Some of you may be curious to know why I went to see a film
that looked and sounded so stupid and ridiculous that it didn't seem like that
it shouldn't even be worthy for a big budgeted theatrical release, but more of
a cheaply animated straight to DVD release. Well personally, I had no desire of
seeing it to begin with. When I saw the TV spots for the film, I would always
find myself rolling my eyes at how ridiculous the film looked and sound. An
animated version of the Shakespearean tragedy of "Romeo and Juliet"
set in a modern day setting with garden gnomes, it had to be one of the dumbest
ideas that I've ever heard. Just gazing at the animation, designs, and style of
humor on the TV spots as it was attached to such a cheesy gnome pun made the
film seem like that it was going to be dreadful. But then my Mother got two
tickets to a screening of it in 3-D for me and my little brother Jack, and as
much as I wished to avoid the film I decided to see it anyway to maybe perhaps
write up a review on it (which of course didn't happen until now). I went into
the film as hard as I could to keep an open mind, and within the first few
minutes I found myself laughing and being fully entertained. I didn't love the
movie, but it wasn't as bad as I anticipated it to be. Though I remember some
of the jokes and characters, my memory of the film began to fade and fade as
the years went by, which made me wonder if it’s just as funny as I remember it.
Does the film remain as a hilariously cute take on "Romeo and Juliet"
if not a great movie, or is it really just a complete waste of time with
nothing worth seeing? ON WITH THE REVIEW!
I don’t think I need to tell you about the film's plot since the
title and concept make it clear what it's about. But for the very few of you who don't
know the story of "Romeo and Juliet", I’ll be nice and give you a
brief summary of the film’s plot. The film takes place in the gardens of two
elderly neighbors who hate one another Miss. Montague (who lives in a blue
house) and Mr. Capulet (who lives in the red house). When two are away, their
garden gnomes (with hats that match the color of their owners homes) as well as
their other lawn ornaments come to life. However, much like their owners, the
blue and the red gnomes despise each other as they're both constantly at war.
One night, a blue garden gnome named Gnomeo (James McAvoy) sneaks into his rival’s
garden for revenge, but his clumsy best friend Benny (Matt Lucas) accidentally
blows their cover and Gnomeo runs to hide at a nearby garden that's been
abandon for years. There he meets a red gnome named Juliet (Emily Blunt) who
sneaked out of her garden to retrieve a rare orchid to prove to her father
(Michael Caine) that she can survive outside of the fountain where she’s forced
to stand for how fragile she is. Since they're both wearing a disguise to
camouflage themselves, they fall in love with each other as they fight over the
orchid until their true colors are revealed. They're at first resistant of their
feelings for each other because of the feud between their families, but still
can’t help being romantically interested. The two decide to use the old garden
where they first met as a secret romantic spot, until Benny discovers their
secret love relationship which leads to tragedy...sort of!
If you know the story "Romeo and Juliet" or at
least know what happens in the end, and expect a film as silly as this to take
such a dark turn, you're going to be highly disappointed. On one hand I
shouldn't be that surprised given how goofy the film's tone is and how bizarre
the concept is. But on the other hand it’s still "Romeo and Juliet",
Shakespeare's best known tragedy that's remembered for its dark turn of events
to have its moral on hatred stick with you. I get that it’s for kids, but I've
seen a few classic animated films for kids with a goofy tone end on a not-so
happy note that's not completely down-beat either. And my god if the film did
decide to go with the ending to the play, even if it didn't work, I'd
still give the people behind this film credit for taking the risk given who the
film is aimed for. But they don't and decide to play it completely safe. So
safe that there's not one single dark element that this film throws at you to
make the changes to the ending satisfying. Now with that said, that doesn't
mean that the film does a terrible job of following the story through this
unusual set-up. It of course takes tons of liberties but it still pin-points
all the key elements in the story for it to resemble the play. And though it
bothers me that the film didn't use the tragic ending that made the play so
popular, the film doesn't fully brush-away the original ending either. Before
the climax we see Gnomeo talking to a statue of William Shakespeare (Patrick
Stewart) who tells him what happens at the end of the play. It's still a
cop-out but at least younger audiences who are being introduced to this story
for the first time won't be oblivious to what happens when they see or (most
likely) read the actual play.
What I also found myself appreciating about this unusual
adaptation to Shakespeare's play is that the title characters aren't the only
characters that resemble the characters from the original play. In fact, most
of the important characters from the original play are all present in their
gnome counterpart. Even some have the names of the character that they're based
on, such as Tybalt and Paris. Exactly how the film story uses all the important
elements from the play to give kids an understanding of the source material, the
same applies to the characters as well. They're goofy and do have some major
differences from the characters that they're based on (and not just because they're
gnomes), but they still carry enough of the characteristics that we associate
with the characters from the play. The only important characters who don't
get a gnome redesign are Mercutio (though some of his characteristics were given
to Gnomeo's character) and Prince Escalus, which is a tad bit disappointing but
the film works fine without them.
From both of my viewings of the film, what continues to
surprise me is how unrecognizable most of the A-list celebrities they hired to
provide the voices for the characters are. Some are easy to spot such as
Michael Caine, and Hulk Hogan; but stars like Maggie Smith, Patrick Stewart,
Jim Cummings, Dolly Parton, and Ozzy Osbourne, I had no idea that their voices
were coming out of their characters mouths. They all fit each and every
character that their given, as many of them have the right balance of being
playfully over the top but still restraining how silly they can go in order to
play out on the dramas and struggles that the characters feel. I say many of
them as opposed to all of them because there are a few performances that are a
little too obnoxious. Ashley Jensen as the plastic garden frog Nanette (a
counterpart of Juliet's nurse) is barley given a subtle moment. The Red Goon Gnomes
though have their moments, come off as cheap imitations to the minions from
"Despicable Me" as if they were gnomes with straight faces. But the most insufferable
character is Friar Laurence's counterpart Featherstone the plastic flamingo. In
many respects, I don't want to hate this character! He's voiced by the gifted
voiced actor Jim Cummings, and is given the only legitimately depressing scene
in the movie! But his excessive dim-witted personality as he speaks in a phony
Spanish accent is so irritating that his heartbreaking backstory doesn't come
close to redeeming his annoying qualities. I'll also admit that the characters
in general, though not bad and are mostly enjoyable enough to get you through
the movie, nothing about them really stands out. Once
you get past their designs, the celebrities voicing them, and how they connect
to Shakespeare's play, they're pretty generic. Juliet is the beautiful girl who
wants to prove to everyone that she's strong. Gnomeo is the good looking hero.
Tybalt is the average bully. Benny is the kind hearted but clumsy idiot. And so
on, and so forth. These are characters that we've seen many times before. That
wouldn't be so bad if the relationships were emotionally deep and compelling,
but it isn't for how silly and average these characters are. And when this
gnome adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet" takes away all the tragic elements
from the story, it's going to be even harder for these characters to leave a
strong impression on you aside that they're gnomes walking and talking when no one’s
around.
Speaking of which, let's talk about the gnome concept of the
story. If this idea sounds stupid to you, other studios and famous animators
felt the same. Animator Adam Elliot turned it down feeling that the animation
didn't fit his style. Disney shut down the project when John Lasseter became
chief creative officer of Disney animation. And when the studio "Miramax" decided
to do the project, in an unlucky turn of events, the company was shut down. But
when Starz Animation received the rights to the project it went into
production, and somehow got financed by Disney. But since Disney still didn't
want their logo attached to it, they put it under their Touchstone Pictures
logo which hasn't been done since the release of "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas", that Disney suddenly took back after its
popularity began to grow. It's understandable why Disney didn't want to take
part in the film (at first), or have their name attached to it, and while I
don't think Disney is going to regret that decision the same way they felt with
"Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas", the execution to such
a cheesy concept does lead to enough creativity and good jokes to make it a fun
watch.
The best way to describe the film's concept and environment
is to imagine if "The Brave Little Toaster" or "Toy Story"
had the same type of style, tone, and brand of humor of a film animated by
Dreamworks like "Shrek" and "Madagascar". It just goes all
out with its idea as it showers us with one joke after another that come at a
very fast paced. It just never stops with the visual gags and its references to
pop culture and Shakespeare works. And how the gnomes live and go about with their
lives when no human is present is legitimately fun and interesting to see. Plus I
love that we see other lawn ornaments rather than it just being garden gnomes,
which gives this concept a little more variety that adds to a few hilarious
surprises. Though the film is constant with its humor, energy, and surprises,
I'll admit that it wasn't as constantly funny as when I first saw it in
theaters. That's not to say that it isn't entertaining or didn't lead to enough
good jokes to make it enjoyable. It's just that a good amount of the jokes and pop
culture references felt forced or just there half of the time to just make the
reference in hopes that you'll laugh. For example with Tybalt's best friend
Fawn (a garden deer voiced by Ozzy Osbourne), you'll have him randomly
talk about the Spider-Man movies during a guessing game that serves no real
purpose to why these films are being referenced; but later on he'd be part of a clever parody on the saddest and most
infamous scene in "Bambi" that fits the scene when a character is "axed
off". Those two scenes perfectly demonstrate the film's use and misuse of
pop cultural references.
