"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4b4eb5ac$1@news.povray.org...
> Pretty but cliche.

There's no question that I loved the CG in the movie. I don't just enjoy 
watching movies, I'm interested in how they're made, and the editing, shot 
set up, and execution of the CG was incredible, but that's not what really 
got me wound up about it.

Not the story, either. I think the story had to be simple, because it would 
have competed too much with the visual imagery. The writing was good, in 
that the characters all had some dimension, they weren't flat and monotone, 
and they developed over the course of the film. Not spectacular, but good.

What really, really got me about this movie is that the pacing is darn near 
perfect. It's incredibly difficult to make even a short movie where the 
audience doesn't get disconnected from the movie at points. With thousands 
of people involved and countless piles of cash on the line, most filmmakers 
just can't quite do it. Most movies I go to, there's a point where I think, 
"Oh, the third act is starting now," or, "We're about 25 minutes into the 
film, because the disparate plot points are about to be connected." But not 
with this film.

When the credits began to roll, I looked at my watch, and was simply stunned 
that almost three hours had passed. I never once came out of the moment in 
the film. Everything builds at exactly the right pace, and every moment in 
the film has me wanting to know what happens next, not what time it is or 
whether there's any popcorn left in the bag.

This is one of the few movies that I will never get tired of watching. Not 
because it's beautiful (which it is) or because it's deep (which it isn't) 
but because it's one of the most amazingly brilliant examples of the art of 
making a film that I've ever seen.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message