Reviews

At the preview for "The Iron Giant", my kids could barely hold their excitement. They've seen the commercials and knew several of the characters already. In advance, I had warned them that there weren't any sidekicks or catchy songs as they've been accustomed to. By the end of the film, their eyes were downcast...and it wasn't from sleep-deprivation.

The film isn't all that it was hyped to be. Much of what you see in the commercials is the whole film...why go to the theaters? The commercials tell you everything! Moreover, the story isn't widely original, either. If you've ever watched "We're Back", "Pete's Dragon", "All Dogs Go To Heaven" or "E.T." (all children/family movies) then you've already watched this film. It's the typical plot about children who find an amazing discovery, keep it a secret, abuse its powers, and learn to extend beyond their own feelings. For my children, probably the most damaging to the plot, however, was their dislike of the giant itself. There wasn't enough to connect him with the audience which undermines the emotion the rest of the film builds on. Without the connection between such a key character, the audience loses interest.

Furthermore, the movie's animation barely matched with current releases. There weren't as many lush color tones or smooth-running lines to make the film visually appealing. Don't get me wrong, Warner Brothers has had great animation in the past (although its last ventures "Quest For Camelot" and "The King and I" were complete flops). If they'd only stick with Bugs Bunny, they'd have the works played out in their hands. "Space Jam" was wildly successful, plus the shading and colors of "old" characters brought new life to their persona. In several aspects, "Space Jam" was far superior from animation to plot, aesthetics to witty lines when compared to "The Iron Giant". Where past Warner Brothers animation aimed toward the family, "The Iron Giant" aimed for the commercial. Several times, the topic of Superman (a character which Warner Brothers owned) was brought up. Soon, we'll see Superman figures lined up with the corny Iron Giant banks and toothbrushes.

Lastly, there's the objectional material. For the first time in my life, I saw the main character of a cartoon, feature-length movie use the restroom. The use of the bathroom is all too common in live action films, but they've begun to pass surreptitiously into cartoons. Why does such a scene need to take place? All in all, the film relays an anti-government atmosphere. The main characters are always on the run while officials heartlessly chase its "victims". I admit, several children's books are perfect for Hollywood. This one may have been one if taken from a different approach.

Without a doubt, the music of "The King & I" is as it was publicized...a classic. However, the musical sequences are about all the film can flaunt. The colors are brilliant and vibrant and the animation pushing the music along is, for the most part, quite creative. With the usage of dream sequences during "I Have Dreamed..." and colorful streamers in "Getting To Know You", the animation takes a turn for a simplistic, yet entertaining presentation. The advertised pieces are catchy, (although not as memorable as they used to be back in 1956 with Yul Brynner), but the glamorous "Shall We Dance" seems all too familiar to the Oscar-winning classic.

Without the music, the film is a drab, poorly-written, mangled remake. The characters provide no motive for several of their actions, especially the villain who produces a menacing sea serpent which vanishes as Anna, the heroine, "Whistle[s] A Happy Tune". The most devaluating element of the film, however, must be the villain's sidekick, an ignorant, tooth-losing sycophant. He barely made the children within the theater chuckle, but rather made the audience embarrassed to have participated in such a catastrophe. As in most animated features, the studios feel that there MUST be the addition of computer generated images to enhance the movie or to prove that they are as technologically advanced as the rest of the industry. CGI hardly adds to this movie, in fact, it stands out like a sore thumb. The ships and moving marble statues, all created by computers, are quite distracting and detract from the film's remaining dignity.

Overall, the film deserves a RATING OF 5 based on its attempt at animating the classic musical sequences, no matter how poor the rest of the film developed. It does, however, surpass the pathetic attempts of the recent DreamWork's "The Prince of Egypt" and 20th Century Fox's "Anastasia".

I had entered the theater with an open mind upon the opening of DreamWorks' initial animated feature, "Antz". Finally, I felt that there would be a perfect film for children. However, before the film was over, I was in a state of wonder how a film for children could be so inappropriate. Now, before you get "antzy" (sorry!), I'd like to note the entire toy collection of "Antz" figurines, clothing, action figures, and the like aimed at children under 7. In addition, the commercials for the film (which showed a festive dance and bright picnic scenery) were continually aired during young children's programs such as cartoons on FOX, NBC, ABC, etc. where only an imbecile wouldn't know that kids were watching. So naturally, any concerned parent would be skeptical over an MPAA rating of PG when the merchandise was aimed at a G audience.

The violence is quite appalling and the language pushes the PG rating. I don't disapprove of animated movies for adults (think Japanese anime), but when films can literally claim bloody murder and receive a PG rating, I find it completely and absolutely horrifying. When will film studios learn that a completely entertaining film can be created without profanity? Within every scene, the absolutely vulgar and horrific cast screams out a four letter word. Other family movies with PG ratings can produce quality work without uttering such pointless drivel such as "James and the Giant Peach", "Hook", and "Matilda". Compared to these traditional family films, "Antz" hardly measures up. And this barely touches upon the movie's punctured plot.

I was disappointed that such a promising company as DreamWorks would stoop so low to collect the final dollar. It's the parents which fork out the money for the film, most of which ADORE the violence and vulgarity...the perfect target. Where DreamWorks may have produced quality family fare, they spit out another traditional movie flop without the heart and warmth needed to be entertaining for the ENTIRE family.

I have absolutely no problem when studios animate history. I first became defensive when Disney produced "Pocahontas" but under further inspection, I found the tale to be quite endearing and heart-warming. It may have not followed the historical path, but since when have animated tales EVER followed the original details? Besides, the studios received the last laugh when hundreds of children flooded the public libraries when they were planted with a passion to learn far more about their American culture.

But what atrocity has 20th Century Fox produced? There is a fine line between what is just and what is down-right evil. Ever look straight at the motives of Rasputin, the villain? The man is simply out for blood. No motive. No explanation. He wants a complete and undeniable obliteration of the Czar and his family. He doesn't want power, riches, or other worldly possessions...just the humans' souls. In one vividly depicted scene, Rasputin trades his soul to the devil (as his flesh is sucked away revealing his grotesque skeleton) for the ability to destroy the Czar.

Furthermore, the film leaves much to be desired within the animation department. How convincing is the characters movements (and voices)? "Little Anya", as Anastasia the orphan is called, leaves an orphanage kicking up snow and tripping over her own feet as she chases Pooka, certainly Fox's attempt at the cute factor dog. Most distracting, however, is the studio's computer generated images. They fill most every scene...and really don't fit. Within the most intense or pivotal scenes, up pops some type of computer image which dashes all hopes of the scene's full impact. They are absolutely distracting and, since most of these objects practically fill the screen, one can tell that the objects don't belong. I admit, computers have done wonders for the animated feature, but when the sight makes the audience think, "say, that's made by computer, isn't it?" their thought about the plot is lost and the scene discredited. When a train wreck appears in one scene, it's shaky movement lessen the attention to the main characters, Anastasia and Dimitri. "Anastasia" is definitely not the eye-candy of the 1997 cinemas.

Of the songs, none are really memorable, except "At the Beginning" which is played during the final credits. The animation that accompanies the film's songs are quite unnatural and, upon inspection, actually seems as if the characters are walking in circles while talking to themselves. I'm quite the admirer of both Bernadette Peters and Angela Lansbury. Their voices are unique and emotional, providing the animator with an enormously colorful palette to draw from. I don't know how both ended up with such flagrant songs, not to mention the bland, unmoving personas/lines. One scene which will forever remain in my mind is when Dowager Empress Marie (Lansbury) has her cab hijacked by Dimitri. As her voice regally demands that the cab be stopped, her motions barely reflect the insistence within Lansbury's voice. What a waste of two exceptionally talented actresses.

Had Fox devoted more attention to quality, this film would have reached the status of the incredibly brilliant "Pocahontas".