The Flipcritic

Before I begin my morbid review of SCOOBY-DOO, ask yourself this question: What makes Scooby-Doo (both the dog and the show) interesting? I have to ask this question because it's not a good-enough reason to take kids to see a movie just because it's based on a popular cartoon show. Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News writes: "Let's be honest, the original Scooby-Doo cartoon series was pretty lousy, the sort of thing you watched not because it was good, but because it was on." Though I like Scooby-Doo as a lovable character, her assessment of the show is dead-on. We already have countless movies of talking dogs (both live and animated). Why make a movie about this one?

When I first saw the trailer for SCOOBY-DOO, my heart sank. Why would anyone want to make a live-action version of this material? Simple... moolah. Suddenly DEATH TO SMOOCHY doesn't seem so silly, where production companies (in this case Warner Bros.) views kids as little wallets. I've always liked Scooby (the dog), but can you remember a single memorable episode? Of course not, because they were all the based on the same crime-solving formula (the only things that changed were the bad guys and the costumes they were wearing).

I won't waste time trying to explain the plot. It's your standard Scooby story. But if you're unfortunate enough to go see the movie, you will witness the most expensive and useless set ever built for a movie since WATERWORLD (I expect this to end up in some Warner Bros. amusement park). You'll get standard CGI graphics, but for what? I believe Hollywood honchos think that as soon as they put computerized special effects in their films, they'll be considered impressive. But at times they end up looking sillier than cartoons (Would you rather a see a CGI Jerry the mouse dancing with Gene Kelly or a hand-drawn animated one?).

The movie has two bright spots, and Matthew Lillard (THIRTEEN GHOSTS) is the brighter one. He is fabulous as Shaggy (he is Shaggy), and lightens up the screen whenever he's on it. I hope this outing leads him to greener pastures (he deserves it after this performance). The other bright spot is the CGI Scooby-Doo (voiced by Scott Innes). He isn't real, but he's a lot more animated than the rest of the cast. Though he does get some chuckles, he really is better as a cartoon. His 3-D look is a step down from his silly charm. What else can I say? Sarah Michelle Gellar (of the TV Serieis BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER) is too 'Buffy' to be Daphne, Linda Cardellini is too geeky to be Velma, and Freddy Prince Jr. doesn't know what he wants to be. He has the emotional depth of a wet paper plate (in all his films). Rowan Atkinson (BEAN) is just here to collect his paycheck, but I'd pay to see him anywhere else but here.

Some of you folks out there may think that it's just harmless fun to bring your kids to see nonsense like this. But if you can get the same inanity at home, why not stay there? SCOOBY-DOO was fine (or bad enough) as it was as a cartoon series, and it has no business being a movie. Its big-screen version is totally unnecessary and is a complete waste of time. Trust me, you aren't missing a thing.