CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

So. I needed to review a movie for my blog, and I figured even though this movie was getting bad buzz....well.....reviewers have to watch bad movies too, right?

I didn't expect it to be THIS bad. Possibly one of the worst animated movies I have ever seen. Eveeeeeer. Why must they soil my beloved medium so? ;_;

So, since misery loves company, I was wondering if anyone else had to sit through this awful movie.

I haven't been to see it, and I don't plan to go. I read a review on it in the paper that gave it like, half a star or something, and I don't need to waste my money or braincells on that. XD Additionally, most animated movies made by companies other than Pixar these days are just poor in quality. I'm holding out for someone to make a GOOD animated movie still, someone who isn't Pixar, that is (even if I do adore their movies). XD

It's always a bad sign when the supposed best moments from the movie in the commercial aren't funny...at all...This movie looks...very, very bad, to be nice about it.

Someone should totally put together a list of "Help! My career is taking a drive off the Grand Canyon!!" actors who recently starred in CG movies. Poor, poor Miss Weaver.

I mean, Shrek isn't exactly one of my favorite movies, but to see it so blatantly ripped off makes me sort of angry. Is there NO originality left?

A moderator over at Toon Zone saw it and liked it... a lot.

I trust her, so take that as you will. I really want to see it though. The voice of Patrick Warburton is always funny, as a rule of animation.

... I thought the idea looked clever. Shame they had to make it bad. *sigh* On a kinda-on-topic note (it pertains to how many animated - 3d - movies these days seem more like quick, spit out efforts), has anyone seen the Simpsons trailer? I've never watched the TV show, but I might go see the movie based purely on the trailer with the 3d bunny in it (if you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about).

I think the fact I'll never see it in the long run makes me Happily Ever After.

Kawaiikneko wrote:... I thought the idea looked clever.

So did I, and I think it still does.

Plus with Patrick Warburton as a co-star, there's no way it will be awful when I finally see it.

I'd rather see it then Eragon...at least Happily N'ever After is original.

mitsuki lover wrote:I'd rather see it then Eragon...at least Happily N'ever After is original.

Considering that it's practically the exact same idea as the Shrek movies, except with sub-par animation...hmmm. XD

I normally love Patrick Warburton, but he was struggling with a horrible script. ^^; He's much better as Kronk. (To his credit, though, at least he was trying. Freddie Prinze Jr. just sounded bored.)

Although, in the film's defense, I've heard it was actually being written BEFORE Shrek came out. And originally it was going to be traditionally animated before Shrek came out, and they changed their minds when it was popular. (BAD idea. If it was traditionally animated it maybe would've been at least a little more original seeming. And maybe would've looked better in general.)

And I agree that the concept is very good--VERY good--that's what makes the movie so disappointing. If they had focused more on the plot and given the characters more personality, a la Shrek, I think it would've been very entertaining. The problem, I think, is that they decided to focus completely on the jokes, leaving the plot very thin. This would've been more forgiveable if it had actually been funny--it works for Emperor's New Groove--but the problem was is that the jokes really...aren't funny. Because of this, it's just a bunch of good ideas with a few really good actors that's...just a major disappointment.

The biggest redeeming quality was Patrick Warburton. Even if his character wasn't good, he always makes me chuckle in any role. And the movie had a few isolated funny moments, but it didn't make up for much, and most of them were in the commercial to begin with.
Yeah, I thought it was bad, but I've seen worse.