Zootopia 2

The best part of this movie is the visual jokes and puns. Some of them are genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. And some of the verbal jokes hit the mark as well. But a lot of the rest of this film comes across as very boilerplate animated feature: not especially clever, not particularly innovative in terms of its visuals, and built too much around presenting bland homilies at the end of the story. You get the sense throughout the running time that the point of this exercise from the start was to preach to the audience, and to make the sermon more palatable by wrapping it up in a number of revved up action sequences. In that sense, it’s kind of like how you give a pill to an animal (appropriately enough): you stick the pill into some squishy treat and hope the creature will swallow it whole. To be sure, the film is not boring or without entertainment value; you can watch the movie and stay mostly engaged from start to finish. You might find yourself straying a bit here and there, and you might consider the plot to be low stakes and slightly nonsensical—but most of those watching it will be children anyway, and we all know how uncritical they can be. So it’s mostly harmless amusement, though hardly anything more than that, and certainly nothing particularly memorable. It’s not all happening at this zoo, but I do believe there’s just enough here to make do. 

Charlotte's Web

Believe it or not, when I was trying to get my children’s book manuscript published oh-so-many years ago, I kept running into a mindset that said that no one publishes “talking animal” stories anymore. They were—and perhaps still are—deemed passé, and regressive, and possibly even reactionary. There is perhaps no greater example of how astonishingly stupid that notion is than this movie, even with it being almost twenty years old as of this viewing. This seems like a simple story, but in fact it examines eternal truths, in a way that is accessible to all. The miracle of White’s work, which shines through in this adaptation, lies in using the form of a fable—a genre as old as stories themselves—to illustrate eternal truths about life and the world, both our human lives and our place in that world of other lives, including our animal cousins, and what this existence means for all of us, in all of its beauty, joy and sadness. This production captures that essence wonderfully, with a script that remains true to the original book, visual effects that are flawlessly executed, a tempered hand when it comes to the “updating” and “comic relief”—the jive talking characters and stunt casting are kept to a minimum—and an emotional tone that resonates without overstepping into something overwrought. I’m tempted to give this film Best of All status, but even without such accolades, this movie is must-see material. “Terrific” and “Radiant" hardly cover it. 

Flow

Enigmatic hardly covers it. This movie is one of those pieces of work that people who are really into New Age stuff will decide is Super Profound and Meaningful. Me, I’m not so sure. Everything in the production screams award-bait intentions, from the consciously lilting score to the unfinished looking rendering of the animal characters—despite the rest of the visuals being presented in lush, hyperrealistic detail—to the almost-referencing of various cultural (Noah’s Ark) and political (climate change) touchstones in the story elements, to the fact that the film is made by a swarm of foreign studios and agencies (the logo drops at the beginning take up about a reel's time on their own) but the lack of dialogue means English speaking audiences can easily digest it...everything strikes as specifically fashioned to gain highbrow attention. I’m not sure, however, that that actually translates into an important movie. The animal cast, through the course of the story, ultimately show no less amounts of anthropomorphism than your average Disney flick characters—they just do it more subtly, without the singing and wisecracks. And you can’t help but have scientific considerations butt into your assessment of the happenings (example: shouldn’t these creatures be starving to death by now?). Still, there’s enough visual, emotional and action depth to hold the viewers interest throughout, even if the journey winds up being a somewhat circular ride. Gush if you must, but I expect my breathtaking works of staggering genius to wow me a little more than this. Even with a cat protagonist, I can only muster a MEOW here; I’ll save the PURR for something that doesn’t insist upon itself so much.

