Director: Kevin Lima (102 Dalmations, Tarzan)
Producers: Barry Sonnenfeld, Barry Josephson
Starring: Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Susan Sarandon, Timothy Spall, Idina Menzel
MPAA Rating: PG
Running time: 107 min
reviewed by Enrico Banson (contributor)
Walt Disney himself has always been a revisionist. If he were alive today, he would be pleased with his studio’s latest effort, Enchanted, a quasi-animated revisionist fairy tale that has one foot planted deep in the best of Disney animation and the other rooted in crowd-pleasing romantic musical comedies. Leave it to Disney to bring the obvious pairing to light. It’s a no-brainer. Both genres constantly borrow from each other, so why not make a movie designed around this notion? Yet the whole idea of Enchanted feels fresh because it takes from the best scenarios and the worst of each genre’s clichés reviving it into something far too appealing, maybe even for its own good. Thankfully, what you get is a thoroughly enjoyable family movie that delights.
Enchanted opens as a traditional 2-D animation piece bringing such joyous praise from the audience. It’s great to see quality hand-drawn animation from the studio again. Sure, the premise of the film is somewhat of a parody of the best princess motifs from the Disney canon; taking bits and pieces from Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and surprisingly, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, a classic so highly regarded by the studio and animators in general that seeing Disney spoof its most influential film is a welcoming sign from Disney; known to be too protective of their entities. Here, they prove they have a sense of humor, and a wicked one at that.
The movie revolves around the typical Disney princess named Giselle embodied wonderfully and convincingly by Amy Adams. As an animated waif, she does what we expect: sing with a high soprano trill and effortlessly communicate with all her furry little friends. She pines for Prince Edward (an excellent James Marsden) who answers her call by singing a refrain of his own. They’re goal is to get married and live happily ever after if only the Prince’s evil wicked stepmother Queen Narissa (an underused Susan Sarandon) didn’t get in the way. She eventually finds a way to banish Giselle to a world far away from their own: ours. She lands in Manhattan—Times Square no less—her drawn figure now flesh and blood. Amidst the hustle and bustle of the real world and trying desperately to adapt her good-natured ideals to a city known for its cynicism and world-weariness, Giselle finds shelter with a straight-laced single father named Robert (Patrick Dempsey) and his daughter Morgan (Rachel Covey). Of course life in the real world is never easy, even for an animated princess. Giselle’s feelings for Robert are growing even though there’s already a woman in Robert’s life (the talented Idina Menzel). Giselle’s difficulty of adapting to a new world with, literally, very different dimensions makes the film a gleeful experience thanks to Amy Adams’ spot-on performance. She’s a throwback to the musical comedy greats of the past, reminiscent of Shirley McClaine or Carol Lombard. Adams makes the movie worth the price of the ticket alone.
Throughout most of the film, director Kevin Lima keeps the tone light even if the writing and the directing fall a bit short in the third act build-up. Still, there’s plenty to admire, like the reliable songwriting work of veterans Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz, giving us a rousing musical number in Central Park that probably employed every working singer/dancer on Broadway. There’s also a brilliant surreal sequence that involves Giselle rounding up urban critters to help tidy up Robert’s flat truly making you wonder the infinite possibilities to be had if we could only communicate with cockroaches. It’s a fascinating moment in the film and had the audience I saw it with laughing it up.
Perhaps it’s seeing Enchanted with my 11-year old sister and her classmates—the intended target audience—that made it worthwhile for me. The media seems to be marketing towards that specific demographic lately. They’re the same commodity that ate up last summer’s surprise hit, Hairspray, a film that Enchanted takes familiar strains from. Yet even my fellow chaperones seemed satisfied. There truly is an undeniable sense of magic to the movie, thanks mostly to Amy Adams. Enchanted is a welcoming touch to the possibility of what Disney as a film studio can do and has done before. And even though the film is far from perfect, there are enough elements that make it wonderful family entertainment truly living up to the title it so lovingly holds.
this review written by Enrico Banson; a MoviePatron.com contributor
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile – full cast and crew
Official Site
Flixster Profile for ENCHANTED
Is there enough Timothy Spall in there to get my fix (love that actor!)?? I’ve heard they really pull their punches at the end of the film, and cater to the very aspects they are picking on, thus making it a traditional Disney film in the end. That’s probably the chief reason (however petty) that I’ve been hesitant to see this…
I don’t think I’ve been this excited about a Disney film in years. The last one was “Finding Nemo”! Or wait…was that Pixar?
