break the screen

Rating: Null/10 (23 August 2009)

I had some expectations regarding this one. I didn't sense it would be as meditative as Wall.E, but i look forward to see what Pixar does. They are leading the sport of digital animation, and nearly all of their films have pushed something (or a lot) ahead, regarding the previous experience. Here, i wasn't expecting that the film, as a whole, would be as grasping as their past 2, but i really thought i might be positively surprised by the 3d. The set up pleased me: this was their first 3d film, and the basic plot seemed to announce the challenge they would take: a flying house, travelling a good portion of the globe, flying over cities, landing on a huge and deep waterfall. Already, by the description, it is spacial. Since we have had Ratatouille just 2 years ago, i thought and longed that the approach would be on the spacial exploration, enhanced by the possibilities of the 3d. Well, i was wrong. In the end this film is the flattest of all Pixar films of the last 6 years, even more than Nemo (which i thought had similar possibilities and failed in similar ways). 3D is merely an enhancement of flat scenes, mundane compositions, and camera work that wouldn't impress if the camera was real. I may have put my expectations out of focus, in relation to what the studio intended, but i really was expecting more on that side. I mean, in the theatre where i watched this, i saw a commercial, in 3D, of Vodafone, playing with that their spherical logo. At a certain moment, we got many spheres on screen, and the 3d made them 'get out' of the screen, and look like they were going to hit me. That 10 seconds bit was more of what i thought 3D can do than the whole film.
Well, other things are appealing, the introducing short film is, as usual, quite meaningful, in this case having to do with the act of creation, as a synonym for giving birth. We have clouds, who create, and storks, who deliver. One specific cloud molds what none other does, always dangerous beings, and the stork suffers in the way. Interpret it your own way, but i found it significant if you consider artists (creators) and the relation with an audience and the answer to the publics expectations.
The film is visually beautiful, not texture in the sublime fashion of Wall.E, but quite adventurous in how it uses colours. I still think Dreamworks is some steps ahead in face modelling, but these characters are more and more alive.
I think you'll find it funny, if that's what you want. I miss some wittiness of other films.
My opinion: 3/5
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com