Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Rats of NIMH To Be Rats of CGI. Today in Film Bloggery 07/28/09

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    It’s another slow day in the film news world, so I’m going with the usual standby, complaining once again about another beloved bunch of classic characters being reincarnated as CG poop-eaters. I never like to use phrases like “is nothing sacred,” but I was awfully close to shouting the words after reading in The Hollywood Reporter that Paramount is planning another film out of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH using a blend of live-action and animation (probably CG).

    It’s not just the comparisons to popular CG-rodent movies like box office champs G-Force and Alvin and the Chipmunks that hurt me most. Nor was it the dreaded premonition that Fievel will be next. The worst thing about this is that it comes so soon after we lost Dom DeLuise, who provided the voice of Jeremy the crow in Don Bluth’s great adaptation The Secret of NIMH (as well as its direct-to-video sequel). And if that’s not enough, Bluth probably nearly died when he heard the news, too. As long as Hollywood is going after something of his, couldn’t it at least be one of the video games, instead? Either a Dragon’s Lair or Space Ace movie would be really cool. Even in CG!

    Oh well. I guess we don’t have to watch, right? Let’s see what the rest of the film bloggers are saying about their childhoods being ruined after the jump:

    • Cole Abaius at Film School Rejects shares his childhood experience with the first movie:

      When I was young, about the age that I started tying my shoelaces for myself, I had a ritual of sorts. This ritual in two parts involved me getting sick and then watching The Secret of NIMH on VHS while laying on the floor in front of the television. I’ve probably seen it at least a dozen times and own a copy on DVD now. Essentially, it’s the filmic version of chicken pot pie for me – cinematic comfort food that always makes me feel better.

    • Elisabeth Rappe at MTV Movies Blog also shares a childhood story and questions the studio’s hybrid format plans:

      One of my weirdest obsessions as a wee lass was Don Bluth’s 1982 animated film “The Secret of NIMH.” I must have watched it dozens of times on television and was impressed enough by its humble rodent cast to read the book it was based on…Oddly, the studio is said to be contemplating a live action and CG hybrid like the recent hit “G-Force.” That doesn’t make a lot of sense as there simply aren’t many elements that need to be live action. The entire cast is made up of animals, while the few humans are portrayed as shadowy and menacing figures.

    • Kristal Clark at ScreenCrave is OK with CG, just not when it hurts our childhoods:

      Once again my childhood has decided to rear it’s ugly head…Even though I respect the advancements we’ve made in technology, I am seriously starting to miss the old days of hand drawn animation. That’s why I’m so excited about the release of The Princess and the Frog, because even though it’s not CGI it still looks amazing.

    • Sean at Film Junk is OK with new versions of classics, just not when they’re compared to certain movies:

      While I can appreciate that they are doing something a little different with the material, I can’t help but turn up my nose every time I hear someone mention Alvin & the Chipmunks as a point of reference for a new film.

    • Noel Murray at A.V. Club is all for this remake:

      Don Bluth’s 1982 animated adaptation The Secret Of NIMH added elements of magic in an attempt to cash-in on the then-hot fantasy genre, at the expense of O’Brien’s larger themes. So for once it may be good news that a well-liked old movie is being considered for a remake…Here’s hoping that they leave out the swordfights and enchanted amulets this time.

    • Dustin Rowles at Pajiba will have no childhood memories squashed by this remake, and he explains the good business sense behind the idea:

      I never actually saw the original because I was seven when it came out, and I had more important things to do, like play Pac-man, run from Johnny Law, and bed the ladies of my second-grade class. I busted a lot of caps in asses that year, and I didn’t have time for cartoon rats.

      All of which is to say: If Hollywood wants to remake NIMH, you won’t find any objections from me. And why not? Rodents are more popular than Twitter these days. Kids love rabies-infected vermin! G-Force was the number one film over the weekend; Ratatouille was a big hit two years ago; The Fantastic Mr. Fox is due out at year’s end; and it’s only a matter of time before Caddyshack’s Gopher gets his own spin-off.

    • Mark at I Watch Stuff has hopes for the new version, including a sub for DeLuise:

      Hopefully this version will stick closer to the book and its more serious, allegorical themes. Or at least get Robin Williams to the voice of the crow, and have a part where he gets hit in the balls and it makes his voice really high. Either would be enjoyable.

    • S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline mentions another name who’d actually be great as Jeremy:

      Your eighth or ninth favorite animated film growing up is set to get the G-Force treatment: The animated 1982 adaptation of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH…Surely Zach Galifianakis will feature in here somewhere as well.

    And finally Merrick at Aint It Cool News reminds us that we can watch Bluth’s version of NIMH on Hulu:


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • FUNNY PEOPLE Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    FUNNY PEOPLE Review

    Judd Apatow’s Funny People feels like an attempt to graft the writer/director/producer’s patented brand of semi-raunchy character comedy of latent male adolescence on to the template of a certain kind of studio film rarely made today — think 1980s Oscar bait, like Terms of Endearment, The Accidental Tourist or even Beaches: the gently melancholic dramedy in which someone in early middle age is suddenly forced to reconcile their lives. This unlikely hybrid serves as the vehicle for a meta-epic work of autobiography that pays tribute to one of the writer/director’s oldest friends/collaborators, diverges into a love letter to his wife, contrives to get the wife and the friend in bed together, and then drags in Eric Bana to get them out. All the while, Seth Rogen is milling about, mostly as a surrogate for the filmmaker, until he suddenly switches over and starts speaking for the audience — during the film’s draggiest stretch, he is very vocal about not wanting to be there.

    If this sounds bizarre, it is. What’s more bizarre is that this mix of personal project-as-product actually succeeds — at least intermittently. Though not formally bifurcated, Funny People practically plays out in two sections (another 80s flashback: it feels like the kind of film that used to come packaged on two VHS tapes). It peaks emotionally at about three-quarters of the way into the first section, makes good on track laid in that scene about a third of the way into the second section, and then rapidly devolves from there into a domestic sitcom that can only resolve itself in a “girls may come and go, but bromance is forever” fade out. The film is so self-referential, so quick to pounce on and twist what the audience thinks it knows about Apatow and his players (from multiple references to Seth Rogen having recently lost a lot of weight to Adam Sandler repeatedly begging Rogen to show him his dick) that to reaffirm the bond between two men this way almost seems like an act of defiance. “Yes,” Apatow seems to be saying. “This is a movie about me, and yes, my primary concern as an artist is platonic male love. So … suck it.”

    By the time that statement arrives in the 146th minute, it’s almost redundant. Very litle attempt has been made to veil the correspondence between Funny People’s narrative beats and Judd Apatow’s actual life history. Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, a stand-up comedian-turned-movie star best known for a number of blockbuster comedies that involve him playing high-concept characters mainly of interest to kids (though there seems to be little narrative resemblance between Simmons’ Merman and Sandler’s The Waterboy, the vocal performance of the two titular characters is pretty much the same). After he learns he has a rare, fatal disease with an eight percent survival rate, a depressed George shows up at a comedy club to do an impromptu set about mortality. He bombs, and is followed by Ira (Rogen), a young comic who makes up for his own lack of material by pouncing on Simmons’ performance. The next day, George calls Ira at the apartment he shares with his more successful friends (played by Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman; Apatow became roommates with Sandler in the late 80s after meeting him at a comedy club). George offers Ira a job writing jokes (Apatow wrote jokes for superstar comedians such as Roseanne Barr before breaking into TV and film), and soon Ira is showing up daily at George’s ridiculously large, ornate, empty mansion.

    George is a prickly, permanently single, co-dependent loner who soon sucks Ira into his life nearly full-time, leaving the young comedian as the primary witness to this movie star stranger’s deterioration. Eventually Ira convinces his boss to tell his friends about his disease, and though he insists that he has none (“Andy Dick is not a friend”), soon faces from his past, mostly other comedians, start hanging out. By this point, the film has made so many nods to Sunset Boulevard (Gloria Swanson had Buster Keaton and Anna Q Nilsson as wax works, Adam Sandler has Norm Macdonald and Colin Quinn) that it’s surprising when the film suddenly breaks through the hermetic seal of George’s depressingly one-track life, and starts to explore his unending regret over losing his one true love, an actress named Laura who gave up her career before breaking out as a star to have a family with another man (Bana).

    Laura is played by Apatow’s real-life wife Leslie Mann, whose actual pre-motherhood career is sampled here as Laura’s “acting reel”, and whose real-life daughters make their second appearance after Knocked Up as her daughters on screen. After George and Laura share what is — as far as I remember — the first genuinely tear-jerking scene in Apatow’s canon (involving what is certainly the most humanesque acting work Sandler has ever committed to screen), the film takes an even more abrupt shift: breaking out of George’s house, jumping ship from what seemed like its reason to exist, and suddenly becoming an adultery farce. Funny People feels like two films stitched together, in a manner reminiscent of a messy epic like Reds. The second half of Apatow’s film — like the back end relegated to the second VHS tape of Warren Beatty’s — couldn’t exist without the first half, but it carries on with a completely new set of stakes, a completely separate emotional arc.

    Though Funny People is the first Apatow film to not be shot like a comic strip (Janusz Kaminsky’s high-contrast cinematography Looks Like Art) the director has not, in his previous directorial efforts, been all that shy about his evident desire to push beyond the generally accepted boundaries of the modern dudecom genre. Still, up to this point, in practice that push has mostly been limited to each film’s rather extended running time and uncommon earnestness in grappling with the pleasures of marriage as well as its discontents. Funny People is a much more ambitious film than The 40 Year-old Virgin or Knocked Up, and a far less audience-friendly one. Though gently funny throughout, there is no comic setpiece here on the order of the mushrooms scene in Knocked Up.  There’s nothing as quotable as the “bags of sand” bit from Virgin. None of the characters seem as destined for viral iconhood as McLovin (although Eminem’s cameo comes close). It’s hard to imagine this film pleasing an audience drawn in by its stars — one man’s catharsis is rarely another’s invitation to escape.

    I have nothing but respect for Apatow’s ambition. What I struggle with are his instincts as a director, which, from an artistic standpoint, tend to be bad. If there’s no one telling him he can’t make a 146 minute Adam Sandler film, it’s not surprising that there’s no one cockblocking his natural proclivity to get crazy indulgent with the montages. In this film, that tendency teeters on (but unfortunately, doesn’t cross) the line of self-parody with a Dying Man Finally Learns How To Live sequence, set to a cover of the post-humous Beatles tune “Real Love,” sung/lipsynced on camera by a guitar-strumming Sandler. This is worse than mere schmaltz, because schmaltz works when it’s built around the universal. Dig through the layers of this schmaltz — a faked cover of a song made by a computer over a decade after the man who actually sung it was murdered –– and you’ll find nothing real, love or otherwise. And this is the problem with Funny People, writ microscopic: Apatow has taken blisteringly personal material and filtered it through tropes and cliches borrowed from trite, mainstream factory-line cinema of another era. Judd Apatow the writer deserves a better director.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog