BEFORE: There are always going to be movies that I'm putting off - with such a huge watchlist, any time I say, OK, I'll watch THIS movie, the other side of that is, I'm NOT going to watch any of THOSE 499 other movies tonight. So, it's all about priorities - what do I think I might like, three weeks from now, or three months from now? It's an impossible thing to predict, so that's why I have my lists and my plans, using the holidays as benchmarks. I may, from time to time, watching something that I'm merely curious about, because it helps get me where I'm going. I'm just using this film in that form today, it gets me one step closer to where I want to go, which is to "Tenet" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" and something for Memorial Day. So Jessie Buckley carries over from "Judy" and gets me closer to all of that.
In another sense, this clears up some room on the DVR, and also frees up a slot for something else to be added to the main watchlist, and then I can move one more movie from the secondary watchlist to the main watchlist, so everything's progress. And the definition of "progress" has really changed in the last year, having this framework in place has been invaluable for mentally getting through the pandemic, where most every day has been much like the last and the next. At the very least, every day means a different movie, so there's that, it's like I'd been preparing for the year-long lockdowns, without even knowing that I was.
Mentally, it's still tough, and even though restrictions are being relaxed, getting back to "normal", or even "normal-ish", is going to take time. When is it OK to just go out and do something fun again? Meeting with friends, or family you haven't seen in a while, when is that OK? And just because it's safe, what if you're not mentally ready to do that yet? I'm just now talking to my sister about going up to visit my parents for my Dad's 80th birthday, which is next weekend. Now I've got to see if I've got movies planned for those days that I can bring with me, or watch on my phone, and then Amtrak up to Massachusetts on Friday night and come back on Monday morning. Sure, it's a hassle, but I've only seen my parents twice since April of last year, and we missed Christmas together, so perhaps another visit is in order - get out of NYC for a couple days, clear my head, try to cheer myself up a bit. Sounds like a plan.
THE PLOT: A physician who can talk to animals embarks on an adventure with a young apprentice and a crew of strange pets to find a legendary island.
AFTER: It's still Mental Health Awareness Month, something I tried to tie into with "My Dinner With Hervé", and I suppose "Judy" as well, because Judy Garland was possibly the poster child for people with mental health issues. Famous people are just as screwed up as regular people, if not more, after all. Today we've got Dr. Dolittle battling depression and loneliness because he's still reeling from his wife's disappearance and death - and at the start of the film he's a shut-in, interacting with all of the animals on his compound, wary of any human visitors, and he's unkempt and there are probably hygiene issues - the animals are probably all cleaner than he is, and that's saying something. (Who's taking care of all the animal dung? This place probably stinks to high heaven...)
Updating a piece of classic literature is always a tricky thing, because there are so many ways to go, striking the right tone is a delicate balance - the last few "Dr. Dolittle" films went for a full, modern update, with Eddie Murphy playing a veterinarian who could talk to animals, and while they were funny, the films bore little resemblance to the original novels. This most recent update/reboot tried to have it both ways, to keep the original time setting in the 1800's, with all those old-timey costumes and such, but then mix in modern-day effects, complete with CGI talking animals, and wild stunts to really make it a marvel, like a big wide, Disney-ish film. Oh, and a lot of modern-time speech, like the animals call each other "Bro" and there are other current-ish slang phrases floating around, maybe kids won't even notice this, but for me this just didn't work.
It's oddly like a super-hero film, because the relationship between Dolittle and Stubbins reminded me of Downey's appearance in "Spider-Man: Homecoming", but then it's got bits of "Aquaman", and "The Hobbit" mixed in, along with a whole lot of "Zookeeper", in the style of Downey's "Sherlock Holmes" movies, which doesn't really make for a great combination. Mixing things up like this produces something like that version of "Gulliver's Travels" with Jack Black in it, and in a similar fashion, this became something of a big mess. Sure, they went back to the second "Doctor Dolittle" novel to find an epic adventure story that could be adapted, and then some screenwriter went through the plot and changed every single element of that story, so then, umm, what was the point of adapting THAT book, then?
What resulted was really one bad idea after another, in a protracted sequence that ended up not making any sense at all - not that a fantasy film HAS to make sense, you can have a lot of wild, crazy ideas, but I struggled to find any internal logic at all. Queen Victoria is ill, and somehow only Dr. Dolittle can help her, by traveling around the world by ship to an uncharted island, where the Eden tree is, and there, guarded by a dragon, is some fruit that can save her. There's a lot more nonsensical fragments to this story, but these are the basics - really, what are the odds that this weeks-long trip can be completed on the timetable of the Queen's health, which is failing rapidly? Well, of COURSE they're going to get it all done, just in time. But who cares? (Look, we all know Queen Victoria's going to get old and reign for a long time, so was the outcome ever really in doubt?) Still, the million possible stories that can be told, and THIS is what somebody really wanted to make? It boggles my mind...
