Boss Baby (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

'm pretty sure not too many people here went to this flick or would admit that they did go to it. I wasn't going to go and see it; because the trailer didn't do a lot for me. I went to see FF8, but I didn't want to stand in a line-up so I went to see this flick instead.

Surprisingly, the film was more clever than I would have given it credit for based on the trailers I saw. At least the first 2/3rds of it was actually done well. It fell apart somewhat in the last third or so, when the story turned into a conventional one of revenge.

I saw in it 3D and the 3D was pretty decent with a few pop-out effects sprinkled throughout the film. The pop-out was done well and felt organic to the story. It wasn't just randomly done to provide pop-out for its own sake. I'd probably get this on 3D if the price was right, mostly for the first half or so of the film plus the 3D effects. I think this would look pretty good in 3D on the OLED set.​

 

[Alf S]

This one is listed on our "rent it cheap" list of shows.

 

[Malcolm R]

I definitely want to see it, but will wait for the blu release.

3D in Dreamworks animation is usually pretty good. One of the better 3D films I've seen was their Monsters vs. Aliens, years ago.

 

[Edwin-S]

One thing I have noticed is how 2D animation is starting to find its way back into more of these CG animated films which, to me, is a good thing, since 2D allows for more stylizing than the CGI appears to do. I find that CG animation has a homogenizing effect on animation in that the films end up looking the same texture-wise, no matter what film studio is putting them out. The "2D" in this flick was one of the highlights and just made me want to see someone go back and release a really well done 2D animated feature again.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Saw it today - bargain Tuesday at Regal! - and thought it was a mess.

Mix of cheap kiddie humor with adult gags that come out of nowhere - and I don't just mean references like "cookies are for closers". The movie includes some semi-risque jokes for a film like that.

The movie suffers from a radical lack of internal consistency. It ends with an "explanation" that seems to excuse all these leaps, but it feels like "Bobby Ewing in the shower" to me so the finale just seems like a weak attempt to let the filmmakers have their cake and eat it, too.

A few laughs here or there, and the 3D was great, but the movie plods and goes nowhere. Not funny or clever enough to make up for its multiple flaws...

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Just from the trailers, I have been baffled at the premise for this movie. Is there any kind of rational explanation in the movie for why the baby can talk and has the mind of an adult? Or is it just only in there because it's a kids movie, and just like animals can talk in other kids movies with no explanation.

 

[Edwin-S]

There is an explanation for why he can talk. Whether it is rational or not is up to the viewer. I suspect C. Jacobsen would say no and I would say yes.

Edit: On the other hand is rationality important in a film that has a baby dresses in a business suit, carrying a briefcase, and talking about killing for a sushi?

 

[Hanson]

One thing I have noticed is how 2D animation is starting to find its way back into more of these CG animated films which, to me, is a good thing, since 2D allows for more stylizing than the CGI appears to do. I find that CG animation has a homogenizing effect on animation in that the films end up looking the same texture-wise, no matter what film studio is putting them out. The "2D" in this flick was one of the highlights and just made me want to see someone go back and release a really well done 2D animated feature again.

Hmm... after being spoiled by the photo-realistic backgrounds, hair, and fur in Zootopia and Moana, Boss Baby seemed... cheap looking in comparison. I was never a fan of the Dreamworks style, but Boss Baby looks like the work of an animation shop based in Germany or Russia. It's unimpressive.

There are some laughs and a couple of clever touches here and there, but whereas Zootopia felt like they had hours and hours of material and distilled it into a concentrate of jokes and plot, Boss Baby felt like it was a hour, tops, and they stretched it out to fill the 97 minute run time.

It's too bad they ran the "Cookies are for closers" line into the ground before he movie opened. I think I would have chortled at that the first time -- after having heard it too many times beforehand, all it elicited from me was a groan.

 

[Edwin-S]

I look at the animation quality on a film to film basis and try to take into account the budget. I try not to compare other animation houses to Pixar. DreamWorks animation has been going through a lot.of difficulties lately. I almost expect the whole company to be shuttered as the new owners are looking off pieces of it. DreamWorks Oriental is being shuttered and, I believe, the India unit is gone. PDI, the core unit, where DWA got its start from is gone. It was shut down even before the Katzenberg sold what was left to, I believe, Comcast. The new owners are gutting what was left. I don't doubt the animation quality is going to drop with all of the cutting going on.

Still, I find the tendency to compare any CG picture to Pixar kind of amusing. For example, a commenter on Cartoon Brew was criticizing a little known film called Spark for not having Pixar quality animation. Spark was a Korean/Canada co-pro. It probably had the commissary budget of Pixar's Inside Out to work with, but the animation quality should have had the polish and depth of a studio that spends 150+ million on a film. I just had to laugh at the ridiculousness of his criticism.

Edit: I should add "or Disney".

 

[Hanson]

I didn't know that Dreamworks Animation was in such dire financial straits. I had always thought they were on the same tier as Pixar and Disney due to the How To Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda series. Those movies do not have that "minor leagues" look that Boss Baby does.

Incidentally, I thought that the little seen Storks was a funnier and better movie than Boss Baby, if you're into CGI animated movies about where babies come from.

 

[Edwin-S]

Overall, Storks probably was the better of the two films when it comes to the handling of its premise of where babies come from; however, to be fair, where babies come from really wasn't the crux of Boss Baby.

In BB the arrival of the kid was weirdly done, considering they show the mother as pregnant.

I'm not saying BB was a great film. It isn't, but at least it wasn't as bad as HOME. That film, to date, is truly DWA's nadir.

 

[Edwin-S]

DWA is having its difficulties, but Universal/Comcast did announce a sequel to TROLLS. They also scrapped a promising original project called "Larrikins". Looks like they have decided to take the safe route and green light a sequel to a fairly average film.

The creator of "Larrikins", an Australian comic named Minchin, wasn't too happy about having four years of work and his life flushed down the toilet.

 

[Malcolm R]

They also have Captain Underpants coming out this summer, and HTTYDragon 3 in 2019.

Under Universal, they're somewhat in competition with Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me, Sing, Secret Life of Pets), so I'm not sure how that'll shake out.

 

[Hanson]

Overall, Storks probably was the better of the two films when it comes to the handling of its premise of where babies come from; however, to be fair, where babies come from really wasn't the crux of Boss Baby.

In BB the arrival of the kid was weirdly done, considering they show the mother as pregnant.

I'm not saying BB was a great film. It isn't, but at least it wasn't as bad as HOME. That film, to date, is truly DWA's nadir.

Just wanted to throw in a shout out to Storks -- the scenes with Key & Peele and their wolfpack are breathtakingly inventive and hilarious. That movie nailed a lot of things, but got little love (and even less eyeballs).

You're right about how terrible Home is -- it failed on practically every level. I don't think the kids ever finished it and neither did I.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There is an explanation for why he can talk. Whether it is rational or not is up to the viewer. I suspect C. Jacobsen would say no and I would say yes.

I dunno about "C. Jacobsen", but C. Jacobson already acknowledged that the movie attempts a rational explanation for the baby's adult-like antics - C. Jacobson just doesn't buy it, as the explanation feels cheap and like an "easy out". The movie wants us to buy into the story as told but throws out its "excuse" at the end, and it doesn't work...

Edit: On the other hand is rationality important in a film that has a baby dresses in a business suit, carrying a briefcase, and talking about killing for a sushi?

Yes, it is - even movies with the most outlandish silliness still need to adhere to internal logic.

Example I like to cite: "Shrek". I saw that with my then-girlfriend and afterwards, she complained that when Donkey got hit by an arrow (IIRC), he didn't bleed.

I made a little fun of her because she accepted a universe of ogres and talking cookies but she got hung up on a lack of gore, but I still acknowledged she was right. We can buy into fantasy but some stretches of reality go too far.

The problem with "Boss Baby" is that its internal universe makes little sense, and the "rules" change from minute to minute. The movie adopts whatever logic it wants for the sake of gags and doesn't adhere to its own sense of reality.

That's a problem - one of many in this flawed film...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

BTW, I also felt bothered by the movie's apparent tacit endorsement of puppy mills. That's all "PuppyCo" appears to be - while the movie may offer a fantasy "kid's-eye" version of it, I still get the feeling it's A-OK with the notion that dogs are churned out in a factory...

 

[Edwin-S]

Sorry about spelling your last name incorrectly. I'm not sure what you are getting at when you mention lack of internal consistency. Could you elaborate a bit?

As for the Shrek example, I would have found it more jarring and out of place to show the character bleeding in a fantasy comedy. Showing blood would have taken it of fantasy and planted it firmly in reality.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sorry about spelling your last name incorrectly. I'm not sure what you are getting at when you mention lack of internal consistency. Could you elaborate a bit?

The film is presented as the adult Tim's narrative told to his kids, and it's offered as a fantasy version of his life's events.

The film mixes outlandish behavior presented as "reality" with shots were we see more mundane actions.

Take the battle between Tim and the babies in the yard. The movie mostly shows this as a big action scene, but then we get the cut to the parents' POV where the speeding car is actually barely moving.

In other words, the movie wants to have it both ways. It wants us to buy into Tim's fantasy as reality within the movie's world but it also wants that "out".

Since the entire movie is really Tim's fictionalized story told to his kids, it should present all the fantasy as reality within the movie's world. It picks and chooses what's "real" and what's not to suit its own needs...

As for the Shrek example, I would have found it more jarring and out of place to show the character bleeding in a fantasy comedy. Showing blood would have taken it of fantasy and planted it firmly in reality.

Well, I don't think my ex-GF demanded buckets of blood, but maybe a hint!

 

[Alf S]

We finally watched this last night and I must admit, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be. My 9 year old LOVED it. Worth a cheap rental for sure.