Opinions about "The Little Rascals" movie (1994)

[Jojo]

Hey everyone!

For those of you who are apart of the "OurGangFollies" yahoo group, I'm sure most of you saw the post that was left on the Little Rascals movie. The person who left the post seems to really dis-like the movie because it was so UNLIKE the originals (from their point of view).
Anyway, I liked the movie, and you'd have to expect some changes b/c the movie was made 50 years after the LAST Little Rascals episode was made. And you also have to consider that it had to relate to the children of the 1990's. Thats a WHOLE new generation of kids.
But here's that post........

One thing I didn't mention that day (I forgot and mentioned it the
next day) was the infamous 1994 release of "The Little Rascals."
Ever since that day 11 years ago, whenever I tell a younger person
that I like The Little Rascals, they invariably respond with, "Oh, I
like that movie, too!" (And when I tell them that I like the
Beatles, they ask me how many CDs they made. Hrmph!)

Anywho, I've noticed myself liking this film less and less everytime
I watch it, and thought it would be fun to go over some of the things
that irk me about it.

1. The acting:
These kids just aren't convincing. The kid that plays Spanky really
bugs me for some reason, and the little girl playing Darla is really
unexceptional. If they really wanted to bring back the Rascals, then
the first order of the day was to find the right kids. And this has
more to do with natural talent than whether or not they look like the
originals. I'll make an exception for Bug Hall, who does a pretty
good job at playing Alfalfa, even though it was probably the most
challenging role in the film.

2. Potty humor:
Can somebody name me one film comedy from the 80s or 90s that doesn't
have at least one joke involving injury to the male groin? I'm
speaking of the ballet sequence and the Nutcracker gag here. In
fact, there's a generous sprinkling of potty humor in this film,
which seems to betray the Our Gang tradition.

3. The celebrity cameos:
Just when I wanted to see a movie WITHOUT Whoopi Goldberg, there she
is again!

4. Stymie:
Okay, I guess it's unrealistic to think that they wouldn't put Stymie
in the same age group with the younger kids, and the kid they got for
this role is cute and everything, but what they really needed to do
was to find a kid with a whole bunch of charm and personality.
Instead, they just found a normal kid.

5. Uh-Huh:
They couldn't find a kid that could say 'uh huh' the way John Collum
did? They just weren't trying.

6. Froggy:
If they were gonna have an adult dub in the trick voice anyway, then
couldn't they have found somebody that could actually sound like
Froggy?

7. Petey:
The original Pete had a dark patch over one eye, and the ring was
applied over the opposite (patchless) eye. This new dog doesn't have
a dark patch over either eye, and it just looks wrong to me.
Henceforth, I will refer to this dog as "Phony Pete."

8. Three-named child actors:
In the old days, we had names like George McFarland, Billie Thomas,
Jackie Cooper and thingyie Moore. Nowadays, we've got Kevin Jamal
Woods, Blake McIver Ewing, Blake Jeremy Collins, and Brittany Ashton
Holmes. I just don't have the TIME for these celebrities!!!

9. The ghost of Scotty Beckett:
The Porky character has a sideways cap in this film, making him sort
of a Porky/Scotty combo. I'm surprised that in these politically-
correct times, they didn't just name him Scotty. I also noticed that
the "Scotty Shrug" (from "Honky-Donkey") is used repeatedly in this
film.

10. The pronunciation of Switzer:
The filmmakers apparently derived the pronunciation of Alfalfa's last
name from one of those documentaries like "The Our Gang Story." They
should have just watched "Alfalfa's Aunt" or one of the several other
Our Gang films.

11. Ear wiggling:
No, no, no! They're supposed to wiggle near the top of the ear.

12. Butch & Woim:
Since they obviously weren't looking for really talented kids, was it
really that hard to find a Woim that wasn't half-a-foot taller than
Butch?

13. The very IDEA of the thing!!!
Apparently, we're supposed to think that this film somehow pays
homage to the Our Gang tradition, or recaptures the spirit or some
similar slice of baloney. I think it defies the tradition myself.
The original series had originality and evolved over time, finding
new ways to entertain through the adventures of a gang of mischievous
kids. The 1994 film is patently unoriginal, and stagnates the
series, showing us third-rate representations of the earlier kids
rather than coming up with something new. Things like "Leave It To
Beaver," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory," "Peanuts," "Rugrats' - these pay better tribute to the
Rascals tradition if only because they find new ways of entertaining
while using children as their main subject. This is essentially the
problem with any remake made decades after the original: You can't
recapture something that wasn't yours in the first place.

Let me know what you all think...

Joel

[OPT]

We will watch it, we don't own it like MAAAANY other movies.

My kids like the originals much better also. IMHO the kids in the movie did an okay job, for kids with little talent, but they tried too hard to nail the scenes. My main dislike was trying to use so many of the famous clips from the original series. The copy paste from Joel sums it up pretty good.

OPT

[ourganggurl_2010]

Well I think that They did very good to play the origianl cast of rascals. They didn't have that much expience, but they did there best to do that. I mean the originals are the best ever but you don't see it very much. They used scenes from the origianals that i like a little but the origianals are better then the remake.

[otto]

That movie was a waste of film and took away 90 minutes of my life. The thing that irked me the most, though, wasn't the unexceptional kids and mediocre story, but the Rascals in modern times, but STILL looking like they got their clothes from a 1930's rummage sale. It made no sense.

But that's Hollywood for ya. They'll never learn. (shrugs shoulders)

[ymymeatemup]

Personally, I agree with everything that the original poster copied from the Follies group.

[delattre]

I'm a bit late to the party, but for what it's worth I'll throw in opinion on the acting issue.

     I think part of the problem is that fans of the old series had (and continue to have) very high expectations. That is to say, they expected the 1994 actors to live up to their 1920s/1930s counterparts, who seem to have been really good. But the old series lasted more than twenty years. As such, the actors had years to hone their skills and confidence.
The kids from the 1994 movie didn't have that luxury.The production process lasted roughly six months, if I'm not mistaken, and then the film was released. And since only one movie was made, they had no chance to learn from their mistakes.

     You'll probably reply that Penelope Spheeris should have cast older, more experienced actors. After all, it's no coincidence that Hall-who was the oldest kid  and the one with the most TV jobs under his belt- gave the best performance. Most of his co-actors were far younger-around 5 or 6. But Spheeris may have struggled to find actors who met the dual requirements of looking the part and being experienced. I don't have any details on the casting process-feel free to pitch in if you do.
Regardless of the production team's casting choices, I think that the child actors played their parts adequately. They weren't exceptional, by any means (with the possible exception of Bug Hall), but they held their own. I thought so when I first watched the movie as a kid - around 1998- and I still think so today. The bottom line is that if you can manage the feat of judging the actors on their own merits (granted that's easy for me to say, since I never watched the old series), their performances are okay. And hey, they could have been worse: if you don't believe me check out the 2014 remake. 

[mtw12055]

Although I poke fun at the 90's flick, I will admit that I was a fan of it before I even knew about the original Gang. Both Rascals periods have been a part of my childhood.

I supposed I'd have to re-watch the film to really get my thoughts together, but:

Can't complain about the kid actors too much. Here's part of what made the original series so successful - for the most part, the cast played themselves (or perhaps an exaggeration of themselves). A lot of the acting was natural. The directors (McGowan, Meins, Douglas) knew how to communicate with the kids to get a relatively good performance out of them. Few of the original Rascals had any previous acting experience.

With that in mind, perhaps Spheeris could have attempted having her cast be a little more natural. (In some instances, she apparently did. A few of the scenes involving Ross Bagley & Zach Mabry [Buckwheat & Porky] were at least partially improvised. They certainly come off as more authentic than the others). Perhaps even have the kids play themselves, rather than well-known characters.

But one has to keep in mind that it's difficult for Hollywood to sell a Little Rascals film that doesn't feature Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Pete the Pup, etc. Therefore, attempting to pass of a new batch of kids off as the original Gang makes sense. We can't expect perfection, as the new group was relatively young. Having older kid impressionists play the roles would have made the film feel more like a parody (a la "The Brady Bunch Movie"). Not that that's necessarily bad. Heck, I'd love to see a Rascals parody on the big screen. Though I'm not sure how much of the general audience would get any of the in-jokes.

Either way, I feel Spheeris and the writers got the general feel of the series down - the idea of kids being kids, getting into mischief, and having fun. When I was a kid, I found myself wanting to join the '90s Rascals on their adventures. People that grew up with the original Gang wanted to join them on their adventures.

Still, I'm mixed on other aspects, most notably the writing of the characters:

1. Spanky - It seems as though the writers were trying to depict him as the mischievous, yet lovable grouch George McFarland established. But even as a youngster, he came off as too unlikable for me. His 'relationship' with Alfalfa seemed more awkward than charming. Which is shame because Spheeris and co. were clearly trying to go for the latter.

2. Stymie - Too much of a deadpan wise guy for my liking. Sure, the original Stymie always joked, but never took things too seriously. The charm of the character just isn't there.

3. Froggy - Can't really complain about re-dubbing the actor's voice (I'm sure finding a pre-teen Froggy impressionist isn't exactly a picnic). It wasn't until just a few seconds ago that I realized the sort of character Froggy was - the 'weird kid.' The sort of child that has odd interests. That being said, the writers got him down well, I guess. Though he was certainly given a '90s makeover. Too bad they didn't make him obsessed with America like his '40s counterpart. Though I suppose that would be placing the film in the 'parody' category.

4. Buckwheat and Porky - They talk more than Bill Thomas and Eugene Lee, and are more understandable. That's neither good nor bad, but simply a different take on the two characters. They're still the innocent tag-a-longs, but are more in line with Scotty and pre-leader Spanky. And as I mentioned before, the two boys playing the roles come off as the most natural ones in the cast.

5. Uh-Huh - Why is he in this movie? It's nice to know that the writers remembered such an obscure character, I suppose. But where's the love for Farina and Wheezer? I suppose tossing them in would have made the Gang a little less diverse in terms of personality traits (Farina is just as much prone to bad luck as Alfalfa, Wheezer has similarities to Buckwheat and Porky, etc.)

Incidentally, did Spheeris have the cast view some of the original shorts to get to know their characters? If so, I can only imagine what Courtland Mead's reaction to his 'research' was.

6. Butch and Woim - More along the lines of the stereotypical bullies found in 1990's kids' films (the bland leather-jacket wearing leader and his wimpy sidekick).

7. Waldo - Why is he always the villain in these adaptations? And not just any kind of villain - a cocky, self-centered, intuitionally harmful baddie. The only time Waldo was ever a 'bad guy' in the original series was in "Three Men in a Tub." There he seemed to caught up in his world of books to fully realize he was the antagonist. Perhaps the writers were attempting to combine Waldo with Jerry Tucker's nasty rich kid character from "Hi'-Neighbor!" Perhaps they figured the general audience would remember Waldo. I'm not even sure if casual fans know who Jerry is.

8. Jean Jane and Mary Ann - Serve no purpose. It's a darn shame, too, since these two characters would have worked beautifully in a Boys Vs. Girls storyline. Mischievous Jean was always pulling practical jokes on the fellows, while bossy Mary Ann could easily beat any one of them up. In fairness, I doubt Spheeris and co. had much access to the Jean/Mary Ann films to fully understand their characters. By the way, why was Jean's name changed?

9. Darla - In the original series, Darla's character seemed to change from film to film. Sometimes she was depicted as the sweet gal we wanted to see Alfalfa win. Other times, she was depicted as a young female dog. "Hearts Are Thumps" was one of the few (if only) films that managed to beautifully combine both traits. Unlikable Darla was used for the '90s film. Even as a kid, I couldn't understand what Alfalfa saw in her.

10. Alfalfa - Part of the reason why I asked if the kids did any 'research' for their roles is because of Bug Hall. He seemed to have a general understanding of Alfalfa. He's no Carl Switzer, but he handled himself well. As far as the writing of the character goes, Alf is kind of there. He's a bit too wimpy in spots, making us laugh at him more than with him.

11. Elmer and Pete - Nothing to say, really.

12. Miss Crabtree - It's nice to see her acknowledged. But the fact that she and Spanky never appeared in a film together kind of kills the joke.

I'm sure everyone has a favorite character that didn't make it into the script (again, Farina, Wheezer). But the script couldn't feature too many Rascals. If that were the case, you'd have an awful lot of characters to introduce. I'm guessing that's why Froggy and Uh-Huh were tossed into the mix - both are one-joke characters (though again, I'd make the argument that Froggy was at least two-dimensional), so character development isn't really needed. And sure, hardcore fans would like to see the Silent kids get a chance to shine. But I doubt the 20s films were familiar territory to general audiences in 1994 (they probably still aren't) .

I agree that celebrity cameos were unnecessary. Likely the result of executive meddling. It would have been nicer if the studio had gotten some of the surviving Rascals to make appearances. Some of the Gang (Tommy Bond and Eugene Jackson come to mind) reportedly offered their services, at least as consultants. But they were met with 'no thank you's.' Spheeris later apologized, stating she only knew that two of the Rascals (Bond and Sid Kibrick) were alive. She was reluctant to use either, as one of the two (she couldn't remember which, but I believe it was Tommy) filed a lawsuit against King World. There was talk of getting Spanky McFarland to appear, but he sadly passed on during pre-production stages. I somehow doubt he would have agreed to do the film. A related childhood memory - I once watched the '90s movie with my dad. He thought the old man that appears during the race (the one that yells out, "you little rascals!") was Spanky. The role would have been perfect for him. I wonder if the writers were going in that direction.

The overall story is okay. Although I didn't like the way he was portrayed, I did like the writers' attempt at giving Spanky a little more meat (not wanting to lose his best pal to a girl). They didn't quite succeed, but their hearts were in the right place. Of course, several sequences were borrowed from the original shorts. This certainly gave older audiences a chance to go back and say, "I remember that episode!" Attempts at updating material doesn't always work (though the writers wisely chose to use most of the material as plot points). The only sequence that was really improved was the go-kart race from "Auto Antics." It acts as a nice climax. To be fair, the race in "Auto Antics" probably could have been a better sequence, had it not been for the MGM rules.

One thing that always bugged me is the setting. What exactly was this movie trying to go for? The '30s Rascals living in a '90s setting (again, along the lines of "The Brady Bunch Movie")? They behave too 'modern' for that to be the case. And yet, their outfits are a strange combination of '30s and '90s clothing. Naturally, keeping the setting modern was a cheaper and less time-consuming way to go. But it can still leave one confused.

Oh, and I'm not a fan of toilet humor, either. Always saw it as a cheap way to get laughs (sorry toilet humor lovers).

[Deleted]

I liked the film, but the only gripes I had about the movie were:

Modern setting. There was evidence of Tilt-a-Whirl and Stymie making references to Bert and Ernie. This is proof that the movie based on 30s shorts was more modernized for the mid-1990s, and had more of a 1990s setting. At least there was no rap music involved.

Toilet humor. Seriously? Then again it was 1990s norms for movies, sadly. Plus, the scene where Alfalfa lost his underwear in the pool, only for Darla and Waldo to witness.

At least Waldo's wealth was the only element carried over from the 1980s cartoon series.