'Buddy' is Totally Bonkers, But it Will Never Eclipse My Favorite “I Hate Barney” Thriller
🎮 Multi-platformNews
🎮 Buddy'🎮 But it#Comedy#Buddy#Death to Smoochy

'Buddy' is Totally Bonkers, But it Will Never Eclipse My Favorite “I Hate Barney” Thriller

Polygon RSS FeedBrian VanHooker6 min read(about 5 hours ago)

Overview & Key Takeaways

The best anti-Barney movie isn't Buddy, its the 2002 comedy Death to Smoochy starring Robin Williams and Edward Norton with director Danny DeVito

Earlier this year, the indie horror phenomenon Obsession pulled off the impossible: it made more money on its second weekend in theaters than it did in its first. This month, that happened again with another horror film, Buddy, which earned $5.3 million during the weekend of August 28, and then raked in another $5.7 million over Labor Day weekend. While that’s nowhere near Obsession's blockbuster numbers, it’s a big win for a horror flick with a mere $3 million budget.

Buddy is about a group of kids featured in a Barney & Friends-like children’s show. They sing songs and learn lessons from Buddy, an adorable orange unicorn (voiced by Keegan-Michael Key). In time, though, they begin to notice something strange about Buddy, like how he forces kids to sing and dance, even when they don’t want to. When some of the young cast members go missing, the other kids begin to grow suspicious of Buddy, and they discover that he’s a vicious killer.

Buddy’s premise is fantastic, and its best asset is Buddy himself, who looks, feels, and sounds like a real kiddie-show mascot from the 1990s. However, while the critical acclaim for the film may put me in the minority, I don’t really think it lives up to its ingenious idea. With an adorable, fluffy, killer unicorn at its center, I expected Buddy to be both funny and scary, but it only ever elicited a few chuckles from me, and it was far more gory than scary. I don’t mind gore, but it’s not a substitute for terror or creepiness.

Honestly, the experience of watching Buddy was so disappointing to me that it had me yearning for a far more satisfying takedown of Barney the dinosaur, the 2002 comedy, Death to Smoochy.

Death ton Smoochy Image: Warner Bros.

Directed by Danny DeVito, Death to Smoochy is about the corrupt (and I assume fictionalized) world of children’s programming. It begins with a long-running kiddie show host named Rainbow Randolph (Robin Williams) getting arrested for accepting a bribe from some parents to feature their kid on his show. The bribe turns out to be an FBI sting operation, and Rainbow Randolph’s career comes crashing down. As a replacement, the network hires singer/songwriter Sheldon Mopes (Edward Norton), who dresses up like a big purple rhinoceros named Smoochy. (DeVito plays his corrupt talent agent.) Smoochy becomes a phenomenon, while Randolph continues to spiral. Soon, an emotionally unstable Randolph decides the only way back to the top is to kill Smoochy.

Like DeVito's earlier films Throw Momma from the Train and The War of the Roses, Death to Smoochy is a pitch-black comedy with a very morbid, twisted sense of humor. To put it mildly, Death to Smoochy is not for everyone, which DeVito found out the hard way back in 2002 when it made just $8 million off its $50 million budget. In the years since, though, Death to Smoochy has found a devoted cult audience who swear it's some of DeVito’s, Norton’s, and Williams’ best work.

Robin Williams and Edward Norton at their very best

Death to Smoochy Robin Williams Image: Warner Bros/Everett Collection

On top of its sharply-written, fast-moving script full of funny jokes, Death to Smoochy is packed with talented people. The cast includes Catherine Keener, Harvey Fierstein, Jon Stewart, Danny Woodburn, Michael Rispoli, Vincent Siavelli, and Pam Ferris — and if you don’t know all of those names, you’ll certainly know their faces. These characters make up a really fun, eclectic supporting cast, but Death to Smoochy’s best stuff all ties into its two leads, both of whom pull off incredibly funny performances unlike anything else in their careers.

In pure comedies like Aladdin and Mrs. Doubtfire, Williams plays big, broad comedy, while in psychological thrillers like One Hour Photoand Insomnia, he portrays deeply disturbed, dangerous men. But besides Death to Smoochy, he never played both those things in the same character.

In the beginning of the movie, Rainbow Randolph is a greedy, cynical man who cares nothing for the children. His only concern is how he’s going to keep the cash coming in. Then, when he loses it all, he begins to lash out, often violently, and especially at Smoochy. Throughout the movie, he crafts a series of crackpot plans to ruin the rhino, like sneaking penis-shaped cookies into an on-camera segment with the kids. He also tricks Smoochy into performing for a Nazi rally, which briefly hurts Smoochy’s career and spawns the hilarious moment where a bunch of American Nazis shout “Heil Smoochy!”

Yet, as Rainbow Randolph gets worse, he becomes paradoxically more sympathetic. You actually want him to take Smoochy down, even though Randolph is clearly in the wrong. I don’t think it's correct to say “you’ve never seen Robin Williams like this before,” because you have, just not all at once, which makes for something laugh-out-loud funny.

Death to Smoochy Edward Norton Catherine Keener Image: Warner Bros/Everett Collection

Then there’s Edward Norton as Sheldon Mopes. Norton had only recently become a big star with Fight Club a few years earlier, so why he chose to go for a broad comedy where he plays a cheesy, wide-eyed innocent so soon afterwards is anyone’s guess. Thankfully, he did, and Norton completely transforms into a really unique character, especially when compared to his darker work.

Sheldon Mopes, aka Smoochy, is the genuine article — he’s like Mr. Rogers dressed as Barney. Mopes is kind, charitable, a bit naive, and he cares not a whiff about all the money he’s now earning — he only cares about the good it can do. As Stewart’s network executive puts it in the movie, Mopes is “a bottle of pancake syrup with legs,” except Mopes might object to that comparison due to the sugar content, as he also really cares about nutrition. Mopes is a totally honest cornball, which is why it’s so weird that you end up rooting against him in the movie.

DeVito’s dark, delicate touch

Death to Smoochy Edward Norton Image: Warner Bros/Everett Collection

Along with Williams and Norton, the man who deserves the most credit for this twisted tale is director DeVito. In several of his films, like Matilda and the other aforementioned titles, DeVito has shown a perplexing, yet shockingly coherent, blend of both dark comedy and charming sweetness. Rainbow Randolph is a despicable character, yet he’s incredibly fun to watch when he dances and sings in his glittery, rainbow-colored jacket. Mopes is a completely sincere character, yet some of his songs have sneakily dark lyrics, like, “My Stepdad's Not Mean (He's Just Adjusting),” which he sings to a group of children who sing along with Smoochy. And, despite Death to Smoochy being a dark movie with lots of killing and dirty jokes, it ends with a bright, sunny conclusion that probably is unearned, yet somehow feels perfect in its childlike innocence. Somehow, DeVito knows how to marry these disparate elements into a fantastically funny film — even if they’re the kind of thing that doesn't always catch on while it's still in theaters.

In that regard, Buddy has got Death to Smoochy beat, (even if you don’t account for 20+ years of inflation). But according to me — a guy who saw Death to Smoochy in theaters back in 2002 and loved it — and the devoted Smoochy fans who have found the movie in the years since, no orange unicorn can ever come along and dethrone our favorite fuchsia rhinoceros.


Buddy is currently in theaters. Death to Smoochy is streaming for free on Hoopla and the Roku Channel.

Share:

More in Multi-platform

You’ll Fight The Protoss In StarCraft, Too, Don’t Worry🎮 Multi-platform

You’ll Fight The Protoss In StarCraft, Too, Don’t Worry

StarCraft's reveal trailer squarely put the focus on the Terrans, who later in the cinematic face a terrifying confrontation with the Zerg. The franchise's three franchises--including the Protoss--have always been a central element of what distinguishes StarCraft from other strategy games. Although the Protoss were effectively absent from the trailer, they are a foe you will face at some point. GameSpot spoke with GM and creative director Dan Hay at BlizzCon(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzcon-2026-opening-ceremony-all-the-biggest-announcements-and-games/) and asked him about how the three factions will interact with each other. Although he was expectedly coy on specifics, he did offer up some thoughts. "The answer to that question is I absolutely unequivocally can't say," Hay said. "But what I can do is tell you what I would want as a player. I'll hint at sort of not what we're doing, but some of the things that we think about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIu2tGCCKQw&pp=0gcJCf4LAYcqIYzv "Of course, what you want to be able to do... you think about the Protoss and how reverent we are. They're older, and there's a mystique and a grandness to them, right? They have just a completely different flavor. Then you have the Zerg, and the Zerg are just numberless; they're infinite from the standpoint of they just overwhelm you with sheer organic power. Then you have the Terrans, that are this group of... they're working their way through the sector in kind of a haphazard and industrial way. We want that feeling. "We want it to not all just be one taste. So we want to have moments where you're fighting things that are organic, and then moments where you're fighting things that are this wonderful legacy and that are ancient. I want to tell you a lot more, but I can't." Hay did point out something that was easy to miss in the trailer: a small hint of the Protoss. "You saw more than the Zerg in the trailer," he said. "If you look a little deeper, there's a moment when the thing opens and you hear that great horn go off. If you look in the background—just in the background, adjust the lighting just a tiny bit—you'll see some architecture that is very not Terran and very not Zerg. It's there." Hay also confirmed a third-person perspective for StarCraft(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-starcraft-shooter-is-a-third-person-game-and-blizzard-insists-that-you-have-to-feel-powerful/). While the trailer may not reflect gameplay, it does showcase one way that could impact the feel of the game, as we see the Terran soldier look up in terror at the size of a Zerg Overlord, something you ordinarily only see from an isometric camera view in past StarCraft games. He also said StarCraft will have a "single-player focus"(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/starcraft-reboot-is-focusing-on-single-player-creative-director-says/) and offered some insight into why the game was announced now despite arriving in 2030(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-explains-why-the-starcraft-shooter-coming-in-2030-was-announced-now/).

GameSpotNewsabout 2 hours ago
The StarCraft Shooter Is A Third-Person Game, And Blizzard Insists That You Have To Feel “Powerful”🎮 Multi-platform

The StarCraft Shooter Is A Third-Person Game, And Blizzard Insists That You Have To Feel “Powerful”

If you walked away from the StarCraft reveal(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/starcraft-is-officially-back-but-its-taking-a-much-different-form/) excited for the franchise to return, but unsure what this new game even is, you're not alone. Aside from being described during the BlizzCon Opening Ceremony(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzcon-2026-opening-ceremony-all-the-biggest-announcements-and-games/) as an open-world shooter, Blizzard didn't share much else. In an interview with GameSpot, Blizzard GM Dan Hay provided a few more details, including the fact that it's a third-person game. The StarCraft franchise, having taken the form of real-time strategy games previously, has typically used an isometric perspective. When it came to choosing what perspective to offer in the new shooter, it sounds like it wasn't a difficult decision. "Oh, that's easy," Hay said when GameSpot asked him about whether StarCraft will be a first- or third-person game. "I want to be able to see my armor. First thing we did is we built it, put it on a turntable, and spun it around like, 'Ah, awesome, cool!' I want to be able to see it, so third-person, right? "That doesn't mean that we don't have the license to, in a couple of spaces, do a little bit different and whatnot, but third-person: You get to see your armor, you get to see the full weight of everything you have, and then you get to see stuff that's in my head that I can't tell you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIu2tGCCKQw&pp=0gcJCf4LAYcqIYzv Hay spoke to us a great deal about the fantasy of having this armor to protect you. Asked about character progression or customization, he said, "If I was to get—in theory, hypothetically, purely hypothetically—this is what I would want: I would want to be able to make sure that my armor can be made better, stronger, and different. I would also want to be able to make sure that I could make it feel like mine. I would want it to be a visitation of the legacy of the things that I had done. I would want to show that it looked different from the first moment that I got it to the last moment I got it. So, read into that how much you will hypothetically, but that's what I would want as a player." "We have to make sure that we're thinking about—and I have to be careful not to talk about this too much—combat has to feel powerful," he added. "You're in this armor; you're a living tank. You have to feel powerful. When you hold that Gauss rifle, and the thing weighs something ridiculous, you have to feel like you're just pushing through the Zerg. The Zerg have to feel like those raptorial claws are going to shuck you like an oyster in that thing. So you have to feel the weight of all that. "We take that very seriously. We know that people who are out there are going to be going, 'The teaser was amazing, super cool, the story sounds great, but we want to see that combat. We want to feel those moments. We want to feel the exploration, the sense of discovery, and we also want to feel this notion of disruption—that when I go out into the world, it pushes back in a way that I wasn't expecting, and then I have to figure out a new way to play.' It's how our world works." Hay also revealed to us that StarCraft is a single-player game (or single-player is at least the focus(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/starcraft-reboot-is-focusing-on-single-player-creative-director-says/)) and shared why Blizzard decided to reveal it so soon(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-explains-why-the-starcraft-shooter-coming-in-2030-was-announced-now/), given it won't be out until 2030.

🎮 The StarCraft Shooter
GameSpotNewsabout 3 hours ago
StarCraft Reboot Is “Focusing On Single-Player,” Creative Director Says🎮 Multi-platform

StarCraft Reboot Is “Focusing On Single-Player,” Creative Director Says

StarCraft is "focusing on single-player," StarCraft creative director and general manager Dan Hay and associate manager of development operations Anna Lee Hertling said in an interview with GameSpot. One of the biggest announcements of BlizzCon 2026(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzcon-2026-opening-ceremony-all-the-biggest-announcements-and-games/) was the return of StarCraft, described as an open-world shooter and slated for a 2030 release. Aside from its impressive reveal cinematic, there wasn't much additional information about how StarCraft would play or what the shooter reboot of the RTS franchise would entail. Now, we have some more details. When asked whether StarCraft would be single-player or co-op, Hay said the team is "focusing on single player." "We are focused right now on the conversation of focusing on single-player, focusing on that Marine fantasy, and then making sure that we think about what it is to be that character," Hay said. "That's what we're saying for now." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIu2tGCCKQw&pp=ygUSZ2FtZXNwb3Qgc3RhcmNyYWZ0 He said players will not create their own character but play a named character that can "build a reputation and a rapport" with other in-game characters. He said the game's story will have a beginning, middle, and an "end," and that Blizzard wants it to feel like a "boxed product." Thought it's story will have an end, Hay said Blizzard wants the game to be one players can visit, explore, leave, and come back to. "We like a named character, right?" Hay said. "When it comes down to this, we want to be able to make sure that what you have is a character that has a name, a character that people in the world can know. What it does it it makes the story have a little bit more life to it." Hay continued: "What you want to be able to do is have people--and I have to be super careful, Anna Lee will abosultey stop me if I talk too much about the story--but there's nothing...I think about a TV show like Deadwood, which is one of my top five favorites. What I love is the idea that all of those characters know each other and they have a reputation. You go in, and they know each other on a Tuesday; they know each other on a Thursday afternoon at like 3:08, right? What you want is to have a named character that can build a reputation and a rapport with these characters, and that we can have feel like they're part of this world." Other tidbits shared by Hay during the interview include the fact that StarCraft will be third-person(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-starcraft-shooter-is-a-third-person-game-and-blizzard-insists-that-you-have-to-feel-powerful/) rather than first, as well as why Blizzard decided to announce it now(https://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-explains-why-the-starcraft-shooter-coming-in-2030-was-announced-now/), four years in advance.

🎮 StarCraft Reboot
GameSpotNewsabout 3 hours ago