Emperor's New Groove

Decided to rewatch this one recently, and it's still one of my favourite Disney films, and surprisingly so, because I don't usually like that form of humour.
It's also the only film I know of that I actually think has a better name in Norwegian than English; Et kongerike for en Llama, A Kingdom for a Llama, which is much more descriptive and suitable for the film.

A Kingdom for a Llama is one of those films I go back to and rewatch every time I'm sick of pretentious animation trying to be more than its plot/humour opens for. Kingdom is nothing like this. It's a purely silly and funny film, and it's fully aware of both its humour type and its target audience, which makes it able to pull off humour, plot, character development and touching moments without jarring from the overall feel.

More than any other Disney film, Kingdom is carried by its actors, and would probably not have a place among my favourites without David Spade. He's funny, arrogant, and pulls off Kuzco to perfection. His comic timing is also totally on point, and works really well together with John Goodman (Pacha). Warburton is also great as Kronk, though rather type-cast.

Some of the physical gags don't work that well on repeated viewings, especially after having seen the Disney channel series, where the "wrong lever, Kronk!" and "I didn't order any [soft or bouncy objects]" gags are rehashed every episode. But, the film is still funny, Kuzco is still a really interesting character, and the plot is well-written (I love the whole "we're totally aware of this big plot hole and we're going to comment on it instead of ignoring it" when Kronk and Yzma reach the lab before Pacha and Kuzco).

It's interesting to watch how they manage to develop lovable, deep characters in a gag comedy like this, and it's also a very good example of good script writing, both plot and lines, within a physical-based humour film.

And my favourite line is still, after at least 4 viewings; "Yay, I'm a Llama again! Wait.."

Plan 9 from Outer Space

I've finally sat down and watched this, one of the most known bad films ever made, by one of the worst script writers ever.

And, wow, what can I say? Why do all the actors deliver their lines without any hint of feelings? How come nobody seem noticeably shaken up by small, flying hats tumbling across the sky?
Why do the really advanced aliens have no way of communicating with the humans, and when the humans finally build a way to understand the aliens, the aliens don't want to talk any longer, and then they happen to have a translator in their spaceship?
Why do Eros and Tanna have to kill the humans so that they won't tell the world, when the aliens had been trying to get the humans to acknowledge their existence?
Disregarding the stupid physics, why would humans make a bomb that would ruin the earth?
Why don't the aliens just animate all the dead on the graveyard(s?) instead of just one and one?
What happened to the scars from the "puma-like" attacks Vampira were supposed to inflict on her victims (and why are her arms/hands bigger than her waist?)? What happened to the grave diggers? Why are the animated dead vampires? Why do the people in the film have such horrid night vision that they can only see a few inches in front of them?
Why doesn't time pass for people not in shot (police men talking about looking for the inspector, we see the inspector attacked, then the police decide to go look for him)?
Not mentioning the changes in night and day shots, why is the Trent couples' car in front of a black wall? Why did the dead turn into skeletons when the space ship went away? "Dracula" only turned into a skeleton after being shot with a ray.
Why do I even bother to ask questions about this film?

Watching it you just end up being amazed that nobody spoke up about the horribleness of the film. I have a hard time believing so many actors can play that badly. The film is so horrible that it ends up seeming like a parody of bad sci-fi films, and several of the lines would have worked if they were uttered sarcastically (or with a pretense of feelings).
My favourite character has to be "Patrolman Harry" who's been cast as the "dumb cop" and plays so unconvincingly that he seems to be making fun of his lieutenant.
If nothing else the film serves as a "how to not write or direct a film" and seem to have been used as a blueprint for several newer films, most prominently the norwegian/french "Lies. Inc".

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Hmm, I'm not sure how to feel about this film. I've been complaining lately that so many animation films try to target too many audience groups and end up not targeting any, but this film is clearly aware of who it's made for; children.
The humour is mostly physical-, sight- and word gags, that work surprisingly well within this film, and is suited for the bright and colourful design.
The film's lowest moments are actually when the script writers are trying to be smart or do grown-up comedy. Most of the films emotional moments are driven by childish comedy, and it works.

Plot-wise it's very simple, adding a black-and-white villain for really no purpose at all, and the film is really driven more by the animation and gags rather than any real plot. In that way it's very similar to "Meet the Robinson's", Disney's second non-Pixar 3d film.
The film wavers between just being a funny, silly film, and actually trying to take it's plot seriously, and that is it's downfall, especially since most of the actors seem clearly aware that this is a silly, children's film, and do their lines in that style. Neil Patrick Harris is the real shining gem here, even if he only says a few words throughout the film.

As a children's film the moral is also very obvious and in your face, with the usual "being special is good" and "realizing yourself" developments for the main characters. It also includes the overly-used Disney favourite of single dad not being able to communicate with his son and alienating him. I'll give them props for the creative solution though.

As it is it's a good film, but it had potential to be just a really silly, amusing children's film, and it's a bit sad that it fell short by, as all recent (non-Pixar) animations have done, trying to take itself more seriously than its script allows. You're not Pixar, Sony, try to make your own twist on animation instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to copy what has come before. But, based on Sony's previous track record with animation, this is a huge step up (Don't even get me started on "Open season"..), and I'm interested in seeing where they'll go from here.

And now I'll try to wash my brain of the image of feet trapped inside polymer for over 15 years.. Bleergh!

Oscar nominated animation

Have finally finished watching the Oscar nominated animation shorts.
Interesting combination of animation styles and subjects, not sure what I think about Logorama, the winner. It has too crude humour for me, and I spent the film wishing the Big Boy (?) kid would just die. At least I understood the usage of the logos, as opposed to the previous imdb featured comment, which accused the film of being a marketing vehicle trying to shove as much commercials as it could in 16 minutes..

Of the 5 nominated I personally prefer the Italian "The lady and the reaper", even though it has too much "Benny Hill running around" and the ending was really sad. I seem to prefer animation that tries to convey an emotion, and takes its subject matter seriously, even if it's in a comedy form.

Granny O'Grimm's sleeping beauty is well animated and well voiced, but I wish it had been longer and a bit more complex.

French Roast is a situational comedy, which I actually think should have been shorter, and Wallace and Gromit's "short" (at 30 minutes it's way longer than all the other nominees) follows the standard "Wallace and Gromit" set up. I did like the introduction of some real feelings with Gromit and Fluffles and I think it has improved greatly from the first "Wallace and Gromit" shorts, but for some reason I'm still not very fond of them.

Now I just have to see "The Secret of Kells", and I've seen all the nominated animated films this year, though, the Golden Globes also nominated "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs" which I haven't seen yet, and the Baftas nominated completely different animation shorts.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

I'm not sure what to think about this one. I think my one, general reaction is; I'm underwhelmed.
"Alice in Wonderland" is such a huge and quirky world, there's so much to work with, so much to build from, and this film just isn't creative.

It seems to be targeting people that have some idea of what Alice in Wonderland is, having maybe seen the disney (animation) version many years ago, but not read the books or know the story.
It also tries, like so many films lately, to cater to both children and adults, but fails to find a middle ground. I would not take young children to see this film.
If you take away the wonder aspect and just look at the film, it's a very standard fantasy/action film with all the usual elements; growing up, finding themselves, moral (being special is what makes you great), great big monster to fight, tasks to overcome and a romantic interest.
Besides the "young girl making her mark in a time where women shut up and act pretty" theme, the film doesn't bring much new to the fantasy genre.
Looking at it from a wonder aspect, there's so much more that could have been done. I want surrealism, I want quirky, I want mad! I don't want a hatter that's practically normal and a queen that's just evil.

It's also sad because the (supporting) cast is a.m.a.z.i.n.g! Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Christopher Lee.. *swoons* I'm also fond of Mia. She's a good actor, and it's nice to see an actress that's normal pretty looking, instead of a model beauty. I also think Anne Hathaway does a good job with the role she's been given. she's obviously been told to play a queen that's over-acting. The "real" white queen shine through a few times, though not really enough to show us who she really is.

Johnny Depp on the other hand.. I love Depp, he's a master of quirky characters, but I have to agree with others; we've seen this one before. I would have liked less Jack Sparrow and more Willy Wonka.

I didn't hate the film, by no means, I'm just, disappointed. Again, I seem to be disappointed with the lack of imagination and surrealism. And I hated, hated, HATED the romantic sub-plot!

I'm also seeing a worrying trend with Tim Burton's later films. It's becoming more and more Burton, and less about the original material. I love you Burton, I love your vision, your art direction, but you're starting to put a bit too much of yourself into your films. I want to see a real Tim Burton original again, written, directed, even produced by you, where you can really go all out and show us who you are. Just don't do it with a source material a lot of us love.