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?

Cats (2019) - A Mediocre Adaptation of the Energetic Musical

 

There are a lot of movies I could have done for this special effects movie marathon. However, these first three films I was set on talking about. King Kong was the film that pioneered a lot of special effect techniques, so I felt obligated to start with that one. Avatar was one of the biggest movies of the time, and it is getting a sequel, and Cats was one of the first times I've been privy to the discussion of Special Effects Films versus Fully Animated Films. I've probably heard the argument that movies like this should be completely animated pop up before, I mean this came out the same year as that awful Lion King remake, but my only reaction to takes like that was always to just shrug it off. I'm of the opinion that not everything that works in live-action will work in animation, especially a show that is as acrobatic and reliant on the performers as Cats is. If you've seen the 1998 version of Cats, you would know that Cats is a show that is very reliant on spectacle, lots of complicated dancing, tight choreography and high energy. You aren't watching Cats for the same reason you'd watch Les Misérables or Hamilton, you're watching Cats because it is a show, not just a performance.

I'll admit, I really liked the 1998 version of Cats, I like the music and I love the performances. So I was curious to go back to the 2019 version, as this was my introduction to the musical. I've seen references to the musical here and there, but until the movie came out I never actually watched any version of Cats. So, I decided to take this chance to watch this movie again and see if my initial impressions hold up. If I knew I was gonna write a review for this movie back when I first saw it, I would have done a first impressions. Actually, note to self, plan a review for Wonder Park in the future.

For any fans of the musical, or haters for that matter, this is unmistakably the story of Cats, sort of. The original musical does not really have much of a story, so the movie makes a few changes. They make Victoria the central focus character, which is both odd, but also makes some sense. Victoria is a minor character in the musical, I don’t think she is even named directly in the show, so it’s odd but it does give the filmmakers something of a clear slate to work with. We watch as Victoria gets introduced the the Jellicle Cats as they begin their Jellicle Ball, where Old Deuteronomy selects a Jellicle to be reborn. However, one Cat named Macavity is determined to be chosen and kidnaps the other contestants and eventually Old Deuteronomy, in this version played by Judi Dench, not a bad choice considering she is Cats alumni, but I do admit I like Ken Page in the '98 version better. The plot is weird because it is at its core, still the musical, but with some changes. Firstly, wasn't the idea that the audience was meant to be the focal point character? The one who was experiencing all of the action and being told about the different cats? I feel like they could have had some fun with this concept in the movie, like a Wayne's World or Deadpool kind of thing where they are always breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience. They also add a bit of meat to the bones by giving each cat a reason they'd want to be chosen to start a new life, sort of, it's not really all that detailed and isn't even present in some cases, and they also try to make Macavity more of a threat by having him be more active in the story. They also add in a plot point where it is Victoria who convinces Grizabella to sing at the Jellicle Ball, which is an interesting interpretation of the original scene. Overall, I can't be too hard on the plot because the original musical is fairly bare in terms of plot. The plot of Cats is vague enough to really be open to interpretation, I've heard takes about it as a fable of sorts, about it being metaphorical and allegorical of human society, and about it just being a showy musical. They tried to add more meat to these bones, but the end result is... mixed.

A part of me really thinks, and I know I'm not alone on this, that the writers did not really understand the characters all that well. They made Jennyanydots, who in the musical seemed good natured and sort of motherly into a cat pun spewing fat joke. Bustopher Jones seemed more regal and respected in the musical where in this movie we just get another clownish fat joke. I'll give Jason DeRulo credit, he tried with Rum Tum Tugger, but this character in the musical is just effortlessly cool and Jason DeRulo just does not emit that kind of coolness, and I don't believe that Bombalurina was meant to be a part of Macavity's posse. However, all of them got off lightly, unlike my favourite character Mr. Mistoffelees. Who was hands down the coolest character in the musical just became a nervous and shy mess. The Cat that was so cool, Rum Tum Tugger, the Cat that breathes, oozes and gyrates coolness had respect for him, is barely recognizable here. On top of all of that, it was actually kind of hard to tell which cat was which, they all kind of looked the same. Yes, they had different coloured fur, but they all had similar patterns, similar levels of fluffiness, no real discernable features on any of them. I could barely tell that Munkustrap was supposed to be Munkustrap. Seriously, look at the 1998 version, you can see that there is variety to their coats and accessories, where in this movie, you can really only tell them apart because of the clothes they wear. It also doesn't help that the movie is dark, muddy and grungy, but to be fair, the '98 version was also somewhat dirty too, it's just they didn't have brown gels over the lights.

But again, plot and characters are not why you're seeing Cats, you are seeing Cats because it is a show, it is full of amazingly tight choreography and high energy music. Something I really admire of the musical is that they incorporated some rock elements into the musical score, which perfectly captured the mood of the songs. In this movie, they add a lot of Techno elements to some of the songs, which I don't actually think work. On top of that I feel like some of the performances are off, and part of this is because there is a noticeable difference between the way one performs on stage and the way one performs on screen, so getting a bunch of screen actors and record singers rather than stage performers just won't deliver the same kind of performance. Then again, it is possible that the timing of their delivery is just off, listening to "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer" in this movie just did not sound right to me, and I don't know how to explain it since I am not music savvy at all. I will give credit that there were some things about the music I liked, like in "Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats" towards the end where they start listing all the kinds of cats, they only have like one to two or so cats sing each part and I thought that was a cool idea, and there were some lyric changes I was fine with. "I might mention, Mungojerrie, Rumpleteazer, and Grittlebone."

As for the animation and choreography, well my impression of Cats was that it was always uncanny valley looking, so I kind of brushed that criticism off. Looking at this movie again, yeah the CG can be a bit weird looking. It is mostly noticeable with the mice and cockroaches, but sometimes the cats also look really fake, which kind of diminishes the value to the choreography. Because the cats are literally coated in CG I can't really tell if these moves were done by real people or done in CG, which begs the question why this wasn't entirely animated, like one incarnation of the film was meant to be, but then all the moves would be animated, which may actually take away from the experience, as part of the spectacle of Cats is the choreography, and because these actors already look completely animated, and probably were in some shots, I can't really be impressed by the movement. It also doesn't help that some of the more complicated moves, like in Mr. Mistoffelees' number, aren't present, so most of the song numbers are the Cats running around rather than doing any of the synchronized moves like in the musical. I really should try to let this movie stand on its own merits, but what does it really offer?

It offers subpar music, an attempt at a more fleshed out plot with mixed results, not very good visuals or choreography and all in all just a lot to be desired. So, this movie really sucks, eh? Like, worst picture of 2019 Razzie award winning sucks? In 2019? The year of The Lion King remake? The movie that took a beautiful and visually large movie, set in a beautiful and visually large part of the world and made it look muddy and unimpressive? The movie that actually took away things from the original but actually made the run time longer? You're seriously going to sit there and tell me that a mediocre at worst adaptation of a musical that not everybody even likes is worse than a movie that actively slapped the faces of animation fans and the people who worked on it? I hate The Lion King remake so much, but Cats 2019? Honestly, it doesn't make me as mad. I feel like they tried something, what they tried I have no idea, but they tried something. Sure, the CG is a bit uncanny, but I'll take awful CG in a mediocre movie than mediocre CG in an awful movie, and looking at the entire package, I wouldn't say this movie is awful. I will grant Cats this, when I first saw it, it did make me want to check out the original musical, so forgive me if I think the Razzies are about as full of trash as the Oscars. No, this is not a good movie, but I would be lying if I said it was one of the worst movies I've seen, really it's biggest crime is being a mediocre adaptation. It's not the Plan 9 From Outer Space kind of entertainingly bad, and it's not the Lion King 2019 kind of infuriatingly bad, it's just a mediocre kind of bad. I guess it also hurts a little that this was directed by Tom Hooper, who directed The King's Speech, which is my favourite movie of all time. So, while I don't recommend this, I can't say it's as bad as its reputation says. Take that for what it's worth.

The Adventures of Tintin (AKA: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn) (2011) - A fine adventure for fans and newcomers alike

So, I said I was gonna try and review older movies this year. I am not backing out of my promise, I am still going to try and review movies from the 1990s and before, but I think I should be allowed some leeway here. Especially since 2011 was ten years ago, my does time fly. I figured since I had the opportunity I should give this movie a go, especially since I am a big Tintin fan. When I was a kid, there was this channel called "Teletoon Retro", it was pretty much Boomerang for you readers with Cartoon Network, it played all of the old kids shows and is where I first discovered such wonderful shows like Fraggle Rock, Rocket Robin Hood, and of course, The Adventures of Tintin. After that I read some of the comics, and I really love them. They're definitely my favourite comics and I kind of wish someone took the license and made more of them, I dunno maybe Dark Horse or IDW, but regardless, given my enjoyment of the franchise, how does the movie hold up?

The plot follows Tintin, an English reporter, as he tries to figure out what makes a model ship he purchased so alluring to others, a model ship that gets him kidnapped, introduces him to the drunkard Captain Haddock, and takes him to the Middle East to find the secret that these model ships are holding. It's kind of an amalgamation of different Tintin comics, The Secret of the Unicorn most notably, but with elements of a few others. Overall I do think that the plot moves along solidly, being an adventure/mystery movie I feel both elements are done very well and in keeping with the comics, well sort of.

Watching this movie, it really does highlight the differences in expectations between comics and cinema. Comic audiences don't typically expect long, epic chase sequences, thrilling and exciting action scenes. This is because of the fundamental differences between the comic and cinema mediums. Comic books are not very long, sure you have graphic novels and manga, but other comic books, especially the serialized ones, like the superhero and Tintin comics, are rather short affairs. For the most part (From my bare minimum of research so feel free to correct me in the comments) Tintin comics are 62 pages long, with a few exceptions, notably the first book which is 141 pages long. Even so, the amount of action you can convey is limited, so a chase scene would need to be a handful of panels, a page at most if you can get away with it. With cinema, that handful of panels to a page can be translated to two to five minutes maybe, so you can get away with some of the flowing camera work and more... outlandish elements that this film gets away with.

I am rather split on the action scenes in the movie. The chase seen in Bagghar was pretty well done, if a bit more destructive than I think would happen in a regular Tintin comic. The crane duel between Haddock and Sakharine though, that was just stupid. I'm also not a huge fan of the camera flow in the chase scenes, maybe that is just a me thing.

I think this transitions decently well into the animation which... is a mixed bag. On one hand, the movie looks incredible. The lighting and the textures almost made me think this film was shot live action, which can be a problem, you know this is animation, but I think the characters were exaggerated enough to make it not too realistic. In fact, that character design is really good, Haddock looked just like a three-dimensional, more realistic version of Haddock would look like, Thomson and Thompson looked great, but on the other hand I think they erm... well reduced Madame Castafiore's size a bit, and gave her a different nose, and as for Tintin, some of his facial expressions looked really off to me, that may just be a me thing, but some of his looks just gave an uncanny valley kind of vibe.

Character wise, they're all the same characters you know and love from the original comics. Tintin is a curious and determined fellow that tends not to go down without a fight. Captain Haddock is a drunken excitable man of action, and Thomson and Thompson are the same bumbling police officers they were in the comics. They included Madame Castafiore in the movie as a bit of fan service, personally I would have also enjoyed to see Professor Calculus as he is one of my favourite characters. Overall though, the characters have largely been unchanged, and the voice cast did a decent job as well. Andy Serkis was really good as Haddock, Nick Frost and Simon Pegg worked great as Thomson and Thompson, even if they probably only got the role because of Hot Fuzz, let's be honest. I think my only real complaint is Jamie Bell as Tintin, but that is definitely a me thing. See, I grew up with the 1990s animated series, which (if you were an English speaker like me) had voice actor Colin O'Meara as Tintin, and that obviously not at all British voice is the voice I most associate with the character. Again, totally a me thing, and Jamie Bell did an excellent performance, I'm just used to the voice I grew up with.

Over all The Adventures of Tintin was a fine movie. Unlike Coraline, it does translate what I liked about the comics to the big screen. I really should stop being so mean to Coraline. Anyway, while I do have my issues with the movie, it had some good action scenes, a solid mystery, faithful characterizations, and had some genuine moments of good humour. I think whether you're a fan of the comics, or are a newcomer to the series, you'll get something out of this movie. While I don't think it's one of my favourite movies, I am glad I saw it. Solid recommendation. Maybe I should try to find the other Tintin movies as well.