Can Ghost in the Shell Work in Live-Action?

ghost02

(If you like what you see, you can go to camseyeview.biz to see more of my work on video game reviews, editorials, lists, Kickstarters, developer interviews, and review/talk about animated films. If you would like, consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com. It would help support my work, and keeps the website up. Thanks for checking out my work, and I hope you like this editorial!)

Last year, a full trailer was shown off for one of the most controversial upcoming films of 2017, Ghost in the Shell. This live-action adaptation of the popular anime/manga series got a lot of flak, when everyone realized that the lead character, Major Motoko Kusanagi, was going to be played by the lovely Scarlet Johansson. She’s a good actress, but this was the wrong casting decision. There are already a lot of concerns and problems than just the white-washing of the lead, due to how infamously terrible live-action adaptations of anime can be. This led me to think about the film itself. Can Ghost in the Shell work in live-action? Well, yes and no. Now why would I give that answer? Let me explain.

ghost01

In a way, Ghost in the Shell is the perfect anime to adapt. Its visuals and looks can easily translate well into live-action, unlike other live-action anime films like Speed Racer, which doesn’t look good at all, or how lazy and terrible Dragonball Z Evolution looks. Of course, this does come down to who’s making the film, but  Ghost in the Shell has similar elements seen in sci-fi films from the past couple of decades. It’s not a super-hard or impossible property to turn live-action. It’s a bleak sci-fi world that’s drab, and has a focus on robots with philosophical quandaries about emotions, what it means to be alive, and what makes you, you. We have seen these types of settings with sci-fi films with complex philosophical ideas done multiple times, with films like Blade Runner, Total Recall, Demolition Man, and many more. Even the aesthetic and how some of the androids/robots/machines are made can be made into successful live-action.

ghost06

Sadly, there are elements that keep me from saying that Ghost in the Shell can be a perfect adaptation. For one, and probably my biggest issue with the film, is that it’s live-action. Believe it or not, much of Ghost in the Shell’s legacy does lean on the fact  that for the time it was released in the states, it was mostly about the animation, and due to the fact that no one at that time has ever seen essentially an anime version of Blade Runner. Its animation was gorgeous and detailed, and that’s a shock during that period in time, since I’m sure most anime fans/curious viewers during that period in time never knew there could be something that is on par with Akira in terms of visual presentation. Taking that part out, and making the overall film in live-action makes it look like every other sci-fi dystopian film we have seen. It looks forgettable now, since you can probably find films that look very similar, while watching this movie.

ghost03

In terms of casting, I respect the wide variety of actors, but could you really not find a Japanese actress to play the lead? Not even the Japanese actress from Pacific Rim Rinko Kikuchi? I know some people argue that the lead, Motoko’s character is her soul, and not her visual robotic body, and not that she is Japanese, but come on. I love Scarlet in movies like the Marvel series and Her, but still. I barely heard of 90% of the actors in the cast, so I doubt you really needed Scarlet Johansson besides the cynical reasoning being that you probably couldn’t get the film made without getting a big profitable name to be in the movie. I also don’t like how everyone looks. Scarlet looks fine (well, mighty fine if we are being honest), but everyone else looks like they are cosplaying as the characters, which is always distracting when you know the costume or make-up department was either not great, or wasn’t given enough resources to make sure that the characters look accurate. Batou looks like a cosplayer who is trying to look like Batou from the original animated film, Beat Takeshi looks kind of goofy, and the others either look awkward or unintentionally creepy.

ghost04

Another concern I have is how the characters are going to be portrayed. Whether you agree with me or not, Ghost in the Shell’s writing is very stiff and clunky. Characters don’t speak like actual people, but rather speak with these long-winded philosophical ramblings, and while you might get something of an actual line that sounds good, it’s rare. I know anime doesn’t have natural dialogue, and anime creators even admit it, but knowing how badly Hollywood has translated anime in the past, they tend to make everyone sound bored or uninterested. What might come off as stoic in the original language oft-times is accidentally sometimes translated to stilted and boring in English, because they don’t get the acting nuances that went into those roles. A lot of credit has to go to the voice actors and their director when they are able to pull off performances with such wonky dialogue.

ghost05

Now, with all the concerns and the positives out of the way, can this work? Will it work? Well, I don’t really know. I need to see it for myself. This was all just some thoughts and opinions about why this specific anime might and might not work as a live-action film. I have my doubts it will work and that Hollywood will totally get the themes and philosophy behind the series and make a competent movie from it, but who knows? I could be surprised that it’s good, and the team does a fantastic job adapting it. It’s still too much of a wild card to be sure, but maybe Hollywood will surprise us in a good way. What do you all think? Will Ghost in the Shell do well, or will it be yet another reason why no one adapts anime into live-action?

