Turok, Son of Stone(face)

Real quick. When I say "native americans" what's the first thing that comes to mind? If your answer was "dinosaurs" then you're either a hardcore creationist, or you just finished watching Turok, Son of Stone. Based on the Gold Key comic book character from the 1960s, Turok answers the age old question "Who would win in a fight between Geronimo and a T-rex?" (something we've all spent sleepless nights pondering). All kidding aside though, this DTV actually surprised me, first by not sucking, secondly because it was exceptionally violent.

Released in 2008, I was initially skeptical of turning Turok into an animated film. Not only is the franchise unproven, but the concept of stranded humans having to survive in a land of prehistoric creatures has become ... well its gotten tired and corny (or as the native americans call it, maizey). I was also concerned that the story would try and incorporate some of the video game and Valiant comic book ideas like exploding arrows and hi-tech bows, concepts that just don't appeal to me. So I steered clear of the film for about two years never willing to go out of my way to see it. Eventually the chance to buy Turok at a ridiculously low price came about and I finally decided to give it a shot. Fortunately for me the story of Turok stayed closer to its 1960s roots - and far away from the aforementioned video game stuff - while at the same time delving deeper than just the obvious theme of "man versus beast". It's actually more "man versus man", with a little "man versus himself" thrown in for good measure.

The story of Turok is a little difficult to explain so I'm going to try and summarize the basic conflicts of the film instead. At the start of the movie we are introduced to a teenage Turok who - along with his brother - is frolicking peacefully by a stream and trying to catch the eye of a young woman named Catori. This innocent scene is interrupted by three warriors from another tribe who - upon orders from their chief - attack the youngsters. Despite his youth, Turok's inborn "killer instinct" is awoken during the life or death struggle and he kills not only the opposing warriors, but their chief as well. Unfortunately the blood-lust from this battle also leads Turok to grievously wound his own brother, a crime for which he is banished. Sixteen years later Chichak - the son of the chief killed by Turok - has gathered together a large war party to attack Turok's former tribe and thus enact vengeance for his fathers death. Leading Turok's people is his brother - who went on to marry Catori and father a son Andar - but Chichak's superior numbers and equipment prove too much for them and they are destroyed. After that it becomes a chase by Turok and Andar to catch Chichak who has kidnapped Catori. Before long this pursuit leads to a standoff in a cave where all four participants stumble into a "lost world" full of ancient creatures who want nothing more than to eat them. And that's basically it, Turok and Chichak keep trying to kill each other, both find allies and lots of people die.

What I liked about the writing of Turok, Son of Stone was that the conflict from the first act of the film carries over throughout the rest of the story. I could have easily imaged the setup just leading to the "lost land" and an entirely new story of survival taking over. The fact that the animosity between Turok and Chichak is so intense that it continues to thrive - even when faced with unimaginable danger - was much more convincing than your average "let's set aside our differences for now" schtick seen so often in movies like this. I also enjoyed Turok's inner struggle with darkness. Being a natural born killer, Turok no longer feels worthy, or even able to live amongst other humans. Making matters worse is the fact that death and destruction seem to follow Turok wherever he goes.

Though both of these story elements do work nicely, there are some problems with them as well. For one thing the conflict between Chichak and Turok follows the same pattern in all three acts of the film. Again and again Chichak attacks those close to Turok in a manner that - by the end of the film - feels formulaic and repetitive. This was especially disappointing in the third act because the climax would have been much more effective had the writer chosen to add a little twist, something like Chichak's final assault stumbling into a trap set by his prey, or perhaps Turok stops Chichak before he can hurt anyone else for once. Instead the whole thing just plays out in a predictable bloodbath. As for Turok's "darkness" it may work well as an internal obstacle to overcome but it also makes him too outwardly stoic, so much so that the title "Son of Stone" should probably be changed to "Face of Stone". What I'm trying to say is that Turok needs a little warming up, just a couple of moments where we can see he's more than a killing machine - a smile here and there or a suppressed laugh - unfortunately he spends the whole film perpetually scowling at any and everything.

Overall I think the story for Turok, Son of Stone works relatively well. There are certainly flaws - and none of the themes are original or clever - but given the source material the movie exceeded my expectations. I also commend the decision to not shy away from blood, even if the film goes a little overboard with it. It's always frustrating to watch western produced animation try and tone down weapons and subject matter that are - by their own nature - violent so that they can get a PG (or even G) rating. Action-adventure cartoons from the 1980s were especially bad about this with shows featuring elite soldiers - who can't shoot anyone - and sword wielding cat-people - who can't cut anyone - being the norm. Sure, the brutality could've been less severe in Turok, but if you're going to get a mature rating you might as well go all-in.

The visuals of Turok are your standard DTV fare. Better than the average TV action-adventure cartoon, but not feature film quality. Still, the animation is smooth, character designs good and the backgrounds nicely detailed, so I wasn't disappointed with what I saw. While this production quality is certainly solid it unfortunately lacks ambition. Yes, the character designs look good, but they're also interchangeable with a dozen other action-adventure cartoons. This homogenized look is actually becoming a bit of a problem these days with far too many productions falling back on the streamlined style made popular by DC's superhero shows. Sure, it looks nice and it's safe, but if you want to really create something special you need to make your own mark.

As for the animation itself, my only complaint was with the use of slow motion. A large number of battle sequences - especially early on - used slow-mo to emphasize the action, unfortunately the effect doesn't really work all that well and whatever drama the film was trying to convey falls flat. True, slow motion is a difficult thing to do in animation, but that's why you need to apply it both carefully and sparingly, instead the film abuses it the same way live action films abuse bullet time effects. Outside of those two complaints I thought that Turok looked really good, though not as high end as some of the DC and Marvel titles, the film definitely meets the standards expected from modern day DTV releases. Not exactly resounding praise I know, but I'm taking a lot for granted when it comes to made for video animation these days, the fact that Turok's production quality can hold its own in such a competitive market is a good thing.

The voice acting and music from Turok, Son of Stone is respectable all around. Nothing really jumped out at me, positive or negative, so I'm not going to go into any real detail. Sufficed to say that, once again, Turok provides solid performances worthy of the both the medium and the genre they inhabit.

I know that it only sounds like I'm giving Turok passing marks here, but honestly that's more than I expected. I really thought the film's plot would be typically tame with subpar or even TV quality animation and I definitely didn't think it would have any teeth. Instead Turok gave me an engaging story, solid visuals and fully embraced its subject matter in a way that few do in western animation. Because the film held itself to a higher standard, I was forced to do the same (in a good way). Of course, if I'd I known that Curt Geda, Dan Riba and Tad Stone where involved with the film I would have watched it a long time ago. A very respectable movie all around, I would at least recommend that you rent Turok, Son of Stone (keeping in mind that it is a minimum PG-13 and very violent, so no children).

Cartoon parody lovers rejoice, you face the Tick!

Satirical action-adventure cartoons have become relatively commonplace these days. Shows like Archer, the Venture Brothers, Sealab 2020, Titan Maximum and others continue to make a name for themselves by poking fun at the illogical, formulaic and ridiculous nature of the genre. Though these shows stand well enough on their own merits, these adult themed cartoons do owe a lot to the lampooning trailblazers who came before them, most notably The Tick.

