BEFORE: When it comes to organizing my watch list, I find I usually have to work in broad strokes, separating out by category - comedy, romance, classics - and as I chip away at the (now-)smaller categories like animation, there's another category that keeps growing bigger and bigger, which is the "action" category. This beast contains the sub-categories of sports films, war films, crime/heist films, and spy films. (Right or wrong, superhero films are lumped in with sci-fi, that's just how I roll...) So even though I'm ankle-deep in kiddie films now, in just a few short months, this place is going to be crawling with thieves, killers and then secret agents.
Within each category I've got these little blocks of three or four films that I think work off a common theme, and I'm able to move these blocks around for the best effect, or to accommodate new arrivals to the list. This, plus a combination of intuition and coincidence, explains why the last few films have not only been based on children's lit, but have all been based around forest critters. Moles and rats and toads, bears and rabbits and piglets, the Big Bad Wolf and a twitchy squirrel, and, umm...garden gnomes. OK, work with me here, people.
Linking from "Hoodwinked Too!", who can forget that Brad Garrett also had a crucial role as "Plumber" in "Stuart Little 2"? I sure can't. That links him to at least three members of tonight's cast, who reprise their roles in this animated installment of that franchise.
THE PLOT: The Little Family spend their vacation near Lake Garland. Meanwhile, in the forest a beast is threatening the animals to give her food every night.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Stuart Little" (Movie #110) and "Stuart Little 2" (Movie #1,004)
AFTER: I didn't expect much, considering this was a (cheaply?) animated video sequel to a live-action franchise. But the story was strong, if it were a little longer I could see this being made in live-action/CGI like the previous two films. So why was it animated (done in CG, but made to look like cel animation)? One possible reason - Jonathan Lipnicki would have been 15, too old to reprise his role as Stuart's brother. They could have replaced him with another actor, but finding a kid with a similar voice was probably a whole lot easier. Nathan Lane and Steve Zahn were also absent, which could have been due to schedule problems, or budget problems. But they got the main cast members back, all of the Little family.
They were pretty clever in making the first two films - if you look at the original plot line of the book, you can see how they split it up between the two movies, the boat race in the first film, and the interaction with the bird in the second. So where to go for a third film? They kind of played out the Central Park thing, so the whole family goes camping upstate. Wait, they stay in a house, so it's not really camping out. It's living in a summer house while Stuart and his father + brother do scouting activites.
See, it's not that hard to make a well-structured screenplay. You just need a strong lead character with a clear motivation (Stuart wants to prove to his parents he's capable) and an interesting setting (the forest). Add a strong villain (The Beast) and some conflict, plus some foil characters and a training montage, and give the hero a chance to prove himself - you're halfway home already. Comparatively speaking, "Hoodwinked Too!" now looks like a real mess. Who's the main character? Is it Red Riding Hood, Grandma or the Wolf? What's their motivation, who's the villain, and what's the plan to take them down? It felt half-written, as if the characters were making it all up as they went along.
So this little direct-to-video sequel about the mouse that could, could end up as the sleeper hit of the week for me.
Starring the voices of Michael J. Fox (last seen in "Casuaties of War"), Geena Davis (last seen in "Cutthroat Island"), Hugh Laurie (last seen in "Stuart Little 2"), Wayne Brady, Virginia Madsen (last seen in "The Number 23"), Peter MacNicol (last seen in "Housesitter").
RATING: 5 out of 10 neckerchiefs
No comments:
Post a Comment