"Fantastic Mr. Fox" Review (Spoilers)
Nov. 28th, 2022 06:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso reviews for the specials Mickey Saves Christmas, and The Wonderful Autumn Of Mickey Mouse, the latest episodes of The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers, The Great North, and the novel Cujo.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
After seeing Where The Wild Things Are last year (as well as Isle Of Dogs) I thought this deserved another look.
Like Where The Wild Things Are, it screams "Indie Director" in every choppy stop-motion frame. Like Where The Wild Things Are, I can't imagine any kid liking it. Unlike Where The Wild Things Are, it's actually a good movie and genuinely funny. So yeah.
And regardless of the fact that I doubt little kids would like it, unlike Isle Of Dogs, it's still pretty much all-ages material anyways.
That being said, the funniest joke was still Mr. Fox describing Rat being "Another dead Rat in the trash behind a Chinese restaurant."
Normally, I despise the fact that animated films use celebrities in the voice roles, but Wes Anderson used the fact that none of the cast exactly have the right voices for cartoon characters to his advantage. The fact that the puppets sound like real people sort of makes the film even MORE quirky than if Anderson had been dumb enough to hire a bunch of broad comedians less talented than Bill Murray.
I almost threw up my hands at the dancing at the end (I HATE animated dance parties ending scenes) but I recall Rushmore ended on a dance as well, and this movie may have occurred before they became such a cliche, so maybe I should be less mad.
The "cuss" running gag is terrific. I'm wondering why more kids movies don't use fake swears.
The movie itself is almost as charming as George Clooney as Mr. Fox. ****.
Mickey Saves Christmas
A few years ago, Disney decided it needed its own Christmas Special for ABC to rebroadcast every year. I thought Mickey's Christmas Carol was fine, but John Lasseter's famously poor judgment disagreed. And we got Prep & Landing instead. I didn't say much against it at the time, but truthfully, it was pretty damn cynical and awful. I would hold Mickey's Christmas Carol up to The Grinch, Charlie Brown or Rudolph. But I don't think Prep & Landing gets enough shade against it. It's pretty bad.
Truthfully Mickey Saves Christmas seems like a better fit for a yearly Christmas special. The problem I have with it is that it's boring. If you want to be honest, so is Rudolph. But Rudolph contains enough quirks and weirdness to also be memorable. Prep & Landing is not Disney's answer for a Christmas Special. Neither was that awful Toy Story That Time Forgot. But while this comes closer in tone to what a Christmas special SHOULD be, it still underwhelms me a bit.
But partial credit anyways. It's a step in the right direction. ***.
The Wonderful Autumn Of Mickey Mouse
"Let give 'im pumpkin to talk about!" is like the worst action movie line ever.
I like that it's not an anthology, and they simply decided to do a half-hour cartoon. Really, the anthology format of the first two specials actually took away the selling point of making them a half hour to begin with. They might as well have been individual Wonderful World episodes.
Cool seeing Humphrey the Bear.
I liked it. ***1/2.
The Simpsons "When Nelson Met Lisa"
It's a cute-seeming enough episode but really, this review won't be long. I HATE all Future Simpsons episodes. I'm the dude who hated Lisa's Wedding since the night it aired. You can throw "The Simpsons Predict The Future" in my face if you insist, but that doesn't stop the Future episodes from sucking. The problem with the Future episodes is, even if they are constantly retconned, they shouldn't exist because they are telling the viewer things about the potential future of the franchise we have no right knowing. And these are questions I want left to MY imagination, not the show's. And I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.
One last thing. I know Natasha Lyonne played her last, but you'd figure since they DID get Drew Barrymore back this season for a cameo as herself, they'd have her voice Sophie. You'd think, right?
On the surface it was all right. Deep down, I hated it. **.
Bob's Burgers "Show Mama From The Grave"
I confess I had some problems with it. The premise was a total downer. But I was glad the kids got some belly-sledding in, and the ending at the grave with Linda comforting Bob was beyond sweet. And I love that the time limit the groundskeeper gave them ultimately didn't matter with Linda climbing the fence like a total vulgarian. I thought that was great.
It was an episode that was bumming me out, that ended pretty much perfectly anyways. ***.
The Great North "Bee's All That Adventure"
That was SO unpleasant as it was going, so I was like, "This had better have good pay-off." And then it DIDN'T. So it sucked. Bummer.
Weak night of Fox Toons (Family Guy was benched for the week). Bob's Burgers came out ahead though. *.
