OVP: Best Animated Feature Film
The Nominees Were...
Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli, A Cat in Paris
Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal, Chico & Rita
Jennifer Yuh Nelson, Kung Fu Panda 2
Chris Miller, Puss in Boots
Gore Verbinski, Rango
My Thoughts: It's a little odd to tackle this category, as we've already been discussing it on the blog for a few months now. I'm realizing that in writing these I can't give away all of my cards in the future, as the further we go back in Oscar History, the more movies I'm going to have to see (and in turn, have the chance to review on the blog). So, lets start out with a look at the two films we've already discussed (links provided above).
A Cat in Paris, as I've gained a little distance from it, doesn't wear as well in the hippocampus. Despite me having seen it more recently than Rango or Kung Fu Panda 2, it still seems a bit hollow-the running time on the film is short, and that works with such a simple plot, but it doesn't lend itself well when it comes to competing for the "best picture" title. Though I feel like I was at a slight disadvantage seeing the film with English-speaking actors, rather than in French, Marcia Gay Harden and Anjelica Huston are not exactly hindrances when it comes to improving your film. Perhaps what hurts the film most is the far too simple plot. For a thriller, you see most of the "twists" coming from a mile away, and it doesn't carry the heightened sense of urgency that action-adventures like Rango or even Puss in Boots carries.
Chico & Rita, which we just completed, also suffers from a predictable plot, and doesn't have the vibrant colors and inventive animation that A Cat in Paris carries. However, it's refreshingly adult in its approach to its characters, particularly Rita, who is a woman who keeps falling for a man who is constantly disappointing her. This is a woman who has a clear path to massive success and life's dreams, but keeps derailing herself by falling back with a man who drinks and cheats on her. The further you get from the film (like wine, it's best to let a film breath a little bit, since the parts that you were most drawn to will become more evident as your memory of the film fades), the more I see Rita as a complicated woman of the 1950's. It's quite evident that of the talented pairing, she's the one with the chutzpah and pizzazz to become a star-he'll always be a piano player filling in in bands, but she's got the voice and the look to go places. She's Vicki Lester and he never had the gumption to become Norman Maine. I still have problems with the ending, and the plot is a bit too thick with cliche for my taste, but lovely Rita deserves a film to showcase her, even if it should have been better than this one.
Speaking of characters that deserved films built around them, we can move on to the "in the spotlight" tale of Puss in Boots. I will be the first to admit to not being a fan of the increasingly cloying Shrek franchise (re-watch the first film-it doesn't age well, and it just goes downhill from there, and yes, I've seen all four), but even I succumbed to Antonio Banderas's wide-eyed sidekick a time or two. The film smartly leaves behind the world of Far, Far Away, and makes no mention of Puss's association with giant green ogres, but instead focuses on the time before Puss joined his fairy tale friends, when he was a good-hearted bandit, tracking down the goose that laid the golden eggs. It's a fun concept, even if it gets highly repetitive and is about as deep as a saucer of milk. I thought the "badge of honor" angle, and the obvious plot twists (again, I know it's a children's movie, but you don't see everything coming in Ratatouille, for example) steal from the film's plot. Also, Puss the character, like all strong sidekicks, is better left on the side-he gets a little bit overdone after an hour and a half. Building an entire movie around him looks great on paper, but in execution, his antics commence being annoying right around the time the "Great Terror" arrives.
Rango, on the other hand, never wears out his welcome. For a film that I thought looked just terrible in the previews, it certainly surprised and amazed me when I finally took the time to see the movie. It seems like a contradiction to say, but for a movie that features an assortment of ugly desert critters, the animation is spectacularly beautiful-Rango is a site to behold, and features some wild chases and a confidence in its concept lacking in Puss in Boots, which consistently heads for the family friendly rather than taking a chance on a riskier choice, in Rango's case, the bizarre. The film isn't really for children (not just because none of the characters you could see as plush novelties, but also because the entire homage to Chinatown is going to go so far over the youngsters heads that they'll be tugging at your sleeve to go get more Sour Patch Kids). It also runs in at almost two hours, making it one of the longer selections up for the Oscar, and while more isn't always better, in this case it allows for a fuller story and a better build-up to the pivotal ending sequences.
It also needs to be said that the film has some of the best vocal work in animation of the year. Johnny Depp, who has been doing some sort of parody of himself in utter crap for a few years now, gives his best performance since Sweeney Todd, his unique voice giving Rango's over-confidence a great comic timing. Even better is 1970's stalwart Ned Beatty doing his best John Huston impression as Tortoise John. He's the sort of devilish villain Disney used to specialize in before they turned to a less nasty nemesis.
