My family loved it. We got intentional part of the “bad animation” rap - it’s supposed to look like the old stop-motion Christmas specials that I hate so much. And even with the akward animation, there are some spots that visually shine - some of the Grandma “hobby” scenes, for example. The music was fun too - the song “Red is Blue”, sung by Ben Folds, is currently my wife’s favorite movie song. Some of the offbeat characters were extremely offbeat and had no rational explanation but were fun nonetheless - the mountain goat, the snack shop clerk dressed like his boss, etc. And there were a ton of other movies referenced throughout, some obvious, some very subtle.
It also goes against the rule that celebrity voices don’t belong in a cartoon. Glenn Close, Patrick Warburton, Andy Dick, Anne Hathaway - all were brilliant in this flick.
Yeah, it seems that way at first. You go through the story from Red’s point of view and it moves along drably with some weird stuff happening along the way.
But the schtick of the movie is you then see the whole story told from several characters point of view and you see how the stories intermingle with eachother.
The voice of the wolf was Patrick Warburton. He also did the voice of Kronk in the The Emporer’s New Groove and played Elaine’s boyfriend Puddy on Seinfeld.
I’m curious to know what the people who disliked it thought of:
-Shrek 2
-Finding Nemo
-Cars
-A Shark Tale
-Rashomon
-Pulp Fiction
And if we’re doing x/10 ratings I give it a solid 7/10 easily, maybe even a 7.5/10. I’d have to watch it again to be sure.
My Husband and I (both 38- no kids) liked it. It was cute, had a decent story, and was very watchable.
I will echo what others have said in that “Red” was kind of boring, but that was more than made up for with and interest cast of supporting characters, including Andy Dick, whom I normally hate but who was perfectly cast. The animation is certainly isn’t Shrek good, but it’s adequate.
It was fun for what it was, and it certainly didn’t try to be anything more than it was; a funny little diversion.
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I did see the trailer. The animation is just terrible (one critic said that it looked as if it had been put together on a Commodore 64, and he’s right).
However good the storyline, didn’t this detrract from some people’s enjoyment of the movie?
Nope. I would rather have a great storyline and crappy animation (which BTW Hoodwinked was not) than great animation but a crappy storyline. The latter can only hold my attention for so long.
I bought it on DVD as well, but I’m not getting the Fletch allusion. The Wolf is an investigative reporter, OK, but is there some specific scene? And I looked up Kolchak (I was but a wee lad at that time, so I only sort of remember it. It would have scared me too much!), so I guess it’s the same thing that. Anything specific there?
The story and humor easily overcame the Animation.
My daughter loves the last Unicorn, the animation is terrible in that. If the story is good the animation does not have to be.
How good was Cars animation? Spectacular right? Was it a good story? Was it funny?
The writing and acting (voice in this case) should override the medium or why would anyone enjoy the Great old B&W movies of long ago. Not one Marx Brother’s movie had great camera work or cinematography.
I absolutely loved it. I just about laughed my ass off, and considering the size of the aforementioned ass, you can guess how funny I thought this movie was!
That’s like asking if the poor quality of the animation detracted from Rocky and Bullwinkle (the original TV series). Blasphemy!
And the animation in Hoodwinked is light years better than R & B.
I just happened to see it two weeks ago with my sister, her boyfriend and my parents; no one under 30. We all liked it. I still laugh when I think of the squirrel voice when it was slowed down in the end. I gave it 4 out of 5 stars at Netflix.
23 years old, male, loved Hoodwinked. Clever, carefully written, lots of allusions to other movies, and old-fashioned laughs that are still funny. High points for me include the snowboarding scene, the ax man running through the forest, the squirrel drinking coffee, and the wolf’s perspective on his encounter with Red in the forest. Also, there were no toilet-humor or gross-out jokes. I appreciate the fact that they stayed closer to Loony-Toons style stuff, such as finding dynamite in a cart going down a rickety track, rather than assuming that kids only care about the latest and most modern pop culture.
I was not at all bothered by the quality of the animation, but rather I felt it enhanced the movie. There’s no law saying that animation has imitate reality as closely as possible. Since almost anything can be digitally rendered as photo-real these days, there wouldn’t be much point in animation otherwise. Animation can be animated; you can distort things so that they’re more pleasant/cheery/brooding/scary/lively/outrageous than in reality, and that’s what they did in Hoodwinked.
For the record, I liked Finding Nemo and Cars, but not for the same reasons. Shrek 2 was entertaining but forgetable. I’ve never seen Rashamon, Pulp Fiction, or Shark Tale.
He wears the same Lakers shirt, uses an afro (as Fletch did) and riffs on some of the Fletch’s lines; in fact, even the music playing when the wolf tells his story parodies the music in Fletch. I’d have to go back watch both movies to make a better list of similarities. But you might try Googling Hoodwinked and Fletch to see what others have come up with (seems to be, at a quick glance, a few things I didn’t notice).
I can’t believe so many people are so concerned with the animation! Yes, it’s not Shrek but unless you’re about 6 years old it’s way, way, WAY better than anything any of us grew up with.
I was probably at least 20-30 minutes into the movie before I realized that it wasn’t up to today’s standards, and then I promptly forgot about it.
