The Smurfs

OPENING: 07/29/2011

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 86 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Where the Smurf are we?

Opening Statement
Long ago, a group of small blue humanoids called Smurfs invaded televisions every Saturday morning. They constantly sang a cheery song whose main lyrics were “la la la-la la la” and had adventures. Children were hooked immediately. Fast forward thirty years and those children are in the midst of re-discovering their childhoods. Sadly, it turns out some things are best left in the past.

Facts of the Case
On the eve of the Blue Moon festival, Papa Smurf (Jonathan Winters, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World) has a vision full of images too horrible to bear: a magic wand, iron cages, lots of yelling and running. Disaster is on the horizon, and it appears to be centered around Clumsy Smurf (Anton Yelchin, Hearts in Atlantis). And, indeed, Clumsy does instigate the troubles by stumbling too close to the haunt of Gargamel and leading the evil wizard straight to the Smurfs’ hidden village. In the ensuing flight to freedom, Clumsy makes a wrong turn and Papa leads a small task force to rescue him before it’s too late. But it is too late, and the lot are sucked through a vortex and into Central Park, followed closely by Gargamel, despite the fact that 94 of the 100 Smurfs did not go through the vortex and are loose in the wild.

In New York the Smurfs run across ad executive Patrick Winslow (Neil Patrick Harris, Beastly), who finds them to be a nuisance when they interrupt his work. The Smurfs just want to get home, which entails studying the stars (from the middle of New York City) and making a potion based on a Smurfs comic book. While they’re doing all this, they slowly creep into Patrick’s heart. He jams with them in an excruciating extended Guitar Hero scene complete with the Smurfs rapping along to Aerosmith’s “Walk…” I mean, “Smurf This Way.” Eventually, of course, he becomes a better man because of them, only partially because they inadvertently save his job, and he plays a small part in getting them home.

As for Gargamel, back in the cartoon days he wanted the Smurfs for one of two reasons: sometimes he wanted to eat them, other times he thought they were the key alchemic ingredient to make gold. This time, however, he wants to reduce them to their concentrated essence, which will give him the power to do…well, just about anything.

The Evidence
The Smurfs is aimed at the adults who grew up watching the cartoon, even more than their children. Thus, the film is loaded with self-referential quotes and gags. You’ve seen many of them in the trailers: they sing the Smurf song and Patrick says, “Don’t you find that just a little bit annoying?” Patrick also makes a fuss about them using the word “Smurf” for just about everything and questions the system of naming themselves after their primary characteristic. There are also plenty of pop culture references. The Smurfs “blend in” by hugging an advertisement for the Blue Man Group. They master the art of skateboarding. Smurfette is voiced by pop star Katy Perry, so naturally she says, “I kissed a Smurf…and I liked it!”

The problem isn’t the gags, per se, it’s that the gags become the movie. The thin plot is simply a frame to connect the dozens of little references and in-jokes. It makes for a very unsatisfying product.

The Smurfs featured in their first vehicle in three decades are mostly the obvious ones. Papa Smurf, Smurfette, and Brainy (Fred Armisen, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore) are all…well, no-brainers. Grouchy Smurf (George Lopez, Rio)is a bit of a mystery, and he’s not as contrarian as he used to be. Apparently he’s mellowed in the last thirty years. Clumsy is along just because he’s the catalyst for the disaster. That leaves the last of the crew, Gutsy (Alan Cumming, Burlesque). Never heard of him? That’s because he was created for this film. Why didn’t they just use Hefty Smurf, who would have filled the “fearless adventurer” role back in the day? The only reason I can think of is that someone decided that characters who speak in a Scottish brogue are very popular with the kids these days. You can probably thank Shrek.

The voice acting is respectable; I never felt that the Smurfs weren’t really doing the talking. Most of the humans are less convincing. Neil Patrick Harris channels Matthew Perry throughout most of the film, and every time he tries to hug a Smurf, it looks unnatural. Jayma Mays brings her perky Glee presence to the role of Grace and does a credible job of selling an enthusiastic, optimistic wife. Hank Azaria (Hop) has the most fun as Gargamel. He looks very much like the cartoon version, thanks to a small dose of nose prosthetics, and he cheerfully hams up every scene he’s in. His interactions with Azrael (Mr. Krinkle) are the best parts of the show. Speaking of Azrael, as long as the camera keeps its distance, the illusion of a semi-talking cat works pretty well. When they do a close-up to try to personify his expression or his actions, however, he just looks fake and creepy.

Unfortunately, director Raja Gosnell likes fast pans, which is very disorienting in a 3D film, at least if you’re sitting near the front. It took my eyes about a half-second to readjust after each one. Other than that, the 3D does a slightly better than average job. The Smurfs themselves don’t ever seem to pop out but some environments have decent effects. On the other hand, there were spans of time where taking the 3D glasses off made for a clearer picture. Don’t bother paying the extra for 3D if you can help it. The sound is likewise unimpressive. The voices come through clearly but there is little ambient noise. I never felt immersed in the world the film presented.

Like Papa Smurf, I have a vision: several months from now, around, say, Christmas shopping time, The Smurfs will become available for your home viewing pleasure, and the film’s marketing department will not miss out on the color-coordinating potential of Smurfs and Blu-ray discs. You heard it here first.

Closing Statement
The kids in the audience seemed entertained throughout, so at least the minor half of the target audience got its money’s worth. The Smurfs is simple and straightforward, and children should have no trouble figuring out the basics, even if the ad-executive subplot doesn’t have any meaning for them.

The Verdict
5/10

Cars 2

OPENING: 06/24/2011

STUDIO: Pixar Animation Studios

RUN TIME: 112 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
We rejoin all our Radiator Spring friends as they jet-set around the world.

Opening Statement
I am a Pixar apologetic at heart. I absolutely love any, well most, Pixar films. Their motto of “Story is King” is the battle cry I let out before every film I watch. I own most of their films, which is much more then I can say for any other studio putting out all animation. So when they give me something sub-par I wince, I sob, I cry like there’s no Santa Claus. The original Cars is my least favorite of all the Pixar films. Some would say, “The least Pixar film is still better then most others” and I kind of agree with that sentiment. However, they have built themselves a rather high pedestal to stand on and when they don’t reach those heights, it’s a long way down. So what happens when these Cars go onto further adventures?

Facts of the Case
Cars 2 rejoins racecar Lightning McQueen and his best friend, tow truck Mater, as they jumpstart a new adventure to exotic new lands across the globe. The duo are joined by the hometown pit crew from Radiator Springs as they head overseas to support Lighting as he competes in the first ever World Grand Prix. But the road to the finish line is filled with plenty of potholes, detours and bombshells when Mater is mistakenly ensnared in an intriguing escapade of his own– international espionage.

The Evidence
What fails here is the same thing that failed in the original Cars, the story. It is weak and, arguably, too complex for children. We are treated to a grand Bond-like tale of double-crosses and subplots, which, because I like the spy genre, was the best part of the entire movie for me. However, I don’t feel that most 8-year-olds can track all that’s going on and may get lost and/or bored trying to keep up. Pixar usually doesn’t have this problem. Other studios tend to separate their material and jokes and say, “These topics and jokes are for the adults and these are for the kids and never the twain shall meet.” But Pixar doesn’t do that. They know to keep the attention of the entire audience all they need to do write good material and everyone will love it. Now of course Pixar has had parts of their films that may sail over the heads of the young-uns (the first 10 minutes of Up come to mind). However, they have always known how to toe the line and if they veer off for a moment to quickly bring it back to median ground so that all may enjoy.

The largest drawback for me in Cars 2 was that instead of following Lightning McQueen like we did in the first installment, his dim-witted sidekick Mater takes the lead. This upsets me in many ways. There is something to be said about having someone who is not all that bright be the person you are supposed to feel for. Forrest Gump is a recent example of this and one that was done properly. However, if they were to show us that because of Forrest’s dullness, his friends were being put at risk or even hurt we would soon lose concern for Forrest and instead be concerned for those around him. That is what I felt throughout this film for those around Mater. His idiocy is shown to affect his friends adversely but we’re supposed to feel bad for him because he didn’t mean it and he’s sorry. Sorry Mater, though your Rain Man abilities save the day, I don’t feel bad that you were yelled at. You got what was coming.

Closing Statement
While Cars 2 still does not come up to the level of most other Pixar films, it’s still better then the original in my book. That may be a personal preference though since Cars 2 had nothing to do with Nascar or country music and fairly little to do with racing. I was actually intrigued with the spy story and wished they had picked someone else to be the main protagonist to follow. That’s OK. Pixar’s been around for 25 years and they can’t be perfect forever.

The Verdict

6/10

Rango

OPENING: 03/04/2011

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 107 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Johnny Depp is Rango

Opening Statement
After helming the first three installments of the wildly popular Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Director Gore Vebinski tackles his first animated feature, bringing the voice talents of Pirates star Johnny Depp along with him. The result is a fun, frisky, visually inventive film that manages to avoid the usual animation-flick conventions.

Facts of the Case
Our hero is a lizard (Johnny Depp, From Hell) named… well, we’re not exactly sure what his name is. But he’s a lizard, he lives in a glass tank and he spends his days participating in some sort of paranoid-schizophrenic community theatre with a variety of inanimate objects. One day, the lizard is flung from his tank into the middle of a dusty road. Suddenly, he finds himself alone in an unfamiliar world. With the aid of an armadillo (Alfred Molina, Spider-Man 2) and a terse female lizard named Beans (Isla Fisher, Wedding Crashers), our protagonist finally makes it to the little town of Dirt.

Because no one in Dirt knows the lizard, the little green guy decides to create a new identity for himself. From now on, he will be known as Rango, the roughest, toughest gunslinger in the west. Alas, with such claims inevitably come fights with bad guys. Despite the fact that he’s in way over his head, Rango is determined to tackle his new challenge. Not only will he take on the bad guys; he’ll work to figure out why Dirt’s precious water supply has disappeared.

The Evidence
I really dig Rango, but I’m not sure that you will. Permit me to explain myself. I enjoyed Gore Verbinski’s first Pirates of the Caribbean installment, but I think that series got better in its second and third installments. That’s largely because Verbinski grew less interested in plotting and more interested in exploring his flights of loopy imagination. The third film’s trippy “Multiple Jacks” sequence was a high point of the series for me, but others found it an incredibly irritating bit of self-indulgence. Your feelings towards that sequence may very well inform your feelings towards Rango, which basically picks up where the “Multiple Jacks” sequence left off.

What a weird little movie this is. The plot is simple – too simple, it could be argued – an easily digestible variation on Chinatown with a tortoise played by Ned Beatty replacing John Huston’s Noah Cross. The plot only exists to set up Verbinski’s exercises in visual lunacy, as the director starts with a foundation built by Sergio Leone and goes haywire from there. In one sequence, Verbinski incorporates elements of both Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey in a large-scale action set piece involving a character in drag battling a horde of angry moles riding bats.

If that sounds tedious on paper, be assured that it’s thrilling in execution. The countless movie references present in Rango aren’t wearisome attempts at injecting some pop culture pizzazz into the proceedings (I’m looking at you, Shark Tale). This is a movie madly in love with movies, and it references old Clint Eastwood flicks not to be cute but rather in an attempt to create an experience that generates a similar spine-tingling kick. Rango’s love of cinema extends even further – it could be argued that the film is one which takes place entirely in the head of a movie junkie; a world filled with residents who worship a great movie star. No, really.

The film is largely a fast-paced experience, filled with busy action scenes and lots of physical comedy, but it does have a few serene moments of quiet beauty. While I really appreciated the understated moments, the busy scenes certainly have plenty of fun stuff to offer. While action scenes often feel obligatory in children’s movies, Verbinski loads this movie with so many visual treats that we’re never bored. The film also demonstrates an eagerness to entertain that’s reminiscent of Mel Brooks at times; throwing up one quick joke after another. Some are corny and some are groan-worthy, but they’re delivered so cheerfully and in such quick succession that you’re bound to start giggling after a while.

The voice work is uniformly solid, with Depp in an enjoyably manic turn that veers between Kermit the Frog-style yelps and lusty, deep-throated growls. Old pros like Alfred Molina, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Harry Dean Stanton, Ray Winstone and Stephen Root bring color and gravitas to the gruff supporting cast, while Isla Fisher and Abigail Breslin bring youthful energy to the film’s principle female characters. The character design is absolutely terrific throughout, as the filmmakers seem less interested in creating plastic toys for happy meals than in designing grizzled beasts you can’t take your eyes off of. The cast isn’t very cuddly, but then that’s the case in most westerns.

Most animated flicks these days attempt to offer entertainment for viewers of all ages, but Rango is one of the few likely to play better for adults that it will for children. Young kids will appreciate the film’s energy, but it’s doubtful they’ll grasp its often-subversive wit. Parents may want to take the “Parental Guidance” rating a bit more seriously this time around, as the film features a greater level of innuendo, macabre humor and violence than the majority of animated films (characters are actually killed from time to time). The kids at my screening certainly enjoyed it, even if they did leave the screening quoting lines like, “Can I gut-shoot somebody?”

Closing Statement
While Rango does offer a simple and predictable plot, almost everything else about the movie feels fresh and offbeat. Whether or not you have kids to bring along, this one is well worth checking out.

The Verdict
9/10

The Oscar-Nominated Short Films 2011: Animation

OPENING: 02/11/2011

STUDIO: Shorts International and Magnolia Pictures

RUN TIME: 80 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Official Site

The Charge
Pixar versus the world.

Opening Statement
Among this year’s five Oscar-nominated animated short films, one has the distinct advantage of being the warm-up act for one of last year’s biggest box office hits. You’ve probably already checked off Day & Night in this category on your Oscar pool just because it’s the only one you’ve heard of. Don’t let that stop you from watching the other four worthy contenders.

Facts of the Case
Leading up to the Oscar telecast on February 27th, Shorts International and Magnolia Pictures are presenting three separate theatrical programs of the short films nominated for this year’s golden statuettes in the Animation, Live Action and Documentary categories. Audiences can see the animation nominees by attending one of the 150 select theaters across the U.S. and Canada or they can view them via Movies On Demand or through the iTunes Store after February 22nd.

The Evidence

Day & Night (6 min.) is undoubtedly the most widely seen short film among the nominees. Over the years, Pixar has led in to each of their feature films with a short crafted with as much attention and care as their main attractions. Typically, they have been cute vignettes that exploit a singular joke. Director Teddy Newton’s film takes the Pixar short to a new level.

Gorgeous CGI animation takes a back seat to the two hand-drawn ink and paint title characters. More accurately, the rich CGI becomes the details that make up the personalities of the simply drawn, polarized characters. Day and Night engage in a battle of one-upmanship to prove which side (read: lifestyle, opinion, value system?) is better. Superb sound editing, expert comic timing, excellent storytelling and great technical polish come together in a dazzling display of creativity. The film says so much though the characters say nothing at all. It’s clear to see why this is the front-runner in the category.

The Gruffalo (27 min.) is a UK-German production based on the children’s book by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler. When a plucky mouse goes in search of acorns, he meets a fox, an owl and a snake, each with the intention of making the mouse their next meal. The mouse outsmarts each of them by inventing a fearsome creature called the Gruffalo who is imminently due at the mouse’s side. How long until the predators wise up to the mouse’s ruse?

Directors Jakob Schuh and Max Lang have crafted a film that feels like a classic fable. The CGI animation approximates the feel of Claymation with the simply designed woodland characters. Backgrounds are beautifully textured and the playful rhythm of the script will appeal to young viewers. The film’s relaxed pace might challenge the attention span of its target audience but it’s refreshing to see a kids’ film told with such graceful restraint.

Let’s Pollute (6 min.) captures the spirit of educational films of the 50s and 60s to satirize America’s heritage of waste and over-consumption. Director Geefwee Boedoe posits an alternate reality where polluting is the main goal of industry rather than the byproduct we try to ignore. However, the reverse psychology message speaks too broadly and hits too uncomfortable square on the nose to be effective satire. The faux educational film is the kind of gag we’d see briefly in the background of an episode of The Simpsons but in a longer form the joke wears itself out. Let’s Pollute is a film made for a hypothetical idiot culture. Boedoe’s mistake is that he hasn’t differentiated between his hypothetical viewers and the actual real world ones. Here’s a film that overstates its message in an inelegant way.

The Lost Thing (15 min.) may have resulted if E.T. crash-landed in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. This quiet, thoughtful story from Australia follows a boy who befriends a strange creature on the beach that looks something like a Martian octopus driving a mechanized teapot. No one seems to want anything to do with the odd thing. Yet, the boy empathizes with the lost creature and tries to find it a place in this neatly ordered world.

If the CGI animation, directed by Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann, seems a bit stiff and clunky, it’s for good reason. The boy’s world is made up of carefully groomed beaches and deliberately aligned streets and identical buildings. Its denizens, moving about in orderly lines, communicate resignation in their body language. The presence of the lost creature sharply contrasts this staid environment. When the animation is freed up, the payoff is a relief and a delight not unlike sunshine penetrating rain clouds after several days of gloom.

Madagascar, Carnet de Voyage (11 min.) brings scrapbook memories to brilliant life. A traveler gets a taste of contemporary Malagasy life when he’s invited to witness the Famadihani, a ceremony to mark “the turning of the dead.” Bustling city scenes, a lively cross-country journey and the energizing village ritual are fantastically rendered in impressionistic bursts using pencil drawings, watercolors, CGI assist, and any other tool at the disposal of French writer-director Bastien Dubois.

This is my personal favorite film of the nominees because its animation conveys a sense of sheer unbridled joy. The screen is practically hotwired into the protagonist’s brain as his excitement of discovery and his marveling at the vibrancy of life become our own. The wonderful music and sound, the mixture of techniques and the beautiful colors are a feast for the eyes and ears. It’s a personal travelogue that communicates a universal invitation to experience the world and embrace diversity.

Closing Statement
Instead of car commercials, soft drink ads and insultingly stupid movie trivia slides, wouldn’t it be grand if theaters preceded the main feature with a quality short film? I wish we could be exposed to these kinds of works all through the year in theaters but maybe it’s even better that some are made the main attractions in a compilation program rather than just the bonuses to another feature. Animated shorts represent a concentrated effort by veterans stretching their creative muscles and newcomers showing their mettle. There is great artistry displayed in these five films and seeing them all together in one sitting makes for a very satisfying program.

The Verdict
8/10

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie

OPENING: 11/28/2010

STUDIO: Codex Pictures

RUN TIME: 76 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Official Site

The Charge
For honour, for glory, for Victory!

