Coraline [Archive]

Grouchy

12-27-2007, 03:48 PM

If the art looks Burtonesque, it's probably because it's being directed by Henry Selick of Nigtmare before Christmas. I'm just glad Gaiman seems to be more and more interested in collaborating in movies recently - his script for Beowulf is probably what elevated the movie into "actually good" status besides the visuals.

Dakota Fanning is a hideous being probably born from an ewok's puke. I dispute her both as an actress and a human being.

megladon8

12-27-2007, 06:36 PM

Dakota Fanning is a hideous being probably born from an ewok's puke. I dispute her both as an actress and a human being.

That is the finest literary imagery I have read in all my life.

I laughed really hard. :)

Horbgorbler

12-28-2007, 01:07 AM

It stars the antichrist?! Noooooooooo...

The book is great; there goes any hope the film will follow suit.

Spinal

12-28-2007, 04:31 AM

Dakota is just fine as far as child actors go. I don't get the extreme reactions. Looking forward to the movie. The book is fantastic.

monolith94

12-28-2007, 05:05 AM

The book was decent, but this looks dopey. Pass.

number8

12-28-2007, 06:08 PM

I don't think it looks anything like Burton.

Sven

12-29-2007, 02:29 AM

I don't think it looks anything like Burton.

Yeah, to me it looks more like Tim Shafer's designs in Psychonauts than Burton.

jenniferofthejungle

12-29-2007, 07:00 PM

I enjoyed the book so much I bought it for one of my nieces, but I doubt I'll see the movie.

Mara

12-12-2008, 02:17 PM

How did I not know this was happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXZ8l4j8Ag

I read the book solidly in my twenties and it still gave me nightmares. The trailer looks like a jarring mixture of creepy and cute, though. The voice acting sounds so... cheery.

Still, I think I'm going to see it. In 3D.

D_Davis

12-12-2008, 03:38 PM

This looks great.

It looks more organic than Corpse Bride. The models actually look like they were sculpted by hand, rather than a computer, and the scenery looks a little messy. I like it.

I'm assuming this is mostly done with stop-motion, although with today's CGI it's kind of hard to tell. But if it is, I always prefer my stop-motion to look like it was touched by human hands.

Like this:

http://genrebusters.com/images/twain1.jpg

http://genrebusters.com/images/twain5.jpg

From the trailer, Coraline looks like is possesses this quality.

Sycophant

12-13-2008, 01:43 AM

Not familiar with the Gaiman work, but I like Gaiman, so that's interesting. Wasn't too crazy about Nightmare Before Christmas, but at least Selick's work always seems to look pretty. I'll see it.

Sycophant

12-13-2008, 01:51 AM

Dakota is just fine as far as child actors go. I don't get the extreme reactions.
Oh, and this, by the way.

Winston*

12-13-2008, 02:03 AM

Hey, John Hodgman has what looks like a major role in this. That's neat.

Sven

12-13-2008, 02:33 AM

Dakota is just fine as far as child actors go. I don't get the extreme reactions.

She spends too much time trying to replicate the emotiveness of adult actors, not enough time appearing like a recognizable child. I imagine she'll be more tolerable as she gets older.

Mara

12-15-2008, 01:37 PM

Not familiar with the Gaiman work, but I like Gaiman, so that's interesting.

It's a very quick read, and absolutely worth seeking out.

monolith94

12-16-2008, 06:45 AM

Other than the source material, everything about this screams of suck.

lovejuice

02-03-2009, 05:39 PM

um.....am i the only one who's excited about this?

[ETM]

02-03-2009, 05:40 PM

um.....am i the only one who's excited about this?

Certainly not. But this is Match-cut.:crazy:
:P

Kurosawa Fan

02-03-2009, 05:41 PM

;136028']Certainly not. But this is Match-cut.:crazy:
:P

It gets funnier every time.

[ETM]

02-03-2009, 05:46 PM

It gets funnier every time.

I didn't know you find it funny. Certainly wasn't intended as such.

While the source material leaves me a bit uninterested, the technical approach alone is enough to make one interested in this, but yeah, obviously not. Take that as you wish.

Kurosawa Fan

02-03-2009, 05:52 PM

;136031']I didn't know you find it funny. Certainly wasn't intended as such.

I don't. You seem to take shots at "Match Cut" quite often. It's irritating.

[ETM]

02-03-2009, 06:18 PM

I don't. You seem to take shots at "Match Cut" quite often. It's irritating.

