Isle of Dogs (2018) - One of the best films you may not have seen

2018 was the year I began to take animation more seriously, and tried to watch all the animated movies that were released in theatres, even if I knew they would suck. From this, I ended up with a lot of surprises, such as Early Man and of course Into the Spider-Verse, but even with all of the great animated features, Hell movies in general, released in 2018, one remains my favourite of the year, Isle of Dogs, which had one of the emptiest theatres of any showing, not THE emptiest, that award goes to UglyDolls, which was dreadful, but this one was still pretty barren, and it's a shame too because it really is one of the greatest animated features I've ever seen.

In a, honestly pretty dystopic Japanese future, dogs have been banished from the island due to an outbreak, and sent to a place called "Trash Island", which is exactly as it sounds. One young boy named Atatri braves through the island of garbage to find his dog, who was the first to be sent to the island. However, there is a conspiracy going on that the mayor of the precinct had the dogs intentionally infected and desires to destroy any and all opposition, including poisoning a scientist who has found a cure for the dog disease and staging it to look like a suicide. No, this movie's plot has no ties to any current events happening currently, no government that is oppressive to any group of living beings, no pandemic sweeping the nation, none of that at all, heh heh...

Well, there's no going back now.

That aside, the movie's plot moves really well. A lot of the information of the movie is given as flashback, and I think that was a brilliant move. It means that very little is left to be exposition dumped, only what has to be. I think this movie offers a good example of something that has to be exposition dumped on the audience, the scene where Atari's dog, Spots, is explaining that he has to give up his duties. On top of brilliant moves like that, there is also a good amount of foreshadowing, and a good use of montage to cut down on the large amount of travel the characters do.

Now, I am terrible when it comes to identifying character, and it's a bit tougher here because, with the exception of the dogs and two humans, the entire cast speaks Japanese, untranslated and unsubbed. I don't think it's any surprise that I failed my highschool Japanese class.

I don't have any issue with the film being predominately Japanese, most of the important sutff is translated in some way so audiences won't be lost, and you can still get some idea of what the characters are saying. Obviously, Atari is ranting about something, or the servant is scolding him. It is also very clear that Chief is kind of the defacto leader, even though he says they're all the leader, and it's kind of amusing that the other dogs are pretty tired of him.

I must also comment that the acting is incredible in this movie. I could barely tell Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton and Bill Murray were in this movie, and they have pretty distinct voices. I do kind of forget that these characters are dog puppets, but in the end that really is high praise to the actors.

Let's also not forget the animators, as someone who has done stop-motion animation, it takes a long time. My animations are a couple minutes long at most, so I can't imagine how long it would take to shoot a 101 minute long film. Plus there are so many little details, like paper flapping in the breeze, rats running around, and things they really did not need to animated, but did anyway to give the movie that feeling of being believable. One scene that really has to be complimented is the sushi making scene, I think fellow animated movie reviewer Animated Antic shared some behind the scenes video on how that scene was made, and it is just so smoothly done that you can only tell it's stop motion by the textures and lighting. If I had to nitpick, I will say I am not really fond of how they show any Television images in the film, they're obviously two-dimensional images, but the heads are still animated like they're three-dimensional puppets and it's really uncanny. It's kinda like watching Robot Chicken puppets interact with two-dimensional flash characters, there's a disconnect that makes it weird to look at.

Of course, there is a bit of controversy surrounding the film. Of course, since it heavily focuses on Japanese humans, there has to be some focus on their culture. Personally, I don't get it, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the film as too bad in that regard. I think a lot of it is that we don't focus too much time on the human characters, we focus a lot on the canines, and it is clear that not all of the humans agree with the anti-dog propaganda. I feel like people are putting too much emphasis on this aspect because, it's obviously a heavily fictionalized story and it's not looking at a major aspect of Japanese culture, as far as I'm aware. I also don't think the view of "The white character saves the day is valid", she obviously didn't win at all, she was almost kicked out of the country until Atari showed up. Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this is, too bad of representation, it's better than The Aristocats... Why Paul Winchell.. why?