The Tick was created by Ben Edlund and started life as an independently published comic book in 1988. The book featured an intellectually challenged protagonist called the Tick who - despite being well intentioned - was catastrophically clueless. This amusing parody of various superhero comics was further enhanced by the Tick's knack for causing massive amounts of property damage and his penchant for rambling, nonsensical speeches regarding life and the nature of good and evil. Due to the multimedia success of another independent comic - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - people began approaching Edlund with the idea of bringing his big blue hero to animation in the late 80's and early 90's. Premiering in 1994 The Tick would go on to become a modest success running three seasons and 36 episodes before its end in 1996. Despite never becoming a merchandising juggernaut like TMNT, the Tick did maintain something the "heroes in a half-shell" couldn't, creative integrity. Amusingly bizarre, insanely clever and chock full of great characters, the Tick is one of the greatest cartoon superhero parodies ever made.

The fact that the Tick was able to stay true to his satirical roots wasn't an accident by any means. Creator Ben Edlund was not only very involved in the show, he was waist deep in it from beginning to end. Serving as both the primary writer and co-producer of the series, Edlund's tireless efforts to make the Tick work in animation are a big reason the show has aged as well as it has. As for the writing itself, it employees various forms of humor when poking fun of the superhero genre. From outlandish ideas like paleontologist Dinosaur Neil accidentally turning himself into a godzilla-like creature, to everyday concerns like Author (the Ticks sidekick) getting angry with the Tick for charging an overabundance of crime fighting equipment to his credit card, the show likes to explore both the practical and zany aspects of superhero life. Though Freakazoid would go on to be far zanier and Venture Bros. has mastered the art of applying everyday life to people who are anything but ordinary, I'm hard pressed to think of any cartoon that balances the two as well as the Tick. Having said all that, I must admit that the humor of the series doesn't produce enough "laugh out loud" moments, especially in the first season. I smiled a lot and chuckled quite a bit, but despite the hilarious premises I often found the jokes lacked a certain "punch" necessary to leave me in stitches. Seasons two and three are definitely better with some episodes like "Armless but not Harmless" and "Coach Fussell's Lament" hitting on all cylinders. Overall though I wish the show had made me laugh a little more.

One area the Tick doesn't come up short in is quality characters. The cast of this show is huge, amazing when you consider it was only 36 episodes in length. Some of my favorites include: the suave yet cowardly Die Fledermaus, rain-man sound alike Sewer Urchin, shoe throwing patriot American Maid, the maniacal Chairface Chippendale (whose head is literally a chair), the Mad Bomber what Bombs at Midnight and geriatric villain the Terror. All of these characters - and more - make wonderful parodies with subtle and not so subtle character quirks. Personally I thought American Maid was a riot. She's a strong, independent and capable woman who can take charge of dangerous situations and commands the respect of her peers. Yet she chooses the guise of a maid (which is neither patriotic or authoritative) and throws high-heeled shoes at her opponents, there's just something hilariously ironic about that. The enormous creativity and shear number of characters found in the Tick is staggering, outside of the Simpsons I can't think of any other show featuring a cast this large and unique.

Another unique - but mostly under appreciated - aspect of the Tick would be its attention to detail. Often times cartoons will say or do things in one story then completely ignore them in later episodes. Things like Peter Griffin losing his job in Family Guy but then having that same job in the very next episode (heck, the show even joked about the fact they were going to do it in the Black Knight story). This practice has become pretty standard but I've always felt it was a little lazy. By contrast the Tick not only respects its own continuity, the show goes the extra mile to bring back little easter eggs for loyal viewers to enjoy. One example can be found in season two when several heroes are forced to hitch a ride with El Seed's truck driving trees who escaped capture in season one. Another would be when the Tick travels into space in season two and Yank (an astronaut monkey who temporarily gained super intelligence in season one and was subsequently put in charge or NASA) is in the command center during lift off. The most impressive thing has to be the moon though. In season one Chairface Chippendale carves the first three letters of his name (CHA) into the moon with a giant laser, those same letters appear every time the moon is shown until the Tick uses explosives to fill-in the "C" early in season two. During that same episode however, the planet eating giant Omnipotus (a Galactus spoof) takes a large bite out of the moon to help curb his appetite, so now we have a big chunk missing from the moon with the letters "HA" still carved into it. While this is - in and of itself - very funny, what I find most impressive is how the series never fails to consistently show this lunar defacing throughout the remaining episodes, even at the end you can still see the letters "HA" right next to a big bite in the moon. Like I said, great attention to detail.

Visually the Tick was an excellent series, even if the animation was sometimes unspectacular. The show probably looked best early on with some episodes - like Dinosaur Neil - being exceptional. As the series moved along though, the animation became more pedestrian and less ambitious. Still, the character models were consistent and the movement fluid so I don't have anything really "bad" to say about it. Backgrounds are likewise pleasant, if not impressive.

On a more positive note, character designs from the Tick are great. Outside of Author and the Tick himself I don't know how many costumes stemmed from the comic book source material, but regardless I thought both the hero and villain designs had just the right amount of "whacky" necessary to support the show's tone. Overall the Tick's visuals have held up relatively well given the show's age (hard to believe its been 16 years), they're definitely better than Saban's 1990's shows (I'm looking at you X-men), but nowhere near as good as the Bruce Timm's Batman and Superman cartoons.

From a voice acting standpoint the Tick is nearly perfect. With a plethora of actors - almost as large as the cartoon cast itself - the show never fails to produce distinct voices for all of its characters. The most important of these is - of course - the Tick who receives the services of veteran actor Townsend Coleman. Coleman IS the Tick as far as I'm concerned, his ability to belt out heroic ultimatums, nonsensical metaphors and bizarre battle cries (Spoooooooon!) is unbeatable. Other talented veterans like Jim Cummings, Maurice LaMarche, Jess Harnell and Rob Paulsen get to strut their stuff as well. The one downside in this department is that some of the shows voices change during the course of the series. The only one that really bothered me was Author being that he's one of two main characters. Micky Dolenz (of Monkeys fame) provides the voice of Author in season one with Rob Paulsen taking over in seasons two and three. Though both actors do an excellent job, it bums me out to see the break in continuity, especially when the show took such pride in being consistent with its presentation. Still, the change took very little getting used to and doesn't really diminish the show.

The Tick is an easy recommendation. The show has aged exceptionally thanks to its immensely talented and dedicated creators, the characters continue to be brilliant - even some 16 years later - and the series helped pave the way for much of the great action-adventure satire we enjoy today. Both accessible and appropriate for all ages, the only people who shouldn't watch this series are people who hate any and everything to do with superheroes. Unfortunately the DVD releases for this show have some problems. Let's start with the obvious. Only the first two seasons of the Tick are available in the US (season three did not get released here for some reason) and they don't have any special features. Worse still, the season one set clearly had authoring problems because the video is not good, especially the Proto-clown episode which looked nothing short of awful. Even MORE worse is the fact that both seasons one and two are each missing an episode (apparently there were copyright issues) including the great Omnipotus story. I believe that the entire series was properly released in the UK, but that doesn't do North American residents much good. So if you want to take my advice and watch this show you'll probably be in for a little bit of a hassle, luckily the Tick is well worth the effort.

