![]() ![]() ![]() That increased flexibility mostly works to the film’s benefit, with Van Orman and the writers investing in more elaborate, inspired comic setpieces without referential in-jokery. We’re free, then, to drift into story worlds and digressions with nary a trace of the source material’s DNA, even as the plush, fluorescent finish of the animation (a gaudy-but-gorgeous alternative to Disney-Pixar refinement) keeps things true to the original game’s eye-scorching aesthetic. Where its predecessor contorted itself to work the game’s essential imagery and strategy into a shaggy narrative, the sequel persuasively cements the films as a franchise in their own right. ![]() How close “The Angry Birds Movie 2” comes to matching that figure will depend on how firmly the first film’s characters - considerably fleshed (or feathered) out from rudimentary smartphone avatars - have captured the collective imagination of a young public now a micro-generation removed from the game’s pop-cultural peak. Despite a complete replacement of the first film’s writing and directing teams - with acclaimed, offbeat TV animator Thurop Van Orman brashly taking the reins in his first feature assignment - this second loopy adventure for misfit cardinal Red and his feathered-but-flightless friends maintains the balance of scattergun jokes, candy-coated visuals and cheerfully bird-brained storytelling that raked in $350 million worldwide in 2016. Peace of any kind is in short supply in “ The Angry Birds Movie 2,” another breathless, frenetic cartoon escapade derived from the once-ubiquitous video game franchise, and again its manic, catapulting comic energy is more appealing than those origins might suggest. “For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson - though he reckoned without the Angry Birds making a virtue of that trade. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |