Dir: Carlos Saldanha
2014
**
I disliked the first one but compared to the sequel it is a masterpiece. Okay, so I'm not the target audience but your average ten year old would have seen this story-line at least a dozen times in their lifetimes already, it's beyond tiresome. I grew up on two dimensional cartoons that were silly and defied the rules of gravity, physics and reality in general. It's what makes cartoons so appealing in my opinion. This just doesn't work when the animation is so realistic and the message is so preachy. Why can't kids cartoons just be fun, rather than brain-dead with added emotional soul searching. I have to give credit for the wonderful animation but I'll scream if I see another talent show story-line or the typical 'father-in-law' not-good-enough-for-my-daughter yarn again. Let kids have fun, they have all that nonsense to look forward to in adulthood. Can Blue Sky Studios please lighten up and stop trying to be every child's parent/teacher/preacher. Just for one film at least? And make a Scrat film while you're at it damn it!
Your arguments make no sense since the environmental message wasn't preachy, originality and animation have nothing to do with affecting how fun a movie can be, and you didn't really go into detail on what were your problems. Most movies, including animation, are predictable, but it's not the content that matters, it's the execution that does matter. I think you need to rethink your train of thought since I'm a bit confused by this "review".
ReplyDeleteI need to rethink MY train of thought because YOU are a bit confused by my review?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I'm afraid my reviews are going to continue to be based on my opinion and my opinion alone.
I strongly disagree that originality has nothing to do with how fun a movie can be and I mentioned two aspects of the film that were unoriginal that I disliked. I also disagree that most animated films are predictable, thank goodness too, and the content always matters!
Compare Rio and other similar animated films to the work of Studio Ghibli and they simply can't compete. Studio Ghibli films are far from predictable.
I like light-hearted animations but not the serious ones. Some of the story was quite adult for a young audience, this is what I object to. The animation itself was fantastic, it's the just the story that wasn't and I watch movies for more than the visuals, I watch and rate films on the whole package.
Clearly I'm not in this films demographic but I always give a film a chance, no matter what the genre.
Bringing up Ghibli I feel is cheating not just because they're a foreign studio, but because their movies have a different tone to them. Nearly all of them feature a serious, mature storyline in their movies because of their tone. Their tone has always been serious and mature so because of that, their stories generally need to be good in order to work. But take a look at American studios. Dreamworks, Disney, Sony, etc. all have cliched stories in their movies, even some of the best. The Lion King is just Hamlet with Lions (which to kids might be original since most of them probably don't know what Hamlit is), Frozen goes back to featuring princesses and being based on a fairy tale again, and even the Toy Story trilogy aren't that original either since the 1st one starts off with the "triangle" cliche we see in romance movies then turns into an escape film, the 2nd one is a rescue mission, and the 3rd one is a prison escape film. Even live-action films like Avatar, Transformers, and other films often have followings despite unoriginal stories. But back to animation, most kids who watch animated films aren't even there for the story, or it's an afterthought. They're mostly there because of the animation, the characters, the songs, or whatever the trailer showed them which can consist of comedy or action scenes. Little kids don't really have the brain power necessary to actual comprehend something complex like Fight Club or Citizen Kane, they would get lost in those movies thanks to their short attention spans. So animated films are often kept simple to keep the kids from getting confused. For adults, as I said with live-action, they to enjoy movies with unoriginal stories to. The only time you should really take a story seriously is if the movie itself wanted you to. Rio 2 kept it's consistent happy and light-hearted tone throughout the movie implying that it was never meant to be taken seriously in that way. Each movie is always gonna be different, so not all of them are gonna to make their story the main package because maybe that's not what the studio intended to make the main focus of the movie. That would be like if I made a racing car toy but people say it sucks because it's not a Transformer. This is why I say your mindset should change with each movie you see, including this one.
DeleteI think we are agreement in some respects, most of the films you mention I have also been quite critical of and granted Studio Ghibli films are probably aimed at a slightly older audience. However, I still don't see why some of these story lines keep getting rehashed. I think story matters, especially as like you say, most of them go over kid's heads anyway. Doesn't this create a lazy future audience though? I think it does. Certain story lines are timeless and I have no issue with them, but adult issues should stay in adult films in my opinion. In my experience kids will watch anything, switch the TV on and they'll watch it but it is unfair and a little dangerous to believe they don't understand certain content because their lack of 'brain power' as you put it. Underestimating what kids understand is pretty detrimental and what they may go on to misunderstand rather than understand could be even worse. If kids film should be about fun then father in law issues - for an example - shouldn't be part of it, this is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think I totally understand some of what you say, if a film didn't want me to take it seriously then why would I want to watch it? Rio 2 has some serious issues within it, again I'm not sure the mix of serious and fun works that well. I'm afraid I still disagree that story shouldn't be the main part of a film, if the same was to be said of a book then you'd just have jumbled letters. Story is always key, a film is the visualisation of a story, if it is a familiar story then a different take on it is always going to get my admiration over something I've seen many times before. If a big studio doesn’t care about story then I'm just not interested but I'm a film reviewer and I have interest in all types of film. Of course studios want to make money but it annoys me when it is in decrement to its audience. My 'mindset' as you put it, is my opinion is it not? I will analyse every aspect of a film in writing my reviews to make them as fair as possible. I don't give kids films bad reviews because I'm not a kid, I'll give them bad reviews only if they truly deserve them for whatever reason. I actually like just as many as I don't but I’m not going to write pages and pages about a film I really wasn’t that fond of. I mentioned key issues I had with this film and I stand by them.
