SDG here.
The last couple of years haven’t produced a lot of good family films.
Take last year. The best bets from 2007 were Ratatouille, In the Shadow of the Moon and Mr. Bean’s Holiday. After that it went downhill pretty quick.
Walden Media released a couple of okay films, Bridge to Terabithia and The Water Horse. National Treasure: Book of Secrets was diverting, and lots of people liked Enchanted, although Mrs. Decent Films’ minority report on that one has gotten a lot of positive feedback).
Then what? A string of utterly forgettable fare: Shrek the Third, Happily N’Ever Ever, Bee Movie, etc.
2006 wasn’t much better. The year’s best films, Akeelah and the Bee and Lassie, hardly made a ripple. Cars was the closest thing to a disappointment from Pixar since, like, A Bug’s Life. A few others were worth catching once: Monster House, Over the Hedge, Flushed Away and even Ice Age 2: The Meltdown (mostly for Scrat’s brilliant slapstick). After that, though, forget it.
2008, though, looks like it could be shaping up to be a better year for family films than either of the last two years, at least for quality.
It started with The Spiderwick Chronicles, a strong family thriller with goblins attacking a troubled family, which dealt with a number of daunting themes — divorce, parental abandonment, death — in surprisingly effective ways. (I’ll be reviewing it soon for the DVD release.)
Then Blue Sky Studios produced their best film to date, the delightful and gratifyingly pro-life Horton Hears a Who.
This weekend, DreamWorks Animation releases the charming, entertaining Kung Fu Panda. I seem to be in the critical mainstream in enjoying the film, though I may be among a comparative minority who, not having been bowled over by the Shrek films (1 2 3), thinks this may be DreamWorks Animation’s best CGI cartoon to date (beating out Over the Hedge, Shark Tale and Madagascar as well as the Shrek flicks).
(Note: This is not to say Kung Fu Panda is DreamWorks Animation’s best animated film — only that it is possibly (IMO) their best computer-animated film. The Prince of Egypt remains their masterpiece, and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is the best animated swashbuckler of all time.)
The year’s most anticipated release, of course, is Pixar’s WALL*E, coming out later this month. I’ve seen advance footage from this one, and, well, let’s just say my anticipation is through the roof. If it meets my expectations, this film could power 2008 to the best family-film year since, like, 2004 and 2005 combined.
Prince Caspian, not a great film, is still a good ride. And Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is Indy’s most family-friendly outing since, like, 1981 (this being the first Indy film since the original without some sort of bedroom scene).
What else? A little off the beaten path, Son of Rambow is a flawed but endearing film that might be okay for families with older kids (the story is about two young British schoolboys in the 1980s who set out to create a homemade sequel to First Blood).
And the year’s not over.
Looking further ahead, I’m getting no vibes on 20th Century’s Space Chimps, but I’m more intrigued by Fly Me to the Moon, a Belgian English-language cartoon about houseflies stowing aboard the Apollo 11. (Neil Armstrong voices himself?! He couldn’t be bothered to participate in In the Shadow of the Moon, but he turns out for this?)
Then there’s City of Ember, a Walden Media adaptation from the director of Monster House — and the first Walden film to set off my spider-sense in a good way since, like, Holes. (I liked Because of Winn-Dixie, but I didn’t get the same vibe from it… and I’ve been ambivalent about the Narnia films.) One of Walden’s problems in recent years has always been not having the right creative team. Could this break the pattern?
What else? Could The Clone Wars possibly be worth catching? The PG-rated Brandon Fraser Journey to the Center of the Earth could be fun (I missed an early screening due to a conflict). Disney tries another home-grown CGI cartoon, yawn (Bolt). For Harry fans, December will bring The Half-Blood Prince.
Of course, not all the news has been good. Speed Racer anyone? We saw another tepid VeggieTales movie (The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything). And, yikes, DreamWorks is releasing a Madagascar sequel.
On the other hand, there are no fantasy films this year selling atheism to children, and that’s a good thing.
One way to stack up the year against other recent years is to compare this year’s films with recent counterparts.
Horton Hears a Who easily beats Blue Sky’s most recent efforts, Ice Age 2 and Robots. Kung Fu Panda stands taller than DreamWorks’ previous Shrek the Third and Over the Hedge.
Spiderwick beats out Bridge to Terabithia (or Monster House, whichever you prefer). And I probably liked Prince Caspian better than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
I’m looking forward to comparing City of Ember to The Golden Compass. And how will WALL*E stack up to Ratatouille and Cars? I have a hunch it may compare favorably indeed.
GET MY KUNG FU PANDA REVIEW. EDIT: Link fixed!
Note: Various link errors fixed…
I have yet to see Sinbad – and as a Michelle Pfeiffer fan, that’s an oversight I definitely need to correct…
Interesting. Will you have a part two, which covers the non-kid friendly fare (The Dark Knight, for instance.)?
SDG,
What’s with all the occurrences of “since, like,” ? I imagine it was conscious, as you used that turn of phrase 4 times. I was holding out for a couple “um, ya know”‘s, but you didn’t satsify me there.
Matt
Not as such. I wrote this up because it seemed to me there was a trend of sorts. I’m not seeing another trend to write about in non-family fare.
Believe it or not, editing tool mismanagement, at least partly. Somehow, as I revised this post, some of my changes accidentally reverted to an earlier version (a few I caught and remade, but I’m sure I missed some). While I did mean to have a couple of “since like”s I did quite definitely delete at least one that erroneously crept back in. (I would delete it again, but now that you’ve gone and made a thing about it, let the record stand.)
As regards “um, ya know.” I do use “um”, to similar effect as “since, like,” but “ya know” is not in my usual idiom. Also, an editor once caught me using a sarcastic parenthetical “I don’t know” twice in the same review. (This one is harder to Google, but the review in question is also the first match in the “um” search above. Apparently that review brought out all my ironic idiomatic tendencies.)
Interestingly, other than this single blog post, I can’t verify that I have ever used “since, like” before.
The link for the Kung Fu Panda Review still takes me to a Cars review.
now that you’ve gone and made a thing about it, let the record stand
Just doing my part.
Interestingly, other than this single blog post, I can’t verify that I have ever used “since, like” before.
Quite honestly, given how much of your writing that I’ve read (between comboxes and your film site), that’s precisely why I was struck by the 4 occurrences. It seemed out of your authorial character, and I felt compelled to demand an explanation. 🙂
Cheers,
Matt
How about the movie version of:”Father knows Best” coming out this summer starring Jim Caviezal and that girl from “Bella”, her name escapes me.
I know that the TV show was excellent.
We own the first season on DVD.
I heard that Billy Gray and Elinor Donahue will making cameo’s
God bless.
I wonder what people in China will make of Kung Fu Panda.
JR- Judging from their reaction to World of Warcraft even THINKING of Pandarin, it’ll depend on if anyone hurts the panda….
bold off
Why is everything bold
Did that fix it?
SDG,
Could I ask why the City of Ember gives you a good vibe?
Have you read the book? I’ve read it and I liked it. Some children’s mystery/adventure books are pretty good- this one, definetly. I didn’t know that it was coming out as a movie- good to know, though. I’ll surely be seeing that.
Cj
Oh, also…It didn’t really click in my mind that Horton Hears a Who could be pro-life (I haven’t seen the movie). I just read the plot online, though, and it seems like a very good story to use in pro-life talk.
By the way, SDG, thanks for having this site. It’s very useful. My family loves Enchanted, but I knew that there was some overly-feminist sentiments in it (I only knew the rescue scene had this sentiment, though). I know you didn’t write this review, but I still appreciate it. This site has good apologetic value, too. Thanks again.
“Indy’s most family-friendly outing since, like, 1981 (this being the first Indy film since the original without some sort of bedroom scene).”
Overall I enjoyed this post. I disagree with the characterization of Indy 1 as a family-friendly post film though, only because I accidentally watched a few minutes of it with my young one before turning it off at a terrifyling-scary part a few minutes in, then watched the rest of it continually thinking, “How is this PG?” It’s a scary movie, and certainly would have interfered with my youngsters’ psyche more than a “sort of bedroom scene.” A good movie, don’t get me wrong, but not for youngsters. Remember the very end? Yikes.
Like several other films in this post, Raiders is not appropriate for all audiences. I have however watched it several times with my three older children, including my now-seven-year-old son, who can be extremely sensitive to some kinds of scary imagery but doesn’t seem to mind melting/exploding/burning Nazi heads at all.
But it’s certainly true that families are different, kids are different and parents are different, and what passes for family-friendly in one house may not in another, and vice versa.
Re: Neil Armstrong skipping In the Shadow of the Moon but signing on for houseflies…
Makes perfect sense to me. The man is about as uninterested in being onscreen as it is possible to be, and he’s a lot more interested in talking about aeronautics than making public appearances. But voice acting in a cartoon — that’s cool! (
Of course, he’s probably also doing some old student of his a favor…. 🙂
Gotta love the man from Wapak’.
Not as such. I wrote this up because it seemed to me there was a trend of sorts. I’m not seeing another trend to write about in non-family fare.
Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find much in common with most of the ‘adult’ films (barring Iron Man) out right on. I’ll be watching for your thoughts in this subject by the end of the summer, though (what with all of the potential good films for adults). 😉
It’s hard to say. Sort of an intuition thing (and certainly I’ve been wrong before, but I think I tend to be right more often than not).
