The film was a blank to me besides its overall message, which was overemphasized and restated ad nauseam.
You say overemphasised, but I say it's core to the plot. It wasn't like it was some trojan horse of a message. If it was obvious to you it's because you're intelligent enough to immediately recognise the message.
It is likely just me, but there was no one scene, visual, character, plot point, or theme that resonated with me.
This is what I meant by the superficial layer. How the film looks, specific idioms, the flavours of characters, all the aesthetics, that's all just the superficial layer. If that stuff doesn't resonate with you, fair enough. I can recognise when something isn't to someone's taste, but as welldone as Zootopia was, I personally can't see how that even matters. All the thematics were relatable in some way, no?
Conversely, I apply the same argument to say Cowboy Bebop, which gets like 100 for aesthetics. Substance, a fair amount, but not quite enough for me to enjoy completely.
My contention is, that there's a balance struck between style and substance that is very difficult to make, and Zootopia has had it more right than any film in recent history.
The flaws for me were the pop culture references, but that's like such a small complaint and most times were quite fun to see. While Zootopia is not the greatest of all great, it's still a really enjoyable film. Again, subjective.
1) Of course a message-driven work's message is core to the plot. Thanks, captain obvious. However, the message is not the art. A good piece of art may have a terrible message or no message at all. Further, Zootopia's message was not difficult to discern. Even a dull child would have picked up on it immediately. There is nothing artful about an obvious, overstated, and heavy-handed message.
2) How a film "looks" does matter. It matters a lot. This is not a superficial concern as film is a visual medium. Zootopia was pretty. It just wasn't anything more than that, IMO.
3) Relatable themes don't matter if they feel forced and disingenuous. A Hallmark card can have a relatable theme, but that does not necessarily make it a great piece of art.
4) My concerns are both in regard to the style and substance of the film. It isn't about balance in this case - it is about missing the mark.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying or are unwilling to believe that what resonated for your did not resonate for me. You then assumed that I either don't understand the film or that my enjoyment of film is superficial in nature. Both assumptions/conclusions are not substantiated, false, and, quite frankly, insulting. Please don't take that to mean that I am offended; I am not.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying or are unwilling to believe that what resonated for your did not resonate for me. You then assumed that I either don't understand the film or that my enjoyment of film is superficial in nature. Both assumptions/conclusions are not substantiated, false, and, quite frankly, insulting. Please don't take that to mean that I am offended; I am not.
Only in response to what you've said. You haven't said enough for me to see what would have resonated otherwise. Too me, everything was represented as well as it could have done. In fact to your point, had they done much more to portray character emotion, motive, intentions they would have missed the mark and taken focus away from other aspects.
I do understand that you have a different perspective, I am willing to understand your point of view, however the difficulty in this argument is that without pointing out very specific things, it's hard be for or against either way.
You say it missed it's mark, I say it hit it's mark. That's about how far we've gotten. I'm not intending to insult in any way.
Concussion - a decent drama about the NFL and brain damage. It made me realize that the "concussion protocols" now in place at NFL games are utter bullshit. Even the name of this movie is bullshit. It's not about single concussion events, but continuing brain accelerations many times per game throughout the seasons and careers of the players. I guess "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" wouldn't be as catchy a name, but it at least wouldn't continue the diversion away from the real problem.
Also the movie made me rethink ever watching American Football again. I already felt a bit guilty enjoying it, but after this movie I think I'll skip out on watching any more. There are plenty of other much safer sports to watch.
John Wick - I'd heard good things about this one, and wasn't disappointed. The motivation for the revenge was really well done. I also liked it that everyone knew John Wick was a complete badass, and right from the start sent in entire hit squads to take him out. So often revenge movies are about unknown people who are underestimated until the very end. This movie contains no underestimating of John Wick, so we just see his reputation playing itself out. Which is awesome.
Inside Out - I'd heard good things about this, but it didn't do much for me. There were individual analogies that I enjoyed, and individual representations of the inner workings of a brain that were very clear. However! Why is the inside of the brain so dangerous? Why is it set up like that? Without the danger, there would be story on the inside, but there was never any explanation.
