Ian (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lovingboth) wrote2003-10-13 03:23 pm
lovingboth) wrote2003-10-13 03:23 pm
Finding Nemo
The plan: to go to the new Sunday afternoon bi social thing at First Out. When that got moved to back to 5pm, I thought 'Ah ha, I can go to the Royal Academy in the afternoon, and walk up to First Out.'
What happened: I did the RA (I'm not sure I'd pay to see the current 'Andrew Lloyd Webber's collection' exhibition, but as a friend, it was well worth the trip to see it for free) and then thought 'hmm, there's time to go hunting for the new Fluke album' and went off and did so but without success. Transport problems then struck and, as I was outside a cinema, with Finding Nemo on...
The review: It's good. Parts of it are very very good. I loved the seagulls, for example, and the sharks were great too. Unfortunately, although JoJo loves looking at fish, it's probably a bit too scary for her at the moment.
Technically, it was mixed. There are some genuinely photo-realistic sections, with some excellent water effects, but they still can't do humans well. (Why do you think they've done toys and monsters for their other feature films?) The seagulls were oddly smooth too. And while many of the close ups of Sydney harbour were wonderful, the long shots screamed CGI.
(Looks for details of who did which section - the people who did the sharks also did another good bit and... ahhhh - the seagulls are meant to be modelled after the claymation in Wallace and Gromit, which is why they're oddly smooth.)
What happened: I did the RA (I'm not sure I'd pay to see the current 'Andrew Lloyd Webber's collection' exhibition, but as a friend, it was well worth the trip to see it for free) and then thought 'hmm, there's time to go hunting for the new Fluke album' and went off and did so but without success. Transport problems then struck and, as I was outside a cinema, with Finding Nemo on...
The review: It's good. Parts of it are very very good. I loved the seagulls, for example, and the sharks were great too. Unfortunately, although JoJo loves looking at fish, it's probably a bit too scary for her at the moment.
Technically, it was mixed. There are some genuinely photo-realistic sections, with some excellent water effects, but they still can't do humans well. (Why do you think they've done toys and monsters for their other feature films?) The seagulls were oddly smooth too. And while many of the close ups of Sydney harbour were wonderful, the long shots screamed CGI.
(Looks for details of who did which section - the people who did the sharks also did another good bit and... ahhhh - the seagulls are meant to be modelled after the claymation in Wallace and Gromit, which is why they're oddly smooth.)
no subject
no subject
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/findingnemo.htm
But they still don't green light it!
no subject
I suspect it's more that the filmmakers believe (probabaly correctly) that kids understand friendship better than romance/sexual attraction, and find the former easier to relate to. Both B and C certainly seem to react to kissing scenes in much the same way as the kid in The Princess Bride.