That Darn Cat! (1965)

How can you make a comedy that’s a little too comedic? Here might be an example. That is, if you can describe clumsy slapstick as being actually “comedic.” When this movie plays it for laughs—really, when it desperately strains for laughs—it mostly falls flat on its face (a favored fate of many of the characters, it turns out). Even for a story that is clearly targeted for children, the humor here generally lands with a thud and can not be expected to entertain anyone. That isn’t surprising for a formulaic picture from the period of Disney’s decline. What is surprising is that, when the movie plays it relatively straight, the result is a film that is actually entertaining, engaging, charming, and even interesting. Given that the movie clearly runs at least a half an hour too long, the inescapable conclusion is that they should have excised the goofy slapstick, including the extraneous wacky neighbors, and just gone ahead with the core story, letting Haley Mills, Dean Jones, and a handful of clever Siamese kitties carry the thing through. I doubt I’d recommend this flick as anything other than a time capsule experience—the ‘60s really were a different world versus now—but maybe it stands as well as an example of what not to do when you’re making a lighthearted movie. Not necessarily litter box material, but hardly a dose of catnip, either.

A Cat in Paris

(English dubbed version) Normally, if you title your movie “A Cat in Paris,” or a cat in anything, I expect a film that’s much more feline-oriented and less about the human animals. As it is, the purring protagonist here, Dino, is almost a supporting character in this animated cinematic crime caper. The other half of the title, a nicely rendered City of Light, plays its part in the production, though not to the extent and with such impact as in, say, Amelie. Mostly, Paris is a presence as a set of rooftops for much on the action to take place on. The human characters are okay, nothing special; little girl Zoe and her mother, a police superintendent, are the core characters, while a friendly neighborhood cat burglar, Nico, provides some balance and intrigue against the family drama. Less successful as screen presences are the gangster Costa and his henchmen, who come across as thorough cliches of English criminal types. (Yes, one of them is German, but who’s counting?) Perhaps watching this movie in an English translation is the reason it left something to be desired, at least as concerns the dramatis personae. As for the universal language, the animated visuals, the presentation is interesting but hardly groundbreaking. Much of the imagery is rendered as flat and geometric, with the humans especially looking a lot like Picasso painted persons (except their eyes are in the right places). All in all, this is an interesting if not absorbing movie, effective in its storytelling if a bit cliched and predictable (as befits an animated feature; this was clearly made for children, so complexity is not on the menu). And there’s just enough felinity in the proceedings to push the overall impression into positive territory. Vive le chat, if not the rest of it.

Lady and the Tramp

The movie starts out so cloying and insipid that a viewer of any sophistication has to wonder how it can ever be redeemed. Fortunately, the story picks up steam once the mutts are on the move, and the proceedings are brought to a satisfying—albeit still somewhat insipid—conclusion. The most striking thing about this movie may be its setting, not in place—an unidentified but seemingly American city—but in time. This film from the '50s is set sometime around the turn of the century, roughly 1900 by the visual clues—meaning its setting and milieu was archaic and out of date even when it was released, let alone today. Still, this piece provides enough entertainment to qualify as an overall success, even for the cat lovers among us.

Jaws

A 45th anniversary re-viewing of the original summer blockbuster. It's actually difficult to write a cogent review of this movie, as it has become so iconic and wound into the DNA of the culture that it's hard to see it simply as a film. What stands out most here is the combination of thrills--if not outright scares--with a deep vein of humor and wit, all told with a visual vocabulary that informs the audience that even in 1975, before all the impressive work that came after it, Spielberg had already mastered his craft. Not just worth a look, but worth looking at again, if it's been too long.

Isle of Dogs

Some dogs are cute and engaging; some movies, too. That's enough to make some people fall in love, with the dogs at least. I'm not sure this flick is love worthy, but it is a pretty enjoyable bit of work. It's probably not everyone's cup of tea, given it's a Wes Anderson film; Anderson probably lays on the preciousness just brushing his teeth in the morning, and this outing certainly delivers its share of the auteur's characteristic style. But the somewhat affected style is not an insurmountable obstacle; Anderson takes it right to the edge, but doesn't fly over the rim into an abyss of cutesiness. That balancing act is helped considerably by a terrific voice cast, who deliver--in English and Japanese--a pack of spot on performances. The foreign setting (to yours truly, at least) is a strength of the story; the language barriers help give the sense of a lack of communication that must by typical of people and their pets (whatever folks may believe to the contrary). And no, this cat lover didn't mind the movie's notion of feline villainy. All in all, every dog movie has its day, and you can give this outing its day--or at least a couple hours of your time.

The Legend of Tarzan

Maybe this story just can't work in today's world. The original appeal of Burroughs' tale revolved around the clash of civilization vs the wild. Today, we're not so awed by the jungle anymore, especially as we know it's disappearing. Despite these hurdles, the folks here gamely give it a go, and they come close to pulling off a good adventure movie. The principals are fine in their roles: Alexander Sarsgaard is sufficiently ripped; Sam Jackson is his usual self; Margot Robbie does what she does, which is be good in any role; but Christoph Waltz is largely wasted playing a character wbo is too static--he needed more to do to make a greater impact. Beyond the human elements, things look good, but a series of visually spectacular set pieces does not a movie make. Overall, it's OK--the film holds the interest, and it looks good--but this movie comes with a nagging feeling that this is about as good as this story can get now, and that's not quite enough.

Zootopia

One can see the clear outlines of the political themes that sit just below the surface of this movie, particularly with regards to the issue of identity politics. (Or should that be identity paw-litics? Couldn’t resist.) But I think it’s best to let that slide and judge the work on its merits as a movie; that is, as a vehicle for telling a story. And this piece earns high marks on that basis: the story is engaging right from the start, it sets up its premise—really, its world—in crisp, neat fashion, and it runs through its narrative with a minimum of missteps and a great deal of smart, funny panache. And, as a bonus, this is one animated film that avoids the pitfall of Familiar Voice Syndrome;  there are some major names in the cast—Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Idris Elba—but none have a voice so distinctive that they are too recognizable. That makes for a more effective cast of characters, which always makes for more effective storytelling—and thus a more effective movie. Finally, it should go without saying, the animation is top notch; that’s standard for the industry these days. All in all, this is a strong effort and well worth the viewer’s time and attention.

King Solomon's Mines

(1950 version, with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr.) I often preach about old movies being better than you think they are; this one's not exactly a poster child for that concept. Not to say that it's bad; but the running time largely consists of a pastiche of wildlife encounters--which were probably fascinating back in the day but relatively bland for today's jaded viewer, who's seen all this and better in any number of nature shows--and a story that meanders to an ending with very little payoff. This one's probably only for the film buffs out there.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The movie is much like the featured primates: it starts off quite stupid, then it gets a boost midway through and starts looking smarter. It's hard to resist rolling one's eyes at the early parts of the film, especially the very paint-by-numbers plot points about corporate greed being the root of the evil (not that it doesn't ring true; it's just not very well presented here). There's also some character inconsistency that comes across as false and jarring as the story progresses; ironically, it's mostly the apes who stay true to character. And then you get plenty of good monkey mayhem towards the end. Satisfying, but definitely in the "leaves room for improvement" category.

Secretariat

This is standard issue, boilerplate Disney movie--little more than you would have seen on the "Wonderful World of Disney" TV program 40 years ago (right when Secretariat was about to go on his historic run). It veers wildly between charming and cartoonish, presents plenty of well-worn schmaltz and platitudes, and--one suspects--fudges not a little bit on the truth. That's not to say that there are no entertaining moments here; a very appealing cast elevates the proceedings by their presence, and insomuch as the film reminds you of the true glory of Big Red, it serves as a worthwhile memorial. But one suspects this could have been a great deal more than it is.

Doctor Dolittle (1998)

Kind of an off day for Eddie Murphy. Not awful, but could have been better. Kids would probably like it.

Mousehunt

If you're a fan of Nathan Lane...if you're a fan of animal movies...knock yourself out. Otherwise, you can probably skip it.