We Bought a Zoo

Today’s American genre movies apparently know only two extremes: either complete rejection of certainties and questioning of basic existential values or a safe escape into an idealised fairy-tale world. Cameron Crowe’s new film falls into the latter group with such irresistible guilelessness that I feel ashamed to criticise it for its naïveté. Since I ultimately didn’t get the good feeling that the film ceaselessly pushes on viewers, I’m not rating it higher, but in the same breath, I can recommend that you give We Bought a Zoo a chance, as it can be touching, depending on your state of mind at the moment. It’s solidly directed and offers tasteful humour, even when it comes to the animals. ___ Though the film doesn’t try to hide its affiliation with the Christmas family comedy category (American premiere date: 23 December), it also doesn’t manage to exploit it in any clever way. It is simply an intentionally nice film and nothing more. The type-casting of the characters is flawless; there is no risk that someone would deviate from the clearly defined course. Radical, though of course temporary, deviations are allowed either in the context of the acknowledged game (MacCready) or to confirm the absolute success of the main characters (Ferris). There are no negative characters that could be taken seriously. To be precise, the creepy inspector is a caricature like something out of a children’s book. Like the film’s cast of animals, he serves only for comic situations that alleviate the mourning for the dead wife and the search for a way back to people. The only effort at more sophisticated involvement of the ever-present animals in the central plot is the impassioned (even by the standards that the film sets) episode with the dying tiger. Otherwise, the animals only a) generate grotesque humour or b) try to convince us that it’s natural for them to be locked up in cages. Thomas Haden Church managed to make the most of his thankless role and, unlike Damon, he can deliver his great pearls of wisdom with a light sense of detached humour. The film otherwise falls desperately short. ___ The “fine” mood spiked with rising intensity towards the end (thanks especially to Elle Fanning) made me wonder if that was an intentional change of stylisation on Crowe’s part, resulting in a very clever practical joke. But probably not. 55% (04/11/2012)

A a barrage of positivity that relies on the typical trademarks that Cameron Crowe sprinkles into each of his films: strong characters that you can't help but sympathize with, some sparkle between main characters, a common goal to work towards, a dash of emotions and personal attitudes that need to be changed, all adding to one of the film of the year. Crowe hasn't overstretched himself this time around, and made a modest, intimate film that is emotionally transparent and relatable, even though it's actually woefully unoriginal and ordinary. But even fleshing out the characters and dialogue and adding a catchy soundtrack is quite a feat in a production like this. The last scene is awesome. (04/20/2016)

A film that's not afraid to deliberately move you, yet is perfectly optimistic and intentionally smiling with every thought and plot point. The whole group of teenagers, children, dedicated caretakers, and gazing animals could easily crumble into a meaningless family mess. But Cameron Crowe proves that he still has a firm hand in calming down turbulent emotions. A film for everyone. Literally. (04/04/2012)

Like Benjamin Mee, I don't know how to approach this now. So, I’ll take it one step at a time. The premise was okay, and I didn't have the slightest problem with it. Compassion and love for animals (as long as it remains purely platonic) are definitely a good thing. On the other hand, I have a problem with the way these values were presented. It was a family film, so I knew there were going to be moral lessons. They didn’t even feel out of place. It could have been a decent film if it hadn’t been turned into a huge nostalgic emotional wringer and sacrificed everything else to that end. I’ve been a fan of Scarlett Johansson ever since The Horse Whisperer (1998) and Ghost World (2001). I was all the more annoyed by the character she portrayed here. I’m sure there are people who will share all their problems, issues, and failures with you five minutes after you meet them. I just don't want to meet them. It was all so uncomfortable to watch; the constant reminiscing about the wife, the dying tiger, the troubled teenager. It was just cheap, and it must have been obvious to everyone what ending the film was heading towards. No, the film wasn’t enjoyable and I’m glad it's over. / Lesson learned: Teaching a beast to give a paw might not be a good idea. (09/14/2022)

A completely professionally made film (perfect editing, amazing cinematography, breathtaking sets...), which thanks to its "soft drink" script manages to attack the viewer's emotions quite indiscriminately at some moments. Fortunately, the whole thing actually feels on the whole quite natural and civil (mainly thanks to the excellent cast), and therefore there is no need to wonder if Cameron Crowe is just forcing your emotions or if the characters are so wonderfully written and acted that you just believe them all. What’s more, the story itself is so beautifully human that perhaps it must ultimately soften even otherwise purely cynical hearts. The ending is so very moving it's almost unwelcome :))) (10/28/2013)