Is every brain like that? Did the main character have brain damage? Was she mentally ill? Do ALL children have a crisis like this before they go through puberty? All the other characters had only a single gender of sub-brains (mother all female, father all male, etc) but our main character had two male sub-brains. Does that mean anything? That she's trans? That she's bi?
Inside Out - I think if you're asking those questions and thinking about those differences, job welldone of the film for introducing the audience to those complexities.
In fact to your point, had they done much more to portray character emotion, motive, intentions they would have missed the mark and taken focus away from other aspects.
That wasn't my point. I never said anything about the portrayal of "character emotion, motive, intentions."
In fact to your point, had they done much more to portray character emotion, motive, intentions they would have missed the mark and taken focus away from other aspects.
That wasn't my point. I never said anything about the portrayal of "character emotion, motive, intentions."
"...convoluted cop drama..." I thought it was a very straight forward uncovering of a conspiracy.
The twists happen when the main characters and audience simultaneously learn a new piece of information, uncovering a truth.
"...cobwebbed “Godfather” jokes..." yeh, those were pretty bad.
"It’s all remarkably complicated for what’s ostensibly a kids movie" I call that ambitious. To explain these very relevant issues to a child who might not otherwise recognise it in the real world, may require that degree of exaggeration unpalatable to an adult that just gets it.
Wreck-It Ralph, Lego Movie, those are good examples of very inelegant story telling. Zootopia is a work of perfection by comparison, however not close to perfection. I do recognise it's flaws yet am still able to enjoy it as a whole, because the plot just works.
Had the writers and directors delivered their notes of inclusiveness and acceptance with a lighter touch, “Zootopia” might have come off as considerably less cumbersome. But its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot, resulting in every single word and action being carried out in service of a noble but overcooked social agenda that leaves little room for character development or genuine drama.
I don't agree. I do believe we do see character development and genuine drama. The drama is in the emotion, which is consistent throughout. The characters aren't the same by the end of the film, we same them adapting in a variety of scenarios. Not sure what the writer of this article is seeking, or is imagining the story could have been, but everything it was, but with a lighter touch.
...its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot... yeh, exactly.
Zootopia works a great noir even without all of the themes of racism, gender, and social constructs. It's very much about characters coming to terms with their various prejudices, even to the point where the country hick relies he was a bad kid back then. If you were to make a G or PG rated Blacksad, it'd be this movie. Judy and Nick are the best Disney characters made since Lilo and Stitch. I don't think kids are too stupid to understand these themes as there are enough cartoons that use animals and have animals hate/disagree with each other for animal-nature reasons.
Inside Out covers child psychology in the most digestible, colorful way to understand the complexity of emotions. I believe the film intentionally makes the brain chaotic in the way that brain disorders are still hard to understand and vary quite differently from person to person. There are logical plot hole missteps, but I was fine with it because kids need to be taught why Sadness exists and why you shouldn't suppress it unlike so many other kids shows. The moment where Riley's control panel turns gray and uncontrollable is one of the scariest moments Pixar has ever done.
With these type of movies, I don't get anyone who would call them hollow or superficial or lacking substance. Maybe you don't like them because the gags didn't lag. (I'm one of the few people here who defend The Lego Movie as great cinema) But whenever someone says a movie is bad because they've seen plot elements/tropes before, I feel that gets to YMS level nitpicking.
"It’s all remarkably complicated for what’s ostensibly a kids movie" I call that ambitious. To explain these very relevant issues to a child who might not otherwise recognise it in the real world, may require that degree of exaggeration unpalatable to an adult that just gets it.
I disagree with the reviewer on this point, too. I do not think it was all that complicated, complex, or ambitious. Kids are smart and this movie beat them over the head a message, provided a predictable plot, and the character development was never surprising. A dull kid could watch the first 30 minutes of this film and tell you how it will end and how the characters would change (with the possible exception of the Assistant Mayor - a smart kid would pick up on the Assistant Mayor immediately).
