“The Wild“ is an unfortunate waste of time. The Disney version of ”Madagascar“ comes up short in many ways, primarily in terms of a cohesive plot, likable characters, and overall kid-appeal. The animation is impressive but almost distracting in it’s realism, verging on creepy. In typical Disney fashion, there are father (Samson) and child (Ryan) characters but no mother; at least in this story there is no traumatic loss of the mother to set up the story like most other Disney movies.
Much like ”Madagascar“, the plot revolves around a motley crew of zoo animals who escape into New York and end up returning to Africa. To be fair, the Disney project apparently was begun years before the movie ”Madagascar“, but unfortunately was released long after it. If ”The Wild“ had turned out better, it might not have been written off as a ”Madagascar“ rip-off. In this version, the protagonist Samson is a lion who has been raised his whole life in the zoo, but trades on his undeserved reputation as a formerly-wild king of the savannah to impress his... um, peers (other zoo animals, though for some reason his best buddy is a squirrel), and especially his son Ryan. His son is a cub who has still not ”found his roar“ and is deeply ashamed of his failure. Even though he is obviously the equivalent of a leonine pre-teen, apparently he is still expected to roar like a full-grown lion. He escapes the zoo in a shipping crate bound for Africa. Samson and friends somehow manage to escape and follow him in, of all things, a tugboat. They encounter exactly one human during their trip from the zoo to the docks, and somehow their tugboat makes it all the way to Africa (and back) without ever needing to refuel. At least in ”Madagascar”, the animals’ escape, though preposterous, still holds on to a shred of believability since they are eventually surrounded, captured, and shipped against their will back to the wild. Of course, what follows in “Madagascar” is just silly, so I am not holding on to believability as a major factor for not liking “The Wild”, but the writing in “The Wild” is sloppy and unnecessarily complicated, keeping it from being enjoyable.
Once the animals reach Africa, they still must find the young lion, who arrived mere moments ahead of the zoo crew, is frightened by an animal-rescue operation and flees into the jungle. During the search, the animals become tangled in a wildebeest revolution led by an extremely scary Kazar, who happens to have his headquarters in a enormous cave under an active volcano, further stretching the limits of believability. In fact, the goals of the revolution are to turn the tables of the natural order, with the wildebeest becoming predators and the lions becoming their prey. All of this was very confusing and scary for my five-year-old, and I really wish I hadn’t let him watch it. My nine-year-old was taken in by the slapstick humor, ignored the obvious plot holes and inconsistencies, and did not seem very put off by the frightening aspects of the bad guys.
To summarize things a parent might want to know:
The story is disjointed and trades on a pre-teen’s feelings of failure and inadequacy as well as his father’s disappointing fabrications and half-truths. Neither main character is very likable and do not do much to redeem themselves. The rest of the characters are poorly developed. The antagonist is extremely scary and the environment of the bad guys’ headquarters (an active volcano) amplifies their frightening aspects. Many elements of the plot are too unbelievable even for an animated fantasy. Definitely not a good choice for small children; older kids may find humor in the slapstick jokes but otherwise no redeeming qualities.
Much like ”Madagascar“, the plot revolves around a motley crew of zoo animals who escape into New York and end up returning to Africa. To be fair, the Disney project apparently was begun years before the movie ”Madagascar“, but unfortunately was released long after it. If ”The Wild“ had turned out better, it might not have been written off as a ”Madagascar“ rip-off. In this version, the protagonist Samson is a lion who has been raised his whole life in the zoo, but trades on his undeserved reputation as a formerly-wild king of the savannah to impress his... um, peers (other zoo animals, though for some reason his best buddy is a squirrel), and especially his son Ryan. His son is a cub who has still not ”found his roar“ and is deeply ashamed of his failure. Even though he is obviously the equivalent of a leonine pre-teen, apparently he is still expected to roar like a full-grown lion. He escapes the zoo in a shipping crate bound for Africa. Samson and friends somehow manage to escape and follow him in, of all things, a tugboat. They encounter exactly one human during their trip from the zoo to the docks, and somehow their tugboat makes it all the way to Africa (and back) without ever needing to refuel. At least in ”Madagascar”, the animals’ escape, though preposterous, still holds on to a shred of believability since they are eventually surrounded, captured, and shipped against their will back to the wild. Of course, what follows in “Madagascar” is just silly, so I am not holding on to believability as a major factor for not liking “The Wild”, but the writing in “The Wild” is sloppy and unnecessarily complicated, keeping it from being enjoyable.
Once the animals reach Africa, they still must find the young lion, who arrived mere moments ahead of the zoo crew, is frightened by an animal-rescue operation and flees into the jungle. During the search, the animals become tangled in a wildebeest revolution led by an extremely scary Kazar, who happens to have his headquarters in a enormous cave under an active volcano, further stretching the limits of believability. In fact, the goals of the revolution are to turn the tables of the natural order, with the wildebeest becoming predators and the lions becoming their prey. All of this was very confusing and scary for my five-year-old, and I really wish I hadn’t let him watch it. My nine-year-old was taken in by the slapstick humor, ignored the obvious plot holes and inconsistencies, and did not seem very put off by the frightening aspects of the bad guys.
To summarize things a parent might want to know:
The story is disjointed and trades on a pre-teen’s feelings of failure and inadequacy as well as his father’s disappointing fabrications and half-truths. Neither main character is very likable and do not do much to redeem themselves. The rest of the characters are poorly developed. The antagonist is extremely scary and the environment of the bad guys’ headquarters (an active volcano) amplifies their frightening aspects. Many elements of the plot are too unbelievable even for an animated fantasy. Definitely not a good choice for small children; older kids may find humor in the slapstick jokes but otherwise no redeeming qualities.
No comments:
Post a Comment