My Movie Review/Rant on Open Season · 4:07pm Mar 19th, 2023
Yo, what's up, Kemosabes?
This is your friendly film, TV show, and episode reporter here with another review.
Today, I'm gonna give you guys my take of the very first movie by Sony Pictures Animation: "Open Season".
Here's the rundown of it:
Boog is a grizzly bear who's spent much of his life under the care of a park ranger named Beth. He's also the star attraction for a woodland town named Timberline, where he performs various tricks on a stage.
However, Boog's life is turned upside down after he meets a deer who's one antler short named Elliot, whom he saves from Timberline's nastiest hunter: Shaw.
When Elliot unknowingly keeps getting Boog in trouble, Boog is dumped in the National Forest, two days before hunting season. Desperate to go back to Timberline, he reluctantly lets Elliot guide him.
Will Boog ever get back to town and make it up to Beth? Or will he be stuck in the woods forever?
In all honesty, "Open Season" wasn't a film I intended on reviewing. I saw the film on two separate occasions as a kid, and I remember frequently seeing trailers for it, but it never really stood out to me or made much of an impact on my life.
Regardless, I figured that it wouldn't hurt to give this movie another shot now that I'm older. When I became aware of the fanbase and cult following it gained over the years, it made me want to see why so many people apparently love it and if I was missing something. That, and I wanted to give the film a rewatch in order to ensure my review was 100% constructive and wouldn't be too biased.
So, what do I think of "Open Season"? Especially after seeing it for the third time in my life recently?
To be honest you guys, even after I finally rewatched the whole movie, I personally consider "Open Season" to be one of the most mediocre animated films I've ever seen. One of the worst even!
I mean, seriously?! What's there to like about "Open Season" to begin with?
First off, the animation was openly subpar.
I'm well aware that this was Sony's first endeavor in the animation field, and I commend them for trying something new at the time. Regardless, the overall quality was poor, and the visualization was cheap-looking to where it was like watching a really long Saturday morning cartoon. The humans and animals certainly weren't atrocious-looking, but they weren't appealing either. The settings were neat, but they were bland and uninspired too. The worst part is that it didn't look like the animators were putting in enough effort or commitment to really make an impression, and the signs that everything was done by computer were very easy to spot.
The direction by Jill Culton, Roger Allers, and Anthony Stacchi, the story by Culton, Stacchi, Steve Moore, and John B. Carls, and the screenplay by Steve Bencich, Ron J. Friedman, and Nat Mauldin, didn't do this movie any favors either.
You'd think that Roger Allers, who co-directed the 1994 animated version of "The Lion King" and was involved in several other Disney films, would help this movie be something fun and worthwhile. But, I couldn't for the life of me see any signs of his creativity or influence, which makes me think that either he wasn't as involved as the promotions and behind-the-scenes videos let-on or he degraded himself from the skills he developed at Disney.
When it comes to the film's plot, everything about it felt like an uninspired Dreamworks rip-off. The buddy-comedy aspect between Boog and Elliot felt strongly reminiscent of the one between Shrek and Donkey in the first "Shrek" movie, only the grouchy straight man is played by an African-American while the happy-go-lucky and eccentric individual is played by a White dude. Similar to "Over the Hedge", "Open Season" takes place in a North American setting and features a bear, skunks, porcupine, and squirrels. And just like "Madagascar", "Open Season" features an animal living in a human-populated area who's suddenly forced to live in the wild while trying to find a way back home. Basically, "Open Season" felt like a combination of "Shrek", "Madagascar", and "Over the Hedge", only with uninspired and messy results.
On top of this, the comedy was infuriating. None of the jokes made me laugh because they were either flat, dull, or cringy; I was practically stone-faced through it all. The gags revolving around McSquizzy and the squirrels were definite examples, because every joke involving them made me want to see them cooked in squirrel stew more than anything else. And yes, there were moments of heart, emotion, and drama, but they were all too weak and by-the-numbers. As if that wasn't enough, the action sequences were incredibly lame. Compared to action scenes featured in other animated films, the ones in "Open Season" were relatively slow, and they relied too much on visual jokes and one-liners that made the sequences more vexing than engaging.
The morals the film had about friendship and loyalty weren't well-done either. Rather than teach about how important and meaningful those things are, the movie appeared to be saying that you need to gain a friend and earn their loyalty just so that they could be your personal bodyguard, a factor that's particularly fueled by how needy Elliot often got for Boog and his actions throughout the story.
Lastly, the voice acting, characters, and character development were lackluster.
Regardless of whatever "developments" they have, every character was either uninteresting or irritating, and accompanying them all were voice performances that were straight up second-rate. Heck, not even the involvements of Patrick Warburton as Ian and Billy Connolly as McSquizzy impressed me, because not only were the two of them weirdly miscast, their performances and comedic-timings were galling compared to other voice roles they portrayed. As galling as Ian and McSquizzy themselves, if I may add.
And now, let's take a look at the main players of this picture. Boog, Elliot, Beth, and Shaw. Shall we?
Boog the Grizzly Bear certainly wasn't one of the film's most bothersome of characters, but he's hardly what I'd call an engaging focus either. The entirety of his character arc and role was too much like that of Alex the Lion from "Madagascar", in that he's an arrogant animal performer who was accustomed to living under human care that's suddenly stranded in the wild because of a misunderstanding, and it features him struggling to make a living in the woods just like when Alex and company got stranded on Madagascar. The only difference is that while Alex managed to gain control of his instincts and nature as a lion before the first film's climactic showdown, Boog suddenly embraces being a bear and follows his instincts during his fight with Shaw. To me, this openly leads towards toxic results. Wouldn't that mean he'd resort to eating his friends afterwards? And would he have any kind of control over his carnivorous nature? What can he eat if the fish will just slap him every time he goes near them?
I can tell that Martin Lawrence was at least trying to make the best of his involvement as Boog, but it wasn't good enough. At the most, his performance sounded uninspired, and it came across as more like Lawrence wearing a gigantic bear suit rather than him voicing a character.
Meanwhile, Elliot the Deer was one of the more unbearable of the characters. His role and character arc may not have been too similar to Marty the Zebra from "Madagascar", but both characters have a lot in common. In this case, both Marty and Elliot got their friend in trouble and caused a misunderstanding, they both wind up getting tranquilized and cast off to the wild with predatory characters, and both are happy-go-lucky and eccentric. Other parts of Elliot's arc had similarities to Donkey from "Shrek", in that both characters were saved from an antagonist by a grouchy individual and want to be the friend of their savior afterwards.
Aside from his unoriginal similarities to Donkey and Marty, Elliot himself was someone I could barely tolerate. His personality and sense of humor were frustrating, and the things he did, such as lying to Boog about knowing the way to Timberline just to get Boog "to hang out with him more and officially become his best friend" did not help me sympathize or like him in the slightest. He never did anything to make up for his mistakes or expressed any kind of genuine apology either, which only caused him to be less deserving of forgiveness or any form of companionship. And no, helping Boog during his fight with Shaw doesn't count, because all his efforts and attempts in that very time were too flat. One thing's for sure, Ashton Kutcher's portrayal did not make Elliot any more likable.
The character of Beth wasn't someone I cared for either. She's portrayed as a kind-hearted and loving individual, but to me...she came across as more like a self-righteous hypocrite. She gets onto Shaw for constantly hunting and killing animals when it's not hunting season, and she advocates for animal welfare and preservation, yet she spoils a bear to where he's nothing more than a harmless pet! Taking away any chance of him actually surviving in the wild and making him do clown tricks on a stage!
What kind of a ranger does that?!
If that's not an example of hypocrisy at its finest, I don't know what is. I'm surprised that the environmental advocates didn't go slamming on her door in protest. The fact she was the one who dumped Boog in the woods with Elliot, as well as caused him to suffer and struggle due to her spoiling him, did not help put her in a flattering light. The performance of Debra Messing only fueled my belief that Beth is an unlikable hypocrite, that's for sure.
And as for Shaw, the "villain" of this motion picture...well, he was the worst character out of everyone.
All throughout this entire film, I often rolled my eyes or cringed out of aggravation because of how infuriating Shaw was. It particularly came to the point of where I'd think to myself, "Shaw, you are nothing more than an idiotic, exasperating, childish joke who should be taken to the nearest asylum and kept there for life!"
I don't care if everything I described Shaw as was the basic intention behind his character or if it was supposed to fit with the story, he's still nothing but an unfunny, less-than-intimidating, and one-dimensional villain-wannabe. Regardless of how often he'd come close to killing Boog and Elliot, his intentions behind why he was going after them to begin with, and his attempts in general, only fueled my belief that he's a pitiful moron. Not to mention his jokes and sense of humor were aggravating in the worst way, especially when you compare him to the likes of Hades from Disney's "Hercules".
