The Wild Life Review

(Poster Source: Wikipedia)

Thus far, this year has been kind to animation. Two of my favorite films of the year (Kubo and the Two Strings and Zootopia) have been excellent examples of the genre's potential, and there have also been other ones I've enjoyed as well.

However, I have also despised some other animated experiences which came to theaters in 2016. For various reasons, these films did not resonate well with me. I have no issues with other people enjoying such films, but to keep in step with my personal mantra, I must inform my readers when the crap comes along.

I give such a sign of warning to those looking to watch The Wild Life.

This latest effort from the European CGI animation studio known as nWave Pictures derives its material from the classic tale of Robinson Crusoe. In this particular rendition of the story, we see things from the perspective of animals who reside on the island at which Crusoe shipwrecked.

Initially, these animals (aside from an adventurous, existentially-minded parrot named Mak) are afraid of Crusoe. However, as time passes on, they decide to help him acclimate to solitary livelihood on their island.

The sad truth about this story is that the above description is the extent to which the plot goes. Sure, there may be a conflict at play here (which I will get to later), but otherwise, there is literally no reason for this story to exist.

Why should I express disappointment over this fact, though?

Well, the basic issue is that The Wild Life lacks any form of plot structure--something that any form of narrative, regardless of its presentation, must implement. Structure gives a story clear beginnings, middle events, and endings, and characters are taken on a journey of growth.

As I said, this is virtually nonexistent in The Wild Life. Although I will not delve into spoilers for the sake of respecting my readers, know this: the plot is essentially reduced to watching Crusoe crashing on this island, the animals growing to trust him, and then the film drags its feet until they build a treehouse.

(Brief sidenote: if I really wanted that in my entertainment, I would just play Minecraft. And that’s saying something since building is one of the most entertaining parts of that game.)

Amidst all of this, the characters never grow, and barely anything interesting or exciting happens. When such events do occur, they are actually too dramatic and melancholy for the target audience.

One particular plot event in the film is a familiar genre trope, but the difference here is that its place in the narrative is almost pointless since it never impacts anything that happens later on in the narrative. Such is just used as a poor attempt to perhaps add some emotional weight to the story.

(Photo Source: Rotten Tomatoes)

But story issues aside, The Wild Life at least could have been more entertaining than it was. However, the script failed hard in this respect, for this is one of the most unfunny films of the year.

A grand majority of the jokes either come at the audience too quickly or simply do not have any cleverness to register into laughter. And believe me, this isn’t just a fact of my sense of humor being different than that of a child--which is more what the film is trying to appeal to. When I saw this in theaters a few days ago, the entire audience (including the kids) was dead silent.

I completely understand that it is very difficult to come up with jokes that appeal to people of all ages, but being an animated film for young children, it’s strange that The Wild Life cannot even satisfy its core audience in that respect.

And then, of course, the story suffers fatally from little-to-no character development, an awkward ending, and one of the most egregious faults of all: the “villains.” Consider this a spoiler if you may, but this is such a ridiculous point that I have to mention it further. The trailer hints at pirates being possible threats to the main characters, but in all reality, the film’s villains consist of a family of mangy cats.

Yes, that’s right, CATS.

Family films like Stuart Little have used felines as villains before, but those films’ cats make more sense within the context of who they oppose. After all, cats are a reasonable threat to mice.

But in direct contrast, I hardly believe that a sizeable family of cats could pose a serious threat to a goat, hippopotamus, and a full-grown man for that matter. Sure, the smaller animals among the main characters could be endangered by such feline predators, but that could be made up by their larger counterparts.

Incessant griping aside, I hope to establish that I don’t simply intend to ride the hate train for The Wild Life. By no means is this a good film, but at least I did not leave the theater angry.

Most of this ranting is a reflection of my thought processes following my theatrical experiences. Perhaps I do not resort to anger considering that the visuals are somewhat imaginative and colorful, notwithstanding the abysmal writing.

To resort to comparisons, Norm of the North was atrocious visually and from a narrative standpoint. Even though the technical prowess of The Wild Life still trails far behind big budget animated flicks (this is noticed in some awkward character movements), the art design, bright colors, and solid resolution in the imagery make the film look pleasing enough.

I also enjoyed the goofy set pieces towards the end, in which the camera would follow the animal characters For these reasons, I could see that the filmmakers truly wanted to make something worthwhile.

(Photo source: Rotten Tomatoes)

But to revert back to prior points, what good is colorful animation if it is used for a weak script? Such was the case for the terrible Ice Age: Continental Drift a couple of months ago, and now The Wild Life repeated such things.

As a result, I would recommend looking to other sources to learn the story of Robinson Crusoe. For one thing, you will be treated to fewer animal antics, and your entertainment desires will be satisfied in more mature ways.

3.0/10