I’m seeing it in about 20 minutes Kurt, so I’ll keep an eye out for the Spall factor. Funny, we’re both only mildly interested in it for one lesser known actor. I’m actually only seeing it for Amy Adams (who I’ve heard, not surprisingly, rocks in this).
there is actually quite a bit of Timothy Spall to be found.
Wow. If it weren’t for the internet I never would’ve seen this… and I would’ve missed out on one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. Not in my top 10, but VERY much worth checking out.
If you’ve seen, and appreciate Snow White or any of the cheesy 90′s Disney films (Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, etc), this movie is for you.
Amy Adams is stellar. I’ve just added her to my favorite actress’ list after only two films I’ve seen her in (I don’t count Talladega Nights).
What a great time at the theater.
Oh.. the Spall factor. Yeah, he’s in it (maybe about 20 minutes in total), but it’s inconsequential. This movie is ALL Adams.
Nothing I hate more than a wasted Spall…
“Nothing I hate more than a wasted Spall”
he’s not wasted, he’s well used when he’s on screen.
regardless, if you saw Amy Adams performance, you wouldnt be thinking about where he was anyways.
Andrew, what movies are you counting her in? you probably wouldnt count this one either, but she was in Drop Dead Gorgeous, you may not remember her, but she was the tall skinny blonde girl who was slutty with the boyfriend constantly cheering her on.
I’ve never seen Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’ve only seen this and Junebug (which I thought was great).
I liked Drop Dead Gorgeous well enough. It felt like someone saw Parker Posey in Waiting For Guffman and liked the quirky accents in Fargo and decided to just sort of run with it. Not overly great, but it had its moments.
I own a ‘supermarket 2.99 bin’ copy of it, it goes way too long at the end, stretching the story out too far – but it has Kirstie Alley in an actual good role, Brittany Murphy and Adams good in small roles, ditto Ellen Barkin… and the whole thing is pretty damn mean. that doesnt equal good, but in this case it worked for me.
I saw this earlier today and WOW, what a nice surprise. It’s been years since Disney really hit one out of the ballpark and this one is right up there. It may not make my top 10 for 07 but it’s definitely right up there in the rat race. First time this year where I’ve heard clapping in the theater after the screening and to be honest, it was very well deserved. Mightily entertaining!
Ugggh. I heard clapping at Transformers. And the audience doomsday click ticked to 11:59 on that one.
Fairy Tale
Meets Reality
Amusing
The Haiku is back!
You’ve got to post these Haiku’s as a separate entry — Not buried in the comments section!! I love’em!!!
COMMENTING in CINECAST 69 post is now fixed. My fault… sort of.
I’ve moved the last few comments over there to make more sense.
This time Kurt, you’re judging a movie based on a bias before you’ve even seen it. I may agree with you on the trailers for Disney that you can’t skip on their DVDs, but you should not let that stop you from seeing a truly ‘enchanting’ movie. Especially when your esteemed colleagues agree that it’s worth seeing. I know I shouldn’t say anything as I never want to see a Crononburg (I hope I spelt his name wrong) movie again, but that is one director, not an entire ‘world domination’ organization. All I am saying is ‘See the movie’ and decide on the movie, not on Disney. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Er. (That is my wife berating me on comment #17.) I am shamed. And yes, you spelled Cronenberg wrong. Yea, I’ll see Enchanted by accident eventually when you buy it for yourself.
I just HAVE to tell everyone that Kurt, yes the same Kurt that hates Disney, actually BOUGHT this movie for his family today. He claims that it’s cheaper then renting in the long run… We sat as a family to watch it this evening and now we are getting divorce. I am not sad, as who could really love a guy who could watch this movie and at the very least not acknowledge that this is a movie to make fun of all other Disney movies. You must respect someone who can make light of themselves, except of course, a pretentious, self inflated. movie critic (not lover, just critic) as Kurt. All my love, your wife,
Dear Mrs. The Bastard,
We here at RowThree apologize and sympathize for the annoying and most often times incorrect opinions your husband may carry with him under his arm and any huffy, emotional content that may come with it.
We understand that personal politics can sometimes skew a person’s delight in a perfectly delightful film and we ask that you carefully, calmy and quietly slide a large railroad spike into your husband’s left ear and keep pushing until it emerges from his right.
Then get a divorce.
Best regards,
The RowThree staff
Hey, in my defense, I didn’t hate the film, I merely found it to be rather predictable and uninspired in its sight-gags, and combing over territory well worn out from the slew of ‘fairy-tale-spoof’ films a la Shrek, Hoodwinked, Happy Never After. And sadly all to derivative of the Fish-out-of-water staple that has defined much of Disney’s Live Actor films. Sure Amy Adams was great, James Marsden kicked ass, and I always like seeing The Spall in action…
But the screenplay felt like it needed a few more drafts to tighten things up. (What was with the shitting on Dempsey’s girlfriend).
The most fitting thing of ENCHANTED was that Disney defines “Happily Ever After” as a business in branding – in the case of Giselle, it’s a princess store. In the case of henchman Spall, it’s a corporate book deal. Ahh, Disney, at least their honest.
Next time, I’ll use their “FAST PLAY” feature to skip to the next Pixar film, thank you very much.
(Sadly, I’m typing this message outside of divorce court…there was a heated debate on Cronenberg vs. Disney after the kids went to bed tonite, the strain on the marriage has manifested itself as a growing pustule large enough to smear bio-goo all over the cheap plastic merchandising).
And a bit of a non-sequitor: It was hilarious to see THE WIRE’s senator Clay Davis in the loving ex-divorcee cameo. I know it’s a Disney flick but couldn’t he have said SHEEEEEEEEE-IT at least once. That actor (Isiah Whitlock Jr.) says the S-word better than anyone on this planet.
Kurt, you did exactly what everyone told you not to do – you put the ‘i want subversive’ yoke on Enchanted, and let your own Disney bias drive your views. I guess we should have guessed that a movie that celebrates Disney as often as it mocks it isn’t going to get a pass…
however….
of all the complaints you bring up how characters end up branding themselves… a book deal, a store… as if this is somehow a uniquely Disney denouement? DIdnt Elf end with a corporate book deal?
I’m sorry man, I’m goin with the Lady Halfyard, you deserve at least to be tossed out on your ass for a couple nights…
@ Goon:
Haven’t seen ELF.
I just wanted…I don’t know, something more than a good Adams performance and a somewhat lazy plot. Give me Hot Fuzz, Give me Doomsday, heck, give me Down with Love.
Dude. It’s a kid’s movie.
So is Ratatouille, Horton Hears a Who, and Spirited Away.
Don’t make me break out the “P” word….
Speaking of Kid’s movies I just watched The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything and I can say without a doubt Kurt and most others would hate this movie. It is a movie for kids and not adults. Yet all the critics seem to treat it as a movie for everyone. If any of the critics (including Kurt) watched stuff like Backyardigans I’m sure they would rip them apart for not having a good story or stuff for grown ups in. I really hate this about reviewers. The same comes down to movies like Alvin and The Chipmunks. The movies are made for kids and kids enjoy them so they are not bad movies. They are bad only if you are treating them as a movie made for grown ups.
Now I’m not saying that we should ignore how good for everyone movies like Ratatouille, Spirited Away, Pom Poko and others just that we should not necessarily rail against movies that do not strive to be as grown up as they are. My son loved that Veggie Tales movie and if he asked to watch it again I’d throw it on in a second.
Given all that I will continue to show him “good” kids movies in addition to the “bad” ones and I’m sure his tastes will expand and he will hopefully want to only watch the “good” ones.
“Now I’m not saying that we should ignore how good for everyone movies like Ratatouille, Spirited Away, Pom Poko and others just that we should not necessarily rail against movies that do not strive to be as grown up as they are. ”
-YES, WE SHOULD. Isn’t it the job of a parent to guide their children thru the wildnerness, rather than to pander to their wants and desires?
I had to the choice to go down and watch an episode of G.I. Joe cartoon after school, but my dad was going to watch “THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY” as a 11 year old would I decide watch a 20 year old Italian movie that is 2+ hours long? No, but because it was there, well I discovered a landmark of cinema.
My kids will find plenty of crap entertainment on their own via their friends and relatives houses, the little amount we let them watch should at least be peppered with quality…
(Yes, I’m saving for therapy when I’ve alienated my kids with my fascist rule….)
“The movies are made for kids and kids enjoy them so they are not bad movies. They are bad only if you are treating them as a movie made for grown ups.”
The problem is, I am an adult watching it. So if I watch something that’s shit I can’t say “maybe if I was a kid I would like it more” because that’s guesswork and dishonest. If you’re going to take yourself seriously as a reviewer, you have to approach everything the same way – taking it in from the perspective of wether or not it’s worth spending your time on (which is the first objective of any piece of art).
A film doesn’t get plusses in my book for being well-adjusted to the mindset of somebody other than myself. If it did, there would be no point in even expressing my own opinion on anything other than what I make myself, because that would be the only thing that I was the target audience for.
Hey Henrik, we seem to agree here…
stranger things have happened, eh?
Yeah, I’m glad we’re in agreement – I just don’t understand how you can praise Ratatouille then!
“So is Ratatouille, Horton Hears a Who, and Spirited Away…”
Yes, but you didn’t mention those. You said Doomsday, Hot Fuzz, Down with Love. THose aren’t kids movies, so I don’t see the parallel there. Not to mention, those movies don’t exactly have the deepest plot in the world.
For that matter, neither does Rata or Horton. You think these plots are more developed and deeper than Enchanted? Ratatouille is about a rat who explores his dreams and can cook. Horton is about an elephant who has to get a speck of small people to the top of a mountain. Haven’t seen Spirited Away. Encahnted is about a princess who gets thrust into the real world and finds her prince charming.
I wouldn’t use your term of “lazy plot” for any of these. You can quibble about the messages maybe (which kids don’t read much into anyway), but the plots themselves are all pretty simple – not lazy. They’re simple for a reason – so kids can follow them easily and without getting distracted. So are you looking for a Donnie Darko plot thread in your kids movies? I’m just not sure I understand your complaint other than you have a personal bias against Disney. And I don’t get your Doomsday/Hot Fuzz references.
Now that I think about it, Enchanted IS kind of similar to Doomsday. It throws nods left and right at its much admired predecessors. You may not admire Disney’s predecessors as much as Doomsday’s (i.e. Mad Max, Escape from NY, Grindhouse, etc), but the parallel and similarity actually is there.
Great article maybe.
“Enchanted and Doomsday: A Match Made in Heaven…or Hell”
For that matter, neither does Rata or Horton. You think these plots are more developed and deeper than Enchanted? Ratatouille is about a rat who explores his dreams and can cook. Horton is about an elephant who has to get a speck of small people to the top of a mountain. Haven’t seen Spirited Away. Encahnted is about a princess who gets thrust into the real world and finds her prince charming.”
A film is not what it is about, but rather how it is about it. And Enchanted, despite having a winning concept and a charming trio of leads squanders the ‘how it is about it’ part by some lazy storytelling.
I liked the musical set-pieces, I liked James Marsdon, I liked the fact that the film more of less compared over-advertised fantasia of Times Square to over-advertised fantasia of Disney product. So much of the film was just slapped along from scene to scene…I guess I was expecting better production values or something, the thing looked like it could have been direct to video at times…
Well, fair enough. I guess I don’t see that at all. Having seen it twice here is a movie that’s all about the details. not background details like Idiocracy, but more like the details in the homages. I caught several, but there are probably hundreds.
For this type of movie, I’m just not sure what else to ask for. Every moment is gold and enjoyable for what it is trying to be. If you want “more” from it, I guess I can’t argue. I just don’t know what more could be derived. It’s a simple story that plays itself well and with great performances, songs and moments.
“The problem is, I am an adult watching it. So if I watch something that’s shit I can’t say “maybe if I was a kid I would like it more” because that’s guesswork and dishonest. If you’re going to take yourself seriously as a reviewer, you have to approach everything the same way – taking it in from the perspective of wether or not it’s worth spending your time on (which is the first objective of any piece of art).