Honestly, it was nice to talk about a movie I love this time, especially after such a... flaming mess that was the Felix the Cat movie. This movie really is wonderful, with an engaging plot and characters, stunning animation and some of the best cinematography and background score of any movie I've ever seen. If I can steal some lines from Animated Antic's review of this movie; This is something that people who love movies should see.

It really is an incredible movie, and I really hate to think of it as a movie very few people have seen, or even as a flop. Apparently nobody is exactly sure what the budget of this movie was, but it made about 64 million at the box office, so it's clear a lot of people did see it, which is good, but I really think more people need to see it. It's a marvelous movie that is most certainly on my list of must see animated films.

Felix the Cat: The Movie (1988) - Filled with filler and not very interesting

Being someone that loves animation and media history, it should not be a surprise that I enjoy Felix the Cat. I remember when Teletoon had a separate channel for older cartoons and kids shows called Teletoon Retro, and one of the shows they would play was the 1958 series, and I quite enjoyed that series. So I didn't come into the movie blind, but I don't think prior knowledge was really gonna make my experience any better.

In an alternate dimension, I'm guessing the tenth because there is no giant monkey man, a kingdom has been invaded by the evil Duke of Zill, and the Princess sends out a message that reaches our feline hero, who goes into the mystical and bizarre land of Oriana, where he must rescue the Princess from an evil circus and defeat the Duke of Zill before he gets the book of ultimate power. As usual, when looking at the plot, I mostly look for things that don't make sense, problems with the plot that make it confusing. Usually the problem is a small thing that I don't think any of the writers really thought through, usually because it's such a small detail. One thing I don't tend to look for is filler, and that's because filler finds me naturally.

Much like FernGully, which would be released about four years after, the biggest problem with this movie's plot is that there is so much filler. Take the scene in the circus, what do they need to establish here? The performers are trapped, the Duke is a dictator and the Princess is a performer against her will. Three things, and what do they do? Well, first they have a song number, then some lizard-mice have a number, THEN it's Felix's number and then we get the Princess. That is four things, two of which are unnecessary. Cut the song and just have the Duke speak to the circus guests, cut the Mizzard dance and use that to establish the rest of the performers are prisoners, and then have Felix perform, and then show the Princess performing. I'm not a screenwriter, I can barely write a script, so why do I, someone with no professional screenplay writing experience, know how not to make this problem?

My general rule for filler is that it has to be two things; 1) Important to the plot or major characters, and 2) entertaining to the audience. FernGully was the same in this regard, both movies end up having long scenes that serve no importance to the plot or characters and mostly just exist because the film makers think that this is entertaining, and it really isn't.

However, as I have said before the plot is only one part of a movie. So, how are the characters?

I can forgive basic characterization back in the 1920s because, theatrical shorts were not as big as they were by the 1930s and 1940s. Even in the 1950s I can forgive because, television was still relatively new, and it wouldn't be until the nineties that televised cartoons would be taken more seriously. This movie came out in the late eighties, prior to this we had The Secret of NIMH, The Fox and the Hound, The Last Unicorn, in fact 1988 was a pretty good year for animated movies.

Akira, Grave of the Firelies, The Land Before Time, and of course Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The characters in this movie are basic, and not even developed that well. The Princess is bland, she is your standard princess character, kind, umm... kind. Yeah, that is pretty much her entire character. Felix is you standard protagonist, the Duke is your standard villain. Yes, The Transformers movie also had really basic characters, and that was one of my problems with that movie. Even when a character has a big turn around, it's either really basic or non-existent. One character turns to side with Felix and it's just a simple "Oh, bad guy treats me badly" thing, no "I want this" or "I would rather this" line, just "I'm treated badly here", which is better than nothing like we get with the character that goes from siding with the Princess to the Duke. We see him in the opening with the Princess and then, we next see him sitting with the Duke. No explanation, no reason, he is just on his side now.

