Dreamworks Animation has quite a few franchises under their belts that have achieved a multitude of fans. From "Shrek", "Kung Fu Panda", "How To Train Your Dragon", "Madagascar", to "Trolls", there's a ton of love given to these franchises. However, there is one that doesn't receive as much attention or praise, which is "The Croods". In fact, the first film alone is one of the most slept-upon entries of the entire studio filmography. But, why is that? Well, let's first go over the story. It's the Stone Age and one family is out in the barren desert scavenging for food and surviving the various animals and inhabitants. Eep, a teenaged girl, is tired of her father, Grug, being overprotective for her and the rest of the family. After finding a teenaged survivalist named Guy, she and her family learn of an apocalyptic event known as "The End" that will destroy their home as they know it. As the group venture into a vibrant world filled with never-before-seen creatures, Eep and Guy start getting closer, much to Grug's disapproval. While the story is pretty predictable and does go through plenty of familiar paths and outcomes, I wouldn't mind so much if the tone was pitch-perfect. However, the film tries too hard to deliver on the dramatic moments rather than go full-out on a comedic adventure. This was co-directed by Chris Sanders, who is best known for "Lilo & Stitch" and "How To Train Your Dragon", animated films with lots of comedy, but good dramatic narratives. What makes these films work is that the former has a rather unique dramatic thread that is evenly spaced-out in a fun sci-fi romp, while the latter has a fairly typical coming-of-age story tied to the unique world established in the film. The problem with "The Croods" is not because the dramatic thread is generic per se, but it doesn't feel fresh for the setting and overarching narrative in comparison. On top of that, the dramatic sequences are so stretched-out that it slows down the pace and kills a comedic rise from the viewer. Speaking of which, the comedy is practically what's holding the film high-up from the average Dreamworks film. From the slapstick gags, character interaction, visual humour, and a slight dark edge overall, the comedy is effective both for kids and adults and is what the film should have really pushed in the long run. Some people don't like modern caveman technology humour, but I think it's cute. Again, the dramatic weight isn't awful, but it shifts away from how great the comedy can be due to how stretched-out it is.
When it comes to the protagonist, Grug, voiced by Nicholas Cage, is the one who has a ton of growth and screentime in regards to the rest of the cast. Even though the character is the typical overprotective father who hates danger and Guy's advancements on Eep, Cage has such great charisma that it makes Grug an enjoyable sight. It also helps that the character does manage to grow and evolve as the film progresses. Eep, voiced by Emma Stone, is kind of the secondary protagonist and is the rebellious teenage daughter who wants to live her life to the fullest. What keeps her from being a bad trope is both Stone's performance and the chemistry she shares between Grug and Guy. Guy, voiced by Ryan Reynolds, is the inventive leader who Grug become envious of while having a cute romance with Eep. Guy probably has the most character in the film since he has a range of personality from being the comic relief, the outsider witnessing the Croods as a family, the smartest in the group, and the piece that connects Eep and Grug back together. The rest of the family unit is where the characters begin to fall more on the generic side. Ugga, voiced by Catherine Keener, is the supportive wife and mother, Thunk, voiced by Clark Duke, is the dumb younger brother of Eep, Sandy is the feral toddler who acts more like a dog than a kid, and Gran, voiced by the late Cloris Leachman, is Grug's mother-in-law that he wants to die one day due to how sarcastic and demeaning she can be. These characters do manage to work when the comedy is in the forefront, but they don't really have a role in the story aside of just filling in the family unit. I could touch upon the animal characters such as Belt and Chunky the Death Cat, but they mainly serve as comic relief or world-building as almost all of the animals aside from Belt are a blend of two random animals that add to the vibrant and creativity of the world. Overall, the characters are well-voiced and serve really well for the comedic nature of the film, but aside from Grug, Eep, and Guy, the rest of the family are just archetypes hanging around to not contribute much to the story.
The animation is where things get a bit interesting as it's both really good and uncanny. In regards to the backgrounds and setting of the world, it's fantastic. I love how the colour is nonexistent in the first act aside from a few varied animals that pop out in the grey, barren desert. But once the jungle is introduced, the colour becomes extremely vibrant, almost as if you're starting to watch a different movie. The animation really plays around with both the unique range of colours to reflect the mood and atmosphere, while also offering great amounts of detail and textures that makes the world feel almost real at times. The wildlife that roams in the world is sort of like a child's imagination come to life, but allow each animal, no matter how weirdly designed, have specific movements and behaviour. But then there's the character animation for the humans. Because of the heavy-fisted drama that's present in the film, they decided to use motion-capture to record the movement and actions of the human characters to make them feel real in the otherwise fantasy world. The problem with this decision is that their designs don't gel with their movement. The characters have exaggerated features on their face and body and the realistic actions feel out-of-place for these designs. On top of that, they try to push a bit of these realistic textures on the character's skin. Again, this wouldn't be so bad if the character designs were completely different to suit the sense of realism. The score by Alan Silvestri is at least fairly decent. There are some decent tracks that taps into the upbeat antics or dramatic sequences that manage to sound distinct from Silvestri's usual works.
"The Croods" is probably the most divisive of the Dreamworks library, because there's so much good elements that has awkward execution. The premise works fine comedically, the comedy in general is really good when prevalent, Grug, Eep, and Guy are well-established and developed as characters, the voice cast as a whole is really charismatic and funny, the animation aside from the characters is generally fantastic from the vivid use of colours, mood and unique world-building with the various animals, and Silvestri's score is memorable at times. However, the story itself is fairly generic as an adventure/disaster movie goes, the overbearing amount of dramatic scenes that go on for too long slows the film and comedy momentum to a halt, the rest of the Crood family don't really grow much as archetypes and mainly serve as comic relief and follow the leader, and the character movements and polish don't gel at all with the cartoony aesthetic of the character designs. Overall, your enjoyment of the film depends on how much patience or acceptance you have towards the pace and overuse of a generic drama story thrown into an otherwise entertaining movie. If you want a great animated movie with a balance of wonderful storytelling and drama, this will appear too generic for you. If you do want a movie that has plenty of comedy and colourful animation, this will really work if you can accept the weird character animation.
Verdict: 6/10. Above average for Dreamworks standards, but it will heavily depend on what type of film you want out of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment