(Note: technically, there are spoilers in this review, but if you're old enough to read, you're old enough to see them all coming anyway.)
Remember when Disney movies had heart? It would seem that Disney doesn't, not judging by this shamble of a picture.
Yes, the voice actors do a noble job (particularly Keifer Sutherland, Eddie Izzard, and Jim Belushi -- when aren't they great?), but their fine work can't save a script that is essentially DOA. We've seen this plot a million times before -- son, tired of living in his father's shadow, runs off to prove himself but quickly finds himself in over his head; father and friends seek to rescue him; all grow a bit and learn from one another in the process; wrap with a happy dance number -- but those times it was done better, and one gets the sense that the film makers know it. It is telling that most of the few moments of emotion in the movie are references to those previous films, including several nods to the incredibly superior Lion King, which is the, er, elephant in the room anyway.
There are about two dozen too many characters, almost all of them appearing in half a scene and then gone forever: A surfer-dude hippo/kangaroo duo! Canadian geese, eh! Singing (Dutch?) dung beetles! New Yorker sewer crocodiles! Some of these color characters are cute and even original, especially those crocodiles and a secret-agent pair of chameleons that show up late in the picture, but with no time to develop any of them, one gets the sense that their main purpose is to distract from the paper-thin main characters and equally dimensionless plot.
Visually, the film gets high marks for its realism. The characters look full and move with weight, and textures are sharp all around. The fur on the main lions, in particular, is commendably life-like; no small feat. There is some excellent art direction in general, as the story takes our well-animated characters to three different main locales -- Central Park Zoo, New York City proper, and a tropical island -- and each area looks and feels very different. Oddly, the city is completely devoid of human life; even Times Square is populated only by (it appears) a trio of rabid poodles. Given the utter creepiness that is human CGI, I can hardly blame Disney for avoiding all but the most necessary and brief shots of people. Still, it's somehow far easier to accept a snake, giraffe, lion, and squirrel traveling together across an ocean in a tugboat than it is to accept a New York City that isn't constantly crowded and noisy.
All of that said, the film is at its strongest, visually and otherwise, in the opening sequence, a "tall tale" populated by a 14,001-foot wildebeest in an arresting, surrealist visual style that is sadly never reprised. Think some of the best moments from Fantasia 2000, including that legendary Disney humor, and you'll get an idea. I don't know if a feature-length movie could maintain the energy of those first few minutes (or if such an energy would be survivable by all but the young and the sugar-high) but I'd like to see Disney try. At the very least, I would have liked to have seen a return, if only briefly, to the rich palate and bold linework of the first few minutes.
All in all, this film is a prime example of Disney's (and, more generally, the entertainment industry's) emphasis on a more-is-better, never mind the details strategy. Sure, there are dozens of characters, some of whom experience momentary flashes of originality, but none of them are allowed to become deep or, consequently, memorable. Sure, the fur is pretty, but in two years it will be eclipsed by some other technological innovation and won't seem very special at all. And then what's left?
It seems you just can't replace heart.
Remember when Disney movies had heart? It would seem that Disney doesn't, not judging by this shamble of a picture.
Yes, the voice actors do a noble job (particularly Keifer Sutherland, Eddie Izzard, and Jim Belushi -- when aren't they great?), but their fine work can't save a script that is essentially DOA. We've seen this plot a million times before -- son, tired of living in his father's shadow, runs off to prove himself but quickly finds himself in over his head; father and friends seek to rescue him; all grow a bit and learn from one another in the process; wrap with a happy dance number -- but those times it was done better, and one gets the sense that the film makers know it. It is telling that most of the few moments of emotion in the movie are references to those previous films, including several nods to the incredibly superior Lion King, which is the, er, elephant in the room anyway.
There are about two dozen too many characters, almost all of them appearing in half a scene and then gone forever: A surfer-dude hippo/kangaroo duo! Canadian geese, eh! Singing (Dutch?) dung beetles! New Yorker sewer crocodiles! Some of these color characters are cute and even original, especially those crocodiles and a secret-agent pair of chameleons that show up late in the picture, but with no time to develop any of them, one gets the sense that their main purpose is to distract from the paper-thin main characters and equally dimensionless plot.
Visually, the film gets high marks for its realism. The characters look full and move with weight, and textures are sharp all around. The fur on the main lions, in particular, is commendably life-like; no small feat. There is some excellent art direction in general, as the story takes our well-animated characters to three different main locales -- Central Park Zoo, New York City proper, and a tropical island -- and each area looks and feels very different. Oddly, the city is completely devoid of human life; even Times Square is populated only by (it appears) a trio of rabid poodles. Given the utter creepiness that is human CGI, I can hardly blame Disney for avoiding all but the most necessary and brief shots of people. Still, it's somehow far easier to accept a snake, giraffe, lion, and squirrel traveling together across an ocean in a tugboat than it is to accept a New York City that isn't constantly crowded and noisy.
All of that said, the film is at its strongest, visually and otherwise, in the opening sequence, a "tall tale" populated by a 14,001-foot wildebeest in an arresting, surrealist visual style that is sadly never reprised. Think some of the best moments from Fantasia 2000, including that legendary Disney humor, and you'll get an idea. I don't know if a feature-length movie could maintain the energy of those first few minutes (or if such an energy would be survivable by all but the young and the sugar-high) but I'd like to see Disney try. At the very least, I would have liked to have seen a return, if only briefly, to the rich palate and bold linework of the first few minutes.
All in all, this film is a prime example of Disney's (and, more generally, the entertainment industry's) emphasis on a more-is-better, never mind the details strategy. Sure, there are dozens of characters, some of whom experience momentary flashes of originality, but none of them are allowed to become deep or, consequently, memorable. Sure, the fur is pretty, but in two years it will be eclipsed by some other technological innovation and won't seem very special at all. And then what's left?
It seems you just can't replace heart.