The Winners

Well, it's official. Pixar's beautiful, moving fairy tale took home the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. That's right... Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews' Brave. Pixar has won again at the Academy Awards. It was a tight race with some great competition, but it won just like it did at the Golden Globes last month.

To be honest, I'm not satisfied with this and a good many people aren't. Now hear me out, I loved Brave. Like I've said on here many times before, I don't think it's the extremely flawed film that others made it out to be. I felt it was a well-made, well-told spin on the typical fairy tale conventions with two very likable leads, some good humor and lots of heart. I'm not part of the "Brave is garbage"/"Pixar is no longer good" bandwagon. Not at all. I loved the film.

That being said, I felt it had some problems, but overall I think it's a very good film. Now you probably know what film I was rooting for. That's right... Wreck-It Ralph. Wreck-It Ralph was, to me, 2012's greatest animated film. It had so much good in it and very little bad. It had a confident screenplay, a very creative story that isn't in your typical animated film, excellent characters all around, a killer score and soundtrack (sans "Shut Up and Drive"), loads of references that never felt like they were thrown in to pander to gamers and of course, stellar animation and design. It was the kind of film that I want from Disney.

Walt Disney Animation Studios knocked it out of the park if you ask me. Wreck-It Ralph was risky and conventional enough for audiences, it toed the fine line between trying something new and satisfying moviegoers. Creative idea, familiar but well-done story and some twists and turns along the way. To me, it should've won, plain and simple...

Why Brave won, we may never know. Theories will probably be thrown around over the next few days. Some will say that it won because the Academy automatically awards Pixar (except if their film involves anthropomorphic vehicles) every year or because Brave was an animated film with a female lead and is a "feminist" film. I won't go into that, but some may see it that way. Why would the Academy NOT give the award to Ralph? Let a thousand theories spring forth.

My theory is that the Academy saw Ralph as a loud, noisy "video game" movie. Video games, like animation, aren't seen as an art form by many. So maybe that could be why the film didn't win. Brave on the other hand was about human beings, magic and adventure. Perhaps the mother-daughter story of the film appealed more to the Academy voters. Just look at Ralph and then look at Brave. I can see the Academy not feeling that Ralph was "Best" material. If you ask me, it would be the equivalent of them giving the Best Picture award to an action-heavy (but well-written and heartfelt) film.

ParaNorman and Frankenweenie didn't have much of a chance getting the award, because the Academy does think of box office when it comes to awards. ParaNorman and Frankenweenie didn't double their production budgets. The Academy most likely saw them as out-of-the-way flops, which is wrong because... What if those two were far superior to everything else? The Pirates! Band of Misfits? Out of all the nominees, that had the least chance at winning. Again, popularity and box office does play a part in what wins and what doesn't. Sad fact.

I will say though, it was nice to see Brenda Chapman being on stage and accepting the award with Mark Andrews. She wasn't present at the Golden Globes, and if I can remember correctly, she wasn't even invited. But to see Chapman on stage was good, so now she'll get the recognition she deserves for the film.

I am overall upset. I felt that Walt Disney Animation Studios was going to get the Oscar, one they deserved. They never got an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature before, since the category was created when the studio was being run into the ground. During its rebirth (2007-2009), it had tough competition. Bolt didn't stand a chance against WALL-E, ditto The Princess and the Frog against Up. Tangled wasn't nominated for 2010, ditto Winnie the Pooh for 2011. Here I thought this film would get it and finally prove to everyone that they are back. But to paraphrase Doc Hudson, it's just a golden statue. That being said, I wanted the win to boost Disney Animation's reputation...

Best Animated Short Film? By contrast, I was very happy with the results. Who won? Paperman... That's right, John Kahrs' beautiful and innovative meshing of hand-drawn art and crisp computer animation. While some of the competitors were impressive (particularly Adam and Dog), I was really happy to see Disney take home the award they deserved.

So... Were you satisfied with the Oscars? Are you happy with the winners? Or not? Which film deserved the award in your opinion and why? The same goes for the Best Animated Short Film category. Sound off below!

Stop-Motion and Disney: The Nominations

The Academy Awards have announced all of their nominations today, so what animated films made the cut? 4 out of 5 my predictions came true. How many of yours came true?

The Nominations

Brave

Frankenweenie

ParaNorman

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Wreck-It Ralph

I had thought that the French-Austrian hand-drawn animated film The Rabbi's Cat would get a nomination, given the Academy's usual routine. Ever year, they try to get an animated film (usually hand-drawn) from another country (with the exception of the UK and Japan) in there somewhere (2009 with The Secret of Kells, 2010 with The Illusionist and 2011 with A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rito), so I was pretty sure they would nominate that film or another French animated film called The Painting.

Nope, that slot went to The Pirates! Band of Misfits, a very good film. What's more important is that all the stop-motion films released this year were nominated. Wreck-It Ralph made it, deservedly, as I was hoping for. Brave also made it too, and I was somewhat convinced that it wouldn't. All three Disney releases got nominated.

So, who will take it home? Frankenweenie was a critical darling this year but not a box office success (the Academy Awards do think of box office, whether it's right or wrong). Brave got good but not great reception, but it's generally seen as a good Pixar film and not "bad" like the previous one. The Pirates! Band of Misfits got very positive reviews, but it only did moderately well at the box office. Aardman took home the award before (in 2005 with Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit), so I'm not sure if this will win.

ParaNorman and Wreck-It Ralph are the two that I think will take it home. It's going to be close, that's for sure. ParaNorman was innovative, bold, daring and pushed the envelope for what a PG-rated family film could do. Wreck-It Ralph is one of Disney's best and an overall great film, with lots of creativity, a strong screenplay and a concept that is thankfully out of Disney's comfort zone. I'll be happy if either one wins, but I'm rooting a little bit more for the nine-foot-tall colossus.

For me, I think Walt Disney Animation Studios needs a Best Animated Feature Oscar since they never got one. Being a studio that was there since the Golden Age and one that delivered some of the greatest animated films of all time, I think they are overdue for one. Laika on the other hand didn't get an Oscar yet, Coraline was up against very tight competition in 2009. It'd be nice to see them get it too.

On a side-note, it's too bad DreamWorks was left out of the race, considering how impressive their fare has been lately. Rise of the Guardians getting a slot would've been nice, but maybe next year, DreamWorks can score a spot. Everything else that was up and running for a nomination didn't seem like Oscar material to me, aside from the two Japanese animated films: From Up on Poppy Hill and The Mystical Law. When will a Japanese animated feature ever be nominated again?

Who do you think should win?

2012 Animation Box Office Stats

With the year coming to a close, let's take a look at how the animated batch did this year...

~

Dr. Seuss' The Lorax - Easily the most surprising and befuddling animated box office success of the year. Yes, the highest grossing Dr. Seuss film did gross over $200 million (How The Grinch Stole Christmas), but it didn't seem like The Lorax would get anywhere near that amount since it looked derivative from the trailers and turned out to be a very derivative film. Also add in the fact that several animated films in 2011 had unspectacular opening weekends and that the last animated Dr. Seuss adaptation (Horton Hears a Who!) didn't hit $200 million. It was suggested by some that animation was in a bit of a rut in 2011. I just think last year didn't really offer any "must-see" events, or the good stuff was a little too out of reach for audiences (i.e. Rango)

However, I've been thinking now that these kinds of family films are "the thing" now. Meaning, family films that are really more for kids than anything, but ones they drag their unfortunate parents to. I mean, explain why Yogi Bear pulled the ridiculously good multiplier that it did, and why The Smurfs did so well. These kinds of movies are hot at the moment, which is too bad, the good stuff should be making money. Worldwide, it didn't really sail. Horton Hears a Who! was no smash worldwide either, so this gross was expected, even with the film being in 3D and IMAX 3D. It made a nice $348 million worldwide. It cost almost nothing for Illumination, so it's a big success for them and everyone else involved.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits - Time and time again, I find myself wondering why stop-motion animation films have such a difficult time at the American box office. Sometimes I blame inept marketing, other times I believe it's because the subject matter in some of the films isn't really mainstream or conventional. The Pirates! Band of Misfits, I believe, suffered from both. Though I analyzed the overall box office performance earlier this year, I thought I'd address this point as well.

