Woody Woodpecker: The Movie

I don't think Cartoon Network ever showed reruns of Woody Woodpecker cartoons...if they did, they came and went. Universal Pictures owns the character, but I don't think they even air his cartoons on their children's programming cable channel, Universal Kids.

So...is the out-of-nowhere emergence of a live-action/CG Woody Woodpecker movie akin to when DreamWorks made the Mr. Peabody and Sherman movie? If so, Woody's lucky he's not owned by Sony, who didn't greenlight a Popeye directed by the sole individual responsible for making the Hotel Transylvania movies look good..because they're just not that into Popeye.

But that's not so...Woody Woodpecker cartoons are still very popular in Brazil, where it's still shown daily, so this movie is explicitly aimed at that fanbase. It's the same logic that resulted in those two (!) animated Top Cat feature-length cartoons that premiered in Mexico and an upcoming film adaptation of the obscure DePatie-Freling cartoon series, Here Comes The Grump. If there's a surefire guarantee of a profit to be made, they will make a film. I'm hoping some other country out there is also into Crazylegs Crane or The Mumbly Show. Jabberjaw?

So it's because Brazil was the original target audience for this film that native Brazilian actress Thaila Ayala (who kinda reminds me of Law & Order actress Annie Parisse) gets top-billing in her English-language acting debut as co-lead alongside Psych co-star Timothy Omundson (barely recognizable with the grubby-looking beard). Ayala plays the dimepiece girlfriend/fiance to Omundson's yuppie and bails on him after enduring Woody Woodpecker's pranks one too many times. This allows Omundson's character the opportunity to reconcile with his estranged pre-teen son and cultivate a flirtation with the cute forest ranger...wait, I haven't explained the plot yet..

Have you seen Peter Rabbit? How about Yogi Bear? Kangaroo Jack? The Smurfs? The Smurfs 2? Garfield? Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties? Alvin and The Chipmunks? Alvin and The Chipmunks 2, 3, 4?

The plot of Woody Woodpecker isn't particularly innovative. The yuppies hope to flip lakefront property by building a luxury cabin by the lake (oddly enough, thry make a curious decision to aint the outside of the cabin entirely in blue...if this were a "Pink Panther" CG movie, the plot would be about the panther painting the cabin pink...do NOT be surprised if the rumored Pink Panther CG film has that plot), only to blow their budget by recouping from loses made by Woody - who didn't want them disturbing his habitat - but manage to complete the project after achieving a truce after the bird gets along with Omundson's son. By then, Ayala's character has split around the 45-minute mark (the "screenwriter" neglected to have her say, "Darling, I love you, but give me Park Avenue", but I'm not sure if they air reruns of Green Acres in Brazil) and the rest of the film is devoted to the reunited father-and-son rescuing Woody from goofy poachers and helping the son jam in a rock band with local kids.

It's predictable, familiar, not particularly cinematic, unambitious in scope, clumsy yet competently well-done. If most of the live-action/CG hybrid movies I mentioned earlier felt like stuff that you would think would have the decency to premiere on television like those 3 weird, but harmless  Fairly Oddparents live-action TV movies Nickelodeon aired a few years ago, well, this debuted straight-to-deal everywhere else. Popularity of Thaila Ayala in Brazil notwithstanding, I couldn't help wondering if this cast was really first choice. Were Brendan Fraser and Carmen Electra really unavailable? Was Fraser really reluctant after appearing in similar fare for over two decades? Or really too-expensive?

How was the eponymous title character? Woody was just fine. Perhaps the fact that this wasn't particularly high-profile prevented any superfluous superficial design tinkering that would've led to ghastly results. Eric Bauza does a great job recreating the voice. I thought the scale for the interiors of Woody's treehouse home looked too small for him to actually dwell in, but it's nothing terrible. The film's greatest accomplishment is that it fits right in with the other films in this recent genre of live-action/CG hybrids and gets away with doing so on a cheaper budget. As a bonus, if you sit through the end credits, a restored print of a vintage Woody Woodpecker cartoon Niagara Fools plays (albeit in 3:2 format ratio instead of full-screen - odd, since the live-action film was in full-screen). The plot ofthe cartoon involves a goofy park ranger's attempts to prevent Woody from recklessly jumping over Niagara falls in a barrel. I remember this was broadcast as a heavily-edited instrumental music video during the late-80s and early 90's reruns and the complete cartoon had been rarely seen thereafter...possibly because Woody's efforts could be misunderstood as attempted suicide...or the park ranger repeatedly surviving the falls in the barrel might confuse misguided children into jumping off waterfalls or cliffs..whatever. it's nice to see it again. If the Woody Woodpecker cartoons aren't as acclaimed as the Looney Tunes or Disney cartoons or even Hanna-Barbera cartoons, they usually had a faster pace that kept them from wearing out their welcome..that's why his balloon at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade endured as long as it did. Certainly longer than Popeye's.

"Bugs (Bunny) must always be provoked into action...if he isn't provoked, he runs the risk of becoming an unmotivated bully, like Heckle and Jeckle, or Woody Woodpecker at his worst." - Chuck Jones

Time To Grow Up, Toys R Us "kids"..

You could say the writing was on the wall when their magnificent Times Square location was closed 3 years ago, but it's now officially the end of the Toys R Us retail chain, following the slowest liquidation sale I ever did see. It really did feel like the last two months they were offering everything at only 10% discount.

Did I get to buy anything good?

Well, it's not like that ferris wheel was ever available to own..

I brought the "Toys R Us Exclusive!" Funkopop Fraggle Rock figure of Sprocket the dog, because it just looks fantastic (at 20% off) and the DVD of Woody Woodpecker: The Movie (at 10% off)..that was in the early days..I had a hunch that by the time they got to 50%, I would be staring at empty shelves. They had an iron grip on the Lego merchandise - I wouldn't be surprised if they just boxed those up and shipped them to some outlet mall chain or Family Dollar or whatever. I was curious about buying the updated version of Clue that replaced Miss White with Dr. Orchid, but I wasn't committed to keeping track of anything. Prior to this liquidation, I had gotten into those Funko "Mystery Minis" mini-figures of characters from The Disney Afternoon and wound up with three Negaduck figurines.

Toys R Us was never particularly good at sales...it was only by comparison to the mom-and-pop toy stores, the Kmarts, the Targets, the comic shops...then it looked like they offered better deals by a narrow margin. Plus, unlike the comic shops and mom-and-pops, you could get your money back or make exchanges without difficulty. I don't think the mom-and-pop shops will re-emerge as the main place to shop for toys and games, but there's something about Toys R Us' pricing  strategies that eventually kept them from meeting their quota in the wake of increasing options to shop online or go to other stores. As a kid, I remember Kay Bee Toys and Lionel's Kiddie City toy stores were more popular because they had better prices on popular toys and video games, whereas Toys R Us usually only had lower prices on racecar test tracks and plastic toy dinette sets. They did have good prices on Hot Wheels and Matchbox toy cars; tourists would buy them a lot, as they were actually more expensive in countries outside the U.S.

Because the name of the store is such a recognizable brand across the globe, I wouldn't be surprised if the brand was acquired and the stores were revived, albeit in a smaller scale, possibly as a chain of upscale boutique toy shops..yeah, that's certainly not the same, plus it depends on whether or not the marketplace for upscale plastic toys, but I'm picturing something that can survive between the gentrified boutique and seedy-looking videogame stores.

Should it only be about selling toys? With Kids R Us and Babies R Us it looked like they were testing the waters before just sticking with the Babies department before the 90's ended, but I suppose the word "Toys" in the name kept them from thinking outside the box and feeling like they were overreaching if they were to add a "Home Furnishings"/"Intimate Apparel"/"Food" department...then it would really look like a Kmart.

And bring back Geoffrey the giraffe...they'd been kinda non-committal by keeping giraffes in their marketing material for the last decade or so, but it always seemed like Geoffrey had been retired, yet he was prominent during the chain's heyday...food for thought.

So...have I watched the Woody Woodpecker movie?

To be continued...

Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

I finally got to see Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return, which I was curious about, because I remember reading the book it was based on - Dorothy of Oz, by L. Frank Baum's great-grandson, Roger S. Baum...I guess that initial confirms that he's bonafide kinfolk...

It was what you would now think of as an attempt at a soft-reboot, ignoring all the sequels written by L. Frank Baum and only continuing from where the first book left off. Maybe there was a copyright issue ( up until the books entered the public domain, the rights to adapt the sequels were often accuired by production companies; Walt Disney himself had bought the rights and held onto them for a time ), but even so, Roger's book - and his sequels - seemed to take their cues from the MGM film with Judy Garland..because that's what most people who never encountered the books remember. It's the same approach used whenever an Oz movie is made: all thinly-veiled retellings of the same plot as the first book, with new characters sprinkled in. Ironically, L. Frank Baum's initial sequel novels in the canon were similar, abeit with a naturally more-convincing texture and abundant in imagination & originality.

So with the movies, prequels & sequels, regardless of the budget, a few familiar themes remain constant which resulted in a lot of formulaic fare. First, they boost up the iconography of the Wicked Witch of The West, whose appearance in the 1st book consisted of a single chapter, but has been made to count for something much more, largely because of Margaret Hamilton's iconic performance in the MGM film. New villains are introduced in ways that are always a callback/nod to MGM's witch, but feel like also-rans and their appearances are half-baked & perfunctory. I'm thinking of all the witches in Oz, The Great and Powerful, whose rules of engagement and power plays/motivations make no sense..or when they remember the Gnome King, like the Tom and Jerry In Oz movies did, they introduce him in a similar manner as an adjunct counterpart to the witch. In Legends, we have The Jester, an associate of the witch who was actually a bit creepier in the book, but it was never clear what his motivation to gain the witch's powers derived from, aside from just being a one-dimensional megalomaniac. The film makes this more obvious by having Martin Short voice the character...and in a falling-down-drunk-in-front-of-nightclub-parking-lot moment of desperation, they make him up to look like the Joker to try and give him an edge. I tolerated him in the book, but didn't like him in the film..and I don't believe for one second that he could outwit Glinda...although she often serves as the female counterpart to a Merlin/Gandalf/mentor/advisor/trickster figure in folklore/mythology that has the power to take decisive action but stays neutral/aloof, I doubt she could've been defeated as easily as she was here, except maybe with a wink - it wasn't her, it was her avatar or someone else - but we're supposed to accept that it is. Darn.

Second, they make much ado about the Emerald City. Every new Oz adventure is now a quest to go there, but to be fair, the elder Baum's early sequels did the same, until the sixth installment, when he had Dorothy, Toto, Aunt Em & Uncle Henry move from Kanas to live in the Emerald City as permanent residents of Oz. Dorothy became a princess and ruled Oz alongside Princess Ozma ( an interesting heroine with potential who has been caat aside, unfortunately ). Aunt Em & Uncle Henry settle down on a new farm adjacent to the town. From book 7 onwards, Baum introduces new characters who have to journey to the city or have established characters begin quests that would take them out of it. In Legends, Dorothy has to get to Emerald City via the yellow-brick-road again because the rainbow teleportation bridge ( arguably the most stunning sequence, though it looks more like 'Rainbow Brite' than Oz-appropriate ) got scrambled...fortunately, she's not alone on her journey...

And that leads to the third theme of these things: new sidekicks. Regardless of the protagonist on the quest, new sidekicks in the vein of the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion are introduced. In Legends, we get The China Princess, Tugg the tree/sailboat, Wiser the owl and, arguably the best, Marshall Mallow, a man made of candy marshmallows..at least in terms of design. Neither character really adds much to generate suspense and pace that would move the story forward; each sequence featuring them is an excuse to add more songs, which is the fourth, if sometimes optional theme that's a callback to the MGM film. The characters and story aren't deep enough to require songs to explain what they're thinking or what's at stake; each sequence slows the movie down further and I'm hitting the fast-forward button. MGM had the best songwriters in the golden age of movie musicals; why are they daring comparison?

So I've hinted the Dorothy of Oz story was servicable in book form, but watered-down in the film's adaptation. I remember a magnificent sequence in the book where the Jester's magic creates a construct of the Wicked Witch of The West as a ghost to torment Dorothy during a storm in the forest..why didn't they use that? I don't know if the animation budget/technology they had available to them would've pulled that off; most of the time, Legends of Oz has a made-for-TV look, with flat landscapes, "floating puppet" CG animation and plastic humans, but I do like the designs for the new companions and the classic Oz trio of the Scarecrow, Tin-Man and Cowardly Lion. Glinda's design reminded me of Princess Peach from the Super Mario Brothers games, but she was cute. The fleeting appearance of the Wicked Witch of The West in the Jester's musical number was striking enough to feel like I was watching a different movie for a moment. It's only the character designs for the Jester, the Kansas locals and Dorothy herself that seem uninspired. For a sequel, you would assume Dorothy's appearance would've been influenced by time spent in a strange new world, though I'll admit that's my idea and most depictions of Dorothy in sequel adventures depict her in similar ways that don't break from tradition. Maybe it's too imply that her initial trip to Oz was equivalent to a child's first trip to Disney World and there's no trauma..there's not much in the way of scholarly research out there devoted to the Oz books as there is with Alice In Wonderland, so any serious deep discussions of Dorothy's adventures in the canon are likely limited to discussion groups online and venerable Oz fan clubs.

