Showing posts with label Sony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sony. Show all posts

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Labyrinth (Review)

Director: Jim Henson

Company: Jim Henson Company, Lucasfilm, TriStar Pictures

Year: 1986

Country: United States, Britain


Should this film be remembered as a flawed box office flop or a beloved cult classic?

Often considered to be the spiritual successor of Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth is a far more lighthearted (and often rather goofy take) on a young teenager's wild imagination and European fairytales. The script for the film was conceived by both Henson and George Lucas and was inspired by the children's book, Outside Over There, by Maurice Sendak (author of Where the Wild Things Are). It featured many great special effects with complex puppetry and animatronic characters brought to life from the drawings of Brian Froud, a renown fantasy artist. Labyrinth also had cutting edge CGI effects and featured David Bowie in a staring role.


Well, cutting edge for 1986 anyway.

Despite all of the talent involved, Labyrinth was initially a box office disaster, only earning back $12,729, 917 for its $25 million budget. The failure of the film to capture the favor of audiences or critics upon its release was so profound that Jim Henson did not direct any other feature films before his death in 1990. Despite this disappointment, however, the movie has gained a steady following over the years and has become a cult classic among fantasy fans and Bowie lovers. For some reason, a sequel in the form of a manga was even published by Tokoyopop between 2006 and 2010. In 2012, another graphic novel company, Archaia Studio Press announced that it is in the process of developing a comic book prequel for Labyrinth.

Labyrinth opens with an barn owl spying on Sarah Williams, a teenage girl who is reciting lines from her favorite book (which is also called Labyrinth) in a park. After realizing she is running late, Sarah rushes home to babysit her younger brother, Toby. Sarah becomes increasingly upset when she is confronted by her impatient stepmother and discovers that her teddybear is missing from her room. She finds the toy in her Toby's room and angrily tells him that she wishes the goblins would take him away. Toby suddenly vanishes. The owl flies into Sarah's room and reveals himself to be Jareth, the king of goblins. He tells the alarmed Sarah that she must make her way through his labyrinth within thirteen hours if she wants her baby brother back. He then transports Sarah to the front gate of the labyrinth.

Sarah meets many strange creatures during her journey, three of which decide to travel with her. Hoggle is an obstinate old dwarf who is secretly a spy for Jareth. He is torn between his loyalty to his master and his friendship with Sarah. Ludo is a large and slowwitted but gentle yeti-like creature whom Sarah takes pity on after he is tormented by a gang of goblins. And finally, Sir Didymus is a small yet chivalrous (and often rather illogical) fox-like knight who rides an Old English Sheepdog. Despite receiving help from her new and rather unusual friends, Sarah must overcome several obstacles along the way, such as a Knights and Knaves logic puzzle and the notorious Eternal Bog of Stench. She must also beware of Jareth himself, who has taken a liking to Sarah and constantly tries to convince her to stay with him... 


…Apparently, its because no girl can resist 'the excitement of David Bowie'.

If Jareth's labyrinth has one thing going for it, it is a visual marvel. This is no surprise given the production studio and budget behind Labyrinth. While the sparse CGI that appears in this film is obviously dated, its practical effects have aged very nicely. Brian Froud's designs may not exactly be cute, but they have certain rough charm to them and transition well to the screen. The techniques used to bring the various inhabitants Labyrinth to life are technically a huge step up from those used in The Dark Crystal four years prior. The various sets and backdrops in this movie are also clearly a labor of love. (The art geek in me also loves all of the references to M.C. Escher.) Once Sarah is taken to the front of the labyrinth, it truly does feel as though she has stepped into another land.


It's easy to got lost in the scenery of this movie.

There are, however, several things that hamper this movie's entertainment value. For one, the various David Bowie songs that pop up through out the narrative simply don't suit the visuals at all. (And, for the record, I do enjoy most David Bowie songs.) Yes, it was the '80s. Flamboyancy and Glam Rock were in, but they don't have the timeless sort of quality that one would expect from a fairytale story. On a similar note, this film is rather, well, campy. Again, that may be part of the nostalgic appeal of Labyrinth for some, but it makes everything on screen seem faker than it should. Many of the goblins and other creatures in the film, for instance, are voiced with high pitched, grating cartoonish voices which disengage the viewer the moment he or she hears them. It also doesn't help that the sound effects in this film haven't aged very well either.


