Like most of us knows, Dreamworks has been the most noteworthy American competitor to Disney. While they claimed to be innovative with their animated flicks, their hand-drawn films have still been good, but also still flawed in their owned way; "Prince of Egypt" were good and majestic, but too pompous and gloomy. "The Road to El Dorado" were more fun and lighthearted, but suffered from some huge story holes. "Spirit" were cute and Disney-like, but suffered by some dreadful Bryan Adams ballads.
"Sinbad" doesn't contains any big flaws. While it isn't innovative either, it's still a good and watchable cartoon that should be given a chance to every movie-lover.
The animation is quite good. The characters likable. The voice actors does a good job, although their voices are recognizable, they're not distracting. Brad Pitt is good as the fun-loving Sinbad. Catherine Zeta-Jones is also good as the vulnerable, but tough Marina. Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly sexy and seductive as Eris and Joseph Fiennes is marvelous as Proteus. But the most recognizable voice goes to Dennis Haysbert as the sympathetic Kale (since I used to watch "24" in 2003).
There's enough action to keep kids as adults interested. The score of Harry Gregson-Williams is simple and classical, but still good. In a way, "Sinbad" contains all the elements of a Disney movie, without it feels like a Disney flick, which is a good thing.
But does "Sinbad" contains some flaws? Yes, it does. They're not so huge, but considering that I used to be a fan of the 1001 nights stories, there's little left from the original Sinbad tale. Not that it distracts the viewer to enjoy the movie, but a little more reference to the original tale would have been nice (although no film is entirely accurate to it's original source).
The other flaw is that in a animated flick you must have a protagonist to cheer for, but although Sinbad is a charming guy, he still have some very inhumanly and cruel sides that it's hardly explained during the movie. Then you've feel sort of forced to support him during the movie, rather than cheer him up genuinely.
Besides that, "Sinbad" it's a good film that it's worth a view.
"Sinbad" doesn't contains any big flaws. While it isn't innovative either, it's still a good and watchable cartoon that should be given a chance to every movie-lover.
The animation is quite good. The characters likable. The voice actors does a good job, although their voices are recognizable, they're not distracting. Brad Pitt is good as the fun-loving Sinbad. Catherine Zeta-Jones is also good as the vulnerable, but tough Marina. Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly sexy and seductive as Eris and Joseph Fiennes is marvelous as Proteus. But the most recognizable voice goes to Dennis Haysbert as the sympathetic Kale (since I used to watch "24" in 2003).
There's enough action to keep kids as adults interested. The score of Harry Gregson-Williams is simple and classical, but still good. In a way, "Sinbad" contains all the elements of a Disney movie, without it feels like a Disney flick, which is a good thing.
But does "Sinbad" contains some flaws? Yes, it does. They're not so huge, but considering that I used to be a fan of the 1001 nights stories, there's little left from the original Sinbad tale. Not that it distracts the viewer to enjoy the movie, but a little more reference to the original tale would have been nice (although no film is entirely accurate to it's original source).
The other flaw is that in a animated flick you must have a protagonist to cheer for, but although Sinbad is a charming guy, he still have some very inhumanly and cruel sides that it's hardly explained during the movie. Then you've feel sort of forced to support him during the movie, rather than cheer him up genuinely.
Besides that, "Sinbad" it's a good film that it's worth a view.