I hope I can watch this again someday, and enjoy it in a different way. But as far as seeing it in the theater goes, it was a mildly enjoyable journey that turned in to an annoying slog, which ultimately culminated in disappointment.
What the fuck Tarantino? No mystery, no comedy, no trademark dialogue, NO STORY! This movie relies on presupposed knowledge too much. I go into movies that I want to see without reading anything about them or watching any trailers. So if the movie takes until the final act to reveal what the mystery even is, and then subverts it within 10 minutes in a ridiculously, unnecessarily violent way, it doesn't make for an enjoyable movie. It was two hours of a red herring (if you know what it's about already), and then a half hour of "Is this movie seriously going to end without tying together any of these useless, boring storylines?"
First act: Tarantino's use of different film stocks, and his decision to start the movie by showing his version of a corny Oldwest show got me very excited for what was to come. During the first act however, he went back to this a bunch of times, and each time it was a little less enjoyable when it only started out as mildly humorous in the first place. the character development, and relationship between Pitt and DiCaprio was fun to watch. Other character development was pretty flat, and the Bruce Lee scene was just dumb. Pretty early in the movie I started to dislike Pitt's character. this obviously would detract me from enjoying him as the pseudo-hero later.
Second act: The Sharon Tate storyline was really starting to get to me. It's been years since I read about the Manson murders, so when I heard her name, I was thinking "that sounds familiar, I think there was something called the Sharon Tate murders. Maybe Brad Pitt is supposed to end up killing her or something." The more they were following Sharon Tate in her daily activities, the more I was thinking that she better be an important part of this movie or else I wasted about 45 minutes watching something that doesn't even matter.
The scene where Brad Pitt goes to the hippie hideout is easily the best in the movie. Even though at that point I didn't realize this was supposed to be a Manson thing, it was still a very intense scene. Had I known that this was a twist on the Manson family, it would have been a little more entertaining. So maybe Tarantino could have done SOMETHING to tell us this instead of just assuming that everyone is gonna watch every trailer and think that every hippie congregation is supposed to be the Manson family. This was the first time I was taken out the movie by the over-the-top violence inflicted on a character while everyone around me was laughing at it. And if you're supposed to think it's funny even if you don't know that they're supposed to be a murderous cult, then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with people.
Final act: I'm sitting in my seat, and all I can think is "this better be one hell of a third act to bring all these boring, useless storylines together." DiCaprio gets drunk and yells at some hippies. Pretty funny. Pitt takes his dog for a walk, and starts tripping on acid. Kinda funny. then for the first time in two hours, these hippie characters (that you're wondering why are even in the movie to begin with) FINALLY say something that shows they have a murderous leader. Then I start getting excited, finally connecting the dots, and thinking oh man this is gonna be a cool take on the Manson murders. And within five minutes I am not only disappointed by the climax, I am incredibly disappointed in my overall experience with the movie.
The hippie characters only deserved what they got in our real universe where they did the actions that they're know for. But in the movie universe, they were not responsible for these actions, and so their punishment was out of the blue and unwarranted. And if you don't know the real life story of these characters, I would expect that you would be disgusted by what happens, and how everybody is laughing around you in the theater. it was jarring in a way that other Tarantino violent scenes are not. he has made some of the most intensely violent scenes, but they are done for drama, for realism, or to get you disgusted with a character. This violence was done for humor, and I felt very out of place in the theater being the only one who was questioning why people are laughing at a dog ripping a guys genitals off, and then a girls face off while they're both screaming in horror. or apparently everybody's favorite was when the girl's face got smashed over and over into a coffee table until there was nothing left of it. everyone laughed the hardest at that part.
Either I missed something absolutely huge that changed my perception of this movie, or Tarantino has made a huge shift in his writing style, and the audience has made a huge shift in what is funny. Two movies ago Tarantino had a guy getting ripped apart by dogs, and it is one of the hardest scenes for anyone I know to get through, now it's funny because they committed murder in a different reality? I don't get it, I don't get the movie, and fuck you Tarantino for giving us two hours of nothing so you can give us 5 minutes of violence. I enjoyed the first time you did that in Death Proof, when it was actually entertaining. It's a real shame to add this movie to his near flawless career.
2 / 2 directing & technical aspect
0 / 1 story
.5 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
.5 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
1 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
-.5 / 1 misc (wtf?)
6.5 / 10
Just to preface this, I thought A Force Awakens was emotionless trash that undermined the entire purpose of the original three films.
Rogue One was the opposite.
The best thing about this movie was the emotional impact. It underlined the sacrifices made to make the original trilogy possible. Some people have called it long, but that helped build up characters that you actually felt for, and who weren't carbon copy ripoffs (cough cough A Force Awakens). The final scenes as the two main characters face their fate, recognizing that it was worth it, gave such a high emotional payoff. Each major death scene actually made you feel something.
The second best thing was K-2SO. Very funny, and much needed comedic (but not goofy) relief.
The CGI for landscapes and the world creation was outstanding. When I see a movie like Star Wars I want to be amazed and see things that I haven't seen done before. I want to be impressed and drawn into new, beautifully crafted worlds. In this respect, the movie just kept delivering over and over.
The cinematography was great during the action sequences. The sequences looked epic, and the violence and sacrifice felt meaningful. The Vader fight sequence was intense.
It also had interesting ties to current events with its commentary on terrorism/rebellion/weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the science genius character realizing that he isn't priceless in developing some major device is fantastic. All of the movies with "only so-and-so can figure this out" are very disappointing.
The moral message of the movie was also very clear and well delivered.
I really enjoyed the movie overall and thought that it was a big step in the right direction. It was adventurous again, it was sometimes shocking, original, and most of all meaningful. A Force Awakens failed on all of those points. It's good to see a franchise movie that's taking a bit more risk than average. AFA was just like the new Star Trek films, shiny bling low-impact action movies that just happen to be set in space. Rogue One pushes far beyond to show the what drives the Rebellion in a world we know and love.
Despite the fact that I really liked the movie, it had some flaws:
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the acting in the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the cuts were really weird and the pacing felt off for portions of the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Forest Whittaker just deciding to die instead of trying to escape.
- Tarkin face CGI
- A few unbelievable plot lines (thankfully most were minor). Like Cassian being sent to kill Galen for almost no reason, and then deciding not to for no reason, and then Jyn forgiving him surprisingly easily. How did she even know that he was trying to kill her father?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Does every Star Wars movie need to have a father character die? Why didn't Cass follow orders when he heartlessly killed someone else in his first scene?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Heavy handed political messaging.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Said "hope" too many times.
- Tarkin face CGI
- You can just push Star Destroyers that easily?
- Tarkin face CGI
- The word "Stardust"
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too many random worlds introduced that you don't have the time to get invested in.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too much awkward fan service.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Darth Vader's voice sounded off.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the dialogue was really terrible.
- Tarkin face CGI
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
Didn't have high hopes, and thank god. Still sad to see yet another fan favourite video game character be ruined by the adaption to film.
It's bad, and mostly because of the script. The story is awful and is very inconsistent. Sonic can run around loops and jump on missiles in mid-air but can't run up a slightly tilted wall? Also the amount of force-feeding of exposition they give in the first third is so bad. Not to mention the non-original and unneeded "Ya, that's me, how did I get here?" trope at the very beginning. The writers clearly didn't care how their story would be so generic and fall into the background because Sonic would draw people in. Like, in the action scenes, people should be dead. But, when you look around the streets, there's no one there. It honestly feels very empty throughout.
It feels like a rushed and cheap way to give a character that has been prevalent in the gaming community for almost 30 years a film. It really seems like they found someone's fanfiction and made it into a motion picture. Because if the first trailer was anything to go off of, they probably saw Sonic fanart on DeviantArt and thought that's what he looked like.
But speaking of looks, some positives. The colours work well, the art direction is okay and cinematography ain't half bad. The production design is pretty good and we all know Sonic looks much like himself again. As for a score, I don't remember it. Flat sad music is all that comes to mind.
I truly believe hardly anyone cared about this project, and that goes for the actors as well. I was kinda intrigued by how Jim Carrey would play the role here. After his great show Kidding where he used his over the top acting in a profound way. I was hoping to see it continue with this weird eccentric character. But no, it's just the old Jim Carrey again. His ability to move the way he does did seem to fit right in my mind, but when he spoke it just didn't work. Plus, the way he was written is so lazy.
I laughed once, right near the end at that damn Fitbit joke. The tonal shift of that character and her delivery honestly caught me off-guard. The best part of the movie.
Not the worst video game movie, but certainly not improving the general view on them either.
3/10
Not as solid as I hoped. It's confusing for sure, but they could have done so so much more with this concept and world. But they didn't. It has left us with a story that is interesting, yet unrelatable. Things move way too fast and I would have preferred a longer runtime because it is that intriguing. And while the ending is great, the way that Nolan tries to merge the two viewpoints isn't done well. Leaving me feeling like my dad when he watches Transformers (2007) and asks who is who.
It needed to be simplified a little more because everything else is amazing. The effects, the overarching story, the acting. The music, however, is terrible and overblown to give a sense of action when there isn't enough happening. The only part where it worked well was in the final fight, but even then it needed to be quieter.
The cinematography is good as always, but I feel it is lacking compared to Nolan's previous work.
When it comes to action and the draw to this movie, the reversal shots. They deliver, but they are too and far between. It gives us great scenes of reversal action, then one drawn-out segment at the end that doesn't feel rewarding as like I said before, it isn't merged well.
This movie may grow on me more after a second viewing, but it left me in a state that I don't wish to see it again any time soon. It is not fun enough to see again, it is not engaging enough to associate and learn from. Something that Nolan has done well at in the past is his ability to leave questions with the audience after they finish his films. Here, it just provides answers and left me unsatisfied in that regard.
7/10
I hesitate to comment, as the comments of this movie seem to be infested with Q-Anon crazies filling their pants with glee about a known Q-Anon-believer starring in a halfway decent movie. Because yes: This film is somewhat mired in controversy as Caviezel is an admitted Q-Anon-believer. This, however, does not echo in the movie. Unless you think all C.S.A. is a conspiracy, in which case I feel for you deeply.
And yes: Halfway decent, because even though (or because of) the movie is billed as 'low budget', it's still a very decent movie to watch! The theme around kidnapping and exploiting children is approached with some care, but without pulling punches. Not sensationalist, but not shying away from the realities of this "business". So for that bit: More that worth the watch, whatever your stance on the actor is. The last part of the movie is a bit of a let-down though. The film takes a wrong turn somewhere, and turns into an action romp but fails to take in account the earlier tone. So if you want to watch a good-to-great movie: Stop watching the moment he goes into the jungle. If you are in for a fair-but-flawed movie: Watch it all.
All in all worth your time, unless you are hung up on the cuckoo idea's of the main character.
When it comes to the Alien franchise you need to do 2 things.
Remember that Alien is a straightforward horror movie and that Aliens is a straight up action movie with horror elements. The two exist in the same franchise universe but as movies are basically separate entities.
There are plenty of stories out there about how Ridley Scott (who created the franchise and original film) disliked the way James Cameron took the whole Alien entity in a different direction. His original vision had nothing to do with a hive like mentality, with a queen alien and so forth. So to enjoy both movies you have to look at them separately within the same universe... Confusing I know, but essential to get the most enjoyment out of both films.
It starts of very nicely, aping the opening feel of the original movie, and the pacing of the first act is slow and methodical. It shows that the 'company' is more concerned about it's profits than it's employees (sound familiar) and is more than willing to scapegoat the only survivor (we find out why shortly after).
Please note that I own and will only watch the directors cut of this movie. I think the extended scenes, added exterior shots and information about how the company sent out some of the settlers to see if Ripley's story was true... Adds a great deal to the viewing enjoyment and I highly recommend that everyone watches it.
By the end of the first act, we have found out that a family was sent out to the crash site from the original movie, and that one of them was attacked by a facehugger... and that contact with the colony on that planet was lost... So a rescue team is on it's way to investigate and they want Ripley along as an advisor/consultant.
The special effects for this movie are pretty damn good considering it's from 1986, James Cameron makes a lot of use of miniature sets with lots of attention paid to details. So the viewer finds it difficult to tell where the miniature set ends and full size begins.
The action and tension begins to get ramped up, there's some great dialogue and friction between members of the Marines and once again female characters are not only present, but there as fully fledged characters, not just some pathetic love interest to fulfill a plot requirement... and of course Sigourney Weaver in the lead role. It's one of the reasons that the Alien franchise has survived 4 films and it's entirely down to her character. The performances of the cast is excellent, the FX are great for the period and the buildup to the final conclusion works really well... and of course has led to the often used quote 'Get away from her you bitch" in many other movies... parody or not. It's become part of pop culture in the same way as Vader telling Luke that he's his father has (albeit to a lesser degree). You mention that line, and people know what/who you are quoting.
I've lost count of the number of times I have watched and purchased these movies over the decades... I owned them on VHS in widescreen directors cuts, then the 20th anniversary 5 disc DVD boxset... then the 25th 9 disc DVD boxset and now I have them on bluray.
I will not however be buying them again in 4K when they inevitably get released again... These movies, the original Star Wars trilogy, Terminator & T2 and The Crow are movies I have spent far too much money on buying again and gain over the years.
I think that people are too harsh on this adaptation. I wouldn't say it's perfect, it is definitely not. The adaption itself is the biggest problem in my opinion. But most themes the original musical touches on, are there. They even added a new one (+ a new song) about medication and depression which I thought was also very good. So I think storywise there is almost everything there.
Where it fell short was the directing and in some parts the script I think.
The film feels a little bit loose und somehow unstructured. The musical scenes are sometimes bland and doesn't always fit the music. But I have to admit, that this is also veeeery difficult with these songs.
The songs, while often having an upbeat instrumentation, always have a kind of sadness in them. And I think that "Waving through a window" with a dancing or choreographing Ben Platt would not have been better, at all. At least this way, the overall story and the acting isn't harmed by these musical numbers, because they are so focused on the text and the meaning.
I also didn't have a problem with Ben Platt even though he is a little too old for the role. His performance brought tears to my eyes several times. But that's maybe because I can relate to this real inner self he's hiding because he's afraid that people might not like him a lot.
Also, while Nik Dodani's performance was quite funny, the character lagged the small connection that Conner and he should have had, I think. He really wasn't a friend of Connor here.
Oh and the musical number of "You will be found" could have been the only number with a singing crowd I think. I really wanted to see a choir stepping in and sing this "anthem"! But they instead tried to recreate the way that the musical presented this song. That didn't translate well to the screen.
But overall... In the end, as I said, it brought tears to my eyes. I don't care if it was just the story or the performances and that a lot was bad like most people say. I felt all the things the characters sang about and... that's enough. ;)
I really, really wanted this to be good. My last hope for the novel idea of the original SAO series fully realized into an epic saga of years of internal power struggles, the real risk of death and murders, an ever changing Kirito personality, etc. Of course, my hopes were a little high above the skies of Aincrad.
The animation was actually pretty plain in the first bit of the movie. It did get better as it went on and the fighting scenes were impeccably animated as always (nothing can compare to demon slayer animation these days tho). Music was kinda lackluster though. Maybe I was just looking for those nostalgic SAO original themes, but it was pretty normal and ordinary BGM.
Personally, I watched this in theaters with subs. And the subtitles were perhaps some of the worst I've seen in a while. Super bland language in the dialogue and plentiful easy to spot English mistakes. I was kind of expecting better for what I thought was a fairly high budgeted film for theatrical releases.
It was nice to actually get some more original plot and character development, whereas the first SAO progressive movie was just copy paste from the series. However, it was pretty poorly executed. I think there was a decent enough bit of material to work with, its simply that the dialogue failed to make anything where they weren't swinging around sword interesting. And of course, we more or less know, that certain characters can't die which can detract from the tension. I think more time needed to spent on lesser seen characters from the original series, if only to provide more attachment when lives are at stake.
It wasn't what I was hoping for and really hurt my hopes for the franchise improving on subsequent progressive movies. I wouldn't recommend this progressive film for anyone other than diehard fans sadly.
[6.1/10] If you pull back from Disney’s Hercules, it’s remarkable how solid the characters’ arcs and motivations are. Hercules wants to become a “true hero” in the hopes that it will help take him to “somewhere he belongs”, i.e. Mount Olympus. Phil wants to train a hero who the world looks up to, who can “go the distance” and earn him some plaudits by association. And Meg wants to be finished with men and the idea that they can be worthy of your self-sacrifice.
At the midway point of the movie, Hercules has performed great feats and become rich and famous, but laments that it hasn’t made him worthy of regaining his godhood and with it the sense of belonging he seeks. Phil storms off thinking that Hercules is just another failed project. And Meg is starting to believe in Hercules right when Hades wants to use her wiles against him.
Then, by the end, Hercules discovers that true heroism means self-sacrifice and strength of the heart (hello Star Trek: Enterprise fans!), rather than the great deeds, fame, and fortune that he associates with heroism. He also realizes that where he belongs is with the person he loves on Earth, not on Mount Olympus. Phil gets to see his champion in the stars, replete with a “Hey, that’s Phil’s boy!” And despite her cynicism, Meg finds someone worthy of risking her life and soul and freedom for.
That’s all solid storytelling and sturdy character work. There’s good (if trite) themes there about what genuinely makes someone a hero and what belonging really means. There’s enough twists in the narrative to make elements of Herc’s story play like a subversion, albeit a pretty basic one. There’s even enough basic but firmly present story beats to transition from one part of the narrative to another.
The problem is that despite those arcs working out on paper, none of them really lands in the movie itself. Hercules just moves too damn fast for anything to impact the audience. While the major points are covered in the film, those transitions happen so quickly, the major developments occurring in rushed montages, that the shift from one important character moment to the next feels almost meaningless.
In short, we don’t get to spend any major amount of time with the characters at any given stage of their journey until they’re off to the next one. That makes each twist in the narrative seem glancing, makes the characters feel thin, and makes the overall journey for everyone play as weightless. The skeleton of this movie’s basic outline is strong, but it blazes through all the major points so swiftly that few moments or personalities in the movie seem truly and committedly developed and thus wash off the viewer like so much Augean stable muck.
The one exception to that is Hades, who’s the most memorable aspect of the film. James Woods brings such a unique approach to the lord of the underworld. His motor-mouthed, upper management sleazeball vibe gives his take on Hades a different flavor that baddies from Disney’s past. Particularly given the way that Hades is a dealmaker and swindler in this one, his snake-oil salesman tone and casual aside manner works to create the best version of the character to oppose simple and sweet Herc and act as a thorn in the side of the far more worldly and skeptical Meg.
