Dudley Do-Right

Brendan Fraser wasted his time and talent and Sarah Jessica Parker made the biggest movie mistake in choosing to star in "Dudley Do-Right."

"Dudley Do-Right" is the type of movie everyone hopes will be a success. Unfortunately, the writing did not measure up to the level of talent that signed on to the movie. It is always fun to watch comedic spoofs if they are written well and are logical. However, this film broke both these rules.

It was clear that there was no plot or humor in "Dudley Do-Right." The only thing that made it bearable was the narrator because he is the only character who kept my interest.

SKIP this movie because you will be sorely disappointed if you don't

Who started this trend of turning '60s cartoons into new live action? I'd say Spielberg with The Flintstones. That one, at least, worked. But it was, sadly, the camel's nose under the tent.

Did Hugh Wilson even WATCH any Dudley Do-Right cartoons as a kid? Did he rent videos or catch the Cartoon Channel? None of that shows.

The classic scene of the cartoon, Snidely tying Nell to the tracks ... is STILL a cartoon here. They didn't even try to render the credits it in live action as with The Flintstones.

Dudley, a blonde in the cartoon, was a brunette actor. He smiles a lot, has a big hero's chin, and is sort of dim but not such a stumblebum.

And Nell, a redhead in the cartoon, was a blonde actress. But wait ... Sarah Jessica Parker isn't REALLY blonde. She had to color her hair or wear a wig and STILL got it wrong.

Nell in the cartoon was content to live at the camp. But she was NOT stuck between Dudley and Snidely. Rather, she was stuck on HORSE!! And what happened to Horse's Mountie shirt and hat? This one in the movie was just a regular saddled horse.

Inspector Fenwick in the cartoon is the camp commandant, a fist-pounding boss, not a soft-spoken retiree. And he wears the red uniform, just like Dudley. Was Hugh Wilson being "accurate" by having someone of the inspector's rank wear black? Why bother being accurate on this obscure point if you can't get the obvious things right?

The real Snidely Whiplash has green skin. I forgive Alfred Molina for not donning greasepaint through the film. But at least we get a scene of him with a green face in the mudbath. Snidely is the ONLY character they got right.

Other problems: The cartoon very obviously took place during the Klondike or Yukon Gold Rush days. The player-piano score gave it away. We;re talking late 19th century. They would NOT have helicopters, cars, tanks, etc.

I remember, back in the '60s, the trend was the turn our beloved live-action heroes into cartoons and see them REALLY soar. Gone were the expenses of having to string George Reeves up on wires to have Superman fly. Now we could see Superman really fly and take on actual comic-book supervillains instead of always gangsters. And we got the Lone Ranger, Batman and eventually Star Trek in toon form and they all worked by doing things that would have been way too expensive in live action.

Don't any of the directors remember that these cartoons were made for a reason? Too expensive to film live!

Spielberg made The Flintstones work as nostalgia because he has the cash to be exacting in detail. For Hugh Wilson and all the rest, the lesson is simple: Watch the cartoon, note recurring themes, and most of all, don't do the show if you ain't got the dough!

Jay Ward's cute but bland cartoon about Canada's No. #1 Mountie plays even worse when brought to the big screen as a live-action comic adventure. Brendan Fraser is spirited and very adept at buffoonish slapstick, but he's not the right actor for Dudley Do-Right; he's a big, handsome lunk, and he's cheerful enough, but he doesn't know how to mug, nor is he helped by his limited voice (a deep monotone). It's always nice to see Sarah Jessica Parker in a film, but she isn't cast right either; as love-interest Nell, Parker gets no funny lines, she's too modern and grounded a presence, although she does help enliven a dance sequence about 47 minutes into the proceedings. Alfred Molina attempts to have fun as egomaniacal villain Snidely Whiplash, but his voice and fake mustache are his only props. The pithy announcer gets some dryly comic lines and Dudley's horse (named Horse, ha ha) shoots off a few raspberries, but this is a very dim slapstick vehicle, short on inspiration, poorly conceived and even more unmemorable than its cartoon predecessor. * from ****

My five year old adored Brendan Fraser in Disney's "George of the Jungle." I loved the movie too, and we saw it a total of nine times over the four months it ran at local theatres in the summer of 1998. We now own on it DVD; it was the first one we ever purchased, and its publication prompted us to buy the player for my computer, in fact.

