Robert Zemeckis has helmed his share of modern classics. “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” is not one of them.

There’s so much in the film rife with potential and I frequently caught glimpses of what it could have been. But, sadly, it just didn’t amount to much.
For one thing, it’s operating at cross-purposes. The contents of the story as well as the vernacular employed throughout are not child-accessible. And you know what? I appreciate that. It’s consistent with Dickens’ tale of a man being haunted by various spectres on Christmas Eve that essentially frighten him into festive compliance.

But that serious narrative approach winds up being completely undermined by the visual and sonic strategy, which is, apparently, “more is more.” More shrieks. More thuds. More bright lights. More flying, swirling, twirling scenes. More falling from great heights. More chases. All that time spent assaulting us could have been used to build up necessary emotion.

Jim Carrey is a perfect fit for this material. He plays Ebenezer Scrooge at every stage of his life exceedingly well and the motion-capture is startlingly realistic at times. And I was pleasantly surprised when it occurred to me that Gary Oldman was the man imbuing Cratchit with all that neurotic humility.

However, in Carrey’s case, Scrooge becomes nothing more than a rag doll to be thrown around and dropped on his head and chased through city streets. Instead of being invested or amused, I spent most of my time wondering how a man his age could endure such tremendous physical strain. How about a subdued optical and aural experience to leave room for some Christmas spirit?

All this begs the question: Who exactly was this supposed to appeal to? Certainly not adults. For us, it’s akin to seeing your favorite uncle drink too much at a wedding and embarrass himself on the dance floor. For kids, it’s a gloomy, frightening experience fraught with purposeless eye candy (one family at my screening actually left within the first half hour because their kid got spooked).

The people that were apprehensive about “Where the Wild Things” because it was a bit despairing are the same people that are going to come out in droves to see this thing. And that’s really disappointing. “Where the Wild Things Are” was profusely soulful and heartfelt and honest. Whatever was dark or scary about it had its roots in a very authentic place. This behemoth, on the contrary, has all the emotional honesty of an elaborate fireworks display.

Look, I know it’s a 3D flick. I saw it IMAX and was as unimpressed by 3D as I’ve ever been. Dare I say that Charles Dickens wasn’t the right authorial choice for a big-budget Disney adaptation to be shot in 3D and play on IMAX screens? Zemeckis directed “Forrest Gump.” You’re telling me he couldn’t have made a delightful live-action version of this?

I actively wanted to like this movie. It certainly has some qualities. The themes are intact and the recreation of mid-19th century London is really captivating. Also, the animated characters are extremely expressive. But, again, why did they have to be animated in the first place? The only justification for that is the visual freedom permitted by animation, but that freedom is utilized in such a way that it robs the tale of its spirit almost entirely.

I’m a sentimental pushover and it doesn’t take a lot to put me in the Christmas spirit. This film didn’t. For all its sound and fury, it’s pretty forgettable.

Tags: 2009, 3-D, 3D, carol, carrey, christmas, christmas carol, jim, zemeckis

I got into a pretty heated IM argument with longtime Scene-Stealers sitegoer Phil Fava from Vineland, NJ this morning on the future of 3D. We covered a lot of serious ground and it echoed sentiment I’ve heard before, so I reprinted it here with his permission (language and all). What do you think about 3D? Chime in below!

(10:38:30 AM) Phil: Saw “Up” in 3-D last night
(10:38:44 AM) Eric: cool
(10:39:14 AM) Phil: This was my mini Facebook status review: “Up” was fucking incredible. It had an aesthetic rivaling “The Wizard of Oz” and “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” and literally one of the most moving stories I’ve seen put to film. Also, it was really funny.
(10:39:30 AM) Phil: And now I will tell you about the 3-D experience
(10:39:38 AM) Eric: 3D obviously didnt ruin it for ya
(10:40:28 AM) Phil: Yeah, but it didn’t improve it
(10:40:36 AM) Eric: hmm
(10:40:43 AM) Phil: And it detracted from it enough to the point that I wish I’d seen it regularly
(10:40:52 AM) Eric: wow
(10:41:14 AM) Phil: 3-D IS a gimmick, and “Up” clearly is not the film that needs such a gimmick to be watchable
(10:41:31 AM) Eric: but it wasn’t a gimmick in Coraline
(10:41:55 AM) Phil: What did it add to the film other than ticket sales?
(10:42:09 AM) Phil: Did the film really benefit from things poking out at you?
(10:42:19 AM) Eric: it increased the surreal atmosphere of the “other” world scenes
(10:42:26 AM) Eric: absolutely
(10:42:33 AM) Phil: Did you see it without 3-D?
(10:42:36 AM) Phil: And compare?
(10:42:39 AM) Eric: nope
(10:42:43 AM) Phil: Aha
(10:42:46 AM) Phil: See?
(10:42:52 AM) Eric: but they designed scenes specifically for that purpose
(10:42:58 AM) Eric: Up didnt
(10:43:01 AM) Phil: I know
(10:43:03 AM) Eric: Up was processed later
(10:43:08 AM) Phil: That’s where I’m going with this
(10:43:22 AM) Eric: then you cant call it a distraction all the time
(10:43:27 AM) Phil: Certain shots weren’t in 3-D at all
(10:43:38 AM) Eric: it all depends on the movie and the artist’s intent
(10:43:39 AM) Phil: And when I would take off the glasses
(10:43:48 AM) Phil: The non-fuzzy shots looked better than they did with the glasses on
(10:44:02 AM) Phil: And the 3-D stuff didn’t really do anything
(10:44:32 AM) Phil: 3-D really is a ticket selling gimmick
(10:44:36 AM) Phil: For shitty movies like Beowulf
(10:44:41 AM) Phil: And for good ones like this and Coraline
(10:46:35 AM) Phil: In watching this movie, I can safely say that the only way 3-D is even noticeable or effective is when things protrude from the screen, and that’s really lame, so
(10:46:37 AM) Phil: In summation
(10:46:38 AM) Phil: Fuck 3-D
(10:46:59 AM) Eric: for “Up,” you mean
(10:47:13 AM) Phil: See, you didn’t see Coraline regularly
(10:47:16 AM) Phil: And I think if you had
(10:47:28 AM) Eric: i LOVED it in 3D
(10:47:31 AM) Phil: You’d notice that the atmosphere would’ve been fine
(10:47:38 AM) Phil: I think you just loved it, period
(10:47:42 AM) Eric: but 3D was better than fine in that movie
(10:47:47 AM) Phil: No
(10:47:51 AM) Phil: The movie was better than fine
(10:47:57 AM) Phil: The art direction itself was better than fine
(10:48:31 AM) Eric: no i watched the director talk about how they used 3D and i agree that Coraline used 3D well
(10:48:38 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(10:48:56 AM) Eric: 3D is a tool
(10:49:03 AM) Phil: Yes
(10:49:10 AM) Phil: To make money
(10:49:10 AM) Eric: that tool can be used in a gimmicky way
(10:49:19 AM) Eric: or to enhance storytelling
(10:49:28 AM) Phil: Enhance storytelling?!
(10:49:30 AM) Phil: You’re insane
(10:49:33 AM) Eric: i’m not
(10:49:41 AM) Eric: you’re just wrong
(10:49:43 AM) Eric: admit it
(10:49:52 AM) Eric: in “Up,” it was an afterthought
(10:49:56 AM) Phil: Directors and actors have to talk about how great their shitty movies are all the time
(10:50:02 AM) Phil: Why would it be different for 3-D?
(10:50:08 AM) Eric: Coraline used it WHILE designing it
(10:50:13 AM) Phil: Yeah
(10:50:22 AM) Eric: AND Coraline used stop-motion puppets
(10:50:34 AM) Eric: do seeing actual 3D objects in 3D was amazing
(10:50:42 AM) Eric: “so, not “do”
(10:51:00 AM) Phil: You do see objects in movies in 3-D
(10:51:14 AM) Phil: Here’s how it is
(10:51:23 AM) Eric: http://www.scene-stealers.com/blogs/sxsw-2009-selick-rodriguez-imdb-observe-and-report/
(10:51:34 AM) Phil: 3-D is only noticeable when shit pokes out at you
(10:51:36 AM) Phil: And that’s lame
(10:51:38 AM) Phil: So who cares?
(10:51:47 AM) Phil: It has NO other purpose
(10:51:50 AM) Eric: Selick explained how “Coraline” did more than make objects jump out of the screen at its audience, using the technology to “transform space” in his stop-motion world, arranging some perspectives of Coraline’s nightmare world for maximum uncomfortability.The goal was to envelop the audience, not merely trick them.
(10:52:09 AM) Eric: are you done yet?
(10:52:11 AM) Eric: lol
(10:52:35 AM) Phil: Am I done?!
(10:52:40 AM) Phil: You’re quoting yourself!
(10:53:24 AM) Phil: And I don’t care how it well it’s used or to what end
