Change Your Image
rdavall
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Toll Bridge Troubles (1942)
Uneven yet endearing
The Fox and the Crow persistently fascinate me. Despite their relatively lean filmography (a 'mere' 24 shorts) by the standards of 'golden age' western animation, the continual state of flux plaguing Screen Gems' creative team in the 40s (from the residue of the Mintz-era crew to Frank Tashlin to John Hubley's earliest burgeoning attempts at his trademark and eventual industry-defining UPA stylization (under the, uh, 'supervision' of a recently-displaced Dave Fleischer) and finally the stream-of-consciousness incompetence of the studio's dying days) renders these shorts an inconsistent-yet-intriguing vivisection into a number of the creative stylings populating the 40s animation field, if challenging to coalesce into a singular evaluation of the characters (in their many incarnations) overall. The eclectic quality of the shorts themselves, both between and, bizarrely, within, installments, generally doesn't aid this either.
In this capacity, "Toll Bridge Troubles", essentially produced on the cusp between the Tashlin and Fleischer regimes, is a strange beast in its intermingling of a number of the Tashlin regime's strengths with structural and conceptual faults so glaring as to indicate a rising malaise with the characters a mere three appearances in. The dynamic between the titular duo, on a fundamental level, is notably uneven - while the crow is essentially meant to be a Brooklynese con man/wise guy a la the (earlier) Bugs Bunny mold, the central conflict both lacks the stakes and balance defining the Bugs/Elmer Fudd dynamic (Elmer Fudd is equally as gullible and impulsive as the Fox in numerous regards despite his wielding of a hunting rifle, which both provides a plausible catalyst inciting Bugs to act against him while raising the stakes of Bugs' trickery to both gain him the audience's sympathy and establish a successful kind of catharsis within his 'routine' with Elmer by enabling the audience to project their own underlying recognition of desire a seemingly-inevitable perilous fate, or perhaps merely a cosmetically-imposing force of authority, onto Bugs' antics while simultaneously caricaturing the 'face of the authority' via Elmer to add additional comic levity). Comparatively, the Crow here merely sets upon the Fox as a 'sucker' with no motive and proceeds to heckle him within a relatively low-stake situation (the crossing of a bridge, with the Fox's motive for wanting to do so unknown) within which the Fox poses essentially no threat or form of opposition thanks largely to his gullibility, which is emphasized here to the point of defanging their dynamic further: it's possible that the Fox repeatedly falling for the Crow's feigned 'assistance' could constitute an attempt at caricaturing the increasingly-ludicrous human response to achieving a minor-yet-seemingly-unobtainable goal (which the earlier "Fox and Grapes" depicts far more successfully - the short is basically the Fox against his own projections, with the Crow, given his lack of presence in the final scene, merely a symbolic depiction of fate, or an extension of the Fox's self-defeating determination, more than 50% of a conventional comedy duo), yet the short itself seems indecisive on this, given that the Fox's lack of awareness is hyperbolized so frequently as to suggest stupidity more than increasing blindness to the disproportionality of his actions (seriously, not noticing your alleged 'ally' snag the rubber lifesaver surrounding your scooter with an anchor and remaining completely blind to said lifesaver audibly and visibly stretching to a breaking point?). Resultantly, the Fox here comes off more as lacking agency (and thereby a hapless victim of the Crow) than as an extension of human fault (ie a hapless victim of himself) as with "Grapes", which leaves the comedic routine governing the short imbalanced and lacking in catharsis or focus - is the audience meant to root for the Crow, who has no stakes or motives in the situation, or the Fox, who is mostly a clueless victim? If neither, what kind of point or dynamic is the narrative or gags attempting to convey? Alas, the short doesn't seem to consistently offer up an answer.
That is, however, not to say that the short lacks redeeming facets, which it actually possesses in droves. Coming off the heels of Tashlin's all-too-brief regime, the cinematography and direction are far more expressive than Screen Gem's later output (the lifesaver and ramp gags in particular are both impressively and expressively-framed, which accentuates their baseline absurdity relatively effectively and provides the short with a kind of appeal, if not as satisfying as its WB and MGM contemporaries), the animation (courtesy of Louie Schmitt, formerly of Disney and later of Tex Avery at MGM) is wonderfully fluid (complemented by Schmitt's appealingly rounded-yet-sleek designs of the duo) and background work is far above-average for the studio and Frank Graham's vocals largely support his case as the most underrated voice actor of the 40s Hollywood scene (I love the almost self-referentially absurd campness of his performance as the Fox, particularly his increasingly flustered opposition to the Crow's obstructions; the latter's drawn-out sarcastic "nooo...." in response to the Fox's subsequent inane declaration is similarly hilarious), which lend the short a kind of enjoyability. It's just a shame that the appeal doesn't subjectively extend to the underlying narrative and dynamics.
Dunkirk (2017)
Well-crafted but ultimately feels empty
'Dunkirk' is an unusual animal indeed. It's not your typical 'film' in that it not only lacks, but outright rejects the concept of following a traditional narrative structure in place of aiming more for the sensation of an 'experience'. In other words, it's not trying to be a 'film' in a sense. But it also is, and that's the problem.
Several reviews on this website have implied confusion as to why critics praised this film to such an extent. To be completely fair, I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, the critics clearly have a point: the film is well-crafted. The shots of the ocean are crisp, beautiful and sometimes moving and the camera angles are often surprisingly well-fitted to the atmosphere of a specific 'scene'. True, the shots during the pilot subplot are repetitive (which leads to the sequence itself feeling stale as a result), but this was intentional (although this does not excuse the staleness in itself).
However, whether the critics like it or not, 'Dunkirk' is a heavily flawed product as well in that it's stuck in an awful valley of confusion. Nolan, in his 'film', clearly wants to break from the well-worn format of the sentimental, character-driven war film and focus more on the conflict and experience of Dunkirk. This would be an admirable idea if not for three major factors:
- 'Dunkirk''s main desire seems to be to emulate a reel/recording of the real-life event above telling a more familiar narrative, but simultaneously the 'film' feels the need to focus on the POVs of three soldiers in particular within the conflict. And in this decision, Nolan basically shot himself in the foot. If you want to create an account of Dunkirk but also want to include characters for the audience to focus on so you can convey the horror/emotional impact of war, go for one or the other instead of smashing together two contrastingly operational ideas to create a weird limbo where the scale and flow of the account is lost through the character POVs but the characters are too underdeveloped and flimsy due to the opposite creative obligation for the audience to legitimately care about what happens to them, leading to the 'film' itself dragging into oblivion because there is nothing the audience can relate to.
- Related to the above, but the scale of the actual Dunkirk event feels heavily cut down (where did the 150 million USD budget go exactly, into filming more homogenous scenes of ships sinking?). There are less than 1,000 soldiers on the beach itself (a 300th of the actual total) and never once is the audience given an idea of the grandiose scale of the real-life Dunkirk. Again, the film wants to be experimental, but is also too fearful to go all the necessary way, so it kneecaps itself and destroys both its potential directions by rolling with them both.
- Nolan is an ambitious and creative director, but at times his ideas seem to lack the necessary discipline to make 'Dunkirk' work as a film. It's the George Lucas problem again (to a lesser extent). Lucas wanted to explain the past of Star Wars, but instead belched out the prequels, which were ambitious but a victim of Lucas prioritizing the stuff he wanted to include over what he needed to include, leading to the prequels being historical records with no central plot or characters. I'm not saying directors can't be ambitious, but it's necessary sometimes to control your artistic vision to create a good, watchable film. And it applies here. I understand the real-life Dunkirk may have included similar events, but did we honestly need so many near-identical scenes of boats sinking? Did the pilot scenes need so many homogenous shots? Why is the soundtrack fundamentally a collection of random sound effects? Again, these were both done for a reason, but explanation is not justification. They display Nolan has ambition, but don't improve or enhance the 'film' in itself.
Essentially, I can agree with both sides of the argument - 'Dunkirk' is an example of 'safe experimentation', the kind of film with an impressive exterior and concept that is enough to bolster the egos of the crew and audiences watching but not quite experimental enough to actually challenge either. We need more of the latter category, and 'Dunkirk' would have heavily benefitted from entering this category had Nolan been willing to go all the way. As it stands, we're stuck with an overlong empty montage of beautiful camerawork, interesting concepts and hollow execution.
The Next Step (2013)
How did this get five seasons again?