Opening Statement
First it was comic books, and then came video games and toy lines; Hollywood’s endless pursuit of the next big thing knows no bounds. Enter “Warhammer 40,000”, a tabletop tactical wargame that involves heaping piles of miniature terrain, dice, rulers, and hand-painted pewter figurines. Rather than handing Hollywood the keys to their Rolls, only to see it wrapped around a tree (a’la Warhammer 40K competition, The Mutant Chronicles) the minds at Games Workshop took it upon themselves, with the aid of Codex Pictures (Lego’s Bionicle Trilogy), to really give fans of the series something they’ll enjoy. The end result: Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie.

Facts of the Case
When all contact is lost with a division of Space Marines on the backwater planet of Mithron, Captain Severus (Terrance Stamp) must take a small band of fresh recruits planetside. Homing in on a lone distress beacon, Severus and his men walk into an ambush set by the forces of Chaos. His men are no ordinary Space Marines however; they are Ultramarines, the Emperor’s elite. They must be steel, they must be doom, and they fear no death.

The Evidence
The idea is simple enough; big armoured super soldiers blow the crap out of scary looking armoured zombie soldiers. That’s about the extent of it. It’s a fitting plot that surprisingly takes a solid chunk of time to unfold. The script takes its time, allowing us to get into the mindset of the elite ass-booters that form our team of Ultramarines, or a few of them anyway. Fans of the Warhammer 40K universe will likely feel right at home, while non-initiates might enjoy the feel of soldier crossed with holy crusader that the Emperor’s forces invoke. The sense of design is impressive as well, with giant citadel shaped spaceships complete with stained glass windows, armoured up soldiers who use pages of scripture as loincloths on their battle gear, or wear crimson covered cloaks and wield gigantic chainsaw-swords. Warhammer’s unique aesthetic and mood is captured near perfectly.

No, none of this is rocket science, but the action scenes are mounted well enough to redeem the story of its shortcomings. The highest point of the film undoubtedly comes when our surviving heroes make a last stand against wave after wave of onrushing agents of chaos, pumping round after round into the corrupted creatures of the Warp while awaiting their approaching dropship. If nowhere else in the film, it’s in these moments that i’m sure, fans will really feel like they’re getting a Warhammer 40K flick.

Character is definitely not a strong suit, with the majority of the movie’s focus planted squarely on Proteus (Sean Pertwee), a rookie member of the squad who hits all of the usual rookie notes and suffers the usual disdain reserved for said rookies by the veterans, even when he proves himself more than capable early on. The voice acting however, is anything but rote. Guys like Sean Pertwee, Terrance Stamp, and John Hurt don’t know how to just “phone it in,” and every line these guys spit resonates. Honestly, this trio could be reading from a phonebook and it would still sound awesome. The supporting cast also does a fine job of keeping up, and includes a few veteran actors whose names I haven’t heard in a while, most notably Steve Waddington and Donald Sumpter.

With the good out of the way, it’s time to address the bad and the ugly. The paper thin plot could be considered passable if you can invest yourself into the world whether you’re a fan or just an interested party, however, as an animated feature, Ultramarines fails miserably. The quality of the animation is the lowest of low rent CG, scarcely two steps above the kind of computer generated stuff that graced syndicated television in the late ‘90s. Faces are low resolution models that look strangely alien and plastic, and these 7 foot tall walking death merchants look more like 6-inch tall action figures in the way they move and fight. Everything is soft looking, with low resolution textures that look like something out of the Playstation 2 era. Honestly, there were video games in 2005 or 2006 that had better textured character models than those that are on display here. Even worse are the wretched special effects. Things like fire and muzzle flash look laughably bad. There are animated films out there with better looking rough test animation than the finished product on display here. In spite of the truth paid to the source material, or the awesome voice acting, the visuals make the first impression, and it is an impression of weakness. This is not how you do justice to a legion of followers. The heart is there, but the budget just isn’t.

Closing Statement
Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40K Movie is ultimately a movie for the hardest of the hard core fanbase, a fanbase so ravenous that they make ‘Trekkies’ look like ‘Gleeks’. Sadly, it clearly lacks the significant budget necessary to facilitate the epic scope required for a franchise with three decades worth of background material.

Still, all things considered, the voice acting is great, the script is pure fan service, and the design captures the essence and depth of the source material. When the action hits, it does so with gusto and bad-assery to spare, but it may not be enough for most of us.

The Verdict
5/10

Megamind

OPENING: 11/05/2010

STUDIO: DreamWorks Animation

RUN TIME: 96 min

ACCOMPLICES:

Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A superhero movie with a mind of its own

Opening Statement
DreamWorks Animation is suddenly a top-tier studio, capable of rivaling even the best of Pixar. While they have dished out their fair share of duds, such as last year’s Monsters vs. Aliens , the scale on which they set their canvases is quite spectacular. What they lack in heart and soul they make up for with dazzling action, witty pop culture references and A-list voice talent. Pixar may have the animation world by the balls, but DreamWorks is not far behind. And with the one-two punch of last summer’s How to Train Your Dragon and now Megamind, they’re proving they can dish out quality entertainment at an alarmingly swift rate.

Facts of the Case
Megamind (Will Ferrell) is an evil super villain in the vein of Lex Luthor, who spends his days battling local superhero Metro Man (Brad Pitt). The two are bitter rivals, arriving on earth under similar circumstances to vastly dissimilar results.

After years of fighting, Megamind suddenly wins, much to his (and everyone else’s) surprise, offing Metro Man in high style. The local denizens, including plucky reporter Roxanne Ritchi (Tina Fey) are forced to endure a world without their beloved star, under the rule of the dastardly blue-tinted villain. All’s well that ends well, right? Not exactly.

Megamind finds himself bored, missing the exciting life Metro Man provided. In a flurry of panic, he channels Metro Man’s abilities into nerdy cameraman Hal (Jonah Hill) and creates another superhero, who calls himself Titan. Things turn dicey, however, when Megamind falls for Ritchi, utilizing an assumed identity to win her heart. Problem is, Hal/Titan has eyes for the reporter too, and turns into a proverbial madman Hell-bent on gaining her affection. An epic dual ensues as Megamind must somehow save the day, discover his true self and win the heart of his lady.

