#foreverimaginary

Rating: 10

Story

The story is well thought through. Everything helps to move the plot along in a timely manner, so that the movie isn’t dragging along.

Direction

Everything comes together perfectly to make this movie a piece to always remember. Even now, nearly 30 years later, this movie still looks amazing.

Design

Everything fits well together for the 1950’s period except for the toons, which are supposed to stand out, but still interacts well with real things (Roger throwing himself through the window).

Characters

The characters all utilize real feelings and personality traits that the audience can relate to. The toons are mostly stereotypically cheery, but still show anger, fear, etc. (Roger expressing anger and sadness after finding out about his wife’s patty cake game).

Script Writing

The film is based on Gary K. Wolf’s 1981 novel, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? I’ve never read this book and cannot speak on it’s amount of influence over the movie.

Cinematography

This film uses mostly still shots with a few short pans as Eddie Valiant crosses the street to the bar. The lighting was well placed and realistic except on the brightly colored toons. This only adds to the fact that they don’t reflect on the real world and belong in Toon Town.

Innovation

Mixing live action with animation was not a new concept, but this was a full color movie and they pulled off the style so well that this movie has made it though decades of childhoods with more to follow.

Background Art

I feel that the props used are appropriate for a movie set in the 50’s. This does not apply to the toons or Toon Town, except for the old fashion taxi toon.

Social/Political

Toons are treated as lesser beings. Roger even stated that there’s no justice for tunes anymore when he was seeking help from Eddie.

Sound Design

The music was appropriate for the 1950’s era. Sound effects matched up perfectly with ongoing actions, which is very important for a half-animated film. When something that isn’t there bumps into or drops something, there needs to be a corresponding sound.

Rating:6

Story:

The story is simple and provides a focus for the movie, but its hard to follow over the long run time and multiple side plots. It’s also unexplained why all the spirits who hated Chihiro during the movie are rooting for her at the end.

Direction:

The visual and audio quality of the movie are perfect, but the story and overall flow of the movie was poor due to a dragged-out plot.

Design:

The design is very unique and creative from the way the world works to how the spirits were designed.

Character:

The characters are unique in design, but still hold relatable characteristics (Yubaba’s anger and greed for money and power. Also, the spirits working at the bath house are greedy for gold.).

Script Writing:

An original piece of work. Chihiro was based off the 10-year-old daughter of Miyazaki’s friend and the story followed suite. I believe that the spirits were based off Japanese beliefs, but cannot say for sure since I know so little on the topic.

Cinematography:

There are a lot of beautiful shots and lighting in this movie. The lighting shines throughout, but the camera’s best work is in the beginning of the movie when Chihiro and her parents are exploring the empty town and the camera pans across the many booths as it follows them around.

Innovation:

This movie utilizes beautiful art to create an unusually well-made animated movie. Most animated movies diminish in visual quality so that they can work on a larger scale, but not this one or any of the other movies made by Miyazaki.

Background Art:

The art is beautiful and well detailed. It maintains the same look as the foreground and is actively in the story unlike in other movies where the focal objects are separated from the background art.

Social/Politics:

The business system. There’s a boss/CEO, workers and customers that must be well taken care of.

Sound Design

The sound effects and music fir well with the film, especially the use of silence. Not everything needs music playing in the background.

Rating: 9

Story:

The story is well developed. Everything in the movie helps to carry the story forward without the movie feeling dragged out. Ex. Hogarth disobeying his mother and staying up late was humorous, but also leads him to discovering the Giant.

Direction:

I feel that everything about this movie flows together perfectly to create this beautiful piece of entertainment. The art was consistent, sound effect and music in sync and on point and the story was simple, but engaging.

Design:

The design is perfect for the time of the movie (set in 1957). The figures have no gradient shading and pop out from the background too much.

Character:

I feel that all the characters have great differing personalities and clothing styles. The physical (body language) and verbal (the voice actors) emotions really them to life.

Script Writing:

This movie is based off Ted Hughes’ cold war fable. I also noticed some loose similarities to War of the Worlds’ alien robots (Giant’s discovering in the beginning and his weapon form towards the end).

Cinematography:

The camera work is great and there are a lot of quality shots where the camera pans to show the scenery (the beginning when the camera pans across the busy town and again when Hogarth rides through).

Innovation:

At the time, cell shaded objects were a very popular concept (still used now, but not as often). The objects had a 3D effect but still fit with everything else in the movie (the Giant). Another movie that did this was The Lost City of Atlantis.

Background Art:

The background art is beautiful and sets the movie in its time (1957). The background art holds a lot of the light and shading that would appear during the different times of day (sunrise, starry night, etc.), but doesn’t match up with the brightly lit characters.

Social/Political:

The movie is set during a time of was and adults (mostly military) are unwilling to accept the unknown. Kent Mansley doesn’t really see the Giant as anything more than a chance for a promotion.

Sound Design:

The music is on point. The melody and tempo change to suit the situations as they change. There’s even some well-placed moments of silence (When the giant saves the two kids and stands before the towns people).

Rating: 7

Story:

The story was clear, in depth and touching. There were a few parts that would’ve been better left out (a couple of scenes showing the illusionist struggle), so that the movie didn’t feel dragged out.

Direction:

I feel that choosing to do this movie with very few words really amplified everything else about the movie, making it a great decision. Just like in the days of silent cartoons, if you cannot illustrate something with sound, you need to make sure that every physical action is telling the story and this movie did that perfectly.

Design:

The design was perfect for the time portrayed in the movie. There was a noticeable difference between the background and the characters and objects in use throughout the movie, but the mild colors kept everything together.

Character:

The illusionist’s sweet personality made the movie. He and the other performers (minus the acrobats) showed how they felt while struggling for work perfectly without any words (none of the few words spoken involved the performers struggles).

Script Writing:

The story was based on an unpublished script written by Jacques Tati in 1956 as a letter to his estranged daughter. Without having read the script, I cannot say anything for or against its influence on this movie or if the movie did the script any justice.

Cinematography:

The camera work is nonexistent. Every part of this movie is done with still shots, showing the characters as they head to their destinations. The lighting in the beginning (when the illusionist is traveling by train) was perfect for showing the flow of time.

Innovation:

This movie used stiff character movement, but the animation was fluid, making me believe that the rigidness was done on purpose (the illusionist’s stance or when he moved his upper body opposed to when he walked or interacted with objects).

Background Art:

The background helped the story along by illustrating time (the changing of seasons) and location (Scotland, England, etc.) throughout the movie.

Social/Political:

The struggle for a performing artist when a new medium (rock n roll) arises. Also, the unfair and corrupt management of the time (when the illusionist money is lost at the garage and stolen at the theater).

Sound Design:

I didn’t care much for the music. It didn’t help move the story along, nor did it pick up or slow down much throughout the movie, making it harder to stay entertained. I became bored of it after the first 20 minutes.

Rating: 10

Story:

The story was in depth and captivating. Everything that took place helped the progress of the story until the end.

Direction:

The direction was clean and well executed. Everything from the story to the sound was in sync and helped to move the story along. Nothing seemed out of place.

Design:

The art style was consistent throughout the movie. Everything looked like it belonged with no noticeable errors. The design was very pleasing to the eye as well. No harsh colors or out of place objects.

Character:

The characters fit well with the story. Their movements and expressions properly portrayed their emotions and the voice actors added further realism by adapting their voice for the appropriate emotion.

Script Writing:

The movie is based off a child’s book series that began in 2003 and last published in 2014. The first book of the series shares the same name as the movie.

Cinematography:

The video and lighting quality is beautiful throughout the movie. I’d say its shinning moment was in the beginning of the movie when the Vikings first fall under attack. The camera pans to follow Hiccup and shows all the Vikings as they try to fight off the dragons and save the sheep. The only light sources are fire, stars and moon and they’re used perfectly. The sky adds just enough dim light to see objects and people while the fire adds a brighter light that only hits certain parts of the characters and objects, adding a nice realistic contrast.

Innovation:

I wouldn’t say this movie used any new techniques. Rather, it took methods at the time and improved upon them for a smoother/cleaner product.

Background Art:

The background was somewhat bare, but that helped the movie. Viking were nomadic people, so an open sea with sparse rock formations is the perfect scenery for a Viking village.

Social/Politics:

The tension between Vikings and dragons. The dragons bowing to a higher power for their survival, leading them to have conflict with the Vikings for stealing their sheep. The Vikings never thought to consider why the dragons were stealing from them and decided to just kill them all.

Sound Design:

The sound syncs perfectly throughout the entire movie. The light background music helps to carry the mood without being overpowering (and no singing [thank you DreamWorks!]).

Rating: 1

Story:

The story isn’t the least bit engaging. I didn’t conclude the main point of the movie until it ended and I’m not entirely sure if it was the actual point of the movie.

Direction:

The director made sure that everything happened in a timely manner, but every other aspect was of mediocre quality (story, animation, execution, etc.).

Design:

Picture quality is poor and inconsistent. From a distance, everything (including characters) looks like paper. Close-up, everything is fabric, fur and clay. There’s also the two times the foxes were “glowing” and their design changed entirely.

Character:

The characters are flat. There is absolutely no emotion fluctuation in any of the characters and everyone holds a happy tone no matter how much stress and danger they are in. Mrs. Fox “losing her temper” was pointless and flat. She showed no expression and the tone of her voice remained the same.

Scriptwriting:

The story is based off a children’s book. I have never read the book, but I feel that this movie greatly exaggerated the original story and drowned whatever the plot point was.

Cinematography:

The camera work was very choppy, quickly jumping from one scene to the next. The best shot was in the beginning when it pans past all the worker fixing up the tree house.

