![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Illusion of Megamind
Two films for the price of one! Hopefully the advance notice on one will cancel out my coming much too late to the party on the other ...
Megamind - US release date: 5 Nov 2010
I was thoroughly, vocally skeptical about this one. It looked like a return to the smartass comedy Dreamworks was so infamous for before Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon pulled it out of the quicksand. Not only that, the trailers' main effect on me was to make me want to watch Dr Horrible again, instead of this film. But – for some reason I feel like I should apologise for this – I actually really enjoyed it.
First of all, the story is really solid. Not just solid in a mathematical 'Sequence A slots perfectly into Sequence B' kind of way, but with integrity – the plot is driven by the characters' actions and reactions, and those are in full accordance with who the characters are established to be. Aside from a long narrated prologue there was rarely anything that felt expositiony for exposition's sake; it was all in the context of the story or character moments or whatever. Even the snappy sitcom dialogue was really good snappy sitcom dialogue, actually intelligent rather than just 'witty,' to an extent that I really didn't mind it at all, despite exactly this sort of thing bothering me in many recent animated films. Just because a line is cleverly written doesn't mean it's the right line for the scene or character, I want to print in big bold letters on the Story Artist's Monthly Circular,* but these lines were right for the story and characters, and more importantly the tone of the film as a whole. While I would have liked a bit more immersion in some of the more emotional moments of the film (mostly, it turned out, in the first half), even when they did interrupt a scene with a gag, the gag never really killed the moment. That is hard to do, and it was well-done. I guess what I can compare it to best would be Zoolander, another film I was expecting to be pure crass trash, but which was silly in the way that only intelligent people can be silly. What's more is that it's not just the writers who were in on it, but the actors, animators, and even layout people: There's one scene in particular where Megamind says 'I can explain!' and unobtrusively, on the wall in the background, is one of the spoof Obama posters saying 'No You Can't.' The movie was full of little things like this, things which were hilarious if you caught them, but if you didn't, it didn't lessen your experience of the movie.
*I am sure such a thing does not exist, but in the hypothetical ...
Another aspect which is much harder to quantify was the feeling that this movie was made by people who are part of the world, observe it, and know how it works, as opposed to Tangled which could have been made by people who have spent their whole lives in a tower. I'm not just talking about physics, but psychology, and ... well, just so much. It was very savvy, and just ... extremely well-observed. I wish I could explain this point a bit better ... that will have to wait for the DVD, I suppose.
The designs were neither here nor there, though I think the fault for some of the ugliness lies more with modelling than design as they looked like they could have had quite nice original concept drawings. I was especially unimpressed by how Roxanne's face was built, which was unfortunate considering how central she is to the story and how much of the emotional weight she's supposed to carry (or at least relay), but her voice acting compensated for it to some degree, and she came off legitimately as a smart woman, which I have to say has not been historically successful in animation.
The animation, now ... the animation. It wasn't until Dragon that I saw a CG film whose animation fundamentally impressed me the way really good 2D does, and Megamind had more of it. It wasn't just the technical proficiency – anyone can master technique if they work hard enough – it was the creativity, the insight, and the sheer volume of observation that was apparent on the screen. These were clearly people who have studied their craft, and kept studying, and then studied some more, even after they could have decided they were good enough. Sure, the action scenes looked great, but even little things like the way characters would sit in their chair felt so ... organic, rather than just dredged up from one's mental library of poses. And the expressions! Such fantastic expressions! I think this was the first time I've watched a CG film and been struck by that gut-punch awe of an awesome drawing – and it's not even a drawing! Top rate stuff. I felt more than a little sad, when the credits finally rolled, that my extreme distaste for actually doing CG animation meant I could never join their ranks with the aim of absorbing some of their talent and insight.
Of course some of this is a bit ego-centric, because more than once I had that uncanny feeling that I was watching my designs animated (or rather my designs as I see them in my head before they get messed up somewhere between my brain and the page) even though I hadn't designed any of the characters. (Except, maybe, one ... not just in facial proportions but expressions and that darn upper lip is exactly the same, dangit! He even moves like him too! I was so proud of my Herbert West, Dreamworks, why you gotta steal him out from under me?!) Probably working off similar influences, I suppose, but I'm curious to peruse the art book and see if there are any new designers I need toslavishly emulate learn from ...
Production design definitely benefited from the hemorrhage of vis dev people from Pixar lately. Go go Dominique Louis.
