Cool World (1992)

When I sat down to review Cool World I swore to do so without mentioning Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, just like how I discussed The Howling without bringing up An American Werewolf in London. However, the comparisons are just too tempting not to make, although Cool World isn't the first movie to try to toy with the idea of cartoons-interacting-in-the-real-world-and-vice-versa with a mature twist (there's an Italian movie out there that tried it too, but I forget the title.)

The movie starts with a guy named Frank (Brad Pitt…never thought he'd appear in one of the films I review) returning home from World War II to his Mom. The first week back, he brings a motorcycle he got in Europe and takes Mom out for a spin, despite Mom's mom-ly anxieties about the whole thing. Unfortunately, Mom turns out to be right as always, because while on the highway the two are plowed down by a drunk driver. Frank survives, Mom isn't so lucky. As police descend upon the scene, though, Frank is suddenly snatched up by a scientist's invention into another dimension, the 'Cool World,' a two-dimensional, animated universe. The scientist, known only as the Professor, has just fulfilled his dream of breaching the barrier between the three-dimensional universe and his home universe, the 'Cool World.' The existence of such a breach is potentially hazardous, though, for reasons that will later be contrived-er, given, so the Professor enlists Frank's aid to patrol the borders between the 'Cool World' and his world. If passage between the two dimensions is so dangerous, then, why did the professor, who is otherwise set up as a noble character, meddle in God's domain and create it in the first place? In only the first ten minutes of the film, we run into what will be the first of many breaches in the fabric of the plot.

The script is, in fact, this movie's main Achilles' heel (a weakness shared by a great number of films, but especially noticeable here). Not only does it show signs of being butchered and rushed, but one also gets the feeling that the screenwriters just sort of made it all up as they went along. The movie's plot hinges on the rules between "doodles" (the cartoon inhabitants of the 'Cool World') and "noids" (three-dimensional humans) and how someone can get from one state of existence to the other, yet these rules seem to appear and change at the plot's convenience. Worse, no attempt is made to explore these rules, how they came to be discovered, or indeed why they are. Several times the fact that "noids" often visit the "Cool World" is mentioned and it's established that it's Frank's primary job to monitor them, but we don't learn how and why they come or what usually happens to them. Unlike in Roger Rabbit, where some time was spent exploring the overlap between the human and cartoon worlds, only information that directly helps along the plot is dosed out, making the movie far more two-dimensional (forgive the pun) than it needs or ought to be.

The villain of the film is a Marilyn Monroe-esque cartoon named Hollie Would, who wants to become a "noid" and enter 'reality.' To do so, she needs to have sex with a "noid," specifically Jack Deebs, a convicted felon who has written a comic book based on the visions he has of 'Cool World.' What exactly is Jack Deebs' connection to the 'Cool World' and Holli Would, and how did it come about? Why does having sex with a "noid" make a "doodle" human? Why, because, the plot needs it to happen, that's why! We find out in a clumsy and forced manner that Deebs was in prison for killing his adulterous wife's lover, but nothing is ever done with it and it's only barely referred to again. Is Deebs' obsession with Holli Would related to his ex-wife? Say it with me…the audience never finds out. Underneath all this, though, there seem to be the echo of a good idea. The 'Cool World,' where humans never age or die, is more or less set up as a paradise, to where both Frank and Deebs have escaped from their guilt. One of the more interesting scenes in the movie is when Frank chooses to follow Holli Would, who has now turned 'human,' into the real world. To get back, he recalls his mother's death and returns in the exact condition he was after the accident. The implications of this and the possibilities that could follow are not mentioned again, much less followed up.

You probably get the point by now. Yet, it's a double tragedy, because the movie might have been a lot more with a more thought-out and fatter script. While I know many people do not like Ralph Bakshi's art for whatever reason (well, usually that reason is his less-than-stellar work with Lord of the Rings, but that's another story), it is quite well-done here. The 'Cool World' itself has a fantastic design, mixing an old gothic feel with an early twentieth century urban atmosphere (sort of like Gotham City, but through a cracked mirror or a drug addict's hallucination). The streets twist and circle onward in defiance of all the laws of physics and with no end in sight, while crooked skyscrapers reach out to red yet sunless skies. This would be all well and good, but constantly the audience is bombarded with cartoons rushing around and fighting. While many of the cartoon critters are nice references to earlier popular cartoons and they convey the chaos of the 'Cool World,' they become more irritating than interesting, especially when they mindlessly rush around the screen during a scene when two characters are standing around talking. This brings up another problem: the interaction between animated characters and live actors is pretty unrealistic, especially when one tries to touch the other. While this may be the fault of the budget rather than of Bakshi, we can still blame Brad Pitt as Frank for constantly looking very awkward or laughing nervously whenever he's supposed to be speaking directly to one of his two-dimensional co-stars.

The best acting here comes from Gabriel Byrne as Jack Deebs, who seems to do the best with what he's got from the script, which isn't much. I will say he earns a gold star from me by not trying to play a Generic Felon, but an actual human being. Kim Bassinger falls into the same trap as Uma Thurman in Batman and Robin by playing up the archetypical nature of her character way too much, but still it was amusing to watch when Holli Would becomes human and, overwhelmed by human sensations, stumbles and giggles her way through the 'real' Las Vegas.

So, what made Roger Rabbit great and this film a could-have-been-but-isn't-a-cult-classic? I think the most obvious answer is just a matter of audience. Roger Rabbit was one of those films that could generally appeal to people of all ages. Cool World, despite its attempt to be the 'mature' one, generally appeals to no ages. It's too goofy for most adults, while too 'Cinemax' (and, more importantly, too talky) for most kids. But the biggest difference to me is that Roger Rabbit made a world, while Cool World, despite the title, just gives you a college dorm room.