Movie Review: The Croods

Movie Review: The Croods/Rated PG/Dir. by Chris Sanders and Kirk De Micco/DreamWorks/98 min.

In the world of live-action film, there are a few directors with the level of name-recognition and fandom comparable to famous actors.  Your Spielbergs, your Hitchcocks, your Scorseses.  Recently J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon have become the type of director that is almost more of a draw than any on-screen talent. However, in the world of animation, the director is usually a hidden hero.  Partly because most animated films are marketed to children, who really couldn't care less who directed the movie, and partly because directing an animated film is not as respectable as directing a live-action one among Hollywood types.  However, as an adult fan of the art form, I believe there are a few names in animation that should be as well-known as their live-action counterparts.  Brad Bird, who has successfully made the transition to live-action film, is also responsible for three of the best animated films of the past 20 years: "The Iron Giant", "The Incredibles", and "Ratatouille".  Then there's Andrew Stanton, who less successfully made the transition to live-action with "John Carter", but also directed the animated classics "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E".

Another name that should be synonymous with quality work in animation is Chris Sanders.  Starting at Disney in the early 90's as a story writer, he helped craft the stories for "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King".  Then he was promoted to writing the screenplay for "Mulan".  A few years later, he was handed the reins of a film as director (along with his writing partner Dean Dublois) with "Lilo & Stitch", a movie that was marketed by Disney as a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  He and Dublois then left Disney for DreamWorks and they directed "How to Train Your Dragon", a movie that was marketed  as a raucous comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  Now Sanders brings us "The Croods" (along side Kirk De Micco, whose previous directorial effort "Space Chimps" is far less promising), a film that has been heavily marketed as, you guessed it, a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turns out to be heartfelt and beautiful as well.  Sanders has a keenly sharp sense of humor, but he also understands that what makes a movie more than merely funny is heart and "The Croods" has heart to spare.  Thankfully, the most crude thing about the movie is its title.  

The Croods are the last family to survive the harsh dangers of their neighborhood and, as far as they know, the last humans left in a very frightening prehistorical landscape.  Grug (Nicolas Cage) knows that the only way he can protect his family is to instill in them a very primal sense of fear.  Bed time stories always end with curiosity being met with instant and unexplained death and fear and cave-cowering are met with survival.  While Grug's tactics have kept his family alive as others have been killed, his teenage daughter Eep (Emma Stone) longs for more than survival.  After encountering a rogue human aptly named Guy (Ryan Reynolds) and narrowly escaping a catastrophic earthquake, the family is forced to go on a road trip to find a safer place, which is great for the free-spirited Eep, but a nightmare for her father.

Along for the trip are mother Ugga (Catherine Keener), son Thunk (Clark Duke), the venerable Gran (Cloris Leachman) and a baby known merely as "The Baby", who is part adorable moppet, part feral animal, a personality trait that the movie uses frequently to hilarious effect.  While the family becomes intrigued by Guy's new ways and ideas, Grug is less trusting, especially as he sees his daughter's increasing infatuation with the free thinking Neander-dude.

Using the backdrop of the breaking of the continents and the constantly evolving wildlife of a prehistoric world, "The Croods" deals with the well-tread "rebellious teenager/strict father" story line, but because of the setting, the high level of humor and the terrific voice performances, it never feels cliched.  In fact, "The Croods" is one of those rare animated comedies that really gets the balance of humor and heart just right and it builds that humor from the character personalities and situation instead of building the situations around the humor, something that early DreamWorks films sometimes struggled with.  Plus, after an hour of consistent belly laughs, the poignancy of the ending packs a pretty powerful emotional punch.

We're also given themes and messages that are far removed from the traditional animated film.  No "Just be yourself" platitudes here, "The Croods" is all about change as the impetus of growth, which is a wonderful lesson for children and adults alike.  

The animation is quite lovely and in 3D it positively pops off the screen.  The 3D is used in obvious, "chuck things at the screen" ways, and also in subtle ways to tell the story.  While I would normally recommend people skip 3D, especially with the increasing expense of seeing a movie in the theater, this is one instance when the 3D is used to great effect which truly enhances instead of just costing more.

To say that "The Croods" is the best prehistoric-themed comedy ever made is not saying much.  Its competition is the likes of "Year One", the live-action "The Flintstones", and the Ringo Starr-staring "Caveman".  However, saying that it's among the upper-tier DreamWorks efforts is quite a compliment.  It stands easily among "Kung Fu Panda", "How to Train Your Dragon" and the other better efforts of the studio.  Hopefully, the studio will continue to attract talented filmmakers like Chris Sanders and these types of high-quality films will be the new norm for DreamWorks.

Grade: A-

Jack vs. Oz: Which fantasy is more bewitching?

Movie Review:  "Jack the Giant Slayer"/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./Dir. by Bryan Singer/114 min.
                         "Oz: The Great and Powerful"/Rated PG/Walt Disney/Dir. by Sam Raimi/130 min.

In the past week and a half, there have been two big-budget period fantasy movies released.  Both were directed by auteurs originally known for independent films, but who took over major Marvel comic book franchises in the early 2000's.  Both of them directed two of the best-regarded superhero movies ever made and were looking to do something completely different.  However, both of them came up with very different films.

Last week brought the first of the two films, "Jack the Giant Slayer", a movie with a troubled history of bloated budgets and changed release dates (it was originally supposed to reach theaters last summer, but was suddenly moved to a lower-profile spring release, which is rarely a good sign).  It was clear from the commercials that Warner Bros. either didn't have much faith in the film or they didn't have the first inkling of how to market it, in spite of director Bryan Singer's triumph with the first two "X-Men" movies.  If one was to believe the advertising, "Jack" was a wacky, chew-the-scenery action comedy with Ewan MacGregor and Stanley Tucci mugging at the camera at every opportunity.  In actuality, it's a full-blooded adventure film with top-rate special effects, committed acting and multi-layered writing rarely found in this style of sword and sorcery flick.

"Jack" stars Nicholas Hoult ("About a Boy", "Warm Bodies") as, well, Jack, a noble, kind-hearted farm boy who was raised on stories of giants, beanstalks, and magic beans.  Unbeknownst to him, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) was raised on the same stories by her mother, who taught her to seek independent adventures as they will make her a more wise leader.  Unfortunately, she's betrothed to the royal advisor, an older, shifty-eyed gentleman who is played by Stanley Tucci, so he's CLEARLY not villainous (Jafar from "Aladdin" was a more subtle traitor to the royal crown).  The princess' thirst for adventure leads her to Jack, the magic beans, a beanstalk, and, of course, giants.

"Jack the Giant Slayer" does a good job making the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" more grounded and believable.  In fact, it addresses how the story gets changed through the ages into the more benign version we now know.  Once the giants show up, the story becomes infused with a genuine danger and menace that leads to some surprisingly tense scenes, truly showing homage to its swashbuckling cinematic DNA.  The special effects are quite effective, both when used to inspire awe and when used to repulse (the giants are pretty gross, with a particular love for biting the heads off of their enemies).

The second of the two fantasy films, "Oz: The Great and Powerful", has a far less troubled history.  Lead by Sam Raimi with the same confidence he brought to the original "Spider-Man" films, and scheduled in March to take advantage of the release date that brought such huge success to Tim Burton's similar "Alice in Wonderland", "Oz" was exquisitely marketed by the super-geniuses at Disney.  However, unlike "Jack", the finished product isn't as good as the commercials make it look.

"Oz" stars the woefully miscast James Franco as Oscar Diggs (nickname: Oz), a magician/flim-flam artist who gets sucked up into a twister and sent to the magical kingdom inexplicably named after him where he encounters three witch sisters, Theodora (the similarly miscast Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz, slipping in and out of accents so much that it's hard to tell which one she was really aiming for) and Glinda (Michelle Williams), the obviously good witch, but never shown to be much more than merely good.  He is also given standard-issue sidekicks in the form of a servant flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) and an enchantingly animated and voiced China doll (voiced by Joey King).  It's never a good thing when you find the sidekicks infinitely more interesting than both the protagonist and the antagonist, but such is the case here.  I'd pay money to see an entire movie just about the fragile China girl and her teapot-themed city.

Franco simply doesn't have the range required in this film.  Sure, he's believable as a lovable shyster, but not as show-stopping entertainer, and that's supposed to be his true talent.  Every time he flips into P.T. Barnum mode, he's clearly out of his element.  Plus, he struggles with anything that requires sincerity.  In addition, Kunis, who is delightful in every other role in which I've seen her, simply comes across as whiny and annoying in her most dramatic scenes.  In fact, I think that this movie would have been far more effective with and entirely new lead cast (not including Braff and King, who both do a great job with their voice work).

The one area where "Oz" excells is visual splendor.  The special effects, the production design, and the visual direction are all enchanting and engaging.  Every inch of the screen in every frame is cinematic beauty.  If you're only interested in eye-candy, "Oz" delivers.  It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen in years.

Unfortunately, "Oz" will make a lot more money than "Jack" will for two reasons:  "The Wizard of Oz" is a more universally beloved story than "Jack and the Beanstalk" and Disney marketed their film WAY better than Warner Bros. did.  However, in deciding which film you may make the splurge to see, let me give you the following thoughts to ponder:  If you're looking for a good movie, "Jack the Giant Slayer" is an infinitely better film than "Oz: The Great and Powerful".  If you're looking for a beautiful-looking and pleasant movie "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is infinitely more pretty than "Jack the Giant Slayer".  Neither are perfect, but overall "Jack" is the better movie.

Grades:  "Jack the Giant Slayer" - B+ , "Oz: The Great and Powerful" - C (but the production design and special effects get an A)