown, you see them working together, as a team, as Dwarves, coming into their own as warriors. They're finding themselves, and they don't wait on Gandalf (well...a couple of them do...) to take action when their King has been, at least momentarily, felled. Taking back Lonely Mountain has a new meaning in the movie as not just righting a wrong, or saving their cultural history, but actually taking back the Dwarven way of life itself and restoring its glory.
WARNING: SPOILERS! ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK.
When you sign up to see a Peter Jackson Tolkien film, you should already expect epic scenery shots, walking single file, and Gandalf talking to moths. It's just a fact, and it's really not a deterrent IMO. New Zealand has some amazing scenery and it deserves to be shown off as much as possible.
That being said, I was really quite pleased with the film in ways I didn't expect. I had read reviews that the pacing absolutely killed the film - however, many of the reviews also cited the film's lighter tone as being amiss from the more serious storylines and feel of the Trilogy. This leads me to believe that these critics have not read the book and therefore should be mocked.
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit is, at its very core, a book for children of all ages. The story centers around Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit with an inherent desire for adventure (thanks to his Tookish tendencies), and his adventures with a troupe of dwarves heading East to reclaim their kingdom under Lonely Mountain (also known as Erebor). Although he has no experience as a burglar, he proves to be clever and quiet enough to earn his place among the Dwarves, led by the ever-serious Thorin Oakenshield (he's seen some stuff, man.). It's an epic fairytale, at times cheery and sing-songy, and other times dark and solemn. Much of the story involves Bilbo's personal growth as he experiences, accepts, and desires adventures in the world beyond the Shire.
The first time I read the Hobbit, I was in 5th grade. I re-read it in 7th grade (along with my English class), and I grew up with the Rankin Bass cartoon (The greatest adventure is what lies ahead, after all). I really ought to have re-read it completely before I went to see the movie but I've been busy, you guys, lay off me, but I DID bone up on some of my favorite parts when I found my mother's old copy of the book the other night.
Okay, now to get to the nitty-gritty. The film opens with a flashback to Dale, a thriving town at the base of Lonely Mountain populated by humans. I remember Dale was known as the place to go for toys, and the city thrived because of the immense wealth of the Dwarves - even the least skillfull of the smiths had wealth beyond measure. Needless to say, it was a pretty bitching time. And then Smaug came. And the Dwarves fled. I understood the changes made here; in the story, Thorin was out in the woods gallavantin' around and thus he was spared from Smaug's destruction. In the movie, he was at the forefront of the defense. This gives him a more polished vendetta against Smaug - he's seen the destruction up close.
Of course, all of this information wasn't disclosed until Thorin retells the story to Bilbo at Bag End in the book. I actually believed this change in narrative was almost necessary - as it was, the dinner party scenes were starting to drag on. Aside from this shift, the movie then continues to the Shire, we see some familiar faces on a familiar day, and Bilbo starts recounting his adventures 60 years prior. From here, the film actually follows the book to a T - dialogue is directly from the pages of Tolkien's work and everything is just as described. The Dwarves arrive, are introduced, sing, and get the formalities of burglar hiring (and eating) out of the way.
There are some minor changes with narrative following - the beloved Mountain Troll scene, for instance, is under a different set of circumstances. Because much of the Hobbit relies on an omni-present narration, it's hard to visually convey what the character's thought process is (without resorting to internal monologue) and so the scene needs to be more action-oriented. It was different, but enjoyable none-the-less. But hey, the map they use is the one Tolkien drew up himself (I know, because it's the same one in my copy from the 70s). Peter Jackson needs to be given credit - he's not always spot-on, but dammit, he's not Lucasing up Middle-Earth either.
I felt that the only major killer for the movie was, and the stupid meanieface critics were right, the pacing. It dragged at some points and sped through battles in others. Giving Radagast screen time was amazing, though, and I actually felt like I could forgive Jackson a little bit for Tom Bombadil because of it. If you can get past the pacing issues then you will not be disappointed with the visuals, the musics, and the plot.
Familiar shots are re-tread, musical themes are replayed, and Martin Freeman, I'm fairly certain, mimicked Ian Holmes' "ring finding" flashback from Fellowship down to the smallest muscle twitch. It was old, but very well loved, territory for fans of the Trilogy. In a few years when the Hobbit trilogy is done, all of it will seem less like call back and more like giddy foreshadowing for what comes in the Trilogy. My favorite revisit was probably all of Rivendell. I just love Rivendell, you guys. Liek woah. (And yes, Laura, not all of the White Council was represented, but at least it was brought up).
Speaking of acting, the actors went above and beyond to accomodate for the kind of feel needed for a movie adaptation of a book like the Hobbit; Characters weren't afraid of being "silly" in moments that would have warranted a more serious reaction in the Trilogy. Again, this is a child-friendly story, which accounts for all those times Pessimistic Nerdlingers decry "surely a Dwarve or Two would be dead by now!". If you feel to yourself "this is silly. This is too whimsical for my tastes", please remember it is not the Lord of the Rings. (For instance, keep in mind that the Stone Giants are beating each other up for game.) One major thing missing? The Goblins taunting and singing about treeing the Dwarves in the pine trees....but I could see how that's a stretch.
Gollum and Bilbo's scene, Riddles in the Dark, was enjoyable and spot-on. That is all. Also, Jackson was correct; Martin Freeman was born to play Bilbo Baggins.
Overall, I really enjoyed the entire movie experience. I felt the movie was as faithful an adaptation that one could expect, and I look forward to the next installment. Fans of the book, I believe, will be pleased with the film - movie-goers not familiar may be confused with some plot points (what's the deal with the Necromancer, anyhow? Did they just kinda forget about him? Well...) but, again, if one can get past pacing then the movie should make for a great afternoon or evening.
EDIT: Thoughts After Second Viewing
Lolololol, Fili and Kili have fangirls on the internet...they're going to be so disappointed by the time the Trilogy ends...
Gloin is totally spot-on as the father of Gimli. Red hair, love for food, and everything!
Bofur is just full of dead-pan lulz. And his hat!
One of the goblins that falls to his inevitable death in Goblintown totally Wilhelm screams. It's kinda funny.
I realized that Jackson included an over-arching story that wasn't in the Hobbit, like, at all. In the book, the messes they get in (and inevitably out of) just kind of happen and move the plot along.In the movie, however, great pains are made to establish that this band of Dwarves are wanting to not just reclaim their gold but their home. They are a ragtag band of outcasts, few with any true skill in battle. Gandalf comes and saves them from many a pickle, but there's some visible changes; from their failed "battle" with the Trolls to the fight through Goblintown, you see them working together, as a team, as Dwarves, coming into their own as warriors. They're finding themselves, and they don't wait on Gandalf (well...a couple of them do...) to take action when their King has been, at least momentarily, felled. Taking back Lonely Mountain has a new meaning in the movie as not just righting a wrong, or saving their cultural history, but actually taking back the Dwarven way of life itself and restoring its glory.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Why Erin Loves the Whedonverse: Part 9 of 31
Why I Love the Whedonverse #9: Jayne Cobb's Cunning Hat
Many of my favorite moments or scenes in my favorite shows are not the big, epic ones. Instead, they are the little ones, such as Jayne getting his hat. They may not move the plot forward, but they reveal so much about the character, and oftentimes are the best way to discern the theme or mission of a given show. By giving a morally ambiguous hard-ass like Jayne a dopey hat lovingly crafted by his ma, it humanizes him in a way that pages of dialogue couldn't. Whedon and his gang were very adept at giving their characters these great moments. It worked in Buffy, it worked in Firefly, and it worked in The Avengers.
Many of my favorite moments or scenes in my favorite shows are not the big, epic ones. Instead, they are the little ones, such as Jayne getting his hat. They may not move the plot forward, but they reveal so much about the character, and oftentimes are the best way to discern the theme or mission of a given show. By giving a morally ambiguous hard-ass like Jayne a dopey hat lovingly crafted by his ma, it humanizes him in a way that pages of dialogue couldn't. Whedon and his gang were very adept at giving their characters these great moments. It worked in Buffy, it worked in Firefly, and it worked in The Avengers.
Dispatches from the Popcorn Stadium: Flight
BEWARE, SPOILERS ARE BELOW
There's a point in Flight where through a complete and total series of unfortunate events Denzel Washington's character is completely drunk, right before his big hearing before the FAA. It looks like all hope is lost, that he will not be able to clear his name because he is far too wasted. However, he gets Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood to call his buddy John Goodman to bring the miracle drugs that will help level him out. My first reaction was "Oh shit, they're going to pull this off." My second was "Damn, this is kind of a crazy scene." Finally, it became "Wait a sec, should I really be rooting for this guy to succeed?"
If you told me six months ago that this would be the result of a movie starring Denzel Washington and directed by Robert Zemeckis, I would have been skeptical. After all, hadn't Zemeckis moved on to directing films placed firmly in Uncanny Valley? I'm guessing more than a few patrons of the film were expecting something more akin to Remember the Titans or Unstoppable with a plane. Instead they got a sometimes grim portrayal of an alcoholic about to hit bottom as he was being hailed as a (mostly justified) hero for saving most of his passengers with a crash landing.
Sure, most of the points are the ones usually hit in stories about addicts. The occasional efforts towards sobriety, followed by the inevitable relapse. The awful and awkward encounter with the ex-wife and son full of contempt. The requisite scenes of waking up surrounded by beer cans and liquor bottles. As cliche as those scenes may be, it doesn't really matter because of Washington's performance. It's painful to watch, and that is kind of the point.
In the end, he has to make the choice to admit his addiction and face the consequences (jail for being drunk and negligent on the job) or save his butt (but not his soul) by pinning it on his girlfriend, a flight attendant killed in the crash. I found this part to be pretty tense, as his drug fueled rejuvenation put it into doubt if he would make the right choice. When he finally fesses up, the scene could have ended up pretty damn terrible, with all of the shocked reactions from the crowd. However, it works because the FAA inspector is the wonderful Melissa Leo, who takes no joy in his public shaming from his admission.
This is my favorite Zemeckis movie since Back to the Future. If it is still playing in a theater near you, I suggest you check it out. That is, assuming you aren't stuck somewhere in Middle Earth.
Coming next: Skyfall, Lincoln, and yes, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
There's a point in Flight where through a complete and total series of unfortunate events Denzel Washington's character is completely drunk, right before his big hearing before the FAA. It looks like all hope is lost, that he will not be able to clear his name because he is far too wasted. However, he gets Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood to call his buddy John Goodman to bring the miracle drugs that will help level him out. My first reaction was "Oh shit, they're going to pull this off." My second was "Damn, this is kind of a crazy scene." Finally, it became "Wait a sec, should I really be rooting for this guy to succeed?"
If you told me six months ago that this would be the result of a movie starring Denzel Washington and directed by Robert Zemeckis, I would have been skeptical. After all, hadn't Zemeckis moved on to directing films placed firmly in Uncanny Valley? I'm guessing more than a few patrons of the film were expecting something more akin to Remember the Titans or Unstoppable with a plane. Instead they got a sometimes grim portrayal of an alcoholic about to hit bottom as he was being hailed as a (mostly justified) hero for saving most of his passengers with a crash landing.
Sure, most of the points are the ones usually hit in stories about addicts. The occasional efforts towards sobriety, followed by the inevitable relapse. The awful and awkward encounter with the ex-wife and son full of contempt. The requisite scenes of waking up surrounded by beer cans and liquor bottles. As cliche as those scenes may be, it doesn't really matter because of Washington's performance. It's painful to watch, and that is kind of the point.
In the end, he has to make the choice to admit his addiction and face the consequences (jail for being drunk and negligent on the job) or save his butt (but not his soul) by pinning it on his girlfriend, a flight attendant killed in the crash. I found this part to be pretty tense, as his drug fueled rejuvenation put it into doubt if he would make the right choice. When he finally fesses up, the scene could have ended up pretty damn terrible, with all of the shocked reactions from the crowd. However, it works because the FAA inspector is the wonderful Melissa Leo, who takes no joy in his public shaming from his admission.
This is my favorite Zemeckis movie since Back to the Future. If it is still playing in a theater near you, I suggest you check it out. That is, assuming you aren't stuck somewhere in Middle Earth.
Coming next: Skyfall, Lincoln, and yes, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Why Erin Loves the Whedonverse, part 8 of 31
Starting today, we will be cross-posting Erin's excellent series of Tumblr posts about why she loves the Whedonverse on this blog. Currently she is on #8, so go back through her Tumblr and check out the first seven. All of them have been pretty great, but this one is probably the best, so it's a great introduction to her series.
In addition to giving you the link, I'll also be adding some short thoughts of my own.
Why I Love the Whedonverse #8: Doyle's Commercial
When I started marathoning Angel on Netflix after I finished season three of Buffy, I was fairly underwhelmed. The show was competent, but kind of boring. It probably didn't help that it was following one of my favorite TV seasons ever, but I was having trouble continuing with it. I struggled through those first eight episodes, wondering if the other 102 episodes would take as long to get through. Then I fired up "Hero", and the rest is history.
I'll admit that part of the reason I like the episode is that it cleared the way for the return of Wesley, whose arc is probably my favorite non-musical thing from the Whedonverse. But that is the minor part, as "Hero" is the first great episode of the show. And of course, Doyle's commercial is a big part of that.
In addition to giving you the link, I'll also be adding some short thoughts of my own.
Why I Love the Whedonverse #8: Doyle's Commercial
When I started marathoning Angel on Netflix after I finished season three of Buffy, I was fairly underwhelmed. The show was competent, but kind of boring. It probably didn't help that it was following one of my favorite TV seasons ever, but I was having trouble continuing with it. I struggled through those first eight episodes, wondering if the other 102 episodes would take as long to get through. Then I fired up "Hero", and the rest is history.
I'll admit that part of the reason I like the episode is that it cleared the way for the return of Wesley, whose arc is probably my favorite non-musical thing from the Whedonverse. But that is the minor part, as "Hero" is the first great episode of the show. And of course, Doyle's commercial is a big part of that.
There's A Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow: A New Era for this Blog
July 20, 1969: Man lands on the Moon
November 19, 1969: Man lands on the moon, again.
For decades nothing worth mentioning happens...
December 12, 2012: Quo Vadimus relaunches as Doctor Strangeblog.
Sure, we may only have nine days left until we all check out of here, but we here at Doctor Strangeblog will make it one hell of a last nine days.
So what is different about this blog? Well, for one, there will actually be content put on here. Stuff like movie reviews, ruminations about our favorite TV shows, and perhaps even an occasional post about video games and music. Andrew can't promise that he'll keep sports out of it, so there might be some of that as well. Particularly if the Bears continue their second straight year of December collapses. Should that be on it's own blog? Most likely. Maybe.
So please stick around and Andrew and Erin start serving up delicious mind burgers about our wonderful world of pop-culture, at least until we get real jobs or stop giving a crap. First up we'll be adding some cross-posting action for Erin, as she continues her "31 days of Why I Love the Whedonverse", Andrew finally will add those movie reviews he promised, and hmm....I think there is a movie coming out this Friday that may be of some interest, what do you think? We're out for now, except for a quick announcement from Andrew regarding his other blogs and crap. So without further adieu, take it away, Andrew!
Now that the tedious bullcrap "WHIMMIWAZZLE OH YEAH WHOO-HOO WE ARE SO DAMN AWESOME AND NEW GIVE US ALL THE HITS" reboot post is done, I'd like to share some hard truths about the future of some of my other terribly maintained blogs. For the time being I am focusing on three blogs with the intention of having regular content. This one, White Blazes, Red Faces, and Source Code Daily. If a blog isn't in that list, it means I won't be updating it on a regular basis (in other words, things will be the same as usual for these blogs). So if you don't like reading about movies, TV, hiking, or programming, I'm afraid I don't have much for you to read.
In addition to these blogs, I also have a tumblr blog and a twitter account. If it's fairly ephemeral, fits in 140 characters, or is just a reblog of another collection of animated gifs of Inspector Spacetime/Rescue Ranger mashups, you can find it in these places. Also, visit Erin on tumblr and Twitter. Where do you think I get that crap to reblog?
Excelsior!
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Dispatches from the Popcorn Stadium: Wreck-It Ralph and Paperman
It's that time again, as the holiday movie season ramps up for this year. From now until February (when some of the more "arty" films will show up in this area), I'll be sharing some of my thoughts on the movies I've watched. I'll start with one of my favorites of the year.
I was going to write a long glowing review of Wreck-It Ralph, one of my favorite films of the year. Instead, I'd like to point you to my sister's great post about the film. I'll just add a few of my own comments here, then get to talking about the magnificent short Paperman.
One of my favorite parts of the film were how the characters interacted and related to each other. Not just how Ralph, Felix, Vanellope, and Sgt. Calhoun interacted, but also how they interacted with minor characters. A favorite example is the relationship between Ralph and Gene, who is the mayor of Niceland. Although the rest of the Nicelanders clearly don't like Ralph, the relationship between these two is even more strained, which hints at a history. I think (although I'm not certain) that Gene is the guy Ralph throws at the beginning of the level, which would clearly create additional animosity between the two. The fact that this much work is done of such a minor relationship in the game shows how much work went into making this a great film.
Another thing I liked was how they didn't pull punches in the film. Need a heartbreaking betrayal of Vanellope by Ralph? Consider it done, in disturbing fashion. Put both Vanellope and Ralph in jeopardy of dieing? Consider them imperiled. Kill the villian in a way both creative and kind of disturbing? Consider him fried. I'm a bring proponent of the idea that the great movies that children can watch should be a little scary, perhaps even a little disturbing. After all, aren't there scary parts in the Wizard of Oz or Pinocchio?
Between the characters, the acting, the animation, the loving irreverent reverence towards video games, and even the well-done music, Wreck-It Ralph is a real triumph for Walt Disney Animation. But frankly, even if the movie had been mediocre the trip to the theater would have been wasted, because Paperman was an absolute gem of a short.
From it's first frame I was in love with Paperman. Its deft combination of traditional and computer animation was well-done, and I'm a sucker for that (mostly) black & white style. Although I'm a big fan of the written word, I also love it when such a rich story can be told with actions and images, and nary a word is spoken. From the fact that all the workers in the one office save for our protagonist look alike, to one of the paper airplanes pulling a Randy Johnson on a bird flying by, to the love interest's red lipstick adding color to the scenes, it was a true joy.
If you have seen these films, please feel free to comment below. If not, go as soon as you can to your nearest theater. I didn't see the 3D version, watching the regular version both times I've seen it. Unlike most films, I could see 3D working well for Wreck-It Ralph.
Coming Soon: Skyfall, Flight, and Lincoln
I was going to write a long glowing review of Wreck-It Ralph, one of my favorite films of the year. Instead, I'd like to point you to my sister's great post about the film. I'll just add a few of my own comments here, then get to talking about the magnificent short Paperman.
One of my favorite parts of the film were how the characters interacted and related to each other. Not just how Ralph, Felix, Vanellope, and Sgt. Calhoun interacted, but also how they interacted with minor characters. A favorite example is the relationship between Ralph and Gene, who is the mayor of Niceland. Although the rest of the Nicelanders clearly don't like Ralph, the relationship between these two is even more strained, which hints at a history. I think (although I'm not certain) that Gene is the guy Ralph throws at the beginning of the level, which would clearly create additional animosity between the two. The fact that this much work is done of such a minor relationship in the game shows how much work went into making this a great film.
Another thing I liked was how they didn't pull punches in the film. Need a heartbreaking betrayal of Vanellope by Ralph? Consider it done, in disturbing fashion. Put both Vanellope and Ralph in jeopardy of dieing? Consider them imperiled. Kill the villian in a way both creative and kind of disturbing? Consider him fried. I'm a bring proponent of the idea that the great movies that children can watch should be a little scary, perhaps even a little disturbing. After all, aren't there scary parts in the Wizard of Oz or Pinocchio?
Between the characters, the acting, the animation, the loving irreverent reverence towards video games, and even the well-done music, Wreck-It Ralph is a real triumph for Walt Disney Animation. But frankly, even if the movie had been mediocre the trip to the theater would have been wasted, because Paperman was an absolute gem of a short.
From it's first frame I was in love with Paperman. Its deft combination of traditional and computer animation was well-done, and I'm a sucker for that (mostly) black & white style. Although I'm a big fan of the written word, I also love it when such a rich story can be told with actions and images, and nary a word is spoken. From the fact that all the workers in the one office save for our protagonist look alike, to one of the paper airplanes pulling a Randy Johnson on a bird flying by, to the love interest's red lipstick adding color to the scenes, it was a true joy.
If you have seen these films, please feel free to comment below. If not, go as soon as you can to your nearest theater. I didn't see the 3D version, watching the regular version both times I've seen it. Unlike most films, I could see 3D working well for Wreck-It Ralph.
Coming Soon: Skyfall, Flight, and Lincoln
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)