Adam Sandler / Madagascar
May. 29th, 2005 09:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gategrrlI was reading this review of The Longest Yard http://www.filmfodder.com/movies/reviews/the_longest_yard/20050527.htm when I thought back to another Adam Sandler movie I saw at a friend's house.
I don't like Sandler, I'm not sure why. The movie I watched was "Fifty First Dates" along with Karendreamer and my two kids. I admit I was pleasantly surprised by that movie -- it's all sweetness and about how far one goes in keeping a loved one happy after they've suffered a horrendous accident. The situation is played for laughs, yes, but not demeaning laughs, and Sandler's character is *sincere* in his motivations and he's able to carry that sincerity off successfully. The one problem I had with the movie was the surprising insertion of a swear word here and there, but it was a minor thing in the end. It's now making me curious about other Sandler films. I know he delights in sailor-talk (and anyone who knows me, knows my mouth, too) and crudity -- and I guess that's something I'm not thrilled with onscreen.
Not sure what my point was here. But if The Longest Yard has any of the genetic "niceness" of Fifty First Dates, I might give it a try, even if on DVD. I've never seen the original version, though, so I might have to bite the bullet with that too -- I HATE football/sports movies, usually.
***********
Took the kids to see Madagascar yesterday. Uh. What to say. The main character voices are Chris Rock as a zebra who wants to live in the Wild, Jada Pinkett Smith as a hippo, and Ben Stiller as a lion who's the zebra's Best Friend. Oh, and David Schwimmer as a hypchondriac giraffe. http://www.madagascar-themovie.com/
This is not Dreamworks' first foray into digital animation ("Shrek," "Shark Tale," "Antz"), and it's a disappointment. Oh, it's FUN, and it makes many references to other movies/television shows -- the original Planet of the Apes, Twilight Zone (To serve man episode) and plenty of others. There's very little texturing going on in the background. As bright as it is, there's little detail beyond what you see, and nothing deeper to look at beyond the antics of the featured performers' characters. The characters themselves aren't woven into a solid storyline that uses all the introduced characters to their fullest. For instance, there are a couple of Penn and Teller type chimps that go along for the ride, but they're only there for an occasional one-liner here and there. Throwing "poo" seems to be their thing.
It took at least twenty minutes into the film for it to Get Going into the actual story. Much to much time with the set-up in New York. I'd rather have seen some the story start with the animals ON the ship going to Africa, and THEN find out what happened. The giraffe and the hippo characters were second and third wheels in a "mostly buddy" movie between the lion and zebra. Rock's voice work was...annoying, and unnuanced. He rarely left his one speed of speech. Stiller was a little better, but then, his character, the Lion, actually had more to lose, and he's who the story was more about.
Another digital animated movie that came out recently, ROBOTS, was also thin in the story. But, at least Robots had a lot of to look at if you got bored by the rote story being performed by the main characters, and an interesting world to parse out, much in the manner of Monsters Inc.
Disney's let go all of their 2-D cel animators in the past year or so, hoping that the new form of animation will bring more money into their coffers without having to pay for all those inbetweeners, key animation artists, etc...while falsey thinking that the reason Pixar does so well is because of the medium, not the story-telling. I think anyone could tell Disney, and Dreamworks, it is NOT the form of the animation, it is the amount of thought behind the story, and the story structure, and the likability of the characters that are animated that has a LOT to do with Pixar's amazing success story.
Many of Pixar's movies have depended on the "Buddy Dynamic", which began with Toy Story and moved on from there. It's not something that Disney is good at. Dreamworks has a notion of what makes a good Buddy Movie, but their conception falls by the wayside time and again. They make nice *small* movies, but rarely have gone beyond that.
Beyond this, I'm wondering how Pixar's next film turns out. It's about animated cars, called "Cars". I hope it doesn't turn into something akin to "The Brave Little Toaster", which was a wretched story about a toaster devoted to his little boy (!!!), who gets his buddies, a vacuum cleaner, a flashlight, and others, to help him out.
I don't like Sandler, I'm not sure why. The movie I watched was "Fifty First Dates" along with Karendreamer and my two kids. I admit I was pleasantly surprised by that movie -- it's all sweetness and about how far one goes in keeping a loved one happy after they've suffered a horrendous accident. The situation is played for laughs, yes, but not demeaning laughs, and Sandler's character is *sincere* in his motivations and he's able to carry that sincerity off successfully. The one problem I had with the movie was the surprising insertion of a swear word here and there, but it was a minor thing in the end. It's now making me curious about other Sandler films. I know he delights in sailor-talk (and anyone who knows me, knows my mouth, too) and crudity -- and I guess that's something I'm not thrilled with onscreen.
Not sure what my point was here. But if The Longest Yard has any of the genetic "niceness" of Fifty First Dates, I might give it a try, even if on DVD. I've never seen the original version, though, so I might have to bite the bullet with that too -- I HATE football/sports movies, usually.
***********
Took the kids to see Madagascar yesterday. Uh. What to say. The main character voices are Chris Rock as a zebra who wants to live in the Wild, Jada Pinkett Smith as a hippo, and Ben Stiller as a lion who's the zebra's Best Friend. Oh, and David Schwimmer as a hypchondriac giraffe. http://www.madagascar-themovie.com/
This is not Dreamworks' first foray into digital animation ("Shrek," "Shark Tale," "Antz"), and it's a disappointment. Oh, it's FUN, and it makes many references to other movies/television shows -- the original Planet of the Apes, Twilight Zone (To serve man episode) and plenty of others. There's very little texturing going on in the background. As bright as it is, there's little detail beyond what you see, and nothing deeper to look at beyond the antics of the featured performers' characters. The characters themselves aren't woven into a solid storyline that uses all the introduced characters to their fullest. For instance, there are a couple of Penn and Teller type chimps that go along for the ride, but they're only there for an occasional one-liner here and there. Throwing "poo" seems to be their thing.
It took at least twenty minutes into the film for it to Get Going into the actual story. Much to much time with the set-up in New York. I'd rather have seen some the story start with the animals ON the ship going to Africa, and THEN find out what happened. The giraffe and the hippo characters were second and third wheels in a "mostly buddy" movie between the lion and zebra. Rock's voice work was...annoying, and unnuanced. He rarely left his one speed of speech. Stiller was a little better, but then, his character, the Lion, actually had more to lose, and he's who the story was more about.
Another digital animated movie that came out recently, ROBOTS, was also thin in the story. But, at least Robots had a lot of to look at if you got bored by the rote story being performed by the main characters, and an interesting world to parse out, much in the manner of Monsters Inc.
Disney's let go all of their 2-D cel animators in the past year or so, hoping that the new form of animation will bring more money into their coffers without having to pay for all those inbetweeners, key animation artists, etc...while falsey thinking that the reason Pixar does so well is because of the medium, not the story-telling. I think anyone could tell Disney, and Dreamworks, it is NOT the form of the animation, it is the amount of thought behind the story, and the story structure, and the likability of the characters that are animated that has a LOT to do with Pixar's amazing success story.
Many of Pixar's movies have depended on the "Buddy Dynamic", which began with Toy Story and moved on from there. It's not something that Disney is good at. Dreamworks has a notion of what makes a good Buddy Movie, but their conception falls by the wayside time and again. They make nice *small* movies, but rarely have gone beyond that.
Beyond this, I'm wondering how Pixar's next film turns out. It's about animated cars, called "Cars". I hope it doesn't turn into something akin to "The Brave Little Toaster", which was a wretched story about a toaster devoted to his little boy (!!!), who gets his buddies, a vacuum cleaner, a flashlight, and others, to help him out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 10:36 pm (UTC)The only Pixar film I've been so-so about is Finding Nemo, if only because they fell for the old cliche of "one parent must die" etc, and I found it to be less inspired than some of their other films. BUT even so, Nemo has some wonderful characterizations (whale talk anyone?) and a character that actually *broke out* during the movie, if you know what I mean. I mean, while you *watch* an animated movie, how many times do you see a character jump out off the screen and steal the scene, everytime? That was Dory.
:-D Bugs Bunny and Warner Brothers...now, that was a height of animation seldom reached. I have a friend who works as a traditional animator (he's done work on the Simpsons, for instance) who's educated himself to a Master's level about Warner Brothers. I keep telling him he should write a book on it, but I guess he feels he has nothing new to add as a historian.
:-(
no subject
Date: 2005-05-29 11:25 pm (UTC)i'm a big fan of bugs and company. i hope you can convince your friend to write a book, because a major work about the artistry would be welcomed in my house. *g*