First Impressions: DC League of Super-Pets (2022)

The hardest kind of movie to talk about is one that is neither amazing nor terrible. These labels go beyond "Good" or "Bad", because what do those even mean? You can't really talk about a movie that is just "Good" or "Bad" for hours. DC League of Super-Pets is the kind of movie that is just, "Bad". Is it terrible? No, it really isn't. Terrible is a movie that actively hurts to watch, a movie that is a transparent marketing scam, a movie that feels like an insult. DC League of Super-Pets is none of those things, it is, like so many other "Bad" movies nowadays, mediocre and boring. This is another movie that is little more than a safe bet, not too outside of the box, but not so in the box it could be about literally anything else. Yet, is it wrong to say I want this movie to succeed?

No, this isn't a movie I like and lots of others don't, this is a movie that is genuinely pretty bad. It's a comedy that isn't very funny, it's a superhero movie that isn't very exciting, it is not a comedic farce that is poking fun at superhero movies, it's just an animated superhero movie for kids. Watching so many movies for this job, really has me realize just how safe and formulaic these movies have become. However, I will admit this one isn't as formulaic as something like Paws of Fury or Minions 2, but I still don't think anyone is going to be really surprised at any of the twists or turns this movie takes.

A bunch of pets get superpowers, there is a tortoise among them, yeah they say turtle, but they look more like a tortoise to me. Guess what superpower is given to the slow animal, I swear it's become a trope that the character that is associated with speed gets a slow animal as a pet or sidekick, Rainbow Dash got a tortoise, The Flash gets a tortoise, Sonic held a turtle in the 2020 movie, of course people familiar with comics will probably know of Ace the Bat-hound, I am a bit disappointed they didn't even make a joke about Bat-Cow, no seriously that is a thing, but otherwise, I don't think anyone will really be shocked by the turns this movie takes. I am sick of talking about these kinds of movies, what can I really say outside of "This movie is mediocre and boring"? Well, remember when I said I want this movie to succeed?

No, I am not joking, I do genuinely want this movie to do well. It is not a good movie, I feel like it would have been better as a farce or something that just mocked superhero movies endlessly. However, the fact that they did make this a genuine superhero movie is a little bit respectable, I do have to applaud them for taking what to some non-comic fans would sound like a silly concept and did actually take it decently seriously. If this does well, maybe we could get more comic book movies that studios wouldn't normally take a risk on because they sound too silly, like say a proper Uncle Scrooge movie not tied into DuckTales, or a Batman movie with the Condiment King, or a Squirrel Girl movie, still waiting for that one.

This is a tough movie for me to talk about because, it's not good, but it's not awful either. It's another animated kids movie that is absolutely nothing special. Honestly, I'm getting nostalgic for Netflix Original movies now, Animal Crackers and Duck Duck Goose were bad, but they were an interesting kind of bad, a bad that sticks in your head. Where Duck Duck Goose is a stain on a nice pristine white carpet, DC league of Super-Pets is just some dust that got on the carpet. Sure, it's not good, but it's easy to clean up and you forget about it just in time for the next bunch of dust to get on your carpet, a stain needs a lot more work put into cleaning it, and you will remember it. That being said, this is like, dust mixed with sand, you almost don't want to clean it up because it could bring in something much more interesting, maybe something festering and gross, or maybe something that is genuinely pleasant to keep around. I don't want to say I recommend this movie, I am absolutely sick of these "Nothing Special" movies, and the chances are that if this does well, studios won't take it as a sign to give us a proper Squirrel Girl movie, they'll just take it as a sign to give us Captain Waterflame, Iron Man's amazing cybernetic goldfish. Actually that sounds like it would make for a more interesting movie. Do I recommend it? No, but like, I kinda do, this could bring us one step closer to having the really silly comic book movies. Time will tell I guess, but if you have kids who want to see it, or you're mildly curious yourself, it's harmless.

First Impressions: Marcel The Shell With Shoes On (2022)

When it comes to animation, it is hard to deny that it is predominantly a medium that is played safe. South Park is popular so let's make cartoons along those same lines, SpongeBob is popular so let's make cartoons along those same lines, Disney's having a surge in popularity, let's make The Swan Princess, Anastasia, Quest for Camelot, hey that movie that dude has been working on since the sixties? Let's rewrite and re-edit it so it fits better as a Disney-like movie. Every era of animation has their safe trends, the eighties had toy based cartoons, the nineties had gross-out cartoons, the 2000s had anime inspired cartoons and cartoons with a hyperactive and/or naïve lead in a more serious world, and the 2010s have cartoons that start cute and light-hearted before becoming much darker and more serious. Even in animated movies, I've talked about this before how most animated kids movies feel very formulaic and don't really offer anything too much outside of the box. So when a movie comes around that is a much bigger risk than something like Minions 2 or Paws of Fury, what can I do other than talk about it?

Marcel The Sell With Shoes On is a very risky movie, it is a mockumentary where the lead characters are stop motion animated characters interacting with a real live cast. Essentially it's another Special Effects Movie, and it's a riskier kind of movie because this is not the kind of movie you see in theatres anymore. Mockumentaries are not very common, you can name This Is Spinal Tap, but what other popular mockumentaries are there? On top of that, they are usually never animated, the only one I can think of that was is Surf's Up, and that one was Computer Generated. This movie is a risk, and that is what I love about animation, sometimes it is still able to take risks. Steven Universe was a risk, BoJack Horseman was a risk, Toy Story was a risk, and Marcel The Shell With Shoes On is a risk.

Of course, not all risks pay off, movies are called "Risks" for a reason, so there needs to be more than the risk factor. Thankfully, Marcel The Shell With Shoes On has fun moments of humour, some really great emotional moments, and it's all tied together with one of the best and most adorable leads I've seen in an recent animated movie. Marcel is a fantastic character, seeing how he solves problems, how he deals with all the things that go on around him, his hope and optimism become worry and fear, and his little quips and interactions with Dean, the secondary lead, all make him so believable, that sometimes I just forgot that Marcel was an animated character, I genuinely believed that this was a real documentary about a real character at some points. It is kind of like those old Canadian P.S.A.s about the House Hippo, you know it isn't true, but there is still that part of you that likes to believe that there are House Hippos in a nest of discarded mittens and old lint scraps in your closet feasting on chips, raisins and the crumbs from peanut butter on toast.

It feels like a real documentary, and I think that is the biggest strength to the movie. Being a movie trying to emulate the feel of a documentary, it allows for more kind of interactions and movements that wouldn't be in a traditional movie. Movies try to show an idealized archetype, to either a positive or negative end, but since the crew was trying to emulate a documentary, it allows for Marcel to feel like a real, living character with his own personality and character, unlike someone like Zak from FernGully who feels like a stereotype who only exists within the confines of the movie, or the characters of Arctic Dogs who are just one dimensional tropes who go through the motions that are expected of said tropes. Marcel feels real.

Do I think this movie is going to be big? Well, I don't want to create false hope, but since the director of this movie, Dean Fleischer Camp, has been announced as the director of the live action Lilo & Stitch, if that turns out well, I do feel like this movie could become a very popular cult film, maybe not to the same level of The Nightmare Before Christmas, but at least more popular than something like The Thief and the Cobbler. I would love to see what Dean Fleischer Camp does in the future, and honestly I'd love to see what he could do at a studio like Laika, wouldn't that be something? As for Marcel, I went in expecting a cute movie, and I got a cute movie that offered quite a bit more. I would very much love to see more risky animated movies get released, because stagnation is the enemy of progress, so if you are able to watch Marcel The Shell With Shoes On, I do highly recommend you check it out.

First Impressions: Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank (2022)

Eight years for this movie to get to theatres, over a decade if we want to talk about conception years, but being announced in 2014 and finally reaching theatres in 2022, Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank dares to ask one question; When can we start to assume a delayed movie is going to suck?

I'm going to be real, when I read the original title and saw the poster, I kind of thought this movie would suck, but I've been surprised by movies before so I was still somewhat optimistic. Unfortunately, as time went on things changed, I started noticing how safe recent kids films are being, I started to let myself slip into watching trailers (I blame Frozen 2 for that one, that trailer was amazing) and the movie started to be officially released, beginning with a name change. I originally wanted to title this blog "First Impressions: Blazing Samu... Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank" because for a long time, this movie was originally going under the name "Blazing Samurai", and I feel the name change was very last minute. There are a couple of jokes in this movie that would have been... well not funnier but at least more... clever is the wrong word but they would have been somewhat cute if the film kept the original title.

Speaking of humour, I mean... it is there. What can I really say about the humour of this movie? It's a generically unfunny comedy for children, it's like talking about a generically boring action movie for dudes, or a generically disgusting rom-com for moms, the demographics seem to have their generic movie types. I will say they did try to be varied with the humour, they got toilet jokes, fourth-wall jokes, anachronistic jokes, honestly I think the casting of Mel Brooks was meant as a nod to the fact that this movie was called "Blazing Samurai" and he did the movie this was inspired by, "Blazing Saddles". Oh yeah, they also have Samuel L. Jackson using fake curse words, because y'know, he swore a lot in "Snakes on a Plane"! Oh and George Takei says "Oh My!" twice because that is the meme, actually Kubo and the Two Strings had him say that too, but like, it was cute there because it was said in a situation where anyone would have said that. Once would have been fine for this movie, it would have been cute, but twice was just forcing it.

I mean, what else is there to really talk about? This movie is unfunny and has a predictable plot and character arcs. I guess it isn't devoid of character, but like, that's it. It's a generically bad kid's movie, honestly I'll give Minions 2 some credit, it was a generically okay kid's movie, so take your kids to see that. Honestly I'd call this a disappointment but like, eight years in Development Hell, that's a pretty good sign it wasn't going to be great.

From what I understand, development for this movie was a nightmare, directors came and went, the film ended up crediting three directors, companies acquired and abandoned it, some reports even stated that it was still in the animatic phase in 2019. Apparently a lot of this movie had to be worked on remotely because of the pandemic and eight different companies got production credits. Quite frankly, with the added name change, this movie had red flags all over it, and honestly, I can't think of a sadder movie release, not that I expect this movie to flop, time will tell on that one, but the fact that they clearly had some faith in this movie, despite everything going against it. It's honestly kind of sad. Especially since it doesn't even have much to show for it. The Thief and the Cobbler at least had amazing animation, and that movie was still garbage until the Recobbled Cut became a thing. Honestly, at some point someone should of scrapped this movie, I'd rather not have this movie than have a movie exist in a sad state like this. I can't really think of any reason anyone would want to watch it, outside of the movie the kids actually want to see is sold out and you're not leaving until they shut up for thirty minutes. I'm not mad, I'm not even disappointed, I'm just sad.

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015) - A Fun and Imaginative Sequel to an Already Fun Movie

 

Now that the Special Effects movie marathon is finished let's go back to the realm of movies that are predominately animated. Well that was the plan anyway, but then I remembered that there was a large portion of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out Of Water that was in live action. I did not anticipate this being the bridge movie between the Special Effects movies and the regular animated movies, but I guess it worked out, I must have more Gladstone luck than I thought. As a bonus, since it is still July I figured I'd treat myself to a SpongeBob movie, because while it is no longer my birthday, it is still my Birth month, so I'm gonna watch something SpongeBob. 

I actually remember the first time I watched this movie, it was on Netflix, and I enjoyed fine, but I remember all of the advertising focused on the fact that the SpongeGang would be on dry land and become superheroes. You can imagine this is one of the reasons I try not to watch trailers because I was a touch disappointed when I learned that only the last third of the movie took place on dry land. However, seven or so years can change a movie, and since we're going to be able to remove it from the expectations of the trailer, I think it is only fair to ask if this movie actually holds up.

The plot does not follow from the first movie, I think the closest thing to a direct sequel we got to the first movie was the episode Krabby Road, where Plankton tricks SpongeBob into forming a rock band. Side note, I literally JUST got that the title is a reference to Abbey Road, I am an idiot. Continuity in SpongeBob is hit or miss anyway, so if it isn't continuing from the first movie, then what direction are they going for the plot? They go in a rather interesting direction. While Plankton is making another attempt to steal the Krabby Patty Secret Formula, it just vanishes right before his and SpongeBob's eyes, so with Bikini Bottom in a Mad Max apocalypse, SpongeBob and Plankton must team up to find the formula. The interesting thing is that while this is happening, a pirate named Burger Beard is narrating the story and uses a magic book to steal the formula himself and become a successful food truck entrepreneur. I do realize that the summary leaves out how and why the gang becomes superheroes, but I would actually say that the superhero part is one of my big issue with the plot.

Not that the story is terrible, heaven knows I've watched worse, but like with the first one there are somethings that don't add up when you look at them with a critical lens, like for example, Sandy sees a book page land on her treedome, and then goes on to think that there are sandwich gods who want a sacrifice. It does lead to some funny jokes, but shouldn't Sandy know what a book page is? Wouldn't she try to find out what kind of book it came from? Wouldn't she try to do anything science-y? You know, because she is a scientist. I also think the movie shot itself in the foot by advertising the superhero angle of the movie since it really isn't a superhero movie, they just use a page from the book to become superheroes, which I feel would have been better if the movie built up to that and made it a reveal rather than highlight this aspect. On top of that, I don't know if they were aiming for a moral or a joke moral, but I don't think they pulled either off. I guess they were aiming for like a joke moral or a deconstruction of this moral, but I didn't really find it amusing. Still, I don't believe we were meant to take this plot seriously, it just seems like a vehicle for jokes and the superhero climax.

As a comedy, honestly I think this movie may be better than the first. There are so many different kinds of jokes that range from the "Meh, that was kind of amusing" to the "Now that was hilarious". I also loved a lot of the background jokes, like in the Chum Bucket during the apocalypse there is an iron maiden in the shape of Plankton's computer wife Karen. Of course, the plot allowed the writers to set up some really good jokes, including going into SpongeBob's mind, a bunch of fun meta gags, and some really amusing scenarios. I will say that not every joke lands, I don't think any of them were, and I apologize for the use of the overused term, cringey, but some of them were just mediocre. There are jokes in here that are definitely more for the children, the movie even ends with a Rap Battle, because kids like Epic Rap Battles of History, those guys even make a cameo in the film. That being said, I can't think of a joke that just fell dead on arrival, even the ones I wasn't fond of I know are up some people's alley. I think this movie is better as a comedy than the first one because the first one wasn't too focused on just telling joke after joke, it's kind of like the Ice Age movies in a way (Will I ever stop comparing movies to those?) where the first one had a solid mix of comedic and serious moments where the sequel is more focused on telling jokes.

Character wise, I mean it's the characters we all know and love in an apocalypse, as superheroes, and just as they are. For whatever reason Sandy wasn't given a lot to do in the first movie, but she has a more prominent role in this movie. I guess for new characters we have Burger Beard, played by Antonio Banderas, whom I did not immediately recognize. He is an amusing one off villain, would have loved to see him and Patchy interact, but I guess that suit was deep in storage somewhere. Otherwise, we get some more minor-ish characters who do have a good sized role in the story, and were fun enough characters, but overall the movie does keep its focus where it should be, on SpongeBob.

More interesting is the animation, and I don't just mean the 2D animation, though it was really good, maybe a little bit better than the first one, but I also want to talk about the live action mixing. After watching four movies that tried to blend animation with live action in some way, I have to say, I feel like the intentionally cartoony CG was a mixed bag. On the one hand, it did mean that the characters still looked like the characters, even if they were in a different medium, but on the other hand, when the CG character and the live action character had to interact, it looked fake. That being said, the CG looked WAY better than the third movie, Sponge On The Run, which just didn't look right to me, I still can't place my finger on it, but looking at two examples side by side, I just prefer the more cartoony style they went with for this movie.

So, my thoughts seem all over the place here don't they? Well, yeah, if this were any other movie I probably would be harsher, but what does save this movie is the comedic writing. On top of that the animation is still fun for a very large majority of the film, the voice acting is still excellent, and the plot is a bit iffy, but it does deliver fun scenarios for jokes so I guess it serves its purpose. This movie is fun, and I feel like that is all it wanted to be, could it be smarter? More emotional? Probably, but I don't think that was the kind of movie they were making. This is the perfect example of a movie you just shut your brain off and let it play, sure you can put a lot of thought into it, I mean hey it's my job to, but there are movies out there where the best way to enjoy them is simply to enjoy them. Maybe that isn't your kind of movie, maybe you would rather have a Little Prince or Felidae where you can analyze the symbolism, the themes and messages, the imagery and characters, hey I liked those films to, but sometimes it is just nice to watch a movie that is meant to be enjoyed. Flaws and all, I had a good time, and I think you will too.

Editorial: Should Special Effect Movies Just Be Fully Animated?

So with the Special Effects Movie Marathon being capped off with Who Framed Roger Rabbit, I bet some of you are wondering why I chose to do this. Short answer is, I thought it would be fun and it gave me an excuse to watch King Kong. However, I also wanted to shine a light on a part of animation that really does not seem to get a lot of respect from the animation community, special effects, a huge part of animation history, a major reason we have the animation landscape we have today, and home to one of animations biggest names, Ray Harryhausen. Yes, he was a special effects guy, not someone like Nick Park or Will Vinton, who are known for their Claymation styles. His work is known by animators all over, but when we get a Special Effects movie like say… Cats 2019, you see a fair bit of people saying “it should have just been entirely animated.”

So, this begs the question. When we get a movie that is heavily reliant on Special Effects, things like Cats, Avatar or the MCU, why don't we make them fully animated?

To be honest, this is a question that has a lot of speculation and no real confirmed answers, why some movies were made the way they were is generally a case by case basis. I don't know why Avatar was made the way it was, but it's probably for a different reason than the 2019 Cats movie. It may boil down to two basic ideas, firstly is the stigma around animation. Unfortunately, as discussed on this blog before, a lot of people see animation as something only for children to enjoy, with some exceptions. Honestly, I hate to say it, but with the way children's animated movies are made today, I can kind of see where this mentality comes from. We don't really get a Secret of NIMH or a Prince of Egypt or an Iron Giant anymore. Most kids movies tend to be very similar, and their quality lies less in their plot and characters and more in their entertainment value, which is usually a subjective thing entirely. The Bad Guys is currently my favourite animated movie of the year and my blog talked about how uninspired the plot was, but it was still an entertaining movie that was fun to watch with friends. Compare that to one of my all time favourite movies, Kubo and the Two Strings, a movie with engaging characters, a thrilling plot with a good twist, and was not afraid to get darker and scarier. I don't think people will forget The Bad Guys existed, especially with the potential for it becoming DreamWorks' next franchise, but I know that anybody who has seen Kubo and the Two Strings will not forget it.