Look, I've said it before and I've said it again, just because you can use modern technology to make a talking polar bear that can dive off a ship and rescue a drowning ostrich, that doesn't make doing that a great idea. (Or, you know, I've said words to that effect...) You need to START with the great idea, then use the technology you currently have to make that happen, or appear to happen. They've tried TWICE now to adapt "The Golden Compass" and/or "His Dark Materials" (speaking of talking polar bears), and it's failed twice, I believe, because it's NOT a good idea. People hear "demons", even if it's spelled "daemons" and they think the story is somehow Satanic, and not good for kids. (Just stop using that word, try a different one...) A terrible story is still a terrible story, and if you need to change it up for modern audiences, try to make it better, not worse, that's all.
But what is "better" and what is "worse", anyway, isn't that subjective? Well, sure, but if you really want to adapt book 2 of Lofting's "Dr. Dolittle" books, then adapt it, at least TRY to make it better, and if you find yourself changing every single element of the story, for whatever reason, supposedly to make the whole story "better", then maybe ask yourself why you need to break the whole thing down, what was "good" about the story to begin that, and is there a way to retain the foundation before you tear down the entire house? To continue the renovation project analogy, first check to see if you can just repaint the interior, maybe tear down ONE wall to open up the space, before you call in the bulldozer to raze the entire structure. Keep what works, jettison what doesn't work, and replace it with something that might work better. If you don't do this, then it creates a sort of paradox, where this film simultaneously both IS and ISN'T an adaptation of "The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle".
Among the many NITPICK POINTS I have today are these: there's an entire sequence of Dr. Dolittle talking to several different CGI animals in turn, supposedly in their animal "languages", before they transition to an easier mode where we, the audience, can understand all the animals. But this means there's three solid minutes of Robert Downey just making animal noises, and that's problematic, to say the least. It calls to mind the infamous "Star Wars Holiday Special" where one November, U.S. TV audiences endured about 20 minutes straight of Wookiee growls from Chewbacca's family, with no translations and no subtitles. People just tuning in at that point who didn't know "Star Wars" probably thought they were dreaming, on acid or there was something wrong with their TV sets.
The low point here was probably Dolittle removing a "blockage" from a mythical animal's, umm, lower passageway. If you find this interesting in any way, then I really feel sorry for you. This is something vets have to do for cows and horses, I understand, but come on, this is a kid's movie and there's no need to be vulgar. Also, dragon farts are not a thing, nor do they represent high comedy in any possible way. It's just one more random piece of rubbish among the many that got strung together here, not forming any kind of coherent plot at all, least of all a fantastical one, it's just a big pile of "stuff that happened". At least one actor appeared anonymously, and I can kind of understand why. Well, at least it was fairly short, just over 100 minutes, so it didn't waste TOO much of my time.
Bringing it back around to the issue of mental health - what if Dolittle is, in fact, insane? What if he only THINKS he's talking to animals, and we're all just seeing/hearing what's going on inside his mind, which makes no sense at all, it's just some grief-induced dream? This doesn't really work, either, because his new young charge learns to talk to animals, too, but perhaps the insanity is contagious? Nah, it's unlikely but this would explain a lot.
Also starring Robert Downey Jr. (last seen in "Lucky You"), Harry Collett, Antonio Banderas (last seen in "Life Itself"), Michael Sheen (last seen in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2"), Jim Broadbent (last seen in "The Borrowers" (1997)), Carmel Laniado, Kasia Smutniak, Ralph Ineson (last seen in "The Battle of Buster Scruggs"), Joanna Page (last seen in "Love Actually"), Sonny Ashbourne Serkis, Elliot Barnes-Worrell, Oliver Chris (last seen in "Emma."), Clive Francis (last seen in "Official Secrets"), Joseph Balderrama
with the voices of Emma Thompson (last seen in "Late Night"), Rami Malek (last seen in "Ain't Them Bodies Saints"), John Cena (last seen in "Fighting with My Family"), Kumail Nanjiani (last seen in "Duck Butter"), Octavia Spencer (last seen in "Instant Family"), Tom Holland (last heard in "Locke"), Craig Robinson (last seen in "Jay and Silent Bob Reboot"), Ralph Fiennes (also last seen in "Official Secrets"), Selena Gomez (last seen in "The Dead Don't Die"), Marion Cotillard (last seen in "A Good Year"), Frances de la Tour (last seen in "Mr. Holmes"), Jason Mantzoukas (last seen in "John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum"), Will Arnett (last seen in "Hot Rod"), Nick A. Fisher, Tim Treloar, Jim Carretta, Ranjani Brow, Scott Menville, David Sheinkopf, Matt King
RATING: 3 out of 10 suits of armor.
No comments:
Post a Comment