The Evidence
Megamind is terrific entertainment told with energy, pizzaz and heart. I absolutely loved every second of it. The voice cast is top-notch with Ferrell in particular lending depth to the titular bad guy/hero. His is an intriguing character, one who gets what he wants, only realizing too late that what he needs lies elsewhere.

Megamind, you see, is like all super villains–power hungry, smart, but ultimately standing on the wrong side of morality. I’ve often wondered myself what Lex Luther would do in a world without Superman. Would he simply take over? Would he be bored? While villains may hate the heroes who defy them and vice versa, a certain level of respect from both parties is vital to the battle. As the Joker explains to Batman in The Dark Knight, “You complete me.” Good and evil must co-exist–one cannot survive without the other.

And so Megamind, upon defeating the “yang” to his ”yin”, is left in control of the city for which he fought so hard. He is bored, nervous and unresolved. “I didn’t even get to say goodbye,” he solemnly says to a statue of Metro Man, producing a detonator in the process. “But I still have to blow you up. No offense, you just bring up too many bad memories.”

Ferrell’s craft has been anchored in a sort of juvenile irony. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. He’s always funny, even in the ill-received Land of the Lost where he played a clueless scientist stumbling around various dimensions, but oftentimes he is too over-the-top for his own good. Here, every line is delivered in pitch perfect style. Ferrell’s Megamind may be an evil villain, but he’s also a lonely soul seeking a genial purpose. The actor provides a delicate blance between the two, infusing the character with wit, style and a sympathetic soul. Wait ’til you get a load of his Marlon Brando-as-Jorel impersonation. Funny stuff, I tell ya. 

Likewise, the always reliable Tina Fey and Jonah Hill contribute some terrific voice work of their own. Fey finds a strong Lois Lane-ish character in Ritchie, with deft comic-timing and an equally ironic tone that matches Ferrell perfectly. These two would do wonders in a live action film together. Hill, meanwhile, has the nerdy slob routine down to a science. His character is a dunce who is suddenly greeted with great power, which he abuses tenfold. As his abilities increase, so does his rage. Not to a frightening level, mind you (this is still a kid’s film after all), but it reaches a point that allows for some dramatic intensity.

That’s what is so great about DreamWorks. They’re not afraid to push the envelope a little. Pixar’s films exhibit a playful quality, basking in human emotions, careful to never dive too deep lest they scare off the target audience. DreamWorks explores adventure, excitement and genuine thrill. The studio takes chances, provides an edge. Their films may not make you cry, or win Oscars for that matter, but they offer crowd pleasing entertainment to the highest degree.

The visuals on display in Megamind are jaw-dropping, and some of the best I’ve ever seen in an animated film. Megamind and Metro Man soar through the sky, topple buildings and wreck havoc on a massive scale. It’s all in good fun, to be sure, but also quite electrifying in execution. Director Tom McGrath stages some impressive set-pieces, one of which sees Megamind and Ritchie attempting to outrun a falling skyscraper whilst riding a jet-propelled motorcycle. The animation is stunning in detail, vibrant in color and epic in scope.

Those seeking comedy will enjoy the sly one-liners writers Alan J. Schoolcraft and Brent Simmons (both making their Hollywood debut) come up with. Their script is polished and fresh; simple, but bracing, in the vein of the original Shrek and last year’s Kung Fu Panda. Here the characters believably interact with one another. Not all of the jokes work, mind you, but for every dud there are several memorable quips (“Get back you savages!”).

On the negative side, I didn’t enjoy the fish guy, Minion. He felt out of place and wrong for the film. David Cross supplies his voice, but the character just never gelled for me. Visually he is an oddity. A try-too-hard bit of comedy that unfortunately falls flat. He disappears for much of the film and you don’t really miss him.

Another gripe is the music. I’m all for pop-culture lending voice to a film, but the onslaught of pop tunes is something DreamWorks can’t seem to shake. Within every single one of their movies are moments where the characters dance, or sing along to the likes of Michael Jackson, AC/DC or Elvis. A little music never hurt anyone, but enough is enough.

I would’ve liked to have seen Metro Man get some more screentime as well. Pitt laces the hero with a cocksure attitude that might’ve made an interesting film on its own. As is, the character is vital to the story, but not in the way you might expect.  

Aside from those nitpicks, I would say this is flawless entertainment. Everything (aside from the fish) just clicks. It’s telling that I walked into Megamind in a bad mood (the trailers for Yogi Bear and that Justin Bieber biopic didn’t help), and found my spirits lifted quite quickly.

Megamind is a great film. Ferrell, Fey and Hill are hilarious. The animation is superb, the story engaging. Even the 3D is cool (but still slightly awkward), especially during the climatic action scenes. Those who want slow ruminations on life can go watch Up or Wall-E. Fine films to be sure, but I happen to like my ‘toons bright, cheery and full of action-packed adventure.

Closing Statement
Megamind is exciting entertainment through and through thanks to incredible animation, and fantastic vocal work from its all-star cast. DreamWorks is slowly but surely emerging as the animation studio to beat.

The Verdict
9/10

Shrek: The Final Chapter

OPENING: 05/21/2010

STUDIO: DreamWorks

RUN TIME: 93 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
It ain’t ogre… til it’s ogre

Opening Statement
Once it was supposed to be called Shrek Goes Forth. Then it became Shrek Forever After. Now, if I’m not mistaken, the official title is Shrek: The Final Chapter. Okay. Whatever it is, I’m quite certain that it’s the fourth film in the Shrek franchise and that it’s supposed to be the last Shrek film, probably, maybe.

Facts of the Case
This installment finds Shrek (Mike Myers) precisely where we left him: as a happily married husband and father living in the now-peaceful land of Far, Far Away. Well, he’s happy for a while, anyway. It seems the whole routine of having a family and raising kids is starting to get to him, as he has to deal with one stressful situation after another. In addition, the once-terrifying ogre is feeling a little emasculated, as the local villagers now regard him as a little more than a lovable mascot. Shrek yearns for the days when people feared him and he was able to get some peace and quiet. After an unfortunate fight with Fiona (Cameron Diaz) at a birthday party, Shrek signs a deal with the mischievous Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) that will allow him to become an honest-to-goodness terrifying ogre once again for a whole day. In exchange, Shrek has to sacrifice one day from his past. Alas, Rumpelstiltskin chooses the day of Shrek’s birth, meaning that everyone’s favorite ogre was never even born. Now Shrek is stuck in an alternate universe in which he is shown what life would have been like if he had never existed. To make matters worse, unless Shrek can share True Love’s Kiss with Fiona (thus breaking the contract with Rumpelstiltskin) within the next 24 hours, he will disappear forever.

The Evidence
Shrek: The Final Chapter is a sad, somber movie – partially due to the darker tone, partially due to the manner in which it makes us reflect on how far the series has fallen. There’s a scene in the film that nicely reflects the essential problem. Shrek needs to kiss Fiona in order to break the curse and restore things to the way they were. He badgers her and badgers her until she finally agrees to give him a kiss. Alas, nothing happens. That’s because it wasn’t True Love’s Kiss. You can’t force a genuine moment of romance; it has to happen organically. Likewise, the filmmakers try to recapture the success of the first film by repeating events from that movie: we see Shrek as a grumpy ogre having to win the heart of Fiona and become friends with Donkey (Eddie Murphy) all over again. Unfortunately, these efforts feel blatantly obvious and forced. It’s hard to recapture magic, and the filmmakers aren’t up to the task.

The problem is that the franchise just doesn’t have anything interesting to do with their characters. Honestly, their story was pretty much finished by the end of the first movie, and ever since they’ve just sort of been hanging around, milking the old cash cow. Shrek was a witty, rude fairy tale parody about a nasty ogre who was redeemed by the power of love. The second film managed to fare reasonably well due to some sharp humor and the welcome addition of Puss n’ Boots (Antonio Banderas), but none of the sequels can legitimately provide justification for their existence. The sequels exist in an awkward, post-Happily Ever After world in which the characters are forced into odd, unlikely situations generated for no particularly good reason.

The film does a rather good job early on of demonstrating just how miserable Shrek feels; his life really does look like an endless stream of stress-inducing chaos. He wants it all to go away, and to a certain degree, so do we. We miss the grumpy ogre of the first Shrek film. Alas, the It’s a Wonderful Life-inspired story predictably demonstrates that while Shrek didn‘t know how good his single life was until it was gone, he really didn‘t know how good his life as a family man was until it was gone. So, we can’t feel good about getting the cantankerous, independent Shrek back because he can’t feel good about being that character anymore. It’s not really a spoiler to tell you that Shrek eventually gets his life back, or that he’s extremely happy when this happens… but a thoughtful viewer won’t be able to help but feel that all of that stress and frustration is going to come back after the initial high of coming back home wears off. The film feels like a weary, frustrated acknowledgement that the filmmakers know there just isn’t anything left for the character to do. So, they’re just going to try to repeat a few successful things one last time and call it a wrap.

All of that being said, the film does actually work a little bit better than Shrek the Third, as the jokes are a bit funnier and the premise is a little less flimsy. All of the voice actors are still in fine form (particularly Banderas, who has more or less owned every scene he has appeared in over the course of this franchise), and the new characters like Walt Dohrn’s Rumpelstiltskin, Jon Hamm’s Brogan and Craig Robinson’s Cookie aren’t bad. The dated pop culture references the series is known for are toned down a bit, but so are the sharp jabs in the direction of traditional fairy tale films. Perhaps the most damning thing that can be said about Shrek: The Final Chapter is that the series has finally become what it initially set out to lampoon.

Closing Statement
The film is engaging and reasonably well-crafted, serving as a better conclusion to the series than the third film… still, it feels like too little, too late.

The Verdict
6/10

9

OPENING: 09/09/2009

STUDIO: Focus Features

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
1 to protect us. 2 to inspire us. 3 to define us. 4 to teach us. 5 to guide us. 6 to lead us. 7 to defend us. 8 to guard us. 9 to save us.

Opening Statement
I have not seen Shane Acker’s acclaimed short film 9, which apparently wowed quite a lot of folks with its inventive vision of a post-apocalyptic world. However, when I saw the theatrical trailer for Acker’s feature-length adaptation, I was certainly intrigued. The animation appeared to be genuinely original and innovative, and I looked forward to exploring more of that world. While the visuals in the 78-minute version of 9 are indeed quite impressive, it’s disappointing to discover there isn’t much substance beneath the style.

Facts of the Case
The film opens on our protagonist, a small, mechanical, human-like stitch work figure (voiced by Elijah Wood, The Lord of the Rings) with the number 9 painted on his back. From this point on, we’ll just refer to him as "Number 9." Number 9 has just woken up and doesn’t quite seem to know who he is or what his purpose is. He wanders outside and sees a barren wasteland. It would appear that all of humanity has been wiped out. Number 9 soon discovers Number 2 (Martin Landau, Ed Wood), another stitch work figure who greets Number 9 with warmth and kindness. Unfortunately, Number 2 is quickly snatched up by a horrible mechanical beast and taken away.

Number 9 is understandably distraught, but soon encounters others much like himself who have set up a little colony of sorts. It’s led by Number 1 (Christopher Plummer, Inside Man), a stern leader who insists the best plan is to wait and hide until the mechanical beast stops functioning. Number 9 is appalled by such cowardly thinking, and attempts to convince the others in the colony that they should stage a rescue. Even if he can convince the others to battle the beast and whatever other terrors await in this post-apocalyptic world, do the little figures stand a chance against such overwhelming odds?

The Evidence
It is perhaps a tribute to Shane Acker’s artistic vision that he was able to get this film greenlit with such a flimsy plot. It is a maddeningly repetitive series of contrivances which allow three things to happen over and over again. First, a character is captured. Second, the remaining characters argue about whether or not to rescue the captured character. Third, at least some of the remaining characters do indeed decide to engage in a rescue attempt, setting up the next big battle scene. This formula is repeated from start to finish, with the beasts getting more intimidating each time, until we reach the inevitable battle to end all battles and a surprisingly hokey pseudo-spiritual conclusion.

To get all these situations up and running, the characters are required to be disappointingly stupid. It’s clear these little stitch work figures are capable of great intelligence, as demonstrated by some of their innovative ideas and thoughtful conversations. Number 9 generally seems to be the brightest, but does the single most foolish thing in the entire film (you’ll know what I mean when you see it). After a while, it’s hard to feel terribly sorry for the characters, considering they have brought many of these miseries upon themselves.

Still, the film is not an agonizing watch, simply because Acker and his animation team do such a fine job of keeping us fascinated with their design work. Number 9 and his brethren are such nuanced creations, each seeming to be the product of much thought and loving craftsmanship. Number 6 (Crispin Glover, Beowulf) is a peculiar eccentric with a tendency to draw the same key image over and over. Number 5 (John C. Reilly, Boogie Nights) is a one-eyed simpleton who seems to be the gentlest of the group. Number 7 (Jennifer Connelly, A Beautiful Mind) is a sleek-looking action hero whose facial expressions suggest she is living in her own personal Bond film. Number 1 somehow oozes arrogant menace even when he isn’t speaking, and his right-hand man Number 8 (Fred Tatasciore, Wolverine and the X-Men) seems to have twice as much bulk and half as many brains as anyone else. There is a level of expressiveness in these characters which has rarely been matched in animation, and that is an achievement worth noting.

Unfortunately, the monstrous robots aren’t nearly as compelling. These red-eyed drones feel like a mash-up of similarly intimidating creatures from Terminator: Salvation, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica, with a generous dose of steampunk thrown in for good measure. They exhibit no personality or elegance during their attacks, they’re merely anonymous if elaborate creations who seem to attack without any pre-set strategy or game plan. The action scene animation is perfectly fluid and engaging, but becomes tiresome. I wanted to know more about why someone decided to invent these machines and the stitch work people in the first place, the decisions made that led humanity to its destruction, and almost anything other than what we’re actually given. There were dozens of questions running through my mind, and the film only bothered to answer the ones I had no real interest in.

Closing Statement
Though 9 is a very disappointing film, I still believe Shane Acker is someone to keep an eye on. For instance, consider the career of Tim Burton (who serves as a producer of this film). It was clear from the very beginning that Burton had a distinct visual style and an original voice, but it took some time before he was able to fuse that style with equally impressive storytelling. Perhaps, as time passes, Acker’s filmmaking will evolve in a similar manner. In the meantime, 9 is only worth a look for animation aficionados who want to examine the technical achievements of the film. Those seeking an enjoyable sci-fi adventure will be sorely disappointed.

The Verdict
5/10

Screening: Summer Days With Coo
One of the most critically acclaimed anime films in the last year, Summer Days with Coo arrived as a last-minute addition to the schedule this year. Running an astonishing 138 minutes, it tells the story of Coo, a young Kappa who has been trapped in stone for several hundred years, after witnessing the gruesome murder of his father. He is awaken by Koichi, a young boy in need of a good friend. Koichi and his family are uncertain about the mythical creature at first, but they learn to love him, then determine to help him to find more of his own kind. But in a new and developed Japan, could it be that all of the spirits have disappeared for good?

Standing in a strange liminal space between E.T. and My Neighbor Totoro, the thing that struck me most about Summer Days with Coo was its willingness to push the story far beyond the expected. The plot I described above covers only the first half of the film, then gives way to a fascinating exploration of the media and what would happen if a Kappa would arrive in Japan today and capture the imagination of the people around it. It transforms this coming-of-age story into a story about modern culture and environmentalism, and much of this story is simply and genuinely touching. In fact, the film has so many great moments that I almost regret what I am about to say in the next few paragraphs.

But I have no choice. As touching and delightful as Summer Days with Coo is, it runs at least half an hour longer than it should. Many of the scenes drag on too long, and several of the subplots, including a predictable first love story and a plot-convenient relationship between Coo and the family dog, should have been excised. With a few omissions and some more liberal editing, this truly would have been one of the most wonderful stories I’ve seen in a long time. By the end, though, I was getting pretty fidgety, waiting for the story to finally grind to a halt.

The animation was also a bit of a disappointment. While small animation teams can’t hope to deliver the kind of animation that Gainax can deliver, we saw many films in the festival that were made on a smaller budget than this that had much better looking animation. The backdrops aren’t a problem here, but the characters are poorly rendered, revealing the kind of shortcuts that are usually only seen in low-budget television anime series.

Complaints aside, I really do respect Summer Days with Coo. It’s a genuine, heartfelt and touching story, with strong character development and some engaging messages. If only it had been a bit shorter, I would probably have written a much kinder review. More is not always better.

Screening: Piano Forest
The final screening of WFAC this year, Piano Forest struck a perfect closing note (pun entirely intended) for the festival. Another coming of age tale, it follows the story of two young boys and their rivalry at the piano.

Shuhei is an accomplished pianist for his age, practicing hard to become as skilled as his father, a famous concert pianist. He and his mother move from Tokyo to a small town temporarily to look after his grandmother, where he meets Kai, a poor and unruly local boy who demonstrates an unusual talent for the piano. They are both obsessed with a mysterious piano out in the woods, which only seems to work for Kai. As the story unfolds, their friendship transforms into a rivalry between dedication and talent.

All of which, I realize, doesn’t sound that engaging. What the summary doesn’t convey is the sense of magic and sincerity in this simple and beautiful tale. At the core of the film is the relationship between the two boys, who are given equal footing as heroes of the story. Shuhei works constantly at his practicing, even though the piano has become an enemy to him. He is driven to be the best, but has no passion for what he is doing. Kai is the opposite, loving his natural talent but feeling no desire to practice and improve his skill. It is reminiscent of the connection between Mozart and Salieri, as Shuehei becomes jealous of Kai’s superior skill and passion.

As a teacher, I’ve been in a number of conversations about which students we prefer to have: the ones who are brilliant but shrug off their studies, or those with little natural aptitude who are nonetheless willing to work hard throughout the year. Most of us prefer the latter. Perhaps this is due to the anguish we feel over the truly talented ones. If only they would apply themselves and deliver their greatest effort, we can only imagine what they could accomplish. Still, there is an odd fascination with the rare geniuses that cross the doorway into our classrooms–we wonder how they came to be blessed with such talent. Piano Forest is interested in this as well, and explores a number of related ideas as the two boys push towards a crucial national piano contest.

I will not say any more about the plot, except to say that it does not end how we expect, but plays out better than we could imagine. This is a truly delightful example of animation, one that should be seen by all children who are old enough to understand the subtle messages it contains. More than anything, it is a beautiful production. The animation is simple but luscious, the soundtrack contains some of the most stunning piano solos I have ever heard, and the story is both straightforward and meaningful. It’s this kind of story that keeps me coming back to anime and animation in general, and it served as a wonderful reminder of why I spent so much time this weekend crammed in uncomfortable chairs, gazing into the screen until my eyes were tired. Animation is inherently magical, a window into an impossible but wonderful world. The subtle fantasy of Piano Forest was a great example of that, but certainly not the only one of the weekend.

