quote: Peter Berrett

---

I am still trying to work out whether the characters were all filmed using plasticene figures or whether there was some cgi worked in there as well.

---

BBC article says that CGI was only used for fog, fire, water, and floating bunnies.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-10-2005, 10:03 PM:
 
CINEMA: AMC Oak View 24, Omaha, NE
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: AMC HITS setup with Mystery Meat digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Spoilers...defense...fifteen yard penalty...automatic first down

I've never thought HITS sounded that bad. The sound here was clean with a good balance of bass. It's cleaner sounding than any auditorium at the post-HITS era AMC Flat Iron Crossing 14 I've been in. The picture was in focus and rock solid. Every time I come here, everything seems to work. But these seats just suck. I feel like Lily Tomlin in her big rocking chair in these things. Except these don't rock. Or recline.

First off (after the dozen or so trailers for movies that all appear to absolutely suck) we get a short called "The Madagascar Penguins in A Christmas Caper". The penguins...Skipper, Kowalski, Rico, and Private, are setting up their Christmas party when Private notes that the zoo's polar bear is all alone and very sad looking. Private wants to get him a present. Skipper fails to suggest Private offer HIMSELF up as a present and let the bear eat him. Thus, a wacky adventure ensues that lasts slightly longer than I was hoping Wallace and Gromit would last.

Everything I've heard about Madagascar can be summed up with "Bad movie...great penguins." THESE characters were the good part of Madagascar? That must have been one serious stinkbomb.

Wallace and his regrettably faithful and extremely intelligent dog Gromit are humane disposers of rabbits. This is a lucrative business in a town obsessed with vegetables. Great big vegetables. Size matters in this burg. They don't really dispose of the rabbits, of course. Their "trade secret" is that they have a basement full of the things. A funny alternative would have been if they also ran a restaurant that was famous for its stew, and nobody locally ever made the connection.

A freak accident happens during an experiment, which results in the creation of the Were-Rabbit, who terroizes produce and threatens the forthcoming annual town festival...contest...I can't remember. Wallace and his dog are charged with finding a solution more humane than shooting the thing by the token love interest. Fun and mayhem ensues.

It's a fun little ride, but I didn't find it to be anything remarkable.

I, as a child, had a pet rabbit. My father built it a huge cage behind the garage. He dug a small trench in the cage and put a board over it to give it some shelter. The rabbit took over from there and did some serious expansion, putting together a network of tunnels that went under the cage, through our garden, our neighbor's garden, and at least one other neighbor's garden beyond that one. Think about that at the end of this movie and see how plausible you think this "solution" is.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-10-2005, 11:39 PM:
 

quote: Sam Graham

---

It's a fun little ride, but I didn't find it to be anything remarkable.

---

Ok, anyone that doesn't like this film is a frump!!

Actually there are some things in it that were quite remarkable if you stop and thnk about it. The scenes where there are 20 to 30 town folk all visible at once and all doing something different... those short shots had to take weeks to complete, then there are the shadows but those had to be done digitally... many other things that all add up to 5 years of well planned but still very difficcult work...
I give it 3 and a half stars... the first fun movie we've had all year!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-11-2005, 07:18 PM:
 
Okay, I'll give you that...If you consider the sheer technical feat of the MAKING of this movie, yes, that's remarkable.

FRUMP FRUMP FRUMP FRUMP
 

---

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 10-11-2005, 10:27 PM:
 
The British are coming, and looks like a third Oscar for “Nick Park” watch this space for nominations due out February 2006, I seen “Chicken Run” “The Wrong Trousers” “Creature Comforts” and the television advertisements in the past damn funny cute too.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 10-12-2005, 12:33 AM:
 
Two words: Floating Bunnies!

I loved this movie in exactly the same way I loved the three W&G short films. It's not so much formulaic, but it has the same tone and pacing and British sensibility that's just fun to watch. I was worried that it might not hold up at feature length, but they did it right.

It had some good laughs, some predictable plot points, a lot more innuendo than I expected, and more floating bunnies than you can shake a stick at! Very cute.

Not really a spoiler, per se, but ... a favorite moment of mine was all the bunnies waving to the black bunny on the guy's head, and the poor bunny just waving back.

They knew the floating bunnies would be a hit, otherwise they wouldn't have flooded the end credits with them. I imagine the floating bunnies screensaver will be out in no time flat! I want it!
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 10-13-2005, 02:47 PM:
 
how in the world do they do stop motion animation with floating characters. I don't get it.

My brother and I went to see this, and we were the only two in the theatre without a toddler. That dissapointed me, as i was hoping this would reach a larger audience (maybe it is elsewhere... at #1, it must be). The CGI effects were well done. I swear that they grabbed a couple of shots from their other films. Maybe they just resembled the angle (the basement doors opening up to the shot of the moon, for example). Anyway, I out-laughed every kid in the theatre.

4.5 / 5
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-13-2005, 04:27 PM:
 

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

how in the world do they do stop motion animation with floating characters. I don't get it.

---

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

The CGI effects were well done

---

I liked it a lot, but not as much as the earlier movies which were shorter and faster. I think stretching the movie to full feature length may be overstretching them a little bit.
But then, the earlier movies are so good, how can you even come up with something to top them? The "dog fight" scene at the end was good, but nowhere near as good as the chase scene in "The Wrong Trousers" in which they chase the evil penguin on the model train while laying out the tracks in front of them. That is still one of the most breathtaking things I have ever seen in any movie.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 10-13-2005, 08:20 PM:
 
Taking the movie on its own merit, it was outstanding. But I fully agree ... that model train sequence just kicks so much ass, you really couldn't do anything better, and Wrong Trousers totally deserved the award for that alone, if nothing else.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-15-2005, 01:05 AM:
 
I loved the film, but my wife found where the film was lacking.

In the earlier films, we went through the invention phase with wallace before the implementation phase. In this feature lenghth picture, there was no "invention" phase at all.

I believe that if we had seen wallace "invent" the solution to the rabbit problem before he put it into use, or had his "humane rabbit elimination" scheme put into place, it would have taken the place of that enourmously and painfully sleepy ending sequence at the festival.

Other than that.. great show...

Ciao
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-16-2005, 08:01 PM:
 
Today, 1:30PM, Cinemark 17 in Springfield, House #8, DTS. Very OK presentation although the image seemed slightly dim and I like the sound a little louder. Was about 3/4 full.

Disclaimer: This was my introduction to Wallace & Gromit. Never seen them before in anything else.

I had to leave before it ended because I was nodding off. I was becoming seriously drowsy. I am not making that up. Clearly, I am a very bad person. I should be shot.

Now, I appreciate the loving attention to detail that went into making this. But 45 minutes of it would have been pushing the envelope for me. Ninety minutes of sitting there thinking "Oh isn't that cute!" is just more than I could stand.

I agree with Evil Sam Graham.

Kids in the audience (and there were a LOT of them) seemed to enjoy it. A couple of adults were laughing uproariously at almost everything. I'm happy for them and I'm glad this is selling tickets.

I did enjoy the penguin thing.
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 10-17-2005, 01:16 AM:
 
to quote michael quoting me:

quote:

---

quote: Adam Wilbert how in the world do they do stop motion animation with floating characters. I don't get it.

quote: Adam Wilbert The CGI effects were well done

---

that doesn't answer it. I don't believe the floating bunnies were CG. The CG I was referring to was the ghost like etherial clouds, etc. Even if they were composited into the shot, theres things in all of the W&G shorts (such as the flying jam in wrong trowsers), as well as other claymation films that have things floating, thrown, or otherwise in the air for a brief moment. So how do they hold the physical ball of clay in mid air, take the shot, move it a bit higher in the air, and take another shot? That has always baffled me.

The thing I think I'll always like about clay over CG animation is the personal touch. Literally. I like that you can catch a glimpse of someones thumbprint in wallace's nose occasionally. You don't get that sense of physical-ness and imperfection with CG. CG always looks highly polished, even when its crappy.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-17-2005, 08:42 AM:
 
Check out the article Erica linked to.

I don't know how they shot stuff like a ball in the air, but I think it would be fairly easy to do if the ball was on a stick which is exactly opposite from the camera so that the ball covers the stick.
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 10-17-2005, 10:06 AM:
 
okay, i didn't read that article until just now. They did a good job with the cg bunnies then, since they blen seamlessly with the clay version. Thats funny that I pretty much repeated the article about the thumbprints though.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-30-2005, 07:47 AM:
 
I finally saw this and really enjoyed it. I had enjoyed the shorts (and the wonderful "Aardman Animation" compilation that was circulating in the late 1990s), and this was just as good. I think that adults would enjoy this as much as the kids (if not more). Highly recommended.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-02-2005, 04:19 PM:
 
I saw this a couple of weeks ago and found it very enjoyable. I loved the original W&G shows.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2005, 08:10 AM:
 
Very good presentation at the independent Pittsford-9 in Rochester. Audience had lots of families, and the story had different elements that pleased all. Half the fun is watching the detail in the background.
 

---