JOURNAL: MCWagner (Matthew Wagner)

previous page next page
  • *GASP* "Shoulder-Angel!" 2002-06-19 10:10:34 Truly a most excellent movie. Got a copy last Christmas.

    I found the AGE-RAGE part the best. "We're young as hell and we're not gonna take it!" 
  • 2002-06-19 01:38:06 Looks like I found the maximum occupancy of the subject line. Here's the whole quote:

    "Occupation of this receptor with appropriate ligands produced a positive feedback loop involving increased expression of RAGE and cellular activation. (92) Infusion of soluble RAGE in mice was able to block the accelerated atherosclerosis otherwise observed (92,128); thus RBC adhesion to endothelial cells via the AGE-RAGE ligand receptor pair is likely to have a pathogenic role in the vascular disease associated with diabetes." 
  • "Occupation of this receptor with appropriate ligands produced a positive feedback loop involving increased expression of RAGE and cellular activation. (92) Infusion of soluble RAGE in mice was able to block the accelerated atherosclerosis otherwise obse 2002-06-19 01:36:45 You heard it here first, ladies and gents. Atherosclerosis acceleration can be blocked in mice by soluble RAGE!

    Is it wrong that I find the above quote absolutely hilarious? It's funnier if you yell out all the caps. Ran into it utterly randomly in one of the papers I'm dredging through for my bibliography. The quote is entirely unaltered, but it's referring to "advanced glycation end products" (AGE) and their receptor (RAGE). Thus, an AGE-RAGE interaction.

    *Snerk*

    (No review tonight, just wanted a couple of comments outta my head.)

    Mechaman: Glad to see I'm not the only one to fondly remember the movie. :)

    EK: Few quick comments. I can completely see the problems with "The Last Unicorn," although it was mostly the musical bits that grated on my every nerve. (Excepting "Man's Road". You're right about Lee's video. I can't even remember where in the film that song shows up, but I can pick out the GotF sequences from that video.) I love it mostly for a few imaginative sequences, the bridging between which was remarkably clumsy. A couple that spring to mind (it's been several years) are the gypsy side-show, the robbers in the woods (especially the "how dare you come now" scene), the meloncholy end, and any scene involving the peg-leg cat. "I would if I could, mum, but I be a cat, and no cat ever...gave anyone...a straight answerrrrrrr."

    Re: NIMH. 3 months ago? Hmm. I suspect that a lot of my love of this film comes from my memories of it as a kid. Perhaps this film is one that can really only be loved as a childhood favorite. Kids aren't as analytical, and more readily accept a sense of wonder. Eh. I better stop the amature psychology before I trip over myself.

    "I liked the voice-acting in this film EXCEPT for Mrs. Brisby. "

    Really? I was rather impressed by her. I thought she struck a good balance between tenative, "mousy", and motherly.

    I agree on the comments about motion and movement. As a kid I was never able to put my finger on it, but with the frame-by-frame of the DVD, I was able to isolate how well the animators matched animal movement. They got the scutter-scamper down pat, especially in Mr. Ages combine and the Great Owl's tree.

    "I can forgive animated musicals IF the songs serve to forward the story, or even some minor plot point which the songs in "Tail" didn't, really. "

    Yeah. I fail to understand why so many of the lower budget animation studios insist on inserting musical numbers (sung by the cast) in their films when it is so abundantly evident that it's RUINED more films than it's helped. Hell, the segments are ususally the most expensive to produce as well, since they have to commission and record the songs with actors not normally known for their singing, and producing all the bright sparkly backgrounds to show off the sequences. Note to all independant animators: LEAVE OUT THE SONGS. I'd tell Disney too, but they wouldn't listen.

    Titan A.E: Worth a $2 rental for a few funny lines, and seeing John Leguizomo, Drew Barrymore, and Janine Garaffalo (sp?) in the same flick. Not much more. Cool World: Yeah it was Bakshi. Guy has sex with a cartoon. Goes DOWNHILL from there. Complete dreck in concept and art. Iron Giant's stacked away in mount DVD. Review coming...eventually.

    Lilo and Stitch could be great. Maybe Disney is finally admitting that they're drawing toons, and thus can do a few films that are FUNNY for a while. 
  • "The Slitherdeegee has crawled out of the sea / He may catch all the others, but he won't catch me / No he won't catch me, the old Slitherdeegee, / He may catch all the others, but he won't catch....." 2002-06-18 02:15:11 (I appear to have broken my spell-checker. Expect random errors.)

    You know, I ran into something in the archives at www.somethingawful.com that reminded me of the last time I was actually completely terrified by a work of fiction. I don't mean startled, I don't mean put in suspense, I don't mean "jumped into bed quick for fear of the critters under my bed," I mean absolutely and utterly terrified of the book itself, physically frightened to turn the page and see what was next, lest my mind itself be irrevocably scarred. Yes, I was only, what...eight? Ten? somewhere around there, but this book scared the everliving shit out of me. Thing is, I'm betting at least half of the rest of you had exactly the same experience, but don't even remember it. Here, let me jog your memory:

    http://www.somethingawful.com/article.php?id=72-4

    It's the last one on the page. Of course, it's not the actual book, since the pic is one of SA's Photoshop Phridays, but it should serve as enough of a reminder. Go ahead. I'll wait.






    Back already? Was I right?

    If you do remember this book, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the stories themselves weren't the terrifying part, although they were plainly too scary for the "9 and up" reader level advised on the cover. It was the drawings. My God. I've seen a lot of horror stories in every manner of media, and I still don't think I've ever seen anything as disturbing as the drawings in this children's book. Men and...things made of stringy sinew and torn gristle illuminated with millions of hairlike black lines coalesced from dripping cobwebs of coagulated blood into forms all too recognizeable. Every page held new and convoluted...distorted....strained and stretched, decayed, worn, and rotting horrors beyond the mind of a humble ten year old. Stephen Gammel is a deeply sadistically disturbed man to draw for the "9 and up" reader level. Needless to say, these books (there were three) are an essential part of every American's upbringing. :)

    Amazon.com had a few reader reviews I think we could all identify with:
    "Reviewer: A 9-year old reader
    THIS BOOK HAS THE SCARISET DRAWING I HAVE EVER SEEN. THE THING OR THE HAUNTED HOUSE HAD SCAREIST DRAWING. IT'S A LITTLE TO VIOLANT THOUGH(STABBING,SHOOTING,ETC.). IF U WANT THE HECK SCARED OUT OF YOU GET THIS BOOK. THE SCAREIST ONE IS THE ONE WHERE THE HEAD FELL OUT OF THE CHIMMENY(IM SCARED TO GO BUY MY CHIMMNEY). THANK YOU ALVIN AND STEPHEN."

    :)

    Since everyone else was relating their historic medical woes, I thought I'd add mine. Now I can't speak from experience on toothaches or Cok-Saki, but if you've ever wanted an authority on earaches, I'm your man. Pain like you'd never want to experience. Not those "oh, there's pressure in my ear" or "there's this sharp stinging, and a 'pop' noise when I swallow", but, to misquote coach McGurk, "you get an earache so bad...you go blind. OK?" Like I said, I really can't compare, as this only went on for about five days, but there is nothing quite like getting yanked outta school, having the pain peak on its way to the doctor, get there....and have him say "I'm sorry, but it's just too late. Call me when it bursts." I've had two burst eardrums now (yes, they heal back) and they've only made me more predisposed to further infections which catch up with me seasonally.

    Holy Crap! Henry Rollins is hosting a show on sci-fi? Was just watching Sci-Fi to take in my weekly allotment of new Farscape (disappointingly muddled episode this week...they better be going somewhere pretty damn clever for all the plot holes introduced) and after it (at...what...1:00?) there was a show called "Night Visions". Basically a Twilight Zone / Outer Limits type 2-half-hour-episode show, only it looks like it's more concentrated on the horror end of the scale. The most Twilight-Zonish moment, though, was when Henry Rollins stepped out in place of Rod Serling. For as esoteric an underground artist that he is, he certianly gets around a lot. The show itself was extraordinarly clever for each story only being a half-hour long. The first was a smart, viciously manipulative little piece about an airling crash evaluator with a sinister running theme. The ending reminded me a bit of a condensed "Jacob's Ladder." The second was a bit more straightforward, concerning a "Bokor" voodo priest, but with just a few more essential twists than I was expecting.

    Oh, for those who were asking, that "When you're evil" song by Voltaire? That is the same Voltaire who did the Chi-Chan animated bits. I have it on very loose authority (word of a friend of a person who I've only spoken to once ever) that the guy's a real jerk in person, but I don't really know.

    You know, I had a little scrap of paper that I stuck in my back pocket with a bunch o' things to talk about (including several people who kindly mentioned me in their own Journals) since I come up with nothing when I actually sit down to write this tripe. Naturally, I've lost it. Trying to construct it from memory, but it's just not working. I did dredge this piece out of my memory through it's links from instapundit, though:

    http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?2002/06/13/3/

    Anyone who wandered through one of the particularly vicious forum/journal flame wars a while back might remember one moderately literate individual who went off on "homophobia" and about how it was all fiction since no one is really afraid of gays because they're so effeminate (said he). I swear I'd reference him directly, but I can't remember who it was. (Heaven knows I've pulled out of the forums for months now anyway.) At any rate, the upshot of the article is that he was right. (Wait) Homophobia is something of a misnomer, according to the study, as there is little reactionary fear at work in their sample group. Instead, the main motivating factor in dislike of homosexuality seems to be more based in disgust and hatred. Like racism. Is this better? IMO, sorta. It places the responsibility for the attitude more solidly on the intolerance of the individual and stubborn unwillingness to consider ideas antithetical to one's own likes and dislikes. It robs "gay panic" and similar imbecillic legal defences of some validity, laying the blame on the intolerant bigots, where it belongs.

    EK: Do you remember why, specifically, you disliked "The Last Unicorn?" I really like it, but I'll readily acknowledge that the musical bits (excepting the song by America) were so hideous it tended to suck the merit out of the film.

    Anyway, as promised, the reason we all forgive Don Bluth. (EK: Gimmie a minute!) Don Bluth was sort of the second-or-third tier competition for Disney in the animated feature film department (before the recent explosion of CG work and the entrance of official anime film releases), responsible for all the animation that, even as a 6-12-year-old trapped in the theater after you bugged and bugged your parents to go see this movie, made you grit your teeth in pain at the condescention and saccharine aimed at you. The best example of this would be "The Land Before Time," a film that utterly epitomizes the INVERSE of "films parents can enjoy as well as children." Actually, in the big picture, this film wasn't NEARLY as bad as the subsequent SEVEN (agk!) films, ALL of which taught us the "importance of friends"....over....and over.....and over again. Thing is, they were made after Bluth handed the rights off to someone else. Actually, looking closely, Bluth's main sin appears to be the creation of animation franchises that REALLY REALLY SUCK. Looking REALLY closely, I'm suddenly surprised at the percent of stuff he's done that I actually like.

    I'm loosing you, aren't I?

    Well, look close. "An American Tail" was a kiddie-movie, but had moments of fun and relatively good animation and storytelling, although the concept was a bit sappy and maudlin and there were moments of groan-worthy ache from the audience. Even had a song in rotation on the radio, a feat usually reserved for Disney. (Yeah, not necessicarily a GOOD thing...) Bluth had nothing to do with the two (yes, two) sequals. "Anastasia" was actually damn good, although the ending sank into a silly and badly-meshed CG battle with ZOMBIE-RASPUTIN. Titan AE....well, I saw it with a bunch of friends who all laugh readily at dumb sci-fi, so we enjoyed the hell out of it, although the meshing with CG was painfully bad. The rest of the stuff in his resume has all been crappy direct-to-video potboilers. (Like the recent spate of Disney sequals. Like that's any recommendation.) It's just that every time Bluth made it onto the big screen, his stuff was aggressively mediocre in comparison with everything else out there.

    (Really. Check it out here: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Bluth,+Don He hasn't done nearly as much stuff as you think he has. The only sequal he actually had a hand in was the Anastasia sequal, and I haven't seen it.)

    There's one exception.

    Everyone stand back, I'm about to gush. Before now, I've frequently used the phrase "of course, the film isn't perfect." There are very few films I consider perfect (and only one still within mount DVD). I place this film on a level with Ghibli's best.

    If the muse of animation came, stood before you, and said that you had just enough talent and inspiration allocated to you to make string after string of A-minus grade films, or one truly amazing film and the rest of your life you'd top out at B-minus crap, gaining deridision among your peers, which would you choose? I think Bluth chose the latter.

