Friday, February 13, 2009

The best 3-D movie Leonard Maltin has ever seen

Directed by Henry Selick
Starring Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, and Dawn French
101 minutes

Review by Scott Johnson

There is little question that Coraline is a visual feast, using an innovative animation technique and shown in 3-D where available. It will likely be remembered for some time--and rightly so--for the cinematography which takes the movie quite far and for many viewers will be more than enough to satisfy them. There are also great moments of charm and atmosphere that really show the potential of the film which is somewhat more lacking in its story.

The movie begins with Coraline and her parents moving into a creepy old house. There are a number of interesting neighbors and mysteries that Coraline spends the entire first half of the movie discovering. The most peculiar of these is a door in the house that takes her to a parallel world where her parents are much nicer than her "other" parents but also have buttons for eyes. This other world will eventually portray its darker secret which becomes the thrust of the story itself.

While all of this is very attractively and inventively animated, too often--especially in the first half--we are left watching Coraline being entertained by the events around her rather than being entertained ourselves. As much as the visuals are a great achievement, I think there is both a lack of real wonder and a lack of terror in this movie even though it is really about wonder and terror. Not that either of these are missing entirely--there are some fine moments, especially the terror as Coraline discovers the drawbacks of the new world she has found. And there are certainly a few moments that will be too scary for younger children--I brought a 6-year-old who stayed through the entire movie but was definitely pushed to her limit, and I know another person who had the same experience with a similarly aged child

The movie doesn't need to be scarier but really could benefit from being creepier. Drawing out the horror that Coraline eventually finds would be one part of this--actually lingering over the what makes her discovery so frightening rather than discuss it in one scene and then follow with some other scary moments. There is some dark humor in Coraline--especially around one the neighbors' collection of stuffed dogs--but not nearly as much as it could have delivered.

It is hard to explain this without giving away the plot, but consider other films that have succeeded or failed in the same way. The Golden Compass, for example, holds a secret about what the adults plan to do to the children in the movie, but again does far too little to linger over the real creepiness at play--although I thought the movie was entertaining in other ways. On the other hand, the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory succeeds exactly where these two fall short. Remember how Willie Wonka feigns concern over these awful children but clearly delights in watching them get their just desserts, so to speak. The dark and malicious humor in many of his lines--"The suspense is terrible . . . I hope it'll last!"--are what give us a stake in not only appreciating the scenery but in wanting to know how this morality tale will play out--and enjoying every moment of well-deserved suffering by the children.

Roger Ebert in his review says that Coraline "is not a nice little girl. She's unpleasant, complains, has an attitude and makes friends reluctantly." Actually, I think her biggest problem is that she has parents who don't really pay any attention to her. I would have found her more interesting had she been a bit more of a thankless brat who was seduced by the "other" world because she didn't appreciate the real world enough. I don't so much care about whatever lesson may or may not be learned, but I think this would have been more effective at creating the sort of tension that Coraline is attempting. It is much more fun when we the audience get to be Willie Wonka, devilishly looking on the guilty as they struggle with their little moral dilemmas and can only hope to claw their way back to humanity. Hitchcock understood this, and so did the Ancient Greeks--although unlike Hitch, they were much less open to allowing their heroes to find redemption and a happy ending.

Instead, the first half of the film is surprisingly slow and unnecessarily long. I saw the movie opening weekend at the only screen showing it in 3-D in San Francisco with an audience largely of adults--likely people who were looking for a unique movie-going experience. In some ways, they found it--the film really is a visual treasure and that for many people will be enough to make it worth viewing. I was surprised, though, by how quiet the audience was throughout most of the movie.


Rollie said...

Stopped reading here - "I think there is both a lack of real wonder and a lack of terror in this movie even though it is really about wonder and terror." I completely disagree. If you were to tell me you weren't transfixed with the moonlit blooming of the "other" garden, I would ask you why you feel the need to lie about such things. And the "other" mother in her purest form looks like a Dali sculpture gone AWOL. She really got under my skin, at least.

Scott said...

As I said in the review, I would not deny the visual achievement of Coraline for a second, nor "lie" about it for that matter. I just don't happen to think that is quite enough to carry the movie for nearly two hours.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed your review. I went to this movie with a date--a girl I don't know too well. Afterwards, I was curious to find out her impressions and compare notes. She had very obviously dismissed it as a "kid's movie" and wasn't paying very close attention. So I've been searching the internet trying to get insightful commentary--which I rarely do--, not many other options since basically no one I know has seen or even heard of this movie.
The bottom line: Coraline was visually stunning. Even when the main storlyine was lacking the mutimedia, multisensory stimulation was more than enough to carry the weight. I was completely entertained; I truly enjoyed it thoroughly.
However, as you succintly pointed out, I felt like the plot lacked focus. At first I thought that that was the point. Much like Seinfeld, the "journey" was more important than the "destination." In other words, we weren't suppposed to learn some big lesson about life, everything doesn't always wrap up in a nice little 100 minute package, and let's all just enjoy a well-made movie with incredible effects and imagery. I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I think that viewpoint is being a bit too generous. This movie could have been much "creepier" as you put it. I really didn't find Coraline's "other mother" that scary. I was more puzzled than taken aback. Most of the problem came in the setup: Coraline wasn't that unhappy, that dissatisfied, that endearing in the first 30 minutes. Neither were her mom and dad. Maybe I would have cared more what happened to her or her parents if more attention had been paid to getting the audience invested in these central characters earlier. I really wasn't that relieved when everything worked out for the best.
Finally, Coraline was often a victim of its own multiple and varied imaginative metaphors. Why did the dolls turn into sand? What was the whole point of the doll symbolism? Why was the dad on a praying mantis? Why did the mice turn into rats? Why was the "other dad" being manipulated by the "other mom," etc. The imagery was so dense that I just quit trying to figure out what the director was going for and just enjoyed it for what it was: a sensory extravanganza. Not necessarily as deep and ripe with meaning as it could have been; but what a great, exciting, thought-provoking, and synaesthetically satisfying movie.

Anonymous said...

I found similar information about 3D Ready and movies on (not my website)
This may help people looking for information on the topic.

Anonymous said...

Hello !.
might , probably very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may commense to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you need
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s it!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link
and go! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money

Anonymous said...

You may probably be very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields on investments.
There is no initial capital needed.
You may begin earning with a money that usually is spent
for daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one company's work for several years,
and I'll be glad to let you know my secrets at my blog.

Please visit blog and send me private message to get the info.

P.S. I make 1000-2000 per day now.

[url=] Online investment blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone!
I would like to burn a theme at this forum. There is such a nicey, called HYIP, or High Yield Investment Program. It reminds of ponzy-like structure, but in rare cases one may happen to meet a company that really pays up to 2% daily not on invested money, but from real profits.

For several years , I earn money with the help of these programs.
I'm with no money problems now, but there are heights that must be conquered . I get now up to 2G a day , and I started with funny 500 bucks.
Right now, I managed to catch a guaranteed variant to make a sharp rise . Turn to my blog to get additional info.

[url=] Online investment blog[/url]