wildfire
07-15-2001, 11:07 PM
<title>Wildfire at the Movies: 'Final Fantasy' Patrick Duda wildfire wildfire@trv-psitech.com</title>
This week I decided to assail my senses with the new computer-animated movie, "Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within." This 125 million dollar monster didn't quite seem to make it's true motives clear. Is this a science fiction film, or another in a long line of poor video game to movie attempts?<br>
<br>
Fortunately, it seems to be both, without losing itself in a malestrom of merchandising confusion. Of course, this dichotomy of purpose does drag the overall impression of the film down. But, how does the film really come out to the average moviegoer? Let's find out.<br>
<br>
I have to forewarn all of you, that I have played nearly every Final Fantasy game released, including a few of the japanese-only sets that missed american shores. I understand completely the origins of this film, and what it was trying to present, and yet still I was left confused and uncertain as to what this movie was actually doing onscreen.<br>
<br>
The story, as we find out about 20 minutes into the film, comes into being some 35 years after an asteroid crashes into the Earth. The year is now 2065, and humanity has been nearly exterminated by bio-energetic beings, spawned from the remains of this asteroid like tarantulas out of a banana crate. These beings have the ability to suck the spirit energy from a lifeform by just touching it, and it seems to be their food, as they seek it out from the living. <br>
<br>
There are two plans in place to deliver humanity from their ectoplasmic enemies. One, is to descern the 'wavelength' of the creature's lifeforce and apply an exactly opposite waveform to 'annul' the creature's energy. The other, favored by the militaristic factions, is to shoot the hell out of them with a gigantic orbital laser. Of course I won't spoil the thin plot by telling you which course of action they undertake, although it shouldn't take much to figure it out. And that's just the problem with this film--there isn't much to the plot. So much is never explained, or is explained in such a poor way, that you never really get too deeply engaged in this film. It's like a gigantic Saturday morning cartoon. Albeit, a rather fantastic looking Saturday morning cartoon.<br>
<br>
The first 15 minutes of this film <i>will be</i> the definitive guide of how to produce computer animation for film for the next 10 years. The attention to detail is simply staggering. Every scrap of trash, every brick, every one of the most minute elements is there. I don't think I've seen most real-life movie sets look this authentic and detailed. With the exception of human skin and facial expressions, I don't think there is a whole lot in this movie that wouldn't pass almost easily for a real set. Wether or not this is due to the expertise of the movie's animators, or the increasing reliance of film on computer generated art, I can't say. It does however, present itself as a true masterpiece of animation in any form. There is not a single moment where the computer origins of this film detract from it in any way -- in fact, I think that for something of this size and scale going full computer graphics was the best way to go. Even after seeing a new benchmark laid down by Dreamworks' "Shrek," this film just idly comes along and makes "Shrek" look like yesterday's technology.<br>
<br>
But the film looks great, so what happened to the script? I don't know who wrote the script for this film, but I sure don't think they have done this before. Perhaps I lay the blame on the wrong people. The dialog for this film is excellent. The voice actors do a fabulous job of bringing to life the little verbal tibits, exchanges of wit, and devious overtones undertaken by the film's main characters. But along the way of the character interactions, there is a noticeable sucking sound coming from the backbone of this movie. Would somebody care to inform me of just what the point of the film was about? I could spend another hour just detailing all the little points that didn't make sense, and all the little plot holes and oversights in the story.<br>
<br>
Still, I would see this movie again, and I intend to buy it on DVD when it comes out. Just on the strength of the animation. This film is beautiful, even more so than "A.I." I'll be looking forward to the sequel to this film, although I hope next time, they start with the script first, and figure out the animation second.<br>
<br>
<hr><br><br>
This movie is rated: Standard summertime fare<br>
<br>
3.5 out of 5 stars<br>
<br>
Special Awards:<br><br>
<img src="http://www.psitech.net/wildfire/arthurclarke.jpg" width=200 height=100><br>
The Arthur C. Clarke movie award: For a visually stunning film that has a story nobody will ever really figure out.</b><br>
<br>
<br><img src="http://www.psitech.net/images/sig_light.jpg"><br><font size=1><b>Some people are afraid of heights. I'm afraid of widths.</b></font><br>
