![]() It takes its core components (pigs, explosions, slingshots, rage) and combines them in a way that checks all the boxes you would expect a film like this, an ambitiously chirpy product of the tentacular Hollywood studio system of 2016, to check: It layers kid-friendly gags with subtler, for-adult jokes it offers, along the way, several unobjectionable lessons about life and those who live it it has really good animation. The film has taken its bird-brained brand-nouns and verbs and an adjective, unsullied by sentences-and used it to construct characters and plots that are certainly serviceable, and possibly even inspired. In this case: Sure! The Angry Birds Movie is really not bad. Can the result of that be any good at all? Can capitalism, so unfettered, produce anything of artistic value? ![]() ![]() Here are the basic stakes of the cash grab-cinema-for-the-spreadsheet and cinema-for-the-soul-colliding, in the form of a movie that came from a game that is best known not for entertaining people so much as distracting them. Here is a movie with such pretensions toward global universality that it does away with humans entirely. In that sense, there’s something wonderfully pure about The Angry Birds Movie, which is a cash grab of the most nakedly cashgrabby strain: Here is a movie that is itself a brand extension, and one that’s been extended from a brand that got popular entirely on the basis of its own whimsical nihilism. ![]() It’s also possible, of course, that a movie might prove popular and thus lucrative precisely because it has artistic merit, just as it’s possible that the factors at play in a Hollywood cash grab-an increasingly globally minded studio system making movies that are as broadly human and relevant as possible-might actually be a good and democratizing thing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |