Change Your Image
brandonsc
Reviews
Masters of the Universe: Revelation (2021)
Stop the BS Hate . . .
This series is friggin brilliant! If you're expecting a direct sequel to the old Filmation show, you'll be dissapointed. But it's just another interpretation! And it's INCREDIBLE! I can't even talk about it without massive spoilers. Just. Watch. It.
Gake no ue no Ponyo (2008)
Ponyo- Not Miyazaki's best, but 10-stars nonetheless.
Few would argue that master animation director Hayao Miyazaki is one of the few to hold this ability.
(No. Too many are focused on John Lassiter's "amazing" ability to steal other movies plots, turn them into pretty puppet shows and then be lauded as a genius . . . but i digress.)
Miyazaki has given us film after film that deals with important mature issues (usually ecologically themed), and has an intelligent script that even the most jaded viewer who would normally despise any film that was animated could thoroughly enjoy if given the chance. Still, Miyazaki (almost) never forgets who will undoubtedly be in the audience of these movies- children.
That said, I am at a loss to think of another filmmaker with this ability. Where else are you going to have a film where a three year old (my nephew Link) will sit still throughout the move, enthralled, a 7 year old (my niece Amber) loving it all her own (and able to appreciate the "star power" of Frankie Jonas and Noah Cyrus, a 12 year old (my nephew Aaron) who's review was "of course it was good! Everything Miyazaki-san does is good!," a 32 year old animation fan brought to tears by the powerful directing and gorgeous animation (er, that would be me), and a 58 year old woman (my mother) able to connect with the mother characters (and I'm betting the older charas too) and loving the "cuteness" of the child characters.
And that is what I respect most about Miyazaki-san. He seems to speak to his audience in a completely different way than the average filmmaker. On the surface, "Ponyo" could be seen as a simple story about a little fish-girl who gets a taste of the human world and wants to join it and the friend she makes there, a little boy names Soske (somewhat like "The Little Mermaid"), but there is an entire different level at play here. True to form, Miyazaki populates his film with intensely strong female characters Ponyo's Mother, Soske's mother, the older ladies in a nursing home are all genuine characters with minds of their own and extremely strong willed.
But the girl who takes the cake is Ponyo herself. Once she decides that she likes the human world, she simply uses her own will to achieve her dreams. Her father is trying to keep her innocent, and keep her a magical fish, but young Ponyo knows what she wants and becomes human out of simply her own determination.
Once human, she teams up with her friend, Soske, whom she loves very much (although maybe not as much as ham). Soske is asked to be the man of the house (at age five) when his mother Lisa decides she has to help the people at the rest home where she works during a typhoon that has been inadvertently caused by Ponyo on her quest to become human. Frankie Jonas (yes. He's related to the Jonas brothers. Can we just get past that please?) gives, perhaps, the best performance in the film as young Soske (which is good since he has the most lines). His character is also strong willed, but also very respectful and friendly- characteristics you're not likely to find in a child character on THIS side of the Pacific.
In the end, Ponyo's father, Fujimoto must cope with his daughter's decision and his estranges wife's wishes to allow her to be human. He hopes that Ponyo and Soske will "remember him fondly." And once again, Miyazaki REFUSES to allow a character to become the stereotypical "bad guy." Although Miyazaki has (for some reason) received some criticism for this, it is, honestly, what makes his movies magical and yet relatable. No one in real life is completely a "bad person." All humans are various shades of gray. And that is exactly what Miyazaki does with his characters.
And then there's the animation itself. In a time when CGI would certainly have helped with the copious amounts of effects shots in this film, especially the water, Miyazaki has chosen to incorporate NO CGI whatsoever. Certainly the hand drawn animation was colored by digital means, but every film in this was hand-drawn and I, for one, was extremely grateful for that. The character animation was extremely fluid, and there even appeared to be some lip-sync going on (quite unusual for an anime film). The backgrounds seemed to be rendered with colored pencil and had an effect all its own on the audience. This is what animation used to look like- and what it SHOULD look like.
In the end, I found Ponyo to be thoroughly enjoyable. Certainly not Miyazaki's best (in my opinion, that honor is still held by Kiki's Delivery Service), but still a 10-star fun movie for the ENTIRE family.
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (2007)
Give it a chance without prejudice. it's actually a great film!
There are many reasons to enjoy "Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time." In many ways it improves upon its predecessors. Unlike the animators from the original film the amazing animators at DisneyToon Australia worked from their own imaginations instead of relying on live-action "reference" film. Furthermore the plot is far superior to the first. Still with me? Great. Here's what makes this plot better than the "classic" fairy tail: 50 years ago Disney's idea was to adapt the fairy tale into a full length film. The story was of a girl who, denied her birthright was forced to work as a maid for her step-family. She dreams of a life of luxury, and because of her kind heart she has friends that do all the work for her, she gets her chance with a prince and after dancing she's in love and gets married. Fairy tales are supposed to teach you something. The original Grimm Tale had a lot more plot to it and actually taught children never to give up. Disney's watered down version still taught that lesson- sort of. But the basic lesson was hold on to your dreams . . . . someone will eventually show up and magically make them come true.
