So I'm sure some of you will remember the huge review series I did last year for Disney's 100th anniversary. And I had so much fun doing that, I felt like doing another one... and coincidentally, this year marks the 30th anniversary of Disney's biggest modern animation rival: DreamWorks Animation.
First, a little history lesson: Disney executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, after both betting against The Lion King in favor of Pocahontas and his Executive Meddling resulting in a disastrous early cut of Toy Story colloquially known as the "Black Friday" cut, left the company to pursue new ventures. Together with Steven Spielberg and record label owner David Geffen, he founded the independent film studio DreamWorks SKG in 1994, which has produced films such as Gladiator, The Ring, Lincoln, and the Transformers Film Series, along with its associated animation studio. The animation studio split off from the main DreamWorks studio in 2004, though both currently operate under the ownership of NBCUniversal, after multiple moves between owners over the years for both. Katzenberg hoped to make a studio with a distinct identity from Disney and Pixar, one more outwardly edgy and adult while still not excluding kids as an audience, and I'd say that for the most part he succeeded. While not without its ups and downs, DreamWorks has cemented its place in the modern animation landscape, so let's take a look at their iconic and not-so-iconic films and characters.
The Independent Era (1998 - 2005)
Okay, DreamWorks doesn't really have "official" era markers like the Disney Animated Canon, but they have hopped between distributors a few times, and those times has somewhat reflected their current status, so let's use that to set them apart. These are the films distributed independently by the studio themselves Day 1 - Antz (1998)
April 17
The studio's first film, and only the third fully computer-animated film ever made (the first two being Toy Story, of course, and a lesser-known Brazillian animated film called Cassiopeia
).
This film is rather infamous for its production history; namely, whether or not it was an intentional ripoff of A Bug's Life out of spite by Katzenberg towards Pixar. There's plenty of evidence to suggest either side; what I think is most likely is that Katzenberg heard about the early ideas for A Bug's Life while at Disney and thought the idea of an animated film about ants was a good idea, but beyond that the two films are very different, so I wouldn't say it could be considered a ripoff, merely just a borrowed concept. As a film by itself... this is rather good. It's definitely a lot Darker and Edgier than A Bug's Life, with themes like war, death, political corruption, worker revolts, seeking individualism within the apathetic masses, plenty of swearing and mild sexual themes... this is definitely not a typical kids' movie like you might expect. The visuals, while a bit dated, are still rather good. While the texures are quite rubbery, the actual animation is nice, the lighting and color choices make for a uniquely bleak and oppressive atmosphere to reflect the environment of the ant hill, and the character designs are nicely sharp and rough to create a unique look, especially compared to A Bugs' Life's mostly softer and cartoony vibe. The crowd shots are especially amazing for 1998 CGI, seeing thousands of ants together like that is something even Pixar struggled to do. The characters are largely one-note based on the archetypes of the actors playing them, but they're well-written to serve the story, just not all that memorable beyond just being "Woody Allen Ant", "Sylvester Stallone Ant", "Jennifer Lopez Ant", "Danny Glover Ant", etcetera. Gene Hackman's evil Social Darwinist general is probably the most overtly complex of the bunch, but even he isn't all too much to write home about. The weird exception to the "actor archetype" angle is Christopher Walken as his Number Two, though. You'd think from that casting that he'd be the comedic sidekick, but no, he's played oddly straight within the story... contrasting with Walken's signature offbeat delivery. The use of humans is also pretty neat, leading to some fun action setpieces via a Humans Are Cthulhu depiction. Overall, like A Bug's Life, Antz is a good early film in an iconic studio's library, but not one that particularly stands out compared to their other output. Which one is better, in my opinion? I honestly couldn't say, like I said, they're much more different than the shared general premise would suggest. Next up is a film where Katzenberg shows how DreamWorks can play in a Disneyesque ballpark but still definitely put their own unique spin on things.
The studio's first film, and only the third fully computer-animated film ever made (the first two being Toy Story, of course, and a lesser-known Brazillian animated film called Cassiopeia
).This film is rather infamous for its production history; namely, whether or not it was an intentional ripoff of A Bug's Life out of spite by Katzenberg towards Pixar. There's plenty of evidence to suggest either side; what I think is most likely is that Katzenberg heard about the early ideas for A Bug's Life while at Disney and thought the idea of an animated film about ants was a good idea, but beyond that the two films are very different, so I wouldn't say it could be considered a ripoff, merely just a borrowed concept. As a film by itself... this is rather good. It's definitely a lot Darker and Edgier than A Bug's Life, with themes like war, death, political corruption, worker revolts, seeking individualism within the apathetic masses, plenty of swearing and mild sexual themes... this is definitely not a typical kids' movie like you might expect. The visuals, while a bit dated, are still rather good. While the texures are quite rubbery, the actual animation is nice, the lighting and color choices make for a uniquely bleak and oppressive atmosphere to reflect the environment of the ant hill, and the character designs are nicely sharp and rough to create a unique look, especially compared to A Bugs' Life's mostly softer and cartoony vibe. The crowd shots are especially amazing for 1998 CGI, seeing thousands of ants together like that is something even Pixar struggled to do. The characters are largely one-note based on the archetypes of the actors playing them, but they're well-written to serve the story, just not all that memorable beyond just being "Woody Allen Ant", "Sylvester Stallone Ant", "Jennifer Lopez Ant", "Danny Glover Ant", etcetera. Gene Hackman's evil Social Darwinist general is probably the most overtly complex of the bunch, but even he isn't all too much to write home about. The weird exception to the "actor archetype" angle is Christopher Walken as his Number Two, though. You'd think from that casting that he'd be the comedic sidekick, but no, he's played oddly straight within the story... contrasting with Walken's signature offbeat delivery. The use of humans is also pretty neat, leading to some fun action setpieces via a Humans Are Cthulhu depiction. Overall, like A Bug's Life, Antz is a good early film in an iconic studio's library, but not one that particularly stands out compared to their other output. Which one is better, in my opinion? I honestly couldn't say, like I said, they're much more different than the shared general premise would suggest. Next up is a film where Katzenberg shows how DreamWorks can play in a Disneyesque ballpark but still definitely put their own unique spin on things.
Day 2 - The Prince of Egypt (1998)
April 20
"With this staff, you will perform My wonders."
A beautiful, emotional Epic Movie based upon the Book of Exodus... and rather boldly so, as it is very faithful to the story, no holds barred. This certainly ain't VeggieTales, that's for sure (which, fun fact, DreamWorks actually also owns). The animation is breathtaking, on par with Disney's best efforts. While not all of the CGI integration has aged the best, the sheer spectacle of how it's used to portray the miracles and plagues more than makes up for it. The voice cast is excellent, boasting the likes of Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Patrick Stewart, all performing their absolute best. The focus on the relationship between Moses and Rameses is a great angle to take with this version, adding a ton of character depth and raw emotion to both of them. The scene where Moses hands back the ring to Rameses especially stands out, with him displaying all sorts of conflicting emotion on his face within a few seconds without saying a single word. The fact that, like I mentioned, nothing about the story is sugarcoated for kids is very commendable; not only is stuff like the slaying of the firstborn present, but we see it happen. In an era where Hunchback of Notre Dame got away with a G rating, this definitely earned its PG. The cinematography is amazing, knowing just how to frame each scene to elicit the maximum amount of awe, wonder, and terror. The awe-inspining music by Hans Zimmer manages to be the charry on top of it all. This is an absolutely incredible film all around, and definitely hard to believe this is the same studio famous for things like belching ogres, crazy penguins, and rotund pandas. Next time, we move on to another traditionally animated film... though thankfully one much lighter.
"With this staff, you will perform My wonders."
A beautiful, emotional Epic Movie based upon the Book of Exodus... and rather boldly so, as it is very faithful to the story, no holds barred. This certainly ain't VeggieTales, that's for sure (which, fun fact, DreamWorks actually also owns). The animation is breathtaking, on par with Disney's best efforts. While not all of the CGI integration has aged the best, the sheer spectacle of how it's used to portray the miracles and plagues more than makes up for it. The voice cast is excellent, boasting the likes of Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Patrick Stewart, all performing their absolute best. The focus on the relationship between Moses and Rameses is a great angle to take with this version, adding a ton of character depth and raw emotion to both of them. The scene where Moses hands back the ring to Rameses especially stands out, with him displaying all sorts of conflicting emotion on his face within a few seconds without saying a single word. The fact that, like I mentioned, nothing about the story is sugarcoated for kids is very commendable; not only is stuff like the slaying of the firstborn present, but we see it happen. In an era where Hunchback of Notre Dame got away with a G rating, this definitely earned its PG. The cinematography is amazing, knowing just how to frame each scene to elicit the maximum amount of awe, wonder, and terror. The awe-inspining music by Hans Zimmer manages to be the charry on top of it all. This is an absolutely incredible film all around, and definitely hard to believe this is the same studio famous for things like belching ogres, crazy penguins, and rotund pandas. Next time, we move on to another traditionally animated film... though thankfully one much lighter.
Day 3 - The Road to El Dorado (2000)
April 22
Beloved cult classic or underrated comedy gem? Both. Both is good.
Road to El Dorado is just a fun little movie that I'm glad has been getting more recognition as time has gone on. It was a huge bomb upon release, going with the pattern of traditionally animated films around the Turn of the Millennium, and even got a massive critical thrashing even by the animators themselves, who didn't exactly have a great time making it. I can't really understand that reception though, the movie is so very enjoyable from beginning to end. The humor is great, supplemented by incredibly fluid character animations and very snappy dialogue. The setting of El Dorado is colorful and gorgeous to look at, with imaginative architecture and creatures inhabiting it. The characters are simple, but fun and likable, with great comedic performances by Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh as the lovably roguish leads. Chel is a fun sidekick for her memorable sass, guile, and, uh... other reasons. The plot of masquerading as gods to pull off a con is incredibly fun, and it doesn't go into the cliched Liar Revealed plot by the end, which I can appreciate. Only the villain outright figures out the deception, and it's subtly implied the chief did as well, but chose not to say anything, which was a fascinating angle to go with. The songs from Elton John are nice and catchy, but not too memorable compared to most of Disney's. In fact, this movie feels like it's probably the most outwardly Disneyesque of DreamWorks's library, it's got a feel similar to their more comedy-oriented works like Aladdin and Hercules (in fact, Katzenberg brought on a lot of the people who worked on those films). It's definitely got a lot of its own identity to help it stand out from them, though, so that's not really a bad thing. My one complaint is that the CGI integration... isn't great. I pointed out how Prince of Egypt was showing its age a bit on that front, but El Dorado has aged even worse in that area without Egypt's awe-inspiring spectacle to make up for it, but hey, that's a rather minor complaint. This is just an incredibly fun time all around. Next up, we switch animation mediums again for the beginning of DreamWorks's short-lived foray into stop-motion animation.
Beloved cult classic or underrated comedy gem? Both. Both is good.
Road to El Dorado is just a fun little movie that I'm glad has been getting more recognition as time has gone on. It was a huge bomb upon release, going with the pattern of traditionally animated films around the Turn of the Millennium, and even got a massive critical thrashing even by the animators themselves, who didn't exactly have a great time making it. I can't really understand that reception though, the movie is so very enjoyable from beginning to end. The humor is great, supplemented by incredibly fluid character animations and very snappy dialogue. The setting of El Dorado is colorful and gorgeous to look at, with imaginative architecture and creatures inhabiting it. The characters are simple, but fun and likable, with great comedic performances by Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh as the lovably roguish leads. Chel is a fun sidekick for her memorable sass, guile, and, uh... other reasons. The plot of masquerading as gods to pull off a con is incredibly fun, and it doesn't go into the cliched Liar Revealed plot by the end, which I can appreciate. Only the villain outright figures out the deception, and it's subtly implied the chief did as well, but chose not to say anything, which was a fascinating angle to go with. The songs from Elton John are nice and catchy, but not too memorable compared to most of Disney's. In fact, this movie feels like it's probably the most outwardly Disneyesque of DreamWorks's library, it's got a feel similar to their more comedy-oriented works like Aladdin and Hercules (in fact, Katzenberg brought on a lot of the people who worked on those films). It's definitely got a lot of its own identity to help it stand out from them, though, so that's not really a bad thing. My one complaint is that the CGI integration... isn't great. I pointed out how Prince of Egypt was showing its age a bit on that front, but El Dorado has aged even worse in that area without Egypt's awe-inspiring spectacle to make up for it, but hey, that's a rather minor complaint. This is just an incredibly fun time all around. Next up, we switch animation mediums again for the beginning of DreamWorks's short-lived foray into stop-motion animation.
Day 4 - Chicken Run (2000)
April 28
"NO CHICKEN ESCAPES FROM TWEEDY'S FARM!!!"
The first of three collaborations between DreamWorks and British stop-motion studio Aardman Animations, and it's a delight. Chock-full of typical British humor and charm with the very funny premise of basically being a WWII prison escape movie WITH CHICKENS ON A FARM! As a kid, though, that aspect didn't really stick out to me, I just saw it as a silly chicken movie, but now being able to recognize the WWII imagery being used added a whole other layer to the humor. The plot and characters are rather simple, but enjoyable, especially Mrs. Tweedy, who radiates classical Disney villain-type energy. The animation is fantastic, a true testament to Aardman's talents in stop-motion. I didn't see the sequel that apparently came out on Netflix last year, might give it a try at some point, but the original Chicken Run is a fun little movie. Next up, we're delving into probably DreamWorks's most obscure film ever, so that'll be neat.
"NO CHICKEN ESCAPES FROM TWEEDY'S FARM!!!"
The first of three collaborations between DreamWorks and British stop-motion studio Aardman Animations, and it's a delight. Chock-full of typical British humor and charm with the very funny premise of basically being a WWII prison escape movie WITH CHICKENS ON A FARM! As a kid, though, that aspect didn't really stick out to me, I just saw it as a silly chicken movie, but now being able to recognize the WWII imagery being used added a whole other layer to the humor. The plot and characters are rather simple, but enjoyable, especially Mrs. Tweedy, who radiates classical Disney villain-type energy. The animation is fantastic, a true testament to Aardman's talents in stop-motion. I didn't see the sequel that apparently came out on Netflix last year, might give it a try at some point, but the original Chicken Run is a fun little movie. Next up, we're delving into probably DreamWorks's most obscure film ever, so that'll be neat.
Day 5 - Joseph: King of Dreams (2000)
May 2
Yeah... like i said, this movie is super obscure, a Direct to Video prequel to The Prince of Egypt... and considering it's the only direct-to-video movie they did, I'm guessing it didn't do well, sales-wise. And as a film itself... yeah, it's not great. The animation is, quite expectedly, a huge downgrade from Prince of Egypt, looking noticeably cheap and even outright choppy in a few places. The dream sequences try to flip between artstyles and the effect doesn't really come off all thar well, one time it's in a Van Gough style for... some reason (what correlation does he have with the Bible, exactly?), and another time it's in Beast Wars-level CGI. Ben Affleck voices Joseph, and he's an example of why Celebrity Voice Actors don't always work; experience in screen acting doesn't always translate to a vocal performance and he's very clearly not used to the technique required; his performance cones across quite flat and whiny. He also isn't given all that much of a personality, compare that to the excellent character building and emotional depth given to both Moses and Rameses. Nobody else is really any better, the most interesting thing about any of the other characters is that the eldest of Joseph's brothers is voiced by Mark Hamill... who's so subdued that I didn't realize it was him until I checked imdb after watching; yeah, despite playing an antagonistic role they never had him going full Joker or Firelord, which feels like a huge waste of the casting. The plot has a sluggish, meandering pace that seems to skip over large chunks of time at random, making it feel like we missed large parts of the story. And compared to Prince of Egypt presenting the story of Exodus with no sugarcoating whatsoever, this one pointedly does downplay the darker elements significantly, making it feel less like a classical Hollywood Biblical epic and more like some cheap VHS you'd see a Sunday school teacher plop on to keep the kids quiet for a bit. The songs are all bland and forgettable, not a single one feeling like it fits in the story and is just there to be there. The whole thing is a rather boring and unmemorable experience, making its obscurity quite understandable. Next time, though, will certainly make up for it, as it's the one I bet everyone has been waiting for. Because Once Upon a Time, in a faraway land, there lived a princess... and an ogre...
