![]() 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. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |