Four-star flicks for kids

By Allan R. Andrews, Editor,
Pacific Stars and Stripes, Tokyo, Japan

First published November 10, 1996

I have this outrageously speculative theory that Roger Ebert, the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times and sometime TV guru of advice on home videos, may have been separated at birth from the late Canadian actor John Candy.

As a result, Ebert harbors a grudge against Candy and refuses to award any movie in which Candy appears a critic's rating higher than three of a possible four stars.

This theory is outrageous, as I said, but I can't escape it because it seems every time I find a video in which Candy appears that I know my kids will really like, I check it against Roger Ebert's Video Companion Book and discover it takes a beating from the critic.

As evidence, I submit "Cool Runnings," the underdog story of a Jamaican bobsled team, coached by a John Candy character, that goes to the Olympics. They don't win anything in the movie but respect, and it's a truly entertaining feature.

Ebert, admitting it's entertaining, ranks it with two and-one-half stars.

Or take the Disney sequel, "The Rescuers Down Under." This, in my opinion, may be the all-time greatest of Disney's movies. It revolves around a young Australian boy trying to rescue a golden eagle with help from a couple of mice (utilizing the voice talents of Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor) from an ornery bounty hunter who not only sounds like but looks like George C. Scott (who provides the voice).

The albatross who gets the mice to Australia and winds up playing nursemaid to a couple of eagle eggs is enlivened by the voice talent of -- you guessed -- John Candy.

Ebert's rating? Three stars.

Need more evidence? Consider "Home Alone." Candy doesn't have a big part in this one, but he shows up as a polka band leader who lends a hand to distraught Mom.

I don't like this movie about a smart-alecky kid who gets left behind when his family flies to Paris, but my kids get a big kick out of it because the boy triumphs over evil grown ups.

Ebert gives it two-and-one-half stars.

Let's forget for the moment that Ebert may harbor some mysterious anger toward Candy; it's really my problem to even suggest such nonsense.

But here's the rub: My foolish speculations have led me into a serious discovery about movies for children and the ratings they earn, both from critics and code boards.

In Ebert's massive volume that rates and discusses almost 2,000 American films, I am able to locate only eight movies with a G-code that earn the critic's highest four-star ranking. These include "The Black Stallion," "Godspell," "The Secret Garden," "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," and four Disney films; "Pinnochio," "Beauty and the Beast," "Fantasia," and "The Little Mermaid."

Even kids can get tired of watching the same eight movies over and over again. My boys often yawn after five minutes of "The Secret Garden," and I strenuously object to the attitudes of greed and the sick punishment of greed depicted in "Willie Wonka, etc."

Furthermore, though I love the movie, I'm sure there are parents who would object to their kids watching "Godspell," and a good many of those objecting would call themselves Christians.

Kids' movies either don't seem to deserve four stars in the critic's eyes, or if they do it's because they've moved to that margin of appropriateness that gets them a PG-13 or a PG code label.

A few four-star movies that are popular with children but get saddled with a PG code rating include "E.T. -- The Extra Terrestrial," "Star Wars," "Superman," and "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

For a long while I agonized over this dilemma, but Ebert has helped me deal with it.

Just as I often disregard the critic's star rankings, I'm learning to almost as often disregard the code that labels a movie PG or PG-13.

I've concluded that if my kids enjoy "Cool Runnings," or "Sandlot," or even "Godzilla," who cares what a critic rates them? (Ebert gives these three films two-and-one-half, three, and one star(s), respectively).

Furthermore, if "Raiders of the Lost Ark" earns a PG because of its language or depiction of violence, my wife and I are supposed to deal with that, not the critics.

In a wise article that Ebert includes in his Video Companion Book, he notes that the movie industry's appropriateness code system seems preoccupied with sex and violence and that children's movies are rarely, if ever, rated for their intelligence.

"Many movies made for children are appallingly dumb," Ebert writes, "but they're applauded for what they lack (sex and violence)."

Ebert argues the folly of separating film from other arts by demanding films carry ratings. Motion pictures, he notes, "retain such an aura of sin about them."

Grand opera, he perceptively argues, "contains the bloodiest, sexiest, most depraved content" of all the arts. Incest, beheadings and pacts with the devil are routine in its story lines, but no one seems to notice or mind, Ebert says.

Can anyone imagine "Rigoletto" with a PG rating, or "Carmen" performed under signs that rate it PG-13? Ebert is right; the thought is absurd.

In the end, Ebert argues correctly, "nobody can take the place of a parent. And only parents can judge the suitability of a given film for their children."

I've learned that counting swear words and incidents of violence or sexual contact that occur in movies is a fruitless task. Far more important are the attitudes and values that are depicted in films.

The triumph of mercy, grace and justice is often more important to me in evaluating a film than whether or not a human breast or backside appears in the film uncovered.

In my eyes, Ebert, who downgrades some of the movies my children and I like best, redeems himself with his good sense regarding codes and ratings of any movie's appropriateness for children.

Given Ebert's criterion, I have to concede that a good many John Candy movies -- "Uncle Buck," "Canadian Bacon," and "Wagons East" come to mind -- are simply dumb films that hardly deserve even the few stars any critic might award them.

Besides, I figure my sympathies are with Candy probably because of my quasi-Canadian roots, and my fear we may have been separated at birth.

Pacific Sunday Meanderings + Home + National Society of Newspaper Columnists