The film typifies and exaggerates all the things that are absolutely worst in DreamWorks' heady post-Shrek decade, when a sizable percentage of all of its output consisted of dreary attempts to copy as much of that film's formula as possible. It features a roster of celebrities cast for marquee value rather than their skills as voice actors: Will Smith leads a line-up including Jack Black, Robert De Niro, Angelina Jolie, and, for reasons that I hope and pray involved blackmail or possibly an ancient cursed amulet controlling his actions, Martin "I am one of America's pre-eminent film directors" Scorsese. And a special shout-out to Reneé Zellweger, fulfilling the mandatory role as the castmember who doesn't even have a meaningfully recognizable voice (which didn't keep DreamWorks from hiring her two more times in the future). There's also that characteristic comedy style basexd more on stuffing as many references to contemporary culture as can be incongruously and thus "humorously" placed into a novel setting. Whole scenes exist for no reason other than to parody movies that the ostensible target audience probably hasn't heard of and surely hasn't seen. And do you suppose that it ends with all of the characters getting together for a dance party? Hell yeah it does! Missy Elliott and Christina Aguilera play fish versions of themselves!
(In fairness, the dance party finale works here better than it usually does: it's honest to the characters as we've gotten to know them, and there's relatively decent narrative justification for it. Still, to hell with this movie).
So anyway, here's what happens: somewhere in the ocean, there is a fish city in a coral reef. And by "fish city", I mean "Manhattan with fish puns everywhere". They are terrible puns and I will not relive any of them for you, but I have to point out that they're maybe at their most delightfully soulless when they are also product placement, like the big neon billboard for Coral-Cola, or Fish King, a fast-food restaurant where citizens apparently cannibalise their fellows. Also, there is a florist called "Martha Sturgeon's", which barely even makes sense - "Sturgeon" barely even resembles "Stewart" visibly.
But I was talking about the plot, or whatever. The reef is in mortal terror of the great white shark mafia, led by Don Lino (De Niro), and his two sons Frankie (Michael Imperioli) and Lenny (Black). Frankie is a tough guy, and Lenny is, well, gay. I don't know if that was the filmmaker's decision, or Black's, but that's exactly how he's playing the role, in a really unpleasant, stereotypical way. The script only goes so far as to call him vegetarian, but the point is, his dad is depressed by him and angry that he's raced such a prissy la-di-da fancyboy as a son, and keeps trying to bully him into being a better shark. Did I mention that Black also speaks with an affected Bronx accented? Well he does. It's tin-eared and flat-footed and totally devoid of the enthusiasm he'd bring to the table four years later when he returned to the DreamWorks fold with Kung Fu Panda. In a film with nary a single enjoyable vocal performance, I think Black's might be the one I hate the most; though I don't know, De Niro sounds pretty damn well comatose.
Elsewhere in the reef, we find Oscar (Smith), a fresh-mouthed sassy streetwise fish with dreams of making it big and having a tricked-out crib where he can invite his buddies and fine lady fish and wear gold chains and sideways baseball caps and all. Oscar is what happens when a film executive watches some of those old '30s cartoons that present shiftless African-Americans as minstrel show caricatures, and muses, "why don't we do that anymore?" He's also not the most racist caricature in a film that also finds room for a pair of Rastafarian jellyfish, voiced by Doug E. Doug and Ziggy Marley. Anyway, Oscar works as the tongue-scrubber at a whale wash owned by the petty, paranoid blowfish Sykes (Scorsese) - Oscar is in to Sykes for money, and Sykes is under the thumb of Lino's shark mob, and this ends up with Oscar chained to an anchor where Frankie and Lenny will come along to eat him. Except, of course, Lenny can't bring himself to do it, and in the ensuing scuffle, Frankie ends up with his skull caved in by an anchor, with Oscar unfairly getting the credit. This turns the little fish into the city's newest celebrity, the "shark slayer", which means he gets to live his dream - but his dream is a lie. Also, it puts him into a supremely distasteful romantic triangle between the whale wash's sweetly innocent receptionist, Angie (Zellweger), and the smoldering gold digger Lola (Jolie), who to make sure we get the point is introduced while the song "Gold Digger" by Ludacris is playing. Meanwhile, Lenny and Oscar become friends and co-conspirators, while the rest of the sharks plot their revenge.
Anyway, let's go back to Lola. Here's something interesting and totally horrible about Shark Tale: many of the characters are caricatures of their voice actors. This is grossly unpleasant - seeing Will Smith's face represented as a little yellow fish face is off-putting enough, and that's without factoring in how not-great DreamWorks' technology was by 2004: they still didn't have the hang of texturing character surfaces, so not only does the fish have Smith's face, it covers his face in what appears to be yellow leather, but the leather is made out of plastic (also, given Smith's own expressions, it gives Oscar the worst case of DreamWorks Eyebrow that DreamWorks ever released) All the characters have the same slightly brittle quality, their flesh not really flexible - the blowfish with Scorsese's eyebrows is maybe the most noticeable and the most upsetting in this regard. But we were talking about Lola, who does indeed look like a fish version of Angelina Jolie, which in practice, in 2004, means that Lola has been drawn as a fish who is meant to be sexually attractive. There is not much in the world of animation that is more deeply repulsive than a fish fuck-doll with Angelina Jolie's facial features, and everything that I can think of that tops it was supposed to be that repulsive. Lola is the embodiment of everything worst about DreamWorks turned up to 11: the shameless use of celebrities, the smuttiness that feels out of place in a kids' movie, the inability to actually animate characters in a way that gives them mass and presence and personality - the things that, ostensibly, character animation was designed to do in the first place.
Shark Tale looks hella bad. It's brightly colored, but that's entirely as far as it goes. There is nothing appealing about how its characters move (except for one brief shot when Don Lino, preparing to attack, moves from the lumpy humanoid form he adopts for most of the movie into the dagger-like shape of an actual shark), not even any particular imagination in how the underwater space is used. 15 years after The Little Mermaid, it's incredible and frankly depressing that a big-budget animated film would put so little effort into exploiting the three-dimensional possibilities of underwater movement, but everything is clamped to the ground - furniture, buildings, the characters themselves for the most part. Everything has weight, except, ironically, for the damn anchor that kills Frankie, which bounces into the air like it was made of styrofoam.
The movie is such a colossal failure of design and animation that it's almost spurious to point out that it's also terribly written: the boilerplate plot has an unclear conflict, and Lenny never quite fits in with anything else. Both female characters are laughably underdeveloped - Angie in particular barely has any personality, and she's meant to be the most sympathetic character in the movie next to Lenny - and standing out as underdeveloped in this movie takes some real doing. Far too much of the story riffs on The Godfather and its ilk for the film to work as the story of Oscar learning not to be a greedy liar. The gags are horrible, uninspired retreads of Shrek's reliance on ironic modernity and scatology - hence, for example, the octopus consigliere (Vincent Pastore) accidentally turning on "Baby Got Back" when Lino is trying to perform a shakedown; hence also a moment when the film stops for a good 15 seconds to let us reflect upon a gag where an elderly shark - voiced by Peter Falk, no less! - farts and offends the other sharks around him.
There are, in truth, many CG animated films that are uglier than this, mostly because they are cheaper. There are very, very few that are this uninspired, this misconceived, and this obnoxious to basic senses of humor and decency. Shark Tale lacks even a trace of inspiration, and stands proud as the most soul-dead, commercially focused children's movie in an era where such things became an art form. Naturally it became a smash hit, but I take immense joy in knowing that not even the reliably craven DreamWorks thought they could put over a sequel. The continuing adventures of this universe would be far too much to bear.
1/10
In your Chicken Little review: "It is worse than even the lowest of DreamWorks's CG features; and I do not exempt the ghastly Shark Tale from this statement."
ReplyDeleteI can only assume times change. Not that this turd doesn't deserve everything it gets. I hate all three of the nominees for best animated that year, but Shark Tale I hate the most.
But I'm not sure it's the worst nominee. Norbit, Cimmarron, Pearl Harbour actually won an award!
one brief shot when Don Lino, preparing to attack, moves from the lumpy humanoid form he adopts for most of the movie into the dagger-like shape of an actual shark
ReplyDeleteSee, this is why I love you, Tim. Even in the depths of this shit you keep that aesthetic sense sharp. :)
I think I shall find, as I move through life, that my least-favorite between Chicken Little and Shark Tale is whichever I have seen the most recently.
ReplyDeleteAnd the 2004 Best Animated nominees - not even any love for The Incredibles?
