Change Your Image
Psiju
Reviews
Clash of the Titans (2010)
DO NOT SEE IN 3D. Not worth $13.50.
Although the film is mediocre by itself due to all the things everyone else is talking about, the badly done stereography detracts even more from the experience.
When I say badly done, I mean that the film is not filmed with two cameras--they just took the 2D film and f*d with it. And it looks really, really bad (none of the 3D shapes are natural, some are just flat layers).
AVATAR was filmed with two cameras, and everything was rendered in two separate images to create the final, high-quality effect. THAT'S A QUALITY 3D FILM, a testament to CG and the new stereographic medium, not this recent 3D garbage you see such as Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland: Google "The Gimmick that is 3-D" by K Valentine
Watch your wallets everyone, it's a gimmick to make you pay more for sh*tty service, and they're hiking up the prices 8% in the coming months: Google "3D movie tickets set for epic price hike" by Ben Rooney
DO NOT SEE IT IN 3D. Not worth $13.50.
Beowulf (2007)
Mediocre.
Over the past few years I have enjoyed the progress of animated film making, PIXAR often giving the most noteworthy contribution.
However, BEOWULF is a step backwards in what animated film making should be.
First and foremost, the film drags. It attempts to stretch a 40-minute-or-so plot over a period of two hours, resulting in a lot of dead space where no progress in the story is made. Useless, predictable lines are uttered and shots are held out longer for "emphasis" in the place of quality storytelling, hallmarks of uninspired direction.
Throughout most of the film, we see VERY impressive artwork--great textures, great models, great hair, skin, water etc. Some characters are better than others. The better ones not only look real, but possess a great deal of character.
However, most of this cool, realistic-looking stuff doesn't MOVE right, despite the fact that a lot of the animation is motion-captured. This severely affects how characters emote throughout most of the film. What results are awkward and inexpressive performances from the virtual actors. Only a handful of shots in the film actually had heart and soul in the animation, where characters actually emote properly. Unfortunately, these were in the second half of the film.
When Beowulf is put next to Ratatouille or Shrek, the difference in animation and quality of storytelling is immediately noticeable. It feels as though PIXAR and Dreamworks really care about the movement and expression of the characters and the pacing of the story. In addition, they manage to pull off better screen writing in their animations. BEOWULF pales in comparison in these regards.
It's not good animation, and should be discouraged in modern film making. 5 out of 10.
Kaena: La prophétie (2003)
Not a CGI revolution, but not terrible.
KAENA isn't bad, but it is just not what is considered "ground-breaking," and there are many who claim it is. It's impressive considering that it was done on a low budget and dreampt up by people who at the beginning of the project had very little knowledge of film-making. KAENA is a great example of how a little resourcefulness can pull the rabbit out of the hat, but overall it certainly is not a revolution in CGI animation.
This is why it is not a CGI revolution: -Sometimes they had to cut corners by reducing the frame rate to 12 FPS. Ugh. I would've just cut the shots out altogether.
-The character models often did not deform right. For example, if a human model lowered his arm, the skin would fold like clothing. Sometimes this would lead to noticeable distortions in the characters. Maybe they didn't care too much for painting skin weights properly.
-The animation was very linear in some places. Objects and characters would basically switch between poses one at a time, a problem especially noticeable when characters are talking. You can almost see the animators pulling the sliders for their blend shapes! Here's an "O", here's an "M"...
-Weight and inertia problems. Often people and objects did not move as they should under certain stress conditions. For example, Kaena landing on the floor after a very long jump. Not enough emphasis was put into the animation to make her landing credible. Or, when a huge sap monster stomps around, the camera shakes, but it does not seem as though the monster has as much mass as the screen area he occupies suggests. This happens so often, it's hard to buy into most of the character movements throughout the film.
-The texturing was really monotonous. Most of the humans were very smooth-skinned, the wood texture for the roots was used too much (why couldn't they have something grow ON the roots? Or at least do something to give the surfaces more detail...it's almost as if they made a single NURBS surface for the floor in some shots), and sometimes, bump mapping was used very little on surfaces that were immediately noticeable to the viewer. It serves for some really dull and monochrome backgrounds.
-Design inconsistency. This is a huge problem. Some humans looked more proportionately accurate than others, for example, Kaena had a somewhat realistic human body design, and others would be drawn more distorted, like cartoons. In addition, the sap monsters have really detailed models and effects, where many human characters were smooth or cartoon-like. The animation was also inconsistent this way-- sometimes Kaena would have more expression in her face than her body, and sometimes it'd be the opposite. It's almost as if, wow, many different artists worked on this film (but, we aren't supposed to know that, right?).
-Motion blur. Please, if you aren't going to use deformations, turn up the motion blur. It seems as if the animation is STROBING. It would really help in those low frame rate shots.
But... there are some good things about the art of Kaena. The fluid effects were nicely done (although they did not often interact well with other objects), the lighting was well done, in somewhat of a chiaroscuro fashion, and some of the models are convincing; mainly the sap monsters because of their amount of detail. Bravo in these respects.
On the whole, I'd give the film a 6. It is impressive that so much was created with so little (they should get some sort of award for their resourcefulness, actually), but in the end, it doesn't come close to rivaling the big-wigs of America and Japan, and it's astonishing that people continue to boast otherwise about this film.
Japanese Story (2003)
Potentially moving for some, but I didn't buy it.
There are quite a few people out here who enjoy Japanese Story for its insightful and unconventional look at love. Yes, I will say that it is unconventional in that the characters are not the traditional Hollywood fantasy types; one is an Australian businesswoman with a nasty temper, and the other is her client, an introverted Japanese man only capable of communicating with ten words. Yes, things like this happen in the world.
The visuals of the film were fine. It had lots and lots of pretty pictures, for those who like the outback. You get lots of time to look at them too. Too much time.
What I truly didn't enjoy was the pacing of the story. It dragged, minute after minute, lingering on heavy feelings that are quickly spent. Dragging the dead body to the car, getting the car fixed, seeing a sexy Japanese man-body...it takes so much time to move from one plot point to the other. I could have easily trimmed 20 minutes from the film without destroying its integrity...and I've heard that the original Australian cut was much longer.
Another gripe I have about it is the music. Yes, the Japanesey-sounding score is effective the first time you hear it. But the composer must have been too damn lazy to create something different for the next...2...3...no, 4 TIMES you hear the song. Let me count...when Hiro arrives, the sex scene, meeting Hiro's wife, and when she takes off on the plane at the end. A little diversity in score would be nice.
It was well acted, well casted, well shot...but not well scored or edited. Editing is not just about removing eye-ouches, it's also about economy of time; how LONG each shot should linger.
4/10