Category Archives: Animation

Analog This: Archer

Leave a reply

Analog This is a new segment where I shift the spotlight away from movies to focus on a TV show, old or new, that is worthy of your attention. 


With the glut of great comedy currently being shown on both network and cable television, I find myself wavering day-to-day on which one I can currently pin as my favorite. “Community” (which I can include because it is indeed coming back) is the most sophisticated and thought provoking. “Parks and Recreation” is the warmest and most consistently funny. “Louie” is the most daring and unique, like “Seinfeld” as a documentary shot by Woody Allen. Then, there is “Archer,” the most surprisingly witty of them all.

“Archer” is “Arrested Development,” “Mad Men,” and an Adult Swim show all rolled into one. The “Arrested Development” comparison is not one that should be used lightly, even though I am guilty of using it too often. However, if any show could objectively receive this honor, it should be “Archer.” Adam Reed, the show’s creator, has himself remarked on the show’s influence. Indeed, Jessica Walter voices Malory Archer, the aging, alcoholic head of the ISIS spy agency. Like her previous performance as Lucille Bluth, she also has a troubled relationship with her son(s), whom she always manages to both smother and distance herself from. Judy Greer once again plays a sometimes ditzy, but always unhinged secretary, while Jeffrey Tambor has a role in a few episodes here and there.

“Archer” deserves the comparison much more because it takes the essence of what made “Arrested Development” so smart and so funny, and uses it perfectly. It is full of references ranging from literature to Burt Reynolds movies. Its constant use of wordplay and skewing of the English language is worthy of multiple viewings. Who knew an ongoing joke about idioms, seen in “Heart of Archness,” could be that funny? Go back to the very first episode, and see if you can understand that joke about “being into Greek” now.

No matter how elaborate the jokes and references in “Archer” are, they can be within anyone’s range of understanding. They often just involve the kind of time and effort that a lot of shows don’t demand of their audience. Even if a reference does go over your head (it will happen), it doesn’t detract from the humor of an episode in any sense. “Archer” should truly be commended for being possibly the first show in history to reference “Hud.” And you can make fun of me all you want for actually getting that reference. Watching “Archer” can be like hanging out with a bunch of culturally aware kids who aren’t pretentious and are willing to clue you in on the reference, without specifically clueing you in on the joke.  

“Archer” also has one of the finest arrays of characters currently seen on television. The show made a major shift from season one to two, when it began to delve deeper into backstories. After finding out that Pam (Amber Nash) was a skilled street fighter in order to pay for college, she is no longer just the hilariously inappropriate HR lady. While Pam’s actions are almost always repellent, her strength and hidden intelligence make her a standout. Same can be said for Woodhouse, who in one episode reveals himself to be much more than just the Archer family’s longtime “slave.”

And of course there’s Mr. Sterling Archer himself, the alcoholic, mommy-issue riddled center of the universe (and the show). Sterling has the capacity to be both the dumbest and one of the smartest members of ISIS. What seems to get him in trouble most is not his intelligence but rather his ego and his inability to stop talking. “Archer” is an experiment of how long a character can talk, and how long a joke can go on, before it becomes hard to watch.

“Archer,” now in its third season, has made some serious breakthroughs in its characters, and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. Recent episodes have explored Sterling’s dangerously addictive personality in ways that are both funny and tragic. The most recent episode saw him inadvertently causing the death of the man who might have been his father. It was a moment clarity and sadness that could bring the show in a new direction. But hopefully not too new: there can be no true “Archer” without a lewd, boozed up Sterling.

“Archer” is atypical in many ways. Many episodes are left unresolved, and each usually ends not with a revelation, but with a character saying something ridiculous, before cutting to credits. “Archer” is less a show about plot, and more a show about characters. They are the reason I come back to “Archer” every single week. To make a show where watching the characters is more enticing than story arcs is a rare feat. It is what makes “Archer” television’s best animated show since the start of “South Park.”*


*Sorry, but “Family Guy” was ruined for me after a certain point.

Movie Review: Despicable Me

1 Reply

Hey everyone, Pixar doesn’t have to be the only studio allowed to make animated films. Competition begets creativity. In the case of animated competition, Illumination Entertainment gave us “Despicable Me.” It might feel a little less grown up than “Toy Story 3″ but that doesn’t stop it from being entertaining and even a little touching.

I don’t mean to keep comparing “Despicable Me” to Pixar, because it deserves to seen as its own separate entity. It reminded me a little bit of “The Incredibles” for the world of super villains. It’s all about Gru (Steve Carell). Gru has a reputation for being the world’s greatest villain. He’s bald, has something of a hunchback, and has a creepy French accent that makes him sound a bit like Tommy Wiseau.
Gru’s status as greatest villain is threatened. The young and clumsy Vector (Jason Segel) impresses the world of evil by stealing the Pyramids. This also puts a damper on some of Gru’s biggest plans. Gru does what any evil genius would do: adopt three innocent little girls to secretly undermine for your operations. This works fine, until you begin to feel compassion.
“Despicable Me” doesn’t quite look as well polished as some of the other big animated films. Yet, there’s something about its animation that is both realistic and eye-poppingly alive. The animated world around the characters is more than convincing enough for the audience to totally buy it.
Even the characters come with a convincing reality to them. A few flashbacks make Gru’s evil seem a little more understandable. Who said a movie for children couldn’t have a little depth to it?
Another thing that adds to the characters is the excellent voice talent. Usually, recording a role for an animated film doesn’t require much effort. However, the actors here actually add some personality to their roles. Segel weirdly feels like the awkward guy he always plays. Carell’s never really played a villain before, yet he manages to pull of some of his dorky and lovable qualities that he’s so good at.

What can make a children’s movie go from children’s movie to family film is how universal its story and themes are. “Despicable Me” gets that down right. It provides a framework that makes room for endless imagination. It has fun showing off both Gru’s crazy inventions (which involve a ridiculous car and a shrink ray) and his pension for evil. While some animated films can get carried away with visual gags, the best jokes of “Despicable Me” come as a result of the imagery. At times though, you just have to look closely, or you might miss it.


Probably the highlight of the movie are the little Minions, Gru’s assistants. What species they are is never stated, but they look like talking yellow Mike and Ikes. They speak a strange language and do nothing but cause problems. They seem like the kind of characters who would get their own short film before a big movie starts. Their running time was extended, with great results.

“Despicable Me” has a heart and a message to it that’s beyond the typical “don’t judge others” and “be nice” that you get from most children’s movies. “Despicable Me” is about the value of family, and how much different life can be when you have someone to care for, and someone else who actually cares for you. This is so much more than you might get from say, “Shrek” or “Shark Tale,” so why did it have to go with the typical dance sequence ending? “Despicable Me,” you are better than that.

Besides that little hiccup, even if you don’t have a kid, have a little heart to check this movie out. Hey, it probably has one of the more original stories this summer.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

1 Reply

How rare it is to find a sequel that’s not looking to sell a new toy line, or even another three sequels. How nice it is when a sequel would rather continue telling a story, than capitalize off of it. That rare day has come with “Toy Story 3.”

Then again, this should’ve been expected by this point. Pixar cemented its status as the greatest animation creator since Walt Disney years ago and they proved they could handle sequels when “Toy Story 2″ was released 11 years ago.
Rather than start directly where it last left off, “Toy Story 3″ takes place in the present day. Andy is now 18 and heading off to college. He hasn’t played with any of his toys in years. While he means to keep them stored in the attic, the toys end up being donated to a day care center by accident. What seems at first like paradise with a benevolent bunch of toys, including Lotso (Ned Beatty) and Ken (Michael Keaton), turns into a living hell for deserted toys. The mission, once again, is to get back to Andy.
Despite being locked up in a chest for years, the toys haven’t changed at all. Woody (Tom Hanks) remains the most loyal friend in the world. Buzz (Tim Allen) still believes he’s a real space cadet. Jesse, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Rex, Hamm, and even the little red monkeys, are all still there. And let the nostalgia begin.
When the original “Toy Story” was released in 1995, it ushered in an era of computer animation. It’s incredible to see how far the genre has come since then with the characters that started it. By this point, “Toy Story 3″ doesn’t even look like it was created on a computer. It might as well have been shot on real Hollywood sets. Well, it might just look even more real than that.
“Toy Story 3″ also has the benefit of 3D. That’s right, I said benefit. The only other movie I’ve seen that’s benefited from 3D is “Avatar” (the wine cork scene from “The Final Destination” doesn’t count). What works with the 3D in “Toy Story 3″ is that its not gimmicky. Nothing pops out at you. The characters and settings pop out of the screen organically. If more filmmakers could harness 3D in appropriate ways like this, then I might just hop on board.
“Toy Story 3″ certainly doesn’t hide behind its visuals. Who needs them with a story this good? The movie might be a slightly basic variation of the first two (toys get lost, toys try to get back from Andy), but that doesn’t mean it’s not original. Most sequels usually lazily ripoff their predecessors. Pixar is too good for that.
Not only does the story feel fresh, but so does every individual moment. That’s another rarity. For example, “Shrek 2″ tried to teach important lessons like its predecessor. Yet, they were basically the same as the original, and therefore felt nowhere near as effective. However, every little poignant moment in “Toy Story 3″ feels so new.
And once again, Pixar proves it amazing ability to bring human qualities to the nonhuman. Sure, its not too hard to feel sympathetic for a fish, or even a kind rat. But making the audience care for inanimate objects is no easy task. Once again, this task is pulled off perfectly. What we see is that a toy can be just as good a friend as any person.
To classify “Toy Story 3″ as a kids’ movie would be a gross inaccuracy. It is a family movie, meaning any member of a family, at any age, will get something out of this movie. Children will learn the value of friendship and commitment. They will also get an exciting story. Teens and adults might even get a more enriched experience. Some of the humor involves a keen sense of observation, and some film knowledge (spot the “Cool Hand Luke” reference). This movie should finally teach the haters that animation is not purely kiddie junk.
Now, I’m going to do something I don’t normally do. Rather than discuss “Toy Story 3″ for what makes it such a great movie, I’m going to discuss what this movie means to me. The “Toy Story” series will always hold a special place in my heart, and this sequel certified it. How amazing it is that the creators coincided Andy’s life with both the beginning of mine, and my entry into adulthood. Pixar doesn’t always deal much with its human characters, but Andy’s college angst feels too familiar. “Toy Story 3″ made me want to rediscover my childhood.
This also helped make every character even more meaningful to me. There is a moment toward the end, which I obviously won’t fully reveal. It was handled so maturely, and it’s so dark, that I’m shocked the studio didn’t alter it. Yet, it shows us the unbreakable friendship between the toys. After all these years, they’re still together. After all these years, I still want to be a part of their journey.
As a friend lamented once the movie ended, “‘Toy Story 3′ represents the end of my childhood.”* Pixar bookmarked the start and end of my childhood. It was one of the first movies I remember seeing, and one of the last ones I’ll see before I walk down graduation isle. As the film’s conclusion showed, it’s not just about the end of one phase of life, but the beginning of a new one. And if this new beginning might also signal more time with Woody, Buzz, and the gang, then count me in.
*Quote attributed to Reverend Doctor Eric H. Wessan

Movie Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

5 Replies

Who thought that Wes Anderson, who’s still early on in a career of mastering the human frontier, could suddenly switch to the world of animated animals so perfectly? “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” for lack of a better word, is fantastic.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is based off the book by the wildly imaginative Roald Dahl. Dahl’s source material often makes for classic cinema (mainly, the original “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory”). The imaginative mind of Dahl is in good hands with the equally imaginative mind of Anderson.
For those not familiar with the book, the titular Mr. Fox (George Clooney) was a former chicken thief who retired his old profession after marrying Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) and having their child, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
After going through what could be described as a mid-life crisis, Mr. Fox gets back into his old stealing habits and incites the wrath of the three wicked farmers Bogus, Bunce, and Bean. After they threaten his home and family, Mr. Fox prepares to fight back.
As pointed out, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” comes from the brilliant mind of Wes Anderson. Anderson is well known for directing films such as “Rushmore,” “The Royal Tenenbaums,” and “The Life Aquatic.” For a film that follows around the lives of foxes, rats, and badgers, it is still completely Andersonesque. He accounts for every tiny detail. The cozy tree the foxes inhabit is alive with color, their furniture and their walls adorned with the most intricate decorations. You might also marvel at how a computer in the background is covered with post it notes, or how the walls of the deepest parts of the earth have fossils imprinted into them.
Anderson also leaves his mark with the music, which is a mixture of original score and rock music. What other director would use a Rolling Stones song in a family movie? The original score often perfectly matches the pleasant, agrarian landscape and during more suspenseful moments, takes on a spaghetti western feel.
The characters themselves also feel ripped out of previous Anderson films. Mr. Fox’s mischievous behavior over family values can feel something like those of Royal Tenenbaum, and his struggle to find a real identity for himself can at times, make him seem like Max Fisher.
What’s most important about Anderson’s direction is that every frame seems filled with absolute love. Rather than record the voices and sound in a studio, Anderson instead decided to record out in a farm in Connecticut. This no doubt gives the film a much more natural feeling, rather than just feeling like another artificial studio product churned out in too short an amount of time.
Perhaps that’s what makes this better than the typical, how real it feels; even the animals feel human. Also, the film manages to be so adult in both theme and humor despite being a children’s film. The fact that the word “existentialism” is mentioned in it might give you an indication of it.
In this light, Anderson’s adaptation of “Fantastic Mr. Fox” manages to turn this fairytale into an allegory of the human existence. At one point, Mr. Fox realizes that his days as a thief proved him to be a wild beast, and that he must settle down. The fact that he goes back to his old ways shows the wild, untamed beast that is the basis of our existence. Here, is the key to existentialism.
But I don’t want to get into philosophy. After all, this is meant to be a fun story for the family, and at that it succeeds admirably.
For some reason, as I watched this film, I couldn’t stop thinking of the other children’s film made by a mature filmmaker this year: “Where the Wild Things Are.” Both were experiments of whether their directors could reach to new audiences. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” wins in this experiment not just because its well filmed, not just because it has depth, but for one small reason alone: it’s an amazingly fun time at the movies.