Now I don't feel so bad for thinking Jack Black was the replacement Chris Farley when he first started doing movies.

There's a screening of this next weekend. I still owe my 2-year-old son a movie, after taking his twin sister to see Horton Hears a Who! a couple months ago. Anybody know if this movie would be suitable? In the U.S., it's rated PG for "sequences of martial arts action", and in B.C., it's rated G for "violence; may frighten young children", which is further described as:

# Approximately eight scenes of violence depicting fisticuffs and martial arts fighting;
# Scenes depicting dark imagery and characters that may be frightening to young children.

As a point of comparison, my daughter was fine with Horton (which had some dark bits, no? are they comparable to the dark bits in Panda?), but she did shrink in fear during the Ice Age 3 trailer that played before the film, when the dinosaur roars at the end (which sounded LOUD on the theatre's speakers).

I should probably also mention that I took my kids to see Horton and, before that, The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything at matinees early on Monday afternoons, when the theatres were virtually empty. I don't know whether they'd react any differently to being in a crowded preview screening.

I'm taking my two older boys to see it on Thursday. Is that too late to let you know?

SDG wrote:
: I'm taking my two older boys to see it on Thursday. Is that too late to let you know?

Not at all! My screening is on Saturday morning.

This isn't evaluation or spoiler, so I think I can post it here.

Kung Fu Panda has a few scary moments, notably in the prison holding the villain, and some menacing posturing throughout. The level of menace is maybe comparable to the more menacing scenes in Lilo & Stitch, say, although Lilo doesn't have any actual bad guys.

What is really notable is the sheer intensity -- not realism, but intensity -- of the cartoon violence. This is a real kung fu movie -- played for laughs, yes, and kung-fu movie cartoony rather than realistic -- but still, you really feel these shots.

When Po the Panda falls out the sky and slams into the ground, the camera falls with him, and you ride it all the way to the ground, wham. And that's before the kung fu really starts in earnest. There are even moments where the screen almost subliminally flashes white after a blow to simulate the effect of being knocked silly.

My boys (7 and 10) really liked it, BTW. (I don't think that's giving away too much either.)

Due to their numerous and generally low-quality nature, I have been avoiding most CGI animated movies for a while. However, the commercials for this one (with their obvious Drunken Master homages) have me curious. Who knows, maybe it will be good.

I've been holding off on commenting because I didn't see the whole movie - I saw about 40 minutes of the workprint version when that was being screened - but I'll just say, definitely don't write it off.

I watched the "HBO First Look" for this film and it was promising if a bit predictable. The quality of the animation looked very good.

My pet peeve, of course, is that they seemed to be compelled to pick celebrities rather than great voice actors. (In my mind, that transition, perhaps, marks the death of traditional animation, not the tools.) The Jackie Chan voiceovers looked, well, pathetic. Of course, most kids are being raised to care, a lot, about celebrities and who's "hot", etc., but I really try to do everything reasonable to distance us from that mindset. Apparently, some people would listen to Jolie reading the phone book.

I'll decide whether to take the family based on what ends up in kids-in-mind and Common Sense Media (and Screen-It, but that's subscription based now). I didn't trust Andrew Adamson to direct a film appropriate for children [which he's never done, IMHO]; should I trust Jack Black" to voice one? I certainly don't trust Dreamworks Animation, which has consistently chosen to scrape the bottoms of many barrels to come up with the dreck in its dossier. (I trust...Pixar. That's it.)

(FWIW, CSM has evaluated the "Kung Fu Fighting" song here.)

So Peter, did you take any kids? What did you think of the age-appropriateness question?

Nicolosi:

Ahh...but, ironically, Dreamworks animation has had a film in our Top100 (The Prince of Egypt), a feat that has eluded even the house of Pixar (assuming we're not limiting ourselves to pure CG).

Of course, one could argue that PoE shouldn't automatically be considered a children's film merely because it's animated, whereas all the Pixar films (possibly with the exception of the Rat), are fairly clearly and primarily for kids.