What made "George of the Jungle" so great was that Disney remained true to character of the cartoon George and built an exciting and well-written plot around a very fine performance by one of the cutest actors to ever come out of Hollywood. My son and I would sit in the theatre and laugh ourselves silly as joke after joke had the kids and parents rolling in the aisles. George was sweet, funny, and (for the moms) very, very sexy. You could see Fraser's talent and intelligence shining through in places and the result was incredibly likeable.

Unfortunately, Fraser's Dudley is less than stupid, inconsistently clumsy, and completely lacking in any charm whatsoever. I think that Fraser's underlying intelligence actually works against his moronic character, and despite playing opposite a convincing Snidely Whiplash, Fraser's performance is frankly- horrible! I'm not sure if it's Fraser's fault, though. What can anyone do, no matter how much he dimples, to win over an audience to what has to be the most inconsistently developed and poorly written characters of all time? One moment we are asked to love Dudley for his clumsiness and purity of heart. Then we are asked to applaud Do Right's transition into a machine gun toting biker bad boy who is suddenly and inexplicably traipsing about (in an animal skin loincloth, no less) like a Solid Gold dancer. (And of the Native American musical: just how does one clog in moccasins and bare feet? Even the sound effects in the film were senseless.)

I wasn't the only one who hated the film, either. Bored with trying to read my son's Batman comic book during light scenes, I looked around sometime near the middle of the movie to find kids fidgeting in their seats and parents yawning. A few adults were close to tears with boredom and I noticed that precisely at 8:20, when there was still time to grab tickets for the next showing of "A Dog in Flanders", almost half of the audience left the theatre. I grabbed our things, but my son, excited to see Fraser again, made me stay. How I came to envy those parents with children less stubborn than my own! Only twice I heard laughter, and once I joined in. There were a total of four clever lines in the film, in the scene where Dudley is being trained to be bad by some innocuous dirty miner who simply shows up for no discernible reason.

He tells George "Now, say… I am dangerous."

Dudley replies, "You are dangerous."

The miner makes a face and says, "No, say you are dangerous."

"I already said that." says Dudley.

This is almost as clever as the repartee between Bugs and Daffy in the episodes where they vie to convince Elmer which of them he should shoot, but Warner can certainly sustain this kind of thing longer (and I don't have to shell out over twelve dollars for my son and myself to see it.) With Dudley things simply went from bad to worse and culminated into a cinematic experience that I found even more disgusting than that hitherto greatest of all celluloid stink-bombs, "Highlander 2".

You would think that such a simplistic character as a bungling Canadian Mountie could have translated fairly easily onto the big screen. What's not to understand about Dudley? He's drawn in simple lines, has predictable dialogue and only comes in three colours. Yet Disney managed to fail utterly. They even misunderstood Nell, if you can believe that this version of the irritating little blonde has a string of graduate degrees and then has trouble deciding if she should choose Snidely over Dudley. Of course, this Dudley was so lame that he did make Snidely look good, but I still think that two hours of re-runs of the cartoons would have been more entertaining than the plot-less wonder I was forced to see till its end. Not only did the movie fail to portray Do Right within any scope of reasonable resemblance, but they went on to change what the filmmakers obviously did not understand. If you make Dudley bad, or graceful, you completely lose any coherence in his character. He simply doesn't make sense any more and that's not amusing, that's punishment for parents whose children won't allow them to leave early.

In sum, although my five year old defends the film, it is this adult's perspective that "this movie sucks like a tornado, eh." I truly hated it. If Fraser doesn't get himself a new agent and do some better work, I don't know how I can take my son see another one of the travesties on film that he's been getting himself caught up in. For shame Disney, for shame, what you did to that wonderful young man (and to your audience)!

I though this film was going to be nothing but juvenile nonsense. How pleased I was when I discovered that it was a lot livelier and energetic than I predicted.

The voice-over never once annoyed me as I thought it would and everyone in this movie seems to go overboard with their characters. Yet, despite all the energy and frenetic comedy, the film never feels indulgent.

The plot is, of course, nonsense. But then again you hardly want a family movie to have a labyrinth plot. Dudley Do-Right may have flopped but I don't know why. It's in the same field as the terrible "Waterboy" but that made over $100, 000, 000. This I won't understand. Maybe it's only because Canadians will truly love the intellectually-challenged Mountie.