A film doesn’t get plusses in my book for being well-adjusted to the mindset of somebody other than myself. If it did, there would be no point in even expressing my own opinion on anything other than what I make myself, because that would be the only thing that I was the target audience for.”
Don’t you think you should take into account whether or not it succeeds at being what it is achieving to be yet also reference that you found it bad, boring or whatever.
My son is still going on about pieces of Veggie Tales but he never once mentioned Ratatouille after seeing it. Which movie would you say is more successful based on that.
For me its the same thing as complaining about a lack of romance in a horror movie or a lack of good scares in a romance movie.
The other question is why are you watching movies that you don’t want to watch. If you are paid for it I can understand having to watch something like Veggie Tales but otherwise the movie is not targeting you.
I personally like there to be reviews for movies for Kids that tell me not whether as a grown up will like it but whether or not my son will like it.
“(Yes, I’m saving for therapy when I’ve alienated my kids with my fascist rule….) ”
hehe and I’ll be having to deal with sitting through the crap about Transformers 27.
I’m not sure which is worse.
John – you are so right.
I never want to see Curious George for example. I’ve heard that it is strictly for little little kids and no adult humor whatsoever.
If I had seen the movie, I would’ve mentioned that in my review. But just because it is aimed at 3 year olds and it succeeds at that, doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie because I didn’t enjoy it. Like with Doomsday, you have to critique a film partly on what it is attempting to do. If the movie is aiming to satisfy and thrill a four year old and it does that, but I didn’t like it, does that mean it’s not a good movie? I don’t think so.
I’ve seen curious george. Nice colour palatte, I particularly enjoyed the look of the film on the big screen. Eugene Levy is in there to spice things up a bit. It’s quite cute without being particularly memorable.
Curious George is another movie that my son loves. I will say that movie got me a touch misty when The Man in Yellow gets mad at George and George heads back to the jungle without his friend.
Well I had this whole debate with myself after having to review a kids film for a radio show that I do.
When I watch a film, I don’t care about anything other than my experience. If I watch The Godfather and don’t like it, I’m not going to say it’s a good film, no matter how influential, popular or beloved it otherwise may be. The same with a kids film that some 4year old kids may enjoy. That has no bearing on my experience, hence none on my opinion of the piece. And since they aren’t to intellectualise and verbalise their experience, there is no way to get an idea why they enjoy all the horrible, horrible films that they do. A good guess would be the bright colors.
I have no idea what Veggie Tales is, so I can’t comment on wether or not I think it’s more succesful than Ratatouille.
YES, WE SHOULD. Isn’t it the job of a parent to guide their children thru the wildnerness, rather than to pander to their wants and desires?
This is why I like being an uncle. My sister and her husband get to deal with The Wiggles and staving off other balaities while I simply get to give my nephews yet another creepy Neil Gaiman book with scary drawings courtesy of Dave McKean. I’m so going to be the cool uncle as they get older.
For Veggie Tales imagine shows that are aimed at a 3-4 year old. Nothing too scary, and very simple stories that usually cover one theme at a time. Usually the shows are very Christian based but the latest one isn’t an actual story based on Christian myth but it still really has a “God” character. Oh and all the characters are talking vegetables.
I totally disagree with you on the kids movies. I can tell how kids (who are somewhat similar to my son) will react to a movie and I don’t see any reason not to bring that opinion up in a review. If reviewers took your tact there would never be any reviews for kids movies that were actually useful for parents.
But “The Godfather” (and nearly any movie not rated G) is aimed at you (i.e. anyone older than 12 – male or female) though. If you don’t like it, then that’s fair – just say why you don’t like it. Subjectivity is a must when critiquing film, as long as you back up your statements with examples.
But a certain amount of objectivity must be taken into account (in my opinion). This applies especially to kids films, but again I agree with John. It could apply also to horror films or romance films too. Different genres may be weighted more I suppose.
Straight up drama films (21 Grams, Finding Forrester, The Good Girl, Happiness, etc) would have less need for objectivity as they are pretty much aimed at everyone (adults) and in theory should be relatable for everyone. But a slasher movie is aiming at a very specific audience. And for you to say you hate it because there wasn’t enough romance would be stupid. Likewise with a kids movie. To say you did’t like it because the jokes were too juvenile or the plot was too simple or not enough decapitations occurred would be equally as stupid.