Wreck-It Ralph, Lego Movie, those are good examples of very inelegant story telling. Zootopia is a work of perfection by comparison, however not close to perfection.
The Lego movie had more unexpected moments and true suprises than Zootopia. Wreck-It-Ralph was significantly less preachy than Zootopia. I am not saying that they are great movies, but on the whole Zootopia is downright boring in comparison with the other two.
I do believe we do see character development and genuine drama. The drama is in the emotion, which is consistent throughout. The characters aren't the same by the end of the film, we same them adapting in a variety of scenarios. Not sure what the writer of this article is seeking, or is imagining the story could have been, but everything it was, but with a lighter touch.
But ask yourself this: Did the characters end up where you expected them to end up? Were their trials and tribulations expected? Was any event unpredictable or have an unexpected impact on the character? Did any character seem fresh, fleshed out, or anything more than an archetype or cliche?
...its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot... yeh, exactly.
Themes and plots are separate aspects of narrative. If the plot only serves to drive home an obvious and simple theme, that is the definition of heavy-handed. This film talked down to everyone except the youngest or slow-witted children.
I do believe we do see character development and genuine drama. The drama is in the emotion, which is consistent throughout. The characters aren't the same by the end of the film, we same them adapting in a variety of scenarios. Not sure what the writer of this article is seeking, or is imagining the story could have been, but everything it was, but with a lighter touch.
But ask yourself this: Did the characters end up where you expected them to end up? Were their trials and tribulations expected? Was any event unpredictable or have an unexpected impact on the character? Did any character seem fresh, fleshed out, or anything more than an archetype or cliche?
While that is the hope of any film, Zootopia gets away with certain clichés and tropes because it's story is unique to it's intended demographic, and used with appropriate context.
...its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot... yeh, exactly.
Themes and plots are separate aspects of narrative. If the plot only serves to drive home an obvious and simple theme, that is the definition of heavy-handed. This film talked down to everyone except the youngest or slow-witted children.
I don't think it talked down at all. Racism can be absent for a good portion of your life before you're ever exposed to an instance of it. Yes the internet exists, but people are still isolated in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons, so the fact it was the core to the plot makes the message bold, so it's recognised and not overlooked. As is the nature with any form of discrimination.
A key point was, even well intentioned characters can be hurtful (in the context of racism) in the most public manner. There's no subtle way of representing that authentically, other than just literally playing out the scenario 'verbatim' in a compressed manner (otherwise 2-3 hour movie). Like wise for other points raised in the film.
In terms of bad delivery, an obvious example would be some exposition. There's virtually no exposition in Zootopia, if memory serves me well.
In contrast to Wreck-It Ralph and Lego Movie which were almost entirely composed of exposition.
The opening play at the beginning is exposition. A cute way of worldbuilding, but a definite form of exposition nonetheless. Even the teaser trailer was all about explaining to the audience what "anthropomorphism" is.
In terms of bad delivery, an obvious example would be some exposition. There's virtually no exposition in Zootopia, if memory serves me well.
In contrast to Wreck-It Ralph and Lego Movie which were almost entirely composed of exposition.
The opening play at the beginning is exposition. A cute way of worldbuilding, but a definite form of exposition nonetheless. Even the teaser trailer was all about explaining to the audience what "anthropomorphism" is.
There's exposition used intently within the context explaining to an audience within the actual film world (not the audience in meta), and then there's exposition in place of nuance.
You can decide whether and when either is suitable.
Juliane decided she wanted to catch up on all the Marvel movies she's not seen yet. Which is most/all of them. We've enjoyed the Daredevil and Jessica Jones series, but she's not seen any of the movies except Guardians of the Galaxy, so we're going through them in order.
First up, Captain America: The First Avenger. Various lists I saw said to start with this one, and sure, it works as a fun intro to the world.
Main bad guy: same powers but in a bad person.
Comments from Juliane: "Bucky isn't dead, is he?" "Can we watch the Agent Carter show, too?" "Hugo Weaving's German accent is really good."
Stan Lee cameo line: "I expected him to be taller"
Overall: lots of campy fun but with some dodgy special effects.
John Wick - I'd heard good things about this one, and wasn't disappointed. The motivation for the revenge was really well done. I also liked it that everyone knew John Wick was a complete badass, and right from the start sent in entire hit squads to take him out. So often revenge movies are about unknown people who are underestimated until the very end. This movie contains no underestimating of John Wick, so we just see his reputation playing itself out. Which is awesome.
I didn't think I'd enjoy John Wick, but I thought it was great. I liked that the hit teams weren't incompetent, John's just that good.
Keanu Reeves has put a lot of time and effort into learning the skills his character would have in order to translate that to the big screen and I think it shows.
You don't fuck with the hotel. It doesn't end well for anyone who fucks with the hotel.
It was just so refreshing to see a movie where the protagonist is a force of nature, and every single other character (except one) treats said protagonist that way.
Just watched "Sunshine". Somehow that movie completely passed me by when it was released in 2007. I only watched it because I am watching the Movies with Mikey YouTube series and the movie struck my fancy. And holy crap did it. If you like movies in general this is a great film, and if you like hard sci-fi films about space travel you will love it. Cinematography, effects and the music are in particularly amazing.
--------------Spoiler line ----------------
The only real issue I have is that the second half is a bit contrived with the murderous stowaway onboard. This element of the plot seems rather unnecessary. I think there would have been better methods to ratched up the tension and throw more obstacles into the crews way without having to introduce another human actor. I find it in particularly jarring when comparing to how smoothly the docking between the two ships went. I think it would have been easy to have the dock break on its own and perhaps a jerk because of it cause some other issue that would cost the lives of the crew.
Welcome to discussions about Sunshine from 8 years ago! Your issue with the movie has been stated by others many, many, many times over, and so have the rebuttals to it, so I won't go into it here. But to me that's like saying "Why did HAL turn against the crew? Couldn't something have gone wrong with the ship mechanically to cost the lives of the crew?" Sure, anything can cost the lives of the crew, but then it isn't the same movie with the same ideas, concepts, message, themes or anything. It's just a sci-fi flick. 2001 is more than a sci-fi flick, and so is Sunshine!
My problem with it was- well, XKCD said it better than I can:
There is nothing we can do to affect the sun. The sun has 300,000 times as much mass as the earth. We could de-orbit the entire planet into the sun and it wouldn't give a shit.
I'll admit, it feels weird to say, "Sun stopped? Ok, fine. Restarting it with a nuke? GET OUT OF HERE". I mean, I've already accepted one impossible premise. What, I'm mad they did something more impossible? The incongruity in an otherwise serious movie is what gets me, I think. Imagine if Dallas Buyers Club started with McConaughey planning on curing his HIV. To do this, he's going to weightlift the virus out of his body. And then they spend the next 2 hours doing that.
Sicario: One of the best action movies in the last few years, very surprising. Benicio Del Toro gives a fantastic performance. Emily Blunt continues to build her impressive action film resume.
This is the one I've not seen for the longest. It's not as good as I remembered. The treatment of women in movies, even if there aren't enough of them, has come a long way since 2008. Most of the special effects hold up, or at least better than Captain America The First Avenger. I'd forgotten Coulson was in this one, though he doesn't actually do anything.
Main bad guy: same powers but in a bad person.
Comments from Juliane: "Are we meant to like this guy?" "This is so dumb." "This is getting dumber." "No where near as enjoyable as Captain America."
Stan Lee cameo line: no line
Overall: hard to feel for a hero who brings it all on himself.
Re-watch order: It actually works great as a second movie after Captain America. This starts with lines about Howard Stark, so feels like a continuation of the "oops too powerful a weapon" story and theme.
We can skip The Incredible Hulk, right? Right? RIGHT?
Comments
Conversely, I apply the same argument to say Cowboy Bebop, which gets like 100 for aesthetics. Substance, a fair amount, but not quite enough for me to enjoy completely.
My contention is, that there's a balance struck between style and substance that is very difficult to make, and Zootopia has had it more right than any film in recent history.
The flaws for me were the pop culture references, but that's like such a small complaint and most times were quite fun to see. While Zootopia is not the greatest of all great, it's still a really enjoyable film. Again, subjective.
2) How a film "looks" does matter. It matters a lot. This is not a superficial concern as film is a visual medium. Zootopia was pretty. It just wasn't anything more than that, IMO.
3) Relatable themes don't matter if they feel forced and disingenuous. A Hallmark card can have a relatable theme, but that does not necessarily make it a great piece of art.
4) My concerns are both in regard to the style and substance of the film. It isn't about balance in this case - it is about missing the mark.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying or are unwilling to believe that what resonated for your did not resonate for me. You then assumed that I either don't understand the film or that my enjoyment of film is superficial in nature. Both assumptions/conclusions are not substantiated, false, and, quite frankly, insulting. Please don't take that to mean that I am offended; I am not.
I do understand that you have a different perspective, I am willing to understand your point of view, however the difficulty in this argument is that without pointing out very specific things, it's hard be for or against either way.
You say it missed it's mark, I say it hit it's mark. That's about how far we've gotten. I'm not intending to insult in any way.
Concussion - a decent drama about the NFL and brain damage. It made me realize that the "concussion protocols" now in place at NFL games are utter bullshit. Even the name of this movie is bullshit. It's not about single concussion events, but continuing brain accelerations many times per game throughout the seasons and careers of the players. I guess "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" wouldn't be as catchy a name, but it at least wouldn't continue the diversion away from the real problem.
Also the movie made me rethink ever watching American Football again. I already felt a bit guilty enjoying it, but after this movie I think I'll skip out on watching any more. There are plenty of other much safer sports to watch.
John Wick - I'd heard good things about this one, and wasn't disappointed. The motivation for the revenge was really well done. I also liked it that everyone knew John Wick was a complete badass, and right from the start sent in entire hit squads to take him out. So often revenge movies are about unknown people who are underestimated until the very end. This movie contains no underestimating of John Wick, so we just see his reputation playing itself out. Which is awesome.
Inside Out - I'd heard good things about this, but it didn't do much for me. There were individual analogies that I enjoyed, and individual representations of the inner workings of a brain that were very clear. However! Why is the inside of the brain so dangerous? Why is it set up like that? Without the danger, there would be story on the inside, but there was never any explanation.
Is every brain like that? Did the main character have brain damage? Was she mentally ill? Do ALL children have a crisis like this before they go through puberty? All the other characters had only a single gender of sub-brains (mother all female, father all male, etc) but our main character had two male sub-brains. Does that mean anything? That she's trans? That she's bi?
I don't think I'm overthinking this.
For clarification, my reaction to the film was similar to this review: http://www.cinemixtape.com/movie-reviews/zootopia/
The twists happen when the main characters and audience simultaneously learn a new piece of information, uncovering a truth.
"...cobwebbed “Godfather” jokes..." yeh, those were pretty bad.
"It’s all remarkably complicated for what’s ostensibly a kids movie" I call that ambitious. To explain these very relevant issues to a child who might not otherwise recognise it in the real world, may require that degree of exaggeration unpalatable to an adult that just gets it.
Wreck-It Ralph, Lego Movie, those are good examples of very inelegant story telling. Zootopia is a work of perfection by comparison, however not close to perfection. I do recognise it's flaws yet am still able to enjoy it as a whole, because the plot just works.
Had the writers and directors delivered their notes of inclusiveness and acceptance with a lighter touch, “Zootopia” might have come off as considerably less cumbersome. But its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot, resulting in every single word and action being carried out in service of a noble but overcooked social agenda that leaves little room for character development or genuine drama.
I don't agree. I do believe we do see character development and genuine drama. The drama is in the emotion, which is consistent throughout. The characters aren't the same by the end of the film, we same them adapting in a variety of scenarios. Not sure what the writer of this article is seeking, or is imagining the story could have been, but everything it was, but with a lighter touch.
...its themes aren’t just inherent in its plot. They are its plot... yeh, exactly.
Inside Out covers child psychology in the most digestible, colorful way to understand the complexity of emotions. I believe the film intentionally makes the brain chaotic in the way that brain disorders are still hard to understand and vary quite differently from person to person. There are logical plot hole missteps, but I was fine with it because kids need to be taught why Sadness exists and why you shouldn't suppress it unlike so many other kids shows. The moment where Riley's control panel turns gray and uncontrollable is one of the scariest moments Pixar has ever done.
With these type of movies, I don't get anyone who would call them hollow or superficial or lacking substance. Maybe you don't like them because the gags didn't lag. (I'm one of the few people here who defend The Lego Movie as great cinema) But whenever someone says a movie is bad because they've seen plot elements/tropes before, I feel that gets to YMS level nitpicking.
A key point was, even well intentioned characters can be hurtful (in the context of racism) in the most public manner. There's no subtle way of representing that authentically, other than just literally playing out the scenario 'verbatim' in a compressed manner (otherwise 2-3 hour movie). Like wise for other points raised in the film.
Again, you are confusing the message with the delivery. The message was fine. The delivery was what made it heavy-handed.
In contrast to Wreck-It Ralph and Lego Movie which were almost entirely composed of exposition.
You can decide whether and when either is suitable.
First up, Captain America: The First Avenger. Various lists I saw said to start with this one, and sure, it works as a fun intro to the world.
Main bad guy: same powers but in a bad person.
Comments from Juliane:
"Bucky isn't dead, is he?"
"Can we watch the Agent Carter show, too?"
"Hugo Weaving's German accent is really good."
Stan Lee cameo line:
"I expected him to be taller"
Overall: lots of campy fun but with some dodgy special effects.
Keanu Reeves has put a lot of time and effort into learning the skills his character would have in order to translate that to the big screen and I think it shows.
Well, except for the first chance someone gets.
It was just so refreshing to see a movie where the protagonist is a force of nature, and every single other character (except one) treats said protagonist that way.
In "The Way of the Gun" the bad guys and good guys aren't forces of nature, but no one is incompetent either. I liked that movie.
--------------Spoiler line ----------------
The only real issue I have is that the second half is a bit contrived with the murderous stowaway onboard. This element of the plot seems rather unnecessary. I think there would have been better methods to ratched up the tension and throw more obstacles into the crews way without having to introduce another human actor. I find it in particularly jarring when comparing to how smoothly the docking between the two ships went. I think it would have been easy to have the dock break on its own and perhaps a jerk because of it cause some other issue that would cost the lives of the crew.
There is nothing we can do to affect the sun. The sun has 300,000 times as much mass as the earth. We could de-orbit the entire planet into the sun and it wouldn't give a shit.
I'll admit, it feels weird to say, "Sun stopped? Ok, fine. Restarting it with a nuke? GET OUT OF HERE". I mean, I've already accepted one impossible premise. What, I'm mad they did something more impossible? The incongruity in an otherwise serious movie is what gets me, I think. Imagine if Dallas Buyers Club started with McConaughey planning on curing his HIV. To do this, he's going to weightlift the virus out of his body. And then they spend the next 2 hours doing that.
I guess the movie's just not for me.
The shootout scenes are awesome
This is the one I've not seen for the longest. It's not as good as I remembered. The treatment of women in movies, even if there aren't enough of them, has come a long way since 2008. Most of the special effects hold up, or at least better than Captain America The First Avenger. I'd forgotten Coulson was in this one, though he doesn't actually do anything.
Main bad guy: same powers but in a bad person.
Comments from Juliane:
"Are we meant to like this guy?"
"This is so dumb."
"This is getting dumber."
"No where near as enjoyable as Captain America."
Stan Lee cameo line:
no line
Overall: hard to feel for a hero who brings it all on himself.
Re-watch order: It actually works great as a second movie after Captain America. This starts with lines about Howard Stark, so feels like a continuation of the "oops too powerful a weapon" story and theme.
We can skip The Incredible Hulk, right? Right? RIGHT?