A long time ago on now 'pay-only' forums, I used to discuss animation...I don't recall discussing plague dogs (though Watership Down was discussed at length), though now having seen the film a few times, I realize that this is in so many ways a theoretical example of what animation could be. Had I not actually seen Plague Dogs, I would have gathered no film like this actually existed. Perhaps it's something like the researchers who first discovered the naked mole rat, finding something that in all probability shouldn't exist, but seems--at least theoretically--possible. Plague Dogs is an animated film simply telling a great story without a single limitation placed upon it because it belongs to a genre. For this very reason, it has never been reissued in the US so if you want to see it, it might be worthwhile investing in a region free VCR that plays PAL. I've never read the book, but the film takes a stance that would be difficult were it done as an animated film, live action or any other possible way. In the end, I'm not sure it matters whether it is about animals or not. Hope persists in bleakness, memories (love and loyalty) outweigh the present, and innocence is shattered by a world more bitter than a dozen R rated movies. Dumbo perhaps perceived the world given to us in Plague Dogs, but finds an all too easy solution. Plague Dogs has no solution other than to live...even in death. The balance between the two strong dog personalities is perfect. Rowf is both a hardened cynic, yet his spirit and willingness to fight carries the film. Snitter, who strangely leads the duo, is idealistic, yet emotionally and psychologically crippled. But strangely, I'm reminded of Aldous Huxley who once said that in a world of insanity, perhaps those who are crazy are the most sane. Snitter's remarks, though clearly irrational often feel more right than the actual choices left to the poor dogs. When Snitter settles in his old home next to the fire (all an illusion), one really wishes he could stay there. These delusional episodes are often aimed right at the heart. Snitter is an immediately sympathetic character who makes his point from the beginning of the film: to find a new master. Snitter knows his persuers are not masters, he in fact defends masters to the very end. It is a crippling blow to anyone who's loved an animal, has children, or had any other responsibility to the innocent. There's no one there to tell Snitter that masters and man are the same. That those who hunt him would probably just as readily give him a home. It's fate that's put him on this road and there's no way out. As much as Watership Down is a good film, Plague Dogs is a great film. A once in a decade film. Perhaps the only thing like it is Grave of Fireflies. I can't think of a single western animated film that comes close except perhaps those early wild wanderings by Walt when he still believed that 'love is a song that never ends' and that animation could be a medium for everyone. Haha! Like that once, now abandoned hope, snitter's last line cries out 'there isn't any island!' Plague Dogs is just that fleeting hope, now crushed, never to be repeated in cinema. Miyazaki may perhaps give animation a grand treatment that is well deserved, yet even Mononoke is not so brave as to do what Plague Dogs did. A Wonderful yet tragic film for so many reasons.
Reviews
8 Reviews
The Secret of NIMH
(1982)
Good animated work, but over-rated.
20 December 2002
Like many films, opinions on the Secret of NIMH are polarized. It's either the best film ever or stinks to high heaven. As you might suspect, both sides are probably wrong.
As an adaptation of a book, it ranks pretty poorly--the spirit of the story is significantly altered, the characters are quite different, and even the plot has been changed to such an extent that only the most basic elements are recognizable. On the other hand, Bluth's adaptation is no worse than what Disney also calls adaptation, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.
Adaptation aside, the film has substantial strengths and when viewed as a seperate work, it stands fairly well with some flaws. It has a strong musical score, and the animation is exceptional--especially for this period. Another real treat that we don't see in much recent animation are the beautiful hand-done backgrounds which carry a mood and ambiance that is rare for animated films.
What simply isn't accurate is that this is the best of anything; other than the best Bluth film, which it is. Calling it the best animated film ever certainly isn't an objective statement; the film has occasional blunders of animation, and some of the uses of rotoscoping do NOT enhance the film. On a sheer level of skill/technique/etc. this is clearly not in the top ten; and I am really tempted to think that fans are more woed over by Bluth's style (which was pretty dominant in Disney's work through the 70's), or perhaps they are sucked in by some of the beautiful background work. Yes, NIMH can be a great looking film (also ugly at times), but it certainly isn't the best animated. Honestly, I don't think Bluth's work here get's anywhere near Glen Keane's work, or even some of the better moments in Lilo and Stitch.
