Coraline

[Velorath]

Teaser trailer here.

Description from comingsoon.net:

Written and directed by Henry Selick (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and based on Neil Gaiman's best-seller, the stop-motion animated adventure features the voices of Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders and Ian McShane.

In the film, Coraline Jones (Fanning) is bored in her new home until she finds a secret door and discovers an alternate version of her life on the other side. On the surface, this parallel reality is eerily similar to her real life and the people in it – only much better. But when this seemingly perfect world turns dangerous, and her other parents (including her Other Mother voiced by Hatcher) try to trap her forever, Coraline must count on her resourcefulness, determination and bravery to escape this increasingly perilous world – and save her family.

Coming in Feb. 2009.  Like Neil Gaimen, like Henry Selick, like the current 3D technology, and the premise sounds solid,

[HaemishM]

Sounds a lot like Mirror Mask - which was pretty damn good, BTW.

[pxib]

Except that MirrorMask was the plot largely a showcase for the artists to string together a bunch of imagery. Coraline is based on a (cute, creepy, funny) book with a plot that carries itself, and Henry Selick has proven adept at letting the story carry the art, rather than the other way round. I have high hopes.

[Samwise]

Yeah, I thought Mirrormask was a very pretty movie with a very anemic plot.  I'm looking forward to Coraline.

[Khaldun]

This film is very much better than Mirrormask, which I liked. Coraline is the first film that 3-D worked for me as something more than a gimmick, but even if you don't see it in 3-D, I think you'll find it a really special film--fantastic storytelling coupled to a very tight, wonderful visual aesthetic. One of my favorite movies in the last 12 months.

If you have kids, consider very carefully whether you want to take a child under 9, however. There were a lot of young kids at the screening today and a murmuring whimper went through the audience at several key moments in the second half of the film. There's a lot of psychologically fraught things going on with parents and family that will make the scary images vastly scarier.

[Samwise]

Yeah, this movie is definitely not for young children.  Although it does carry a nice little moral about not trusting strangers even if the candy they're offering you looks REALLY REALLY good.

I wish Gaiman had been a little more involved.  The story was very recognizably his, but the dialogue was not up to his standards.

I think this might be the first kids' movie I've seen where they have poison oak instead of poison ivy.  'Bout time.

[Khaldun]

Yeah, this movie is definitely not for young children.  Although it does carry a nice little moral about not trusting strangers even if the candy they're offering you looks REALLY REALLY good..

Which is in and of itself a pretty interesting thing to say to kids--when they're warned about stranger-danger, it's usually by educators or parents or PSAs that basically portray it like, "Hey, you know that hobo over there with a half-eaten candy bar and an unmarked van? Don't go with him." It's not, "don't trust that very nice person who seems to totally understand what your life is like and who tells you things you want to hear". Because of course in part, there are also people who totally understand children who are the opposite of molesting strangers: they're the adults who make a child's world special or who work with children in all sorts of good ways or they're the authors who write great books for children. But it doesn't do much good to warn kids when what we're warning them about is something that almost any kid with any sense would avoid.

[Quinton]

I saw it last night in 3D (wacky!).  I think the 3D was used to good effect, but nonessential.  Wonderful film.  I immediately re-read the book when I got home, which is also fantastic in its own way. 

Interesting what they changed (the neighbor kid they added to give somebody for Coraline to talk to instead of to herself, Coraline herself is not quite as independent as a result, etc).  The film still totally worked for me, but in some ways I prefer the original story in the book -- which is also a little darker/creepier I think. 

Some of the dialogue is 1:1 with the book.  In other places, not so much.  The stop-motion animation was brilliantly done and just fantastic to watch, which helped compensate for some of the meddling they did.

http://www.youtube.com/coralinethemovie has some little 2-3 minute clips about various production things, model making, etc, that are kinda neat.

[tazelbain]

I saw the regular version.  Enjoyed it very much.

[Cadaverine]

Just saw it this evening.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, though it felt a tad overlong. 

[photek]

Can't wait to see this movie, but of course we have to wait till May until its in theaters 

[Jain Zar]

I actually drove further out to see it in non 3D, saving 2 bucks.  (The 3d in Beowulf and My Bloody Valentine wasn't cool enough to spend extra and have to wear glasses over my glasses, culminating in my ears hurting.)

It was FUCKING AWESOME.  I'm not sure what else I can really say about it.

[tazelbain]

It's a shame it got labeled as a kids movie.

[Le0]

Watched the trailer and I'm really looking forward to seeing this. But after having checked it has me worried that France release date is 21 october, WTF sucky European release dates.

[Tarami]

Watched the trailer and I'm really looking forward to seeing this. But after having checked it has me worried that France release date is 21 october, WTF sucky European release dates.

This is a major WTF. They're practically asking to get their movies distributed swashbuckling-style in the rest of the world.

[Mattemeo]

I caught a midnight showing of Coraline last night (it was only released a week ago in the UK), in 3D. Initially I wasn't going to bother spending the extra £2 on the 3D experience as it had been pretty sub-par and caused me some visual discomfort when I was watching Bolt. This time, however, apart from the general dislike of having to wear the clunky glasses, Coraline was crisp and full of clarity, no focus warring between the camera, the 3D effect and my poor eyes; in short it felt like the 3D elements had been included from the ground up rather than post-processed on as in Bolt, and I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more.

As for the film, no, it's not a perfect rendition of the original book, but it is a masterpiece of intelligent adaptation. The additions and the ommissions make sense - as Quinton mentioned earlier, the inclusion of Wybie makes Coraline have someone to react naturally to rather than the insular and awkward lonely pre-teen she appears in the book, so her internal monologue actually has a direction in the movie. He's also there to demonstrate some of the keener psychological elements, especially in the 'other' world.

It's the psychological horror of the movie that's being talked about most as it has been, somewhat erroneously, marketted more towards a younger audience when it is very much supposed to be an inclusive movie - after all, it's a Gaiman story and he is the crown prince of the modern fairytale. And that's what Coraline is - a fairytale. One of the old ones, the original tellings where children were taught that life isn't full of puppies called spot, it's got wolves who eat and impersonate sweet old ladies and that Dick and Jane got hit by a bus because they were living in a retarded dreamworld and weren't taught that it's fucking dangerous to play in the road.

I think the movie is especially important for 9 year olds and maybe younger. Not to watch on their own while mummy and daddy piss off to do their own thing ala Coraline's parents, but for their parents to sit with them and help them understand it. Not mollycoddling, not shielding them from the big bad whatever, but telling them how and why and what. It's difficult because of all things a child needs to trust its parents, and Coraline is let down by two pairs of them in the movie, but begins to understand the value of her real parents and the consequences of getting everything she wants.

To be honest, this is all a bit moot on this board. Those of us who have children probably consider them too young for the movie and those of us who haven't aren't watching it to think about the emotional impact it's going to have on kids, we're there to see something astonishing and beautiful come to life in the absolute zenith of stop-motion animation, easily surpassing Selick's own work in The Nightmare Before Christmas and Nick Park's Aardman studios.

There were moments I had watching the movie where the animation had such realistic mannerisms to it I could have sworn they'd just filmed actors in masks, and it's little touches like that which are mixed into wild swathes of passionate, stylised animation that really make oscar-level animation for me - it's the little things in The Incredibles along with the grand gestures that mark it out as still my favourite Pixar movie, for example.

Either way, I urge anyone who hasn't seen it yet to catch it, be it at a cinema or on DVD. You really will have seen nothing like it before.

[veredus]

Just watched this last night, fantastic movie. Only part I would worry about for my kids is the last 10 to 15 minutes and only because it would scare them. My daughter is only two and my eight year old son does not enjoy scary movies at all. It wasn't really that bad but I would recommend watching it first yourself before letting your kids see it if they are younger. Very much worth watching though.

[Simond]

How can you tell if a story is really for kids?
It scares the crap out of them at least once. See also: the original (unbowlderised) fairy tales, Doctor Who, etc.

[veredus]

How can you tell if a story is really for kids?
It scares the crap out of them at least once. See also: the original (unbowlderised) fairy tales, Doctor Who, etc.

That's going to depend on the parent really, which is why I recommended watching it first. You should know what your kids can and can not handle.

[Wasted]

My 6 year and 7 year old kids loved it, didn't get scared just enjoyed the story and the aesthetics of it.  I liked it, haven't read the book so I had nothing to compare it to.