The animation of the character dovetails perfectly with Woods’s entertaining patter. The vision of the Underworld king’s head constantly aflame, turning red when he’s angry, and giving the air of casual disdain when in conversation works perfectly with this Wall Street-esque incarnation of the film’s baddie. It’s an excuse for the film’s aniators to deploy some cool flame effects and give the man himself some fluid movements that match with his sarcastic wit.
But that’s nearly where the design and animation achievements in this one end. The character designs admirably veer toward replicating the look of Greek pottery, but they’re not as visually pleasing as the traditional Disney style. Worse yet, it’s a poor meld with the actual animation for most of the movie. Characters are, if anything, over-expressive and -emotive, which leads to an uncanny valley effect for much of their movements and some downright grotesquerie in certain places. And apart from a few brief but inventive interludes with the muses, there’s not really any stand out sequences here.
The one place where the film takes a big swing and fares at least somewhat better is with CGI-assisted images. The clash between 2D and 3D animation is noticeable in places, and the execution is far from perfect, but the Hydra is still impressive as an effect for 1997. Similarly, the titans have a fluidity and distinctiveness to their elemental designs that sets them apart from the rest of the fine but underwhelming animation in the rest of the film.
That same semi-disappointment applies to the film’s usual numbers. Rest assured, none of the tunes in Hercules are outright bad, but few have that transcendent, soaring, catchy quality that’s made so many other Disney soundtracks unforgettable. “I Can Go the Distance” is a solid enough “I want” song, and “I Won’t Say I’m in Love” are nice, standard Disney tunes, but far from stand outs. The gospel tunes fare a little better, but blend together, with lyrics that don’t play as cute or clever as in past Renaissance flicks.
That partly speaks to one of the tough to pinpoint but overarching problem with the film -- it makes a lot of downright puzzling choices. Why are we using a Gospel-inspired soundtrack to tell a story of Greek myth? There’s nothing wrong with it in principle -- lord knows Disney has used traditional American musical styles to represent scads of other cultures -- but it leads to a dissonance between setting and sound that just comes off as odd.
If that were the only strange choice, you could write it off as an admirable but ill-fated big swing. But why is this film so bizarrely horny? Why does every other character make double entendres about Meg? Why does Hades have to try to flatter the Fates by hitting on them? Why is the biggest running joke about Phil that he’s a lech?
It’s strangely miscalibrated for a kids film, which would be fine if any of this stuff were particularly creative or amusing. Instead, the film’s sense of humor largely falls flat, brimming with obnoxious character bits, dumb over the top physical humor, and a lack of tonal consistency which leads to goofy moments being indistignuishable from heartfelt ones.
The one exception is the movie’s gags about Greek mythos and culture. Everything from Hermes delivering flowers, to a pair of kiddos telling Herc to call “IXII”, to Hercules himself watching Oedipus and laughing that “I thought I had problems!” shows how the movie finds neat ways to integrate intersections of modern life with ancient Greece in small but amusing ways.
That’s just not near enough to save this sprint of a film. The powers that be at disney seemed, in their heart of hearts, to want to make a Superman film here, and it moves with a commensurate speed. Far from faithfully adapting the original myths, Hercules instead tells the story of a boy descended from powerful people of another world, who grows up with incredible powers and eventually moves to the big city where he performs heroic acts and has Beatrice/Benedict chemistry with a local firecracker. The parallels go deeper, but it’s noteworthy how much this film plays in the same space as the Man of Steel.
It’s not a bad tack, but the movie just races through all of the plot points that it takes to establish that kind of mythos. Every major moment of growth for Hercules or his pals is covered in montage or otherwise yada yada yada’d over. From his childhood, to his training, to his ascendance as a publicly-adored champion, we get snippets and thumbnail sketches rather than enough time and space to invest in any stage of his growth and development. The film moves from one event to another in such quick succession that no single piece of the story arrives with as much force as its protagonist.
Still, it’s a good story. If Hercules were longer, or better structured, or better paced, it had the potential to be a minor gem, if not the crown jewel of the Disney empire. Instead, it gives the audience a mixed bag of comedy, animation, and music in service of an overly compressed narrative. It’s strange choices, and its disappointments, could be more easily forgiven if the film’s central plot worked as well on film as it did on paper (or pottery). Instead, the film matches its hero for most of the movie -- trying but failing to live up to its incredible legacy and great potential.
Wow, the level of "darkness" that the Season 1 of Made in Abyss wasn't even enough to prepare me for this ride. This is truly one of the darkest Anime I've seen (without delving into the ones that exists purely for meaningless blood and gore). It ranks close to that of the Fate/Stay Night Heaven's Feel arc.
The visuals were striking and the music suitable. The concepts and ideas that drive this series is truly the most interesting of all. The Made in Abyss Anime truly understands what it it means to feel humanity and then strives to strip it away bit by bit until the viewer is revolted by the very willingness of humans to continue pushing forward. The movie had a few flaws here and there, one of my biggest distastes was the complete willingness to murder half a dozen of the Umbra Hands, including Bondrewd (the supposed father of their friend). There was incredibly little hesitation and emotion before and after their homicidal actions. Killing a bad guy might make it easier, but in no way is it something they should be emotionally okay with doing without some serious emotional turmoil. (The manga/LN might've handled it better than the movie, I haven't read any of it.) And just the general handling of the main characters internal thought, emotions, and conflicts could've been handled a little cleaner.
The movie was not quite as powerful as the first season (perhaps the first season took the edge of the series a bit for me), but still came with horrific and enticing plot lines that kept me thoroughly invested.
Got a chance to rewatch "Princess Mononoke" after years thanks to the Japanese movie theaters initiative to bring back Studio Ghibli classics to the big screen. I was surprised to find it way more mature, grim, and violent than I remembered.
The film deals with the relationship between man and nature as a problem that cannot be ultimately solved. Mankind's instinct is to progress, destroy, and conquer, but it's ultimately doomed to extinction like any other species, no matter how advanced its weapons become. Nature, represented by the gods of the forest, may seem to be subject to mankind's domination and manipulation, but still remains the only irrational force that can give and take arbitrarily. Ashitaka's position is neutral; he is just doing his best to keep living aware of his condition as a human being and avoid conflict. None of the characters is truly good or bad, but conflict is inevitable as part of our nature (corruption even drives Ashitaka to unwillingly kill people).
The art direction is flawless as always, this time focused on the equivalent of Japan's medieval age and its animistic beliefs. Every Studio Ghibli film has its own unique atmosphere, but the mystic, grim mood of “Princess Mononoke” is still unsurpassed. Joe Hisaishi's soundtrack also heightens the epic quality and intensity of the film, with some of his most famous compositions. It gives me goosebumps every time.
My only complaint is that, like in most of Studio Ghibli's films, the ending felt rushed despite the extremely long, slow-paced buildup.
I'm going to compare this movie to Empire of the Sun, as they bear similarity, so spoilers for both
The main theme in both of these movies is; suffering. However, in GotF the suffering is mostly by choice. in EotS, Jamie does not choose to suffer and feel alone, he is thrust into a camp and the only choice he is given is to either further his suffering with the chance of reuniting with his parents, or join the pack of other westerners that will most likely lead him down a path of chaos. Seita chooses to isolate himself and his sister from his only living family simply because his aunt did not treat him well, and it ultimately lead to the death of him and his sister. He had a choice to suffer little, or suffer greatly, and he chose wrong. Both of these movies have a different outcome, yet somehow EotS had a more lingering presence in my mind despite the "happy" ending, because you knew he had no choice in enduring what he had to. GotF is still a visually remarkable movie with a dark and depressing story, however I feel as if the choices that Seita made impacted on my enjoyment of the movie. I understand he is only 14 years old and he felt like he could support himself and Setsuko, but everyone has a shitty aunt and if he had just stayed with her he may have survived.
I recommend watching both of these movies close to each other to gain a perspective about both of them, as they are both movies that are great within their own merits.
This was a neat film that had me chuckling to myself at several points throughout. Although I haven't read the novel this movie was based on, I heard that it clarified a few things that were not made explicit in the movie. I'll list the big ones here (spoilers):
First off, the "Aunt" in the movie is actually the main protagonist . That's why she knows so much about time leaps and talks about her senior high crush.
The painting is so important to Chiaki because it contains the formula for time travel or is essential to the ultimate discovery of time travel.
The career path that Makato planned to take was either art restoration, so she could preserve and protect the painting, or maybe she went into the sciences to discover the secret to time travel herself.
The second idea seems more likely as the film tried to differentiate her from the Aunt. Instead of sitting around waiting, she would "come running."
Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed the story but I still think it could have tried to be slightly more explicit in the revelations they were trying to get the audience to perceive. The film was unfortunately designed in a way that makes things more difficult to understand if you were not already aware of the 1967 novel that started the many eventual adaptations. It's worth a look and if you're confused by the end of it, come take a look back here and you might appreciate some of the details of the film a little better.
So imagine if you hadn't played or talked to anyone that had played an MMO, but wrote a love story that is set inside one.
That's the Sword Art Online Anime series in a nutshell. The two seasons of this popular, tolerable anime, and this movie, is still defined heavily by that small, fateful decision to fit a teenage drama, inside a Virtual Reality game that is both shabby, and oddly intriguing at the same time.
The best word for SAO is shallow. It's so beautifully shallow and contrived.
The movie heavily relies on you having seen the series to know who the characters are, where the world is, the relationships, and the impact of certain terms and experiences. I doubt that the movie would make sense, based on the flashbacks and short vignette moments where Kazuto/Kirito the protagnoist, and Asuna, are living in their virtual house from SAO in VR, meeting characters from the series, or the technobabble aspect of the AR/VR technology that is pervasive in 2026's Japan.
It is set a few days after the end of season 2, so, you should binge watch the 49-50 episodes if you're new to the series. it will be a struggle. (or watch the abridged series on youtube for the hilarity instead)
So, what's the movie like ? a bigger, better version of the Anime series. The action driven plot is amazingly good, surprisingly good really. the focus on the action instead of characters is part of this. The action scenes will remind you of the good parts of SAO, instead of the unforgiving and dull moments from the series, while the plot is unusual and, deeply contrived. Art, direction, music, and pacing are fantastic, but the story is broken once you get to the end of the movie. Things do fit together in the end, but it's a majestic journey that relies on so many contrivances and choices having been made that it's boggling if you really think about the circumstances or the outcomes, or the possibilities glossed over. You'll either give the movie an 8 or 9/10, or below 5/10 if the story and plot bothers you too much.
Reki Kawahara, has built a wondrous world, that at no time ever has any consistency, or makes sense. The various VR and AR games have some shallow depth to world-building, but there's nothing likeable about the games themselves. You wouldn't want to play SAO, ALO or GGO because they're all deeply unfun games when you're not the awesome hero Kirito, or he's not in the group you're in. Maybe VR has lowered the bar for enjoyable games in 2022, which makes sense if you look at the Vive and Rift catalogue today... but this is perhaps not what is, or was intended.
Characters are consistent, and the "harem" that develops around kirito the obvious hero, is built mostly around characters that fit together because they're friends. Kirito/Kazuto might turn up occasionally to win his proscribed battle, save the day, then it all resets back to the friendzone. So there's some redeemable aspects. but it's never enough to like the show on merit.
Where to begin, without spoiling the movie... Well, it's not bad. Not good, not terrible, it's Sword Art Online's storyline if it had continued narratively from S1 and S2, given the interjection of a new AR RPG game among the old veteran VR RPG players that's slowly taking over. The teens Kirito/Kazuto and Asuna/Yuuki, now living their own lives separately in real life, still somehow attending school as SAO survivors from the Second Season (or have graduated ?), are still going through the awkward phase of their relationship where they don't have anything in common, except a shared terrific, alienating and whirlwind experience of romance.
Apart from the ominous doom this foretells, they still like each other enough to hang out in ALO with their circle of friends and play occasionally, while Ordinal Scale the AR game is becoming the next big thing. Allusions to Pokemon Go are prolific at first, but they manage to tie in the 'always watching' nature, always being scanned, always online. The headset even knows what you consume, adds up your calories, monitors your health, etc. which is something that sadly, gets skimmed over for the sake of the plot. Again, great ideas, eccentric execution due to the story.
As an OVA/movie based in the series, they've done a fantastic job of taking the art and plot up to 11, using more of the same awkward teenage /unemployed characters that would have survived a 'death game' and improvising an actual story this time around that attempts to bridge the legacy of SAO, along with the positives from ALO of Season 2 and the side-characters of GGO.
The plot is okay, the characters are better than in the series, the villian(s) are creative, but not that well defined. The mystery is ill defined, and unless you have familiarity with the manga or the anime series, the story during the credits is heartwarming, i suppose, the post-credits ending won't make much sense unless you're a fan, or have read the manga.
[7.1/10] I tend to subscribe to the mantra “it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it” when it comes to films. There are plenty of movies with great premises or plots that are completely squandered with poor writing or performances, and there are plenty of bog-standard setups livened by crackerjack dialogue or clever execution. But like any maxim, it overstates and oversimplifies. The choices that creators make matter, and in a film like Bridge to Terabithia they can change the entire complexion of a film.
Because for most of its runtime, Terabithia is a pretty standard kids movie. Directed by former Simpsons animator Gabor Csupo, it centers on Jess Aarons (Josh Hutcherson, very pre-Hunger Games, an artistic kid who comes from a cash-strapped farming family, faces bullies at school, and whose father doesn’t understand his imaginative bent. Jess’s world is turned upside down when a new kid named Leslie (AnnaSophia Robb) comes to school and beats him and the rest of his class as the only girl in a playground footrace. Despite some initial enmity at this track and field toppling, Jess and Leslie become fast friends, with the pair imagining a land called Terabithia in the woods behind their neighboring houses.
The film hits a number of the usual beats for a movie aimed at kids. The bullies have rote conflicts with Jess and are undermined appropriately. Other antagonists are humanized in ham-fisted ways. Ear-terrorizing generic pop songs are played over sequences indiscriminately. Pesky little sisters, overworked moms, and standard teachers (in both the hard-nose and crush-worthy varieties) make their presence known. Even the Buffy-esque conceit of the film – that Jess’s fears and fantasies manifest themselves in the imaginative world of Terabithia, feels a little too simple and familiar (and occasionally nonsensical).
The most hackneyed of these is arguably the biggest personal conflict of the film, the one between Jess and his dad (Robert Patrick). Jess has his sketchbook and spends much of his time drawing, something that often causes friction with his farmer dad who encourages Jess to take more responsibility in chores and maintenance. At a particularly harried moment, Jess’s dad complains that his son always has his head in the clouds, and that Jess should “draw [him] some money.”
There is a bit of juice to the storyline. Patrick brings some layers to the role even in the early going, where the viewer can sense his frustrations are with the family’s situation and the realities they face that balance out harsh words to Jess. By the same token, when Jess spends an afternoon with Leslie and her parents, who are both writers, there is an unspoken longing that undergirds the scene, a sense of how Jess’s life could be different if he lived there rather than here. But for the most part, these scenes hit the typical “working class parents don’t understand child’s artistic bent” notes.
The same goes for Leslie herself. Robb breathes real life into the character, turning someone who could have been a standard issue funky new best friend into the heart of the picture. There’s a joy and brightness to Leslie (particularly as contrasted with a young Hutcherson, who feels a little bland and overmatched here) that helps cover for the fact that she comes close to Manic Pixie Dream Girl territory for Jess here. Leslie is a beam of sunshine into everyone’s lives who can do no wrong, and solving problems, showing empathy to mean bullies and pesky sisters alike, and encouraging Jess’s artistic side despite his own reluctance and his father’s skepticism.
And then she dies.
Suddenly, the entire shape of the movie changes. Suddenly, it’s about the senselessness of such loss, about survivor’s guilt, about what people leave with us even when they leave this mortal coil. It doesn’t change the triteness of much of the setup, but it does deliver one hell of a gut punch after lulling the audience to sleep, and pays off much of the prior proceedings in a way that justifies them and kicks the film up a notch.
The news is delivered gently, in a fashion appropriately for a kids film, but it’s also devastating in how it happens, how unremarkable and yet avoidable her death was. Ms. Edmunds (Zooey Deschanel), the music teacher Jess has a crush on (one seemingly encouraged by Leslie), invites Jess to go to a museum with her. On the way there, he looks out the window at Leslie’s house, seemingly contemplating inviting his best friend, but he decides against it, seeming to relish the one-on-one time with the object of his elementary school affections. But while Jess was out, Leslie tried to cross the creek into “Terabithia” without him. The rope swing, which Jess had warned Leslie about, snapped and she could not recover.
It’s a choice that makes the film, and the story it tells. Though it’s a bit above Hutcherson’s talents to fully convey, there’s so many difficult emotions that ripple through Jess in the aftermath of this event. There is the guilt that comes from his not being there to save her, that if he had come with, he might have been able to do something to prevent the loss of the dearest person to him. There’s the guilt that it stemmed from a betrayal of their friendship, that Jess’s choice not to invite Leslie came from a selfish desire to be alone with Ms. Edmunds, despite going on an activity that Leslie would surely love.
Then there is the added guilt that it was Jess’s artistic bent, his “head in the clouds” appreciation for art that led him away. The film never makes it explicit, but there’s a strong subtext of Jess feeling like this is karmic punishment, that all of this is his fault.
And yet, it’s Jess’s father, the same one who looked skeptically upon his son’s artistic endeavors, that provides him the most comfort amid this morning and the attendant self-inflicted wounds. He tells Jess bad things happen, but that they’re not his fault; they’re not anyone’s fault. And he praises Leslie and Jess’s relationship with him, telling Jess that even though she’s gone, she left him with something, and her death doesn’t change that.
Leslie, after all, “opened Jess’s mind.” It’s a bit trite, but it gives the film a purpose, a central idea that creates a legacy for Leslie despite her few years on this Earth. The end of the film sees Jess sharing that legacy with the sister he’s resisted up to this point. Terabithia, realized in dodgy but fanciful CGI, represents the boundless imagination Leslie possessed and that she spurred in Jess. His sharing it honors her, and represents his recovery, understanding, and maturity from such a trauma so young.
Bridge to Terabithia is still a fairly simple movie, engaging in many of the expected tropes of the genre. But with that one choice, a rather typical story suddenly has weight, and emotional climax built on what’s set up in the film’s clumsier opening passages. In a strange way, it makes Terabithia feel of a piece with Manchester By the Sea. The latter is assuredly better shot, acted, and crafted, but it too makes a strong choice toward the end of the picture that elevates it above the standard portions of its narrative. Execution is key, but sometimes one bold choice, that still stays true to your world and your narrative, can make all the difference.
This story had a meaningful premise with a girl who comes to think her words are nothing but poison to those around her. So she decides to never speak again to save herself from destroying anymore of the lives around her. I found myself trying to compare this movie to A Silent Voice, but this movie had far more glaring issues.
