The animation in this film is very well done. The computer generated dinosaurs look impressive and exist believably alongside the filmed backdrops.
The movie is only 87 minutes long (including two brief modern day sections that frame the main storyline), but I still almost checked my watch a couple times before it ended. The storyline is not dull, but is along the lines of what one would expect from a National Geographic special, with one significant difference: the animals talk. I have heard that the original plan was to give the dinosaurs no dialogue (I do not know if basic narration would have been provided). This certainly would have given the movie a more realistic feel. I am not sure if it would have made the film flow better or not. Perhaps the mere presence of talking animals in a movie leads to the expectation of a "larger than life" story this film wasn't interested in telling. That being said, I'm sure I would have loved this as a kid.
A theater near my house has a classic film series, where they feature one film each week, with showings on Sunday and Wednesday. I have gone to a few of these, and have enjoyed the chance to see films like "Ben-Hur" and "Chinatown" on the big screen. With my Movie Pass, I hope to go to these screenings more often.
While I enjoy the film, I am not a die-hard fan of "The Princess Bride". I find it an enjoyable enough way to spend a hour and a half, but believe there are other films in the genre that are more worth my time.
One of my issues is with the film's framing device, where the story is being read from a book. While some find this charming, I find the frequent interruptions of the main story distracting, and have trouble investing truly in a story that the movie tells us from the outset is not real. Of course fantasy films are not real, but this film seems too insistent on reminding the viewer of that fact.
When one of my favorite fantasy movies, "Stardust", came out in 2007, I heard it being compared to "The Princess Bride". While both films combine fantasy, action, and humor, I don't buy the comparison, as "Stardust" does not frequently undermine its own story, and also presents a vibrant and unique fantasy world, as compared to the more generic one in "The Princess Bride".
I went into this movie unsure what to expect, but came out pleasantly surprised, having really enjoyed it.
I knew that significant chunks of the film were flashbacks, and was afraid that they might be boring. They ended up fitting into the film very well, enhancing the present day storyline instead of hurting its momentum. I have long been a fan of Colin Farrell's acting ("In Bruges" especially), and his presence in these flashbacks helped ground them in an emotional truth.
I was also worried about what I would think of Tom Hanks' performance. Based on his lines from the trailer, he seemed to be basically using his own voice, which seemed jarring considering he was playing a real-life figure. I found that in the movie itself, he did change his voice up enough to come across convincingly as someone other than just Tom Hanks acting. Emma Thompson's leading performance was very effective as well, and I also particularly enjoyed Paul Giamatti's smallish role.
I'm sure that the movie whitewashed the real events to some degree, especially considering that it was made by Disney. Nonetheless, taken on its own merits, the film was engaging and moving.
Up for review next time: "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit", "Devil's Due", and "August: Osage County".
No comments:
Post a Comment