To be frank, this kind of attitude pisses me off. What of The Plague Dogs? Triplets of Bellville? The Illusionist? Fritz the Cat? Akira? Watership Down? Persepolis? Waltz with Bashir? Ghost in the Shell? My Dog Tulip? Waking Life? Fire and Ice? Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I mean, these AREN'T minor or unknown films here, these aren't the only examples I could come up with and they are not by any means restricted by their medium. There is NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING inherent in the medium of animation that makes it only suitable for children. That is a fallacy that is often rejected, especially lately by non-Western cultures that have sprung into the animation scene. The idea that animation is for children has only been around since the 50s, and then only in countries within the Disney reach, and this is due mainly to all animation studios BUT Disney essentially collapsing due to the bottom falling out of the shorts market. The conception is ENTIRELY FABRICATED, and every single person that decides that they will adhere to and believe this fallacy contributes to an overall cultural problem that stymies and limits animation as a medium.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie. It was okay, I guess.
However, I thought the sexual imagery was superfluous at best; though the violence was graphic, it still used cartoon animation so the horror was diminished (for me as an adult); the language was both childish (eg. frequently calling humans "can-openers") and adult (ie. frequent swearing); the end result of the fight with the primary antagonist at the end was cartoonishly over the top (
seriously, a cat can't do that in one swipe with its claws
); and, in the end, the plot itself is ultimately fairly simple (
a cat resistant to physical injury from lab experiments goes mad and kills the scientist, then endeavors to overcome humanity by creating the ultimate super-breed of cat.
)
It was okay, but it wasn't excellent. Certainly, I wouldn't feel compelled to watch it more than once.
*Rant about animated movies not always targeting children.*
The issue I have is when it is not obvious that a movie is targeted for adults.
I watched Titan A.E. multiple times, and after watching it for the first time my reaction was that, due to certain aspects of it, it wasn't meant for kids; further watchings of it made me feel that certain other aspects were so blatantly childish in nature (eg. during the scene in the room with the planetary hologram one character says "translucent bipedal mesomorphic embryonic male," which is so random and not indicative of anyone or anything in the room, it's nonsensical,) ... were so blatantly childish in nature that it doesn't seem the primary audience was for adults either.
I was talking about it with my wife and she says "so it's not adult enough for you, but not child-friendly either."
edit: I wouldn't say it's rant-worthy that Disney and Warner Bros. are responsible for the perception that certain animation is inherently targeted toward children. I would say it's a reality... a "marketplace reality" if you will that bears the need for a film to overcome when it is so obviously animated in a cartoon style. This film is still childish in various ways, and so only creates a feeling of confusion for me as to whom it is targeting.
Truth be told, The Secret of NIMH, while dark and graphic in a way that targets adults, was still highly effective in delivering its message without resorting to overtly sexual superfluous content. What NIMH is then able to accomplish is the ability to be watched by both children and adults, either of which would get a different experience from it. Felidae is so obviously not child-friendly that the childish parts rather throw me off.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie. It was okay, I guess.
However, I thought the sexual imagery was superfluous at best; though the violence was graphic, it still used cartoon animation so the horror was diminished (for me as an adult); the language was both childish (eg. frequently calling humans "can-openers") and adult (ie. frequent swearing); the end result of the fight with the primary antagonist at the end was cartoonishly over the top (
seriously, a cat can't do that in one swipe with its claws
); and, in the end, the plot itself is ultimately fairly simple (
a cat resistant to physical injury from lab experiments goes mad and kills the scientist, then endeavors to overcome humanity by creating the ultimate super-breed of cat.
)
It was okay, but it wasn't excellent. Certainly, I wouldn't feel compelled to watch it more than once.
You're not talking about childish elements, as much as unrealistic ones. And there are plenty of unrealistic, sometimes childish elements to be found in even live action movies made for adults. You have to remember that the movie was also based on a book, and I'm sure the movie follows some of the author's sensibilities in his writing. As far as cats calling humans can-openers, it's not really meant to be funny, it's more like dry wit, or sarcasm than anything, just like Francis' comments about his owner's lifestyle. Also, I'm surprised the horror of the murders was diminished for you. I mean, they're HORRIBLE. I dunno, perhaps they could have gone live-action, with fake blood and such, but I doubt anyone would have let them get away with that. The sexual imagery was superfluous, but it made sense in the context of the tone and the characterization of cats that the film was trying to achieve. I mean, honestly, there's nothing that says a film has to have a set target audience. The target audience is whoever wants to watch it. Of course the film isn't inherently meant for children, and nitpicking little elements out of it to try to prove it's ambiguous is completely stupid. It's OBVIOUS based on the violence content alone, and childish elements don't detract from that,...although I do think a friend of mine watched it as a kid.
The first Saw is a very good movie, that unfortunately has become a bit dry due to all the sequels, and all the pop culture refernces to it.
Its akin to Final Destination really, that the first film introduces a fascinating concept, and executes it well, but the constant bad sequels, which overuse and rely too heavily on the core mechanics, eventually turn the series into a mockery of its former self.
The first Saw is a psychological thriller. A total of something like three traps are executed over the entire movie, and they are usually only a minute or so. The vast majority of the movie is two people, locked up in a room with no idea how they got there, and one is told he must kill the other or else his wife and child will be killed. It's extremely tense, and (assuming it hasn't been spoiled for you (probably has been)) the twist ending is completely brilliant.
I enjoy the other Saws, but only when the traps aren't completely silly (I'm looking at you, Saw V!).
As for Saw, I think its detractors pan it too harshly and its proponents think too highly of it. It's good, it's solid, but it's not a must-see or some wretched travesty. At least, that was my view on it. It's solid enough for fans of the genre to find enjoyment, not solid enough to vindicate the genre to an audience not predisposed toward it in some way.
The worst things I have to say about this film are that it's visually stunning(to put it lightly), unbelievably atmospheric, masterfully scored, and emotionally moving to the point of invoking tears. These things, while certainly true and make its loss at the Oscars for Best Picture nothing less than highway robbery(side note: I absolutely HATE Toy Story 3), to say those things about it is to ignore the story of the film, what makes it a truly beautiful work worthy of the highest praise. While it stands on its own as a masterpiece of film, while it on its own is worthy of praise and recognition of a far larger audience of moviegoers, the story behind it shows how truly marvelous this film is. Understanding this film requires some knowledge of Jacques Tati. This is his screenplay, and a very personal one at that. Film is often considered a form of expression, a means of communication, and when you realize that this film expresses Chomet's regrets for abandoning his eldest daughter when she was an infant, the whole piece gains a personal, expressive quality, even with the screenplay being produced well after his death, and in a format that he never would have expected(animation, that is). If you know of Jacques Tati, you'll see that the Illusionist IS him. The man animated on screen doesn't have only his physical appearance, but in his mannerisms, in the way he moves and expresses himself.
Do not get me wrong: This film lives on its own. On it's own, it's merely a masterpiece of film. Along with the context, along with the heart and soul of Tati, transplanted into animation in such a way as to appear seamless and effortless by Chomet's own brilliance in the field of animation? It's a great deal more than even that.
I want to see that movie (I mean, after suggesting "Triplets de Belleville", who would have thought that?), but my ordering options in Germany are quite grim at the moment. DVD from UK is not cheap - also, I am at least pondering buying a Blu Ray player and ordering the Blu Ray from France. After all, it's not that much is spoken in these two movies.
I regretted my decision in watching this movie. Not because it's bad, because it's really a beautiful film, but it's a total downer, and I wanted something happy.
Gonna watch the crazy detective cat film some time this week. I reckon after hearing so muich about it's brutality it'll take the edge off it as i'll go in expecting THE worst.
Anyone know if the dub is any good or should I go for subs?
Felidae is nothing to get excited about, It's a great movie but no more gory than Watership Down.
In fact after reading so much about it on this thread I was expecting it to be pretty grim but it's not.
the adventures of Milo and Otis is way more traumatic, trust me.
Well i'm not there for the gore persay, I just like the idea of this quirky idea and this style coming together. It sounds like something worth my time, even if it turns out to be a bit shit
Plague Dogs
Player, The
Arsenic & Old Lace
Court Jester, The
Home for the Holidays
Here's my must see movies (not including ones already posted)
Accused, The
American Psycho
Bad Boy Bubby
Charlottes Web
Dangerous Liaisons
Dead Poets Sciety (Extended Cut)
District 9
Entity, The
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Green Mile
Highlander
Human Traffic
Leaving Las Vegas
Stoning of Soraya M
To Kill a Mocking Bird
Trainspotting
World According to Garp
Wrestler, The
I regretted my decision in watching this movie. Not because it's bad, because it's really a beautiful film, but it's a total downer, and I wanted something happy.