(10:53:26 AM) Phil: It’s a gimmick
(10:54:05 AM) Eric: was sound a gimmick?
(10:54:16 AM) Eric: i think u better back up there, hombre
(10:54:33 AM) Phil: I think you better watch that tone
(10:54:42 AM) Eric: anything that accompanies film CAN be used as a gimmick, but it doesn’t have to be
(10:54:53 AM) Phil: Here’s the thing with sound:
(10:55:07 AM) Phil: Came about in, what, 1930 or ‘31
(10:55:08 AM) Phil: Yeah?
(10:55:09 AM) Phil: Yeah
(10:55:14 AM) Eric: 27
(10:55:25 AM) Phil: Fuck
(10:55:40 AM) Phil: I had this shit memorized when I was real into Nosferatu
(10:55:50 AM) Eric: jazz singer
(10:56:02 AM) Phil: Oh wow you’re so smart
(10:56:03 AM) Phil: Fuck you
(10:56:12 AM) Eric: defensive?
(10:56:21 AM) Phil: Pretentious?
(10:56:33 AM) Eric: nope, just correct.
(10:56:38 AM) Phil: And pretentious
(10:56:39 AM) Phil: Moving on
(10:57:02 AM) Phil: Even fucking Chaplin (despite his best wishes) adopted sound eventually
(10:57:05 AM) Eric: just because you dont see 3D’s potential doesn’t mean people can’t use it to enhance story
(10:57:05 AM) Phil: Within a decade or so
(10:57:12 AM) Phil: 3-D’s been around for a long time
(10:57:14 AM) Phil: And it sucks shit
(10:57:17 AM) Phil: It doesn’t add realism
(10:57:22 AM) Eric: it HAS sucked shit
(10:57:31 AM) Eric: because it wasn’t developed enough yet
(10:57:48 AM) Eric: you don’t need realism for a movie to be good!
(10:57:56 AM) Eric: Coraline depends on the unreal!
(10:58:00 AM) Phil: I don’t mean realism in that way
(10:58:01 AM) Eric: that’s why 3D worked!
(10:58:05 AM) Phil: I meant in terms of physicality
(10:58:19 AM) Phil: The appearance of places being tangible or whatever
(10:58:22 AM) Phil: Or objects or people
(10:58:25 AM) Phil: It doesn’t do that
(10:58:29 AM) Phil: It’s just distracting
(10:58:48 AM) Phil: You’re arguing something different
(10:58:56 AM) Phil: Tons of my favorite movies aren’t realistic
(10:59:05 AM) Phil: In terms of story or character or setting
(11:00:08 AM) Eric: how can something that is purposefully used by the director to achieve a feeling from the audience “distracting” if it achieves that goal?
(11:00:16 AM) Eric: it’s not
(11:00:22 AM) Eric: it’s effective
(11:00:51 AM) Eric: you may want to see Coraline in 3D and wait for Jamas Cameron’s Avatar before u pass any more judgement
(11:01:19 AM) Phil: You may want to go back in time and NOT see Coraline in 3-D (unless that option was unavailable)
(11:01:36 AM) Eric: not necessary
(11:01:46 AM) Eric: already saw that it worked beautifully
(11:01:54 AM) Eric: nothing more to glean from a 2D version
(11:01:56 AM) Phil: No you didn’t!
(11:01:58 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(11:02:05 AM) Phil: You saw that the FILM worked beautifully
(11:02:16 AM) Phil: How tall are you?
(11:02:17 AM) Eric: no, the 3D film
(11:02:34 AM) Eric: uh oh…here comes the analogy
(11:02:38 AM) Eric: 6ft.
(11:02:47 AM) Phil: Okay
(11:02:56 AM) Phil: So that means I have a good chance of winning when we fight over this
(11:04:15 AM) Eric: funny
(11:04:29 AM) Eric: the last gasp of a dying argument
(11:04:51 AM) Phil: It was a joke, you dickwad
(11:05:01 AM) Phil: And I will argue this all day
(11:05:15 AM) Phil: Except you ultimately lose because you didn’t see Coraline in 2-D
(11:05:17 AM) Eric: i have a feeling that if I engeged in the same kind of arguments i do with JD
(11:05:21 AM) Phil: So your frame of reference is limited
(11:05:28 AM) Eric: that you would end up punching me in the mouth
(11:05:33 AM) Phil: Hahahahahahahaha
(11:05:39 AM) Phil: It was a joke!
(11:05:46 AM) Eric: true, but still…
(11:05:50 AM) Phil: I was more or less wondering because I watched a review earlier
(11:05:52 AM) Phil: And I was like
(11:05:55 AM) Eric: btw, did u see “Up” in 2d?
(11:06:00 AM) Phil: “Either JD is a midget or Eric is the tallest man ever”
(11:08:20 AM) Phil: Yeah, parts of it I did
(11:08:30 AM) Phil: Because when I would remove the glasses and look at the non-processed shots
(11:08:36 AM) Phil: They looked better than the processed ones
(11:08:43 AM) Phil: Clearer
(11:08:56 AM) Phil: Brighter (partly due to the fact that the 3-D glasses are basically sunglasses)
(11:09:22 AM) Phil: And the ones that were processed were indistinguishable from the regular ones with the glasses on
(11:09:25 AM) Phil: They added nothing
(11:09:30 AM) Phil: And if they HAD added something
(11:09:31 AM) Phil: For me
(11:09:37 AM) Phil: It would’ve detracted and distracted
(11:10:15 AM) Eric: Can I reprint this conversation on the site?
(11:10:22 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(11:10:25 AM) Eric: it’s actually got a lot of good stuff in it
(11:10:30 AM) Eric: seriously
(11:10:32 AM) Phil: That would be awesome

