Tag: Show Dogs

THE HOUSE WITH A CLOCK IN ITS WALLS – MEDIOCRE FANTASY WITH A POSSIBLY SINISTER UNDERTONE

SHORT TAKE:

Mediocre fantasy, under utilizing what should have been a winning combination of Jack Black and Cate Blachett, with scenes which may just have some truly disturbing motivations behind them.

WHO SHOULD GO:

To be safe – adults only.

AND IF YOU LIKE THESE REVIEWS PLEASE SUBSCRIBE! THEN YOU'LL GET     EVERY NEW REVIEW SENT STRAIGHT TO YOUR E-MAIL!!

GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND TYPE YOUR E-MAIL IN – IT (SHOULD BE) THAT EASY. ANY PROBLEMS PLEASE SEND ME A COMMENT AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO RESOLVE YOUR ISSUE.

LONG TAKE:

The House with a Clock in its Walls made me sad, but not in the way that movies are supposed to make you sad, like in Titanic, or Old Yeller, or at the end of Funny Girl.

Maybe it was because it wasn't nearly as good as I thought it was going to be, or maybe it was something more sinister.　

SPOILERS

The premise is of an orphaned boy, Lewis, who is sent to live with his only remaining relative, a reclusive eccentric uncle, Jonathan, (Jack Black), who, it turns out, is a warlock seeking a dangerous magical item, buried within the house, placed there by the house’s previous owner, Isaac, (Kyle MacLachlan). An interesting idea but not well carried out.

First off, there is the acting. I have liked Jack Black ever since he started doing kid and youth films. He is a goofy pleasure in movies like Kung Fu Panda, King Kong and Goosebumps. Cate Blanchett, who plays Jonathan's best friend and antagonist-neighbor Florence, brings an element of class to everything she's in, even the terrible Oceans 8. And of course Blanchett was spectacular as Galadriel in Lord of the Rings.

However the main character, Lewis, (Owen Vaccaro) was just plain old not very good. Perhaps it was the directing but, for example, when the subject of Lewis' parents' death in a car crash comes up, he tears up and wails so much and unexpectedly, it is as though he is faking it and we're all left waiting for the other shoe to drop.

He is unconvincing in other key moments as well, such as when he is supposed to be desperate enough for a friend that he would break his uncle's one rule about not going near a cabinet which contains a forbidden book. There was no effort to convince the audience that Lewis would want to risk his new relationship with his magical uncle.

Maybe it was the inconsistent characters. Lewis comes to the attention of a school favorite named Tarby (Sunny Suljic), who genuinely seems to want to be kind to this new little outcast. But then, suddenly, Tarby is running for a school office, and after getting elected, Tarby becomes a bully. One of the other kids tells Lewis they are not surprised because Tarby does this every election season. This doesn't make any sense because there is very little Tarby has to gain from the friendship with Lewis. 

This turnabout is so awkward, sudden and confusing that I thought, surely, there was more to this character. Is he possessed by the evil ghost of Isaac? IS he the evil Isaac in disguise, and was just using Lewis to gain access to the house? This latter theory seemed to be further encouraged by Tarby's instant and pointed desire to open the one cabinet in the house Lewis’ Uncle Jonathan told him he must never go near, as though Tarby knew all along the forbidden book was there. But no, Tarby is just a mean kid who likes to be nice randomly but only for a few days and serves as a convenient shoe-horned plot device. Sorry, but that's just bad writing.

Then there is Jonathan’s back story. Jonathan left home because he wished to pursue magic and simply assumed his little sister, Lewis' mother, did not want anything to do with him. So much so that Jonathan did not even go to her funeral. Yet without question Jonathan accepts that his sister would have sent her only child to live with him. These two points are inconsistent. Jonathan never has a real moment or explanation as to why he would be so deeply alienated with his sister. And no explanation as to why he would, without question, believe his sister would leave her only child in his care. Which is it? Did Jonathan believe his sister hated him or not?

The movie has so many misdirections, without purpose, that I got the feeling it was written backwards, with the ending in sight but little attention to making sure the path to it from the introduction made sense. And whenever the writer had to get from point A to Point B he just sewed on a patch to make the two plot points connect.

AND – OH YEAH – the clock turns out to be "under the boiler". I'm sorry, but in what universe does "under the boiler" put it therefore "— in the Walls"?

Also, I’m not sure what demographic audience they were going for. It’s silly enough that it should attract a young child crowd – fart jokes and Addams Family-like purple monster snake-tarantulas, standing up to bullies in middle school and ooh aah moments of solar systems coming to life in the living room.

