Enchanted - MiceChat Review

[Armadillo4]

I saw the movie tonight and enjoyed it a lot! Terrific performances from all the cast members and a wonderful script. Highly recommended to everyone!

[Inanimate]

I cannot wait to see this movie!

[BassBone]

Originally Posted by Kuzcochik

I'm impressed! I was nearly crying nerdy tears when the hand-drawn animation began. It was wonderful (though I will admit it seemed a little flatter than it usually does... if that makes sense)

Unfortunately the animation is not hand drawn anymore, but it is all digital ink and paint which occasionally leaves something to be desired.

[ZeekSlider]

It may be digital ink and paint, but it's difficult to draw using a brick-like mouse. Even if you have a template pad and a stylist, it's really difficult to get the same line work you normally get if you sit down and draw it the old fashion way.

I know for some of the Cartoon Network shows they draw everything by hand first and then dump everything into a computer for ink and paint, clean up, and other processes after that. Foster's has the strangest process I've heard of. They only draw their characters by hand and then dump the character designs into the computer to rig it like you would a CG character with an internal skeleton and "automatic" animation parts. But it still starts with pencil and hand, which means someone out there knows how to draw at lease of the characters there by hand.

[BassBone]

Foster's and many other cartoon shows animate in Flash which is just bizarre.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by BassBone

Foster's and many other cartoon shows animate in Flash which is just bizarre.

Foster's isn't done in Flash. They actually animate it in AfterEffects, which is a iMac program normally used for color correction that Final Cut doesn't have the ability to fix by itself in the Film wing in our school. I also don't know if you can do "automatic" animation in Flash, as some of the characters have elements to their character that are designed and rigged to animate on their own.

But enough of that, I'm just pointing out that the complaint about Enchanted being digital shouldn't be a problem since they were still able to produce a visual product that is similar to the animated films that were painted by hand.

It could be worse. They could have done that cheap "canvas texture" fill they use with Canvas in Tarzan's background.

[prince_david]

This movie was absolutely wonderful! A great message with lots of fun and romance along the way. The commercials had me laughing before I saw the movie, but actually seeing it in the theater really moved me. Disney has a real winner with this film. Keep thinking positive!

[flynnibus]

Well I took the kids to see the film last night.

Guess I'm in the minority.. I found the OVERLOAD of borrowing of characters, looks, and stories to be completely contrived and really made the film seem unoriginal to me.

It's one thing to have references like the names of characters in the TV shows, etc.. but so many were COMPLETELY overboard. And yes, there are plenty not listed on the wikipedia...

such as the way PIP talks and does his playing-out is straight up Chip from Chip and Dale
the Lumière 'head piece' a girl is wearing near the end of the musical in the park scene
virtually EVERY animal is a clone of previous Disney work... from the owl (Pooh), the stork (dumbo), the entire bambi cast, etc etc etc

I found the overbearing 'reuse' of characters and scenes to be dulling and unoriginal. I think they must have watched the Simpsons one too many times and forgot parody meant using and typically making fun of.. not flat out just reusing.

So much of the movie is based in 'current' times rather then transporting to a specific time period that I think the movie will date itself quickly, failing the test of time. Disney does so much better with fantasy and alternate realities rather then dealing with 'current time'.

And what about the opening song - anyone else notice the likeness to 'Somewhere over the rainbow' ? The first half of the repeating line is a dead-ringer.

And the idea of a 'mash-up' for the story.. where its based on snow white.. but then mix in sleepy beauty and cinderella, etc.. really didn't work for me.

It would be one thing to do a 'modern' interpretation of one of the characters and use some elements from the other story.. but the 'borrowing' was just way too much and too significant of pieces.

The whole thing seemed so contrived and really detracting to me. The references instead of being subtle or 'inspired' by were flat out CLONES in so many cases.

It really felt like someone went on a rummage of the Disney Archives and just grabbed everything they could from Feature Animation and used it like a scrapbook to make the movie.

The pretense of the movie wasn't so bad... maybe if they actually did some original writing and character creation it would have been a lot better. But I mean like 30 seconds into the movie you can already see the stereotypical 'comedic side kick' role being laid out, etc. Yes - it worked for you in Aladdin, but talk about running a horse into the ground already!

If you are going to flat out CLONE characters from other movies - call them what they are and make it work. Instead we get CLONES with new identities and then throw in references to specific characters (like the grumpy and dwarf references in multiple places) totally mixing together the idea of clones that aren't the original characters and originals together.

And then you get all the inconstancies throughout the story... Why is it Prince Edward knows all about the modern/'reality' world.. can get hotel rooms... meals... etc and then in another portion he's a complete idiot? And then you have Nathaniel who figures all this stuff out as well, etc.

It felt like a collage of things rather then a movie with a compelling story told with believable characters.

[Queentitania19]

[quote=MasterGracey;2334498]

The animated sequences are thoroughly entertaining, and 100% reassuring that Disney can still do traditional animation, and do it right.quote]

Actually, Disney didn't animate them. They had to hire outside the company to have it done.

[Queentitania19]

Thank you, flynnibus. I thought I was the only person who was flat repulsed by this movie, now I know I'm not alone.

The movie completely loses itself after the "How does She Know" number. It never shows Giselle falling in love with Robert, it never shows her falling out of love with Edward, never explains or justifies the ways some characters understand our world and others are clueless. It's like a pathetic jumble of the best movies of Disney's heritage and yet so unoriginal that it pains me to have them promote it as a new kind of fairytale.

I was so disappointed by the fact that Idina Menzel never sang I was ready to throw something at the screen. Instead I invented a new drinking game. Here it is: every time you see someone who can sing better than Amy Adams, you take a shot. Between Menzel, Marsden, Benson, O'Hara and Kuhn you'll be so drunk you won't be able to walk out of the theatre. So bring a friend to cart you out of your seat.

I really do NOT understand why people think this is such a good movie. Marsden is hilarious and Adams was funny. McDreamy was stodgy and unrelatable. The villians were so sterotypical that if it wasn't for the fact that the actors were fantastic playing it I would probably be defacing the products in the store. Overall I can give it an enthusiastic.. eh.

[BassBone]

Originally Posted by Queentitania19

Actually, Disney didn't animate them. They had to hire outside the company to have it done.

Jeff Baxter, however is a former Disney animator.

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by Queentitania19

I really do NOT understand why people think this is such a good movie.

WE don't over analyze things like how Ed got a hotel room or a free meal at the cafeteria. We just except the sight gage of him being garnished with tacky NYC merch and call it a day. Or at least I was.

You can be critical about the acting, and yes, there are some horrible acting scenes in that movie, as well as production. But when you start to question little details like how did Nathanial got a job as a taxi driver or snuck his way into Tony and Luigi's Bella Notte, you pretty much don't give a hoot about the whole "suspense of disbelief" element films are suppose to do.

Now, if this was like Beowulf where you were completely distracted by the elements on screen and were very concious you were watching a film instead of being involved with the story, I can understand that. All I'm saying is that there are some elements that should be dismissed for story telling reasons.

To add to the subject, Pip doesn't seem like a Chip rip off than he does a Timon or an Iago. I mean, Pip does say "mook" at one point, and his voice borders on Iago's tone. Also, if you've been to any big park like Central Park, you know that most of those performers there are native to the park. That "lumire" girl is actually a candalabra dancer. I think she was featured on America's Got Talent or one of those shows similar in format.

Can't really defend the "clone" thing about the forest animals, since I did spot an off-model Pumbaa towards the end AND Flower in the opening. Didn't notice Owl or the Dumbo stork.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

WE don't over analyze things like how Ed got a hotel room or a free meal at the cafeteria.

Except part of the story was how its so hard and foreign to the OTHER lead role - its clashing and conflicting.

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

But when you start to question little details like how did Nathanial got a job as a taxi driver or snuck his way into Tony and Luigi's Bella Notte, you pretty much don't give a hoot about the whole "suspense of disbelief" element films are suppose to do.

Uhh no. Movies are suppose to LURE you into a suspension of disbelief... not require a placard at the start of the movie saying 'please check your brain at the door'. The suspension is supposed to be natural - not forced. It works when the elements seem natural in their surroundings and in context. Here they do not.

