SDG here. No, I’m not taking a break from my Petrine Fact series, but I won’t be able to finish another installment until next week, so a couple of things I’ve been meaning to blog for awhile.
Here is how Roger Ebert started his review of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs:
Let me search my memory. I think — no, I’m positive — this is the first movie I’ve seen where the hero dangles above a chasm lined with razor-sharp peanut brittle while holding onto a red licorice rope held by his girlfriend, who has a peanut allergy, so that when she gets cut by some brittle and goes into anaphylactic shock and her body swells up, she refuses to let go, and so the hero bites through the licorice to save her. You don’t see that every day.
And here’s how I started my review. Note especially the third paragraph:
What’s the last family film you can think of that name-checked Nikola Tesla and Alexander Graham Bell?
When in movie history has the girl ever revealed her true self and become more attractive to the hero by putting on spectacles and pulling back her hair?
And, let’s face it, when’s the last time any of us has seen a former child star wearing a giant roasted chicken battling comestible defense mechanisms while a peanut-allergic weather girl lowers the hero via licorice rappelling rope into a shaft of razor-sharp peanut brittle where the slightest scratch could prove deadly to her?
I just have to say: I love it that not only did we make essentially the same observation about so many of the same elements in our openings, we both used the same phrase “razor-sharp peanut brittle.”
That said, clearly I liked Cloudy better than Ebert (of course, Ebert hates 3‑D, which might have something to do with it), and I think the enjoyment of the film shows in my review, which was fun to write.
Gratifyingly, it looks like a lot of families are sharing the Cloudy love: Not only did it open at #1 a couple of weeks agao, it stayed in the top spot last weekend, sliding less than 20 percent (which is amazing). It’s depressing enough that G-Force, G. I. Joe and Transformers did so well without having families overlook a fun family flick like Cloudy that actually has heart and wit. (Don’t even get me started on Ponyo.)
If you only saw the trailers, Cloudy is a lot better than you think. Trust me.
Oh, and Ebert and I agree on The Informant — a deceptively amusing film for grown-ups.
“If you only saw the trailers, Cloudy is a lot better than you think. Trust me. ”
I’m glad to hear you say that. With a book as sparely written as “Cloudy…”, I was afraid that the film adaptation – needing to stretch and flesh out the story a lot – would end up something like “Cat in the Hat”.
Which reminds me… Where the Wild Things Are is coming out, and I see you have it slated for review. From the trailers, it looks like a pretty awful adaptation of a pretty overrated kids’ book.
If you like imaginative childhood escapism, I much prefer Harold and the Purple Crayon.
We watched Cloudy a couple weeks ago with our young children and we all loved it. I think they succeed in mixing a truly adult-level humor into a kids movie, whereas Ice Age assumed you are never tired of hearing sexual innuendo and potty jokes (we are). I had a good feeling from the very beginning when instead of every studio and production company (“brought to you by…”, “in association with…”, “an XYZ Production”, “A JKL Film”, and on and on) they basically said “produced by….A whole bunch of people”, and started in with the story.
Maybe I have an unsophisticated sense of humor, but the town’s grown up obnoxious celebrity, Baby “uh-oh” Brent, cracked me up, as well as some of the things that came out of the monkey’s thought translator. The scene where Flint had to guide his technically-challenged father over the phone through the process of emailing an attachment had me laughing out loud as well — probably because I’ve been in Flint’s predicament many times.
A very enjoyable film. We had our 3-yr-old so we watched the normal showing rather than the 3D so that we wouldn’t have to fuss with the glasses.
Just a question:
How many agendas are hidden behind children’s movies, nowadays? There are so many good children’s book, begging to be made into movies that would not shock modern sensibilities that I can’t believe the Hollywood has to either pervert a classic or write new, banal, nonsense.
This movie is, obviously, an exception, but are children being raised with fundamentally different sensibilities than in the “old days” or is Hollywood trying to create a new breed of children? The argument was made with regards to comic books that today’s more “sophisticated” audiences would not tolerate the simple moral stories of the past. I never bought that argument. Is that argument being made for children’s movies, today? Are children more sophisticated?
I guess I am just curmudgeonly, today.
Oh, by the way, SDG, you wrote:
And, let’s face it, when’s the last time any of us has seen a former child star wearing a giant roasted chicken battling comestible defense mechanisms
My whole life, you know…
The Chicken
“The argument was made with regards to comic books that today’s more “sophisticated” audiences would not tolerate the simple moral stories of the past. I never bought that argument. Is that argument being made for children’s movies, today? Are children more sophisticated?”
I think it is much more complicated than just that children were more innocent in the past. I think each generation has its own idea of what childhood should be like. Are things like Batman and Shrek darker/more sophisticated/edgier/whatever than the fairy tales previous children were told? Yes, but those fairy tales were heavily bowdlerized by the Victorians. The original tales were much darker, not at all simple morality tales, and were intended in part to teach children about the world, good and bad. At certain times in our history, there was no concept of childhood as a special time of innocence, and kids were not particularly sheltered from unpleasantness. So it depends on what we mean by “the good old days” (which were never as good as we think they are anyway).
And I think within our own time there is variation. Yes, Hollywood often sees fit to insert vulgarity and whatnot in an attempt to make it “sophisticated” and to draw in older audiences, but there is also plenty of inoffensive, “everybody’s a winner,” utterly banal and bloodless stuff for kids (why oh why did my inlaws have to introduce the Beadboys to the Backyardigans?). And then we have stuff like Sesame Street, and Up, and Spirited Away, and (apparently) Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.
Tim J.:
Where the Wild Things Are is coming out, and I see you have it slated for review. From the trailers, it looks like a pretty awful adaptation of a pretty overrated kids’ book.
A pretty overrated kids’ book?? How can you say that? Harold and the Purple Crayon is a lot of fun, but it just doesn’t have the emotional power, psychological depth, or humanistic insight of Maurice Sendak’s magnum opus.
“A pretty overrated kids’ book??”
I remember I was in grade school when Wild Things was brand new. My teachers gushed over it. They loved it, thought it was great, and it was clear we kids were all supposed to think it was great, too.
I liked it okay. I enjoyed the art. I just never thought it was this amazing thing. I love Harold and the Purple Crayon because of its minimalistic charm. It does a whole lot with a very little.
The Five Chinese Brothers is another favorite.
Man, I am such a nerd. I would love to see adaptations of some of my childhood reading: The Incredible flight to the Mushroom Planet, the Danny Dunn Series, Tom Swift, Encyclopedia brown (a good movie), the Three Investigators. In Fact, a whole series of really good movies could be made from Zenna Henderson’s, The People, books (one movie, co-starring William Shatner was made in the 1970’s. It is now, out of print.). Perhaps the best unmade children’s movie might be, The Problem of Cell 13, starring Professor Van Dussen, The Thinking Machine. Heck, they took the French children’s book, E=MC^2, Mon Amour, by Patrick Chauvin, made it into the really under appreciated movie, A Little Romance.
Classic, all (if you happen to be a nerd or geek).
I’ll take any of these, any day, over Judy Bloom.
The Chicken
Danny Dunn was my Dad’s generation, not mine, but it became part of my childhood when he hunted up the books for us. They are hilarious! I would totally watch a Danny Dunn movie.
Then there’s that Heinlein Juvenile with three kids building a rocket to the moon in their backyard, with the help of a kindly professor, and when they get to the moon, there are NAZIS. That would be the best movie ever.
Ahh.. Rocket Ship Galileo. That’s what it was called.