Wreck-It Ralph is Disney's highest-grossing (non-Pixar) animated opening in history -- and it deserves it.
Besides being a solid all-ages animated film, it is a great, great nod to all things video game history (and other than not laughing when other folks in the audience might be laughing, that's not a barrier to entry for the film).
I'm a big, big John C. Reilly fan (since meeting him during his Criminal project), and I love to see him consistently moving up in the entertainment world -- The guy is genuinely talented, and is working his tail off in the Biz.
Wreck-It Ralph is fun, visually impressive, and has neat messaging about being yourself, using your gifts, and "the core of being" is more about who you are, and less about what you do -- But what you do (and your attitude while doing it) says a lot about that.
My minor quibbles with the film include a lot of time spent in one single environment -- which is totally organic to the film, but the "I make this stuff and it kind of breaks the fourth wall" side of me wonders if this was done to constrain costs.
The other thing to be aware of is while this is a good family film, near the end, one bad guy gets very (and very unexpectedly) dark and a bit scary, so if you have younger, more impressionable kids, it's good to know that going in (kind of like taking kids of the same age into Cars 2 is not as "safe" as the original Cars).
And, yes, this has some neat moments of heroism and sacrifice that are the telltale elements of what makes a film resonate longer with me that bubblegum fare.
Showing posts with label video game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video game. Show all posts
Monday, November 12, 2012
Friday, December 24, 2010
TRON: Legacy
I caught an IMAX 3D showing of TRON: Legacy at the Bob Bullock theater in Austin, TX, and really enjoyed it.
Some reviewers have griped about the "lack of story" (which is pretty subjective) but the film definitely has something that's been missed from a bunch of the bandwagon pseudo-journalist hater reviews.
Mythos.
In some surprisingly subtle strokes, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is granted a corporate and entrepreneurial legacy, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) is given historical and surrogate weight, and the world of TRON is given a shape -- a texture -- the first movie didn't have.
For me, vehicles largely set the tone for (or at least the believability of) a film's universe. Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series arguably created a richer universe by believably bridging the technology from Episode II, Episode III, and even to the original trilogy, than the new trilogy itself did.
Probably largely due to Lead Vehicle Designer Daniel Simon and Production Designer Darren Gilford, Legacy's vehicles possess a form and function they didn't before. Most people understandably tune into the lightcycles on this front, with the updated look and functionality that technology limited before. But in the opening scenes featuring the contemporary Recognizer (updated by Visual Effects Supervisor Ben Procter), the vehicle shows a form and function that was not only lacking, but broke the fourth wall for me when I saw the original film as a kid ("how do they get in and out of there without dying?").
Thematically, the film does some interesting stuff. There's a lightish poke at the pseudo-digirati, the requisite fear of technology overtaking humanity, and so on.
But what I was surprised by was the exploration of fatherhood from three angles: biological child, adopted child, and orphan -- father as "daddy", "buddy", and "sensei". I'd heard complaints about "the father angle" being "worked" as an emotional hook, and maybe there is some of that. Or maybe it's a topic explored broadly across three viewpoints, and there is only so much time and space to do that in the bounds of a movie, let a long a film who's "hook" is its visual panache.
As far as performances go, I'm a biased Bridges fan, and enjoyed his reprisal of Kevin Flynn. Some of his statements and actions are wonderfully anachronistic -- which they should be, given his "man out of time" predicament.
Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde are solid in their respective roles of Sam Flynn and Quorra (I think Hedlund has the potential to be like Daniel Craig as he matures (and should play his son in the interim), and Wilde is really coming into her own), and Bruce Boxleitner? Wicked cool" (I wanted to be you, Scarecrow.)
The other notable actors in the film -- the digital ones -- are a mixed bag, but trend more on the positive. Virtual young Jeff Bridges treads into the uncanny valley at times, but that's because more often, it's frankly just uncanny. Due to composition and more subtle emotions, the virtual Bridges works quite well, and is an impressive entry into the virtual acting space. It's largely only with the bigger emotions that the acting breaks down a little, but kudos to Disney and director Joseph Kosinski for pushing the envelope, and not waiting for someone else to crack the perfect virtual actor for them. The first TRON was about pushing film technology; it's nice to see the new one do its equivalent.
So, overall, TRON: Legacy is an enjoyable film -- the expected "visual tour-de-force", but with more mythos, acting highlights, and technology showcases than I fear people will give it credit for.
(Footnote -- the DAFT PUNK score for the movie? Wicked tight.)
Some reviewers have griped about the "lack of story" (which is pretty subjective) but the film definitely has something that's been missed from a bunch of the bandwagon pseudo-journalist hater reviews.
Mythos.
In some surprisingly subtle strokes, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is granted a corporate and entrepreneurial legacy, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) is given historical and surrogate weight, and the world of TRON is given a shape -- a texture -- the first movie didn't have.
For me, vehicles largely set the tone for (or at least the believability of) a film's universe. Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series arguably created a richer universe by believably bridging the technology from Episode II, Episode III, and even to the original trilogy, than the new trilogy itself did.
