Originally Posted By Kerrie I'd like to see Spirit, because it sounds similar to Black Beauty in that it's from the horse's pov, and I loved the book & the film of Black Beauty. Is Black Beauty considered PC because the horse tells of his abuses suffered by man? Is that why some consider Spirit too PC, because the horse is not treated very well by some people in the movie? Just curious.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic I have to disagree about the ads, to me they represented the movie perfectly. And the audience is showing up with a nice opening, so it can't be all bad. If it has a small dropoff next week then it should survive the deluge of kid films (Scooby Doo, L&S and Powerpuff Girls) coming up.
Originally Posted By Jim I saw the movie this weekend. I actually walked in excited to see it, but midway through, I realized I was watching, in spirit, a sequal to EL DORADO--bland. Your comment about having as much emotional attachment to the movie as a merry-go-round is right on the button. I could have left mid-way through and not cared about the story. I too found the narration to be insulting of my intelligence, and the "conversations" between the horses were laughable (head nods and other such things would have sufficed). The Bryan Adams songs follow in the tradition of the lame songs from EL DORADO, and they were not needed (to be contrasted with the emotional impact of sung-over songs as used in BAMBI, THE RESCUERS, or TARZAN). And who ever thought of using a major metaphor for a horse from way back when when the metaphor came from the '60s surf culture (catch a wave????--hello!). It did have some dramatic moments and a few beautiful moments, but that's it. How many times do they expect us to say, "Oh look, he's been captured . . . again." The CGI backgrounds, with a few exceptions, were as not-breathtaking as could be. And I personally did not feel any emotional impact from the Hans Zimmer score. To its credit, the movie has gotten generally positive reviews (including from Leonard Maltin on HOT TICKET--though one can hope he is only trying to encourage traditional animation). I must also admit that if I was five, I would LOVE this movie. Whoever said Jeffery Katzenberg was the strength of Disney animation obviously cannot see or hear. While I LOVED PRINCE OF EGYPT, Disney has never made anything as bland as SPIRIT or EL DORADO (I hated ANTZ too). By the way, I uncovered a part of the SPIRIT script. (SPIRIT sees the fire int he distance.) Spirit: neigh neigh neigh neigh whinny neigh neigh. Mom: (with concern) neigh neigh neigh! Spirit: whinny neigh (pause) neigh
Originally Posted By Jim "I think what Dreamworks needs to do now is to develop it's OWN style. They've shown that they can do high quality Disney-style animation (Prince of Egypt, Spirit, El Dorado). But I'm really interested in what a DREAMWORKS style animated film would be. Here's hoping they have the guts to go for it!" Dreamworks does have its own style, which is to be un-Disney. I think their problem is that they are so busy being un-Disney that they've neglected their stories and characters. As I look back over other comments, I think people are being unfair to TK. Nothing in his review made him seem anti-non-Disney animation. If you noticed, he made a negative comment about POCAHONTAS (which I LOVE). Good film-making is goo film-making independant of the company. SPIRIT was not good film-making. One other comment. There is something wrong when 2D drawings live in 3D background, but the characters have 1/2D development. Oh look, Spirit has spirit. Wow, what a trait. The Calvary man is bad. The Native is misunderstanding. The female horse is pretty. The mother is concerned. SPIRIT was a good experiment gone bad that should have been fixed on the storyboards.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Good points, Jim. A friend of mine saw Spirit this weekend and his comments were pretty much the same as yours.