Is it cute? Is it colorful? Is it positive? Is it too convoluted or is it easy to follow? Is it long or short? These are some of the kind of questions I would ask when reviewing a film intended for a three year old. I don’t need to get articulate answers from a kid to know if a film succeeds at these goals or not.
“YES, WE SHOULD. Isn’t it the job of a parent to guide their children thru the wildnerness, rather than to pander to their wants and desires?”
Really? I’m so unimpressed with parents who don’t indulge their kids with the Santa Claus or tooth fairy fantasy. It’s harmless fun and kids like it. As with films, I don’t always agree with you that pandering is a bad thing.
“YES, WE SHOULD. Isn’t it the job of a parent to guide their children thru the wildnerness, rather than to pander to their wants and desires?”
I’d also be worried about having a kid who doesn’t like movies at all because they had to watch what the parent wants and not what they want to watch.
We should encourage but also allow.
I know you know this but I also just want to word it just in case anyone is thinking the opposite.
I’m not saying Kurt is doing the wrong thing for his kids nor do I believe he is saying I’m doing the wrong thing for mine. Telling a parent the “proper” way to do stuff is always a touchy thing to do. We’re arguing philosophies not specifics.
Hey, I’m not a parent and I don’t mean to tell people how to raise their kids. But I do have an opinion and I did have a childhood which I recollect fondly; mainly thinking about all the fun stuff I would’ve missed out on if my parents had not “allowed” as you say.
So again, I just think pandering (especially to children) is not necessarily a bad thing. If a kid wants to pull over on a road trip to see the world’s biggest statue of an orange cow, I may do so. Even though I might find it pointless, boring and a waste of time, my kid might think it was the best part of the trip; hence thinking fondly of the experience.
Having said that, no kid of mine will ever watch tele-tubbies or Barney. That shit is scary.
“I just wanted…I don’t know, something more than a good Adams performance and a somewhat lazy plot. ”
I know, like I said
AGAIN
you put the “I want subversive!” yoke on the Hot Fuzz equivolent of a Disney Princess movie. Seriously. This is the first time I think I could ever say you’ve moved beyond tastes to being truly snobby.
Our generation of new-parents lucked out in that regard, We have Dora: The Explorer and Diego which actually are watchable enough.
Thank goodness the Barney/Teletubbies wave has crashed upon the beach….
Oh, Goon, but we are all snobs in our own way….I guess you’ve found my soft-underbelly.
“YES, WE SHOULD. Isn’t it the job of a parent to guide their children thru the wildnerness, rather than to pander to their wants and desires?”
Fuck that shit. It’s all well and good to introduce your kid to things they would never discover on their own, but “guide through the wilderness”? Those kinds of parents were assholes, and if I had let my parents pull that shit my DVD collection would be no more edgy than the likes of Sister Act, Patch Adams, or Jack.
@ Andrew: “Really? I’m so unimpressed with parents who don’t indulge their kids with the Santa Claus or tooth fairy fantasy. It’s harmless fun and kids like it. As with films, I don’t always agree with you that pandering is a bad thing.”
I’m not talking extremes here, you have to pick your battles. In the Halfyard Household, the front line trenches are in cinema, not Halmark holidays and events. (Although Frances McDormand’s chracter in Almost Famous is dear to my heart)
Who’s the snob now Goon?
“Fuck that shit. It’s all well and good to introduce your kid to things they would never discover on their own, but “guide through the wilderness”? Those kinds of parents were assholes, and if I had let my parents pull that shit my DVD collection would be no more edgy than the likes of Sister Act, Patch Adams, or Jack.”
Ha, I tend to take not a protective stance from ‘scary’ material, but rather show the quality stuff over the banal. The wilderness being Sister Act, Patch Adams and Jack. At the same time, Apocalpyse Now or Happiness isn’t on the menu any more than Eyes Wide Shut and Away From Her are.
I’m proudly an asshole parent, if that is what you are referring to. I’m not stopping them from watching stuff like “The Back Yardigans”, “Ice Age” or “Cinderella III: Cheapquel of Champions”, they’ll get that junkfood from friends, neighbors, and others.
