Adam Sandler / Madagascar

I was reading this review of The Longest Yard http://www.filmfodder.com/movies/reviews/the_longest_yard/20050527.htm when I thought back to another Adam Sandler movie I saw at a friend's house.

I don't like Sandler, I'm not sure why. The movie I watched was "Fifty First Dates" along with Karendreamer and my two kids. I admit I was pleasantly surprised by that movie -- it's all sweetness and about how far one goes in keeping a loved one happy after they've suffered a horrendous accident. The situation is played for laughs, yes, but not demeaning laughs, and Sandler's character is *sincere* in his motivations and he's able to carry that sincerity off successfully. The one problem I had with the movie was the surprising insertion of a swear word here and there, but it was a minor thing in the end. It's now making me curious about other Sandler films. I know he delights in sailor-talk (and anyone who knows me, knows my mouth, too) and crudity -- and I guess that's something I'm not thrilled with onscreen.

Not sure what my point was here. But if The Longest Yard has any of the genetic "niceness" of Fifty First Dates, I might give it a try, even if on DVD. I've never seen the original version, though, so I might have to bite the bullet with that too -- I HATE football/sports movies, usually.

***********

Took the kids to see Madagascar yesterday. Uh. What to say. The main character voices are Chris Rock as a zebra who wants to live in the Wild, Jada Pinkett Smith as a hippo, and Ben Stiller as a lion who's the zebra's Best Friend. Oh, and David Schwimmer as a hypchondriac giraffe. http://www.madagascar-themovie.com/

This is not Dreamworks' first foray into digital animation ("Shrek," "Shark Tale," "Antz"), and it's a disappointment. Oh, it's FUN, and it makes many references to other movies/television shows -- the original Planet of the Apes, Twilight Zone (To serve man episode) and plenty of others. There's very little texturing going on in the background. As bright as it is, there's little detail beyond what you see, and nothing deeper to look at beyond the antics of the featured performers' characters. The characters themselves aren't woven into a solid storyline that uses all the introduced characters to their fullest. For instance, there are a couple of Penn and Teller type chimps that go along for the ride, but they're only there for an occasional one-liner here and there. Throwing "poo" seems to be their thing.

It took at least twenty minutes into the film for it to Get Going into the actual story. Much to much time with the set-up in New York. I'd rather have seen some the story start with the animals ON the ship going to Africa, and THEN find out what happened. The giraffe and the hippo characters were second and third wheels in a "mostly buddy" movie between the lion and zebra. Rock's voice work was...annoying, and unnuanced. He rarely left his one speed of speech. Stiller was a little better, but then, his character, the Lion, actually had more to lose, and he's who the story was more about.

Another digital animated movie that came out recently, ROBOTS, was also thin in the story. But, at least Robots had a lot of to look at if you got bored by the rote story being performed by the main characters, and an interesting world to parse out, much in the manner of Monsters Inc.

Disney's let go all of their 2-D cel animators in the past year or so, hoping that the new form of animation will bring more money into their coffers without having to pay for all those inbetweeners, key animation artists, etc...while falsey thinking that the reason Pixar does so well is because of the medium, not the story-telling. I think anyone could tell Disney, and Dreamworks, it is NOT the form of the animation, it is the amount of thought behind the story, and the story structure, and the likability of the characters that are animated that has a LOT to do with Pixar's amazing success story.

Many of Pixar's movies have depended on the "Buddy Dynamic", which began with Toy Story and moved on from there. It's not something that Disney is good at. Dreamworks has a notion of what makes a good Buddy Movie, but their conception falls by the wayside time and again. They make nice *small* movies, but rarely have gone beyond that.

Beyond this, I'm wondering how Pixar's next film turns out. It's about animated cars, called "Cars". I hope it doesn't turn into something akin to "The Brave Little Toaster", which was a wretched story about a toaster devoted to his little boy (!!!), who gets his buddies, a vacuum cleaner, a flashlight, and others, to help him out.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Last night (late) the spouse and I flipped through cable channels, and I finally settled on a Showtime On Demand station. At the bottom of the list was the Gene Wilder version of Willy Wonka. It had been a long time since we'd seen it, and sans commercials and uncut (far as I know) so, on it went.

We fast forwarded through many of the musical numbers pre-chocolate factory. They're mostly by-the-numbers standard fare of the time, and don't progress the story much. As we watched, and saw Charlie's two sets of bedridden grandparents, I had to ask why they didn't even TRY to get off their asses and help contribute in some minor way to the household. It didn't endear grandpa Joe to me at all that he suddenly got the will to walk after twenty years -- all for a one day trip into Wonka's factory. I said to my husband that Charlie should have asked his hard-working MOTHER (the sole supporter of their family zoo) to go. But then he said, "His grandpa is his *buddy*!" Must be a guy thing.

There were a lot of scenes while the Golden Tickets are being found that were explicity directed at the adults at the movies -- there's a scene where a man is telling his psychotherapist that he'd had a dream about where he could find a ticket, and the therapist, who'd insisted before that dreams meant nothing (clearly not a Jungian) almost gripped the patient by the throat to just TELL him already! Hee. And then there was Charlie's science teacher played to perfection by some actor who was oily and yet, gee, he's still this kid inside as eager as the real kids are to find a Golden Ticket.

The movie, as delightful as it was before going into the Factory, picked up the moment Willy Wonka (Wilder) limps out along the red carper to welcome his guests. There's always a question in my mind of whether Wonka somehow arranged for those particular children to get the Golden Tickets, because of how on target his minion was, either always RIGHT THERE the moment the child got the ticket, or soon after. The movie never makes it clear *where* the Chocolate Factory is located, and that's appropriate, since it's a place where dreams are made, and the factory itself is a dream-like environment. Wilder imparts the right touch of menace and child-likeness, playfulness and coldness that is bewildering to the adults who come along for the ride; but the children themselves don't seem to notice or care -- they take his moods into stride -- he's one of them, although none of them really "gets" that except for the poorer than dirt Charlie. There's never any doubt that Charlie was the one intended to take over the Factory, of course, because in a fairy tale, the virtuous poor boy usually gets the gir -- er, Factory.

This time around with Willy, I adored the interplay between the two girls who go in the Factory -- Veruka and Violet. Violet is the ONLY person who tells selfish spoiled Veruka to "Can it!" and it's excellent psychology that the filmmakers/Raoul the writer that it HAD to be another girl who could tell Veruka to shut up about her wants. And sure enough, Veruka shut up, but glared Violet down. It was totally excellent.

I'm thinking this much about Willy Wonka (GW version) because of the preview for the new Johnny Depp version coming out soon. Holy SHIT. They've space=aged it. The Oompa=loompas wears solid colored clothing now, all shiny and blue and red (not a poofy pantaloon in sight, which is a good thing, I guess) and all the things in the factory now have a gunmetal high tech gleam to them. Gone are the Candy Colors of the Factory, and instead, it looks much the same as the dreary town outside its fence in the earlier film. Except it gleams. And has Johnny Depp with his face whited up with face paint (hubby says he looks like Michael Jackson) and hair cut into a page boy. THIS Willy is a creepy Willy. Depp is a masterful performer, and I'm sure he's going to put his own indelible mark on Willy Wonka. I don't know if I could trust any other actor to do that -- I only hope he doesn't make Willy too creepy, and keeps the sense of innocence in Wonka that was there in Wilder's version.

Methinks I'll have to pick up a copy of this book to read to the daughter at night.