Originally Posted By tiggerspal Wow, this is tough...I don't want to be branded a Dreamworks hater but in reality I haven't liked any of their animated films and Spirit is no exception. Without going into too much detail and getting fired (I'm working on a report, really) I've never thought that Dreamworks has ever blended CGI and 2D animation very well. In Spirit you can tell what is CGI and what isn't especially when 2D is placed in it or on top of it (most glaringly in the water rescue scene and when Bruce Wil..sorry Spirit breaks his chains and sends the CGI train falling down the mountain. Did it bother anyone else that Spirit caused mass destruction, blew things up and started a major forest fire but daggone it ,he was free!). I also was bothered by the redundancies (sp?) in the story i.e. he's captured, escapes over and over and by having to be hit over the head with what has just happened , then a bad song and then uninspired narration. I did like some of the 2D animation, I have great respect for James Baxter and the other great 2D animators. First animation Oscar aside (don't want to get started on that!) I think Dreamworks has a long way to go before they can even think about stepping to the front of the animation industry.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby As someone in "Spirit" might have said: "Whoa, horsey!" My inclusion of the history of Jeffrey Katzenberg in my review was to support my opinions on the movie itself. When I saw "Spirit", I did not go in having any preconceptions, good or bad, about what I was about to see. At the point, it wasn't taken into consideration on who made the film, wether it was Disney, DreamWorks or Daffy Duck. In other words, I was NOT thinking about Jeffrey Katzenberg while watching the film. After viewing the film (which, as you all know by now, I was not impressed by), it occured to me that it appeared to be the latest in an unfortunate trend that DreamWorks has followed in their traditionally animated films. That is, to overcompinsate on almost every artistic level, to the point of distraction. The tone of my review for "Spirit" has obviously been misinterpreted, maybe even misleading, considering the response it has garnered. (Which says something in itself ... my negative reviews receive more comments then my positive ones ...) But I still stand behind it. My job as a reviewer, which I take very seriously, is to see a movie and offer my opinion of it. If that opinion varies from your own, so be it. I respect other's opinions on films, wether or not they differ from my own. At the end of the day, it's just a movie ...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan2 >>How many times do they expect us to say, "Oh look, he's been captured . . . again." << I think about 4, but i sort of lost count. ; )
Originally Posted By Santa Monica I just saw it. My judgement... (Possible Spoilers) There was not a lot to like nor dislike. It was just a horse movie. I found a lot of things ridiculous and couldn't help laughing my butt off. and yes, it was very redundant in the fact that he gets captured over and over again. It went to the point, for me, where if I saw that lasso go around his neck one more time, I would have choked myself. And though the backgrounds were great, the rest of the animation didn't impress me. the train animation was horrible. looked like anastasia's train wreck scene. As with almost everyone, I agree that the narration was very badly done. the songs were atrocious. Just one after another, same old scratchy, whiny voice, same old crap lyrics. The birth scene was one of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life. It was hilarious. Overall, I'd recommend it for the pretty backgrounds and because it's short (but feels sorta long). Otherwise, I see no reason to watch the movie again. I feel it doesn't have much repeat value.
Originally Posted By Tannerman >> Veggie Tales scares me. It smacks of brainwashing. Might want to see the trailer and decide for yourself first... <a href="http://www.artisanent.com/publicity/jonah/trailers/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.artisanent.com/publ icity/jonah/trailers/index.htm</a> Or the official site... <a href="http://www.jonahmovie.com" target="_blank">http://www.jonahmovie.com</a>
Originally Posted By Santa Monica Just to add to my review, of Prince of Egypt, El Dorado (What I've seen), and Shrek, I prefer Spirit over all of them. It's not saying much though.
Originally Posted By MaryJo We saw it on Monday.... My 14 yr old son politely sat with us & watched it, but I'm sure he was bored, or at the least, not enthused. I enjoyed it - didn't love it, but it was okay. My daughter really enjoyed it and even cried towards the end.
Originally Posted By ComicRider Overall, I liked the movie, but walked in waning to hate it. The only things I disliked were the songs and the narration, which went like this: Spirit's Inner Voice: I'll never forget how we did that thing that you just saw.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic C'mon people, the Spirit narration was there so young kids could understand the story. Yes it's a bit condescending, but a lot of animated film have condescending features. At least this movie doesn't have flatulence jokes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan2 I think that young kids could understand the story just fine without it. The animation was very strong -- and Spirit's facial features were clear enough to convey what he was thinking (usually "I don't like being captured" or "Hey! That mare is a babe!") I think the film would have been much stronger and unique without it. >>At least this movie doesn't have flatulence jokes.<< Instead, it had Bryan Adams tunes.
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 It didn't have flatulence jokes but it did have the obligatory fall into horse manure. An I could've lived without that milk bubble gag. - Inkan <a href="http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html" target="_blank">http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl /intro.html</a>
Originally Posted By Santa Monica LOL Inkan I forgot about those. And we did have that one part where the wide screen was filled with Spirit's butt. And the Brian Adam's tunes Kar2oon, my god. LOL. Agreed.
Originally Posted By ComicRider Kids would have understood the movie fine without the narration. If they had to have it, at least get a better voice actor than Matt Damon.
Originally Posted By Santa Monica A new commercial for Spirit quotes a critic who says "Twice as much action as Star Wars." Do you guys think this is true? Do you think they should even advertise it as an action picture?
Originally Posted By Dlmusic The horse manure bit was very short and much less overstated as say Aladdin's version of the joke. Not that I think it was appropriate, it still is a tired gag with no humor value for me personally. I thought the Bryan Adams songs were not bad, but as a singer I'm not fond of his voice. Also I would have preferred the songs arranged in the style of the beautiful score by Hans Zimmer.
