Mr. Peabody & Sherman

Posted on March 6, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Jay Ward’s irresistibly daffy cartoons of the early 1960’s were charming and witty, with a post-modern meta wink at the fourth wall, wacky puns, and jokes that kids would suddenly remember and understand years later. This reboot is smarmy, overblown, dumbed down, and off-kilter. Who thinks it is a good idea to have a movie for children about time travel begin with a trip to the French revolution and the guillotine?

Cartoonist Ted Key, best known for the Hazel character played by Shirley Booth in the television sitcom, came up with the super-genius dog, Mr. Peabody, inventor of the WABAC machine, and his boy Sherman, for Ward’s “Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.” In each episode, the duo would go back in time and somehow help a historical character solve a problem. In this computer-animated, 3D, full-length feature version, the wit of the original devolves into bathroom humor and slapstick. If the poster slogan is a doggie potty joke (“He makes his mark on history”), it is not a good sign.

As in the original, Mr. Peabody (“Modern Family’s” Ty Burrell) knows everything. He’s a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who advises world leaders and makes a mean cocktail. In one of the movie’s highlights, he is challenged to play musical instruments ranging from a flamenco guitar to a didgeridoo, and performs flawlessly. He has invented a WABAC machine to take Sherman back in time, where they have encountered a cake-loving Marie Antoinette, with Mr. P led to the guillotine, and an unhappy Mona Lisa (Lake Bell), refusing to smile for Leonardo da Vinci (Stanley Tucci).

He has an adopted son, Sherman (Max Charles), who attends a fancy private school, where a girl named Penny (“Modern Family’s” Ariel Winter) gets angry when Sherman corrects her answer about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, explaining that it never really happened. After a sloppy misuse of the term “sarcastic,” she insults Sherman in the lunchroom, calling him a dog because he has a dog for a father. They get into a fight, and Sherman bites her arm. Mr. Peabody is called to the principal’s office, where Ms. Grunion (Allison Janney), a representative from Child Protective Services, tells him Sherman will be removed from the home if he is not an appropriate parent.

Mr. Peabody invites Penny and her parents and Ms. Grunion over for dinner to straighten things out. Sherman shows Penny the WABAC machine that Mr. Peabody invented to take them back in time, and soon the two kids find themselves in ancient Egypt, where Penny becomes engaged to the young King Tut, until she finds out what that entrails, I mean entails (the bad pun thing is contagious–parents be warned). Soon they are zipping around through history, meeting up with Agamemnon (Patrick Warburton, hilarious as always, despite an Oedipus joke) and soaring over Renaissance Florence in one of da Vinci’s flying machines.

The time travel plot gets bogged down in time-space continuum anomaly mumbo jumbo. Then there are the father-son issues. Mr. Peabody, who wants his son to call him Mr. Peabody, has a problem with the l-word. Ms. Grunion’s blustery bullying and threats to remove Sherman from his home will make some families uncomfortable. It should also make them uncomfortable that the movie appears to portray kidnapping a woman as a romantic gesture that should make her instantly fall in love. Jokes about Oedipus and Bill Clinton are particularly disappointing. Warburton’s dry delivery and some good scenery and action sequences can’t make up for the fact that this movie is a disappointing come-down that completely misses the charm and humor of the original.

Parents should know that this movie has a lot of potty humor, some crude jokes, cartoon-style peril and action including a guillotine and a taser, a character is presumed dead but later shown to have survived, a woman is captured as a romantic gesture, and child protection services challenges an adoption and attempts to remove a child from his home.

Family discussion: If you could go back to any time in history, what would it be? Who would you want to meet? Why was Penny so mean?

If you like this, try: The original series and the other Jay Ward classics like “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” “Fractured Fairy Tales,” and “Dudley Do-right.”

Trailer–Transformers: Age of Extinction with Mark Wahlberg

Posted on March 5, 2014 at 11:05 pm

300: Rise of an Empire

Posted on March 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong sustained sequences of stylized bloody violence throughout, a sex scene, nudity and some language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Wine
Violence/ Scariness:	Constant very graphic peril and war-time violence with many graphic and disturbing images and sad deaths
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	March 7, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00BEJL6Q8

eva-green-as-artemisia-in-300-rise-of-an-empire — Copyright Warner Brothers 2014

Here’s a new term: this movie is neither a sequel nor a prequel to 300, the story of the 300 Spartans who died battling the vastly greater army of the Persians. This is a “side-quel,” a “meanwhile” story about what was going on in a sea battle led by Spartan’s rivals, the Athenians. While “300” was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, itself based on historic events in ancient Greece, this side-quel was written at the same time as Miller’s still-uncompleted follow-up, to be called “Xerxes.”

We get a bit more backstory this time, too. In a previous battle, Athens’ great warrior Themistokles (hunky Sullivan Stapleton) killed the Persian king. His furious son, Xerxes (returning Rodrigo Santoro) traded his humanity for godlike powers to get his revenge by invading Greece. The leader of the Persian forces is the even-more-furious Artemisia (Eva Green), who can kiss the lips on the head she has just severed, enjoying the kiss just slightly less than the kill. She is tougher than any of her generals, more lethal than any of her soldiers, and even hungrier for inflicting desolation on Greece than her king. And she has the kind of fearlessness only found in those who have nothing left to lose and who will never win enough to feel that they have succeeded.

Themistokles needs to get the support of the resolutely independent city-states if they are to hold off the far greater Persian forces. He knows that his men have heart and dedication, but they are not trained warriors like the Spartans. I could say more about the story, but let’s face it — like the first film, this is about abs, swords, and lots of blood spurting in artistic slo-mo, drenching the screen.

