Reviews

(originally seen at http://goo.gl/UNpKrF)

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is an animated film based on what is widely believed to be the first canonical story in Japanese folklore, which is a lofty goal. It's generally a good sign to see the name of Studio Ghibli in the title cards, but even with the legendary abilities of Ghibli-trained animators rendering a story in a hand-drawn, highly emotive style, it ultimately fell quite flat for me.

The problem comes solely down to the direction of Isao Takahata. His style is a vast departure from the work of Miyazaki, and while I'm certainly not a purist as far as how a film should look, Takahata-san has missed several very important lessons from the studio's legendary founder, and those lessons cover all the ways in which Kaguya failed for me.

G Kids also distributed one of my favorites films of all time this last year: Song of the Sea. Tomm Moore knows, as Miyazaki knows, that your art—while stylized—must have a consistent focus and theme to it. Kaguya is unfettered, blending art and animation styles between artists with no theme. Characters are drawn vastly different from each other, looking like caricatures of trolls more than people at times, with no central idea or motif to make the world seem like anything but a mash-up. If you pay attention to Song of the Sea or, say, The Wind Rises (one of my favorites of Miyazaki's catalog), you see the art style carried through every character, every setting, and every detail. That's the kind of direction that a story needs, one where the details are crafted, not left to whims and crumpled together in the edit.

While the story is a sad and heartfelt one, its presentation suffers greatly as Takahata really foregoes centuries of storytelling know-how, ensuring that audiences will have to expend a great deal of effort to engage with the plot. Kaguya (voiced by Chloë Grace Moretz in the English dub), is a goddess descended from the moon to live with a poor unnamed bamboo cutter and his wife (James Cann and Mary Steenburgen, respectively). For reasons left unexplained, the child grows from an infant to an adolescent in a matter of weeks (if that), and is blessed with a gift of gold and silks from the stalks of bamboo plants, which sends her father into an apoplectic fit of narcissism, self-absorbed negligence, and social-climbing ambition. He pulls Kaguya into the city to be raised as royalty in an effort to try to feel fulfilled on his own, and Kaguya is miserable until she's eventually called back to the moon due to reasons we never get the time to know, because she's off the screen and the movie's over in less than ten minutes after we first hear of it.

This plot, disjointed as it is, sets up a lot of dissonance. It's hard to understand why she's so reluctant to return to the moon (much less how she knows of her destiny) when her father was such a miserable person to her for pretty much her entire life, using her to gain some semblance of self-worth. I never got any time to try to relate to her, or to glean any sense of her relationship with others. The plot skips when it should walk and crawls when it should run. At over two hours long, it both rushes and drags in ways I haven't seen in cinema for many years now. Stories like this are the reason so many storytelling tropes have been invented and accepted over the years. The standard Three-Act Plot, the classic Show, Don't Tell rule, pacing curves—most of the rules of fiction are shown here rather conspicuously by their absence.

Sadly, there's not much else to save it. The music is fitting, and not overbearing. It's nothing I'd rush to find the OST for, but it's well-done. The voice acting for the three main characters is worth applauding, but outside of that, we're again stuck with the traditional Disney-style parade of A-list celebrities who really have no ability to voice act at all. The performances are characteristically stilted and flat, which might fit the Disney-imported trend, but it's hardly required.

Kaguya is a film that people have been lining up to throw perfect scores at like so many roses to a bullfighter, so I realize that I'm certainly not setting myself up for a popular review here. There's probably not many ways to make more enemies online than harshly criticizing a Studio Ghibli film, but here we are. I'm afraid that Kaguya is a rare miss from this studio, perhaps the exception that proves the rule of Miyazaki-san's excellence as a traditional—yet culture-spanning—storyteller.

Scores (out of 10) Acting: 6 Story: 3 Visuals: 6 Sound: 5 Enjoyment: 3 Overall Score: 4/10

There's a certain inspired irony in the fact that I had to complete a CAPTCHA image to log into this site in order to leave this review, because without Turing and his famous Turing Test (for distinguishing between computer and human via responses), the concept of the CAPTCHA might not exist now.

It truly is impossible to overstate the man's importance to the world as we know it, and his death at age 41 was a tragic blow to progress the world over. One can not even fathom what our lives would be like right now had he lived longer and developed into his twilight years.

That being said, it is absolutely possible to overstate his accomplishments, as this movie readily shows. My only actual hope is that this movie (this FANTASTICALLY well-made and well-acted movie, mind you) will compel the viewer to at least go to Wikipedia and research the life of the man depicted. Let's count off the major historical problems with this dramatization:

• Turing was an oddball,there is no doubt. He would chain his coffee mug to a radiator so no one could steal it, if that gives you any clues. He was hard to understand, but not a misanthrope. He was not a sociopath. He did not alienate every one of his colleagues only to win them back with two minutes of screen time in which he gives his co-workers an apple and an awkwardly bad joke (seriously, movie? THAT's your idea of conflict resolution?)

• Turing did not invent the bombe (the electro-mechanical proto-computer used to break the Enigma codes), the Poles did. The English team worked off of the Polish plans, which Turing enhanced. Indeed, the Poles had been breaking Enigma codes for years, trying to stay abreast of the Germans, who would constantly update and alter the machines.

• There was no problem getting the bombe built. In fact, everyone in cryptology in the world at the time knew it was impossible to break Enigma by hand, and that a bombe was the only solution there was. Funds /were/ tight, that is true, but the funding problem was solved overnight after the ENTIRE TEAM sent a letter to Churchill, not just Turing. Turing was not made the head of the team in such a way, and did not just fire people outright. There was also not just one bombe. There were dozens upon dozens of the things built, all over England (and indeed, all over the world. The Americans built vastly more codebreaking computers than the English did by the end of the war).

• Turing and his team had no control over the information. Everything about MI6 and Turing is a complete fabrication (indeed, it was MI1 which became the organization that Turing joined up to make the Bletchly Park bombe), and the idea that such a team would have any input on military movements is absurd.

• Perhaps most importantly, Turing might not have even killed himself. As is shown in the movie (in an oddly subtle nod to truth), Turing worked often and extensively with cyanatic materials (used to smelt gold to make electroplated parts for his computers), and it's entirely feasible that he inhaled the cyanide that killed him rather than intentionally ingesting it. Turing endured his barbaric treatment with good spirits, according to his contemporaries and friends, and never seemed the type to seek suicide. While that's not proof, it's a far cry from the shaking, weeping wreck we see depicted in the film, for the sole intent of tugging the audience's heartstrings and earning undue sympathy. Turing was unable to work for the government after his conviction, but he held his teaching and academic positions until his death, during which time he continued to research and write papers without problem.

Put bluntly, the ending is so callously targeted at the viewer's sensitivities that it's borderline offensive in and of itself. Turing has been held up for decades as an LGBT hero (whether he wanted it or not, it would seem)—and frankly, a character as influential and famous as he doesn't need the help of a Hollywood screenwriter. It cheapens the work of the real figure, and diminishes his influence by turning a legitimate world-changing genius into a pariah, a martyr for a cause that wouldn't even exist for another five decades.

I realize that offering up a review on a site like this is like gobbing into the sea for all the difference it will make, and I'll readily admit that everything except the "based on a true story" elements are fantastic: the acting is top-notch, the cinematography is brilliant, etc, etc, but I hold on to the silent hope that more people will educated themselves about the real man and not take this film at face value.

I can't believe how horrifyingly bad this movie is. I think this movie actually gave me cancer. The casting is awful, the dialogue is awful, the acting is awful, the martial arts are awful, the special effects are awful, the camera work is awful. No words in the English language can describe how bad this movie is. It just makes you want to scream in primal rage and punch a kitten. Severe brain trauma could not make this watchable. There should be a class action lawsuit against M. Night Shamalan for this abomination. I would review it more, but there's no point. There are absolutely no positive points about this movie. If you think this movie is good, you are scientifically wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a provable FACT.

The 1984 Karate Kid is a classic, and for anyone like me who grew up in the 80s, it's more than just that; it's a landmark film that is part of our childhood. However, a truly honest person can admit that, yes, the original (and the sequels... *shudder*) does have its share of flaws. So how does the remake stack up? Actually, fairly well it turns out.

The '84 Kid is played by Ralph Macchio, and while he does an okay job portraying the character, he's not a great actor. In his debut star role, Jaden Smith shows considerably more acting savvy. More than that, however, the '10 character is just better written and casted. In the original, Daniel-san (Macchio) is a teenager, but played by a 21 year-old. Granted, he looks young, but at 17, you feel like he has at least some of the tools he needs to avoid being tormented, and with his antisocial behavior, it feels like two teens feuding instead of pure bullying. Dre Parker (Smith), however, is 12, played by an 11 year-old, and he is so much smaller physically than everyone else that you truly feel that he has no chance. He is totally outclassed and can't avoid the confrontation, so he fights back the only such kids can: from a distance. Once he learns martial arts, though, the difference really comes through. While more kids look like Daniel when they sport fight, Dre actually looks like a martial artist. His movements are more fluid and true to the respective art form. Supporting cast is hit-or-miss, though. The Kid's mother goes from a seldom-seen plot-prop to a brash, one-dimensional ham. Dre's mother (Taraji P. Henson) chews every bit of scenery she can find, and looks even more out of place than Dre does. Ali (Elisabeth Shue), the love interest in the original film gets swapped out for Meiying (Wenwen Han), a character who is much better for having her own passions and goals, and significantly less 80's hair. In the original, the nemesis doesn't like Daniel fraternizing with his ex, but in the remake you get Dre running up against the cultural wall of her family and class, and it seems to make more sense. Trading out 84's Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita) for Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) is an upgrade, but no disrespect to Morita. While Chan has had many serious roles, he has trouble showing believable emotions (to Western audiences, at least), but he makes up for it by driving the hero with calm, Zen approaches and real, fighting skill. Mr. Han just seems cooler, somehow. Maybe it's the flaming mothballs. And while both have past tragedies, Mr. Han's reaction is more visceral and profound. Mr. Miyagi's almost feels like a footnote. The titular Kid's displacement is given an upgrade in the remake. Instead of moving to the Valley, the small family skips an ocean and moves to China. Granted, this is a little silly (Karate isn't Kung Fu, etc., etc, blah, blah), because, you know, she's a single parent from urban Detroit and all, but it's glossed over quickly enough that you don't really pay attention. The added cultural vantage brings a LOT of additional weight to Dre's misery. The language is different, the clothing is different, and the customs are different. You can actually believe that our hero not only feels trapped by his new town, but by entire oceans as well. Most of the movie revolves around training, which most Western audiences think is boring, and most Eastern audiences think is vital. The original film feels more like a Rocky movie, which isn't a coincidence since they had the same director. The music, the actions, and the off-beat training methods are all similar. In the remake, the iconic (and very unrealistic) "wax on, wax off" scene is replaced with the equally inane, but more realistic, "jacket on, jacket off". The remake brings the feel of Chinese classics such as The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, where our hero not only goes through the torturous training regimen, but also learns the soul of martial arts. The original film seems like the training methods are just used to put fight actions into everyday chores (and get free labor!), while the remake seems more like Mr. Han really believes that kung-fu lives in every action we do. The training montages move from a jetty on the beach and a rowboat to an actual mountain-top monastery and Mr. Han's courtyard, and the scenery gives the remake a HUGE advantage. Aaaaand, the big finale. In the original film, Daniel-san sees the Crane Kick performed, is told "If do right, no can block", and spends about half the film trying to learn it, meaning that of COURSE we'll see it in the finale, which brushes aside all the 80's silliness and makes you want to cheer. Dre's special skill comes out of nowhere and is never hinted at or shown beforehand. Both moves are equally stupid in a real fight, though at least Dre's is harder to see coming and can't be defeated by a stiff breeze. In the end, I liked the remake better, though it was full of stupid music and had its share of awkward moments. The climax was given more situational weight, the acting was more believable, the scenery is jaw-dropping instead of just another shot of inner-suburb California, and the martial arts is given more weight and is beautiful to look at. I was disappointed that there were no hidden catch-phrase potentials in the remake, though. I would have given a lot to hear just one muffled "Give him a body bag, yeah!" from a bystander. It would have really brought the remake full circle, though it seems to give the original film enough dignity as it is.

I had decent hopes going in. The movie was a tribute to a legend of cinema, especially in Japan. The cast was at least an 8 out of 10 for star power. Animation looked solid and well-toned. The plucky action-girl cliché character was mildly cute. How could they really screw it up, yeah?

Sadly, the movie failed to deliver. And yes, up front, I know that as a 25 year-old I'm too young to have loved the classic and too old to be the target audience, but I haven't felt this alienated by a film since the stink bomb that was Legend of Despereaux.

First beef: the plot/writing. Kitschy and predictable, standard Saturday-morning stuff, as others have said. Pinnochio, Oliver Twist, Isaac Asimov; all the classics get the rip-off treatment. The instant I saw a room full of rowdy kids searching for waste, I thought, "great, Nathan Lane's the evil Fagan clone". Even Robin Williams was an engaging portmanteau of the man in August Rush. I know there aren't many original ideas left in Hollywood, but this was a poor effort. The character motivations are missing almost entirely. Everyone in the movie is a one-dimensional cardboard cutout just following the plot out of sheer bloody stubbornness. The president wants to start a war to get re-elected?! This is political satire too crude and off-target for Mad TV. A devotion to being a complete jerk is NOT good character motivation. Evil for evil's own sake is the sign of poor writers. The movie wasn't even an hour and forty for crying out loud, you could have squeezed in some kind of development.

Second; the voice acting. I mean, the plot could have been forgivable if the movie had any immersion value to lose yourself in, but every time I wanted to enjoy the experience, Mr. Cage's horrific voice acting kicked me right back out (and no, I don't have much respect for him as an actor aside from some of his early stuff). Sadly, for the legend he is, Donald Sutherland was hardly better. The two main pro/an-tagonist characters go back and forth like they're in a 2am TBS sitcom. Kristen Bell and Freddie Highmore were pretty good, though.

Finally, the direction. David Bowers was the man who brought the genius that was Flushed Away to us, and clearly, the bar was set too high. There are flashes of the same brilliance in a few of the throwaway jokes, but overall, there's just no humor for anyone over the age of 10. Most of the jokes were just weak. The pacing was off, with some of the character development slots getting little to no screen time. The movie just tried to go too big, too fast with nothing to lift it.

Conclusion: save your money. It's flash and sparkle with the depth of a spoon. I'm sorry I paid to see it, but that's what "caveat emptor" means after all.