Cujo by Stephen King
That was... bad. I can't be shocked by how bad it was because I've read the book several times before, but I knew I was writing a review this time, and paid special attention to the narrative, the themes, and how everything holds together. And the thing that gets me is at the end where it says King started writing it in 1977 and finished it in 1981. I always knew King never remembered writing the book because he was so drunk / drugged at the time. But four years is a HELL of a long time to have that kind of blackout. I had assumed it was one of those quickie books King wrote in 2 months (it IS only 300 pages) but to know he spent four years on this misfire and doesn't even remember it is kind of depressing.
King himself likes the book and wishes he could remember writing it. I imagine King has a healthier perspective about it than I do. He has reasons to be forgiving of its many flaws because it's not utterly worthless, and is proof positive King can actually literally write a book in his sleep. I'd take some pride in that too. But as one of his Constant Readers? The book just plain sucks.
The ending is controversial and upset a lot of people, but it never really bothered me. But on the reading where I finally paid close attention it finally does. We'll get there, but it's also something I think I should work up to. It's not something to discuss at the outset of the review.
The thing I dislike most about the book is that it's the first book where King displays his "hack" tendencies. King gets accused of being a hack a LOT, and I think he takes it more in stride than he should. I would be offended, especially considering I had written stuff as great as 'Salem's Lot and The Stand at this point. But King was referred to as a hack back then because of crap like this. There are two major hacky things about the novel I simply can't get over.
The first hacky thing is something I don't think King gets enough shade about: turning serial killer Frank Dodd from The Dead Zone into an Urban Legend and Castle Rock's most notable boogeyman. It doesn't fly. Dodd was a literal nonentity in The Dead Zone, and the him being the killer was the worst constructed mystery I had ever seen at that point. I could lay that at the feet of The Dead Zone, and leave the failing there. But King acting as if Dodd was Castle Rock's Ultimate Evil in hindsight is utter b.s.. It's badly written and totally hacky.
The other hacky thing is something I'm amazed I've never seen this book criticized for. But with Tad's monster in the closet and Brett Camber's psychic somnambulism it's beyond terrible writing to suggest there are ANY supernatural elements attached to what happened to Cujo. He was a rabid dog. End of story. The notion that Frank Dodd's evil spirit infected him and the town once more is laughable, and is the idea a worse writer than King would come up with. For the record, I totally buy King was wrecked when he wrote this mess.
I think King did that because he thought there was a certain expectation from his readers for him to add supernatural elements to everything he wrote. But when they don't fit at ALL, it sure as hell doesn't help the book even a little bit.
I feel like us not learning what actually happened to Steve Kemp legally is majorly unsatisfying because it could be argued if he hadn't trashed the Trenton's house, they wouldn't have wasted a day on a false lead and Tad would have lived. In fact, Donna's note of going to the Cambers' place wouldn't have been erased at all.
That's the thing that bothers me the most about the downer ending in hindsight. Everything in the book is utterly preventable, and Vic lamenting he wishes he had 15 extra minutes and wondering if that would have made the difference. THAT'S what pisses me off. These people aren't just stupid horror movie victims. If they led their lives before this happened remotely responsibly, it wouldn't have happened at all.
If only Cujo had had his shots. If only Joe Camber weren't such an utter bastard that Charity could take her son's fears about Cujo being sick without worrying about their trip being canceled. If only Donna hadn't decided to have an affair with a sociopath. If only Donna had been a strong enough parent to not cave to Tad's demands to come with her and hired a babysitter like a sane person would. If only Bannerman called it in before getting out of his car. If only Masen didn't get into a pissing match with Bannerman to begin with. The tragic ending being played as cruel fate is especially bad because on some level Vic asking how long Tad had been dead strikes me as unintentionally comical. It's just so horrible it's almost funny.
I mentioned disappointment in no real resolution or punishment for Steve Kemp. I have to imagine one of the reasons the book fascinates King so much (and in fairness this part fascinates me too) is how much emphasis the book places on the subplot of Vic's trouble at the ad agency with the Sharp Cereal Professor. It's the most mundane counterpoint to the horror you can imagine, and yet if it didn't occur in a horror book, you'd consider it fascinating on its own. It's amazing it's the thing King was really invested in giving us closure over. His obsession with it is another hint he was high when writing the book. But I think that if that's the case that subplot probably should be worse-written than it is.
Honestly, I also like Charity's stuff with Brett on vacation. I similarly don't like Brett taking after Joe either, and I think Brett's observation about the uncle's pride in his jukebox was bogus. But his noticing his Aunt flaunted her credit cards is interesting, because even Charity had to concede he was probably right.