I simply cannot understand this. It's not a sad movie. The word I'd prefer to use, personally, is "somber". It's not an inherently happy film, as its cast is made up of Vaudeville performers after their craft has fallen out of favor, men out of their time trying to maintain a quiet dignity doing what they love even as they play to emptier theaters and live in seedy apartments that time forgot. But through this very real, very grounded setting, we find true human sweetness. I simply can't see this film as at all depressing. It has a quiet, somber ambiance in a dilapidated, dirty setting, but that's only the backdrop for a truly sweet story of human kindness, love, and a group of performers maintaining a quiet dignity well after their art has been forgotten. It's beautiful, and I felt a realm, warm sort of happiness after watching it, as the whole product was simply touching in a very genuine way.
I simply cannot understand this. It's not a sad movie. The word I'd prefer to use, personally, is "somber". It's not an inherently happy film, as its cast is made up of Vaudeville performers after their craft has fallen out of favor, men out of their time trying to maintain a quiet dignity doing what they love even as they play to emptier theaters and live in seedy apartments that time forgot. But through this very real, very grounded setting, we find true human sweetness. I simply can't see this film as at all depressing. It has a quiet, somber ambiance in a dilapidated, dirty setting, but that's only the backdrop for a truly sweet story of human kindness, love, and a group of performers maintaining a quiet dignity well after their art has been forgotten. It's beautiful, and I felt a realm, warm sort of happiness after watching it, as the whole product was simply touching in a very genuine way.
I dunno. In the end it felt like the magician wanted to take care of the girl, but couldn't afford it anymore, while the girl herself had nothing but good intentions, but expected too much from him. When the magician left, it seems that the magician felt that he had let her down, and was a bit guilty (Well, that's the way I see it anyway.) Also, it kinda seems sad to me that the two's friendship ended quite abruptly.
I agree with everything you said, and yes, that's the beauty of the film, but in the end, I kinda felt sad on how things turned out.
I'm not too much into 50's movies, but here I am suggesting as a second 50s movie:
It is a movie that's obviously too long for the content, but it has some hilarious scenes. I watched it with a friend and, well, it was one of only two movies where I had trouble keeping her breathing because she had to laugh so much.
Comments
However, I thought the sexual imagery was superfluous at best; though the violence was graphic, it still used cartoon animation so the horror was diminished (for me as an adult); the language was both childish (eg. frequently calling humans "can-openers") and adult (ie. frequent swearing); the end result of the fight with the primary antagonist at the end was cartoonishly over the top (
It was okay, but it wasn't excellent. Certainly, I wouldn't feel compelled to watch it more than once.
The issue I have is when it is not obvious that a movie is targeted for adults.
I watched Titan A.E. multiple times, and after watching it for the first time my reaction was that, due to certain aspects of it, it wasn't meant for kids; further watchings of it made me feel that certain other aspects were so blatantly childish in nature (eg. during the scene in the room with the planetary hologram one character says "translucent bipedal mesomorphic embryonic male," which is so random and not indicative of anyone or anything in the room, it's nonsensical,) ... were so blatantly childish in nature that it doesn't seem the primary audience was for adults either.
I was talking about it with my wife and she says "so it's not adult enough for you, but not child-friendly either."
edit: I wouldn't say it's rant-worthy that Disney and Warner Bros. are responsible for the perception that certain animation is inherently targeted toward children. I would say it's a reality... a "marketplace reality" if you will
Truth be told, The Secret of NIMH, while dark and graphic in a way that targets adults, was still highly effective in delivering its message without resorting to overtly sexual superfluous content. What NIMH is then able to accomplish is the ability to be watched by both children and adults, either of which would get a different experience from it. Felidae is so obviously not child-friendly that the childish parts rather throw me off.
You're not talking about childish elements, as much as unrealistic ones. And there are plenty of unrealistic, sometimes childish elements to be found in even live action movies made for adults. You have to remember that the movie was also based on a book, and I'm sure the movie follows some of the author's sensibilities in his writing. As far as cats calling humans can-openers, it's not really meant to be funny, it's more like dry wit, or sarcasm than anything, just like Francis' comments about his owner's lifestyle. Also, I'm surprised the horror of the murders was diminished for you. I mean, they're HORRIBLE. I dunno, perhaps they could have gone live-action, with fake blood and such, but I doubt anyone would have let them get away with that. The sexual imagery was superfluous, but it made sense in the context of the tone and the characterization of cats that the film was trying to achieve. I mean, honestly, there's nothing that says a film has to have a set target audience. The target audience is whoever wants to watch it. Of course the film isn't inherently meant for children, and nitpicking little elements out of it to try to prove it's ambiguous is completely stupid. It's OBVIOUS based on the violence content alone, and childish elements don't detract from that,...although I do think a friend of mine watched it as a kid.