The largest culprit was the egg. When mixing self fantasy into a reality, it really only works when that object or dream has a strong metaphorical value or connection to the character. In this situation, the egg just felt like the writer chose some random object, and arranged the story with it. If there is a cultural significance to the egg in Japan (as the symbol of creation/birth perhaps), it should have been better explained.
The animation and voice actors were nice, not breathtaking, but quality. The music was excellent throughout and I loved the way the movie used it to express the major plot points throughout the film. Side note: I would be careful where you watch this one, since there is a very poor quality English sub out there (misspellings, poor formatting, missing lines, etc).
Overall the movie was decent. I think it certainly could have been made better.
My favourite movie of all time, animated or otherwise, and from any country. I just logged my 8th view, but I've seen it a lot more than that. I don't always log views for whatever reason, and sometimes I rewatch individual scenes. I'm always picking up new things I didn't catch before. For example, this time through I realised the answer to a question that's been bugging the fandom for a long time. Why do they keep forgetting? It's simple. We see in the hallucination (when the animation style changes) that the braided cord has been spiritually connected to Mitsuha since she was born. While the timeline of the movie is irrational and paradoxical, Mitsuha makes the connection to Taki by giving him the braided cord on the train in Tokyo in 2003. This is irrational and paradoxical because, prior to receiving the cord, Taki has never met Mitsuha. So, why did she go there in the first place? You see, it's a paradox. However, it isn't the only time that time loops. Time looped after the destruction of Itomori. Taki rewound time by drinking Mitsuha's shrine maiden sake. He had the braided cord, and he was in the temple, so he was able to go back once again. Keep in mind that Taki's story takes place in September 2016, almost three years after the comet incident, which happened on the evening of October 4, 2013. (This date is given several times.) So as long as Taki has the cord, he can go back. However, during twilight hour (which, let's face it, is more like twilight moment), he handed the cord back to her. This ended his connection to her, so as soon as the sun fully set, the connection was broken and his memory began to fade. Had he held onto the cord, that would not have happened. Some fans theorise that, after the events of the film, they met and either remembered everything, or began a new relationship. I am sorry to say that the first situation is highly improbable. It is possible they began a relationship, though. But it's up to the viewer to decide that.
Another thing I noticed this time is that the shrine Mitsuha's family worships at isn't a proper Japanese shrine. It's a little statue in a cave under a massive rock. What is that thing exactly? It almost looks chiseled. But it's not a manmade structure. The shrine area is down underneath it. I'll tell you what it is, it's the first comet that struck the area. I think it's pretty obvious that a comet did strike there as it's clearly a crater, but I think that stone is literally the comet itself, and the worshiping area is directly inside the comet, which split on impact. I'm not sure how scientifically likely it all is, though. But we do know that the lake in Itomori is theorised, by the people in the movie, to have been formed by an earlier comet. I think the movie intends for us to conclude that the shrine is where an even earlier comet struck. Oh wait, it gets better. When the first comet struck, it is my theory that most of the town avoided the area, but one family considered the comet to be sentient and godlike, so they began worshiping it. They were thought of as crazy by the rest of the town. Some hundreds of years later, body-swapping shenanigans similar to those in the movie happened, and a plot similar to the movie happened. Mitsuha's grandmother says as much. Those who worship at the shrine at the first comet are protected, albeit indirectly. There may be some Japanese legends that clarify this or make connections I'm merely grasping at. Japan isn't my country or culture, so that's an aspect I won't understand. I'd love to grab a translator and ask the director, Makoto Shinkai, but I'm sure he'd just laugh and say it's however you want to interpret it. Either way, the man is a genius.
As if the visual aspect wasn't good enough, the movie is also a pleasure for our ears and has what I consider the best track of my heavily worshipped Joe Hisaishi, one of the best (if not the best) film composers I have ever heard. Spirited Away is exceptionally good at that aspect; I'd say it's one of the very few cases in which there is, at some scenes, such a strong fusion between story and music, that I can't conceive nor think of one without the other.
But despite all of these beautiful qualities about its setting, the real substance of this movie is at its story. I apologize in advance, again, because as I'm going to develop some points I will give some free spoilers. If you haven't seen the movie I'd recommend to stop reading at this point.
It has been said many times by critics that Spirited Away felt like a senseless blend of magic elements, just a simple story filled with many things the author introduced undiscriminatingly to drag out the experience. Well, I have a quite different point of view for that device. I just can't conceive that the animation, for example, is taken to such a high level of detail and, on the other hand, that doesn't happen with the story. And by rewatching it repeatedly in a short amount of time (once every two months, more or less), I began to develop some theories about the nature of the world that is depicted here.
What must be considered at first is that all this magical world, with strange creatures and spells, is just an allegory for the always difficult transiton between childhood and the first steps of adulthood. It's the age you start dealing with responsibility, when you realize your acts have consequences and you have to make decisions that will affect your future; you define yourself and the course of your life. Miyazaki puts these simple concepts by transforming the need of finding an identity into a way to escape the wonderful yet cruel world where Chihiro is suddenly trapped. Its hostility imitates quite well the drama of the process, as it reinforces the need of an additional effort every one of us have to make at some point and reset our lives and our positions.
Does this mean that Yubaba's world is an undeveloped blend of magic, hostile things that only serve as a situation that Chihiro has to overcome at some point? Well, I don't think so, as it seems to have a clear structure and hierarchy. One of the stories I see compared more often with this one is Alice in Wonderland. However, I would define that as a blend of unrelated events, a story whose main charm lies in its anarchic, nearly nightmarish, narrative. Spirited Away is not like that in any way. In fact I think there is an effort to transmit a strong sense of logic throughout, it tries to delimit the causes and consequences of every single case.
The key character to understand how Yubaba's tyranny works is, in my opinion, Lin. She just happens to be the link between Chihiro and the rest of the magical creatures, just like somebody that is in some sort of intermediate level. Her physical appearance looks slightly transformed, but not as much as the rest. She is aware of the existence of another world outside of that one, the importance of remembering her name, her "identity"; and knowing that, she helps Chihiro and takes the role of a mother. I have the theory that every one of the creatures that live in Yubaba's world were once human, maybe little boys and girls like Chihiro who couldn't find the way to escape, or other people; and they ended up forgetting who they were, losing their "humanity" and becoming mere pieces of this world. Lin is a special case because it seems she's not lost her identity yet, at least not at all, but forgot at one point her name, the key to come back home, and knows her situation is irreversible. She maybe observed this in some of her companions when she arrived, and Chihiro reminds herself of that. Maybe because of that, because she knows and appreciates what she's doomed to lose, she decides to help her in an altruistic way.
And what about Kamaji? Another key character in Chihiro's development in there; he seems to be quite aware of his situation too. I'd say he is a bit like the "sacrificed" individual, who Yubaba used to start his project and maybe the only one that didn't lose his identity at all. He's a slave in this world, he knows it but can't help it.
So yes, I have a more "adult" and crude view of the overall concept. This definition of the magical public baths as a place were people are doomed to end up losing what makes them "special" is quite harsh and melancholic for a -as targeted and admitted by Miyazaki- kid's movie, and it might feel even weird, but that's how I interpreted it and I think it makes some sense.
Does this mean Yubaba is a villain? Well, define villain. Somebody whose only objective in life is to harm people? That's hardly what Yubaba is. She, for better or for worse, created a world, and made it work. She imposed some rules. We could even say she created her own utopia (and that doesn't mean she is naturally "bad"), why not? And, most important, she has a strong sense of honor, she dictates and also OBEYS her rules. One of the (maybe) main reasons why she loses her battle against Chihiro, in fact, is that her weakness is shown eventually (giant baby); and reveals a hypocritical attitude, as she is protecting her lovely child from any influence while she's always preaching the exact contrary. As she knows it, it's a shameful thing to admit and maybe here is where her image of forcefulness starts to teeter.
All in all, these examples just show that the real strength of this story lies in the characters, as they are always depicted in a detailed way. Yubaba not being the typical villain, or not even being a "villain" at all; Haku, the hero and the "positive" one here has also an overambitious side and is for the most part guilty of his situation... and Chihiro, of course. She is a spoiled brat who learns to appreciate some things, but in no way overreacting at these points, as she sounds real and relatable at every damn scene. It's quite easy to understand her, she's not made to be likeable but her portrayal is solid enough to make us join her development through the story.
I could spend hours and hours talking about this precious anime and its many details, the enigmatic role of No Face, the negative influence of the parents in Chihiro's behaviour, and so much more... I love it. It breathes mastery at (almost) every one of its points, and I can enjoy it in many levels. My only grip would be the way things are resolved, which I have always found too rushed; reading Miyazaki's opinion on that ending I've come to understand the intention behind, but still I'd say the metaphor is made too subtle for the audience, and maybe the execution is also somewhat clumsy. But aside from this minor flaw, I can't help but admire this fascinating, eye-captivating piece of art, my second favorite anime behind Grave Of The Fireflies.
I've read that Bill Murray and Harold Ramis had huge fights over how Groundhog Day was going to be created. Murray wanted a film that feature existential questions while Ramis wanted something more of a screwball comedy. It seems as though the film ended up somewhere in the middle and that both men must have gotten at least a little bit of their way. Palm Springs seems to pick up a little bit where Groundhog Day left off. The main characters are placed into a situation where they are to question (along with the viewer) what makes up a life and what it means to have a tomorrow. Is it so wrong to have a life filled with comfort? What does the person in such a role owe the others that are not in the same role? And so on.
While I enjoyed the movie I wouldn't say that it is great. The leads were excellent (Samberg is a revelation) and the story was good even though I found the science part of the resolution to be pretty iffy. The movie was fun to watch and that's often the most you can hope for.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies
This review (expanded from the one I wrote for MyAnimeList: https://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?id=282934) is based on the version of Fireworks screened in American cinemas during the first week of July, 2018. I might revise this review if I get a chance to see it again and take proper notes, and/or watch the live-action film that came first.
Uchiage Hanabi was simultaneously engrossing, cringe-worthy, beautiful, and shallow. It's quite the accomplishment in its own way.
The art is gorgeous… with the unfortunate exception of some truly awful CGI scenes. (One of these, showing a staircase at the school, is used repeatedly throughout the film). When SHAFT puts in the effort to deliver a properly animated shot, it shows. Unfortunately, it also shows when they don't. I didn't really notice the character stiffness mentioned in other reviews I've read on MyAnimeList or Trakt, but I definitely felt that CGI was overused. With that in mind, I decided to award the art 8/10 based mostly on the non-CG segments, so as not to let the CGI drag the traditional animation down too much.
I have no doubt that the soundtrack contributed immensely to my enjoyment of the visuals. DAOKO is now on my radar solely because of this film. (Kosaki Satoru was already familiar from his work on the Suzumiya Haruhi franchise, OreImo, and others.) With no aural equivalent of CGI to detract from its score, the music earns a solid 9/10. Foley and environments sounded above average to me, so that doesn't hurt either.
However, I'm afraid that's where my praise must end. The story and characters were beyond shallow, earning just 3/10 and a pathetic 1/10, respectively.
I couldn't keep track of any of the school boys at all. Even Narimichi blended in with the group for the first third or so until the plot ramped up, and without him around the other four guys were just interchangeable cutouts to me. Nazuna was just a generic moeblob with no personality to speak of. Her desire to run away from home seems unmotivated by anything in particular. She's not doing it to avoid being torn away from anyone, and her home life seems perfectly fine. It's really just there to kick off the story, much as the boys' conversations about whether fireworks are flat or round merely give them a reason to walk to the lighthouse.
Sadly, it's also not much of a story at all. I would go even further than other reviewers and say that the whole film can be summed up in two words: "What if…?" That's the only character motivation I saw, and the only thing driving the plot (if one can call it that) forward. I was planning to watch the live-action film at some point after this, and I probably still will—but I'm not excited to do so any more. Without stunning anime visuals to lean on, I guess the soundtrack is all I can hope for.¹
The most disappointing thing about the script is something all too common in the anime world, and in cinema generally: wasted potential. What could have been a deep, philosophical, existential reflection on the nature of reality turned out to be just another shallow teen romance. Steins;Gate, this is not.
Hell, I'm not even sure if he got the girl or not. That ending could spawn an entire review of its own, but I've prattled on enough already.
Despite the story and characters, I did find the ride worthy of an 8/10 Enjoyment score, borne on the backs of the art² and sound departments alone.
Overall: 5.8 (arithmetic mean of the ratings given to each element)
Story: 3
Animation: 8
Sound: 9
Character: 1
Enjoyment: 8
