But they're not exactly PIXAR or anything. This is only their second feature production, and already they've returned to their two classic, popular characters after the disappointing Great Escape parody Chicken Run. Man, what a disappointment. That was a movie with a great premise and elastic, fluid animation that didn't include a single memorable character or set piece.
This new adventure re-teams daffy inventor Wallace and his silent, dutiful dog Gromit from shorts like A Grand Day Out and improves significantly on Chicken Run, not to mention 2005's other big stop-motion animated film, Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. Though the animation is not as detailed nor the backgrounds as lush as Bride, Curse of the Were-Rabbit is about 10 times more engaging and fun. It drags in places, and is only sporadically funny, but Were-Rabbit is remains a consistantly imaginitive and occasionally daring comic adventure story. I sense, however, that Aardman and co-director Nick Park can't keep this thing up forever. Eventually, they're going to have to open up their universe and show us what else they can do. (And with so much of the artwork from this film destroyed in a tragic recent fire, what better time to start fresh than the present?)
Much like in the Wallace and Gromit shorts, the action of Were-Rabbit starts with a new invention gone haywire. Things are going pretty good for the boys and their latest money-making venture, Anti-Pesto Humane Pest Control. They're making money rescuing gardens from pesky rabbits, until Wallace (Peter Sallis) starts tinkering around with a mind-control device, to prevent the bunnies from eating vegetable gardens in the first place. Simple, right?
Well, one thing leads to another, and now they must stop a massive killer rabbit from consuming every vegetable within 100 miles. In typical Aardman fashion, everything culminates in a huge, whirlwind chase sequence. As you can probably tell from the still above, in this instance the final chase includes coin-operated mini-prop airplanes and an homage to King Kong.
The movie is always amusing, but not really as funny as the shorts. One scene, in which Gromit operates a massive rabbit doll in a futile attempt to "attract" the Were-Rabbit, is very funny, and the terrific animation on Gromit really sells the joke by giving him real personality and expressiveness. It's a pretty remarkable moment. And every once in a while, a good line sneaks in there.
Some of the sound effects actually made me laugh. In one scene, an angry mob asks Wallace how he intends to catch such a big rabbit. "With a big trap!," he responds. The line is typical of the film's approach to verbal wit. But when Wallace gives his simpleton answer, Gromit smacks his hand to his forehead, to express his disappointment with his master's stupidity. And for whatever reason, the sound of the dog smacking his forehead struck me as hilarious.
The film adds exactly two worthwhile new characters to Wallace and Gromit's world - dim-witted Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham-Carter) and her finacee, the odious hunting enthusiast Victor Quartermaine (extremely well-voiced by Ralph Fiennes, who had quite a year in 2005). Both performances are very funny without going too far or becoming too cartoonish. Some of the film struggles to toe the line between animation anyone can enjoy and kind of a "kiddie movie" vibe, and Fiennes' emotional investment in Victor helps keep the film on track in the second half.
Also off-setting that kid's movie feeling, I feel I must comment on the surprising amount of little sexual innuendos thrown in throughout the film. This is the sort of thing you have to admire about the Brits. Even though this is clearly meant to be a film for families, if not directly for children, they still throw in a couple suggestive scenes for the parents/teens in the crowd. In one scene, for example, Wallace is accidentally caught in the nude by Lady Tottington (Totty for short, by the way), so he grabs a nearby cardboard box to cover himself. The box has a label reading, "Inside: Nuts." (This reminds me of the other big British animated film last year, the CG Valiant, which had Ricky Gervais in the voice cast only to appeal to "Office" and "Extras" fans.)
With all that being said, I'm still not sure I would ever want to actually watch this film again. It lacks the feeling of a real animated classic, like Tim Burton's previous stop-motion wonder, The Nightmare Before Christmas or The Iron Giant or any of PIXAR's recent films like Toy Story 2 or The Incredibles.
Park and co-director Steve Box took five years to make this movie, because stop-motion is such a pain-staking process, and there's a small, mean-spirited little part of me that wants to question whether it was worth the effort. I mean, yeah, it's entertaining, it's well-done, I liked the movie...but it's not really better than a Wallace and Gromit short. In fact, it's decidedly not better. I prefer Wrong Trousers, and because of its abbreviated running time, they can compress all the best gags and most exciting moments into one neat little package.
I understand that people who love Wallace and Gromit would just want to see more, more, more, but I think short subject is kind of appropriate for this kind of goofy, outrageous and (most of all) difficult-to-realize material. It's a nice little story, but a full-length animated feature? Might it not work better for Park & Co. to continue making short subjects for a while? I mean, if they're only going to release one movie every few years anyway, why not just make Wallace and Gromit shorts along with other kinds of shorts, and then bring them to The States every few years as a package show? (I think kids would love going to the movies and seeing four or five different little animated movies put together. It would appeal to their already-short attention spans).
While I don't see what this actually has to do with FAIRness (was I less than fair to Misseurs Wallace and Gromit in my review?), I reserve the right to change my mind about films at any time.
ReplyDelete