I think it is a significant part of my job as a parent of young children to act as a gateway of sorts. The kids are allowed to watch King Kong (1930s version) and Godzilla (1950s version – Raymond Burr Dub) rather than Barnyard and Surf’s Up. Pixar is as popular in our house as most of the rest of the country…But I try to slip in some Chuck Jones, Hayao Miyazaki, Henry Sellick, Friz Freleng, Nick Park, Michel Ocelot or Sylvain Chomet.
Oh I’m not completely anti-disney, I like The Lion King, Bambi, Fantasia, Something Wicked This Way Comes and Pirates of the Carribean II.
“Our generation of new-parents lucked out in that regard, We have Dora: The Explorer and Diego which actually are watchable enough.”
Did you ever see the magic flute episode of Dora. I love the music at the end of that one.
My new co-worker was telling me about some show he watches where celebrities teach kids how to dance and sing. It actually sounded pretty cool. Do you guys know what I’m talking about? I’ll ask him again and let you know otherwise.
Nope, no clue on that one Andrew… but it could be a States only show.
We only have 4 episodes of Dora (Baby Jaguar, Penguino, Big Red Chicken, and Special Day), the kids tend to watch them over and over again. I do not recall any flutes.
“I can tell how kids (who are somewhat similar to my son) will react to a movie and I don’t see any reason not to bring that opinion up in a review. If reviewers took your tact there would never be any reviews for kids movies that were actually useful for parents.”
Any adult who presumes to know what a childs brain works like is a pretentious liar (no offense). There is no point pretending to preach that you know what brains in a drastically different place than your own would interpret the material. It’s simply not possible, which anybody who isn’t a gullible (again, no offense. We’re discussing philosophy) parent would attest to. Therefore, it makes no sense for any adult reviewer to try and judge anything from the approach of a brain younger than his. It is dishonest and it completely invalidates any opinions put forth in the review.
I am a firm believer in the ideology that ANY sort of creative content should be completely originated by yourself, and consequently reflect your own personality and nothing else. If you are doing anything but that, what is the point of you doing the content in the first place? Might as well be a programmed drone at that point. YOU is what matters. I am what matters. If we do something, then WE are what matters. Anything else can make their own review.
With all due respect Henrik, you’re being an idiot again.
So no children’s movie can really be properly reviewed is basically what you’re saying. For that matter, no children’s movie can really ever even be made since the film maker has no idea what kind of things a child likes or might be interested in?
Did everyone in the world suddenly forget their childhood likes and dislikes? I certainly remember my childhood and my friends as well. I know what we liked and why we liked it.
Sure, maybe a specific kid you can’t tell EXACTLY what’s going on in their head; but for children in general, people know what they like and don’t like, how they behave and why they behave.
It seems to me that you’re also saying that basically, there is no such thing as a children’s film. A film (or any facet of life for that matter) must be reviewed from an adult perspective only and to look at it from a another’s point of view is dishonest and impossible.
Sorry man, you’re either just wrong (most likely), not explainaing yourself very well or you have no sense of empathy.
PS – I remember you talking about this same thing on another thread somewhere (FilmJunk maybe?) and saying the same assinine things.
How is it wrong to assume the position of representing myself and nothing else? I do not presume to know enough about the world to review anything from any other perspective than my own personal assembly of experiences and impressions that eventually have formed the mind that I call my own.
To say that a movie is different because it is aimed at a different audience means nothing to me as I am watching it. That is outside of the piece itself, and has no bearing on what is actually on the screen, and no bearing on how I experience and interpret it. After I have seen what was made, I will decide for myself wether it’s suitable for adults, children, men, women, animals or any other demographic.
And to be more confronting, I have long thought about the absolute lack of self-worth a grown up man who directs talking animals doing fart jokes must suffer from.
“How is it wrong to assume the position of representing myself and nothing else? I do not presume to know enough about the world to review anything from any other perspective than my own personal assembly of experiences and impressions that eventually have formed the mind that I call my own.”
This is correct. But your own experiences include that of being a child and also your experiences in dealing with, observing and understanding general child psychology. In other words, you should be able to empathize with what a child might be feeling while watching a movie. Whether it be The English Patient, Friday the 13th or Finding Nemo. It’s obvious which of those titles a four year old is going to like the best and I could mention that in my review: “it’s likely that your 8 year0old son or daughter is going to enjoy this picture. That’s not to say it’s necessarily a GOOD movie, just saying a kid is probably going to have fun with it. That’s not being “dishonest” or a “pretentious liar” – it’s called understanding basic human psychology. Oh yeah and the fact that I was a kid myself.
“To say that a movie is different because it is aimed at a different audience means nothing to me as I am watching it. That is outside of the piece itself, and has no bearing on what is actually on the screen, and no bearing on how I experience and interpret it.”
It may not have any bearing on how YOU interpret the film. But that’s like saying I should buy a filing cabinet for my kid for Christmas. The fact that it’s not made for kids has no bearing on me as an adult. It is a practical device that I could find very useful. So it must be a great gift for my kid. Or vice versa, a He-Man action figure is a great toy for an 8 year old kid. Since I would not particularly care to play with it, does that mean it’s not a good toy for a kid, because my experience with it is bad?
You misunderstand. I know what a kid would like. If I were to take a kid to the theatre, I would pick the flashy fish movie as well. But if I am going to have the priveledge of reviewing a movie, I think that I have the responsibility to give my honest opinion and say wether or not I feel it was good enough for me to sit through. There is a major difference between general life-management, conversation and social awareness, and actually publishing your opinion to a major audience – at least that is what I think. With the priveledge comes a responsibility to be honest.
If you were given a He-Man doll as a present would you be happy because “if I were a child this would be really cool!”? Obviously not. So how could you give it a bad review without presumption, guesswork and ultimately lies? Everything would be based on your own childhood which would be about 15-20 years removed from what children today are going through. Not even mentioning the fact that memories from 0-3 are practically non-existent and memories from 3-10 is scarce at best. It is pretentious and dishonest to not approach everything from where you stand on the day you experience it.
“So how could you give it a bad review without presumption, guesswork and ultimately lies?”
A *GOOD review, obviously. Forgive me for writing under the influence.
“But if I am going to have the priveledge of reviewing a movie, I think that I have the responsibility to give my honest opinion and say wether or not I feel it was good enough for me to sit through”
This is fair enough. But you also have the responsibility of informing people that you think that a five year-old would probably have the exact opposite (or the same as the case may be) opinion as yourself. Quite often, people read reviews for children’s movies to find out what kind of content is in the film and if the movie suits their particular kid’s needs/wants. Definitely give YOUR opinion of course; but also understand that what people want from you in this case might not always be what you think of the film, but what you think a kid might garner from the experience. Even if that is pure speculation on your part – I don’t think it’s completely dishonest or even presumptuous; as most rational people will understand that you’re an adult venturing an opinion on what a kid may or may not like. So definitely state in your review that you think Curious George has archaic animation and the dialogue is boring and you had absolutely no fun in the theater. But you should also mention that is was fairly cute-sy, had a positive message and was colorful with some good music. Also, the kids in the audience seemed to be really having a ball and laughing a lot.
—
“If you were given a He-Man doll as a present would you be happy because ‘if I were a child this would be really cool!’? Obviously not.”
Again, fair enough and an adequate analogy. I would be more upset though, that the person who gave me the toy didn’t look at the packaging and read the specs (or the reviews if you will) that states quite clearly that “this product is intended for children. Do not give this toy to your 45 year-old uncle. He pobably won’t enjoy it, even though we think it is a worth-while item for his nephew.”
PS – I’ve never seen “Curious George” – I’m making all that up for purpose of example.
reading Henriks angry posts here, I can just picture him in the black leotard smoking clove cigarettes in black and white.
seriously, I get a huge Dieter vibe sometimes.
I got none of those references. I don’t why you’d classify my posts as angry though.
i wouldn’t call: “And to be more confronting, I have long thought about the absolute lack of self-worth a grown up man who directs talking animals doing fart jokes must suffer from.” warm and fuzzy….
It’s cold I will give you that, but angry? I certainly didn’t feel angry.
text is a tricky thing. people tend to put their prejudices on top of what they read.
Which is why I end up having to defend myself from attacks that are completely ridiculous.
I tend to think you bring it upon yourself with your (seemingly) abrupt dismissals, and (often) brief declarations which seem tailor made to go against the grain. No problem. It get a bunch of us riled up in a usually fun sort of way.