Twelve (Schumacher, 2010)
Many would say that Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst films ever recorded: Batman and Robin. I have not seen this travesty, so aside from the film's reputation I have little else to form any sort of valid opinion. Similarly, I have incredibly limited exposure to Schumacher's filmography, so when I saw this film about two weeks ago all I took into Twelve dealt with the reputation that the film had built up since its premiere at Sundance. The film was ridiculed by the collective press so horribly at the event that Schumacher had all future screenings canceled and did not conduct any interviews at the festival after the film finished screening. So is the film as hollow and pretentious as the individuals on display in this world or is Schumacher's latest film an unfortunate victim of critical group think that, like the residents of this upper New York society, is simply cornered by expectation?
In many ways Jonze does deliver a film that is so much more than a simple film made for family friendly audiences, we have a movie that is essentially a trip into the psyche of a vulnerable child as he apparently attempts to come to terms with all of the turmoil in his life. Jonze does, for better and worse, capture the idea of childhood with this film, in each and every regard. Unfortunately, that freedom also shines through in the narrative, or in many cases the lack thereof. The majority of the film when we spend time where the wild things are, the viewer is given only minor references to what portion of Max these creatures are supposed to represent or what the point of him being here is, other than to make things looks pretty for the viewer. But the film is a character study, we don't really need a plot, right? Right. Sadly, the character we are studying is developing constantly, but he is doing it through six or seven lesser portions that simply do not stand alone as compelling enough characters to warrant all the conflict and emotion that Jonze forces on the viewer. In many ways this film is like Antichrist, you know the symbolism is going on because the film pushes the viewer in that direction, but in neither film are we given enough to completely let these symbols exist naturally in the film, but with Antichrist the entire film is overtly allegorical, where as this film is all over the place because we need to believe the reality of the reality as well as the reality of the fantasy in this world. Perhaps I am over-analyzing the film, but I cannot help but I do feel safe in asserting that the film is more rewarding to contemplate afterward than it is to watch during. But that contemplation is the mark of a great film, I am so torn.
You know what else is the mark of a great film? Technical prowess. Jonze has this prowess in spades. Everything about the film up to the point where Max first encounters the wild things is absolutely brilliant. Not only are all of the actors near flawless, a trait that does carry throughout the entire film, but the camera is used so intimately that the intended emotion of each scene practically oozes from the screen. Pair that with the wonderful use soundtrack, the fantastic editing, and the intense art direction and we could have one fantastic film. Actually, all of those things mostly do run throughout the entire film. Why do I not love this film more? Anyhow, Jonze miraculously loses all of this emotion as the film continues, only capturing flashes of the initial greatness about ever 15 minutes or so. Thankfully the film is God damned beautiful, so despite the narrative and character development not being too engaging during the run the visuals are more than enough to keep the film afloat.
But I think things need to stay more than just afloat, in such a personal yet apparently universal film each and every viewer needs to be able to both sympathize and judge Max all at once. Perhaps that is what is missing in the middle. Early on, when we are still in the real world, everything Max does and each different scene not only reveals more and more about his character, though hardly in overt manners, while conveying different emotions. So much so that I imagine each and every viewer can, to some extent or another, connect with at least one of the things that Max experiences. Rebellion, isolation, joy, freedom, imagination, everything. Jonze displays it all, and he does it wonderfully. Hell, the film nearly had me in tears, which would have easily been a record, about fifteen minutes in when Max is lying on the ground under his mother's desk and she stresses out over work. I spent most of my adolescence in a single parent household and I completely connected with what Jonze had on display, but as a viewer I was also able to see the tragic beauty. And then we get the gut-wrenching scene where Max's mother has her boyfriend over. The way events transpire, it's devastatingly brilliant. But then that emotion disappears and we are given a pretty film to look at for a while.
Much like a child telling a story, the narrative offers basic symbols and moments of genius, but it just does not give enough during the film to truly showcase its brilliance. Yet after the credits rolled it's all mostly there, it just takes looking closer at the subtext. It's so confusing. I really do not know where I stand on the film, whether I love it, dislike it, respect it, admire it, adore it. I do not know. I honestly considered giving the film two ratings, but I can't do that, mostly because scores are meaningless. I'm certain this is not one of my favorite films of the year, yet aside from my top two or three there are no other films I have seen this year that I am more eager to revisit. I'll have to see if I can find someone to go with in the near future and hopefully get a fresh interpretation, maybe that will help me figure things out more. Let's just say it's pretty good, and pretty bad, and pretty fantastic.
