Few things are more deterministic than kiddie genres, and therefore few things less interesting.
One of the things I notice in these, going back before John Hughes, is how the world of kids is divided up. Here there are 5 or six types, depending on how you count. Its extremely important that you recognize these are the right types in order for all else to work.
What's new or seems new are two character types. One is the black kid, who other than a jive number, plays a type that is more deeply human than racial. Its a notable evolution.
The other is that the "rich girl" is not only sympathetic without changing, but she's lovely. To play what I think are supposed to be 12 year olds, they chose a darling 16 year old. She looks a lot like Anna Popplewell, that 20 year old playing a 14 year old in Narnia 2. Its the same general type as Scarlett Johansonn: full lips and full cheeks. Also Ann Hathaway.
I do not think this is a trivial evolution. It seems that we are well into an era where women's and girls' screen faces are meant to communicate with lips only rather than full faces, or eyes as it once was. Renee Zellweger and Julia Roberts are probably the first big names who practice this style of acting exclusively. I'm not sure what it means. And I'm not sure what it means to merge this ideal with the supposedly spoiled rich girl. But it seems significant, a significant reshuffling of archetypes.
It accompanies a more obvious shift. These are all kids from some sort of dysfunctional family. The usual style would be to have parents. If you were missing one, it was because they died. Then the parents could be virtually absent by simply being too dumb to matter. Its more theatrical to show absence by having partial absence. So this all seems significant, even though the movie, well its a waste.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
