Mr. Peabody & Sherman Review

With two big animated hits from two major studios making waves at the box office, Dreamworks Animation responds with “Mr. Peabody & Sherman,” a time-traveling adventure based on the “Peabody’s Improbable History” segments of “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.” Unfortunately, with the bar set pretty high for animated family movies in the past few months, “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” ultimately comes up short in comparison.

            Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell of “Modern Family”) is the smartest and most accomplished dog in the world, as shown in the movie’s opening. Rather than have his adopted son Sherman (Max Charles) learn history from a book, Peabody takes him to the history through the use of his time machine called the WABAC (pronounced way-back).

Sherman starts attending school and gets into a fight with his classmate Penny (Ariel Winters), who is jealous of Sherman’s knowledge and makes fun of him for being raised by a dog. Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Leslie Mann and Stephen Colbert) to their home to settle the issue, but it doesn’t take long for Penny and Sherman to use the WABAC, resulting in Sherman losing Penny in ancient Egypt. From there, Peabody and Sherman must rescue Penny and travel through history to get back to their own time period before their time-travelling threatens to destroy the space-time continuum.

So those are the basics of the plot, but I didn’t mention how Peabody’s custody of Sherman is put in jeopardy, or how there’s a subplot involving Sherman dealing with issues of identity from being raised by a dog. There’s simply too much going on in “Mr. Peabody & Sherman,” and it never has time to breathe. The emotional moments in the story are a nice addition, but they’re few and far between and never have enough time to sink in.

For having a voice cast with a lot of comedic talent, “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” is surprisingly unfunny, at least for my tastes. However, it’s worth noting that a theater full of families with young kids was eerily silent for the vast majority of the jokes said throughout the movie. I can count on one hand the number of times this movie got a solid laugh out of me.

While “Mr. Peabody and Sherman” has no problem appealing to younger kids, it tries way too hard to appeal to the adults in the audience. Peabody’s extensive vocabulary and history knowledge drives most of his jokes, but they’re mostly used for obvious puns. Kids don’t laugh because they either don’t get the reference or understand the words being said, and adults don’t laugh simply because the joke isn’t funny.

There are tons of jokes that are meant to fly over the heads of kids, but sometimes the jokes push the boundaries of what they can get away with in a family movie, and again they’re often not funny.

For all of these issues, “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” isn’t a total waste. The animation is great, as expected, although don’t expect the more detailed look of other Dreamworks offerings like “How to Train Your Dragon” or “The Croods.”  The movie goes for a design more akin to the original cartoon, and it works to the movie’s advantage. It’s bright, vivid and often a lot of fun to look at.

The voice cast also does a fine job, despite the fact that they are given very little to work with. Ty Burrell does an especially good job as Mr. Peabody, keeping the movie energized even in its duller moments. While there are some more stereotypical accents and mannerisms from the historical characters, again it’s trying to be more like the original cartoon and it didn’t really bother me.

Although “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” amounts to little more than some fun sequences stitched together by tired jokes and half-baked emotional moments, it’s pretty harmless, and it often does a good job of staying true to the essence of its source material. With all of these issues, it never gets to the point where it’s saying anything bad or promoting any bad messages or morals. Considering other adaptations of classic cartoons that have tried too hard and failed to appeal to everyone, “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” could have been so much worse than this.

“Mr. Peabody & Sherman” no doubt has its moments, but it lacks the involving and nuanced story and characters of “Frozen” or the consistently sharp humor of “The Lego Movie” to amount to little more than an afternoon time-waster.

3/5 Stars

Saving Mr. Banks Review

            Has there ever been a Disney film that has become as iconic and beloved as “Mary Poppins”? That question is certainly up for debate, but there’s no denying the impact the film has had on American pop culture even 50 years after its initial release. Just in time for Oscar season, Disney has decided to honor the 50^th anniversary of “Mary Poppins” by telling the story of how the film came to be through the eyes of the author of “Mary Poppins”, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), and the producer of the film, Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) in “Saving Mr. Banks”.

