Dora and the Lost City of Gold | August 9, 2019 | Paramount | Live-Action Adaptation | James Bobin directing | Isabela Moner to play Dora

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, cannastop said:

I think if he intended to say it that way, he would have.

I mean, he does:

There's a palpable gap you can't help but notice between the essentially innocent, borderline-pubescent nature of the leading characters and the film itself, and the more confident and mature vibes emanating from the leading actors. 

 

Which would have been just fine to leave it at that, but then he gets really pervy and on a weird tangent with the following few sentences. 

[MovieMan89]

I will say that I do think they're trying to make them look like kids and not teens in the movie, particularly her. When I first saw the poster I legit thought they were going for a teenager playing child Dora angle and was like wtf. The whole concept is just stupid and strange. Dora is meant to be a child. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by MovieMan89

[Ryan Reynolds]

 

[MrFanaticGuy34]

10 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I will agree too that they are trying to make them look like kids and not teens in the movie, particularly her. When I first saw the poster I legit thought they were going for a teenager playing child Dora angle and was like wtf. The whole concept is just stupid and strange. Dora is meant to be a child. 

Well, if you have seen or at least heard of both ”Dora and Friends: Into the City” & ”Dora’s Explorer Girls”...you’ll notice that Dora herself is older in those shows, around 10-11 years old (in preteen age) and with a different. So it would make sense to have a teen Dora if this movie is going more for an adventure-styled plot rather than being just teaching & educational for younger kids like the first Dora-cartoon.

Edited July 29, 2019 by MrFanaticGuy34

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Well, if you have seen or at least heard of both ”Dora and Friends: Into the City” & ”Dora’s Explorer Girls”...you’ll notice that Dora herself is older in those shows, around 10-11 years old (in preteen age) and with a different. So it would make sense to have a teen Dora if this movie is going more for an adventure-styled plot rather than being just teaching & educational for younger kids like the first Dora-cartoon.

They still should have gone with someone younger and made them younger. Spy Kids comes to mind for an easy blueprint they could have used for this movie. Instead, this looks more Spy Kids 3 (i.e. the one where they're officially too old for the roles and movie and it's weird). 

[Blankments]

This movie looks great!

[ban1o]

1 minute ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

thank you. How can people not see the review is creepy lol. Also, again the movie was filmed when she was 17. She literally just turned 18 three weeks ago. Maybe it pisses me off so much because I have experience will full grown men sexualizing teenagers because they are considered "pretty" or whatever. 

 

The movie aged up the characters to attract a wider audience than preschoolers, also recently dora cartoons portray her as a preteen. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's still a kids movie.  Look I think the film looks stupid but Todd McCarthy is a creep. 

[MrFanaticGuy34]

Also....am i the only one thinks Danny Trejo is a rather bizarre choice to voice Boots in this?

 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I find Danny Trejo really funny in anything he’s in and he’s a talented actor. It’s just that....it kinda feels awkward to heat his deep & manly voice coming out of a character who’s meant to...you know, be friendly & cute.

 

Couldn’t Paramount have chosen someone younger who has a cute & pleasant voice? What do you guys think? Do you think Danny Trejo is miscast as Boots or are you okay with him?

Edited July 29, 2019 by MrFanaticGuy34

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, ban1o said:

thank you. How can people not see the review is creepy lol. Also, again the movie was filmed when she was 17. She literally just turned 18 three weeks ago. Maybe it pisses me off so much because I have experience will full grown men sexualizing teenagers because they are considered "pretty" or whatever. 

 

The movie aged up the characters to attract a wider audience than preschoolers, also recently dora cartoons portray her as a preteen. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's still a kids movie.  Look I think the film looks stupid but Todd McCarthy is a creep. 

Oh the end bit is definitely creepy. When he starts throwing around words like "pre-sexualized" and "throbbing" in the same sentence I was like wtf is going on here. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by MovieMan89

[Ithil]

Critics please try to be professional and try to remove your poorly veiled attraction to the lead actress from your review.

[cannastop]

1 hour ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Also....am i the only one thinks Danny Trejo is a rather bizarre choice to voice Boots in this?

 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I find Danny Trejo really funny in anything he’s in and he’s a talented actor. It’s just that....it kinda feels awkward to heat his deep & manly voice coming out of a character who’s meant to...you know, be friendly & cute.

 

Couldn’t Paramount have chosen someone younger who has a cute & pleasant voice? What do you guys think? Do you think Danny Trejo is miscast as Boots or are you okay with him?

huh. That is weird.

[robertman2]

1 hour ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Also....am i the only one thinks Danny Trejo is a rather bizarre choice to voice Boots in this?

 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I find Danny Trejo really funny in anything he’s in and he’s a talented actor. It’s just that....it kinda feels awkward to heat his deep & manly voice coming out of a character who’s meant to...you know, be friendly & cute.

 

Couldn’t Paramount have chosen someone younger who has a cute & pleasant voice? What do you guys think? Do you think Danny Trejo is miscast as Boots or are you okay with him?

that's the joke

[YM!]

1 hour ago, MovieMan89 said:

Oh the end bit is definitely creepy. When he starts throwing around words like "pre-sexualized" and "throbbing" in the same sentence I was like wtf is going on here. 

It was weird the second he started talking about hormones.

[ban1o]

https://www.thewrap.com/dora-and-the-lost-city-of-gold-film-review-isabella-moner-eva-longoria-explorer/

 

pretty good review. Pretty cool that they got indigenous languages in it. 

 

I can see it ending up in the 60s or 70s based on the reviews so far. Variety and Wrap both had positive reviews. I'm ignoring THR. 

[JB33]

This is a case of a critic overthinking (as critics always do) a freakin Dora the Explorer movie, and unfortunately for him it came off really, really weird to put it mildly.

 

I get critics have a job, but honestly why critique a movie like this. Maybe a brief snippet on if it's a quality movie or not, if it's a good movie to bring the kids too or if it's a hard pass, but a full blown review? Yeah, this is what happens then.

[Macleod]

2 hours ago, ban1o said:

thank you. How can people not see the review is creepy lol. Also, again the movie was filmed when she was 17. She literally just turned 18 three weeks ago. Maybe it pisses me off so much because I have experience will full grown men sexualizing teenagers because they are considered "pretty" or whatever. 

 

The movie aged up the characters to attract a wider audience than preschoolers, also recently dora cartoons portray her as a preteen. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's still a kids movie.  Look I think the film looks stupid but Todd McCarthy is a creep. 

On one hand, the review may come off as "weird and creepy" because Todd McCarthy means it to sound exactly like that.  That's his point...that this impression shouldn't be creeping through these characters in this story.  But to him, it is.  McCarthy comes from Variety, from an industry tradition of using copious intelligent film-crit language to get a point across about how a film "works"... 

 

But I get you on the copious use of almost Freudian language in his review...it gets pretty blatant.  So the question is...is it the movie, or McCarthy...or both?    

 

I thought Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes were producing this, but looking it up, I realized their involvement ended early on, apparently...

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/14/michael-bay-forced-to-confirm-he-is-not-developing-the-live-action-dora-the-explorer-movie

 

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but there's a long history in Hollywood (as in many other industries) of abuse of individuals both on and off screen.  Todd McCarthy has been writing film reviews for a long time, but there is always the danger to consciously or subconsciously get caught up in the underlying atmosphere of what you're writing about...as we know from some great detective stories and film noirs...

 

I know very little about this show/stars/ or the movie, but as far as I'm concerned, having seen what kind of (immature or pervy) reaction the initial casting of Dora generated in itself, this reaction/claim by McCarthy about the actors in the film is no real surprise. 

 

There's also long tradition of Hollywood movies depicting "17-year-old girls on the cusp of being 18."  (Including a certain Bay Transformers movie!)  Ever notice that?  Where do you think all that comes from? 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Macleod

[DAJK]

Lol this is written by Nick Stoller? Idk, I kinda expect this to be good at this point. He did a great job with The Muppets, and even Storks was better than it had any right to be. 

[ban1o]

26 minutes ago, Macleod said:

On one hand, the review may come off as "weird and creepy" because Todd McCarthy means it to sound exactly like that.  That's his point...that this impression shouldn't be creeping through these characters in this story.  But to him, it is.  McCarthy comes from Variety, from an industry tradition of using copious intelligent film-crit language to get a point across about how a film "works"... 

 

But I get you on the copious use of almost Freudian language in his review...it gets pretty blatant.  So the question is...is it the movie, or McCarthy...or both?    

 

I thought Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes were producing this, but looking it up, I realized their involvement ended early on, apparently...

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/14/michael-bay-forced-to-confirm-he-is-not-developing-the-live-action-dora-the-explorer-movie

 

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but there's a long history in Hollywood (as in many other industries) of abuse of individuals both on and off screen.  Todd McCarthy has been writing film reviews for a long time, but there is always the danger to consciously or subconsciously get caught up in the underlying atmosphere of what you're writing about...as we know from some great detective stories and film noirs...

 

I know very little about this show/stars/ or the movie, but as far as I'm concerned, having seen what kind of (immature or pervy) reaction the initial casting of Dora generated in itself, this reaction/claim by McCarthy about the actors in the film is no real surprise. 

 

There's also long tradition of Hollywood movies depicting "17-year-old girls on the cusp of being 18."  (Including a certain Bay Transformers movie!)  Ever notice that?  Where do you think all that comes from? 

What on earth are you going on about.  I'm so confused. The trailer makes it so clear this is a kids movie. Just because y'all were sexualizing a 17 year old girl when she was cast doesn't add any merit to what he's saying. Moner was a 17 year old playing a 16 year old teen. There is no agenda in that casting. Do y'all complain about Disney channel movies not being sexualized? It's literally the same thing, a cast of teenagers in shows and movies geared towards kids. This is not a foreign concept. McCarthy is a 70 year old man talking about a "pre-sexualized version of youth" in a kids movie and you're saying he's some sort of detective? 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by ban1o

[John Marston]

Three uses of “hormones/hormonal” and the word “throbbing” in a review of a kids’ movie.

[SLAM!]

I think I'm done stanning this movie. Hopefully it succeeds for Paramount's sake, but it really seems like a cheaply made film. This would've been a modest hit fifteen years ago when this type of kids' film were more "marquee". But I really don't think this looks good at all.