Category: #WWMD

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Typically well-made live-action update of classic fairy tale is aggressively ok. Far too long for little ones to sit still – parents, too…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Cinderella:

Disney has my admiration when it comes to milking a cow. They really do not miss a single trick. Not only did they strike pure gold with their strategy of mining old fairy tales for most of their early film classics, they’re now getting a second bite at the apple by remaking all of their old hits in live action. They could frankly make movies forever without ever having to write a single story. As I’ve noted before in my review of Maleficent, I quite expect that they plan just that…

So if the idea here is to update all of the old kids animated movies for the kids of today, why is this so long? With attention spans getting shorter, why are films going in the opposite direction when it comes to run-times?

It only took 74 minutes for Walt Disney’s animation team to spirit us through the Cinderella story, and it had 6 songs – not one of which is repeated here (although I did hear one in the end credits). I don’t understand what on earth made the filmmakers responsible for the update feel that this version merited another 40 minutes. 112 minutes is far too long for kids to sit still, so who are you making this film for?

The intended audience of the film is the puzzle that stuck with me through the whole picture. Despite the serious matter inherent in the death of the titular character’s parents, it’s not a particularly dark tale. To the credit of the filmmakers, they didn’t ramp up the action or danger or anything like that. That suggests a younger target market – fair enough. But why then is it so talky and epic and repetitive?

The screenplay by Chris Weitz plays it extremely safe, but that’s not really a bad thing. There are missed opportunities and maddening decisions, sure. (Including the tale about asking the father to bring home the first branch he sees is great, but not if you don’t show the tree planted for her mother. Also, if you insist on making this picture so long, why excise the business of the ball lasting three nights and having three dresses?) But at least he didn’t try to hit the LOTR-y with unnecessary villains and battle scenes, or placing the heroes in great danger.

Similarly, although the acting is quite good, the actors are seldom given any real room to create something new. Most noteworthy, as you might expect, is Cate Blanchett. She turns in a predictably great performance as the wicked stepmother Lady Tremaine, and in adding a hint of subtle suggestion that the woman’s actions are driven by a sad backstory gets just enough opportunity to let you see how much better of a character you’re not going to be getting. This is a real missed opportunity to make this character slightly less one-dimensional.

Most of the characters are fairly milquetoast, so any added embellishments do little to distinguish them, but they are fine performances nonetheless. Lily James is perfectly suited to the role of Cinderella, and her interactions with her dead mother & father walking (Hayley Atwell & Ben Chaplin, respectively) are lovely and earnest if a touch heavy on the treacle.

Helena Bonham Carter kind of phones in her turn as the Fairy Godmother. Her casting was actually probably a good call, but the whole sequence seems extraordinarily rote and hurried. The picture has a lot of pacing problems, with certain scenes overstaying their welcome, but you wouldn’t have expected the only magical portion of the story to have been directed as though the pumpkin coach was double-parked. This is the best part of the story for kids! 

I noted with interest that they actually added some significant interaction between the King (Derek Jacobi) and Prince Charming (Richard Madden), allowing them to express familial love. It’s fine, but the cynic in me was accutely aware that this may be Disney’s attempt at a Frozen / Maleficent moment for males.

That leads me to the conundrum that Disney has created with these films. As an audience member, you have now been trained to expect a “hook” or a surprising twist. Watching these Disney updates has become an exercise not unlike going to a Christopher Nolan or M. Night Shaymalan film – no matter how much you may be enjoying the picture, you are distracted the whole time wondering what third act surprise they’re going to drop on you. I find I can only really enjoy these films upon a second viewing, when I’m no longer focused on what they’re planning next. Similarly, I spent the entirety of Cinderella wondering if they were going to pull some metaphorical play like having the slipper not fit but the prince realizes that Cinderella fits in his heart or some similar drivel.

Another aside; I couldn’t shake the feeling that there were a lot of meetings at the studio about how the depiction of Cinderella in Into the Woods was going to differ from this picture. I strongly suspect that Branagh was instructed to play it straight and not go for the darker parts of the original tale since that ground would be covered by the studio’s other picture. Oh, and by the way Branagh? You’re slumming, pal…

The picture is absolutely gorgeous. The set design, the costumes, the photography – it’s all superb. In some ways it’s like the Oscar-bait films that are always nominated but never seriously considered. You only get partial credit for succeeding with these films; they’re supposed to be gorgeous…

So, after that overlong review – was it any good? I suppose so. Despite my stated ambivalence about the overlong runtime and surfeit of humor, the kids in the theater seemed to go for it. Most of the adults looked bored – I sure was – but my daughter loved it. So, mission accomplished, I guess…

---

Oh, and the cynical decision to throw a Frozen short at the beginning of the film to increase ticket sales paid off big time. The picture had a smash opening weekend, and I’m certain half of the ticket sales are due to the inclusion of Frozen Fever (which was cute, if slight). It certainly ensured our attendance at a picture that looked a little underwhelming. Well played, mouse…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (8 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 [schema type=”movie” url=”http://movies.disney.com/cinderella/” name=”Cinderella” description=”The story of “Cinderella” follows the fortunes of young Ella whose merchant father remarries following the tragic death of her mother. Keen to support her loving father, Ella welcomes her new stepmother Lady Tremaine and her daughters Anastasia and Drizella into the family home. But when Ella’s father suddenly and unexpectedly passes away, she finds herself at the mercy of a jealous and cruel new family. Finally relegated to nothing more than a servant girl covered in ashes, and spitefully renamed Cinderella since she used to work in the cinders, Ella could easily begin to lose hope. Yet, despite the cruelty inflicted upon her, Ella is determined to honor her mother’s dying words and to “have courage and be kind.” She will not give in to despair nor despise those who abuse her. And then there is the dashing stranger she meets in the woods. Unaware that he is really a prince, not merely an employee at the palace, Ella finally feels she has met a kindred soul. ” director=”Kenneth Branagh” actor_1=”Lily James” ]

Main Cast	Lily James Cinderella, Cate Blanchett Stepmother, Richard Madden Prince, Helena Bonham Carter Fairy Godmother
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 13 Mar 2015 UTC
Director	Kenneth Branagh
Genres	Adventure, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Romance
Plot	When her father unexpectedly passes away, young Ella finds herself at the mercy of her cruel stepmother and her daughters. Never one to give up hope, Ella’s fortunes begin to change after meeting a dashing stranger.
Poster
Runtime	112
Tagline	Midnight is just the beginning.
Writers	Chris Weitz (screenplay)
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Exactly what it looks like. Well-made: did good job of maintaining the spirit of the old cartoon, but instantly forgettable (like cartoon?).

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Mr. Peabody & Sherman:

I loved Rocky & Bullwinkle as a kid – still do – and the Mr. Peabody & Sherman cartoons were a big highlight. I love the awful puns, the understated humor, the delivery – it’s all great. So I viewed this DreamWorks Animation feature with trepidation. I assumed that it would be funny – I also assumed that it would be a completely paint-by-numbers “modern” cg-makeover that was obligated to create an unnecessary story with conflicts and character arcs. Sometimes it would be nice to be surprised…

There’s a scene in the underrated 1990 comedy Quick Change in which Bill Murray’s character, a jaded and burnt out city planner who has decided to become a bank robber, stares at the glass monstrosity of a new skyscraper going up and dejectedly laments, “Why do they have to do this?” I feel that way every time one of these movies based on increasingly questionable source material is announced. Every single thing created in our world does not need to be adapted to film. They’re making feature films based on board games at this point for goodness sake.

I’d have to say I liked Mr. Peabody & Sherman, since it would be untrue to say I disliked it. It was completely serviceable. With most reviews I’d make some comment that adequate is probably not what they were going for, but in this case I think it may have been. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that these cg-animated movies are aiming extremely low.

Sure, the jokes were pretty good and they brought over the sensibility of the cartoon exactly. But then they built it up with the usual DreamWorks Animation crap – you know, the too cool for school pop culture references that you aren’t really sure what audience they’re targeted to. I hate that crap. It shows a complete lack of respect for the audience.

I came to this conclusion when I asked the rhetorical question “how do they think this stuff will play in a few years’ time?” That’s when I realized they simply are not concerned with that. They are making a movie for right now – there isn’t a thought given to the shelf life of the movie. That shows not just shortsightedness, but also implies a disdain for the work itself. You can’t spend this much money and time on something and not care about its legacy unless you really don’t feel that it has any value to begin with. (Although, based on the disappointing box office receipts that caused the studio to take a $57 million write-down on it and nearly single-handedly tanked the stock and made the company vulnerable to takeover bids, maybe they were right…)

So yes, I submit that the filmmakers and this studio in particular have no respect for the work they are creating and are just making widgets. Well, mission accomplished. See ya soon for the Connect Four movie…

By the way, this film has inspired me to create a new section on the site, #140FAQ, where I post my Frequently Asked Questions (mine, not yours) in 140 characters. Here’s the first:

#140FAQ Is there some sort of rule that all cg-animated movies must have a “funny” end scene of characters dancing to pop song? #BlameShrek

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: I dunno, hard to do for these movies; call it a C (4 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

Main Cast	Ty Burrell Mr. Peabody (voice), Max Charles Sherman (voice), Stephen Colbert Paul Peterson (voice), Leslie Mann Patty Peterson (voice)
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 07 Mar 2014 UTC
Director	Rob Minkoff
Genres	Animation, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Sci-Fi
Plot	The time-travelling adventures of an advanced canine and his adopted son, as they endeavor to fix a time rift they created.
Poster
Runtime	92
Tagline	He’s leaving his mark on history.
Writers	Jay Ward (based on the series produced by), Craig Wright (screenplay)
Year	2014

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Formulaic, unnecessary CG update of classic kids book hugely surpasses expectations with loving & artistic presentation. Enjoyable & cute…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Paddington:

On the face of it, just another ill-advised modern update of every intellectual property that unimaginative filmmakers could scrape up instead of coming up with original ideas. And it is – the movie really didn’t need to be made. But since they did make it, at least they were good enough to make a decent job of it.

