This is the definitive documentary about Ray Harryhausen. Aside from interviews with the great man himself, shot over five years, there are also interviews and tributes from Vanessa Harryhausen, Tony Dalton, Randy Cook, Peter Jackson, Nick Park, Phil Tippet, Peter Lord, Terry Gilliam, Dennis Muren, Rick Baker, John Landis, Ken Ralston, Guillermo Del Toro, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and many more. For the first time Ray and the Foundation have provided unprecedented access to film all aspects of the collection including models, artwork and miniatures as well as Ray's private study, where he designed most of his creations, and his workshop where he built them. In addition the documentary will use unseen footage of tests and experiments found during the clearance of the LA garage. Never before has so much visual material been used in any previous documentary about Ray. This definitive production will not only display a huge part of the unique ... Written by
The Ray & Diana Harryhausen Foundation
Not everyone is a fan of the work of Ray Harryhausen. While this documentary features lots of great directors and other movie insiders talking about what a genius he is, I am sure others would laugh at or quickly dismiss Harryhausen's stop-motion work. After all, compared to the incredible CGI being done today, stop-motion, with only a few exceptions (such as Nick Park), is obsolete--or at least it's perceived to be obsolete. Kids raised on CGI have come to expect life-like effects which, to be brutally honest, you won't find in Harryhausen't work. As for me, I like his films, I find the effects quaint and fun even if they are far from realistic. Depending on your perception, this film is either exactly for you or a waste of time.
While I enjoyed the film (mostly because I'd seen almost all the films they talked about and remember them fondly), one part annoyed me. One of the commentators said that stop-motion was BETTER than modern CGI! How?! This remark just seemed incredibly silly and fawning and not objective in the least.
0 of 8 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?