Children of the Sea
1.5/4
Starring: Anjali Gauld, Lynden Prosser, Benjamin Niewood
Not Rated (probable PG for Some Scary Images)
Is it too much to ask that a movie tell a coherent story?
When I watch a movie, I generally want to be told a story. Character studies are okay, but they have to be both interesting and fully developed. "Children of the Sea" has neither of these things. The plot took about five minutes to lose me, and the characters aren't given much more depth than a name.
What is this movie about? Hell if I know. It starts out promisingly with a young girl names Ruka (Gauld) starting her summer vacation off on the wrong foot when she gets revenge on a bully who tripped her by breaking her nose. It effectively presents her as an awkward, alienated teenager. Then she goes to the aquarium where she spent time as a kid and her parents work. That's when things fall apart spectacularly. For the next 90 minutes it's a lot of hooey. There are two kids who were found swimming in the sea having been raised by dugongs, something about a mysterious festival in the middle of the ocean, and a lot of discussions about man's place in the universe that are less profound philosophy and more crap you'd hear from a drunk hipster who wants to look trendy.
That being said, there is one area in which "Children of the Sea" excels. Two, actually. One, of course, is the visuals. This is a beautifully animated film to look at, with bold colors and unique images. If nothing else, director Ayumu Watanabe has a vivid imagination. I'd say at least a half of the pictures he creates (from a manga by Daisuke Igarashi) are so gorgeous that I could simply stare at them with sheer pleasure. The other is the soundtrack by Joe Hisaishi, who is best known for his collaborations with Hayao Miyazaki. This is far from his best work (that distinction goes to "Spirited Away," for which he should have won an Oscar even though he was not nominated), but it is pleasing to listen to.
"Children of the Sea" contains a lot of philosophical ideas, but there is a problem. They are not well thought out, integral to the story (such as it is), or even interesting to begin with. What is the meaning of life? We are all connected. Blah blah blah. These ideas are as old as time itself, and Watanabe doesn't do anything with them. It's laudable that a filmmaker wants his audience to think, but there's a line between creating food for thought and creating pretentious drivel.
This is a frustrating film. It could have been so good with the strength of its images and sounds. But then there's this would-be story and nonsensical philosophies that constantly get in the way. Every time the film's visceral pleasures gain any sort of traction, Watanabe plugs in the crap. Maybe the film would have been better without dialogue and left to work in a "Fantasia" sort of way. That way the film's strengths would have been able to shine without obstruction.
Comments
Post a Comment