Family Friendly

REVIEW: Onward

PIXAR
Rated: PG
Run Time: 103 minutes
Director: Dan Scanlon

Pixar lives in its own caliber of animated films because they have such a way of telling unique and heartwarming stories. They stay true to this claim once again with their latest tale, Onward. It ticks the following boxes: a buddy comedy, superhero origin story, and fantasy adventure. As always, the animation is incredible. From a scene where the viewer gets to see dust animated in such a way that has you thinking, “Wow, I didn’t know dust floating could be so entrancing,” to the details in facial expressions where a character’s slightest facial movements have you feeling exactly what they’re feeling.

In Onward, two brothers—Barley (voiced by Chris Pratt) and Ian (voiced by Tom Holland)—go on a quest across their land to bring their father back from the dead for one day. They follow clues, go to dangerous places, have hiccups along the way, and get into brotherly tiffs. This aspect of the film gave me major Goonies vibes, in the best way. What could have easily been predictable was elevated by humor, great world-building, and subtle callbacks throughout the film. My one critique is the musical score. Michael and Jeff Denna (who also composed the music for The Good Dinosaur) tried to create an 80’s-rock vibe for this soundtrack, and for me, it didn’t leave me in awe. Most Pixar movies have soundtracks that immediately stand out while watching the film, but that was not the case for Onward. The music was definitely not bad, it was just simply missing that little something extra that makes Pixar scores so special. 

While the basic plot was familiar (two youngsters going on a dangerous journey following clues in search of something magical) the world in which the story took place was unique. Sure, it has familiar fantastical elements—manticore, elves, unicorns, wizards—but the way the creator put his modern twist on the fantasy made it so much fun to watch. For example, Barley plays a game similar to Dungeons & Dragons, which was such a fun and nostalgic element to the world. Additionally, the B characters, Barley and Ian’s mom (voiced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and The Manticore (voiced by Octavia Spencer) added to the story in a comical way. Their characters helped make this film well-rounded and relatable to women and parents. Lastly, the way magic is portrayed as something you have to work really hard to master, was great. I loved the way it felt like when a superhero is first learning to control their powers; and when they finally are able to use them in awesome ways, it is so satisfying as a viewer.

Ian and Barley Lightfoot (voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt respectively) in a scene of Onward | PIXAR

In all, Onward is an original story with such a fresh feel to it. The ending will have you surprised, with your insides feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, as they should after watching a Pixar film. Other classic Pixar elements in the movie are the “Easter Eggs” and callbacks. Not only does it reference other Disney/Pixar films in exciting and subtle ways, but also has some callbacks to small things throughout the film. I can’t wait to see it again to discover more of these special moments that make the viewing experience a unique one with each new watch.

Recommendation: GO SEE IT!

REVIEW: The Call of the Wild

20th Century Studios
Rated: PG
Run Time: 100 minutes
Director: Chris Sanders

The Story/The Direction

The Call of the Wild is an adventure film based on the Jack London 1903 novel of the same name, with numerous other cinematic versions of the story. The film is directed by Chris Sanders—in his live-action directorial debut—and stars Harrison Ford, Dan Stevens, Omar Sy, Karen Gillan, Bradley Whitford, and Colin Woodell. It takes place in the 1890’s Klondike Gold Rush. A dog named ‘Buck’ is stolen from his home in California and sent to Canada, where he befriends Thornton (played by Ford). Buck gets in touch with his ancestral wild side and his experiences change his life forever. This story was previously adapted into a silent film in 1923 and then again in 1935, 1972 and 1997 with dialogue, starring Jack Mulhall, Clark Gable, Charlton Heston, and Rutger Hauer as Thornton, respectively.

For those who did not read the book in their middle school or high school English classes, the novel deals with a Christian theme of love and redemption. It also is about the survival of the fittest as London puts Buck in conflict with humans, other dogs, and the environment itself. He must challenge, survive, and conquer all of these conflicts. Buck is a domesticated dog at the beginning of the story but he must change to survive. He must learn to get in touch with his ancestral instincts and become a wild animal. The law of the pack rules, and good-natured animals can be torn to pieces; as such, London also looks at “nature vs. nurture”. Raised as a pet, Buck is (by heredity) a wolf. The change of environment brings up his innate characteristics and strengths to the point where he fights for survival and becomes the leader of the pack. 

