Uno zoo in fuga

Saw a preview screening last night, and it was really fun. First, the movie is visually gorgeous. The texture (hair especially!) work alone is enough to recommend the film to animation enthusiasts. To all the comparisons with Madagascar I will add that The Wild is much funnier. And judging by the 10-year-olds sitting with me, kids will love it. As the movie was made by C.O.R.E. in Toronto, was directed by a Canadian, and stars a lot of Canadians -- there are a few Canadian jokes (and sports) in the movie that international viewers might miss. It also has a fun self-referential attitude in the humor that's enjoyable without becoming gimmicky. To build on the previous poster, it is not Citizen Kane -- but has much funnier animals. It's a movie that does what it sets out to do -- entertain you. And it does that very well.

Well I hired this film out yesterday along with two others and must admit i was expecting to be the same old stuff in Disney films, but i was pleasantly surprised.

I thought it had good characters in and that the actors and actresses that did voice overs really took on the persona of the animal they were betraying and it made me laugh my favourite actor within film was Eddie izzard as he is so cool but saying that as i mentioned every one of them did good job.

Where watching this film is concerned defiantely give it a go as i think many people will be surprised i have not seen Madagascar but think this was under rated due to them coming out around about the same time, i am definitely added this to my collection when i get time.

For some reason, the various Hollywood studios occasionally display almost telepathic communication. Simultaneously, seemingly independently, they release two films which are very similar. We saw it with Dante's Peak and Volcano in 1997 (Two films in which a volcano erupts in a populated area of America), Deep Impact and Armageddon in 1998 (Two films where a giant meteor is going to destroy all life on Earth) and this year saw two studios revisiting the "capsizing cruise liner" genre with the Poseidon remake and the made-for-TV The Poseidon Adventure. Why do they do this? Surely it cannot be a coincidence. And films take years to produce, so it's not like one company can see an advert for a film and rush out their own version. Maybe it's because Hollywood is not a very secretive place. Ideas and scripts are touted round all the studios before they are bought, so it's not surprising that sometimes a company will set off down similar paths.

So, after last year's Madagascar was a reasonable hit for Dreamworks, arch-rivals Disney have "independently" come up with this, The Wild. A coincidence? Let's review the evidence.

Madagascar features a group of animals who are residents of a New York zoo. And so does The Wild.

In Madagascar, the group's leader is a lion, and it also includes a giraffe. And it's the same in The Wild.

In Madagascar, the group break out of the zoo to set off on a cargo ship for a remote jungle location. And it's the same in The Wild.

In Madagascar, the Lion comes to terms with the contrast between his pampered existence in captivity and life in the wild. And it's the same in The Wild.

And even the humorous sidekicks are similar. In Madagascar, the group are aided by a team of military penguins, who operate with hilarious efficiency and speak in short, sharp sentences. In The Wild, they're chameleons.

So if you have seen Madagascar, you've basically already seen the Wild, right? Not exactly. Because if you ignore those suspicious connections, The Wild is actually a different kind of film, with clear signs of its heritage. Madagascar is more about the comedy, while The Wild follows the classic Disney themes of family values and adventure against adversity. If Masdagascar is Shrek, The Wild is Finding Nemo.

Except that is too much of a compliment. The Wild is still a second-rate animated movie, clearly from the Disney half of the Disney-Pixar partnership. Kiefer Sutherland plays Samson the lion straight down the line. His motivation is just to save his son from volcanic fiery death, so he saves the jokes and pratfalls for his entourage, most notably the scene-stealing koala played by Eddie Izzard. In fact, Sutherland might as well be reprising his role from 24, where he was invariably trying to save his annoying daughter. Only this time he's a lion, of course.

The film dallies too much with tired old psychobabble father-son nonsense, much in the same way that spoiled Chicken Little earlier this year. The quality of the animation is another step forward in the ability of artists to render animals, and it takes a more natural approach to Madagascar that is really very impressive indeed.

But Madagascar stole the march, leaving The Wild look a little bit preachy and rather old-school.

This movie was presented to the Dutch press in a small viewing room, but we sure got a good look at it. And really: this movie isn't bad at all. But compared to Chicken Little everything looks great I suppose.

The bad thing about The Wild is the appearance of its characters. They all look like they were borrowed from a toy store. That's probably good for merchandise, but for the movie that's plain bad. In a time in which even giant gorillas can make a believable performance thanks to CGI you can wonder why Disney chose for this option.

The first 20 to 30 minutes, when all the action takes place in the zoo, is very entertaining. There's a wonderful scene that involves curling and the escape out of the zoo is big fun. But when the animals enter the wild the movie becomes rather dull. The finale is okay though.

Of course people will compare this movie to the overrated Madagascar. But because of the story - a young lion wants to be as cool as its father - it resembles The Lion King more than the Dreamworks movie. So here's the good news: I think that viewers who liked Madagascar, will enjoy this movie too. It fills up the time until the real Disney computer animated blockbuster of this year will be released: Cars.

The Wild was advertised as a movie for kids, and it lived up to it's billing. I saw it this past weekend with my 5 year-old. It had a good story line and enough action and music to keep him entertained. He has already asked can we buy it when it comes out on DVD. Since it is a clean movie I will happily get it for him. I didn't have to cringe or be on edge because of suggestive dialog or foul language like Ice Age 2 has. I don't enjoy exposing my son to entertainment that contains language he cannot repeat. If you want to treat your kids to a real kid's flick, take them to see this. It's not a contender for an Oscar, but you'll enjoy it, too.