But then there are extremely creepy scenes which would make the movie unacceptable for that same young group: poisoning evil anthropomorphized mannequins to death, violent repeated shaking preceding transformations much like the very disturbing way Penny-Wise the Clown shook in the modern It, a dead mother, (portrayed by Lorenza Izzo, now the estranged wife of the director Eli Roth) appearing in her son’s dreams to get him to seek out a forbidden book, necromancy, having truck with a forked tongued demon who actually licks blood off one of the character’s hands – basically a 7th book Harry Potter aimed at first Harry Potter book-aged children.

Then there is the more sinister aspect of the flaws.

There is an expression I learned in business: The Appearance of Impropriety. That is when, even if your motives are pure as a newborn baptized baby, there are just some things you should avoid doing. For example, whenever my husband drove our babysitters home, he would always tell our kids, "Come on! Let's all go for a ride!" and away a pack of them would go to keep the baby sitter company on the ride. He and I rightly believe that an adult male alone in a car with a young person not his own child is just not appropriate.

And, we do not much care for casinos in our community, so we boycott them. When a close friend held his daughter's wedding reception at one of the casinos’ restaurants, it was with great regret that we had to decline to attend the party. Had we gone, it would have seemed as though we were endorsing the casino. In both cases, we were avoiding The Appearance of Impropriety.

In The House, I am not saying that the character of Uncle Jonathan is doing anything wrong. He keeps his distance, had not sought out the child but was assigned the responsibility of raising his dead sister's son. But the writers left certain bread crumbs that perhaps it would have been better in the current environment not to have sown.

For example, near the end Jonathan is youthened to a baby but left with an adult head. This puts Lewis in a position of carrying around a naked adult in miniature. After Jonathan is restored, while hiding behind some equipment, he asks Lewis to throw him his pants, but more damningly, asks Lewis not to tell anyone that he, Jonathan, was left naked.

Given the circumstances, this is awkward at best. In the current climate of heightened awareness of an epidemic of underage inappropriate sexual predation by authority figures, this was, even in the best light, ill thought out and in very poor taste. Much like the scene in the dog movie Show Dogs, where an animal was coerced into allowing inappropriate touching for judging purposes, even if the circumstances made the behavior objectively understandable, this is not something you want to use as an example for children to follow. Moreover, as book stories are fantasy and so can be written any way the film makers want, there was ZERO reason to put in scenes where Lewis is carrying around a naked man OR to be sworn to secrecy by that same adult male concerning his nakedness in front of the child.

Even assigning innocent motives to the writers, these scenes smack of grooming for pedophiles and should be cut or re-written AS the makers of Show Dogs said they would do. (Though I have not personally confirmed whether or not they actually HAVE re-edited Show Dogs to eliminate or change the offending genital-touching/judging scenes).

Did the writer, Eric Kripke and director Eli Roth, deliberately set up scenes where a young boy is in a compromising situation with an adult male who swears him to secrecy in order to help desensitize millions of children to a similar real life scenario with far more corrupted, ugly and disgusting motives? Or was this just an ill-thought out, ignorant gag by Kripke and Roth, because neither, best I can find out, have any children so did not fully consider the implications?

I don’t really know. But, as I have inculcated to our own children a zillion times: I have never known anyone who regretted being too careful, but I have known a LOT of people who regretted not being careful enough.

What makes me sad, though, is that a movie which could have and should have been a somewhat fluffy entertainment must be analyzed in this way. Fifty years ago we could have easily attributed the innocent motives of the film makers at face value and shrugged off the possibility of any nefarious underlying motives – ALTHOUGH perhaps fifty years ago pedophia grooming could have been perpetrated in this way and we just would not have known to watch for it because its prevalence was not what it is today. Either way, the fact we live in a culture wherein it becomes necessary that even light fare today MUST be scrutinized so carefully in order to protect children makes me very sad.

So – while it’s fairly brainless amusement for adults, it might just be "Stranger Danger" level inappropriate for the kids – whether the film makers intended it to be or not.

SHOW DOGS – NO CHAMPION OF CHILDREN

SHORT TAKE:

Cute brainless movie about anthropomorphized dogs ruined by a poorly considered scene which, whether intentional or not, lowers a child's guard against unwanted "touching".

WHO SHOULD GO:

Sadly, no one in the target demographic audience of children UNLESS one scene is changed and/or removed along with any references to it.

LONG TAKE:

When the kids were underaged we were incredibly careful, from deciding on where to store the cleaning products to the books they read to the unpopular decision against them going on sleep overs. We never parked them in front of a TV in a store and walked away thinking they would be OK or let them play hide-and-seek in public. We never let them so much as walk down the block without a responsible adult or semi-adult accompaniment. We met the parents supervising parties they were attending and often stayed as chaperones. We knew what music they listened to, who their friends were and what movies they watched. (At least we tried – kids are sneaky creatures.) One of my constant refrains to other parents when explaining why we were so very careful when we were raising our children was: "I've never known anyone to be sorry for being too careful. But I've know a LOT of people who were sorry for not being careful enough." And I've experienced more than one moment where I was grateful for subscribing to this mantra.

I was originally going to do a review of the movie Show Dogs in a positive light – kid movie about dogs, some fart humor, innocent brainless romp. What's not to like? I even gave it a "silly popcorn movie" thumbs up on the radio call I make every week to KBYS.

Then my daughter brought my attention to a blog by a mom who was disturbed by one particular scene in the movie. During the AKC dog shows it is routine for the animal to have his genitals checked to be sure both testicles are descended. It is a requirement for winning and was used as a plot device for this loner canine police dog, Max, (voiced by Ludacris – whose proper name is Christopher Brian Bridges), to demonstrate self-control. At the time I thought it a goofy plot device. But this mom's blog, which expressed some serious concern about this episode encouraging children to succumb to genital touching, got me considering the issue. As anyone who has read any of my blogs will know, I have both a short fuse and a short temper when it comes to protecting children from all manner of inappropriate scenes, themes, behavior, language, sexuality, etc. But even I didn't catch this one.

To be the Devil's Advocate here for just a moment my initial analysis of the concerned mom's legitimate thoughtfulness was that she was overreacting. My reasoning was thus: it is an adult male dog, undergoing an accepted physical exam. This is not an exam made up for the gratuitous sake of a joke (although it is milked for such) but is a real part of AKC review in dog shows, especially ones at this level.

Next, my reasoning said, if there was any subservient/child aspect to this, the handler/human partner, Frank (Will Arnett) had the fiduciary duty over the animal, anthropomorphized or not. The human partner Frank was the responsble party for Max and had to account for Max' behavior when he bit someone, and his whereabouts when he went missing briefly. And Frank was not only there, attending closely during the examination but was watching very very carefully as Frank was afraid Max would bite the judge and blow the contest, their cover and their best opportunity to solve the case. Frank would have seen the slightest inappropriate attention, or abuse on the part of the judicial examiner, who had every right to be doing what he was doing. I thought, at the time, it was much more akin to a parent overseeing the appropriate examination of a child by a doctor.

But then, in a post to the article about this alert mama, someone else mentioned that children would RELATE to and AS this dog. That, as the main character in the movie, this is the one they would most closely associate with and emulate. That's when the scene did indeed raise my red flag. Adult dog or not, children will relate to this talking dog – even though the humans in the movie do not understand the dog barks, we in the audience do. Max is the main character and written to be the critter with whom we most closely empathize, and see as the surrogate and gateway into this movie.

Further, thinking back to my six children's pediatric examinations, I can not recall any time when a routine exam necessitated a palpitation of their private parts.

So, in retrospect, I think the concerned mom is right.

I will give the writers the benefit of the doubt and say I believe it was simply an exercise of poor judgement and not maliciously intended. The rest of the movie was child friendly and without any agenda. It's a mismatched cop buddy movie ala Lethal Weapon with a dog and human as the frenemies who must learn to get along and respect each other. Both dog and human had cute female love interests without sexual reference or insinuation. The act of checking a dog's genitalia fit the plot, was somewhat funny and really is something that occurs in dog shows. On its surface, Max' required restraint during the inspection scene was no worse than a badly timed breaking of wind at a wedding or a bit of crude humor during a toast by an inebriated groomsman. Unfortunately, the potential bad effects of desensitizing children to inappropriate and unwanted touching are far more reaching than a tasteless joke or badly timed flattulence.

If the filmmakers are smart they will refilm this one scene with a more child friendly concept, such as having Max exercise this same self control when having his teeth examined during the course of the contest. (And yes, my children did occasionally try to bite our eternally patient pediatric dentist so this idea is perfectly relevant.) Precedent for going back to reshoot was set with All the Money in the World when all the scenes shot with the now disgraced predator Kevin Spacey as Getty were replaced with the legendary Christopher Plummer taking over the role. And this scene in Show Dogs is only one close up scene which could even be changed with some clever CGI and editing and a few mentions in others parts of the movie that could be easily revised or voiced over.

Meanwhile, I must bow to the wisdom of this attentive blogger mom and agree with her that, as currently shot with this one scene, Show Dogs, sadly, is NOT appropriate for their young child target demographic audience.