Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Jake Lipson, Feb 7, 2018.
Watched both in HD on Vudu today. Thumbs up x2!
I still have to see these films. But why the hell can't they make these as animated films that actually catch the look of the art that is in the books. It always has to be some godawful live-action/animation mix.
Yeah, not godawful at all.
In this case, it's not. Paddington's CGI is some of the most realistically rendered I've ever seen, in that he is, for the purposes of the films, a real, living, breathing bear with whom you empathize immediately. And the live-action cast surrounding him is top-notch. In execution, this could not be further from Alvin and the Chipmunks Yogi Bear and their ilk. It's the gold standard, really.
That is the problem. I don't know why anyone would expect that a bear that wears an overcoat and a hat to be realistic looking. What exactly is wrong with making a film where the character looks exactly like he does in the books? What is wrong with doing a film that recreates the artist's work and not some CGI creation massaged to make him fit into the real world and immediately succeed in making him an anachronism.
God, I miss quality 2D animation work. You have to watch French and Japanese animation to get that kind of fix now.
It's realism within the world that they have created. There's a big difference between Paddington and, say, the bear from The Revenant. Obviously it's stylized, but he functions as a believable, authentic character within the world of the film.
I agree about missing 2D animation in principle, but I think they made the right choice making these particular films the way they did.
As much as I enjoyed the movie, I have to disagree that Paddington offers top-notch CG. I always felt acutely aware that he wasn't a real creature - he never looked particularly "convincing" and he didn't always integrate very well with his surroundings.
Again, the movie works despite this, but I don't think the CG is especially good...
It's a fantasy movie guys. Aimed at kids but accessible to adults. You are overthinking it. The problem is in you, not the film.
Not to mention an "unusually attractive nun."
"Stop that stunning sister!"
Watched this a couple nights ago and really enjoyed it.
I don't see why this film should be less prone to criticism for its choices and look just because it is supposedly made for kids.
Agree. Just because a movie aims for a younger audience doesn't mean it has to be crap!
I never said it shouldn’t be critiqued. It’s just that those criticisms posted were born of personal style and adult POVs. The movie works great as is.
Now the movie is crap which is different than your earlier post when you stated you liked the movie and thought the CGI could have been better.
You misunderstand. I liked "P2" a lot - I'm not calling it crap.
I'm saying that as a rule, "kiddie movies" shouldn't get a pass because they're meant for a young audience.
My remarks had nothing to do with "P2" itself!
I'm bumping this thread because Deadline has new interview comments by Hugh Grant about playing Phoenix Buchanan and his final scene in the movie which plays over the credits. Spoilers for the end of the movie at he link if you haven't already seen it.
A third film is in development (YAY!) without Paul King as director (yikes.)
Hugh Grant calls out Paddington 2 as possibly "the best film I've ever been in":
We agree on that.