That lesson is turned on its ear in "A Twist In Time." Instead of making everything easy for Cinderella, she is now working against magic and must overcome something a lot more powerful than a mean old lady- a mean old lady with a magic wand. She works hard to achieve her dreams. Oh sure, the mice help, but Cinderella is the clear heroine in this new film- a heroine that little girls can look up to.
Step-mother gets hold of the Fairy Godmother's wand and turns back time to the shoe fitting scene from the first film. One may recall that the step-sisters feet were too big, but also remember that in the Grimm tale the step-sisters cut off their heels and toes to make the slipper fit. Well, this is still a Disney film so magic is used and the slipper now fits Anastasia. Now's when the movie kicks into high. Cinderella is determined to find the prince she met the previous night and she sets off to do just that. Knowing what the girl he danced with looks like, the prince is forced by magic to think that Anastasia is the right girl for him. Although what follows seems a bit hokey when describing it (The magic of the wand is not as powerful as Cinderella and the prince's predestined love) it is handled maturely and time is given for the couple to get to know each other a bit more (in the first film they had said, what, four words) before getting married. Meanwhile Anastasia, who in the beginning wants nothing more than a prince of her own- even if it is Cinderella's prince, must overcome her jealousy of Cinderella lest she take what is not rightfully hers.
This film is not only a worthy sequel to the original film (unlike Part II), it surpasses it. Not just with a much more valuable lesson: Cinderella must not "live in dreams if (her) dreams are to come true" but vocal performances and the animation are consistently better. While the prince's design has been puffed out a little, I always felt the original design was far too stiff. Cinderella also has a pretty stiff design, but under senior animator Ian Harrowell's supervision she is allowed to be expressive and give a performance that can match with Jennifer Hale's vocals.
The songs are a bit more contemporary than the classic film, but that's to be expected. We're not in the 1950's anymore, kids. Personally, I can't get enough of "More Than a Dream," Cinderella's balled that sucked me into the story and told me that we'd be dealing with a much more pro-active Cinderella than ever before (somehow I cant' imagine the Cinderella from the first film singing "There's a better life that's waiting past the mountains I must climb. I will take a chance on love to get my once upon a time" . . . she was much more concerned with what a nightingale sounded like), and frankly that suits me just fine. I feel that this way to go is a lot better character for Cinderella to be. In a time when every other blonde that girls are looking up to are drug-addicts or bulimic it's refreshing to see a twist on a classic character that makes her someone to be admired.
As I've said the animation in this film, which seems to be getting the most flack from critics is astounding. What probably no one short of myself will ever realize is the historic significance to this film. It is the last film to be hand-animated by Disney Animators. Quietly Disney has for years been shutting down the traditional animation studios in Paris, Tokyo, Montreal, Orlando and in the case of the original in Burbank- converting it to a CGI studio. Australia's DisneyToon Studio was the last of it's kind. With this film (and thanks to that overrated story thief John Lassiter) the chapter is closed on Disney's traditional animation Perhaps most fitting this film (unlike the aforementioned studio's final films) bears a dedication to its animators. It reads "Special Thanks to DisneyToon Studios Australia for their many years of producing beautiful hand-drawn animation." I mourn the loss of an art form that Disney worked so hard to gain respect for, the brilliant animators who are now out of a job, and for the fact that their efforts will no doubt be overlooked as "mediocre" by critics and audiences that simply don't understand the effort that went into this film. There are many reasons to enjoy this film, but I fear that prejudice and ignorant people will find their voices of protest and cries of blasphemy for making a sequel to a "classic" the loudest.
Breathing Room (2006)
Moving and Entertaining
Not only was this movie great fun to work on, it turned out to be a very enjoyable film.
I was the Script Supervisor on this film and when I first saw the script I thought it would be an okay "Lifetime Movie of the Week" type film. However, the entire cast and crew were so excited and dedicated to making a truly great film.
And baby, it shows.
Carolyn is a spirited and rebellious young woman who is ill. She has Cystic Fibrosis and is constantly pushing her health to the limit with her motorcycling and hiking. Jimmy is concerned, at times over-protective older brother and Fred is the man that Carolyn meets and falls for and from whom Jimmy is trying to protect Carolyn.
The story is a simple expression of love. Love of the brother and sister and the intimate and quickly realized love of Carolyn and Fred.
The cinematography is excellent- Rob Schein continues to prove himself with every chance he gets. Ely Mennin did a fantastic job as director. The cast cannot be praised enough.
Great job all around. Something I am proud to have been a part of
American Dreams (2002)
Bad.
This was without a doubt one of the the worst shows I have ever had the displeasure of watching. After seeing the pilot (with an open mind), I know absolutely nothing of interest of any of the characters. Yeah . . . okay, I know that "Dad" (didn't catch his name) is an overbearing jerk. (So?) "Mom" (who was great in NYPD Blue) is a "rebellious" woman of the sixties (or at least there was a hint of it), and Meg (the daughter) LOVES "American Bandstand"- very shocking and amazing since Dick Clark is the executive producer! This show is Clark stroking his ego, nothing more.
The writing was definitely the worst I have ever heard, predictable to the point of lunacy. After watching this whole hour waiting and waiting to learn something- anything- about the characters I only learn that Dad doesn't want his daughter to dance on American Bandstand "the most important thing she's ever wanted" and why? Well, I guess if I actually cared I could keep watching and maybe, just maybe it would be revealed in a future episode, but for now I'm "treated" to Dad relenting and letting her dance (though he thinks it's a mistake . . . OOOooooh). The only redeeming quality about this show at all was the story of "Son" (didn't catch his name either) who is frustrated with being forced to play football by his coach, teammates, girlfriend and YOU GUESSED IT, Dad. This was not enough to hold my interest and the actors were not good enough to make me care. I give it three shows before America realizes that nothing is being said.
Marvin: Baby of the Year (1989)
Great Animation! Fun story based on a fun strip!
The long running comic strip (20 years to be exact) "Marvin" by Tom Armstrong has always been my favorite comic and when I was twelve years old I was excited beyond belief that it would be animated as a half-hour special. I was not disappointed.
The voice acting was impeccable! Especially the late Dana Hill as 1-year-old Marvin, and Hanna-Barbera regular John Stephenson as Marvin's grandfather, Roy. The only notable character missing was Bitsy, Marvin's dog, but back in 1989 when the cartoon was made Bitsy's role wasn't as big as it is today.
The story plays like a series pilot that never was which is unfortunate. I would have tuned in every week to watch my favorite little guy racing down hallways, crying to annoy his parents and just being the REAL head of the Miller household. All of which were going on much more predominately in the strip at the time (Today the strip seems to focus a bit more on Bitsy than I feel it should).
The character design was also rooted directly in the time the cartoon was made (Mr. Armstrong's drawing style has changed over the years) and in my opinion the timing of the cartoon was perfect because I don't think "Marvin" was ever drawn better than it was at that period (Marvin's father has gone back to his huge nose he had in the early days of the strip).
Which leads me to discuss the animation. This cartoon was one of very few that was animated by Southern Star (Hanna-Barbera Australia) Productions. This was before the company was taken over by Disney and became Walt Disney Animation (Australia). This company, put simply, is among the greatest on the planet (see also my review for "Return to Neverland) and even at this early point in it's existence they show signs of greatness. Animation directors still with the company like Ian Harrowell, Bob (credited in Marvin as Robert) Baxter, and Kevin Peaty were animating at the time and although they seem restrained by storyboards (which were, none the less great) still got to strut their stuff occasionally- such as the great pan-around shot at the end and Jeff and Jenny's fantastic facial expressions throughout. Marvin himself is also animated well. His gestures and facial expressions done while his thoughts are heard by the audience are supportive enough though one can almost feel the animators wanting to animate more than voice timing would allow. Interestingly, a bit character, Chrissy's mom, seems to have been animated the best, but that could be because of her voice actress, Ruth Buzzi.
Th backgrounds were one of the special's very few drawbacks, but in the early days, the Australian background artists were never that great. Over the years, though they have improved greatly (and I mean the artists themselves, not just the studio, such as Richard Zaloudek who was the head of backgrounds on Marvin, and most recently lent his talents to the extraordinary backgrounds in Return to Neverland).
Overall, however, a fantastic cartoon with a fun plot based on one of the greatest comic strips ever drawn. If only this one would be released onto DVD!
Return to Never Land (2002)
Walt Disney Animation Australia: better than the "masters"
There's an old saying that if one praises the scenery, it's a bad movie (or maybe it's play, but the point is the same). This was a good movie, a very good movie, and if you liked the first film, you'll probably like this one (I sure did), but this review focuses directly on what I feel is most important in an animated film- the animation itself. I will briefly say that this film is a lot less "episodic" than the original and the songs (only one is sung by the characters) were decent. I missed the native Americans but expected their absence due to "political correctness," and reducing the mermaids to a cameo was a little disappointing, but on the whole we get a fairly solid story that as a friend of mine pointed out was the "most obvious" screenplay. Also, if you loved Peter Pan as a child, the end scene will likely bring a tear to your eye. Kudos to Nelvana's Robin Budd and Hanna Barbera's (2 Stupid Dogs) Donovan Cook for bringing a breath of fresh air to Disney's doors.
