JaydoDre

The people making this were thinking "How can we put the smallest amount of effort and money into this? We're not going to shoot on location. We're not going to move the camera. The entire movie will just consist of people looking into a camera and some computer graphics."

I started watching this movie accidentally because I thought it was the TV series. I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes.

They also sucker you into this "movie" because, if you don't read the actor's name and don't look carefully, Ice Cube kind of looks like Jeffrey Wright.

There is a longstanding discussion point within the film community about how much of the narrative should be explained to the viewer, with many arguing that ambiguity is good for creating a bit of mystery and intellectual resonance; that the director should not spell everything out for the public.

The Boy and the Heron arguably pushes this approach too far. Too many actions and words are left unexplained. In the end, it leaves you with a sense of wonder but also an unsatisfactory feeling, as if some of the scenes were cut from the final version. This forces people to analyse and overanalyse that, which isn't there.

The story centres on Mahito, a young boy who loses his mother in a fire during World War II. The father remarries the boy's aunt and moves to their family's old estate, where the boy comes across a mysterious tower and uncovers his family's involvement with it. The work deals with themes of grief, suffering, escapism, family legacy and growing up.

The animation is in Miyazaki's classic style, mixing hand-drawn style and CGI very effectively. Surrealist imagery helps create emotional depth. Miyazaki's trademark high level of detail is here along with the magical vibe found in his earlier masterpieces.

Joe Hisaishi's score is minimalistic but effective. It is deeply emotional, dark and haunting.

In short, The Boy and the Heron takes you on an emotional dreamlike adventure, but it expects you to get on board without asking any questions, and then leave when the ride is over, even though your head is still riddled with questions.

Mr. Fogg is an ***hole. The book just makes him appear punctual rather than a caricature of fussy and smug British man, the kind you would come across in American cartoons.

This film is an audio-visual spectacle. The story takes you across the globe, and the filmmakers fully embrace this premise, showing off a variety of places, people and events associated with a particular location. From the lush baroque posh halls of Britain to the Indian jungle to Japan, you accompany Mr. Fogg like you're on a lavish vacation from the comfort of your couch. The shots emphasize perspective, featuring arches and colonnades.

The camera has a very wide angle, giving an almost constant fisheye lens effect, which makes the whole affair dreamy and was perhaps meant to simulates the roundness of the globe. Either way, the film has a fairly peculiar visual style as a result of it. The music is loud and bombastic, and of course, each country visited offers something different. The combination of a wide angle lens, racing comedic music and foreign visuals creates an atmosphere reminiscent of a circus or a carnival.

As you might expect, this film is built like a video vacation. You'd expect much of the movie to be filmed on a set or in the English countryside, but the production was actually shot in various countries, including Thailand and Mexico. Clearly an effort was made to bring real costumes and people of various races and languages to the screen.

However, this is also the main weakness of this film. It is just a travel show, or rather a conglomeration of several travel shows. The main characters move from one situation to the other, something stereotypical happens and then they move on. The story is an afterthought, only serving to set up the next display. There is a 5 or 10 minute matador show, which somehow manages to get boring. Imagine watching a camera view of bullfighting (no animas hurt) from the stands...on a small screen.

As for the two main characters, once established, they do not offer much new. They do crazy stuff alright and stuff happens to them, but there is no exposure or growth of character.

Passepartout is played by Mexican Charlie Chaplin-like fellow by the name of Mario Moreno, who without a doubt, knows his stuff, but whose acting seems to suffer, possibly due to his struggle with the English language.

This film is a rich tapestry of the charming and the tedious, the visually impressive and the narratively shallow. Some acting is good and some average. There are good stunts and silly looking ones. T's a warm, feel-good adventure at times, but the disjointed, meandering structure makes it difficult to stay engaged. I question its Academy Award. Must have been a slow year...