To a casual American moviegoer, The Pirates! would look undesirable, even if Columbia didn't market it the way they did. Not just because it's stop-motion, but because it comes off as a weird pirate film and American audiences are not truly accustomed to the animation medium to begin with. After the big budget spectacle of the Pirates of the Caribbean films, who would want to see this kind of film? Outside of us animation fans and those who are knowledgable about Aardman and the book series, no one would really. Of course, in a world where tons of adults shun animation, you really need to have something in your animated film that will interest adults from the get-go. The Pirates! really had no chance, being from a studio that makes quirky animated films that just don't seem to catch on here in America.

Of course, the folks at Aardman's home country were charitable. The Pirates! was a hit in the UK, and it did well enough all around the world. It did double its minimal budget of $55 million, so it's a moderate success for the studio. It certainly did better (profit-wise) than their last feature, Arthur Christmas. The optimist in me, however, hoped that the film would've made more dough in the states. Releasing this (a 3D film no less) right before The Avengers was an incredibly stupid move from Columbia. If released earlier in the month, it could've had time to get good legs and make more than the paltry $31 million it ended up making. Stop-motion really needs to take off in the domestic market.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - Given the dwindling opening weekend totals of the DreamWorks films and the lackluster reception Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa got from audiences, I was expecting this to open with a very low total (in the $30 million range), but I guess all that colorful pizazz and singing zebra action really got people hyped for the film. Opening with $60 million, it had very good word of mouth and became the series' highest-grossing installment. Good thing too, for I believe it is the best of the series and a good film overall.

The film also broke $200 million, ensuring us animation fans that the $200 million benchmark would be reached more than once after a year where no feature did so. Over $700 million worldwide? DreamWorks certainly played their cards right with this film, and it was a much-needed super-hit for them.

Brave - I was certain that this would cross $200 million, and it did. Cars 2 only missed it by a hair, so I felt Brave would have no problem clearing that. Plus with the reception it got, it was bound to happen. It opened well (Over $60 million is the usual for a Pixar film) and had very good word of mouth, though it was more on the level of WALL-E than something like Ratatouille or Up. That being said, it is currently this year's highest grossing animated film domestically and will most likely keep that title.

Worldwide... What happened? I was thinking that this kind of fantasy film (not to mention 3D) would do Up numbers (i.e. over $400 million) overseas. Guess I was dead wrong. After all, How to Train Your Dragon grossed around the same amount. Over $500 million is good for any animated film, but it's not a monstrous total. But again, it's a big success for Pixar, once again.

Ice Age: Continental Drift - Looking at Shrek Forever After and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, I knew this fourth installment in the series would dip and make the lowest total in the franchise domestically. It sure did, but $161 million is still good enough for Blue Sky. Worldwide, it exploded. We all saw that one coming. $875 million. Biggest animated film at the box office this year, and one of the biggest of all time. Are you not surprised?

ParaNorman - Like Coraline and other stop-motion films, ParaNorman only opened with a small amount. Word of mouth seemed to be great, the film pulled a 3.9x multiplier, the biggest this year so far for animated film. Again, another masterful stop-motion film has underperformed overall. Worldwide? It didn't make much of a mark, sadly. With $99 million overall, it looks like ParaNorman isn't much of a success. It didn't double its $60 million budget. Shame, but Laika will prevail.

Hotel Transylvania - Unlike the two other spooky-themed animated films released this year, Hotel Transylvania was certainly very mainstream and accessible. ParaNorman and Frankenweenie were not mainstream and are overall films that aren't entirely suitable for an audience that wants a specific kind of animated film presented to them (unless it's Pixar making the film). This on the other hand was perfect for casual moviegoers with its star-studded cast, appealing animation and funny jokes. Yes, it's been made clear many times: American audiences would rather see an animated film like this, and not something truly creative or daring like ParaNorman.

