Critics Aren't Wild About The Wild

Here’s a quiz for the kids: Name the most recent animated movie in which a lion, a giraffe, and a bunch of penguins get out of the zoo. If you said Madagascar, you’re wrong. The animals are out of the zoo. Again.

The only thing critics find really “wild” about Disney’s The Wild is its resemblance to Madagascar, last year’s CGI movie from Dreamworks. Most say the animation is more detailed and textured, but the storytelling could have used the same level of attention. If the comparisons to Madagascar aren’t derivative enough, the plot is driven by elements that resemble Finding Nemo, as a single father sets out on a desperate quest to find and bring back his wandering son.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) is not impressed, saying the film “is crippled by [Steve “Spaz”] Williams’ inexperience as a storyteller. One thing follows another, but the story never really builds any momentum, and few if any character moments are allowed to sink in. What’s more, the movie doesn’t look and feel quite right; the animation tries to be so detailed and realistic that you actually notice how fake the animals are, and the music alternates between Alan Silvestri’s loud and intrusive score and a bunch of bland, earnest rock songs. The Wild is pretty tame, and in the increasingly crowded, competitive, survival-of-the-fittest world of computer animation, it meows but does not roar.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes: “While hardly among Disney’s classics—and there’s not a memorable song—if you’re looking for good-natured family fun, you could do far worse than heeding the call of The Wild.”

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) is more enthusiastic. “It seems that Disney is finally catching up with Pixar on its mix of animation genius and inviting storylines, and undoubtedly audiences will devour this latest Disney treat.”

A large majority of mainstream critics are panning The Wild, saying it makes them even more grateful for Pixar, the studio that knows how to do all-ages animation right.

Aniston: From Friends to Friends with Money

A few years ago, writer-director Nicole Holofcener made an impressive debut with Lovely & Amazing, giving us an unusually intimate look into the minds and hearts of three complex women. The film earned praise for its smart script, and for the lead performances by Catherine Keener, Emily Mortimer, and Brenda Blethyn.

Holofcener’s new film, Friends with Money, is about women and their perspectives on money and happiness. It stars Jennifer Aniston as a monetarily challenged young woman who has three married friends—played by Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener and Joan Cusack—all of whom enjoy some level of financial success.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, “Peppering the script with interesting asides and bits of back-story … Holofcener doesn’t spell out the story so much as tease us into the lives of her characters. … It is also interesting to see how different viewers can interpret the same set of characters, just as the characters have different interpretations of each other.”

He concludes, “The end result is fun, but ultimately forgettable. These characters are worth a visit, but don’t be surprised if they don’t stay with you for very long once you’ve gone home.”

Friends with Money is winning quite a few friends among mainstream critics.

Scary Movie 4 … 4 what?

Take a few popular movies from the past few years. Spoof them in overblown sketches loosely joined by an alien-invasion plot. And what do you get? Scary Movie 4, the latest hodge-podge of lowbrow parodies from director David Zucker, who got this genre started with Airplane! and Top Secret! back in the ’80s.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says the movie “consists of little more than lame spoofs strung together by a vacant plot. … Zucker serves up the mindless slapstick and gross-out jokes, somewhat tamer this time around, but still vulgar.”

Mainstream critics aren’t scared or entertained.

Pinup? Christian? Who is Betty Page?

Gretchen Mol, who was hailed by Vanity Fair as Hollywood’s new “it girl” more than a decade ago, is back in a glamorous leading role as The Notorious Bettie Page.

Director Mary Harron’s film about the famous 1950s pinup acknowledges that Page came from a Christian home, and that her faith has influenced her life, but it gives plenty of adoring attention to her provocative posing as well, so viewers should proceed with caution.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “Mol captures both Page’s appearance and playful personality, but Harron’s movie … lacks form and depth, not offering more than a superficial treatment of Page’s religious convictions and her conflicted attitude toward pornography.”

Mainstream critics are giving Betty mixed reviews.

Hard Candy — a harsh twist on a hot topic

If you have kids and an Internet connection, you probably know how dangerous that combination can be. The Web can give sexual predators easy access to vulnerable and naï ve victims.

But in director David Slade’s new movie Hard Candy, a sexual predator gets a nasty surprise. His target, a smart 14-year-old girl named Hayley, turns the tables on him, and the result is violent and troubling. Who will you root for? The sex predator, or the girl with a taste for cruelty?

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) would rather that you didn’t see it at all. “Slade’s film starts out as an intriguing cautionary tale, but despite riveting performances quickly descends into exploitative territory, rather than saying anything of substance about its serious subject matter, while its blurred delineation between ‘victim’ and ‘predator’ further muddies its murky morality.”

Impressed, disgusted, enthralled, horrified—mainstream critics are reacting in many and varied ways.

More reviews of recent releases

Take the Lead: Andrew Coffin (World) says the film “features an enjoyable lead performance, some entertaining dancing, and the occasional positive message about responsibility. But for the true story, and a vastly better film, rent Mad Hot Ballroom.”

Ice Age: The Meltdown: Denny Wayman and Hal Conklin (Cinema in Focus) say it’s “an entertaining children’s film with some amusing film parodies. Like too many sequels however, it lacks the power and the genius of the original.”