I haven't done a "Late to the Party" entry since Star Wars VII in February 2017. I don't even think that was that recent of a movie when I wrote that either.
No spoilers by the way.
Movie release: 2018
Interest in the movie: I like stop-motion and animation in general. I usually don't go out of my way to see new movies in theaters because I usually end up thinking they are stupid but a lot of animators and artists I follow on the internet said that Isle of Dogs was pretty cool. I do too.
Isle of Dogs is the kind of animated movie that I have been hoping to come out for a long time. I knew it was only a matter of time but I certainly did not think it would be this good or in this time period. I certainly didn't expect it to be stop-motion. Animated movies were pioneered as family friendly and inevitably turned into mindless schlock for kids as well. There have been some great animated films since Disney essentially invented the full-length animated film but most of the movies in that genre are dumbed down to cater to kids. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying what happens. South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut is a movie that I still think holds up well but I also feel that it kind of ruined the animated film market in this sense (by no fault of its own). Movies had to be family friendly, watered down for the simplest of minds to comprehend, or it had to be vulgar like South Park. Isle of Dogs looks like a family-friendly movie and depending on the family maybe it is, but the animation is a creative and stylistic choice. This is not a kids' movie and that's part of the reason I love it. At the very least, it's refreshing.
Isle of Dogs has some really dark themes and that is not what necessarily makes the movie good. The portrayal, constantly impressive animation in both 3D and 2D, and many unique creative choices lead me to believe that Isle of Dogs will stand as one of the best films of its decade. I know, we have two years left, but if Marvel and DC are still in the running, I think Isle of Dogs can hold its throne there. Isle of Dogs has important politics but is ultimately apolitical. Isle of Dogs has family elements but centers on characters that are not related to each other. Isle of Dogs has violence but it is not primarily an action movie. Most of my movies seem to have a bit of everything in them. I don't need a full variety act but if you add several elements in, it should be to show complexities in your setting and characters. Isle of Dogs does this. The movie doesn't tell the greatest or most captivating story ever told or anything but the writing is catered to an entertaining ride that is consistently carried by the animation and voice acting.
The visuals are getting a lot of praise in this movie, both in my take and in a lot of what I'm seeing on the internet. The visuals are actually underrated. There are a lot of cues in the setup that carry out consistent themes and more impressively show the viewer the journey that they have been on from time to time. there are landmarks, which a lot of movies that aren't even animated don't have, and they are kept in continuity as well. From the introduction, Isle of Dogs shoves its style in your face and never lets go. I mean that in the best way possible.
To stop gushing, I guess I have to be a big meany-pants and talk about things that I thought were slightly flawed.
The most striking thing I remember questioning while I was watching the movie was its use of gender roles, or possibly its lack of use? Most of the girl characters are essentially just toys for the men. There was no real statement made with most of them. Peppermint is used as a plot device at least and I can understand her inclusion. Nutmeg, on the other hand, is shown like she is going to be this consistently important character and just ends up being a trophy for Chief. The only female characters that aren't just girl characters for the sake of having girl characters were probably The Oracle and Tracy. Tracy could have been a boy and very little would have changed. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, it means that she was important. Even then, midway through the movie, something stupid happens out of nowhere. It's kind of funny and cute but still makes the world seem like it revolves around dick. The Oracle is just a goofy character, and again, didn't have to be a boy or a girl, and either or would have made very little difference to the movie. This is not a bad thing. The Oracle has no romantic or sexual inclinations to anyone in the movie so her character didn't rub me the wrong way. Everyone else except Tracy, and even to some extent Tracy, needs dick for some odd reason. There is no purpose for this. There is no point in the movie other than for the male characters to be rewarded with dick. Peppermint serves some kind of purpose to the plot but as her character progresses, she looks like less of a character and more of a cum dumpster. They didn't have to "Mulan" it. Just don't make your characters sex toys. That makes them almost not characters at all.
Also, why were there no fucking subtitles I mean come on?!!?!?
...psych
This is one of the main complaints I hear about the movie and it makes me wonder if I was watching the same fucking movie. I don't have this complaint. Isle of Dogs feeds on the fact that it is refreshing in its genre. Every shitty movie where the dogs strike back against the humans, the humans and dogs usually can't understand each other and the lens is always on the humans looking down on the dogs as creatures that can't comprehend their dialect. Isle of Dogs turns the camera around to show the dogs' point of view on this issue. The fact that this was an English-centric movie with a lot of Japanese dialogue was an interesting choice and a ballsy one that I applaud. Every once in a while they will say something that is not a real Japanese word that is obviously derived from an English word. I feel that showing a bunch of Japanese speech to an American audience in sections where you are supposed to be getting more out of why they are saying what they are saying than what they are saying is a good opening for something like "respecto", obviously not a Japanese word. Absurd moments like this are what makes Isle of Dogs unique in its comedy. I'm not saying that any of this becomes hilarious but it breeds a consistent ruleset to this effect that never breaks or bends throughout the movie. After a while, you do not expect to understand what the Japanese characters are saying unless there is a translator character nearby, which a lot of the time there is. I think that this mechanic makes Atari's character work better and hold more meaning to the dog characters, which are the main characters. I would find it worn out and cheesier if Atari was speaking a language that the main characters can't understand while the dogs' voices are put in a language that an English-speaking audience can understand. The main characters aren't supposed to understand Atari, and vice versa. If we can understand Atari but they can't, we as an audience are no longer with the main characters, we are watching the main characters. No shit, either way we are technically watching the main characters, its a movie, but I find it more endearing and ambitious the way that Wes Anderson went about it. At the beginning of the movie it essentially explains this for a brief moment in a way that is still entertaining to the viewer as it happens so I'm still not entirely sure why this is such a widespread complaint.
In conclusion: Isle of Dogs is a good-ass movie. Watch it. Don't watch it with young children unless you have some really badass young children. If it is still in theaters, watch it soon so you can directly support great animation with an actual fucking plot. I get that these take forever to make but it should still not be that much of a rarity. Basically I'm saying Isle of Dogs is really good and Illumination can suck my dick.
