Which is kind of hard for me to understand. Some scenes had me doubled over with laughter. Jack Black was hilarious in this (or rather his voice was hilarious). I thought this movie was a delight.
"Hey, I should be mad at YOU . . . now turn around."-Bender/Futurama
Not to mention this movie has one of the greatest stories, plots, and character development, even without the comedy. Not to say this movie wasn't funny (because it was), but it would still be a great movie otherwise.
shareIt was a great animated movie. However, the plot is not even close to being one of the greatest.
shareWhere did you see a lack of favorable reviews? It got an 88% on rottentamoatoes.com, and a 73 on Metacritic. And a 7.7/10 here on Imdb. I agree with the other stuff you said, though, this film was hilarious, Jack Black had the perfect voice for his role, and one of the best Dreamworks CGI films of all time (behind Dragons)
Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.
I think I meant it didn't get a lot of favorable reviews from the IMDb message boards. The critics seemed to like it as much as I did, though.
"Hey, I should be mad at YOU . . . now turn around"
[deleted]
Nope. For the most part KFP received very positive reviews. Right on a level playing field with most releases from CGI powerhouse, Pixar.
And deservedly so. This film is genius. Extremely well voice-cast, which can be make or break for these films. And the attention to every minute detail is astounding.
And Ironclad, if you're not a fan of CG Animation, then why did you bother seeing the film to begin with and why are you spending even more time discussing it now?
[deleted]
You are either a troll or blind to make such a rediculous statement about the facial expressions
They are superior in CGI movies to anything possible with hand drawn and Kung Fu Panda is an example of some of the best of any CG movie.
[deleted]
I found the animation and facial expressions to be well done for the technology. Comparing it to the master, Chuck Jones, I would say it doesn't even come close. I don't know if that's because of the technology or because there is no artist as masterful as Chuck Jones was.
Was it corny? Sure. It had Jack Black voicing a Panda who becomes a martial arts master who kicks serious butt. It's a farce like Farley's "Beverly Hills Ninja". That was corny as well. Nothing wrong with corny- as long as it's done well. In my opinion, this was done well.
I'm holding everyone to a higher standard- a standard much higher than my own
[deleted]
Shaolin Soccer. Jackie Chan. Kung Fu Hustle..... I think the Chinese have have a good sense of humor about such things.
I think "wax on..wax off" karate training would be much more offensive than a cartoon panda whose training is augmented by dumpling and cookie incentives which, as I see it, is cartoonish in nature.
But I agree with your assessment of CGI and it makes no difference whether it's cartoon ducks, blue avatars or buildings falling down in 2012. It lacks subtlety. But it sure has come a long way from its humble beginnings. And I don't think it's a matter of technology at that point as much as either artist laziness or the pressure of time.
It was nice in "Monsters Inc" to finally see hair move.
I'm holding everyone to a higher standard- a standard much higher than my own
The message for children was the worse of all; don't worry about training hard for your abilities, if you want something all you need is to be the chosen one or else you are doomed, and that's all you need...
shareOh, was the message the 'worse' thing of all? You completely didn't get it by the way. It's about accepting who you are and using that to your advantage, rather than focusing on all the things you CAN'T do.
I mean c'mon, it's a kids movie and you still got it wrong...
"Did you mean for all those words to come out like that or did they just fall out randomly?"-H.H.
I think you're both heavily prejudiced and incapable of an objective opinion.
They moaned about movies changing when they brought sound
They called colour an expensive gimmick
They still yap about the change to digital cameras and how 35MM is superior when it really isn't.
Then they actually give it a chance and suddenly realise they just refused to like something new.
CGI isn't new by now, though, so that argument really isn't valid. The posters are expressing their opinions, which they have every right to do. You can disagree, absolutely, but you don't have the right to claim that they are prejudiced simply because they don't like CGI. New can be better, but that isn't always the case.
shareI have every right to highlight the expression of opinion as fact being informed by prejudiced opinions.
share