FWIW, on Ebert & Roeper, they (Roeper & Phillips) both agreed that KFP will be have a "permanent place in family DVD collections right alongside Pixar classics," indicating their expectation of the film's success and an enduring appeal to kids, with parental approval. I wouldn't be surprised if that should end up being true, but not for the same reason that those Pixar films are so consistently good and beloved. There's something substantial and weighty lurking within most Pixar films, but the only material I've heard about at the heart of KFP is "we are all diamonds in the rough" and/or "believe in yourself", blah blah blah.

Isn't Shrek a good parallel here? It has a message, but it was popular mainly because of a wisecracking donkey and its banter with an ogre. I imagine KFP will be similarly silly, although the early positive buzz has surprised me. The trailers did not instill confidence in this project.

Oh, that's being waaay to kind to Shrek.

SDG wrote:
: So Peter, did you take any kids? What did you think of the age-appropriateness question?

I decided to see it on my own, and to take my boy to it later if I thought he could handle it. And... I think I won't, partly because of the "intensity" you referred to above, and partly because we're trying to get him to STOP hitting and shoving people right now and I'm not sure taking him to a martial-arts movie is going to help in that regard. (The hitting and shoving is sometimes meant in fun, and I suppose I encourage him sometimes by laughing and making wide-eyed faces at him whenever he whacks me across the chest etc., but he doesn't seem to realize when people might NOT appreciate it, e.g. when my wife is nursing the newborn.)

BTW, did you stay for the scene AFTER the end credits? Unlike most, it's not a gag or joke-based, but it ties into some of the film's themes instead. (I am studiously avoiding offering an OPINION as to how it does this, here. Cursed embargoes.)

Alan Thomas wrote:
: There's something substantial and weighty lurking within most Pixar films, but the only material I've heard about at the heart of KFP is "we are all diamonds in the rough" and/or "believe in yourself", blah blah blah.

There's a little more to it than that, I think, though it does fall in that general ballpark. You could probably draw a parallel of sorts between, say, lines like "There is no good news or bad news, only news" and "There is no secret ingredient" -- it kind of taps into that distinction between objectivity and (inter)subjectivity that I've always found interesting.

BTW, if it takes three items to make a "trend", is there another kid-oriented kung-fu movie in the pipeline a la this one and The Forbidden Kingdom?

No, I didn't. PM/Email me and let me know!

My review.

FWIW, with an estimated $60 million this weekend, Kung Fu Panda has had the best opening weekend of any cartoon that was neither [1] a sequel or spin-off nor [2] produced by Pixar.

Here are the films that have done better, grouped by studio and ranked from biggest opening to not-so-biggest:

Dreamworks:
• Shrek the Third (2007) -- $121.6 million
• Shrek 2 (2004) -- $108 million
Fox:
• The Simpsons Movie (2007) -- $74 million
• Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006) -- $68 million
Pixar:
• The Incredibles (2004) -- $70.5 million
• Finding Nemo (2003) -- $70.3 million
• Monsters Inc. (2001) -- $62.6 million
• Cars (2006) -- $60.1 million
• Toy Story 2 (1999) -- $57.4 million

I'm including those last two examples just in case Kung Fu Panda's actuals turn out to be a few million lower than the estimated earnings. They could also be higher, though. $60,000,000 is an awfully round number.

Sorry for double-posting this. There were many typos in the first version, so I decided to delete it and edit it off-line....

------------------

I was very pleased with this film. To my own surprise, I didn't find much objectionable in the film's message. Based on reviews, I had anticipated a rather blah "believe in yourself" theme, but I just didn't see it, certainly not as anything prevalent. I did find messages...

...that affirmed the role of Providence, something or Someone in play in our lives, something beyond ourselves, with a plan. ("There are no coincidences.")

...that each individual is uniquely gifted to serve and play his or her part in a larger plan. There were parts that--while clearly NOT referencing Scripture in any way--nevertheless resonated with it. Consider elements of the "peach tree" message and the theme of 1 Corinthians 12:14-20 ("14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many..."). I was particularly pleased that the panda didn't learn to fight like a tiger, leopard, mantis, or anything else. One of the questions I had going in to the film was "what will the panda be like after he masters kung fu?" This was addressed very well, especially in the final fight. I loved that the nerve strikes didn't work on him, just as the acupuncture didn't--echoing the idea that providence has plans for us we may not understand and that what we consider weakness could be a strength.) For the panda to play his part, he didn't need to become something "other", but rather to grow into his unique gifts, putting them into the service of others. (Although I do think it also would have made sense for more teamwork in that final fight. There was, in places, a bit too much of an emphasis on individualism.)

...that authority is to be respected, even if we don't understand it. This was diluted a bit by the IMHO occasional disrespect for Po's (duck) father, who was basically a goofball. This oversight left the distinct impression that kung fu is more worthwhile than cooking (tofu OR noodles), when a better message would have been that all gifts serve together--1 Corinthians 12, again. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the inevitable sequel dealing with Po's family situation, probably involving a mysterious colony of hidden pandas.

...that discipline from an authority is a gift to be welcomed, despite temporary awkwardness or confusion. (This is what we discussed on the way home.)

The film felt a little incomplete in places. It was as if they spent all their energy on the martial-arts elements and didn't have enough left to flesh out everything else. While all the bunnies were quite funny at times, I started to feel that this was done to simplify (and speed up production of) the village.

I just got back from seeing this, and urged my son to stay to the end, expecting a joke or something. But he said, "I GOTTA PEE!" so we left.

So Peter, can you let us in on it a little? Embargoes lifted? Wrap it in spoiler-hidey-black stuff?

The players' names have been changed, but a tongue-in-cheek answer to your question is buried here.

SDG wrote:
: The players' names have been changed, but a tongue-in-cheek answer to your question is buried here.

Or, for those who have a different posts-per-page setting in their accounts, here.

But yeah, that's the one. (Did you go back and see the film again, SDG?)

Oh, and FWIW: After slightly less than three weeks in theatres, Kung Fu Panda is only $35 million away from passing Madagascar to be the biggest non-Shrek DreamWorks cartoon of all time.

Oh, thanks. I always forget that.


I didn't. I relied on the synopsis you wrote in your email to me... and as soon as I read it again, I was struck by the [WALL*E SPOILER] convergence of green-shoot imagery in the closing shots of WALL*E (before the credits) and Kung Fu Panda (after the credits)... and, given the before-credits / after-credits cross-franchise humor already in play in that thread, I couldn't resist the joke.

Thanks, SDG, I'll read the spoilered bit after I've seen the film.

In other news ...

- - -

Kung Fu Panda Writer Can’t Stand Katzenberg
Dan Harmon, one of the writers of Kung Pu Panda, has written an entertaingly long rant about how much he disliked working on the film and particularly how much he disliked working with Jeffrey Katzenberg. Actually I’m not sure what’s more amusing: that Harmon hated working with Katzenberg so much or that he’s so damn clueless about the animation process. To begin the piece, Harmon expresses incredulity that some animated films are written with storyboards and not scripts: “First they storyboard the entire film. That is the first step. Not kidding. No writers, no script, just a story, and an entire film drawn on pieces of paper.”
Amid Amidi, Cartoon Brew, June 25

Well, I finally got around to seeing it. Glad I saw it on the big screen, as the lush visuals, the stylish design, and the inventive action sequences were captivating. My favorite minutes were the opening dream-sequence. Brilliant style.

Cute characters, but none of them struck me as anything particularly special. The character I found most interesting was the big turtle, as he had a certain subtle complexity of expression that I enjoyed. And Po's goose "father" had some great expressions too. I liked that the kung fu master wasn't an all-knowing Yoda or a Mr. Miyagi, but somebody with a few lessons of his own to learn. The action sequences were dazzling. Wish those sequence planners had been involved with Indy IV, a film that could have used more creativity and less absurdity.

But the film is remarkable more for the common pitfalls that it avoids than for any substantial storytelling. Do kids really need yet another movie in which the substantial theme is "You can be The One" and "Don't let anybody tell you that you can't do whatever you set your mind to"? This isn't a story I'd care to go back to again and again, and there were no moments of real emotion for me, save for that quiet, graceful little note at the conclusion of the end-credits. When it comes to zany animated comedies, I much prefer The Emperor's New Groove, which had a similarly courageous visual creativity, but the story took me in so many unexpected directions. And the substance of storytelling we find in films like Miyazaki's, or in Pixar's best work, leave Kung Fu Panda feeling flimsy. Not as flimsy as, say, Madagascar... but close.

And what's with the resolution of the concluding duel?

This falls into the library full of animated movies that seem to think we need nonstop witty banter to be entertained. And if entertaining is all they want to be, well, mission accomplished. Extra points for some moments of impressive visual grandeur. But halfway through the drive home, the folks in my car were already busy discussing other things, and the movie was behind us. (Meanwhile, a certain other recent release continues to haunt me, and continues to fuel passionate conversations about "soul" and "awe.")

If not today, then by tomorrow, Kung Fu Panda will have passed Madagascar (2005, $193.6 million) to become the top-grossing non-Shrek cartoon in DreamWorks history. After that, it only has a few million bucks to go before it passes Happy Feet (2006, $198 million) to become the top-grossing cartoon that was neither a Shrek movie nor a product of the Disney empire.

Technically, it is already ahead of a couple of Pixar films, i.e. Toy Story (1995, $191.8 million) and A Bug's Life (1998, $162.8 million). But those films came out in a whole other era. The original Toy Story was, in fact, the top-grossing film of its year. And A Bug's Life was #4 for its year, behind Saving Private Ryan, Armageddon and There's Something About Mary. Nowadays? Ratatouille grossed $206.4 million last year -- more than either of those first two Pixar films, strictly speaking -- and it didn't even make the year's top ten.

As it stands right now, Kung Fu Panda is easily the #3 film of 2008 so far, behind only Iron Man and Indiana Jones.

Overstreet wrote:
: And what's with the resolution of the concluding duel?

I wasn't entirely sure what happened there, myself. I thought maybe he incapacitated the villain by making him have a really big fart. Did the characters actually talk about vaporization? If they did, I might have missed it, or written it off as metaphorical, or something.

Re: "failures of imagination", there was also the rather perfunctory way that a certain character "dies" at a certain point in the story for the express purpose of leaving our heroes to fend for themselves ... and without really considering whether perhaps he COULD have stuck around just a little while longer.

: (Meanwhile, a certain other recent release continues to haunt me, and continues to fuel passionate conversations about "soul" and "awe.")

Among other things.

The Academic Hack:



I don't remember ever feeling so distracted by the frivolity of attaching big-name actors to voice work. Cisinski's right here... what was the point of bringing in Jackie Chan to play the monkey when the monkey has... how many lines? I can't remember any of them.

Why not bring in actors who will create memorable characters through their voice work, instead of distract us into guessing, "Gee... that sounds like... oh, who is it?!"

I completely agree with that criticism, especially with regards to Chan.

If acting talent went with vocal talent, fine (e.g. Horton), but in this case, it was pretty bad.

With a few exceptions - Black for example - I had the same thought about the expensive list of voices.

Do you think it was a marketing choice - as though just the voices of these actors would bring in the public? Or do you think it was an actual artistic choice?

Denny

DreamWorks Animation in talks for "Panda" sequel
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc Chief Executive Jeffrey Katzenberg said on Wednesday the movie studio was in talks to make a sequel to box office hit "Kung Fu Panda" and could make an announcement within two months. . . .
The original "Madagascar" in 2005, which tells of animals on the loose from New York's Central Zoo, had been DreamWorks Animation's biggest hit for a non-sequel movie with $530 million in global ticket sales until being passed by "Panda" in recent weeks. . . .
Reuters, August 13

'Panda,' sequel share video bow
In what is believed to be an industry first, Paramount Home Entertainment is bundling its upcoming home video release of "Kung Fu Panda" with a direct-to-video companion film and will release the package on a Sunday, Nov. 9, instead of the traditional Tuesday. . . .
The companion film, "Secrets of the Furious Five," is slugged, "The 'Kung Fu Panda' story continues." The film delves into the backstories of the "Kung Fu Panda" characters, with all-new animation and Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman reprising their respective voice roles as Po and Master Shifu.
What Paramount is calling the "Pandamonium Double Pack" will retail for less than $25. A single disc of "Kung Fu Panda" only also will be made available, priced below $20.
Hollywood Reporter, September 15

My Kung Fu Panda review now features a "DVD note" briefly reviewing Secrets of the Furious Five.