Over The Hedge
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8261
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9068
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9068
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
- AV Team
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Here's a short review of the DVD from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/rev ... -DVD_x.htm
Three and a half stars out of four. That's a pretty good rating.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/rev ... -DVD_x.htm
Three and a half stars out of four. That's a pretty good rating.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9068
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Not even a NOM? C'mon Meg. It was just so incredibly adorable, so what if it was based off a film. Not just cute but VERY inventive, exciting, funny, sweet. I enjoyed it way more than Boundin' or One Man Band. But I suppose that doesn't shock anyone by now.And I still don't..like Ben said, I see these types of shorts as DVD extras more than anything else.
Also, it still floors me that some critics rave about the "emotion" and "warmth" of Cars and don't say squat about OTH except that it was "really funny."
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10059
- Joined: September 1st, 2006
I say it did deserve a nomination it was ever so cute, I just can't help loving those little penguinsShyViolet wrote: Not even a NOM? C'mon Meg. It was just so incredibly adorable, so what if it was based off a film. Not just cute but VERY inventive, exciting, funny, sweet. I enjoyed it way more than Boundin' or One Man Band. But I suppose that doesn't shock anyone by now.
Here's hoping for there movie to be twice as good
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9068
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
That's just it... it got good reviews, I'd say mostly midly positive ones. (as well as few bad ones too.) In their reviews they mostly stressed how it was a "funny comedy" or that it was "clever" or "entertaining" but very few praised the graphics, the actual storytelling, or the genuine warmth of the story, the sweetness of it. (Hey, I'm not just saying this, look up the reviews)Vi, haven't you noticed that "Over the Hedge" got GREAT reviews? Or at least really good ones?
I'm just sayin'. Wink
When reviewing Cars, THAT'S ALL YOU HEARD....as well as the usual treacly love sonnets to Pixar, how great it looks, how sweet, how whimsical, how nostalgic and blah blah blah...Oh, and what Pixar review would be complete without at least one comment of how superior Pixar is to all other studios, even if this wasn't the "best" film they ever made.
I dare anyone to find a review that actually RAVES about this film in the manner that critics fawn over Pixar. (Yes, I realize that there was one reviewer that said that Pixar, not DW, has "forgotten" what animation entertainment is supposed to be about. But he is a very, very, very rare exception.)
Here's are comments from "fresh" reviews for OTH on RT:
You can't tell me that there isn't a HUGE discrepency here.
With OTH the emphasis of the reviews is the "humor". With Cars it's the "heart." You decide which is more positive.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: April 24th, 2006
I enjoyed Over the Hedge at least as much as Cars, for the record. Maybe even more, but I can't accurately judge that because I haven't seen either since the month they came out in theaters.
I do remember giving DW a very hearty commendation for the look of the movie - that fur is reach-into-the-screen-and-touch-it good, and the textures are pretty true to the different kinds of animals they had to... um, fur. Didn't like the way the humans were done, whether that was intentional or not... but the animals were the stars so it really didn't matter. It was a pleasant experience after I'd been let down by Madagascar.
Pixar does enjoy an advantage in public opinion, probably because they're more well-known to the general public than DW. And I wonder if a lot of people see all the horrible CGI films out there and stick to Pixar because it's a proven success. Which, unfortunately, probably prejudices people against DW at the outset just because it isn't Pixar. I tend to judge films for what they are individually after I see them... though a studio's past successes can get me excited for future movies. I will freely admit that part of the reason I saw Cars in the first place was because it was Pixar. I saw OtH because DW is capable of making great movies, even if their previous one hadn't done it for me. But afterwards, it's all about the movie's merits.
I think it might help DW a little bit if they broke out of their current comedy streak, too. Shake things up a bit.
I do remember giving DW a very hearty commendation for the look of the movie - that fur is reach-into-the-screen-and-touch-it good, and the textures are pretty true to the different kinds of animals they had to... um, fur. Didn't like the way the humans were done, whether that was intentional or not... but the animals were the stars so it really didn't matter. It was a pleasant experience after I'd been let down by Madagascar.
Pixar does enjoy an advantage in public opinion, probably because they're more well-known to the general public than DW. And I wonder if a lot of people see all the horrible CGI films out there and stick to Pixar because it's a proven success. Which, unfortunately, probably prejudices people against DW at the outset just because it isn't Pixar. I tend to judge films for what they are individually after I see them... though a studio's past successes can get me excited for future movies. I will freely admit that part of the reason I saw Cars in the first place was because it was Pixar. I saw OtH because DW is capable of making great movies, even if their previous one hadn't done it for me. But afterwards, it's all about the movie's merits.
I think it might help DW a little bit if they broke out of their current comedy streak, too. Shake things up a bit.
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25578
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9068
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Yeah, that's why they rule.The Guardian didn't like Cars, Vi. Wink
But it was lilke, what, the first time EVER that DW did something like that?Though how come it's okay for the Christmas Caper short to have an Alex plushie in it? That's just soooo pompous of DreamWorks to include a joke nod to their own success. Why, the nerve of those animator types...
Also, the Christmas Caper was in the same universe as Madagascar, so technically it would be logical for the old lady to have an Alex plushie for her dog. It's not the same as the Bugs guys and the TS guys existing in the same "world." That's really breaking the fourth wall in my opinion, way too much. (It's like...what if the old lady had an RJ plushie? That would be so stupid! )
That's essentially what Pixar does in their films. Like, "yes, this is a Pixar film, and don't you forget it! We're Pixar! We're Pixar! Aren't we swell!" ONCE or twice is O.K....but it's getting REEEEALLLY old. The gratituous, self-congratulatory "winking" of this extended joke is getting on my nerves. And to go even further, GOOD LORD! If Pixar EVER does another "Hi, we're Pixar" thing like they did on the Nemo DVD where Lee and Andrew drag in John Lassetter only to have Lassetter waving in the background when they talk, I'll boycott their DVDs! (J/K ) But what other studio could get away with something like that? How about none of them??
That's why you rule!And I really liked Over The Hedge in the end. Smile
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!