The Tale of Despereaux

I know that comparing an adaptation to the source book is too close to not looking at the film for its own merits. I won't go into a line by line list of the changes, but the changes bring nothing to the film. They only take away. The changes seem designed to make the movie more like a typical animated film, which the story wouldn't have been had it stuck closer to the themes of the book.

The three characters who really have a story in the book are Roscuro, Miggery Sow, and of course, Despereaux. In the movie, only Despereaux is painted with any real background and character, and all of that is noticeably different from the character in the book. The subtleties that made him so charming are gone, replaced by a devil-may-care nature. Where the Despereaux in the book found heroism in himself, where he didn't expect it, the Despereaux in the film was depicted as being born for heroism. This difference sums up the change in theme and direction of the movie. It becomes much more typical because of this change, without room for character growth. Roscuro and Miggery Sow are similarly rewritten so that they don't develop. The plot is rewritten around them, with strange additions such as the chef and the man made of food.

At first, I was confused by comparisons to Ratatouille, but after seeing the first twenty minutes of this movie, I understood it, and perhaps they have something in that comparison. I can't think of a good reason for some of the additions that came out of the blue into the movie adaptation.

Although this was not what some would consider a masterpiece of cinema, I though it was great; one of the best kids movies I have seen in a very long time. It was a good tale which taught good principles. There were no adult jokes, fart humor, or any of that nonsense. It did what fairy-tales once did: give hope and inspiration to the less-fortunate while stressing good values. This is what children need more of, not mindless humor meant to please the adults in the crowd. Yeah, the animation wasn't exceptional; but it did have a surreal classic art feel at times. I loved it and will recommend it to my customers. Working at a video store has it's perks. I hope many who would have otherwise turned away will give it a chance.

My son and I read this book last year and it along with Kate's other great work "The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane" we enjoyed very much. It is rare to find witty educated authors who are able to identify with the 5-10yr old crowd. The movie however was a far cry from the book, nevertheless the family and I enjoyed it very much. I am personally tired of the movies that focus on the parents more and the kids less (Bolt, The Incredibles etc..). The movie is a great movie particularly if you want to have a great talk with the kids on the way home about honor and bravery.

Was it the book? No and I prefer the book, but the movie is good entertainment in it's own right. Give it a chance, it will touch you.

I'd be hard pressed to name a kid's flick I've seen in the last four years that can't be summed up by "a quest to find his true self." For once, the hero knows who he is, and lives by this truth rather than learning to define himself along the journey. It was refreshing to see a slightly less-linear film aimed at the under-10 crowd. There were at least 3-4 narratives to follow (mouse, rat, servant girl, and to a lesser extent, the royal family). The notion that one's actions and attitude can greatly affect those around you, in unexpected ways with surprising consequences, was a lovely lesson to learn, rather than the rote "value of friendship" moral. I don't quite get the Ratatouille comparisons, frankly. OK, the heroes are both rodents. And there is a chef. This film reminded me more of Big Fish, The Princess Bride, and Pushing Daisies with its small themes and seemingly meandering narrative, that all comes nicely at the end. And yes, the film was utterly beautiful.

Still wondering about the reviews above that insult this film's animation. I thought it looked terrific. (For the record, nearly every professional critic I could find singled out the film's strong visuals.) The character differentiation is very strong in the mice & rats -- and all that tender-loving detail in Ratworld and Mouseworld! You'd have to watch the movie 6 times to pick out all the tiny man-made objects the rodents have used for furniture, clothing, etc.

I see also several reviewers' concerns about the film's "darkness." Ummm . . . don't we find Hans Christian Andersen a bit dark too? Isn't there something about kids being baked in an oven? And doesn't someone's father die in "Lion King"? And a certain famous mother in that deer movie . . . ? For the matter of that, fans of DiCamillo's Newbery-winning book can tell that her version is a lot darker -- heart-breaking at times. At least one critic has scolded the film version for toning down the darkness, which concomitantly weakens DiCamillo's message of forgiveness and redemption.

AND: I don't think I've ever heard vocal work this good in an animated film. They're not big box-office names that will draw tons of kids to the picture, but real pros -- Hoffman, Ullman, Hinds, Watson, and that narration by Sigourney!! -- who bring an amazing richness and authenticity to the characterizations.

Plus, any movie that so convincingly counsels little kids to say "I'm sorry" -- well, even if it had no other merits, it's hard to argue with a message like that!