Slashdot Mirror
Review: Final Fantasy
Yes, the animation is fine, occasionally terrific. There is no acting to speak of, and how could there be? There are only disembodied (like Godzilla) voices -- Ming-Na (Dr. Aki Ross), Alec Baldwin (Capt. Gray Edwards), Ving Rhames (Ryan), Steve Buscemi (Neil), Donald Sutherland (Doctor Sid) and James Woods (the evil General Hein).
The overall affect is cold and fake. Obviously, animation has warmed up the cartoon genre (Toy Story, Shrek) giving the characters color, depth, expression and dimension. But it has the reverse effect on traditional films, at least if Final Fantasy is any indication.
If software has given added depth to animated films, the characters in Final Fantasy don't quite make it to one-dimensional. They appear slow-moving, a click behind their own emotions, and utterly unbelievable and remote. The real actors doing the voice-overs are dramatic, almost desperate, to give the story some life. They can't. Beyond that, the plot is just stupid, a loopy, quasi-religious narrative that posits that aliens landed on the earth years earlier, and have since ferociously gobbled up most of its people and cities, for reasons that are never explained, and for that matter, are apparently inexplicable. Like seemingly every other sci-fi, game-based or techno-centered movie in the last decade, Final Fantasy takes place largely in a destroyed New York City. (Why is it always in a ruined Manhattan? The tall buildings?)
The ghostly aliens are squiggly, gummy, amoeba-like things (though some look like translucent dragons and serpents) that nobody on the Earth understands but Dr. Ross. They kill by contact rather than weaponry, swirling around their targets like mist. The nasty General Hein doesn't like science or scientists or people who are nice, and wants to blow the aliens all to Hell.
Dr. Ross's allies are her software-lover Capt. Gray Edwards, who makes Buzz Lightyear look like Robert DeNiro, and some heroic, cartoon cut-out soldiers. There's even a software kamikaze scene meant to be touching (nothing can make you care about these creatures.) Dr. Ross is attractive but never makes it to sexy. The coded characters all seem to have mastered the sad expression and the smile, but can't go any deeper. Dr. Ross and Dr. Sid exchange spirit mumbo-jumbo for nearly half of this movie's interminable 105 minutes. There isn't a single decent battle scene, for God's sake, blasphemy in a movie that purports to herald the ascent of the computer game over the traditional film.
Final Fantasy is bad news for moviegoers, but great news for human actors. It turns out there are still some things humans do a lot better than software.
Usually I want more meat with my movies, but being in the games biz I am treating this movie like a long Blizzard cut scene.
Because I was treated to something that was an awful lot like an anime. You know, sometimes it's not a bad thing that plot isn't fully discussed. You'll never see an anime where every character's relationship with the world and one another is fully explained.
On top of that, the CG was phenomenal, amazing, stunning and really freaking sweet.
I thought Ben Affleck couldn't act after suffering through Pearl Harbor. I found his role in this movie much more lifelike. It's good to see actors taking on more challenging roles.
Yes, it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief and wierd justifications. So does anime, and no one complains about that (this much).
Well part of the problem is that when you take a comic like X-men or a game like FF or D&D and make it into a movie, if you assume all of the viewers are familiar with your existing product you will fail badly. I liked Tomb Raider, despite having never played the game, I thought X-men was great, even though I never read the comic. On the other hand I get the distinct impression that I would not like this, since I have not played the game I would not get it.
So it is perfectly reasonable for a reviewer to say "Well I haven't played the game but the movie was lousy" as many of the people reading the review haven't played the game eather.
I don't play computer games at all due to a number of reasons.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Like seemingly every other sci-fi, game-based or techno-centered movie in the last decade, Final Fantasy takes place largely in a destroyed New York City. (Why is it always in a ruined Manhattan? The tall buildings?)
From here:
That temptation to destroy the familiar skyline of New York, whether with a bomb-loaded rental truck or a screenplay, proves the enduring legend of the city. Unfortunately, the legend is also why we no longer have a Great-White Way, but a Great White Sneaker Way, in which big-haired loud-mouthed tourists try to out-do what they think is the real New York--That's okay! It's New York--and then, unexpectedly finding kindness, interest and even love on the part of the supposedly hostile natives, send their amusing letters week after week to the Times's Metropolitan Diary. Ha ha! Zabar's! Cab drivers! Bus drivers! The subway! Those gruff but lovable beggars! So foreign! Ha ha!
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
I'd been on the fence about this. But if someone who doesn't understand that amination is a medium and not a genre gives the movie such a negative review, I'm going to see it. I don't care how bad it is; I want this thing to succeed, and perhaps spread the word that animation isn't just kids' stuff.
And frankly, Katz, you disappoint me. It's obvious you don't get a lot of respect here; I was one of the relatively few who seem to be willing to give you a chance. But you lost it on this one. I expected so much better out of you; I actually liked many of your articles. No, I wasn't looking for a positive review. I was looking for a little respect of the technical achievements made in the film, though. And I was certainly expecting at least a little respect for animation, the opposite of which you exude in this article. For the author of the Hellmouth series to be this condescending and ignorant... well, perhaps it's just that I didn't see your true colors until now, or perhaps it's a recent development, but regardless, I very much dislike what I see.
----------
Thanks for your review. Katz had me scared for a moment. I have never played any of the games and don't know anything about the story, but I do like anime and technology and I've really been looking forward to this movie because of the huge leap forward in animation quality. I feel much better about going to see it now.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
LOL - I tend to type a lot like I talk - with a lot of dashes to denote short pauses, and a lot of little smilies to emphasize emotion ;P
Sorry for not doing it in bold/italic, which would have looked nicer -- I revert to old habits when I'm typing a review.
They were both excellent games - but Sephiroth, IMHO, was much more of an *outstanding* villan than Kefka.
Kefka was indeed evil - but he was goofy-evil - the kind of evil where you're not afraid, or angry - you're annoyed. He made a great villan, but Sephiroth was...well...just so much more.
By the end of FF7, it was hard *not* to hate Sephiroth, be angry at him, and want to make him pay. He was always just that one step ahead of you - and he *knew* it. You came so *close* to fighting him throughout the entire game, but you were always denied - until the end. When the pseudo-dream sequence at the end happened, it was hard not to start cheering, yelling, and going nuts, because FINALLY you were giving him what he deserved. He was just an absolutely *perfect* character to have in a FF game - and Square hasn't developed a better villan yet, IMHO.
Wow...that was longer than I thought =)
I've seen Katz off-base before, but it's obvious he didn't understand a thing in the movie - nor, it seems, did he try to.
;P )
;P (I *think* the plot of the movie was conceived around the time FF7 was popular - and the influence shows)
;P ) - but overall, they've pushed the envelope for realism in animation.
Perhaps the audio track was a bit off in the theatre he went to -- I don't know -- but in our theatre, the sound was synced pretty well -- there were a couple of spots where the sync was a *little* off - but not so much as to be the annoyance Katz makes it out to be. Buscemi's character seemed to get the worst of the desyncing, but again, it wasn't the bother Katz made it out to be.
The voice acting was pretty damned good, if you ask me - it may be that I'm an anime fan, and have suffered through hackdubs, and poorly acted voices more than most. I especially liked the fit of Donald Sutherland's voice to Cid - it matched VERY well (other than the "warm" line
Now - about the plot. Sure - it was a bit contrived. Some of the character development seemed a bit rushed - but overall, it wasn't bad. Katz missed the point of the plot - probably because he was so bothered by the sound - I don't know - but his analysis is pretty much totally off-base. I won't give it away - but if you've played FF7, you'll be wondering where Aerith is at the end
The animation was phenomenal. It takes a *lot* to get *so* close to looking real. Some of the movement was a bit off (but very, *very* close - and some of the faces were a bit...strange (James Wood's character, the general, seemed to have been distorted into an evil mask - noone's that angry all the time
Especially the eyes. It's awesome to see animated characters whose eyes have real "depth" to them.
Now - all this being said, I think it didn't *quite* live up to the Final Fantasy name. DOn't get me wrong - it was a great movie - but there are a few Final Fantasy elements that were sorely missing.
First was the lack of medieval flair -- most (FF8 not included) Final Fantasy games all had a mixture of medieval swords & sorcery with high technology - that was part of what gave them their distinctive "flavor". This movie was ALL high-tech, and even a little bit on the military side -- kindof like a deeper Aliens movie.
A side note to this was the lack of Magic in general -- I was really looking forward to seeing Ultima being cast on the big screen - or even a couple Summons (Shiva? Ifrit? Bahamut?). Sadly, none made it into this movie, although one of the alien critters looked a bit like Leviathan...
The lack of Airships was bothersome - yes - they had the various spacecraft - and they were well-designed, but again, were lacking the flair of the grandiose FF airships.
The most glaring error, however, was the lack of a single, solitary Chocobo.
It's for these reasons that I think the movie, although very,. VERY good, didn't quite live up to the Final Fantasy name that was placed on it. Had it been simply called "The Spirits Within", I wouldn't have had a single problem with it.
One of the first things you mention is that you haven't played the games.
You can't make a multi-million dollar movie aimed only at fans of a game. With the sort of costs this movie must have, you must appeal to people who haven't played the game. The movie industry is in it for the money, after all.
--
the telephone rings / problem between screen and chair / thoughts of homocide
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Well, Rachel's hotter than Wilma, but I always thought Betty was pretty cute.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Now when animated characters and their computer generated voices become indistinguishable from reality, *that* will be impressive!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Don't you guys perceive a distinction between Fred and Wilma and Ross and Rachel?
Were not stupid, Ross and Rachel wear shoes. Duh!
From the review, it seems that all Jon Katz things computer games should be is lots of shooting, explosions, and similar inane garbage.
Personally, I love the games that don't have lots of bangs and mindless stomping around.
Final Fantasy the games were all about looking deeper into things, and not fitting in with the norm.
I've not yet gone to see it, but I wasn't expecting to see a high adventure movie in the same vein as Tomb Raider et. al.
I was expecting something with a little thought, that I'd have to think quite deeply on, and look for the meaning behind.
I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the movie, but I think slating it, just because it's something different, not just the usual guns and regular modus operandi of killing things, is pretty lame.
>I absolutely disagree; Final Fantasy was an
>excellent movie that pushed the boundaries of
>technology and story telling.
Apparently in different directions...
Rob
Seriously, SGI should have provided the plot line as well as the hardware: "See a successful UNIX hardware vendor, driven to irrelevance by demon possesion -- resulting in inexplicable plans to rely on M$! Watch in horror as it is destroyed from within by terrible university relations, the creeping spectre of mismanagement and a bizarre, not-quite-SVR3 operating environment. Will a hero come and save it? No."
~wog
I was totally unimpressed by FF. It felt like I was watching an hour-and-a-half long video game cutscene. Why is it that just because it's computer animated, we expect less from the story and characters? For once I totally agree with Katz.
...and it shows when you say things like:
I have played the game(s), and a lot of the point was deciphering what the "real" plot was. In the beginning it often did seem to be a simple "the mad Queen must be stopped", but always there were multiple layers of truth and reality that had to be peeled away to reveal the true motivation of the game. And there was lots of questing for things along the way too. I think you're reviewing the wrong movie if you didn't expect it to be somewhat confusing to the newbie viewer, full of seemingly contradictory versions of reality, and ultimately solved by heroes that rely more on their innate abilities and their relationships to each other than on any amount of military hardware. Winning a war through pure shoot-em-up style mayhem has never been the plot of a FF game - it's like the difference between a "foreign" (non-US) movie with actual plot, characterization, and open endings, and the usual U.S. fare of "Legally Blonde", "Tomb Raider", and "Pearl Harbor". Maybe you should have just reviewed The Matrix or Tomb Raider again, Jon, and given this one a miss.
I can't comment on your other points, since I haven't seen the movie yet (maybe this weekend?), but it wouldn't surprise me that the voicing and the expressions aren't perfect. After all, this is the first time something like this has been tried. It's still a huge advance over the animation of the humans in Toy Story or even Shrek, though - maybe your negative comments are because the animation was close enough to looking real that the remaining slight failings were especially jarring?
Oh yeah and one more thing:
I can answer that - I'd destroy New York City in a heartbeat, and I'm not even a malevolent alien race :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Anyone else notice that Jon Katz is sounding more and more like that entertainment critic from The Onion - Jackie Harvey?
MMDC Mobile Media
-- My Weblog.
Then I gotta go see it... it should be great.
--
You know, you may be right - I don't know much about Shinto.
But when I think about the plot, aside from the visuals, it still wasn't anywhere as bad as Katz makes it out to be. The times when you totally forget that the characters are CG are the times when you are totally engrossed in the story.
And do you really need to have every plot element explained to you in detail? I *like* movies that leave you with questions when you leave the theatre.
I think that Roger Ebert's review hits most of the salient points.
And I stand by my original statements. The visiuals were simply amazing and worth the price of admission to me.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Why did I expect Katz would toe the line with this review?
I thought the CG was simply awe-inspiring. Sure, it isn't perfect, but this was simply the most beautiful piece of work ever shown on the big screen.
The story was not amazing, but it isn't as bad as some people (read: Katz) make it out to be.
I hope we get to see more of this genre. Do yourself a favor, go see the movie and then form your own opinion.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
What does this mean? Does he mean this is the first movie with animation instead of "real" photographs of "real" people? Um, that's pretty obviously false, so he must mean that the people who did the voices (Baldwin, Southerland, Woods, etc) are "non-actors" - either way, it's beyond moronic.
I dunno, all Katz' detractors don't seem to have any problem with it. :-)
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Somehow, after the trailers, I expected the CG to be a bit more advanced/better. Some bits were incredible, but overall, I thought it would be more impressive.
Where it really lacked was in the lip movement. Everyone seemed stiff. I guess it was too hard to CG pursed lips 'cause they don't exist in this movie. I think that's what made everyone's speaking seem unnatural. Probably too much deformation to still look real or something.
I really think I must have seen a different movie than almost everyone else.
First off, I have never even -seen- a FF game. What does that have to do with the plot? I certainly had no problems following it. There were a bunch of strange aliens, and they were killing people for whatever reason. Humans had to hide out in shielded structures and struggle to sruvive. Some scientists figured out a way to neutralize these critters, and it involved finding a bunch of specific things. The main characters fight through monsters and stuff to get them. They get them, and the "good guys" win. Yay us. What was so friggin' hard about that?
And why does everyone keep whining about inconsistencies and confusion with the monster things? It all made sense to me.
Also, so what if they all look a little plastic? Do you complain when cartoon-characters look a little bit like they're drawn or painted? Do you complain that, when you read a book, you have to make up the images entirely in your head? Duuuuh.
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
The impression that I got from the film was that a different genre ought have been chosen. If you are going to do Sci-Fi, you've got to at least have a decent plot... If you are going to be light on plot and acting talent, then you had better choose horror...
The characters were the most grotesque anime stereotypes that they could have been... The fragile, empath female, the square-jawed bullshit white male hero, a big, strong, black male expendable character of few words, and a skinny italian to boot... I guess that there are not a lot of hollywood movies that are more challenging than this but the damn hamfistedness of this was really noticeable... Also, they made the bad guy a little too evil...
So overall, expect this movie to tank after the first week. The CGI is pretty amazing, but you'd better have at least an interesting plot if you're going to try scifi.
+++ ATH0 +++
my two cents. sephiroth always seemed, to me, that he didn't care about doing evil. he was passive. it was like fighting an robot. kefka, on the other hand, ENJOYED what he was doing. he did evil because it made him feel good, not sephiroth's evil just because it's something to do. style over substance. evil, but very very shallow.
Bad things often happen to good people,
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
The story was crap, and it had enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through. The dialog was painfully bad. It required a focus on technique over substance: like watching one of those candy ads at the start of the movie where you try to figure out if they used Phong shading on Mr. SoftDrink's hands. Actually, I think the candy ad had a better plot.
I did some searching and found a bigger pic. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Server/9029 /aki_nude.jpg
Looks real to me.
Sorry, but you're full of shit. If this movie were marketed only to people who have played the games, they'd have to charge about $100 per ticket in order to recoup their costs. This movie is being sold to the general public, in standard movie theaters. The producers have an obligation to make the movie comprehensible in its own right, otherwise they deserve criticism (and probable financial ruin).
"I've never played the game, but it has to be way more fun than this movie."
Which is probably exactly why you hated it. Why do we have a person reviewing a movie based on a game when that person hasn't ever played the game. Wouldn't it follow that the person would not be able to understand the plot. And rather just say that make generalizations in order to try to make people believe they know what they are talking about?
Then of course 90% of Jon's articles are that way :)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
Snow White (1937) is the first full length studio (Disney) film with human leads played by non-actors.
It's called animation, which Final Fantasy is as well.
You ask any critic out there in Hollywood who has not played any of the latter FF games (FF 7 or 8) about this movie and they will all tell you the same thing: the storyline was too confusing.
It's not Katz's fault that he didn't get the storyline. That's just the way Final Fantasy storylines are. Unless you know what to expect in the first place, you're going to be so lost with the storyline that you won't be able to enjoy any other parts of the movie.
For FF, I thought the storyline was good (not great...it paralleled FF7 too much). I could go on and on about how good/bad/great/awful the CG was (although I will say brownie points to detailing the wallet in the Captain's jeans). What I want to emphasize from Katz's critique is how "emotionally-dubbed" this movie is. The perfect example: Steve Buscemi. I love this guy, and his awesome ability to portray sarcasm with satire so well (like his roles in Con Air and Armegeddon). He had some good lines in FF as well, but your reaction to them was delayed. You didn't see the little quirk he does so well with his eyebrows, or how his face looks so serious while his eyes show that he's joking. You just can't do that with computer animation. His emotions seemed to be "dubbed in" by the animation. He did great like he always does with the lines, but the face of his character just didn't show it. I don't know why, but it makes you feel as if the speech and emotion don't blend.
The same with Aki Ross. You just don't feel the actors emotions. It's not because they're not spoken well...they're spoken very well (although Baldwin doesn't do the greatest with the captain...I think the Baldwin's usually rely on looks rather than speech for acting). But the face only shows a "cookie cutter" emotion. Even if they bend the eyebrows a little bit, or change the tint on the skin just a little, my mind just doesn't feel for what they're supposed to be feeling. That's what made this movie disappointing for me.
The most real character to me was Dr. Cid. And speaking of which, could someone please tell me why there is a Cid IN EVERY SINGLE FF from FF2 on?
In brief: the storyline (for a FF) was good, the CG was great, but the emotion was not there in the graphics, which made it not there in the movie.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
If you like Anime, chances are you'll give FF a passing grade. If you're not a big Anime, I'd expect a so-so reaction. I say screw Katz, I want to know what Taco thinks of it.
Square has promised the shareholders that they will never FINANCE a movie again. They'll gladly make them if somebody else is signing the cheques. :-)
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
They call me "Master Cat Herder" cause I managed to get myself and 15 friends to see the movie opening night. Suffice to say that almost everyone hated it. I don't know why, but I was completely floored.
The movie reminded me alot of Heinlein novels... You either love them or hate them, but either way they're an incredible read. And I've yet to find anyone with a middle view... People either said, "AWESOME!" or "WTF is this crap?". No one said, "eh".
People are getting mixed signals though: the GIA is reporting that Square has more films in the works, while at Square's shareholder meeting, the brass apologized profusely by the losses incurred primarily as a result of making the film. IF this was indeed only a test run THEN holy shit we ain't seen nothing yet.
Bottom line: just go see the movie.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
While the plot is quite generic, the way it successfully references so many other movies amazed me. Hints of BladeRunner, a dash of Dune, and a helping of Aliens and Akira.
If you're going just for the CG then enjoy the artistry (not reality, artistry - when you go to see an anime flick, are you expecting reality? no - you're wanting artistry. expect the same here). But go for the homage to the Past a well. This screenwriter and Director spent his time noting scenes/character types that worked in other movies and blended them quite well into FF.
and keep in mind the genre of the movie you're watching. It's like with Crouching Tiger - the plot is predictable, the lines are melodramatic, but for the genre, CTHD works perfectly. FF is a Sci-Fi/Anime and it fits that genre perfectly - from the fasst paced, at times confusing action, to the pointless and countless little noises whats-her-name makes, down to the cheesy song at the end.
-f
-f
www.blackant.net
Katz, Im not usualy a JonKatz basher but at times like this I really understand them.
One of the first things you mention is that you haven't played the games. If you had you'd have had something to relate to. In the last games (since Vii) they have had lots of _nice_ pre-rendered CG wich has gotten better for each game. Every FF player has probably played with the thought of how this could be made into a movie. And now it is. Most of us compare to the game and the games pre-rendered sequences. And most of us love it. At least what we've seen on the www and on trailers. Many of us will go just for the eye candy. If I wanted real actors, I'd demand real actors. I want to see how much we can do without real actors... And I can't help you with the lipsync. I betcha there will be better syncs on other languages. Or just wait and buy the DVD with english subtitles. Let the fans deside if it's bad - the film is made for them.
You are behaving like a /. reader who hasn't read the article but still has a lot to say about it. Those dudes are irritating...
Cheers...
.*shrc is
--
$HOME is where the
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
...that the only way for the upcoming LOTR movie to get a good response from ./ posters is if Katz doesn't like it. Seriously, I have never before seen a scifi/fantasy movie reviewed here that people claimed to like, but as soon as Katz says its crap, everyone and his brother is singing the praises of the movie in a unified voice.
for those who played the games a lot, it was superb
I'm not sure what playing the games has to do with the movie. One of the hallmarks of the FF games' plots was that they had nothing, absolutely no connection with eachother, except for a couple of things...
- There's always a character named Cid. He's always a completely different character, but he's always named Cid.
- There are Chocobos
And the movie was an even bigger departure from the games than each installment in the series usually is. Both thematically, and because of the notable omission of chocobos. There were a few similarities here and there... the earth-spirits sort of reminded me of the end of FFVII, but I think that kind of thing is pretty generic, I don't even know if I'd call it a similarity. Also, I've never played FFVIII or FFIX so maybe I've missed something.Anyway, I'll I'm saying is that it bears no resemblance to the games...
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
but great news for human actors
Well, at least they tried. What should they do according to you? Keep trying until it's really perfect? In that case you would have to wait quite a few years. But I really think that in a few years time actors *will* have a difficult time, because animation will be a lot better then. Maybe the lead roles will not be played by animated actors, but smaller roles will (especially roles that are too dangerous to play, I think an animated actor/stuntman is a lot cheaper than a real actor).and it can be found here
The story was so-so, but the eye candy was fabulous.
This has been a common response to the Final Fantasy movie - that the games' plots are deeper. Guess what, give Square 70 hours of gameplay to develop characters & storyline and they're going to create something spectacular, as they have in the past. The movie is around 1:45. You really can't compare the two.
I alternate between posting +5 and -1 Comments. Karma: +53 -47 = 6
No, he's making a distinction between traditional animation, where you're expected to think of the characters as creations, not as actors, and FF which you're expected to experience as a live-action film although the actors are generated.
Like the New York Times review said, Pearl Harbor probably also fit the bill as "human leads played by non-actors ."
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
The plot was captivating, even to someone who only has the faintest recollection of the video games: for those who played the games a lot, it was superb. Much like the original production of Dune: if you knew the books, it was one of the best movies made. If you didn't, you were lost. Though in the case of FF, being lost wasn't anywheres as bad as with Dune.
But something that came to my mind while watching it was the format: full CG. It allowed the movie to have special effects that didn't break the mold of the movie. Let me try to explain myself here.
It's like the video game, Metal Gear Solid. MGS never breaks from the format that you play it in: it's a continuous flow of action and graphics that is extremely smooth. The makers didn't break the format to go into "Cinemagraphic Sequences". Everything was in the same mode as game play. This created a suspension of disbelief that never needed to be broken.
It's the same thing with Final Fantasy. Most movies, when special effects are added, LOOK like the effects are, well, ADDED. They are a second layer that is obviously ON TOP of the live action. Not so with FF! Because the ENTIRE movie is animated, the special effects don't have to break with the flow. The result is a movie where neat effects and the actors are lumped together into one unbreakable chain. The movie has a flow to it that you simply CANNOT imitate with live action.
The actors(:) were amazingly smooth (though the opening sequence wasn't as good as I had expected it to be), the effects non-intrusive, the voice-overs excellently done.
It of course does not rival live action (did you expect it to?), but in fifty years, when animation DOES 100% imitate life, people will look back at FF and say that THIS was the true beginning.
And I'm still nostalgic for those classic graphics from the first 6 FF's.
Lets hope that next FF movie will use the 8bit Nintendo characters!
Firts, thanks to Katz for having an opinion that is actually his own and not born of the group mentality every now and then.
I liked the movie myself. Generally disliked the character animations. They reminded me of Blizzard's. Dummies that got a breath of light but didn't oil their joints. The characters were not fluid at all, Mainframe make the Transformers look more fluid than these characters.
But this movie would not have worked at all if it was doen with real actors. The visual effects would have make the real actors seem completely out of place. So even though the characters looked great but moved like the Tin Man, they fit in with the world they inhabited.
The story was so-so. Mad general with loyal following who wants nothing more than to blow stuff up out of revenge, scientests who just know that blowing stuff up will destroy the world.
The main flaw with the story is that they had potential for a deep story, but they took a shallow sweep of a deep lake and only got the very top, freshest, smelliest stuff.
What exactly are the spirits? Life energies? Souls? Some sort of collective? A gift from Gia? Why are there only eight of them? What could you have done with your almost romantic sub plot/comic relief characters if you didn't kill them? Just how mad is this general and why didn't you animate some of his backstory to give him more depth?
Overall, this movie would have been better as say, a one season mini-series. The animation was great, and was the correct choice for the story. I'd give it an average over all. It didn't totally suck, but it didn't live up to what it could have been.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
First off I'd like to pointlessly quibble about some semantics. The voices and motion capture I would consider acting, all else animating. That said, if you or anyone else told me that I would see a picture this summer that was 100% computer animated and would make me do a double take in any scene, I would have told you, "Cut back on the crack, it's affecting your judgement." Even then, there is expectation. Personally, if I lived in an appocolyptic future where invisible things could kill anything with only a touch, I can imagine I might be a little bit jadded. Perhaps after seeing this on a scale large enough to wipeout what would seem to be many billions of people, including most peoples families, I would think fear would be a rather indistinct emotion you feel, and acknowledge, before moving on. But its all about expectation. That can pretty dramatically change the movie going experience. I like stories I'm not familiar with. I watch a lot of them. (A mix of hong kong action, indepedent efforts, small studio efforts with a dash of different imports and probably most major studio releases) That and the fact I'm something of a sinophile certainly provides a different context for me, so my milage varies. One of the things I like about Sony's efforts at cultural assimilation is they don't pander to the American audiance. In a fair amount of Asian cinema, as in life, the best ending of all that might be possible is rare. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and even dramatic action movies like Bullet in the Head tell somewhat cautionary tales. The sun doesn't always have to come out tomorrow, nor should it, and it takes some guts to ignore the conventional wisdom, perhaps at the expense of the bottom line.
I guess I can see why people pay to see the same movies over an over, they might not average a movie a week, so that new car smell may linger. Who knows. But to me, an experience taken from another culture but packaged just for me? And it's only $8.75, or $5.25 before 6? That's an offer I find hard to pass up.
Even with all of this. Ignore the fact that this was essentially the first nearly photoreal cartoon. I challenge those who had problems with the acting, story and dialogue to put it up against the rest of the scifi genre. Quite frankly, the acting didn't have to be good to be better than its competition.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Seriously, maybe I took your comment as wrong as I could, but this reminds me of the time I went to see Mulan. During the avalanche scene a teenage girl behind me said, in disgust, "That's so fake." I'm sorry. Was she your sister? If I can find her, should I hook you two up? Maybe you were both lost. Cause in both cases you were in a movie theater, not a documentary theater.
Do you really object to all films that have any kind of an afterlife ingrained in their stories? The list is literally huge, and some are even good. That said, since you're such a staunch proponant of micotargeted entertainment, did it perhaps occur to you that atheists are in the extream minority.
Again I've got no problem with people who object to how a premise of a movie is carried out (as long as they agree with me). By and large I'm all about different strokes for different folks. But you're objecting to the premise of the movie period. Don't go see that movie. What's the point of subjecting yourself to something you know *before hand* you can't enjoy?
The Force. WTF is that crap. Its so unrealistic, they've got pan-galactic travel, you'd think they could come up with a realistic explanation for the Force too. Duh.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I am sure that I will love this movie, and that 99% of the other people on Slashdot will also. Jon Katz just doesn't understand us.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
While I do think Katz's review was a little bit harsh, you need to keep one thing in mind - this movie should be reviewed as a Movie, and not a video game brought to the big screen. It needs to be judged just like any other movie would be judged, except that it should be noted that it's basis comes from a video game series.
The creator himself has commented in interviews that it isn't neccesarry that you have played the games to enjoy the film; if it did its job as a film, you wouldn't have had to play the game to understand it, as long as you pay attention and think about the plot a little bit. I'm not saying that Katz is right, but I am saying that we have to look at this as a movie, because that's what it really is. That's it for my little rant on the subject...
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
This is the first feature-length movie from people who are more used to producing interactive rather than non-interactive entertainment. So it's not going to be up for Best Motion Picture at the Oscars. So what? What were you expecting?
Very few artists who jump over to a media unfamiliar to them hit a home run first time round. There's this thing called learning the ropes. Final Fantasy the movie always was going to be about eye candy first and storyline second, so it's not surprising that it looks good but isn't necessary engaging. I wonder if Katz is an anime/manga fan, because I bet that, as well as FF gamers, they were their (cinema-going) target audience.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single video/PC game-to-movie crossover that wasn't panned by the critics. Super Mario Bros, Double Dragon, Wing Commander, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider aren't exactly amongst the most critically acclaimed movies ever made, so why expect any more from FF?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
hmm, well, come to think of it, that's about right.
"the first studio film"
The first major studio...
"ever with human leads"
"played by non-actors"
I know Katz gets a lot of flak, but come on. If you don't like his stories and only want to poke holes, turn off his articles in the settings.