Innovation:

I don’t believe that there were any new techniques used here. As far as Stop motion goes, there are older movies that have done a much cleaner job than this one (Nightmare Before Christmas, Wallis & Gromit, Chicken Run).

Background Art:

The background kept the movie in perspective space wise, but its execution set it apart from the characters. Whether close-up or far away, the characters don’t look like they’re in the world that the background is portraying.

Social/Political:

Social classes divided by riches and species. Mr. and Mrs. Fox started out as poor thieves. Mr. Fox reverted to his thieving ways when he saw rich and well-off humans. The humans didn’t see them as rich or poor, just pesky wildlife.

Sound Design:

The sound effects go perfectly with their situations, helping to carry the tone of the situations, helping to carry the tone of the situation as they arose (farmers plotting against Mr. Fox).

Rating: 7

Story:

The story was very engaging and heartfelt all the way through to the end. I believe that it would’ve made a bigger impact on viewers if there weren’t so many musical pieces that threw off the serious tone.

Direction:

The background music, images and timing all flowed well with the story. The brief change in artwork for Tiana’s song felt a bit out of place and unnecessary, along with a lot of the character songs (ex. Mama Odie’s song).

Design:

The picture quality was perfect. Melding 2D and 3D pieces was seamless throughout the movie. The shading on Luis was flat in the swamp scenes (most of the movie). Especially noticeable when the camera switched from the two frogs to him.

Character:

Character designs were creative and detailed (gradients on the frogs). The story allowed for gradual character development for Tiana and Naveen. Villains’ were tied to the story, but felt a bit detached, since they weren’t given much screen time.

Scriptwriting:

The concept behind this story isn’t new and has been retold for years. Luis the crocodile felt similar other characters from Disney’s past movies (Baloo from Jungle Book).

Cinematography:

Camerawork and lighting was great throughout the movie. The best use of these was when Tiana and Naveen were trying to survive in the swamp they had just landed in, followed with a well-timed gradual sunrise for their success.

Innovation:

There was no new technique, but well executed current mediums and some old works that I haven’t seen used in a Disney movie in a while (true plot and character development along with an in-movie character death).

Background Art:

The scenery art was perfect for this movie and helped keep everything in perspective. However, the art looked out of place when background objects (trees and branches) were handled by the characters (a constant 2D cartoon issue).

Social/Political:

Social classes; royalty, rich upper class and poor, lower class portrayed throughout the movie (Tiana and Charlotte’s living conditions and town treatment).

Sound Design:

Sound was on point. Everything from the sound effects to voice recordings was in sync.

Overall, I like this movie. The art was well executed with a few missteps that I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I wasn’t paying extra attention. Main characters, Tiana and Naveen, showed gradual character development through to the end of the movie. The voice actors succeeded in adding the proper emotion in every part.

Rating: 2

Story:

The story isn’t very engaging in anyway. There’s nothing that pulls me in about the plot or the characters because of the way the movie was executed.

Direction:

I feel that the director excelled at making all the pieces of this movie flow together. A few scene transitions were poorly done and the sound effects are delayed a second or so.

Design:

Quality for its time is good. The animation is almost seamless except for a few minor details. I think it would’ve been better as a live action film.

Character:

Snow White’s kind and caring nature along with the Queen’s selfishness is what makes the story what it is. Unfortunately, they are both very forced with little to no explanation to the they feel or act the way that they do. The acting and art in this aspect is also very flat and one sided. You can’t tell what they might be feeling based off of their facial expressions or tone of voice, so you must rely solely on their body language.

Scriptwriting:

This story is Disney’s adaptation of the classic story book, Snow White, with the addition of lots of singing and cute woodland creatures. I have not personally read the original German story, but I am sure that they change several details from the original story, as they have done with their other animated works.

Cinematography:

The scene where Snow White runs frantically through the woods was a great use of the cameras and lighting. It emphasized how freaked out she was to the viewers with the tone and dramatic zoom in and outs. The end scene where she collapses in the middle of a clearing and the camera zooms out while the scene lightens to show that nothing she saw was actually there was the perfect finish.

Innovation:

At the time of its making, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had used a new concept of being an animated musical and integrating cute creatures as humorous sub-characters.

Background Art:

The background flows with the story and keeps it grounded to the time period and designated places as the story progresses.

Social/Politics:

There isn’t anything representing “current” politics in this movie, but it does reference to the old social class system of royalty, servants and poverty. Royalty would dress in vibrant colors while the lower class and servants dressed in dull clothes, even rags.

Sound Design:

The sound effects work well with the scenes and emphasize the feeling that are happening in the film. As I’ve stated before, the sound effects are off a second from the actual actions occurring. I would normally excuse this as the video lagging, but the verbal sound was in sync with the characters’ mouths, so it is an error by the Sound effects team.