I actually thought the film was okay. It falls in with every other Oz-inspired production out there. The only one time it seemed like there was a show of real ambition to adapt a story by L. Frank Baum that didn't lean on the MGM film too much or tried too hard to stray away..was Return To Oz. Nobody likes the opening scenes of Dorothy in the children's ward of a mental hospital..and the scene with the characters trying to escape the destruction of the Gmome King's lair looks a bit dodgy, but otherwise, there's well over an hour of filmmaking perfection sandwiched in there and it's the closest any film got to bringing those old sequel novels to life.

One last bit..the "If I had the chance.." moment. I would want to adapt either The Lost Princess of Oz or The Magic of Oz as live-action films, with a mixture of CG and practical effects when needed. Obviously, I would want to adapt the stories that showed L. Frank Baum at his most creative and dispell any notion that I wanted to do an homage to the MGM film...though I'm sure there are some people who would find a way to do so anyway.

"Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" ☆☆☆☆☆ (Review)

Spoilers ahead...

I  saw this movie last week and enjoyed it.

...

I am completely baffled by the intense dislike of this film by the critics. Were Marvel Studios' efforts akin to the works of Shakespeare, Poe, Faulkner, Cervantes, Fitzgerald, Salinger, Dorothy Parker and Guy De Maupassant? Is there a bias?

I didn't find this film "dark", "boring", "depressing", "overlong" or "stupid". If you've been actually reading DC's superhero comics anytime within the last 3 or 4 decades, it's very faithful to the source. But it's not the funeral dirge that it's been likened to. These characters are not comedians, nor are they TV show characters making TV series-style quips; if they did make cracks, it would be in relation to real things as they happen (for ex: the "Is she with you?" "I  thought she was with you!" bit in the film).

Maybe it's a conditioned response. This movie had a four year buildup; sixteen years if you count the initial mention of a Batman vs. Superman film pitch that would've been directed by Wolfgang Peterson - this was during a fallow period when the Batman film franchise was thought to be dead after Batman and Robin and different ideas for a revival were tossed around Hollywood, including a live-action Batman Beyond and a Batman: Year One adaptation that Frank Miller and Darren Aronovsky developed. The Superman/Batman comic book from 2003, a revival of World's Finest, was obviously launched in anticipation of this movie (a reprint of the first issue was offered as a free giveaway comic to coincide with the premiere; DC went out of there way to revise the title credit page to add Bill Finger's name, in keeping with current tradition).

So, with the long wait, who can expect good reviews from critics, podcasters and bloggers who say things like: "I got a bad feeling about the choices Warner Brothers is making with this movie", "I don't really have high hopes for this film", "Zack Snyder is the worst choice for this movie"...with that attitude, you cannot possibly be engaged, you are stuck with the idea that you are watching a disaster.

All I feel I can really say is that I liked it..and I'm glad I didn't follow the bad reviews, otherwise I would've missed out on an entertaining launch that I hope won't be derailed. Yes, it is a sequel to Man of Steel. Yes, Jimmy Olsen gets killed within the first 15 minutes.* But this film is far superior to Man of Steel. It's short on jokes about underoos and flippant references to ancient video games and doesn't rely on cheap heat by sampling pop songs. And the bonus scenes that Marvel Studios usually saves for after the credits are offered before the third act, instead (enough bonus scenes for 4 separate movies, to be speciffic). And maybe the funeral scene at the end could've been shortened by a minute (and is the act of a hand bursting through a coffin exclusive to only vampires & zombies, but not heroes? Why couldn't we see a stronger image of Superman coming back from the dead? Or am I tapping into touchy subject matter?).

You know what? This film was cool. Go see it. I had fun. The people who hated this movie can go take their reviews and wipe their asses with them. Ben Affleck is a great Batman. Henry Cavil has gotten more comfortable as Superman. Gal Godat is a fantastic Wonder Woman. Amy Adams is kind of bland as Lois, though her scenes with Cavil are good. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor may get his mannerisms and wardrobe choices from Heath Ledger's Joker, but make no mistake, beneath the affectations, this is the manipulative, Machiavellian, egocentric meglomaniac of the modern age comics, so it's very entertaining to see how the two incarnations of Luthor manage to mesh well.

Enough. Go see it.

*DC Comics had a "Jimmy Olsen Must Die!" lapel pin made available at one point; he must've grated on people over the last 77 years.