Mundo Proibido

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 is known, by those few who may be aware of its existence, as the 'other' film in which live action characters inhabit the same realm as cartoons. The more famous one of course is Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a glorious gem of a film that gets the acclaim, notoriety and long lasting attention, as it well should. (We won't speak of a third one involving a certain moose and squirrel that really does earn it's bad rap). Cool World is somewhat maligned as the black sheep of the two, and in some people's eyes (Ebert laid a stern smackdown on it) downright hated on. It's no doubt very different from Roger Rabbit, which is admittedly the better film and the easier one to like and relate to. But this one is brilliant in its own right, at least for me. I love the way it uses a sombre tone with its human creations to throw a unique light on them as soon as the Toons show up. It's quaint and wonderfully inaccessible, with some scenes existing purely of a need to showcase a stream of consciousness type style that doesn't so much halt the proceedings, as give them their own surreal flavor. Brad Pitt is Frank Harris, victim of a jarring post war tragedy and thrown headlong into the cartoon world, eventually finding himself a Detective in their realm. Outside in our world, lonely cartoonist Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne is a sly choice for the role) falls in love with one of his creations, a blonde bombshell named Holli Would (voiced and later played in the flesh by Kim Basinger). Holli is as devious as she is gorgeous, and works to use Jack's attraction to her as a conduit to escape into our world. Pretty soon a deafening cacophany of cartoon creatures in all shapes, sizes and colours floods out of their dimension and into ours, creating quite the cosmic mess for Pitt to clean up. It's fun without being too zany, the overblown fuss of the Toons contrasted by a glum human world, reeling from the war and unexpecting of such an event to unfold. Granted, the meshing of the two dimensions isn't given the precise, big budget fanfare and cutting edge methods of Roger Rabbit, but the world building and special effects here are still pure enchantment and offer a dazzling level of entertainment. Pitt is stoic with flinty sparks of boyish charm, Byrne hilariously plays it dead straight, and Basinger is dead friggin sexy. She steals the show especially as Holli in human form, having a ball with the bubbly bimbo trying to keep a straight face in the real world. The Toons in general really are a diverse bunch, ranging from animals to inanimate objects to tiny little formless cutesy blobs and everything in between, filling their frames with a chaotic, detailed miasma worthy of Studio Ghibli. Lot of hate floating around for this one. You won't find any from me, I love the film, and accept it for the adult friendly, experimental oddity it is. Great stuff.

Animated films and cartoons have always been looked upon as an art form that caters primarily to a younger audience. Though this may be an unfair assessment to make, it is a logical one, since the child-friendly Walt Disney Company has dominated the animated film industry right from its inception after introducing the world to Mickey Mouse in 1928. After that, there has only been a handful of daring artists who have tried to disengage the squeaky-clean stereotype that animated films had since been branded with. Ralph Bakshi was such a man.

In 1972, Bakshi wrote and directed FRITZ THE CAT, a full-length animated feature film that touted a self-imposed X-rating and worldwide critical acclaim. Exactly twenty years later, Bakshi would go on to direct COOL WORLD, his sixth and most recent adult-oriented animated film to date.

On its own, the artwork and animation in COOL WORLD is excellent. The girls are sexy, the villains are ugly, and the backdrops have a surreal, almost psychedelic quality to them. The use of rotoscoping (still a relatively new technology at the time) to fluidly illustrate some of the more complex human movements was a wise choice, making the animated `Doodles' seem all the more lifelike. The animators went to great lengths to make their characters' interactions with live actors and actual scenery seem genuine. Many subtle touches, like the cartoons casting real shadows in the Humanoid world, and the direct eye contact between the Noids and the Doodles, were added to enhance the believability of these otherwise unbelievable situations.

Still, despite the great animation and the artists' valiant efforts at making the two-dimensional animation intermingle with our three-dimensional universe, the movie's visuals, while very impressive, are ultimately ineffectual. No matter how well these images are drawn, their lack of depth makes the contact with the live actors seem awkward and even distracting at times. Granted, they did the best they could at combining two very different mediums, but no amount of detail can shake the feeling that you're merely watching a 2-D overlay atop of a 3-D film, rather than 2-D characters within a 3-D film as was intended.

The high point of the film, I think, was Kim Basinger's portrayal of Holli Would as she fervently attempts to adjust to Humanoid life. Basinger is suitably perky as the deviant Miss Would, and did an outstanding job emulating the actions and mannerisms of her cartoon counterpart. Basinger succeeds at making Holli's reactions to the Las Vegas public both hilarious and embarrassing for the viewer, a feat which is probably not easy to pull off.

Gabriel Byrne's performance as Jack Deebs is another example of fine acting in this film. Byrne's character, although probably not as scared or confused by his predicament as he should have been, is portrayed convincingly, and there's enough of a well-developed backstory to accept his antisocial attitude and somewhat pessimistic outlook on life. Byrne also handles Deebs's gradual transition from calm and collected to a state of panic and exasperation exceptionally well, and his sheepishness as he futilely attempts to disassociate himself with Holli and her embarrassingly eccentric behavior is another high point in the film.

Brad Pitt plays his role as Detective Frank Harris in typical Pitt fashion. This is not to say he did a bad job, but his performances tend to be bland and unmemorable, and this movie is no exception. Even as early as 1992, the year COOL WORLD was released, we've already seen Pitt play the same no-nonsense `tough guy' character in a half-dozen or so other films, and he doesn't exactly add any kind of flair to make this role distinguishable from his others.

COOL WORLD's plot, although thin, is exciting and very original. The pacing is lightning fast, constantly jarring the viewer with over-the-top cartoon sight gags and playful innuendos. There are chase scenes, fight scenes, sex scenes, and death scenes; all seemingly back to back, and all set to an awesome adrenalin-pumping techno soundtrack. From the opening title to the closing credits, COOL WORLD plays out like a cinematic roller coaster.

However, as exciting as the movie was, I couldn't help feeling gypped after finally seeing it. COOL WORLD, although undoubtedly a clever picture, lacks the social themes and political commentary (as well as the bold, overt explicitness) that Ralph Bakshi is famous for. In FRITZ THE CAT, Bakshi takes jabs at a wide variety of hot-button issues and events that were controversial at the time, such as the Black Panthers, the alarming rise of police brutality, and the hippie movement. Cool World, at least from my own personal interpretation, is devoid of any kind of theme or commentary whatsoever.

Overall, COOL WORLD doesn't really do anything that hasn't been done before. We've already seen adult-oriented animation in FRITZ THE CAT. We've already seen the `cartoon/reality crossover' in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. And we've already witnessed rotoscoped animation in Bakshi's own THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But just because it isn't groundbreaking does not mean it isn't entertaining. When it comes to action, excitement, and eye candy, COOL WORLD definitely delivers the goods.