It may be cheesy as hell, but just try and get it out of your head.

David Bowie songs and goofy tone aside, many of the characters in Labyrinth are either flat or annoying. This is certainly the case for the film's protagonist. While Sarah's family is briefly introduced at the start of the film, the audience is not given enough time to know or fully understand them or the situation. Sarah's behavior towards her family thus comes off as very bratty. This would be more tolerable if Sarah's character were to develop more over the course of the film, but unfortunately, it doesn't, at least not by much.

Sarah, being the protagonist, does of course learn certain things on her quest. She makes amends with her brother and becomes more appreciative of her 'boring life at home'. However, she complains quite a lot through her journey and relies a bit too much on her companions, making decisions of her own only when the plot requires it. Sarah's portrayal by Jennifer Connelly leaves much to be desired. Perhaps if a more experienced actress took the part, the character would have faired better.  Like several other fantasies about young girls entering bizarre worlds (such as The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland), Labyrinth is symbolic of the transition from childhood to adulthood. However, Sarah is a hard heroine to admire. Perhaps Labyrinth should have followed one of its side characters instead.


Somehow this is not as intimidating as when Gandalf says it...

While Labyrinth is aesthetically pleasing and sports many unique visuals, it won't be remembered as one of the greatest fantasy films ever created. The film's narrative is rather muddled in places, it is too campy for its own good, and its protagonist leaves much to be desired. Still, I cannot bring myself to hate this film. The concept of behind Labyrinth is rather unique and its distinctive visual style allows it to stick out from several other mediocre fantasy films released in the same decade. (Apparently, Labyrinth was initially pitched as The Wizard of Oz meets Where the Wild Things Are.) Maybe Labyrinth would be more enjoyable if it was watched muted and the viewer were to imagine what the characters were saying. While The Dark Crystal may not be as accessible to causal film viewers than Labyrinth, it is ultimately a more ambitious and, dare I say, better film.


I still wish they published this magazine though.

Rating: 3/5

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Vampire Hunter D (Review)

Director: Tooyo Ashida

Company: CBS Sony Group Inc., Movic, Ashi Productions

Year: 1985

Country: Japan


Some 'cult classics' are obscure for a good reason.

 The one downside of having a movie blog is that, once in a while, you have watch something really terrible in order to not look like a flakey reviewer. Vampire Hunter D is such a film, despite having a small but vocal following. It contains little more than shock value, excessive gore, awkward animation, and other such B movie related problems. If Ed Wood had lived to see this atrocity, he would have eaten his heart out. Vampire Hunter D is notable for a few reasons other than its awfulness. It was one of the earliest anime films to be made for the OVA (Original Home Video) market and also one of the first anime titles made available to US audiences on home media. Vampire Hunter D is based on a manga of the same name by Hideyuki Kikuchi which follows the exploits of a half-human half-vampire ( 'dhampire') bounty hunter who is hired to kill corrupt vampire lords in a post apocalyptic future.

Although the plot has interesting enough sounding set up, it is executed very poorly. Vampire Hunter D opens with Doris Lang, the teenage daughter of a deceased werewolf hunter, patrolling the countryside. Doris (who wears so little clothing that she could be mistaken as Sailor Moon's slutty older sister) is suddenly attacked by Count Magnus Lee when she intrudes his territory. Doris manages to get away, but is bitten by the lustful Count who plans on making her his new bride. (There is a major plot hole here: If the Count really wanted Doris, couldn't he have just taken her immediately to his castle?) To make matters worse, Doris is also being courted by the town's resident sleaze, Gerco Rohman, and she and her younger brother, Dan, are ostracized when her bite marks are discovered. Fortunately, Doris receives help from the mysterious horseman D, who promises to protect her and prevent Magnus Lee from abducting her on the next full moon.