It is currently Sony Pictures Animation's biggest film domestically with $143 million and a healthy $308 million take worldwide. The budget? Only $85 million. Again, Sony Animation knows how to make a profit much like Blue Sky and Illumination.

Frankenweenie - Despite some pushy marketing from Disney, this Tim Burton stop-motion critical darling just couldn't do it. It opened low like every other stop-motion film and crept its way up to the mid-$30 million range. Its current worldwide total is $66 million, but that isn't enough to double the $39 million budget. It opens in a few more territories in the next few weeks, so who knows at this rate. Again, another stop-motion film has underperformed.

Wreck-It Ralph - Opening with a strong $49 million (though I had hoped it would've opened with more, but Hurricane Sandy affected the box office somewhat), Wreck-It Ralph was on its way to really wreck the box office. It has done very well so far, it's looking like it'll end up somewhere around $180-$190 million. How come it will fall short of $200 million? With the buzz it has been getting, why won't in reach it? How come it couldn't outgross Tangled?

The final worldwide total is too early to tell, since other countries haven't gotten the film yet (the latest arrival will be in Japan, in March). It's not really making a stir in most countries, but it's got the chance to add a good $200 million overseas and help the great Walt Disney Animation Studios film crack $400 million worldwide. With a $165 million budget, Disney will have a success on their hands if it makes that much. It should, a lot of effort went into it and it better get what it deserves.

Rise of the Guardians - What happened? Well, I looked into it and it seemed like another case where it was a combination of bad things. However, Rise of the Guardians has scored some impressive legs and word of mouth. It should at least hit $100 million by the time it is out of theaters here in the states. Worldwide, it's doing steadily but not spectacularly. Around $300 million seems to be the final amount for this film, which is good but not as much as DreamWorks' films usually do worldwide. It's no flop, but it's no big success.

~

Overall, this was certainly a better year than last year. It wasn't, however, an excellent year like 2009 or 2010. Three films hit $200 million stateside, proving that feature animation can still thrive with mass audiences despite a rather dry year behind it. But it wasn't without disappointments: Rise of the Guardians underperforming was certainly a shock to the animation community, and while it was expected, it was still a bit discouraging to see ParaNorman, Frankenweenie and The Pirates! not doing too well. I was hoping for some sort of stop-motion revolution this year since Coraline was able to do well enough three years back, but alas it did not happen.

Another thing that irks me is that something so obviously commercial like The Lorax could open so high ($70 million) and easily coast to $200 million stateside. Brave did the usual for a Pixar film, though I was hoping it would perform like Up, but this didn't earn the very strong word of mouth that film got. Worldwide, it did well but it was no titan. I guess that was going to happen, like I said earlier. Madagascar 3's success, I felt was deserved, since it was a quality film. I'd take a "good" loud/busy/obnoxious movie over a bad one. Nothing wrong with a busy, chaotic animated film done right. Ice Age's performance, I'm happy with, it shows that people are slowly getting tired of the franchise here in the states. While I'm happy to see Wreck-It Ralph doing well, I was hoping it would crush Brave at the box office being the year's best. Oh well...

What box office performance surprised you this year? What did you predict for these films? Did they match your predictions? Sound off!

Let's Go Blundering!

Remember Aardman Animations' recent film, The Pirates! Band of Misfits? Chances are, you may not unless you are in the know of what's going on in the animation industry. Yes indeed, this little film happens to be another one of those animated films that came and went at the domestic box office. Why is that? Instead of being a poor animated film (in fact, it was a really good film), The Pirates! was actually another victim of executive meddling and misguided decisions. Columbia Pictures' attempts to help get the picture to sell ultimately sunk this high seas romp.

First off, Columbia Pictures probably had no idea what they were going to do after Aardman Animations joined forces with Sony Pictures Animation. First, the studio gives them the conventional Arthur Christmas and then this: A film based on a series of books that isn't well known in the United States, that has humor that may go over American audiences' heads, which is about science in Victorian England and features Charles Darwin as a main character. Science? Charles Darwin? Hot buttons here in the states, in addition to the concept potentially not being too appealing to American audiences. Columbia was probably worried that there would be controversy, given the amount of flack recent animated films tend to get. Remember how Cars 2, The Secret World of Arrietty and Dr. Seuss' The Lorax were supposed to be "liberal propaganda" for children?

With all due to respect to people's political and religious views, this most likely got Columbia Pictures worried. Since animation is viewed as "kiddie stuff" here in the states, people will suggest that anything with a slight agenda is propaganda for children, sometimes without having seen it. The original title of this film was The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, since that's the name of one of the books it's based on. Of course, that's the name of the original UK version of the film. So what did they do? They changed the title to The Pirates! Band of Misfits, which is such a bland and boring title that says nothing of film's story. Hey, it's more marketable to Americans, right? It's also marketable to kids, too! What could go wrong? Because, you know, animation is for kids!

Okay, there's nothing wrong with a title change. As long as we get Aardman brilliance on the big screen, that's all that matters. They did not stop there. The film was altered for American audiences and young children. Now I'm not going to talk about the whole leprosy joke controversy, since Aardman themselves re-wrote the joke and it plays that way in both the UK and US versions. Since it's a big issue, I won't comment on my thoughts on the change.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is not the same film as The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! The voice cast was slightly changed. The Albino Pirate is voiced by Anton Yelchin in the US version. In the original UK version, he's voiced by Russell Tovey. In the US trailer for the film, they use Tovey's voice, so these changes must've been done at the eleventh hour. Al Roker provides the voice of "the pirate who likes kittens and sunsets", who had a different name in the original and might have been silent. The changes make no sense, why re-dub one pirate's voice to sound American? The rest of the cast is British, so why change one? It makes no sense, and the voice sticks out.

It's a minor problem, but it's the first of a few. Some of the more adult-oriented humor was removed, such as lines that were a bit suggestive. The film was given a PG, and one the reasons was "some language", another indicator that these changes were done at last minute. Since I have no access to the British original, from what I've heard, the lines aren't too bad. They're a little more noticeable, such as the scene where the Pirate Captain says airships are for looking down women's tops. Still, I think a joke like that would go over kids' heads. In the US version, the Pirate Captain says airships are good for attracting women. Not as funny. This is one of a few changes, but they're still unnecessary. (If I get my hands on a region free UK Blu-ray of this film, I'll make a rundown of what's been changed)

So they changed the title. Check. They edited out certain things to make it suitable for children, because they believe animation is for children first and foremost. Check. What did they do they next? They began marketing the film. The first US trailer showed up in August, pretty early, so apparently Sony was ready to launch this film. Apparently they were confident in this...



This was not a great trailer, typical for an animated family film, but it passed the film off as a sort of kids' spoof of the Pirates of the Caribbean films. This trailer was obviously trying to appeal to American audiences, and it conveniently shuffles Charles Darwin's role in the film out of sight, only using him for a few parts. The trailer was alright, but it was certainly not as good as the brilliant UK trailer.



This trailer is a much more confident one, since Aardman films normally do very well in the UK and the books are of course more popular there. Plus that song is so catchy, the fact that us Americans didn't get that song in any trailer or ad is just... Wrong...

Columbia planned on releasing this film on March 30th (the same day as the UK), but there was a lot of competition and several releases were shuffled such as the family friendly Mirror Mirror and a few other films. The film was later delayed to April 27th, another big mistake and the final nail in the coffin for this film. Columbia also screwed Arthur Christmas by releasing it amidst several family films last November: Happy Feet Two, The Muppets and Hugo. Opening with just $12 million domestically, it had to climb its way to $46 million. How did it do in the UK? $33 million tops, and it was the 10th highest grossing film of the year, beating out films like Tangled, Fast Five, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Cars 2 and even The Smurfs, Columbia and Sony Pictures Animation's big success story that year. Once again, an Aardman film did poorly here and did well in the UK.

I was hoping, when Aardman would finally get back to animated features, they would find some form of success here in the states. Chicken Run was a big hit back in 2000. In fact it was the highest grossing non-Disney animated film until Shrek came along. Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Flushed Away had great word of mouth despite poor opening weekends. Arthur Christmas seemed like the perfect film to re-launch themselves as a viable name in the states alongside the likes of Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks, since it wasn't too quirky or different. Arthur Christmas came and went, and it's a real shame. So would The Pirates! do better? Most likely not...

The next trailer and the ads showed up, which were worse than the first trailer. April 27th was not the right time to release it, being the weekend before the little movie about the superheroes teaming up opened. Yes, releasing The Pirates! the weekend before The Avengers was an incredibly idiotic move. Why not early April? Mirror Mirror was pushed forward to March 16th, and The Lorax was beginning to lose momentum. What about mid-April? They could've started small and word of mouth could've helped it. The film scored a solid "B" on CinemaScore, so it could've reached a certain total off of a lousy opening weekend. It's like Columbia had no faith in this film, at all.

The Avengers essentially pulled everything out of it: The family audiences and the 3D screens. It washed the swashbuckling comedy away like a hurricane. But how did it do in the UK? #12 right now with $25 million, not too bad. Here, it seems to be stopping at $31 million, making it Aardman's lowest grossing film in the states. Luckily, the $55 million film took in a final total of $118 million worldwide. Arthur Christmas took in $147 million worldwide against its $100 million budget, making it more of a dud for the studio.

It's all a shame, because Aardman seemed to be going the right path with a new partner after their troubles with the pre-2008 DreamWorks atmosphere. Arthur Christmas certainly feels more American audience-friendly than their other films without feeling forced. Again, lazy marketing and a terrible release date killed it. It had no room to breathe no matter where it was placed, but perhaps good marketing could've helped, right? Nope, it had to stand on its own. And I thought Disney marketing under Rich Ross was bad. The Pirates! shared a similar fate, and it was obviously not going to be a massive hit to begin with, but it didn't have any chances at all plus it wasn't as accessible as the previous Aardman films. If Arthur Christmas was their most accessible, The Pirates! was their least.

Quite unfortunate, but The Pirates! sunk and was tampered with before release in the US in a dunderheaded move to make the film appeal to children. Aardman clearly made a much more adult-oriented film that could still delight children with its silly action scenes and appealing characters. But the more American audiences assume animation is for children first, the more this kind of thing will happen to these animated films.

Whether it's studio powers needlessly trying to improve a film's chances at gaining at the box office or just getting something they don't want off their back, a lot of these animated films just can't stand a chance in today's overly competitive market. Animation has been lucrative since the Second Golden Age, so why can't the executives give non-conventional films a chance in addition to the ones that are obviously going to be huge? Look at Rango, something that was clearly more adult-oriented than most fare and incredibly risky. Paramount backed that with decent marketing, and the box office performance indicates that the controversy over the film's content didn't harm it as much as one would assume. It broke $100 million stateside and finished up with $242 million worldwide against a $135 million budget. Not bad, Paramount has started its own animation studio because of how well it did (plus the fact that their last DreamWorks films hits theaters this autumn).

So with that, you'd think Columbia would go for a tidy profit since The Pirates! wasn't so expensive. Nope, they just threw it out there and that was it. It's just what Fox did with Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox, a $40 million stop motion animated film that could've been a small hit had they not released it against heavy competition with little to no fanfare. The Pirates! is sure to get new fans when it hits Blu-ray and DVD, but it could've been a good-sized success and help Aardman's works get an audience in the states.

"The Pirates!" is Another Winner from Aardman

QUICK FLICK REVIEW

The Pirates!

Band of Misfits

Directed by Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt

Written by Gideon Defoe

Produced by Julie Lockhart, Peter Lord and

David Sproxton

Distribution: Columbia Pictures

Studio: Aardman Animations / Sony Pictures Animation

Update: Turns out, the original British version of the film is different than the version we Americans got. In my original review, I referred to it by the original British title: The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, so I'll be going by the American title, the dreadful The Pirates! Band of Misfits.

Irreverent, funny and at times innovative, The Pirates! Band of Misfits is another home run hit for Aardman Animations. The film, based on the first two books in Gideon Defoe's The Pirates! series (he also wrote the screenplay), follows the adventures of the Pirate Captain (played by Hugh Grant) and his wily crew. The Pirate Captain desires to become the Pirate of the Year, but he's not that good of a pirate. The first act establishes this in a really fun way, as we see how the other contenders are so much better than he is. This plot is essentially the back bone to a much bigger plot, once the pirates wind up with Charles Darwin and his pet chimp, Bobo.

From there, the film becomes delightfully over-the-top. It's lot of fun, and best of all, the film itself knows it's ridiculous. It throws aways the rulebook and just simply goes out of its way to entertain, much like other irreverent films like Aladdin, The Emperor's New Groove and Shrek. It pretty much makes fun of several cliches while also poking fun at other films. The screenplay isn't spectacular by any means, but it does its job. It bombards you with silliness and humor that works. When I saw it, I noticed that the humor went over the heads of the audience members, both young and old. What a shame. Oh, and the cast? Most of them seemed to have a great time with this film, they give it their all. Hugh Grant shines as the lead. Unfortunately, the actors who re-dubbed the voices for this version didn't seem as enthusiastic.

The animation? Wonderful. Aardman's return to stop-motion animation is no dud, and the amount of work that went into making the film is astounding. This was probably a very tough project to tackle, and I'm guessing that this was in development for a while. CGI is used, which was inevitable, but it blends well although at times it didn't. (i.e. the sea monster that devours the ship) The film also makes use of (gasp!) traditional animation! That's right! The map montage scenes use classic hand-drawn animation, and trust me, the map scenes are very funny. The character designs are a return to the classic Aardman designs but with a few differences, something I missed in Arthur Christmas since their first CGI film (Flushed Away) still stuck to the classic designs. The character designs are fun, eye-catching and unique. They still have the Wallace and Gromit look, but they also look different in some ways.

If I had any problems with the film, it would've probably been the pacing. At times it really slowed down, but at other times it picked up and ripped through its runtime. At other times, the plot isn't anything special. It picks up significantly in the film's third act, which is wild and hilarious. By that point, the story's shortcomings don't matter. Another problem I had was that the version of the film we got was cut, apparently a few lines were re-dubbed to keep the PG rating and the Albino Pirate's voice was changed. In the original British version, he's voiced by Russell Tovey. In this version, he's voiced by Anton Yelchin. I noticed that his voice sounded different. A few other voices were changed as well. What a bummer. These changes were not necessary, but I'll save that for a rant.

B+. Another good film from Aardman that is significantly different from their earlier films, which is a good thing. Fine animation, a fun story and great performances make this film a riot worth seeing, despite the alterations made to this version of the film. Everything else works. Highly recommended.

Trailer Recap
I saw this in 2D in the afternoon. There weren't too many folks in the audience, and most of them didn't seem to enjoy it. It was pretty much the same reaction Arthur Christmas got when I saw that film a few months ago. The trailers we got? More of the same, but a few new ones... But no Brave trailer! Bummer.

Diary of Wimpy Kid: Dog Days - Ehhhh, not another one of these, but unlike most live-action children's films (yes, I consider these films children's films, not family films), this series is profitable. Thank goodness Judy Moody wasn't. - Opens August 3rd

To the Arctic 3D - This opened 9 days ago. Why did they show the trailer for this? We could've gotten the Brave trailer instead. Dang it!

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - This trailer wasn't as bad as the last one, but I'm probably going to pass on this one. It just looks so silly and over-the-top, and not in a good way. Oh well, the animation is nice and colorful. - Opens June 8th

Despicable Me 2 - This trailer got laughs from everyone in the audience, something the main attraction unfortunately did not. Again, this is only the teaser. I can't say much. - Opens July 3rd, 2013

ParaNorman - The same trailer that was attached to Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. It looks really good, but here's hoping we get another trailer that doesn't focus on the comedy and more on the ghoulish stuff. - Opens August 17th

Hotel Transylvania - It looks alright at best, not too crazy about the fact that it has a star-studded cast. Still, Genndy Tartakovsky is the director and the animation looks nice. - Opens September 28th

Next Up: The Avengers!