I don't. I just don't post that much so it seems like "often". This place does have its own "thing" and people are often proud of it. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just... is. I do, however, feel like an outsider here, even after years of posting, so you might say there's some negativity in the little jabs. I'll try and not irritate you in the future. You could also stop taking it personally, and together we might just make it.

Sycophant

02-03-2009, 06:26 PM

I was relieved to find out Selick had nothing to do with The Corpse Bride. I'll watch this.

KK2.0

02-03-2009, 08:42 PM

Coraline, Up and Ponyo are the animated features to watch this year.

megladon8

02-03-2009, 08:48 PM

Coraline, Up and Ponyo are the animated features to watch this year.

And 9.

lovejuice

02-03-2009, 08:55 PM

;136028']Certainly not. But this is Match-cut.:crazy:
actually this surprises me most. we generally seem to be partial toward animation/stop-motion and geiman.

Raiders

02-03-2009, 08:59 PM

I am seeing this on Saturday.

I really liked Selick's James and the Giant Peach, even moreso than The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Watashi

02-03-2009, 09:04 PM

Coraline, Up and Ponyo are the animated features to watch this year.
Don't forget about A Christmas Carol, The Princess and the Frog, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

I'm also slightly interested in Ice Age 3.

Sycophant

02-03-2009, 09:06 PM

The Princess and the Frog
Wait, that's coming out this year?!

Holy shit, you guys, it's 2009!

[ETM]

02-03-2009, 09:46 PM

actually this surprises me most. we generally seem to be partial toward animation/stop-motion and geiman.

My girlfriend is a huge Gaiman fan and she is all over this, so I'm up to date. I was easily gonna dismiss it, but it has won me over with the sheer scope of the project.

lovejuice

02-03-2009, 11:12 PM

;136062']I was easily gonna dismiss it...

dare i ask why? it's directed by selick. written by geiman. the trailer is pretty good. and it's a stop-motion. seems to me like a kinda entertainment movie-nerds like us generally drool over.

edit: and it has under-aged animated girl on top of these!

Watashi

02-03-2009, 11:19 PM

edit: and it has under-aged animated girl on top of these!

Hey! What's that suppose to mean?

[ETM]

02-03-2009, 11:35 PM

dare i ask why?

I'm not too keen on the story, that's all. I didn't know they were taking the whole meticulous stop motion route, and once I saw the previews, I was sold.

Sycophant

02-03-2009, 11:42 PM

Hey! What's that suppose to mean?

Lovejuice <3 lolicon? And he thinks the rest of us do, too?

Or maybe that we mostly tend to like Miyazaki movies?

Winston*

02-03-2009, 11:52 PM

Audio interview with Gaiman and Selick (http://www.maximumfun.org/blog/2009/02/neil-gaiman-and-henry-selick-on.html)

Spinal

02-04-2009, 12:19 AM

dare i ask why? it's directed by selick.

Selick is actually the reason why I am trying to keep my enthusiasm in check. The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach are both half-baked. Monkeybone is one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Raiders

02-04-2009, 12:24 AM

The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach are both half-baked.

These two films are the reason I do want to see this. They're both gorgeously rendered by Selick even if some of the material is rather half baked.

Sycophant

02-04-2009, 12:26 AM

"Half-baked" is probably the perfect term for Nightmare Before Christmas.

number8

02-04-2009, 01:03 AM

I saw it last week. This was good.

Sycophant

02-04-2009, 01:41 AM

I saw it last week. This was good.

Interesting. Please briefly state your opinion of The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride.

That request is how I begin all dates, job interviews, and potential bus seat-mates.

number8

02-04-2009, 02:56 AM

Love the former, hate the latter.

Sycophant

02-04-2009, 03:04 AM

Love the former, hate the latter.

Well, at least that's acceptable.

Ivan Drago

02-04-2009, 04:43 AM

I don't even remember The Corpse Bride.

Mara

02-06-2009, 05:55 PM

The reviews look amazing. I might crawl out of my hole and actually see this in the theaters... in fact, I'm going to drive the extra 8 miles and see it in 3D.

Watashi

02-07-2009, 11:20 PM

This was awesome, awesome, awesome. I loved every minute of it.

Totally makes up for Monkeybone.

Spinal

02-08-2009, 12:13 AM

This was awesome, awesome, awesome. I loved every minute of it.

Sweet! Probably going tomorrow.

Raiders

02-08-2009, 01:23 AM

This was awesome, awesome, awesome. I loved every minute of it.