Usually with problems like those it would be moot to bring up the technicals, but this movie even fails on those merits. Animation wise, it's fine for the most part, but it cuts corners in very obvious ways. Mouths won't move when speaking, half the time the lips don't sync properly, animation errors are noticeable, there is a scene where Felix sees something in a swamp, and the creature is literally just a part of the background, it doesn't even look like an animated object, and I get that cels are not cheap, or weren't at this time, but maybe at least shade the object differently!?

Then we get to the audio, and ho-boy, this movie has some of the worst audio in any movie I've ever seen. Background audio will obscure character's voices half the time, which is probably for the best, since some of the voice acting in this movie, especially the Princess', is really bad. Actually, noises will obscure the background music too, which is really bad because the background music is actually not terrible. I mean, it's no Prince of Egypt, but the background music fits with the scenes it's in, a slow and tense escape has slow and tense music, sucks that I can't hear half of it. Which now brings us to the biggest problem with the audio, and yeah, you probably saw this coming but, yeah, one criticism that this movie has earned is that this movie never shuts up for a second. Whenever a moment comes along that would be really great for atmosphere and heavy emotions, they cut away to something to make a noise. A good example of this is when Felix is lying in his prison cell. This moment could be really good with a few slow pans, some somber music, and all other noises just silent. But instead, they have a robot buzz in and Felix making a comment about it. A moment that could have been good, just wasted. That word really does describe this movie.

This movie is not one of the worst in general that I've sat through, but it was not good. Characters were bland, the plot is full of filler, the music isn't anything to write home about, the animation cuts a few corners, and the audio mixing is some of the worst I have ever heard. Honestly, this movie could have been decent, but I really don't feel like anyone behind this movie cared for the legacy and history of Felix the Cat. This is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, series of theatrical shorts, this character is important to animation history and this movie tarnishes that reputation. If I were rating this movie on that aspect, I'd say to avoid it, but I do concede that I am most likely one of the few people that is actually this passionate about animation history, and outside of history, this movie isn't worth getting mad at. I may not recommend it, but there are some movies where I would choose to watch this instead.

Bambi (1942) - I uhh... I don't think I'll be making friends with this one

You know, when I talk about a well loved movie with a differing tone, I usually try to be a bit lenient because, I know that these movies do strike a chord with people and not just will strike a chord. I know that movies like this, Coraline and Charlotte's Web are beloved for good reason and me being the contrarian won't change anything. The thing is, on some level I understand why a movie like Coraline is loved by so many people, even if I personally don't like it, I get the appeal. A film like Coraline is a high quality movie with a few personal gripes that I can't get passed. A film like Bambi is a film where I don't really understand the appeal.

Since it is Spring by the time of this reviews posting, I decided to take a look at another Disney movie, as Spring usually makes me think of Disney movies, and let's just say that, I had a feeling that Bambi would make for an interesting review.

Bambi is, at it's core, a slice of life film. We follow Bambi from childhood to adulthood and see as he tries out new experiences and how he deals with common dangers. Unlike a movie like Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, we aren't looking at one major part of the life of our lead, rather a couple major moments, with smaller moments mixed in. Things like Bambi meeting a new Doe, meeting new friends, his first experience with hunters, the loss of his mother, fighting for dominance you get the idea. Now, by this point a slice of life story is nothing new, we've seen this genre tackled in TV shows like Hey, Arnold! in movies like Clerks and in comics like Erma or Calvin and Hobbes, while yes these did focus on larger plots, at their cores, they, and Bambi, are all basically dealing with major events in these characters lives, well, except for Calvin and Hobbes which is more a look at childhood as a whole.

Now, I have no problems with Slice of Life as a genre, and I will say that as slice of life movies go I do think Bambi's plot is pretty solid, for the most part. I can't be too hard on the time skip because, well, there is only so much life you can show in just over an hour, but there is one pretty notorious bit of time skip. If you are familiar with the movie, you know the scene I'm talking about, and I don't really want to spoil it for anyone who doesn't know the movie, but for those of you who don't know, there is a very emotional scene that takes place in the winter, and when it fades to spring it's all bright colours and cheerful singing. The tonal whiplash is so insane that it legitimately ruins what could have been an amazing scene.

Speaking of which, I think it's time to rip the bandage off, I think this movie is boring. Unlike FernGully, and another movie with a review coming up *Cough revealed on my Twitter Cough*, this isn't a movie that is full of filler. Contrary, I think making a movie like this a slice of life is a perfect way to excuse scenes that go nowhere, as... well technically that is life, it does have its moments that don't seem to leave an impression, or even go anywhere. The problem is that we still have to identify with the character in this movie in some way, and, honestly there are many other child characters that are more interesting and relatable than Bambi is. Take for example, one of my favourite child characters, Calvin. Like I said before, Calvin and Hobbes is mostly about exploring childhood, and I'm fairly certain you also had a few experiences in life similar to Calvin did, heck I personally remember having a dream similar to Calvin where I thought I was getting up and doing my daily routine, only to find that I was still in bed.

Of course, it is worth remembering that Calvin does have an actual character and Bambi doesn't really. The main trapping of the slice of life genre is that the leads are usually blank slates for us to project our feelings and experiences on. On paper this is a really good idea, it means that everyone's experience watching the movie will be different, some children will remember what it was like to slip and fall on ice while skating, and some kids will not. The problem is that some kids will not, and I think that is where the idea falls in execution. Sure, some kids, maybe a lot of kids, will remember slipping and sliding on the ice, but what about the kids that never went skating? What about the kids that hated skating because they kept slipping and falling on the ice? What about the kids that hurt themselves slipping and falling on this ice? Yes, I realize this movie was made in the 1940s when that stuff was not really a concern. I dunno, maybe I'm just looking to deep into that, and I do get that I did use a bit of a cherry picked example but, it does kind of show you why blank slate slice of life characters don't work. This is why many people would prefer to watch something like As Told By Ginger instead of watching Doug.

I will say though that there are points when the plot gets good, and that is when the stakes are raised. I really do love how they handled the hunters in this movie. You never see them, but the tension does escalate each time they appear. The first time, we don't see anything, we hear a gunshot, but see no evidence that they shot anything. The second time, we don't see it happening, but we hear that one character did get shot, and an important character too. In the final time, we actually see a dead body, and see gun shots just barely miss hitting someone. These moments work because, well first off, we all know the feeling of being afraid, especially of something that is out of our control. These scenes also work because we know the stakes, we know a character that is important can leave at any point, and when we see that bird fall out of the sky, we are aware of just how high the stakes are, not to mention the whole forest fire does get pretty tense as well.

While I'm being complimentary, I really do like the art style here. While Disney didn't invent the Multi-plane camera, they certainly knew how to utilize it, and Bambi is one of the best in that regard. On top of that the forest is just a nice place to look at, and the colour palette is a varied one too with blues and whites in the winter to match the cold and unforgiving season and a lot of warm colours in autumn. While I don't think Bambi is one of the best looking Disney films, I still think it looks incredible. Of course the animation itself is classic Disney theatrical animation so it is high quality with little to no errors.

If I had to sum up Bambi in one word it would be "Watchable", and that really is because it didn't leave much of an impact on me. That being said, it does have it's good moments, and unlike other movies I reviewed that I didn't like, there is something I can admire here. That being said, there are better Slice of Life stories out there. Should I look at this from the time it was made? No, I think that is an argument that should only be used for stuff that was influential at one point, and I can't really see Bambi as being hugely influential to the medium. Maybe it inspired some animators, but it isn't the same as pioneering an entirely different animation style. Maybe I'm missing something in my history, so feel free to let me know how influential Bambi actually was.

That being said, it's a movie that lost my interest more frequently than it gained it, so I can't really recommend it personally. If you're a big Disney fan and want to say you've seen them all, or you genuinely think it's a good movie, there are genuinely worse things out there, and it isn't like this movie is terrible, it's just not very interesting to me. So, I can safely say that I do slightly recommend it, only slightly.

First Impressions: Onward (2020) !This blog contains spoilers!

When I was in high school, I had this idea for a modern day fantasy setting. There would still be wizards and warriors, but there would also be vehicles, internet, cinema and everything else that makes these times what they are. I bring this up because, Onward kind of tapped into that idea, and honestly, I'd love to see it done more.

Don't get me wrong, Onward is a great movie, but I would love to see these settings done a bit more, maybe as like a Table-Top or a Video Game or, even an episodic series. If modern day wizards and warrior fantasy settings interest, check this movie out, you may get some ideas.

That being said, I also recommend this movie if you want a good movie to take your children to, or check out on your own, I don't judge. It's funny because, Onward by most accounts is one of those "Really nothing special" movies. I talked about this a bit on my Letterboxd with Sonic the Hedgehog, but for the sake of clarity, these are the movies that, by all means aren't groundbreaking, aren't special, aren't new, and you've probably seen them before. I myself have seen a lot of these kinds of movies, Gods of Egypt, Arctic Dogs, Priest, movies that are so un-special that you kind of forget you even saw them in the first place.

That being said, it does make a lot of sense that there would be a lot of these movies. You can only tell so many stories before they start to bleed together. You can only use a trope so much before people can predict it, so... what do we do when we've exhausted those stories and tropes? With any medium, this is the question you have to figure out, but this isn't just any medium, this is Film, cinema, a medium that dates back to the 1800s. That is almost two-hundred years ago, and if anything the medium has become even stronger. So, how do these kind of movies still be good if they aren't special?

Onward does what every great Disney movie does, it makes a connection. There sometimes is a part of us that feels like Cinderella, working our butts off waiting for that magical moment to change our lives forever. Many of us feel like Woody, afraid of being replaced and willing to do what it takes to stay on top. Some of us may even feel like Flynn from TRON, out of our element but still pushing forward because that is what you can do. Sometimes we feel like Ian in this movie, like we can't do anything but that there is a goal worth trying for. Personally, I felt more like Barley in this movie...

This is going to get very real...

Last year, my Grandma was in the hospital, when I had the chance to see her, it was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I have ever seen. I wasn't there when she died, and I still feel really bad that I didn't see her earlier. When Barley is telling Ian about the time he went to see their father, he mentions how scared he was about the scenario, and it really did hit close to home for me. Honestly, I am incredibly thankful that I had a friend come along with me.

Disney movies often make a connection with us because well, it is as Walt Disney himself has said, "Adults are just children grown up". As a kid, we see Cinderella as a princess who needs to be saved from her wicked step-mother. As adults, we see what she has to go through with different eyes and a new understanding. We have that enjoyment as a kid, but as an adult we have a new connection. Onward connected to me, and while it was not a way I was happy with, honestly the fact that it went there at all is admirable. Wonder Park touched on this, but Onward went deeper into it.

Of course, the rest of the movie is fine on its own. It is a bit of a predictable plot, if you know storytelling 101, you can basically see the beats they are going to hit. That being said, the film is still pretty good. Even taking out my personal connection, the humour is great, the animation is excellent, and the characters are wonderful. While this isn't a movie that is going to break ground with a lot of its story or characters, I think it is an excellent addition to the Disney library.

I consider this up there with The Greatest Showman, Sonic the Hedgehog or Klaus, not groundbreaking in many areas, but still excellent in so many others.

Editorial: The Lego Movie 2: Growing Up, Maturing and Getting older.

If there is one trend in entertainment that I cannot stand in any capacity, it is the need for shows, movies and video games to be made as dark and edgy as possible. For some reason, people think that, show being dark and gritty means being more realistic and should be watched more. I don't get it, I realize that life can be dark and depressing, and I do enjoy that media can reflect that with metaphor and symbolism. But when you take something that, at its core was light-hearted and colourful, and then make it so it starts with someone getting murdered, I personally, am going to think you're just doing it for the sake of popularity. Cough... Riverdale... cough.

When did it begin? The whole idea of "Misery equals adulthood"? Did it start with the rise of the teenage demographic? Did it start with the rise of social media usage? did it start when we all started to realize that life sucks? I don't know, all I know is, it's just as wrong and harmful as ignoring all the misery.

But what does this movie, a movie that has Batman growing attached to a shape shifting queen, and has the line "It's not a cookie, it's a chainsaw", say about that idea?

At the start of the movie, we see what the once bustling city of Bricksburg has become, a Mad Max style apocalypse. Complete with everything being made out of scrap, and everyone being grittier. As we know, this is the world as set-up by one of the real world children, the older brother character. In this world, everyone tells Emmet that he is soft and needs to grow-up. This is a world that would most definitely be afraid of what the Systar System is, a fun, energetic, never ending dance party.

This is the world created by the younger sister character. The difference between the two is immediate, as one creates an apocalypse and the other creates a dance party.

I have noticed in life, that everyone wants to grow up quickly. Once you reach adulthood you put away your toys and pick up a briefcase, or a protest sign, or something. Being an adult means you have to be serious now. I've seen this happen before my own eyes as my older brother, who is only two years older than me, just had to start watching Family Guy and Robot Chicken, even though he wasn't even in high school. He had to start playing Rated M video games and watch all of the action heavy anime. Now, I am in my early twenties, and I am still watching SpongeBob and Fraggle Rock, have amassed a large collection of Disney VHS tapes and will not shut the ever loving Hell up about The Muppets.

Isn't that all part of being an adult though? to surround yourself with crude, violent and edgy material? Why is it children in middle school encourage themselves to watch vile and crude shows? Why do they feel the need to grow up in this manner?

Emmet is not a character who can do a task as huge as rescue his friends from an alien system by himself. He needed Rex Dangervest, he needed Lucy, he needed people there. Nobody was there, and that is how Rex came to be. Rex is a symbol of the idea of independence being a staple of adulthood, the idea that if you are getting help, you aren't a true independent adult. Rex, doesn't need anyone.

I find this aspect of adulthood to be hazardous. The idea that having to get help from your parents or some random strangers as being shameful. The idea that full independence is what separates the children from the adults. After all, if a full grown adult still lives with their parents, does that not make them like children?

There is an idea that maturity is all hard work and misery, and that is a part of it. It is harmful, I dare say even toxic, to ignore pain and misery in adult life. However, I find it equally destructive to have adult life be seen as all edgy and miserable. The thing that truly separates adults from children is that, at the end of the day, adults should understand the nuance of life. Children have simple minds that are still evolving, they don't see the world as nuanced and multi-layered. They see heads and they see tails, but the coins never flip for them.

We see this in the movie as well, the older brother sees maturity as gritty and un-childlike. This isn't a silly city where a business tower would be guarded by laser-sharks anymore, this is a world where you must fight to survive. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the younger sister's world is a poppy, happy dance party, where even saying the word "brood" can get you in trouble. In one world, happiness is seen as a sign of weakness, and in the other, misery is seen as a problem.

Of course, come the end of the movie, Emmet learns that growing up doesn't have to mean becoming Rex. Growing up doesn't have to mean disillusionment and misery. It means understanding when the dance parties have to come to an end and when to address the misery at hand. The idea that adulthood simply means to put away your love for things like rainbows and SpongeBob is obsolete, or it should be. I see on Twitter people who were bullied in school because they weren't watching Family Guy when they weren't even seventeen, people shamed for having a passion that wasn't seen as "Adult" or "Grown Up".

Now, I am not claiming to be digging deep into this movie. The main purpose of this post is to incite conversation about this topic. The ideas of what it means to grow up, what it means to put away childish things. Does growing up have to be the apocalypse setting, or can growing up coexist with a more pleasant and upbeat setting?

To end this post, I leave you with a quote from famous author C.S. Lewis.

-“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

-C.S. Lewis