Why? Just to come to the conclusion that I'll never watch it again?
The first Saw is a very good movie, that unfortunately has become a bit dry due to all the sequels, and all the pop culture refernces to it.
Its akin to Final Destination really, that the first film introduces a fascinating concept, and executes it well, but the constant bad sequels, which overuse and rely too heavily on the core mechanics, eventually turn the series into a mockery of its former self.
The first Saw is a psychological thriller. A total of something like three traps are executed over the entire movie, and they are usually only a minute or so. The vast majority of the movie is two people, locked up in a room with no idea how they got there, and one is told he must kill the other or else his wife and child will be killed. It's extremely tense, and (assuming it hasn't been spoiled for you (probably has been)) the twist ending is completely brilliant.
I enjoy the other Saws, but only when the traps aren't completely silly (I'm looking at you, Saw V!).
Now, back to my own recommendations:
The Illusionist(2010) - Trailer
The worst things I have to say about this film are that it's visually stunning(to put it lightly), unbelievably atmospheric, masterfully scored, and emotionally moving to the point of invoking tears. These things, while certainly true and make its loss at the Oscars for Best Picture nothing less than highway robbery(side note: I absolutely HATE Toy Story 3), to say those things about it is to ignore the story of the film, what makes it a truly beautiful work worthy of the highest praise. While it stands on its own as a masterpiece of film, while it on its own is worthy of praise and recognition of a far larger audience of moviegoers, the story behind it shows how truly marvelous this film is. Understanding this film requires some knowledge of Jacques Tati. This is his screenplay, and a very personal one at that. Film is often considered a form of expression, a means of communication, and when you realize that this film expresses Chomet's regrets for abandoning his eldest daughter when she was an infant, the whole piece gains a personal, expressive quality, even with the screenplay being produced well after his death, and in a format that he never would have expected(animation, that is). If you know of Jacques Tati, you'll see that the Illusionist IS him. The man animated on screen doesn't have only his physical appearance, but in his mannerisms, in the way he moves and expresses himself.
Do not get me wrong: This film lives on its own. On it's own, it's merely a masterpiece of film. Along with the context, along with the heart and soul of Tati, transplanted into animation in such a way as to appear seamless and effortless by Chomet's own brilliance in the field of animation? It's a great deal more than even that.
I regretted my decision in watching this movie. Not because it's bad, because it's really a beautiful film, but it's a total downer, and I wanted something happy.
Mary and Max. Saddest film I've ever seen. Beautiful too.
Anyone know if the dub is any good or should I go for subs?
In fact after reading so much about it on this thread I was expecting it to be pretty grim but it's not.
the adventures of Milo and Otis is way more traumatic, trust me.
EDIT: The dub is excellent!
Well i'm not there for the gore persay, I just like the idea of this quirky idea and this style coming together. It sounds like something worth my time, even if it turns out to be a bit shit
Great movie!
I'm actually really looking forward to seeing this
Plague Dogs
Player, The
Arsenic & Old Lace
Court Jester, The
Home for the Holidays
Here's my must see movies (not including ones already posted)
Accused, The
American Psycho
Bad Boy Bubby
Charlottes Web
Dangerous Liaisons
Dead Poets Sciety (Extended Cut)
District 9
Entity, The
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Green Mile
Highlander
Human Traffic
Leaving Las Vegas
Stoning of Soraya M
To Kill a Mocking Bird
Trainspotting
World According to Garp
Wrestler, The
Not Movies but well worth seeing
House of Cards
Edge of Darkness
I dunno. In the end it felt like the magician wanted to take care of the girl, but couldn't afford it anymore, while the girl herself had nothing but good intentions, but expected too much from him. When the magician left, it seems that the magician felt that he had let her down, and was a bit guilty (Well, that's the way I see it anyway.) Also, it kinda seems sad to me that the two's friendship ended quite abruptly.
I agree with everything you said, and yes, that's the beauty of the film, but in the end, I kinda felt sad on how things turned out.
Will do squire.
It is a movie that's obviously too long for the content, but it has some hilarious scenes. I watched it with a friend and, well, it was one of only two movies where I had trouble keeping her breathing because she had to laugh so much.
1965, duder. Might have to see this, though. I loved Blazing Saddles and Way Out West (two more for this thread).
Absolutely fantastic movie but dear god was it brutal.