Disney's 50th animation is worth watching

Tangled was great! It drew inspiration from the whole history of Disney fairy tales, keeping a very traditional art direction and story telling.They managed a classic fairy tale that, while not having a very original plot, managed to tell an original story.

Loved the return to a more musical driven film, loved that they weren't afraid to tell a very traditional story, with a traditional ending, and I love that they distinguished themselves from Shrek and Dreamworks, while still keeping faithful to the Disney heritage.

I'm also fond of Disney's continuing path of creating secondary characters with depth, heaps of personality, and flat out lovable. Though, Rapunzel was very fleshed out, and was really created with respect, kudos to Disney for honouring their female lead.

Emperor's New Groove

Decided to rewatch this one recently, and it's still one of my favourite Disney films, and surprisingly so, because I don't usually like that form of humour.
It's also the only film I know of that I actually think has a better name in Norwegian than English; Et kongerike for en Llama, A Kingdom for a Llama, which is much more descriptive and suitable for the film.

A Kingdom for a Llama is one of those films I go back to and rewatch every time I'm sick of pretentious animation trying to be more than its plot/humour opens for. Kingdom is nothing like this. It's a purely silly and funny film, and it's fully aware of both its humour type and its target audience, which makes it able to pull off humour, plot, character development and touching moments without jarring from the overall feel.

More than any other Disney film, Kingdom is carried by its actors, and would probably not have a place among my favourites without David Spade. He's funny, arrogant, and pulls off Kuzco to perfection. His comic timing is also totally on point, and works really well together with John Goodman (Pacha). Warburton is also great as Kronk, though rather type-cast.

Some of the physical gags don't work that well on repeated viewings, especially after having seen the Disney channel series, where the "wrong lever, Kronk!" and "I didn't order any [soft or bouncy objects]" gags are rehashed every episode. But, the film is still funny, Kuzco is still a really interesting character, and the plot is well-written (I love the whole "we're totally aware of this big plot hole and we're going to comment on it instead of ignoring it" when Kronk and Yzma reach the lab before Pacha and Kuzco).

It's interesting to watch how they manage to develop lovable, deep characters in a gag comedy like this, and it's also a very good example of good script writing, both plot and lines, within a physical-based humour film.

And my favourite line is still, after at least 4 viewings; "Yay, I'm a Llama again! Wait.."

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Hmm, I'm not sure how to feel about this film. I've been complaining lately that so many animation films try to target too many audience groups and end up not targeting any, but this film is clearly aware of who it's made for; children.
The humour is mostly physical-, sight- and word gags, that work surprisingly well within this film, and is suited for the bright and colourful design.
The film's lowest moments are actually when the script writers are trying to be smart or do grown-up comedy. Most of the films emotional moments are driven by childish comedy, and it works.

Plot-wise it's very simple, adding a black-and-white villain for really no purpose at all, and the film is really driven more by the animation and gags rather than any real plot. In that way it's very similar to "Meet the Robinson's", Disney's second non-Pixar 3d film.
The film wavers between just being a funny, silly film, and actually trying to take it's plot seriously, and that is it's downfall, especially since most of the actors seem clearly aware that this is a silly, children's film, and do their lines in that style. Neil Patrick Harris is the real shining gem here, even if he only says a few words throughout the film.

As a children's film the moral is also very obvious and in your face, with the usual "being special is good" and "realizing yourself" developments for the main characters. It also includes the overly-used Disney favourite of single dad not being able to communicate with his son and alienating him. I'll give them props for the creative solution though.

As it is it's a good film, but it had potential to be just a really silly, amusing children's film, and it's a bit sad that it fell short by, as all recent (non-Pixar) animations have done, trying to take itself more seriously than it's script allows. You're not Pixar, Sony, try to make your own twist on animation instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to copy what has come before. But, based on Sony's previous track record with animation, this is a huge step up (Don't even get me started on "Open season"..), and I'm interested in seeing where they'll go from here.

And now I'll try to wash my brain of the image of feet trapped inside polymer for over 15 years.. Bleergh!

Oscar nominated animation

Have finally finished watching the Oscar nominated animation shorts.
Interesting combination of animation styles and subjects, not sure what I think about Logorama, the winner. It has too crude humour for me, and I spent the film wishing the Big Boy (?) kid would just die. At least I understood the usage of the logos, as opposed to the previous imdb featured comment, which accused the film of being a marketing vehicle trying to shove as much commercials as it could in 16 minutes..

