Ted (Will Farrell) is a good natured but simple tour guide at the Bloomsbury museum. With museum attendance no longer being sufficient enough to justify continued operation Mr. Bloomsbury (Dick Van Dyke) must reluctantly go with his son Junior's (David Cross) plan of selling the museum to be turned into a parking structure. Wanting to save the museum Ted proposes a last ditch effort to find the fabled Lost Idol of Zagawa to get a new attraction to draw in audiences. Bloomsbury agrees and Ted is off to Africa. Once there Ted's Idol falls short of expectations, and befriends a monkey who grows an affinity for Ted's yellow hat. Upon return home, Ted must now find a way to deal not only with a public hungry for an idol that doesn't match the description but also a monkey with a penchant for good natured chaos.
Based on the series of children's books by H.A. and Margaret Rey, a feature film adaptation had been in development in fits and starts since 1990 when Universal first acquired the rights. The movie went through many stages of development including live action versions that would've been helmed by The Flintstones movies director Brian Levant, and live action/animated hybrids that would've been directed by acclaimed director Brad Bird. The various iterations of the projects were rejected for various reasons with some scripts being rejected for being too farcical, while others such as the Brad Bird version were rejected for being too "dark" and "adult". The final product directed by veteran animator Matthew O'Callaghan and written by Ken Kaufman while not great, is good.
The movie as it starts sets itself as a very relaxed and easy going pace as we're first introduced to George in his jungle environment playing with various facets and creatures in it. George himself is well animated and smoothly jumps, swings, and runs through a mixture of both 2D backdrops and 3d rendered models which give a nice illusion of depth and space to his movements. George is also like his literary counterpart mute (save for monkey chittering) and conveys character through a wide array of expressions complete with a larger mouth and eyes than in the books which is fairly well done.
The movie's human characters are all very nice counterparts to George, Will Farrell dials back his usually manic performance in favor of a more subdued every man who's trying to handle more than he can carry and makes a sympathetic and likable lead, the rest of the cast are also filled out rather nicely with Drew Barrymore playing a kind teacher who often takes her class to Ted's museum because she has a crush on Ted and brings warmth and sincerity to her performance. David Cross is very funny playing the antagonist of the movie as the jealous son of Bloomsbury who while definitely taken schadenfreude in the museum closing, doesn't play the character as a mustache twirling villain and gives more humanity and weight to a character that could have easily been written to be a hate sink. Dick Van Dyke is, no surprise, a good world weary performance in museum owner Bloomsbury and while he doesn't get to do much, he does lend credibility to the movie with well delivered and authoritative presence.
The movie's plot is very standard. The plot of the movie takes bits and pieces from events and plots of the Curious George books and rearranges them into episodes of what's essentially a buddy film structure. The movie's faithful to the books with the art style being a more detailed and expressive take on the book's illustrations and aside from the slight change in art style Curious George looks and feels like it could have come from the world the books create. The movie also avoids much in the way of pop culture and topical jokes (quite wisely given how "well" those worked in Mike Meyer's The Cat in the Hat), and aside from a brief scene where Curious George references King Kong with a hologram projector the movie exists in a timeless world that bases itself off the time period the books were illustrated.
Curious George is a sweet and simple film, but with that in mind it's a film made more for children than it is a broader family audience. Curious George with its relaxed pace, sweet characters, an antagonist who isn't all that antagonistic, and even plot points like the third act "on the outs nadir" are very light which makes good viewing for younger children. But as much as I respect Curious George for maintaining the tone of the books, it doesn't have much in the way of challenge for its audience. This is by no means a bad thing as there's a lack of movies that respect children and are specifically targeted towards children and there really hasn't been a film like Curious George since Follow That Bird from the 80s. But much like Follow That Bird, Curious George isn't a movie designed to cast a wide net and that limits its appeal beyond it child demographic.
Curious George is a simple but sincere film that should appeal to children and those with fond memories of the books. George is well animated and brings his lovable mischief to life with expressive movements and facial expressions, and the cast all bring warmth to their performances. While the movie doesn't have much in it for adult audiences, it's inoffensive and avoids pandering so it should be a easy enough sit that will be likable enough.
Based on the series of children's books by H.A. and Margaret Rey, a feature film adaptation had been in development in fits and starts since 1990 when Universal first acquired the rights. The movie went through many stages of development including live action versions that would've been helmed by The Flintstones movies director Brian Levant, and live action/animated hybrids that would've been directed by acclaimed director Brad Bird. The various iterations of the projects were rejected for various reasons with some scripts being rejected for being too farcical, while others such as the Brad Bird version were rejected for being too "dark" and "adult". The final product directed by veteran animator Matthew O'Callaghan and written by Ken Kaufman while not great, is good.
The movie as it starts sets itself as a very relaxed and easy going pace as we're first introduced to George in his jungle environment playing with various facets and creatures in it. George himself is well animated and smoothly jumps, swings, and runs through a mixture of both 2D backdrops and 3d rendered models which give a nice illusion of depth and space to his movements. George is also like his literary counterpart mute (save for monkey chittering) and conveys character through a wide array of expressions complete with a larger mouth and eyes than in the books which is fairly well done.
The movie's human characters are all very nice counterparts to George, Will Farrell dials back his usually manic performance in favor of a more subdued every man who's trying to handle more than he can carry and makes a sympathetic and likable lead, the rest of the cast are also filled out rather nicely with Drew Barrymore playing a kind teacher who often takes her class to Ted's museum because she has a crush on Ted and brings warmth and sincerity to her performance. David Cross is very funny playing the antagonist of the movie as the jealous son of Bloomsbury who while definitely taken schadenfreude in the museum closing, doesn't play the character as a mustache twirling villain and gives more humanity and weight to a character that could have easily been written to be a hate sink. Dick Van Dyke is, no surprise, a good world weary performance in museum owner Bloomsbury and while he doesn't get to do much, he does lend credibility to the movie with well delivered and authoritative presence.
The movie's plot is very standard. The plot of the movie takes bits and pieces from events and plots of the Curious George books and rearranges them into episodes of what's essentially a buddy film structure. The movie's faithful to the books with the art style being a more detailed and expressive take on the book's illustrations and aside from the slight change in art style Curious George looks and feels like it could have come from the world the books create. The movie also avoids much in the way of pop culture and topical jokes (quite wisely given how "well" those worked in Mike Meyer's The Cat in the Hat), and aside from a brief scene where Curious George references King Kong with a hologram projector the movie exists in a timeless world that bases itself off the time period the books were illustrated.
Curious George is a sweet and simple film, but with that in mind it's a film made more for children than it is a broader family audience. Curious George with its relaxed pace, sweet characters, an antagonist who isn't all that antagonistic, and even plot points like the third act "on the outs nadir" are very light which makes good viewing for younger children. But as much as I respect Curious George for maintaining the tone of the books, it doesn't have much in the way of challenge for its audience. This is by no means a bad thing as there's a lack of movies that respect children and are specifically targeted towards children and there really hasn't been a film like Curious George since Follow That Bird from the 80s. But much like Follow That Bird, Curious George isn't a movie designed to cast a wide net and that limits its appeal beyond it child demographic.
Curious George is a simple but sincere film that should appeal to children and those with fond memories of the books. George is well animated and brings his lovable mischief to life with expressive movements and facial expressions, and the cast all bring warmth to their performances. While the movie doesn't have much in it for adult audiences, it's inoffensive and avoids pandering so it should be a easy enough sit that will be likable enough.