Worst to Best Animated Films of 2013 Part 1

best01

(If you like what you see, you can go to camseyeview.biz to see more of my work on video game reviews, editorials, lists, Kickstarters, developer interviews, and review/talk about animated films. If you would like, consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com. It would help support my work, and keeps the website up. Thanks for checking out my work, and I hope you like this editorial!)

So, I was thinking while I’m working on a list of the Worst to Best Animated films of 2016, I’m going to, from time to time, make lists tackling films from different years. It’s probably going to be more on the side of the recent years due to how many animation studios there are, and how willing certain companies are in bringing more movies from different countries. So, what year did I decide to tackle first? 2013. Why did I choose this year, specifically? Because it was one of the best years for films that I have ever seen. Actually, that would be a lie, since 2013 was pretty bad. Not that we didn’t get anything great, since the Oscar-nominated films were fantastic, and from time to time, you would get a great movie, but man, no one, or at the very least, not everyone was willing to give their A game. This was the year we got stuff like Iron Man 3, Thor: Dark World, After Earth, Oz: The Great and Powerful, The Lone Ranger, The Host, and you get the idea. It wasn’t any better for animation, since Disney, DreamWorks, and Pixar decided to go on auto-pilot with a majority of their films in 2013. However, even though it wasn’t a great year for films in general, 2013 was a fantastic year for indie-animated films. So, what are the rules for these types of lists? 1. They had to be released in the states in 2013. I’m not going to add a film to the list unless it came out that year. 2. No straight-to-video schlock. Unless that direct-to-DVD release was worth a hoot, then I’m not counting it. That way, we don’t have to go through the terrifying number of DVD bargain bin nightmares. 3. They are also in order of which ones I would watch again. 4. it’s my list. It’s my opinion on what I thought were the worst to best animated films, and so on. Will you disagree? Maybe, but don’t be malicious towards me if you see that I didn’t like your favorite animated movie on the list.

Now then, let’s begin with one of the biggest corporate blunders of all time!

27. Walking with Dinosaurs

best04

You know who the biggest victims of this film were? The animators that worked painstakingly hard on getting the movements, textures, and nature of the animals down, only to have it backfire on them by studio execs ruining everything. Instead of letting the film be its own quiet, albeit generic, dinosaur story, they forced voice-overs at the last minute. It ruins any tension in the film, due to there being jokes and comments that ruin the tone. They will even insert a joke that doesn’t fit into a scene where someone horribly dies. I hope the person who thought this was a good idea loved losing over $44 million+ in the box office. It’s one of the biggest financial blunders of all time in terms of CGI-animated films, and there is no reason for anyone to see this movie.

26. The Snow Queen

best05

Here is the situation for this movie. It was originally released a year before Frozen, but then was brought over to the states a month before Frozen was released. It is based more on the source material than Frozen is, but overall is just a worse movie. The characters are bland and have dead-eye syndrome, the designs were awkward, the pace of the film makes impactful scenes not work, and the animation, while not terrible, is nowhere near the quality it could have been. My only real positive is that it at least tried to be more akin to the source material, but due to how rushed it all feels, it leaves very little for the viewers to take in, and its clunky animation doesn’t help, either. It’s mediocre, but knowing the stuff I have seen this past year, it’s still more watchable than most. I just wouldn’t recommend it.

25. Justin and the Knights of Valor

best06

The only reason this is on the list is that it got a limited theatrical release, and Antonio Banderas produced it. Funny enough, he is only a really annoying side character in the film. While this animated film might be worse in overall quality compared to the great CGI of Walking with Dinosaurs, Justin and the Knights of Valor was at least presented as intended. It’s yet another Shrek-style fantasy/comedy that doesn’t really understand why Shrek 2 worked, and is constantly not funny. It also has a universe that doesn’t make a lot of sense, due to how knights were replaced by lawyers, but for some reason still have armored men around, and so on. Justin and the Knights of Valour feels like a concept that didn’t get fleshed out enough. However, when the story focuses on Justin, he’s a pretty solid protagonist. The CGI might not be great, but considering what you can usually see with European CGI, it’s upper-tier. A decent protagonist and “good enough” CGI can’t cover up the horrible humor, pointless side characters, weak villains, a mediocre fantasy/comedy setting that isn’t fleshed out enough, and forgettable characters. Still, I’ve seen worse.

24. Free Birds

best07

I already reviewed this movie, but I’ll keep it short. Free Birds is a decent attempt at a first-time theatrical film for Reel FX, but it’s still super-generic in terms of its story and characters. The jokes aren’t consistently funny enough to make the film enjoyable to sit through, the human characters have no character, and there really isn’t anything worthwhile for older audiences, which is a shame, since there are animated films that can be enjoyed by both kids and adults. However, even though it’s not a great experience, I did find myself enjoying Woody Harrelson’s character, and how the time machine was voiced by George Takei, who is always entertaining. Still, if you were to watch one movie from this studio, you are better off overlooking Free Birds, and going directly to The Book of Life.

23. Escape from Planet Earth

best08

I don’t really remember a whole lot from this film, besides seeing one or two commercials for it on TV when it was coming out, and boy, I can understand why no one might remember this movie. It’s a low-grade CGI family film that had the unfortunate situation of a huge amount of studio exec interference, and well, it really shows. The animation is decent, but the designs are ugly, some of the characters are really grating, it’s yet another “jock vs. the nerd” story, and about half the jokes work. However, I do like the nerdy brother, and how competent he is. I mean, with these types of films, the nerdy individual would be inept at about everything, but in this movie, he isn’t. I also enjoyed some of the jokes, especially when the introductory video in Area 51 was shown. Like I said though, even with some of the positives, this film has no reason to be viewed by anyone unless you are very curious in terms of wanting to check out a financially underwhelming film that was screwed over by stupid executives.

22: Planes

best09

A lot of films you see on this list are definitely in that realm of “no one was asking for this, but execs wanted another financially lucrative merchandise-selling film, so this is why it exists”. Seriously, after the critical failure of Cars 2, you would think Disney would not touch the franchise ever again. Sadly, we got Planes, and while it isn’t by Pixar, it still feels like a waste of money. It’s cheap-looking for something from Disney, the side characters have one-note personalities, the story is generic, and there is no reason for this film to exist other than to sell toys. Luckily, there are still a few bright spots with the film. I actually like Dane Cook’s performance as the lead character, and some of the flying sequences are nice. They just needed a bit more polish to get to that peak of How to Train your Dragon quality of flying sequences. Some of the character interactions have enough chemistry to pay attention to, but you won’t miss anything by not viewing this cash grab spin-off.

21: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

best10

Speaking of cash grabs, the rushed feeling and cheapness of this sequel is very apparent when you watch it. It had a budget that was $22 mil less than the original, and it shows. While the animation is still better than most films, everyone looks plastic and toy-like in terms of skin textures, the animation is really fast to a nauseating degree, the jokes don’t work all the time, there is a stupid misunderstanding/jerk plot point that no one cares about, a bunch of the side characters don’t have much to do, and it’s easily a really annoying experience. The story feels half-baked (ha), due to how the villain, a Steve Jobs parody, hijacks the film, and you can really tell that his animation didn’t get the most attention due to how clunky and, again, cheap it looks. When the film was about seeing the creative food animal designs, it was pretty decent entertainment. The crazy expressions were fun to look at, and the film was pretty vibrant in the color department. Even some of the food puns were pretty funny. The voice work also gets a thumbs-up, due to the material they had to work with. It’s not great material, but you can tell the actors were doing their best when the story wasn’t rehashing jokes or gags from the first film. It’s a sequel with sequelitis problems, and is definitely not a great movie. Although, I do disagree with people calling it the worst animated film of 2013, or one of the worst sequels of all time. It’s bad, but I can think of worst films from 2013, and worst sequels.

20: Turbo

best11

Freaking DreamWorks! It’s movies like this that make people not take you seriously. Instead of doing something creative and good, DreamWorks (this is pre-buyout by Universal), in all of their wisdom, made a snail that wants to race against actual formula 1 racers. Like, what focus group test did they run, and who were these people who were like, “yeah, this looks like a great idea!” It isn’t. It’s predictable child-pandering auto-piloted schlock. While Ryan Reynolds is a decent protagonist, the slug posse was the most entertaining element about the cast. They aren’t in the film enough, but they were the best element of the film. It’s overall pretty harmless tripe that’s well-animated, but it’s nothing to write home about. It’s easy to see why this film underperformed in the states.

 19: Despicable Me 2

best12

Talk about a huge improvement in terms of animation. In just a few short years, Illumination was able to improve their animation quality, and it really shows when you watch both Despicable Me films back-to-back. It’s definitely got a lot of the quality aspects of a good movie, like the two leads are funny, the minions were funny (this was before it was the giant annoying trend that it is now), and there was some heart. It’s unfortunately a film that trades in story for humor, and that’s not a terrible thing, but it once again points out that Illumination need better storywriters. The lead villain is tolerable, but they just don’t do anything with the three little girls, and they feel tacked on to the story. Like, I get they can’t retcon them out of the series, but they didn’t do anything. The female lead played by Kristen Wiig is entertaining, but at times is too hyper, and it distracts from the chemistry that she and the lead character have. It’s entertaining, and a film you can turn your brain off to and enjoy, but it still isn’t that great of an overall movie.

Let’s take a break and I’ll post Part 2 in the near future!

Was It Really Our Fault For The Death of 2D Animation?

fault01

(If you like what you see, you can go to camseyeview.biz to see more of my work on video game reviews, editorials, lists, Kickstarters, developer interviews, and review/talk about animated films. If you would like, consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com. It would help support my work, and keeps the website up. Thanks for checking out my work, and I hope you like this editorial!)

Around the mid-2000s, 2D animated films were struggling, with a majority of the flops coming from Disney and DreamWorks. This was when their 2D animated films were not bringing in waves of delicious greenback bills, and were instead being critically panned, and flopping/underperforming. This list of films include Home on the Range, Brother Bear, Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, Treasure Planet, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, and you get the idea. The only 2D animated films that were doing really well during this time period were the films made by Studio Ghibli, like Spirited Away and Howl’s Moving Castle. When Home on the Range and Sinbad came out, both Disney and DreamWorks told the world that 2D animation was not a profitable way of filmmaking anymore, no one was seeing 2D animated films, and the new profitable form of animation was CGI-animation. This was essentially throwing 2D animation under the bus. So, was it really the public’s fault that 2D animation was dead? Is there a reason Europe and the rest of the world is keeping it alive and not getting wide releases? Well, let’s talk about what was going on around this time period.

fault02

On one side of the spectrum during the early to mid-2000s, the only financially/critically successful animated films that were being made were of CGI, and Pixar and DreamWorks were leading the charge. This was when we were getting films like Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. All of these films were critical darlings, and are pretty fantastic films. On the other spectrum, you were unfortunately getting Disney and DreamWorks 2D animated films that were not doing well with audiences and the bank. Like I said above, the 2D animated films were not making enough of a profit, and were getting critically panned at the same time. Sure, you would get a film like Lilo & Stich, Emperor’s New Groove, and Spirits: Stallion of the Cimarron, but those films were few and far between in terms of being successful 2D animated films. The point is Disney and DreamWorks were losing money, and the only thing that was bringing in the cash besides their live-action films were their CGI animated films. Not to say that each CGI animated film during this period was a success, since this was when DreamWorks was trying to compete with Disney/Pixar, but the numbers and money talked.

