UGLY DOLLS

Voices of:  Kelly Clarkson     Nick Jonas     Janelle Monae     Emma Roberts

Wanda Sykes     Gabriel Iglesias     Blake Shelton     Leehon Wang

     UglyDolls is not really about being ugly; it’s about being different or outside the mold.  The message is worthwhile, but it takes a long time to get there, and the means of delivering it simply doesn’t measure up in terms of being interesting, entertaining, or inspiring.  On the contrary, it seemed to me that I was enduring an extended commercial made by advertising executives trying to sell the concept of inclusiveness (including messages like “Satisfaction guaranteed” along the way). The film has catchy tunes, but the story itself is without much creativity.  

     The “ugly” dolls are actually appealing, and Moxy (Clarkson) stands out for her perseverance and “we can do it” attitude.  It is rewarding to see her actively ignore naysayers—even among her friends and mentor, Ox (Shelton)—and press on towards her dream of going to the “big world” (being chosen to be a real child’s doll).  Her ever-loyal friends—Babo (Iglesia), Mandy (Monae), Wage (Sykes), and Lucky Bat (Wang)—stay with her all the way, even when they’re puzzled and questioning of her.

     Moxy’s main adversary in her endeavor—when she and her pals finally make it to the “Institute of Perfection”—is Lou (Jonas), the trainer of dolls, who claims they have to be perfect so they will be chosen and loved by a child in the “big world” and never be discarded—or in Lou’s terms, “recycled.”  Lou is the narcissistic idol of the dolls in perfection land who is impeccably coifed and dressed and always ready with a cutting remark about how others could improve their appearance.  (The focus is, of course, on physical appearance.) He refers to Moxy and her friends as “a little band of sock puppets” who could never “pass through the gauntlet;” that is, be accepted as a lovable doll.  He fits the idol mold in that all the dolls in his realm constantly look for his approval and attention.  Everyone wants to be special, of course.  And he can make that happen—unless, of course, the doll is hopeless.  Then it should be sent to recycling.  

     Director Kelly Asbury and her creative team perhaps aspired to the likes of Pinocchio,  Ratatouille, or Ponyo, but this production doesn’t measure up to the creative genius in those earlier works, primarily because the principles of inclusion are presented in such simplistic terms (i.e., focusing primarily on physical appearance).  Not as much was highlighted about how much quality of life was so much better in Uglytown before they lost confidence in themselves, than it was in the Perfection Institute.    

     The actors, Clarkson, Jonas, Monae, Sykes, Iglesias, Wang, Shelton, and Roberts are delightful in their renditions of the characters, and that is truly enjoyable, along with the artistic animations and sets.

There are much better movies for children than UglyDolls.

Grade:  D                                    By Donna R. Copeland

GOAT

Ben Schnetzer     Nick Jonas     Gus Halper     Danny Flaherty   Jake Picking     James Franco

          This is an unfortunate movie in some ways; that is, because it’s so sadistic, and I believe it’s not good for people to watch/enjoy such pictures.  In addition, hazing as rough as the Phi Sigma Mu Fraternity dishes out in the film Goat is illegal in most states.  Goat is based on Brad Land’s memoir published in 2004.  Much to my surprise, however, even though “hazing has been banned by 44 states and virtually all colleges and universities”, it is still a problem on college campuses, as shown by a recent comprehensive study (http://diverseeducation.com/article/10811/ reported on by the Associated Press, “Study: Hazing Still a Problem on Campus”, March 12, 2008).  “The study found the highest rates of hazing (74 percent) among members of varsity athletic teams and fraternities and sororities (73 percent). But rates also were high for participants in club sports (64 percent) and performing arts organizations (56 percent).”

          After reading this, it partially answered my question as to why Director and co-writer Andrew Neel and screenwriters David Gordon Green and Mike Roberts might have wanted to adapt Brad Land’s memoir about his experience of hazing at college into film.  Perhaps it is to make the public aware that despite the efforts to get rid of hazing, it’s still a problem on many campuses.  Neel also says in an interview at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival that “I’m just interested in the darker side of who we are” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkYiMSoEuVA - Interviewer, Micah van Hove of No Film School).  And his film is about the darker side of masculinity, despite its appearance in a setting of fraternal “brotherly love.”

          Land’s memoir not only describes the brutality of the hazing, but before that, he had been approached by two strangers after a party to give them a ride.   Unfortunately, they were up to no good and beat him severely, leaving him by the side of a country road and stealing his car.  He may have experienced post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result, but his own personality of passivity and denial and family issues kept him from getting help.  Instead, he followed his older, more socially competent brother Brett to college and pledged his fraternity. 

         The film opens at a raucous fraternity party to which Brett (Jonas) talked his brother into coming, hoping that he will impress the members so they will accept Brad (Schnetzer) into their chapter.  But Brad is more of a loner and leaves the party to go home.  It is just outside the door as he is nearing his car that he is approached to give the two strangers a ride.  After he recovers, as much as he’s going to, he pledges his brother’s fraternity, and goes through the hellacious week of pledging, where he and the other pledges undergo unspeakable tortures.  The Phi Sigma Mu members are shown to be champions of masculinity, but of the kind that is uncontrollably aggressive, brutal, foul-mouthed, and sadistic. 

          Needless to say, women hardly appear in the film, and when they do, they’re pictured primarily as sex objects.  In this and in other aspects—such as Brad’s personality weaknesses and ethical dilemmas faced only by Brett and the college—the film is one-dimensional.  Hence, not much time is given to insights about or rationale against hazing.  Shock value appears to be the intent here.

A shallow and purposeless look at hazing on college campuses.

Grade:  F                        By Donna R. Copeland

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Nick Jonas     Isabel Lucas     Dermot Mulroney     Kandyse McClure     Paul Sorvino

          Experience in television does not necessarily lead toward quality film production, and Careful What You Wish For illustrates that point.  Director Elizabeth Allen Rosenbaum and writer Chris Frisina have not escaped their roots in this production, which results in a mostly predictable story worthy of the small screen.  Young hunk Doug (Jonas) meets gorgeous, married next-door neighbor cum femme fatale Isabel (Lucas) and ends up being a suspect in a murder.

          The main actors are all caricatures of movie lore:  the naïve young man taken in by the poor helpless blonde beset upon by a mean husband, and a small-town sheriff who really knows more than the “outsider” insurance adjustor.  It’s not long before we figure out how the story will unfold.   Immediately we’re set up to hate Elliot (Mulroney), Isabel’s husband, in his hubris, low moral standards, and pure obnoxiousness.  Then we have the “purity” of young Doug trying to rescue the abused Isabel from her oafish husband.  We get to spend delicious moments riding on the torrid affair between two luscious bodies (notice, I said ‘bodies’; not persons) in thrall, knowing that the sword of Damocles will soon drop.  It drops in the death of a major character and an expected murder investigation. 

        The actors Jonas, Lucas, Mulroney, and Sorvino live up to their reputations as fine actors; it’s just too bad the script doesn’t come in with imaginative twists to make this a new or moving film experience.  The ending is meant to thrill, but since there was nothing to set it up, it was just another illogical twist.  I also had a problem with everyone ignoring Doug’s mother, an attorney who had good advice for her son, just as if she didn’t matter.

Careful what you choose to watch.

Grade:  D                 By Donna R. Copeland