Thoughts On: The Nut Job Movie Series

Oh boy, this one is going to cost me a few points among the animation community, but whatever. So I've now seen both The Nut Job and The Nub Job 2: Nutty By Nature several times along with seeing a number of Youtuber reviews of both movies and I have now come to my own conclusions in regards to where I stand on this. I actually think they are alright.

Yes, I didn't mind them at all. I think people are a little too harsh on them and while I do agree that there are issues with both movies, I think the hate for them is really unnecessary. Sure, they don't compare to most recent animated movie releases like Disney have brought out, but the second movie stood out better then those brought out recently by other animation studios this year. In fact, I really liked the second one far more then the first one, so I guess the best way to explain why is to talk about some of the things I liked and didn't like in them. As I've pointed out before, I'm not critic and am simply a individual with personal opinions, so as such it isn't going to be some deep in-depth analysis and is just my opinion and thoughts. As such, let's get the negatives out of the way first.

The Negatives

I feel that there are a couple of reasons that people dislike the movies, one of the big complaints being the use of licensed music. I guess this might be due to the fact that when it comes down to music in animated features, you can never tell how the audience will react to the vocal songs. Sure you might end up with a big hit like Frozen, but more often then not, most will find it out of place or irritating. One example would be in the second one where the first use of 'Born To Be Wild' when they were attacking the workmen and 'Tick Tick Boom' during the second assault on the Fair felt completely off and I would have preferred more original action music pieces, though the the end use of 'Born To Be Wild' with the final destruction felt better used (and no, I didn't think the whole 'Gangnam Style' end credits part of the first movie was that bad either). It probably also costs more to have an original piece produced then it is to just license some well known songs just for the movie and they don't have to pay extra to pay for licensing them in the soundtrack. Then again, I don't know much about how movie budgets work with music and while I can't speak for what the reasons for their inclusion were (because frankly, I have no bloody idea how music is acquired for movies), I felt that it worked about 50/50, but that could be cause many of the other included vocal songs completely went over my head I guess. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong on this and easily understand why people would hate their inclusion in this movie over, say, original music. Would more original songs have improved them? I honestly don't know.

Personally, I felt that the bigger flaws to the movies come down to two things: Writing and Villains. That may not sound like much at first, but it does tend to have a big impact on the overall product. I felt like some of the story and scenes (mostly in the first movie) were either unnecessary or needed to be reworked. I feel that this did improve in the second movie, though the complexity of the story was simplified to 'nature verse greedy developer', but for a movie about park animals I can look past that. This can also be seen in the humor with a neat joke here and there, such as with how Andie just bursts out in song (making fun of movies in which characters just break out in song for whatever reason) as opposed to things like the fart jokes in the first movie. My opinion is that while there is still more work that could be done in the story and joke telling, it's an improvement. There does appear to be some confusion as to what from the first movie is still considered cannon in the second movie. I say this mostly cause of scenes like when Andie and Surly are having a conversation and Surly mentions starving, Andie points out that they won't starve and that animals survived long before there were nut shops. I point this one out in particular because what was the purpose of the first movie? The animals were are risk of starving (even before the food was destroyed) and they needed to raid the nut shop for food, which seems to somewhat contradict what is being said (they even miss the chance for Surly to point this one fact out), so I do have some concerns over continuity along with some big plot holes (like what happened to Grayson or why didn't Lana take Precious with her when the Nut Shop went out of business?). Character wise has the second movie also being an improvement over the first. The second movie seems to improve the status between Surly and the rest of the animals and we even got a back story on how Surly meet Buddy (still doesn't explain why he was mean to him in the first movie, but I have my thoughts on that). Some of the characters have been improved, though I can't tell if Mole's personality got a down grade.

