Puss in Boots: The Last Wish vs. John Wick: Chapter 4

I wanted to write this entry, or at least the first half of it = "Puss in Boots", before the holidays but I couldn't find the time. So, since then I added to the pack the last episode of "John Wick". Where do these two connect? There's not much in common apparently, but wait... First, both somehow seem to end their series, or at least try to send a "good bye" (not really an "adieu") from their main character. Besides that, more or less ironically, after watching JW, I can't say it's very far from an animated movie.

I've never been very caught by the DreamWorks' fairytale universe that began with "Shrek", maybe except "Shrek 3" (despite what critics said about it). So, I didn't rush watching the last "Puss in Boots", but finally I can say that's probably the best animation I've seen since "Isle of Dogs", 5 years ago. The story goes like this: Puss in Boots finds itself reaching the last of the nine standard cat lifes, and followed by Death impersonated by a bounty hunter armed with two sickles, decides to move out from the public life of a fairytale hero. That's until finding out about a star fulfilling any wish, but only one, and implicitly opening a path to gaining back the peace of mind in front of the deathly perils of the world. However, Puss in Boots is not the only one wishing for that wish - so we end up with a race of who's the first to find the magic star. And obviously to a duel when we're finally getting there.

I didn't find either the "John Wick" universe too compelling, the notable exception being the second part, which clearly stands out in comparison to the rest. Here the story goes pretty much as it went before: John Wick has a big price on his head and a bunch of bounty hunters on his tracks, and he also tries to find some peace getting through the intricate customs of the assassins guild of which he's part of. The quest implies reaching various locations. So finally, we have again a race from death, heading up to a final duel - an actual classic one this time = pistols, 30 steps, witnesses, and all the rest. Well, does the title of the entry make more sense now?

Ok, let's be fair. Looking at the reviews I was expecting much more from JW4, and after what I've seen I felt it deserves this comparison. Practically, it recycles a lot from previous movies, from some locations = clubs, mirror or glass walls rooms, etc. up to the same tiringly long sequences of gratuitous violence = I ask myself how do screenwriters, directors, or whoever decides, choose the optimal number of henchmen beaten in an action movie scene. Really, does it make any difference if we see more than 7-8? In this type of movie, I can get over inconsistent plot parts or story threads left hanging, but it's hard to accept senseless attempts to get a record on the body count. I don't have an issue with violence in a movie, but when it takes, in a repetitive manner, over a quarter of the movie time, I think it's legitimate to ask yourself if it wouldn't be more reasonable to watch wrestling, mma, or some other contact sports instead.

There are some good parts in the last JW - especially concerning the camera work. But unfortunately it's not enough. We have some witty lines, but overall the script is quite shallow. In "Puss in Boots" at least I found enough humor to make me smile a bit, not that I was expecting this from JW4, but it seemed even more dry than the previous installments. Even the soundtrack in JW4 has its ground in the one introduced in Chapter 2, an excellent one otherwise, but there's not much novelty here. For instance, "Puss in Boots" comes up with a memorable score (composed by Heitor Pereira), at least for the pieces where Death makes an entrance, reminding somehow of Morricone's western music tones. If we're to talk about villainous characters, again JW4 fades when compared to "Puss in Boots". I would've never believed that an antropomorphic wolf with red eyes and two sickles can have more charisma than the head of a criminal organization, but well... it does. Fortunately there are more in the JW cast that somehow compensate, but I found Bill Skarsgard to be a very poor choice for the main villain.

To sum up the comparative overview, as forced or hilarious this might seem, there's the substance of the story, which in essence is represented by running out from death in both movies. As unlikely it might sound, I'd say this is much more maturely presented in "Puss in Boots" then in "John Wick". The sense you get from there is stop de run, face the problem, live your current life and not the past one. We even have a symbolic "ressurection" of Puss in Boots at some point. Probably JW's action attempts some similar direction, but the whole idea is much more fuzzy and lost between fistfights and guns + (spoiler) it "encouragingly" wraps up with a tombstone. So, surprisingly.. in the end, at least for now, Puss vs. John: 1-0.

Rating:
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish - 4 out of 5
John Wick: Chapter 4 - 2.5 out of 5

Lightyear (2022)

When I first watched the trailer of "Lightyear" I've asked myself how entangled can the subject be to get from "Toy Story" to a space oddisey. I've got my answer in the first 5 seconds of the film: “In 1995 Andy got a toy. That toy was based on a movie. This is that movie.” I must say I admire this as the simplest, elegant and most open way to create a spin-off that I've ever seen on screen. Unfortunately it's pretty much the only thing I can admire here.

I've never been to drawn into the "Toy Story" universe, and probably that's why the last iteration left me with the best opinion, contrary to the general appreciation. I guess that's also the reason why I had high expectations from something announcing itself quite different from the usual "Toy Story" contexts. In "Lightyear", Buzz - the guy on the poster - is an astronaut on a ship carrying several thousand people, apparently during an exploration mission meant to find a habitable planet. When stopping on a potential candidate that finally proves unfriendly due to the indigenous fauna, Buzz damages the ship so badly that discovering a new fuel is required for flying back to "infinity and beyond". Feeling guilty for the situation, our astronaut dedicates his time for testing diverse variations of space fuel. However, each flight of several minutes costs him several years on the planet time. And the life on the planet moves on, finally getting to a fully organized colony, where people moving to the next generation start forgetting that they want to leave. Exactly when, finally, the last tried formul for the space-propelling cocktail seems to be the right one. The problem gets more acute when Buzz, after the first successful test, lands back in the middle of an alien invasion led by the evil Zurg, who somehow seems strangely interested exactly in the newly found space fuel. Well, up to this point the movie was fine. From here onward, it's somehow predictable what happens = Mortal Kombat: Buzz vs Zurg - where finally - big spoiler, we find out that Zurg is actually an older Buzz who discovered also the time travel and wants to "fix the past", but ran out of gas. Even that is relatively fine in the economy of the story, nevermind my debatable and ethically questionable decision to support Zurg's side in this case. And on top of everything the whole SciFi universe created by Pixar, despite the logical flaws, is actually really immersive due to the amount of details. So, what's wrong with this picture?

Warning: my thoughts might get a bit off the rail from here on. The wrong part I've seen in this movie is the "dream team" that sticks to Buzz for helping him to get the planet free from Zurg. The team is formed of three characters who Buzz finds quickly after his last landing, apparently the only who escaped capture by the enemy, and also enrolled as cadets in the space rangers training programme. In brief, the three seem to be in a continuous competition on who's messing things up more often and showing how unprepared they are for their "job". And all this stuff is supposed to be funny. Well, it's not. Also, all this stuff should appear as having a minimum importance in reaching the obvious happy end - keeping the politically correct spirit of "anybody can be a space ranger" no matter of how persistent you are in doing the same mistakes. I might agree witht the first part, but only if you're striving to succeed. Here, at least for one of the characters, it's obvious that placing him under quarantine would considerably increase the probability that the rest of the team survives. But of course that won't be an acceptable course of action - the movie getting quite explicit in a scene where it teaches us that's intolerable to not tolerate the mistake. So... no matter how light the context is in an animation, and as weird as it may be that I'm giving so much importance, I find disturbing to see in a movie that finally targets mostly children that the idea of tolerable mistake is always valid and that "rocket science" could be your path in life, no restrictions set, even though you might be alergic to space dust - but well, let's not discriminate. Even the subliminal supports the same direction by changing the purpose of Lightyear's actions, finally giving up on the goal of fixing his initial mistake and preventing also Zurg to fix it, ending up accepting the planet as it is. I can understand the educational reasoning of introducing even in animations elements of equality and tolerance - concerning gender, race, human behavior, whatever. But it finally depends on where all this stops. Leading such "accept anything" policies so far that you get to prioritize an idea of equity over other aspects as competences, and presenting the triumph of mediocrity as a success... well, that's dangerous. And maybe I wouldn't have written so much about this, but I can spot this tendency too often lately... and sometime during a sunny day, it might bite back, and hard.

Rating: 3 out of 5 - because if you can ignore the last paragraph above, it's actually nice as a SciFi animation

Soul (2020)

I'm moving on in the same trend, probably already boring, to complain that I'm definitely not in the best mood for writing. Also when finding about "Soul", the title + description led immediately to the idea of a musical - the only movies area that I'm completely avoiding, with minor exceptions. On top of everything, "soul" is not among my favorite music, so I decided to ignore this. However, after repeatedly hearing that's the best animation of last year, I decided to move it in the minor exceptions category above. The first thing to say about it - "Frozen" fits probably much better with the musical genre than what we have here. And about soul music, that's really secondary behind the concept of a soul in the context of the movie.

In brief, we have a music teacher, who dreams of being part of a jazz band, and when finally the opportunity arises he fells into a manhole and he dies. Well, not really... because we're moving somewhere in an intermediate afterlife space, where the souls either move towards "the great beyond" after living, or towards "the great before" to find a new place on Earth. Well, our guy definitely dislikes the beyond option, and wants to get back to his piano in New York. And the only path seems to be through "the great before". Now, given my writing mood, I guess I said enough about the story.

Obviously the target of the movie is not in the range of PhD students in psychology for analyzing the perspectives of the afterlife concepts. Nevertheless, "Soul" is complex enough to not be labeled "childrens only". Moreover it's fresh - I didn't feel bored by material recycled from other movies (not that the idea of human soul inside of a cat is new, but I said I'm stopping with the spoilers :P). In a word, I'd qualify it as "nice". Maybe even too "nice" in the end, but these days that's actually good.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

WolfWalkers (2020)

Unfortunately, struggling somewhere between Ketorol and Nurofen for some dental issues that seem to contest my incapacitation record dating from my ankle fracture two and a half years ago, I'm not in the best mood for writing. Therefore, I'll move quickly over "WolfWalkers", although it probably deserves more.

The animation we're talking about is made by the same Irish team as "The Secret of Kells" and "Song of the Sea", reason why I didn't expect much from it. Not that the above aren't good (I guess), but... it's just a matter of taste - in brief, each of the previous movies seemed to me as a sort of Miyazaki made in Europe = lots of senses way too hidden that get lost in an Irish fantasy instead of a Japanese one, and which had the effect of a sleeping pill on me when I've seen it. We have here too an idea that probably has its origin in the local folklore - a variant of the werewolf myth, with the difference from the above that "WolfWalkers" is much more coherent in its narrative, and didn't get me bored. Everything starts with a hunter's daughter, who gets bit by another girl of about the same age, but having a wolf shape. Worse, a wolf leading a pack in the nearby forrest, considered a great danger for the town where our action is settled. The result, the hunter's daughter gets, as in any "werewolf story", the same transformation capabilities, stuff that completely incompatible with her father's job taked by the ruthless lord protector to erradicate the menace in the woods.

