|
Macaluso posted:I liked Kung Fu Panda 2 MORE than the first to be honest! Lord Shen was awesome, and the cannonball and raindrop scenes were so good Was it actually good? Bear in mind - I loving hate Madagascar with the fire of a thousand suns.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Jack Black is kind of underrated sometimes, especially in his voice roles, I mean sure I know its Jack Black, but he's voiced some great characters in the last few years like Po and Eddie Riggs. A lot of times when a famous person plays an animated character, it doesn't always jive with the setting. It pulls me out of the movie. MY IMMERSION, if you will. You'll notice that the protagonist voices of most of the Disney films of the Renaissance are almost exclusively Broadway or TV stars. Jodi Benson, Paige O'Hara, the boyfriend from Full House, Ming Na, Tony Goldwyn etc. And where are the big names in How to Train Your Dragon? Gerard Butler's the biggest and that's it. And the exceptions are when the famous people are capable of disappearing entirely into the character - Tom Hanks as Woody is iconic, and I never think of Splash or Big or Saving Private Ryan when I watch Toy Story. Will Ferrell as Megamind was the same way - I stopped thinking of him as Will Ferrell. And of course Steve Carrell as Gru. The times where it doesn't work are when the voice actor essentially plays an animated version of himself. It's especially bad in movies where the settings are historical and exotic and the protagonist is voiced by someone Recognizably Modern and American. Brad Pitt in Sinbad, Owen Wilson in pretty much any animated movie he's in, Chris Rock, Ben Stiller, etc. And when I saw the trailer for Kung Fu Panda - it showed Jack Black playing a panda version of a role he's recognized for - the loveable fat screwup. But maybe the marketing was unfair. I might give it a shot now because i Have heard a lot of surprisingly positive feedback for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:Snow White would keep no one's attention these days, but I'd love to see an IMAX Sleeping Beauty. Snow White had good visuals, original music, adorable dwarves who contribute physical comedy while all being distinct, an expressive heroine, and a fantastically reserved Evil Queen. Sleeping Beauty had ASTOUNDING visuals - but pre-existing music taken from a ballet, the most horrifically incompetent and annoying sidekicks ever, a glassy-eyed princess who has only 10 lines of dialogue, a prince who has the fairies do literally all the work for him, and a villain who is all hype. Animation-wise, Sleeping Beauty is magnificent, but as an actual movie it's boring as poo poo. Snow White's where it's at, man. That forest scene still gives me the willies. Edit: I am TOTALLY down for the Malificent movie, though. Angelina Jolie looks amazing.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:I am just so NOT excited for that movie at all, and Angelina Jolie being the one playing Malificent (who I already am not a huge fan of villain wise) just makes me SO uninterested. I'd rather see like, the chick who plays Regina on Once Upon a Time take on the role instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Pick posted:Maleficent is a clumsy attempt to make Sleeping Beauty more interesting and relevant and keep the Disney Princess line from dying on the front end, as it basically has with Snow White. Obviously it's terrible, but the kids in the theater I was at seemed to absolutely love it, so maybe it'll have its intended effect anyway. The animation is so bad. SO BAD. How many millions of dollars did they spend turning Imelda Staunton into a horrifying bobble head? She looks like Professor Umbridge hosed the Great Gazoo. Also, I am totally and irrationally furious that Maleficent doesn't turn into a dragon in this version. Her most badass iconic scene. Instead her loving wings grow back like loving magic, oh great problem solved, let's go back to the way things were, and let's just rip off the ending to Frozen while we're at it, yessir. AnimeJune fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Yes, because asserting that the bond between a girl and her adopted mother is true love while the prince/princess fantasy is not, is not feminist at all because there's rape imagery earlier. Maleficent in the original spent those 16 years being a hellacious badass. This one spent it creeper-stalking a baby while loving with a bunch of dimwitted (and astoundingly mean-spirited) fairies. Hell, King Stefan got a more complex arc than Maleficent did and he's literally the embodiment of patriarchy in the movie. I'll admit, it wouldn't have been as bad if Princess Aurora had been, you know, a character. Then we as the audience would understand why Maleficent became attached to her and regretted her actions. Instead, she's just as much of a stupid empty-headed ditz with no agency as she is in the original. What are we supposed to think Maleficent sees in her? Her bland, virtuous "goodness," which we're meant to infer Aurora is because she's blond and pretty and smiles all the time? gently caress that nonsense. I expected more. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I did. And as for the true love's kiss scene - I dunno, having Frozen come out first, with a near-identical final scene (and explanation) completely sucks the impact out of it. That being said, I could spend 90 minutes watching the christening scene over and over again, because when Jolie is being Evil Maleficent, she is flawless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Plus the whole thing where the climax is the brave prince going off to slay the evil dragon while the princess sits around doing gently caress all at the end of her own movie. Aurora's mother is whisked away by an illness offscreen. No development there, no reaction to having to spend 16 years apart from her baby. The three fairies are - apart from appallingly animated - surprisingly cruel and spiteful. And that's not even mentioning how monstrously callous their cuddling up to King Stephan looks like in the context of what he did to Maleficent. WTF, ladies? He drugs and maims your elected representative and you go BEHIND HER BACK to kiss his rear end? SHAME ON YOU. SHAAAAAME. This also brings me to the utterly ridiculous ending. The film's introduction explicitly states that the Moors flourished because the fairy folk had no king or queen, just an agreed-upon representative (Maleficent, in this case). Visually, the film also indicated the fairy folk's dissatisfaction with Maleficent once she built herself a throne and started handing down orders, essentially crowning herself "queen." The Moors, the movie insists, are self-governed and do just loving fine. But oh, in order to "unite the kingdoms," they're happy to accept an absolute monarchy of human beings, despite that fact that it's human beings who hosed everything up in their own kingdom and also tried to set FIRE to the Moors. Wow this makes perfect sense. loving brilliant. I foresee no disastrous consequences AT ALL. gently caress this stupid movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:They didn't add anything to Aurora because nobody cares about Dorothy in Wicked. But Glinda sure got a lot of character development in Wicked. The whole point of this new Maleficent movie was that her relationship with Aurora caused her to change her ways and accept love and become a heroine, etc. etc. You can't depict an interesting, well-rounded, nuanced relationship when one half is a complex, conflicted, layered individual and the other half is a potted plant. I couldn't buy Maleficent's change of heart for Aurora since Aurora is essentially a non-person with no distinctive personality traits whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 05:13
|
|