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

To add to the subject, Pip doesn't seem like a Chip rip off than he does a Timon or an Iago.

Then I suggest you go back and watch the Chip and Dale Shorts with Donald where Chip always acts out what is happening, etc.

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

That "lumire" girl is actually a candalabra dancer. I think she was featured on America's Got Talent or one of those shows similar in format.

... and the blue coat and white tights in the ball sequence are very Versailles as well - doesn't mean they don't stand out as obnoxious throw-backs to the other movies. Especially the way the dancer finishes the sequence at the finale of the song.

The writers must have forgotten the word 'subtle'

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

Can't really defend the "clone" thing about the forest animals, since I did spot an off-model Pumbaa towards the end AND Flower in the opening. Didn't notice Owl or the Dumbo stork.

Virtually EVERY animated animal (I don't have stills to look at) are clones of existing WDFA animals. From the blue birds of Cinderella... to the rabbits from Bambi. Honestly the only thing missing was the specific mice from Cinderella

[ZeekSlider]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

Uhh no. Movies are suppose to LURE you into a suspension of disbelief... not require a placard at the start of the movie saying 'please check your brain at the door'. The suspension is supposed to be natural - not forced. It works when the elements seem natural in their surroundings and in context. Here they do not.

Ah, but here is where the contridiction in your stance starts. Context.

See, Nathanial is suppose to be the bumbling goof of a sidekick, right? He is also seen dressing up in the obvious costume that fools everyone but the viewer (and normally one other character a la Chicken Boo).

Now, if Giselle was able to retain her power to summon animals with just a song, there's no reason why Nathanial couldn't retain his cartoon comedic powers as well.

Just my logic.

Then I suggest you go back and watch the Chip and Dale Shorts with Donald where Chip always acts out what is happening, etc.

That isn't an exclusive thing to Chip's character. It's a common sight gag done over and over in the cartoon world from all kinds of characters. Pluto has done it a few times, Bugs Bunny did it once or twice, and these days you can't watch a Courage The Cowardly Dog cartoon without seeing it at least three times per episode.

Pip is just continuing/stealing from that boring and overdone sight gag. In other words, he's beating the horse deader than dead for the sake of comedy.

... and the blue coat and white tights in the ball sequence are very Versailles as well - doesn't mean they don't stand out as obnoxious throw-backs to the other movies.

No, that one isn't debatible. The outfit is a throw back, but the candle headdress worn by the belly dancer is no way connected to Lumire. The row boats in that same sequence are, but that's like saying the Mariachi band in the song is a throw back to The Three Caballeros or the Octoberfest dancers are an advertisement for Epcot's World Showcase. It's a really farfetch'd stretch to believe.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

Ah, but here is where the contridiction in your stance starts. Context.

See, Nathanial is suppose to be the bumbling goof of a sidekick, right? He is also seen dressing up in the obvious costume that fools everyone but the viewer (and normally one other character a la Chicken Boo).

Now, if Giselle was able to retain her power to summon animals with just a song, there's no reason why Nathanial couldn't retain his cartoon comedic powers as well.

I don't have a problem with Nathanial's dress up at first.. but then it progresses a bit oddly.. but there it works.

But again.. the point was a movie must CONVINCE you... not require viewers check out before checking in.

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

That isn't an exclusive thing to Chip's character. It's a common sight gag done over and over in the cartoon world from all kinds of characters. Pluto has done it a few times, Bugs Bunny did it once or twice, and these days you can't watch a Courage The Cowardly Dog cartoon without seeing it at least three times per episode.

Yes, but the rest aren't CHIPMUNKS and the stick was a staple of the interaction between Chip and Dale. Never said it was 'exclusive' but its not the only tie between them either. The character is virtually a dead knockoff in mannerisms and presentation.

Originally Posted by ZeekSlider

No, that one isn't debatible. The outfit is a throw back, but the candle headdress worn by the belly dancer is no way connected to Lumire.

Really, then why is she dressed up in yellow and white? All the other dancers you describe I see in more traditional garb... not dressed up like a candlestick. I wish I had a still from that scene...