You've got me on Norbit, but I think I would have to ponder for a long time which I liked less between Shark Tale and Pearl Harbor.
Not Fenimore- Thanks! I subjected myself to it of my own free will, I had to get SOMETHING out of the experience.
ReplyDelete"not even any love for The Incredibles?" I'm glad you asked.
ReplyDeleteThe Incredibles is a morally warped film. It teaches that some people are better than others and that these people deserve to use their powers to get away with things, which is a wrong lesson. Mr Incredible harbours a delusional fantasy for the entire film and he learns nothing, instead dragging his family into his little world (at the expense of turning his children into child soldiers). Syndrome is the true hero, he would have made the world a better place and every action he does in the film is justified. The film punishes him and rewards Mr Incredible for regressing the world 15 years just because the job he wants to do is obsolete. Children will want to be the violent unstable time bomb Mr Incredible and not the dedicated, intelligent visionary Syndrome. Mr Incredible deserves to be punished for the murder of Syndrome and the crippling of Mr Huph, who was trying his best to help Mr Incredible understand how the world works. Perhaps if the film had ended with Mr Incredible recognising that his dream could not exist in todays world and finding he could have happiness as Bob Parr, doing constructive, assertive, non-violent activities with his family, that would have made the film improved. In it's current form, I oppose it.
I have deep concerns about Incredibles 2. I fear Bird will screw it up again.
Yeah, that's a common view of The Incredibles, and it's not without merit. The superhero genre has always been about lionizing extraordinary individuals and violence, and even the Pixar sheen can only do so much to hide that. There's a reason that so many big names in the field (most notably Steve Ditko and Frank Miller) went more and more right-wing in their later years.
ReplyDelete... that said, sympathy for Mr. Huph of all people kind of makes me wonder if you're not being at least half-sarcastic.
This is a really risky first comment, but here goes re: The Incredibles. I was turned off of it forever when I read an analysis pretty similar to J.S's. This analysis made most of the same points, but was favorable toward the film for its frank argument that some people are extraordinary and some people simply aren't. This was on Stormfront.
ReplyDelete(I have browsed Stormfront a couple of times out of morbid curiosity and not, I swear, from any sympathy for white nationalism.)
I mostly just ignore that one speech at the end and the occasional cloud of implication. It's probably not the most consistent or intellectually honest approach, but eh, it's a good movie, and it's really not embedded that deeply in the plot (which is mostly about family).
ReplyDelete"Syndrome's every action is justified," are you ducking kidding me? He murdered dozens of superheroes, released a giant robot into a major metropolitan area, and attempted to defeat it with trickery in front of TV cameras so he could become famous and beloved without ever earning it for himself. I know he wasn't "born gifted" and had to work hard to achieve things in life, but those things were all horrible. Stop reading the movie through simplistic politics and recognize the morality at work there.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, I'm ok with the message that talented people shouldn't hide their talents because it makes other people look bad or feel uncomfortable. Not sure why others aren't.
Wow, 1 out of 10? I don't remember this movie being that bad, mostly because I've seen only two times years ago.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Bird revisited similar themes in Ratatouille but with more maturity. It's a story about how Some People Are Better where the villain's evil plot is to compromise haute cuisine to for the commons, but the "a great cook can come from anywhere" matter is framed as anti-classist with the use of a "peasant dish" for the final meal.
ReplyDeleteAnyway Shark Tale is a reminder of a dark time, and I'm glad that Tim immersed himself in it for the sake of... completionism? What a fucking terrible movie.
J.s. - I'm trying really hard to find fault with your reading of The Incredibles, and I really can't. From the standpoint you've chosen you're entirely accurate. I can argue that Syndrome's plan involves deliberate murder and destruction of property for his own aggrandizement, though, and therefore Mr. Incredible's unintended consequences are preferable in the long run. But in an unfair world it's just as wrong not to use your abilities to be the best version of yourself you can be, and that's the message I take away from it.
ReplyDeleteAs for Shark Tale, this nightmare has been my wife's "hangover movie" for years - the one you watch when you just can't stomach the effort to do anything at all. So I can say that while I've seen it many times, I'm pleased to say I've never actuality "watched" it all the way through.
I still haven't seen "Shark Tale" in its entirety, and if I ever do, it'll be purely in the interests of having a clean conscience whenever I point to it as being the least worthy Best Animated Feature nominee of all-time (with "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" being the only other nominee that halfway rivals it in the unworthiness stakes). 2004 must have been one heck of a slow year if this and "Shrek 2" were really the best competition that they could trudge out for "The Incredibles".
ReplyDeleteI'd say that "Shark Tale" marked a turning point, in its own weird way, as it was here that people began to get openly quite tired of Dreamworks' shtick (notably the heavy emphasis upon celebrity casting and endless pop culture references) and the (somewhat incomprehensible, from a modern perspective) goodwill fostered toward the first two Shrek movies began to burn out. There was a time when I recall numerous people seriously suggesting that the original "Shrek" was the Greatest Animated Film of All Time (not an opinion I hear very much nowadays) and there were those who felt that, on the basis of "Shrek", Dreamworks actually might yet rise to become the dominant CG animation studio instead of Pixar - speculation that was shattered very noisily as soon as "Shark Tale" showed up.
I can deal with or just ignore most potential problems about The Incredibles...but (and surely I've mentioned this before?) the bit at the end where--without apparent irony--we're meant to accept that while it's NOT okay for the kid to use his super-speed to win races, it's A-okay for him to use it to come in second, is just SO risible that it kinda makes me question everything else.
ReplyDeleteI think the Dash thing is just something we have to accept as a movie convention about The Incredibles, like Superman going back to that bar and beating some normal guys up at the end of Superman II. I enjoy most of the movie, so I can ignore how out of character and dickish that is.
ReplyDelete@J.S THANK YOU!!! I totally agree. Team Syndrome all the way - honestly he is just Iron Man. The movie is really good, but the "moral" has an almost Randian bent.
ReplyDelete@StephenM: Syndrome murdered 17 Super"heroes" and according to the DVD bonus disc, they all deserved it. They were a collection of anger management issues, conspiracy theorists, suicidal maniacs, rapists and someone called "Tyrant Jack". Why was Frozone not targeted despite Syndrome knowing of his existence and the risk of him beating the robot? Because he's a good person. Not that Syndrome is guilty of murder. All deaths occurred on his private island, where he controls laws. Mr Incredible and his family were technically resisting arrest by fighting his guards.
ReplyDeleteAs for becoming famous, Syndrome's long term goal was to give everyone super powers and show that you don't need powers to be a hero. He needed to pitch the idea in an appropriate manner. He could have just played Iron Man and stopped mundane crime but that wouldn't deliver the right message, the superman beating down the mundane. Hence the robot, another powered adversary was needed. Even if Syndrome would have profited heavily from his plan, even if the best powers ended up in wealthy hands, the world would still have become a better place because there'd be a trickle down effect.
I've had these thoughts on the film since I was young and first saw the film.
@spring: Mr Huph tries his best to manage his company, but he's not very diplomatic. Think of it from his perspective. You have an employee whose a problem because he's approving every insurance claim and is losing the shareholders money. You also believe he's leaking company secrets to his customers so they can subvert the system. So you call him up to the office, tell him that the company employees should be reading from the same hymn sheet, maybe make him sign the pledge at the end. Then he starts going on mid-way through the meeting in which his future is being discussed about a man being mugged outside that only he can see (Huph's height means he could never have seen the mugging). He storms out to help, even though such a task would be useless, there's no way he'd get down in time. In desperation you tell him he'll be fired if he leaves. He comes back, in relief you tell him it's a good thing he returned. Then he goes crazy and attacks you. I think that employee deserves more than just being sacked. Starting with an arrest warrant.
Not to mention the implication that poor Gilbert wasn't Mr Incredible's first victim.
@Quixotess: I've not seen that but yikes! I always thought Mr Incredible would be the sort of person who'd get sucked into the far right were he real (he's the archetypal far right voter, wanting to regress the world backwards) and I've been proved right.
@NotFenimore: I reject the Incredibles is about family analysis. The family's problem isn't that they're dysfunctional. That's a symptom of Mr Incredible's unwillingness to accept that he and his kind were bad at their job at being superheroes and to stop sticking his nose where it doesn't belong and let the rightful authorities handle a job they're capable of. Family is about compromise. Mr Incredible drags his family into his outdated fantasy. There is no evidence that Mr Incredible will not repeat the incident which got him fired.