Tales of Earthsea - the folly of Ghibli and Goro

I've always found legacy intriguing, or to be more specific, the struggle to live up to legacy. Whether it's a child trying to surpass the greatness of a parent, or a younger sibling seeking to eclipse an older brother or sister, for some reason I find the struggle to exceed ones predecessor riveting (even though I've never experienced it in my own life). Sometimes the story plays out in favor of the youth (Ken Griffey Jr. was a far better baseball player than his father Ken Griffey Sr.), other times the rivalry is a draw (Serena and Venus Williams are both great tennis players), more often than not though the struggle to live up to legacy ends in failure.

Hayao Miyazaki is a legendary filmmaker, if there were a Mount Rushmore of great animators Hayao Miyazaki would not only be one of the faces carved into it, his visage would be sitting right next to Walt Disney himself. Now imagine being Hayao's son Goro Miyazaki. For Goro to even attempt to work in the world of animation is a massive burden (which explains why he spent much of his life working as a landscape architect), the constant comparison to his father, good and bad, would make almost anybody uncomfortable and the desire to prove oneself inevitable. While working as a storyboard artist for Studio Ghibli's film Tales of Earthsea, Goro was unexpectedly offered the opportunity to direct the project. Given his lack of experience (Goro had never directed before) one would hope that Goro could see the folly of accepting such a difficult position, unfortunately he didn't.

Hayao Miyazaki was not pleased with his sons decision to helm Tales of Earthsea, he felt that Goro lacked the experience needed to make such an epic film and the two stopped speaking during production. Unfortunately for Goro his fathers concerns turned out to be correct as the film clearly exhibits numerous first time director struggles. This sentiment of inexperience would be echoed by numerous critics as Tales of Earthsea went on to receive very mixed reviews. At the end of the year the film was given the dubious honor of receiving Bunshun's Raspberry Award for "Worst Picture", Goro was also given the "Worst Director" Raspberry. Though Goro's linage undoubtedly played a large roll in the films excessive criticism, Tales of Earthsea ended up being exactly what Hayao feared, an ambitious but ultimately flawed movie directed by a man unprepared to shoulder such responsibility.

The story for Tales of Earthsea was loosely based on the Earthsea novels written by Ursula K. Le Guin. The films beginning is actually pretty engaging with the young Prince Arren - one of the stories main characters - committing a horrible crime and fleeing his kingdom. Now on the run, Arren crosses paths with Sparrowhawk, the Archmage of Earthsea who's trying to locate the source of Earthsea's imbalance (apparently the land is riddled with plague and pestilence). The two strangers soon find themselves traveling together and before long they arrive at Hortown, a city where slavery is legal and human life can be bought and sold. While wandering the city Arren encounters slavers trying to capture a girl his own age, Arren intervenes and saves the girl - whose name is Therru - but she isn't exactly grateful and scolds Arren for saying he doesn't care about life. Soon thereafter Sparrowhawk and Arren take up residence at a farm run by an old friend of Sparrowhawks, Teran. Guess who else lives on the farm? That's right Therru. About this time we are introduced to the films villain, the evil wizard Cob. Cob is obsessed with finding the secret to immortality and is responsible for much of the slavery found in Hortown, he also carries a pretty big grudge against Sparrowhawk. The rest of the movie deals with Arren and Therru's budding friendship, Arren's inner demons and, of course, the final confrontation with Cob. All in all it's not that bad of a story, it just not executed quite right.

The writing of Earthsea has its good and bad points. On the good side I liked the theme of mortality used throughout the film. As humans we are the only creatures on earth who are aware of our own eventual demise, naturally there is a lot of fear and desperation associated with that knowledge. Using this kind of relatable subject as motivation for Cob and Arren was a good call. Philosophical ideas about the gift of knowledge and being afraid to live your life to the fullest versus being afraid of death are also well used and bring the mortality theme full circle. Unfortunately the film confuses itself by introducing the idea of balance with nature. Not only does this subject take away from the movies central theme, it's been done far better by Hayao Miyazaki himself in films like the Princess Mononoke. What exactly are you trying to make here Goro, your movie or your father's movie?

This brings up another problem with the story, Sparrowhawks quest. Sparrowhawk is supposed to be investigating the imbalance of nature in Earthsea, but truth be told the film never really tells us what the hell that imbalance was. Did it have something to do with Cob? Was it related to the Dragons? Has the problem even been solved? I don't know, and that's not a good thing. Speaking of Dragons, Earthsea uses the mythical creatures several times but fails to properly convey their importance, this is especially bad when you consider the movies ending. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that having a climatic twist like the one found in this film needs a lot more setup, otherwise the whole thing comes off as random (which it does in this film). Ultimately the story of Earthsea is just too erratic and the narrative suffers for it. Some ideas are good, others are bad, some are underdeveloped, others are superfluous. In short, the film has some solid concepts but still falls into all the trappings you would expect from an inexperienced director who's trying too hard.

Though aesthetically pleasing (generally speaking) Tales of Earthsea also suffers numerous visual shortcomings. For one the character designs are just too Hayao Miyazaki. Yes, Studio Ghibli has a certain look and it would be unfair of me to call out Goro for something that is common practice. When I say the characters are "too Hayao Miyazaki" though I'm not just talking about the overall style, I'm saying that far too many of the characters look like they were pulled right out of a Hayao Miyazaki film. Cobs first officer, the man who tries to sell Arren narcotics, even the villainous Cob himself look near identical to characters from Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind, Princess Mononoke and Howl's Moving Castle. I have no idea if this was meant as an homage by Goro to his father, laziness or something else entirely, but given Goro's situation he would have been much better off avoiding anything that remotely resembled his fathers work. To be fair a lot of the blame for this has to go to Studio Ghibli, their misguided effort to push Goro into his fathers shoes was immensely foolish. You can't recreate the magic Hayao Miyazaki founded your studio with by slapping the name Miyazaki on a film and aping the style he uses, doing so was unfair to Goro and reeked of desperation.

Another problem with the films visuals is the lack of detail in Earthsea's backgrounds. Though Tales of Earthsea holds its own fine when compared to most animated movies, the fact that this is a Studio Ghibli production means a higher standard must be met. When you watch a Ghibli film - especially one that stylistically apes Hayao Miyazaki - you expect to be visually blown away. Backgrounds should be insanely detailed, cityscapes meticulous and landscapes epic. While Earthsea tries to live up to these expectation the film just doesn't quite get there. Take Hortown for example. The city is well designed but the brush strokes are just too broad and impressionistic, every time I expected to see a beautifully rendered window sill I got big blocks of color. Interior sections, like Cobs study, should have been jammed full of wizard-like clutter (beakers, books, jars), instead they're practically barren. If I thought this lack of eye-candy was a deliberate attempt to distance the film from Hayao Miyazaki I would be much more forgiving, given the character design situation however this is obviously not the case. This movie is clearly trying to evoke a Miyazaki sensibility and because of that the backgrounds should have been much more intricate and ambitious, instead the whole thing just looks like a lower budget cinematic clone of Hayao Miyazaki's work.

At this time I'm going to pull back and try to focus on some positive things about Tales of Earthsea, after all the movie isn't that bad and I didn't set out to write a damning review. One thing that Tales of Earthsea handles well is action. Battle sequences are all nicely staged, energetic and beautifully animated. CGI is also very good with various lighting effects actually enhancing the film instead of detracting from it. I already mentioned that the stories beginning is engaging but I feel that the point bares repeating. I don't want to reveal what happens, so lets just say that Prince Arren commits an unforgivable crime at the start of the story and flees his kingdom as a result of it. What I like about this is that the mystery behind Arren's motivation keeps you entrenched in the story. Though the possibility to simply dislike Arren exists, the film makes a point to not only show the princes darkness but his goodness as well. This duality keeps you interested in the character as you repeatedly ask yourself how someone with such a kind heart could possibly do something so deplorable. Unfortunately the resolution to this mystery is a little ambiguous and not particularly satisfying, but I still liked the idea and found myself riveted by it for a short while.

At the end of the day Tales of Earthsea is indeed a very flawed film. Does it deserve to be called "Worst movie of 2006"? No, I've seen plenty of animated films that are worse than this and I'm sure I'll come across more in the future. That said, I still think Studio Ghibli deserves admonishment for what happened with Earthsea. Putting an inexperienced director - one whose heritage is more of a burden than a blessing - in charge of an epic story that clearly needed a strong guiding hand was just plain stupid. The odds of Goro being able to usher in a new generation of Miyazaki classics is about as good as Seth Green playing NBA basketball, practically nonexistent. I know Ghibli is desperate to find its creative future, but throwing up hail marys like this isn't the answer. Luckily it looks like Ghibli may have finally found their guy with Hiromasa Yonebayashi, his upcoming film the Borrowers has incredible promise. As for Tales of Earthsea it will be getting a limited theatrical release here in the US in the summer of 2010, a DVD release will follow soon thereafter. Given the films numerous shortcomings I can't give Tales of Earthsea a full recommendation, if you love Ghibli movies then it's worth checking out, but if you're looking for the next great anime to hit the states, you won't find it here.

Pirates of Dark Water - Not a bad jitatin show

The Pirates of Dark Water was a short lived action/adventure cartoon that premiered back in 1991. Despite its excellent mythology and interesting characters the show was plagued by delays, high costs and poor toy sales. Eventually it was cancelled after just 21 episodes. I remember watching the series when it was originally aired in the early 1990s, it wasn't my favorite cartoon but I thought it was creatively unique and tuned in often. Being a Hanna-Barbera production the show eventually re-aired on Cartoon Network and its spin off channel Boomerang in the mid 1990s. Though ultimately a bust, the Pirates of Dark Water did have its fans and eventually became a miniature cult hit as reruns aired regularly. Despite the best efforts of this loyal - but small - fan base however, the show has never been given a proper ending.

The story for Pirates of Dark Water takes place on the alien world of Mer. Besides its two moons, the most distinguishing characteristic of Mer would be the twenty different seas that comprise it. Scattered throughout these bodies of water are small islands where various intelligent life has developed. With so much water - and so little land - nautical travel is naturally the largest means of transportation. Unfortunately the planets oceans are being devoured by dark water. Dark water is a black, oil like substance that aggressively attacks anything it comes into contact with, including boats. Spreading like a cancer throughout the planet, its only a matter of time before all of Mer becomes enveloped in this deadly liquid. The worlds one hope lies in Ren, prince of Octopon. Together with his unlikely, but loyal crew of misfits, Ren must track down the 13 treasures of Rule. Only with their power can the Dark Dweller (the source of Dark Water) be destroyed and balance restored.

One of the Pirates of Dark Water's greatest strengths is the premise described above. Though not groundbreaking it is very well conceived and completely engaging, especially for an older action/adventure show. As for the writing itself, the series has its ups and downs, mostly due to shifts in tone. While some of the stories featured nefarious threats and a good balance of action and humor, other episodes were just so childish and immature they didn't even feel like they were a part of the same show. One particularly bad instance of this can be found in the episode "Little Leviathan". In the story Ren and his crew help a baby leviathan (who sounds just like Uni from Dungeons and Dragons) that has been caught in dark water. Once rescued the creature becomes smitten with its saviors and begins to follow them, comedic hijinks then ensue. Compare this to an episode like "The Dark Disciples" which featured a dark - almost "Thundarr the Barbarian" like story - and you'll see just how uneven the viewing experience was at times. Shifts in tone weren't isolated to just the stories either. Visually speaking, episodes like "The Little Leviathan" portrayed creatures as wide-eyed cartoonish scamps, like something out of a My Little Pony cartoon and nothing like the rest of the show (I'll have more to say about his later). I can't say for sure, but I believe the reason this happened was because the show fell into a bit of a middle world timing wise. Taking place after the horrendously tame 80's action/adventure cartoons but before Batman the Animated series, Pirates of Dark Water appears to have been pulled in two different directions. One was dumbed down and child friendly, the other darker and more serious. Still I really like the show's core story which was conceptually excellent and populated with great characters. Pirates of Dark Water had all the right ingredients, it just didn't always use them correctly.

Having just mentioned that Pirates of Dark Water features great characters, now seems like a good time to talk about the shows cast. Starting with the good guys we have Ren, Ioz, Tula and Niddler. Ren is the show's central character and he readily fits the "young hero on a quest to save the world" archetype. Though perhaps a little cliché, Ren does work nicely as both the voice of reason necessary to keep his crew together, as well as the driving force needed to keep them on task. But while I thought Ren was merely manageable, I found Ioz to be loads of fun. Gruff, pragmatic, treasure obsessed and an absolute chauvinist, Ioz can always be counted on to make greedy and inappropriate comments. Though these characteristics may seem negative, Ioz's failings provide a nice counterbalance to the noble nature of Ren and his quest, plus he's unflappably loyal. Tula is the lone female crew member and she is kind of a cross between Ioz and Ren. While she shares many of the core values of Ren she is more than willing to steal or even "betray" a couple comrades for her own purposes. There are only two actual betrayals by Tula - one at the beginning of the series and one at the end - and both times it's made very clear that Tula is either pretending to betray her crew mates or heavily conflicted about it. Still the fact that Tula's allegiance is so questionable makes her a very interesting character to watch. Tula does have a couple other roles in the show as well. One of these happens early in the series when Tula discovers that she is an ecomancer, a person capable of communing with nature and bending certain aspects of it to her will (kind of like a hippy wizard). The other is that she is a quasi love interest for Ren. Though the show never really gets too romantic (thankfully) it is clear that Ren and Tula are meant to play out the standard action/adventure romance seen so often in the genre. Niddler is the shows comedic relief. Unlike the rest of the crew Niddler is not human but instead a Monkeybird (basically a cross between and monkey and an bird, duh). When he's not flying people around from place to place, Niddler spends most his time complaining about how hungry he is or gorging on mengamellons, a monkeybirds favorite fruit. While I don't really care for Niddler I will admit that he makes a far better sidekick than your average action/adventure animal, plus he actually feels like a part of the team. Besides, he's not half as annoying as Snarf from the Thundercats.

From a villainous perspective, there are numerous antagonists in Pirates of Dark Water. That said, the only regulars worth mentioning are the Pirate Lord Bloth and his most persistent crony Conk. Conk is a very small man who excels at the art of surviving. No matter how dire the circumstance Conk always finds a way out, a good skill to have when you work for a ruthless pirate like Bloth. As for Bloth himself, he would be the physical antithesis of Conk. A massive man both in stature and girth (the guy is probably a foot taller than anyone else in the show) Bloth is as strong as an ox and has a very intimidating presence. Once again I like how the Pirates of Dark Water cast balances itself out. With Conk you have a very unimpressive and comical villain whose limited vocabulary is only matched by his limited intelligence. With Bloth however, you get a much more physically menacing and frighting opponent who speaks with an intelligent - almost british - accent, thus he appears more sophisticated than his lackeys. I have to say that while both Bloth and Conk may not be overly original, they still manage to be very interesting, something your average villain from the time period wasn't. It's this kind of depth that really sets Pirates of Dark Waters characters apart. The cast not only plays well off of one another they all have history, a past that you want to see explored. Too bad the show ended before we ever got to see it.

I mentioned earlier that Pirates of Dark Water never got a proper ending. I say this because - unlike other action/adventure shows of the time period - Pirates of Dark Water had a very finite goal built into its premise, finding the 13 treasures of Rule. Unfortunately only 8 of these treasures were found before the show's premature cancellation, therefore any viewer who invested interest into seeing Ren's quest completed left the show feeling unfulfilled. This is very unfortunate because the show clearly squandered numerous episodes with filler, episodes that could have been put to better use had the producers known that the series would only finish with twenty-one installments. Though frustrating, you can't really blame the studio or producers for this negative outcome. After all if the show had been successful, filler would have been needed to maximize its earning potential. As it stands though we are left hanging with no resolution whatsoever. A far too common occurrence in entertainment.

Visually the Pirates of Dark Water is both excellent and flawed in its execution. What I mean is that while the show has fantastic production design, on model characters and occasionally good animation, it also sports inconsistent creature design, poor choreography and awkward movement. Let's start with the production design. The world of Mer looks great. The warm color pallet - consisting mostly of reds and oranges - has a very unique and exotic feel about it. Characters also look nice, whether it's the beautiful gypsy-like appearance of Tula or the grotesque - almost fish-like - visage of Bloth, the design work for each character is spot on. But while the the world of Mer - and its inhabitants - feature a mature and appropriately alien appearance, the show would sometimes stray into "caricature land". On more than one occasion - the most obvious being the aforementioned "Little Leviathan" episode - Pirates of Dark Water would create silly, and/or childlike creatures with really big eyes and overly expressive mouths. This was in stark contrast to the more realistic and often fearsome looking creatures that inhabited the world of Mer, thus these one-off characters didn't feel like they belonged. Sadly, this inconsistent creature design mars otherwise excellent art direction and makes for an inconsistent viewing experience. Doubly frustrating is the fact that visual representations like this are exactly the kind of things that make people roll their eyes and spout off nonsense like "cartoons are just for kids". Pirates of Dark Water is the kind of show that's supposed to debunk that kind of talk, not reinforce it.

As for the animation itself, Pirates of Dark Water varies between mediocre and good. The first five episodes look solid (probably the best in the series) with a couple of scenes standing out as excellent (please keep in mind that I'm grading on a curve, this show does not come close to today's action/adventure standards). After that the animation became more mundane and awkward. Most of the fight choreography was stiff and unconvincing, things like running always looked awkward and a lot of the staging suffered from a lack of creativity. On the positive side the show maintained a consistent appearance. Even great shows like Batman the Animated series bore shifts in character models and animation styles depending on the studios that worked on them. Luckily Pirates of Dark Water was able to avoid this (for the most part anyway). Though I would have to rank Pirates of Dark Water as one of the better looking shows from its time period, most of the success stems from its design and not its animation (which really isn't that much better than other 80s action/adventure shows). If I had to choose a phrase to sum up my feelings about the show's visuals it would be "average execution of beautiful concepts".

In regards to voice acting Pirates of Dark Water had to navigate some tricky water. Rooted heavily in pirate culture, the show could have easily fell into various pirate clichés. I can just imagine heavily accented "aarrrs" and "iiiieee" being thrown around haphazardly - like some Scooby-Doo villain - while Bloth tells Ren to walk the plank (shudder). Thankfully none of these things happen, instead Pirates of Dark Water nails its voice casting perfectly and provides the actors with unique dialog designed exclusively for the show. I'll start with the actors. Just about all the main characters in Pirates of Dark Water feature superb voice work. George Newbern nails the youthful determination of Ren with ease. Jodi Benson sounds exactly how Tula appears, headstrong and sexy. Ioz was voiced by two different actors, Hector Elizondo in season one and Jim Cummings in season two. Surprisingly enough I didn't even notice the difference with both actors gruff portrayal of Ioz being spot on. Best of all would have to be Brock Peters work on Bloth though. With a maniacally twisted accent Peters really digs into his dialog with gusto and creates a villain that can be both scary or funny depending on what the situation calls for. Personally I think this is one of the best sounding action/adventure shows done prior to 1993.

Complementing the superb voice acting is some surprisingly creative dialog. Though not brilliantly written, the dialog from Pirates of Dark Water does feature some original expressions created specifically for the show. My favorites would have be the oft used "Noy Jitat" and its shorted version "Jitatin", I also liked "Jongo-longo". Besides just sounding cool these phrases serve as a subtle reminder that the world we're watching is an alien one, that and they allowed the characters to curse (after all they are pirates). This clever replacement of swear words is a trick used often in science fiction/fantasy shows, after all censors can't tell you something is vulgar if the word isn't even real.

The Pirates of Dark Water is one of those shows that possess great foundational elements, but not so great execution. While the core story, characters, production design and voice acting all shine brightly - even after 20 years - the animation and writing feel tarnished and dated. Couple this with the dissatisfaction born from an incomplete story and you can't help but feel frustrated. Yet what I truly want isn't a proper ending to this show, I want an entirely new series. With so many 80's cartoons getting rebooted as of late (upcoming GI Joe, Thundercats and Voltron) I would love to see Pirates of Dark Water get a fresh start. Something a little darker (but not too dark) with a more focused narrative and far less compromise. Now that Johnny Depp has made pirates popular again - and higher action/adventure standards are the norm - I feel that Pirates of Dark Water would stand a real chance of making a comeback, that or it could get cancelled prematurely again and piss-off a whole new generation of fans. Anyway if you would like to watch Pirates of Dark Water (and you should), you can pick up the 4-disc, manufacture on demand, set from the Warner Archive here. It contains all 21 episodes, but no special features or picture restoration. Still, this is - most likely - the best copy of the series currently in existence, so fans of the show should not hesitate to purchase.

The Maxx - more 1990s MTV goodness

I've mentioned this before, but for the sake of those who don't know I'll do so again. I love MTV's off the wall animation from the 1990s. Much like Cartoon Network's Adult Swim imprint, MTV produced some really fantastic, mature and experimental animation back in the day. The Maxx is one such experiment. Based on Sam Keith's popular comic book, The Maxx is perhaps the most direct adaption of comic book source material ever, both in terms of visuals and story.

Sam Keith first published The Maxx in 1992 under the upstart banner of Image Comics. Image came about when superstar artists Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, Rob Liefield, Marc Silvestri, Eric Larson and Jim Viatelo bolted from Marvel Comics in 1991. Once established they reached out to other popular creators and offered them the chance to publish their own books, Sam Keith was one such artist. Keith was probably best known for having drawn Wolverine in Marvel Comics Presents. Both celebrated and criticized for his unique art style - which led to off model renditions of popular characters - Keith was finally free to "cut loose" with The Maxx. Unlike most superhero comics, The Maxx delved deep into psychological and metaphysical subject matter, thus making it a perfect match for MTV's late night cartoon show "MTVs Oddities".

