Kung Fu Panda marked a turning point of sorts for DreamWorks Animation, and not just because it was the studio’s highest-grossing animated film without Shrek in the title. The studio might be Pixar’s leading rival, but until the coming of Po, they were getting by largely on the strength of their big green computer-animated superstar, and their prior roster of non-Shrek computer-animated products was a lineup of unmemorable one-offs: Bee Movie, Flushed Away, Over the Hedge, Shark Tale, Antz. (Madagascar was followed by a post-Panda sequel, presumably on the strength of the crowd-pleasing penguins, but both were as mediocre as movies can be.)
But then Kung Fu Panda charmed family audiences and kung-fu fans alike, largely on the appeal of three things: (a) Jack Black’s wide-eyed fanboy mugging as Po, a roly-poly panda who loves kung fu and is improbably chosen to become the Dragon Warrior; (b) Dustin Hoffman’s gruff but vulnerable mentor, the tiny red panda Master Shifu; and (c) a witty, occasionally inspired send-up of kung-fu movie conventions.
Kung Fu Panda was followed by Monsters vs. Aliens, How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind — all more high-concept, flamboyant and, well, franchise-ready than prior DreamWorks offerings. (I’m not a fan of Monsters vs. Aliens, but I acknowledge it’s a more ambitious and striking film than, say, Shark Tale, even though I preferred the latter.)
DreamWorks has learned to make sequel-worthy films — but can they follow through with worthy sequels? They’re certainly excited about the prospect: There are apparently plans for as many as six Panda movies and at least three Dragon movies. First, though, they must learn to take their kung fu to the next level.
Returning screenwriters Jonathan Abel and Glenn Berger recognize that what’s needed is deeper emotions and darker themes, as well as more action and higher stakes. Po, fighting alongside his boyhood heroes, the Furious Five, learns that technique alone is not enough: He must achieve inner peace. Yet a new enemy has arisen that threatens all of China as well as kung fu itself. Somehow linking these two issues is a third: Po — the only panda in the Valley of Peace — finally realizes that Mr. Ping (James Wong), the noodle-selling goose who raised him, is not his biological father, and he becomes preoccupied with the question of his origins.
Master Shifu, in an early scene, expounds thoughtfully on inner peace. “The day you were chosen as the Dragon Warrior was the worst day of my life,” Shifu tells Po, still shuddering and twitching at the dark memory. “Yet when I realized that the problem was not in you, but in me, I achieved inner peace.” That’s probably the wisest thought in DreamWorks’ entire library of computer-animated films. (That’s not counting the biblical masterpiece The Prince of Egypt, which is mostly hand-drawn.)
Po approaches the quest for inner peace with the same gung-ho enthusiasm he brought to learning kung fu. “Inner peace, you’re going down!” he crows. Oh dear. That’s not how it works, is it? Po has to come to the end of himself, and Kung Fu Panda 2 credibly takes him there. I like the way the film visualizes the quest for inner peace in an almost poetic set of ritual moves involving catching a single drop of water. I even like the conceit of morphing Po’s black-and-white markings into the yin-yang symbol, though that may be a concern for some parents.
In some ways, the sequel goes beyond the original. The Furious Five are better utilized this time around, as action icons if not as characters. It’s nice to see Po fighting alongside them, particularly in an opening action set piece, choreographed as a musical number, with Po and the Five defending a peaceful village against evil raiders. A hilarious sequence with a dragon puppet is even better. The animation is gorgeous, and director Jennifer Yuh (the first Asian woman director of a major animated film and probably the first woman of any ancestry with a solo director credit for a big-studio film) makes good use of sweeping landscapes and fantastical architecture.
Unfortunately, the movie makes three key mistakes.
First, a beautiful, economical opening prologue, depicted as a Chinese shadow play with puppets on sticks, gives away too much of the story. We learn that China was once ruled by aristocratic peacocks, one of whom, the villainous Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), figured out how to turn the same technology of China’s lovely fireworks into a terrible weapon capable of defeating kung fu. We also learn in the shadow play that it was prophesied that Shen would be defeated by a panda — and that, Herod-like, Shen responded by exterminating all the pandas he could find.
The revelations that Shen’s secret weapon is gunpowder and that Po, the chosen one, is a lone survivor of a slaughter of innocents should have been the key revelations at the second and third-act transitions. Instead, the movie spills its secrets up front, and too much of what follows feels like it’s spinning its wheels waiting for Po to figure out what we already know.
Second, the filmmakers sideline Shifu, whose relationship with Po was central to the first film —and the rest of the cast remains underutilized, so there are no meaningful relationships this time around. There’s some effort to establish a rapport between Po and Tigress (Angelina Jolie), the natural leader among the Five, but she’s barely more fleshed-out than in the original, and it doesn’t work. Oldman is an enjoyable villain, and it’s nice to hear Michelle Yeoh’s voice as an imperturbable caprine soothsayer who predicts Shen’s downfall. But Po is the only character who matters.
Third, the filmmakers paint themselves into a corner by building up the game-changing power of gunpowder to such a degree that there is no satisfying way for our heroes to win. In the climactic conflict, the Five use all their skill to block Shen from carrying out his plans, and he brushes aside all their efforts with a single blast from his cannon. “How can kung fu stop something that stops kung fu?” Po asks at one point. There’s no good answer to this question.
I can accept a lot in the service of a kung-fu story. I can accept that a flabby panda chosen by the universe can take a crash course in kung fu and become a worthy opponent for an unstoppable snow leopard capable of defeating the panda’s own teacher as well as the teacher’s five greatest students. I can accept that kung-fu masters can fling themselves off mountains and land running or extinguish a roomful of candles with a gesture. I can even accept the original movie’s wushi finger hold, which is apparently so powerful that the devastating effects of flexing one’s finger can’t be shown in a PG-rated film.
But gunpowder is a game changer, as Kung Fu Panda 2 spends its entire runtime establishing. In this one respect the filmmakers permit too much hard reality to backtrack at the end. Yet that’s exactly what they do. It’s textbook deus ex machina, and it’s a letdown.
More resonant than the showdown with Shen is Po’s coming to terms with the reality of his origins. The affectionate if implicit depiction of Po’s adoptive home life was one of the nice touches in the original, and the sequel explores the questions that many adoptive children have, while ultimately affirming Po’s relationship with the loving parent who raised him. I like this a lot, and I’m not sure how adoptive families will feel about a last-minute zinger that threatens to blow the question open again in Kung Fu Panda 3.
Register film critic Steven D. Greydanus blogs at NCRegister.com.
CORRECTION: Content advisory: Much animated action violence and menace, some fairly intense; family themes that could be disturbing to sensitive children (e.g., death of mother).
Dan Burke: The Truth About Movies and Les Miserables
SDG: In 60 Seconds: Les Misérables! The Impossible! More!
Comments
Post a Comment
“I even like the conceit of morphing Po’s black-and-white markings into the yin-yang symbol, though that may be a concern for some parents.”
Why should this be a concern?
@ Dr. Eric: Some parents may be uncomfortable with the yin-yang symbol in a family film due to its association with Eastern dualism and Taoist philosophy generally. Other parents might regard such a moment as a teaching moment to discuss with their children what we believe as Catholics, what other people believe, and how their beliefs relate to ours (what is true in their beliefs, what needs to be corrected and supplemented by Catholic beliefs, etc.). Other parents, probably the majority, won’t think about it one way or the other. Be that as it may, I thought it worth noting.
“I’m not sure how adoptive families will feel about a last-minute zinger that threatens to blow the question open again in Kung Fu Panda 3.”
Could you please elaborate? I don’t care if this means revealing some spoiler. I’d like to know before I take my children to see this.
@ John M. Breen: Not to spoil it for other readers, read the last sentence of the Plot section for the film’s Wikipedia page.
I’m taking my 5 year old daughter tomorrow. Can’t wait.
Mr. Greydanus,
Perhaps parents should learn a little more about the Tai Ji symbol and how it does not relate to dualism. It has to do with opposites- day and night, male and female, heavy and light, dry and wet, hot and cold, noon and midnight, top and bottom, front and back, inside and outside, etc… and not what the hippies would have you believe in that it means that good and evil are the same and relative.
As a practitioner and teacher of oriental medicine I can assure you that this is the correct interpretation of the Tai Ji (extreme, very, over the top- ultimate, Pole [as in North and South Poles]). Also, as a very committed Catholic I wouldn’t join in a practice that was against the Holy Catholic Faith.
@ Dr. Eric: Dualism does not entail the “hippie” idea you reference, that “good and evil are the same and relative.” It does entail the supposition that good and evil, like light and dark, male and female, hot and cold, etc., are all part of the warp and weft of the universe, and none of these opposites are prior to or greater than the other. The universe comprises a balance of opposites tending toward equilibrium. As is often the case, there is a lot of truth in this idea, though it needs to be supplemented by Catholic teaching.
Personally, I loved it for the intermittent back-and-forth between the soothsayer and the Lord Shen, even putting aside the imaginative use of the peacock tail as a war fan in combat. I felt like I was watching a more mature, weighty film. What are your thoughts on the relationship between the two characters? I felt it redeemed the Oprahesque “harness the power of the universe” near the beginning.
The difference between the first and second Kung Fu Panda is the difference between the first and second Toy Story, even if these movies are in far different leagues.
Madagascar and Mad 2 were fun movies and beautifully animated, not mediocre in my mind.
At first I felt the same thing about the ending as you did (I suppose I should say the penultimate ending, where Po finds a way for kung fu to triumph), but upon further reflection I think the point has more to do with the fact that kung fu is more about things like inner peace than it is about martial smack downs.
Within the fiction established in the two films, what Po does in the end is certainly no more amazing than the whole “jumping off mountains” bit, or other things the series’ kung fu warriors do. I think his triumph over gunpowder was meant to show that a peaceful and yielding spirit (not morally, of course) have their place in both the martial arts, and in the rest of life.
I suppose this could have been made more obvious by the film makers, but on the other hand it wasn’t exactly hidden. Remember when Tigris tells Po on the boat that “hard style” is not his thing? In martial arts, a hard style is what we traditionally think of as a “kick, punch, block” system, while “soft” style (poor translation choice, but it’s what we’re used to in English) involves throwing, bending, twisting, etc. All systems characterized as “soft”, no matter where they originate, involve some sense of yielding to your opponent’s attack and returning his strength back to him. In a sense, your opponent defeats himself.
With that in mind, Po’s achievement of inner peace winning over gunpowder (with a healthy dose of cartoon logic and superhero fiction), makes sense. And is it an accident that Shen himself is a warrior of black and white?
What happened to the powerful “skadoosh” from Kung Fu Panda I? Seems like that would’ve come in handy. I guess it’s the atomic bomb of kung fu and can only be used in the most extreme circumstances?
@ Benjamin Baxter: It would be hard not to enjoy Gary Oldman and Michelle Yeoh. Unfortunately the interaction between the villain and his bette noir was more engaging than Po’s relationship with Tigress, which was clearly intended to replace the relationship with Shifu from the first film. In Toy Story 2 Woody formed powerful new relationships with Jessie and Bullseye while also getting moving scenes with Buzz and his old friends. Po’s reaffirmation of his relationship with his adoptive father parallels Woody’s reaffirmation of his commitment to Andy, but there are no active, onscreen relationships around Po comparable to the ones Woody has.
@ Anna Maria: FWIW, here’s my review of Madagascar 2. I see I described the original as a “listless, strangely cheap-looking affair lacking even the modicum of heart and energy — to say nothing of the visual interest — of a Shrek or Shark Tale.” The sequel is “more competently crafted, building to a traditional climax where the original sort of petered out in the third act.” On the other hand, it “not only recalls Happy Feet‘s satire of religion, it also makes the latter’s coy coming-out subtext look tame compared to its own overt running theme of sexual diversity.” In my book, “Madagascar 2 crosses the line from poor taste to propaganda. It’s family entertainment for the posthuman family, whatever that may entail (love transcends all differences). A generation raised on entertainment like this will find the passage of California’s Proposition 8 incomprehensible.”
@ Andrew: I appreciate your thoughtful comments, particularly your connection of the principles of “soft” style with Po’s crowning achievement. Still, for me leaping off of mountains and such is one thing, and what Po does in the end is in a wholly different category—not because of physics, but because of how the narrative adopts and emphasizes the game-changing historical significance of gunpowder. It really is true that the introduction of gunpowder made centuries of defensive techniques from castle-building to plate armor obsolete practically overnight—and while the movie didn’t have to go there, the fact is that this is the cornerstone of the conflict. “How can kung fu stop something that stops kung fu?” Right up until the end, gunpowder represents an existential threat to kung fu—until it turns out that it doesn’t. I find that unsatisfying.
@ JohnE: Apparently the wushi finger hold comes with the drawback that your opponent may not give you a chance to grab his finger. Otherwise Shifu could have used it against Tai Lung himself.
Mr. Greydanus: Kung Fu Panda was in no where near the league of Toy Story, and while Kung Fu Panda 2 is even less great than Toy Story 2, there was as much growth from the first movie to the second, I think.
@ Benjamin Baxter: We’re certainly in agreement on the relative merits of the Kung Fu Panda and Toy Story franchises. Regarding the relative merits of the second installments vs. the originals, I agree that Kung Fu Panda 2 goes beyond its predecessor in some respects, but in others I think it falls shorter, for reasons mentioned. The absence of any onscreen relationship comparable to Po and Shifu from the first film (in particular, the inadequate attempt to substitute Tigress for Shifu) is a significant weakness in the sequel compared to the original.
Reading your review, I’ve just realized that I walked in later than I thought. I entered the theater as the title appeared on the screen, and didn’t know I had missed anything until I saw your description of the shadow play prologue. You’re right, it was a much better and more interesting film piecing the past together alongside Po, and I obviously didn’t feel the lack of not having everything laid out for me in advance.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.