Saturday, December 15, 2012

D52 Week 52 (FROM THE NEAR FUTURE): Wreck-It Ralph!

(WARNING: Spoilers for a newish film you very much may not have seen ahead!)

I'm not actively participating in this anymore, y'know, but I figure, if I just happen to watch one of the remaining movies, I might as well still say something, right? It's always nice to still have the option of subjecting others to my opinions.

As a writer (in theory) myself, I'm all too aware that virtually any story that anyone anywhere could think of has, with almost 100% certainty, already been told countless times in the past. Because, well, humans have been telling stories for thousands of years. It's kind of our thing. Other animals got all sorts of practical, yet fascinating and awesome, physical abilities; humans, instead, got the ability to make shit up, and against all reason, we've done pretty well for ourselves with that. Anyway, objectively speaking, nothing is original, ever. And yet, things still feel original to us. Why is that, when they clearly aren't? It's a simple question of conviction. Do the people behind a story honestly believe in it, or are they simply running down a checklist, making sure it has all the essential components that make it recognizable as a story? Despite the frequently gorgeous animation, the often catchy songs, and their admirably patriotic support of the all-American "non-A-listers whose voices you might nonetheless hopefully recognize" industry, the Disney Renaissance all too often felt like the latter, as I've liked pointing out a lot. And then DreamWorks achieved box office prowess, and Disney shifted to marking off essential film components on a wackier checklist for much of the 2000s. By comparison, Wreck-It Ralph feels like a revelation. It's got just as many storytelling cliches as the far less impressive Disney films that came before it, but it engages them with a renewed sense of self-confidence. They're not just half-heartedly checking them off; they're all here for a reason, and that alone makes this probably the best thing Disney has done in at least a decade and a half.

(Perhaps it helps that video games themselves are positively overflowing with obvious cliches. One could argue, then, that if anything they enhance the atmosphere here.)

Well, of course, when it comes to making a movie like this, it only stands to reason that you'd want someone like Rich Moore directing. After all, he's directed for both The Simpsons and Futurama, which at their best have a refreshing way of approaching the well-worn world of storytelling cliches with the right mixture of cynicism and sentimentality; a mixture that can reveal the shameless, mechanical manipulation these techniques indulge in while still acknowledging that, yes, they still work for a reason, and no, we're not completely heartless. (He also directed a couple episodes of Drawn Together, which....certainly was a thing that also existed, wasn't it?) I mean, let's face it - Ralph's emotional arc is pretty much the classic Disney Princess routine. He has a good, steady gig, but he longs for more in the world, before somehow managing to save the day, and ultimately realizing that he can have both. It's all very familiar, and yet it feels more relevant than it has in a LONG time, because Ralph's situation really IS sympathetically crappy. He's not an unappreciative pampered princess, after all. He sleeps on bricks! He SHOULD be unhappy! (And that anniversary party might be the most awkward, cringey thing Disney's ever done, in a good way.) It's all formula, but Moore and company still remember to fill in the blanks, instead of making the formula be an end unto itself. As for the cynicism, well...for one, the sudden revelation that Vanellope actually IS a Disney Princess, followed by all but outright saying, "Actually, no, y'know what? That's a really lousy aspiration for a little girl to have!" Combined with Brave, 2012 seems to be a pretty big year for Disney-distributed films directing big fuck-yous at this princessical nonsense they've perpetrated in the past; fuck-yous that will, of course, be quickly forgotten because little girls will be terrible, forever.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into things here. But, reading too much into simple things is what critics are supposed to do, so why stop now? Even the voice cast itself seems oddly appropriate for a film that's essentially about fighting back against typecasting. After all, we have Jane Lynch, for one, yet again playing an abrasive obvious lesbian who, for some reason, actually isn't. An obvious lesbian, I mean; she's still plenty abraisive. And Jack McBrayer's career pretty much consists of playing Jack McBrayer in different contexts, some decidedly more unsettling than others; here, he gets to play the perfectly settling Jack McBrayer With A Magic Hammer. All kidding aside, though, I like them, and they fit their roles well. The most remarkable thing is that Sarah Silverman, who I really don't like so very much to be perfectly honest, manages to fit her role well too, in a likable way. Likeable! How does that work? I just do not know, but she is, child-friendly pottymouthisms aside. As for John C. Reilly, he might be the only one playing a main character who's actually had a diverse career. Like...a puzzlingly diverse career. I'm sure a lot of actors would kill to have a career like that, where he can go off and do whatever weird shit he wants, and still manage to repeatedly find work in mainstream, "respectable" films. Anyway, he's good too, even if he doesn't exactly sound all that bulky. Well. A little.

Yes, despite having a cast without all that much voice-acting depth, and despite possessing a story that sounds like it could be silly and superficial and decidedly un-depthy, there's a surprising amount of actual, honest-to-goodness depth here. After messes like Meet the Robinsons, which I caught part of on the Disney Channel some time ago and was immediately aware that it was just plain too wacky to have the emotional depth it was pretending it did, it's nice to see something that can be funny without sacrificing emotion. Once again, Rich Moore's past experience comes into play in a big way. For instance, it's interesting to see how Ralph's villainy isn't just an informed trait. Yes, I suppose villain protagonists in 3D animated family films are the furthest thing from "new", as that obnoxious trailer for Despicable Me 2 might remind one, if one can actually remember that there were also non-Minion characters in that, too. But it's hard to remember one who's been (intentionally) allowed to come across as genuinely threatening as he does when he smashes up Vanellope's kart. Good intentions or no, you can't tell me that's not a curiously intense sequence! Even more curious is the realization in that moment that Sarah Silverman - SARAH SILVERMAN! - is making you feel something emotionally. Indeed, it's the sort of thought I found myself having throughout the entire movie. This is all just so, so silly, so why is it making me a little teary-eyed? No doubt part of that is just Jesse being an overemotional fool in general, but still. This is a well done story nonetheless.

Probably my biggest concern about this film before it was released was that it could easily turn out to be desperate and pandering and more than just a little bit sad. It was a bit hard to tell when the first promotional materials were coming out whether it would actually embrace its whimsical subject matter, or whether it would just be another shallow, half-baked 3D Disney flick pathetically flailing its arms as it pleads for relevance. "Video games, guys! RETRO video games! Isn't that nifty? Why won't you love meeeee?" So, color me surprised when it wasn't that at all. (Surprised, because I am a terrible, irredeemable pessimist!) Like the typical Pixar films of yesteryear used to do, Wreck-It Ralph manages to fully embrace its quirky "unseen world" setting, with results much nicer than it should theoretically have the right to be.

If you die in the laundromat, you die FOR REAL!

Trivial Observations and Whatnots:
  • To be perfectly fair, it's possible I'm being a bit too overly positive; after all, Matt, Steffie, and I shared some all-natural cartoon enhancement in the parking lot beforehand. Still, for the time being, I fully stand by this review.
  • As much as I adore the completely ridiculous names they gave the Sugar Rush racers - they're some of my favorite gags in the whole movie - I have to admit, I just don't know what the deal is with "Rancis". I need your help, because I can't for the life of me figure out what the fuck's going on with that one.
  • Sonic sure pops up in the background disproportionately often, doesn't he? Is this part of the Sonic and All-Stars Racing Transformed cross-promotion nonsense? If so, it failed miserably!
  • Speaking of which, what's a console character like Sonic doing hanging around in an arcade? SegaSonic the Hedgehog? Okay, sure, why the fuck not.
  • Just so we're clear, "Shut Up and Drive" is a song about a lady looking for a gentleman to take over and drive her car (read: lady bits, probably) for her, so it's....pretty much the exact opposite of what Vanellope is doing in that scene, which is to say, driving her car (read: CAR), for herself. (Conversely, I admit that I actually liked the Owl City song.)
  • If Sugar Rush was a real game, by the way, I'd totally play the shit out of it. I'm not afraid to admit it. I dig that track design!
  • No reason to keep the much-disliked Terrible Disney Sequel thing going, on account of both the dislikability, and also, the fact that there IS apparently a sequel in the works already. A THEATRICAL sequel. No way this can go wrong!
  • I'd be terribly remiss if I didn't also mention Paperman, which is really sweet and just delightful in general. Love at first sight, it must be said, is a far more palatable plot device in short-form animation than it is when expected to carry a ninety-minute feature!
  • Once again, the little kids in the theater were more excited about the trailer for Despicable Me 2 (which seemingly didn't realize it might also be shown in 2D) than the main feature. These children are our future, and we're all doomed: such is your motivational closing thought for the day. :)

4 comments:

  1. I wrote my review days after I watched it in November, anticipating the possibility that I wouldn't get a chance to see it anywhere come December 23rd, and just set the ol' schedule post feature for that far future. But it looks like it's doing well enough that I'm expecting to get the chance to see it again on its "proper" week (it helps that I want to see it again anyway...and also it could make for a difference experience if there's actually anyone else besides Amanda and me in the theater next time around). At least, I know it's still showing in plenty of places this week, and I would think they'd want to keep it for the Christmas vacation crowd. Or will it be pushed out in favor of new releases coming out during Christmasweek? Make your bets, folks!

    What are you thoughts on spoilers in these type of reviews? I'm not complaining myself, since I have seen it already, but when I wrote mine the justification I made with myself was that any of the movies that have already been out on DVD for a year don't really need spoiler warnings because, well, they've been out on DVD for a year. But with this one I caved in expecting there might be some people who might just be waiting for the DVD. Surely anyone who "knows" the blog from the previous posts can expect details of the plot, but what if someone comes across that one post of a recent release in isolation?
    Not saying you should or shouldn't; just seems a point worth bringing up, conversationally-speaking.

    Re: John C. Reilly's bulkiness or slight lack of: What if Brad Garrett had played the part? Better or worse? Or is it too hard to say given the other defeated perceptions of the other voice actors here?

    Re: Comic:
    I've been looking forward to seeing your hand-drawn interpretations of CGI characters, and I like it (so far?...by which I mean no pressure to cover the others if you don't get get to them)! I didn't think "Heatmiser" right away, but I can see how it would give that impression in the black-and-white stage. Also, you're not alone anyway: http://hands-in-the-air.tumblr.com/post/27769540602/separated-at-birth-heat-miser-the-year-without

    I'm not entirely sure whether or not that Sonic "PSA" scene is an intended reference to the cartoon PSAs. When I first saw it, I fully expected him to say "...no good!" and was a bit let down when he didn't.

    I don't get "Rancis" either but I'm going to take a couple of semi-wild guesses here. HAIR-BRAINED THEORY: Maybe Rancis was originally meant to be named "Reese" (if only I still had that Art of Wreck-It Ralph book to cross-check) but the Hershey company wouldn't allow it, what with the competing Nestlé's Quiksand getting its spotlight (incidentally, your take on the use of brands? If any I take issue with the Subway cup)! So instead his name is, um...like Francis, but... instead, Rancis, which...sort of sounds like Reese's? Underneath the sound of Japanese girl pop? Maybe it's like a pun on rancid? Cause he's...kind of mean? I...have got to give up here.

    Doesn't Bowser also seem out-of-place in the arcade world? I mean, I guess the Mario Kart racing games maybe? But he's not exactly a bad guy there. At least, no moreso than any of the other racers.
    I mentioned - will mention next week? - in my review about the travel possibilities in the gaming world. If Game Central Station serves the "city" of that arcade, who's to say there couldn't be visitors from other "cities" who've arrived via connecting routes (power lines) from other "cities?" (power strips)

    I've gotta ask. Which Sugar Rush racer would you choose? Assuming stats are not an issue.

    Have you done the REQUIRED research of playing the "actual" Fix-It Felix Jr. game that I believe would still be available online now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was kind of assuming that, yeah, by this point, the fact that this would be as spoilery as my old D52 reviews would be obvious. It didn't occur to me that people might stumble onto it from outside! So, just to be safe, I added a warning. So, thanks for pointing that out.

      Brad Garrett as the sort of construction-type person who wrecks things instead of fixing them? No, I can't imagine him playing that sort of role at all.

      Did not my Dinosaur review contain 2D representations of CGInosaurs, though? Granted, they weren't so very good....kinda really hard to draw "realistic" dinosaurs in a cartoony artstyle. Whereas Ralph has a very simple geometric shape. At any rate, thank you for the kind words of kindness!

      I'm fine with the use of name brands when they're either funny (the Seinfeld rule) or realistic (which is to say, I didn't mind the Times Squarevertising in Oliver & Company), so I can't fault this movie for it. In all honesty, I didn't even notice the Subway stuff - what was the context on that?

      There was also a special arcade version of the original Super Mario Bros., I believe. And there was an arcade Mario Party. So, that didn't confuse me. But the idea of characters being able to visit from home consoles absolutely does. Given that, unlike arcade games, those games aren't always "on". So, how would that work?

      Silly Kevin - I can't definitively choose a single Sugar Rush racer because they change daily!

      And no, I have not played the surely-not-a-terrible-Flash-tie-in Fix-It Felix Jr. game. Shame on me!

      Delete
  2. Ohhhh, right. I keep forgetting about Dinosaur, in general too. I keep wanting to think Chicken Little was the first CGI one. But yeah, maybe also I didn't think of it because copying the characters from Dinosaur isn't much different from, well, drawing "actual" dinosaurs. How everyone assumes they looked, anyway.

    Oh, you think you didn't notice the Subway cup placed by the Sugar Rush racer kid, but I bet after the movie you felt strangely hungry for a sandwich, didn't you? Or...thirsty for a...Subway fountain drink.

    I didn't know there was a Mario Party arcade game!

    Heyyy, wait a minute. It's not available in the US, is it?

    Home console characters in that universe raise a LOT of questions. Would turning on and off the set reincarnate their very "souls?" Is it the same Mario each time I play or a new "lifeform" each time? They would certainly get much less "free time" than at the arcade. Unless having one of the newer systems on standby counts? If I have the Wii menu open and Bomberman is one of the games downloaded to the system but I haven't "opened" the Bomberman game, is Bomberman still "inside" there?
    If so, maybe Mario and Sonic characters traveled by WiFi, by way of virtual console games. Your Mii made its way to my system while it was "off," so it seems plausible. If Game Central Station is a trainstation, WiFi travel must be like airplane flights.
    Lots of questions. And yet maybe not as many questions as I have about the "Cars" universe.

    I'll rephrase my question to: which Sugar Rush racer would you want to be able to choose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dinosaurs was, of course, depressingly short on feathers. Shame on them.

      The Super Mario Wiki tells me that there have been at least two arcade Mario Parties; the first was heavily based on Mario Party 5. And no, we didn't get them in the US, because we don't have arcades here anymore, anywhere, despite what this movie claims.

      Just think of how many questions you'd have about the licensed Cars games in the Wreck-It Ralphiverse!

      Y'know how people who are new to Mario Kart and who don't really know much about video games in general tend to pick Mario, because he's the one character they actually know? Vanellope is the only one I can remember by name without having to stop and think, so.....

      Delete