Skip to main content

You Excelled Expectations, Charlie Brown!


In any of its forms, Charles Schulz’s Peanuts has never been particularly creative, well-written, or even, I’ll say it, funny. But it’s endured for sixty-five years off of its innocence, taste-of-childhood charm, and warm endearing characters.
The Peanuts Movie had the choice of either replicating those qualities as close as possible, or going down the corporate sell-out route of properties like Alvin and the Chipmunks and Smurfs. This was worrisome, as was the fact that the production company behind the movie, Blue Sky Studios, had yet to produce a decent film.
But you know what, the opening title reads The Peanuts Movie by Schulz, and that’s exactly what it is. This movie written in fact by Schulz’s son and grandson gets everything right by his legacy. It’s still not really creative, nor technically well-written, the plot’s pretty basic and whimsical with a moral you can guess a mile away, but it captures so fully the essence of his strip and of his characters that it’s instantly enjoyable and mesmerizing. The story centres on Charlie Brown falling for the new “little red-haired girl” in his class and doing everything he can through a series of episodes to get her to like him. At the same time his dog, Snoopy is writing his fantasies of being a World War I flying ace pursuing the dastardly Red Barron and rescuing the love of his life Fifi.
I’m not much of a Peanuts fan having only seen a handful of the specials and You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown, but even I recognize this as a much-used storyline in the series. However the film takes on a very new approach, creating new scenarios and obstacles for Charlie Brown along the way, while still retaining the strip’s timeless style and tone. Another part of that timelessness comes from the characters, and in addition to Charlie Brown and Snoopy, everyone’s favourites are here, including Woodstock, and Lucy, Linus, Sally, Schroeder, Pigpen, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, and Franklin, all of whom are just as memorable and endearing as ever. All of our favourite touches are still there from the kite-eating tree to the incomprehensible adult speech to Lucy’s five cent psychiatry booth. It truly feels like the natural film evolution of the comic strip, and maybe in some places goes above and beyond. The specials never struck me as all that funny, but this movie certainly was. It got out a lot of legitimate laughs.
It also goes above and beyond in its animation. It’s still unbelievable to me how the 3D animation was able to capture so well the 2D nature of the cartoon. It somehow still feels like a drawing, aided by small touches like squiggly lines and a stop-motion quality to the still energized movement; and it’s just so visually appealing. If I had one criticism it’s that the fantasy sequences tend to get too massive in scale for a world so rich in a sense of simplicity. But I can’t complain much, because the spirit is still there and these scenes do look superb.
I could say The Peanuts Movie is great. I could even say it’s wonderful. But the best and most complete word to describe it is adorable. It’s adorable how shamelessly it wears its heart on its sleeve, how instantaneously sentimental but enjoyable the characters and situation are. If you never were interested in or aren’t open to Peanuts, you’re not going to like this movie. But speaking as someone who only ever had a passing interest in the strip, for an hour and a half from the moment Schroeder first appeared playing the 20th Century Fox anthem, I had a big dumb grin on my face. And when a movie can do that, there’s really something special to it!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
8 comments
Read more