The final film is Kung Fu Panda 2. In the year of the animated sequel (seriously, 2011 was crawling with them), it's the only out-and-out sequel to have made it into the category (Puss in Boots, with only one character carryover, is more spin-off than sequel). So what was it about this film (aside from the box office, which was admittedly gargantuan) that made it into the lineup rather than something like the sequels to previous nominees Happy Feet or Cars? I think it's mostly because the film equals its predecessor in terms of both fun and escapist adventure. It helps that Gary Oldman is firing on all cylinders, making a peacock (of all creatures!) seem dastardly and dangerous (I think with family film animation, if you can't lock down a good villain, you might as well just pack up and leave). It also helps that Jack Black, with his shooting for the rafters, has found a comic character that that freneticism works with (Black, whom I like better in theory than in practice, may be better off sticking to animation in the future). The film is bigger than its predecessor, but it doesn't lose the previous film's sense of whimsy and ridiculousness (gotta love that adoption story line), and the cliffhanger set-up at the film's end comes off as confident rather than "sequel insurance." The entire movie leaves you wanting more, and it seems a damn shame and completely unacceptable that Dreamworks isn't releasing a third installment until 2016 (that date's going to move up, right?).
A Cat in Paris, as I've gained a little distance from it, doesn't wear as well in the hippocampus. Despite me having seen it more recently than Rango or Kung Fu Panda 2, it still seems a bit hollow-the running time on the film is short, and that works with such a simple plot, but it doesn't lend itself well when it comes to competing for the "best picture" title. Though I feel like I was at a slight disadvantage seeing the film with English-speaking actors, rather than in French, Marcia Gay Harden and Anjelica Huston are not exactly hindrances when it comes to improving your film. Perhaps what hurts the film most is the far too simple plot. For a thriller, you see most of the "twists" coming from a mile away, and it doesn't carry the heightened sense of urgency that action-adventures like Rango or even Puss in Boots carries.
Chico & Rita, which we just completed, also suffers from a predictable plot, and doesn't have the vibrant colors and inventive animation that A Cat in Paris carries. However, it's refreshingly adult in its approach to its characters, particularly Rita, who is a woman who keeps falling for a man who is constantly disappointing her. This is a woman who has a clear path to massive success and life's dreams, but keeps derailing herself by falling back with a man who drinks and cheats on her. The further you get from the film (like wine, it's best to let a film breath a little bit, since the parts that you were most drawn to will become more evident as your memory of the film fades), the more I see Rita as a complicated woman of the 1950's. It's quite evident that of the talented pairing, she's the one with the chutzpah and pizzazz to become a star-he'll always be a piano player filling in in bands, but she's got the voice and the look to go places. She's Vicki Lester and he never had the gumption to become Norman Maine. I still have problems with the ending, and the plot is a bit too thick with cliche for my taste, but lovely Rita deserves a film to showcase her, even if it should have been better than this one.
Speaking of characters that deserved films built around them, we can move on to the "in the spotlight" tale of Puss in Boots. I will be the first to admit to not being a fan of the increasingly cloying Shrek franchise (re-watch the first film-it doesn't age well, and it just goes downhill from there, and yes, I've seen all four), but even I succumbed to Antonio Banderas's wide-eyed sidekick a time or two. The film smartly leaves behind the world of Far, Far Away, and makes no mention of Puss's association with giant green ogres, but instead focuses on the time before Puss joined his fairy tale friends, when he was a good-hearted bandit, tracking down the goose that laid the golden eggs. It's a fun concept, even if it gets highly repetitive and is about as deep as a saucer of milk. I thought the "badge of honor" angle, and the obvious plot twists (again, I know it's a children's movie, but you don't see everything coming in Ratatouille, for example) steal from the film's plot. Also, Puss the character, like all strong sidekicks, is better left on the side-he gets a little bit overdone after an hour and a half. Building an entire movie around him looks great on paper, but in execution, his antics commence being annoying right around the time the "Great Terror" arrives.