fault03

So, does this mean that 2D animation was 100% dead? Of course not! Even if Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks were moving toward full-on CGI animation, due to the masses leaning more to CGI animation by overall audience appeal, there were a few studios and directors that were passionate or really stubborn about Hollywood’s sudden lack of 2D animation. This was when we were getting a lot of the Studio Ghibli films brought over by Disney, like Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle, and Porco Rosso to name a few. Other directors like Sylvain Chomet gave the public The Triplets of Belleville, one of the best pieces of 2D animation around, and was a critical and Oscar winner. Japan has a multitude of amazing animated films during this time period, and even today we have incredible 2D animated films, like the late Satoshi Kon’s Paprika, Mamoru Hosoda’s Wolf Children, The Boy and the Beast, and Summer Wars, Makoto Shinkai’s The Garden of Words, and of course, Katsuhiro Otomo’s slew of films like Steamboy, and anthology project, Short Peace.  Europe has been rocking the 2D animation, with films from France, Spain, Scotland, and other areas including Song of the Sea, The Secret of Kells, A Cat in Paris, Phantom Boy, Ernest & Celestine, The Illusionist, Nocturna, Wrinkles, and Chico and Rita. Even Disney came back with two 2D animated films, with The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. Sure, they didn’t break a gigantic amount of bank, but I love that Disney at first was going to do one 2D film, then a CGI film, and go on like that until they went full-on CGI animated. Even Brazil gave us Boy and the World, one of the most visually amazing films, not just animated films, I have ever seen.

fault05

 

So, if 2D isn’t technically dead, since the rest of the world and the indie scene are treating it with the respect it deserves, then what really killed it? Well, it’s actually pretty obvious and simple. There is no reason to go into a college-based philosophical journey for the answer. Really, it’s the Hollywood machine, and the studios’ fault for killing off 2D animation.

fault04

Yeah, I know it sounds like a hipster thing to do, and blame the bigwigs for killing off a style of animation, but it’s quite frankly the truth. So, during the mid-2000s of 2000-2005 or so, what were the companies releasing during this time that was 2D? This was when Disney was releasing films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Brother Bear, Treasure Planet, Lilo & Stich, Emperor’s new Groove, and Home on the Range. On top of that, this was also the tail end of their Straight-to-DVD fling, where they released a bunch of mediocre sequels to their popular Disney films. I’m sure you can find merit and something positive to say about certain elements of these films, but they were really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality with these straight-to-DVD flicks. DreamWorks on the other hand only released about two 2D animated films, with one being a hit, and the other causing the infamous “2D animation is dead” quote with Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron and Sinbad. Now then, we’ve got our suspects from the 2D side of things from both companies, what went wrong with the studios making these films? After watching them recently, with the few exceptions that I have mentioned above, the rest feel like movies that were ruined by the higher-ups putting their focus-grouped hands into the mix. Films like Brother Bear, Sinbad, Treasure Planet, and Atlantis: The Los Empire could have been incredible movies, but what you get are films with bits and pieces of greatness and things to like, but then have to get past the elements that are distracting or not very interesting. Most of the time, the biggest blunder these films made was within its dialogue. When the characters talked like they were part of that time or setting, it was great and engaging. You felt like you were there with them. However, when the modern dialogue, Disney whimsy, and hip lingo pops into time periods where it isn’t remotely appropriate, and is only put there because some idiot higher-up thinks everyone would like it, it’s frustrating. It’s like they couldn’t fully stay invested in their own tones. If you want to be dark in Atlantis, then you need to keep the mature tone, and not throw in so many side characters, humor, and a weak bad guy. How much better could Brother Bear be if he didn’t turn into a bear and he was kept just as a human? I could say all of this with the other films like Treasure Planet and Sinbad. These studios, for the most part, would rather throw someone or something under the bus to avoid the honest truth that they made a bad movie that no one wanted to see, or have to admit that they were trying to cater to the lowest common denominator, and it wasn’t working. Oh, and was anyone really asking for Home on the Range? I mean, really?

fault06

Yeah, I don’t buy that 2D animation died because people stopped caring about it. I think it died because studios here in the states kept giving us films that either couldn’t stay in the tone they set out for, higher-ups got their meddling hands into the pie, or were just terrible movies. Luckily, with the huge success of films like Zootopia, The Secret Life of Pets, Finding Dory, and the animated films distributed by GKIDS, animation has become a huge success during 2016, where with a few exceptions; a mass majority of the 2016 big Hollywood flicks are not panning out. Sure, you could argue it’s just the summer movies, but I feel like the animated films and indie films have been getting more of the spotlight and praise. Hopefully, this means that the bigger companies can try and come back to 2D someday, but due to how current Hollywood is run, it will probably take some time. Just remember, it’s not always your fault Hollywood made a stupid mistake. Thanks for reading, I hope you liked the article, and see you all next time.