@Arlo: Ratatouille is great "not everyone can cook but a great cook can come from anyone". How much of that is Jan Pinkava and how much is Bird I don't know. You give Skinner too much credit tho. He's tarnishing Gusteau's name by using it on rubbish TV dinners which no one directly wants. Kind of like Michael Eisner and the Disney Sequels.
ReplyDelete@Brian: I reject the Incredibles is about how you shouldn't hide your talents. Brad Bird said it was about some people being better than others. More to the point, the Superheroes had freedom to use their talents. They weren't good at them. Mr Incredible in the opening blocks a road, traumatises a cat, is rude and dismissive to a fan largely on the grounds that he has no powers, gives a train carriage whiplash and calls a man he broke the collarbone of ungrateful. He caused more trouble than he stopped. Likely so did the rest of his people. It's not so much about hiding your talents as it is about stopping the reckless people who feel they can do what they want.
@"XoeG": That's one of the few parts of the film that isn't a big problem for me, oddly. It's definitely mishandled. Perhaps Dash could have come first, but close. It shows the idea that one can maturely control their power better. Certainly it's the sort of non-violent assertive activity I discussed in my first post.
@izz: I'm glad I have a supporter. People mistake Syndrome's passion for sadism. Even when I was younger I felt sorry for the guy. He should have had his victory.
Wasn't Syndrome every bit as reckless when he became a "superhero", though? As I recall, he threw a tanker truck behind him and presumably killed a whole bunch of innocent bystanders.
ReplyDelete@Scampy: There were no bystanders behind Syndrome when the tanker hits. You can see that if you look closely. Perhaps a better version of the film would have shown Syndrome claiming his victory but his reputation collapsing under lawsuits like his predecessor superheroes. Instead, the mother and child Syndrome saved will never know that Mr Incredible won only by stealing credit from Syndrome and later killed him as he tried to run away.
ReplyDeleteJ.S - I suspect you haven't seen the Mr. Huph scene in months, if not years, because he sounds downright *gleeful* when he makes a crack about how he hopes Insuricare isn't covering the mugging victim (also, Bob's office seems to have floor-to-ceiling windows, so his height isn't an issue).
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'll agree reacting with violence is over the line, and the film overall carries an undertone of "the good guys are good because they're not QUITE as bad as the bad guy" if you think about it too long.
One last thing I'd like to wonder, though - did Syndrome ever sell himself to the public as an Iron Man-like badass normal, or was he pretending to be a natural-born Super all the way? On a vaguely related note, did the public ever find out he was Buddy Pine?
@spring: I saw it just before posting my reply to you. He sounds dismissive more than gleeful "well lets hope we dont cover him", note the attempt to change the subject back. Like a parent who doesn't believe their child and makes a snide "mock play along" remark.
DeleteAlso look at both the window in Huphs office and the position of the mugging. The mugger drags his victim behind a bin. Mr Incredible could only see the muggers head peaking over the top after he does so. He cannot see the victim. Mr Huph, who looks for less than 3 seconds, would have seen little.
Also Syndrome clearly pitches himself as Badass Normal. Rocket Boots are on Clear Display and he says hes a new kind of Superhero. If he passed himself off as a metahuman, He couldn't sell the tech, which was his end game.
Buddy was a recluse so I doubt people knew. I dont think anyone but his customers and men would notice. Maybe that would have changed had the robot not got a lucky shot.
Well, the Incredibles is pretty transparently Watchmen for children, right down to the mysterious island, the wealthy genius secret villain, tentacles monster attacking the city as a deliberate setup to trick the populace into a different perspective, and superheroes who were not very good at what they did and had to go into hiding. Watchmen also ended with the only surviving "heroes" returning to crimefighting. It's possible Bird misread the text and the implications in exactly the way Zac Snyder did, although I so think the Incredibles is a better version of Watchmen than Watchmen: the movie.
ReplyDelete@Brian: Brad Bird did not read Watchmen until after people made comparisons. So he says. That is a fair comparison but Watchmen is better because a) the antagonist succeeds and his plan turns out to be a great success (although their goals differ, Ozymandias wanted to strike the iron before it got hot, Syndrome wanted to make the iron hot by striking) and b) it is ambiguous on whether the two remaining (non-powered, which changes a lot) superheroes are doing the right thing (Laurie wants to take her fathers mantle, which has many problems). From a technical perspective, Incredibles is probably better than Watchmen (and a lot of things) but Watchmen has a better skeleton.
