By Matt Brunson
RIO
**1/2
DIRECTED BY Carlos Saldanha
STARS Anne Hathaway, Jesse Eisenberg
The color-drenched animated yarn Rio, which bursts onto the screen scene like a Starburst commercial writ large, contains an early sequence in which the film’s caged animal protagonist inadvertently bounces out the back of a moving vehicle and finds himself in strange environs. This is similar to the opening of the recent Rango, which found its central critter likewise falling out of a car and thus suddenly becoming exposed to a life less ordinary. But the difference between the pictures soon becomes clear. Extending an olive branch to adult viewers, Rango was crafty enough to include references to such decidedly grown-up fare as Apocalypse Now and Chinatown. For its part, Rio is strictly for the kids, and anyone expecting this Brazilian-set film to contain any references to City of God (or, heck, even The Boys from Brazil) will be sorely disappointed.
As straight-ticket children’s fare, Rio is better than many toon flicks aimed squarely at this undiscriminating audience (Gnomeo & Juliet, for example), with its visual splendor and Jesse Eisenberg’s patented nerd shtick helping overcome deficiencies in the narrative and a slew of humdrum ancillary characters. Eisenberg provides the voice for Blu, a macaw raised from infancy by a Minnesota bookworm named Linda (Leslie Mann). A bumbling scientist (Rodrigo Santoro) convinces Linda to bring Blu to Rio de Janeiro so he can mate with Jewel (Anne Hathaway) in an attempt to prevent the extinction of the species, but the feathered pair hardly prove to be “lovebirds” — as they themselves later point out, they’re more like “acquaintance birds.” A smuggler (voiced by Carlos Ponce but oddly looking like Justin Timberlake) steals the rare birds with the assistance of his two imbecilic minions and a Scar-like cockatoo named Nigel (Jemaine Clement), and it’s up to the timid Blu and the feisty Jewel — with a little help from their avian friends (as well as one drooling bulldog) — to extract themselves from this dire predicament.
Except for its use in one stunning aerial sequence set in the skies around Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue, the 3-D is (as is often the case) negligible and only in place to justify elevated ticket prices. Visually, the film commands attention on its own, not only in the flight sequences but also during the musical numbers. But the story is drab and uninvolving, and the big-name cast (Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, will.i.am, George Lopez) is ill-equipped to bring the dull characters to life. The exception is Eisenberg, who is accorded the script’s few decent lines and draws some mild laughs from them. Of course, coming so soon after The Social Network, it’s hard not to recall Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg; as continuing proof that Rio misses its mark at connecting with adults, there are no references to Blu as the creator of FaceBeak.
This article appears in Apr 12-18, 2011.
Why the hell would anyone going to see a cartoon about birds want references to City of God!?!?
Why the hell would anyone going to see a cartoon about birds want references to City of God!?!? [2]
It doesn’t reference City of God? Why would it you fool? You realize Rio De Janeiro is a real place and not a setting from a movie? Do you think Taxi Driver should have featured a giant Gorilla because it is set in New York? By the way, you also realize that that isn’t really the voice of Mark Zuckerberg? I think it’s time you went outside into the fresh air.
And yes… what exactly should that reference be that the kids would enjoy? Perhaps some children shooting each with automatic rifles would be hilarious!
Are you guys for real? Obviously this is a sarcastic crack. I also thought the movie could have used more stuff for adults, and I don’t mean R rated stuff.
Some people are just too serious.
I think you are being very generous Kilpatrick. I envy you, life must be hilarious for you if you find that in any way amusing.
Hershal, you’re missing the point (again). I never said violence was amusing, I said adding smarter PG stuff for adults to appreciate might have made this a better movie, like Rango or Toy Story 3.
Kilpatrtick, you flatter yourself and this reviewer. I see your “point” and even agree, that it could have used some higher level humor although personally, I think references to other films date work. Seeing a cartoon character doing a “live long and prosper” sign makes me cringe. My points are that: this is badly written because doesn’t evaluate the film in terms of its own merits and flaws, it requires knowledge of these other films for it to work. Secondly, the knowledge of these films has by themselves ruined the experience for the reviewer, most of the audience for this film won’t have seen City of God or The Social Network so it won’t be a problem for them. Thirdly, he should get a life. And no, I don’t think he’s joking about craving a City of God reference. If it is a joke, then it’s a labored one because then he adds Boys from Brazil. I think, he is just a film-nerd. In fact let’s ask him; Matt, are you a massive film nerd? And Kilpatrick, you missed the point, I using that thing you call sarcasm when I said I find children killing each other with rifles hilarious. I thought you’d recognize it being the internet’s foremost sarcasm authority.
Hershal: Get a life, please. Your constant prattle is boring everyone. Thanks.
Somewhere along the line, both the reviewer and some of the above posting missed an important point: “Rio” it’s a KID´S MOVIE!
Mr Saldanha, the director was born in Rio de Janeiro, and he wanted to use it’s city as location for a movie. It’s very obvious to figure that he will portray and even somewhat exaggerate the GOOD THINGS about the city, and try to downplay the bad ones, mainly because it’s a movie for kids, but also because Rio is his hometown!
Now, the movies for kids almost always have some jokes and references for the adults, film industry knows that kids go to the movies with an adult, so it’s expected, but I belive that’s no reason to expect some “PG-13 material” in a colorfull movie almost engineered for kids. Or you can count the “dance club” scene as oriented towards a more mature audience.
A movie needs to stand out on it’s own and I think that’s what “Rio” does by barely referencing both “city of god” and “Boys from Brazil”, and think there are no references to “The Social Network”
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to write.
I suppose it’s my bad for accentuating the City of God line by using it as my Rotten Tomatoes pull quote. For the record, Rio did NOT receive a marginal thumbs-down (and it was a close call, at a soft 2-1/2 stars) from me for “only” being a kids movie; I’ve praised many G-rated animated flicks, from Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit to The Princess and the Frog. As stated in the review, I felt it was weakened by other factors, including characters that largely did not engage me.
Kilpatrick: You are correct in stating that my City of God comment wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Thank you for your powers of perception.
Max: Thank you for your thoughtful and mature comments.
Hershal: Thank you for alerting me to the fact that the REAL Mark Zuckerberg did not play himself in The Social Network and subsequently did not voice Blu in Rio. I had no idea. And further research allowed me to discover that George W. Bush did not play himself in Oliver Stone’s W. and God did not play Himself in Bruce Almighty (it was some actor named Morgan Freeman). This was all news to me.
Cheers, all!
Matt:
“… anyone expecting this Brazilian-set film to contain any references to City of God (or, heck, even The Boys from Brazil) will be sorely disappointed.” I’m wondering why you would welcome such established references. Don’t critics yearn for originality? The issues I had with the movie (and there weren’t many) were that there was nothing original … no creative approach to understand the amazing Brazilian culture. It was a big-box corporate art form that’s going to make a ton of money and be kept far away from Wall-e and Ratatouille. Nice review ‘cept my humble criticism.
I agree with this review. None of the characters captivated me at all. The laughs were just not there. I chuckled once. It seemed to have all the right components, but it just did not work. The sum was not greater than the parts. My 8 year old daughter said she liked it, but I did hear her laughing either. I guess it deserves a 2.5 stars for technical execution, but for story telling it deserves maybe half a star. It’s to bad when such grand efforts like this just won’t fly. No pun intended.