Reviews

I happen to quite like this series (thus far) as does my family and yet I can see why some people have a problem with it. First a bit of background: both my wife and I grew up with Scooby-Doo and our kids independently decided they liked the various instances of the show as well so, for good or bad, I've seen probably 99% of the Scooby oeuvre.

Certainly it should first be noted that this series is a "reboot" and not inherently placed in temporal or any other relationship to previous series. On the other hand, it is also often parodies what has come before. This has been done to some extent in the live action movies and the direct to video animated movies but in the present case, the basic world that the characters inhabit is more of an alternate reality. In the original series the chief fantastical element was that Scooby could talk; the present series supposes a town where monsters are big business and the kids get in trouble for SOLVING mysteries, for example. Structurally the show is more about action and character arcs with the mystery element largely on the second tier. In could be argued that the mysteries in Pup Named Scooby-Doo were a bit less obvious than some in S-D:MI (but the obviousness is also part of the parody, e.g., the gator episode).

As to the characters, Fred, Daphne and Velma all are pretty different from previous incarnations, as is Scooby who evidences far more social insight and complex dialog. Shaggy has never really varied much series to series and nothing much changes here (One has to go back to his very earliest existence to find him more adept and only mildly fearful). In general, these are not realistic or even particularly functional characters; great role models, they are not. If you are looking for that, the direct to video movies will be more your cup of tea. But if you are open to a different mythology with a more oddball yet somewhat more adult approach, you might find it a cool take.

I personally like the animation style and think the direction is on par with the upper echelon of current animated action shows. There's a bit of an irony in that the original Scooby-Doo was created in response to parental pressure against violence in animated shows of the 60's (e.g., Space Ghost, Jonny Quest) while this show is probably the most dark and violent Scooby yet. I guess things have come full circle.

In summary, I'd say give it a chance for a few episodes but if it isn't to your liking and you want something more classic/less dark/more realistic, I believe they are on a schedule of at least one new direct to video movie each year. Further, it appears we can probably count on new series productions for another 40+ years so you can always wait for the next one...

Appearing on India's version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, 18 year old Jamal is one step away from winning the grand prize of 20 million Rupees. Millionaire-style, a question is posed: How did he do it? A) He's lucky, B) He's a genius, C) He cheated, D) It is written…

It quickly becomes clear that the host of the show and the local constabulary believe the answer is C. Jamal is a slumdog, perhaps a step or two above the Untouchables, but certainly not much more than that. How could such a cipher be the very first contestant in the history of the show to reach the final question? Impossible without illegal means, or is it? The movie then reverts largely to flashbacks of Jamal's life and his experiences with his brother Salim and soon their female compatriot Latika. We are introduced to Jamal and Salim as young boys, while Mumbai was still Bombay, and the review of the past continues to a time within months of Jamal's appearance on the show. Turns out, why he is on the show is about as important as how he has done so well…

Slumdog Millionaire falls almost exactly in between Hollywood and Bollywood sensibilities. The run time of two hours is a bit long for Hollywood standards but short for Bollywood. While there are no true musical numbers (with the minor exception of the closing credits), the soundtrack is heavily featured (and was quite loud in the Arclight theatre where I saw it). The Bollywood chapter-like structure is in evidence but the pacing is far more Hollywood action/adventure. It is quite the unique creature and that, in itself, makes for interesting viewing.

As to where the movie succeeds and falters, it is more of the former than the latter. Danny Boyle most definitely deserves consideration for Best Director this year. He sometimes dances close to the edge of music video cliché but manages to avoid triteness based upon the images and set pieces he selects. His rapid cut modes create exhilaration rather than confusion even when subtitles are required (during the scenes with the youngsters – apparently their English just wasn't sufficient). The acting, overall, is more than adequate, though in this regard, the movie might be benefiting from our lack of experience with Indian emotional expression and body language such that we have more difficulty judging realism; the few American/English tourist characters in the movie come off flat and lame, most likely purposefully but certainly not realistically. As with potentially the acting, the writing clearly does come off better in translation to a foreign tongue. With expectations dampened and exotica abounding, simplistic scenes absorb dramatic weight and play heftier than they would in the middling Hollywood fare they would normally inhabit. On the positive side, the script does manage the majority flashback structure well and rarely creates doubt as to where the story is at a given moment. The greatest weakness is the highly elementary fable plot but worse movies than this one have been forgiven for such things.

When the movie was over, I thought it was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time, however, I am not sure this reaction should be taken for granted. My wife was, in fact, quite upset at the movie. The main thrust of her critique is valid, I believe, namely the movie does trade upon some pretty horrific events, many of which happen to children, in service of generating positive feelings in the audience. Obviously not the first movie to ever do this but, if one is sensitive to such things, this movie may not be "entertainment." Perhaps disturbingly, critics may be inured to such thinking and the average American film-goer may very well be less responsive to the suffering of alien others hence the almost universally positive reviews. Thus a caveat: if you are particularly sensitive to bad things happening to children or extreme poverty in general and you easily empathize across cultural lines, you may wish to think twice before committing to this film.

I happened upon this series being run on Animal Planet (AP) while I was working out at my gym (Turns or to be a six-part, 3 hr total, BBC series from 2004; I only saw 3 and 1/2 episodes). This represents a bit of a caveat as my expectations were probably pretty low. Nonetheless, I was impressed enough to extend my workout because I found it more interesting than most of the stuff one runs across on AP/Discovery/NeoGeo, etc.

Each episode focuses upon one natural phenomenon of massive animal populations. In all cases, these are vertebrates (2 each of fish, birds, and mammals) and their related predators. Interestingly though, the sense of numerosity that is presented rivals that for swarms of insects that often stand in as the "unstoppable force." The narration is decent if, at times, overly dramatic. And there is, of course, the tendency toward anthropomorphism (e.g., sharks and dolphins consciously working together against prey) but that is to be expected to some degree; as viewers we generally expect a narrative that jibes with humanistic behavioral themes anyway. Regardless, what makes this series more interesting is the use of CGI and animation to emphasize the animal behavior. Okay, so it owes quite a lot to "The Matrix" but it is still quite effective. I doubt I would have found the CGI so relevant if it hadn't been paired with some great, at times amazing, live action shots. I was especially impressed with the above aerial shots of bat migration, the hawk/bat and snake/bat predation shots ("The Exodus") and especially the underwater dolphin, shark, seal and gannet feeding frenzy against the sardines ("The Deep"). I should point out though that when I Googled this series, I did find production notes that indicate that some of the sequences of what one might assume are actual animals are perhaps CGI replications of flocking behavior.

Overall, the narrative managed to overcome the incessant, excessively long and common commercial breaks on AP. I would expect the series to be more effective without such breaks. It would probably be enough of an attention-grabber to keep a high school biology class quiet - no mean task.

Parents should note the PG rating is to be acknowledged. Several sequences directly feature the reality of predator/prey relationships and other animal deaths. For example, the wildebeest episode ("The Crossing") shows the tragic aftermath of a river crossing which leaves numerous animals dead or dying having been trampled by their panicked brethren.