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!

Comments

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...

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....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...