If I have to chose between seeing a film because of its critical reputation or seeing it because it looks like fun, most of the time I'll take the fun one. (Not having to chose at all would be the ideal option, but this isn't an ideal world.) Since I'm an animation buff, I already had the "Jimmy Neutron" movie on my "must-see" list, and this week seemed like a good time to see it. Yeah, it was fun. The question is, was it ENOUGH fun?
As befits a movie about a boy genius, JN:BG shows off a lot of intelligence. There's a lot of wit, both visual (most of Jimmy's homemade gadgetry) and verbal (well, I liked the "Blair Witch" reference, anyway). The characters and objects are animated like puppets, but it's senseless to complain about it since this was so obviously an artistic choice. On the other hand, the outer-space sequences were genuinely wondrous. (More about this later.)
As for the characters and the plot, that's where things get sticky. The story idea (aliens kidnap all the adults in Retroville, and while the kids have fun for a while they realize it's up to them to rescue their parents) is intriguing, but its execution feels like a genre exercise, giving the characters plot coupons rather than choices. The characters themselves come off as either comic relief (Jimmy's friends Carl and Sheen) or plot functionaries (the villains, Jimmy's parents, and his nemesis-turned-ally Cindy Vortex), with only Jimmy himself showing much individuality. (This is not intended as a criticism of the voice cast, by the way; everyone from Debi Derryberry on down does a fine job.) Most of the character detailing occurs early on (Jimmy's preparations for school, Cindy's tai-chi-and-soda-pop exercises), but there's not enough of it.
About those space visuals: I noticed that two Hugo-winning artists, Bob Eggleton and Don Maitz, were credited as "conceptual designers." This indicates to me that more thought went into JN:BG's visuals than its plot. (By the way, I don't mean to slight the other artists who worked on JN:BG by singling out the two Hugo-winners, these are just names I know and I'm familiar with their work. I suppose it's too late to hope for an "Art of JN:BG" book by now, alas.) The writers-director John A. Davis, plus Steve Oedekerk, David N. Weiss, and J. David Stern-have a substantial list of credits between them, but none of them appear to have much experience with either space movies or adventure movies. Not that their conception of the movie was bad, but they let the plot swallow up the characters without giving much back in return.
Still, even if JN:BG is no "Monsters Inc." or "Shrek," it does compare favorably to "Osmosis Jones" and "Atlantis." However, if I haven't scared you off and you still want to see it, you might wait for its run in your local dollar theater.
As befits a movie about a boy genius, JN:BG shows off a lot of intelligence. There's a lot of wit, both visual (most of Jimmy's homemade gadgetry) and verbal (well, I liked the "Blair Witch" reference, anyway). The characters and objects are animated like puppets, but it's senseless to complain about it since this was so obviously an artistic choice. On the other hand, the outer-space sequences were genuinely wondrous. (More about this later.)
As for the characters and the plot, that's where things get sticky. The story idea (aliens kidnap all the adults in Retroville, and while the kids have fun for a while they realize it's up to them to rescue their parents) is intriguing, but its execution feels like a genre exercise, giving the characters plot coupons rather than choices. The characters themselves come off as either comic relief (Jimmy's friends Carl and Sheen) or plot functionaries (the villains, Jimmy's parents, and his nemesis-turned-ally Cindy Vortex), with only Jimmy himself showing much individuality. (This is not intended as a criticism of the voice cast, by the way; everyone from Debi Derryberry on down does a fine job.) Most of the character detailing occurs early on (Jimmy's preparations for school, Cindy's tai-chi-and-soda-pop exercises), but there's not enough of it.
About those space visuals: I noticed that two Hugo-winning artists, Bob Eggleton and Don Maitz, were credited as "conceptual designers." This indicates to me that more thought went into JN:BG's visuals than its plot. (By the way, I don't mean to slight the other artists who worked on JN:BG by singling out the two Hugo-winners, these are just names I know and I'm familiar with their work. I suppose it's too late to hope for an "Art of JN:BG" book by now, alas.) The writers-director John A. Davis, plus Steve Oedekerk, David N. Weiss, and J. David Stern-have a substantial list of credits between them, but none of them appear to have much experience with either space movies or adventure movies. Not that their conception of the movie was bad, but they let the plot swallow up the characters without giving much back in return.
Still, even if JN:BG is no "Monsters Inc." or "Shrek," it does compare favorably to "Osmosis Jones" and "Atlantis." However, if I haven't scared you off and you still want to see it, you might wait for its run in your local dollar theater.