THE MUPPETS: MOST WANTED

2014, Walt Disney Pictures

Live action

Rating: PG

Approx. 107 mins.

THE STORY:

Who knew that Kermit the Frog was a dead ringer for evil frog Constantine, the #1 most wanted criminal in the world? Only Constantine and his #2, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais), who conspire to kidnap Kermit and have him take Constantine's place in a Siberian gulag. Unbeknownst to the Muppets, Constantine becomes Kermit and leads them through a European tour to capitalize on their post-movie comeback. Also unbeknownst to them, Constantine and Dominic are using the tour as a cover for their complex and time-consuming plan to steal the British Crown Jewels.

With a little help from various friends, Muppet and human alike, Kermit tries to stop Constantine and reveal his dastardly plan.    

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• none

VIOLENCE:

• none

TEACHING POINTS:

• If something seems too good to be true, it probably is
• Family should be with family who love each other-- no matter what kind of family

THE UPSHOT:

Given that I really enjoyed the last movie and that some of the people I consider the smart-funniest on earth are involved in this movie-- Tina Fey, Ricky Gervais, Bret McKenzie and Jemaine Clement-- I had very very high hopes. Too high, alas.

It isn't a bad movie, but it isn't a great movie either. The best thing about the movie-- aside from the nostalgia/ staying true to the Muppet legacy aspects-- is Bret McKenzie's absolutely perfect music. There are funny moments, but if you've seen a preview you've seen most of them. The theatre was distinctly lacking in laughter, but there was quite a bit of rustling and chatting from restless youngsters. The story just isn't gripping or engaging, and most of the jokes/ cameos will be lost on the younger set. 

3.5/5

STUART LITTLE 3: CALL of the WILD

2005, Sony Pictures

Animation

Rating: G

Approx. 72 mins.

THE STORY:

Stuart (Michael J. Fox) and the other Littles head off on a camping trip, where Stuart soon discovers he is out of his depth and out of his family's focus. He wants nothing more than to prove his camping skills and earn his gold scarf, but no one seems to even notice he is there let alone have the willingness to help him. Instead, he relies on the help of Reeko the skunk (Wayne Brady) to teach him forest survival. 

Reeko's motives for helping are tied to his need to earn food to satisfy The Beast (Virgina Madsen), a ravenous mountain lion who terrifies the forest animals into giving her regular food donations. Although Stuart welcomes Reeko into his heart and home as a friend, the skunk betrays him by tricking the Little cat, Snowbell, into offering himself up to The Beast. Stuart sets off to rescue Snowbell and ends up helping the forest animals unite against The Beast to gain their freedom.

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• none

VIOLENCE:

• none

TEACHING POINTS:

• say yes to people and opportunities
• loyalty, honesty, openness

THE UPSHOT:

The most immediate difference between this movie and the previous 2 is the fact that it is completely animated rather than mainly live action. And the grown ups and the 5 year-old in the room all agreed that it just wasn't as good a visual experience. Instant disappointment.

There just doesn't seem to be any real reason for this movie. Yes, it's sweet and has a lot of positive messaging and such, but the same can be said of the first 2, better made installments. It's short, it's pleasant, and if you have nothing better to do with an hour and a bit of your day... why not? But if time is of the essence and life's too short, skip it.

2/5

MONSTER HOUSE

2006, Columbia Pictures

Animation

Rating: PG

Approx. 90 mins.

THE STORY:

DJ (Mitchel Musso) is obsessed with the cranky, angry movements of his neighbour, Mr. Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi), whose mission in life seems to be keeping kids and their toys as far from his ramshackle house as possible. When DJ and his lumpy friend, Chowder (Sam Lerner), have an interaction with him over a basketball, Nebbercracker collapses, apparently dead of a heart attack. 

DJ and Chowder discover that the Nebbercracker home is a living, seething monster swallowing up things and people that dare step foot near it. They set out to find out what is going on with the house, and then to destroy it. 

They discover that the house is haunted by the spirit of Mrs. Constance Nebbercracker (Kathleen Turner), a circus fat-lady who was rescued from a cage and taunting by the smitten Mr. Nebbercracker. Distracted by cruel, teasing kids, she falls to her death on the site of the half-built house. Her angry spirit takes over the house and becomes bent on avenging herself against all kids and trespassers. The boys realize that their cantankerous neighbour had simply been trying to protect them by keeping them away from his home.

DJ, Chowder and Mr. Nebbercracker team up to quell Constance's spirit and make the house safe for the neighbourhood.    

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• moron
• stupid
• die/ kill

VIOLENCE:

• lots of apparent violence (see below)
• scary and intense

TEACHING POINTS:

• Things are not always as they seem; don't make snap judgments

THE UPSHOT:

The 5 year-old in the room was the one who insisted on seeing this. And the 5 year-old in the room was the one who made the decision to stop watching after the first 25 minutes when it became obvious nightmare fodder. 

A mean old man appears to die in the first 10 minutes... on screen... up close. Others follow, swallowed up by a truly scary animated house. Yes, in the last 20 minutes of the movie, many things are revealed to not have been what they seemed, but that was too late for the 5 year-old in the room who had been terrorized into giving up by that point.

It reminded me quite a bit of Paranorman, but lacked the charm. Great voice cast, but just not very special. If your youngster likes the scary, then this is a good choice. If your youngster is nightmare-prone, stay far far away.  

1.5/5

BEDKNOBS and BROOMSTICKS

1971, Walt Disney Productions

Live action with some animation

Rating: G

Approx. 140 mins.

THE STORY:

It is war-time England, and Eglantine Price (Angela Lansbury) spends her days alone in a large house in Dover working on her magic with the help of a correspondence course in witchcraft. Her routine is thrown off when she is asked to house 3 child evacuees from London. They soon discover her secret and become her accomplices in trying to locate the head of her suddenly defunct magic school, Professor Emelius Browne (David Tomlinson).

When they arrive in London, Eglantine discovers that Browne is not the wizard she had assumed; instead he is a small time entertainer and con man who has been compiling his lessons from the first half of an old book he happened upon. He is shocked to learn that his spells work, and joins Eglantine and the kids on their quest for the book's second half.

Their travels take them all over London and even to an animated world populated by anthropomorphic animals, but eventually they find what Eglantine has been desperate for: the key to a spell she hopes will help England win the war. She figures it out just in time to use it against a Nazi incursion. Although she manages to turn the attackers back, it is not before the Nazis succeed in destroying the source of her magic.     

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• bleeding
• ruddy
• bloody

VIOLENCE:

• punching, shooting at phantoms
• scenes of Nazis landing are not violent, but a bit ominous

TEACHING POINTS:

• nothing significant-- very patriotic and pro-England, which seems a bit odd for a kids' movie made almost 30 years after the end of WW2

THE UPSHOT:

This is a loooooong movie. It seems fairly obvious the film-makers were attempting to recreate the Mary Poppins magic in every aspect-- theme, music, animation, effects and length. Unfortunately, it is somewhat less successful than its predecessor.

Nice story, but the context makes it difficult for younger kids to appreciate. The 5 year-old in the room had a lot of questions, some of which were hard to answer while watching the movie (what is WWII? who are the Nazis? etc.). The cockney accents and dialect were also impossible for her to understand, and not always so easy for the adults in the room.

With all due respect to Angela Lansbury, I think this is a movie crying out for a remake. A shorter remake that doesn't involve Nazis.

2.5/5

MR. PEABODY & SHERMAN

2014, DreamWorks Animation

Animation

Rating: PG

Approx. 91 mins.

