The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The new animation featuring the voice of Ricky Gervais. A few friends of mine went to see it the other day. They said it wasn't very good. Anyone else seen it?
Page:
I expect the Flanimals film to be more like what we expect from Gervias (only more child friendly).
Good point. However, I've always thought that if he did something like Valiant, he'd make sure it was hilarious.
On the otherhand, the target audience is much lower than Politics or the office, closer to Flanimals in fact.
On the otherhand, the target audience is much lower than Politics or the office, closer to Flanimals in fact.
To be fair you can't compare the two. Mainly as one is a BBC comedy and the other is an animated kids film. But also as Ricky Gervias just had to sit in front of a microphone for this, he didn't write it or anything.
I'm a big Gervais fan, owning all of his DVD's and Flanimals, but after hearing it's crap I was suprised. What a step down from the office.
You hardly ever see the middle-man on IMDB. It's always the hardcore fanboys or the true haters, then come the arguments.
that person is clearly retarded, or has an inner ear infection.
EDIT: that board is full of gervais fanboys, it's vomit inducing.
and the guy who claimed it wasn't worth the £6 because it was only an hour and a bit long is a fool. prostitutes cost more than that for even less time but i bet he still pays for them.
EDIT: that board is full of gervais fanboys, it's vomit inducing.
and the guy who claimed it wasn't worth the £6 because it was only an hour and a bit long is a fool. prostitutes cost more than that for even less time but i bet he still pays for them.
Why do these people like it so much?
[URL]http://imdb.com/title/tt0361089/[/URL]
If you look in the message board, some people are praising it as the funniest film of the year. It even made one person "fall out of their chair laughing".
[URL]http://imdb.com/title/tt0361089/[/URL]
If you look in the message board, some people are praising it as the funniest film of the year. It even made one person "fall out of their chair laughing".
it's not too bad.
it's not very long either but it really depends what you're after.
primarily of course it's for kids so there's not much in the way of grown-up humour in there (the only things that really piqued my childish side were "let's make wind" and "the Dickin medal") and it's as predictable as hell.
the characters are all fairly obvious so it's easy for kids to follow and the animation is (as Snuggly says on his site**) closer to Nick Park than Pixar (there are some nice touches though, like the scratches in the textures for the cage, someone liked their bump maps :) )
it looks.... well i'm not sure really, there's just SOMETHING about it that seems to highlight the difference in production between this and a Pixar outing. it could be argued that it's to aid stylisation, given that it's supposed to be a WW2 film, but to be fair, that fact figures little in the actual movie; it's simpy the underlying, and often unmentioned, reason that the pigeons are there in the first place and made for some easy decisions as far as accent casting went for the characters i guess.
so a little "take it or leave it" perhaps, but certainly worse ways to spend a few quid.
so, now i just have to sit back and wait for "madagascar" (which seems to have a refreshingly "jerky" style to the animation, so credit to dreamworks for managing to avoid the usual CG trap of making movements slower so the animators can show us just HOW MUCH they understand bodily movement), which looks pretty sweet so far.
** edit: just read the whole review and i'd say it's all pretty accurate as well.
it's not very long either but it really depends what you're after.
primarily of course it's for kids so there's not much in the way of grown-up humour in there (the only things that really piqued my childish side were "let's make wind" and "the Dickin medal") and it's as predictable as hell.
the characters are all fairly obvious so it's easy for kids to follow and the animation is (as Snuggly says on his site**) closer to Nick Park than Pixar (there are some nice touches though, like the scratches in the textures for the cage, someone liked their bump maps :) )
it looks.... well i'm not sure really, there's just SOMETHING about it that seems to highlight the difference in production between this and a Pixar outing. it could be argued that it's to aid stylisation, given that it's supposed to be a WW2 film, but to be fair, that fact figures little in the actual movie; it's simpy the underlying, and often unmentioned, reason that the pigeons are there in the first place and made for some easy decisions as far as accent casting went for the characters i guess.
so a little "take it or leave it" perhaps, but certainly worse ways to spend a few quid.
so, now i just have to sit back and wait for "madagascar" (which seems to have a refreshingly "jerky" style to the animation, so credit to dreamworks for managing to avoid the usual CG trap of making movements slower so the animators can show us just HOW MUCH they understand bodily movement), which looks pretty sweet so far.
** edit: just read the whole review and i'd say it's all pretty accurate as well.
[URL]http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/review.php?id=48[/URL]
Sucked, but then it was a film about CGI pigeons. The only way it could have been worse was if Billy Connoly was in it.
Sucked, but then it was a film about CGI pigeons. The only way it could have been worse was if Billy Connoly was in it.
It's terrible as expected. My girlfriend is a huge Gervais fan so I agreed to see it.
No jokes. No action. Hardly any plot.
Just plain rubbish that kids may like but I'm sure they'd rather watch Shrek.
No jokes. No action. Hardly any plot.
Just plain rubbish that kids may like but I'm sure they'd rather watch Shrek.
Page: