TRON (1982) - A Groundbreaking Film Worthy of its Cult Following

 

Much like Wonder Park, I have previously talked about TRON before, when I brought up my favourite Live-Action mix movie. That was before I decided to do the Live-Action Mix marathon last year. Funny enough, I did think about doing TRON as part of that marathon, but when it came down to this and Roger Rabbit, really the choice made itself. Still, since these kinds of movies are now open for me to review, I figured, why not talk about TRON? Is it a true animated flick? No, but it was one of those movies that really helped pioneer animated special effects. We had King Kong in the 30s, and the 90s blew up with Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, but TRON often gets overlooked in this regard, even though we haven't seen such a thing prior, or really since until maybe Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. A whole world completely created out of CGI? Sure, it's completely passé now, especially since a majority of our animated movies are completely CG, but back in the 80s, this was a game changer. Sadly, like most game changers, it was not appreciated in its time, but has a very devoted cult following. Including me, this is one of my all-time favourite movies.

Tron isn't one of my favourite movies because of the story or characters, though both are quite solid. The plot follows Flynn as he tries to some data that will prove that he programmed some games, instead of Dillinger, the Senior Executive of the company Flynn used to be employed at. Flynn gets pulled into the world inside of the computer, and must assist the program TRON in taking down the Master Control Program. A nice touch that gives the story some extra strength is that in the world of programs, users, the real world people who build and give orders to the programs, are treated as a kind of religion, which does give the film a bit of depth. One could see the movie as the programs, individual beings built by individual users, fighting against the MCP, a program that has built itself with the information from several other programs, as a tale of individuality versus those kinds of beliefs of being part of a higher calling. Whether it is or not, I can't say because I'm not the director or writer of this movie, but that is something I noticed.

Similarly, the characters are pretty fun as well. Flynn is very much a playful person, with little moments of him goofing around every now and again. I also like the detail of Dillinger's actor, David Warner, also plays Sark, a program under the command of the MCP, mirroring the relation in the real world. As much as Dillinger thinks he is in charge of the MCP, it really is the MCP who is in control of Dillinger. I also really liked Ram, and his cheerful nature. On a similar topic, the acting isn't too bad, one particular scene I noticed on rewatch is when Flynn is listening to Sark for the first time, you can tell by the look on his face, he recognizes something. In a similar vein, when Sark is staring at the ring game after it's finished, you can tell exactly what he's thinking by the look on his face. While the characters aren't bad, they aren't why this is one of my favourite movies.

Simply put, TRON is one of my favourite movies in the same way movies like Freaked or King Kong are. As movies, they're good, heck I'd even say Freaked is fantastic, but then you take into account their effects, and you really think about their place in film history. TRON is one of the first movies to use such extensive CGI, creating a whole world that only existed in codes and a few props to interact with. Some people may look at the CG and argue that it looks dated and ugly by today's standards, but I disagree. This is one of the few times I would argue that dated CG was the right choice, because the world inside of dated computers, would probably have a similar look to a dated computer effect. On top of that, the light effects on the costumes and for things like liquids is fascinating. I don't want to sell this movie only on the effects, because again the story is interesting and the characters are charming, but the thing I think back to is always the special effects.

Honestly, that is a good reason for me to do more critical and in-depth looks at my favourite movies, because that gives me a chance to really notice things and refresh my memory on things I tend not to remember. For example, the music in this movie is fascinating. There are long stretches where there is no background music, and when there is, it's oddly ambient. Also, the movie has some humour to it, not laugh out loud funny, this isn't a comedy after all, but characters have little quips and reactions that do add a touch of humour to this movie. Honestly, it is nice taking a deeper look at movies I like, because I get to find new things to appreciate about them. So, while the story and characters are not the strongest, I can't say this film is bad.