I may have heard good things about the book from people like you, although of course a good book is no guarantee of a good movie! I might have absorbed some buzz on the film somewhere or other.
I was impressed by the director’s debut (Monster House), as well as the screenwriter’s previous credits (Corpse Bride, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Secret Garden).
The actors caught my eye: Bill Murray and Tim Robbins can be pretty choosy about projects, and Saoirse Ronan definitely has my attention what with Atonement and The Lovely Bones.
I liked the trailer.
And maybe I’m just hoping for Walden Media to make a comeback. I dunno.
Heh. Well, I’ll be reviewing as many as I can, and if I find a way to tie ’em all together, I’ll meet you back here.
Well, I’ll be reviewing as many as I can, and if I find a way to tie ’em all together, I’ll meet you back here.
I’ll be here. Maybe they will all be connected by a general lack of quality! (though hopefully The Dark Knight will be up to the challenge of besting the first film.)
I saw a preview of Wall-E at the movies and it looked so gay.
…Oddly, most of the movies I’ve enjoyed have been labled as “so gay,” mostly because of actual plotline, and humor not involving bodily functions.
I’m looking towards it.
I saw a preview of Wall-E at the movies and it looked so gay.
Did it look ‘joyful,’ ‘happy,’ and ‘ebullient’ too? I hate what people do to the English language.
FYI, Wall-E is a ‘male’ robot who loves a ‘female’ robot named EVE.
Foxfier is dead on. Unless it’s full of bathroom humor or nekkid women, it’s homosexual. Barbearyans ruuel!!!
Good review- my take is different for 2 films:
Indiana Jones ( crystal skull) although family friendly, was an aweful movie. Jumping toward the alien bandwagon just left me awestruck, did they run out of ideas? The plot and acting was truly subpar, a grace disappointment.
Speed Racer, apart from the “racing is our religion” phrase, was a good film with great effects and an overall good message from a father/son correcting mistakes perspective. I think the editor and special effects artists deserve an award for that effort!
And finally, I’m still a fan of Ironman, not family friendly but it is thus the powerhouse of the year! The best Marvel based super hero film to date. I hope the Dark Knight can live up to the hype.
Peace and Gods Blessings,
D
The premise to Wall-E sounds absolutely dreadful: love between non-living creatures.
In fiction, artificial intelligence is allowed to be capable of real consciousness and even love. E.g., The Iron Giant. Nothing dreadful about it.
I don’t get why Catholics are opposed to films which present a world where God does not exist. I recall Mr. Akin making the claim that such a film would be ethically wrong. I assume — perhaps wrongly — that this is because such a fictional world is logically impossible (if it were logically possible, then what would be the objection to presenting it for suitable adults?). But logically impossible things are presented in art all the time. Certain Escher drawings for example present mathematically impossible shapes … are such drawings also ethically verboten? Unfortunately this like many other things in the Catholic world stand on shaky philosophical ground (especially in terms of religious epistemology).
It is true that art that imagines “a world without God” is at the very least deeply problematic, and it is true that such a “world” is logically impossible, but it doesn’t seem to me that the relationship between these two points is simple cause and effect.
The root issue is that justice requires all men, indeed all rational personal creatures, to honor God. The Catechism calls this obligation of justice toward God “the virtue of religion.” It is the heart of the first commandment, and the fundamental obligation it represents is universally binding in all possible worlds for all possible persons.
Atheism, agnosticism and other forms of irreligion and unbelief materially violate the obligation of justice toward God. Of course we hope that particular unbelievers are not culpable and certainly not gravely culpable for their failure to cultivate the virtue of religion, that they come by their unbelief honestly, so to speak (and similarly we hope that believers hold their faith honestly; as St. Augustine says, “God does not need my lie”). Be that as it may, failure to acknowledge and honor God is a privation that does harm to those who lack the virtue of religion.
As a corollary, all things being equal, whatever encourages or facilitates the virtue of religion is to that extent beneficial, while whatever discourages or impedes the virtue of religion is to that extent deleterious. Of course things are often not equal, and, as implied above, lies that encourage piety remain objective evils even if in some cases they may have a beneficial effect, while truths that may in some cases shake the faith of some are not evil in themselves even though in some cases they may have a harmful effect.
As a believer, I can see potential value in using the faculty of imagination to try to conceive what it would mean for God not to exist. For me, one crucial consequence of such a thought experiment is to reduce human apprehensions of meaning and right and wrong to irrational responses of our nervous systems, rather than perceptions or insights into reality akin to apprehension of self-evident truths and logical inferences drawn from them. This seems to me an inadequate accounting of our human experience of the world. Put another way, if what we call God does not exist, equally what we call human beings do not exist. Either we trust our experience as an insight into reality, or not.
Because I can see potential value in using the faculty of imagination to try to conceive what it would mean for God not to exist, I don’t think I would necessarily go so far as to say that absolutely any and every possible imaginative story that posits “a world without God” must logically be an offense against the virtue of religion.
I would regard this type of story as highly problematic, and potentially gravely harmful, possibly even if it were not inherently offensive to the virtue of religion. Indeed, the whole premise is necessarily so problematic that I would approach it with grave reservations, and would need to be convinced of the potential legitimacy of any particular instance, rather than taking a neutral stance from the outset.
This is entirely different from stories that explore imaginary scenarios precluded in the real world by contingent moral obligations, including contingent obligations involved in justice toward God.
For example, for human beings in the real world the virtue of religion precludes attempted magic, divination and the like. However, as far as we can see, this is a contingent moral norm predicated on human nature and the nature of the world as God created it. God could have created a universe such that attempted magic would be morally unproblematic. For example, God could have created a universe in which there were neutral energies that could be harnessed to allow people to click their heels together three times and be instantaneously transported to another location, or gaze into a crystal ball and see remote places or future events.
We can thus imagine a universe in which practical magic is not contrary to the virtue of religion. However, we cannot imagine a universe in which irreligion is not contrary to the virtue of religion. God could have created a universe in which rational beings might practice what we call magic, but in no possible universe could God create rational, personal beings who did not owe him the debt of justice, who were not obliged by the virtue of religion. To say that God could not create a universe in which He did not exist is self-evident.
It seems to me vanishingly improbable that any story about “a world without God” could possibly be simply neutral as regards the real-world obligation of the virtue of religion. Overwhelmingly, I think, such a story would always either make the virtue of religion seem more feasible (by showing the necessarily unsatisfactory nature of an account of any world without God) or less feasible (by creating the impression of the possibility of a satisfying picture of a world without God)
Any story that actually had the latter effect on readers would be gravely harmful. Any story intended to have such an effect would represent serious injustice toward God by the author.
“I recall Mr. Akin making the claim that such a film would be ethically wrong. I assume — perhaps wrongly — that this is because such a fictional world is logically impossible…”
No, that’s not it. If I wrote a story about a man who invents a round square, or (one of my favorite old cartoons) a portable hole, there is nothing moral – or immoral – about that.
“Certain Escher drawings for example present mathematically impossible shapes … are such drawings also ethically verboten?”
Of course not. This doesn’t seem to be even close to the root of the objection, which SDG has admirably explained out above.
I should also add this:
Granted that irreligion is contrary to the justice owed to God, and that anything that inclines men toward irreligion is harmful, as I said we hope that in particular cases that an irreligious man is not culpable or gravely culpable for his lack of religion. Thus, in the case of a particular unbelieving writer crafting a particular story expressing a godless universe, of course we hope that the writer is being as honest as he can and is not sinning or sinning gravely by doing this.
What the actual effects of such a story might be would remain to be seen. Among other things, reading such a story wouldn’t necessarily be in a different category in principle than, say, reading Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A CHRISTIAN” [not “atheist,” silly me! -edit]. We would not want to say, in a categorical, a priori way, “This story is evil so no one should read it.”
It might be true that some people might find the story variously off-putting, objectionable or unsettling and would not want to read it, and for some it might be advisable to steer clear. Also, if the writer’s craft were subtle enough, equally subtle critical skills might be required to sift out and evaluate the ways in which the story was problematic.
If the atheistic element were sufficiently integral to the worldview of the story, likely enough many devout, critically thinking believers would not choose to read the story sheerly for pleasure — though I have no trouble imagining similarly convinced and critically thinking unbelievers immersing themselves in Tolkien’s world, say. But this, I think, is partly because human nature actually is fundamentally religious, and so a religious mythology is not as alien to an unbeliever as an irreligious mythology to a believer.
Certainly, though, reading such a story might afford a believer a valuable glimpse into the inner world of his unbelieving neighbor. For that reason alone, it might be well worth reading.
Over all, I agree with much of your commentary, but I don’t get what so exciting about a trash machine coming to life, and I don’t see how anyone could NOT like Veggie-Tales.
BillQ
I don’t get what so exciting about a trash machine coming to life
Check out a scene, and let us know what you think.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=45785
It looked gay to me too. Two robots in love named Wally and Steve.?
SDben5,
Two robots in love named Wally and Steve.?
From IMDB.com:
After hundreds of lonely years of doing what he was built for, WALL*E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) discovers a new purpose in life (besides collecting knick-knacks) when he meets a sleek search robot named EVE.
It’s Eve, not Steve.