The primary differences are the absence of Gerard Butler and the shift from battles on land to battles on water. We feel Butler’s loss, as he brought a bit more to the original in terms of acting and managed to give his character some depth and personality in the midst of the carnage. But that works for the story, as the death of his character Leonidas is felt deeply in Sparta. The only thing that stands out from the carnage, though, is Green, whose Artemisia cranks up the cray-cray as one of the most evil-relishing villainesses since Cruella De Vil. There’s a sizzling sex-and-fight scene (hmmm, Green did something very similar in “Dark Shadows“) that is way over the top of whatever point over the top used to be. Green has a blast striding around casting laser beams of hatred at everyone, and wipes everyone else in the cast off the screen more thoroughly than her character does to to the “farmers, sculptors, and poets”-turned soldiers of Athens.

Parents should know that this film has constant very intense, graphic, and bloody violence with many battles, swords, fire, drowning, executions, rapes, disturbing images, nudity, sexual references and situations, and some strong language.

Family discussion: What are the biggest differences between the Greeks and the Persians? Do we think about war differently today?

If you like this, try: “300” and “Gladiator”

Tablet Says The Best Movies Are Religious (Even If They Are Not Bible Stories)

Posted on March 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm

In the midst of the silly battles over “Noah,” Liel Leibovitz has a superb piece on the Tablet website about how the best movies always have a religious component.

As is often the case when we strive to talk seriously about popular entertainment, we’re asking all the wrong questions. Rather than fretting about whether Hollywood gets religion—it does, gloriously so, and to great effect—we should wonder why, given its stratospheric success with religious-themed films, is Hollywood so reluctant to give its audiences what they so clearly desire.

This, first and foremost, is a question of definitions. Who’s a religious person? And what kind of film might he like? To hear marketers, in Hollywood and beyond, tell it, a religious person is someone whose cultural horizon begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation, some sort of sniggering simpleton who grows suspicious unless his entertainment features swords, sandals, and the heroes he’d read about in Sunday School. This lazy and skewed approach is no less offensive than the efforts to market products to women simply by slapping on pink packaging, and no less ineffective: Women, like religious people and members of minority groups and the young and the old and people with terrible nut allergies and anyone else who was blessed with the breath of life, are complex and nuanced people whose tastes and predilections run far deeper than a single, simple note.

I like the way Liebovitz understands that movies like “Groundhog Day” and “2001” are religious movies because they engage us in the deepest questions of meaning and purpose. People of faith — whether those who are confident in their beliefs and affiliations or those who are seeking a better understanding of our connection to the infinite — are drawn to stories that explore those themes, and not just reiterations of Bible chapters.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Bible stories were a staple in Hollywood, with big, star-studded, prestige movies like “King of Kings,” “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” “The Bible,” “The Ten Commandments,” and “Song of Bernadette.” It is interesting to think about why that changed. There are a lot of theories and the answer probably encompasses most of them. The controversy over “Noah” is at least one indicator of at least one of the reasons. As mainstream audiences have shown less interest in explicitly religious films, those who strongly identify as observant are

This year, in addition to Son of God and “Noah,” we will also see Christian Bale as Moses in “Exodus.” I hope that both self-described faith-audiences and those who do not define themselves that way will give these films a try — and look for the spiritual themes and inspiration in whatever movies they attend. The wonder of the Bible is that it gives us so much to ponder, and it can be a joy to share the way it speaks to each of us, even if those ways are different. I hope these films get more people interested in reading and discussing the Bible and considering its lessons more deeply.

Let the Fire Burn — Coming to George Mason University March 19, 2014

Posted on March 5, 2014 at 8:00 am

“In the masterfully crafted Let the Fire Burn, viewers are thrown back into a time that seems both ancient and wrenchingly immediate, when mutual fear, suspicion and misunderstanding combusted in a grievous, literally fatal, explosion.”

Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

The GMU FAMS Visiting Filmmakers Series welcomes Let the Fire Burn and director Jason Osder to the Johnson Center Cinema on March 19, 7:30pm.

The astonishingly gripping Let the Fire Burn is that rarest of cinematic objects: a found-footage film that unfurls with the tension of a great thriller. On May 13, 1985, a longtime feud between the city of Philadelphia and controversial radical urban group MOVE came to a deadly climax. By order of local authorities, police dropped military-grade explosives onto a MOVE-occupied rowhouse. TV cameras captured the conflagration that quickly escalated — and resulted in the tragic deaths of eleven people (including five children) and the destruction of 61 homes. It was only later discovered that authorities decided to “…let the fire burn.” Using only archival news coverage and interviews, first-time filmmaker Osder has brought to life one of the most tumultuous and largely forgotten clashes between government and citizens in modern American history.

“The events of 1985 feel strangely far away, yet also incongruous within their own era,” writes the New York Times‘ Nicolas Rapold, “as remnants of earlier radicalism in the age of Reagan. And, in that sense, Mr. Osder’s use of found footage is well suited. We are spoiled by the sea of archival oddity available online today, but the filmmakers rapidly plunge us into the madness through the double shock of the footage, which offers at once a formal rupture and something familiar.”

Let the Fire Burn won the Truer Than Fiction Award and a $25,000 Spirit Grant at the Spirit Awards in Los Angeles on 11 January 2014. It was a finalist for the Gotham Awards Best Documentary, and has won editing awards from the International Documentary Association and Cinema Eye Honor for Nonfiction Filmmaking.

Related Tags:

Documentary