|
Are we still in an age where talking animals
are funny? I mean I wish we were in a time where animals talking and
acting human was as funny as watching George C. Scott getting hit in the
groin with a football. And worst of all, it’s a blasted Disney film
whose main character is a grown lion trying to teach his son to follow
in his footsteps. Yet when his cub of a son attempts to growl, he only
squeals. What does that sound like to you? Think about it. And like that
fish movie, the son of our main character who happens to be a doting
father, escapes the habitat they’re in and finds himself in a heaping
pile of trouble being caught and all; which now prompts his dad to go
looking for him and bring him back home. Everything else in the middle
of this half baked talking animal fest is really nothing but a string of
gags relying on its animation to get it a free pass. For every “Over the
Hedge,” there are at least four more of these movies that really do
nothing but stuff a bunch of clichés into a ninety minute frame.
|
Giraffes, squirrels, the fail safe penguins,
and even lions all run around the city unnoticed while never
being able to muster up any sense of excitement of hilarity.
All the while there’s the dad pressuring his son to learn to
roar, a koala character wasted in a really boring sub-plot
of wilder beasts trying to take over the world, and an
awfully violent finale that I was surprised even occurred.
Conveniently, this arrived
shortly after “Madagascar,” a film I prefer much more from
this. |
|
 |
But, Disney unfortunately takes a serious
approach, making its animation as realistic as possible, and they also
feature talking animals, completely missing the point. If you’re going
to do something wrong, at least do it right. “Madagascar” did it right.
Looney Tunes computer animation, goofy acting, and laughs to match. “The
Wild,” in its generic title, is an utterly lifeless byproduct of Disney
attempting to market on the talking animal craze. The animals barely
look as realistic as Disney wants to think. All of the animal’s look
awfully waxy and plastic in movement and texture, and that detracts from
the bravado given to us in the production. I was open to being
surprised, as I always am with animated films, but it met my
expectations. It was nothing but a lifeless cash-in.
You can make the argument that since “The
Wild” was in production first, that it shouldn’t be compared to
“Madagascar,” and you’d be right. Both films needn’t be compared when
“Madagascar” was a hilarious kid’s film, and “The Wild” simply a bland
uncreative cash-in.
|