Whether people are gonna fight me on this or not is something I don't know, but Shaw also caused several notable plot deficiencies and flaws, from his role as a mere hunter to his personality in general. Aside from there being no explanation for why he's obsessive over his gun and crazy about hunting animals, the film doesn't explain why Shaw disregards the law and has no respect for it or the authorities. His first scene with Beth and Gordy confirms that he broke Timberline's laws more than once, and somehow, he manages to weasel away from punishment.
And what do Gordy and Beth do?
NOTHING!!!
Despite suspecting Shaw of his illegal activities, they don't conduct so much as an investigation! And even though the evidence of his misgivings is right in front of them, they don't put him in a cell and throw away the key afterwards!
Why?!
And how did Shaw manage to evade custody in the first place?
I mean, in Disney's "Aladdin", whenever Jafar was up to no good and did something shady in front of the Sultan, he would secretly use that hypnotic cobra staff of his to weasel himself through. And he'd take advantage of his position as royal advisor and the Sultan's trust in him, as well as rely on his abilities to be charismatic, deceptive, and manipulative.
What did Shaw ever rely on?
Stupidity, insults, taunts, and terrible jokes.
If Shaw was a poacher, then I'd see why he's so disrespectful of the law and loves mercilessly hunting animals. If he was an animal control officer or pest exterminator, then I'd get why he hates animals so much and believes humans are superior to them. And if he was a relative of a political figure, then I'd understand where he gets his apparent law immunity and evasion from.
Instead, the filmmakers make Shaw some deranged and brainless lunatic with literally zero sense of depth or characterization. And no matter what sort of "developments" he goes through, I could neither take him seriously nor tolerate him any further.
Every time I'd remember that the filmmakers intended on making Shaw this way, I'd think this:
In short, I believe Shaw is a pathetic excuse for a villain.
The performance of Gary Sinise didn't make Shaw any better, that's for sure.
Looking back, "Open Season" may have been the first movie I saw that involved Sinise. Or one of the first, because I remember seeing "Apollo 13" a couple times in my life. In whatever case, for me, "Open Season" gave me a far from great first impression of Sinise, because it showcased perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances of his career. He was over-the-top in a maddening way, and his comedic-timings and portrayal in general were exasperating. He particularly sounded like he was giving a mediocre impression of Jim Varney or Blake Clark, was drawing on the vocal ranges of Cruella de Vil and Yzma, and mixing it all with a humor reminiscent of the Joker. The results in question being egregious.
In the end, "Open Season" is not only Sony Picture Animation's first movie, but one of their worst as well. Its story is unoriginal, the animation is bland and outdated, and the characters and voice acting are either uninteresting or irksome.
So, I rate "Open Season" a solid one out of five stars.
As for whether I'll review its direct-to-video sequels...
No. Never.
They have too much of a negative reputation anyway, and the fact that they were so poorly-received and featured the characters frequently getting recast only fuels my belief that the first film is everything short of a dung heap.
eh, Ive never seen it, nor am I interested, so ill take your word for it.
I've never seen it nor I'm interested in it.
I've seen this movie a long time ago and yeah it had so much flaws and it's crazy animation wise okay during the time which it could have been a little bit better but the story was a little meh but I did had a few laughs in this movie but other than that it wasn't too great I'm just surprised they made sequels of this movie despite how unpopular it is
This'll be one of those rare times where I agree with you (I know. I'm equally shocked there too). This movie was one of only 2 movies from the plethora of animated animal movies from 2006 that I honestly didn't like too much upon first viewing (the second being the Disney movie "The Wild"). And to this day I honestly haven't a good word about this film or its' abysmal sequels.
Oh yeah this movie was hot garbage.
I've seen the trailers when I was younger but it never caught my interest, I was rather busy in my freshman year to even care about it.
I find the latter kind of unlikely.
Finally someone who agree that open season was never a good move and was just a very poor project
Thank goodness that later animated feature films made by Sony got better over time.
To be honest, Open Season is one of those movies/show I completely forgot about since to me. It not very memorable
I only ever saw half of this, but I must say the half I did watch felt rather derivative of Dreamworks (and by that I mean mediocre Dreamworks, not HTTYD Dreamworks).
Even if you hate it, you can’t deny that some watched the movies JUST for Giselle, Bobbie and Ursa. I mean, look at their booties and tell me you wouldn’t want to pound them!
5725045
Nope.