![]() ![]() That's, as I said, if you're lucky enough not to be fluent in English, which raises the question of how you'd be reading my opinions in the first place. ![]() The first time the wind blows the CGI fronds of a Truffula tree, a cotton whisp in a seemingly infinite number of candy-colored shades of pink and magenta, the film had already won my heart, visuals-wise, but that sealed it, and officially set a bar for visual excellence that the 2012 crop of animated pictures will be hard-pressed to overleap. The whole thing is absolutely a bit more rounded and cartoony than Pixar has ever really worked with, which is somewhat to its benefit (it doesn't feel like they're trying to copy the better-known studio, the way that Blue Sky sometimes does), while also limiting the degree to which it can be unconditionally praised - there are always going to be those who'll dislike this sort of thing as being too obvious and heavy-handed, though I am not among them. It is as much fun to look at as any CGI animated movie I could name not even the "not made by Pixar" qualifier applies here. For it is gorgeous: hardly a single one of its 86 minutes fails to hold some absolutely breathtaking mixture of texture and color, and at its best, it presents wholly-realised vistas that are the equal, in detail, imagination, and cohesion, of any fantasy you could name drop. If you turned off the sound - or better yet, if you saw it, unsubtitled, in a language you don't understand - The Lorax might even seem like a pretty great animated movie. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |