Theatrical Review of Kung Fu Panda

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

Armed with an A-list voice talent cast headed by Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman and Angelina Jolie, "Kung Fu Panda" is the first true family movie of the summer. And it will hold that distinction until the July release of Disney Pixar´s "Wall*E," at which time this film will become an afterthought. It´s not because Black and company don´t have a serviceable enough script to work with. It´s not even due to an, at times, obtuse message. It comes down to being a DreamWorks film and not a Pixar film.

Po the Panda (Black) has one dream: to be the Dragon Warrior, mythical kung fu master who will keep the Valley of Peace safe from a repeat attack from Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a disgruntled former student who is now locked up by rhinos. However, Po seems destined to serve noodles for the rest of his life until he is picked by Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) as the Dragon Warrior. Now he must learn kung fu with the help of Shifu (Hoffman) and a band of animal kung fu experts before Tai Lung returns.

"Kung Fu Panda" is a good looking, fun ride, yet is missing something. (No, not the Pixar name, but that might have something to do with it in the final analysis.) With extensive plot buildup about Po´s status as the Dragon Warrior, the script never allows us to see his training in total, only in an all-too-brief montage in the film´s middle. There´s no sense of accomplishment, following the collection of scenes, when Po is able to hold his own-more of less-in the kung fu style. He´s an oaf beforehand and suddenly transforms into something bigger, something better. We´re missing at least a handful of scenes which delve deep into the training and what exactly Master Shifu puts him through to get to the final point.

Also, the other kung fu practioners, the Furious Five as they are called, get precious little screen time to chance to actually develop into something other than stock characters dropped into the movie to create the illusion of depth. Granted, this is a children´s movie and to expect characterization on a broad scale might be foolhardy. One only has to point toward other film´s (ie. from Pixar, more or less) in which the secondary characters are, at the very least, given an opportunity to be actual people. Tigress (Jolie) is the only one with any semblance of development in the context of Monkey, Mantis, Viper and Crane (yep, genius names, aren´t they?).

Then there´s a little matter of the over simplified "secret" of a Dragon Scroll, a piece of writing given to the Dragon Warrior in order to unlock limitless power. I won´t spoil it here to preserve the "surprise" but suffice to say it feeds right into the kiddie genre "Kung Fu Panda" so desperately wants to fit into. The difference between this moral and the one about friends in either "Toy Story" movie (or the virtues of telling the truth in "A Bug´s Life," among others) is it´s so cheeky, so insatiably cute it doesn´t fit the rest of the film. "Panda" isn´t filled with snark or sarcasm like "Shrek" nor does it give enough humor to the adults in the audience. And that will turn out to be its greatest failing.

For what it´s worth, "Shark Tale" (another DreamWorks production) contained enough inside jokes for the adults while remaining a fun ride for the kids. "Shrek" and all its sequels succeeded because of the dual audiences it appealed to. Same goes for every single Pixar film. "Kung Fu Panda" doesn´t. Filled with animals of all stripes, there are two action set pieces which might appeal to the adults along with the who´s who of voice talent, yet very little else outside of kiddie humor.

About those two action pieces: the first of which brings to mind shades of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and is truly wonderful to behold. Six different animals fighting each other high above the clouds, each using an attribute particular to their namesake. The second piece, at the end of the film, is reminiscent of the "TMNT" animated movie from a year or two back. Shrouded in darkness, colors jump off the screen during the battle, with characters flinging themselves into the air, across the temple and into one another. The lights go out, Tai Lung is bathed in an electric blue light, giving him an eerie glow…an evil eerie glow.

If it sounds like "Kung Fu Panda" isn´t an enjoyable little romp, let me explain. It is fun. It is inoffensive. It is amusing and thrilling and all those other things. There´s just not a whole lot to the finished picture. With only 88 minutes under its belt, extra time could have been devoted to fleshing out each of the Furious Five just a little bit more. Who were they beforehand? How did they all get involved with kung fu? Why are we only given a couple minutes in the prison where Tai Lung is being held, not to mention precious little time with the stubborn rhinos (headed by Michael Clarke Duncan) in charge of keeping him subdued? "Ratatouille" was able to introduce myriad characters, an adult plotline and came in at nearly a half hour longer than "Kung Fu Panda." What´s the problem here?

It all comes back to the studio producing it. Pixar has, in every film, taken the time necessary to create a complete world for the characters to play in (not to mention real people instead of plot pawns). "Kung Fu Panda" feels rushed, as if designed for optimal play times per day as opposed to a solid story.

Maybe, with time, "Kung Fu Panda" will go down as a quality piece of family entertainment. It won´t light the box office on fire for any appreciable length of time, though. The finished product rates a 6 out of 10, mostly because of the people involved behind the scenes. And I can´t dock it too much for not achieving Pixar level quality. Fun, but ultimately empty.

---

---