This really was an ambitious movie for Disney, I can imagine they were eager to take a chance on such a movie because of how badly they were doing after Walt's passing. Say what you will about their movies prior to the Renaissance, but they were ambitious and not very typical of Disney's output. TRON is not a movie that is going to be for everyone, I think that it is a cult film through and through. However, if this sounds interesting to you, I definitely recommend it. Though it doesn't have the best story, characters or world-building, there is still a lot to appreciate here, and I can't imagine where special effects in cinema would be today if not for this movie. It does seem like those who love this movie, really love it because much like other Disney cult hits like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Treasure Planet, it is getting a fair bit of love. I do think it deserves it, truly a unique movie for its time, and one that I keep in the back of my mind with fond memories.

Space Jam (1996) - A Very Uneven and Kind of Sloppy Mess

As an animation fan, it's pretty much impossible for me to not like the Looney Tunes, their mix of ingenious writing, expertly done animation and the occasional clever bit of commentary, the Looney Tunes has earned its place as one of the most recognizable animated properties of all time, if not the most. So many of these cartoons hold up so well that they might as well have been made in the 1980s, or the 1990s, or the 2000s, we all grew up with the classics of Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, Coyote and Road Runner, and more, to the point where we would never have guessed these cartoons probably predated our own parents. The Looney Tunes have remained pop-culture icons through highs and lows, and those lows could get deep. Since I've opened up my doors to live-action mixes like Roger Rabbit, I figured it would be fun to give this movie a review. I remember really loving Space Jam as a kid, I used to watch the VHS I had all the time, however, as with a lot of things about childhood, it's really not as good as you remember. Seriously, your childhood probably sucked more than you're willing to admit, but I digress, let's talk about Space Jam.

After retiring from Basketball, no I will not mention everything around that event, Michael Jordon takes up Baseball, only to literally get roped into playing a basketball game with the Looney Tunes against aliens from Moron Mountain who have stolen the basketball talent from NBA icons and want to enslave the Looney Tunes characters in their amusement park. On the one hand, I get it, this is a ridiculous enough plot to warrant a ridiculously cartoony cast, and it isn't like Looney Tunes didn't do spoofs before. It's just that those spoofs were of movie genres, classic stories, operas and musicals. Looney Tunes never really did spoofs or commentaries on sports and sporting communities, not like Disney did. However, this movie literally began as an advertising campaign with Bugs Bunny and Michael Jordan. On top of that, a lot of this plot is given to the rest of the NBA stars as they deal with their stolen talent, and Wayne Knight trying to pull Michael out of the Looney Tunes world, I like Wayne Knight fine, but these segments aren't really that funny.

The sad thing about this movie is, there are some decently written bits here, one of the basketball players sits in Church praying to God and then says he'll never date Madonna again, or Bugs and Daffy talking about how they weren't getting paid for any licensed merch being sold, that stuff's funny and there are some decent visual gags, but it's pretty few and far between, especially the slapstick. You would think that a cinematic venture from the late nineties would have just as good, if not better, slapstick than theatrical shorts from the 30s and 40s, but sadly no. The best example is when one of the characters gets hit by a bull, they cut away from showing us any impact and just show us the character being thrown into the sky. Come on! That's like, the basics of slapstick. There is some good humour in this movie, but it's also got a lot of weak stuff.

Speaking of weak, let's talk about the animation. Now the actual animation itself is pretty good, the characters all move fluidly and there are not real noticeable mistakes. Honestly, the blue screening isn't the worst either, like you can easily tell that Michael Jordan and the Looney Tunes aren't really interacting, but like, on the scale of bad chromo key, I'd give this a five, mid level bad. No, the real problem is the CG integration, it is all kinds of hideous. When they put a CG coating on Michael or Wayne Knight, it looks so dated, and the alien spacecraft at the beginning of this movie doesn't even look like a cartoon in the real world, it looks like an out of place CGI effect in the real world. The CG integration is easily one of the worst things about this movie.

That being said, one of the best things about this movie does have to be the Soundtrack, genuinely it's got some good tracks on it, even the title theme it's just kind of an amalgamation of random songs you'd find on a Jock Jams CD. Honestly, most of the acting isn't that bad either, I mean yeah, the NBA stars are... clearly not actors, but Wayne Knight was fine, and the new cast they got for the Looney Tunes was fairly decent, Billy West did a good Bugs Bunny, Dee Bradley Baker as Daffy Duck was almost as good as Mel Blanc, Bob Bergen did a fantastic Porky Pig, Bill Farmer (one of my favourite Voice Actors) did a quality Sylvester, and even June Foray got to return as Granny. Of course, the big guy we have to mention is Danny DeVito, everyone loves Danny DeVito and he definitely gives one of the best performances in this movie. All in all, I'd say the acting is split, though I think there are more good performances in this movie than not.

And I think that's all that is worth mentioning. Yep, can't think of anything else worth bringing up... Okay, let's talk about Lola, and though I'd rather be talking about the song by The Kinks, Lola Bunny is worth mentioning because, she's probably the most recent addition to the Looney Tunes cast. I can't think of any new character added since Lola, and if there were any who were added, they didn't stick around. She's been added to not only the 2011 Looney Tunes Show, but prior to that she was a main character in Baby Looney Tunes, and has been pretty much a staple character since. Which is fascinating, because she's kind of boring in this movie. Yeah, everyone has already brought it up, but I'm going to mention it again, Lola's character in this movie is lacking, she's just kind of the standard tomboy girl character we've seen all throughout the nineties, and though I wouldn't mind her tomboyish side still being a thing, the 2011 iteration of the character is far more memorable.

All in all, Space Jam is kind of an even movie. It has some good animation, and some absolutely awful CG integration. It's got some good voice acting, and some lackluster on camera acting. It's got a good enough plot, but not really a Looney Tunes plot. It's not the worst movie I've watched, honestly I don't think it's that much worse than The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie I reviewed a while back, but much like that movie, I'd rather be watching the classic shorts, though I'll concede that this is a more original movie. Honestly, I don't know if I can really recommend this one, despite the good stuff, it's buried under mounds of not-as-good to down right awful stuff. If you're nostalgic for this movie, if you like it in that "So bad it's good" or "Dated timepiece" kind of way, I get it, but as for me, I think I'll just go back to the 1930s cartoons.

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: 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.

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.

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.

Avatar (2009) - An amazingly investing and amazingly boring movie

 

Continuing on with the Special Effects movie marathon, one of the biggest movies released in my lifetime. I remember when Avatar came out, everyone went mad over it, it was the Jurassic Park of the 2000s, one of the greatest movies ever made, and the highest grossing movie of the year, decade, and of all time before it was overtaken by Avengers: Endgame. It was a movie everybody saw, except for me. I never saw this movie until I decided to do this marathon for my blog. I never really had the desire to see this movie, so after about thirteen years after its initial release, what are my thoughts on it?

The plot is fairly standard. Ex-Marine Jake Sully is sent to the alien planet of Pandora, in an effort to study the native inhabitants and find a way to make them leave so they can mine gold... no wait that was Pocahontas... Uh it was... kill all of them to expand their city... No that was Wolfwalkers... right it was to mine Unobtanium, wow that name is spectacularly terrible. Anyway, Jake enters in an "Avatar" essentially a meat puppet he controls, and learns the ways of the Na'vi people. Of course the plot has to happen so there's gonna be conflict and you know how these stories go, the liar revealed, the war between the two people, there's not a whole lot special here. Honestly, the plot is kind of mixed for me. On the one hand, I really love watching Sully learn the ways of the Na'vi, I like seeing his video diaries about what it's like learning their ways and experiencing their culture. It goes back to what I said about The Three Caballeros movie, it is way more interesting learning about these cultures than it is just seeing them. On the other hand, the rest of the movie is pretty much a standard boring action flick. It's got all the stuff you would expect, it even has that one type of sequence I despise in movies. You know the ones, it's the sequence of shots that are slow motion of battle scenes, explosions, people caught in explosions, people getting gunned down, and this dramatic orchestral music comes in, sometimes they have a dramatic singer as well, I effectively dub these the "War is Hell Sequence", but I don't know if they are called anything else. It's just cheap emotional manipulation. I was interested in the first half, but after the military stuff came back into the picture, I just lost a lot of interest. In fact I think I was withdrawing interest from the bits I liked, because I knew that the stuff I wasn't going to like was coming. Is that a thing that people can do?