Rango, on the other hand, never wears out his welcome. For a film that I thought looked just terrible in the previews, it certainly surprised and amazed me when I finally took the time to see the movie. It seems like a contradiction to say, but for a movie that features an assortment of ugly desert critters, the animation is spectacularly beautiful-Rango is a site to behold, and features some wild chases and a confidence in its concept lacking in Puss in Boots, which consistently heads for the family friendly rather than taking a chance on a riskier choice, in Rango's case, the bizarre. The film isn't really for children (not just because none of the characters you could see as plush novelties, but also because the entire homage to Chinatown is going to go so far over the youngsters heads that they'll be tugging at your sleeve to go get more Sour Patch Kids). It also runs in at almost two hours, making it one of the longer selections up for the Oscar, and while more isn't always better, in this case it allows for a fuller story and a better build-up to the pivotal ending sequences.
It also needs to be said that the film has some of the best vocal work in animation of the year. Johnny Depp, who has been doing some sort of parody of himself in utter crap for a few years now, gives his best performance since Sweeney Todd, his unique voice giving Rango's over-confidence a great comic timing. Even better is 1970's stalwart Ned Beatty doing his best John Huston impression as Tortoise John. He's the sort of devilish villain Disney used to specialize in before they turned to a less nasty nemesis.
The final film is Kung Fu Panda 2. In the year of the animated sequel (seriously, 2011 was crawling with them), it's the only out-and-out sequel to have made it into the category (Puss in Boots, with only one character carryover, is more spin-off than sequel). So what was it about this film (aside from the box office, which was admittedly gargantuan) that made it into the lineup rather than something like the sequels to previous nominees Happy Feet or Cars? I think it's mostly because the film equals its predecessor in terms of both fun and escapist adventure. It helps that Gary Oldman is firing on all cylinders, making a peacock (of all creatures!) seem dastardly and dangerous (I think with family film animation, if you can't lock down a good villain, you might as well just pack up and leave). It also helps that Jack Black, with his shooting for the rafters, has found a comic character that that freneticism works with (Black, whom I like better in theory than in practice, may be better off sticking to animation in the future). The film is bigger than its predecessor, but it doesn't lose the previous film's sense of whimsy and ridiculousness (gotta love that adoption story line), and the cliffhanger set-up at the film's end comes off as confident rather than "sequel insurance." The entire movie leaves you wanting more, and it seems a damn shame and completely unacceptable that Dreamworks isn't releasing a third installment until 2016 (that date's going to move up, right?).
Other Precursor Contenders: The Annie Awards gave out ten nominations in 2011 (for the first time, which is odd considering the general dearth of critically-acclaimed films, unlike a year like 2009). Therefore, all five of the Oscar-nominated films made the cut (with Rango winning their top prize), while Arthur Christmas, Cars 2, Wrinkles, The Adventures of Tintin, and Rio all made it as well. The Golden Globes gave their trophy to the Oscar-snubbed The Adventures of Tintin, and skipped Chico, Panda, and Cat to include Arthur Christmas and Cars 2 as well. BAFTA only has three nominees in its category, but only one of their films (their winner) Rango, made it through to Oscar-Arthur Christmas and The Adventures of Tintin were their other nominees. After looking through these precursors, I have to say that the sixth place finisher in this category has to be one of the least obvious of the 2011 Oscars-was it the precursor frontrunner The Adventures of Tintin (which was hurt by its motion-capture animation-see the lack of a nomination for The Polar Express a few years back, when it somehow missed here but still scored three other nominations), the much-maligned Cars 2 (which still likely scored a lot of votes from the Pixar wing of the Academy), the precursor also-ran Arthur Christmas (with mentions at BAFTA and HFPA, it had to be close), the Oscar-nominated Rio, or would they have gone with yet another foreign entry in Wrinkles? The comments section is there-share your thoughts!
Films I Would Have Nominated: It's not a perfect film, but the show-stopping animation and wonderful thrills of The Adventures of Tintin surely deserved to get in in place of one of the weaker entries.
Oscar's Choice: Without Tintin in the mix, there was really no choice but to go with Rango in the eyes of the Academy (Chico & Rita was probably in second place).
My Choice: Like a lot of these, it comes down to two films-Kung Fu Panda 2 and Rango. I'm going to go with Rango, my choice headed into this review, but I have found that as I discuss the films more and more I do start to question myself a bit-Kung Fu Panda 2 is a better film that I probably initially gave it credit for, and deserves its second place. Chico & Rita, A Cat in Paris and Puss in Boots finish out the nominees.
And there you have the Animated Film race-of the five films, what movie deserved the trophy? What films should have been nominated? And of all films in 2011, which was truly the Best Animated Feature?
Also in 2011: Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, 2011 Recap
No comments:
Post a Comment