ReplyDeleteI'm agreeing with Not Fenimore. I know it's counterproductive here to suggest that somebody might be reading into something a little too much, but I think people are seeing exactly what they want to see. I'm pretty sure it's about a family going through problems a family typically does, like a midlife crisis, problems at school. Things like Dash and competition have more to do with playing with an idea and gags than anything about objectivism or whatever. The more preachy stuff, like the speech, was probably just misguided.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we're likely to successfully re-litigate the "is Brad an elitist/fascist/Objectivist?" argument that the internet like to have in this space, but if I were going to throw my two cents in, I'd say that the line connecting all four of his movies as director seems to be anti-selfishness, to me. He's got an elitist strain, but it's a benevolent, self-sacrificing elitism: there is such a thing as a person (or rat, or robot) who is Just Plain Better than other people at doing stuff, and pretending otherwise is insulting to everybody; but it's the moral obligation of the people who are better at doing stuff to use their skills for the betterment of everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt's the entire third-act conflict of Tomorrowland, which of course nobody saw. I also think that The Incredibles makes a very specific point at targeting Bob's selfishness throughout the first half of the movie, and making sure we understand that it's a legitimate character flaw. Bob being a dick is Syndrome's origin story, after all, though it would probably be good if the film was more aware of that.
That, certainly, is something which I feel the film could have afforded to address more explicitly - are we supposed to see Bob as at least partially accountable for Buddy's turn to villainy (at the very least, he might have been a bit nicer and more encouraging to a bright young mind who was clearly driven by an admiration for his heroism), or does Bird want us to see the former as being entirely justified in how he rebuffs him? As things are, I'm honestly not sure. The fact that Bob winds up indirectly killing Syndrome in such a brutal and blatantly vindictive manner by the end of the film only causes that question to sit all the more uneasily with me.
ReplyDelete5 films, Tim. Not 4. Iron Giant, Incredibles, Ratatouille, Ghost Protocol, Tomorrowland. All but one I enjoyed at the time of viewing (although Thrash Til Death's analysis of Tomorrowland has soured me on it).
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I wasn't concerned with Brad Bird the right wing randian. Not then, not now. What I see when I see the Incredibles is a young boy whose idol is rude to him and the boy turns his life around and becomes successful with a vision and the courage to make the world a better place. And then his idol kills him and steals his credit to revive his failing career.
I also see a selfish failed superhero who doesn't learn his lesson. Maybe Mr Incredible's selfishness is a flaw, but he doesn't learn to be not selfish. Hell, the only reason he apologises to Syndrome is because the latter has a blade to his throat. All he learns is to drag his family into his demented, regressive world and endanger their lives, the thing he claimed to be protecting Buddy from. And that's just even more selfish. There is no evidence that Mr Incredible will not repeat the incident which started this mess, his attack on Mr Huph. There is every evidence that Syndrome's plan, had he succeeded, would have helped everyone. Syndrome is less selfish than Mr Incredible. And that says something right there.
Right, he did do Ghost Protocol, and I loved him for it... well, so much for auteurist analysis. I've got nothing for that one.
ReplyDeleteSomehow it right that "Shark Tale" is so terrible, we can't even keep the discussion on how terrible the movie itself is.
ReplyDeleteThe point I took away from Watchmen is that a "real-life superhero" isn't sustainable. Either you realize that you're seeking special dispensation to be a god among men, and either you recognize it's too much and decline the mantle (Dan, Sally) or accept it and divorce yourself from what most people consider to be acceptable human behavior (The Comedian, Rorschach, Ozy, Dr. Manhattan).
And it feels like a lot of movies lately try to draw on that point (The Incredibles, Iron Man 2, BvS, and Marvel Civil War come to mind off the top of my head) but still have it both ways. I wouldn't mind the implications so much if superhero movies were just aiming to be stupid thrill-rides, but their insistence on being half-self-aware popcorn flicks never seem to jive quite right.
Meh, what annoys me the most about superhero movies in recent years is how the studios have been making them their keystones. Do you still believe George Lucas (of all people)'s opinion that eventually the unsustainable budgets versus rising ticket prices might one day cause the end of the 40-plus-year blockbuster era?
ReplyDeleteWell, looking back at your Disney rankings, Tim, you only gave Chicken Little a 3/10 and said at least the set design and color looked nice. And with another Crime Against Art in June, is this now officially a record?