    "The Secret of NIMH" is so much a long-time favorite of mine that I don't really think I'm qualified to review it. I can't even tell where the film's merits end an my own glowing bias begins, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I saw this film in the theaters when I was eight and left the showing bawling my eyes out in sympathy with the characters. Even today I get all teary-eyed at the last-but-a-couple scenes composing the grand finale. Suspense, sword-fights, death, danger, magic, futile desparation, panicked loss, and hope, all packed in that last fifteen minutes or so blew my tiny little mind. I'm not sure, but I think there was a massive delay between the initial theater release and the home video release (on the order of several years) such that my pre-adolescent attention span had long forgotten about it by the time it became available again. (If Bluth got caught up in the general paranoia Disney fostered about people "copying=stealing all their great films" through the intervention of that most sinister of home electronics...the VCR...then it's likely that Bluth's films didn't show on the TV for years either. Hmm. Does this paranoia sound familiar to anyone?) The visuals of the flick were fast-paced and startling for their time, and the beautiful multi-layered backgrounds were better than anything I recalled seeing elsewhere. (1983 gave us "Micky's Christmas Carol and 1985 Disney was putting out "The Black Cauldron", if that tells you anything.) This is the point where I'm supposed to start going on about how this was "real animation" not that "kiddie stuff", right? The same interminable argument we hear over and over again in anime circles to justify the obsession of late 20-year-olds with two dimensional women, right? Wrong. It WAS kiddie stuff, but it was DAMN GOOD kiddie stuff that didn't blunt the violence or gloss over the reprecussions and demonstrated storytelling skills that are a credit to the medium. (Much like the Harry Potter books are regarded now.) There are four deaths in this film (including Jonathan) and none are pleasent. (Let's see, eaten by cat, bludgeoned and crushed, and two stabbed to death.)

    Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. The movie is based on a children's book entitled "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH." The movie is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the written story, to the point of large pivotal sections being entirely absent in the book. In both, the story circles "Watership Down"-like around the lives of several animals living near the Fitzgibbon's farm. The widowed Mrs. Brisby, the lead, is a mouse. (The name was changed at the last minute in the film, requiring a re-recording of every line using the name. Probably a rights battle with the flying-disk maker.) At the start, she visits an aged alchemist mouse, looking for advice about her son's illness. It turns out that her son is too sick to be moved for some time, which places him in direct danger for the immenant "moving day" when the farmer fires up his tractor and drags the bladed plough through the fields, destroying the warrens of every animal living there, and killing anything too stupid to get out of the way. (See again, Watership Down.)

    The story gets a bit too complicated to cover here (which is a pity, because it contains some truly magnificent scenes), but, to summarize, Mrs. Frisby is granted a brief respite. Desperate for help, she seeks out the assistance of the rats living in the Fitzgibbon's rosebush.

    Investigating the rosebush that houses the rats proves difficult and frighteningly dangerous, but she eventually gains an audience and discovers a hidden world of beauty and strange, luminescent alien technology resembling magic both to her and to the audience. Vines and wires snake throughout the warren on unseen and incomprehensible tasks. Monsterous, threatening guards bar her way and chase her off. Fortunately, she happens upon friends and is led to the rats' central council chamber. Here the story deviates wildly from the book. I'll follow the movie for the moment and come back to the deviations.

    Throughout her desperate search for help, Mrs. Brisby has discovered that her husband's name opened doors for her, and, upon meeting with Nicodemus (the leader of the rats) she finally discovers why; she is told the terrible secret of NIMH. In brief, the rats are escapees from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) wherein they were experimental subjects. The drugs given to them granted them both extrordinary intelligence and unnaturally long life. Both the rats and two mice, including Jonathan Brisby, (the other mice were sucked down the institute's air conditioning system during the escape and died on the fans) were thus in the unique and unenviable position of inventing an entire society where none had existed before. Mrs. Brisby has happened upon the rats just as they are entering the final stages of their "plan," a social, utopian ideal proposed by Nicodemus, that the rats should leave the convenience of the Farm, where they live an essentially parasitic existance by stealing electricity and food, and move to the remote Thorn Valley, where they might live by their own efforts and ideals. One rat, name of "Jenner," rejects the ideal as the natterings of an old fool, claiming that the food and electricity is their right, and that they will starve at Thorn Valley. Most, however, see him as the power-hungry "Iago" he is, and ignore his protestations and speeches. When Mrs. Brisby asks for help from the rats, however, Jenner sees an opportunity, and supports the aid granted to the widow of an old comrade.

    As part of the move, Mrs. Brisby volunteers (both in movie and book) to drug the farmer's cat that stormy night, but is subsequently caught and kept for the night as a family pet. She remains trapped during the entire operation to move her house, but overhears the farmer recieve a terrifying call. NIMH has somehow tracked the rats to the farm, and are coming the next day to gas the burrows.

    Jenner, meanwhile, sabotages the rats' rigging of the Brisby home, to deadly effect, and attempts to take over the rats in the resultant mourning.

    The story climax occurrs when Mrs. Brisby arrives with the news, Jenner spots, and makes a grab for Brisby, the other rats realize Jenner's part in the accident, and the Brisby home begins sinking into a cave-in, drowning in the mud and muck of the rainstorm.

    The book and the film part company rather strongly about the time Mrs. Brisby enters the warren. Nearly a third of the book is devoted to the long history of the rats as related by Nicodemus. Buried within this part of the book is a surprising amount of political propaganda, with the rats deciding on a system somewhere between Communism and strict Socialism. (It's less Communistic merely because there is no proletariate revolution, regarded by strict Marxists as essential to the system's development.) Also important is the decision of the rats to live only by their own means, and not from the labor of others. (Not building on the backs of the proletariate.) For them, this means leaving the convenience of the Fitzgerald farm where they had settled, abandoning their elaborate technologics powered by electricity stolen from the farm, and moving to a remote wilderness (agrarian society?) named "Thorn Valley." Of particular note is the story of a rat who rejected this idea and left the colony with a splinter group of the rats long before Mrs. Brisby happened along. This rat was Jenner, and he refused to abandon the machine-progress the rats had accomplished, instead intending to form a "super-science" mechanistic society. Nicodemus learned, long before this story began, that the entire group had been accidentally electrocuted while gathering motors from a hardware store. Wholesale refutation of a "mechanistic society"? In a children's book? I love the way this stuff insinuates itself. The subsequent story does have Mrs. Brisby captured by the Fitzgibbons, and she intercept the call from NIMH. Her home, however, is moved without incident, and the climax of the book occurrs the following day as the rats attempt to flee their home for Thorn Valley while simultaneously convincing NIMH of their extermination. This last sequence is left entirely out of the film, and it is assumed that the rats escape handily to their new home.

    So why is this such a good movie? Sounds like standard kiddie-fare, right? I mean, talking animals, crisis, all well and good at the end, where's the great drama you promised?

    Well, it's in the characters. Character development drives this story to a large degree. Even the minor characters are granted some depth and emotional investment. Jenner's only henchman (here's a quiz for those of you who've seen the film....what was his name? Give up? HE WAS NEVER NAMED. Somehow imbd fished out the name "Sullivan" for him.) is hesitant to engage in Jenner's murderous plot, but goes along with it anyway. When it finally comes down to the moment of truth, he balks...and is cut open by Jenner for his trouble. Lying bleeding in the rain-coursed mud, he manages a final redeeming act with a thrown dagger, and breathes his last. Does that sound even remotely like Disney to you? Then there's Nicodemus's wisened idealism and generosity which proves to be his undoing (Voiced by Derek Jacobi, who you might know as Senator Graccius from "Gladiator," but I will remember as the narrator from Kenneth Brannagh's wonderful 1989 "Henry V", or the title character from "I Claudius"), and the inherent fun-loving nobility of Justin (Peter Strauss....aka Peter Gunn!) the captian of the guard. For those of you who play "six degrees" here's a key link that should save you some distance...Shannon Doherty and Will Wheaton (yeah, that's a young Wesley Crusher you hear there) voice two of Mrs. Brisby's children very early in their careers. The prolific John Carradine voices the imposing, but cripplingly antique "Great Owl."

    Some of these characters get barely a half-dozen lines, but the animation and voice-acting come together so perfectly, that they still appear as fully-realized, carefully-nuanced dramatic persona.
    Even the derided Dom DeLuise puts in a reasonably good performance in the persona of a clumsy, lovestruck crow named Jeremy, the sole source of comedic relief in the film...a position desperately needed to prevent the film collapsing in on itself from the collective weight of the subjects. (Don't worry, he spends the majority of the film either absent or gagged.)

    By far the best, however, is our heroine, Mrs. Brisby. Voiced expertly by Elizabeth Hartman in her last acting job (she tragically took her own life five years and a ruined career later), the character comes out perfectly concieved. (IMO) Devoted utterly to her children, but still timid as a....well...as a mouse, she is desperate to get her family to safety in spite of her own terror at the risks she faces. At the first, she is literally crippled into paralysis by her fear of the terrible inevitability of the plough, despite the knowledge of what it will mean for her family. As the movie continues, she remains ever timid and frightened, but finds the strength to act in spite of it, until she faces the very last moments with calm assurance. In fact, this makes something of a point that I think has been lost in modern storytelling. Courage is defined as action in SPITE of fear. Most of the action movies today attempt to sell us on heros so inconceivably cool that there's never any dobut that THEY at least aren't afraid of the outcome. Where's the courage when you so plainly outclass your opposition? (Perhaps this is another reason I follow horror.) That particular anti-hero's been around for a while (Clint Eastwood, etc.) but not really to the exclusion of the hero represented by Mrs. Brisby here.

    Anyway, there are further nuances to Brisby that don't reveal themselves until you think about them a bit. There's the subtile sadness permeating her character that mourns her lost husband. The hysterical or despondant breakdowns when chance snatches hope from her reach. The catch in her throat when she learns the truth about her husband. And especially her frantic, futile desperation as the rats, knowing they can do nothing, must pull her away from her rapidly sinking home, her children trapped, drowning, inside. The raw emotion thrown about in those final scenes is what always tears me up.

    If you add a bit more thought, her character gathers even more pathos. She mentions at one point that, while she can read a little (Jonathon taught her) the children are better at it than she is. The implication is that the children have inherited the increased intelligence of their father...and likely the increased lifespan as well. Mrs. Brisby is fated to be left behind in every capacity by her children. They will rapidly outstrip her in intelligence and presence while remaining young (as Jonathon would have) while she grows old and dies. She will rapidly be of little use to them as they grow, but this..this salvation..this she can do for them.

    Plain and simple, I guess I just love the story and character construction.

    The animation backs up on a technical level all of the careful nuances of the storyline and voice actors. Watch closely in some of the faster scenes, and you'll notice how well the animals' motions have been animated. The mice scurry in that frantic manner they have when startled, Dragon (the cat) paws and swats the air unproductively in an overweight attempt to reach his prey, and the faltering, piston-like gait of the antique "Great Owl" is perfectly managed. Watch especially for the snapping and blowing cloth and feathers when Mrs. Brisby consents to hitch a ride with Jeremy. Scenes with water animation struck me as superb, although I'd have to defer to more seasoned experts in the field for an honest assesment. The character designs are somewhat simplistic and flat in color with minimal work on shading most of the time, but the limitations of budget had to enter somewhere. This limitation, though, only serves to amplify the impact of those scenes wherein the detail ramps up a notch or two. (Watch Brutus when he confronts Mrs. Brisby. Merely a black silhouette? Watch it in the flashes from his spear.) The motions are a bit cartoony in their flexibility and over-expression, but this effect is lessened by the absence of such effects in the few scenes of the Fitzgibbons. Since we know human expression better than animals, we permit less lattitude from animated humans.

    Finally, a few personal peeves refuted by this film:

    It's NOT A MUSICAL. There's only ONE song, it's not that bad, and there's only half a verse sung in the background of one scene. (The rest plays over the credits.)

    There's NO ROMANTIC LOVE STORY. The frickin' inescapable "boy meets girl" theme (repugnant to an eight-year old's sensibilities) is entirely absent from the main storyline. It is quite plain that the love story was long over at the beginning of the film, and that it ended with Jonathan's death.

    There's NO DUMB SWORDFIGHT. The first time someone leaves themselves open during the fight, they get a few inches (uh...milimeters?) of steel in their belly. ALSO: such a wound doesn't kill immediately.

    "Supposed" problems with the film. (i.e. objections others have raised in the past with which I do not agree.)

    "It didn't follow the book" Well, true. Frankly, I saw the film before I read the book, and honestly they both stand well on their own. Vastly different, but neither needs the other to support the narrative. In short, the movie told a different, but much better suited to the silver screen, story.

    There is what appears to be a small error in the time sequencing of the film. At one point, Brisby is plainly told that she has but a single day to set things right, but the time that passes subsequently is at least two days.

    Sprite animation is at work here, to the extent that you can tell which objects are designed to move and which are part of the background. Again, the limits of a budget have to kick in somewhere. There may or may not be a scaling error from scene to scene with regard to the amulet's size. It's hard to tell when we don't actually live on that scale.

    My personal complaint about the DVD transfer is that it's been formatted to fit the TV, cutting off the ends of the cinematic view. On the other hand, I can't recall that I've ever seen a public release of this movie in letterbox. Also, the reds have a habit of bleeding badly into the surrounding color in scenes where they are in sharp contrast.

    This is the first film I've reviewed here that made me wish for a larger television. The sweeping grandure of the film was somewhat blunted by my tiny screen. (Sigh) You do get the original film ad in the extras, though.

    The most severe criticism, however, stems from the amulet given by Nicodemus to Mrs. Brisby at their first meeting. The object is entirely absent from the book, but serves as a pivotal part of the movie's story. The problem is, is that the gem is magic. There's really no other way to describe it. It glows, imparts power, flies, etc. Nicodemus himself seems inherently magical, as things float about, flaming ink is used to write, and the devices within his lair spark with strange energy, much like a wizard's laboratory. There is no real answer to this challenge, because it is never explained. It is implied to be a sort of extension of the rats' technical achievements, but looking at it logically, that's a silly assertion.

    Which, of course, is the problem. You can't look at this logically, because we aren't intended to fully understand the workings of the rat world. We are supposed to realize that the rats, through their parasitic attachment to the farm, have achieved wonders beyond the ken of other animals. To grant the audience the same impression, they are presented, in the film, with wonders beyond the ken of man. This advance emphasizes the nobility of the rats abandoning it all on a moral principle, and shows us the appeal of Jenner's position.

    But still, the gem? Isn't it just a lame plot device? It plays such a massive part with little beyond a metaphorical explanation, and no story about where it comes from. And those powers! And Jenner's/Jeremy's averice for it! How can you take it seriously?

    They're right, of course. No use denying it. It's a "Deus ex Machina" on a string, and you know what?

    I don't fucking care.

    Because it leads to the final climactic scene. The beautiful, razor-sharpened sequence of utter faith, love, and courage of a mother for her children that always leaves me blubbering like an idiot. Much like the end of Naussicca. The sequence where Brisby pulls the amulet from the air before her I put down as one of the greatest animated scenes EVER. (Tenatively reaching for the stone, she takes ahold of it....and her arms IGNITE.)

    Summary (GASP): A rediscovered childhood favorite of mine. If it was a childhood favorite of yours, hunt it down and watch it. (It only costs $9.95) You won't be disappointed. If it wasn't a childhood favorite of yours, you may or may not like it, but show it to your nieces and nephews (if you don't have kids yourself). This is a great film for anyone who loves animation, fantasy, children's stories, or was ever a kid. I cannot reccommend it highly enough.

    Now that I've spent all this time glowing over this film, I have to issue a warning. There was a sequal. Both to the book and to the film. The book I know nothing about. The film was horrid. Perhaps the most virulent piece of negative entertainment I've ever seen. (Passively-bad films just have nothing to reccomend them. Actively-bad films do things that insult your intelligence, or otherwise make you turn it off/walk out. Negative-entertainment is so horrid it actually sucks the entertainment out of other, related, good entertainment. It makes you wonder why you ever liked horror/sci-fi/animation/anime/comics in the first place. Think of "Cool World" in relation to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit.") They made it into a musical. A musical with really badly written songs. Bad animation. Hideous plot. Just an all-around congregation of bad. Made me forget how much I liked the original. The title is "The Secret of Nimh 2: Timmy to the Rescue." Avoid at all costs. Again, Bluth had nothing to do with it.

    Finally a post-script. While delving through imbd to try and find what Disney title this movie would have been competing with, I tripped over this: Geez, do you think someone should tell Dave?: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0201428 
  • HEY ERMAC 2002-06-12 20:53:54 You gotta complaint about the officiating at AWA, you talk to me. I could care less about interpersonal spats with other people, but if you have legitimate complaints concerning AWA, I want to hear them. Otherwise, keep us outta it. 
previous page next page
Current server time: Jan 11, 2025 02:00:43