For some reason, live-action kids' movies have the overwhelming tendency to treat kids like they are idiots. Films like The Cat in the Hat, Furry Vengeance, Bedtime Stories, Scooby Doo, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Daddy Day Camp, Garfield, The Pacifier, The Game Plan, Night at the Museum and Baby Geniuses think that all children want to see in a live action family film is a bunch of people shouting, some very low brow scatological humor, and CGI that doesn't necessarily have to be very good because, fuck it... it's only for kids. This is upsetting and tiring because the best movies of my childhood were ones that treated me, the child, with respect. The best family movies are ones that are smart, well-written, well-cast and directed, and didn't pander to the simple child's mind. If a family film is fun for the whole family, then it's a success. Even if the child doesn't understand every single reference, they'll understand the movie. This has been done several times. Movies like Richie Rich, Blank Check, Angels in the Outfield, Heavyweights, Hook, Matilda, E.T., The Sandlot, Hugo, The Muppets, Home Alone, The Karate Kid, Babe, Cool Runnings, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Jumanji knew exactly how to make a family film that didn't ostracize the kids, didn't make a bunch of loud noises or fart sounds the primary go-to joke. I had decently high(er) hopes for Goosebumps, but it fell right back into that convention that all kids want to see are screams, slime, and toilet humor.
Goosebumps tries to be a modern day Jumanji. But where Jumanji set us up with perfect mythology, well-rounded and likable characters, an intense game where kids are both excited and terrified to see what happens next, and a great script... Goosebumps gives us none of this. It begins with Zach and his mother moving into a new house next door to (who we later find out to be) R.L. Stine, the author of all the "Goosebumps" books, played by Jack Black. Zach takes an interest in Stine's daughter, Hannah, but is warned away several times by her father. After breaking into her house, thinking she's been kidnapped, Zach accidentally opens up one of the original "Goosebumps" manuscripts and releases the monster inside. This monster is the Abominable Snowman from Pasadena and looks just as terrifying as The Rock did in The Mummy Returns. It's some of the worst CGI I've seen in a film in a long time. We come to learn that Stine typed up all his "Goosebumps" books on a magical typewriter because he was a lonely kid and his only friends were monsters? I'm not sure I followed that either. So, finally, all the monsters in all the books are released and Zach, Hannah, R.L., and some weird kid with huge teeth have to save the very loud, and extremely obnoxious day.
Goosebumps is some of the laziest writing I've seen in a kids film in a while. There's no actual character development for anyone. And while that's not entirely a necessary facet of a children's film... it should be. I should actually care about ANY of the characters. Zach makes friends with the huge toothed kid because... it helps the script? Their meeting is strained and awkward. Even Jack Black's R.L. Stine is restrained. His "jokes" that are scripted are lazy and overused. I saw everything coming ten minutes before it came. I heard every punchline, seconds before it was said. There is no mythology to the releasing of the monsters. If the books are locked, then the monsters can't escape. Except the book that releases Slappy the Dummy (who winds up releasing the rest of them) opens itself. Stine has to find his magical typewriter (that is never mentioned as being magical) to hopefully write a new story to trap the monsters into... but when he can't do it... Zach picks it up and keeps writing. The dialogue is written from someone who has seen a lot of movies, but never actually written one. And when they've finally sat down to do it, they're drawing all the lines from movies they've seen in the past.
I'll give it this-- kids ARE going to enjoy it. It is goofy enough and full of enough monsters that most younger kids are going to enjoy the film, maybe even find a little fright in it. And that's okay with me. There's nothing inherently wrong with a child watching the film. It won't make the kid stupider. It just doesn't contribute to the overall growth of the child. This will be a film the child loves when they're young, but watching it again as a teenager, you'll find that it's only good for nostalgic purposes and it's really quite a bad movie. This is exactly how I feel about Space Jam. I love it because I loved it as a kid, but watch it again now in 2015... it's pretty awful.
This is also the difference between Goosebumps and Pixels, which are essentially the same film. Goosebumps is harmless and lazy stupidity that will give a kid two hours of fun without damaging their minds, but not enhancing them either. Pixels is the infected rectal wart on the ass of the history of film. Both films really only have one thing going for them-- nostalgic recognition. We watch Pixels because we recognize the games we used to play when we were kids. Same reason I really wanted to see Goosebumps (that and I really do miss Jack Black... seriously, dude, come back to comedy). I wanted to see the film because I wanted to see how many "Goosebumps" monsters I could recognize and how many books I could name from them. I read every single book when I was a child, sometimes several times. Seeing the monsters come to live gave me brief joy until I realized what a lazy, sloppy film it had running around it.
It's a 50/50 split in the world of family film, but there are well-made ones. They are the ones that stay on shelves forever and watched over and over; not just for nostalgic reasons, but because they're great damn movies. Five years from now, Goosebumps won't be remembered. It won't be re-watched. It may have a sequel or two, but it really has no lasting power. Let's stop treating kids like they're idiots and give them movies they deserve to see.
D+
No comments:
Post a Comment