ReplyDelete"Doesn't this create a lazy future audience though?"
DeleteWhat are you implying? If all animated features are like this? Not really since usually there will always be at least one or 2 studio heads in the animation industry that will always take their stories seriously and as the main feature. That's why we have variation in our animated movies, and cinema as a whole, some studios will often shift more towards story while others will shift to other features. I also think that any story can become tiresome after a while because a lot of us will often become tired of a certain story if it keeps getting told in a serious and melodramatic way.
"but adult issues should stay in adult films". Funny because Disney, Pixar, and even sometimes Dreamworks often have adult issues in their movies. Plus, what adult issues do Rio 2 have that are as big as what these studios had ? HTTYD2 has a death scene in it, that's pretty adult. Then again, that movie had a more serious tone in it so it's not like a complete surprise. Environmental issues, revenge, being a parent, etc. are in Rio 2, but these themes are often seen in kids TV shows and aren't as dark or mature as other themes present in other films. And what I mean by fun in Rio 2 is its tone, that's the key thing it had. Sure, it had the Meet the Parents conflict, but it was presented in such a light-hearted way that it wasn't as melodramatic and dark, therefore safe for kids to watch. Take Tom and Jerry, or Loony Tunes for example, their cartoon violence is toned done in a more comedic way which features funny faces, messing with the physics of a hit, the funny sound effects, etc. It's not like real fighting where it's bloody and filled with gore. That way, kids can enjoy them. Because of Rio 2's tone, the movie is telling you not to look at it as a serious realistic interpretation of these conflicts, it's just telling you to come along with the ride and have some fun because the tone tells you to. All stories often need conflict otherwise they might be considered boring. It's how the film treats these conflicts that determine how we, the audience should to. We've seen a lot of animated comedies that feature a villain, bully, or someone who's mean but because the film never takes itself too seriously and makes a drama out of it, we're can go ahead and laugh and have a good time while watching it.
"Story is always key"
DeleteFilm and Literature are 2 completely different mediums with one being more profitable and popular to a grander audience than the other (film) probably because a lot of people aren't as imaginative with their minds so they often go to the visual medium rather than the text-based one. With a much bigger audience, films often come in different "shapes and sizes" with some catering to the avid story person, others to different kinds of people depending on what they want out of a films. Not everyone is gonna have the same notion that "Story is key" like you. That's why not all films are the same since each one has its own set of goals and each one wants to be watched differently than others. Some cater to those who love special effects, or romance lovers, horror buffs, comedy lovers, etc. That's why I think it's essential to change how you approach a film with each one you see since all of them are different with their own set of goals, tone, what their main focus is, etc. 22 Jump Street has the same exact story as its first, did its target audience care? No because the film never intended to be watched that way because its goal was to make people laugh. Neighbors also had a familiar story of old vs. new yet because of its tone, we never took it as the main focus of the film. If story is so important, than that would mean most animated, comedy, and action films would suck because they're generally predictable. Mindset and opinion are 2 different things to me with mindset being how you watch a movie and opinion being your reaction to it. Reason why mindset is important: I decided to watch Gone Girl expecting a horror movie (mindset), but it turns out to be a drama with no spooky atmosphere or jumpscares. I get mad and say the movie sucks because it featured too much story and not enough scares (opinion). See how your approach to a film can affect your final reaction to it? It sounds to me like you were expecting some sort of story heavy drama in Rio 2 since the bulk of your review is on the story. This is where I bring up the mindset term because I feel like you were expecting a different type of movie than what was given, like as if you were judging the entire film based on your story standards rather than what it's actually trying to be which is non-serious entertainment.
I’m implying that films without story are simply colour and movement, if this is all we can expect from a film then the audience will become lazy (lazier).
ReplyDeleteFor example - If a film has just two people in conversation, it still has a story and if the conversation is good enough it won’t matter to me too much regarding structure of that story because if well done, the simplest of stories can be the best.
I’m well aware of the different story techniques that exist, I have reviewed over 4500 films (not all on this blog yet), have written, produced and directed films and have even won a couple of awards.
I have addressed all the problems I have with this film, to do so again would be repeating myself which I have no desire to do. Let’s just say I look at every film individually and typical formulas and studios making money in no way effect my opinion if the film works. Whether I like a film or not is always going to be down to my point of view after as much analysis as I believe a film deserves. I believe I have written way more about Rio 2 then Rio 2 warrants.
I haven’t seen How to train your dragon 2 yet, so thanks for the plot spoiler.
You have a lot to say about films. Maybe you should start a blog, then people can comment on it and say you’re wrong because they don’t have the same taste in films as you do!?
It’s true that the film industry makes more money than the publishing industry, although with libraries, second hand selling and digital downloading, it is hard to tell how many people buy/read books than it is to see how many people go to the cinema. The decline in reading has been well documented though and I believe it is another example of lazy audiences, like you say yourself, people aren’t as imaginative and so prefer films. Lazy films make lazy audiences, why wouldn’t you ask for more of your admission price? I prefer films that make me think and if they can’t do that, then a different story or a different way a familiar story is told would be preferable. If I sit my kids in front of a film I want them to have fun and learn something if possible, I do not want their brains rotting in front of something that has been done time and time again and that has been don’t better. The environmental issue raised is important but the film didn’t go into detail about it and I see merchandise but I don’t see any campaigning for change. Don’t kid yourself that this is about anything but the money – sequels sell, to hell with the story.
Others may enjoy Rio 2 but I did not, therefore I cannot and will not recommend. It’s kind of how reviews work.
And I don't see how Rio 2 didn't go into detail with the environmental message. They dedicated an entire subplot to that while showing how the Amazon is getting cut down, how Linda and Tulio try to help stop the loggers while trying to protect an endangered species, and how much the rainforest means to the Spix's macaw tribe. You can also say that both Rio and Rio 2 helped spread awareness about a critically endangered species of macaw. It's not like they made up "blue macaw" on the spot. I've also seen a campaign for change. The Rio youtube channel posted a video or 2 about protecting the environment and even going into more detail about the Spix's macaws ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_EMWxg9DU&list=UUcS85-zDmeQY8P9ydPlVFKA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzEsf1i76cA&list=UUcS85-zDmeQY8P9ydPlVFKA ). I can even see that there was another reason why Rio 2 was made, the fix the ending of the 1st. How in the world would 2 blue macaws repopulate an entire species? Without Rio 2, the 1st film would of had an unhappy ending since the species would still go extinct.
DeleteThere's more to a film than just story though. If a video game has no/ a bad story, is it just moving images on screen? No. With movies, you still have action, dialogue, comedy, acting, songs, editing, and most importantly, characters. Characters are in my opinion the most important thing in any movie, whether it be fun and simplistic or dark and mature. Plenty of movies are fairly predictable, but if the characters are funny, likable, or interesting, we continue watching the movie to see how their journey plays out.
ReplyDeleteI feel that with your example, you're saying that if the dialogue and characters are great, then the movie would be great regardless of story which is what I would agree upon.
So you've won awards before. Ok then. I've never heard of your name or any of your works so I'm probably out of luck then if I ever plan on seeing your work then. Your about me doesn't seem to tell anyone about your past.
What confuses me wasn't the rating Rio 2 got, it's the actual review. The whole unoriginal story complaint just doesn't work for me anymore not just because that's pretty much most of Hollywood for you, but because this was never a film that tried to be an original art film. It's just like if I make a toy for boys, but the toy gets criticized because it doesn't appeal to girls. No movie is ever gonna try to appeal to everyone, and Rio 2 was never trying to be an original masterpiece. Story is pretty much subjective in movies as some directors take it as the main important feature and some would rather focus on other important things in a movie. Who are we to say no to a director's decision to focus his/her resources on other factors in a movie? Saying all movies should have good stories in order to be good is like me saying all shirts have to be purple in order to be good. It would just limit creative freedom and variation in our cinema.
You then decide to go on about "why can't cartoons be fun" when Rio 2 was obviously trying to be fun with it's fun and light-hearted tone. Your last sentences also seemed to suggest that you're saying kids movies shouldn't have morals or messages in them since "they have all that nonsense to look forward to in adulthood".
Oops, at least I didn't say who gets it, how it happens, or when it happens.
I also never said you were wrong about Rio 2, it's just that your arguments made no sense to me. And no thanks, I don't feel like making a blog.