THE STORY:

Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is the world's only Harvard-graduated, gourmet chef, multi-lingual, multi-instrumental dog. He is also the only dog in the world to have adopted a boy. Mr. Peabody has tried to give young Sherman (Max Charles) the best education possible, including exposing him to history firsthand. Yet another of his seemingly endless accomplishments is invention of a time machine

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• none

VIOLENCE:

• reference to disembowelment and mummification process
• a near-miss scene involving a guillotine
• Mr. Peabody seems to die, but reappears 5 or so minutes later

TEACHING POINTS:

• labels can be hurtful and meaningless-- question and challenge them
• sometimes parents know what is best and safest for their kids... and sometimes they need to recognize when to back off

THE UPSHOT:

The adults in the theatre enjoyed it more than the 5 year-old, despite her best efforts. The humour relies mainly on clever word play and historical references that were simply out of her reach. We did some prep work related to DaVinci and the Trojan Horse, but so much about the movie was overwhelming, including the whole rip in the time continuum concept which is so central to the story.

The animation is great, the story and humour are smart, the pacing is good and the voices are spot on. It just lacks something. Including-- bar some mildly crude references-- relatability for younger kids. 

3.5/5

THE FOX and the HOUND 2

2006, Walt Disney Productions

Animation

Rating: G

Approx. 63 mins.

THE STORY:

Young Tod the fox and Copper the puppy are the best of friends despite their inherent differences. Although Copper is in training to be a hunting dog, he just doesn't seem to have the aptitude. Dejected about his short-comings, he goes to a fair where he discovers his passion: singing. 

Before he knows it, Copper is the new soprano in The Singin' Strays, a group of harmonizing dogs led by Cash (Patrick Swayze). Copper lies and says he is a stray in order to take the place of difficult diva Dixie (Reba McEntire). He then gets so wrapped up in the excitement of his new world and preparation for a Grand Ol' Opry audition that he completely forgets about Tod.

Dixie and Tod realize that outing Copper as a non-stray solves both their problems, but instead they manage to alienate Copper, break up the band, cancel the audition, and cause complete chaos at the fair. Eventually, when everyone is honest about their feelings, they reflect on their wants and wrong-doings, and make amends.     

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• none

VIOLENCE:

• none

TEACHING POINTS:

• don't take friends for granted; show appreciation for what they offer
• each character selfishly pursues what s/he wants without really respecting the relationship they are trying to protect 

THE UPSHOT:

Oh what a difference 25 years makes. Gone are the terrifying fox traps, the ominous music, the dark colours, the threatening shadows, the wagons full of fox pelts, the red-eyed murderous animals, and the constant backdrop of one animal wanting the other's death. Tod and Copper are returned to cute, innocent childhood and the dramatic tension comes from a fear of humiliation in conflict with a fear of abandonment instead of a fear of death in conflict with murderous intent.

Whereas in the original movie, the issue was a broad social problem (bigotry), here, in another reflection of the times, the problems are all centred on the individual: jealousy, self-absorption, blind ambition. 

The 5 year-old in the room had a real issue with the skewed time-line and the fact that the animals were back to a period in their childhood that the first movie made clear never existed. The music and the funny animal moves (pigs shaking their booties, etc.) were a hit, but there was no getting past the fundamental chronological impossibility.

The grown ups in the room were not impressed. It was better than the first movie for the reasons outlined above, but it was nothing special/ memorable/ original. 
   
2/5

THE FOX and the HOUND

1981, Walt Disney Productions

Animation

Rating: G

Approx. 83 mins.

THE STORY:

When Todd, a young fox, is orphaned, the concerned forest animals arrange for a kindly old woman to take him in. She raises him as a pet, and gives him free rein of her property. One day he runs into Copper, the new puppy the neighbouring hunter has bought to train as a hunting dog. The two become instant friends, ignorant of the relationship they are destined to have.
When spring comes, the hunter drives off with his dogs to spend the season hunting. When he returns months later, Copper and Todd have grown up and their bond is sorely tested. Ultimately, though, friendship wins out and all kinds of bonds between animals and people alike are forged.   