Totally makes up for Monkeybone.

I just got back from the disappointment of going all the way to the cinema only to find it was sold out.

I won't get to it until next weekend now.

:sad:

Watashi

02-08-2009, 01:57 AM

An animated film that might be too good for children. It arrives in time to expose the atrocious Wall-E.

Le sigh.

Spinal

02-08-2009, 02:38 AM

Le sigh.

I find the first sentence more insulting than the second.

Boner M

02-08-2009, 03:36 AM

You are such a useless and worthless writer, Armond. Everything has to be either/or, doesn't it? You have to create battles where none exist because you're so obviously a complete sociopath, a misanthrope, desperate for attention, so weak and pitiful and cowardly that you're prone to lashing outwards contemptuously at phantom strawmen like "hipster critics" and the like. You even create critical bashings and the ignoring of films you decide to enjoy (I use "decide" intentionally here); you create the fiction that certain films are completely beloved and others completely hated, all merely as a means to tell people, "Dammit I'm the only one who knows the truth." Your sickness is the same that I've seen in conspiracy theorists and lonely old creeps, where you want to be on the outside standing in, passing judgment, your every opinion and turn of phrase an exercise in complete disingenuousness. Nothing you say has a basis in the reality or experience of watching a film and yet your critical dishonesty is transparent to everyone else and likely opaque to yourself. I worry about you.
Trans?

transmogrifier

02-08-2009, 03:56 AM

Trans?

Heh, no. Addressing him directly feeds his ego.

Spaceman Spiff

02-08-2009, 05:34 PM

I really don't like Gaiman, but I'm finding myself interested in this. Will probably check it out next weekend.

Mara

02-08-2009, 11:23 PM

This weekend got a little nutty, but I WILL see this. At some point. I think I talked by brother-in-law into seeing it with me, but my sister was skeptical.

kamran

02-09-2009, 12:57 AM

This was quite lovely. Visuals are worth the price of admission alone, as expected, but I was impressed by how Selick was able to take one space (basically a house and garden) and re-create/explore it in countless ways. It's also very well written (the dialogue between children and their parents is spot-on), and the plot threads are tied together in a way that doesn't rob the story of its magical/fantastical elements.

I may even see this again, in 3-D this time.

Side-note: the reaction of the children in the audience was rather surprising. I expected a lot of chatter and noise, but most of the commentary came from the accompanying adults! The kids were totally silent, perhaps because the film's imagery bordered on disturbing at times. Not a totally unwarranted PG.

lovejuice

02-10-2009, 06:05 AM

wow, it's been destroyed in the box-office. now i slightly lose faith in humanity.

Raiders

02-10-2009, 02:53 PM

wow, it's been destroyed in the box-office. now i slightly lose faith in humanity.

It's performing pretty closely to the other stop-motion films of its kind, like Nightmare Before Christmas (initial run), James and the Giant Peach and Corpse Bride.

I believe its per-theatre average is actually better than all three of those.

lovejuice

02-14-2009, 05:27 AM

it's glorious. best movies i have seen for a couple of years.

Sxottlan

02-14-2009, 08:59 AM

Excellent film.

It was like someone turned Psychonauts into a film. Fantastic to look at and genuinely disturbing at times.

B-side

02-14-2009, 10:10 AM

Yea, I rather liked it myself. The 3D helped make the world so tangible. It's really just a very charming film. Wholly enjoyable. Not as preachy as I was expecting either.

lovejuice

02-14-2009, 05:34 PM

i love everything about this movie, so i'll nitpick and say the very last mano-a-mano is uncalled for. i kinda understand it needs to be there to unit coraline and the boy, but its anti-climatic feel doesn't work for me.

but oh....the spider....the spider......is.....glorious... ...

Sxottlan

02-15-2009, 08:12 AM

i love everything about this movie, so i'll nitpick and say the very last mano-a-mano is uncalled for.

Yeah, that was my only beef with the movie too.

Some of the elements of the ending felt too much like a video game, but as it was said, it was a game her and the Other Mother were playing.

Spinal

02-17-2009, 07:09 AM

It was all right. Selick's best film, but that's not saying much. The character design is the highlight, particularly the Other Mother late in the film. Still can't help but feel it wasn't nearly as captivating and magical as it should have been. And the French and Saunders characters are just ... weird.

Raiders

02-17-2009, 02:30 PM

Spinal

02-17-2009, 03:07 PM

Grump.

You must be mistaking me for the people posting three times a day in the Slumdog Millionaire thread.

NickGlass

02-17-2009, 03:53 PM

You must be mistaking me for the people posting three times a day in the Slumdog Millionaire thread.

Yeah, because the only reason one wouldn't buy into Slumdog Millionaire's transparent, pandering machinations is if they're a "grump."

Raiders

02-17-2009, 04:30 PM

You must be mistaking me for the people posting three times a day in the Slumdog Millionaire thread.

Them too. But no, you're a more unique kind of grump.

Watashi

02-17-2009, 04:37 PM

I'm seeing this again tonight. First time I've seen a film twice in theaters since The Dark Knight.

We'll see if it becomes better than The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Ezee E

02-17-2009, 04:40 PM

May check this out. The 3D experience worth it?

Raiders

02-17-2009, 04:44 PM

May check this out. The 3D experience worth it?

Yeah, it is used perfectly by the filmmakers. I also think that the style of animation is uniquely suited to 3D. I once took the glasses off for a second, and the stop-motion animation just didn't feel as immersive as it did in 3D (by default the 3D technology is meant to be more immersive, but it rarely has that effect for me).

Ezee E

02-17-2009, 10:57 PM

Yeah, it is used perfectly by the filmmakers. I also think that the style of animation is uniquely suited to 3D. I once took the glasses off for a second, and the stop-motion animation just didn't feel as immersive as it did in 3D (by default the 3D technology is meant to be more immersive, but it rarely has that effect for me).
Awesome. I've seen a few of the 3D animated movies, and the only one where the 3D seems essential is Beowulf.

Spinal

02-17-2009, 11:29 PM

May check this out. The 3D experience worth it?

I thought it was interesting in that it was one of the first 3D films I've seen that wasn't particularly concerned with pop-at-you effects so much as it was with simply providing texture to the environment. In other words, the use of 3D is subtle, but effective.

Spinal

02-17-2009, 11:35 PM

Yeah, because the only reason one wouldn't buy into Slumdog Millionaire's transparent, pandering machinations is if they're a "grump."

I wasn't really making a comment about disliking the film. Just about getting hung up on it being liked by so many others. That kind of obsession can lead to mental instability and before long you find yourself posting phrases like "Dumbdog Millionaire". I don't want to see anyone stumble down that path.

number8

02-18-2009, 01:50 AM

Wait till you guys see Monsters vs Aliens. The movie's terrible, but the 3D is out of this world. Nothing "pops out", it's just like watching some kind of elaborate giant puppet show.

Coraline's 3D is more subtle and seamless, but you know the deepening tunnel effect in Coraline? The entirety of Monsters vs Aliens is like that.

lovejuice

02-18-2009, 01:59 AM

Wait till you guys see Monsters vs Aliens. The movie's terrible, but the 3D is out of this world. Nothing "pops out", it's just like watching some kind of elaborate giant puppet show.

don't know if it's a good or bad news. since i kinda look forward to this. can you talk more about the actual film?

Ivan Drago

02-18-2009, 02:26 AM

Ugh, I really want to see this in 3D, but it's only playing in 2D near me. Is it worth seeing in 2D?

Spun Lepton

02-18-2009, 03:53 AM

I read all of Armond Whats-his-smell's review of Coraline ...

:|

Usually when I read a review, I want the review to actually be about the movie I'm interested in, not a movie that had come out months earlier. :|

Yxklyx

02-20-2009, 03:32 AM

I saw this tonight in 3-D. It was OK but I have to say the 3-D aspect was distracting more often than not. For instance, the scene with the Other family where they're eating at a table with a train on it. I found myself staring at some of the objects on the table and not even listening to the conversation the characters were having. Another time my attention would be focused on a wonderful looking cup of coffee instead of the scene at hand.

Amnesiac

02-20-2009, 03:36 AM

Still can't help but feel it wasn't nearly as captivating and magical as it should have been.

I feel the same way. Perhaps I am a victim of my own hype. Or perhaps it was the pacing. Or the certain meandering quality of the narrative. Or perhaps it was the 3D glasses giving me a headache. Either way, I didn't find myself totally enamored with this one.

Raiders

02-20-2009, 12:36 PM

Fezzik

02-21-2009, 02:06 AM

I just got back from this.

I was sufficiently awed. I didn't expect much from it going in, and was quite surprised. I loved it. The character design was amazing and the film as a whole was gorgeous.

