Paramount Pictures | Release Date: November 3, 2006
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 171 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
129
Mixed:
26
Negative:
16
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
RayzorMooseNov 13, 2013
Flushed Away suffocates nay say-ers.
A very wacky, witty, and downright bizarre idea transformed into a very acceptable film. It's not pretty nor polite, but very watchable.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
homer4presidentMar 28, 2015
It had a great cast and animation, but sadly after a while the dimness and the movie itself gets boring. It had a interesting idea, and it seemed to work for a while, and it was very funny and made me laugh, but it was weird near the end. IIt had a great cast and animation, but sadly after a while the dimness and the movie itself gets boring. It had a interesting idea, and it seemed to work for a while, and it was very funny and made me laugh, but it was weird near the end. I thought it was good, but could've been better. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
grandpajoe6191Oct 4, 2011
"Flushed Away" isn't a great claymation movie. It kinda 'flushs' down the plot with revolving characters and settings. Nevertheless, the film still is a entertaining movie to watch (especially those 007 fans).
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
4
MovieGuysSep 29, 2013
A movie about rats flushed down a toilet can only go so far without straying from the point. This movie does nothing for me, or film in general, and what is fresh and exciting in "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille" (which has rats, too!) isA movie about rats flushed down a toilet can only go so far without straying from the point. This movie does nothing for me, or film in general, and what is fresh and exciting in "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille" (which has rats, too!) is bland and recycled here. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
FranzHcriticJul 6, 2014
You'll enjoy it while you watch it; it has enough wit and slapstick to keep it running on its own motor. After you exit the theatre, you'll think of how idiotic and crude it was. At least the British/Australian accents made things funnier, asYou'll enjoy it while you watch it; it has enough wit and slapstick to keep it running on its own motor. After you exit the theatre, you'll think of how idiotic and crude it was. At least the British/Australian accents made things funnier, as they always do/ Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
MarkK.Oct 19, 2007
Snoooooze. Borrrrinnnggg. Your kinds will like while you sleep away the minutes. SKIP THIS ONE PARENTS.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
ChristopherW.Feb 20, 2007
I have not been remarkably impressed by any animated film since 'The Incredibles.' 'Cars' was good, but certainly the weakest entry from the highly regarded studio Pixar. I suppose it was too much to hope that Pixar would I have not been remarkably impressed by any animated film since 'The Incredibles.' 'Cars' was good, but certainly the weakest entry from the highly regarded studio Pixar. I suppose it was too much to hope that Pixar would set a standard by which all other animation studios would seek to meet. This British/American hybrid has moments of wit and rib tickling humor, but as a whole, the plot just sort of meanders about aimlessly. Aspects of the story are quite original, but we have seen all of these characters before in other incarnations. The trend in animated films is moving ever so intentionally to an uncomfortable mishmash of potty humor and unintrusive unmemorable characterizations directed solely at young children. We get PG rated content that is neither completely appropriate for small children, and not at all satisfying or meaningful for adults. Is it any wonder that so many of these kind of films see tepid box office returns? 'Flushed Away' may be a slight step above most other recent films from this genre, but it could very well prove to be a disappointment nonetheless. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JeffC.Mar 1, 2007
Pretty bland all in all, but the singing slugs are very funny. Another lameish kiddie viddie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.Mar 1, 2007
"Flushed Away" gets it half-right. After making Billy Idol sound cool for the first time in two decades, the film does an adept job at showing how a feral rat(Andy Serkis as Spike) seems out of place in posh trappings. Because "Flushed Away" "Flushed Away" gets it half-right. After making Billy Idol sound cool for the first time in two decades, the film does an adept job at showing how a feral rat(Andy Serkis as Spike) seems out of place in posh trappings. Because "Flushed Away" is aimed at kids, the film hides the truth about Roddy(Hugh Jackman); he's probably an awful snob. When our domestic rat is flushed into the sewer city(read: ghetto), Roddy encounters Rita(Kate Winslet) and never gets to interact with the wild rats. "Flushed Away" turns into a sort of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" adventure, and any examination of differing socio-economic classes are flushed away. The backstory for The Toad(Ian McKellen) has the sort of sophistication that's missing from the main narrative. The Toad is so obviously a basket case(and sympathetic, thanks to McKellen), you sort of wish his plan for a holocaust panned out. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkB.Dec 12, 2006
