Kubo and the Two Strings

Directed by Travis Knight. Written by Marc Haimes (screenplay), Chris Butler (screenplay), Shannon Tindle (story) and Marc Haimes (story). Starring Charlize Theron (Monkey), Art Parkinson (Kubo), Ralph Fiennes (Moon King), and Matthew McConaughey (Beetle).

Bottom line: Kubo, you have master animators, why do you have to cover it all up with CGI. I’m not against CGI and Claymation, but what could’ve been a beautiful experience turned into a mediocre computer animated movie.

2.5/4

Kubo and the Two Strings opens to a raging ocean and some establishing shots of a woman performing some magic. After a beautiful scene, we cut to some years later. The woman, who is nigh comatose, is being taken care of by her twelve or thirteen years old son, Kubo. We watch as Kubo wakes up and makes breakfast before walking from their cave dwelling to the nearby town. Kubo provides for the family by telling stories. In one of the best scenes in the movie, he pulls out origami paper and his samisen (the same one that his mother held), and begins telling a thrilling story that captures the imagination of the town. When he plays and speak, the paper floats into the air and folds itself becoming a spider, a chicken, and a brave samurai. In the interest of the review, Yada yada yada, Kubo and his magical friends (a Monkey, and a Beetle) have to go on a magical journey to get three magical items to stop the villainous Moon King.

Kubo and the Two Strings was made by the same people as Coraline (wonderful!) and The Boxtrolls (terribly disappointing!). Kubo falls into the same trap as The Boxtrolls; they put too much CGI on top of the beautiful miniatures. What’s the point of the stop motion if I can’t tell what it is? In fact, a coworker of mine thought it was a CGI movie.

The thing about claymation and stop motion animation is that there is something unique about the texture. It’s a good thing to see that they are models. You never lose sight of the fact that what you are watching is a construct so it’s like you are being told a story (rather than have the fantasy that you are being transported to another world). There is a behind the scenes sequence during the credits; it shows the animators working on a large model. The film speeds up and the monster comes to life and interacts with the artists. It really gives an indication of the scale of the movie that would’ve otherwise been lost. There are other super cool behind the scenes clips on YouTube. One explains that these Eyeball creatures were made out of lights and thin metal (to create a really cool effect) and the motion was mapped to the rolling of a bowling ball. But, I ask, what’s the point? It feels kinda weird to ask but, what’s the point of going through all this work when the CGI flattens all of the absurdly detailed models. Another side effect of having so much CGI, is that there are jarring moments when the puppetry becomes the focal point of a scene.

In the case of Kubo, all of the animation is super smooth until you get to this old woman. Her really exaggerated facial expressions are jarring because one second she has squinting eyes and the next instant her mouth and eyes are totally open. The transition between the two looked like something of a blur. It didn’t feel like it fit with the rest of the movie. And, speaking of the feel of the movie, I wasn’t getting a good sense of space.

Let’s compare Kubo to Coraline. If you’ve never seen Coraline, it’s set in and around a pink mansion. In each of the scenes and in each of the rooms, you really get a sense of the world. The rooms are distinct enough that they stand on their own but they form a cohesive world and experience. In Kubo, we start off pretty good. We see his cave-home and how it connects to the village. Before too long, we cut to a snowstorm in “the badlands.” All we can see is white snow blowing about. We don’t know where we are in relation to the village nor do we even get the sense that it’s cold. Then we’re transported to a cavern, and then a forest, and then the “endless lake”? Sure they show transitions between the settings to connect them (aside from the initial cut to the badlands) but the sense of cohesion is missing.

The last point I’d like to make about Kubo is that I was disappointed by the general lack of music, or at least the role of music wasn’t what I was looking forward to. I mean, it’s called Kubo and the Two Strings, like two strings of a samisen (the music instrument that he plays). From the looks of the trailer, I thought he was going to be doing all sorts of magic with it. His instrument would be his magic wand, if you will. But, that wasn’t quite the case. He plays his samisen but it isn’t required to do magic. Some of my favorite parts of the movie focused on him playing but they were few and far between.

Overall, if you want to watch a really good stop-motion movie watch Coraline. If you’ve seen Coraline before, go watch it again. There were sequences in Kubo that that I really enjoyed but they didn’t stave off the disappointment I felt from the overuse of CGI, the lack of a sense of space, and the lack of music. If you are a big fan of stop motion animation, maybe I’d say give it a go (at a matinee at most) if for no other reason than see how it compares to Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas. But then again, if you’re that big a fan of stop motion animation, you’ve probably already seen Kubo.

Thanks for reading! What are your thoughts on stop motion animation? For the longest time, I didn’t like it but I’m seriously warming up to it.

The Boxtrolls

Directed by Graham Annabel, Anthony Stacchi. Written by Irena Brignull, Adam Pava, Alan Snow. Starring Ben Kingsley (Archibald Snatcher), Jared Harris (Lord Portly-Rind), Nick Frost (Mr. Trout), Isaac Hemstead (Eggs), Elle Fanning (Winnie).

Bottom line: The Boxtrolls is a complete disappointment, as a family movie, as a clay-mated movie, and even just as a plain old movie.

1/4

In the city of Cheesebridge, there exist two groups: humans and Boxtrolls. The humans are governed by group of four old white men called White Hates (because they, ya know, have white hats). Meanwhile, underneath the city, lives a group of creatures called Boxtrolls. Each night the Boxtrolls leave their subterranean dwelling to scavenge for junk which they re-appropriate into fantastic inventions. “See they aren’t stealing, they’re taking the discarded junk to make anew.” That’s what the movie wants you to say, anyway.

The Boxtrolls opens with the creepy, ugly, Archibald Snatcher (Kingsley) proposing a deal to the chief White Hat, Lord Portly-Rind (Harris); if/when Snatcher kills every last Boxtroll, he will receive a White Hat. Reluctantly, Portly-Rind agrees.

Snatcher goes on the hunt with three henchmen, capturing every Boxtroll they find. It isn't too difficult to catch a Boxtroll; when startled or afraid the little creatures hide in the boxes they wear for clothes (hence the name Boxtrolls). There is a baby who lives with the Boxtrolls too. His name is Eggs (Hemstead) because the box he wears held eggs. Cue montage of him growing into a teenager. Yadda yadda yadda Eggs must save his family.

This movie provides several layers of disappointment with a varied amount of spoilers. I'll leave the spoiler ones until the end, of course. My first mistake was hoping and expecting the Claymation to be worthwhile: it wasn't. The thing that makes Claymation unique is that it's so physical but, for the life of me, I couldn't really tell how much was CGI and how much of it was Claymation. Is that a testament to how well done it was? No, it's just that the CGI detracts from the Claymation experience. They might as well have made 3D models look like clay and no one would be the wiser.

My second mistake was seeing this in 3D, which has two side effects: it's darker and the animation becomes choppy if it moves too quickly. This choppiness cripples Claymation. The best parts are the colorful characters and smooth animation! Correction, the only thing this movie has going for it is the color and animation.

Leading up to its premier, the avalanche of marketing reminded me The Boxtrolls is "from the makers of Coraline & ParaNorman." Coraline was really good and ParaNorman was lame so they had one out two. What I failed to realize is that "makers of" was not "directors of." So these guys worked in the Art Department of those films or were assistant directors. If you read my review John Wick, you'd know that the first time directing a feature length film, doesn't have to be bad. If you haven't read that review, do, but in the mean time, let me paraphrase. If Annabel and Stacchi had Claymation experience, they could've just put nearly all of their eggs into that basket. What I was hoping to see was really good Claymation. I didn't care about some convoluted, problematic (for reasons I'll discuss later) story. Consider this:

There is so much life in this little fifteen-second clip. I’d be game to watch a basic story if they supported it with incredible animation. Now, I don’t mean a bad story, but a basic one.