Probably largely due to Lead Vehicle Designer Daniel Simon and Production Designer Darren Gilford, Legacy's vehicles possess a form and function they didn't before. Most people understandably tune into the lightcycles on this front, with the updated look and functionality that technology limited before. But in the opening scenes featuring the contemporary Recognizer (updated by Visual Effects Supervisor Ben Procter), the vehicle shows a form and function that was not only lacking, but broke the fourth wall for me when I saw the original film as a kid ("how do they get in and out of there without dying?").
Thematically, the film does some interesting stuff. There's a lightish poke at the pseudo-digirati, the requisite fear of technology overtaking humanity, and so on.
But what I was surprised by was the exploration of fatherhood from three angles: biological child, adopted child, and orphan -- father as "daddy", "buddy", and "sensei". I'd heard complaints about "the father angle" being "worked" as an emotional hook, and maybe there is some of that. Or maybe it's a topic explored broadly across three viewpoints, and there is only so much time and space to do that in the bounds of a movie, let a long a film who's "hook" is its visual panache.
As far as performances go, I'm a biased Bridges fan, and enjoyed his reprisal of Kevin Flynn. Some of his statements and actions are wonderfully anachronistic -- which they should be, given his "man out of time" predicament.
Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde are solid in their respective roles of Sam Flynn and Quorra (I think Hedlund has the potential to be like Daniel Craig as he matures (and should play his son in the interim), and Wilde is really coming into her own), and Bruce Boxleitner? Wicked cool" (I wanted to be you, Scarecrow.)
The other notable actors in the film -- the digital ones -- are a mixed bag, but trend more on the positive. Virtual young Jeff Bridges treads into the uncanny valley at times, but that's because more often, it's frankly just uncanny. Due to composition and more subtle emotions, the virtual Bridges works quite well, and is an impressive entry into the virtual acting space. It's largely only with the bigger emotions that the acting breaks down a little, but kudos to Disney and director Joseph Kosinski for pushing the envelope, and not waiting for someone else to crack the perfect virtual actor for them. The first TRON was about pushing film technology; it's nice to see the new one do its equivalent.
So, overall, TRON: Legacy is an enjoyable film -- the expected "visual tour-de-force", but with more mythos, acting highlights, and technology showcases than I fear people will give it credit for.
(Footnote -- the DAFT PUNK score for the movie? Wicked tight.)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Comic book video game videos
Kudos to a video like this which reminds me their are good comic book video games out there, feeding two of my passions. Especially since I've had a snarky couple of days.
And the games that are left out (Spider-Man 1, X-Men Legends, Rogue Trooper, and others) remind me that there are even more things about which to be grateful.
And the games that are left out (Spider-Man 1, X-Men Legends, Rogue Trooper, and others) remind me that there are even more things about which to be grateful.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
DOA: Dead or Alive
I'm disappointed.
I went to out of my way to catch opening night of the limited release DOA: Dead or Alive last night, planning to see the worst video game movie ever made. My buddy and I actually rushed to the theater because we were running late -- and ended up being 2 of 5 people to see the film.
I had appropriately low expectations, because while I watched Jaime Pressly talk up the action and fun of the film on The Tonight Show last year, she months later backpedaled about the film having "lost its way", "not being all it could have been", etc. -- also on the Tonight Show. When one of stars distances from a film, that's rarely a good thing. And video game movies don't have a great track record. And really, the Dead or Alive game franchise has kind of a gossamer-thin film premise.
Thing is, the film doesn't suck that bad. Sure, there's no plot of which to speak, and the whole thing is contrived to get more and more shots of the titular DOA girls (wow, I can't believe I stooped so low).
And Pressly, despite her balkings (and fans' rantings; that's got to be a frightful demographic), I think is well-cast as Tina, the pro-wrestling fight tournament contender.
Less well-cast (surprisingly to me), is Devon Aoki (Kasumi), who not only doesn't look the part, but where her deadpan demeanor worked so well in Sin City, it came across as wooden in this film.
Strong actors in the film are actually lesser known folks. Steve Howey (Weatherby) does a great, mostly non-overacted job, and I'm encouraged to see a talented actor (who I think does so well on Reba) taking off (and I hope TV comedy The Beast does well for him).
The other surprise in DOA is Sarah Carter (Helena Douglas). She's got a smile I'd call "infectious", and if you're into the acting process, watch her closely as she reacts -- not acts -- in her onscreen moments. A lot of those good moments are with Howey, which might or might not be coincidental. Of course, if I were to watch Skinwalkers, I might change my mind.
It's a shame Robin Shou (Pirate Leader) has such a minor role. He rocked as Liu Kang in the first Mortal Kombat, is a solid martial arts actor, and does a great job in his minor role.
I think Eric Roberts (Donovan) does a good job, but is miss-cast (does he watch the film and say, "That hair! What was I thinking?"). But, he's great in other stuff (like Heroes; and I am looking forward to him in The Dark Night).
The choreography in the movie is pretty good (for the main actors; the extras, waving their weapons needlessly in the air to purposely miss their targets, are laughable). And there are some good cinematic moments (the cutting back and forth between the fight scene between Holly Valance (Christie Allen) and Carter is surprisingly well done, and feels like it comes from another film.
Of course, there are way too many "I-don't-think-that-was-intended" laughable moments in the film. The "extreme ass cam" (during the above fight) made me laugh out loud.
More frustrating, is there are some basic film making things to which they could have paid attention to make the movie tighter. Like not insulting the audience. Example: When revealing a critical character, flashing back to the scene where he was introduced, having another character shout, "[name]! My [relationship]!", all while cutting back and forth between the present and the flashback. Insulting.
And there are missed opportunities. There could have been some clever stuff done with the DOA fighters not using weapons (and triumphing over those who do), that would have been a nod to the video game's Itagaki.
All that said, it's not the worst video game movie. It's not as good as the first Mortal Kombat (but better than the second); it's better than Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter; and (I'm told), it's better than every Uwe Boll film. Heck, comparing it another film from this summer, it's better than Ghost Rider (though, admittedly, I had expectations for that film, and none for this).
Oh, and for those looking for fan service, realize that while all of the fighters are in the film, most of the non-busty have brief roles or cameos. And if you're looking for more titillating fan service, you're better off with the Dead or Alive 4 video game cutscenes, or the over-the-top Dead or Alive Extreme 2 game.
I went to out of my way to catch opening night of the limited release DOA: Dead or Alive last night, planning to see the worst video game movie ever made. My buddy and I actually rushed to the theater because we were running late -- and ended up being 2 of 5 people to see the film.
I had appropriately low expectations, because while I watched Jaime Pressly talk up the action and fun of the film on The Tonight Show last year, she months later backpedaled about the film having "lost its way", "not being all it could have been", etc. -- also on the Tonight Show. When one of stars distances from a film, that's rarely a good thing. And video game movies don't have a great track record. And really, the Dead or Alive game franchise has kind of a gossamer-thin film premise.
Thing is, the film doesn't suck that bad. Sure, there's no plot of which to speak, and the whole thing is contrived to get more and more shots of the titular DOA girls (wow, I can't believe I stooped so low).
And Pressly, despite her balkings (and fans' rantings; that's got to be a frightful demographic), I think is well-cast as Tina, the pro-wrestling fight tournament contender.
Less well-cast (surprisingly to me), is Devon Aoki (Kasumi), who not only doesn't look the part, but where her deadpan demeanor worked so well in Sin City, it came across as wooden in this film.
Strong actors in the film are actually lesser known folks. Steve Howey (Weatherby) does a great, mostly non-overacted job, and I'm encouraged to see a talented actor (who I think does so well on Reba) taking off (and I hope TV comedy The Beast does well for him).
The other surprise in DOA is Sarah Carter (Helena Douglas). She's got a smile I'd call "infectious", and if you're into the acting process, watch her closely as she reacts -- not acts -- in her onscreen moments. A lot of those good moments are with Howey, which might or might not be coincidental. Of course, if I were to watch Skinwalkers, I might change my mind.
It's a shame Robin Shou (Pirate Leader) has such a minor role. He rocked as Liu Kang in the first Mortal Kombat, is a solid martial arts actor, and does a great job in his minor role.
I think Eric Roberts (Donovan) does a good job, but is miss-cast (does he watch the film and say, "That hair! What was I thinking?"). But, he's great in other stuff (like Heroes; and I am looking forward to him in The Dark Night).
The choreography in the movie is pretty good (for the main actors; the extras, waving their weapons needlessly in the air to purposely miss their targets, are laughable). And there are some good cinematic moments (the cutting back and forth between the fight scene between Holly Valance (Christie Allen) and Carter is surprisingly well done, and feels like it comes from another film.
Of course, there are way too many "I-don't-think-that-was-intended" laughable moments in the film. The "extreme ass cam" (during the above fight) made me laugh out loud.
More frustrating, is there are some basic film making things to which they could have paid attention to make the movie tighter. Like not insulting the audience. Example: When revealing a critical character, flashing back to the scene where he was introduced, having another character shout, "[name]! My [relationship]!", all while cutting back and forth between the present and the flashback. Insulting.
And there are missed opportunities. There could have been some clever stuff done with the DOA fighters not using weapons (and triumphing over those who do), that would have been a nod to the video game's Itagaki.
All that said, it's not the worst video game movie. It's not as good as the first Mortal Kombat (but better than the second); it's better than Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter; and (I'm told), it's better than every Uwe Boll film. Heck, comparing it another film from this summer, it's better than Ghost Rider (though, admittedly, I had expectations for that film, and none for this).
Oh, and for those looking for fan service, realize that while all of the fighters are in the film, most of the non-busty have brief roles or cameos. And if you're looking for more titillating fan service, you're better off with the Dead or Alive 4 video game cutscenes, or the over-the-top Dead or Alive Extreme 2 game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)