In August of 2015, I did a review of the first Alpha and Omega movie. It was the first review I ever posted on this blog. Yeah, August, why am I re-reviewing this six years later, and not even on the date of the review I did it on? Is this gonna be a recurring thing where I redo older reviews? Well, I had a long week, five assignments, one of which accounting for a nice chunk of my grade, and my first B+ against a previous A streak leaves me wanting to go back to simpler times. Also I was gonna do a review of Ricky Sprocket: Showbiz Boy but I can't it in my usual haunt. So this movie'll do.
And yes, I still consider the movie to be shit.
Background
I remember seeing trailers for this movie on television. After they stopped airing I basically forgot this movie ever existed for a while. The same thing happened with Beastly, but even then all I forgot of it was the title.
It's ironic, these are the only two movies I heard of through trailers that I forgot about, they would get video game adaptations released through the same publisher, and both of which would be acknowledged by Dumbsville.
Alpha and Omega was created around the time CG family films were becoming profitable, with DreamWorks and two other gluttonous entities bringing in bank with their entries, no matter the quality. I'm not gonna say every non DreamWorks/two gluttonous entities effort were bad, I like Fly Me to the Moon, Planet 51 looks like it'd be interesting, but don't get me wrong, a lot of these were shameless through and through, any that takes a cookie cutter premise and tries to look appealing to kids is the most guilty of that.
The film was produced by Crest Animation, a company owned by Richard Rich. Crest or whatever previous incarnations it existed under specialized in family films, namely the ore forgettable crop. Let's see, crappy adaptation of The King and I, something about a duck with a trumpet, also The Swan Princess, which was essentially Alpha and Omega before Alpha and Omega, in terms of a means of pumping out sequel after sequel, but at least there're only eight Alpha and Omega movies.
I wish I didn't have to pay money to see reviews of the Swan Princess movies. No wonder capitalism gets such a bad rep, maybe that or the fact that studios like Crest, later Splash Entertainment run the gambit of gearing out mediocre to crap sequels to movies of minimal relevance. You know how some people deride most movies of being cash grabs? At the very least for most of them there's something of substance.
For these, the movies pick a basic premise, have some colorful characters (most of which are palette swaps of their own characters sometimes.), have enough material to just barely scrape past feature length, even songs too. Your basic alphabet soup of a cheap movie made for a quick buck.
The film has not one, but two directors, Ben Gluck and Anthony Bell, one of which had primarily been involved with television for a bulk of his career before then, doing work for The Wild Thornberrys, As Told by Ginger, The Simpsons and early episodes of The Boondocks even. He was also involved with Norm of the North only to leave it to co-direct the first Alpha and Omega sequel, so does that mean Norm was in production for more than three years?
I feel like I hate Ben Gluck out of the two. I mean sure, he helped with films like 9. On the other hand, he directed the sequel to Brother Bear, a movie I already hate, it seemed he helped with Strange Magic too, and he is basically credited with creating Alpha and Omega.
The movie did well at the box office, but so did the 2014 Left Behind movie, and even Christians hate that movie.
Also the obvious, this was Dennis Hopper's last role (I would say he had it better in the Super Mario Bros. Movie, but it was actually hell for him, and I won't hound anyone over taking part in this, especially if roles were running dry. Who else do we have? Danny Glover, Justin Long, Hayden... something. I know the names but not the people evidentially.
Okay this has gone on long enough.
Summation
At its core, this movie is just a play on the Romeo and Juliet schtick, two lovers of rival families getting together against all odds, foregoing the whole, you know, death thing. This isn't to say romantic stories are inherently bad, it's how it's gone about. It can either be mushy to the point of sheer cringe, or it can be so basic and ordinary the lack of effort shines through.
This has been brought up in more detail than I'm comfortable to go into, well, lest it involves pointless production trivia. If you've seen enough of these animated romantic fantasy films, chances are some things are bound to seem familiar, like that one asshole friend who comes between the female lead and the douche other guy because of his own selfish desire. Poon before mending tension that can lead to all out war I guess.
It's a matter of lovers intertwining though it doesn't show at first, one is serious, one is a goofball, both wind up getting taken away to an area far from home and they work together to get back home while getting to know more about one another and ultimately tying the knot, but the girl picks the douche guy for the sake of another ongoing conflict, then when a situation beyond any side's control occurs both sides work together and as a sign of good faith the leads get together, along with any subplot involving the douche and another girl who get together.
And that's Alpha and Omega summed up. No kidding. Let's tell it again with the characters included.
It's a matter of lovers Humphrey and Kate intertwining though it doesn't show at first. Kate is more serious as an alpha who partakes in hunts, Humphrey is a goofball as an omega, of a lower class of wolves that lighten up the mood. Both wind up getting taken to a nature reserve to help repopulate and they work together to get back home while getting to know more about one another and ultimately tying the not, but Kate picks Garth for the sake of maintaining peace between the packs, then when a stampede occurs, they work together to survive and as a sign of good faith for their survival, Humphrey and Kate get together, along with a subplot involving Garth and Lily who get together as well.
Anything else I missed is either not imperative to the story or just extra. At least most CG films from this time attempted some unique spin. It's prophetic that I forgot this after the trailers stopped airing,
Creativity
Something with a generic premise isn't always inherently bad, a cookie cutter premise can be saved with clever writing and execution. What makes this movie special?
Uh let's see uh, wolves? Wolves doing cartoony things? Wolves portrayed to be walking on all fours somehow able to stand on their hind legs, dance and choreographed moves?
You may be thinking "CHAN- Channeleven, this is clearly an example of creativity, by being different and whatever I think, that means this movie is creative (and exempt from anything beyond minor criticism.)"
Well it's very weak creativity. You can apply what the movie did to any species, ducks, birds, cows, pigmy-marmosets and you'd get the same result (hold the howl as that's specific to wolves). It would've been more creative if the film tried to work around the rules of contemporary wolves, but to be fair little could be done there.
A lot of what occurred in this movie is what occurred in other CG family films, dance numbers, colorful characters with dirt simple personalities, basic premise, the like. It wasn't down to creativity, it was a matter of riding a bandwagon to make a quick buck, which is void of creativity. How can we make this movie about wolves appeal to kids so that way we can compete with the bigger companies?
Let's be real, the only way they could make a film with wolves work is to essentially break all the rules. You can suspend some disbelief with something like garden gnomes, but a line has to be drawn with animals presented as they were in the woods.
Dare I say people like the idea of naked ferals the same way most people like Cuties for... you can figure.
Visually
Standard animation for the time, nothing more, nothing less. Obviously it would get worse with later installments.
Overall
I had six years to really think about it, and I maintain this is a shit movie with little or nothing to show for it. Take it from someone who finds value in crappy movies, I can forgive poorly executed ideas wrought through a lack of budget or camp, but I can't forgive movies of standard budgets gearing out dirt basic content, content that exists to cater to what sells rather than what comes from a true vein of creativity. Why do they focus on their freak offspring in later movies? Because small and cute, with a very basic personality sell.
It should go without saying that people are welcome to enjoy what they like, but honestly, they deserve a hell of a lot better. You can apply human attributes to anything, it doesn't make this any more special. Creativity comes with building a world around wolves, what associates with them, you can't get much mileage out of what the movie would portray here and later on.
You may not think it's the worst, but at large it's just plain ordinary. There are far better family films to be concerned with, even away from the usual suspects.
It wasn't interesting to me then, and honestly, it never got better. It's not shockingly bad, just incredibly basic, barren and I have a feeling people have other reasons for vehemently liking it, as much as I'm gonna say about that, I'm sure they're looking.
By the way I'm not gonna cover the sequels, just getting that out there.
Nothing more, I'm done here. See ya.
No comments:
Post a Comment