Cool World

As an animator, I have a thing for movies where real people and cartoons collide, so I decided to watch this film and after wards I thought it was a really good movie. First off, the animation is great. The characters are likable and fun to see on screen, and the whole idea of the movie is interesting. Though some of the acting is bad, and the plot isn't fully explained, and the ending is a little anti-climactic, the rest of the film makes up for it. I also enjoyed the sub-plot of the film, and Holli Would's dancing (thought it was obviously rotoscoped). But overall I really do believe this is an underrated film, because it contains the sexiest cartoon ever made: Holli Would. I'd recommend this film to a friend, and watch it the second time. It really is a film you'd remembered.

I love this movie. It's so incredibly creative and interesting, and I love how fearless it is. Sure, it could be better, but I'm not going to complain because I know it already took so much thought and creativity as it is to get to where it got. Not surprising that most people didn't like it, it takes a very mature mind to be able to see what's actually really cool, interesting, and fun about it. No wonder it's a cult classic.

This is my review of director Ralph Bakshi's 1992 live action/animated film, "Cool World." In contrast to everyone else's opinions about this movie, I have to say that to me,"Cool World" is a half-good, half-bad film. There are elements in it that truly do rock, but there are other elements to it that truly do suck. One part about it that's awesome is the animation; sure it doesn't look 100% convincing combined with the live actors, sure there are WAY TOO MANY DOODLES that do absolutely NOTHING for the progression of the poorly-laid out plot, but I do think that all of the animated characters were drawn and colored really well, and the way they were animated is one of the good things other people DO praise this movie for because the hand-drawn visuals really do look great.

About Kim Basinger's performance as Holli Would; she did a pretty good job voicing her, I have to say that I was (and still am) impressed with how good Kim's voice-acting was. Yet, when she played the noid Holli,Kim really lagged. I think she was trying to portray how an animated character that's become flesh-and-blood behaves in trying to adjust to life in the real world, but when I watched the movie, the real-Holli performance out of Kim was not convincing at all. Gabriel Byrne's character of Jack Deebs was supposed to be THE main protagonist in the movie, but he was the least developed main character in the history of main characters in film. Brad Pitt (as Frank Harris) was the only actor out of the whole cast who truly DID act. He actually did a pretty good job at portraying this man whose life turned tragic (you'll have to see the beginning of the movie to know what I mean) and how the real world didn't feel real to him anymore, but Cool World did.

"Cool World" has so many great storytelling/plot elements to it that are either hardly ever explained in the film or just not explained at all. One of these full-of-holes plot elements that isn't explained in full are the mechanics as to how sex between a noid and a doodle ruptures the inter-dimensional fabric between Cool World and the real world (and how noids can spontaneously turn into doodles when both worlds collide). Another one is how the "Spike of Power" artifact really works as far as opening up a portal between both worlds and how it gives noids and doodles the ability to teleport back and forth between them. One more missing plot element: Jack Deebs's whole story. We know that he's been sent to prison for a crime of passion (again, see the movie to find out what I'm talking about), but that part right there could have been elaborated on more. And how exactly DID he get visions of Cool World in order to create a comic book series about it? How exactly was Holli repeatedly bringing Jack there and misleading him to thinking that he's getting visions/dreaming about Cool World? These things really need(ed) to be explained in full, NOT in pieces.

All in all, I don't think "Cool World" is a terrible movie at all. It is a good, entertaining movie, but one that's full of holes and only partially complete. Since I see things in this film that need to come out more as far as plot and character development. I seriously hope that there will be a remake of this film sometime in the (hopefully) not to distant future. A remake of a "bad" movie like "Cool World" (doesn't matter when exactly) can actually "save" the film so to speak by making the plot and characters of the original much, much better. For example, the 1986 fantasy film "Troll," directed by John Carl Buechler, opened to mostly negative critical response when it first came out, yet, Mr. Buechler IS remaking it for a theatrical release later in 2012. Another example is the 2003 live action "The Cat in the Hat," which got enormous negative response when it premiered. Now, the studio that made "The Lorax" is planning on doing a CGI remake of "The Cat in the Hat." And often, a remake of a "bad" movie fares a lot better (financially and critically) than the original. That is why "Cool World" is an excellent candidate for a remake because there are a lot of missing pieces to it that can be filled in, can be explained, the characters can still be developed in full, and that will make sense out of the story.

'Cool World' has the Ralph Bakshi touch which Robert Crumb described as 'everything this guy does comes out kinda half-baked'. There's a bunch of good animation as well as some less proficient work thrown into what was supposed to be a darker, sleazier Roger Rabbit movie. 'Cool World' is a complete shambles - but you get a good laugh towards the end of the film where the production must have run out of money: A 'transformation' effect is shown by rapidly turning the lights on and off inside a house. How's that for a Special FX. A point to note is that the film stars a young Brad Pitt (trying to work out where the hell the animated characters are going to be placed) and Kim Basinger (not looking at all her best in the poor lighting).

A mixed bag, to be sure, but not (at least in my opinion) the disaster that's widely believed to be. The story may be weak and the technology sometimes flawed, but there is one thing you can't accuse Ralph Bakshi of, and that is a shortage of imagination and creativity. The screen is filled with mostly enjoyable throwaway characters and gags, and even though the film keeps changing tones rapidly (from "slapsticky" to erotic to sad), it doesn't lose your attention. Neither does Kim Basinger, at her most gorgeous here. (**1/2)