"It's Just A Kid's Film"

I did not expect Sonic The Hedgehog to be such a divisive film. In my review I complained that the film pushed the definition of average to such intensity that it somehow broke through definition and became bad, comparable to other CGI/Live-Action hybrids such as Hop or Alvin & The Chipmunks. Nothing offensive or upsetting about the film apart from how unbearably simple it was, to which I shouldn’t be that surprised that this doesn’t detract from the film for a decent number of people, something being simple doesn’t mean bad, it just means easy to understand and hopefully the jokes and characters are entertaining enough that they can carry the rest of the film, for which it does for many.

I’m not overly bothered by this argument, after all there are plenty of films that I like which others could claim are just average but sprinkled in enough positives to leave a good impression overall. That being said, one comment that I’ve seen come up several times amongst critics and friends who liked this film is the relic of “It’s a kid’s film” to which translates to “This would entertain a small human and therefore I’m not going to critique it properly”. That might sound harsh, but it’s an argument that I despise because it’s giving a free-pass to lazy filmmaking who feel the need to spoon feed the feelings and arcs of their characters as if the kids watching as if they were idiots. I’m not going to go easy on bad kid’s films when there are plenty of other films aimed at children that do try to create engaging, creative and even important works for their target audience.

Don’t misunderstand me, not every film aimed at children needs to be Inside Out. I don’t need Sonic to be explaining depression to me. The logic behind this argument seems to be that because kids won’t be as tired of formulaic plots the same way adults will, that makes it okay. Here’s the thing, going by this logic, you could show kids basically anything as long as it was flashy and easy to digest because they don’t know the difference between good and bad films, but that’s exactly why we should be more critical of the ones that don’t try, by giving them a free pass it just lowers the bar on what we’ll accept as “good enough” films for the younger audiences. Secondly is that it kind of gives kids less credit as an audience, unless they’re two year olds who still barely have a grasp on logic, there’s plenty of work out there that does entertain and challenge these young audiences, even if they’re not bothered by the formulaic nature of these type of films, they do still recognise the formula, and even if it doesn’t bother them, it’s not exactly going to be a film that leaves much of an impact.

Think of your favourite films from your childhood, the ones that left an impact, more often than not they’re the ones that did something different, films that tried harder than others and meant something to you. I think of films like The Land Before Time or The Prince of Egypt that felt like they were discussing mature subjects with me, even if I didn’t recognise that feeling at the time. Or even films like Shrek or The Emperor’s New Groove, they’re not necessarily mature, but they still stood out for doing something different, and because of that misfit behaviour made them entertaining and everlasting. It even works for bad films, a decent part of my generation is nostalgic for the live-action Scooby-Doo films, they’re by no means good films, but they are still weird films that tried something new, they failed, but they were remembered for it, and have developed somewhat of a cult following nowadays. It’s why I argue being average is worse than being bad, because if you’re just going to be forgotten wastes of time, then what was the point of them in the first place?

On a more personal note, I hate people using this justification towards me as if I don’t take into consideration the target audiences for these films. I’m not going into Sonic the frigging Hedgehog with the same expectations I would for something like Parasite or 1917. I know different films have different goals, it’s one the simplest things you need to understand about cinema, you don’t need to be a critic to know that, so I very much don’t appreciate the implication that a kid’s film’s main goal is to entertain children is something I'm unaware of. I also know what makes a good or bad film for kids, its why I wouldn’t say I hate the film because it doesn’t spread any bad messages, but it also means I’m going to be more critical that thinking they can get away with lazy storytelling because they’re expecting their audience to not care.

So, TL;DR? No, it’s not just a kid’s film, it’s a lazy kid’s film, so it’s a bad kid’s film.

-Danny