Oh, and if the shot from space is any guide, this all takes place in Muskegon, Michigan, which I find highly amusing for reasons of my own. Haha, Muskegon. Sigh ...
Anyway, boo on you, Dreamworks marketing dept, for making this movie look like so much less than it was, and leading me to think it was worth it to wait until they screened it at work, so now I can't pass along the word-of-mouth that might have made it more successful at the box office (not that my word alone would influence the takings that much, but who knows how many times this experience has been multiplied across the country). It's worth seeing, if it's still in theatres near you, or if you live somewhere where it hasn't come out yet, but if not, there's always Netflix...
The Illusionist - US Release 25 December 2010
I know a couple of people who worked on this film so I was going to see it anyway, even if it hadn't looked absolutely gorgeous, and even though they had each given me their opinions of working on it, which were a)incredibly frustrating and b)incredibly dull.
The main thing about this film which I was not expecting is that it is, in essence, a silent film. There is speech in it, but I watched an unsubtitled version and felt I was missing nothing. The point, sometimes, is that the characters don't speak the same language, so why should the audience know what they're saying? The main character is a Frenchman living in Scotland; he speaks a few lines of French but not many and mostly they don't need translating; the other lead character I assume was supposed to speak Gaelic, or at least some babbly approximation of Gaelic by a francophone, but again, not being able to understand her was kind of the point. The music carries the story rather well; in fact, the movie would not be nearly as successful without such a perfectly complementary score.
The story is (necessarily) simple, and carried more in little character-based episodes than any sort of grand arc, again very much like many of the silent comedies I've seen. To say it's 'subtle' would imply some sort of finely-tuned machination, which I don't think it has, really, but it is quiet. I was never bored, though. Granted, this may be because I spent most of the movie in a blissed-out state of 'ooooh' looking at the REALLY OUTSTANDING ARTWORK, both characters and backgrounds ... it's been a long time since I'd been so consistently dazzled by the art I saw onscreen.
Basically, my review comes down to this: if you like good art and want a quiet little place to escape to for an hour and half, or (perhaps more importantly) want to support the idea of hand-drawn animated films that are not Disney musicals or indeed anything like most American animation, you will likely enjoy this film, or at least find it interesting. If you are liable to fall asleep if someone doesn't make a wisecrack at least once every five minutes, stay home and play with some shiny objects. And if you do see it, stay to the end of the credits! There is a prize waiting for you there.
Megamind - US release date: 5 Nov 2010
I was thoroughly, vocally skeptical about this one. It looked like a return to the smartass comedy Dreamworks was so infamous for before Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon pulled it out of the quicksand. Not only that, the trailers' main effect on me was to make me want to watch Dr Horrible again, instead of this film. But – for some reason I feel like I should apologise for this – I actually really enjoyed it.
First of all, the story is really solid. Not just solid in a mathematical 'Sequence A slots perfectly into Sequence B' kind of way, but with integrity – the plot is driven by the characters' actions and reactions, and those are in full accordance with who the characters are established to be. Aside from a long narrated prologue there was rarely anything that felt expositiony for exposition's sake; it was all in the context of the story or character moments or whatever. Even the snappy sitcom dialogue was really good snappy sitcom dialogue, actually intelligent rather than just 'witty,' to an extent that I really didn't mind it at all, despite exactly this sort of thing bothering me in many recent animated films. Just because a line is cleverly written doesn't mean it's the right line for the scene or character, I want to print in big bold letters on the Story Artist's Monthly Circular,* but these lines were right for the story and characters, and more importantly the tone of the film as a whole. While I would have liked a bit more immersion in some of the more emotional moments of the film (mostly, it turned out, in the first half), even when they did interrupt a scene with a gag, the gag never really killed the moment. That is hard to do, and it was well-done. I guess what I can compare it to best would be Zoolander, another film I was expecting to be pure crass trash, but which was silly in the way that only intelligent people can be silly. What's more is that it's not just the writers who were in on it, but the actors, animators, and even layout people: There's one scene in particular where Megamind says 'I can explain!' and unobtrusively, on the wall in the background, is one of the spoof Obama posters saying 'No You Can't.' The movie was full of little things like this, things which were hilarious if you caught them, but if you didn't, it didn't lessen your experience of the movie.
*I am sure such a thing does not exist, but in the hypothetical ...
Another aspect which is much harder to quantify was the feeling that this movie was made by people who are part of the world, observe it, and know how it works, as opposed to Tangled which could have been made by people who have spent their whole lives in a tower. I'm not just talking about physics, but psychology, and ... well, just so much. It was very savvy, and just ... extremely well-observed. I wish I could explain this point a bit better ... that will have to wait for the DVD, I suppose.
The designs were neither here nor there, though I think the fault for some of the ugliness lies more with modelling than design as they looked like they could have had quite nice original concept drawings. I was especially unimpressed by how Roxanne's face was built, which was unfortunate considering how central she is to the story and how much of the emotional weight she's supposed to carry (or at least relay), but her voice acting compensated for it to some degree, and she came off legitimately as a smart woman, which I have to say has not been historically successful in animation.
The animation, now ... the animation. It wasn't until Dragon that I saw a CG film whose animation fundamentally impressed me the way really good 2D does, and Megamind had more of it. It wasn't just the technical proficiency – anyone can master technique if they work hard enough – it was the creativity, the insight, and the sheer volume of observation that was apparent on the screen. These were clearly people who have studied their craft, and kept studying, and then studied some more, even after they could have decided they were good enough. Sure, the action scenes looked great, but even little things like the way characters would sit in their chair felt so ... organic, rather than just dredged up from one's mental library of poses. And the expressions! Such fantastic expressions! I think this was the first time I've watched a CG film and been struck by that gut-punch awe of an awesome drawing – and it's not even a drawing! Top rate stuff. I felt more than a little sad, when the credits finally rolled, that my extreme distaste for actually doing CG animation meant I could never join their ranks with the aim of absorbing some of their talent and insight.
Of course some of this is a bit ego-centric, because more than once I had that uncanny feeling that I was watching my designs animated (or rather my designs as I see them in my head before they get messed up somewhere between my brain and the page) even though I hadn't designed any of the characters. (Except, maybe, one ... not just in facial proportions but expressions and that darn upper lip is exactly the same, dangit! He even moves like him too! I was so proud of my Herbert West, Dreamworks, why you gotta steal him out from under me?!) Probably working off similar influences, I suppose, but I'm curious to peruse the art book and see if there are any new designers I need to
Production design definitely benefited from the hemorrhage of vis dev people from Pixar lately. Go go Dominique Louis.
Oh, and if the shot from space is any guide, this all takes place in Muskegon, Michigan, which I find highly amusing for reasons of my own. Haha, Muskegon. Sigh ...
Anyway, boo on you, Dreamworks marketing dept, for making this movie look like so much less than it was, and leading me to think it was worth it to wait until they screened it at work, so now I can't pass along the word-of-mouth that might have made it more successful at the box office (not that my word alone would influence the takings that much, but who knows how many times this experience has been multiplied across the country). It's worth seeing, if it's still in theatres near you, or if you live somewhere where it hasn't come out yet, but if not, there's always Netflix...
The Illusionist - US Release 25 December 2010
I know a couple of people who worked on this film so I was going to see it anyway, even if it hadn't looked absolutely gorgeous, and even though they had each given me their opinions of working on it, which were a)incredibly frustrating and b)incredibly dull.
The main thing about this film which I was not expecting is that it is, in essence, a silent film. There is speech in it, but I watched an unsubtitled version and felt I was missing nothing. The point, sometimes, is that the characters don't speak the same language, so why should the audience know what they're saying? The main character is a Frenchman living in Scotland; he speaks a few lines of French but not many and mostly they don't need translating; the other lead character I assume was supposed to speak Gaelic, or at least some babbly approximation of Gaelic by a francophone, but again, not being able to understand her was kind of the point. The music carries the story rather well; in fact, the movie would not be nearly as successful without such a perfectly complementary score.
The story is (necessarily) simple, and carried more in little character-based episodes than any sort of grand arc, again very much like many of the silent comedies I've seen. To say it's 'subtle' would imply some sort of finely-tuned machination, which I don't think it has, really, but it is quiet. I was never bored, though. Granted, this may be because I spent most of the movie in a blissed-out state of 'ooooh' looking at the REALLY OUTSTANDING ARTWORK, both characters and backgrounds ... it's been a long time since I'd been so consistently dazzled by the art I saw onscreen.
Basically, my review comes down to this: if you like good art and want a quiet little place to escape to for an hour and half, or (perhaps more importantly) want to support the idea of hand-drawn animated films that are not Disney musicals or indeed anything like most American animation, you will likely enjoy this film, or at least find it interesting. If you are liable to fall asleep if someone doesn't make a wisecrack at least once every five minutes, stay home and play with some shiny objects. And if you do see it, stay to the end of the credits! There is a prize waiting for you there.
no subject