Even if you love Claymation, heck, even if you mildly enjoy Claymation don't see The Boxtrolls. It isn't like a fun type of bad it's just a waste of time type of bad. This isn't something from which you learn or grow it’s a waste of time and money.

Instead of watching this, check out Grendel, Grendel, Grendel (1981). It’s an animated movie directed by Alexander Stitt. In the same way that the play Wicked takes the Wizard of Oz from the Wicked Witch's perspective, Grendel, Grendel, Grendel is the retelling of the epic poem Beowulf from the perspective of the monster Grendel. It’s such simple late 70's, early 80's style of animation. It reminded me of The Beatles Yellow Submarine. It is a fascinating movie that warrants its own post, but, in the mean time, skip The Boxtrolls and see Grendel, Grendel, Grendel. It’s even on YouTube. I’ll include a link at the bottom of the page.

I didn't get too too much into the story or thematic problems with the movie yet, so in the coming paragraphs mind yourself of spoilers. But wait, if you won't see the movie if you know what happens...

As is sometimes the case with "family movies," bad = ugly = evil = death. Recall my summary of introduction, when Snatcher makes a deal with Lord Portly-Rind. Snatcher wants to be part of the Aristocracy. It isn't like Snatcher was doing anything particularly villainous or at least anything more villainous than Portly-Rind. It's not like he is holding Portly-Rind hostage. Portly-Rind is acting out of fear of public outcry - not for the public’s sake but because he may lose his status. What ultimately happens to Portly-Rind? Nothing. He loses his white hat but at least he doesn't (literally) explode.

Thus Portly-Rind's character is established as one obsessed with cheese and power, and treats his daughter, Winnie (Fanning), as a far third. Even at climatic fight, he acts this way. Snatcher (because of a cheese allergy) has turned into a hulking mutant (another reason he should die). He holds Winnie by the throat saying, "Give me your hat or she gets it!' Portly-Rind hesitates, not once but twice! Winnie yells at him and he reluctantly provides the hat. It was a situation built up to be the standard redemptive situation. To save his daughter, the father gives us what he thought he held most dear. But because he’s so reluctant to give it up, it really feels unsatisfying. Maybe it's a failed attempt at humor, but with ten minutes of movie left, it isn't the time for lame jokes! We've got loose ends to tie up. And, of course, he goes unpunished for this.

Now that we're speaking of fathers, let’s look at Eggs. Eggs’ backstory is that he was the son of an inventor. One day, Snatcher comes to the inventor and says, "Build me something evil." Egg Sr. refuses; Snatcher supposedly kills him but not before Eggs is given to the Boxtrolls for safekeeping. I was kinda pumped because a father was killed.

The doesn't sound right. I mean that it was remarkable that the film would do something that bold. It's much darker than I expected. But, wouldn't ya know it, the father wasn't killed, he was held captive by Snatcher, in solitary confinement, held upside down and fed jelly for a decade. When he is re-introduced, he is a lunatic.

I wasn't sure how the movie would handle that emotional dilemma. The Boxtrolls raised Eggs, after all, but now his biological father is back albeit without sanity. Don't worry about that though! As soon as Snatcher is killed, Eggs Sr. gets a shave and a haircut and is back to normal. The movie ends with Eggs and his father in the front seat of a carriage, with the lead Boxtroll behind them. You see, Eggs Sr. is the biological father and, more importantly, a human so naturally he supersedes the Boxtrolls.

I could go on but nah. The Boxtrolls now exists in my memory alongside a terrible meal. In any case, thank you for reading! I would normally say, “leave a comment and let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessment” but I hope you might have persuaded you not to see it. That said let me know if you've seen any good movies recently. Have you seen the new Hunger Games or Interstellar?

Oh, I almost forgot to provide a link to Grendel, Grendel, Grendel