            The year is 1961, and after nearly 20 years of Disney requesting the rights to adapt the “Mary Poppins” books to film, Travers finally agrees to meet with Disney and collaborate on a screenplay. However, Disney and his colleagues quickly learn that Travers is extremely protective of the material, rejecting many of Disney’s ideas that she deems uncharacteristic of her stories. The reason for Travers’ apparent stubbornness, according to the film, is that many of the characters in her stories were based on people she knew, particularly her father Travers Goff (Colin Farrell), and events she experienced in her childhood, told through a series of flashbacks throughout the film.

            The rest of the movie consists of Disney trying to get through to Travers and get her to see things from his point of view, while Travers is questioning to herself whether or not she should sign away the rights to her beloved creation. Through the flashbacks, we are given details about Travers’ relationship with her father, and how his alcoholism affects her and her family.

            One of the more fascinating aspects of “Saving Mr. Banks” is that the scenes that take place in 1961 almost exclusively focus on the developmental side of the production of “Mary Poppins”. We see the now legendary songwriting duo Richard and Robert Sherman (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak respectively) as they preview songs to Travers and Disney, we see Travers overlooking storyboards with the screenwriters, and there are even some scenes that are just them sitting at a table tossing around ideas. It’s a side of the film-making process that is often taken for granted and is very interesting to watch unfold.

            The greatest asset “Saving Mr. Banks” offers, however, is in its performances, especially from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Both of them slip into their roles as if they were made for each other, and it gets to the point where I don’t see actors playing P.L. Travers and Walt Disney, I see the real P.L. Travers and Walt Disney. Their performances make this film seem so real and genuine, and they really suck the viewer into the movie. 

Also worth noting is how balanced Hanks’ portrayal of Walt Disney is. Instead of playing up Walt as a perfect figure as he would in public, Disney made a risky move in showing a side to its founder that they probably wouldn’t dare show if this movie was made a few years ago. You see Walt do things like drink, smoke and even be a little backstabbing to Travers. It’s now common knowledge that he did these things in real life, but it’s still a risky move for Disney that ultimately works in the movie’s favor.

            That’s not to say Thompson and Hanks overshadow the supporting cast, they also give great performances. Paul Giamatti gives a memorable performance as Travers’ chauffeur, often being present for many of the important moments in Travers’ story arc. Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak also do a wonderful job portraying the Sherman Brothers who, just as Giamatti shares important story moments with Thompson, share important story moments with Disney.

            However, there’s one element of “Saving Mr. Banks” that kind of takes the viewer out of the movie, and that would be the flashback sequences. They’re not bad, in fact they’re actually pretty well done, it’s just that whenever they come up it feels like you’ve entered a completely different movie. Compared to the scenes set in 1961, the flashbacks seem a little more over the top, even in the performances. However, since it’s clear that these scenes are from Travers’ point of view, the argument can be made that it’s her romanticizing her own memories, and again, the scenes are still done well. It just feels like the movie is trying a little too hard to illicit an emotional response sometimes.

            So “Saving Mr. Banks” may not be “practically perfect in every way.” No matter. It’s still cleverly written and masterfully performed, and that’s more than worth the price of admission. Even in the more “Disney-fied” moments, there’s still a never ending charm to the whole thing. It’s a great way to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of one the most beloved movies of all time.

4/5 Stars

Frozen Review

Last year, I was pretty certain that "Wreck-It Ralph" was Disney Animation's best film since the days of “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.” A short year later, I find myself having to retract that statement. "Frozen" is most definitely Disney's best film in an entire generation, and given the studio's recent string of hits ("Enchanted", "The Princess and the Frog", "Tangled", and the aforementioned "Wreck-It Ralph"), that's saying quite a lot.

A long overdue adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's classic fairy tale "The Snow Queen", "Frozen" follows the two princesses of the mythical land of Arendelle, Anna (Kristin Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). Elsa was born with the power to control snow and ice, which she uses to amuse herself and Anna as children. The fun quickly goes awry when Elsa's powers almost kill Anna, which results in the king and queen isolating the two so Elsa can learn to control her power while Anna is left with no recollection of her sister's power.