What's left to discuss is plot--since even the best animation won't make a poor plot fly, as Disney has learned of late. And well, the plot isn't really that fantastic when it comes down to it. It is fairly good until the half way mark when Bluth decides to not only stop following the book, but stops even paying attention to his own plot. The magic amulet simply makes no sense in the context of the story. In fact, it nearly invalidates the first half of the story. Bluth is also so caught up with making a Disney worthy villian out of Jenner he nearly villianizes the rats as a whole: really, who does want a bunch of intelligent rats with swords clambering about their back yard? I suspect all this could have been worked out with another 15-30 minutes that actually explained or fleshed out some of the later elements of the film; but instead, the end is both rushed and makes little sense. Nonetheless, a strong score, good voice acting and a well executed ending sequence somehow suspends disbelief--mostly due to the film's success stylistically.
Subsequently, Secret of NIMH stands as as a success for reasons I don't really find acceptable. Done with some (though limited) integrity, some (though limited) vision, skilled animation (though not excessively so) and a plot that (sort of) works; NIMH wins with a vote of mediocrity when all other contenders (at least until the last 5 years) are the same old tired thing. Best animated film ever? I sure hope not.
As an adaptation of a book, it ranks pretty poorly--the spirit of the story is significantly altered, the characters are quite different, and even the plot has been changed to such an extent that only the most basic elements are recognizable. On the other hand, Bluth's adaptation is no worse than what Disney also calls adaptation, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.
Adaptation aside, the film has substantial strengths and when viewed as a seperate work, it stands fairly well with some flaws. It has a strong musical score, and the animation is exceptional--especially for this period. Another real treat that we don't see in much recent animation are the beautiful hand-done backgrounds which carry a mood and ambiance that is rare for animated films.
What simply isn't accurate is that this is the best of anything; other than the best Bluth film, which it is. Calling it the best animated film ever certainly isn't an objective statement; the film has occasional blunders of animation, and some of the uses of rotoscoping do NOT enhance the film. On a sheer level of skill/technique/etc. this is clearly not in the top ten; and I am really tempted to think that fans are more woed over by Bluth's style (which was pretty dominant in Disney's work through the 70's), or perhaps they are sucked in by some of the beautiful background work. Yes, NIMH can be a great looking film (also ugly at times), but it certainly isn't the best animated. Honestly, I don't think Bluth's work here get's anywhere near Glen Keane's work, or even some of the better moments in Lilo and Stitch.
What's left to discuss is plot--since even the best animation won't make a poor plot fly, as Disney has learned of late. And well, the plot isn't really that fantastic when it comes down to it. It is fairly good until the half way mark when Bluth decides to not only stop following the book, but stops even paying attention to his own plot. The magic amulet simply makes no sense in the context of the story. In fact, it nearly invalidates the first half of the story. Bluth is also so caught up with making a Disney worthy villian out of Jenner he nearly villianizes the rats as a whole: really, who does want a bunch of intelligent rats with swords clambering about their back yard? I suspect all this could have been worked out with another 15-30 minutes that actually explained or fleshed out some of the later elements of the film; but instead, the end is both rushed and makes little sense. Nonetheless, a strong score, good voice acting and a well executed ending sequence somehow suspends disbelief--mostly due to the film's success stylistically.
Subsequently, Secret of NIMH stands as as a success for reasons I don't really find acceptable. Done with some (though limited) integrity, some (though limited) vision, skilled animation (though not excessively so) and a plot that (sort of) works; NIMH wins with a vote of mediocrity when all other contenders (at least until the last 5 years) are the same old tired thing. Best animated film ever? I sure hope not.
Godzilla
(1954)
Proudly stands beside other great Japanese cinema of this period.
27 January 2002
I can't add much beyond what other people have said, other than to mention that while Gojira certainly is the best of the godzilla films, and probably the best Kaiju film, it is also worthwhile (and just) to consider it outside of those confines. If you watch a lot of Japanese cinema from this period, you will find Gojira compares very favorably even with the incredible works of Kurosawa at this time. While other monster films (including all the rest of the Godzilla films) are at best B films and at worst nothing but camp, Gojira can be watched at a classic, a wonderful allegorical tale with enough emotion, philosophy and stark terror for two movies. The raw, grainy black and white images of the destruction of Tokyo are as effective as they must have been when they first aired in Japanese theatres. Why this film has not been treated as a classic and never brought over in its original, unedited form remains a mystery to me. This film is no less poignant than Fire on the Plain in dealing with the war related horrors that Japan was to undergo, and its as visually stunning as your going to get from this period.
Planet of the Apes
(2001)
The ending of PotA IS the original ending!
28 July 2001
I REALLY enjoyed Planet of the Apes, but I also think its a flawed film. People who argue about it straying from the original movie don't seem to realize the 'original' movie is also a remake--of the book. And the original movie does not stick very close to the book, which is OK because neither the book nor the film are anything terribly stellar. Well, I don't really feel the same level of craft went into this film as Burton put into Sleepy Hollow, which might sound strange since Planet of the Apes has some of the most incredible visual effects your gonna see in a movie this year. The problem is, those effects didn't necessarily create the same level of immersiveness that Burton achieved with sleepy hollow. Some people moved like apes, others tried to move like apes, some people didn't try. Some costumes were extremely elaborate, some people just look like they had ape-muzzles fastened on to them. Visually it was a bit inconsistent, but very pleasing, so no complaints there.
Of course, most of the problems come from the execution of the plot. I really had no idea how much of a non-actor Mark Wahlberg was until I saw this. His performance here reminded more of Kurt Russell's in Big Trouble in Little China. Who knows, maybe that's the point, but you really wonder why everyone started following him around since he just seems like a big jerk (I'm starting to think that is the joke of the film.) Some of the little homage lines to the Heston film were done in such an obvious fashion I'm afraid they will seem terrible upon multiple viewings. Well, the film is a full two hours long, and for all of that, it feels rushed, and a bit uncompelling, but we're also talking about a talking ape movie, so what do you want?
As to development of the human characters, did anyone really care? Nova is hardly developed in the original (even though she can't talk), and I found myself wishing they were mute in this one as well. If everyone must reference back to the Heston film, then lets at least recall how uninterested the writers were in the humans then. Nothing has changed now, and I didn't find that a problem. If anything, I'd have liked to see a somewhat deeper ape culture--which is it stands seems less developed than in the Heston film.
Yeah, the weird love triangle worked for me, I liked the somewhat abortive rivalry between atar and the other gorilla hanging out with Ari (sorry, can't recall his name), and a lot of other things were done really well here despite the over-all rushed feel. What I was most surprised to find though was that they kept the end of the book intact, and depending on how you read into the film, they actually kept the themes of the book intact--which suggests that apes rise to power simply because humans are too apathetic to keep them from doing so (not because of nukes or anything like that.) I imagine the new ending may throw some people, but this is the -original- ending, and I'm glad to see it back. Plus, getting to see apes dressed up as cops was pretty rewarding.
Overall I thought this film was a blast, not art by any means, but in retrospect, none of the monkey films are art. They all have deep logical flaws (can someone please explain to me how evolution can result in chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans all evolving into bipedal talking versions of exactly the same creatures simultaneously!!??) and are filled with bad acting, or Heston's particular take on bad acting, so in this sense, Burton's version comes out on top not necessarily for being the better film but for being the most entertaining (anyone remember how dull the original one was?), the least pretentious and over-all having the most monkey-laughs of all the other ape films combined. I can only hope they consider a sequel--perhaps something in the order of 'escape from the planet of the apes.'
Of course, most of the problems come from the execution of the plot. I really had no idea how much of a non-actor Mark Wahlberg was until I saw this. His performance here reminded more of Kurt Russell's in Big Trouble in Little China. Who knows, maybe that's the point, but you really wonder why everyone started following him around since he just seems like a big jerk (I'm starting to think that is the joke of the film.) Some of the little homage lines to the Heston film were done in such an obvious fashion I'm afraid they will seem terrible upon multiple viewings. Well, the film is a full two hours long, and for all of that, it feels rushed, and a bit uncompelling, but we're also talking about a talking ape movie, so what do you want?
As to development of the human characters, did anyone really care? Nova is hardly developed in the original (even though she can't talk), and I found myself wishing they were mute in this one as well. If everyone must reference back to the Heston film, then lets at least recall how uninterested the writers were in the humans then. Nothing has changed now, and I didn't find that a problem. If anything, I'd have liked to see a somewhat deeper ape culture--which is it stands seems less developed than in the Heston film.
Yeah, the weird love triangle worked for me, I liked the somewhat abortive rivalry between atar and the other gorilla hanging out with Ari (sorry, can't recall his name), and a lot of other things were done really well here despite the over-all rushed feel. What I was most surprised to find though was that they kept the end of the book intact, and depending on how you read into the film, they actually kept the themes of the book intact--which suggests that apes rise to power simply because humans are too apathetic to keep them from doing so (not because of nukes or anything like that.) I imagine the new ending may throw some people, but this is the -original- ending, and I'm glad to see it back. Plus, getting to see apes dressed up as cops was pretty rewarding.
