Skip to main content

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman
(2014)

Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.


I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sherman derives. I haven’t even seen the classic movie version starring Robert De Niro as Fearless Leader (and hasn’t Bob just gone from strength to strength in the 15 years since?) As such, I’m unable to avow that that the spirit of the original has been desecrated and replaced with an over-explained set-up and generic CG animation (well, I can testify to the latter, but it has been ever thus of late). But the oddball premise is an appealing one; a genius dog with an adopted seven-year-old son (it might have been even odder if Sherman had been Peabody’s biological offspring; the picture gets quite close to the knuckle on several occasions) is so fastidious about his education that he takes Sherman for regular jaunts through history in a time machine of his own design.


Making a feature requires baggage that would be unnecessary in a short; there needs to be an arc of some kind, even if it’s as glib as that of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (to which this owes a debt; or maybe Bill and Ted owe the original show a debt). As such, Peabody spends a little too much time establishing the conflict that drives the plot; Sherman’s bullying classmate Penny Peterson gets Sherman into trouble at school, so endangering Peabody’s custody. This involves a slightly laboured subplot about Sherman being ashamed of his father being a dog (although this pays off with an “I’m Spartacus” finale).


On the other hand, the custody element incorporates a readily identifiable subtext concerning same sex parenting. There can be little doubt this was intentional, although it has attracted relatively little attention. Certainly, not compared to the much-discussed lesbian anthem in Frozen (of course, Frozen was a zeitgeist-capturing picture; Peabody has barely been noticed). Child Protective Services’ Mrs Grunion (Allison Janney) stands for strict intolerance of anything that deviates from perceived societal norms (“In my opinion a dog can never be a suitable parent to a boy”) and proceeds to impugn Peabody’s parenting skills at every opportunity. It’s no great leap to see the bullying of Sherman bullying (“Beg like a dog”) as arising from having gay parents. One might even see Peabody’s emotional reticence towards Sherman (“I have a deep regard for you as well, Sherman”; it’s only at the end that he can say “I love you”) resulting from concerns over the judgements of those around him.


But it’s the anarchic energy, hard to come by in big screen animations, that sets Peabody apart. It reminds me a little in tone of one Disney’s few forays into the more postmodern Warner Bros style, the underappreciated The Emperor’s New Groove (it may be no coincidence that both share the inimitable vocal talents of Patrick Wharburton). As much as I think the commentary mentioned above is by design, it’s undercut by such batty logic as the custody judgement “Very well then, if a boy can adopt a dog, I see no reason why a dog cannot adopt a boy”. Likewise, this a family movie discussing daddy issues that cheerfully invokes the spectre of Oedipus (“Let’s just say you do not want to be at his house over the holidays, it’s awkward”).


As is usual for DreamWorks, there’s an abundance of mild bodily function and naughty bits jokes. The most inventive of these involves Greek soldiers plopping out of the tail of the Trojan horse in an excretory manner. There are also gags that sail close to the wind; during the climax, where figures form history are fetching up in present day New York (very Bill and Ted, complete with some very obvious one-liners; “Hey, Einstein! It’s a red light!”), Washington and Lincoln offer Peabody a presidential pardon. At which Bill Clinton appears and admits, “I’ve done worse”. The ructions of the climax result from a time paradox, in which two Shermans and two Peabodys exist at the same time and in approximate space. This leads to the Peabody exclaiming, “Sherman, I’ve got to get you out of here before you touch yourself!”). Unsurprisingly, the Grunion exclaims “What?!”, which was exactly my reaction.


Peabody: He is Ay.
Sherman: He is you?
Ay: I am Ay. The grand vizier.
Peabody: That’s his name.

Justice is not served on the Grunion, who seems to be rather let off the hook when Wharburton’s Agamemnon makes off with her to ancient Greece (“The Grunion is mine!”) Given Agamemnon’s fate, this may be commentary in itself. There are four main ports of call in the past, all of which deliver a breathless stream of both obvious and clever verbal and visual gags (and a succession of bad Peabody puns, to which Sherman’s response is “I don’t get it”). The first of these is revolutionary France (“Marie Antoinette sure likes cake, Mr Sherman”), followed by a sojourn in Ancient Egypt (“Oy, again with the plagues. Why did I ever move to Egypt?”) This might have the best in a rum lot of puns (“They get married too young in Egypt.. Or perhaps I’m just some old Giza”).


Leonardo da Vinci: The sunshine! The pasta! All the things that make Italy such a popular tourist destination.

Then there’s a visit to Leonardo da Vinci, which appears to have been at least partly inspired by Hudson Hawk (encouraging the Mona Lisa to smile, making use of da Vinci’s flying machine). It’s here that mean Penny is allowed redemptive qualities, with the focus shifting to Peabody needing to slacken Sherman’s leash and granting him a modicum of independent thought. The best recurring joke concerns da Vinci’s robot child (“You ever see that child he made? So creepy”) a freaky Pinocchio affair that resurfaces at the climax (“Papa! Momma!”)


Agamemnon: Smell my victory. Smell it!

The trip to Troy features a sublime Trojan horse within a Trojan horse gag (“I did not see that coming”) and the apparent demise of Peabody. The arch approach to narrative reaches its zenith when Peabody resurfaces, having fashioned a makeshift WABAC (the time machine) from “Bones, stones and yak fat”.


Anchoring all this is a tremendous vocal performance from Ty Burrell as Peabody. Robert Downey Jr was originally attached, but I can’t imagine he would have been as winning. Burrell was by far the best thing in Muppets Most Wanted and he ensures Peabody is highly memorable. Peabody’s unflappable genius and endless skillsets present that rare character who hasn’t been custom fitted to a demographic. His many talents include attempting to entertain Penny’s parents, voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann, with his boundless musical talents; hypnotising them with a trick he learned “from a swami at the Begawan Giri in Ubud Bali”; winning Penny’s dad over with his chiropractic skills). He laso has a nice line in assured pronouncements (“Mandarin Chinese should be learned as it’s the language of the future”).


The show-stopping conclusion lacks the earlier inventiveness, but it’s to be expected of current "bigger is always better" approach to finales. Rob Minkoff, who nursed the project for more than a decade and seems to have a thing for anthropomorphic cross-species familial relationships (Stuart Little), generally satisfies the competing demands of story and studio (he had the Bullwinkle estate breathing over his shoulder). There are four credited writers, and it’s only occasionally that the bombardment of elements becomes a little too frenetic. He serves up the farce particularly well, as Peabody attempts to keep multiple personas and disappearing daughters from his dinner guests.


Unfortunately, as it means DreamWorks will be further encouraged to play it safe, Mr. Peabody and Sherman was a financial disappointment. It didn’t do anything like the box office the knuckle dragging The Croods did the same time the year before, and the studio has taken a write-down (as well as laying off staff). Did audiences just not want anything too taxing or off-the-wall? Or was it too different in terms of character types? Peabody made less than the also experimental (but not experimental enough) Rise of the Guardians and generic turkey Turbo.  It looks as if the inevitable The Croods 2 and Kung Fu Panda 3 will be the sad and desperate lifelines facing the studio going forward.





Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.