The premise of the Maxx goes something like this. Most of us inhabit two worlds, the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstance, and the world within, the unconscious safe place where we can escape. The Maxx shifts between these two worlds against his will. Here (the real world) he lives in a box inside of an alley. The only person who cares for him is a freelance social worker by the name of Julie Winters. But in the other world - Pangea - he rules the outback and is the protector of Julie, his jungle queen. Sounds pretty crazy huh? Well it is, but in a good way.

As you can probably discern from the description above, the writing of The Maxx is very ... unusual. Though The Maxx dresses up like a superhero the story isn't really about that, it's about the psychological condition of the show's characters. Not just the mental state of Maxx mind you, but Julie Winters and The Maxx (you could also include the teenage girl Sarah as well). This is some pretty intense subject matter when you get right down to it, issues like suicide, rape, guilt and repression are all major themes in the show's narrative. Though calling the series "dark" would be an oversimplification, it would certainly not be without merit. To put it bluntly, the show can really mess with your head.

Magnificently brooding and complex the series does suffer from one big problem however, it ended before the story had a chance to finish. Despite being only 13 episodes in length the show actually caught up to the comic books rather quickly, thus it was only able to cover the first eleven issues (the story arc would later finish in issue twenty). The hope was that they could get a second season and finish the story then, but ultimately MTV decided not to renew the series (apparently MTV made this choice before the first episode even aired). The result is that the final episode of the series really doesn't leave the viewers with enough concrete answers and many of the foreshadowed hints sprinkled throughout the show go unfulfilled. Though incredibly frustrating this is not an uncommon occurrence in TV, fortunately you can still buy the source material and read how the story ends.

A cartoon like The Maxx is not for everyone (certainly not children). While the writing is excellent the subject matter may rub some people the wrong way. Being based on a comic book others may even find the lack of traditional superhero storytelling disappointing. Personally I felt the story was both original and refreshing, even if it was a little morose. Compared to the other Image comics that made their way into animation (Spawn, Savage Dragon and Wild CATS) it certainly proves to be a far more honest adaptation. Spawn was okay but the HBO cartoon was actually more adult than the comic. Both the Savage Dragon and Wild CATS went in the opposite extreme and tried to be toned down, "kid" friendly versions of themselves. Only The Maxx sought to be exactly what it always was, a psychologically twisted story about very flawed, three dimensional characters with problems.

Visually The Maxx is an amazing mix of various medias. The show uses actual artwork from the comic book, animation, CGI (some of the earliest you'll see on TV) and even live action very effectively. With so many styles at play one would expect a very visually inconsistent series, this is not the case however. Truth be told The Maxx looks very unified and polished despite its limited budget, even by today's standards it still looks good. A lot of the credit has to go to the youthful exuberance found in the shows creators. While many veteran animators scoff at the idea of using someone else's art or layout, The Maxx's creative staff was so young and inexperienced they didn't care about such egotistical nonsense, they just loved the source material and wanted to make a great cartoon. This naive passion made for a very fearless show, one that wasn't afraid to experiment with things like digital coloring and digital ink, it also allowed the series to overcome its budgetary limitations by making the project a labor of love.

In many ways The Maxx reminds me of today's motion comics. A relatively new media, motion comics take the actual artwork from a comic book, cut it up digitally and add music and voice overs. The Maxx does a lot of these things as well, but far better than any motion comic ever has, or ever will. While a motion comic is strongly bound by the layout and artwork found in its source material, The Maxx was not afraid to expand on - or even break outside of - its predecessors original structure. Vice versa, a full fledged animated show won't use any real comic style layouts, instead opting for the more traditional storytelling found in most cartoons. So it's like you're getting the best of both worlds, a faithful comic book adaptation, but with genuine animation.

The show did have visual hiccups however, occasionally the animation didn't quite match up with the original art styles for example, or a comic book image would not animate well. Still The Maxx's look and feel was - by and large - a huge success. The use of minimal animation was masterful, CGI was surprisingly effective and tasteful, original art was integrated flawlessly and the translation of Sam Keith's layout was near perfect. Given Rough Draft Studios appreciation of the source material - as well as Keith's own involvement - this was definitely a project of personal importance to those involved, and it shows.

Normally I don't spend a lot of time talking about a show's voice acting unless the performances are exceptionally good, or exceptionally bad. Fortunately in the case of The Maxx it's the former that holds true. Featuring the voices of Michael Haley, Glynnis Talken, Amy Danles and Barry Stigler, The Maxx is a very well acted show. Michael Haley probably had the most difficult job being that he was the voice of the Maxx. Since the character needed to be both a tough guy and a simpleton Haley had to really work the dialog carefully, luckily he was up to the challenge and pulls off the roll admirably. Glynnis Talken strikes a spot-on balance of determination, world weariness and emotional damage when voicing the social worker Julie Winters. Amy Danles uses a great melancholy sound to bring jaded teenager Sarah to life. Finally Barry Stigler gives a pitch perfect performance as the know-it-all, arrogant and just a little angry Mr. Gone. I am not exaggerating when I say that the core characters from The Maxx could not have been cast any better.

Musically The Maxx hits all the right notes as well (Hah!). From the jazzy, beatnik opening to the aborigine sounding outback music, The Maxx always sets the right tone. Haunting, irreverent, or just plain silly the music from this show has flavor, a distinct taste that is unmistakably "Maxx" (insert smelly homeless joke here).

Obviously I'm recommending this series to anyone who likes "off the wall" storytelling, or is just a fan of the original comic book (keeping in mind this is not a show for children). It's unfortunate that the story was never really completed in animation, had the series been able to finish with the original story arc I think it would have been an instant classic. Regardless, The Maxx is a very worthwhile purchase. Though it's a manufacture on demand DVD the price is very reasonable and the extras include a short interview with the shows creators and commentary on all (count them all) 13 episodes.

Star Wars the Clone Wars - when the prequels go ... right?

I love Star Wars. Like many people my age I grew up during the franchise's original release, the memories of which I cherish to this very day. Sadly, once the original trilogy concluded there was a 7-8 year period where Star Wars became less relevant, fading like the ghost of Obi-Wan Kenobi into pop-culture history. In the early 1990's things started to turnaround though, with the release of Timothy Zahn's "Heir to the Empire" novel Star Wars found new life in the form of bestselling books. Before long new toys were being produced, comic books published, video games created and eventually "updated" versions of the three beloved films were released in theaters. By the end of the decade Star Wars was - once again - a dominate force in the entertainment industry.

Then came the prequels. Without a doubt the most anticipated films of my life, the Star Wars prequels proved the old adage that you can never go home again. In other words they were horrible. Not Twilight horrible mind you, just very flawed films in need of heavy story edits, better casting and better characters. Since the release of "The Phantom Menace" Star Wars has continued to spiral out of control. The extended novel universe went to hell during its "New Jedi Order" storyline, toys have become too plentiful and too expensive, comic books are a crapshoot and the latest CGI cartoon continues to run a very tired Clone Wars concept into the ground. Why do I mention all this? Because even as the Bantha carcass that was the Star Wars franchise continues to be picked clean, there are still a couple of bright spots left to remind us why we loved Star Wars to begin with. One would be the Knights of the Old Republic video games, an immersive adventure set in the Old Republic era. The other would be Genndy Tartakovsky's fantastically conceived Star Wars the Clone Wars cartoons.

Unlike the current CGI Clone Wars series seen on Cartoon Network, Tartakovsky was given the rare opportunity to create a Star Wars story his own way, as opposed to the Lucasfilm way (and before the Clone Wars became overused). Premiering in 2003 Tartakovsky's Clone Wars was made up of 20 three-minute shorts totaling one hour in length (this would be seasons 1 & 2). The stories were a mixture of standalone and interconnected events taking place during various battles throughout the galaxy. The second hour (season 3) was comprised of 5 twelve-minute episodes and featured a more in-depth story which ends right where the third prequel film (Revenge of the Sith) begins. Though stylistically different from other Star Wars vehicles, Tartakovsky's Clone Wars works surprisingly well, probably because the cartoons creators stuck to what they knew best, action.

For those who don't know, Genndy Tartakovsky was the man behind both Samurai Jack and Dexter's Laboratory, he also played a big part in the success of the Powerpuff Girls. If you've seen any of these cartoons then you should've noticed how stylized the action is, a staple mark of Tartakovsky shows. Being such a strong visual communicator Tartakovsky is also known for keeping dialog sparse, choosing instead to tell his stories through pictures rather than words. With the Clone Wars my fear was that Tartakovsky would try and modify his directing style to better fit the Star Wars universe. Thankfully this was not the case, and all of these elements are used effectively throughout the series.

The writing from Star Wars the Clone Wars is actually pretty minimal. With the initial episodes being only three-minutes each, there just wasn't a lot of room for complicated story. The twelve-minute episodes that followed do have more substance - with the plot playing out more like a short film - but action is clearly the focus of the series. This is an amusing contrast to the actual prequel movies which have been panned for having far too much "political intrigue", and not enough action. Despite the "lack" of deep narrative however, Tartakovsky's Clone Wars never leaves you feeling cheated, quite the opposite actually. The short running times of each chapter forced the show's creators to streamline everything into a micro format, eliminating anything that is unnecessary and emphasizing only what's important. It's the cartoon equivalent of a powernap, all the substance of a 22 minute show but packed into a far shorter time frame. Taken individually - or all at once - each episode of the Clone Wars is a perfect example of how less can be more.

Besides the tight storytelling and great action, Tartakovsky is also a master of making things look - for lack of a better word - cool. Clone trooper infiltration of a city, awesome. General Grievous chasing three jedi all over Coruscant, nice. Mace Windu vs. an entire droid army, fricking mind blowing. Even really silly ideas - like the jousting villain Durge - work surprisingly well. It would be so easy for a lesser director to falter here, to make these concepts look cheesy or formulaic. Not Tartakovsky, just about everything he does is both awe inspiring and innovative.

Visually Star Wars the Clone Wars is very much a Tartakovsky cartoon. Everything from the characters to the vehicles to the environments are highly stylized and use minimal detail. It's this minimalist approach that makes Tartakovsky an unusual fit for the Star Wars universe, in some ways he's not a good fit at all. The cartoony look associated with his work is a stark contrast to the hyper detailed "dirty" space look that Star Wars usually exhibits. This is why I was afraid Tartakovsky might try and change his animation style, thankfully he didn't. As for the quality of the visuals themselves, they are excellent. When moving the animation is very fluid and energetic, colors are crisp and backgrounds fantastically quirky. You wouldn't mistake the show for an animated feature or anything, but it still looks very high end. Like many cartoons these days the Clone Wars does feature some CGI, thankfully the Tartakovsky style of animation is a perfect match for this and everything blends together seamlessly. In short, this is a very polished show.

I mentioned earlier Tartakovsky's penchant for sparse dialog. What I meant by this is that long sequences of events - especially ones related to action - will often take place with no words. This doesn't mean that everything is silent - quite the contrary - in the absence of dialog sound takes on a whole new level of effectiveness. With noises normally overlooked now emphasized, sounds relating to things like frustration, elation, struggle and annoyance become far more effective. You would be hard pressed to find a better use of sound and silence in animation today.

Musically Star Wars the Clone Wars uses the same orchestra style music synonyms with the franchise. This is a good constant since the show is such a visual departure from the movies. Voice acting is good all around with many of the voices used in later incarnations of the Clone Wars stories. At the risk of sounding repetitive, this series is very well put together in all phases of its production including audio.

Looking back over this review I think I spent more time talking about Genndy Tartakovsky than I did the actual show itself. With that in mind I'll finish by saying that Star Wars the Clone Wars (often referred to as the microseries) is an excellent series. With an overall run time of just over two hours the show isn't particularly long, but what it lacks in length it more than makes up for in content. If you're a fan of Star Wars, action/adventure animation or Genndy Tartakovsky then this is a must watch. Unfortunately both DVD volumes of the series are out of print, so tracking down copies can be tricky. The best place is probably Amazon, though new copies are outrageously priced the used copies are still pretty affordable.

Atlantis - The Lost Opportunity

It was the turn of the century and feature film animation found itself at a crossroads. With the success of CGI film studios like Pixar, Hollywood started to ponder a move away from traditional animation. Seeing its own classically animated films return less and less at the box office, Disney tried to regain its swagger by creating an epic feature that would use both hand drawn and computer generated images. The film was Atlantis, a $120 million dollar extravaganza that spared no expense in both production and promotion. Unfortunately Atlantis was met with mixed reviews and a modest box office return of $85 million dollars domestically (the film did recover its production budget with the world wide box office however). Adding insult to injury Dreamwork's Shrek and Pixar's Monsters Inc. would go on to be huge hits - both critically and financially - that same year. Looking back at it now, this was probably the tipping point where traditional animation lost its credibility as a feature film medium.

With a premise like finding the lost city of Atlantis it should come as no surprise that I was very pumped for this film. I'm a longtime Disney fan and getting an animated feature with roots in science fiction seemed like a dream come true. Unfortunately the movie fell far short of my expectations and I found myself massively frustrated for the second time in just one year (the first frustration being with Fox's Titan AE).

The story of Atlantis centers around Milo Thatch, a linguistics expert working in the boiler room at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. Milo believes the key to finding Atlantis can be found in an ancient book called the Shepherds Journal and needs funding for an expedition to find it. Unfortunately for him the Institution's board believes that both the Journal and Atlantis are nothing more than myths and refuse Milo's proposal. This rejection is doubly painful because Milo's deceased grandfather - who raised him - was ridiculed for his own obsession with the fabled civilization. But Milo's luck takes a turn for the better when eccentric millionaire Preston Whitmore steps into the picture. Turns out Whitmore was a friend of Milo's late grandfather and he's already found the Shepherds Journal. In need of a linguist to decipher the Journal, Whitmore offers Milo a spot aboard his privately funded expedition to find Atlantis. Joining Milo is a band of eclectic experts including Demolition specialist Vinny Santorini, medical officer Dr. Sweet, geology expert "Mole" and tomboy mechanic Audrey Ramirez. Leading the expedition is Commander Rourke and his second-in-command Lt. Helga Sinclair. The last character worth mentioning is Kida, the 8,000 year old Atlantean princess who serves as Milo's love interest later in the story (Personally I would have been a little more apprehensive about hooking up with Kida if I were Milo. That girl has to have been around the block more than once in the last 8,000 years, I'm just saying). Sounds interesting enough right? Unfortunately the final product can't live up to the strength of its own premise and many animation fans left the film feeling unfulfilled.

Before I discuss the writing of Atlantis I want to offer the following warning. The next four paragraphs all contain minor story SPOILERS. Normally I try to avoid this but the movie is almost ten years old and most of the issues I had were very specific. If you don’t want to know any story details then skip the four paragraphs following this one.

If I had to describe the story of Atlantis in one word it would be “underdeveloped”. What I mean by this is the film doesn't provide enough detail or explanation for many of its plot points. Want to know why Atlantis sinks into the ocean? Because the king wanted a super weapon ... that's it, that's all you get. Or how is it the people of Atlantis can learn to speak English so quickly? Sure their language was the basis for many of today’s modern dialects, but that's not really good enough. Knowing some root elements of a language and speaking said language are two completely different things. After all English (or any language for that matter) has evolved and changed over the years; so how could a society isolated from the rest of civilization for over eight millennia learn it in just a few brief seconds? But while these plot points are unabashedly lazy they at least try and provide the viewer with an answer, Atlantean lifespan - on the other hand - doesn't even get that much. While recounting her younger years Kida implies that she witnessed the fall of Atlantis. Milo quickly realizes this would make her over 8,000 years old and subsequently points this out to Kida. Her response … “Yeah, so”. And there you have it, a bombshell revelation suggesting that much of Atlantis’s population is thousands of years old gets a “Yeah, so”. No explanation - not even a lazy one - just “Yeah, so”. To quote Eric Cartman … lame.

The flippant manner in which Atlantean lifespan is addressed isn't the real problem here though, the giant plot holes it creates are. For example, the citizens of Atlantis are no longer able to read their own language. This would make sense if hundreds of generations of Atlanteans had passed and the knowledge was gradually lost. But since Kida - and presumably others - were all around when Atlantis fell, how is it that none of them can read? Did everyone, including the adults forget how? Combine this with the fact that given 8,000 years just about anyone could decipher a language and you've got a nice big plot hole staring you right in the face. This same issue shows up again when Kida takes Milo to see a flying machine she has been unsuccessfully trying to start for ages. Being a linguistic expert (boy that's convenient), Milo quickly reads the vehicles instructions and reveals the simple three step ignition sequence ... put hand here, insert crystal and turn it one way then back the other. Wow Kida, 8,000 years and you weren't able to figure that out on your own using trial and error? Good God, you're supposed to be an advanced race, one that hasn't even seen a single generation pass, yet you can't deduce something that simple? My car is harder to start than that. It would have made much more sense for the Atlanteans to simply be descendants of the cataclysm survivors. Descendants whose culture is being lost and thus they need an outsider to help rediscover it. Personally I wonder if the original script for Atlantis included this long lifespan fiasco. Being that it's common practice for movie scripts to get "retooled", I could easily imagine the story of Atlantis receiving "enhanced" ideas, the kind that create large plot holes like the ones found here.

The characters comprising Atlantis are also frustrating, mostly because I couldn't bring myself to care about any of them. Commander Rourke and Lt. Sinclair are complete cyphers that have no backstory or motivation beyond clichéd greed. Mole is similarly barren and serves only as comedic relief. Even the secondary characters who do get a backstory like Dr. Sweet, Vinny and Audrey can't escape the two-dimensional characterization that plagues this film. Don't get me wrong, the crew is likable enough. Vinny and Dr. Sweet in particular made me laugh on numerous occasions. The problem is that I didn't care about anything the cast did or had done to them, even the expedition's obvious "betrayal" left me feeling underwhelmed. In the end only Milo is given any real depth, but while he has motivation (to prove his grandfathers theories on Atlantis are correct) it fails to deliver any real emotional impact. Compare this to Scar's betrayal in the Lion King, or the robots sacrifice at the end of the Iron Giant. Those scenes sent a chill up your spine, they made you care, not so much with Atlantis.

Even forces outside the movies control conspired to undermine it. Atlantis was released in the summer of 2001, about one year after Fox's animated flop Titan AE. Why does that matter? Well for those of us who watched Titan AE the previous year Atlantis reeked of deja vu. Lets run down the similarities:

• Eclectic crew trying to find a lost place(or)thing. Check
• Main character possessing unique abilities necessary for finding lost place(or)thing. Check.
• Betrayal by eclectic crews greedy leader and second-in-command. Check.
• Subsequent life or death battle between said leader and second-in-command. Check.
• True power of lost place(or)thing is unleashed causing the revitalization(or)rebirth of something. Check.

Now I'm in no way implying that these films purposefully aped one another, in fact I'm sure they did not. What I am saying is that these unfortunate coincidences detracted from the latter films original viewing, in this case Atlantis. Sitting there in the theater I was stunned by the number of thematic parallels and plot twists, especially the betrayal. Of course this doesn't matter anymore since the films are both a decade old, but for people like me who really wanted both Titan AE and Atlantis to be good, their similarities and shortcomings will forever be linked.

When it's all said and done the story of Atlantis just doesn't work in its final form. It's hard to tell if the movie was under or over developed, but it definitely feels incomplete. Ambitious to a fault, Atlantis suffers from an overly ambiguous mythology, two dimensional characters, horrible plot holes and formulaic storytelling. Though the film is completely watchable don't be surprised if you find yourself sensing something amiss. Kind of like you're waiting for the last couple pieces of a puzzle to fill in, sure you can tell what the picture is, but it still doesn't look finished.

Luckily the visuals from Atlantis do look very complete, not surprising being that it's a Disney animated feature. Animation is always smooth, movements are natural and characters stay on model. Backgrounds are similarly beautiful with great design work and a cool (mostly blue) color pallet. The only complaint I had was that a couple of scenes - specifically those early in the film - looked flat, like they forgot to add shading. Though it doesn't really hurt the film at all I still found these rare occurrences jarring enough to take notice. Fortunately Atlantis manages to effectively do something that other animated features of the time often couldn't, it convincingly blended CGI and cell animation. Unlike Titan AE and Sinbad, Atlantis really does a good job of making computer generated images look like they belong in the traditionally animated environments. Yes you can still tell the CGI from cell pretty easily, but the overall illusion holds together quite nicely and that's what really matters.

Character designs from Atlantis are a little different than your average Disney film, but in a good way. Mike Mignola (artist and creator of Hellboy) was a production artist on the movie and his influence is very noticeable, especially in the angular look of the people (as opposed to the rounded look found in many other Disney movies). Of course there's still a Disneyfied quality found in many of the films characters - Kida and Dr. Sweet for example - but other people like Lt. Sinclair and the faceless gas-mask soldiers have a great edge about them, much like a Mignola comic book. Overall I thought the design and execution of Atlantis's visuals were a win, had the film's story been able to deliver this could have been something special.

The voice acting and music of Atlantis is all very good. My favorite actors were probably Micheal J. Fox (Milo) and James Garner (Commander Rourke), but everyone turned in a solid performance. Being one of Disney's non-musical films Atlantis's music lacks the distinct sound found in many of their other animated movies, still the music does its job well and I had no complaints.

So there you have it, an animated film with superior craftsmanship including: great animation, excellent design, good voice acting and solid music. Too bad it's wasted on an underdeveloped story that - despite its promising origins - fails miserably. To be fair Atlantis never stood much of a chance for success. With the creatively sentimental story of Monsters Inc. and the humorous pop-culture writing of Shrek, audiences just weren't interested in another "safe" Disney film. I doubt that even a perfect take on the story of Atlantis could have succeeded in the face of those odds. Still I think that the opportunity to create something timeless was lost here and that's truly unfortunate. As for recommending the film I'll say that it's worth a watch, if only for the visuals. I wouldn't go out of my way though.