The result is a wacked kiddie Rashomon in which the different versions dovetail with a logic as impeccable as it is flat-out buggy. So who do we root for? Everyone and no one. Hoodwinked's most radical feature is that it's a ride without heroes.
Hoodwinked may be a poor cousin to the Shrek franchise, but this made-on-the-cheap computer-animated feature still has more style and snarky gags than Disney's recent CG hit, "Chicken Little."
LAST TIME AND LAST AND FINAL 3 ACCOUNT 2 ON MY PHONE AND MY IPAD ! GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD good
Why would a distributor suddenly yank an animated family film from its intended wide December opening until mid-January? Could it be that the advance word of mouth wasn't very good-winked?
Growing up, I adored this movie. It was one of my favorite movies as a kid. 12 years later, I will admit that it wasn't as good as I remembered it back when I was 6, but that doesn't mean it's not any good now. The story is on the same levels of Shrek, giving us a nice police investigation with a fairy tale theme, the songs, although cheesy, are very pleasant to listen to, and the characters are the best thing about the movie. However, there is a big flaw. Due to it being from an Indie company, the animators have to bring something new, right? Well, I'll give it that they tried the best they could, but that's no excuse for the animation to be this terrible, where it looks like it was powered by a Nintendo 64 engine. But the animation doesn't take away from how smart and witty the writing is. I've never seen the sequel, but after the backlash it received, I think it was smart of me to skip it when I was 11.
High quality narration, low standard production! Yet wins fairly.
I'm shocked, this is not a Disney's or the Pixer's, not even DreamWorks' or the Sony's, but a very good film. I meant only the story, though the animation was outdated, even for a film from the 2005. I had trouble watching it in the initial parts, because of the poor technical quality. Once the flashback began, I totally hooked to it and forgot the production standard. The film was saved because of the very good story.
You know retelling the same old tale is so old fashioned, telling a tale in the different angles and adding more flavour to it is the new thing. Like for example the recent 'Maleficent'. So other than those all the awesome qualities, the film is more a television type. But very enjoyable by all.
It has been a decade since it came out and I never tried it because someone told me that it's very bad, but I regret for believing that and ditching it. So believe me it is a wonderful film, except it's not a top notch presentation. It is too short and well worth spending your 80 minutes for it. There's a sequel to it, so I want to try it as well and let you know how it is in another review under that title.
6/10
This movie had its good jokes but it is so gosh darn boring after 45 minutes I slept for the rest of the movie because each characters story is (while convenient) just not believable or fun to watch. So why the heck is there a sequel.
It's not nearly as bad as Eragon, but I could make this in Windows Movie Maker in five minutes.
The acting isn't all that great, it was very poorly written (the funniest joke in the entire film was a small fast talking rodents speech being made intelligible by slowing its speech down after recording it, not all that funny,) it took to many risks that it didn't know how to deal with (making the granny a extreme sports fanatic,) the visuals where worse than a first year CGI student trying to use Flash to make Avatar and could easily be made in five minutes in pretty much given CGI program and it was overall just unfunny and unappealing to me.