Scarygirl

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

From the very first moment things begin to spring to life, 'Scarygirl' is a phenomenal visual delight that's difficult to describe to those unfamiliar with creator Nathan Jurevicius' 'Scarygirl' books, artwork, games, vinyl figures or other short films. Psychedelic-like colours fill the screen with strange characters and wondrous settings the entire time and draw you in to the beautiful, mysterious world of 'Scarygirl' in an almost hypnotic manner. Animated in a way reminiscent of stop-motion films gives it great depth and a very three dimensional look, that also reflects the appearance of Nathan's past vinyl figures & mini figures / sets. The casting is as equally stunning, particularly Jillian Nguyen who was perfect as the voice of central character, 'Arkie'. As was Deborah Mailman as 'Treedweller' and Sam Neill as 'Dr. Maybee'- with Dr. Maybee even kinda resembling Sam Neill (or vice versa?) at times. I also loved Mark Coles Smith as 'River Bandit', who not only speaks but also makes some great crazy noises, that along with 'Rebel King', voiced by Dylan Alcott, are referred to together as the 'Wild Boys'. A beautiful story that is visually compelling and sonically brilliant with a wonderful cast.

Usually, independent animation, if it is not complete slag, consists of two components: an exciting, deep plot with well-developed characters and a passable picture, for which there was barely enough budget. Scarygirl is definitely not slag, but it also does not fall under the specified formula. After all, on the one hand, the picture and visual style are full of creative ideas, but the plot is pretty weak. Still, it must be admitted that the cartoon raises such complex questionss as self-determination, struggle and acceptance, the confrontation between progress and nature, as well as the problem of friendship and benefits. But even though these questions are raised, they are revealed too quickly, as if the cartoon needs to tell a lot in a very short time and because of this one gets the impression that problems are being solved with the loss of the motivation of the characters, and character development can only be described as abrupt. For me personally the best sign of this problem was the fact that at the end of the viewing I clearly felt a discrepancy between the path the characters had traveled and the time that had passed in the world of cartoon, and let me remind you that the main character overcomes the entire path in literally one day. If the character development had been smoother, this imbalance would not have been felt so clearly. As for the visual part, it's the opposite: everything looks very good. A large part of this is the great design of everything: the characters, the rooms, the vehicles, the city of light. Of course, the number of frames per second is small and sometimes the characters move clumsily, but these are non-critical flaws, because the atmosphere of the picture eliminates all minor flaws. And this atmosphere can be described either as a magical, beautiful world, being in which still causes some feeling of anxiety, or as a futuristic metropolis in a noir style, but in which one would like to spend a fun evening. The first characteristic relates more to the wild nature presented in the first half of the cartoon, the second - to the city of light, which, in my opinion, looks much more stylish, but which was given much less time, because quite quickly after arriving there the main character heads to the laboratory, where the climax and resolution of the plot takes place. To summarize, many of the problems of the cartoon could have been solved by an extra twenty minutes of the main characters staying in the city of light and interacting with each other. This way it would be possible to describe the development of the characters more smoothly and at the same time spend more time showing the visually best location in the cartoon. However, there were no such extra adventures in the city of light and we have what we have. Nevertheless I liked the cartoon, and, in general, we have to love and support independent and creative animation, without forgetting, however, to point out its problems. Final score: 7/10.

This film is intriguing and imaginative, with excellent world building and well developed characters. The world of scary girl has far more depth developed than any modern Disney film. There is an obvious love of the story and world from the studio here that just isn't seen in most modern films. The story stays true to the source material, and doesn't try to insert any agenda's that don't fit the subject. The voice acting is well done, and cinematography on point. The only criticism is the animation isn't as polished as is seen in many modern animated movies. However the choice of stop-motion animation is largely the reason here, and arguably is the right choice for the subject material. What is done with the budget available is still well done. Overall I and my kids thoroughly enjoyed this film, and we were all happy to re-watch a few days later. Highly recommended.

I took my year 9 students to watch this movie as part of a wellbeing day program. I didn't realise it was an Australian film, which was nice, seeing as I'm Australian. There was a lot of potential, but I really struggled with the plot and dialogue/script. It could have been geared towards an older audience, but was too simplistic for myself, my colleagues and our students. Certainly there are some big name actors providing voices, and kudos to them for supporting the Australian film industry. Hopefully the Australian film industry will get stronger writers in. The talent exists, as witnessed by the many wonderful novels that come from local authors, maybe there isn't enough money at the moment to attract them. As much as I want to support local, I can't (in good faith) recommend this movie.

Good movie!

source: Scarygirl