The story is about a ten-year-old Arthur, in a bid to save his grandfather's house from being demolished, goes looking for some much-fabled hidden treasure in the land of the Minimoys.
December 31, 2006 (Press Release) --
Directed by Luc Besson
Writing credits
Luc Besson (also books)
Céline Garcia (idea)
Genre: Animation / Family / Fantasy (more)
Tagline: Adventure awaits in your own backyard.
Plot Outline: Ten-year-old Arthur, in a bid to save his grandfather's house from being demolished, goes looking for some much-fabled hidden treasure in the land of the Minimoys, a tiny people living in harmony with nature.
What a car crash.
This film almost sparks under the weight of it's own arrogance. Arthur & The Invisibles takes the impossibly high bar set by the likes of Pixar, Blue Sky and throws it into a subterranean pit of film making ineptitude.
Never before have I seen so many quotes and steals from so many other films (Star Wars, Antz, Bug's Life, The Borrowers and surprisingly Besson's own Fifth Element among others) without the film benefiting from any lessons learnt in story telling, comedy, action, and ways of engaging family audiences. One must fully look to the top for blame here, as this is where the problems start. From an absurdly confused children's tale that would have Roald Dahl mount a rotisserie in his own grave and would make even Tolkien scratch his temples (script that had enough dialogue, characters and back story to keep an audience busy for an entire trilogy). Into some remarkably absurd casting (is a 50 year old singer really the best actor available to play a romantic lead opposite a 12/13 year old boy?). Following through production design that simply stole from other features and brought nothing of its own. Coming to rest on picture and dialogue editing that was lamentable not only in it's sloppiness, but also for having presented two cumbersome reels of syrupy live "action" followed by four reels where every breath had been sheered out (and presumably a few good laughs), leaving nothing but an intoxicating maelstrom of indecipherable plot.
You will notice something I haven't mentioned so far. The animation..... and herein lies the heartache on seeing this film. So much work has gone into this aspect. There are some fantastic moments and beautifully constructed scenes. The characters work well and have motion that responds to their characterisation beautifully. The sound design is also strong, and both these factors come together to form a body of immensely hard toil. So much pity that the more traditional departments of this film let the side down with inept mistakes, and poor creative decisions. The live action aspects and performances in this film were hideously directed, with bemused looking actors who didn't seem to know what on earth was going on, and camera composition that looked rushed and shoddy compared to the CGI action.
Source: http://www.msn.com
Writing credits
Luc Besson (also books)
Céline Garcia (idea)
Genre: Animation / Family / Fantasy (more)
Tagline: Adventure awaits in your own backyard.
Plot Outline: Ten-year-old Arthur, in a bid to save his grandfather's house from being demolished, goes looking for some much-fabled hidden treasure in the land of the Minimoys, a tiny people living in harmony with nature.
What a car crash.
This film almost sparks under the weight of it's own arrogance. Arthur & The Invisibles takes the impossibly high bar set by the likes of Pixar, Blue Sky and throws it into a subterranean pit of film making ineptitude.
Never before have I seen so many quotes and steals from so many other films (Star Wars, Antz, Bug's Life, The Borrowers and surprisingly Besson's own Fifth Element among others) without the film benefiting from any lessons learnt in story telling, comedy, action, and ways of engaging family audiences. One must fully look to the top for blame here, as this is where the problems start. From an absurdly confused children's tale that would have Roald Dahl mount a rotisserie in his own grave and would make even Tolkien scratch his temples (script that had enough dialogue, characters and back story to keep an audience busy for an entire trilogy). Into some remarkably absurd casting (is a 50 year old singer really the best actor available to play a romantic lead opposite a 12/13 year old boy?). Following through production design that simply stole from other features and brought nothing of its own. Coming to rest on picture and dialogue editing that was lamentable not only in it's sloppiness, but also for having presented two cumbersome reels of syrupy live "action" followed by four reels where every breath had been sheered out (and presumably a few good laughs), leaving nothing but an intoxicating maelstrom of indecipherable plot.
You will notice something I haven't mentioned so far. The animation..... and herein lies the heartache on seeing this film. So much work has gone into this aspect. There are some fantastic moments and beautifully constructed scenes. The characters work well and have motion that responds to their characterisation beautifully. The sound design is also strong, and both these factors come together to form a body of immensely hard toil. So much pity that the more traditional departments of this film let the side down with inept mistakes, and poor creative decisions. The live action aspects and performances in this film were hideously directed, with bemused looking actors who didn't seem to know what on earth was going on, and camera composition that looked rushed and shoddy compared to the CGI action.
Source: http://www.msn.com
Email
Print
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