Yeah... like i said, this movie is super obscure, a Direct to Video prequel to The Prince of Egypt... and considering it's the only direct-to-video movie they did, I'm guessing it didn't do well, sales-wise. And as a film itself... yeah, it's not great. The animation is, quite expectedly, a huge downgrade from Prince of Egypt, looking noticeably cheap and even outright choppy in a few places. The dream sequences try to flip between artstyles and the effect doesn't really come off all thar well, one time it's in a Van Gough style for... some reason (what correlation does he have with the Bible, exactly?), and another time it's in Beast Wars-level CGI. Ben Affleck voices Joseph, and he's an example of why Celebrity Voice Actors don't always work; experience in screen acting doesn't always translate to a vocal performance and he's very clearly not used to the technique required; his performance cones across quite flat and whiny. He also isn't given all that much of a personality, compare that to the excellent character building and emotional depth given to both Moses and Rameses. Nobody else is really any better, the most interesting thing about any of the other characters is that the eldest of Joseph's brothers is voiced by Mark Hamill... who's so subdued that I didn't realize it was him until I checked imdb after watching; yeah, despite playing an antagonistic role they never had him going full Joker or Firelord, which feels like a huge waste of the casting. The plot has a sluggish, meandering pace that seems to skip over large chunks of time at random, making it feel like we missed large parts of the story. And compared to Prince of Egypt presenting the story of Exodus with no sugarcoating whatsoever, this one pointedly does downplay the darker elements significantly, making it feel less like a classical Hollywood Biblical epic and more like some cheap VHS you'd see a Sunday school teacher plop on to keep the kids quiet for a bit. The songs are all bland and forgettable, not a single one feeling like it fits in the story and is just there to be there. The whole thing is a rather boring and unmemorable experience, making its obscurity quite understandable. Next time, though, will certainly make up for it, as it's the one I bet everyone has been waiting for. Because Once Upon a Time, in a faraway land, there lived a princess... and an ogre...
Day 6 - Shrek (2001)
May 3
SomeBODY ONCE TOLD ME THE WORLD WAS GONNA ROLL ME, I AIN'T THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED...
The start of DreamWorks's flagship franchise, and a hilarious and touching parody of Disney's traditional fairytale formula, Shrek is truly the movie that put the studio on the map as a serious competitor for Disney and Pixar. Heck, it actually won the inaugural Academy Award for Best Animated Feature against Monsters, Inc. (and, weirdly enough, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius). And, of course, the movie and franchise have made a lasting impact on popular culture and meme culture, which is a testament to how good the movie was at sticking with people. The story and characters are expertly written as counterpoints to traditional Disney archetypes while still having plenty of their own heart to them; Shrek is, by his own admission, a very multilayered character beneath his crude and rough exterior, a lonely individual hated and feared by others and secretly weighed down by it all, an unorthodox hero who acts like a monster because he's been led to believe it's all he can be, but eventually overcomes it with the help of new friends that actually got to know the real him. Mike Myers plays him with a perfect blend of bitter cockiness and hidden softness that makes for great humor and touching emotional scenes. Fiona starts out as a Princess Classic archetype because, in a parallel to Shrek, she feels like she has to, but over the journey shows her real personality is much more assertive and unconventional, having an appreciation for Shrek's ogreish interests, a surprising talent in martial arts, and shares a sweet love story with him that ends with them living happily ever after in a way that's very unlike your traditional princess story. Donkey as the sidekick manages to walk the very tight line between funny and annoying with a masterful comedic performance from Eddie Murphy, being a helpful and loyal friend to Shrek that helps him with his own character growth in his own... special manner, all while blissfully ignorant of when it's time to stop talking. Lord Farquaad, a direct caricature of Michael Eisner, is delightfully nasty in his hatred for fairytale "freaks" despite having more in common with them than he might admit (in fact, according to the musical, he's an actual dwarf, Grumpy's son even), and his obsession with running a "perfect" kingdom. The movie's humor is rock-solid, with much more depth to the writing than some the way some stereotype it as, nothing more that crass Toilet Humor and pop culture references. In reality, while there is plenty of those (which are still handled well), plenty of it comes from natural character interactions, creative Anachronism Stew gags like the Magic Mirror as a television or the kingdom of Duloc being run like a theme park, and general satire of fantasy conventions like singing animals and dragonslaying. The pop songs manage to compliment each scene they're in very well; obviously there's the famous Smash Mouth opening, but there's plenty of character-building scenes like "My Beloved Monster" and "Hallelujah", and the film is topped off with an epic Dance Party Ending that may have spawned a trend in animated films but still stands atop the others. The animation is great, though the CGI textures are showing their age a bit, the humans in particular look quite off compared to the fantasy creatures, and even stuff like Donkey's fur or the sand in front of Shrek's house looks rough. Shrek is a great movie, establishing DreamWorks with a creative niche beyond simply attempting to be Disneyesque and helped to carve their own identity. But before we get more of that, we've got a few more traditionally-animated films in their library...
SomeBODY ONCE TOLD ME THE WORLD WAS GONNA ROLL ME, I AIN'T THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED...
The start of DreamWorks's flagship franchise, and a hilarious and touching parody of Disney's traditional fairytale formula, Shrek is truly the movie that put the studio on the map as a serious competitor for Disney and Pixar. Heck, it actually won the inaugural Academy Award for Best Animated Feature against Monsters, Inc. (and, weirdly enough, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius). And, of course, the movie and franchise have made a lasting impact on popular culture and meme culture, which is a testament to how good the movie was at sticking with people. The story and characters are expertly written as counterpoints to traditional Disney archetypes while still having plenty of their own heart to them; Shrek is, by his own admission, a very multilayered character beneath his crude and rough exterior, a lonely individual hated and feared by others and secretly weighed down by it all, an unorthodox hero who acts like a monster because he's been led to believe it's all he can be, but eventually overcomes it with the help of new friends that actually got to know the real him. Mike Myers plays him with a perfect blend of bitter cockiness and hidden softness that makes for great humor and touching emotional scenes. Fiona starts out as a Princess Classic archetype because, in a parallel to Shrek, she feels like she has to, but over the journey shows her real personality is much more assertive and unconventional, having an appreciation for Shrek's ogreish interests, a surprising talent in martial arts, and shares a sweet love story with him that ends with them living happily ever after in a way that's very unlike your traditional princess story. Donkey as the sidekick manages to walk the very tight line between funny and annoying with a masterful comedic performance from Eddie Murphy, being a helpful and loyal friend to Shrek that helps him with his own character growth in his own... special manner, all while blissfully ignorant of when it's time to stop talking. Lord Farquaad, a direct caricature of Michael Eisner, is delightfully nasty in his hatred for fairytale "freaks" despite having more in common with them than he might admit (in fact, according to the musical, he's an actual dwarf, Grumpy's son even), and his obsession with running a "perfect" kingdom. The movie's humor is rock-solid, with much more depth to the writing than some the way some stereotype it as, nothing more that crass Toilet Humor and pop culture references. In reality, while there is plenty of those (which are still handled well), plenty of it comes from natural character interactions, creative Anachronism Stew gags like the Magic Mirror as a television or the kingdom of Duloc being run like a theme park, and general satire of fantasy conventions like singing animals and dragonslaying. The pop songs manage to compliment each scene they're in very well; obviously there's the famous Smash Mouth opening, but there's plenty of character-building scenes like "My Beloved Monster" and "Hallelujah", and the film is topped off with an epic Dance Party Ending that may have spawned a trend in animated films but still stands atop the others. The animation is great, though the CGI textures are showing their age a bit, the humans in particular look quite off compared to the fantasy creatures, and even stuff like Donkey's fur or the sand in front of Shrek's house looks rough. Shrek is a great movie, establishing DreamWorks with a creative niche beyond simply attempting to be Disneyesque and helped to carve their own identity. But before we get more of that, we've got a few more traditionally-animated films in their library...
Day 7 - Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (2002)
May 7
"I'm never gonna ride you, am I? Maybe no one should..."
So, funny story about this movie; one of my earliest memories is of going to see it in the theater. Not seeing it, going to see it... because right when we got there, a nearby transformer blew and the theater lost power, so we left. I wasn't too upset, I don't think this was something I actively wanted to see, in fact, all I knew was that the movie was called "Spirit" and it was about a horse. In the intervening twenty-two years, I never saw it, only learning it was a DreamWorks movie when seeing Doug Walker talk about it at some point (cannot remember where or when). Having now seen it? This was really good!
This is a rather unique animated film where the focus is on the wild animals and their interactions with humanity, but the animals don't speak and mostly behave realistically, outside of the more expressive facial and body language possible through the animation, and it works great. Long stretches of the movie go without dialogue, letting the visuals tell the story... at least, whenever Matt Damon doesn't suddenly pop up. Yeah, despite the lead horse not actually speaking in the story, his inner thoughts are occasionally narrated by Damon... and it feels rather superfluous, often Narrating the Obvious where the visuals already make it pretty clear what's happening. He doesn't even sound all that enthused about it; whenever he appeared I never felt like this was actually the horse's inner voice, I always got the distinct mental image of Matt Damon sitting in a booth reading the words off a script. I'm going to guess the movie was initially planned to be more based in the visual storytelling but Executive Meddling made them add the narration out of fear that kids wouldn't understand what's going on, as well as a way to get a name actor in the movie for easier promotion. I can sort of understand the first concern, but then again, I'm viewing this movie from a modern perspective where we've already had WALL•E prove that you in fact can have a dialogue-light family film that kids can follow. Had this been made after that, maybe they would've done it differently, who knows. Still, whenever he's not talking, the story of a wild stallion (excellentt) fighting the expansion of the Old West for his freedom is great and well-told. The animation is absolutely beautiful, horses are one of the toughest animals to animate properly and they look fantastic, with realistic musculature and behavior, again, outside of the deliberate minor anthropomorphism to make them more expressive to the audience, which is kind of necessary (see the passionlessness of the characters in the Lion King remake) and still looks good. I've mentioned how DreamWorks's previous attempts to integrate CG effects into traditional animation haven't been the best, but this film showed a massive leap on that front, using it quite well for environments, machinery, and background horses in a way that meshes very well with the animation and looks on par with Disney's integration in the Renaissance films. I guess maybe Shrek was good practice for them on that front. There are some times when background humans are CG, and those look significantly less good, but the rest of it is pretty impressive. So yeah, after all this time, finally seeing the movie was definitely worth it.
"I'm never gonna ride you, am I? Maybe no one should..."
So, funny story about this movie; one of my earliest memories is of going to see it in the theater. Not seeing it, going to see it... because right when we got there, a nearby transformer blew and the theater lost power, so we left. I wasn't too upset, I don't think this was something I actively wanted to see, in fact, all I knew was that the movie was called "Spirit" and it was about a horse. In the intervening twenty-two years, I never saw it, only learning it was a DreamWorks movie when seeing Doug Walker talk about it at some point (cannot remember where or when). Having now seen it? This was really good!
This is a rather unique animated film where the focus is on the wild animals and their interactions with humanity, but the animals don't speak and mostly behave realistically, outside of the more expressive facial and body language possible through the animation, and it works great. Long stretches of the movie go without dialogue, letting the visuals tell the story... at least, whenever Matt Damon doesn't suddenly pop up. Yeah, despite the lead horse not actually speaking in the story, his inner thoughts are occasionally narrated by Damon... and it feels rather superfluous, often Narrating the Obvious where the visuals already make it pretty clear what's happening. He doesn't even sound all that enthused about it; whenever he appeared I never felt like this was actually the horse's inner voice, I always got the distinct mental image of Matt Damon sitting in a booth reading the words off a script. I'm going to guess the movie was initially planned to be more based in the visual storytelling but Executive Meddling made them add the narration out of fear that kids wouldn't understand what's going on, as well as a way to get a name actor in the movie for easier promotion. I can sort of understand the first concern, but then again, I'm viewing this movie from a modern perspective where we've already had WALL•E prove that you in fact can have a dialogue-light family film that kids can follow. Had this been made after that, maybe they would've done it differently, who knows. Still, whenever he's not talking, the story of a wild stallion (excellentt) fighting the expansion of the Old West for his freedom is great and well-told. The animation is absolutely beautiful, horses are one of the toughest animals to animate properly and they look fantastic, with realistic musculature and behavior, again, outside of the deliberate minor anthropomorphism to make them more expressive to the audience, which is kind of necessary (see the passionlessness of the characters in the Lion King remake) and still looks good. I've mentioned how DreamWorks's previous attempts to integrate CG effects into traditional animation haven't been the best, but this film showed a massive leap on that front, using it quite well for environments, machinery, and background horses in a way that meshes very well with the animation and looks on par with Disney's integration in the Renaissance films. I guess maybe Shrek was good practice for them on that front. There are some times when background humans are CG, and those look significantly less good, but the rest of it is pretty impressive. So yeah, after all this time, finally seeing the movie was definitely worth it.
Day 8 - Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)
May 8
DreamWorks' final traditionally-animated film, which ended up being one of the largest recorded Box Office Bombs in history and one of the many signs of the downfall of traditional animation in general at the Turn of the Millennium. Which is a shame, because this is actually not that bad of a movie. It's a reasonably fun swashbuckling adventure flick with absolutely gorgeous animation. The CG integration continues to improve from Spirit, with stuff like the ships, water and sand looking fantastic next to the great 2D animation. Especially when it comes to Eris, hands down one of the greatest traditionally-animated characters ever. The ethereal fluidity of her movements is an absolute wonder to behold, especially the many creative, otherworldly ways her and her realm materialize in and out of existence and shadows, its truly beautiful in a chaotic sense. Her vocal performance by Michelle Pfeiffer isn't bad either. The other characters are all rather simple, but likable enough; Brad Pitt is nicely roguish and confident as Sinbad. The biggest problem with the movie is the romance. It felt very Strangled by the Red String; Sinbad and Marina go from bickering to suddenly in love rather suddenly, and the movie never really gives any sort of reason why we shouldn't want her engagement to Proteus to go through. I feel like maybe it would've been better if her and Sinbad remained platonic while going on the adventure together, that would've been a nicely unique angle. As it is, it feels like they're only paired together because they're the lead characters. The story is also incredibly simple, chasing after a vaguely-defined MacGuffin (seriously, they never actually explain what it does or why it's important, it just... is), but it makes for a ton of nicely-animated, well-structured, exciting action sequences. I didn't expect much from this movie, I almost never hear people talk about it outside of Eris, but I was pleasantly surprised at how fun it was. Next time, though, we return to a land far far away, for one of the greatest animated sequels of all time...
DreamWorks' final traditionally-animated film, which ended up being one of the largest recorded Box Office Bombs in history and one of the many signs of the downfall of traditional animation in general at the Turn of the Millennium. Which is a shame, because this is actually not that bad of a movie. It's a reasonably fun swashbuckling adventure flick with absolutely gorgeous animation. The CG integration continues to improve from Spirit, with stuff like the ships, water and sand looking fantastic next to the great 2D animation. Especially when it comes to Eris, hands down one of the greatest traditionally-animated characters ever. The ethereal fluidity of her movements is an absolute wonder to behold, especially the many creative, otherworldly ways her and her realm materialize in and out of existence and shadows, its truly beautiful in a chaotic sense. Her vocal performance by Michelle Pfeiffer isn't bad either. The other characters are all rather simple, but likable enough; Brad Pitt is nicely roguish and confident as Sinbad. The biggest problem with the movie is the romance. It felt very Strangled by the Red String; Sinbad and Marina go from bickering to suddenly in love rather suddenly, and the movie never really gives any sort of reason why we shouldn't want her engagement to Proteus to go through. I feel like maybe it would've been better if her and Sinbad remained platonic while going on the adventure together, that would've been a nicely unique angle. As it is, it feels like they're only paired together because they're the lead characters. The story is also incredibly simple, chasing after a vaguely-defined MacGuffin (seriously, they never actually explain what it does or why it's important, it just... is), but it makes for a ton of nicely-animated, well-structured, exciting action sequences. I didn't expect much from this movie, I almost never hear people talk about it outside of Eris, but I was pleasantly surprised at how fun it was. Next time, though, we return to a land far far away, for one of the greatest animated sequels of all time...
Day 9 - Shrek 2 (2004)
May 11
"Now we're talking! Shrek and Donkey on another whirlwind adventure!"
One of the textbook examples of an Even Better Sequel in animation, Shrek 2 is everything that makes the first film great and more. The story is a natural extension of the previous film's ending by having Shrek and Fiona coming into very real, relatable marital problems with each side having a fair nuance to their points and coming to terms with how their relationship is going to work. The actions of both make it clear that no matter their differences, they really are each other's true love. Fiona's parents add an extra element to the equation with King Harold's character arc being an excellent showing for a man whose own insecurities have made him unfairly judgmental and growing past them, and Queen Lilian being a great, calmer Foil to him that's clearly offput by Shrek but willing to give him a chance. The Fairy Godmother is an excellent villain, acting as essentially a magicial mafia don obsessed with her own perfect vision of a Happily Ever After while doting on her Manchild son. And, of course, the introduction of the Iconic Sequel Character, our Favorite Fearless Hero himself, Puss in Boots, who's not really all that tied into the plot but makes for an entertaining comedic foil to Donkey and has plenty of genuinely badass action moments, nicely setting the stage for his owns spinoffs down the line. The humor is still top-notch, especially with how they don't fall into the common comedy-sequel trap of recycling the old jokes, with sharp pop-culture and fairytale satire and great situational and character-based comedy alike. The visuals, like with the first two Toy Storys, are an astonishing leap forward on every level despite the short gap between films; everything from the more natural shading and the more detailed texturing, to the subtle yet notable difference in shape to the models. The human characters look much better than the first, especially human Fiona for a direct point of contrast, Donkey and Puss have much better fur detail, Gingy having a better crumbly texture to him, even the better use of particle effects like rain and smoke. The soundtrack is just as great as the first, elevated by the amazing climactic cover of "Holding Out For A Hero". The whole thing is just superb, a nearly perfect film all around and hands-down one of the best animated films ever made. I've seen this movie many times before and I'll see it many times again. I even saw the 20th anniversary screening of this movie in theaters not too long ago and it's actually what got me to go forward with this new series. But of course, next time, we'll be diving deep into the ocean for a decidedly... different experience.
"Now we're talking! Shrek and Donkey on another whirlwind adventure!"
One of the textbook examples of an Even Better Sequel in animation, Shrek 2 is everything that makes the first film great and more. The story is a natural extension of the previous film's ending by having Shrek and Fiona coming into very real, relatable marital problems with each side having a fair nuance to their points and coming to terms with how their relationship is going to work. The actions of both make it clear that no matter their differences, they really are each other's true love. Fiona's parents add an extra element to the equation with King Harold's character arc being an excellent showing for a man whose own insecurities have made him unfairly judgmental and growing past them, and Queen Lilian being a great, calmer Foil to him that's clearly offput by Shrek but willing to give him a chance. The Fairy Godmother is an excellent villain, acting as essentially a magicial mafia don obsessed with her own perfect vision of a Happily Ever After while doting on her Manchild son. And, of course, the introduction of the Iconic Sequel Character, our Favorite Fearless Hero himself, Puss in Boots, who's not really all that tied into the plot but makes for an entertaining comedic foil to Donkey and has plenty of genuinely badass action moments, nicely setting the stage for his owns spinoffs down the line. The humor is still top-notch, especially with how they don't fall into the common comedy-sequel trap of recycling the old jokes, with sharp pop-culture and fairytale satire and great situational and character-based comedy alike. The visuals, like with the first two Toy Storys, are an astonishing leap forward on every level despite the short gap between films; everything from the more natural shading and the more detailed texturing, to the subtle yet notable difference in shape to the models. The human characters look much better than the first, especially human Fiona for a direct point of contrast, Donkey and Puss have much better fur detail, Gingy having a better crumbly texture to him, even the better use of particle effects like rain and smoke. The soundtrack is just as great as the first, elevated by the amazing climactic cover of "Holding Out For A Hero". The whole thing is just superb, a nearly perfect film all around and hands-down one of the best animated films ever made. I've seen this movie many times before and I'll see it many times again. I even saw the 20th anniversary screening of this movie in theaters not too long ago and it's actually what got me to go forward with this new series. But of course, next time, we'll be diving deep into the ocean for a decidedly... different experience.
Day 10 - Shark Tale (2004)
May 13
Shark Tale is rather legendary in its reputation as DreamWorks's worst movie, or at least among the worst. And... yeah, it's not great. First, there's the elephant in the room: the character designs are god-awfully ugly. The fish all have the disturbingly humanlike faces of their actors plastered onto their bodies, and there's just something about the super-long fins working as arms and legs that's just... off, I don't really know how to explain it. Comparing it to Finding Nemo (as is common, this film basically being the Antz to its Bug's Life), Dory has certain facial features that subtly call to mind Ellen DeGeneres, but isn't simply Ellen's face copied and pasted onto a fish, heck, even staying on the topic of DW, Donkey has the same thing going where he subtly resembles Eddie Murphy but isn't an exact lookalike. The Nemo fish also work better because of their more realistic body shapes, with just enough stylization to make them expressive on a human level, as opposed to Shark Tale's overly-exaggerated anthropomorphism. The sharks look better, though. The animation is rather inconsistent, I wouldn't say any of it is truly bad but a lot of the time it barely feels like they're actually underwater; again, comparing it to Nemo where they had things like dust particles, sunlight refraction, and subtle currents throughout to really sell the atmosphere, this movie barely does any of that, thus making it feel like there's just air surrounding them. The writing is not very good at all outside of a few individual moments; the jokes mostly fall flat, most of it being juvenile pop-culture stuff and grossout humor that doesn't handle it as well as Shrek does. The story is a Cliché Storm that doesn't really take advantage of the setting, it's the kind of movie you've seen plenty of times before with humans with very little actually changed. The characters are mostly underdeveloped, annoying, or, rather egregiously in the case of our lead Oscar, flat-out unlikable, with not even Will Smith's natural charisma being able to salvage him. He's rude, selfish, greedy, reckless, and doesn't really go through a satisfying arc to improve that, he just suddenly isn't at the end. There are three characters I actually liked, though; Martin Scorsese's pufferfish manager and the octopus voiced by... somebody from The Sopranos (never seen it, but my brother recognized him), both of which have most of the movie's better jokes, and Robert De Niro as the don shark, who he performs as a nicely intimidating but sympathetic antagonist. Jack Black and Angelina Jolie are alright too, I guess, given the rather underwhelming writing of their characters, they do the best with what they've got, and obviously DreamWorks did pick up on their potential later on... but we're not there quite yet. Would I consider Shark Tale the absolute worst for the studio? Probably not, Joseph: King of Dreams was much more boring and cheap, this at least kept my attention with how offputting and weird it was. Still, its reputation is well-deserved. Thankfully, though, next time will be a nice pallet cleanser... because it's time to move it, move it.
Shark Tale is rather legendary in its reputation as DreamWorks's worst movie, or at least among the worst. And... yeah, it's not great. First, there's the elephant in the room: the character designs are god-awfully ugly. The fish all have the disturbingly humanlike faces of their actors plastered onto their bodies, and there's just something about the super-long fins working as arms and legs that's just... off, I don't really know how to explain it. Comparing it to Finding Nemo (as is common, this film basically being the Antz to its Bug's Life), Dory has certain facial features that subtly call to mind Ellen DeGeneres, but isn't simply Ellen's face copied and pasted onto a fish, heck, even staying on the topic of DW, Donkey has the same thing going where he subtly resembles Eddie Murphy but isn't an exact lookalike. The Nemo fish also work better because of their more realistic body shapes, with just enough stylization to make them expressive on a human level, as opposed to Shark Tale's overly-exaggerated anthropomorphism. The sharks look better, though. The animation is rather inconsistent, I wouldn't say any of it is truly bad but a lot of the time it barely feels like they're actually underwater; again, comparing it to Nemo where they had things like dust particles, sunlight refraction, and subtle currents throughout to really sell the atmosphere, this movie barely does any of that, thus making it feel like there's just air surrounding them. The writing is not very good at all outside of a few individual moments; the jokes mostly fall flat, most of it being juvenile pop-culture stuff and grossout humor that doesn't handle it as well as Shrek does. The story is a Cliché Storm that doesn't really take advantage of the setting, it's the kind of movie you've seen plenty of times before with humans with very little actually changed. The characters are mostly underdeveloped, annoying, or, rather egregiously in the case of our lead Oscar, flat-out unlikable, with not even Will Smith's natural charisma being able to salvage him. He's rude, selfish, greedy, reckless, and doesn't really go through a satisfying arc to improve that, he just suddenly isn't at the end. There are three characters I actually liked, though; Martin Scorsese's pufferfish manager and the octopus voiced by... somebody from The Sopranos (never seen it, but my brother recognized him), both of which have most of the movie's better jokes, and Robert De Niro as the don shark, who he performs as a nicely intimidating but sympathetic antagonist. Jack Black and Angelina Jolie are alright too, I guess, given the rather underwhelming writing of their characters, they do the best with what they've got, and obviously DreamWorks did pick up on their potential later on... but we're not there quite yet. Would I consider Shark Tale the absolute worst for the studio? Probably not, Joseph: King of Dreams was much more boring and cheap, this at least kept my attention with how offputting and weird it was. Still, its reputation is well-deserved. Thankfully, though, next time will be a nice pallet cleanser... because it's time to move it, move it.
