Rango (2011)

InformationGeek · March 04, 2011, 09:31:14 PM

From the man who brought us Pirates of the Caribbean, The Ring, and the forgotten Mouse Hunt, we are presented with Rango, an animated Western. The critics and most audiences have been praising this film a lot. This caught me off guard because I wasn't expecting much and it was a Nickelodeon film. I love Nickelodeon and their movies, but to be fair, they aren't that loved by most people.

However, what we have here seems to be an expection to the rule and first great animated film of the year. I may check this out myself soon. Two movies in a single month, that's surprising for me. Here's the review from one of my trusted sources:

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/rango-audio-review

Anyone care to see this and report back? I'm rather curious to hear from the people here.

Rev. Powell · March 04, 2011, 10:20:59 PM

I'll be seeing it with my nephews on Sunday. I'll be sure to leave a mini-review.

retrorussell · March 05, 2011, 12:22:56 AM

Is this a remake of Django, directed by Scooby-Doo?

Rev. Powell · March 06, 2011, 11:06:28 PM

InfoGeek:

. This is Pixar quality animation and storytelling. Very funny with lots of jokes that go over the little ones heads. Exciting chase scenes. Lots of movie references, tributes and in-jokes: The Man with No Name, HIGH NOON, ROAD WARRIOR, CHINATOWN, FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, ARIZONA DREAM. I'd give it 4.5/5 but wouldn't argue with 5/5.

ulthar · March 06, 2011, 11:35:41 PM

Saw it today.

I thought it was okay. I was a bit disappointed in the level of unchildfriendliness for a movie clearly marketed for children. Yes, SOME of the stuff would go over their heads, but not all. While watching it, I could imagine the cringes of other parents present, especially for some of the sexual innuendo that was not as subtle as it could have been.

The truly aggravating thing about this aspect is it is so unnecessary. All the "damns" and "hells" and the one big "son of a {bleeped by a hawk screech}" gave nothing to the story. If we are going to make comparisons to Pixar, then let's be fair. Pixar does not do this.

And continuing with the Pixar comparison, well, Pixar's stories are not quite as predictable (in my opinion, anyway). That said, though, I think the predictable elements in this plot were intentional. It's an old story done many times, so we don't have to get too wrapped up in plot elements and just enjoy the visuals, in-jokes and older movie references.

Another thing that REALLY rankled me was all the unsafe gun handling shown in this movie. I'm a gun owner and vocal gun owner's rights advocate. Yes, I'm a life member of the NRA. In my heyday of shooting, I was shooting 1000 rounds a week, and nearly all of the were handloads. I'm not wishy washy on guns in movies...even kids' movies.

But...I don't like seeing child characters pointing guns at their own heads, looking down the barrel of loaded weapons and other general unsafe handling depictions. Yes, it is animation. Yes, it's not real. But the CGI has gotten to the point that to a degree is looks real ENOUGH and, well, habits are habits.

Sorry, guys, I just don't like unsafe gun practices shown to children in a children's movie. Not once, not twice, but many times. The hanging owls bothered me a little bit, too, but perhaps that's just personal. I've worked the hanging suicide of an 11 year old, and I'm a little prone to "flashback" type reactions to certain death depictions on film.

The visuals were stunning overall and the Rattlesnake Jake character was incredibly well done. He was excellently modeled and to me genuinely menacing (something a lot a animated "villains" fail at).

I wonder if anyone else was reminded of WALL-E by the Rango character. I mean, several times Rango's eye movements and 'mannerisms' just made me think "I've seen this before."

So, bottom line, as much as I WANTED to really, really LOVE this movie, I'm stuck with about a 3.5 / 5. Definitely worth a look, but not "true stunner" for me.

Kaseykockroach · March 07, 2011, 12:45:10 AM

Just saw it. Pretty typical stuff story-wise (guy learns to be a 'true hero', gets the girl, etc) and was often dull, but the art style was nifty. The problem is that it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a parody or not. At times, it seems like its having fun with the cliches, then it plays them like we're really supposed to care whether or not the annoying lizard has his big heroic epiphany.

InformationGeek · March 07, 2011, 11:13:17 AM

Quote from: Rev. Powell on March 06, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
InfoGeek: . This is Pixar quality animation and storytelling. Very funny with lots of jokes that go over the little ones heads. Exciting chase scenes. Lots of movie references, tributes and in-jokes: The Man with No Name, HIGH NOON, ROAD WARRIOR, CHINATOWN, FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, ARIZONA DREAM. I'd give it 4.5/5 but wouldn't argue with 5/5.

That's great news. I'm going to try to check this out for sure soon.

Rev. Powell · March 07, 2011, 01:41:21 PM

Quote from: ulthar on March 06, 2011, 11:35:41 PM

I was a bit disappointed in the level of unchildfriendliness for a movie clearly marketed for children.... All the "damns" and "hells" and the one big "son of a {bleeped by a hawk screech}" gave nothing to the story. If we are going to make comparisons to Pixar, then let's be fair. Pixar does not do this.

Funny thing, watching as an adult (and not as a concerned parent) I didn't even notice it. My nephew asked me why there was so much profanity afterward and I thought he was crazy. It wasn't until my other nephew confirmed it with quotes that I realized it was there. However, in fairness, the movie was rated PG, not G, and I think the language and innuendo was in line with what you would expect in a PG movie. It's for older kids, for sure. Rattlesnake Jake would be too frightening for little kids.

ulthar · March 07, 2011, 03:12:36 PM

Well, Pixar is no stranger to PG, but it is for story elements not for pointless xialog that serves no purpose whatsoever. Blue Sky's ICE AGE is likewise PG for 'mild peril' and contains zero overt swearing.

PG story elements are different (to me as one who is doing the parental guiding) than stupid inuendo only there as cheap humor and swearing that serves no purpose at all.

InformationGeek · March 25, 2011, 09:31:49 PM

Just saw the film a couple of minutes ago myself and it rocked. While I can understand ulthar's problem with it, I did not mind those issues and they didn't take from the overall experience I was having with the film. The animation was mindblowingly incredible, some of the best detail I have ever seen in any film since Wall-E (then again, I still have to see Legend of the Guardians). The story was cliche, but I think that was what the film was going for and I think the overall thing the movie was going for was a sort of a tribute/parody of westerns, which I liked. I got to see this again with my dad if I get a chance again. He loves westerns.

Newt · March 25, 2011, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: ulthar on March 06, 2011, 11:35:41 PMI thought it was okay. I was a bit disappointed in the level of unchildfriendliness for a movie clearly marketed for children. Yes, SOME of the stuff would go over their heads, but not all. While watching it, I could imagine the cringes of other parents present, especially for some of the sexual innuendo that was not as subtle as it could have been.

The truly aggravating thing about this aspect is it is so unnecessary. All the "damns" and "hells" and the one big "son of a {bleeped by a hawk screech}" gave nothing to the story. If we are going to make comparisons to Pixar, then let's be fair. Pixar does not do this....

...Another thing that REALLY rankled me was all the unsafe gun handling shown in this movie. I'm a gun owner and vocal gun owner's rights advocate. Yes, I'm a life member of the NRA. In my heyday of shooting, I was shooting 1000 rounds a week, and nearly all of the were handloads. I'm not wishy washy on guns in movies...even kids' movies.

But...I don't like seeing child characters pointing guns at their own heads, looking down the barrel of loaded weapons and other general unsafe handling depictions. Yes, it is animation. Yes, it's not real. But the CGI has gotten to the point that to a degree is looks real ENOUGH and, well, habits are habits.

Sorry, guys, I just don't like unsafe gun practices shown to children in a children's movie. Not once, not twice, but many times. The hanging owls bothered me a little bit, too, but perhaps that's just personal...

The above would bring the overall experience down for me too. Thanks for the 'heads up'.

Jim H · March 26, 2011, 02:09:46 PM

QuoteAll the "damns" and "hells" and the one big "son of a {bleeped by a hawk screech}" gave nothing to the story.

The latter was a reference to the Good, The Bad and the Ugly, and the rest help establish the setting (language rough around the edges is a pretty major part of film land's version of the west, which the film plays homage to). I noticed them myself, but they felt appropriate given the overall tone of the film, which is significantly darker than Pixar's stuff. You might notice a bunch of characters die in this one as well, also quite unlike Pixar. Neither element is really NEEDED, but both add to the texture of the film.

Also, as far as gun handling - isn't shooting at people more unsafe than anything else, which characters in the film do constantly? I do see what you're getting at (I own and shoot firearms myself) but I really don't see the issue unless the kids are so young they can't handle firearms properly in the first place. If all it takes to introduce anything truly dangerous into a kid's gun handling is unsafe handling in film, they shouldn't be allowed near a gun in the first place.

Anyway, I think the biggest issue here is probably the marketing. It's marketed as a kid's film, and while I think kid's will enjoy it I think older audiences will appreciate it more than they will. I thought it quite good, with excellent animation in a very non-Pixar style (something I appreciate, as so many of the other CG companies sort of ape their style). Visually it was excellent. Storyline wise it was a little familiar, but I thought it very well told. Overall, it's not Pixar good in my book (at least, not Pixar's best films, like Toy Story 1/3, WALL-E and Up), but it is quite unique in it's style and general weirdness (I mean, the title character's look is obviously based on the cover of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, yeesh) and it WAS NOT released in 3D at all.

I give it a 9/10.

outsiders · March 28, 2011, 10:22:16 AM

Unbelieveable

ulthar · March 28, 2011, 11:13:53 AM

Quote from: Jim H on March 26, 2011, 02:09:46 PM

You might notice a bunch of characters die in this one as well, also quite unlike Pixar.

Pixar is no stranger to death in the movies, either. THE INCREDIBLES comes to mind.

[/quote]

Flick James · March 28, 2011, 01:17:02 PM

Quote from: ulthar on March 28, 2011, 11:13:53 AM
Quote from: Jim H on March 26, 2011, 02:09:46 PM

You might notice a bunch of characters die in this one as well, also quite unlike Pixar.

Pixar is no stranger to death in the movies, either. THE INCREDIBLES comes to mind.

True. There are tons of deaths both explicit and implicit all of The Incredibles. The villain gets sucked into a jet turbine and the end, not to mention the sequence explaining how many heros had died from having capes. It is implied that many superheroes died in the making of that big robot, and they also just talk about death, like the mother telling the kids that the bad guys will kill them if they get the chance. Definately not shortage of darkness in that movie.

Also, the very beginning of Finding Nemo has the mother and all their eggs except one get eaten by a shark.

[/quote]