If you're a member of a family containing girls from ages 8-13 (at some point), chances are you'll have heard of the Next Step, the well...reality (I guess?) show heavily littering the schedules of the Family Channel and CBBC. And I take pity on you. This show is a turd in so many fundamental areas and has little to redeem its unrelenting awfulness throughout (I only barely gave it 2/10 as you see above).
Diving into the show itself, its chief issue lies in the general tone of the show. It's a weird specimen. The Next Step considers itself to be a reality/mockumentary-style show on a surface level, but behind that shallow exterior, you can tell it is also experiencing an identity crisis. It rejects its own concept of being a mockumentary show because of its writing style (due to the cheesy dialogue noted below, particularly during dramatic moments such as the season 3 Internationals arc - is realism/common sense over random contrivance too much to ask for, considering that this is basically a reality mockumentary that treats all of its content as 'serious' and realistic?. I know reality shows are often cheesy and unrealistic due to their intent to purely entertain, but the clash between the unreal-ism of the universe and the sudden shift towards 'dark' character drama in subsequent scenes causes the 'realistic' drama to heavily lose its impact, rendering it ridiculous instead when we are clearly meant to take, say, the Amanda wallet sabotage from season 2 seriously) and a surprising number of conflicts (relationship dramas included) are unrealistic to a cartoonish degree, particularly Lucian's overly ridiculous and elaborate schemes to 'take down the Next Step' (creative team, please stop using that term and actually consult a thesaurus while writing) which once again exceed the point of believability and stick the show's mockumentary premise into invalidity) while also limiting itself based on its premise (therefore the only scenarios it can achieve on a recurring basis are bland relationship dramas, the same few conflicts repeatedly and the obligatory competitions in the final episodes of each season, rendering the show tedious, which is exactly what you NEED to avoid when pulling this kind of show off successfully) to create a lazy, dull, confusedly semi-unrealistic world filled with mean-spirited, unnecessary caricatures of real life personalities. Isn't this meant to be about dancing, and, you know, inspiring? Furthermore, the dancing that the show heavily emphasizes is more minor than a first-time viewer might think and is often redundant when it finally does appear. If you're going to have characters randomly drivel pretentiously about how important dancing is to them, this has to be justified, and here it isn't.
And the dialogue. Good God, the dialogue. This is some of the worst writing I have ever seen in any TV series. It's poorly written, redundant and even hilariously campy when delivered as poorly as it is by the show's actors (only a small percentage manage to deliver even adequate performances, which causes the show's drama to lose even more weight). I understand the show is meant for a young pre-teen audience and that teenagers can be dumb sometimes (most likely the effect the writers were aiming for) but every single character recites the same stale form of dialogue (indicating the objective here is actually to emotionally manipulate the audience) and it becomes tiring and ridiculous after only a short time, particularly with a show that has somehow run for five (going on six) seasons without any sign of stopping.
Ultimately though, the greatest crime the Next Step commits in its brainless reality is its lack of improvement. It never learns from its own mistakes, and new issues crop up every season to add to the old for the sake of cheap, brainless drama and lazy conflict. The first season had a dull, overused 'alpha b*tch' conflict and an insufferably conspicuous Mary Sue in Michelle, the second season added further unreal-ism on top of the first season and added a needlessly complex romantic conflict that was poorly written and ate up way more of the show's runtime that it deserved to), the third season gave virtually no defining traits to its new troupe members (can anyone name me some actual character traits for Cierra?) and reduced the writing quality even further, the fourth season added another insufferable Mary Sue in Alfie (who is halfway between 'intentionally' and 'accidentally' unlikeable) just to manipulate the audience's emotions over James and Riley's relationship (the only reason I gave this show two stars instead of one, because it seems to be the only area where the show writers actually invest the work to develop it), threw in numerous bland new characters for no justified reason (all rehashes of the old cast with even less personality and less acting ability) and the fifth season shamelessly retcons the first season to return Emily to a random narcissistic totalitarian and Michelle to a gullible moron for the sake of lazily manufacturing some form of conflict to fill the episode quota, while adding some the worst, most forced and most time-consuming 'romantic' subplots in the show's history. See how not a single mistake is actually improved upon? The show writers have become indulged enough by the show's success to not fix a single aspect of this wreckage, therefore operating on this law the show will continue to worsen with every passing season while most likely never being cancelled (because it is legitimately the only thing keeping the Family Channel afloat. It's SpongeBob Syndrome all over again. Networks never learn unless a huge uproar breaks out, do they?). The Next Step is ultimately for no one but the writers (who need to keep their jobs afloat) and the Family Channel. We all deserve better.