Another forced element is the use of Elton John's music. I
love Elton John and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have fun watching the
scenes that use his music. But apart from the song "The Tikki Tikki Tiki
Room" that's used for Juliet's fountain when it accidentally gets turned
on, the film's soundtrack is all music by Elton John. And these aren't songs
that he wrote for the film (aside from his Golden Globe nominated song
"Hello, Hello" that he sings with Lady Gaga), they're all songs that
he previously recorded in his career, and it just feels very strange that a
film that mixes gnomes and Shakespeare together would also use Elton John's
music in the background for its soundtrack. Even down to the point where
Nanette fantasizes about one of the gnomes to dress, play, and sing exactly
like Elton John. The reason for this choice is because he owns "Rocket
Pictures" that helped produce the film, and I suppose that since he's the
film’s executive producer he figured why not make more money by shoehorning his
songs in the film’s soundtrack while also recording a new song with a popular
artist of the time to make sure that the soundtrack sells, so that way it won't
feel like he's selling another compilation album with gnomes on the cover of
it. Throw in some awful gnome puns (as if the title wasn't dumb enough), and a
ridiculously overblown climax involving an extreme looking lawnmower that's
sized and shaped like a bulldozer, and you can easily see why the film's humor
and choices doesn't fully work.
If there's one thing to heavily admire about the film, its the animation. I completely forgot how much detail was put into it. The gnomes that
come to life don't look clean and polished to the point where they look like
animated characters that could exist in their own
fairy-tale world; they're given cracks, chips, dirt stains, and faded colors so
that they can look like statues that have been kept outside in the
dirt for long periods of time. Juliet, who's supposed to be a very delicate statue,
appears to be fragile from how shiny and hollow she looks when compared to the other
gnomes. This film doesn't nearly decide to go as far to get away with
continuity errors being that it's an animated film that's just made to tell
jokes. When Benny's hat gets smashed, it stays smashed and attached to his head
since there are no scenes indicating that he can take it off. And whenever
Nanette speaks, you always see the water-hose that's built inside her mouth. What helps
contribute to the detail of how old and fragile these characters are is the
sound-effects for when they walk and move. Each type of lawn ornament is given
a distinctive sound-effect to provide the viewer an impression of what they’re
made-of and how much is at risk if they were to have an unlucky accident.
Furthermore the size and scale of the environment that the characters live in
and view of the human world looks both exciting and dangerous. When a gnome
falls, or rides on a lawnmower, you feel the weight and impact of it for how
gigantic the world around them is, that simply heightens the risk of their
actions. It truly surprises me that so much effort and detail in the animation
went towards a film that could've just ignored all the technical aspects of a
lawn ornament and only have them fall apart or lose their perfect looks during
key points in the movie. I didn't expect the risk of them breaking or the
intentional imperfections of their designs to be constant throughout the movie.
This film isn't nearly as bad as it seemed like it was going
to be. The gnome concept is inventive. The animation is surprisingly well
detailed as it’s full of life and energy. The voice cast is all fitting for
their characters as most of them are enjoyable to listen too, as well as many
of their voices being unrecognizable. The jokes are non-stop that leads to
enough laughs to make the experience fun. And the film uses most of the
key-points of the play to give its target audience an idea of what they’re in
for when they learn about the actual play. However, while being a very
entertaining film that kids will just eat-up, it's still a pretty standard
movie. The characters aren't given that much depth to them since the film feels
that having goofy lawn ornaments loosely resemble the characters from the source
material is fascinating enough. There are tons of jokes that don't work, as the
film at times either forces or goes way too overboard with them. Elton John's
music is only present in the film for him to sell another album
(that...I...may...or...may...not listen to a few of those tracks after
completing this review). And the fact that the film decides to play itself
completely safe by not at all challenging its audience when being based off of
a famous tragedy kind of makes the overall idea of retelling it with gnomes to
be pointless. I'm still impressed that a film with such a stupid set-up had a
lot of effort being put into it which resulted with it being a delightfully
entertaining film, that's not even a bad (if not great) way of introducing kids
to Shakespeare's play. But nothing about it is really going stick with you
after watching it, apart from how the film is adapting "Romeo and
Juliet".