The same can be said about the Villains, though this might be because they tried to cut back a bit and simplify them. My issue with the first movie is that there were basically two bad guys competing to be the central villain, which grew irritating sometimes as it felt like they were trying to tell two different major stories at the same time. One was Squirrel vs Crime Gang in nut heist and the other was Squirrel vs Racoon for control and reputation. Both seem to work well on their own, but were constantly competing for dominance in a single tale. The second movie seem to be more focused on the Mayor as the main villain with both his selfish daughter Heather and the Animal Control Officer Gunther acting more like the cartoon henchmen/goons role associated with the main antagonist (as far as their threat as bad guys go). Of course, they came off as less complicated and more straight up cartoon-like compared to the villains in the first movie which I felt worked better, though I am unsure how it will go about in a third movie (yeah, spoilers - Racoon looks to be returning, so he would most likely be the central villain for a third movie.......wait, hold up a sec. It appears at least a minimum of a year has passed between the end of the first movie and the end of the second one, so was Racoon just sitting there on that buoy the whole time?).

The Positives

I actually do like the characters a lot. Those of Surly, Buddy and Andie are probably my favourite. Buddy is great and works very well as a silent character, relying on facial expressions and actions to speak for him. He tends to flip-flop on his intellectual level, but when it comes to a supporting character, he does that very well. He tends to have some great moments and his backstory gives us nice emotional piece and an explanation as to why he is Surly's best friend and has stayed by his side for the most part. He does take some abuse from Surly during the first movie, which does have an impact (though only a minor one in my opinion), but it's his impact in the second movie that shows off the friendship better in my opinion.

Surly and Andie are a bit more complicated (or not, depending where you stand I guess). It's clear in the first movie that something has happened between Surly and the other animals (most likely manipulated by Racoon at times for his own benefit) as he is very much the social outcast, being a rather self-centered & independent type. I get the feeling that whatever has happened over those years, it changed Surly to be more like that and making him take a more harder and colder stance, affecting his relationship with those around him, including Buddy. That said, it's hard to paint him as being selfish and greedy at times when its quite clear things are honestly against him. That one scene in the first movie when he goes to the roof to let off his frustration cause he's helping the animals get nuts and yet they are still praising Racoon over him, not appreciating what he's doing for them is understandable. Then Andie has the nerve to be annoyed with Surly's 'I'm doing this for myself' reaction after she just told him that Racoon was going to betray Surly once it was done and that all the animals (herself included) are all in on this. So from his point of view is everyone is just using him and that no one, not even Andie, stood up for him when Racoon planned his betrayal. In his situation, I would totally understand that being a response. I mean, you just told him everyone was going to betray him after all his hard work, that you were in on it too and that your the one trying to make him feel bad just because he reacts like most would, never considering his point of view or feelings (wait, wasn't I suppose to be talking about the positive things?). Surly does have moments when he is a real jerk for no reason, but by the end of the first movie Surly is more positive & respectful and going into the second movie he is respected and looked up too by the other animals, but that leads to them looking to him for answers and results when things go wrong, which proves harder for Surly to solve. He certainly still has his moments when he is grumpy, sarcastic and just showing off, keeping some of that personality from the first movie, but he is also more likely to jump into protecting the park and animals compared to the first.

Andie on the other hand is the central female character and tends to be focused more on the main goal, which can lead to her sometimes missing the finer details or Surly's feelings in the process. It's clear that she has a thing for Surly early on, being one of the few who struggles with her feelings when the other animals are straight up on board with trashing Surly. I feel there is a back story with these two that could be told (perhaps in a third movie) as there clearly seems to be something there as they would have known each other from when they were young. Her opinion of Surly seems to be that she believes he is capable of great things as he certainly has the skills and capability to do them, but can't understand why he doesn't, usually trying to throw things back on him as a result. I feel she's trying to get him to be the Squirrel she wants him to be, but in pushing him so, tends to miss his side of the story or feelings. Her push in the second movie is in keeping with nature, that animals need to work hard and not take the easy way, thus placing the conflict with Surly. She certainly uses his own ego against him, but also try's to show him the positives of her side (which doesn't work as well as she'd hoped for). Of course, both Surly and Andie have their moments when their plans go wrong and they realise that perhaps the other side might have a point or two, leading to a compromise both are quite happy with in the end (and yes, I do like them as a couple).

