Tweet
So, I just saw Valiant.
Impressions:
1. Logan liked it ok, but it wasn't RIVETING for him in the way that "The Incredibles" or "Robots" were. Frankly, I think that "Robots" was only so riveting because they were ROBOTS, you see. And he's a 4 year old boy, so ROBOTS are the best thing EVER.
2. It was really god damned short. This is indicative of the budget, as in CG movies the length is directly proportional to the dollar cost.
3. It was British. This isn't a BAD thing, mind you. But some of the dialogue was incomprehensible even to me, and I'm a big anglophile especially in TV and movies. This leads to point 4:
4. The sound mixing was horrible. Abso-friggin-lutely wretched. Some points were too loud, the dialogue was ALWAYS lost in the soundtrack except when people were shouting.
5. The humor was... for the most part... lost on kids. I don't know what the target audience for this movie was. It was too simple-minded to be targeted at adults (as for example Shrek largely was), but 90% of the dialogue and humor went RIGHT over the heads of anyone under 10... heck, anyone under 13.
--- An aside: ---
I've had this problem with a lot of animated movies lately. You develop NO attachment to the characters. You have to WORK to get attached to the characters. It's as though they expect the marketing to do the work of a setup. The setup in this movie was EXACTLY 2 minutes long. The part where you might get to know the characters even though the plot was developing lasted another 5 minutes. Come ON, people! Learn from the successes. Why did Shrek do well? Because you spend the WHOLE movie getting to know who he is. Who Donkey is. Who Fiona is. The Incredibles did really well for the same reason. But in a lot of movies lately (Robots is another good example although I liked it, as is Shark Tale which I absolutely HATED) they try to cram in a 10-minute "getting to know you in a condensed format before thrusting you into a cavalcade of meeting new characters that you'll forget in another 60 seconds".
--- End Aside. ---
6. The animation was quite nice. Lots of different ways to draw a pigeon. Or a hawk... oh, excuse me FALCON.
7. The talent was amazing. John Cleese, Ewan McGregor, Tim Curry (YES!), Jim Broadbent, Ricky Gervais (WOO! RICKY!), and a host of other people you'd recognize if I held up their picture.
So...
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: If you like animated movies, and/or British movies, and are willing to forgive the "dialogue for grownups laid over a plot for retarded monkeys" which so prevails lately... go see it. On the other hand, maybe the mix will be better on DVD...
Impressions:
1. Logan liked it ok, but it wasn't RIVETING for him in the way that "The Incredibles" or "Robots" were. Frankly, I think that "Robots" was only so riveting because they were ROBOTS, you see. And he's a 4 year old boy, so ROBOTS are the best thing EVER.
2. It was really god damned short. This is indicative of the budget, as in CG movies the length is directly proportional to the dollar cost.
3. It was British. This isn't a BAD thing, mind you. But some of the dialogue was incomprehensible even to me, and I'm a big anglophile especially in TV and movies. This leads to point 4:
4. The sound mixing was horrible. Abso-friggin-lutely wretched. Some points were too loud, the dialogue was ALWAYS lost in the soundtrack except when people were shouting.
5. The humor was... for the most part... lost on kids. I don't know what the target audience for this movie was. It was too simple-minded to be targeted at adults (as for example Shrek largely was), but 90% of the dialogue and humor went RIGHT over the heads of anyone under 10... heck, anyone under 13.
--- An aside: ---
I've had this problem with a lot of animated movies lately. You develop NO attachment to the characters. You have to WORK to get attached to the characters. It's as though they expect the marketing to do the work of a setup. The setup in this movie was EXACTLY 2 minutes long. The part where you might get to know the characters even though the plot was developing lasted another 5 minutes. Come ON, people! Learn from the successes. Why did Shrek do well? Because you spend the WHOLE movie getting to know who he is. Who Donkey is. Who Fiona is. The Incredibles did really well for the same reason. But in a lot of movies lately (Robots is another good example although I liked it, as is Shark Tale which I absolutely HATED) they try to cram in a 10-minute "getting to know you in a condensed format before thrusting you into a cavalcade of meeting new characters that you'll forget in another 60 seconds".
--- End Aside. ---
6. The animation was quite nice. Lots of different ways to draw a pigeon. Or a hawk... oh, excuse me FALCON.
7. The talent was amazing. John Cleese, Ewan McGregor, Tim Curry (YES!), Jim Broadbent, Ricky Gervais (WOO! RICKY!), and a host of other people you'd recognize if I held up their picture.
So...
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: If you like animated movies, and/or British movies, and are willing to forgive the "dialogue for grownups laid over a plot for retarded monkeys" which so prevails lately... go see it. On the other hand, maybe the mix will be better on DVD...
Comment