Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Although the animation, and graphics of the movie are truly astounding, the movie somehow, does not have the same zest as the original series of "Wallace and Grommitt." The storyline is not very well done, taking quite a long time before getting into any action. If you are looking for some laughs, you won't find many, except for the odd one, here and there. The only thing that keeps this movie going, is the truly amazing picture, and almost real life picture of "Wallace and Gromit:curse of the were-Rabbit," but besides that it is a bit of a disappointment, overall.The movie is not all it is cracked up to be, and has failed its expectations. Overall, the plot is a letdown. There are a few funny one-liners, here and there, but besides this, the movie is a disappointment

I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres. Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies. The animation is – as expected – superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions. Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score. The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.

I am always amazed at how many surfaces film has. There seem to be so many places on which an artist can leave us a message. Usually my comments deal with "normal" differences in these surfaces: the story compared to explicit commentary on the story, for instance. Or acting in a way that provides a second level on the story. Or a tone or set that does. This Wallace and Grommit stuff is shocking in this context. Oh, claymation is as old as I am (pretty old), but this claymation was designed from the first to be photographed with all the camera tricks you would use in a "real" noir or Hitchcock film. That's what made it unique. Once Park crossed into that territory, he had the possibilities to make movies about movies. Many folks do... perhaps a third of all movies have this value, but most take a common approach allowing them to comment on the way others comment on movies. Met-meta movies, but with all this reuse we run out of new ideas. Park has some new ideas. Check out "The wrong trousers" where the story is about the mechanics of Hitchcock taking control of the movie and being fought back. Those mechanics are denoted in the story by some automated pants, but the style of the cinematography matches as the battle rages. I guess manipulating that clay for months to get a single scene gives you lots of time to think about movie-making. Last time around we had Hollywood intruding with "Chicken Run." It was self-referential, but of the stupid kind: lots and lots of obvious references to other movies. Mel Gibson. This time we go back to the world of characters reinventing themselves. This time the fight is with having the monster genre taking control instead of the Hitchcock one. Sure, most of this can be seen as simple kiddie fun, and it is. But look at the very first shot where we see the copper's ankle stepping from behind the camera. You won't see anything like this in any Dreamworks drek. That was a shot that tells us who love movies that this is first going to be fun for movielovers. The story is as incidental and vexing as a rabbit infestation. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

When I watched "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" on its opening weekend I was, not surprisingly, very impressed. Nick Park has a solid reputation for delivering the goods and this is his greatest achievement to-date. It's, to paraphrase Wallace, a cracking film for all ages. There are great references to other movies that should appeal to the movie buff element of the audience and enough general jokes to please everybody. My eyes were watering with laughter throughout. The film looks great, as you'd expect from Nick Park. The level of detail is simply staggering and the visual gags are breathtaking. Clever stuff, indeed. I dearly hope that there are many more adventures for Wallace and Gromit to come!