The 1935 film has become more famous for its off-screen problems between its stars of Gable and Loretta Young which I’ll get to in a minute. Aside from the issues behind the scenes, this movie really changes the protagonist of the original story. The film omits all but one of the book’s storylines and concentrates the film on Thornton. Having said that, the most famous scene from the book did make it into the movie where Thornton bets that Buck can pull a half-ton sled for 100 yards. But the film focuses not on the harsh conditions of life encountered by a sled dog but it is a lighthearted romantic adventure film that just so happens to feature a dog as a pet. 

It has some really breathtaking winter scenery and the actors are on point. Gable plays his alpha male well while Jack Oakie provides comedic relief. Loretta Young is the damsel-in-distress, but she’s not always helpless. Gable and Young have some really good chemistry together mostly because it was real. They were noted to be very flirtatious on set but there’s more to it than that: Young and Gable were rumored to have an affair during filming but on the train back to Hollywood from Washington state, Gable entered Young’s compartment and raped her. She then became pregnant with Gable’s child who he constantly denied was his. For many years Young insisted the girl was adopted even though she bore a striking resemblance to her two attractive parents. This led to a lot of problems in her life( of which I won’t go into but it is a very interesting story). Feel free to check out Anne Helen Petersen’s article on this story for the full details. Aside from these off-screen issues, this film does give some good entertainment from an old film even though it’s barely a faithful adaptation of Jack London’s story. It’s worth checking out especially if you’re looking for a classic feel of a movie. 

The only person most Americans will recognize in the 1972 film is Charlton Heston. This version is more faithful to Jack London’s novella but still it focuses more on the human aspect of the story. The cinematography is great and Heston does well in the lead role. If you’re a fan of his, this film is worth checking out. The 1996 film has a slightly longer title The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon and is narrated by Richard Dreyfuss. This film accurately shows this rugged and unsentimental portrait of a dog’s life pushing to survive. However, the film still feels hard to attach to because of the real life dogs. This film is worth checking out as it is the best adaptation in comparison to the prior two films.

Now does this story and meaning track over to the newest rendition? For the most part, yes, it does. Does it show the story’s brutal side? No, but it’s a PG movie. It’s a simpler take on the book but that makes it more appropriate for younger viewers; however, the themes and messages of London’s story are still there. Buck is still learning to survive in the wild and through his CGI eyes, this film is an entertaining family film with themes of courage and perseverance. There are also some really nice set cinematography when Buck becomes a sled dog for Perrault (Sy) and François (Gee) on a mail delivery route.

John Thornton (played by Harrison Ford) in a scene with ‘Buck’ in The Call of the Wild | 20th Century Studios

The Characters

Buck’s arc is similar to the book starting off as this very spoiled dog living in the south on a plantation. He then sees his wild side in an (honestly) very well done symbol. Using Terry Notary for the motion capture of Buck has been criticized because it made Buck more of a cartoon than anything else. Admittedly, it does feel like a Disney cartoon a lot of the time, however that’s not too much of a bad thing. The last three live-action films, that mostly focused on either the humans or the dogs, were not relatable. This was the issue with the most recent version of The Lion King. The non-cartoon look of the CGI made the film absolutely boring—even with the songs, there was nothing relatable to the film. Adding the big, expressive eyes made Buck more relatable, and the use of CGI ensures that no animals were mistreated. A human could follow Buck and care for him. The audience wants him to survive and feels for him when he’s hurt. Along with that, it allows for Buck to be able to interact with other wild animals authentically and viewers do not have to worry about any animal cruelty.

Dogs and animals aside, Ford is perhaps perfect as Thornton. His Thornton is such a relatable character and one can see why he attaches himself to Buck. Their relationship is perhaps the best part of the film.

John Thornton (played by Harrison Ford) in a scene with ‘Buck’ in The Call of the Wild | 20th Century Studios

The Flaws

The biggest flaw about the film is that it feels a little softened compared to the original brutal version of London’s tale. It does feel fairly corny at times such as when Sy’s character says, “We don’t just carry the mail. We carry lives.” Stevens’ Hal is a very corny villain but he is having fun with it. Sometimes the CGI dog does feel a little too cartoonish, but it feels very Disney. There are some scenes that are a little silly, like a dog pulling off a WWE move. In addition, the relationship between Buck and Thornton is the best part; however it takes two-thirds of the movie for them to have a scene together. This is not a big deal because Buck is still relatable but when the film was marked to include more of their relationship, it was definitely less. However, that is more accurate to the story even though a viewer would think that Ford was in the film more than he was, given the marketing.

Overall

Though safe, the film is a fairly enjoyable retelling the tale. The scenery looks really great at times, and Ford is close to perfect as Thornton. Dog lovers will have their heartstrings pulled.  The CGI dog is not too bad because he is relatable and kids will love him. There are enough moments to keep parents entertained while the kids are watching the cute dog do funny things. It is not Pixar or anything but it is a fine film. London’s themes are there to discuss with kids without scaring them. It is a good film to take kids to, but maybe for a matinee.

Now, what did you think of the film? Let me know in the comments section, and hit me up on social media. The Formal Review is on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Recommendation: MAYBE A MATINEE

REVIEW: Sonic the Hedgehog

Paramount Pictures
Rated: PG
Run Time: 99 minutes
Director: Jeff Fowler

The much maligned “video game” genre of movies just received a much needed breath of fresh air. Sonic the Hedgehog is the 37th (live-action) film based off of a video game or video game character. A genre that started back in May of 1993 with the release of Super Mario Bros., but is still struggling to find its legs and connect with general audiences domestically and globally. There were a few that did…well enough…at the box office to merit a thumbs up, at least when comparing their production budget to the total box office outcome.

Warcraft (2016): The top dog of “video game movies.” Warcraft made more money than any other video game movie before it and since. It had an estimated production budget of $160 million, and was able to pull in almost $439 million world wide. However, over $391 million of that was outside of the U.S.

Rampage (2018): A close second behind Warcraft in its box office totals, pulling in approximately $428 million. On a production budget of around $130 million the studio was able to turn a profit; notwithstanding, it did have the help of one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, Dwayne Johson.

Pokémon, Detective Pikachu (2019): Until this movie, no other video game movie ever achieved the coveted “FRESH” score from Rotten Tomatoes, coming in at 69% (meaning, 69% of the 294 critics who reviewed the movie liked it). On a production budget of $150 million, and a box office haul of approximately $433 million, Detective Pikachu is widely considered the most successful video game movie ever made. Was it a turning point for this struggling genre? Or was the global appeal of Pokémon and that cute and cuddly Pikachu the reason for the movie’s success?

Sonic (voiced by Ben Schwartz) in a scene from Sonic the Hedgehog. | Paramount Pictures

Enter Sonic the Hedgehog. One of the most iconic video game characters ever created. What Super Mario is to Nintendo, Sonic is to SEGA. If you were to make a list of the top 5 most iconic or well-known video game characters, Sonic would be on almost every list. (My list: Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, Super Mario, Sonic, and Master Chief). But time and time again the video game genre have proven that popularity and iconic appeal do not automatically equate to financial and critical success.

I’m very happy to report that Sonic the Hedgehog has not followed the footsteps of its video game movie siblings. In spite of its shaky marketing start (see: Sonic design change), Sonic has sped his way into the hearts of audiences across the country. In its opening weekend, Sonic the Hedgehog has made more domestically ($58 million) than Warcraft made in its entire domestic run ($47.3 million)—and for good reason. Sonic the Hedgehog knows what it is and does not try to be anything else. The movie has timely self-deprecating moments that allow the audience to suspend belief and just enjoy the story being told. Most of the screen time is given to the little blue speedster and James Marsden’s character, Tom Wachowski. So the success of the movie is heavily dependent on the interactions of these two characters and how that translates on screen. Marsden does very well interacting with a 100% CGI created Sonic, and a genuine bond between the two characters is felt throughout.

Jim Carrey plays the villain, Dr. Ivo Robotnik. | Paramount Pictures

The most surprising performance of the film is given by Jim Carrey. I’ll admit I was very surprised to see Carrey take on a role that seemed more suited to the 1990’s Jim Carrey. As the villain, Dr. Ivo Robotnik, Carrey actually seems to care about his performance in this role. His lines are well delivered. His presence on screen is felt but without overshadowing the main characters, and if I’m being totally honest, I think Carrey’s talents were well utilized in this movie.

If you grew up playing the Sonic video games, or you have a family that wants to enjoy a family-friendly movie, Sonic the Hedgehog is the movie to see. I was overall pleased with the outcome, and feel that this (even more so than Detective Pikachu) is a great step in the right direction for video game movies.

Recommendation: GO SEE IT!

Scroll to top