And yes...it was incredibly magical. It was the best use of 3D I've seen in a feature film and there were moments that were as charming as some of Pixar's best shorts.

Amnesiac

02-21-2009, 03:51 AM

Sounds like a personal problem.

So, Yxklyx has ADD and Selick's implementation of the RealD technology is utter perfection for those not afflicted by personal problems. :)

Ezee E

02-21-2009, 09:58 PM

Pretty good. The 3D is definitely worth it in this movie as there were a few scenes that I took the glasses off, and it's not nearly as interesting.

The story itself is kind of unoriginal, but the designs and use of the enviornment is what makes it very cool. Loved the walk into the land that was not imagined.

number8

02-21-2009, 10:16 PM

The 3D is definitely worth it in this movie as there were a few scenes that I took the glasses off, and it's not nearly as interesting.

Well, yeah, I'd imagine blurry images are not as interesting as 3D. :P

soitgoes...

02-21-2009, 10:59 PM

Did anyone else think the opening sequence, where the doll is being made, was some of the best use of 3D? Granted I haven't seen too many 3D films.

Spinal

02-22-2009, 01:53 AM

Oh yeah. The opening sequence is awesome. Love the music too.

Amnesiac

02-22-2009, 02:09 AM

The opening was pretty good, but I was most impressed by the 3D during the garden scene.

Dead & Messed Up

02-22-2009, 11:38 PM

I thought the 3D was sometimes awesome and worthwhile (during the acrobat setpiece) but frequently distracting. Most of that came from times when the 3D planes didn't seem to line up perfectly, which gave a lot of the more dimensional scenes a "ghosting" effect. I don't know why that happened for me, or if that's common.

But otherwise, the film is incredible, delightful, surprisingly dark and not afraid to wallow in the occasional grotesquerie. It's classical storytelling, executed with precision, and the world created is as enchanting and involving as any kid's film I've seen.

Really, really dug this one.

Raiders

02-22-2009, 11:53 PM

I thought the 3D was sometimes awesome and worthwhile (during the acrobat setpiece) but frequently distracting. Most of that came from times when the 3D planes didn't seem to line up perfectly, which gave a lot of the more dimensional scenes a "ghosting" effect. I don't know why that happened for me, or if that's common.

I have to say just you. I remember it being rather stunningly clear. I didn't even notice that it required "lining up" because the few seconds I had the glasses off, the image didn't really look blurry.

Dead & Messed Up

02-23-2009, 12:02 AM

I have to say just you. I remember it being rather stunningly clear. I didn't even notice that it required "lining up" because the few seconds I had the glasses off, the image didn't really look blurry.

Fair enough. I can't wait to watch it on sumptuous 2-D DVD and admire the composition and art design without any distractions.

Amnesiac

02-23-2009, 12:09 AM

I can't wait to watch it on sumptuous 2-D DVD and admire the composition and art design without any distractions.

"Distractions" being the operative word, yeah. This may be precipitate of me, but something about the whole effect seemed to be a little detracting. I appreciate certain things such as the Wizard of Oz-esque utility that Selick ascribed to the 3D, but something about the entire effect still seemed a little awkward. Unnecessary, even. Maybe I just find it hard to break with tried-and-true two-dimensional traditions. I still hope that Up! in 3D might be a better experience, but I might just sit out on the stereoscopy for that one.

I have faith that I may get used to it and hop on the wagon, but I couldn't help but walk out of Coraline feeling a little indifferent. Perhaps I'm letting my feelings regarding the lackluster quality of the film itself bleed into my opinion of the 3D. Perhaps Up! will be a better synthesis.

Dead & Messed Up

02-23-2009, 12:27 AM

"Distractions" being the operative word, yeah. This may be precipitate of me, but something about the whole effect seemed to be a little detracting. I appreciate certain things such as the Wizard of Oz-esque utility that Selick ascribed to the 3D, but something about the entire effect still seemed a little awkward. Unnecessary, even. Maybe I just find it hard to break with tried-and-true two-dimensional traditions. I still hope that Up! in 3D might be a better experience, but I might just sit out on the stereoscopy for that one.

The problem, for me, is obvious: normal film directs your eye, but not at the expense of the frame. 3-D, with objects shifting further and nearer, takes attention further from the artistic creation within a frame. The composition, the image itself separates too cleanly into focus and background.