Overall I thought this film was a blast, not art by any means, but in retrospect, none of the monkey films are art. They all have deep logical flaws (can someone please explain to me how evolution can result in chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans all evolving into bipedal talking versions of exactly the same creatures simultaneously!!??) and are filled with bad acting, or Heston's particular take on bad acting, so in this sense, Burton's version comes out on top not necessarily for being the better film but for being the most entertaining (anyone remember how dull the original one was?), the least pretentious and over-all having the most monkey-laughs of all the other ape films combined. I can only hope they consider a sequel--perhaps something in the order of 'escape from the planet of the apes.'
The Hobbit
(1977 TV Movie)
Critics should look at other adaptations...
5 July 2001
I had not seen this film for years and only recently sat through it again. The first thing I felt need to be said in its defense is that perhaps Tolkien fans should not review it--at least not ultra fans--as they are going to impose a rediculously high benchmark for this film to pass, that virtually no animated film could surpass. All things considered, The Hobbit is a decent (though not totally accurate) adaptation of its source material, and far better than almost any other animated adaptation from the major studios like Disney, whatever name Bluth works under these days, etc. Critics should reconsider what the real standards are and put this in a realistic framework.
Visually, that is, the art itself, not the animation--the Hobbit is a treat. The animating studio (so I've been told) is topcraft, that's right, the folks who would go on to do Nausicaa and eventually become studio Ghibli. That strange look that makes Nausicaa so distinct from other anime is here too, and it really makes the film. Backgrounds look as though they were lavished over and everything has a wonderfully ancient look to it. This should be even more apparent in the age of computer shading and all the wonderful darker hues that make up the Hobbit's world can't be recreated even in the most expensive films. I really enjoy the character designs; someone said Golem was too ugly, but I found this one far more convincing than Bakashi's attempt. Golem here really looks frightful, hunting fish in a pitch black cave with his large luminous eyes.
The animation of that art though is nothing to write home about. Some places aren't bad, but other places are laughable. The pony Bilbo rides home on at the end has two frames of animation. I've found this excusable given the pluses of the film, but it could be MUCH better.
The voice acting is what I remember most about this film along with the songs. Boone who is in almost nothing else I've seen will live forever in my mind as the voice of Smaug, while Houston's Gandalf is incredible. Voices can easily sink an animated film, here they make it sing.
But speaking of singing, I must mention the soundtrack/songs, which are great if you grew up with this film while probably grating to those who are just watching the film now. I'd love to find the soundtrack, or perhaps if they put this on DVD they can include an isolated score? Much like the other similar Rankin-Bass project, The Last Unicorn, the music is 70's folk ballads and while they aren't all memorable, the opening song ('the greatest adventure') and 'roads go ever ever on' are nearly perfect.
While there was certainly room for improvement, The Hobbit is one of a very few book to 'animated film' adaptations that doesn't completely slaughter the very essence of the book. Sure, some details are different here, but they didn't have Thorin secretly be a bad guy who then at the climax of the film, falls off a cliff or something. The Hobbit actually stays true to the spirit of the book--as least as much as could be expected from an hour and a half film--and while I think we'd all like more, we've all grown terribly used to a lot less.
Visually, that is, the art itself, not the animation--the Hobbit is a treat. The animating studio (so I've been told) is topcraft, that's right, the folks who would go on to do Nausicaa and eventually become studio Ghibli. That strange look that makes Nausicaa so distinct from other anime is here too, and it really makes the film. Backgrounds look as though they were lavished over and everything has a wonderfully ancient look to it. This should be even more apparent in the age of computer shading and all the wonderful darker hues that make up the Hobbit's world can't be recreated even in the most expensive films. I really enjoy the character designs; someone said Golem was too ugly, but I found this one far more convincing than Bakashi's attempt. Golem here really looks frightful, hunting fish in a pitch black cave with his large luminous eyes.
The animation of that art though is nothing to write home about. Some places aren't bad, but other places are laughable. The pony Bilbo rides home on at the end has two frames of animation. I've found this excusable given the pluses of the film, but it could be MUCH better.
The voice acting is what I remember most about this film along with the songs. Boone who is in almost nothing else I've seen will live forever in my mind as the voice of Smaug, while Houston's Gandalf is incredible. Voices can easily sink an animated film, here they make it sing.
But speaking of singing, I must mention the soundtrack/songs, which are great if you grew up with this film while probably grating to those who are just watching the film now. I'd love to find the soundtrack, or perhaps if they put this on DVD they can include an isolated score? Much like the other similar Rankin-Bass project, The Last Unicorn, the music is 70's folk ballads and while they aren't all memorable, the opening song ('the greatest adventure') and 'roads go ever ever on' are nearly perfect.
While there was certainly room for improvement, The Hobbit is one of a very few book to 'animated film' adaptations that doesn't completely slaughter the very essence of the book. Sure, some details are different here, but they didn't have Thorin secretly be a bad guy who then at the climax of the film, falls off a cliff or something. The Hobbit actually stays true to the spirit of the book--as least as much as could be expected from an hour and a half film--and while I think we'd all like more, we've all grown terribly used to a lot less.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
(2001)
First step in the right direction...
17 June 2001
While much else has already been commented on, what is really noteworthy here is that Atlantis succeeds as an animated film for adults. While there has been plenty here left for the little tykes (leave it to Disney to hedge their bets), it has been toned down from many of their other films where annoying side-kicks virtually up-end the show, stealing it from main characters and/or ruining the film with insipid musical numbers (no offense to musicals, but must they all be geared toward 6 year olds only?) Atlantis totally avoids the problem and delivers an action packed science fiction tale. All of this doesn't mean that Atlantis is a good film. It has so many logistical faults that you eventually must give up and just enjoy it as a movie. There are also problems with pacing--like so many other animated films, this needs another 10-30 minutes to fully explain the plot and give us a chance to actually enjoy a lot of the brilliant animation that is gone before the eye has really had a chance to register all that's happened.
Putting the whole Nadia controversy aside (which now seems doubtful, though there is clearly plenty of anime inspiration), Atlantis shows Disney taking a step in the right direction...a direction that people might actually appreciate once it hits video since probably the worst movie of the summer, Tomb Raider, seems to have stolen center stage this weekend.
Putting the whole Nadia controversy aside (which now seems doubtful, though there is clearly plenty of anime inspiration), Atlantis shows Disney taking a step in the right direction...a direction that people might actually appreciate once it hits video since probably the worst movie of the summer, Tomb Raider, seems to have stolen center stage this weekend.
One of the oddest and most enjoyable of the heisei series!
9 August 1999
I've seen this film get ragged on several times, and I can see why--the fight scenes aren't up to snuff with G vs. MechaG2 and Destroyer, but sometimes you don't wanna see something quite as big and heavy as destroyer, and it seems to me that Mothra is the answer, especially when you have guests and want a film that will entertain everyone. For one, despite the characters being stupid, they are really enjoyable and it is the one G film (short of 54) that I have found the characters as interesting as the monsters--I mean, who can't bust out laughing when the girl asks the cosmos to call off mothra so her dad can get a real job? This show really is one silly thing after another, but in the big bombastic sense that no one other than toho seems to have mastered. Mothra going off into space is just an added goody. Short of G54 (again, a quite different film) this would probably be one of my first picks for introducing someone to G, along with MechaG2. Also includes revamped versions of the music from Mothra and G vs. Mothra movies from the 60's, so this is a real treat for fans.
The Mouse and His Child
(1977)
Fantastic film, but who is the targeted audience?
9 August 1999
Much of the confusion with this film I think stems from its' source, (Russell Hoban's Mouse and his Child) which was never really intended as a children's book, but got marketed as such anyway (which makes sense, as it uses all the devices of talking animal fantasy). But the book's popularity in the UK (I gather it is now a classic there, while out of print in the US) apparently convinced the film makers it was a great idea for a kiddie flick. The end result though feels as though it has one foot firmly planted in cartoons-for-children and the other amongst psychedelic film directors like Jardowosky, or even coping a feel from boorman's film zardoz. For my own tastes, that makes high entertainment, and already a hoban fan, the film was if anything slightly disappointing as it is somewhat more fluffy then the book (less spontaneous deaths, more happy reunions), but it seems many of the books strengths remained in tack, and the film has it's own funk going on. Although you'll be pressed to find it in your video store, it's worth hunting down. But will kids be able to make heads or tails of it?
Tell Your Friends