Forum - View topicREVIEW: Cutie Honey (live action) DVD
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GATSU
Posts: 15550 |
|
|||
|
You're a lot more generous than me.
|
||||
|
||||
britannicamoore
 Posts: 2618 Location: Out. |
|
|||
|
LOL. this was such a weird movie. nice reivew though...although i expected much worse.
|
||||
|
||||
adam_omega
 Posts: 256 Location: Seven Seas |
|
|||
|
I personally feel the Cutie Honey movie makes more sense if you watch Gainax's "RE: Cutie Honey" before you see it (which, sadly, hasn't been licensed). You get very little actual character development in the movie, so a lot of the enjoyment depends on the viewer being familiar with these characters are beforehand. Without that, stuff like the karaoke sequence just seems out of place.
Last edited by adam_omega on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
Sam Murai
 Posts: 1051 |
|
|||
Very true, although the film does do a good enough job at standing on its own. That said, I don't know if I was too forgiving of its shortcomings, myself. It seemed more disjointed than the animated feature and a bit ungainly as well. Re: Cutie Honey was the better of the two adaptations and it's a shame it didn't get licensed along with this film, as they nicely complement each other (and would have made that SE a little more palatable as a combo). |
||||
|
||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||
For me the difference was that RE: Cutie Honey was funny and cool and over-the-top and the live-action Cutie Honey was unwatchable trash. I don't need to spend 2 hours watching some chick Anno Hideaki is banging mug for the camera, seriously. |
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15550 |
|
|||
|
Zac: Um, I hate Anno more than anything, but he's married to someone else.
|
||||
|
||||
|
silentjay
Posts: 304 |
|
|||
He didn't say anything about being married. |
||||
|
||||
Beatdigga
 Posts: 4596 Location: New York |
|
|||
I definitely agree with that. I also wonder why Re hasn't been licensed, since it should be a pretty easy sell, a 3 episode OVA with two famous directors helming it, not to mention 3 metric tons of fanservice. |
||||
|
||||
gary leeman
 Posts: 70 Location: The Big Apple |
|
|||
|
It definitely looks intriguing, and I saw a little bit online not long ago.
I have not seen the previous version, so I am going in without any background. |
||||
|
||||
|
TheHTRO
Posts: 329 |
|
|||
More faithful, in what way? I actually brought myself to read the (entire) review, and as usual it appears to be biased. It talks more about how "cheesy" it is, and how pretty, and "cool" Eriko Sato looks despite a lack of acting ability. Go Nagai cameo or not, it never goes into the important question(s): How does it compare with the source material? How true is it to the source material (and by that, I mean story wise; I'm not talking about the "fanservice"* elements from the source material)? Is this remake truly unique, or is it just more of the same in another language (i.e., another generic film project with recognizable characters that hopes viewers won't know the difference)? You see, IIRC, originally Honey was "just" a cyborg, whereas in this movie, she's a human who got killed in an accident. The only other time she was ever fully human was in Cutie Honey Flash which I believe is an alternate retelling of the original story. Also, I know the review said not to expect American production values, but that's irrelevent, because I'm sure Japan has done it too (that is, created "remakes", and other "adaptations" that are actually generic film projects that don't know what they're talking about). For these reasons among others, I have to assume that this is yet another biased review that doesn't talk about everything and is based more on one person's perception, and presumes to think that that's how all "fans" will see it. No offense, ANN, but this is why I don't read your reviews, not after how the first Angelic Layer DVD was reviewed (but that's another story). *By "fanservice", I'm not referring to just "nudity" (or otherwise), but "other" things as well... |
||||
|
||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18442 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||
If you're going to make accusations of bias here, you're going to have to do a better job of explaining yourself. I read through your post twice and am still not sure where your "bias" complaint is coming from. What am I supposedly biased towards or against? As for the lack of detail in comparing it to the source material, did you ever stop to think that when a reviewer does that it's because he/she hasn't seen/read the original source material and not part of some grand conspiracy to promote bias? I said what I did, and put the word "supposedly" in the quote, only because that's what I have heard other people say about the movie. I had not seen more than a few clips of Cutie Honey content prior to watching this movie, hence my comments about how one doesn't need to be familiar with the source material to enjoy it. If you're going to criticize, please at least make sense when you do so. This was rambling. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nagisa
Moderator
 Posts: 6128 Location: Atlanta-ish, Jawjuh |
|
|||
You don't know what production values are. Production values are, essentially, the general sense of budget and scope and technique the project has. By "American" production values, the reviewer is referring to better special effects and more polished editing, much akin to American films which have much bigger budgets (and often more time on their hands to polish the film) than Japanese films do. Most Japanese films don't live up to the sort of polish that most western films have, and thus the reviewer was telling readers not to expect WETA or ILM-quality effects.
You realize you've just defined what a review IS, right? A review is the opinion of one individual who has generally proven themselves to be competent enough and trusted by enough people to warrant listening to. Not everyone will agree with the reviewer, but that's just life, isn't it? Just because you don't agree with the reviewer does not mean they're doing a bad job, it simply means you disagree. Go find another reviewer you agree with more or just go watch the film in question yourself and form your own opinion rather than wasting time whining here. |
||||
|
||||
CuteyHoney
 Posts: 53 Location: OC,CA |
|
|||
I liked them both. I hope that Bandai will license Re: Cutey Honey. For the live action, I think the Japanese voices are better. |
||||
|
||||
|
seryass
Posts: 27 |
|
|||
|
I understand where you are coming from Nagisa but what you are saying is still making unfairly sweeping generalizations.
Not all American films are made on expensive budgets. Two I can think of which immediately spring to mind are the unreleased Fantastic Four film from the early 90's and the Vampirella film, both of which were made with extremely low budgets. Your trying to compare Cutie Honey (which is well known for it's small budget) with a really expensive glossy American film such as Pirates of the Carribean or whatever big-budget film is on at the cinema now. That's unfair as they have been made with vastly different resources. It would be more fair to compare Cutie Honey with a lower budget American film such as the two I mentioned beforehand. Every country will have made expensive films as well as low budget ones. I just want to acknowledge that America has indeed made lower budget films which is more comparable to Cutie Honey. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nagisa
Moderator
Posts: 6128 Location: Atlanta-ish, Jawjuh |
|
|||
It's not an unfair generalization, it's simply what people mean when they say "American production values." Yes, we make low-budget films—we make a lot of them—but we're much more commonly known both here and abroad for breaking the bank on big Hollywood productions to a degree that few other countries are willing or even able to do (like, for example, Japan, whose biggest budget projects are still dwarfed by our own on a regular basis). And since big, flashy films are what we're known for and what our audiences tend to just expect out of movies by default, I think the reviewer is valid in placing Cutie Honey next to the standards the reader will likely know for big special effects action films and to remind them beforehand that it's not going to be quite up to that level. Nobody was saying we don't make low-budget films, and to have to stop and point that out as an aside when most people already know better would've detracted from the respective points the reviewer and I were trying to make. The point in the review was that what our audience comes to expect out of most flashy, over-the-top action films—like Cutie Honey is meant to be—is going to far overshoot what Cutie Honey actually has to offer (and then the point in my post was simply to define the basic idea of "production values" and what the reviewer was getting at, since TheHTRO completely misunderstood). |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group