If you are getting the sense that I’m conflicted about this one, good. It means I’m at least managing to communicate my unease clearly. I hate that they made this film. I really do. Paddington is a great character in a series of lovely and beloved children’s books. While the character was never one hugely popular in my house growing up or with my own child, there’s no real intent there. There are thankfully a ton of great children’s books out there and this series just slipped through the cracks I guess. I vaguely remember reading a few of the stories to my nephew and they’re wonderful.

All by way of saying that I don’t have any particular bone to pick; they haven’t trod on sacred ground in my case, but I have enough respect for the legions of fans of the character to be at least a little indignant on their behalf.

I don’t know what this impulse to adapt every single successful character ever created for Hollywood is all about but I strongly suspect it rhymes with greed. And sounds like greed. Exactly like greed. It is greed.

There are some unbelievably talented writers out there with truly original stories – go find them. Now. I’ll wait. Seriously. I’d be willing to wait quite a bit. There’s no rule stating how many films you must release every year. I’d cheerfully, gratefully, accept fewer films if they were fresher stories.

The problem isn’t strictly that adapting previously written characters for the screen is lazy and lacking in ambition. The far bigger issue is the perceived necessity to make these characters now fit some pre-configured mold for feature films. It’s entirely possible to adapt works in ways that honor the source material and don’t slavishly adhere to a set formula. If you’re so hot to update Paddington for the modern cg-expecting audience, why not make it into a TV show? Or create a feature that tells several short vignettes. You really don’t need to fabricate a story that injects peril so that it can fit into your “90 minute kid movie” template.

And now we come to it. There is a perception that all films must have arcs that place the characters in peril. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know how many kids movies have been ruined by the intentional ramping up of villains and dangerous situations in an effort to create a narrative, but it’s not a small number.

Those of you who know the original stories better than I can feel free to correct me, but I don’t remember any villains in the series. There certainly wasn’t some mad Australian taxidermist after poor Paddington’s hide in anything I read. It’s a deeply disturbing premise. (In fact, I’ll risk spoiling things by warning tall people that Paddington, in addition to not having parents, loses the uncle that raised him within the first ten minutes. Definite potential for upsetting little ones.)

You don’t need to make every kids story dangerous. I simply refuse to accept that there are children out there who read the Paddington books and said “Mummy, you know what would make this story even better? If I were truly concerned that Paddington might be skinned. Otherwise, what’s the point of all this? The story doesn’t move.”

Other than that plotline, the story, the characters, the family dynamic – it’s all about what you’d expect – the whole thing is so formulaic. But it is all redeemed by the loving artistic touches. The whole movie in fact is saved because of art direction and visuals. Not the CG realistic visuals either, although they are really top shelf if completely lost in the helter skelter action. Paddington as a bear is a marvelous accomplishment and it’s too bad that this sort of thing isn’t really noteworthy at this point. In 2015 these visuals are de rigeur; that doesn’t make them any bit less impressive. It is some masterful design and execution.

No, I’m talking about the creative use of flourishes that bring the whole production up in the eyes of the audience. The filmmakers earned my respect the hard way, frame by frame. No quarter was asked – they earned it, the obvious attention to detail and love and care for the work forcing me to take note of their accomplishments. They made it clear that this may be a trifle but they were damn well going to squeeze some value out of it.

The acting is fine, nothing to write home about but solid. There’s an unusually large number of harry potter alums which seemed a bit odd until I found out that the film was produced by series vet David Heyman.

Ben Whishaw, so excellent as the new Q in the recent Bond films is wonderful as the voice of Paddington. The part was originally cast with Colin Firth, but as the production developed, everyone involved realized they needed something else, probably someone more youthful, and it was absolutely the right call.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter Capaldi pop up, since I wasn’t expecting him. He’s funny – he’s Capaldi – but the fact remains that the character could have been excised completely and you’d never miss him. I know the character of Mr. Curry, the disapproving neighbor is in the books, so I guess they had to include him, but he’s really surplus to the story. (Although just seeing him entering a red phone box is fairly amusing.)

As for Nicole Kidman’s turn as the taxidermist, the less said the better.

My daughter and I went to go see Paddington because we were having a special night out together and wanted to see a movie. I somewhat reluctantly picked it over Spongebob, bemoaning the lack of good family films out there and was quite pleasantly surprised by how enjoyable it was. Pleasant in fact is a very appropriate word for it – very British. It’s good, you’ll enjoy it. And then you’ll never think of it again.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (7 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.paddington.com/us/home/” name=”Paddington” description=”A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven.” director=”Paul King” actor_1=”Ben Whishaw” ]

Main Cast	Hugh Bonneville Henry Brown, Sally Hawkins Mary Brown, Julie Walters Mrs. Bird, Jim Broadbent Mr. Gruber
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 16 Jan 2015 UTC
Director	Paul King
Genres	Comedy, Family
Plot	A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven.
Poster
Runtime	95
Tagline	Please look after this bear. Thank you
Writers	Paul King (written by), Hamish McColl (screen story) …
Year	2014

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Could watch cuddly robot Baymax wander around onscreen pretty much all day. Cuteness may have led me to overvalue fairly typical story more.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Big Hero 6:

Been a busy few months here at the Now Very Bad offices, so I’m way behind on some films, including this fun one from Walt Disney Animation. This is especially odd since 1) we had eagerly awaited the film’s release based on the excellent trailers; 2) we saw it opening weekend, which was months ago – the film is now available on home video.

The unfortunate part about waiting so long to review it, however, is that I missed the opportunity to tell you all to go see it. My whole family loved Big Hero 6, and I’m sure yours will too.

Based on a Marvel comic (albeit with a ton of changes), Big Hero 6 is a rather simplistic hero story that gets away with the lack of originality because it’s so fun. I had a blast watching it, so I may have overlooked how derivative it is. A friend of mine disliked the film, which fairly stunned me until she explained what bothered her so much; the cheap plot device of having the protagonist lose a family member early in the tale. She’s absolutely right – it’s lazy writing and a gimmick that should have a 3-day waiting period.

Despite the familiarity of the story, which is a fairly straightforward hero coming of age progression, Big Hero 6 is ridiculously funny and enjoyable due to the character of Baymax, the healthcare robot designed by the dead-plot-element-walking family member of our hero, Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter). Hiro’s hero journey may be a well-beaten path, but no hero has ever had a sidekick like Baymax.

Baymax is voiced by 30 Rock alum Scott Adsit with a comforting monotone and his movements were meant to resemble a “toddler with a full diaper”. It’s great comedic stuff and truly never gets old. You wish he were in every scene, and for the most part aren’t disappointed.

The rest of the characters seem to have been picked out of a box containing all of the elements to make a diverse, well-rounded team. When it comes to filling out the story of the team learning to trust each other and come together to blah, blah, blah, the story flags a little. This probably is perfectly fine comic book material, but as a film it’s a little pedestrian, particularly when there’s so much more fun to be had with the robot.

Visually the film is stunning. The art design of San Fransokyo alone is worth the price of admission.

I really loved Big Hero 6 and can’t wait for my copy of the Blu-ray to arrive in the next few days. I’m sure we’ll get plenty of opportunities to keep enjoying the world’s most cuddly robot. As a side note, we just got back from Disney World and the longest line we waited in all week was to meet Baymax & Hiro, so obviously the film’s a hit. (By the way, the long wait was totally worth it – hugging Baymax in the real world is exactly as awesome as you’d expect…)

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (4 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://movies.disney.com/big-hero-6/” name=”Big Hero 6″ description=”With all the heart and humor audiences expect from Walt Disney Animation Studios, “Big Hero 6” is an action-packed comedy adventure that introduces Baymax, a lovable, personal companion robot, who forms a special bond with robotics prodigy Hiro Hamada. When a devastating turn of events catapults them into the midst of a dangerous plot unfolding in the streets of San Fransokyo, Hiro turns to Baymax and his diverse group of friends— adrenaline junkie Go Go Tomago, neatnik Wasabi, chemistry whiz Honey Lemon and fanboy Fred — who transform into a band of unlikely heroes.” director=”Don Hall” ]

Main Cast	Ryan Potter Hiro (voice), Scott Adsit Baymax (voice), Jamie Chung Go Go (voice), T.J. Miller Fred (voice)
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 07 Nov 2014 UTC
Director	Don Hall, Chris Williams
Genres	Animation, Action, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Sci-Fi
Plot	The special bond that develops between plus-sized inflatable robot Baymax, and prodigy Hiro Hamada, who team up with a group of friends to form a band of high-tech heroes.
Poster
Runtime	102
Tagline
Writers	Jordan Roberts (screenplay) and, Daniel Gerson (screenplay) …
Year	2014