Dragons: Race to the Edge (2015)
A waste of time and potential
It may be surprising to some readers that I am honestly no fan of the How to Train Your Dragons movies (the climatic arc of the book series is actually better). While they have excellent animation (holy ***, that Bewilderbeast fight!) and a few poignant moments, I feel like they have a tendency to overglorify clichéd storytelling and characterization (particularly that of the dragon riders sans Hiccup and Astrid) as 'epic', leading to a sense of weird unintentional egotism. One of the aspects of the films I did undoubtedly enjoy though was the sense that the films were only scratching the surface of this grand dragon-inhabited Viking setting, and that there was huge potential for development and worldbuilding that could be expanded on outside of the films, e.g: in a TV (or Netflix now, what's the real difference?) show?
This review is not about the How to Train Your Dragon films. It's about the Netflix show 'Dragons: Race to the Edge'. And why have I spent an entire paragraph rambling on about the films when this is the IMDb page for none other than the show?
I guess it's because Race to the Edge is such a void.
As I said above, there was (and still is, without a doubt) huge potential to develop and expand the Hiccup universe outside of the films, and Race to the Edge fumbles at this in significantly unspectacular fashion. My only guess as to why this is the case is that the Dreamworks bigsuits basically told Art Brown and Douglas Sloan (the head writers) that they couldn't develop the characters/setting too much for risk of casual viewers of the films 'missing out' on these details, basically sticking the show into a rut it rarely manages to escape from. Now we're stuck with the same bland clique of riders from the first film largely undeveloped from their original selves. Hiccup is a bland (and kind of selfish and pretentious, for some reason now) hero, Astrid is an angry, temperamental jerk (prior to recent episodes, where the writers have abruptly zigzagged back to using her characterization from the end of the first film because they kind of forgot to build on her romance with Hiccup in most prior episodes and are now compensating), Fishlegs is a wimp stuck in the rut of learning homogeneous lessons every time he is given any focus, Snotlout is a braindead jerkass (although there are some flawed but well- intention-ed episodes that do try to develop him) and Ruffnut and Tuffnut are dumbasses obsessed with chickens and inanimate objects to the point of severe mental defect (both of these gags are painfully driven into the ground by episode 10 of the first season). And then we have Heather, a bland, 'pathos-driven' Mary Sue obviously given the Ascended Extra treatment because the writers prefer her to Astrid (explains the latter's characterization here well) and she isn't in either of the films, leaving them with free reign over a dead-on-arrival character. Having Tinkerbell's voice ain't gonna help ya, lady.
Race to the Edge also bleeds from severe wounds in other areas. Episode premises are largely bland (most are either narratives featuring a gimmicky new dragons because damn we gotta sell us some action figures, or character-focused episodes that 9.5 times out of 10 never tell us anything about the characters that we couldn't have already abducted (word is not 'deduced', by the way) from the first film), the villains are garbage (oh look, an insane, hammy guy who is later reformed. Oh look, evil backstabbing dragon trappers. Very compelling. No reference as to what even happened to Alvin from 'Defenders of Berk' either), the character designs begin to slip into 'awful' territory after a while (yikes, that queen and her right-man man!) not even closely resembling the quirky yet detailed designs from the films, the dialog is bland and vapid and any gags with the potential to be humorous are quickly hammered into the ground in case any poor viewer dare find them amusing the first time (look at the 'gambling' rumors from the season 4 finale). And the worst issue is that outside of a few small islands designed mostly as homes for the Toys/Dragons of the Week, not much development is given to the barren land of the Hiccup universe. No other Viking tribes asides from one 'sane', two 'insane' and one 'hidden village ruled by Mary Sue queen'? No history even implied on the previous Hiccups to set up anything from the films (isn't that one of the show's purposes)? When you have five seasons to do this, you should be doing this, not wasting away life by writing another 'hey looks guys, aren't Ruffnut and Tuffnut stupid? Herp derp derp' episode?
Basically, it's a cheap spin off that young viewers might enjoy, but it has little relating to the films. Watch if you're a die-hard Hiccup fan (although even this might be questionable, considering the even- poorer characterization in the show) or are under the age of twelve. Otherwise, stick to the films or go read the books (the last book is pretty amazing).