Dreamworks #12: Over the Hedge

Over the Hedge - 7.7/10

Heads up: didn’t mean to when I started, but this one turned out a little spoiler-y.

I first saw this back when it came out on video, when I was working in the after-school program. Before I watched it I thought it looked like another cash-in attempt at a crowd pleaser like Shark Tale, but what I thought afterwards I couldn’t tell you because I honestly don’t remember, nor did I remember really anything about the movie itself or what it was about save some animals in a suburb trying to get food.

Naturally, for something so apparently non-memorable, I didn’t have particularly high hopes going in this time. As it turns out, I must have just not been paying much attention last time because this was actually pretty good.

Okay, it’s not brilliant, but it does well in what it sets out to do, which is to entertain. Once again we’re looking at the human world through animal perspectives, but unlike Madagascar, the protagonists this time do recognize the separation. In fact, it’s funny to imagine how animals – particularly in a suburban setting like this – must view us. For creatures whose very survival hangs in the balance every day based on how much they can find to eat, our somewhat cavalier attitude towards food and the myriad ways we obtain and distribute it must seem almost alien. There’s a montage where RJ (the raccoon character) explains every aspect of human life and how it all revolves around food. Amusing, and embarrassingly accurate. 

It’s perhaps not surprising then that the plot revolves around the animals’ attempts to steal food from their human neighbors who live over the hedge (through it, rather) that wasn’t there when they went to sleep in the fall and has suddenly appeared along with a strange new world beyond it in the spring. The aforementioned raccoon is the newcomer (and guide to the human world) to the group that also contains a skunk, a family of porcupines, a father-daughter possum duo, a hyperactive squirrel, and an overly cautious turtle patriarch. They make a nice family, but it’s kind of soured by the ever-present liar reveal plot. Spoiler: the raccoon has ulterior motives. Gasp! Maybe it’s a cynical thing to say, but I couldn’t enjoy the movie as much as I wanted to because I kept waiting for that awkward, inevitable moment where the truth would come out, they’d all feel betrayed, he’d feel horrible, yadda yadda yadda.

Crazy thing is, when they moment actually came, it was well done. They didn’t just feel betrayed, they were crushed, and you could see it. Also the vocal performances carried it really well too. Plus there’s the bit where the homicidal bear who put RJ in his fix in the first place basically says to him, “Damn, that’s cold,” of course making him feel even worse than he already does. The mad chase scene and ensuing climax that follows is both exciting and funny, and what we’re left with at the end is – while not sniffle-inducing by any means – mildly heartwarming and just…nice. 

Hands down though, the best joke in the movie: preparing for a massive food raid, RJ has constructed a diorama of the yard they must infiltrate. This is his intro, complete with lots of pointing: “There are traps here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here…” you get the idea. It just keeps going and I couldn’t stop laughing. Can’t say I didn’t enjoy myself. 

Dreamworks #11: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

The Curse of the Were-Rabbit - 7.8/10

As I mentioned when I talked about Chicken Run, I’ve never exactly been familiar with Wallace and Gromit. I know for a fact I’ve seen one of the original shorts – I can never remember which one – but I’m no expert. I do know I like Aardman’s style, but I had no idea how much until I saw this.

This movie is, to put it simply, very funny. And yet, it’s not funny in the contemporary sense of telling lots of jokes and whatnot. For starters, it is absolutely saturated with puns (mostly vegetable-related), in-jokes and subtle visual gags. I’m sure if I watched it again I’d catch several dozen more I missed the first time. And yet, while Shark Tale failed abysmally when it employed a similar strategy, Aardman hits it out of the park here. Instead of being all in-your-face with “WHOO! FISH JOKES!”, most of the humor is of the blink-and-you’ll miss it variety. It goes back to that casual humor philosophy I’ve talked about that the Shrek movies did so well.

Wallace and Gromit live in a quaint little English village where vegetables are SERIOUS BUSINESS. They run a pest-control business that keeps everyone’s prize gardens safe from rabbits. Of course there are plenty of clever gadgets and Rube Goldberg shenanigans, and Peter Sallis absolutely inhabits the character of Wallace. Can you believe Dreamworks wanted to replace him with someone “American audiences would recognize”?

Where this film really shines in just how seriously it takes everything. The situations are all miles beyond absurd, but no one every treats it as such. It also piles on the melodrama, and it does so in exactly the way melodrama should be done: that is, it’s completely hammy and over-the-top to us, but as far as the characters are concerned, these issues are being treated with exactly the amount of gravity they should be.

There’s always a sort of charm to stop-motion that simply cannot be quantified or duplicated in any other medium. The folks at Aardman are masters of their craft and it says something that Gromit, who never speaks, is probably the most expressive and identifiable character in the entire movie. If you’ve been putting off seeing this for whatever reason, take my word that what at first glance might seem a somewhat plain offering is bursting with cheesy goodness just beneath the surface. 

Dreamworks #10: Madagascar

Madagascar - 7.3/10

This is essentially a fish out of water story with a twist. The twist is that the fish are actually in the water, but they don’t like it. Or something. 

The four main characters are animals from the Central Park Zoo that are so accustomed to domesticated life that they don’t see themselves as any different from humans. A lot of the humor comes from them trying to interact with people in the way that any New Yorker would, and the people in turn freaking out because they’re wild animals. Well, animals.

Everything changes when through a few misunderstandings and penguin-operated shipping freighter, they wind up on the shores of Madagascar (initially thinking it’s the San Diego Zoo). When they realize where they are, they have mixed reactions. Marty the zebra is excited, Alex the lion just wants to go home, and the other two are somewhere in between. They meet a local group of Lemurs (ruled by eccentric Julien, played by the outrageously brilliant Sacha Baron Cohen), and begin to adjust to life in the wild. That is, until Alex starts to adjust too much and begins seeing his friends (and everyone else) as food. Alex is horrified by his primal instincts and runs off. Meanwhile the novelty begins to wear off for the others as they witness firsthand the kill-or-be-killed nature of…well, nature.

As I said before, most of the humor comes from the animals behaving like humans despite their surroundings treating them like animals. It’s actually quite funny. When the film deviates from this and tries for pop-culture references is when it falls flat. Thankfully that only happens a few times, so the result is a fairly amusing flick.

The performances were good, but nothing special. All four lead actors played their parts well, but just that. There was nothing outstanding like you might expect from such a star-studded cast. The lone exception was Cohen, who stole every scene he was in and chewed so much scenery they likely ran out. The penguins were pretty funny too, but while they did have solid performances like everyone else, I attribute their success to good writing. 

Aside from some good laughs though, there wasn’t really much here. The film was surprisingly short, and most of it felt like set-up for a payoff that never came. When the movie ended, it caught me completely off-guard, as I was expecting at least another twenty minutes worth of stuff. And there could have been more of what they did have, too. For instance, the animals’ dependence on humans was mostly played for laughs when it was brought up, but I thought that was a theme that could have been much more powerful if they’d delved into it a little more. Like when Alex is afraid of his true nature and builds a zoo pen for himself out of rocks and sticks to keep him away from everyone else. I want more of that!

Anyway, it was funny. A trifle unsatisfying in the way that three potato chips are when you wanted a full bag. I hear the sequels are good though, so maybe I’ll have better luck next time. 

“Nature! It’s all over me, get it off!”

Dreamworks #9: Shark Tale

Shark Tale - 6.7/10

If anyone was wondering why I stopped doing these for so long, the reason was 100% because I had no real desire to watch this movie again, and didn’t want to cheat by skipping it. I finally made myself sit through it, and though it wasn’t nearly as bad as I remember, I’d still say it’s probably the Studio’s weakest effort.

Let’s begin. This movie has all the hallmarks of a film designed by committee. “Hip hop slang! Pop culture references! Shallow racial stereotypes! Kids like that shit, right? Throw it in!” And they were trying so hard with the jokes. In stark contrast to the Shrek films, which were so casual and effortless with their humor, a solid half of the comedy in this movie is painfully forced. Perfect example: the inevitable never-ending stream of fish puns (see what I did there?). Had they been sprinkled throughout the movie here and there, it would have been a fun running gag. Instead, we are bombarded with them one after another for the first five minutes of the film. Katie Current. Starfish Tours. Mussel Crowe. Jessica Shrimpson. Cod Steward. Shell phones. The prawn shop. HA HA HA! I GET IT! THEY’RE FISH!

As far as casting goes, the committee’s fingerprints are once again evident. Will Smith stars as “Will Smith” playing “Will Smith the fish” as a fish. And no, there isn’t some clever movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie framing device, it’s just layer upon layer upon layer of hack writing, phoned-in performances and general, all-around not giving a crap. It’s sad, because I know he’s perfectly capable of a sincere performance, but that clearly isn’t what was asked of him here.

Surprisingly, most of the supporting cast does very well – those not pigeonholed into the aforementioned stereotypes, anyway. Jack Black and Angelina Jolie particularly impressed me by giving actual vocal performances rather than just “lending their voices” as is so common these days. Were it not for the credits, you might not have known it was them. 

There were other bright spots too. As I said, only about half the jokes were forced; the other half actually played very well and I was laughing a lot more than I’d thought I would. The premise itself was interesting, however the lead character ruined it for me. Will Smith’s “performance” aside, the character is horribly written. Strictly speaking, he’s a jerk. Why should I be rooting for him? Moreover, we are given no reason why Renée Zelleger Fish likes him to begin with, much less why she still does at the end. His “I’ve learned something today” speech in no way makes up for the way he treated her throughout the movie, and she comes off as a pushover by forgiving him just because he says she was “right in front of [him] the whole time.” Blech. There are some unfortunate implications there that I don’t really want to go into. Suffice to say that were this a romantic comedy, his would have been the asshole character she was hung up on in the beginning before falling for the actual hero of the story (who is sadly absent from this film altogether).

All things considered, not as terrible as I remembered by any means, and probably not worth a 9 month hiatus to avoid it, but definitely not their best, and probably not one I’ll be watching again any time soon.