Character wise, I mean, you don't have a very unique selection, but they're palatable. Jake Sully is your typical kind of protagonist, not really too much special about him, other than the fact that he's in a wheelchair, which I guess is kind of cool. You also have the Colonel, Miles Quaritch, and yes, I did have to look up his name. As soon as he appeared on screen my immediate thought was "Oh, he's the bad guy, the General Rourke." He even kind of looks like Rourke, doesn't he? The rest of the cast are.. fine. They do the jobs they are required, the actors give fine performances, I just don't think I could tell you anything about them off the top of my head. It's a shame because Sigourney Weaver is one of my favourite actors, and she stars in Alien, one of my all-time favourite movies. I was interested in the world they set-up, but I was not as invested in the characters, I think that is the best way I can put it.

The visual effects are spectacular, too much. The visuals are beautiful, and I can imagine seeing this in IMAX in a dark room, if I did see this movie back in 2009, I probably would have loved it. The thing is though, and this is going to sound absolutely weird, but I feel like this movie should have been entirely animated. Now I am not the kind of person who says that in most cases, Marvel movies, totally fine with them being live-action, Disney live action remakes, I mean we already have animated versions of them so who cares? Other kinds of special effects movies, perfectly fine with them being partially animated. It's just that in this case, you have all these amazing looking animal and plant designs, and you put them right next to realistic looking settings and real actors, they just don't look real. Like, imagine if this movie was completely animated, wouldn't the designs mesh better in the settings they created? If it was fully animated, I genuinely believe that this could have been the movie that made animation the respected medium it deserves to be. I mean this movie made 3D films much more popular, why could it not have done the same for animation?

Honestly, I really, really wanted to like this movie. But the boring second half, the bland characters and the amazing effects that really made me wish this movie was fully animated, just really keep me from enjoying it as much as everyone else has. Maybe though, I am enjoying it as much as everyone else. Like, for a little while I kept hearing of Avatar, but around the mid to late 2010s I heard not a peep about this movie, the only Avatar that mattered to everybody was The Last Airbender, in fact the most I heard of it was when Avengers: Endgame was released and I saw people on Twitter talking about how it would soon overtake Avatar. It really does seem like this movie was big for its time, but left no impact, but then again there is that upcoming sequel slated for release this year. I am curious, because I am interested in seeing how the world building will improve and if the characters will become a bit more defined. I can't say I really like this film, but I can respect what it tried to accomplish. On top of that, I totally get why everyone went nuts over it, it is a big movie, in the sense that it just feels like an event. So, now the question is if I recommend it and... on one hand I can, I do think this is a movie you should watch at least once, even if it doesn't sound up your alley. On the other hand, it is hard for me to really say it's a must see. I guess the caveat though is that you probably already have seen it. If not, I do give this a slight recommendation, if only to form your own opinion.

King Kong (1933) - A True Cinematic Landmark

Hey! This isn’t an animated movie, what gives? Well, I wanted to spend some time to talk about a side of animation that is often overlooked by animation reviewers, special effects. For the next four reviews, I am going to talk about movies that are most notable for their special effects, starting with the movie that quite possibly pioneered the entire special effects industry, the film that changed cinema as we know it, and without it, there would be no Jurassic Park, no Ray Harryhausen, probably not even computer effects as we know them. Today, I will be looking at 1933's King Kong.

Planning on making a picture, Carl Denham wants to shoot on a mysterious island, and brings along his crew, including the First Mate Jack Driscoll, and a struggling actress named Ann Darrow. While there, Ann is kidnapped and offered as a sacrifice to the mighty ape, Kong. The crew, mostly the first mate, rescue her and Carl has the idea to bring Kong back to New York as "The Eighth Wonder of the World". The plot moves along quite nicely, though it does take a little while to actually get to Kong. I feel like the slower pace is just a thing with older movies, but to be fair, it does build up to Kong quite nicely. The introduction of Kong was super cool, with the music and Kong ripping away at the trees. The plot does take a little bit to get going, but overall the plot is well done. They also place in a romance subplot, though it is kind of quick and rushed. Jack just kind of admits he likes Ann and that's really it. I did buy that they liked each other, but a little bit more time developing the relationship would have been nice. Then again, that also could have meant we'd take even longer to get to Kong, but I did enjoy spending time with the characters.

The characters were quite fun, Carl is great in a very blunt and somewhat blunt and direct kind of way. He’s a little like Scrooge McDuck in a sense, where you like him, but you’re also aware that he’s a bit of a cad and probably not the best guy to be around. Ann is also a nice character, she starts the adventure full of excitement and joy, and as the movie carries on, she becomes more afraid of the beasts around her, to the point that she is practically traumatized by the end. I also really like Kong, he has the curiosity and mannerisms of a young kid. He plays with the broken jaw of a dinosaur and peels away Anne’s clothes like she’s a Barbie doll, you can’t help but feel that Kong is just an oversized child at points, which of course makes us sympathize with him when he is taken from his home and shot down at the end. That being said, not all of the characters were great, Jack was a bit of a bland character, just a hard-ass with a soft spot, this could have also been why the romance angle was fairly weak. Then we get Charlie the cook and the Natives. To be fair, there are worse portrayals of Chinese and Black people in film, but this is definitely a 1930s production. So, viewer be warned.

One thing I really want to point out is the soundtrack by Max Steiner. The music in this movie is excellent, it hits the right tone of exciting and tense. I’m really hoping they put this soundtrack on vinyl or CD because it is fantastic. Perfectly fits the mood and compliments each scene it backs.

And of course, we have to talk about the special effects. These were groundbreaking effects for the time, and they have inspired so many animators and filmmakers. Peter Jackson, Ray Harryhausen, even Tomoyuki Tanaka who created Godzilla. These effects inspired so many big things, and in many respects they still hold up. The stop motion looks fluid and the little details they add make the puppets look so much more real. The ground moving under Kong as he falls down, and the wind blowing through his fur are just the perfect little touches. Plus, when they had to build a giant Kong model for close up shots, it looks fantastic, the model work for the head, hand and foot, looks fantastic great, it's kind of impressive to think they would build massive props like that back then. On top of that, the matte paintings were so good, I could barely tell they were there, and when they had a live actor in the background of a stop motion scene, the way they achieved the effect of having the actor move naturally was ingenious, projecting the frames onto a miniature while they animated everything around it. That being said, some of the rear projectioning has not held up well. The scene where the crew walk passed the dinosaur they just drugged and shot reminded me a bit of Blue’s Clues, with how Steve would just kind of faux-walk and the panning camera would make it look like he was moving. Still, that is to be expected with old effects, someday our insanely produced Marvel movies will not hold up to snuff, it is just how effects work, and that lesson can also be applied to video games, but now I’m getting ahead of myself. It's easy to think that it was only mind-blowing back in the 30s, but these effects are still pretty great. While it's true that this movie would have been even more mind-blowing back then, I'd argue that it's still kind of mind-blowing today.

Overall, a lot of people will say this is one of the greatest movies ever made, and quite frankly, I could not agree more. The movie was exciting and thrilling and when we think about the influence it had in our modern effects and how much of a cultural impact this movie had, I think King Kong is a movie that everyone needs to see, filmmakers, artists, animators, special effects crew, moviegoers in general. King Kong is one of the greatest movies ever made and I’m glad I decided to kick off this Special Effects Movie Marathon with it. Even if some of it has aged poorly, the stuff that has held up still holds up really well. If we think about all of the mind blowing movies that came out after it, Godzilla, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Night at the Museum, all of them owe quite a bit to this movie. It pioneered special effects, it's a fantastic movie on it's own, quite frankly I don’t think I can recommend this movie enough.