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• none

VIOLENCE:

• frequent visual and verbal references to dying and killing
• a dog appears to die, and the truth is not revealed in time to stem potential tears
• a bear dies-- off screen 

TEACHING POINTS:

• it's easy to find messaging about the dangers of biases and stereotypes, and the need to see people as individuals rather than a genus/ race/ whatever

THE UPSHOT:

I had no idea of the date of the movie when we started watching, and I assumed, based on the content, that it was from some time in the '70s. I was giving it the benefit of a lot of doubt since I figured it was a product of its time. But, no. 1981! 

Yet again, Disney does not disappoint (in utterly disappointing).

The adults in the room hated this film, and the 5 year-old did a lot of anticipatory crying. The scenes of a dog appearing to die, the hunter demonstrating the viciousness of a steel fox trap, the ominous music and lighting, the basic premise that we live in a dog-eat-fox-world which predominates most of the movie can be very upsetting for young and/or sensitive kids. 

The ending is a typical pat and completely unrealistic Disney happy ending: everyone couples up and respects each other's right to be. This was definitely reassuring for the 5 year-old in the room, but the lack of exposition of the journey towards this perfect harmony made one of the grown ups in the room (ahem) roll her eyes wildly.

There is nothing innovative in the animation, nothing creative in the script, nothing redeeming in the story that makes it at all worthwhile. Yes, the message of tolerance and acceptance is positive, but it has been done better elsewhere. Don't bother.

1/5

CHICKEN RUN

2000, Aardman

Claymation

Rating: PG

Approx. 83 mins.

THE STORY:

Ginger and the other chickens on the Tweedy egg farm live in fear of the day they cease laying and become dinner. They have tried almost every manner of escape, but have had no success. Then one day, Rocky the Rooster drops from the sky and the hens have new hope: Rocky will teach them to fly.

Rocky puts them through a rigorous training program, but they don't seem to be making any progress. The urgency of their quest intensifies when they realize that Mrs. Tweedy plans to turn them all into chicken pies. Unfortunately, just as they are at their most desperate, Ginger-- who has developed returned feelings for Rocky-- discovers that Rocky's 'flying' is nothing more than being shot out of a cannon. He disappears in shame, leaving the hens once again to their own resources.

Fortunately, Ginger has the inspiration for one final escape attempt, and the other hens have the skills to make it a reality. Just as they prepare to flee, Rocky returns to help them succeed and punish Mrs. Tweedy.

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• butt
• stupid
• shut up
• over-sexed
• idiot
• lummox

VIOLENCE:

• a chicken has its head cut off (off screen, but not subtle)
• lots of near-death experiences for the chickens and Mrs. Tweedy
• shooting, explosions
• the central conceit revolves around imminent, gruesome death

TEACHING POINTS:

• Honesty is the best policy
• If at first you don't succeed try, try again

THE UPSHOT:

The adults in the room were big Aardman fans and really enjoyed it. The 5 year-old in the room also enjoyed it, but not as much and for different reasons. The hens look silly and there is a lot of slapstick crashing into things. And it all gets resolved with a love story and a happy ending.

Even so, this really is not suitable for younger kids. The humour is too sophisticated, the language a bit mature at times, and the story is just plain dark when you get down to it. If your kids do not know where their food comes from or do not like to be reminded, then this is just not the film to show them. But it is a film to pop in after they have gone to bed.

3.5/5

HOTEL for DOGS

2009, DreamWorks Animation

Live action

Rating: PG

Approx. 100 mins.

THE STORY:

Orphans Andi (Emma Roberts) and Bruce (Jake T. Austin) are lucky to be together but unlucky to be with rocker, slacker foster parents (Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon) who barely give them any time or thought. In their corner is their social worker, Bernie (Don Cheadle) who is frustrated by the limited options he has to help the kids.

