Originally Posted By narkspud OK, just got back. It's not awful, it's just mind-crushingly mediocre. It's just so artless and clumsy and (apologies in advance) cheep-looking that I doubt I'll remember anything about it in a couple hours. Which is fine with me. It's got a cliched story line that doesn't even attempt to be interesting, it just marches forward to the next obvious bit like it just wants to get it over with. No clever dialog (from the BRITS?), no unexpected plot twists, no particularly engaging characters, almost no sense of danger. Nearly all of the humor is of the slapstick variety found in the trailer (and yes, the trailer was most of the best stuff--just take that trailer, stuff it with a hackneyed underdog hero story, and you have the movie). It never insults your intelligence, but only because it never engages it in the first place. It's just . . . there. The movie looks cheap. Really cheap. Jiggers-with-the-sound-down cheap. The only thing that Pixar has to worry about from this movie is that, according to the credits, Pixar's Renderman software was used in the production . . . which if I were Pixar, I'd want to keep under wraps. The 6 and 7 year olds that made up the bulk of the audience at my local cineplex clearly enjoyed the slapstick stuff, but afterwards all I overheard them talking about was the trailer for The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. No need to see this one in the theater, or anywhere else for that matter. PS - Afterwards, I treated myself to Chick-Fil-A. It just seemed like appropriate revenge.
Originally Posted By electra haha. well Ill check it out on dvd when the time allows(long list on Netflix). I will say that I think the premise for this film sounds a tad more interesting than for Chicken Little. Nark, was it at least a bit better story-wise/character-wise than Madagascar? & was there at least some "weight" to the character animation? I found the hippity-hop movements of the critters in Madagascar nauseating...
Originally Posted By AZDLDad This movie was not very good- my 6yr old only laughed when a character fell. A very bad Brit animated movie and the WWII backdrop to the storyline was not a very good choice for the target audience.
Originally Posted By narkspud >>Nark, was it at least a bit better story-wise/character-wise than Madagascar? Absolutely not! Madagascar, bad as it was, was a masterpiece by comparison. >>& was there at least some "weight" to the character animation?<< Well, they *are* birds. The characters themselves were very detailed, but their movements looked very old-school "computery." The bounciness in Madagascar didn't bug me so much, as it seemed to match the style of the artwork, but I don't recall anything in Valiant that was like that, IE, there was no bounciness OR style.
Originally Posted By narkspud BTW, Box Office Mojo is estimating $6.09 Million for the weekend, a 7th place finish. The penguins beat it. Ladies and gentlemen, CGI flop #1 is in da howse! And it says Disney on it. Next animated feature on deck, The Corpse Bride on 9-23. I expect it'll be better. See you there!
Originally Posted By narkspud >>Is the Final Fantasy movie not considered CGI?<< 'Tis, and good point. (So were Kaena - The Prophecy, Son of Alladin and Alibaba . . . look them up on Box Office Mojo to see what a REAL flop looks like.) However, I was speaking of the current wave of major Hollywood CGI features, of which we are still just in the opening stages. The general concensus is that sooner or later we'll get several that are just plain crummy, and the wave will end, taking buckets of misspent corporate dollars with it. Us 2D fans shouldn't gloat, but some of us are anyway. Dunno if Valiant is the beginning of the end, since it looks like a big enough bomb to go under the radar of the public at large (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). But it'll be REAL interesting to see how Chicken Little does now.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead I don't think VALIANT is a good indication simply because, god awful as it may be, no one knew about it. SHARK TALE, for example, is one of the worst movies of last year, period. Nearly unwatchable. But the ad blitz is so extreme for these films that it seems like a $100 million is guaranteed. Same with MADAGASCAR. I haven't seen it, and oy it looks awful, but I couldn't walk through the grocery store without being bombarded by the film. VALIANT is a bomb, but it's as silent as FINAL FANTASY was awhile back. A true test would have been if Disney had actual promoted it. That's why I agree with you on CHICKEN LITTLE - Macy's balloon and all, if that tanks, it's a sign. VALIANT's a shrug.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "PS - Afterwards, I treated myself to Chick-Fil-A. It just seemed like appropriate revenge." Man, I wish they had those up here in NYC... Although we do have "Pluck U"!
Originally Posted By narkspud >>Man, I wish they had those up here in NYC...<< They just about don't have them in Southern California. The one I go to in Tustin is the only one in Orange County AFAIK.
Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs I thought NY had Chick Fil-A? I remember watching Live with Regis and Kelly, and they gave her a pregnancy basket full of goodies, and one of them was stuff from Chick-Fil-A. We don't have any up here in CA... I take it that it's a KFC/Popeye's type of chain?
Originally Posted By narkspud >>I take it that it's a KFC/Popeye's type of chain?<< Not exactly. They don't serve chicken with bones in it. Their specialty is a mighty good boneless chicken sandwich. They're also known for their long-running ad campaign in which spelling-challenged cows urge viewers to "eat more chikin". On the east coast, they can be found in just about every mall there is. There are several scattered around Southern California, one in San Luis Obispo and one in Fairfield. The closest to Disneyland is in the Tustin/Irvine Marketplace. <a href="http://www.chick-fil-a.com" target="_blank">http://www.chick-fil-a.com</a>
Originally Posted By narkspud BTW . . . that site says there are none in New York.. Reege and Kelly will need to drive to Paramus, NJ to use their coupons.
Originally Posted By narkspud Oh, and <a href="http://www.eatmorchikin.com" target="_blank">http://www.eatmorchikin.com</a>
Originally Posted By electra I dont think Valiant bombing will be a big deal...its too early in the cgi fad. Remember that in the early 90's when Disney was comimg out with Little Mermaid & Beauty & the Beast, there were a lot of flop 2d films from other studios(Nutcracker Prince anyone?) but no one was going around saying it was the death of 2d...
Originally Posted By Imagineer This If you thought Valiant was a stinker just read the following article. Disney and another company are making a CGI movie that is a ripoff of Dreamworks Madagascar! Will this movie fail too? >>Animation fans aren't all that wild about "The Wild"<< <a href="http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1697" target="_blank">http://www.jimhillmedia.com/ar ticle.php?id=1697</a>
Originally Posted By monkeys_uncle its pretty bad when we get more excited about chick-fil-a than this movie. I love chick-fil-a
Originally Posted By basil fan Well, I didn't see Madagascar. I might someday when it comes on TV. But the cartoony character design is way more appealing than these animals that can't decide whether to be live-action or toons. They look like that CGI Scooby-Doo. Just MHO. How successful was Madagascar, anyway? Kuzco, Disney's Bad Boy Hero <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/kuzco.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/kuzco.html</a>