I took note at what a bad mystery The Dead Zone was with Frank Dodd. I think one of the few virtues of this, and I'm guessing a reason King is somewhat proud of it, is because Bannerman, Masen, and Vic trying to figure out what happened to Donna is a damn solid mystery solve. Masen being bothered by the absence of a car in particular is the kind of neat clue I have a hard time believing King was completely baked when he wrote it. Again, the book sucks, but because of stuff like that, I get what King likes about it.
Besides the ending, I think the worst thing in the book is Donna's affair. Mostly because of her reactions to how Vic reacts to it. This is a decade before King misguidedly turned himself into the champion of all battered women, and wrote constantly about sexual abuse and rape in the 1990's, but at least then I sort of believed King had plausibly gotten into the heads of some of his female characters. I don't find Donna's insights or defensiveness remotely plausible.
For one thing when Vic asks her, "Why?" she dismisses the question as "Ugh. Just like a man to believe there always must be an answer or a reason." And as a man, I acknowledge we do have a tendency to want to fix problems in a concrete way that women prefer to handle differently. But really, that specific question is legit and not "Just like a man." Really, if a woman caught her man cheating the first thing she'd ask him is "Why?" That is not a fault with the male gender. Vic's response is in fact Universal. In trying to be fair to Donna's perspective, King was giving her perspective too MUCH sympathy. Similarly, when Vic asks her if that was the only time, it's referred to as an "unforgivable" question. Now Donna may not like that question. But if a person is discovered in an affair, it's a fair question. Believe it or not, cheaters are not entitled to not be asked questions that make them feel crappy. Because cheaters are actually crappy. If they wind up feeling crappy, it's because they should. Also for the record, this is also another question a woman would feel comfortable and have the right to ask a cheating husband.
What bothers me the most about this, is that regardless of whether King remembers the book or not, I would think his wife Tabitha could have corrected this for him. It bothers me that she didn't. Tabitha has been invaluable over the years whenever King made a mistake writing unrealistic women. It bothers me she allowed King to say this obviously wrong, sympathetic thing towards women cheaters without telling him that perspective is bogus. In fairness to her, King has claimed both he and his wife have remained faithful to each other for their entire marriage, so it's possible she simply didn't understand this true thing either. But it's so damn self-evident you'd figure ONE of them would have.
King had written some crappy short stories before this. He had even written some crappy novels (under the name of Richard Bachman). But this is the worst novel King had written by this point under his own name. Maybe because he literally wrote it in his sleep. **.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
After seeing Where The Wild Things Are last year (as well as Isle Of Dogs) I thought this deserved another look.
Like Where The Wild Things Are, it screams "Indie Director" in every choppy stop-motion frame. Like Where The Wild Things Are, I can't imagine any kid liking it. Unlike Where The Wild Things Are, it's actually a good movie and genuinely funny. So yeah.
And regardless of the fact that I doubt little kids would like it, unlike Isle Of Dogs, it's still pretty much all-ages material anyways.
That being said, the funniest joke was still Mr. Fox describing Rat being "Another dead Rat in the trash behind a Chinese restaurant."
Normally, I despise the fact that animated films use celebrities in the voice roles, but Wes Anderson used the fact that none of the cast exactly have the right voices for cartoon characters to his advantage. The fact that the puppets sound like real people sort of makes the film even MORE quirky than if Anderson had been dumb enough to hire a bunch of broad comedians less talented than Bill Murray.
I almost threw up my hands at the dancing at the end (I HATE animated dance parties ending scenes) but I recall Rushmore ended on a dance as well, and this movie may have occurred before they became such a cliche, so maybe I should be less mad.
The "cuss" running gag is terrific. I'm wondering why more kids movies don't use fake swears.
The movie itself is almost as charming as George Clooney as Mr. Fox. ****.
Mickey Saves Christmas
A few years ago, Disney decided it needed its own Christmas Special for ABC to rebroadcast every year. I thought Mickey's Christmas Carol was fine, but John Lasseter's famously poor judgment disagreed. And we got Prep & Landing instead. I didn't say much against it at the time, but truthfully, it was pretty damn cynical and awful. I would hold Mickey's Christmas Carol up to The Grinch, Charlie Brown or Rudolph. But I don't think Prep & Landing gets enough shade against it. It's pretty bad.
Truthfully Mickey Saves Christmas seems like a better fit for a yearly Christmas special. The problem I have with it is that it's boring. If you want to be honest, so is Rudolph. But Rudolph contains enough quirks and weirdness to also be memorable. Prep & Landing is not Disney's answer for a Christmas Special. Neither was that awful Toy Story That Time Forgot. But while this comes closer in tone to what a Christmas special SHOULD be, it still underwhelms me a bit.
But partial credit anyways. It's a step in the right direction. ***.
The Wonderful Autumn Of Mickey Mouse
"Let give 'im pumpkin to talk about!" is like the worst action movie line ever.
I like that it's not an anthology, and they simply decided to do a half-hour cartoon. Really, the anthology format of the first two specials actually took away the selling point of making them a half hour to begin with. They might as well have been individual Wonderful World episodes.
Cool seeing Humphrey the Bear.
I liked it. ***1/2.
The Simpsons "When Nelson Met Lisa"
It's a cute-seeming enough episode but really, this review won't be long. I HATE all Future Simpsons episodes. I'm the dude who hated Lisa's Wedding since the night it aired. You can throw "The Simpsons Predict The Future" in my face if you insist, but that doesn't stop the Future episodes from sucking. The problem with the Future episodes is, even if they are constantly retconned, they shouldn't exist because they are telling the viewer things about the potential future of the franchise we have no right knowing. And these are questions I want left to MY imagination, not the show's. And I don't think that's an unreasonable demand.
One last thing. I know Natasha Lyonne played her last, but you'd figure since they DID get Drew Barrymore back this season for a cameo as herself, they'd have her voice Sophie. You'd think, right?
On the surface it was all right. Deep down, I hated it. **.
Bob's Burgers "Show Mama From The Grave"
I confess I had some problems with it. The premise was a total downer. But I was glad the kids got some belly-sledding in, and the ending at the grave with Linda comforting Bob was beyond sweet. And I love that the time limit the groundskeeper gave them ultimately didn't matter with Linda climbing the fence like a total vulgarian. I thought that was great.
It was an episode that was bumming me out, that ended pretty much perfectly anyways. ***.
The Great North "Bee's All That Adventure"
That was SO unpleasant as it was going, so I was like, "This had better have good pay-off." And then it DIDN'T. So it sucked. Bummer.
Weak night of Fox Toons (Family Guy was benched for the week). Bob's Burgers came out ahead though. *.
Cujo by Stephen King
That was... bad. I can't be shocked by how bad it was because I've read the book several times before, but I knew I was writing a review this time, and paid special attention to the narrative, the themes, and how everything holds together. And the thing that gets me is at the end where it says King started writing it in 1977 and finished it in 1981. I always knew King never remembered writing the book because he was so drunk / drugged at the time. But four years is a HELL of a long time to have that kind of blackout. I had assumed it was one of those quickie books King wrote in 2 months (it IS only 300 pages) but to know he spent four years on this misfire and doesn't even remember it is kind of depressing.
King himself likes the book and wishes he could remember writing it. I imagine King has a healthier perspective about it than I do. He has reasons to be forgiving of its many flaws because it's not utterly worthless, and is proof positive King can actually literally write a book in his sleep. I'd take some pride in that too. But as one of his Constant Readers? The book just plain sucks.
The ending is controversial and upset a lot of people, but it never really bothered me. But on the reading where I finally paid close attention it finally does. We'll get there, but it's also something I think I should work up to. It's not something to discuss at the outset of the review.
The thing I dislike most about the book is that it's the first book where King displays his "hack" tendencies. King gets accused of being a hack a LOT, and I think he takes it more in stride than he should. I would be offended, especially considering I had written stuff as great as 'Salem's Lot and The Stand at this point. But King was referred to as a hack back then because of crap like this. There are two major hacky things about the novel I simply can't get over.
The first hacky thing is something I don't think King gets enough shade about: turning serial killer Frank Dodd from The Dead Zone into an Urban Legend and Castle Rock's most notable boogeyman. It doesn't fly. Dodd was a literal nonentity in The Dead Zone, and the him being the killer was the worst constructed mystery I had ever seen at that point. I could lay that at the feet of The Dead Zone, and leave the failing there. But King acting as if Dodd was Castle Rock's Ultimate Evil in hindsight is utter b.s.. It's badly written and totally hacky.
The other hacky thing is something I'm amazed I've never seen this book criticized for. But with Tad's monster in the closet and Brett Camber's psychic somnambulism it's beyond terrible writing to suggest there are ANY supernatural elements attached to what happened to Cujo. He was a rabid dog. End of story. The notion that Frank Dodd's evil spirit infected him and the town once more is laughable, and is the idea a worse writer than King would come up with. For the record, I totally buy King was wrecked when he wrote this mess.
I think King did that because he thought there was a certain expectation from his readers for him to add supernatural elements to everything he wrote. But when they don't fit at ALL, it sure as hell doesn't help the book even a little bit.
I feel like us not learning what actually happened to Steve Kemp legally is majorly unsatisfying because it could be argued if he hadn't trashed the Trenton's house, they wouldn't have wasted a day on a false lead and Tad would have lived. In fact, Donna's note of going to the Cambers' place wouldn't have been erased at all.
That's the thing that bothers me the most about the downer ending in hindsight. Everything in the book is utterly preventable, and Vic lamenting he wishes he had 15 extra minutes and wondering if that would have made the difference. THAT'S what pisses me off. These people aren't just stupid horror movie victims. If they led their lives before this happened remotely responsibly, it wouldn't have happened at all.
If only Cujo had had his shots. If only Joe Camber weren't such an utter bastard that Charity could take her son's fears about Cujo being sick without worrying about their trip being canceled. If only Donna hadn't decided to have an affair with a sociopath. If only Donna had been a strong enough parent to not cave to Tad's demands to come with her and hired a babysitter like a sane person would. If only Bannerman called it in before getting out of his car. If only Masen didn't get into a pissing match with Bannerman to begin with. The tragic ending being played as cruel fate is especially bad because on some level Vic asking how long Tad had been dead strikes me as unintentionally comical. It's just so horrible it's almost funny.
I mentioned disappointment in no real resolution or punishment for Steve Kemp. I have to imagine one of the reasons the book fascinates King so much (and in fairness this part fascinates me too) is how much emphasis the book places on the subplot of Vic's trouble at the ad agency with the Sharp Cereal Professor. It's the most mundane counterpoint to the horror you can imagine, and yet if it didn't occur in a horror book, you'd consider it fascinating on its own. It's amazing it's the thing King was really invested in giving us closure over. His obsession with it is another hint he was high when writing the book. But I think that if that's the case that subplot probably should be worse-written than it is.
Honestly, I also like Charity's stuff with Brett on vacation. I similarly don't like Brett taking after Joe either, and I think Brett's observation about the uncle's pride in his jukebox was bogus. But his noticing his Aunt flaunted her credit cards is interesting, because even Charity had to concede he was probably right.
I took note at what a bad mystery The Dead Zone was with Frank Dodd. I think one of the few virtues of this, and I'm guessing a reason King is somewhat proud of it, is because Bannerman, Masen, and Vic trying to figure out what happened to Donna is a damn solid mystery solve. Masen being bothered by the absence of a car in particular is the kind of neat clue I have a hard time believing King was completely baked when he wrote it. Again, the book sucks, but because of stuff like that, I get what King likes about it.
Besides the ending, I think the worst thing in the book is Donna's affair. Mostly because of her reactions to how Vic reacts to it. This is a decade before King misguidedly turned himself into the champion of all battered women, and wrote constantly about sexual abuse and rape in the 1990's, but at least then I sort of believed King had plausibly gotten into the heads of some of his female characters. I don't find Donna's insights or defensiveness remotely plausible.
For one thing when Vic asks her, "Why?" she dismisses the question as "Ugh. Just like a man to believe there always must be an answer or a reason." And as a man, I acknowledge we do have a tendency to want to fix problems in a concrete way that women prefer to handle differently. But really, that specific question is legit and not "Just like a man." Really, if a woman caught her man cheating the first thing she'd ask him is "Why?" That is not a fault with the male gender. Vic's response is in fact Universal. In trying to be fair to Donna's perspective, King was giving her perspective too MUCH sympathy. Similarly, when Vic asks her if that was the only time, it's referred to as an "unforgivable" question. Now Donna may not like that question. But if a person is discovered in an affair, it's a fair question. Believe it or not, cheaters are not entitled to not be asked questions that make them feel crappy. Because cheaters are actually crappy. If they wind up feeling crappy, it's because they should. Also for the record, this is also another question a woman would feel comfortable and have the right to ask a cheating husband.
What bothers me the most about this, is that regardless of whether King remembers the book or not, I would think his wife Tabitha could have corrected this for him. It bothers me that she didn't. Tabitha has been invaluable over the years whenever King made a mistake writing unrealistic women. It bothers me she allowed King to say this obviously wrong, sympathetic thing towards women cheaters without telling him that perspective is bogus. In fairness to her, King has claimed both he and his wife have remained faithful to each other for their entire marriage, so it's possible she simply didn't understand this true thing either. But it's so damn self-evident you'd figure ONE of them would have.
King had written some crappy short stories before this. He had even written some crappy novels (under the name of Richard Bachman). But this is the worst novel King had written by this point under his own name. Maybe because he literally wrote it in his sleep. **.
