You can probably guess that Monsters vs Aliens didn't have the same "I want to hit something and must share the urge with the world NOW" response that Watchmen did since it's taken me (excuse me while struggle to remember the last month) at least two weeks to get around to writing anything about it. But I intend to rectify this now by saying it was the sweetest little thing and when the hell did Disney win the computer-generated animation war?
Now, I like Dreamworks. I have never seen a bad Dreamworks film, whether animation or live action. I have seen some (or rather one) that made me go "meh" (*holds up Shark Tale*) but none that have made me rain down curses upon the individuals who raised such puerile rubbish from the depths of whatever toxic waste dump from which it crawl forth. (Please bear in mind that I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda.) When it comes to Disney, however... Well, I've seen The Little Mermaid. And, worse, Disney's vile rendition of Robin Hood. And, to cap it all off, that abomination, that offence against all that's good and pure, that disruption in the earth around the Milne family plot, that final revenge of poor little Christopher Robin, Disney's Winnie the Pooh.
But Steve Jobs and Pixar stage a coup and take over Disney's animation department and hello Ratatouille and WALL-E. (Yes, I know, this skips Cars which was already well into production by the time the acquisition actually took place, so if we're going to include that then I'm dragging in The Incredibles and Finding Nemo as well.) Now, I fell in love with Ratatouille the first time I saw it. I wasn't expecting too. I mean, let's face it, it's about a rat that controls a man by tugging on his hair. But it surprised me. It's a film of surprising poignancy and depth, a film that confronts the issues of family and growing up, of the value of talent (something much undervalued these days) and that it's possible for people to be equal without being the same. In the end, it's not a children's movie. Kids will enjoy it, in much the same way that my four-year-old nephew and two-year-old niece enjoy The Simpsons: they'll sit and stare in wonder at the screen (silently, thankfully) but they're not going to get the references to Simone de Bouvier or Darwinian evolution. In the end, Rataouille is a film to change the world, disguised in animation much the way Picasso suggested dressing invading troops as clowns.
Then WALL-E. I don't know whether I've talked about my reaction to WALL-E before but it was the first movie I saw at the cinema with Jon. (And Steve. We were in Sydney for suit fittings for the wedding. We decided to see a movie. I digress.) If Rataouille is a film to change the world, the WALL-E is a film to revolutionise an artform. To my mind, that's what WALL-E was designed for: to say to audiences, "this may be animated but look what we can do!" WALL-E tugs at the heart strings. It makes you feel for a battered and solitary robot who barely communicates and has an Apple Mac operating system. (*ducks the incoming barrage of mp3 players that only function half the time and games they can't play from Mac users, stops editorialising*) It makes you care about what is, in the world they create, a redundant piece of technology that can only communicate in single word sentences. It takes the small and insignificant and shows that such creatures are what the whole world is made of. It takes the different, the broken, the oddities and say that only those who think differently can change - and even save - the world. And it does it minimalistically: with only a few words and gestures, the film manages to suggest something huge that has repercussions in the audience not only in what the film says on the surface but also in the fact that they used animation to say it. They experimented with the form in front of a mainstream audience and succeeded.
Meanwhile, Dreamworks CGI continues to produce the same movies they always have. They're funny, they're quirky, they're chock full of pop culture references, they have simple but modern fairy tale plotlines that provide morally uplifting seconds for the whole family. There is nothing wrong with them. They're "a bit of fun really" and have been since the moment Shrek hit the big screen. But what they've lost in all the fun and games is Antz. There are two animated Dreamworks films that stuck with me the way the latest Pixar films have and only one of them is CGI: Antz and Prince of Egypt. Unfortunately these were their first two animated films and nothing has reached the same calibre since.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the first Shrek films, laughed my way through Madagascar (no mean feat since both Ben Stiller and Chris Rock usually leave me cold), Over the Hedge was delightful and their collaborations with Aardman are everything you would expect from a collaboration between Aardman and Dreamworks. But nothing has stood out for me since Antz and Prince of Egypt. Both of these films showed the depth, intelligence and sensitivity of the latest Pixney films (and don't think I wasn't over the moon that the ants actually had six legs *glares at A Bug's Life*). But then came the parade of pop culture references and Mike Myers in his first role since So I Married an Axe Murderer that hasn't made me want to clip him over the back of the head.
Which brings us to Monsters vs Aliens After watching so many Pixney films, it was a little bland in comparison. It was everything you'd expect from an animated Dreamworks film: it was funny, occasionally even witty, a little lighter on the pop culture references than, say, Shrek but not by much. The story was hefty enough for the length of the film, the voice acting was solid (I exchanged one hour of Hugh Laurie for... two hours of Hugh Laurie. I traded up!), the humour was thoroughly appropriate for the film (the character yelling "Nemoy alert" into the phone as a meteor plunged to earth made me laugh, though apparently no one else in the theatre), it boldly told you to be yourself for yourself and be happy with that and all in all it was an enjoyable couple of hours that left me content at the end of it despite the five-year-old conversationalist sitting behind us.
Now, I like Dreamworks. I have never seen a bad Dreamworks film, whether animation or live action. I have seen some (or rather one) that made me go "meh" (*holds up Shark Tale*) but none that have made me rain down curses upon the individuals who raised such puerile rubbish from the depths of whatever toxic waste dump from which it crawl forth. (Please bear in mind that I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda.) When it comes to Disney, however... Well, I've seen The Little Mermaid. And, worse, Disney's vile rendition of Robin Hood. And, to cap it all off, that abomination, that offence against all that's good and pure, that disruption in the earth around the Milne family plot, that final revenge of poor little Christopher Robin, Disney's Winnie the Pooh.
But Steve Jobs and Pixar stage a coup and take over Disney's animation department and hello Ratatouille and WALL-E. (Yes, I know, this skips Cars which was already well into production by the time the acquisition actually took place, so if we're going to include that then I'm dragging in The Incredibles and Finding Nemo as well.) Now, I fell in love with Ratatouille the first time I saw it. I wasn't expecting too. I mean, let's face it, it's about a rat that controls a man by tugging on his hair. But it surprised me. It's a film of surprising poignancy and depth, a film that confronts the issues of family and growing up, of the value of talent (something much undervalued these days) and that it's possible for people to be equal without being the same. In the end, it's not a children's movie. Kids will enjoy it, in much the same way that my four-year-old nephew and two-year-old niece enjoy The Simpsons: they'll sit and stare in wonder at the screen (silently, thankfully) but they're not going to get the references to Simone de Bouvier or Darwinian evolution. In the end, Rataouille is a film to change the world, disguised in animation much the way Picasso suggested dressing invading troops as clowns.
Then WALL-E. I don't know whether I've talked about my reaction to WALL-E before but it was the first movie I saw at the cinema with Jon. (And Steve. We were in Sydney for suit fittings for the wedding. We decided to see a movie. I digress.) If Rataouille is a film to change the world, the WALL-E is a film to revolutionise an artform. To my mind, that's what WALL-E was designed for: to say to audiences, "this may be animated but look what we can do!" WALL-E tugs at the heart strings. It makes you feel for a battered and solitary robot who barely communicates and has an Apple Mac operating system. (*ducks the incoming barrage of mp3 players that only function half the time and games they can't play from Mac users, stops editorialising*) It makes you care about what is, in the world they create, a redundant piece of technology that can only communicate in single word sentences. It takes the small and insignificant and shows that such creatures are what the whole world is made of. It takes the different, the broken, the oddities and say that only those who think differently can change - and even save - the world. And it does it minimalistically: with only a few words and gestures, the film manages to suggest something huge that has repercussions in the audience not only in what the film says on the surface but also in the fact that they used animation to say it. They experimented with the form in front of a mainstream audience and succeeded.
Meanwhile, Dreamworks CGI continues to produce the same movies they always have. They're funny, they're quirky, they're chock full of pop culture references, they have simple but modern fairy tale plotlines that provide morally uplifting seconds for the whole family. There is nothing wrong with them. They're "a bit of fun really" and have been since the moment Shrek hit the big screen. But what they've lost in all the fun and games is Antz. There are two animated Dreamworks films that stuck with me the way the latest Pixar films have and only one of them is CGI: Antz and Prince of Egypt. Unfortunately these were their first two animated films and nothing has reached the same calibre since.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the first Shrek films, laughed my way through Madagascar (no mean feat since both Ben Stiller and Chris Rock usually leave me cold), Over the Hedge was delightful and their collaborations with Aardman are everything you would expect from a collaboration between Aardman and Dreamworks. But nothing has stood out for me since Antz and Prince of Egypt. Both of these films showed the depth, intelligence and sensitivity of the latest Pixney films (and don't think I wasn't over the moon that the ants actually had six legs *glares at A Bug's Life*). But then came the parade of pop culture references and Mike Myers in his first role since So I Married an Axe Murderer that hasn't made me want to clip him over the back of the head.
Which brings us to Monsters vs Aliens After watching so many Pixney films, it was a little bland in comparison. It was everything you'd expect from an animated Dreamworks film: it was funny, occasionally even witty, a little lighter on the pop culture references than, say, Shrek but not by much. The story was hefty enough for the length of the film, the voice acting was solid (I exchanged one hour of Hugh Laurie for... two hours of Hugh Laurie. I traded up!), the humour was thoroughly appropriate for the film (the character yelling "Nemoy alert" into the phone as a meteor plunged to earth made me laugh, though apparently no one else in the theatre), it boldly told you to be yourself for yourself and be happy with that and all in all it was an enjoyable couple of hours that left me content at the end of it despite the five-year-old conversationalist sitting behind us.
No comments:
Post a Comment