The way this whole story complicates can be seen in the movie. What I can say is that despite its lack of twists, what we see here is sufficiently complex to worth the time, and somehow the mix between myth, folklore and the relatively alert action, succeeds this time = it's neither too pretentios in its meanings to put the age target too high, neither too childish to make it too low.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Raya and the Last Dragon (2021)

"Raya and the Last Dragon" is a Disney movie, like most of the late Disney movies, and that says all about it = don't expect something to challenge your IQ here. Yup, I didn't forget we're talking about an animation where the main target is below 15 years old, but somehow I was expecting more. At least it runs decently: short and not boring.

The subject is a story set somewhere in a imaginary land on the Asian continent, divided in 5 regions, and brought to a dystopian state by a sort of demon resembling a purple tornado turning into stone every living creature it touches. 500 years ago the demon was banished by a dragon who produced a magic globe to keep the evil away. All nice and well, but unfortunately one piece magic globe doesn't divide equally to 5, and the rulers of 4 of the 5 regions grew envious of the one possessing the artifact, where the water seemed more clear, the grass greener, and so on. Like that, predictable enough, we reach a moment when the globe shatters exactly in 5 pieces (what a coincidence), the purple tornado rises again, and the grass loses it's green shade almost everywhere. Fast-forward a couple years, when we find each piece of the globe in possession of each region ruler, struggling to keep away the demon, just as much to not turn all the inhabitants into a giant terracotta army. Except Raya, the daughter of the former owner of the globe, who's trying what her father failed to do - to unite everybody. But for that she also needs to awake the dragon...

I've already told pretty much everything that takes place during the first 15 minutes, so let's stop the spoilers here. As I was saying, the advantage of the movie is its relatively alert action, moving you across the whole fantasy world in search of the globe pieces. So, the movie is not that bad, but unfortunately is utterly predictible and filled with cliche sequences. Probably it's ok for the age it targets, all the story being nothing more than a easy to understand allegory. At the end of 2016 I wrote an entry about "Kubo and the Two Strings". Also an animation, also a fairytale, also set in Asia, also a quest on gathering more pieces, also an allegory. One with much more depth than what we have here. But well, it wasn't also Disney...

Rating: 3 out of 5 (being generous)

Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014)

Yet again... zero subject. And it's not the lack of new movies. More like the lack of inspiration in choosing something, or time for a backup option. It's been a while since I've watched an animation and "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" had a time-travel factor somewhere in its synopsis. I wasn't expecting much from an animation, but still convinced me to watch it. And up to some point it actually seemed promising...

We have a situation of a wonder dog (obviously fluid in English) = Mr. Peabody, with a level of intelligence that's higher than the average of the human race, who after graduating countless PhDs, becoming a successful entrepreneur, proving its talent in culinary arts, and many other accomplishments, decided to adopt a baby. Young Sherman, who completes the title. Well, young Sherman, in his first day of school had a conflict with Penny Peterson, an obnoxious class mate. Well, for cooling down the conflict we're moving to a peace dinner organized by Peabody for the two families, and from there it's just a step to the children running away using - "the WABAC" - a time machine, obviously part of the garage inventions belonging to Mr. Peabody.

Sorry, but I'm really in zero mood to move forward with the story. Up to half of its duration, the action is relatively decent and seemingly educational for children = it takes you the ancient Egipt, the the French revolution, to the Italian Renaissance, to the Trojan war, and also packs in some historical characters. From half on it's getting totally cringe though, throwing everything into a chaos of temporal distortions without any logic reasoning behind and making a real salad mixing all history references together (which actually you can see coming, but you hope it won't get there). It's obvious that the movie doesn't target quantum physics graduates in its public, and neither people with a PhD in history, but 1) for kids some ideas are pushed a bit too much towards absurdity losing any initial intention of educational value and 2) for adults the funny moments are simply weak and stupid. Or maybe I just wasn't in the right mood when I watched it. But I don't have a WABAC machine to return there and check it out.

Rating: 2 out of 5

The Little Prince (2015)

I didn't like "The Little Prince" when I was a kid, and I heard it repeatedly as a radio play on a vinyl. It was one of the stories where the ending seemed too sad. I don't recall if I read the book or not at that time, but even if I did it didn't change anything. A couple years ago, when I heard about a new animated version for "The Little Prince", I told myself it might be good to check if my perspective on it changed, but I kept postponing it. Well, I did it now. Verdict: 1. This is not a children's story, despite its animated character. 2. Don't try this alone at home, late at night when you have too many thoughts that don't let you fall asleep - a horror might be a better option :P

I won't start telling the story now. It's the most popular book by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, not very lengthy, and probably well-known. For who doesn't know it, it's probably better to give it a read and what's to understand of it will be up to the personal interpretation of each reader. In any case, to explain point 1 above, the text is full of metaphors, some maybe understandable at a young age, but requiring a level of maturity to see their depth. There's simple stuff like "think outside the box" in the first chapters up to not look at an end as the end, in the final part of the book. Which explains (partially :) ) point 2 above, as well as the director's view of this in the 2015 movie. Or to be more precise, I couldn't resist without figuring out why the story doesn't end where I remembered ending, and at about 3 AM I started reading the last chapters of the book to see if I'm prone to an early Alzheimer or not.

It seems not, because the ending of the book is where I knew it was, but still doesn't seem anymore as sad it did. Because the movie moves on as I was saying. It takes a sort of "Neverending Story" approach, another writing with lots of metaphors, where the universe is infinite and alive as long as "there are hopes and dreams", or well... that's at least the way I see now "The Little Prince", because at the time when I was listening to the vinyl I didn't know about "Neverending Story", and there was no "neverending" on the vinyl cover :). Well, it's obviously debatable the version of the director relative to how it goes on from where the book stops, which might seem too Hollywoodish. Even more debatable is the omission of some big parts in the original story. However, I'd say that overall it draws attention on the end of the written story, and does that by pointing out the uncertainty of it. Or to put it differently, an end is just a form and there might be always something after as long as you keep room for questions ;)

"Here, then, is a great mystery. For you who also love the little prince, and for me, nothing in the universe can be the same if somewhere, we do not know where, a sheep that we never saw has −− yes or no? −− eaten a rose... Look up at the sky. Ask yourselves: is it yes or no? Has the sheep eaten the flower? And you will see how everything changes... And no grown−up will ever understand that this is a matter of so much importance!" (Antoine de Saint-Exupery - "Le Petit Prince" - English translation)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Toy Story 4 (2019)

I didn't enjoy any "Toy Story". Well, the first - at the age I had when I saw it - was indeed something new, as a 3D rendered animation, and probably at that time seemed ok, although I think that "Anastasia" left me a more solid impression (out of the '90s releases around the same time). I don't remember anything from "Toy Story 2", and from "Toy Story 3" only that it did hit a new record for the tear jerking coefficient. So I (hardly) decided to see "Toy Story 4", more due to lack of novelty on my blog, and having lower expectations than the depths of the ocean from where the last "Godzilla" came out (which I didn't actually have the "guts to meet"). Given the context, what I can say after is that the choice wasn't that bad. Except the AC in the cinema running on extreme mode for almost 2h... which made me dream on a wool sweater in the middle of the summer.

"Toy Story 4" could be also named "The Search for Forky" - where Forky is the latest toy joining the group, manufactured out of a single use thrown away fork, by Bonnie, the current owner of Woody & co. The problem is that Forky is not at all at peace with his new Frankestein-ian condition of a living toy, and wants back into the garbage bin. Any garbage bin. And since Forky seems essential to help Bonnie to get through the kindergarten purgatory, Woody takes the job of a suicidal forks savior. The problem is, however, made worse by Bonnie's parents who decide for a road trip, where Forky has even more opportunities to escape into some trash can. And so the story goes for a while... But slowly the focus is moved more onto an older friendship of Woody. But let's not spoil the whole narrative line.

I didn't manage to escape completely the need for an eye-roll, but I guess this was in much more reasonable limits than when watching the previous part. Besides that, the length of the movie is decent enough to not drag you into boredom. The efforts to make you laugh are ok, and overall I think it's clearly better on this part than the latest "How to Train Your Dragon" (but also quite far from top funny stuff like "Emperor's New Groove" or "Wallace & Gromit"). In brief, it's fine... especially if your expectations are low enough :)

Rating: 3 out of 5

11 years + Isle of Dogs (2018)

At each blog anniversary I tried to find something that I could recommend with a maximum rating. It worked out at two years ("The Prestige") and at nine years ("The Accountant"), so quite seldom :) Therefore, it's at least statistically proven ( spoiler :) ) why it doesn't work at 11 years either. To be fair, I'm happy that this year I managed up to now to keep the average of one entry per week = watching around one movie weekly. To catch one that has the chance to surprise me at a fixed date... oh well... The truth is that I seriously reconsidered after last year a shutdown, especially in the context where's quite clear also for me that: 1) I don't really get to see enough movies to make a decent selection of subjects; 2) I don't really have the time to stay enough on an entry to make it sure it sounds good enough (not that I ever prepared and revised my posts, but I feel that lately I'm repeating myself too much and I'm wrapping them up too quickly); 3) the everlasting problem since I started this blog is still here - I don't have time to promote it (although, considering point 2 above, maybe it's for the better). Anyway, long story short... I'm not giving up :D (yet...). Maybe I have the chance to compete someday to the longest blog with the least amount of readers on this planet :P And now, the movie...

I had two options for an anniversary entry - "Isle of Dogs" and "Upgrade". Unfortunately I've only had time for one of them, and I've chosen the "safe" one. Wes Anderson doesn't normally disappoint. And it's not the case now either. But still I can't say that this is one of his best... Besides that, unfortunately I don't think I'm connecting too well with the subject, which is: dogs - never having one, or as a matter of fact any other pet.

The story goes like this: somewhere in Japan we have a bad mayor, from an even worse dynasty that for generations hated dogs. Also for generations, these have a tolerated status, being used in the mayor house only for guarding and other practical tasks, never like pets. From this starts a plot of completely eradicating their presence from the community, using the reason of "canine fever". Like that, all the animals are exiled on a garbage island, including the guard dog of the mayors adopted son. Only that the son, not sharing the century old family hate, doesn't really agree with the decision and starts a search and rescue expedition for finding Spots. Which, predictable, it happens, and they will live happily ever after. Considering that we know the ending, I won't say what we're going through for reaching that.

If you wouldn't know who's the writer/director and you'd see 3 minutes of the movie, whatever these might be, you could swear that's a Wes Anderson film. It's so obvious, and the best method to describe Wes Anderson is... well.. watch a movie by Wes Anderson. An ordered chaos, short on topic scenes, cold dialogues that suddenly turn warm, lots of color, a fine sense of humor (e.g., "The Search for Spots" - a reference to Star Trek, that gets a bit deeper in the context), all these are elements that you can find here as much as in "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Grand Budapest Hotel" or even "Moonrise Kingdom". Still, it doesn't seem like the same level. But again, maybe I'm not emphatic enough with the idea :) Anyway, as in the other cases, technically as a movie what we have here is flawless. At least for that it deserves watching. And if you're a dog owner, you'll probably love it ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Incredibles 2 (2018)

I wasn't expecting much from "Incredibles 2" and I didn't get the surprise I was hoping for (so... maybe, I was actually expecting :) ). In brief, it's too Pixar for my taste = too nice, too predictable. I don't remember where the first "Incredibles" left us, but the second starts in the context where super-heroes are illegal, and the Incredible family must keep away from using their super-powers to make justice. Stuff that's not very convenient, but we have Winston Deavor, a prosperous business man with nice childhood memories of super-heroes, who, together with his sister, Evelyn, seems decided to start a rehabilitation and re-legalizing campaign. And like that Ms Incredible gets a new suit, all the material support and the counseling she needs to open the path for a successful lobby to solve the matter. All this while Mr. Incredible is left at home to take care of the children, stuff that apparently exceeds his super-powers.

Unfortunately all this plot has an outcome that's as predictable as unlikely it sounds - stuff that's totally contradictory, and which theoretically should've make it unpredictable, but somehow it is. It's so obvious from the start that the evil character is part of the Deavor family, such that the only unknown left is who of them is it, or maybe both? This stuff makes it totally awkward to see such support given to Ms. Incredible, when the final purpose is totally opposite to what she's helped for... And even stranger is that the attempt to bring down all super-heroes effectively starts only when Ms. Incredible discovers that the help received does not come without an interest. Which discovery was not supposed to happen... But if it wouldn't have happened, there wouldn't have been any anti-hero attack... so I don't know anymore where was the evil interest. Really, at some point the logic of the negative character gets so mind boggling, that it seems more plausible that we have an evil schizo in this role and not an evil genius, as it should look like. Anyway, long story short: the best part of the movie is by far the youngest member of the Incredible family, Jack Jack - I won't say why because I already gave too much. In any case, the script is so poor that even the most promising character is not sufficiently used in the story...

Rating: 3 out of 5

Storks (2016)

Flight movie... no pun intended... "Storks" is what I managed to watch that's more notable, during 2x23 hours of flight travel last week, after looking through the on-board media system for something to put me to sleep. This one didn't succeed. Surprisingly, it's a pretty funny animation despite a subject that didn't look that promising: storks restart delivering babies. That's after moving to standard parcel post services due to logistic economics. Well, actually this subject comes more as a conclusion of the story, which follows the delivery of a baby order received after a long time since the last transport of such kind. The mission is accomplished by a stork that's looking to become the boss stork, and tries hard to keep all the "not so legit" operation under the hood to keep its promotion chances. The bird is helped by Tulip Orphan, a girl left in storks care after a failed delivery 18 years behind. Moving back to the current delivery, obviously this doesn't go easy bringing with it a bunch of lighthearted humor that reminded me of early Dreamworks. Probably the closest example would be "Madagascar". Most of this feeling is brought through lots & tiny bits & pieces: diverse side characters + situations glued on the main story, so I can't give too much without spoilers = good reason to stop here ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Early Man (2018)

I finally managed to watch a movie released this year. Unfortunately it wasn't the best choice. "Early Man" is the latest animation directed by Nick Park. If that doesn't sound familiar think on Aardman Studios, or "Wallace & Gromit", "Chicken Run" and other. With this list of references, I had my hopes so high that I utterly ignored the ratings thrown to this by critics (especially since lately I'm not really on the same page with that). Well... I can say it's the worst Aardman production that I've seen by now. First of all, all the action revolves around a simple soccer game, between the stone age team and the bronze age team - an event that's much more present in the story than the trailer shows (there's basically nothing else there). And we don't have more than the classic tale of the outsiders winning, filled with a bunch of bland jokes. For who's familiar with the previous Aardman titles, don't get fooled as I did. It might be acceptable if you don't know about the rest, but it's traumatizing if you've seen something else by Nick Park. It keeps a bit of the humor there, but it's a tiny tiny bit. There's not much else to write about this.... Disappointing.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 (just to avoid being mean...)

Coco (2017)

When I've seen the trailer for "Coco" I had a deja vu with "Book of Life", and I decided to let it pass, even more having two additional issues with it: 1. musical (animated or not animated it's still a genre I detest) 2. Disney/Pixar = excessive tear-jerking coefficient. I (hardly) reconsidered my decision following the reviews that place this as the best animation of last year. It was not the best idea, but not necessarily (or well... completely) because of the above reasons.

The context is indeed very similar to "Book of Life". We have a location somewhere in Mexico. We have a boy, Miguel, who wants a mariachi career but his family pushes him towards shoe making (well, there's a difference from the bull fighter in the other movie... but anyway). We have old unsolved family issues. We have the "Day of the Dead" context. We have the passage to the netherworld, where Miguel searches for his great-great-great-grandfather who left home with his guitar becoming a family outcast. And from here onwards, fortunately we have a different story. The good part is that overall is better organized than the story in "Book of Life", especially concerning the ending. The bad part is that the story in "Coco" is much more simpler/linear. Another bad part is that out of three essential twists, I've seen two coming much quicker than I should've = no exaggeration, but these were predictable from the first minute when the character/the twist element entered the scene. This thing made a consistent part of the movie pretty boring... and it's also enough as a reason to not tell more about the story :)

In respect to the musical part, this is quite consistent but fortunately tolerable. The excessive tear-jerking coefficient (trademark Pixar) is there, and it's the main problem I had with this movie, but unfortunately didn't go the way I expected... I didn't roll my eyes or check my watch to see how much time I still have to endure the torture. It's just that... let's say it's not a movie I would recommend watching at some moments in your life... can get very painful... but I'd rather not go into details.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

"Your magic is growing stronger. You need to learn control. But when we grow stronger the world grows more dangerous."... is an advice given in "Kubo and the Two Strings". An animation which seems initially to be addressed mostly to a younger target range. I don't know if it's hard or I'm really too lazy to unfold every piece of tale we have here, but one thing is certain: This is not a children's movie. Looks deceive. It's an allegory from start to end, which requires a lot and sometimes in-depth analysis to understand...

Kubo is a boy missing one eye living in a Japanese village, without a father and whose mother struggles somewhere between dementia and Alzheimer as days go by... One day, Kubo forgets to obey the rule of coming home before the night sets. So the fantastic threats saying that his relatives on the mother's side = 2 aunts and The Moon King - an evil grandpa from another world will come to take his last eye left become real. With a final appearance his mother saves him sending Kubo on his father's path, a great samurai, to search for a legendary armor made out of three pieces, which will solve the problem. The search or the armor?... That's one of the many questions left after the ending. Where you probably should become aware that everything you've seen it's probably a symbolic dream of the main character, and the effective reality in the movie is in a very tiny amount. Well, if you're in the mood for a bit of analysis :)...

Starting with the title, where it's relatively easy to infer that "the two strings" are the parents, and that the third string of the Kubo's shamisen is actually Kubo, the first line in the movie - "If you must blink, do it now." that initially might look like a bad cliche, but when it gets repeated seems to catch a meaning, and up to the ending with a short break on a black screen finished with a "The End" said before a really nice cover of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by Beatles, this whole movie is cryptic... So cryptic that at some point you get lost. I guess that not even the screenwriters could give a cohesive interpretation of everything it's there, some parts having maybe a different meaning independent of others. I could say that the result is quite close to Miyazaki's animes, where behind the childish facade lie often meanings that are much more mature.

As I said in the beginning, it's hard, both subjectively and objectively, to give an interpretation of what I've seen in "Kubo". I actually think there's a bit of room for a personal meaning to be found by everybody, the common element being: family. Maybe just a warning, and that's if you have issues in this area... think again before watching this, or expect some tears...

I've tried in the latest days to close the year, as usual, with an entry that's really worth watching - that's why the frequent posting :). I think I finally found it, so I'll allow myself to wish a Happy New Year! for a hopefully better 2017 & Happy Holidays! for what's left of this season ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

P.S.: I don't know if somebody really went that far to think this on purpose, but there's a third verse in the final cover which says something like "I look at the world and I notice it's turning / While my guitar gently weeps / With every mistake we must surely be learning / Still my guitar gently weeps". Well, the same verse, in an older, demo version, sounds a bit different ... "I look from the wings at the play you are staging, / While my guitar gently weeps. / As I'm sitting here, doing nothing but ageing, / Still, my guitar gently weeps.". Now, figure out, which and where fits in this story ;) ...

The Book of Life (2014)

I wished to like "The Book of Life". I was expecting more. When I've seen the trailer long ago, I remember that for a second I had the same feeling I got ofter "How to Train Your Dragon" = the promo was hiding much more than the first impression it left me. I thought here will be the same ... Well, it was not.

The story starts with Manolo and Joaquin, two boys in a village in Mexico who both like Maria. Well, the story actually starts with a group of spoiled children visiting a museum, but let's leave the context of the context aside and let's get back to the context ... La Muerte and Xibalba, the two "gods" of the Mexican underworlds make a bet: who's gonna put the wedding ring on Maria's finger? The ruling of the realms beyond depends on the result. Just that until the wedding there's still some time left (really, like half the movie) ... Maria is sent to study in Europe and we move onward X years until she's back in the village. Meanwhile Manolo strives to continue the family tradition as a bull fighter despite his pro-life beliefs regarding the bulls, and Joaquin receiving a hidden support from his protective "god" made a career as a soldier who defends the town against El Chakal (= a big, evil and mean "bandido" who wants to pillage everything). Again backed up by his protective "god" Joaquin seems to win the bet ... by absence = like in a Shakespearean tragedy Manolo lets himself poisoned to follow Maria who passed out after a snake bite. The problem is that he doesn't find here in the other realm = two snake bites - Manolo's dose - are apparently more lethal than one snake bite - Maria's dose. So, she's coming back to life, and without a choice left she's getting ready to say "yes" to Joaquin ...

Ok, I've told already what's going on for half the movie. But that's the intro. The main story starts after. I didn't get into the Mexican mythology details because I don't want to spoile everything, but what can I say more is that what follows was disappointing. The premises are good and open up the room for a really nice story. But the room's left empty. The way things are solved is rushed, chaotic, exaggerated (not that I was expecting something realistic, but when in the end suddenly everybody gets along with everybody ...). It sort of gives the impression that after stretching the length as much as possible up to the middle, who wrote the script found out that there's a time limit to wrap up ... What a loss.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Yup, I know this is expired. But for late late late night = early morning works, especially since I didn't manage to see "Kung Fu Panda 3" until last week. Bad decision, so I thought it might be a good one to prevent others if there's anybody who has it on his list. After "How to Train Your Dragon 2" this was the second biggest dissappointment coming from DreamWorks. In this episode 3, the panda = Po gets an upgrade from Dragon Warrior to Chi GrandMaster for defeating Kai. I've already said everything, but let's detail a bit ...

Kai is a fearsome ox exiled on the other realm and forgotten ... until somehow finds a way to return among the living. After that Kai starts collecting live spirits into a bunch of green amulets. I didn't get the exact purpose for that, probably a sort of "there can be only one" without swords, just based on some inner energy powered kung fu that absorbs the enemy. Which again it's a bit hard to get how's working, being triggered more or less random during the animated battles (with a timing seemingly more hard to get than a "fatality" in a Mortal Kombat match). What's important is that the process of absorption looks rather non-violent and is also reversible (so .. really, swords and cutting heads wouldn't have worked here). Well, after Kai eviscerates the chi from almost every living creature, he finally finds Po gone for "chi mastering" training to a secret Panda village ("secret" = tourism branding). The final battle follows, and that's it ... you don't want me to "spoil the ending" don't you? (oh yes, we have also a soap-opera involving the two fathers of Po, but let's leave it for now .. maybe there's still somebody who's not yet convinced to give up on this).

Not in a good mood. Guess it shows ...
Rating: 2 out of 5

Zootopia (2016)

"Zootopia" is a breath of fresh air in the Disney world. Something that somehow manages to keep the limits on the moral side of the story without losing it into excess tear buckets. Besides that, it has a story. It really does ...

We have an anthropomorphic universe where animals (human race excluded) got to a level of civilization where they leave in peace in harmony. Liberte, egalite, fraternite ... or not. At least that's what Judy Hops finds out fast, as the first bunny in history to get an officer position in the town's police department. It's not a spoiler to say that all ends well and the principles of the French Revolution seem restored. Would be a spoiler though to tell how that happens. It's a police story that combines in a very interesting way a mystery and noir movie nuance with the humor and warmth of specific to an animation.

The movie has a very solid script - surprisingly for an animation where normally this is relatively light. We have a background story in the intro, there is a main story that's pretty self contained and wrapped up, and beyond that there comes a twist + a final part which develops after the apparent initial conclusion. It's really nice that the trailer doesn't say anything and keeps room for a surprise :), and all what's left for me to say is don't trust the ... :P watch the movie to see who ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Lego Movie (2014)

Warner Bros. presents ... a Dreamworks Animation production ... Wrong. We don't have Dreamworks on the credits. Which makes "The Lego Movie" to get the title of "the most Dreamworks'ish production, where Dreamworks was never involved" ;) ...

The first time I heard about a "lego movie" the reaction was a wide eye-roll, telling myself that probably Lego doesn't sell enough bricks lately, needs some massive advertising, and what we'll get would be a sort of Transformers for kids (= minus the hot chick & more colored). Consequently, I've completely ignored the release in the spring, but following that, some very positive reviews got my attention. So .. I finally decided to check it out. To avoid spoiling too much I'll just say the story follows a sort of Matrix parody, where the One must save the Lego worlds from the terror inflicted by Mr. Business. We have a Trinity there too to train the hero. Morpheus is ... Batman .. or Morgan Freeman aka the God aka Vitruvius aka (well, a wise old guy with a long white robe) ... or maybe both. I'm still not certain about the Morpheus association. What's clear is that Agent Smith is Liam Neeson, although .. we have a multiple personality case here ... you'll get it when you see the movie ;)

Why is it the most non-Dreamworks Dreamworks'ish production? Because it's the funniest animation I've seen since Kung Fu Panda (or since Dreamworks decided to Pixarize itself ... ok, ok, I won't start again :P). I could even say that the jokes density is a bit exaggerated for the first two thirds of the movie (especially considering that many are quite light). Sufficiently enough to feel a pretty high contrast in the last part = seems like the screenwriters have awaken to realize that there must be a moralizing/heartwarming ending for a lego movie. Even so, what stays is the really nice parody mix of various references, which is true that requires some movie background knowledge to catch everything. Overall, a very pleasant surprise, and probably the best animation I've seen this year.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (2012-2013)

Although I just got a more fresh subject, I already had in pipeline this entry. And I don't want to jump over it :) so let's quickly get through "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns". We're talking about an animated mini-series, in two parts released at something like one year interval. So, what's the story ? ...

It starts somewhere after the retirement of Batman, or more exactly of Bruce Wayne ( u didn't know that, right ? ), who instead of spending his fortune in luxury cruises, decides to return on Gotham's dark alleys. Place controlled now by a new gang (the Mutants), which is lead by some huge guy who looks a bit like Bane. Skipping the details, that's the plot for the first part. In the second one we have also the return of the Joker as main villain. But probably the primary attraction is the Batman vs Superman conflict, which I'll keep again spoiler free ;)

What we have here is an animation that practically comes as a sequel to a series (and is also straight-to-video), meaning that it doesn't really excel on the production level. With one exception. The score by Cristopher Drake is way beyond Hans Zimmer, and risking a blasphemy also (a bit) above Danny Elfman. I know it might sound hard to believe, but I've never felt a better fit before. As always, Gotham City has something from the '80s, and the synth parts (that remind me a bit by Brad Fiedel on "Terminator") fit perfectly. Just have a look ( or better said drop an ear :) ) on the end-titles construction up to introducing the main theme (around 1:40), and it's not the only example.

The movie has enough of the super-hero stories cliches, and I don't want to restart going through these now. It doesn't make the story very complex. However, the "swan song" approach it has, showing a over-tired Batman surrounded from all sides, from old enemies, to the police or Superman, is arguably more original than what offered the live action movies. At least until the next one that from what I've understood will have a close subject ;) .

Rating: 3 out of 5 (with a big + for soundtrack)

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

After two days needed to recover from the awful disappointment after watching "How to Torture Your Viewers 1" (aka "HTTYD2"), I finally found enough strength to write the provisional obituary of DreamWorks Animation ... But first, let's not forget the dragon (big spoilers ahead) ...

The first part is #1 in the top of ever seen animations for me, at the same level with "Emperor's New Groove". Consequently I had high expectations from the sequel, but at the same time I was convinced that it's hard to like it as much as the first. When I recently wrote about "INumber Number", I was saying that there are movies for which the first 5 minutes are enough to say they're gonna be good. Well, it applies also for the bad ones. "HTTYD2" starts with a game of quidditch, the difference from Harry Potter being that the brooms are dragons, and instead of balls we have sheeps. And also, unlike in Harry Potter, where "the quidditch games" still had something to do with the story (e.g., "The Goblet of Fire"), here it's not the case. We don't have any reference to the "athletic competition" afterwards. Just a 5 mins show to catch the kids. Sufficiently to sound the alarm that what's coming's not gonna be good ... (I can't believe I'm comparing Harry Potter positively with something .. this is bad)

From this we jump directly to a cruise on the Scandinavian sea routes, where we discover (years after the first movie) that there are some dragon hunters who are gathering a gigantic army of fire spitting flying creatures, under the rule of Drago (a sort of even more evil Captain Hook, but without the hook, and pissed on dragons instead of crocodiles). What's following is a soap opera where Hiccup finds his mother, celebrates the family reunion in a melodic Disney style, loses his father in Pixar style (that's the twist), and finally kicks the ass of the evil guy with a missing hand. Correction ... Toothless (the dragon) kicks the ass of the evil guy with a missing hand. Re-correction ... Toothless kicks the ass of the big bad dragon controlled by the evil guy with a missing hand. Which big bad dragon is named "alpha specimen" in this movie, having instantaneous hypnotic powers over the smaller flying creatures. I personally prefer the version of the first movie, where the hypnotic power if I remember well was something like: "bring me food or you die". Well, seems that meanwhile the alpha species has evolved ... To be fair though, the final battle between the two dragons is the only piece in this movie that vaguely reminds of the first part, following the idea of "the (apparently) weak one can actually turn the tide and win" if there's enough determination.

I'm too tired to bash the script (I'm just wondering how sinuous and complicated must be those Scandinavian sea routes, covered repeatedly in sightseeing flights since the first movie, to suddenly discover in the area two dragon armies and two alpha giants that everybody missed on the radar by now). Looking at the rest, if John Powell managed to pull an Oscar nomination in the first movie with probably the best score he wrote since "Face/Off", here the soundtrack is abysmal (and badly mixed = my unreliable ear managed to catch at least a sudden tracks alternation without a minimal fade out/in). As visual consultant we have Roger Deakins listed. I'm asking myself how much did they pay him to put his name on the credits, or if the guy reached the conclusion that after 11 Oscar nominations maybe it's the case to try an animation (news: that's not eligible for a cinematography award).

I'll return now to DreamWorks obituary (presumptive = I still hope ...) . If I look after the last "Shrek" (maybe with a small exception in "Kung Fu Panda 2"), DreamWorks started slowly to pixarize itself - "Megamind", "Puss in Boots", "Madagascar 3", "Rise of the Guardians", even "The Croods" .. all took a path on a melodramatic direction that wasn't there before. DreamWorks was funny, DreamWorks was witty, DreamWorks was serving you a meaning between the lines, not hitting you directly - with animated rhetoric through enlightening speeches or tearjerking scenes. What's even worse is that, as with Pixar, it seems that this superficial free serving of morals/values gets to the public's heart. Not for me ...

Rating: 2 out of 5