Young Victor (Charlie Tahan) conducts a science experiment to bring his beloved dog Sparky (Frank Welker) back to life, only to face unintended, sometimes monstrous, consequences.
As I like to do, let me respond to another (better?) critic. Roger Ebert says "the whole story benefits from the absence of color, because this is a stark world without many soothing tones." Whether or not I agree with the second half of this is undetermined -- is it a stark world? Not sure I felt that way. But the lack of color certainly does enhance the film -- because it is a Tim Burton creation.
Burton works best in black and white, because he is an artist first and director second. His best films worked not so much because of his direction, but because of his vision. "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands" could have been done by no one else. Even the "Batman" films are incredible because of Burton's view of the world. He may not be Christopher Nolan, but that makes his Batman no less great.
We can tell that this was a trip down memory lane for Burton, too, back to his glory days. And I do not mean simply because he made a new version of something he made almost thirty years ago. Also notice his choice of voice actors -- we have neither Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter, who have (for better or worse) dominated his films for over a decade. We have Winona Ryder and Catherine O'Hara, two of his best actresses. Seeing them back together and with Burton -- even in cartoon form -- was a real treat.
What made this film especially meaningful was the science teacher's speech. Sure, I loved the references to classic monsters (and the turtle named Shelley was a touching nod to Frankenstein's creator). But the farewell speech wherein science is held to be a neutral field with only its uses truly good or bad... that was a key moment. Not only did it show the difference between Victor and his classmates (he was not only brilliant, but pure-hearted), it pointed out an important truth about the world: science can be a weapon or a salvation, depending on whose hands we wish to put it.
As I like to do, let me respond to another (better?) critic. Roger Ebert says "the whole story benefits from the absence of color, because this is a stark world without many soothing tones." Whether or not I agree with the second half of this is undetermined -- is it a stark world? Not sure I felt that way. But the lack of color certainly does enhance the film -- because it is a Tim Burton creation.
Burton works best in black and white, because he is an artist first and director second. His best films worked not so much because of his direction, but because of his vision. "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands" could have been done by no one else. Even the "Batman" films are incredible because of Burton's view of the world. He may not be Christopher Nolan, but that makes his Batman no less great.
We can tell that this was a trip down memory lane for Burton, too, back to his glory days. And I do not mean simply because he made a new version of something he made almost thirty years ago. Also notice his choice of voice actors -- we have neither Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter, who have (for better or worse) dominated his films for over a decade. We have Winona Ryder and Catherine O'Hara, two of his best actresses. Seeing them back together and with Burton -- even in cartoon form -- was a real treat.
What made this film especially meaningful was the science teacher's speech. Sure, I loved the references to classic monsters (and the turtle named Shelley was a touching nod to Frankenstein's creator). But the farewell speech wherein science is held to be a neutral field with only its uses truly good or bad... that was a key moment. Not only did it show the difference between Victor and his classmates (he was not only brilliant, but pure-hearted), it pointed out an important truth about the world: science can be a weapon or a salvation, depending on whose hands we wish to put it.