However, there could also be a second reason why these movies aren't fully animated, and this is a very simple explanation, like some of you are going to brush it off because it's so simple, but the truth of the matter is, animation is hard. Speaking as an ex-animation student, I wrote a whole blog about my college experience, I can say with absolute certainty, that animation is hard. Traditional hand-drawn animation takes so much time and effort for just a couple minutes of a movie. Film was originally done in 24 Frames Per Second, if you're animating on two drawings every frame, that is still seven hundred and twenty drawings a minute, and that is just hand drawn animation, stop motion animation can be even more nightmarish. The Nightmare Before Christmas needed 20 sound stages for filming, and over 200 puppets were made, Jack Skellington apparently having around 400 heads alone. So, I can see the appeal of making an animated movie where you don't have to animated all of it. So, on some level it does make sense to make these kinds of Special Effects movies.

But come on, that's the boring question. The more interesting question is not "Why are these movies not just completely animated?" it's "Should these movies just be completely animated?"

Now, this may come as a shock to some of you to hear, especially as someone who is trying to get more people to respect animation as an artform, but the truth of the matter is, animation can't do everything. Hear me out, because this hot take may actually be one of the reasons people don't respect animation. In my opinion, people hype up animation as being the center of limitless possibilities, and in many respects it can be. Animation can give you anything you want to see be it flying elephants, superheroes, or giant apes. The thing is, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. Cats, is the go to example I pick for a movie that probably wouldn't work in animation. Like I said in my review, Cats is not a musical you watch because of it's amazingly deep plot and characters, because it doesn't have an amazingly deep plot or characters, in fact a lot of the plot and characters for Cats is usually up to interpretation, but what isn't is the choreography and music. You watch Cats because it is a show and I feel like making it animated would take away from that. Seeing a human do the leg work needed to put the energy into a Cats performance is impressive because it is a human, and they've probably trained for so long to achieve the ability to do that. It can still be impressive in animation, but it would be less impressive because we know it's a drawing, and while it could have taken the animators a long time to perfect their skills, it still is not the same thing. A lot of impressive human talents are less impressive when they're animated, like juggling. As someone who is still trying to learn how to juggle, it takes a lot of hand-eye coordination, but in animation, you can just draw the balls where you need them to be, if you're even going to draw them at all, you ever notice how animated juggling is sometimes cheap looking?

A lot of similar movies are the same. We've seen the Transformers dozens of times transform, but in the Michael Bay movie, they looked realistic and as such, were more impressive. A lot of the action scenes in the Marvel movies are completely animated, but because they still have that realistic look, we have an easier time suspending our disbelief. The Peter Jackson King Kong movie was probably made the way it was just to show the change and advancements in Special Effects technology, after all, if you're remaking the movie that pioneered special effects, that just seems like the right way to do it. On top of that, what a lot of people forget is that these Special Effects movies are not just limited to ones with heavy CG coatings. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is technically a Special Effects film, but it works because the setting of the world wouldn't be believable if the humans were also animated. It's also honestly kind of the same with Blue's Clues, as Steve, Joe and Josh are meant to be the human characters that the audience connects with and it would be harder to do that if any of them were animated, especially in a show that is as stylized as Blue's Clues.

Of course, there are plenty of counters to this idea, mainly three that come to my mind. Firstly, Special Effects age. King Kong was a mind blowing movie back in 1933, but now that we're so familiar with stop motion, we can tell Kong looks fake. Likewise, there are plenty of examples of CG effects that definitely show their age. However, this might not be the argument you actually think it is. Yes, Special Effects age, but so does regular animation. You're seriously going to tell me Toy Story hasn't aged? Or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? or the Rankin/Bass Christmas specials? Sure, these movies do still have some visual appeal, but when you see the dog in Toy Story you can tell this was an early CG production, or if you look at Snow White picking flowers, you can tell the character is on a different layer from the flowers. On top of that, sometimes effects age, but that actually makes them better. I still stand behind TRON having some of the best CG effects of the time, partially because they look dated today. Of course a world inside of a 1980s computer would look like a computer effect from the 1980s. Terminator 2 was so smart in their use of CG by making the T-1000 liquid metal, which already usually looks like a bad CG effect. Also, it's not like all CG effects go bad, the panning shot from the chandelier in Beauty and the Beast is still amazing. So, while Special Effects do age, it's not like that is always a bad thing.