Of the 5 nominated I personally prefer the Italian "The lady and the reaper", even though it has too much "Benny Hill running around" and the ending was really sad. I seem to prefer animation that tries to convey an emotion, and takes its subject matter seriously, even if it's in a comedy form.

Granny O'Grimm's sleeping beauty is well animated and well voiced, but I wish it had been longer and a bit more complex.

French Roast is a situational comedy, which I actually think should have been shorter, and Wallace and Gromit's "short" (at 30 minutes it's way longer than all the other nominees) follows the standard "Wallace and Gromit" set up. I did like the introduction of some real feelings with Gromit and Fluffles and I think it has improved greatly from the first "Wallace and Gromit" shorts, but for some reason I'm still not very fond of them.

Now I just have to see "The Secret of Kells", and I've seen all the nominated animated films this year, though, the Golden Globes also nominated "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs" which I haven't seen yet, and the Baftas nominated completely different animation shorts.

Reviving the blogs

So, I'll try to revive these two blogs. I think my problem last time was trying to be too ambitious.
I wanted to write big reviews of everything I saw, starting with my favourites, leading me to not write about anything new.

This time I've decided not to try writing long reviews, or spoiler-free reviews for people who haven't seen the film yet. This time I'll just write small musings and thoughts about what I view, and not care about length or how professional it sounds.

Lets just see how long it will last this time..

Star Wars: the Clone Wars

The Clone wars is the newest production from Lucasfilm, a company known for beating dead horses. And they don't disappoint with this animated feature. Set between the second and the third film, this one tells the story of Anakins and Obi-Wans fight to save a little Hutt child together with Anakins new apprentice, the fiesty Ahsoka Tano.
Featuring already known characters in a different filmstyle is dangerous enough on it's own, and the voice actors trying to sound like Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen manage to make the experience completely unreal. While the animation on it's own is very good (though the characters look more like puppets than animated characters) the strange similarities and differences in the animated characters as opposed to their actors takes some time to get used to.

The biggest problem with this film isn't it's voice actors or animation, it is it's story. This film is a film made for children, through and through. There is no context, no conflict and no psychology. Set between the second and the third film, this film could have given us a strong storyline further describing Anakins path to the dark side, especially considering his trip back to Tatooine, or at least a bit more about the war. As it is it introduces a completely new character that has no impact on the story or the world (or Anakin for that matter) and tells us how the Jedi secured the flight routes through Hutt territory, which apparently gives them a big advantage and might even win the war for the Republic (have you ever heard about that before?).
Riddled with plot holes, the relationship between Anakin and Ahsoka develops hugely in what is shown as only a few days, with Ahsoka learning Anakins character and actions by heart after their first fight, to such a degree that she can predict his moves and thoughts.
The war parts are also disappointing with extremely old tactics and with the whole droid army as comic relief. With all their faults, slow reactions and general stupidity (a droid not understanding coordinates?) you end up wondering why the clone army is loosing. Even when taking their low numbers into consideration, the enemy's uncanny ability to get themselves and others killed should give a low-numbered smart army the upper hand.

The story and the idea is on it's own not a bad one, but it is badly executed. If the point of the film is to recruit new, young Star Wars fans, why put it in-between two films with a story line that requires some knowledge of the Star Wars universe to follow, but if the film is for the old fans, why make such a disconnected story that doesn't develop the world or the characters we know? I also question if the Clone wars are the right place for a children's story. Is watching one and a half hour with non-stop violence and war okay for children as long as we make the ones killed comical and stupid, and remove the blood?

Wall-e the new pixar production

Well, it seems only natural that Pixar's new production is the first film I talk about here. Now, since I live in Norway, I'm a bit behind when it comes to new releases, so I haven't actually seen this yet, but boy, am I looking forward to it!

Wall'e has to be one of the cutest Pixar creatures today, and I'm especially impressed by the catastrophe and neglect theme that Pixar has chosen. They are showing that they're not afraid to comment on the big political issues we're facing, while still managing to make a touching and cute story.
Trailer can be found here.

I also find it facinating all the work they've put into looking at familiar objects in a new way. Both in the trailer, and in the various clips you see Wall'e curiously looking at and trying out objects that are very familiar to us, but completely new to him. It is hard to sit back and try to figure out "what would I think this fire extinguiser does if I'd never seen it before", and from the clips I've seen so far, they've done a very good job here.

Well, I'm very much looking forward to going to this one the 29, august, and see if it is as good as the other Pixar films, and how they toggle between the catastrophe setting and the cute story.