In fact, WFAC has a lineup of films that I would expect to see in an animation festival in New York, Toronto, or Paris, not in downtown Kitchener in November. Hopefully, more people will discover this particular brand of magic next year. It’s an experience I would recommend to anyone able to make the trip in. If you live anywhere near Kitchener/Waterloo, you have no excuse to be missing out. I, for one, am already looking forward to what worlds WFAC will show us next year.

Screening: Grave of the Fireflies
Of all the films that are showing at WFAC this year, Grave of the Fireflies is the one that needs the least introduction. When I found out it was showing at the festival this year, I was really excited. When I found out it was being projected in 35mm, I was even more excited. When I found out it was a free showing, and that I could bring a busload of students from school with me, I was more excited yet.

Without a question, this was one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had in a theater. For those of you not familiar with Grave of the Fireflies, it is one of the best films to come out of Studio Ghibli, the same studio that produced Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away. Unlike most of the other Ghibli films, Grave of the Fireflies is far from being a whimsical, delightful children’s tale. It follows the experiences of Seita and Setsuko, two children who are orphaned during the last days of World War II. For a while, they stay with relatives, but they are eventually pushed out, forced to try to make do without any aid or societal support. It is one of the most heartbreaking films ever made, and the experience of watching it on the big screen is one that I never expected to have.

If anything, the film is better than I remember it. It is flawlessly structured, set up from the very beginning to deny us the hope of a happy ending, and yet the children are so innocent and delightful that we find ourselves hoping that something will arrive to make things okay. Director Isao Takahata sets each moment up to tug us in these two directions, and the result is astounding.

It’s also a film that defies any real classification. It looks like an anime film, particularly in the character design. It’s quite similar to the artwork style of My Neighbor Totoro, but it’s also full of a shocking, unsettling realism that few people are really prepared for. As a result, this is an anime that can be appreciated by a much wider range of people, not simply those who already enjoy animation. If I were to come up with a list of the greatest animated films of all time, I have no doubt that Grave of the Fireflies would top that list.

As it turns out, WFAC is the only stop this print is making in Canada. The print itself is in quite good condition considering the film’s age, and the experience of watching animation in 35mm is a truly dazzling experience. I only mention this because the same print will be presented in several places in the United States, including the Smithsonian and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. If you are a fan of Grave of the Fireflies, of animation, or of films in general, I strongly recommend you look into whether this print will be showing anywhere near where you live. If it is, don’t miss the opportunity. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime chance for film buffs.

Screening: Idiots and Angels
After seeing some of Bill Plympton’s short films, I was excited to get a chance to see Idiots and Angels. Plympton’s animation style is incredibly unique, and he has a vicious sense of humor that I wanted to see stretched out into a more ambitious work.

Now, coming out of this screening, I’m not so sure that’s really what I wanted after all.

That’s not to say that Idiots and Angels isn’t an impressive piece of animation. Plympton’s animation exists in a strange otherworld where nothing has sharp edges, perspective is continually changing, and nobody really speaks. This allows him a certain level of expressionism, and the lack of communication works well in a world where nobody is really capable of communication.

This particular outing centers around a cruel gun merchant. He is hotheaded and cruel, and has only a handful of friends, who don’t even like him. His life is trapped in a cycle of ugly routine, which quickly changes when he discovers that a pair of angel wings are growing from his back. He tries to suppress the wings, but they overwhelm him, then force him to start doing good things. In a lot of ways, Idiots and Angels exists as a fascinating counterpoint to the legend of Icarus, where we have a man with no great ambition, who is pressed into greatness and heroics through his bizarre circumstances.

Unfortunately, the film simply doesn’t hold together as well as it should. Despite a rich series of symbolic visuals, surprising twists, and fascinating visuals, Idiots and Angels often feels too long and uncontrolled. We see too much of the man’s cruelty to buy into his transformation, so we still don’t like him at the end, even if we are meant to. The film represents a true cesspool of humanity, and there are few characters that we can connect to in a meaningful way. This may well be intentional, as Plympton is trying to make us feel dislike for the characters that populate this vicious world. Regardless of the intent, I came out of the screening with a bad taste in my mouth and a sense of disappointment. A film with this much love and passion poured in should offer more of it to the audience. Doubtless, serious fans of Plympton’s work will be impressed by it, but the uninitiated will probably be perplexed and disgusted by its approach.

Given Plympton’s approach to animation and storytelling, that might just be exactly how he wants you to feel.

Screening: Nocturna
The 35mm print of Nocturna couldn’t be delivered in time for the festival, so we were unfortunately stuck with a digital screener copy. After five or ten minutes, though, we honestly didn’t notice. That’s thanks to the magical world that is created by this Spanish family film, which is sure to be a favorite among the children who are lucky enough to see it.

Nocturna follows the story of Tim, a young orphan (what is it with Spanish films and orphans?) who is afraid of the dark. When the other children fall quickly asleep, Tim sits by his window, watching his star and keeping in as much light as possible. One night, that star goes out, and Tim is thrust into a world of nighttime imagination. It becomes up to Tim and his new friend, the Cat Shepherd, to keep the night from falling into permanent shadow.

I always love when films create a new mythology, and Nocturna does a fabulous job at that. There is a whole menagerie of nighttime creatures, each one with a specific job–some mess up children’s hair, some steal individual socks, while others keep streetlights from going out. This probably sounds fairly childish, and it is, but that doesn’t begin to describe the magic that runs through the production and animation. Like the best family entertainment, Nocturna reminds us of childhood fears and joys, which thrusts us back into our own memories and experiences. There is nothing edgy or dangerous about the story, and yet it’s both exciting and engaging.

In the end, Nocturna really is a fairly inconsequential film. It doesn’t break any new ground, nor does it have the best animation I’ve seen. It has a lot of heart, though, not to mention a completely unique visual style and story rich enough to support multiple viewings. The English voice work is delightful, and I hope that it arrives in North America soon–where it is sure to secure a number of fans among the young and old.