Imagine trying to watch the beautiful opening of No Country for Old Men, but with Brolin running right at you. His dimensional running would complicate things by making your eye naturally focus on him, rather than how he fits into the landscape, which seems to me the entirely purpose of the soundless opening - watching the interplay of figure and setting and light and shadow.

There's a beauty to the creation of cinematic images, of fusing motion and portrait. If 3-D is the future, I hope the filmmakers figure out how to negotiate that issue.

Amnesiac

02-23-2009, 12:31 AM

The problem, for me, is obvious: normal film directs your eye, but not at the expense of the frame. 3-D, with objects shifting further and nearer, takes attention further from the artistic creation within a frame. The composition, the image itself separates too cleanly into focus and background.

Yes. I think this is a pretty astute account of one of the unfortunate problems that accompanies the use of 3D.

Raiders

02-23-2009, 12:48 AM

Ezee E

02-23-2009, 04:43 AM

I don't know what to say. I had none of the issues here. The glasses were thankfully rather comfortable and I never once felt distracted. I was easily able to soak in the production design. Some of the images seemed to work so well in 3D I would hate to watch this in only 2D.

:: shrug ::
Yup. I don't know about live action working just yet, as I haven't seen any of the films that have attempted it yet. But for animation, they seem to be working just fine. Coraline and Beowulf definitely benefitted from it.

Dead & Messed Up

02-23-2009, 09:06 AM

Coraline and Beowulf definitely benefitted from it.

How so?

I'm genuinely curious. How does the third dimension enhance the film to you? Is it the introduction of a new aesthetic possibility? The novelty? The way both films deliberately frame their subjects and settings to utilize the third dimension?

I probably sound like one of those old-timey execs who chomped on a cigar and muttered, "Films with sound?! Who'd wanna hear a movie, fer Chrissakes?"

Bosco B Thug

02-23-2009, 09:41 AM

Yea, I rather liked it myself. The 3D helped make the world so tangible. It's really just a very charming film. Wholly enjoyable. Not as preachy as I was expecting either. This is an apt assessment. Mild impressment. :)

Yes, the film is quizzically non-preachy! This must be one of the most non-message-laden children's film I've seen in a long, long time. I guess the whole film is centered around imagery and archetypal renderings of the family unit, mother-daughter dynamics, and gothic imagery, which gives it message enough. The sequence of Coraline's complete immersion into the Other world where she sees the grand shows by her neighbors is a tour de force and makes me want to give the film a 9 for its unabashed indulgence in the joys and the morbid traps of empty magic and spectacle (then equated to the "perfect family" ideal). Watching so up-close those mice doing acrobatics on that runway made me recall other antiquary morbidities like Edison's Elephant electrocution and that silent movie with the creepy pig someone posted on here once.

I was glad there was no complete turn-around in the disagreeableness of the Mom. To a surprising degree characterized as a very imperfect mother; I suppose the giving of the gloves was a good, nicely proportioned concession to give her character.

And the 3-D was amazing. I can't imagine watching the movie without it, which I'm not sure makes me very happy. It just confuses me more about what the "point" behind the picture is. Any themes Selick is trying to communicate through his screenplay are at least equaled by his motivation to create a 3-D extravaganza. So is it Selick being texturally perceptive in that he's made a 3-D spectacle film, about the perils of empty spectacle, communicated in the way of complete spectacle (and with a shocking lack in conventional movie preachiness, which would undermine the spectacle)? Although the "heroine vs. villain" impetus is a bit deflating of its spectacular surreality.

But also I have to add: I am very willing to accept the 3-D experience as the film itself, so its not less of a film for being so good because of the 3-D, despite my previous thoughts implying otherwise.

Ezee E

02-23-2009, 12:21 PM

How so?

I'm genuinely curious. How does the third dimension enhance the film to you? Is it the introduction of a new aesthetic possibility? The novelty? The way both films deliberately frame their subjects and settings to utilize the third dimension?

I probably sound like one of those old-timey execs who chomped on a cigar and muttered, "Films with sound?! Who'd wanna hear a movie, fer Chrissakes?"
It might be the new aesthetic. There's been a few 3D animated movies hwere it looks like it's just there for a pop-up book. But these two seemed to have it in mind. The shots in the kitchen, from outside, where you see water dripping on the glass, and the character behind it. That might just be novelty, but very neat.

Then you get that opening sequence, the walk to where the imagination is lost, and a few other sequences just wouldn't seem as "magical" if it weren't for the 3D in my mind.

kuehnepips

02-24-2009, 08:28 PM

I've read the GN and will not watch the movie.

http://genrebusters.com/images/twain1.jpg

They made a computer-thingy recently which "reacts" to human emotions and it's supposed to look like Albert Einstein. Oddly it looks like Twain in this pic.