Following the box office disappointment of this animated feature (you don't have to be Jimmy the Greek to correctly bet that viewers young and old would rather watch dancing penguins than rats flushed down toilets) it was announced that Following the box office disappointment of this animated feature (you don't have to be Jimmy the Greek to correctly bet that viewers young and old would rather watch dancing penguins than rats flushed down toilets) it was announced that Aardman Animation would not be working with DreamWorks Pictures again. Here's one more example of a Hollywood breakup whose causes are so easy to explain that almost any average, casual moviegoer and Entertainment Weekly reader can temporarily claim amateur divorce-lawyer status. Aardman's previous full-length features, Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, succeeded beautifully with abundant charm, dry British wit, attention to character that was almost as painstaking as their shot-by-shot work with hand-crafted plasticine figures, and GENERALIZED observation and parody of specific movie genres (the P.O.W. escape movie, the horror film). DreamWorks, on the other hand, specializes in loud, often exhausting, frequently crass CGI jokefests that too often substitute for real humor or observation an endless fusillade of pop-culture references that serve no other purpose than to inform us that the writers watched the same TV and movies and listened to the same Top 40 radio that the rest of us did. (Their good stuff--the Shreks--still comes off as a bit forced and overbearing; Madagascar and Shark Tale are well-nigh unwatchable, and their lone gem, this year's earlier Over the Hedge, is either an example of its makers reining in their worst, most excessive impulses and genuinely learning from Pixar and Chuck Jones or the ultimate illustration of the spaghetti-on-the-wall theory.) When DreamWorks stays in the background and lets Aardman thematically and stylistically dominate, as happened with Chicken and Wallace, all is well and the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack can fly side by side in peace and friendship; when DreamWorks takes over too much of the editorial content, which I strongly suspect happened here, you get this thing. Flushed Away, the story of a Roddy, a poor little rich rat who, when his owners go on holiday, inadvertently gets sucked into the sewers and discovers a whole community of one-liner-spouting creatures he never knew existed, works on the DreamWorks theory that no gag or background throwaway is too forced or unfunny to land on the cutting-room floor and adds a corollary of its own: when in doubt, slam the hero in his little tiny balls. (This movie is in doubt a LOT.) I wasn't surprised to learn, while watching the end credits, that Flushed Away's five (!!) writers included two sitcom pros, Frasier's Christopher Lloyd and Joe Keenan--in fact, that goes a long way toward explaining why one of the film's villains, the crude, lazy bully Sid, has a personality so similar to Daphne's worthless brother on that show. But then, even the stuff that works in Flushed Away is disappointingly derivative: the best gag, predicated on seeing something you think is something but is really something else, is a recycling of a convulsively funny sequence in Caddyshack, and even this movie's celebrated singing slugs call forth too many memories of the infinitely more charming singing mice in the original Babe. Speaking of which, even Aardman's trademark character design (give everybody big, bulging eyes and stereotypically British buck teeth) works against them here: if you're going to make an animated film about VERMIN, for crying out loud, you'd better make them cuter than Pixie and Dixie combined! The final, surprise bit involving Sid really DOES work, and it's hard to completely dislike any film whose suspenseful climax is built from the urban legend involving toilet use during the Super Bowl and other big sporting events, but overall, Flushed Away's failure was set long ago when Aardman made its Faustian decision to eschew its traditional, Harryhausen-like approach and hop on the CGI expresss. If they did it because, as some of their representatives have explained, water is too difficult to animate the old way, then let's hope Aardman's next project takes place in the Sahara Desert. As Flushed Away proves, their movies work when they're completely TOUCHED by human hands. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RubbaManisCoolMar 16, 2007
Wasn't really funny. Used too many of the same jokes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful