Posted by Cathy on April 05, 2000 at 21:57:24:
In Reply to: NY Times looks at entertainment websites posted by warnwood on April 05, 2000 at 15:46:28:
Even I, while wholeheartedly admiring the high standards of quality evident in a film like "El Dorado," must admit that the lavish amounts of money and astonishing talent involved in the project left me wondering why the story and characterizations were so poor. I know it wasn't the "below the line" artists fault. It felt like it was committeed to death. Please understand that I wish it the best, and I CAN see the good things in it. But should it not do well, it will only reflect poorly from the business end. I'm divided. While I wish it would do better, part of me is glad that it was reviewed without the usual double-standard reviewers accord towards animated films ("diverting for families"). Virtually unanimous in the reviews were the citings of weak central theme and wandering purpose. Reminds me of early '70's Disney films (Aristocats comes to mind)--where the amazing animation fooled some people into believing there was a story. Everyone knows the technique is around nowadays--and the artists to produce it. But where is the storytelling skill and the panache' of a singular point of view (ala Iron Giant)? It just stinks to see so much great work on the screen struggling to find a coherant story. I've seen the film 2 times now (and will see it a third in my quest to understand it)--but I wonder what happened...
Post a Followup