Secondly, some people may claim that these movies are aiding the stigma against animation. In some respects I can see why. It still absolutely pisses me off that the 2019 Lion King remake was lumped in with the rest of Disney's Live Action Remakes because all of the characters were completely animated. That being said, I don't think anyone ever bought into this being a live action movie, I feel like everyone knew it was completely animated, no one is that stupid. On top of that, I have yet to really see anyone claim that these movies are the reason they disrespect animation. Most of the disrespect I see usually comes from the nostalgia blind 90s kids or the obsessive anime fans, not that film buffs don't show their disrespect a lot, but I don't really know any film buffs saying that Avatar or The Avengers would have been better if it was one-hundred percent live action. I feel like people handwave aside animated movies more because of movies like Minions or Secret Life of Pets rather than Avengers.

Which brings me to the third counter, Avatar. In my review of Avatar, I said that this movie should have been one hundred percent animated, and I still stand by that. If the world matched the style of the animated characters, it would have been so much better, but because these worlds look so realistic, the obviously fake looking characters and creatures just don't mix. I am completely confident that if Avatar was fully animated, it could have broken the stigma against animation. But then again, confidence can be the fools substitute for knowledge. Maybe it would have broken the stigma against animation, or maybe it would have reinforced it. Maybe it wouldn't even have had enough of an impact to really have any influence on the stigma. Maybe because it was animated, some people would be more likely to point out its flaws rather than be dazzled by the spectacle of it.

Now I know it's strange that someone who is a staunch defender of animation, is saying that these movies don't need to be animated, but here's the thing people forget, Special Effects are animation too. Like I said, I wanted to shine a light on a part of animation that many people overlook, not just people who ignore animation, but also animation fans. Not only that, but it's animation that has to be integrated into live action, and not in that Roger Rabbit or TRON way. So really, all that is happening is we're putting down one form of animation for another form of animation, it's like saying Wallace and Gromit sucks and should have been animated like a Laika production, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you really look at it, they're both one in the same, one is just made with clay and the other with puppets. Special Effects animation has its own challenges and limitations, just like other forms of animation, and it also has its own triumphs, like Gollum or the T-1000, and its own missteps.

So, really the answer for the question "Should Special Effect movies just be fully animated?" is a situation where the answer is "Yes, no, maybe and it varies". I don't think it would hurt movies like Avatar, but it might have hurt movies like Night at the Museum. The Hulk could probably benefit from being in a fully animated movie, but then a character like Gollum would probably not be the same. So, here's a fun question, what makes Special Effect animation a lesser form of animation? Why do we hand wave aside Special Effects when they, both practical and animated, are the backbones of so many amazing moments in movies? Special Effects were the big reason that CG animation has become so popular, was a big reason Stop Motion animation was a big thing, and I do feel that in some respects they can help people get more into animation. So, why put down this kind of animation? Because it's everywhere? Well, that is just the nature of pop culture fads, something becomes huge and dominates the medium before disappearing.

Should these kinds of movies just be fully animated? I think it varies. Should we respect special effects animation as part of the animation family? I think so. It does kind of dishearten me to think of all the special effects animators that don't get the credit they deserve, solely because their work is in a live action movie. That all this talent is being ignored by fans of animation. But I know that I'm not exactly in the majority with this one, so feel free to tell me what you think, and share this post around, I'd love to get as many respectful opinions as I can, to gage where everyone stands on this topic. New review next week on the 15th, see you then.

First Impressions: Minions: The Rise of Gru (2022)

The Minions, one of the more infamous creations from the minds of animators. Even though I have never seen a Despicable Me movie prior to this, I was fully aware of the Minions in everything from advertisements to parodies to out right rip offs. For whatever reason, the Minions were to Illumination what the Looney Tunes are to Warner Bros. Despite their annoyingness, their beyond minimalistic design, and the fact that whenever we get a cruddy knock off it always drags down any good things that the Minions may have had. So, to be blunt, I was not looking forward to Minions: The Rise of Gru, and with a lot of the "Anti-Woke" crowd heralding it, I was even less excited to see it. However, I do have a job to do, so I took my friend to see it with me, if I was gonna suffer, I'd rather have a friend to ease the pain.

After paying for the tickets, sitting through the Pre-Show and the trailers, getting popcorn stuck in my teeth, quite frankly this movie is absolutely and completely, okay. Yeah, it's okay. It wasn't an unpleasant experience, but I wouldn't say it's fantastic. I mean, I can see why people may like it, don't really see why it's being heralded as one of the best movies of the year, but then again I don't get the "Anti-Woke" crowd, so, whatever. This movie is okay.

It is so okay that I probably would have written this blog if something wasn't nagging at the back of my mind about it, and no, it's not the "Anti-Woke" crowd heralding it, well it is partially that, but it ties into a bigger picture. Minions: The Rise of Gru is an okay movie, and quite frankly, I'm done with okay.

Really think about it, what were some other animated kids movies released this year? The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild, Turning Red, The Bad Guys, Lightyear, and this one, among others I'm missing, but this is a good enough sample size. Out of all of these movies, you know which one really wowed me with the story and characters? Not a single one, not that these were all bad movies, but none of these movies were at the level of quality as some of the other movies I've talked about here, movies that were sometimes made for a younger audience. I'm not talking about South Park or Felidae here, I mean movies like Blue's Big Musical Movie, like DuckTales The Movie, like Disney's Cinderella, those movies are for the same, if not a younger audience, and are still really good movies. Movies that are more emotionally complex, movies with some harsh and scary moments, movies that can be exciting and thrilling but also pause and breathe.

By contrast, most kids movies now follow a very recognizable formula. It's almost like a road map, and it is most notable in the emotional low point. These low points always end up being before the climax, usually have some characters breaking apart only to reunite in the actual climax, and are only really emotional to the young children watching it because they've never sat through What's Opera, Doc? or any other genuinely emotional moments in their favourite cartoons or movies. Isn't that strange, as television cartoons become a lot more for older kids, kids movies just seem to stay in this bit of stagnation where the quality of the movie rests more on the entertainment value rather than the quality value of the story and characters.

To put it bluntly, I do not see The Bad Guys in a plot akin to The Secret of NIMH, I can not see The Minions in a movie like The Lion King, Buck Wild would have absolutely destroyed the surprising depth of the original Ice Age movie. In fact, Ice Age is kind of the perfect example of this. The first movie was surprisingly good, much more emotional than I initially remembered, but then we got sequels that took away the emotional parts and replaced them with more characters and zanier plots. Illumination really reminds me of Blue Sky, and the Blue Sky studios that actually was and not the one people remember after being axed by Disney. Remember, Blue Sky did a lot of similar kinds of safe looking movies, nothing that would really challenge the audience, but then they did Spies in Disguise, a surprisingly good movie that seemed to be able to set them on the right path, but this blog isn't about Blue Sky.

My point is, we're getting a lot of safe movies for kids, and yes, we are getting movies like Isle of Dogs, The Lego Movie 2 and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. However we're also getting a lot of movies like UglyDolls, Playmobil, Wonder Park, Secret Life of Pets 2, Arctic Dogs, Scoob, even some of the good movies like Abominable and Klaus, great movies, but I wouldn't say their plot and characters were anything special. We aren't getting a lot of movies like The Land Before Time, Treasure Planet, Spirited Away, in fact I'd argue that The Care Bears Movie from 1985 was much riskier than most of the kids movies we're getting today, and that is a Care Bears movie.

Why are movies getting safer? Well, that's an easy answer, money. Safer movies make a lot of money. Say what you will about The Lion King 2019, it made a lot of money, and from what I am seeing, this movie is making a lot of money, more than Lightyear. Lightyear is a bit of a riskier movie than Minions, but Minions is making more money. Parents don't really want to spend the theatre money on a movie that their kids are probably going to be scared of, cry at or just not know how to feel about, they'd rather take them to something that looks like a good time. So of course we're going to get less Secret of NIMH or Raggedy Ann and Andy movies, because those kinds of movies are just riskier to make. However, something a lot of companies never seem to realize is that, movies can pay off in the long term. Look at Nightmare Before Christmas or Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, those movies didn't so do hot at the box office, weren't critical darlings and seemed like they wouldn't make much of an impact on pop culture. Tell me Nightmare Before Christmas isn't a huge part of Pop Culture today, that it isn't one of Disney's biggest properties, and from all the videos about it on YouTube, I'd say that the Raggedy Ann and Andy is becoming more of a cult classic.

Minions: The Rise of Gru is an okay movie, it is absolutely safe, not a lot of risks taken here. That is why I can't say this movie is harmless for kids, it is, but if you're just keeping them in a bubble, they're going to miss out on so much. Sometimes risks don't pay off, but one risk that pays off in the long run is better than ten safe bets that pay off in the short term, and Illumination is the epitome of safe bets paying off in the short term. I wouldn't recommend this movie normally, but as a movie, it's okay. Just, maybe grab a copy of The Secret of NIMH or The Prince of Egypt next time you're movie shopping.