Andi and Bruce discover a derelict hotel and rescue a few stray dogs. One thing leads to another, and before they know it, they have transformed the hotel into a home for homeless dogs. Bruce puts his inventive streak to use by making activities and equipment for the dogs, and a couple of friends help out with the labour.

The kids manage to keep their project secret for a little while, but inevitably they are discovered. They risk losing their dogs, their foster home and even each other; but in the end, justice prevails and a happy ending is enjoyed by all.

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• Oh my God
• Freaking
• Damn
• Stupid

VIOLENCE:

• some scary scenes in which dogs are threatened physically and verbally
• very obvious references to dogs being killed

TEACHING POINTS:

• There's light at the end of the tunnel
• Don't just wish you could do things-- do them

THE UPSHOT:

Meh.
Implausible story, sappy ending, full of tropes and cliches guaranteed to make tween girls swoon. Another one of those, "How do they get these people to do these movies?" (Kudrow, Dillon... Don Cheadle?) moments.

That said, it's harmless enough, has cute dogs, and is full of positive outcomes.

2.5/5

WHERE the WILD THINGS ARE

2009, Warner Brothers

Live action

Rating: PG

Approx. 101 mins.

THE STORY:

Max is a preteen whose world seems full of strife. At home, he deals with a dismissive older sister, an absent father and a mother who is dating. At school, he has just learned that the sun will die, but not before the earth and all humankind have disappeared. One day, his frustrations develop into the perfect storm, and he explodes by destroying his sister's room, biting his mother and screaming wildly before running out of the house.

Inexplicably, he jumps into a boat and sails away to an island populated by Wild Things (James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, etc.). When he convinces them that he has awesome powers, they install him as their king in the hope that he can repair all of the rips to their social fabric. Max and the creatures have wild fun and begin, literally and figuratively, to build a culture. But the personal politics and the fundamental illegitimacy of Max's rule undermine the positive that they have created and show Max that he has to go back home.    

QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE:

• damn
• stupid
• kill

VIOLENCE:

• lots of threatening scenes and near misses
• one Wild Thing has his arm ripped off-- he suffers no pain and sand rather than blood gushes from the wound

TEACHING POINTS:

• Families are difficult, but we have to work on relationships
• Wild, irrational violence does not yield positive results

THE UPSHOT:

I fully expected to dislike this movie for 2 big reasons: 1) I have never really bought into the mystique of Sendak's book, and 2) seeing Where the Wild Things Are was something I had fought against as subtle-pointedly as I could. I had heard that this really was not an appropriate movie for young kids in that it was dark and frightening; but the 5 year-old in the room would not be deterred by my misgivings.

Yes, it is dark, and yes, it is frightening-- though not in the ways I had expected-- but no, I did not dislike it. That the 5 year-old in the room also liked it, however, boggles my mind.

This is a film fraught with tension: yelling, screaming, physical aggression, repeated threat of death or severe injury. Every time Max plays with the Wild Things he comes close to being crushed, pummeled, pushed off a cliff or impaled. And, when conflicts arise between Max and Carol (Gandolifini), the creature with whom he develops the closest relationship, there is the threat of being killed and/ or eaten.

It is also tense in the sense that it challenges notions of self and identification. It feels like the love child of Ingmar Bergman and (surprise...not) Sophia Coppola. I came away thinking that the wild things each represent an aspect of Max's emotional turmoil: his pessimism, his rash and violent side, the part of him that feels unheard, the attention seeker, the outcast/ exile, etc.   

The script, the special effects, the acting, the adaptation, the soundtrack, the art direction are all fabulous. The way the movie manages to stay completely true to Sendak while adding an entirely original dimension to the story is inspiring, and gave me a deeper appreciation for the book. 

The only negative would be that it is, in a lot of ways, not really a kids' movie. While the playful action scenes and interesting characters will likely entertain youngsters, the very young may find it scary as well as hard to follow. Whether you show it to your kids or not, treat yourself to a viewing.  

4.5/5