First Impressions: Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken (2023)

 

Yeah, I'm not taking back what I said about this poster, it is easily still one of the worst movie posters I've seen. However, a poster is not a movie, and ultimately the DreamWorks animated feature about Krakens, Mermaids, Teenagers, and Family Drama is... I mean I like it... I think. I think I like it. Maybe? Yeah, I do. Or maybe I like the concept and ideas alongside some parts of the movie. Maybe I like what it could have been? Yeah, I have thoughts, complicated thoughts. I mean, it is a good movie, but the ultimate question isn't do I think this movie is good, the question is do I recommend this movie, and... I think I do? I mean, I want this movie to do well, but like... would I recommend this movie straight up? I want to say I can recommend this no strings attached, but I mean, do I actually?

Okay, what do I like about this movie? Well, for starters I do like the concept, a teenaged kraken trying to have a normal human life while also being a creature from the sea that everybody hates... Wasn't that the basic idea of Luca? Young creatures from the sea trying to have a human life while the humans hunt their kind? Hmm... I should give that movie a watch, regardless, concept is great. On top of that, I do also like Ruby's relationship with her mother, I do believe her mother genuinely loves her and wants to do what's best, but it's just that what's best is not really clear. I also love that Ruby's crush also genuinely likes her, and has from the start. Genuinely I hate when a character has a crush and that crush only acknowledges them after they've done something incredible. On top of that, I think the modern setting really works in this movie, and the animation is absolutely wonderful, when Ruby's kraken form is glowing, it's genuinely very pretty, and does a lot to make the dark seas more visually appealing.

So, there is stuff I like here, it's just... there's also stuff I don't like. I did say I liked the concept, but the story itself... I said that Elemental focused on the wrong aspect of the story, and that goes double for Ruby Gillman. If this story was just Ruby and her family trying to find a balance between human life and kraken life, I would be so down for it. Yet, they have to have a war with mermaids, and royalty and Ruby makes friends with a mermaid, and would it spoil anything if I say you can probably tell where it's going? Yeah, this is one of those movies where I really didn't want what was going to happen, to actually happen. Unlike Elemental though, where I don't ultimately think the predictable things really dampen my enjoyment of the story, I think it kinda does in this case. Ruby's family dynamic and conflict about being human or being kraken is more than enough.

I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of being able to predict how stories turn out. I realize this is a "It's tough to be powerful" kind of complaint, but like, when you watch a lot of movies, you do start to pick out clichés, tropes and familiar story beats, and it ultimately wouldn't hurt to have those familiar things presented in a new way, or at least, something that was done really, really well about it. Again, going back to Elemental, it was a very predictable story, but the relationship between the two leads was done really well, enough for me to overlook the weak story. With this movie, I don't really think any part is done exceedingly well, it's serviceable, it meets its quota, but it really could have been more.

The stuff with the war, the mermaids, the trident, that stuff is fine, but the stuff with Ruby and her family and her life on land and her friends, that is all stuff I wanted to see more of. Watching this movie did give me a couple Turning Red vibes, and I don't really think I'm the only one who will come to that conclusion. Maybe they went in a different direction to avoid comparisons, but like I wouldn't have minded this movie being a bit more like Turning Red. So, again, I think I like what this movie could have been more than what it actually is, but I do like what it is. It's just, I think the whole is weaker than the sum of its parts. Do I recommend it? I mean... I guess? I'm not one to disguise the fact that I am not ahead of the curve and I can make dumb calls when it comes to First Impressions. This is partly why I don't count these as actual reviews, and why I did a rereview of Wonder Park.

I think ultimately, I do have to recommend it on some level, if only because I do want people to form their own opinions about something. Even then, the parts I did like about this movie, I genuinely did like, and even the parts I wasn't a fan of, I didn't completely hate. This is definitely a movie I will have to rewatch when the time comes because my current feelings are pretty complicated. I like parts of it, I dislike other parts, I don't think the whole movie is all that bad, but at the same time I don't think it's all that great, but I also don't want to say it's somewhere in between either. Is it a well made movie? yes. Is it entertaining? Again, yes. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I just need to give it a couple more watches, but ultimately, I can recommend it on some level. Consider this a high Slight Recommendation. Like in the same camp as movies like Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure.

Editorial: Ten Bad Posters for Animated Movies

Movie posters really don't get that much credit. The movie poster is another form of advertisement for a movie, and unlike a trailer it has to give you a feel for the movie in one image. So while it is absolutely nice to see some posters get an extra amount of effort and care put into making them look nice, representitive and appealing, it's also really funny to see when that just straight up did not happen. So, yeah, today I'm looking at posters for animated movies that ultimately just don't really work. Why? Because I've always been of the belief that knowing why something doesn't work is just as important as to knowing why something does. When you look at bad art and know why you don't like it, you can incorporate that into your own art. So, let's see what we can learn from these ten examples of pretty mediocre and lame attempts at advertising.

I really want to stress this is not a ranked list, just a list of examples.

10. Kung Fu Panda 2

You know, I can forgive the first Kung Fu Panda movie for having a silly poster because, yeah, let's be real it sounds like a silly movie and that was probably why people were interested in it. It's just that beneath the surface of the silly Kung Fu movie for kids, was actually a very deep movie. So, Kung Fu Panda 2 comes out, and what poster do we get? Something that literally screams "We're the exact same thing the last movie was". In fact, it may actually be worse than that because ultimately, since the depth and nuance of the last movie was a bit of a surprise to people, now it seems like this movie is going to have even less of that, because just look at it, if this poster doesn't scream "The same but less" than I don't know what does.

9. Horton Hears a Who

You know, DreamWorks face barely works for DreamWorks movie posters, it works even less for what amounts to a lesser Pixar/DreamWorks movie studio. No offense to Blue Sky, but they did not have the best filmography before they were shut down. Anyway, this poster is hilarious, like change the title to "Harold and the Elephant" and you have a movie about a man who is having a psychotic episode trying to escape an imaginary elephant who is also a sex offender. Look, I'm just saying, making faces like that while behind someone is not something you do unless you're thinking about slithering in-between that person's buns.

8. Princess Mononoke

What does a movie about the war between man and nature and a looming threat of a dark entity really need to sell itself? A woman riding on the back of a wolf, that's what! Okay, truthfully, I can see this being appealing, like someone might look at this poster and think, "Wow, who is this badass riding the back of a large wolf?" and on that level, I can see this poster being good, but again, a poster needs to be some kind of representation of the movie itself, and I'm fairly certain that there's something a lot deeper in this movie than a woman riding on the back of a wolf.

7. Kubo and the Two Strings

You know, DreamWorks face barely works for DreamWorks movie posters, it works even less for... Actually I think the biggest issue with this one is that it just looks like a very generic action movie.

6. Zootopia

Ah yes, Zootopia... Zootropolis. Crowded shots for movie posters are usually a bad idea, but at least they have the main characters as the most prominent in them. In this poster, Nick and Judy are shoved off into the side, not even in the front, they're behind two random characters. This crowded shot does make this place feel like a big city, but this look like a poster for a slice-of-life film, not a comedic mystery. Even then, this poster doesn't really make me want to explore the Zootopia world, it makes me remember why city life kinda sucks, overcrowded and noisy.

5. Missing Link

There is an awful trend of DVD covers just being close-ups of a character's face, it honestly kinda looks like Laika was just gonna cut out the middle man by making this the poster so they could make an easy DVD cover with minimal editing. On the bright side, the actual DVD covers are a step-up from this.

4. Tangled

Well this looks like the most generic adventure Disney has ever given us. We got a movie about Rapunzel, so why not have a poster that focuses on her long hair? Maybe her climbing out of the tower? Maybe her tying up the other characters? There is another poster with her and Flynn and the lantern festival thing, that was a beautiful poster, so why is this the poster I will see in most places? It just... looks so generic and bland.

3. Ratatouille

This is kind of the Kung Fu Panda principle, where it looks like they're making a silly poster to advertise what is in actuality a much deeper movie. One thing though, this is Pixar, you know, Toy Story Pixar, Incredibles Pixar, A Bug's Life Pixar, silly movies with depth is kind of their bread and butter, so why not instead of a poster that is essentially just "You're probably wondering how I got here" as a still image, why not have a shot of Paris? Remy looking over the beautiful night sky in Paris with his idol's restaurant in the distance? Why go in this direction?

2. Kiki's Delivery Service

Okay, we got a movie about a witch who is trying to adapt to life in a small Japanese town, what is the best image to advertise this movie with? I know! Kiki slumping over the counter of a bakery. Thankfully other posters had the right idea and used an image of Kiki flying over a city, which is definitely a better image. I dunno, I know this is a more slice of life movie, and it's based on a slice of life book (Which is actually a really good book by the way), but I just look at this poster and think, "So this girl delivers bread, wow...".

1. Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken

I... really should not count this one since, as of writing this, this movie isn't even out yet, but my immediate reaction to seeing this poster was, "Oh gosh, that is bad". It is simultaneously too much, and yet too little at the same time. There's a big battle going above, and a character just chilling out below, I mean, what? It really does appear that DreamWorks has no idea how to market this movie, because nobody really knows exactly what it's about, and this poster really doesn't help, hopefully the movie will be good, but this is easily one of the worst movie posters I've seen.

The movie poster is an important part of the movie going experience, they are often one of the first images we see of the newest movies, and in and of themselves are works of art. There are so many movie posters out there that are as enticing as the movie trailers, just with one still image. There are lots of pieces of art that I feel a lot of people overlook, like Movie Posters, Video Game Box Arts, Album Covers, and I want us to learn from it all. If you were making a poster for a movie, what kind of things did you see in these posters would you not do? Is there anything in these posters you would incorporate into your own work? Looking at and studying bad art is just as important as studying great art, and I think that is ultimately the thing I want you to take away from this post. These posters may not be great, but we can still learn from them.

Disney Live Action Trudge: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

It's easy to forget that the first live-action remakes of Disney properties came out in the 90s, because the first big ones would come out in the 2010s. 2010 was such a game changing year for entertainment, for televised animation Adventure Time, Regular Show and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic began airing, for film there was Inception and The King's Speech, plus Disney seemed to be entering a second renaissance of sorts with the release of Tangled and Pixar's Toy Story 3. DreamWorks was starting off another franchise with How To Train Your Dragon, a film trilogy I desperately need to review some day, and Iron Man 2 was building up to the eventual Marvel Cinematic Universe. Video games had releases like Red Dead Redemption, StarCraft II, Halo: Reach, Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Super Meat Boy. It may be easy to forget, but in hindsight, 2010 might have been one of the most important years for entertainment, it did pave the way for quite a lot of things, including the Disney Live Action Remake.

Alice in Wonderland was not one of the movies I was looking forward to for this marathon, but I eventually bucked up and gave it a watch, and honestly it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be, because somehow it was worse. Not all that much worse, but if given the choice to watch this movie or take five slaps to the face like Barney Stinson, I'd take the facial slaps. It's a shame because I really do think a darker and more twisted take on Alice in Wonderland could totally be done, something that really added in some horrific aspects and put an emphasis on the darker tones. I dunno, maybe someday one of the guys who did Design work for ID Software or that Czech who does Claymation can do a better version. Ha, yeah, if you haven't quite figured both American McGee and Jan Švankmajer have both done darker takes on the Alice in Wonderland story, with Švankmajer's Alice releasing in 1988 and American McGee's Alice releasing in 2000, but Tim Burton has his own style, so it would be fascinating to see what he could do with the story, at least I thought so. That was before I watched this movie.

My first major issue with the movie is quite simple to state, it's boring. I figured that the opening scene was meant to be boring to kind of contrast to the zany and wacky stuff happening in wonderland, not that the mentality excuses the opening from being boring itself, but at least it's an explanation, but then again the rest of the movie is also just as boring. It's really odd because not only is this Alice in Wonderland, the definition of "Shouldn't be boring", but this is also a war movie. Yeah, one of the most brilliant decisions made in cinema, Alice in Wonderland, a WAR movie! Now someone's gonna say, "But Disney also made Treasure Island into a Science-Fiction movie, and Shakespeare into Kimba the White Lion, so why aren't you against those?" Easy, Treasure Planet is still an adventure film, like the original story, Lion King still has some remnants of a tragedy, like the original Hamlet, nothing in the original Lewis Carrol books ever implied that the story was best suited to have a war in there. Treasure Island can be put in space, and Hamlet can be told with lions, Alice should not fight in a war.

The movie is also not subtle about it. They really want you to know that people are dead in this movie. The Queen comments about eating one of the Frog Servants kids after sending him to be beheaded, the dormouse plucks out a monster's eye, and that is not done off camera, Alice cuts the Jabberwocky's head off and we see the body wiggle and writhe while it slowly dies. I get this is a PG movie, and a hard PG, but it really feels out of place. But why is this out of place and American McGee's Alice isn't? Well, I think ultimately it's because American McGee actually uses the story to explore themes of mental issues and trauma, which the story of Alice in Wonderland does lend itself too, at least it lends itself better to that than it does to a war. I'm fine with dark kids movies, but there is a limit to that, movies like Land Before Time or A Series of Unfortunate Events are dark, but not too unpleasant, and the unpleasant moments are balanced out by the happier moments. This movie doesn't really have that, it's just moments that are less unpleasant than others.

And the acting, oh my gosh the acting is pretty bad in this movie. No offense meant to Mia Wasikowska, I'm sure she does great performances in her other roles, but something was just not working with her role as Alice. There is a big moment where she is standing up for herself, not letting herself be told what to do and who to be, and she just does not sell it at all. Even when she realizes this isn't a dream, I absolutely do not believe she is the character. The other actors aren't that bad, but not all that great. I'm conflicted a bit on Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, he slips in and out of accents a lot and kind of does a lot of stuff I think would have been better if it was someone like Jim Carrey in that role. Plus, whoever designed the Red Queen in this movie succeeded in making something truly hideous, and not the good kind. This is like watching the life-sized cross between a Funko Pop and a Conan O'Brien caricature. Actually the design work as a whole is kind of disappointing too, like the Red Queen's castle has like, a couple of heart shapes and motifs in the design, but it looks like any other castle. No Expressionist influence, no excess use of the heart motifs, it just looked really plain and boring.

Yeah, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is pretty bad, way too dark for it's own good and not interesting enough to justify it. Is this the worst Disney movie of 2010? Alongside The Sorcerer's Apprentice? I doubt it, but it's definitely one of the worst I've seen. This is very much a different take on the story, but it's a take that does not work. I know I'm only two movies into this marathon, but I'm ready to call this one of the worst of the bunch, but as of now we have seventeen more movies to get through, counting both Peter Pan and Wendy and The Little Mermaid 2023, so it may have some competition, but it is only fitting that this movie really kicked off the Live Action Remake trend, since it was the omen that this trend was gonna suck. Well, that's done, it looks like Maleficent is next on the docket, another one that I'm not looking forward to, but at the very least Sleeping Beauty isn't a movie I hold close, so I may end up liking it. We'll wait and see. 

First Impressions: Elemental (2023)

Elemental is one of those movies that everyone had thoughts on, from the concept alone people had questions, thoughts and criticisms. There was just one major thing though, for a good while we didn't really have much to go off of on what this movie really was. The first teaser was a brief showcase of the world this movie took place in, and even then not by much. It showed us two things, that this was a world full of elementals, and that fire was not very common here. We got a more detailed trailer afterwards, but exactly what this movie was, we still weren't sure. We knew it had something to do with prejudice, maybe? Honestly I probably should have drawn this conclusion earlier, but it did seem like Disney was trying to market this as a second Zootopia. However, those are the trailers, and trailers, even fantastic ones, are not whole movies, so how was Elemental as a movie?

Ultimately, Elemental is a good movie. Not great, not spectacular, honestly it is kind of bog standard for Pixar, but it is a good movie. I think the unsure expectations are what will really keep people away from checking this movie out in theatres, that or theatre prices. This movie is not another Zootopia, sort of, themes of prejudice are still prevalent, but the movie is ultimately not about prejudice in the same way Zootopia was. That being said, it's also not a wholly original story either, you can still find elements from modern Disney in this movie. I can't say it's about intergenerational trauma, this isn't another Encanto or Turning Red, but similar themes are there.

When it comes to world building, I'd say that Element City is about on par with Monsteropolis, but that still puts it leagues above Onward. Anyone even remember what Onward's city was called? I never really got the urge to want to explore this city, or really see how it worked. That being said, this movie's world is quite neat, I did enjoy seeing how the homes for the water folk were made, and I quite liked seeing how sports were done in this world. Some of the technicals, like the trains running on water, and there being canals to catch spills from the ships are nice touches, and of course the movie just looks beautiful, so that is a plus towards the worldbuilding as well.

However, neither the themes nor worldbuilding is this movie's strength. The strength lies completely in the relationship between Ember and Wade, and while the arc is again, not wholly original, it is well done and well-made is always going to last longer than unique. I liked seeing why these two fell in love in the first place, Ember admiring Wade's ability to connect with people and Wade admiring Ember's creative thinking. Ultimately, I wanted to see them together, I wanted to see them have all the fun experiences together, I wanted them to be happy. I think Elemental focused on the wrong side of the story, the engaging bit wasn't how everyone else saw Wade and Ember's relationship, the engaging bit was the relationship.

Saying that Elemental is a standard Pixar film, should be seen as a testament to how high Pixar's standard's really are. Remember this is the studio that gave us Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Up, The Incredibles, so when Pixar releases a film that's good but not great, it can be seen as them slipping up. Pixar's output has been pretty full of slip ups and mixed opinions, I loved Toy Story 4 but a lot of people see it as unnecessary, Turning Red has a lot of controversy attached, Lightyear is the lowest rated Pixar movie that isn't in the Cars franchise on Rotten Tomatoes, Brave and The Good Dinosaur are seen as Pixar's worst movies, and Onward was rather generic. Pixar is still able to put fantastic movies out, but I think it's okay that they put out something that is just "good" as well. So no, this isn't in the upper echelons of Pixar movies, but it's still in a comfortable space. I can see Elemental being someone's favourite Pixar movie, but not a lot of peoples. Even still, I give this movie a solid recommendation.

Also, how have I never used the world "Echelons" before?

Něco z Alenky (Jan Švankmajer's Alice) (1988) - A Truly Fascinating Film

 

So... I decided, because I'm a glutton for punishment, to do a review on each Disney Live-Action Remake, and now I'm forced to watch each an every one of them. As of now, I have to go through Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which I am not looking forward to, but that gave me the urge to check out another take on the Alice in Wonderland story, one that is also from the mind of an animator known for the dark and the disturbing, only this one is actually dark and disturbing. Jan Švankmajer is a Czech animator, mostly known for his short films such as The Last Trick and one of my favourites, Dimensions of Dialogue. His work has influenced multiple others from The Brothers Quay to Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. He works mostly in stop motion, but he also incorporates live actors, puppets and cutout animation in his work, and his work is... something else. If you like surrealistic, dark and abstract animation, Jan Švankmajer's short films come with a recommendation from myself. In 1988, he tried his hand at making a feature film, titled "Alice", or "Something from Alice", and it is... fascinating.

This review is going to be a bit different, because this is just such a unique piece, it kind of defies traditional analysis, not to say it is a wholly untraditional film, it still follows the basic story of Alice in Wonderland, but rather than Alice dozing off in the field and seeing a rabbit outside, a taxidermy rabbit comes to life in her room, in fact there's a lot of things like that. The caterpillar for example is a sock with eyes and teeth, and the lizard Bill appears more like a taxidermized reptile with a different animals skull. The rest of the movie is very grungy, dirty and rusted, and all kinds of random things are used as puppets, including cutouts, skulls and raw meat. Yeah if you're absolutely terrified of stop motion animation already, you may want to stay away from this movie because it will make your fear a lot worse. Even Alice sometimes looks absolutely afraid of some of the things in this movie.

Speaking of which, Alice is played by Kristýna Kohoutová, and she does a pretty good job. She looks genuinely curious and weirded out at points. I mention this because, she is the only person in this entire movie that speaks, it's like she's reading the story as we're watching what is going on, which leads to the fascinating choice of having most of this movie be silent. Dialogue only comes in when it is important, and for the most part we have to infer what Alice is thinking, which becomes more interesting when she's in doll form, yes, for a good chunk of the movie, Alice is a live actor interacting with all these puppets, and other objects. They almost never show her in the same shot as the puppets, so this isn't like King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts, but I still believe that everything is in the same room, thanks to the directing and editing.

However, I can see someone having an issue with the editing, as the film is rather slow-paced, and there are some weird editing choices, like whenever Kristýna narrates a character's dialogue, when the dialogue is being said we see the character, but when she says "Said the character", it shows a close-up of her mouth, which I swear zooms in closer and closer as the movie goes on. It is also very Jan Švankmajer in the editing, which is difficult to describe, but if you're familiar with his work, you already have kind of a feel for how his films are edited. If you aren't a fan of his style of films you may not like this one all that much. You may also not like the background music, because there is none. You just hear an almost endless ticking sound, and that is the closest thing to background music you get. I quite enjoy the lack of background music, it lends itself to the eerie and uncomfortable atmosphere, which I think is intentional, since many of the films by Jan Švankmajer have that very eerie, odd and uncomfortable atmosphere to them.

Jan Švankmajer's Alice is a really odd movie, but it's just so fascinating that I had to talk about it. I really did like it, it's one of those movies like Raggedy Ann and Andy or Felidae where I really don't think I've ever seen something like it before, and don't think I'll see anything like it anytime soon. However, like those movies that does come with the caveat that... I'm not really sure how to recommend it. On the one hand, if you love animation, this is a must see, I found a version on YouTube with a translation in the closed captions, so if you want to check it out, that is probably your best bet, since I've heard that Jan Švankmajer's work is hard to find if you're not in Europe. That being said, this is not really a movie I would recommend it casual movie goers or anyone who isn't really familiar with the animator's previous work. If what I said interests you, I'd recommend checking out some of the short films first, and if you liked them, then I'd recommend this movie. Honestly, this movie is truly fascinating, and I do think that if you're an animation fan it is worth check out at least once. This is another case where I'm giving the movie a Slight Recommendation, but you should not take that as this film not being any good, it's just for a more specific audience.

First Impressions: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)

 

Easily one of the best animated movies from the 2010s has got to be 2018's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It was fun, exciting and unique amongst the rest of the animated releases that year. It wasn't my favourite, I still think Isle of Dogs is the best animated movie of 2018, but this was easily a close second, and it was a lot more impactful on animation than I anticipated, the 2020s, so far have been one of the best years for stylized animation, beyond just Computer Generated 3D animation, and I do think this was, if not the catalyst than where the ball got enough momentum. So, of course a sequel would be highly anticipated and there would be a lot of expectations on this movie. It not only has to stand up compared to the first movie, but it has the challenge of any sequel, which is that it has to stand on its own... Kinda like Miles Morales... funny how that is fitting.

Immediately, the first thing that hit me was the opening scene with Gwen and her father. After seeing it, I thought I sat through a whole mini-movie, like I would have been satisfied if it was just the opening segment. You know what I'm about to compare it to next, yep, this movie's opening was almost as good as the opening to Up. Legitimately, it was that good, I think I'll give the point to Up by just a tiny margin, but that just kinda shows the talent that went into this movie for the opening sequence to be on par with what is often regarded as the greatest opening to an animated movie of all time. Of course, now one would imagine that with an opening so good the rest of the movie would falter by comparison. Right?

While I won't say that this is as good as the first movie, you do have to understand that was a really high bar in the first place, the animation was a bit more stylized, especially in Gwen's world, and especially on the characters, seeing Spider-Punk in such a very distinct style was super cool, and seeing the scene with Miles towards the end, all his memories coming back, it was so cool. Truthfully, there is so much about the animation I want to talk about but, holy moly, I really want to keep this spoiler free. So many cool bits of animation, blending, live-action integration, it's all very cool.

On top of that, I liked seeing where all these characters went, Peter B. Parker became Spider-Dad and was just amazing to watch, seeing where Miles is, where Gwen is, it was all so engaging. I was sitting there, in the theatre, and what was in my seat's cup holder? Warm Sprite, I often forgot I had my drink right next to me, and my friend stopped eating their snacks we were that invested in what was going on. On top of that, seeing all these new spider-men, not just Spider-Punk, but also Miguel O'Hara, Jessica Drew, Pavitr Prabhakar, Spider-Byte, Scarlet Spider, Web-Slinger, and so many other Spider-mans... Spider-men? Spider-mans that... quite frankly I think only those who are DEEP into comics and Spider-Man lore can really appreciate, though they were good for a good chuckle at the utter ridiculousness of things like Spider-Rex, which I thought they were already digging deep for Spider-Ham. Hey, if you guys can name every Spider-Man variant out there like I can name every member of Donald Duck's family tree, this may be a movie for you.

Also J. K. Simmons comes back as J. Jonah Jameson, which is a plus.

So, do I have any issues with this movie? Yes, I have one very big glaring issue, this is part one of a two-parter. Why does this bother me? Because it means that I have to wait another year or so to see how this story concludes. This is one of those movies I would have been glad to see a full three hour cut of, it was so gripping and exciting that knowing that I can't finish this story right now is irritating, is this how it felt to wait for the Lord of the Rings sequels? Like, people who saw Two Towers in theatres and had to wait a whole year before The Return of the King, is this what it felt like? Still, don't let that stop you from seeing this movie, easily it is one of the best animated movies... Hell, one of the best movies of the year so far. It is kinda nice that 2022, despite being a bit of a dry spell for animated movies, it is nice that most of the one's we've gotten have been really good. I'm excited for the rest of 2022's releases... particularly one... you know which one.

As for Across the Spider-Verse, do I even need to say it's a High Recommendation? I'm considering this as mandatory viewing if you want to get into animation.

The Lord of the Rings (1978) - A Kinda Sloppy, but Ambitious and Admirable Attempt at an Adaptation

 

The Lord of the Rings is one of pop cultures most prominent book series, it is probably more well known than other book series like Narnia, Harry Potter and Dragon Riders of Pern. J.R.R. Tolkien's fantastical tale of wizards and hobbits and the horrors of war has enchanted, delighted and horrified many a reader, and has made its way into multiple other formats, ranging from video games and Hollywood features, most notably the Peter Jackson trilogy that was made and released in the early 2000s, defining the decade and fantasy cinema of the future. However, this was not the first attempt at adapting Tolkien's story into a feature, as in the 1970s Ralph Bakshi took a stab at it with a Screenplay by Chris Conkling and Peter S. Beagle, yes, the same Peter S. Beagle who wrote The Last Unicorn. Despite the talent and ambition, and some fair responses at the time, it has largely been overshadowed by Peter Jackson's version, for a while until it garnered some attention online. Of course, it isn't as good as the Jackson trilogy, but is it any good on its own?

The story is a loose adaptation of the first two books, up to the Battle at Helm's Deep. It has a uniquely done prologue that tells the story of the one ring, then it's a pretty straightforward telling of the story, with, as you can probably guess, a fair share of omissions. I have not read the Lord of the Rings books, honestly I haven't even watched that much of the Peter Jackson movies, so I can't say this with one-hundred percent certainty, but I do believe they get the important bits down. They skip Tom Bombadil, but they get through the Ringwraiths in Rivendell, Gandalf meeting with Saruman, the council of Elrond, the mines of Moria, Lothlórien, Boromir's death, Merry and Pippen being taken by Orcs and meeting Treebeard and Frodo and Sam meeting Gollum. It is condensed but I do think the important stuff is there. Likewise, I do believe the characters are fairly accurate, though this is only me guessing from learning from second-hand sources, so I'm bound to have someone commenting about every minute difference between the book characters and the movie characters. Please note, I don't actually care, I'm not Dominic Noble, comparing books to adaptations is not my job. Aragorn is pretty badass, but also can take a moment to chill and Gimli is not just made completely to be comic relief. On top of that, I really did feel like the group had a sense of friendship and camaraderie.

The biggest issue with the story is the editing can be really... hilarious at points. I thought the editing to The Swan Princess was a problem, but in this movie, they literally talk about going to Lothlórien and then the next shot is Galadriel welcoming the party to Lothlórien, that made me laugh when I saw it, like this is something you would see in like, a spoof comedy. That being said, when shots needed to drag, they do drag, but not for too long. One of my favourite shots in the movie was when Frodo and the Hobbits were about to be spotted by the Ringwraith, the scene shows them leaving the road to hide, but it lingers, it stays still as we hear the Ringwraith ride closer until it appears on screen. It's honestly a pretty well done shot, and there are more editing choices like that then randomly cutting to Galadriel. Editing wise, this is not as bad as The Thief and the Cobbler or The Swan Princess, but it isn't exactly great, and does contribute to this movie coming off as kinda sloppy.

The animation is pretty notorious to people who know of this film. Most of you will know that the movie mixed traditional cel animation with live-action rotoscoping. There is a fine line between good rotoscoping and bad rotoscoping, it's one of those things where if it isn't one-hundred percent good, it's garbage. Personally, I think that is a bit of an exaggeration, there is really good rotoscoping out there like the music video for A-Ha's Take on Me, and while this rotoscoping is a bit more middle tier, it isn't terrible, at first. As the movie goes on, the rotoscoping does sometimes look like someone just put a filter over the footage, and when obviously live-action people have animated characters next to them, or worse, animated parts attached to them, it looks really out of place. As for the traditional animation, it's really solid, the facial animation is a bit bizarre, almost Hercules and Xena levels honestly, but the body animation is realistic, most likely thanks to the rotoscoping references, and the character design is okay. They look nothing like you would expect them to look like if your familiar with the live-action movies, but they still look mostly distinct from each other, you can pick most of them out in a screenshot. Speaking of design, the backgrounds are all fantastic, though they sometimes do this thing where the backgrounds fade away and it looks like someone put a greenscreen effect in an animated movie. It's... an interesting choice, to say the least.

The voice acting was really good though, I don't imagine that any of these names are familiar to most movie goers, unless you're really big into British television. The biggest names I recognized were John Hurt, who is an icon who has appeared in so many things and plays Aragorn in this movie, and Anthony Daniels, most known as the voice of C-3P0 in Star Wars and plays Legolas in this movie. That being said, the other actors do great jobs, William Squire as Gandalf does have that presence that Sir Ian McKellen has while still being distinct, and honestly I kinda prefer Christopher Guard as Frodo instead if Elijah Wood, Wood just kinda comes off as vulnerable all the time. The acting gets a huge thumbs up from me, and so does the score really. I do not understand the choice of music they went with, it's kind of jovial, almost reminiscent of pieces like Entry of the Gladiators, but honestly, I kind of love it. It's beautifully triumphant, though not as epic. The music was done by Leonard Rosenman, who also did the music for movies like Rebel Without a Cause, Fantastic Voyage, A Man Called Horse and two of the Planet of the Apes sequels. I'd say this was an excellent score.

Overall, I can't say that Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings movie is a truly great movie, I do think that, if he had the budget he probably could've done better by making it a trilogy. That being said though, it isn't a bad movie on its own. I think when people think of "The Lord of the Rings", they think of "Epic", and animated epics are... kinda rare honestly. Other than The Prince of Egypt I can't really think of any other animated epics. If you temper your expectations, I do believe you'll see an ambitious project that was probably way ahead of its time, truly the biggest problem of this movie is simply that it was probably too ambitious. Do not let that keep you from watching this movie, simply as a curiosity or as a Ralph Bakshi fan. I enjoyed my time with this movie, and I do believe that others will find something to enjoy, or at least something to talk about. Remember, this was one of the movies that led to Peter Jackson's trilogy. Also, this movie is over two-hours long, so maybe don't make this a casual viewing.