Tags: 3D, argument, debate, device, discussion, gimmick, or, rant, storytelling, useful

With a clear-cut, no-nonsense title like “Monsters Vs. Aliens,” the new DreamWorks animated spectacle (shown in many theaters in eye-popping 3D) tells you exactly what it’s going to be. Yet so did “Snakes on a Plane,” and somehow that movie managed to disappoint as well.

The DreamWorks factory makes fast-paced kids’ films with just enough pop culture references to keep adults in the game. Or at least it’s supposed to. “Monsters Vs. Aliens” is directed by two veterans of the studio, Rob Letterman (”Shark Tale”) and Conrad Vernon (”Shrek 2″), so they know the rules. Especially in a movie that itself is a parody of classic sci-fi and monster flicks, you know there will be tons of homages.

There’s the Godzilla/Mothra-sized Insectosaurus, the brainy Dr. Cockroach (”The Fly”), the super-sized Ginormica (”Attack of the 50 Foot Woman”), half-fish/half-ape the Missing Link (”King Kong,” “The Creature From the Black Lagoon”), and a brainless gelatinous mass called B.O.B. (”The Blob”). Then there’s the alien invasion (”The Day the Earth Stood Still”), an attempt at contact (”Close Encounters of the Third Kind”), and blowhard military types (”Dr. Strangelove”). Man, this movie sounds like a lot of fun!

Somehow, it’s not. It’s actually a lot of work to get through. Everybody seems to be trying way too hard.

The main “girl-power” thrust of the story is so forced that it just wears you down, and Reese Witherspoon—one of many talented voice actors who’s wasted in this one-note joke of a movie—doesn’t have a lot to work with from the start. (Although I’ll bet she’d probably make this user-submitted list of Top 10 Giant Women) Like a good 1950s housewife, Susan (as she’s called before accident) wants nothing more than to stand by her man, a cheesy TV weather guy, until he rises to the top of his profession. But on their wedding day, a meteor’s radiation causes her grow enormously, and the U.S. military whisks her off to a hidden location where she is immediately imprisoned.

That is, until her country decides to let her and her fellow “monsters” out of super-secret lock-up to save the U.S. from a hostile alien invasion. Of course, Susan (now known as Ginormica) and her new pals are game, and gleefully stand up for the country despite also having been put behind bars by them.

This wouldn’t be such an inconceivable turnaround had the film not just spent a huge amount of time showing us how inhumanely the government treated the monsters, leaving them in steel-encased, barren rooms. Susan’s despair at being locked up is matched only by the enthusiasm that she throws all of a sudden into being a giant, empowered woman. Since her character is so surprisingly flat, the movie justambles along, although it does so loudly and with a lot of inconsequential action.

The screenplay, credited (amazingly) to five different people, is lazy as hell. The monsters get out, have doubts, get their groove back, and kick some ass. A nice outline, I suppose, but there’s no reason to care about any of it. A movie this obvious and uninvolving (especially one that announces its intentions in the title) might have still gotten by with lots of funny jokes and state-of-the-art 3D effects. Unfortunately, “Monsters Vs. Aliens” has only the 3D to fall back on and, at a certain point, being bludgeoned to death by 3D actually begins to numb the mind.

Seth Rogen, however, escapes virtually unscathed, since the movie is so devoid of funny moments that when his giant blob B.O.B. does open its mouth, you know you are guaranteed at least a chuckle. What is the movie’s excuse then for wasting the talents of Paul Rudd, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett, Kiefer Sutherland, Rainn Wilson, and Stephen Colbert?

“It’s called ‘Monsters Vs. Aliens,’ and it’s a kids’ movie, man…, c’mon.”

Yes it is. Not an excuse. It’s a severely dull, by-the-books affair that still fails to entertain despite lowered expectations. And if it’s not even 3D where your theater is playing it, I really wouldn’t go see the flat version. It’s flat enough in 3D.

Tags: 3-D, 3D, flat, monsters vs. aliens, movie, negative, pan, review, we lose, Whoever wins, whomever wins

Eric Melin and guest host Billy Brimblecom, drummer extraordinaire, review the new 3D stop-motion animation film “Coraline” and talk about its relation to Tim Burton and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” All the ads seem to suggest Tim Burton without actually saying his name, so that is addressed– along with the spookiness of a kids’ fantasy written by Neil Gaiman (of “Sandman” comics fame) and the idea of 3D accentuating the movie without being too gimmicky.

Tags: 3-D, 3D, animation, coraline, coraline movie review, film, neil gaiman, on-camera, review, stop-motion