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