Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Twice as much action as Star Wars."<< SPOILER WARNING: The scene where Spirit steals the calvalry's weapons and goes on that shooting spree against a whole batallion was very exciting. That was right he stole the Harrier jet and bombed the terrorist encampment I think. But not better than the scene where Spirit marches his army of 12,000 steeds against the evil dog food manufacturer.
Originally Posted By CuriosWolfSo LOVL! (Laugh Out Very Loud!) Forget Bruce Wills for the next 'Die Hard' movie, just use Spirit the Newest Action-Adventure Hero!
Originally Posted By JeffG There was an article in the L.A. Times last weekend in which some of the filmmakers were actually saying that Bruce Willis' "Die Hard" character was one of the inspirations for the character of Spirit. I can actually see that in the film. While I think the ad quote that was mentioned above overstates it a bit, the film really was a lot more action-oriented than I had expected from the trailers and other publicity. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DlandDug OK, OK, I waited to read any reviews until I saw the movie. And, TK, I wish I had read your review first! I agree with you all the way. Bottom line, this film is dull. There are no standout characters, and very tiny high points in a very thin plot. And what little plot there is simply cycles over and over again. (Horse is captured; horse refuses to be broken; horse escapes; repeat several times; blow up something [for "scope"]; the end.) As far as Academy Award pretensions go--I agree that they are present. I lost track of noting how many other films are "referenced" here ("Die Hard," "Spartacus," "Fitzcaraldo," even the manure gag that was so prominent in "Back to the Future"). I think the award to "Shrek" was just as much the Academy members' snub of Disney as an acknowledgement that "Shrek" was a popular success. I am astonished that anyone finds the animation in "Spirit" praiseworthy. The "panoramic" backgrounds are simply big paintings that are slowly panned across. Did it bother any of you that the Army fort's flag hung stiff as a board in the wide shots? Or that the Indian encampment looked like a Mary Blair storybook illustration? The smoke rising from the tipis was STOCK STILL. I was actually startled near the end when the grass in the foreground was moving. It is not enough to create astonishingly realistic effects (such as the running water). They must be integrated into a cohesive, artistic whole. If I had to give "Spirit" a grade, it would be the same as ToonKirby's: D+.
Originally Posted By DlandDug WARNING: Spoilers (for anyone who cares). Oh--and another thing. When I mentioned to friends I was planning to see "Spirit," they made comments about the "terrorist" horse in the film. I thought they were joking, until I saw the film. Is Spirit the American West's first domestic terrorist? Look at the tally: he attacks several US soldiers, steals federal property (the Army horses), incites open rebellion, destroys a steam train that is needed to connect the railroad in Utah, and blows up an entire encampment, killing several people and setting a massive forest fire. Somehow, none of this made it into the trailers and interviews that suggested that "Spirit" was the perfect patriotic antidote to 9-11...
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<I am astonished that anyone finds the animation in "Spirit" praiseworthy. The "panoramic" backgrounds are simply big paintings that are slowly panned across.>> Moving paintings are gorgeous to behold, and much better than backgrounds for latest Disney efforts (Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis) <<Did it bother any of you that the Army fort's flag hung stiff as a board in the wide shots? Or that the Indian encampment looked like a Mary Blair storybook illustration?>> If it the Indian encampment looked like a Mary Blair illustration, than I loved it because I think Mary Blair is one of the great talents of animation. I can understand attacking Spirit's plot, but I really can't comprehend somebody attacking the animation. Most of the experts that I've seen thought the animation was incredible. Animating horses is very difficult and they did a much better job than I have ever seen before. BTW, the same animator who did Spirit did Belle in Beauty and the Beast and I believe Moses in Prince of Egypt. Do you find Belle to be a badly animated character? <<It is not enough to create astonishingly realistic effects (such as the running water). They must be integrated into a cohesive, artistic whole.>> And IMO, Dreamworks is 3 for 3. El Dorado, Prince of Egypt and Spirit had spectacular animation that was better than Disney efforts over the same period.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan2 The more I think about it, I keep asking myself this nagging (no pun intended) question re: Spirit... WHY NOT have the horses talk? I praised this as unique before, which it is, but for cryin' out loud, this is an ANIMATED movie. If you want realistic animals, just film some. The prurpose of an animated film is to stretch reality, to do things that aren't possible or believable in any other medium. The lead animals SHOULD sing and dance and have human emotions and characteristics! Realistic is for the Animal Planet, you know?
Originally Posted By ComicRider The horses do have human emotions and characteristics, they just don't talk.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic Sometimes it's better for things to be left unsaid. For example Dumbo never talks, it makes him more sympathetic. I imagine Spirit was going after the same idea. I enjoyed the difference, it made the film more unique, considering the storyline was not groundbreaking. Spirit is very stubborn throughout the movie, and I don't think it's always supposed to be a good thing. I don't think you are supposed to assume that Spirit should have caused the train wreck, it's just what his character did. It would have been nice if his character had a post morteum, if you will, but that would be a little too deep for this movie. BTW, I don't think anybody died in the train wreck.
Originally Posted By cirque116 >>Do you find Belle to be a badly animated character?<< But is Belle a horse? No. She is not. (BTW, I haven't seen Spirit and don't plan to.)
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "Sometimes it's better for things to be left unsaid." That's why this whole idea of Matt Damon the narrator turns me off to the movie. Either make a movie where the animals talk or don't. Throw in those awful sounding Bryan Adams songs, and I think I'll wait until this one comes to HBO to see it. Dinosaur is a good example of a movie where the animals shouldn't have talked at all, and it would have been a much more interesting movie with no dialogue whatsoever.
Originally Posted By Santa Monica You know, I found the total human expressions really weird. If they wanted to go for realism, then they failed with me. The human emotions and head shakes and whatnot took me out of it. I knew I was watching a cartoon. Just something was weird. They're not talking. Anyway, I found them not talking completely hilarious...then dull.
Originally Posted By Pixie18 I work at the Disney store and I have had more then one guest tell me they saw the Lion King "theme" including bits of the music from LK in the score. AS for Lilo and Stitch we can not keep the Stitch in stock. The kids in the store all get excited when the preview comes on as for myself I am in love with the little guy .
Originally Posted By TikiRoomer >>BTW, the same animator who did Spirit did Belle in Beauty and the Beast and I believe Moses in Prince of Egypt. Do you find Belle to be a badly animated character? Actually, I know a couple of insane animation buffs who think so. Supposedly Belle was pushed off onto several different people, though only one got the credit, and doesn't have a consistent look throughout the movie. I dunno what they're talking about, I haven't seen the movie in 5 years. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Originally Posted By Jim Honestly, there were a few scenes with Belle where she was looking a little awkward. I was quite surprised when I saw how well Rafiki and Quasi were animated. But then, that is also a reflection on the director and producer, not just the lead animator. I am so excited to hear Stitch is doing well at the Disney Store. That bodes well for the film. I try to look on the positive side of the blandness of SPIRIT. It IS a good movie for kids, and there are worse things an animated film can be. If it does well, even though it will indeed feed into Katzenberg's ego, it will also strike a comeback for taditional animation.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I work at the Disney store and I have had more then one guest tell me they saw the Lion King "theme" including bits of the music from LK in the score." << "The Lion King" and "Spirit" were both scored by Hans Zimmer. He has a somewhat distinctive style, so it is understandable that there is some similarity in the music from the two films. -Jeff
Originally Posted By fabdisbabe I believe it was Mark Henn who also animated Belle, and one other animator. End result: three very different looking Belles. Fab
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, My kids liked Spirit. My son liked it when Spirit fought things, and my daughter liked Spirit playing with the mare. I enjoyed the relationship between Spirit and the Sioux Warrior. I also enjoyed many of the action scenes and the ending of the movie. I did not enjoy the narration, the DREADFUL songs, and the jarring mix of computer and hand drawn animation. Finally I know that movies for decades presented Native Americans as savages, and the Calvary as heroes. This was a twisting of the truth, and I enjoy movies that clear this up in a balanced way. However, Spirit is an an example of the opposite error. Native Americans did not have a perfect culture and all Whites were not evil. While I understand why movie makers make this error, I do wish they'd just tell the truth, and not attempt to balance out an old lie. So all in all Spirit was a fine movie for kids, but nothing special. I wouldn't go see it again, and I won't be buying it on DVD. MouseBear
