I saw The Bourne Legacy, and I really enjoyed it - there's not much to say about it, though, because it's very similar in structure and tone to Matt Damon's Bourne Trilogy. I don't think that's a weakness, though; I think it's ok for a movie to be formulaic when the formula works. Jeremy Renner is an excellent choice to carry on the Bourne name, and I thought Legacy did a very good job expanding the universe and deepening the intrigue. Good job!
What I really want to talk about today is the other movie I saw that weekend:
ParaNorman, the newest offering from Laika (who brought us, previously, the marvelous Coraline), can be pretty neatly divided into three acts. The opening act, wherein we meet our hero and learn about his interesting talent (he can see and talk to ghosts), is excellent. We get a solid sense of Norman and his obsession with zombies and horror movies, and in one beautiful scene we get to see the world the way he does (full of ghosts, who know him by name and wish him good morning on his way to school) and the way the world sees him (a boy with a backpack full of monster action figures who talks to thin air). Norman is weird and lonely, but you get the feeling that he's largely made his loneliness into armor; the bullying gets him down, but he's also quick to reject motions of friendship by Neil, another outcast.
The second third, wherein we are introduced to the conflict, is the weakest of the film. The ghosts largely vanish from the scene, appearing only when the plot needs them too, and the film waffles on what the conflict actually is - I got the feeling that it wasn't quite sure what kind of movie it wanted to be, what it wanted to focus on. Things get a little blurry here.
Luckily, though, ParaNorman comes roaring back for a spectacular conclusion, which both wraps up the story and provides lots of growth for all characters involved. This was one of the things I appreciated the most about ParaNorman: the characters experience and exhibit real, believable growth. This, in addition to the wonderful messages about bullying, parental expectations, and the joy of being odd, made it, for me, a strong experience and great all-around kids' film.
As I said before, the last film we got from Laika was Coraline, in general a stronger movie than ParaNorman but very similar in tone and execution. What I want to know is: why are there so few kids' movies like these? It is becoming less true now with things like Frankenweenie on the horizon, but why has it taken so long for kids' programming to get its teeth back? When I think about the shows and movies I watched as a kid (mostly tv, with things like Aaah! Real Monsters, Rocko's Modern Life, and Invader Zim on my regular schedule, not to mention the stuff I stayed away from - Are You Afraid of the Dark?, anyone?), it seems like studios gentled down their kids' fare for a long time into almost unwatchable saccharine slop.
When I saw Monster House, a 2006 film from Columbia Pictures, I celebrated - that movie is wonderfully spooky and creepy, but never wanders outside of inappropriate for kids. It was fun without being safe, and I (and the kids in my audience) gasped and cheered together through the course of the movie. I wanted Monster House to be the lead-in to children's film getting its edge back - and now, six years later, it seems it finally is. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that scary can be fun, and that there's nothing wrong with not playing it so safe in the arena of children's entertainment. I'm eager to see what's next for animation, and it looks like this fall there are lots of films serving up the spooky. Can't wait!
What I really want to talk about today is the other movie I saw that weekend:
ParaNorman, the newest offering from Laika (who brought us, previously, the marvelous Coraline), can be pretty neatly divided into three acts. The opening act, wherein we meet our hero and learn about his interesting talent (he can see and talk to ghosts), is excellent. We get a solid sense of Norman and his obsession with zombies and horror movies, and in one beautiful scene we get to see the world the way he does (full of ghosts, who know him by name and wish him good morning on his way to school) and the way the world sees him (a boy with a backpack full of monster action figures who talks to thin air). Norman is weird and lonely, but you get the feeling that he's largely made his loneliness into armor; the bullying gets him down, but he's also quick to reject motions of friendship by Neil, another outcast.
The second third, wherein we are introduced to the conflict, is the weakest of the film. The ghosts largely vanish from the scene, appearing only when the plot needs them too, and the film waffles on what the conflict actually is - I got the feeling that it wasn't quite sure what kind of movie it wanted to be, what it wanted to focus on. Things get a little blurry here.
Luckily, though, ParaNorman comes roaring back for a spectacular conclusion, which both wraps up the story and provides lots of growth for all characters involved. This was one of the things I appreciated the most about ParaNorman: the characters experience and exhibit real, believable growth. This, in addition to the wonderful messages about bullying, parental expectations, and the joy of being odd, made it, for me, a strong experience and great all-around kids' film.
As I said before, the last film we got from Laika was Coraline, in general a stronger movie than ParaNorman but very similar in tone and execution. What I want to know is: why are there so few kids' movies like these? It is becoming less true now with things like Frankenweenie on the horizon, but why has it taken so long for kids' programming to get its teeth back? When I think about the shows and movies I watched as a kid (mostly tv, with things like Aaah! Real Monsters, Rocko's Modern Life, and Invader Zim on my regular schedule, not to mention the stuff I stayed away from - Are You Afraid of the Dark?, anyone?), it seems like studios gentled down their kids' fare for a long time into almost unwatchable saccharine slop.
When I saw Monster House, a 2006 film from Columbia Pictures, I celebrated - that movie is wonderfully spooky and creepy, but never wanders outside of inappropriate for kids. It was fun without being safe, and I (and the kids in my audience) gasped and cheered together through the course of the movie. I wanted Monster House to be the lead-in to children's film getting its edge back - and now, six years later, it seems it finally is. I think it's easy to forget sometimes that scary can be fun, and that there's nothing wrong with not playing it so safe in the arena of children's entertainment. I'm eager to see what's next for animation, and it looks like this fall there are lots of films serving up the spooky. Can't wait!
Laika is slowly and surely becoming an entertainment powerhouse. If It keeps on its current pace, it may surpass Dreamworks in terms of animation domination.
ReplyDeleteThey're earning it. I appreciate the artistry that goes into their films, and how they're not afraid to take risks that set their films apart in terms of story and tone.
Delete