The animation in this film was beautifully handcrafted primarily by the brilliant animators at Walt Disney Television Animation Studios in Australia. This studio has been honing their craft for years since first becoming part of Disney (I believe most of the animators originally worked for Hanna-Barbera Animation Australia) in the eighties creating television shows starting with "The Gummi Bears." Since then, the studio has developed a "house-style" that at first rivaled, then eventually surpassed the animators in the California and Florida studios (and the French and the Japanese and certainly the Canadian studios where Disney also has studios). Personally I have been waiting for years to see their work on the big screen (and did for "Timon and Pumba: Stand by Me" and the second to last scene in "A Goofy Movie") They have been animating the studio's sequels for years (Part of Beauty and the Beast: the Enchanted Christmas, Lion King 2, Extremely Goofy Movie, Lady and the Tramp 2 and most of The Little Mermaid 2), but once Disney gave them a feature of there own, they really got a chance to show their stuff and baby, did they deliver!
The animation in this film FAR surpasses that of the original.
Lianne Hughes animates Jane with a beautiful, comic grace that appears so natural. The character is always thinking about something and she shows us that she is thinking. Even when Jane isn't talking, her eyes or body language tell us something about the character, and when the voice actrees pauses or takes a breath, the animation keeps moving into beautiful and exciting directions. And not just in comedy (such as her disbelief at being in Neverland and assumption that she is dreaming) but later, when crying for the presumed death of a character: Just before she speaks, the tears well up and as she does speak the tear flows down her cheek so gracefully that I actually cried- I connected with the character animation that well.
Andrew Collins, who tends to animate the lead characters in the sequels (he did Simba in Lion King 2, and Goofy in Extremely Goofy Movie) also shines with Peter Pan (and, to his credit doesn't seem to even try to do what was done before- he just animated Peter his own way and end up a beter handler of the boy that never grew up).
And although it's obvious that Bob Baxter (Captain Hook) was trying to match the animation of the original animator, he too brings his own brilliant style to the bad captain.
One name that was missing from this film is Kevin Peaty. Mr. Peaty tends to do the villains for the studio and also animates women so perfectly (did you see Extremely Goofy Movie? The Beret Girl? Gorgeous animation!) and I would have thought that he would have been the perfect animator for Tinkerbell (also lovely, but the one character not QUITE up to Marc Davis' original animation), alas Kevin Peaty apparently did not work on this film, though I wish I knew why?
Adult Wendy's animation itself was also lovely (her animator's name escapes me right now), but her design, I felt, needed a bit of work.
I wish they listed the lead animators of Danny or Tinkerbell or Smee, because although Tinkerbell is the one character not improved upon animation-wise, these characters also show you what Australlia is capable of.
Anyone that has read this must either think I'm joking (how could the animation of a sequel be better than the first, they laid the groundwork, right?) or am making this all up. Check the credits of any of the listed films if you don't believe me, and am I joking? Absolutely not. Just because something came first doesn't make it better, or even good. The early animators (such as Marc Davis or any of Disney's "Nine old Men") were good, don't get me wrong, but as traditional animators continue to mold their craft, they cannot help but improve upon the masters, whether you want to admit it or not. (Check out the one of the few "rip-off" scenes from the first one, when Peter, Jane and the lost boys do the same loop-de-loop as Peter, Wendy, John and Michael. If you don't feel that scene was improved upon -the first was too technical and rigid a turn. This one is fun and ANIMATED- then you may be just holding sentiments from your childhood and refuse to see what's put in front of you).
How can it be that these "television animation" animators could be better than the ones in California and Florida (the studios that bring you the "original" features, Mulan, Atlantis, Beauty and the Beast)? My opinion: because they obviously practice a lot more. The animators in Fl and Ca can take four years to make an hour and a half film, these guys and gals not only have to crank out features as Disney orders, but also have to produce television episodes of all your favorite Disney TV shows- all at top quality! You can see their work get better and better if you watch old episodes of Disney cartoon series and then watch the movies.
HOW I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT THEY COULD DO ON AN ORIGINAL FEATURE OF THEIR OWN! (Though Tarzan, I understand, was originally theirs before the suits decided to give it to Burbank's studio) The least Disney could do for these guys is distribute their hilarious Red Riding Hood.
So, to anybody still holding a flame for Disney's nine old men or even Disney's nine new men, put out the flames, wake up and smell the next generation of traditional animation (let it never die) brilliance: Walt Disney Animation Australia!
(And no, I don't work for this company, though I would love to.)
(Walt Disney Animation Canada also worked on this film. Their work is okay.)