![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wreck-It Ralph (and Paperman)
Nov. 2nd, 2012 11:52 amFull disclosure: I work* for Walt Disney Animation Studios (in fact that is where I am typing this, right now) so I have a vested interest in seeing this film succeed, even though I didn't work on it.** On the other, dominant hand, I have never taken the origin of my paycheque as justification to whitewash the movies my colleagues and I make, so bear that in mind when you read the following review.
*"work"
**I think technically I'm listed as having done so, but it would have turned out exactly the same without me, so I don't know if it counts.
Wreck-It Ralph is really, really good.
It's focused, sharp, just the right balance of irreverent and heartfelt, well-paced, and funny. It doesn't have tremendous dramatic or philosophical depth, nor incisive satirical insight, but it clearly doesn't try to go for these things: it may have a safe comfort zone, but at least it owns it. What's more, you can tell the people working on it seemed to enjoy it; I say "seemed" because I am aware of how exhausting the production was, but the work that made it to the screen could only have been done by people who cared about what they were making, regardless of how much sleep they were getting.
The only real disappointment I had in it was that, for me at least, it didn't stand up to much rewatching. I somehow managed to miss every single work-in-progress screening, so it wasn't until about two weeks before it was wrapped that I saw the whole final version of the movie – this I liked really quite a lot, despite being prepared not to. Only a month or so later the movie was finished and they had the friends-and-family previews, which I went to see because it was in 3D and a lot of the effects shots weren't finished in the previous one. It wasn't any worse than I remembered, but I didn't feel like I got more out of it. This may just be me; I have the same problem with most Pixar movies and goodness knows those are popular enough. I can't even necessarily say it's something lacking, because I enjoyed it thoroughly the first time, and I couldn't hope to put my finger on what isn't there ... but I just don't feel compelled to spend further time with those characters in that world. Considering how few people factor 'rewatchability' into a film's pros and cons, though, this is a minor drawback, and probably only a personal one.
That's it for my review – as a diversion, I would like to point you towards Betsy Sharkey's Ralph review in the L.A. Times, not because of what it says about the film per se, but ... does it read to anyone else like it's got a secret message encoded in it somehow?
Anyway, this is all beside the point. The REAL reason to go see Wreck-It Ralph is for the short film which precedes it, Paperman. I've had my eye on this one for years, since I saw a screening of it in story reels. It was something special in scribbly marker sketches, and it's something special now; however much fuss is made about the technique and the shiny bells and whistles that went into its production, I want to take this opportunity to suggest to the moviegoing public that maybe the reason they like it so much is that it's just an incredibly good film. It's hands-down my favourite thing Disney's made since I got here, and even though it's only six minutes long, I can rewatch this one over and over. (And I have.)
So yes, Paperman and Wreck-It Ralph: At long last a double-bill which delivers on the ticket price. Should you find yourself willing to put my opinions to the test at the local multiplex, I suggest finding the loudest theatre you can – Ralph doesn't really matter much either way, sound-wise, but ironically for a 'silent' short, Paperman is noticeably better with the sound well up. I've seen it in a quieter theatre and it's still excellent, but it doesn't have the transportive power. I prefer seeing Paperman in 2D, mainly because some of the depth in the 3D doesn't make sense to me; Ralph is equally good in both media, though as usual I stopped noticing the 3D about ten minutes in. I do recommend choosing one or the other and seeing them at some point, though; they're good films that deserve a watch.
*"work"
**I think technically I'm listed as having done so, but it would have turned out exactly the same without me, so I don't know if it counts.
Wreck-It Ralph is really, really good.
It's focused, sharp, just the right balance of irreverent and heartfelt, well-paced, and funny. It doesn't have tremendous dramatic or philosophical depth, nor incisive satirical insight, but it clearly doesn't try to go for these things: it may have a safe comfort zone, but at least it owns it. What's more, you can tell the people working on it seemed to enjoy it; I say "seemed" because I am aware of how exhausting the production was, but the work that made it to the screen could only have been done by people who cared about what they were making, regardless of how much sleep they were getting.
The only real disappointment I had in it was that, for me at least, it didn't stand up to much rewatching. I somehow managed to miss every single work-in-progress screening, so it wasn't until about two weeks before it was wrapped that I saw the whole final version of the movie – this I liked really quite a lot, despite being prepared not to. Only a month or so later the movie was finished and they had the friends-and-family previews, which I went to see because it was in 3D and a lot of the effects shots weren't finished in the previous one. It wasn't any worse than I remembered, but I didn't feel like I got more out of it. This may just be me; I have the same problem with most Pixar movies and goodness knows those are popular enough. I can't even necessarily say it's something lacking, because I enjoyed it thoroughly the first time, and I couldn't hope to put my finger on what isn't there ... but I just don't feel compelled to spend further time with those characters in that world. Considering how few people factor 'rewatchability' into a film's pros and cons, though, this is a minor drawback, and probably only a personal one.
That's it for my review – as a diversion, I would like to point you towards Betsy Sharkey's Ralph review in the L.A. Times, not because of what it says about the film per se, but ... does it read to anyone else like it's got a secret message encoded in it somehow?
Anyway, this is all beside the point. The REAL reason to go see Wreck-It Ralph is for the short film which precedes it, Paperman. I've had my eye on this one for years, since I saw a screening of it in story reels. It was something special in scribbly marker sketches, and it's something special now; however much fuss is made about the technique and the shiny bells and whistles that went into its production, I want to take this opportunity to suggest to the moviegoing public that maybe the reason they like it so much is that it's just an incredibly good film. It's hands-down my favourite thing Disney's made since I got here, and even though it's only six minutes long, I can rewatch this one over and over. (And I have.)
So yes, Paperman and Wreck-It Ralph: At long last a double-bill which delivers on the ticket price. Should you find yourself willing to put my opinions to the test at the local multiplex, I suggest finding the loudest theatre you can – Ralph doesn't really matter much either way, sound-wise, but ironically for a 'silent' short, Paperman is noticeably better with the sound well up. I've seen it in a quieter theatre and it's still excellent, but it doesn't have the transportive power. I prefer seeing Paperman in 2D, mainly because some of the depth in the 3D doesn't make sense to me; Ralph is equally good in both media, though as usual I stopped noticing the 3D about ten minutes in. I do recommend choosing one or the other and seeing them at some point, though; they're good films that deserve a watch.