Thankfully, the film remains compelling because of how well established all of the characters are. Sure they are not incredibly deep and the viewer mostly knows what the film has in store, I mean a cat named Lucifer is not going to end up being a good guy, but each character is given personality and the emotional investment is built from there. I was so relieved that the characters were not given the same lifeless models that Snow White assaulted us with that I really cannot help but triumph the film from a story telling stand point. Cinderella is shown as compassionate and this quality is reinforced throughout the entire film, just as her step mother is shown as evil and the film keeps coming back to her to remind the viewer that she poses an immediate threat. It's everything that was missing from the flat princess film Snow White. Paired with the very lean run time (71 minutes), Cinderella never overstays its welcome.
The action scenes are all mostly well paced as well. Sure the introduction and the bead stealing sequence get a little too comedic for my tastes, but on the whole the film really blends humor in excellently with the narrative, and the mice are still pretty charming despite my best attempts not to be won over by their dribbling moronic talk. Lucifer is a pretty imposing cat as well, and having him serve as an extension of the step mother is pretty great. The one scene that really worked for me was the final slipper sequence. The elongated nature of the scene makes it suspenseful right up to the very end, thanks in large part to all the obstacles placed in front of the mice. The one thing that bothered me though is that none of the stuff in the second flight of stairs should have happened at all. The step mother never locked Lucifer in there, someone would have noticed the dog running up the steps and breaking down a door, it just doesn't add up and seems really cheap to me.
Still, I enjoyed my time with Cinderella despite the film lacking any sort of logic for me to follow. The animation of the people is pretty impressive, and the animals all look great, plus the film is both enjoyable and complex enough to work for audiences of all ages. The real strength, as I touched on earlier, is the use of character establishment and following up with what the film presents. None of the characters are underdeveloped 'archetypes,' which I still think is a poor excuse for lazy writing, yet none go through any sort of dynamic noticeable change. It's all pretty impressive. I wish I had more time for this review, but my eyes are hurting for some reason. Must be the damn computer screen mixed with my allergies.
Currently in the marathon the rankings go as...
In actuality, Hotel for Dogs is pretty standard stuff at its heart, but the film puts on enough of a show to keep things both fresh and interesting enough to sustain its abnormally lengthy run time of almost two hours. Things start off interestingly enough as the viewer is greeted by a constructed plastic town full of whimsy and the 1950's American Spirit, or something of the sort, before introducing us to Friday as he prowls the streets of some pseudo-city area for some food. Shortly after we are introduced to both Andi and Bruce, Friday's owners and the film's protagonists. Marking these opening sequences is some pretty nice direction, mixing in a few pretty neat shots and sequences, but ultimately nothing of huge interest. All of these things set up nicely for the film as a whole because on the whole the film proves to be a mostly mixed bag of entertainment in spite of the standard technical pieces.
Of course there is one major exception to this, and that is in the design and integration of the devices used inside of the Hotel. Most of the inventions that the film has Bruce come up with are really fun bits of whimsy inserted into the film to give it a nice atmosphere without being too over the top or unrealistic. Sure there is a suspension of belief needed to buy into all of the things that are happening on screen, but the film asks the viewer to do this from the beginning and, for the most part, earns this suspension while still keeping things contained in this world through the whole thing instead of breaking it when it could be convenient for the narrative.
Of course this is not the film's only triumph. While the narrative as a whole is pretty predictable, and when the film takes advantages of connecting plot to larger themes things become pretty obvious, the construction is mostly admirable and the film rarely wastes any time or has any points that feel like stalls in the narrative process. Also the integration of the 'we are orphans and the dogs are like us' metaphor is nice considering that the film is geared toward a younger audience, not to mention that it, mostly, avoids being overly direct or dumbed down to the point where it insults older viewers. There is an extended monologue at the end where things start to get a bit preachy, but it mostly works in context of the film despite almost serving as a literal soapbox. Unfortunately the film does not really integrate humor as well as it could, especially considering that Jake T. Austin has already shown an ability to be incredibly funny when given the correct material. Sure the film has Troy Gentile turn in a strikingly funny performance as Mark, but on the whole the film could have been a good deal funnier than the final product would imply.
Speaking of Jake T. Austin, I was really looking forward to seeing how he would do in a full length film after watching him develop from a slightly tolerable throw away character to one of the most interesting cast members in Disney's Wizards of Waverly Place series, but I was very disappointed with his part in the film. He always felt like he was trying a bit too hard to be the reserved, sheltered, and conflicted younger brother type. He has a few flashes that are really promising, but the role does not offer much and Austin, sadly, does not do much to make it how own, but he is still growing and he shows promise as an actor. Of course it does not help that he is constantly alongside Emma Roberts. I had jokingly said that, after seeing her in Lymelife, that she has potential to top both my Lead and Supporting Actress lists for the year so far, but little did I know that it would turn out to be almost true. In a sea of near mediocrity, Roberts turns in a marvelous performance that must cement her as the most interesting young actress currently working. The range she shows is impressive, but the believability and personality she brings to the Andi character is endearing and inspired. Most of the supporting cast is really good, but Roberts is clearly the standout star and, while I would really need to think of other actresses to know where she falls in my rankings, she certainly is pretty damn impressive here.
All in all Hotel for Dogs, despite being nothing revolutionary, possesses enough charm, and more than enough dogs, to have kept me both entertained and enjoying my time with the film. Sure, I tend to give most films that involve canines a pass, but here the film is well constructed enough to really succeed and sustain itself without feeling overly cheesy or ever mind numbingly stupid. Highlighted by Emma Roberts' second incredible performance of the year, Hotel for Dogs is a nice bit of escapist cinema with enough earned emotional pull to lift it from decent to good territory. It's a film I would not mind watching again some time in the future and really had my surprised with how much I had eventually enjoyed the film. The film also has a pretty funny Reservoir Dogs homage in it too, which is pictured above.
The animation, despite appearing fairly mundane on the surface, is absolutely stunning when in motion and the way that Miyazaki handles the water and the aquatic life in the film is nearly unrivaled in terms of technical quality. Top to bottom the film is mostly gorgeous, though I was never too much on the animation of Sosuke, but the way Ponyo is handled makes up for that complaint. Not surprisingly, when the world becomes surreal everything is turned up a notch and the film transforms into something beautiful. Combined with all the details that are put in the world the film certainly succeeds an animated picture in many ways that American films have simply lost over the years as CGI became common place.
I must now take time to pause from my gushing and begin wrapping things up with the complaints I have about the film. For a film that deals with such a cataclysmic event, I shall not spoil what said event is, the film lacks a distinct sense of dread. Perhaps the reason for this is to better highlight the relationship between Ponyo and Sosuke, but if that is the case then there had to be a better way of getting the two of them to the script's end without tossing in some underdeveloped conflict that really ups the films stakes incredibly. 
Still, my time with Ponyo was incredibly enjoyable and I would call it my third favorite Miyazaki film behind Totoro at the two spot and Porco Rosso on top. Actually, I was not incredibly surprised to find out after watching that others had made the same connection that I did: the film feels a lot like My Neighbor Totoro. While I could go into a few of the major similarities between the films, I feel that I have done a good job keeping this review just about spoiler free and drawing specific comparisons would begin to give away too many plot elements. Probably best to just wrap things up. 
Oddly, after spending some time with the film, and taking a day or so to reflect on what exactly I had just watched, I found that my expectation, that I would be able to confidently say that Ichabod makes for the better segment, is mostly wrong. So that brings me to The Wind and the Willows. Starting off like a simple story, which splendid narration to boot, once the introductions are finished and we get straight into the characters actually being characters the film picks up considerably. The animation is really nice and a number of the shots are absolutely brilliant, but the strength comes in the voice acting. Comedy hits just about every time it is used and the performances from each actor make for some really entertaining dialogue.
Jumping from fun, or as fun as a bunch of weasels getting drunk can be, to the more macabre, we hop across the pond for a bit of American fiction. Much like The Wind in the Willows, the narration here is pretty fantastic and, I would contest, is what saves the film from being pretty bad on numerous occasions. The character animation, aside from Crane, is pretty standard, and the scenes leading up to the party are all downright ugly, it's like Disney forgot how to draw. The music is good throughout, but that's mostly Crosby's doing as it really never really separates from the story telling quality into the film story that The Wind in the Willows employs, and the story is a personal favorite so I cannot complain there, but I would have liked it more if the film had actually broken the narrative aspect and simply introduced the characters and started developing them a bit, like the characters in the Mr. Toad tale.
However, what came as a surprise to me was the fact that Melody Time is not only worlds above Fantasia, but it is considerably better than any of the package films of the same type to precede it, excluding Song of the South obvious, even the incredibly surprising Make Mine Music. The common complaint against Make Mine Music was the presence of at least three subpar sketches as well as animation that simply was left over from Fantasia. Now I have contested that in my marathon post about that film, but what I found incredibly striking about Melody Time is that is seems to be a direct response to both Fantasia and Make Mine Music. None of the segments here are anything worse than pretty good, the animation, especially of water, is incredible, and it even has segments succeed that lean more toward the instrumental side of things. My praise of Make Mine Music as being everything that Fantasia should be may have been a bit hasty as I am now fully able to proclaim Melody Time as the best representative of what Walt Disney was attempting to capture during this time in his career. Sure it sacrifices a majority of what made Make Mine Music so diabolical, but who gives a damn? It succeeds at just about everything and makes for a compelling and fun watch.
