Freaks Review

Let me be perfectly clear before we dig into things: I WANTED to like Freaks.  The idea of a film that serves to remind the public that those with physical abnormalities are still people who just want to live their lives like the rest of us really seemed like a solid concept for a film, not to mention the fact that the film features real circus people.  And the fact that they were throwing in a plot about how true ugliness is on the inside only sweetened the deal.  But time and heightened standards have not been kind to Tod Browning’s cult classic.  Just about everything imaginable in this film is done poorly, from the sub-par acting to the stilted, awkward writing to the lackluster characters and padded-out story.  While it is a delight to see Freaks portray these people in a positive light (mostly), that alone does not make for a compelling or enjoyable experience.

The story is about as bare bones as you can get.  It all centers around Cleopatra, a glamorous acrobat and one of the stars of the sideshow, and Hans, a rich dwarf who has fallen madly in love with her because of her looks alone.  However, not only does Hans already have Frieda, a fellow dwarf, fawning over him, but Cleopatra soon finds out about his large inheritance and after starting a relationship with Hercules, the sideshow’s strongman, Cleopatra plots to marry Hans, poison him, gain his inheritance and run away with it and Hercules.  While that sounds like a premise for a decent story, very little is done with it.  With the hour runtime, only about half of it is devoted to Hans and Cleopatra, meaning not much time is given to properly develop these characters.  The other half, as we’ll soon see, is focused on the other circus freaks, seeing them converse with one another over either Hans and Cleopatra or their own daily lives.  With only half an hour to work with in an hour long film, the main story is simply played far too straight to leave any sort of lasting impact. 

And that’s before we get into the characters themselves, who all feel incredibly 2-dimensional.  Very little effort is made to flesh out these characters beyond their tropes.  Cleopatra is simply a vain narcissist who hates the circus freaks and uses Hans for his money.  Hercules is just the stereotypical macho man who uses his strength to get what he wants.  Venus, who apparently works for the sideshow, even though her role is left unexplained, tries to appeal to us as the wise woman who can’t seem to catch a break, but falls flat due to a lack of screen time.  Furthermore, this lack of development causes the film to absolutely drag, at least until the last 10 minutes, because I can’t bring myself to care for any of these characters if they feel so flat. The one “exception” to this rule would be Hans, as he gradually begins to realize that Cleopatra is simply using him to get to his fortune and sees him as just another oddity to laugh at, causing him to enter a depression over how dim he was to be bedazzled by Cleopatra’s looks and ignore the connection that he has with Frieda.  Unfortunately, this only serves to reveal just how flawed his character is.  On top of being gullible as all hell to think that Cleopatra truly loves him, despites have zero chemistry, he also ogles her right in front of Frieda, completely ambivalent to her feelings.  I just fail to see why we should sympathize with his plight if he goes ahead and displays such unsympathetic behavior. 

Now, to be fair, many of the freaks seem to have potential for expansion, such as the Siamese twins Daisy and Violet trying to balance two different marriages, but are never given enough screen time to develop beyond bit characters.  And the same can really be said for just about every character in Freaks.  They all have a good level of flair and personality and seem more than capable of delivering a solid performance.  But, just like the plot, they never seem to get enough screen time and are simply rushed along through their scenes, as if the director just wanted to jump to the grand finale.

And if you thought the plot and characters being flat was the worst of it, buckle the hell up because things only get worse from here.  When it comes to the script, neither the writing, nor the acting did Freaks any favors.  The writing is beyond stilted.   Perhaps it was simply a product of its time and people simply worked with a different vernacular than ours, but I seriously lost track of the number of awkward, unintelligible lines that were uttered.  Perhaps the bit characters didn’t suffer from this problem, but, once again, our main characters serve to rain all over the parade, as every line they utter comes off as far too theatrical for its own good.  Just listening to one of Hans and Frieda’s exchanges is more than enough to elicit a theater's worth of cringes.

Worse yet is the acting.  Again, the bit characters do a passable job most of the time, but holy mother of Moses are the main characters painful to listen to.  Hercules and Cleopatra are beyond cheesy, acting more like they’re in a drug-induced stupor than actually trying to sound convincing.  However, Hans and Frieda are the main culprits.  Not only are they essentially the polar opposites of Hercules and Cleopatra, in that they act about as stiff as a board, but you can’t even understand what they’re saying half the time.  I’m not joking.  They honestly just mumble half the time and I found myself having to rewind several times just to sort of pick up on what was being said.  It’s great that they went out of their way to use real circus people, but part of me is beginning to wish that they had stuck with actors in costumes if these are the performances they’re going to give us.

Hell, even the camera work could use some fine tuning.  The jump cuts are so sudden that it gives us absolutely no time to fully absorb a scene or set of dialogue, almost as if we were being bum rushed by the pacing.  To be fair, however, the cinematography is relatively effective.  Despite the editing blunders, the cameras spend just the right amount of time focused on each scenario or character’s reaction for us to understand the emotions being conveyed and there are even a couple of clever uses of lighting and camera angles late in the movie that really help to convey the drama of the whole dreary situation, in particular when Frieda confronts Hans in his trailer of sorts over how Cleopatra is obviously using him, causing Hans to move to a shadowy portion of the trailer, staring off into the darkness and dwelling on the predicament as Frieda tries to reach out to him from behind.  But, as effective as the cinematography is, it can only do so much to cover up such dismal performances.

Which brings us back to the eponymous stars of the film: the freaks.  As I brought up before, many of the circus folk are the genuine article. Browning went out of his way to fill the cast with as many legitimate oddities as he could, including Olga Roderick the Bearded Lady, Johnny Eck the Half Boy, Siamese twins Daisy and Violet Hilton and The Living Torso Prince Randian.  This helps to give Freaks a solid feeling of authenticity and makes us feel as if we were actually at the sideshow ourselves.  But the use of the freaks extends beyond simply their presence, as several “slice of life” moments are scattered throughout the film, showing the freaks going about ordinary tasks in their own fashion to show the audience how they are quite similar to us, such as the Human Torso rolling and lighting a cigarette, a woman with no legs drinking out of a glass by using her feet and the Bearded Lady giving birth.  Now, while this does serve its purpose and proves that, despite their appearances, the freaks still have lives to live, that doesn’t mean that it does much, if anything, to benefit the narrative.  It honestly does nothing to add to the plot surrounding Cleopatra and Hans.  Really, the only connection between the main plot and the freaks is that Cleopatra gets drunk late into the film and insults all of them, which in itself was revealed in the main plot.  When you take into account just how shallow and simplistic the main plot is, these scenes with the freaks come off as nothing more than padding.

As for why Cleopatra got drunk, we have to take a look at the ending of the film.  After marrying Hans in order to get to his inheritance, Cleopatra poisons Hans’ drink at the wedding reception, but not without getting drunk and berating the freaks when they begin a small ceremony in order to initiate her as one of them.  After Hercules chases the others off and he and Cleopatra proceed to embarrass Hans, both Hans and the other freaks begin to grow very suspicious of Cleopatra’s true motives, deciding to spy on her while she tends to Hans, whom has been sickened, but not killed, by the poison.   The freaks and Hans soon realize what Cleopatra intends and, during a rather nasty storm, corner Hercules and Cleopatra and proceed to mutilate the two of them in order to make them into true freaks.  Hercules gets a rather light punishment by being castrated, but Cleopatra is truly made as ugly on the outside as she is on the inside.  Turned in the “Human Duck”, she has her legs removed, the skin on her hands melted to resemble to duck feet and most of her remaining body permanently tarred and feathered.

Here is where I really find myself split about this movie.  Obviously, a proper punishment was necessary for Cleopatra’s attempted murder, not to mention her mistreatment of the freaks.  Her “freakification” seems like a solid case of poetic justice and I also commend Browning for showcasing this rather gutsy display in the 1930’s of all times.  However, we have to remember that it was not some sort of accident that caused this, but the freaks themselves; the people who we’ve been told this whole time are gentle, peaceful people that are just like those who gawk at them.  What does this say about them as a whole, that instead of bounding the would-be-murderers and turning them over to the police or, at the very least, killing them quickly, they decided to butcher them to make an example?  For me, it just leaves a rather dark blemish on my overall view of the freaks and, frankly, the movie as a whole, although with the amount of blemishes that this movie already has, it would be like spilling tomato soup on red curtains.

And if you haven’t figured it out by now, I think this film has aged about as well as a gallon of milk left out in the yard for a week in the middle of August.  On top of the questionable use of the circus folk, Freaks simply doesn’t have that much to offer as a film.  The story is far too short and simple, the acting and writing is laughably bad and almost nothing, save the appearance of the freaks, leaves any sort of impact on me.  I’d recommend it if you’re curious to see how the freaks live their lives, but even then, you’d be better off seeing a documentary about circus people, which is basically what this should have been in the first place.

Robocop Review

Take a second, if you will, and think this synopsis through: Alex Murphy, a former cop who was brutally killed in the line of duty, is reborn as a cybernetic, nigh-indestructible machine called Robocop who seeks to keep the peace and hunt down his murders.  If you read that and thought to yourself, “Oh, that must delve into a critique of corporate America, the culture of fear that our media has force-fed us and a man trying to regain his lost humanity”,…you’re a lying piece of crap.  Of all the things I could have expected out of Robocop, being a smart, brutally honest piece of parody was certainly not on my list.  Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi cop film has a lot going for it, from a beautifully conducted soundtrack to expertly handled cinematography to some ridiculously satisfying action scenes and excellent special effects, despites the short comings that sprout from its sporadic acting quality and general lack of character depth.  However, many of these things are par for the course for action flicks.  But rarely do you see these types of movies show off their brains alongside the explosions and sink their teeth into some more complicated scenarios, let alone blend the two sides together as well Robocop does.

Now, while the writing and subtext are wonderfully put together, as well get into later, the overall plot is nothing grand.  Officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) is transferred into one of the most dangerous sections of a dystopian Detroit that is overrun by crime (so, in other words, just Detroit) and is partnered for a short time with Officer Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), but is mercilessly killed by a gang of criminals led by Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith).  Meanwhile, the mega-corporation OCP is currently on contract with the city of Detroit to help the dysfunctional police department get its act together.  Furthermore, they are working to develop a new series of “robocops” to run the streets more efficiently.  While the ED-209 project, led by Richard Jones (Ronny Cox), fails miserably, a young up-and-coming executive Robert Morton (Miguel Ferrer) is leading another such project, instead taking a live subject, this being the recently deceased Murphy, and crafting him into a fusion of man and machine.  The rest of the story boils down to Murphy struggling to regain his past, dealing with Clarence’s gang and being caught in the middle of a power struggle between Morton and Jones.  The plot is not necessarily bad, by any means, but it’s still pretty average, at least on paper.  It’s ultimately the themes that will takes center stage in the film, but even they, ironically enough, expose the weaknesses of the story, as once you start to understand said themes, the story will become more than a bit predictable.

This doesn’t stop the film from succeeding in other departments, however.  First and foremost, the special effects are fantastic, save the clearly digitally rendered ED – 209 who comes out looking more like a bad hologram than a menacing robot.  The gore looks believable, whether it be a criminal getting his nuts shot off by Robocop or Murphy getting his brains blown out by Clarence, finding that perfect balance between subtle and disgusting.  However, the pinnacle of the film’s special effects lie nowhere else than with its titular character.  Robocop is an absolute marvel to behold, honestly convincing us that we are seeing a hybrid of man and machine and not just some guy in a cheap robot suit.  Every inch of him looks both amazing and imposing, including the craftsmanship around the Murphy’s body, the side compartment on his thigh that holds his pistol, a Wolverine-esque spike that protrudes from his knuckle and so on.  Even when he has to remove his helmet at one point, you can see that the machinery actually digs underneath the top of his face, almost as if his face was removed and wrapped around an exoskeleton.  I just hope that whoever managed the creation of that outfit got a raise, because God only knows they deserved one.

An impressive amount of work was also put into the atmosphere of Robocop.  The cinematography is top-notch, knowing just when to move in on someone’s face to capture their emotions and just when to show off entire rooms or venues to display the scale of the scenario.  Then there’s the backdrops, which do a fine job of selling the “dystopian future” motif.  From the grimy city streets to the factory district where Clarence’s gang operates, Detroit has never looked seedier, save for places like the OCP headquarters which look as sterile as a hospital.  However, the soundtrack does the greatest job of establishing the film’s ambiance.  Basil Poledouris does a fantastic job conducting Robocop’s music, throwing in some sci-fi elements, but retaining some traditional musical pieces as well, which seems appropriate because the setting is a blend between futuristic and 80’s style technology and architecture.  No two songs sound alike, save the leitmotif of the film, and each song compliments its respective scene quite well.

Of course, you can’t have an action movie without intense action scenes and Robocop simply refuses to fail in that department.  Coupled with the previous elements, the shootouts and car chases are stupid satisfying.  They’re well choreographed, that much is certain, but what really shines through is Robocop himself.  No matter what he does, whether it’s dealing with a hostage situation or shooting up a coke factory, he does it all while looking like an unstoppable badass.  He can walk through hails of gunfire, grab people through walls and throw them from third story windows, shoot down waves of gunman without appearing to do so much as try and even walks right through an exploding gas station like he only just lit a fart.  He has his moments of weakness, but that’s only for the sake of drama.  Most of the time, Robocop is simply a killing machine that will make even the most hardened criminals have to change their pants.

But once we get past the surface and dig into the meat of the film, that’s where things start to get complicated, both in a good and bad sense.  Let’s start with the negative elements first, which tends to be centered around the subpar drama.  Now, I know exactly what you’re thinking: “Are you seriously complaining about an action movie not having enough emotional moments?”  It may seem like I’m being unreasonable, but once you dig into the movie, you may start thinking this way yourself.  I’d typically forgo this type of critique with an action flick, but the problem is that the film actively makes an attempt at nailing down dramatic scenarios, albeit not as well as they could have.  On top of the intelligence that the writing shows throughout the film, as we’ll get into soon enough, many scenes seem like they should be more than capable of moving us in one way or another.

However, they ultimately suffer from two major issues.  First of all, Robocop’s acting is all over the place.  While some actors, such as Smith, Cox and Ferrer put together solid, believable performances, others like Weller and Allen have a tendency to fall short (Weller sounds robotic even before he becomes Robocop).  Not only does the bad acting obviously not help matters, but the sheer inconsistency between performances disrupts the flow of the film in a number of ways, as acting can range from decent to stiff to just flat-out hammy, the latter finger being pointed towards Clarence’s henchmen.

But even when we get a good performance, the other problem rears its ugly head: practically every character feels 2-dimensional.  That’s not to say that they lack personality, but that these personalities are incredibly simplistic.  Morton and Jones come off as stereotypical corporate executives; Murphy and Lewis are the stereotypical cops; Clarence and his cohorts are stereotypical criminals and so on and so forth.  So, unfortunately, even when the actors do a decent or even excellent job, their simplified characters don’t allow the emotional conveyance to be fully achieved.  In particular, the relationship between Murphy and Lewis, as well as Lewis’ transformation into Robocop suffer as a result.  Large chunks of the film are spent trying to convince us that Murphy and Lewis are close to one another, but since they spend all of one day on the force together, we hardly find this believable.  As for Murphy’s transformation, we never get the chance to see how much of an impact the transformation had on Murphy’s psyche, other than that he somewhat remembers Clarence and his family (whom we almost never hear about, despite an entire scene devoted to them where Murphy explores his old house). If more time had been devoted to developing these characters, the sky could have been the limit for these scenarios.

Thankfully, when God closes a door, he opens a window.  For the highlight of Robocop, aside from Robocop himself, is the subtext scattered throughout the film, displaying Verhoeven’s willingness and capability to take advantage of the settings and take a stab at a few deeper subjects.  For starters, there’s his take on corporate America.  From the moment we are introduced to OCP, we can see that they aren’t exactly painted in the best light.  Throughout the film, OCP is slowly trying to integrate itself into public services because of Detroit’s spiraling debt crisis, showing more concern for profits and bottom lines than the police force that they are undermining with their efforts (the police actually go on strike out of fear that Robocop will put them out of work). 

But, this negative portrayal becomes even more apparent once we enter the OCP headquarters, where corporate warfare reigns supreme.  We see this to a lesser extent with moments like Morton having Murphy’s perfectly healthy arm amputated during his transformation and the rivalry that develops between Morton and Jones because Morton upstaged him.  However, things get absolutely crazy when see that Jones has actually hired Clarence to kill Morton and even when ED-209 malfunctions and kills a board member, Jones straight up moves right past this and consults the Chairman of OCP over the debacle, more concerned with his job than the human being who was just butchered right in front of him.  Granted, these jabs are far from subtle, but they are none the less effective and display just how many people see corporate America.

Verhoeven also takes gives his take on the various shortcomings and frustrations surrounding American culture.  There are the more relatable moments that many people have experienced, that being the instances of robbery, rape and disgruntled employees raising hell that we look to heroes like, or at least similar to, Robocop to assist us with.  But, we also see what’s wrong with what we tend to take for granted every day: the media.  Whether it comes from the news or commercialism, we have been enveloped in a sort of culture of fear that has us worried about everything from national security to our health future.  The news programs that serve as transitions between scenes are typically fixated on violence throughout the world, while commercials are seen shilling nuclear war-themed Battleship clones and medical devices, just serving to further hammer home the idea of business being more concerned with profit than the effect it has on the public.

And even Robocop serves as an analogy for arguably the biggest message of the movie.  Many who have worked a low-end desk job or retail position would argue that these jobs can feel downright dehumanizing, making the worker feel more like a robot than a person.  I get the sense that Murphy becoming Robocop encapsulates this idea.  We already see OCP taking hold of the Detroit police, so wouldn’t this be the next inevitable step?  Isn’t it easier for the OCP to have machines doing the dirty work than people that require far more for their efforts?

And yet, it is from this transformation that we see that OCP’s plan is far from fool-proof.  Initially believing that they had wiped any sense of emotion and memory from Murphy, we gradually begin to see that Murphy’s human side, although seemingly locked away, has still remained largely untouched.  After suffering from a sort of nightmare while in stasis at the police department, Murphy begins to go out on his own initiative and seek out Clarence and the whereabouts of his family without being ordered to by his superiors.  On top of this, when it is revealed that Jones wants Robocop destroyed, Murphy removes his helmet, revealing his face, that being the one remaining organic part of his exterior body that remains.  In this, we can ultimately see a man who no longer wants to be defined by his job and instead wants the freedom to accomplish his goals under his own initiative.

And all of these themes come together in the final product to show that Robocop is not only exciting, but also quite brilliant.  The action and effects creates a fantastic viewing experience, but Verhoeven also shows that such a film that grabs your attention like this can also make you think and wake up to what’s occurring in your world.  Granted, there is the glaring problem surrounding the lackluster acting and characterization, as not only does it take away from potential drama, but it also feels like it could have absolutely been accomplished considering the capabilities of the director.  None the less, the unique blend of action, satire and analysis not only appear to make up for this, but also seem to blend quite well together, as they feel appropriately linked via the plot and never seem to obstruct one another.  If you’re not afraid to think a bit while taking in your dose of mindless chaos, Robocop is certainly worth your time.

Why We Bare Bears Succeeds As A Comedy

Even after having only aired seven episodes and a handful of promos, We Bare Bears is already looking to be one of the more prominent cartoons of the modern age, which is really saying something considering that we currently live in what many consider the new Golden Age of cartoons, with the likes of Adventure Time, Steven Universe and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic dominating the landscape.  There’s plenty to talk about with this show, considering the stellar voice acting, smooth, yet charmingly simple animation and catchy soundtrack.  But, what has really caught my attention thus far is just how side-splittingly hilarious it is.  Cartoons may not be my specialty when it comes to observation and critiquing, but I still know a good comedy when I see one.  Here’s why I think it’s so funny.

1. The Diverse Personalities of the Three Bears

As the main focus of the show, Grizz, the grizzly bear, Panda, the panda bear, and Ice Bear, the polar bear (all of whom are brothers), spend most of their time interacting with one another, so the best way to create memorable interactions between each bear is to give them each a personality that really stands out, which We Bare Bears nails down perfectly.  First, there’s Grizz, the unofficial leader of the trio.  Certainly the most outgoing of the three, Grizz comes off as very assertive and vocal in his opinions.  He’s always excited to interact and make new friends whenever he gets the chance and tends to initiate many of the adventures that the three find themselves in, such as suggesting that they start their own food truck upon realizing that Ice Bear is a tremendous cook in the eponymous episode “Food Truck” or deciding to get “revenge” on their new friend Chloe after they discover a report she did on them painted them in a rather negative light.

Unfortunately, his vibrant personality does little to cover up his rather comical flaws.  This expressiveness tends to leak into his less appealing traits, causing him to be a bit of a slob and rather glutinous, best showcased by his eating display in “Burrito” where he manages to swallow whole burritos in a matter of seconds.  He also doesn’t tend to think many of his plans through very thoroughly, as he fails to take into account the repercussions of feeding wildlife in “Food Truck” or the outcome of his plot against Chloe, leading to a series of mishaps that ends up causing the collapse of his entire plan.  None the less, he still remains a very likely character, as he’s more than willing to learn from his mistakes, stay optimistic to the very end and never forgets that he always has Ice Bear and Panda by his side.

Speaking of Panda, his personality can sort of be seen as the antithesis to Grizz’s.  A rather shy individual, Panda is the least outgoing and most sensitive of the three, more comfortable with following Grizz’s command than thinking of ideas on his own.  This sensitivity has lead to him being labeled the frailest of the three, not only physically, what with him getting injured from merely having a basketball thrown at him in “Our Stuff” and showcasing a severe peanut allergy in “Panda’s Date”, but also mentally, as even a mouse that finds its way onto Panda’s laptop in “Everyday Bears” frightens him, causing him to use up most of the day coming up with convoluted ways to capture the mouse instead of simply trying to grab it or scare it away.

That’s not to say that Panda doesn’t have his strong sides.  Not only is he a skilled artist, specializing in Anime, but he is also quite tech-savvy, spending many hours on his laptop or IPhone, sometimes even managing to use this to assist the trio, such as using a phone tracking application to find their lost backpack in “Our Stuff”.  And while his sensitivity can be seen as a weakness, he also tends to use it to his advantage.  He has a very tender, comforting side and has far less trouble keeping his emotions and judgment separated than Grizz does.  When pushed, he is more than willing to stand up for himself and note that something is wrong, like when he calls Grizz out for his obsession with food in “Burrito”.  He also has a romantic side, as he is always on the lookout for a girlfriend, although his meek side tends to cause his attempts to fall apart more often than not, such as his unsuccessful attempt to have a one-on-one date with Lucy, a new friend of the bears who saved Panda from an allergic reaction while trying desperately to keep his brother’s out of the picture.  Panda is certainly timid, but that doesn’t stop him from being rather amiable at times.

And then there’s Ice Bear…where do you start with this guy?  Ice Bear is typically seen as the comic relief of the show.  This is because he tends to be very quiet most of the time, letting Panda and Grizz do the talking.  However, when he does speak or interact, it’s a whole new ball game.  Not only does he talk strictly in third person, but his actions are downright bizarre.  He’ll tend to roll around for no real reason, say incredibly awkward phrases in the few instances where he speaks (“Ice Bear smells like clean babies.”) and will even cut his food with his own fire axe, all while maintaining a stoic, emotionless expression and voice tone while doing these things.  Saying that he’s the strangest of the three bears is more than a bit of an understatement.

But, if you pay close attention to his action during the show, you’ll find that they speak far louder than his words.  He may have a limited vernacular, but his skill set far surpasses his brothers’.  On top of his excellent cooking skills, he also cleans the house on a regular basis, knows martial arts, speaks multiple languages and even has a bit of an engineering background, as proven in “Everyday Bears” when he manages to reprogram a Roomba he ordered online after it malfunctions, even though it does goes on a destructive rampage shortly after.  Taking all of this into consideration, Ice Bear may not come off as the most outgoing or vocal of the trio, but his actions can certainly label him as the most responsible.

And yet, the best part of their personalities is not just how distinct they are, but how they juxtapose one another when the three interact.  Grizz’s assertiveness can, more often than not, lead to him taking things too far, such as his persistent attempts to become an internet celebrity, typically leading to him being scorned by Panda.  Panda’s bashfulness causes him to stand out like a sore thumb when compared to the levelheadedness of his brothers.  And I think it’s safe to say that Ice Bear’s antics stand miles above anything Panda or Grizz can dish out.  But despite their differences, they still manage to learn from their mistakes and come together as brothers should in the end, which not only warms the heart, but serves to solidify their relationship in all its awkward glory.

2. Well-Rounded Humor

As for the jokes themselves, there’s a solid blend of physical and verbal humor, but it also helps that the jokes are well-paced, never dishing them out so fast that we feel suffocated or just plain annoyed by them.  We’re given a second or two to breathe after the punch line and then they move on with the narrative.  Furthermore, the jokes actually have a sense of purpose to them.  Never does it feel like we’re entering a Family Guy or Uncle Grandpa scenario where the writers are just throwing out random thoughts off the top of their heads and seeing how the characters react to them.  Every time they crack a joke, it feels directly related to both the setting of the episode and the traits of each character.

Take, for example, the early goings of “Everyday Bears”.  Grizz goes to check the mail, but then notices several humans playing with a frisbee, immediately enticing him to join in.  Meanwhile, Panda is surfing the web in his room, checking out various Facebook posts and what have you.  The joke here is that every once in a while, it will cut to a behind shot of Panda and the window in his room, where we can see the Frisbee being thrown outside while Grizz cheers them on.  Not only does this joke showcase the vastly different routines of the individual bears, but it also plays off of their established character traits, Grizz being more outgoing and Panda being more reserved.

And what’s even better is that these types of jokes are always balanced perfectly between kid’s humor and adult humor.  The bears are constantly interacting with their surroundings in real-world scenarios, leaving plenty of potential for very generalized humor, but the execution is what sells it.  The three tend to find themselves involved in wacky shenanigans, giving kids something to laugh at, but they never do it in an overly-cutesy manner.  They simply handle the situation as normal people with these traits would.  It’s this type of well-rounded humor that always keeps me coming back for more.

3. It’s Relatable

Arguably the most defining feature of We Bare Bears’ comedy stems from the aforementioned real-world scenarios.  The best type of humor is not just jokes that you understand on a technical level, but references to things that you feel like you can understand on a personal level.  Because they avoid delving into fantasy elements or focusing on over-the-top cartoonish antics a la Tom & Jerry, the viewer is able to more closely associate with the various scenarios in each episode, as well as the defined personalities of each bear.

From what we’ve seen so far, the bears have gone on an adventure to reclaim their stolen property, attempted to become internet celebrities, tried to start their own business, had rather complicated relationships with multiple human friends and simply went about their normal routines.  Antics are thrown into the mix in order to give the episodes comedic flair, but the context still remains.  These are all events that could realistically happen to you or me at one point or another.  And because we could see ourselves in the shoes of the bears, the humor is magnified because of our greater understanding of it.

There are also valuable lessons to be learned at the end of most episodes, adding on the realistic nature of the characters and their undertakings.  A good number of these lessons stem from the personal flaws of one or more characters, such as Panda’s bashfulness leading to him shutting out his friends in an attempt to get closer to Lucy instead of simply being honest with them or Grizz’s determination clouding his judgment in his quest to become famous on the internet.  In the end, they always tend to learn from their mistakes and become better people…er, bears as a result.  These character evolutions allow us to continue to relate to the bears, causing us to be more closely affected by the humor, not to mention that the lessons concern topics that anyone, not just children, can appreciate and learn from.

Yes, you're probably going to cry over a grizzly bear falling in love with a giant burrito.

And even the inclusion of some drama can actually benefit the humor.  Going back to the episode “Burrito”, Grizz falls madly in love with a giant burrito, only coming to his senses in the end when the burrito explodes after being struck by lightning during a storm and his friends help him realize that they’re far closer to him than food could ever be.  However, it is revealed in a flashback at the end of the episode that Grizz actually got stuck at the top of a tree as a cub during another lightning storm, only to be saved by grabbing on to a fireman’s arm, which just so happens to have a portion of his uniform that looks very close to the giant burrito, meaning that Grizz subconsciously felt attached to the burrito because of its similarities to the very thing that “saved” him and comforted him as a cub.

On top of being surprisingly heart-breaking for this type of show, this drama makes Grizz feel more alive, more realistic as a character.  The fact that he has been shown to have subconscious trauma from his past is, again, something that the average person could associate with, allowing them to relate back to him more easily.  And conversely, the show’s humor makes them more likable, amplifying the effectiveness of the drama because we care more for the characters.  What all of this boils down to is that Grizz, Panda and Ice Bear, even with their exaggerated traits and the fact that they’re anthropomorphic bears, simply feel like real people.  Because of that, we are able to understand and appreciate the humor that much more.

And when all three of these elements come together, they create what I find to be one of the funniest, surprisingly touching cartoons I’ve seen in a long time.  The well-rounded humor is one thing, but when you throw in a cast of relatable, diverse and loveable characters like the bears, We Bare Bears shows that it’s something special.  It actively fuses the humor and characters into one plane and allows the writing to flourish as a result, using the jokes as a way to make the protagonists more engaging; not just as a tool to advance the plot and get some cheap laughs.  This show is a testament to what happens when writers really put their hearts and souls into a product and I can’t wait to see where it goes from here.