Derek

02-24-2009, 08:32 PM

I've read the GN and will not watch the movie.

Huh, I'm the opposite. I've seen the movie and will not read the graphic novel.

Raiders

02-24-2009, 08:34 PM

Huh, I'm the opposite. I've seen the movie and will not read the graphic novel.

But you liked the movie. Are you against the graphic novel form altogether?

Derek

02-24-2009, 09:21 PM

But you liked the movie. Are you against the graphic novel form altogether?

Mostly a joking response to kuehnepips' staunch refusal to the film, although I didn't consider until now her reason may be that she didn't like the GN. I've never read or really had much interest in reading a graphic novel, so there probably is little chance I will read this one. But yes, I like the film a lot so that has nothing to do with it. It might not be a bad one to start with.

Dead & Messed Up

02-24-2009, 09:37 PM

Coraline is a novella, not a graphic novel.

Watashi

02-24-2009, 09:40 PM

Coraline is a novella, not a graphic novel.
Yeah...

I was hoping someone would point that out.

Derek

02-24-2009, 09:42 PM

Coraline is a novella, not a graphic novel.

It is a novella that was adapted into a graphic novel (http://www.amazon.com/Coraline-Graphic-Novel-Neil-Gaiman/dp/0060825448).

Raiders

02-24-2009, 09:42 PM

Yeah...

I was hoping someone would point that out.

Hm. I read up and found out it was just recently made into a GN. I thought that's how it was originally released. In either case, as should now be apparent, I have not read it.

Dead & Messed Up

02-24-2009, 09:46 PM

Reading up on the adaptations further, the character of Wyborn was created entirely for the film. Color me surprised - he fit right in.

number8

02-25-2009, 01:29 AM

Derek

02-25-2009, 06:46 AM

If you haven't read/seen both, the book is actually quite different from the movie. Selick almost completely restructured the story, and he invented the backstory about Wyborn's grandma and the missing sister.

Any thoughts (and this goes to everyone) on why he chose to make Wyborn's grandma black? It seemed like an odd detail to tack on there at the very end when you finally see her.

Watashi

02-25-2009, 07:02 AM

Any thoughts (and this goes to everyone) on why he chose to make Wyborn's grandma black? It seemed like an odd detail to tack on there at the very end when you finally see her.
Because Wyborn is black?

Derek

02-25-2009, 07:46 AM

Because Wyborn is black?

As in we know this because in the end, we see his grandma is black or you actually think he (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4OYGjUrdllo/SSm2lgiIQJI/AAAAAAAAMRI/XnSdQCamSI0/s400/coraline+figures+3.jpg) clearly looks like a black boy? And I know I'm not crazy because when I saw it the second time, that was the first thing my friend commented on. That being the fact that it was not at all clear that Wybie was black and clarifying that with about 3 seconds left in the film seemed a bit odd and superfluous, though not at all detracting from its overall charm and quality.

number8

02-25-2009, 04:26 PM

I figured they were Greek.

Henry Gale

02-25-2009, 08:02 PM

When they first fully showed Wyborn I thought he kind of looked like a nerdy Corbin Bleu. So the "revelation" at the end didn't really throw me (though it did surprise one or two of the people I went with).

It's been just over a week since I've seen it, and I have to say that for at least the next few months, this is definitely the movie to top for '09 in my mind. Perfectly surreal and engaging from the very first moment, beautiful but never overly polished, and just an amazing and extremely atmospheric film.

Definitely the kind of movie I wish was around when I was a wee one. Sort of like an Eternal Sunshine that kids can see. Not so much in its story, though you can stretch comparisons of lonely people unhappy in love/life buying into dream-like realities only to later turn on them (plus, blue hair). But I just felt the tone mirrored the Kaufman story the way certain scenes can exude just as much of a charm to them as they can possess a downright creepiness to them.

There are obviously better comparisons, but that's just the one I managed to turn a few people to seeing it. Well, that and Speed Racer only to say that Coraline is probably the best visual experience I've had since.

Watashi

02-25-2009, 08:38 PM

As in we know this because in the end, we see his grandma is black or you actually think he (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4OYGjUrdllo/SSm2lgiIQJI/AAAAAAAAMRI/XnSdQCamSI0/s400/coraline+figures+3.jpg) clearly looks like a black boy? And I know I'm not crazy because when I saw it the second time, that was the first thing my friend commented on. That being the fact that it was not at all clear that Wybie was black and clarifying that with about 3 seconds left in the film seemed a bit odd and superfluous, though not at all detracting from its overall charm and quality.
Well, yeah. The voice actor is black.

Derek

02-25-2009, 09:26 PM

The voice actor is black.

:lol:

Sycophant

03-02-2009, 11:41 PM

I'm working out my thoughts on Coraline, which I liked (particulary the first 70 minutes), but they're just not turning into words.

These are the only words I've come up with so far:

OMG Keith David!

Mara

03-03-2009, 12:30 PM

Yeah, late to the party, finally saw it, loved it, nothing much new to say.

I really liked the 3D, though. It added quite a bit while not being distracting and gimmicky.

megladon8

03-24-2009, 02:35 AM

It was great.

Filled with tributes to children's movies that I loved growing up.

My favorite moment in the film was the unveiling of the garden shaped in Coraline's likeness. Really beautiful moment.

Didn't think the 3D was gimmicky or distracting at all. It added some "pop" to the images, but the movie would be no better or worse without it.

I just have to say that this was probably the most frightening, disturbing "kids movie" I've seen since Return to Oz.

Stay Puft

03-24-2009, 03:00 AM

These are the only words I've come up with so far:

OMG Keith David!

Yeah, that sums it up well for me, too.

I saw in digital 3D and honestly found that to be rather distracting. It's not as bad when it is simply there to create the illusion of depth (and some scenes, like Wyborn hunting snails in the fog, looked amazing), but it is definitely awful when things are supposed to be coming out of the screen. Regarding the first point, I also found that it was sometimes kind of... flat, I guess, more like a pop-up book than anything else. I'm thinking of shots like Coraline walking along the path with the fields in the distance, when she first notices Keith David is following her. There was a clear foreground, middle ground, and background, but nothing inside each particular plane had any definition, so to speak.

I don't know, it was the first time I saw a movie in 3D (outside of theme park attractions, anyways), and I wasn't impressed. First thought when it was over was what James Cameron could possibly be doing that would convince me this isn't anything other than a novelty.

Raiders

03-24-2009, 02:37 PM

but it is definitely awful when things are supposed to be coming out of the screen.

There were only a couple instances though, right? And the main one that sticks with me, the other-father's arms shooting at the screen, seemed purposefully and rightfully distracting and claustrophobic.

Regarding the first point, I also found that it was sometimes kind of... flat, I guess, more like a pop-up book than anything else.

Hm, I think most 3D looks more like this than did this film, though again I think it is intended, at least in part, to look like layers of images as opposed to a singular world. Like an illusory world built layer upon layer. Maybe I'm only imagining it, or wanting it to be true, but it seemed to me that the other-world was much more guilty of the "layered" or "pop-up book" approach, which would be very appropriate I think.

Wryan

03-24-2009, 05:48 PM

Finally saw this with my dad in 3D. I liked this quite a bit. I would watch animated films and such in this format, but I'm kinda hoping it doesn't pan out for live-action films, even tho I hope Avatar is good. The uses for this in the animated world seem boundless.

Really stirring and imaginative. The flash that comes over OM's button-eyes when Coraline suggests the game is a beautiful punctuation. And goddamn but that OM was creepy as hell. The deterioration of the world is wonderfully and luridly realized. Good voicework and character design work. I really liked that both our protagonist and her parents were allowed to be rather deeply flawed in their own ways, even if the parents' obliviousness/callousness to their daughter in the beginning felt a little pat now and then. And she's quite the barbed little churl, isn't she? The bat-dogs were awesome. I'd like one, personally.

My dad loved it too.

dreamdead

10-23-2009, 08:35 PM

Loved the world creation in the Other world, especially the design with the garden--in fact, almost all of the Other world is really innovative or oddly entertaining (the bird that eats corn and poops popcorn). And Keith David makes every film better. Less enthused about the storyline, which falls into a bit mores stereotypical notion of family, work, and recovery, even if it ultimately posits that Coraline herself must be forgiving of her family's flaws (at least, that seems to be my reading these moments after finishing it). There's very much a sense of Coraline reconciling herself to her family's eccentricities rather than trying to start over again, which actually seems a little more interesting as a theme than it initially appears.

Largely, though, it is gorgeous and fully realized in its imaginative qualities.