Skip to main content

Aardman's Primeval Disappointment


There’s no doubt one of the most influential names in stop-motion animation is Nick Park. Likewise the studio he works for, Aardman Animations, has played a major part in bringing the art form to the west. However this hands-on sub-genre has evolved since Wallace & Gromit’s plasticine adventures delighted us in the early 1990s. With its innovative techniques and boundless creativity, Laika has become the new standard for stop-motion animation. And nothing reminds me of that more than seeing Park’s latest film Early Man, which seems starkly behind the times.
This is a very weird movie, which is saying a lot for Aardman. And unlike something like The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, that weirdness doesn’t work in its favour.
A tribe of Stone Age primitives enjoy a peaceful existence living in a valley hunting rabbits until a Bronze Age army takes over their land forcing them out to the dangerous badlands. However, one young caveman called Dug (Eddie Redmayne) manages to sneak into the Bronze city where he becomes enamoured with the game their society revolves around, football. He strikes a deal with the local Bronze Lord (an unrecognisable Tom Hiddleston) that if the cavemen win a football match they’ll be given their valley back. So he has to train his hopeless tribe in the new sport so they can have a chance of beating the much more experienced Bronze team.
This premise of two ages of civilization existing simultaneously and their survival being dependent on a football match is, of course, ludicrous. But that’s pretty usual fare for this studio. The problem is the story, which is so unoriginal that it highlights the holes in this strange set-up. It’s an underdog sports movie with no twists or unique spins, and because of that, it’s awfully dull to sit through. Every beat is struck, every character motive contrived. This might have been an interesting world to see, but its so confined and underdeveloped. The Bronze city for instance (which seems to be in Mordor) has a few creative elements, but everything we see of this place is directly focussed on football. And the creativity in general is just off. There are some neat ideas, visuals, and jokes, but that’s all they really are: neat.
Probably this movie’s biggest failing is its comedy. The Aardman films usually have that great dry British sense of humour to them, but for whatever reason most of the jokes and comedy bits don’t work here. There are funny moments now and then (particularly one involving a duck), and clearly some gags that are purely aiming for the child audience, but even those seem a little lazy. A lot of the dialogue jokes and routines are pretty bad, and a few are real groaners. And then there are some that just make no sense, like a running gag involving Dug’s pet boar wanting to play, the pay-off for which is astoundingly underwhelming. None of the humour here is clever or unique or even all that surreal, which you’d think it would be given this environment. And a lot of the comedy is built around Bronze Age equivalents of modern conventions, appliances, and concepts; but those kind of jokes have been around since The Flintstones -which did them better. Hell, Shrek did that joke way better, and, at least in the first two movies, used it as a means of great satire! What’s painful about this is that humour has always been Aardman’s strength, it’s best movies having had superb comedic writing. Again, The Pirates! is also a strange, nonsensical movie, but it’s really funny.
The cast of this film try their hardest with the material though. Redmayne manages okay, as does Timothy Spall as his tribe chief. Maisie Williams plays a Bronze Age girl who coaches the cavemen and of course has a dream of playing herself. Her character especially feels like an indicator this movie is a few decades behind, not only because the tomboy player was a trope of ‘90s sports movies, but also because the sexism around her being able to play is very blunt and lazily defined. There’s some talent in the supporting cast from Richard Ayoade, Miriam Margolyes, Mark Williams, and Rob Brydon voicing a slew of characters. Even some notable comedians make appearances like Gina Yashere, Kayvan Novak, and Johnny Vegas. But yet the strangest choice remains Tom Hiddleston as an over-the-top greedy villain (who’s French for no reason) and has a design so basic I’m sure I’ve seen it in some Wallace & Gromit short or Chicken Run.
Of all the Aardman movies, Early Man is the only one I haven’t enjoyed on some level. Nick Park is a great animator, but I’d like to see the company branch out a little more. For a studio that built its name in stop-motion animation, it’s ironic that it’s best movies have been the two computer animated ones: Flushed Away and Arthur Christmas. Maybe that direction would be worth taking again. But until that time, I’m sure Early Man will become a forgotten piece of their varied filmography.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...