Through the first of several excellent songs, we see Anna and Elsa live their lives separated, until the king and queen pass away and Elsa is to become the new queen of Arendelle. Unfortunately, Elsa hasn't completely gotten everything under control, and her insecurities (along with an argument with Anna) lead her to accidentally unleash her power upon Arendelle. Elsa retreats to the mountains to protect her sister and the kingdom, but leaves the land in an eternal winter as a result of her loss of control. Anna takes it upon herself to go after Elsa and bring her back, enlisting the aid of Kristoff (Jonathon Groff), and later the living snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) along the way.

"Frozen" is a prime example of classic Disney storytelling at its finest, perfectly blending familiar and fresh elements, and the messages it offers the target audience are among the best in the studio's entire history. The biggest surprise of “Frozen” is probably how it breaks the mold of the stereotypical Disney fairy tale. For example, “Frozen” tackles the stereotype of rushed romance, something that was also addressed in "Enchanted", but that was as a satire of the classic Disney films. Here, it's not only addressed, but the message is even more poignant since it's in an actual Disney story and not just a satire of one. The trolls of Arendelle give the film's other message that "everyone's a bit of a fixer-upper", something that kids today absolutely need to hear in a time when people are constantly ostracized for being anything less than perfect, so kudos to Disney for these messages.

The characters are also excellent, and among some of Disney's finest. Elsa and Anna have a dynamic relationship, despite growing up on opposite sides of Elsa's bedroom door, and it's their relationship that drives the movie. Elsa’s inner-turmoil makes her one of the most interesting Disney characters, if not one of the most interesting Disney princesses in recent memory.

Anna has spent most of her life in isolation as Elsa refuses to let her in because of what happened when they were children. Because of this, she rushes into an engagement with Prince Hans (Santino Fontana), even though she doesn’t know that true love takes more than a day to discover. Despite Anna's questionable life choices in romance, her never ending optimism and determination to get through to Elsa is commendable. I don't think most Disney die-hards will have any problem if both Anna and Elsa are added to the Disney Princess line, as both serve as good role models in their own ways.

Kristoff is a nice romantic interest for Anna, and his strange and unusual connection with his reindeer Sven is often hilarious. However, it's Josh Gad's Olaf that steals the show when it comes to the film's comedy, and "Frozen" is very funny mostly due to his character and Gad's performance and delivery. Olaf is a perfect example of comic relief done right and for Disney to accomplish that is really saying something.
The original songs by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez are simply excellent. Elsa's power-ballad "Let It Go" is a real showstopper, and Menzel absolutely nails it. All of the other songs are a ton of fun, and there isn't a bad one among them. Listening to the soundtrack, it's very hard to distinguish "Frozen" from a Broadway show, and I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to the stage in the near future.

"Frozen" is an all-around excellent film from Disney Animation. The story, characters, songs and animation are all top-notch, and the poignant and mature messages make "Frozen" more than the average Disney Princess tale.

4.5/5 Stars

World War Z Review

“World War Z” is a zombie thriller that lacks a bite

How many zombie movies need to be made before the genre becomes stale?  Apparently Hollywood isn’t done milking the undead cash cow yet, as this summer saw the release of “World War Z,” one of many zombie movies to come out in the years since the huge success of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” reinvigorated interest in the genre. 

The hype for this movie was understandably big, since it is based on the highly praised novel of the same name in addition to having Brad Pitt in front of and behind the camera as a producer.  Unfortunately, numerous production problems plagued the project, and it shows in the finished film.  What we have instead, is an underwhelming run-of-the-mill summer action flick than a fully realized adaptation.

The story of “World War Z” plays out like almost every other zombie film you’ve seen before.  A virus pops up that turns people into killing machines, spreading across the globe while a former government official tries to protect his family while on a globe-trotting crusade to find a cure for the pandemic.  The main plot points are so redundant that you could make a checklist of material from other zombie and pandemic media, and “World War Z” would fulfill almost every one of them.

A montage of news coverage on the start of the infection during the opening credits?  Check.  Scenes of our main characters’ perfect life before the chaos hits them?  Check.  A scene where the hero finds a seemingly safe haven only to see it come crashing down in a matter of minutes despite all his warnings?  Check.  The list goes on and on.

Despite the fast pace of the movie and constant action, there’s a distinct lack of tension in “World War Z.”  This can be attributed to two things.  

The first is the toned down violence in the movie.  It’s glaringly obvious that serious cuts were made in order to get the box-office-success-guaranteed PG-13 rating.  In spite of all the violence that occurs in “World War Z”, there is little to no blood in the movie.  Considering that this is a genre that pretty much thrives on guts and gore, and that much more gruesome zombie violence is shown on TV, it really takes the grit out of a movie that could seriously benefit from it.

The second aspect hindering the film’s tension is Brad Pitt’s constant presence throughout.  That’s not a knock against Pitt’s performance, he does well enough with what he’s given, but no matter how bad the situations get in the movie you know he’s going to walk away from them.  He’s usually the sole survivor of a major attack, and every other nameless character he comes across is just fodder for the zombies.

Speaking of the zombies in this movie, they’re probably the most interesting part of the whole film.  The writers put an interesting twist on the way the zombies behave.  Instead of devouring their victims, they simply bite them and move on, causing people to turn in a matter of 12 seconds (the movie literally counts the time for the audience), thus causing the infection’s rapid spread.  They’re also a little more intelligent than your normal flesh-craving animal, as they can figure out how to get to their prey by doing things like breaking windows and forming giant piles to get over walls. 

They reminded me a lot of the velociraptors from “Jurassic Park,” which in turn reminded me that I could be watching a much better movie.

It should be a noted that the film is resolved by an act of sheer dumb luck, further cementing Pitt’s character as an invincible force, and the closing narration leaves the movie open for a sequel.  If this does occur, and the sequel only consists of more of this, you can count me out.

For all of the major problems in “World War Z,” it’s never boring.  The action is well staged and the final sequence at a medical facility is genuinely eerie, invoking chilling memories of playing the old “Resident Evil” games. 

To the film’s credit I’ve never read the original book, but I really want to now, as I’ve heard so many good things about it.  It’s just a shame that the movie feels more like a heavily manufactured victim of the current Hollywood process than a great adaptation of supposedly great source material.  At its best, “World War Z” is a decent rainy Friday night rental and a redundant wasted opportunity at its worst. 

Proceed with caution.

Rating: 2.5/5 Stars

Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter

Game Review: DuckTales Remastered

Life's been like a hurricane for people who grew up with Disney's Saturday morning cartoon "DuckTales" ever since Capcom and WayForward Technologies revealed a remake of the show's classic NES game under the simple title "DuckTales Remastered".  Now that the game is finally out, the question on everyone's mind is "Does 'DuckTales' hold up after all this time?" The short answer to that question is a fortunate yes, but not without a few small bumps in the road.

When you get right down to it, "DuckTales Remastered" is essentially the same game from almost 25(!) years ago, although WayForward has put much more emphasis on storytelling.  The story pretty much plays out like a typical episode of the original TV show: Scrooge and his nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie discover a lead on some lost treasure and embark on a globe-trotting expedition to find it, encountering classic DuckTales villains like Magica De Spell and Flintheart Glomgold who are there to stop them at every turn.  What really brings the story to life is the inclusion of the original voice actors from the cartoon, most notably Alan Young as Scrooge, who at 93 years old can still do the voice as if the show was still running today.

The only downside to the bigger emphasis on the story is that the game is constantly interrupted by cut scenes that are fun to watch your first time through, but you'll find yourself skipping them as you replay the levels.  Every time you collect an important item, the game stops so Scrooge can talk about it.  It's not a huge problem in most of the levels, but the Amazon level (my personal favorite stage) is plagued by several instances of this.  It's not that big a problem, just be prepared to hit that Skip button a lot.

When bringing "DuckTales" to the current gaming generation, WayForward made the right choice in mixing 2D animated character sprites with 3D backgrounds.  They blend seamlessly and on top of that, the animation on the sprites is wonderful.  "DuckTales" has never looked better than it does here, and I'm going to say that "DuckTales Remastered" has set the standard on how to update the look of a classic game while staying true to the original.

Speaking of setting the standard on updating classics, the music is also incredible.  If you thought the music of the show and original game was infectiously catchy, just wait until you hear what composer Jake Kaufman cooked up. Every track does its original counterpart justice, and in my opinion, actually improves on a lot of them.  Rather than go the way of Nintendo and use full blown orchestrations, Kaufman kept it simple by updating the original tracks while retaining the charm of 8-bit sound.  A nice addition is the option to play the game with the original 8-bit tracks after the first play-through.

Seriously, give this guy some kind of award or something. I could listen to this for days.

Level designs are also well thought out, considering that they're exact replicas of the original game. Even though hidden treasures that die-hard fans of the original loved collecting have been removed, there are still plenty of secret areas to discover, housing treasure chests full of diamonds to increase Scrooge's money intake.  The game still plays exactly like the original as well.  "DuckTales Remastered" only requires two buttons, a jump button and a button to control Scrooge's cane.  The biggest change that has been implemented is that Scrooge's pogo jump is now performed by holding the cane button, instead of holding down on the D-pad in addition to the cane button, like in the original.  Unfortunately, it's not always responsive, and was the cause of quite a few unwarranted and frustrating deaths.  On the flip-side of the problem, there is an option to do the pogo jump the old way and it's much more responsive.

The most revamped aspect of the original game would be the boss battles.  They're the same bosses, but they've been reworked to be more than just bouncing off their heads.  You'll have to dodge crushing pillars of rock, fireballs, etc.  These are nice additions, but they tend to get repetitive after you get the patterns down.  The best fights are against Magica De Spell in the Transylvania stage and the final boss, Count Dracula Duck.  A note about the final boss: there's an additional part of the level after you beat Dracula Duck, and it is very frustrating and borderline cheap. Remember those frustrating accidental deaths I mentioned before? Three guesses as to where most of them occurred, and on harder difficulties that use Game Overs, prepare for some good old-fashioned gamer rage.  Bottom line, the game could have done without it.

So what do you do with all the money collected from the levels?  You have two options: you can either spend it on concept art, character designs, even art from the TV show. WayForward left no stone unturned in showing players what went into the game's creation and fans should be pleasantly satisfied.  Your other option is to swim around in it.  Finally, you can recreate the now iconic shot of Scrooge diving headfirst into his money vault, bathing in his riches for as long as you want.  It adds almost nothing to the actual game, but it's still fun just for the novelty of it.  The game may be designed to be conquered in a few hours, but there's plenty to come back for.

Despite a few minor hindrances, "DuckTales Remastered" is a good old-fashioned blast from the past.  The story is fun (while it lasts), the voice acting is outstanding, the gameplay and music faithful, and the art design is downright gorgeous.  Simply put: if you have any nostalgia for "DuckTales", you owe it to yourself to give "Remastered" a spin.  The game is available for download on Steam, PS3, and Wii U.  For some reason, Xbox owners will have to wait until September 11 before the game comes to Xbox Live Arcade.

Rating: 8/10

The Great Gatsby Review

Over the course of my years as a reader and movie-goer, I have come to be less and less critical of movies that are adaptations of popular books.  I forgive movie adaptations of books like "Harry Potter" and "The Hunger Games" for leaving out elements of the original books because, when you really think about it, books like that aren't really meant to offer their target audiences a whole lot in terms of real substance..  We read these books for fun, not because we want to truly get something out of them.  Adapting a book like "The Great Gatsby", however, is a whole other matter.  The book is an important part of the history of American literature, so any attempt at an adaptation is going to have steep expectations. On the surface, the new adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" walks and talks like F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic but the problem is that it stops there and doesn't really get into the heart of what the book is about.

It seems unnecessary to go over the plot of "The Great Gatsby" since it continues to be very popular to this day, but for the uninitiated few, here's the rundown.  At the height of the Roaring Twenties, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves next door to the mysterious Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a "new money" millionaire who puts on lavish parties every weekend in hopes that Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), an old flame and Nick's cousin who lives directly across the bay from Gatsby, will take notice and rekindle their relationship.  Through Nick, Gatsby and Daisy reunite, while Daisy's "old money" husband Tom (Joel Edgerton) becomes suspicious of Gatsby and investigates him and his inexplicable wealth.

The first thing to know about this new adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" is that its directed by Baz Luhrmann ("Romeo + Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge!"), whose style I am personally not a fan of.  His style-over-substance approach may work in other movies, but not in the movies he does, and at times "The Great Gatsby" is no exception.  The whole movie is over the top, but it's not nearly as egregious as in "Moulin Rouge!" or "Romeo + Juliet".  The party scenes (all two of them) fit Luhrmann's style, though Gatsby's introduction is so overblown that it's borderline comical.  The rest of the movie feels subdued in comparison, but it remains vibrant, colorful, and loud, an accurate representation of the Roaring Twenties.  I'd say this is Luhrmann's best use of his style if it wasn't for one thing: that distracting modern soundtrack.  When the movie is constantly trying to represent the look and feel of the 1920's, hearing a modern day track really takes you out of the movie.  I almost lost it when Gatsby and Nick Carraway pass by a car blasting rap music.  I was surprised at the level of restraint Luhrmann had when it came to the style of the movie, but the soundtrack and unevenness sometimes took me out of it.

Luhrmann's adaptation is surprisingly faithful to the original source material, and it's clear that everyone involved had great respect for the book, but it is mostly faithful in dialogue and settings only.  The only major change/addition is that the movie is that Nick Carraway is writing the story from a sanitarium, where he is diagnosed as "morbidly alcoholic" and depressed.  It works fine, but I couldn't help but think that Luhrmann made him exactly like the narrator of "Moulin Rouge!".  In fact, a lot of this movie reminded me of "Moulin Rouge!", if it was a little more restrained in its style, but I'm getting off topic.

The main problem with the other film adaptations of "The Great Gatsby" was that they didn't accurately portray the themes of the book, and that trend unfortunately continues here.  The purpose of the book was to show how empty the lifestyles made the main characters, and I simply didn't get that from this movie.  The worst offender is in Daisy, an arguable candidate for the central character of the novel.  Carey Mulligan does a good job portraying her, but the back story that provides the whole basis of why she acts the way she does only gives a bare bones version in the movie.  The other characters fare about the same, great performances and (mostly) accurate representations, but the elements that ultimately define them are mostly glossed over.

Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be, in fact I wouldn't go so far as to call it a truly bad movie at all.  However, it only reaffirmed my belief that film simply can't fully do justice to the book's intricacies and themes.  I'd say it's still worth seeing if you've never read the book before, if only to serve as an introduction to the plot and characters. Just please promise that you will read the book in order to get the full experience of what it has to offer.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Stars

Top 20 Animated Films: #20

How to Train Your Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon couldn't have come at a better time for Dreamworks.  The studio went from hit-and-miss to mostly hit-than-miss after this movie.  The story of a young Viking boy breaking his village's prejudice and fear against dragons wasn't exactly original, but just about every other aspect of the movie made up for that.  It's size and scope are much more impressive than what most of Dreamworks had done up to that point, it's characters are incredibly likable and some of them surprisingly well developed, the animation is very good, and best of all, knows it doesn't need to be constantly loud and spewing pop-culture references to hold your attention.  How to Train Your Dragon proved that Dreamworks can still stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Pixar, and their products have been consistently getting better ever since


Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter