Folks... I'm seeing this film again... months after I originally saw it out in LA, and ya know. I can't wait. Sure I dislike Rosie's character and Tantor. Sure the old man goof is... well a pain and an insult. And ya know... Sure the villian is underdeveloped and never truly has a 'cool' scene, but ya know. My pure love of animation itself. The work of Glen Keane is so powerful, and so dynamic... and the artistry of the background people and their fantastic use of MAYA to wrap paintings around 3-D objects for a more involving and deeper canvas are more than enough to get me excited to see it big again. And knowing their work on FANTASIA 2000... which we'll all see whilst our computers cease to work, is a masterful film. The new sequences are not catering to the lowest common denominator. And tonight... (Tuesday) in Los Angeles on the Disney lot they tested DINOSAUR... Their epic $200 million Photorealistic Dinosaur epic that was begun... an eon ago in concept by Phil Tippet and Paul Verhoeven. The film that screened tonight is an eon apart from that original concept, but from the work I've seen... it's still... majestic, daring and the biggest animated risk a studio has done in quite some time. However, the work Warners is doing (THE IRON GIANT and OSMOSIS JONES), ILM is doing (FRANKENSTEIN), Dreamworks is doing (CHICKEN RUN, SPIRIT) and PIXAR (TOY STORY II and MONSTERS INC)... as well as FOX's latest TITAN AE... well... There are quite a few fish in the sea... and I can't wait to see the size of some of these babies. Here's Denny on TARZAN...
Last month, I attended a press screening of "Disney's Tarzan", it was
completely animated, inked and painted, and fully rendered(except for the
opening and closing credits). First, I should say that I'm a big animation
fanatic, and I've always respected Disney for the work they put behind
their animated features, and tried to turn other cheek in reference to
their marketing formula. But, now I find it impossible to ignore, and now I
can no longer look forward to a Disney animated feature, because I feel
that the marketing formula is crippling their films.
With Mulan I was happy to see that Disney claimed they had an "integrity
issue", they spend so much time launching their film's as events, when
they're just movies. Tarzan is no different. First, Disney whisks you off
to Africa in the 1800s, where Africans don't exist; you can build a
fully-furnished, split level tree house(complete with balcony and rope
bridge)with nothing but your two hands; and the only thing you have to w
orry about is the local leopard, Sabor, who's always on the prowl. Set it
to a Phil Collins musical number and kill a baby gorilla, and you can wrap
up your first sequence.
Tarzan is visually beautiful, and as usual the animation on our main
characters(such as Tarzan, Jane, her father, the villian, the apes) is
top-notch, but all the other human extras look like they just stepped off
the 'Swan Princess' set. Its lack of character songs is refreshing, with
the exception of "Trashing the Camp', where Rosie leads the monkey squad in
a tedious musical number without any real words. This film is really the
showpiece for their brilliant background work, that 'deep canvas' stuff is
amazing. Its too bad they can make all these artistic and technical
breakthroughs, but they can't make breakthroughs in their stories.
The one thing I loved about Tarzan is its action scenes, if Disney just
did an animated movie that was 70 minutes of continuous kick-ass fight
scenes, I'd probably enjoy it. Tarzan surfs through the trees at incredible
speeds, with even more incredible arrogance(yet he still has that innocent
modesty that Pocahontas had), but after all that travelling around the
jungle, how come he never happens upon his parents jungle mansion, sitting
out in the open, in that nearby tree?
His best buddy, Terk, over voiced by a Brooklyn accented-Rosie O'Donnell,
is not only the eternal tomboy ape, but is quite superfluous. She pops in
for a joke, and pops out, so she doesn't disrupt the movie's real story. At
least the other sidekicks had a bigger reason to be there besides, upping
the film's marketing value, and making the kiddies laugh.
All in all, the film doesn't do much, it doesn't raise any bars, hell--you
don't even remember the villian's name. I just wish once I can watch a
Disney animated film made after 1990, that doesn't feature, a hero that
doesn't belong, a love story, a wisecracking sidekick with a big celebrity
voice, absent minded little fathers, and a villain that dies by falling.
But, I'm sure Tarzan doesn't mind, he gets to kick some ass, learn enough
about civilization without actually having to go there, becomes king of the
apes, and gets Jane to wear this little two piece number while she plays
aero-ballerina to his Jungle God.
I hear that Disney is down 41 percent in sales this year, and now that it
has some competition, its animated films aren't sure fire hits anymore.
Well, this one sure ain't; I'm sure it'll pull in big crowds, and sell a
lot of toys, but it has too many elements that just remind you 'this is a
Disney cartoon, if we get too innovative, and original, we won't be able to
make a cool 'Animal Kingdom' ride.'--Denny
|