This week I decided to assail my senses with the new computer-animated movie, "Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within." This 125 million dollar monster didn't quite seem to make it's true motives clear. Is this a science fiction film, or another in a long line of poor video game to movie attempts?<br>
<br>
Fortunately, it seems to be both, without losing itself in a malestrom of merchandising confusion. Of course, this dichotomy of purpose does drag the overall impression of the film down. But, how does the film really come out to the average moviegoer? Let's find out.<br>
<br>
I have to forewarn all of you, that I have played nearly every Final Fantasy game released, including a few of the japanese-only sets that missed american shores. I understand completely the origins of this film, and what it was trying to present, and yet still I was left confused and uncertain as to what this movie was actually doing onscreen.<br>
<br>
The story, as we find out about 20 minutes into the film, comes into being some 35 years after an asteroid crashes into the Earth. The year is now 2065, and humanity has been nearly exterminated by bio-energetic beings, spawned from the remains of this asteroid like tarantulas out of a banana crate. These beings have the ability to suck the spirit energy from a lifeform by just touching it, and it seems to be their food, as they seek it out from the living. <br>
<br>
There are two plans in place to deliver humanity from their ectoplasmic enemies. One, is to descern the 'wavelength' of the creature's lifeforce and apply an exactly opposite waveform to 'annul' the creature's energy. The other, favored by the militaristic factions, is to shoot the hell out of them with a gigantic orbital laser. Of course I won't spoil the thin plot by telling you which course of action they undertake, although it shouldn't take much to figure it out. And that's just the problem with this film--there isn't much to the plot. So much is never explained, or is explained in such a poor way, that you never really get too deeply engaged in this film. It's like a gigantic Saturday morning cartoon. Albeit, a rather fantastic looking Saturday morning cartoon.<br>
<br>
The first 15 minutes of this film <i>will be</i> the definitive guide of how to produce computer animation for film for the next 10 years. The attention to detail is simply staggering. Every scrap of trash, every brick, every one of the most minute elements is there. I don't think I've seen most real-life movie sets look this authentic and detailed. With the exception of human skin and facial expressions, I don't think there is a whole lot in this movie that wouldn't pass almost easily for a real set. Wether or not this is due to the expertise of the movie's animators, or the increasing reliance of film on computer generated art, I can't say. It does however, present itself as a true masterpiece of animation in any form. There is not a single moment where the computer origins of this film detract from it in any way -- in fact, I think that for something of this size and scale going full computer graphics was the best way to go. Even after seeing a new benchmark laid down by Dreamworks' "Shrek," this film just idly comes along and makes "Shrek" look like yesterday's technology.<br>
<br>
But the film looks great, so what happened to the script? I don't know who wrote the script for this film, but I sure don't think they have done this before. Perhaps I lay the blame on the wrong people. The dialog for this film is excellent. The voice actors do a fabulous job of bringing to life the little verbal tibits, exchanges of wit, and devious overtones undertaken by the film's main characters. But along the way of the character interactions, there is a noticeable sucking sound coming from the backbone of this movie. Would somebody care to inform me of just what the point of the film was about? I could spend another hour just detailing all the little points that didn't make sense, and all the little plot holes and oversights in the story.<br>
<br>
Still, I would see this movie again, and I intend to buy it on DVD when it comes out. Just on the strength of the animation. This film is beautiful, even more so than "A.I." I'll be looking forward to the sequel to this film, although I hope next time, they start with the script first, and figure out the animation second.<br>
<br>
<hr><br><br>
This movie is rated: Standard summertime fare<br>
<br>
3.5 out of 5 stars<br>
<br>
Special Awards:<br><br>
<img src="http://www.psitech.net/wildfire/arthurclarke.jpg" width=200 height=100><br>
The Arthur C. Clarke movie award: For a visually stunning film that has a story nobody will ever really figure out.</b><br>
<br>
<br><img src="http://www.psitech.net/images/sig_light.jpg"><br><font size=1><b>Some people are afraid of heights. I'm afraid of widths.</b></font><br>