In Defense Of: Home

(If you like what you see, go to camseyeview.biz to see more of my work. If you want to, consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/camseyeview.biz. Thanks for checking my site out, and I hope you enjoy the article!)

Recently, it’s been really hard to respect and feel good about Dreamworks. Sure, Kung Fu Panda 3 is a huge success, but you then remember how hit-or- miss this studio honestly is. From trying to compete with Disney/other studios, to doing their own thing, you would think DreamWorks would just do what they do best. Unfortunately that isn’t the case, due to their recent financial issues and having to lay off 500 employees because of bad investments and projects that didn’t rake in the cash. It really doesn’t help when they have films like Home. This 2015 film was DreamWorks’ only animated film of the year that just screamed “Dreamworks auto pilot.” It’s not a great movie, and has annoying characters, horrible pacing, some areas of the film feeling manipulative, pointless celebrity casting (there was no reason to hire JLO for the movie), and it feels like a moocher to the popular Despicable Me franchise. Even with the positive elements I am about to find for the film, I still don’t recommend this movie. So, let’s get started!

The animation is not horrible

Even with their worst movies, the animation from DreamWorks is still leagues better than what usually comes out during the year from the really bad third-party films. While it is not as good as DreamWorks’ Kung Fu Panda or How to Train your Dragon, it’s still solid enough to not be the worst problem about Home.

The ending can be a tad touching

So, basically, the entire plot of Home revolves around aliens known as the Boov, who are taking over Earth to escape from the “bad guy” aliens who are chasing them. One of the Boovs, played by Steve Martin, through a “misunderstanding” took something that was pretty important to the “bad guy” alien race. The twist is that the thing Steve Martin took was actually an egg case filled with the last of the “bad guy” aliens’ next generation. Seeing the interaction between the “evil” alien and Sheldon from Big Bang Theory (I know he has a name, but the actor is basically doing his character from the “hit” TV show) is touching. With a lot of the scenes being undone by the film’s horrible pacing, Home actually has one nice scene.

Rihanna’s character

Let’s face it, the characters in this movie are either annoying or really forgettable. I don’t remember their names or personalities. If they actually made a movie with likable characters instead of trying to be like Minions, then we would have a much better movie. And that’s a bad thing, since this film has Steve Martin in it! How do you mess up a movie with such a funny individual! Still, if there was one character that stood out because it was a solid child character, it would have to be the lead female, voiced by Rihanna. Even though I feel like the design and age of the character doesn’t fit her voice, Rihanna played the most competent and investment-worthy character in the film. She was smart, creative, funny, tough, didn’t hide from the danger, and has some softer moments concerning her being separated from her mother. She was the best thing about this movie and I wish she wasn’t stuck in this bad story.

Interesting color pallet

While this is kind of a backhanded compliment since the film still doesn’t look color-wise in a lot of ways, I do respect DreamWorks for using more pastel hues for the colors of the aliens. Again, while this doesn’t fix or redeem the film, at least they tried something that everyone else wasn’t doing.

With the recent buyout from Comcast, let’s hope they make sure DreamWorks doesn’t try to make another film like this again. Sure, the film has some tender moments and a few jokes that work, but overall, I found this film to be boring unless you have really young kids. While it might not be as super-cynical as Shark Tale, this is easily one of their three worst movies alongside the third Shrek movie. Please, DreamWorks, get back to being consistently good. Enough of the quantity-over-quality and trying to chase trends! If 2013 to now has shown you anything, it is that your current philosophy is not working. Please, just do amazing movies!

Top Reasons Why Kung Fu Panda Rocks!

(If you like what you see, go to camseyeview.biz to see more of my work. If you want to, consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/camseyeview. Thanks for checking out my site, and I hope you enjoy the review!)

To get ready for Kung Fu Panda 3, I rewatched Kung Fu Panda 1, and as of writing this article, will be rewatching Kung Fu Panda 2. Talk about a franchise that took everyone by surprise. I think everyone, including myself, thought this would have flopped. And yeah, I can understand people not liking this film because of the villain or the modern lingo in the kung-fu setting, but I disagree. After seeing the first film, it turned out to be one of my personal favorite Dreamworks films and one of the more consistent Dreamworks franchises in term of quality. It’s right up there with How to Train your Dragon in terms of my favorite Dreamworks franchise. So, I decided to do a list tackling the best parts of the two films. This list specifically will be about the first movie! Oh, and this list will be in no particular order. Let’s get started!

1. The celebrities used are actually good!

I think one major problem Dreamworks has, and it is still a problem with them, is the fact that they will use celebrities as their choices for characters, not because they are the best choice, but because the actors chosen have name and brand value. You then end up with a lot of celebrity voice-mugging, and characters you can’t really commit or invest into because you don’t see them as characters, but as celebrities attempting to do characters. Sometimes you can blame the director of the voice work, but still. It’s a trope that is slowly dying out for Dreamworks, since it doesn’t pan out in long-term acclaim, but it’s still there and unfortunately is a thing that third-party studios are learning the hard way as well. Luckily, when they do choose celebrities for their films, and they fit the characters, then it’s quite a breath of fresh air! I actually think Jack Black has one of his best performances with the film’s main character. I know Black’s more recent films haven’t panned out, but you have to give him credit when he hits it with a good performance, or tries to make the best out of a bad situation. I also like the other actors, even though they are underutilized, like how can they have Jackie Chan, but not give him a lot of lines? Anyway, all the actors fit their roles, and I didn’t find one that stood out or didn’t fit/was distracting. This is when you should be praising actors and the people behind the direction of the voice acting. It’s when they are actual characters that you are invested with, and not just a celebrity phoning in their performance.

2. The animation and fighting is top-notch!

When you have something that is an animated comedy and kung fu flick, you should take as much advantage of it as possible. It’s always so aggravating when you see a show or movie not take advantage of its situation, like Cowboys vs Aliens, Jonah Hex, or Cybernetics Guardian. These three films are good examples, because you would think these individual experiences would be fun or at the very least entertaining, but end up being underwhelming messes. Kung Fu Panda, on the other hand, takes full advantage of its scenario, and ends up with a movie that has some of the best action of any action flick. Its kung fu! How can you mess that up?! The animation also leads to some good expressive characters. It’s a film that knows what to do with itself.

3. The film is beautiful!

My goodness is Kung Fu Panda a beautiful looking film. It has super lush colors and gorgeous scenery. It really helps bring you into this Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon-like world. Foggy mountainsides, lush grassy fields, bustling towns, and atmospheric temples are all well done. It’s even better in the sequel, but that is for a future list.

4. The philosophy and morals

I like the ideals and the morals of this film. Don’t judge an individual by face value, don’t worry about what has happened or what has yet to come, not letting stress get the best of you, be yourself, and so on. Sure, we have seen some of these ideals and morals before, but they were executed so well, and fit into the overall film.

5. The modern day lingo works!

A lot of problems with Dreamworks films can pretty much be linked to the way their characters talk. It’s very modern, and it’s cynically done to try and be “hip” and “with it” with the kids and casual movie-goers. Again, with Kung Fu Panda, the modern day talk is very limited and not super catchphrase-ish. It’s like with How to Train Your Dragon, when it’s done well to tell a story and to flesh out characters, then its fine!

Yes, you could argue the film can be predictable, The Furious Five don’t get a lot of development, and the villain is weak, but in the end, Kung Fu Panda shows what happens when Dreamworks actually gives a hoot about making good movies. It’s a shame they don’t try to be like Pixar/Disney in terms of taking their time. Yes, I am aware that Pixar recently had their first bomb with The Good Dinosaur, but Pixar has still has the better track record than Dreamworks. Well, I better get to watching Kung Fu Panda 2 so I can get myself ready for the third movie!