Also, I find it way too weird that the "Anti-woke" crowd is heralding a movie where a black person is the villain, that just does not seem like a coincidence to me.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) - One of the Greatest Movies Ever Made

Let's finish this Special Effects movie marathon with one of the most beloved movies of the 1980s. I'll admit, a large reason I did want to do this marathon was that it put Who Framed Roger Rabbit in my list of potential reviews, and while I was not fully set on doing it, I thought, why not? I wanted to end this marathon on a movie that I loved, especially since as of the publication of this review, my birthday is tomorrow, and it also helps that I did kind of tease this movie back when I wrote my editorial about TRON. So, why not give Who Framed Roger Rabbit a look? Besides, we also had that Chip 'N Dale movie recently, so the timing is, a little off, but still fortuitous, it really does seem like everything just kind of fell into place for me to review this movie, and really, do I even need an excuse to talk about this movie? It is legitimately one of my favourites.

Set in Hollywood in 1947, Private Eye Eddie Valiant is asked by cartoon producer R. K. Maroon to follow Jessica Rabbit, the wife of his employee Roger, and Marvin Acme, to show Roger some evidence his wife may not be best for him. The next day however, Marvin Acme is found murdered and Roger is the number one suspect and is being chased by Judge Doom and his gang of weasels. From there, a mystery is set surrounding the missing will of Marvin Acme, and the connections an upcoming company called Cloverleaf industries has with R. K. Maroon. As a mystery, on the one hand it is done really well. That being said I don't think it's really going to surprise you, but I found myself invested in where it was going, even after countless rewatches. On top of that, the plot itself is really solid, especially the way they establish things early on. For example, when looking at the scene of Acme's murder, they set up the tools that Eddie would use to fight Judge Doom at the end, and the sweeping transition shot of Eddie's desk would set up the circus tricks he would utilize to defeat the Weasels. I do think they could have established the disappearing/reappearing ink plot point a bit earlier in the story, but all in all, I definitely give the plot a solid A.

In comparison, the characters may seem a bit basic. You have Eddie who is the drunk and bitter private eye with a hard backstory, Roger is a toon who loves to entertain, and Judge Doom is the creepy villain. However, not only are the performances by Bob Hoskins, Charles Fleischer and Christopher Lloyd absolutely superb, but the way these characters are introduced is excellent. The first shot we see of Eddie, we get everything we need to know about who he is, he's a drunk, he's bitter and he doesn't like Toons, and Judge Doom's introduction, the dark figure towering over Eddie and glaring down at him, it's absolutely perfect. The characters are easily identifiable, easy to relate to, and entertaining to watch, some stories don't need much else. You could have some really deep and complex characters, but that would have taken away from the mystery, the setting and the commentary.

Oh yeah, let's talk about the commentary. Now, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was based on the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit by Gary K. Wolfe, I haven't read it but I am aware that the movie is not a true adaptation. That being said, so much about this movie ties into the racial issues of the time period. Turning Toon Town into a freeway sounds really similar to gentrification, and Roger even alludes to Toons not getting proper justice, much like Black Americans of the 40s and 50s and many will even argue today. The commentary is subtle, but it is there. This is where I feel this movie and the recent Chip 'n Dale movie differ the most. That movie, one could argue, attempted to have commentary about the nature of fandom and the treatment of child stars, but I found it to be weak. Here, you could tell me directly that this movie is an allusion to racism and I would buy it without calling any of the evidence a stretch.

Speaking of Chip 'n Dale, when I talked about that movie, I brought up that Roger Rabbit isn't really a comedy. So, how many times do I have to say "Whoops, I was wrong, my mistake" before people just forget I made the mistake? Yeah, for whatever reason I do forget how funny this movie actually is, and a lot of that is thanks to the animation. The animation director for this movie was Richard Williams and you can tell just from the opening skit, with the beautifully flowing camera work. Richard Williams was great at animating flow, whether it is the flow of a camera or the flow of a dancing ragdoll, he was just such an amazing talent. On top of that, the mixing is pretty damn near spotless. Sure there was one or two times the items did not interact quite well with the animation, but for the most part it really does look like these animated figures were actually there, live on camera. So many mechanics and doodads had to be hidden underneath very lively character animation, almost like a form of rotoscoping, and it is all just so perfect.

I mean, do I really have to explain why this is one of my favourite movies of all time? Even putting aside the investing plot, spot on performances and really good comedy, the animation and live-action mixing alone makes it enough of a mind blowing film, and then we get the different characters from different studios making appearances, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Woody Woodpecker, Droopy, heck even Felix the Cat appears as the Comedy and Tragedy masks above the Toon Town Tunnel. I mean the only thing missing is a nod to Winsor McCay, but I'll take a Coyote and Road Runner cameo instead, even if they are a bit anachronistic. It is a well made, well written, well acted, well animated, well directed and well received movie, none of you needed me to tell you to go see it, you probably already have. Legit, it is one of the greatest movies ever made, and if you're going to pass it up because "It has cartoons in it" well fine, it's your loss. I'm sure your kids will absolutely love it though. Do I even need to say it is a High Recommendation?