From here on out, the storyline begins to fall apart and tediously repeat itself. Doris, who is initially introduced as a street smart, competent fighter, is quickly reduced to the tired distressed damsel role. She is kidnapped then rescued, kidnapped then rescued, kidnapped...over and over again. All of the horror cliches are here, oddly mixed with western cowboy fare and science fiction. Count Magnus Lee looks like a Godfather wannabe and his minions resemble punk rockers. Gratuitous gore is shown when D kills his enemies, spurting blood everywhere, but it fails to entrain or be truly 'scary.' D is often shown to be way more powerful than any of his enemies, making everything about this film all the more predictable. Really, Vampire Hunter D leaves the audience either repulsed or bored more than anything else.


Take it from Doris, real vampires don't sparkle.

As this OVA was made on a seemingly tight budget, it suffers artistically which only becomes more and more apparent as Vampire Hunter D ages. The only nicely drawn thing in this film is its atmospheric backgrounds which certainly help heighten its bleak and often disturbing mood. The character designs are decent but unoriginal at best, and lack the sophistication of the manga's original artwork. At worst, certain characters just come off looking comically stupid. The animation itself is very poor, being constantly off model, choppy, or disproportionately drawn. Vampire Hunter D's sound effects are poorly synchronized and its soundtrack is very dated. It's not 'so retro that its cool again' dated, its just dated... Badly dated. (If you hate your ears and eyes, watch the trailer.)


The eerie backgrounds are one of the few things good about this movie.


Its inconsistent and sloppy character animation are the least of its problems.

The side characters in Vampire Hunter D are consistently annoying, stereotypical, or flat. Dan, Doris's kid brother, is particularly problematic. He does not add anything to the plot. His only purposes seem to be acting cute and providing comic relief that fails to be funny. Whenever he tries to solve things himself, Dan is only captured or held hostage. Dan's relationship with his sister is never deeply developed nor is he properly introduced to the audience. Frankly, if Dan died nobody watching this movie would have really cared. Another obnoxious and unexplained presence is D's living left hand. This left hand has a face and regularly talks with D when he is brooding over something when no one else is around. The left hand also posses the ability to fight off enemies by sucking in air and can reattach itself to D if it is cut off from his arm. The writers apparently ran out ideas.


D possesses a symbiote wise cracking left hand...for reasons unexplained.   

Instead focusing on trying to 'look cool', generating camp value, and showing off how many gallons of blood can get past the censors, Vampire Hunter D should have focused more on creating memorable personalities and relatable character interactions. Even successful horror films need these elements. Is there anything good about this movie? Well, a few of the film's subplots were slightly promising and likely could have been developed more if this movie had a more competent director. Doris's doomed relationship with D could have provided some merit if it were given more screen time. Doris was one of the few people who actually trusted D despite his mixed heritage, but D had to restrain any thoughts of romance in order to prevent giving in to his vampiric side of nature. Likewise, Count Lee's daughter, Lamica, is an interesting character. She constantly called out her father for not acting as a proper aristocratic vampire should. Ironically, towards the end of the film, Lamica learns that she too is a half-breed dhampire, and is left torn between her loyalties to Lee and D. Unable to deal with the shock of her discovery, Lamica chooses to die alongside her father as the Count's castle crumbles to dust.

However, the negative aspects of Vampire Hunter D far outweigh any of its positive factors. They prevent the OVA any chance of redeeming itself in the eyes of the viewer. Almost everything in this film reflects all the negative stereotypes that are often unjustly associated with many other animes: nonsensical plotlines, crappy animation, 'adult themes' that fail to be intellectually mature, unnecessary nudity, graphic violence, and so on. Do yourself a favor. Avoid this film. Avoid it at all costs.  


Count Lee, the audience sympathies with your disgust and boredom. 

Rating: 1/5

About the Dub: It's laughably bad which is probably because the dub was done by the infamous Carl Macek of the now defunct Streamline Pictures. Although the original Japanese voice work was nothing to write home about, it was tolerable. The English 1990s dub is a rather different story. Dan sounds like he was voiced by a middle aged British lady, Lamica has a terrible fake Romanian accent, and many of the other voices sound like nails grating on a chalkboard. To make matters worse, much of the original dialogue was changed for the dub, watered down, or plagued with lame jokes. But then again, given how terrible this movie is the dub seems appropriate in an ironic sort of way.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Can Other Studios Besides Pixar Make Quality CGI Animation?

When Pixar released Toy Story in 1995, the animation industry changed forever. Computer animated films now dominate the box office and nearly all animated features in the US are done in CGI (Overseas, traditional animation still persists.) While Pixar constantly seems able to bring us enjoyable and classic films like Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, and WALL-E (the exception being those car movies), other studios seem to struggle to be as critically or commercially successful.
The one that started it all.

Out of all the animation studios, Disney, unsurprisingly, has the greatest potential of making some of the best CGI films. The question remains, however, if they well. Many of Disney's earlier computer animated films were mediocre at best (Meet the Robinsons, Bolt) or just horrible (Chicken Little). Disney seems to have been improving drastically lately, releasing films such as Tangled and Wreck it Ralph. This gives many people mixed feelings though, as they contemplate what will happen to hand drawn Disney films in the future.

First off he is a rooster not a chicken... 



Disney you have regained my faith.

Dreamworks, Pixar's biggest competitor, has made a few memorable films such as Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon (so far their best). While most of Dreamworks' films are high grossing, the quality of their films can be somewhat variable. This is because Dreamworks tends to make films that focus more on humor and satire than the more plot oriented Pixar films. In fact, Shrek is basically just about making fun of every Disney fairytale cliche. It was giving the finger to Michael Eisner, who was the basis of Lord Farquaad. (That was pretty funny though.) Some of Dreamworks' films are just downright atrocious (Sharktale, Bee Movie) and they have a reputation of milling out lots of sequels (Shrek, Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda).


Seriously this is a modern classic.



This is not.

Blue Sky, Sony, and Illumination Entertainment tend to produce middle of the road movies at best and tend to emulate Dreamworks' style (make lots of sequels and have fast-paced humor). Blue Sky's Ice Age films tend to earn lots of dough, but probably won't stand the test of time. Sony's films are often so generic it is easy to believe that they come out of another studio (Surf's Up, Open Season). Although, they seem to have been somewhat improving lately. Illumination Entertainment has lots of fans due to Despicable Me, but the studio is also responsible for that horrible CGI-live action hybrid Hop (A rabbit that poops jellybeans, seriously?) and a rather disappointing adaptation of Dr. Seuss's The Lorax.


And there are more on the way...

Recently there has been a growing sector of photorealistic or 'motion-capture' animated films. Fueled by the technology used to bring Golem to life in the Lord of the Rings, Warner Brothers,Paramount, Square Enix and Imagemovers have made a wide variety of these films with varying quality. The Polar Express and Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn were fairly enjoyable. But other films have had a harder time avoiding the uncanny valley or suffer from terrible, cliche plots (Happy Feet, Mars Needs Moms, and Final Fantasty: The Spirits Within). Motion-capture remains controversial because many animators debate whether or not these films can truly be considered animated due to the fact motion capture is used to trace/animate over the movements of real people. (This is similar to the debate over the use of the rotoscope.)


My eyes! They Burn!



Luckily they are getting better.

Smaller Studios tend to have a harder time producing quality films because they have to conform to using tired plot formulas in order to appeal to target childern audiences and keep media watchdogs happy. Because they have less money, the animation itself is cheaper and can look very unappealing. This is the reason why many TV series and foreign films tend to prefer using traditional animation. It's cheaper and cheap traditional animation looks better than cheap CGI. Just compare Barnyard to Huckle Berry Hound or Roadside Romeo to Kimba the White Lion.


A Male Cow with Udders?!



Simplistic, yet appealing.



This picture is wrong in so many ways.



Limited animation, but it works!