Films aren't the only reason reading books has become less popular. We are in a digital era now, and with the help of film, video games, TV, the internet, etc, reading obviously went down in interest. So it's really how technology and the internet have been evolving that's lead to the downfall of reading, not just film. I'm also pretty sure that not everyone goes to the movies to be enlighten by an original story. To a lot of people, including me, film is a special form of entertainment while also being a form of art. Not all entertainment has to have a good story to be fun, just look at a lot of the popular video games and songs. So a film having a lazy story doesn't make for a lazy audience especially since not everyone goes to the movies for a story. They might acknowledge the film's unoriginal story, but they might focus more on other features in that movie.
Not all movies are meant to be educational because they're still a primary source of entertainment for people. Entertainment, not educational. That's where documentaries come in handy.
We seem to agree and disagree on a few points but it seems to be down to personal taste. You have yours and I have mine. Let's forget the word 'story' for a minute, maybe I should have said 'Idea'. Idea is the most important part of any film, book, video game etc. I saw no original idea in Rio 2, nor did I think the idea was appealing or well thought out. Ideas can be repeated, that's fine but there are certain ideas that I have personally become tired of that I believe are used purely out of a lack of creativity. I didn't think much of the characters in Rio 2 either, not one character stood out to me as anything special. The only thing I liked was the animation, so 2 of out 5 stars was pretty generous.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I watch every film with an open mind and will watch a film of any and every genre. I could have written pages and pages of why I disliked this film but I really didn't want to as I'd rather be watching/reviewing another film. I listed key issues I had a problem with. I keep my reviews relatively short because my experience is that people don't read long reviews. I keep it snappy and I get snappy, hence the Crocodile.
It is nice to see there is a campaign for change to save the Blue Maccaws but this was actually started over a year ago and before Rio 2 came out and it still only got just over 900 signatures. So I'm not sure the message is really getting across. Maybe if the unnecessary sub-plots of x-factor style talent shows and father-in-law feuds weren't involved, the campaign would have had a clearer message. I have just signed it by the way, so at least something good has come from my review.
Seriously though, thanks for your well written and mature discussion. It's good to talk to other film fans which you obviously are.
"people don't read long reviews".
DeleteI guess Roger Ebert became popular out of luck then. When I see a review,I prefer them to be a few paragraphs long so I can get a better understanding of a reviewers opinion. With only 1 paragraph here, the fact you didn't go in-depth with your some of your arguments confused me of your decisions for that reason.
And if the campaign started a year before Rio 2, doesn't that mean it came after the 1st one then? In the 1st, the message was there more broader and bigger since it's concept was that the Spix's Macaws were so endangered that only 2 of them were left. Rio 2 was trying to be optimistic about the scenario by suggesting that there are hidden Blue birds in the Amazon. But the message of preservation was still there with how the 2 humans planned to built a sanctuary and protect them. And I'm not sure where the 900 signatures came from, but on most articles touching upon Rio and the Spix's Macaw, I've seen quite a number of people talking about the species and that they should be protected (and saying how humans can be evil). I think the overall conservation message got across to a bit of people, especially kids maybe. It's just that those kids are probably still young and therefore can't really contribute to a cause.
It's called being concise. Roger Ebert wrote reviews for a living, I do it in my spare time. I write longer reviews for films that deserve it, Rio 1 and Rio 2 don't deserve it in my opinion. I've written quite a lot about why I don't like this film now but the message still doesn't seem to be getting across. 900 signatures are all that are on the campaign for change page that YOU told me about. 900 signatures for 2 movies, message still not really getting across, again, maybe if it weren't for all the pointless subplots it would have had a greater impact. FernGully: The Last Rainforest made a huge impact back in 1992 and was more than about just one species. Anyway, lets not forget here though that the number one mission of this film was to make money, nothing wrong with that but that's how it is.
ReplyDeleteI don't like unnecessary and misplaced subplots.
Thing is, the Rio youtube channel only has 38000 subscribers, while the video (I hope you mean the WWF one) only has 17000 views. That just means the channel and video aren't that popular yet not just because Blue Sky isn't as big as Disney, but also because Rio as a whole is only 3 years old with not a lot of merchandise. So it's really a lack of attention and marketing from the executives at Fox and not really the film itself. I bet if Disney (Americans love Disney) were behind the film, along with some better marketing like TV spots, that # would have gone up. And even though Ferngully might have gotten its message across to the public, remember that that was all the film had to give us. It kept showing that environmental message down everyone's throat because that was the main story. Rio 2 didn't shove the message down our throat as it was telling a story while the message was still there in a subplot. The message should always come from the plot, not the other way around. So the 900 signatures don't really have to do with how the message was told to me, it's just the lack of marketing and notoriety that Rio has compared to other older franchises. i think that if you had the right amount of marketing mixed in with a well known name like Disney or Dreamworks, you can make an absolutely terrible movie but still have its message (maybe environmental) be known to the public well because of that studio and the marketing behind it.
Delete