As for the other characters, I did enjoy the antics of the Groundhogs more in the second movie, though I do wonder what is up between Mole and Jamie. This was something that sort of popped up in the first movie (Mole was clearly trying something like a poor attempt at getting Jamie's attention, but she clearly wasn't taking it), but never really had much done in the second which was a shame as it could have been used for more comical moments, something like Mole's bad attempts at flirting with Jamie perhaps. Most of the others are there as background support who are generally one shot personalities. Grayson from the first movie was definitely the ego, but scared at times type who is confused as a hero by most due to dumb luck (though he does have moments when he does take action) and Mr Fang (hell yeah, its Jackie Chan, who I think is just amazing) is the dark and strong type who is introduced well enough in the second movie so when they are used later on it makes more sense. Both have their rolls in their respective movies, though I do wish they had addressed the missing Grayson issue in the story. I'm not sure is it was a story decision or if Brendan Fraser couldn't/wouldn't do it, (mostly cause there is absolutely no information on the net about this) but whatever the reason they still could have addressed this one given how prominent a standing he had among the animals in the first movie.

Moving away from character personalities, I do like their designs as they do look like their respective animals while still giving off that cartoon feel that's enjoyable to watch. I also love the animation and feel it suits this style well. Oh sure it might not be Zootopia quality, but I still enjoy the feels of its visuals. It flows smooth and fast that I found it enjoyable and tends to get the emotional moments off quite well. Some have said it feels strange watching this style as it can't tell just how cartoon it is with it's slapstick (moments where the characters must be rubber like to survive being crushed by bricks, but they never stretch or squish like one should for that sort of thing) and that it feels more like a direct-to-video animation. Personally, I disagree with the latter (I would love to see a proper discussion about what levels of quality of animation has to be to be considered 'Cinematic' and 'Direct-to-video') but honestly don't mind its style as every animated world has its own rules and that just seems to be the way that world works. I can certainly respect the effort that went into animating these movies (I know after doing my own visual effects course, I learned the difficulties of pulling off 3D animation and have a better appreciation for it).

I feel the voice acting is very good and the cast chosen to represent the characters does a fantastic job of creating personality for them with their voices, which works well for some characters over others (I definitely enjoyed Will Arnett as Surly and Katherine Heigl as Andie). Having seen a lot of behind-the-scenes sessions from various animated movies, I wonder which option works better, actors doing their sessions solo or doing them in a group. I understand they all cant be in the same place due to things like locations, times, etc. but I would really like to know if such chemistry would better reflect through voice (This question has nothing to do with the movies, this was just something that occurred to me as I was typing this, but I would really like to know which one do voice actors prefer).

I also don't mind the soundtrack either, though I do preference the second movies one over the first (there appears to be a running theme here). I guess this is down to two theme pieces they use in a number of moments that I find catchy enough that it feels like this movie does have music that could be considered catchy 'theme song' music material (music pieces that you hear and instantly recognize as being that franchise). I think Heitor Pereira did a great job in this and am now looking into his other works to see what else I can find from his range that I might like. As for the vocal stuff, I made my opinions above so no point wasting time talking any more on it.

Overall

I'm sure I have a lot more to say and perhaps in time I'll get around to saying it. I do understand a number of the issues people had with these movies and I do agree with a number of them (seriously though, the nut puns were few and far between, so stop groaning about them). I personally feel the second movie didn't deserve the low ratings that it got, but hey, if people still feel that then this is a case when I will happily add this to my list of movies I love that everyone else hates. I'm not here to say your wrong or forcefully change anyone's opinions of it, I'm just wanting to point out a few personal opinions here and there and poorly explain why I enjoyed them (though, mostly the second movie then the first). I could see this franchise going further with a bit more investment (and by that I'm not just talking about money) much like Dreamworks did with T.V series spinoffs of their movies, but feel that without the original voice actors it wouldn't work as well (well, compared to Dreamworks Dragons series anyway). Maybe as shorts, who knows, but other animation companies have proven that even after a trilogy is made there are still many stories you can tell without them being a movie. While I would look forward to a third movie, there would still need to be some work in areas like story and writing, but I could still see it working out (then again, I have my own story ideas which would probably put mine at odds with whatever they did).

As such, this was just my simple opinion looking at this movie series and as such I will enjoy coming back to this discussing these movies in the future, for some reason or another (or you know, to fix up the writing. Definitely could write this up better, but you get the idea). Certainly gave me an idea for a new character to create at least and that's always a positive for me.