Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

3/5

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a quirky little movie. It blends live action film noir with animated cartoon comedy to create a unique and wholly original atmosphere. The movie is about Eddie Valiant (Hoskins), a down-on-his-luck private investigator who has to work for cartoons in Toon Town when he's not busy guzzling down alcohol. Cartoons exist side by side with real people, but they're placed in a segregated society and are forced into the service or performance industries. Roger Rabbit (Fleischer) works in the movies as an actor. Just like all the violent cartoons of our childhood, we realize that he can't be killed by having a refrigerator dropped on his head or falling off a cliff. His wife Jessica Rabbit works in a night club as a singer. "[She's] not bad. [She's] just drawn that way." Valiant photographs her in a compromising position with prop giant Marvin Acme and shows it to Roger, who goes berserk. When Acme is found dead the next day, Roger is the usual suspect. Judge Doom (Lloyd) has devised a way to kill cartoons, by dipping them in his own special mix of paint thinners (turpentine, benzene, and acetone), and he is eager to test it out on Roger Rabbit.

Quite frankly, the special effects weren't quite at the level to make it work for me. It should have been made 25 years later at a time when special effects were advanced enough to have them believably live on screen with real actors (I'm imaging something fluid along the lines of District 9). I loved the concept though--it was bold and innovative--but the mood was just too farcical. The movie should have been a true film noir with very minor elements of black comedy, directed by someone unafraid to make an unapologetically dark film like Darren Aronofsky or the Coen brothers. And, I just realized, there are a bunch of plot holes and the whole thing doesn't really make sense in a truly cohesive and believable way. It's a great idea marred by the limitations of its time; if it gets remade into a far more serious film, I will be first in line to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096438/

Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)

3/5

I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.

Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.

(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/

Hollywoodland (2006)

3/5

I saw this with my mom and brother tonight. Let me just say that this is not a film noir (or neo-noir), which is what I was expecting going in. Don't get me wrong; it tries to be with its hard-boiled style and sometimes clever dialogue, but the images are too perky, Adrien Brody is immensely unconvincing as the tough-as-nails detective, and the plot is just too simple. What this movie is, is a murder mystery set in the 50's. It reminded me of Michael Crichton's book Airframe because the main character just goes back and forth between theories of what "actually happened," except in this movie the murder is never solved. The method of flashback used is so conventional that it became jarring because it took me away from the 50's setting of film noirs. The movie can't really decide whose story it wants to tell: the detective who loses sight of morals and family or George Reeves and the mystery surrounding his death. So it tries to tell both but fails to quench your thirst for either. The recurring side characters were worthless. Utterly. The feeble attempts at giving the characters backstories by referencing one unique feature felt like something learned as a requirement in a scriptwriting class.

Even so, this movie is mesmerizing, which I think it takes partly from the true mystery surrounding Reeves' death. Despite what I said about leaving the theater knowing as much as when you went in, I like the fact that the director doesn't impose his own point of view on you. Despite the flashbacks, I found the directing to be surprisingly competent. He really respects the audience's intelligence and maturity levels. There were some really nice transitions and artistic flourishes that elevated this into a film instead of just a script. I can't really say I recommend it to either the film noir crowd, the cinema as art crowd, or the murder mystery crowd as it doesn't particularly excel in any of those facets. But it's a worthy attempt.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427969/