Creative Commons license icon

Review: 'Alpha and Omega: The Legend of the Saw Tooth Cave'

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

Alpha and Omega: The Legend of the Saw Tooth Cave When I finally saw the plot synopsis and the box art for Alpha and Omega: The Legend of the Saw Tooth Cave, I was actually pretty upset. I feared that they just no longer care for the original characters of the very first movie.

The box art only featured the wolf puppies and I kept thinking negative things like: "Are they heading in a direction that I don't want them to go?"

I was scared about this movie. I just didn't bother posting a preview here, probably because of that. But you know what? My fears weren't completely true. They actually shown Kate and Humphrey and they had real roles. However, the focus was still often on the pups. There was also a white wolf called Daria often along with the pup Runt. These two were the main focus.

Some amount of spoiler is to be expected!

The Story

While I believe story style is never a flaw, I have to say, this was a darker story than the previous films, and had some shocking moments for a kid's film. The story involving the cave actually went well and had some deep moments. One of the more intense moments I had was Runt's dream. He had a dream of himself climbing a tree, and in his dream, right before he woke up, he saw a person. Which is someone he meets after dreaming. It's like he had a out-of-body experience, that becomes reality.

It probably would have been crazier to me if the place had not been found yet while dreaming about it first, though.

For the rest of the story, it was pretty good, there was some sense with it too.

The story is, like everything, an inspired fantasy story, but with new types of ideas added, combined, etc. In a good way, of course! One of the greatest parts is that this actually goes amazing with Halloween. Even though, it's not like a human Halloween, but still another amazing way.

One of the greatest parts was that the ghost, was actually a god-dang ghost. It wasn't those cheesy "It was all a Scooby Dooby Doo!" fakes. It was real, deal with it kids.

Sadly though, I wish it was longer. The film is still trapped in its 45 minute run, but this time, it didn't feel as rushed as the second movie of the series.

Detail

In terms of effects, and other models, this still doesn't hold as great as the first main movie.

The lands are still lowly animated, there are parts where the grass still doesn't fade into the rock right and looks like a model I would make in high textures (sort of) in a program called SketchUp, and there are other problems.

I can't tell though, but the models outside the wolves might look a bit better. The tooth cave looks good a bit but kind of looks like it's in the middle of the PS3-PS4 graphics ... Then again, graphics on video games are starting to look like Pixar quality graphics from some movies.

While the land is still hollowed a bit, the characters however, have interesting detail. There is also some kind of small change into there models, though, it might be the lighting again. For example: Kate's face looks more rough and I don't know why. For new wolves, I noticed there faces are very furry this time. Kate and Humphrey's faces looked less noticeable but these new wolves, they are a lot furrier. I am not sure if it's just a new personal style or they are trying to add more details this time around.

Animation

The animation still isn't like the first or smoother or detailed, sadly. The animation at parts can be a bit of an eye-sore due to how choppy they are.

However, I am not very sure, but I think they might of improved it from the third movie this time.

Other than that, I don't know what I can say. The first movie looked very well worked on, and they had the wolf creatures move in ways that made me like the characters in the first place.

Other Problems

The way Runt climbs a tree is very incorrect looking - he jumps as if he would fall down due to gravity whenever he bounces off the tree while climbing; it looks like he is jumping off the tree wall, but the tree pulls him back as if the tree itself had a source of gravity, too.

Some effects were still cheap-looking, but the ghost and the leaves flying with the ghost looked okay.

Fan Feedback

Personally in terms of story, this was pretty good. Some parts I liked, but you know what? There is one major disappointment I've had with this film, and that is the lack of what made Alpha and Omega really free: Anthropomorphism.

Don't get me wrong though, this movie does have this, but very little. I decided to watch the first movie again, and where I clicked at a random part, I see Kate and Humphrey doing really cool anthropomorphic human-characteristic moves. My biggest fear about this makes me question something: Are they trying to avoid that and go off to boring real life limits? That would probably be my greatest fear, even more than if they ruin the art style.

In the fourth movie, I was trying to spot some sort of anthropomorphic move from Kate or Humphrey and I couldn't find one. There might have been a very tiny, and I mean a tiny bit of it from them.

However, some other wolves in the movie did show some signs and there was a part where one of those little creatures did a human-like ninja move, but alas, if I had to compare all three sequels to the first movie, then the first movie would have so much more.

In the first movie, they dance around, stand up at times, use there front paws like hands, and do other kinds of amazing stuff. This was awesome!

But in the latest sequel, and some others, they just act very limited, much closer to a non-anthropomorphic film. Nothing wrong with those kinds of films themselves but part of the joy was that it was anthropomorphic often in the first place, not a limited Lion King like animation. Yet, even The Lion King had some anthropomorphic freedom.

Are they trying to avoid the spirit of the first movie? Or is it just lazy animation? I hope it's the second.

Either way, in my opinion as a person who reviews this film, they need to bring more of that style back. It's what made me got into the characters.

Results

  • CGI: 7.5
  • Personality: 9.1
  • Shading/Lighting: 8.5
  • Animation: 7.2
  • Plot/Story: 9.3
  • Other: 6.0

Conclusion

If you are looking forward for a slightly dark kids film about wolves, you may be pretty surprised by the story in a good way. The DVD was released on October 7, 2014. This is also a more appropriate month this time as the theme of this sequel fits for Halloween.

This film still isn't as close to being smooth and detailed as modern animated movies like the Pixar films, but if you're here for the story and characters and could care less about being all for next gen CGI, then you may like this. Especially coming from a small company.

However, I wish the company remained truer to the spirit of the original characters and they acted more like themselves from the first movie.

Comments

Your rating: None

All I can think about is that (now lost :() comment about Diamondmanism. But in all seriousness I'll give this a read soon, I've just been very busy and furry has taken a backseat.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

"Diamondmanism"? Is that another person (It sounds like me, but without the ism and the lack of spaces or something)? Do you remember generally on what it said?

That's fine. :)

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

I believe it was in your deleted article. Somebody mentioned the definition of puritanism as the fear that somebody, somewhere was having a good time. Then they coined the word Diamondmanism for the fear that someone, somewhere has a negative opinion of Alpha and Omega.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

Kind of silly to describe me. I mean everyone has something like this, since opinions can be arguable. I don't care if people are not a fan of this movie, but critique can be arguable and the reason why I care about arguable things (Difference between personality liking/disliking it's self) is because of the 'effects' of things of what can happen and maybe sense in terms of 'improving'. Plus, I do find it unnecessary for people to focus about that series when they are not even into it. Doesn't even sound like a "good time" either that way.

Yeah you know, the negative crap around that movie did inspire me to learn about stuff in terms of critique and I kind of like how one personal effect leads me to that. Though, this review was mainly for feedback purposes I think.

btw if you don't know what I mean by 'effects'..
I can show you this link, but warning: This blog is not moderated by 'better writers'. Haha
http://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2013/12/recreating-natural-enviorement-of....
It's kind of an old post too.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

I think a "Diamondmanism" would more appropriately describe, for instance, the frequent confusion of the words "personally" and "personality".

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

But I thought this series of movies was pretty mediocre...

^a controversial opinion 'round these pawrts

Well, I'll be...

Your rating: None

For just the sequels, I might think similar, but mainly for being OK/Good. Not bad, or super...
Just for terms of media enjoyment..

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

I think that's mostly just Diamond Man; the rest of us recognize it is pretty mediocre (though I kind of liked the first movie in a "guilty pleasure" sort of way).

Your rating: None

I don't think the movie was perfect but as it is I think it offers enough for plenty of adults and seems great for new people. My other problem was how some think it's "fair" to bring out any point of purpose like the art style (they even said themselves that they wanted each wolf to look different or else it's less personality.) for example or compare it to a whole different movie that isn't A&O.

And the "rest" isn't exactly known I think and it's not guilty to like a movie someone else hates. I like it for the characters but it's not guilty for me. Haha

I'm on the phone BTW, so please don't be surprised at the way this comment looks...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

It might have been me who coined the term "Diamondmanism" -- and I stand by it.

Diamondmanism II: the fear that someone, somewhere thinks the phrase "loosens the knot" not only is totally unsuitable for a children's movie, but makes furries look very creepy.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Wow, these comments are really immature. "Diamondmanism, hahaha, I hate this guy for speaking his opinion backz"
It's like people don't know that legit critique is about a singular legit thing. If someone claims a theme "bad" when it's there main purpose/theme/whatever, then it's fair to bring out how bias that is.

Seriously I thought the community was better than this? But it's nothing (often) but off-topic bullshit about the OP (Me) with a really stupid name on here. Might as well do this to other members then.
I'm not trying to sound like an ass but man, I find this rude, assy, and immature in the first place.

@Other Anon
How does it make them "creepy"?.. I think that's whoever's fault for finding something "creepy".

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

It's like people don't know that legit critique is about a singular legit thing.

It's not a matter of "knowing"; they don't agree with you. :-) People are making fun of the way you treat your opinion about what is "legitimate critique" as fact; when what's a suitable topic of critique is, itself, a matter of opinion.

People disagree on how good a movie is, or what the most important factors are in coming to that decision. That is fine. What causes trouble is saying "these people's opinions are invalid because they based it on these factors, which I believe to be beyond criticism". As others have said, this violates a basic tenet of reviewing: that people can hold different opinions on what's relevant.

To put it another way: if you set up your own Diamond Award which celebrates unappreciated examples of Intentionalism, that'd be fine. But if in promoting it, you said the Crossie Award for Guilty Pleasure was "biased and illegitimate", you should expect some pushback.

Using the term "Diamondmanism" is a little immature, but it is in response to the use of a moralistic argument on how reviews ought to be; more specifically, asserting that certain aspects of a work are beyond criticism, and anyone who does so is Doing It Wrong.

Your rating: None

Edit: I'll just copy and paste this here too on the top of this comment:
You know what? I don't even remember mentioning anyone on this article. But some people still bring this bullcrap out.

You know, if anyone didn't want to read a long comment.
Edit Done

Sorry but I heard that many opinions can be arguable and since 'opinion' can contain judgement and beliefs; which can also be criticized. That's what I often based on.
It's like for example: If I made some series about a "weird guy" under some art-style, then someone reviewed it and suggest in public that "He/she called the style a flaw", then I find it fair to bring out how bias that is because the artist wanted to share it and was his main point.. It would feel really rude because of how the reviewer shared that opinion.

That's why I try to give out that there must be a legitimate way. Why do I believe this? Because many people try this. 'Improving' exist which I assume that in order for that idea to be stable, there must of been a legit way to keep it stable. Maybe that's why I always act like there is a legit way, because of history and some of the terms it's self. If this counts as "opinion" then I guess everything is one, but I guess sometimes people just have to 'act like theirs as an argument sometimes.. "It's my opinion that there exist furry fans..."

""these people's opinions are invalid because they based it on these factors, which I believe to be beyond criticism". As others have said, this violates a basic tenet of reviewing: that people can hold different opinions on what's relevant."
But there is such thing as 'bad reviews' or 'good reviews'. Reviews might be opinions, but an 'opinion' it's self can contain 'beliefs' and/or 'claims' which can still be criticized back.
For example, I remember someone bringing out the 'looks' of some characters, and I think the person missed the point of the media he reviews: They wanted each character to have each personality or else they will look generic or something.

I mean it's an example, and I find nothing wrong with arguing a reviewer's claim like that because of the whole 'improving thing'.
I'm just trying.

"But if in promoting it, you said the Crossie Award for Guilty Pleasure was "biased and illegitimate", you should expect some pushback."
You know what? I don't even remember mentioning anyone on this article. But some people still bring this bullcrap out. If someone makes a 'personal list' of what they like, I don't care because that's just a personal non-global belief list..
If you were talking about my reply to some other comment, I think I was reacting to the idea that it must be "guilty" to like something.. and the 'rest of us' lacks evidence and since I could of swear that there was some others who thought different too.

________

I don't know if my comment is clear enough but I could put something more simple:
I don't care if anyone dislikes what I like. I don't mind it.
I was also trying to be open as possible for low-budget movies; that some people can handle or understand low-budgets. Maybe other reasons.

But whenever someone 'reviews' something here or outside, it looks like they are arguing something more global and in seriousness. Like they attempt to make an argument in a serious way.
Maybe that's why I wanted to bring some of the stuff out and suggest that 'legit' is a main thing to keep the idea of 'improving for what it is' stable.

Maybe that's why I wanted to be some reviewer of this series for example because from what I saw lacked a lot of respect to the artist's work.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

And I think another thing to remember is that it could be argued a review is not really a criticism.

It's reporting or journalism; the important thing is to report the reviewer's reactions and feelings truthfully, including biases or whatever. It's not about analysing or critiquing the work; then, yes, bias is unwanted.

Your rating: None

That one 'review' that literally tried to bring out some styles or themes as a "flaw" is not reporting. Or journalism.
Reporting is simply showing something that happened or what exist, that's it. It's not giving out a belief attached to it. Similar to journalism maybe.
I mean, that's how I grew up thinking that...

Trying to give out a belief about something (such as judgement) isn't either of those, it's criticism.
And literately, I think every review I seen is about judgement (Isn't that the point?).

The review here I put out is simply a review with criticism attached with some feedback.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

"Seriously I thought the community was better than this."

FYI: It isn't.

Your rating: None

Of course it's not then.

Sometimes (I think) I feel like I need to leave and look for a more matured site.. I just don't know any website that accepts writers for reviews and I'll rather not join ANY 'big media' sites either. Since the 'big media' really, really sucks.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Diamond Manread storiescontact (login required)

    interested in space equality video games

    A guy who loves equality. I don't want to share anything else for other reasons.

    9-23-2012 I also believe that it's possible to change society's hatred about certain things like fandoms to a more better accepting thing... I think there are some messages haunting me claiming that it "isn't" possible but I am going to have to disagree with that and there is a lot of proof that it can happen. And since there really is an unusual issue about Society with it's normal, etc.. Honestly I just am one of those guys who likes to teach the world for a better change, and other things..

    Again, I believe anything like that can happen and if I get messages claiming it isn't then bull crap. I hope someday the world gets better. :P