Rango

[Brian in Mesa]

Rango

Release Date: March 4, 2011
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Director: Gore Verbinski
Screenwriter: Gore Verbinski, John Logan, James Byrkit
Genre: Action, Adventure, Animation
MPAA Rating: PG (for rude humor, language, action and smoking)
Website: Rangomovie.com

Starring: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Bill Nighy, Stephen Root, Ray Winstone, Beth Grant, Ned Beatty, Harry Dean Stanton, Alfred Molina

Plot Summary: A chameleon that aspires to be a swashbuckling hero finds himself in a Western town plagued by bandits and is forced to literally play the role in order to protect it.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Chaplin]

Spectacular. Awesome. Beautiful. Amazing.

I don't know how else to describe this film, which is probably the best non-Pixar/Disney animated film in history. Certainly a top 5 computer-animated film and a top 10 animated film PERIOD.

Pixar has upped the ante, and studios are finally starting to catch up with this and How to Train Your Dragon. Unfortunately, they'll still produce crap like Mars Needs Moms and Puss in Boots.

Warning for those with kids--probably NOT a movie to take the little ones to. Animation is gorgeous, but the themes and dialogue will probably be WAY over their heads. Plus, animals die.

 

[MadCardDisease]

I totally agree with every thing that Chap said.

However I did take my kids to this movie (4 years and 6 years old). They enjoyed it but most of the dialog was way over their heads. I was surprised when they told me that they want me to buy it for them when it comes out on video. Can't wait to own this on Bluray!

 

[Cheesebeef]

Spectacular. Awesome. Beautiful. Amazing.

I don't know how else to describe this film, which is probably the best non-Pixar/Disney animated film in history. Certainly a top 5 computer-animated film and a top 10 animated film PERIOD.

Pixar has upped the ante, and studios are finally starting to catch up with this and How to Train Your Dragon. Unfortunately, they'll still produce crap like Mars Needs Moms and Puss in Boots.

Warning for those with kids--probably NOT a movie to take the little ones to. Animation is gorgeous, but the themes and dialogue will probably be WAY over their heads. Plus, animals die.

didn't like this quite as much as you did, but thought it was pretty solid. I'd still place Dragon wayyyy above it, but i was really blown away by that one. Dragon towered half of the Pixar movies imo. that being said, Rango was really entertaining and MUCH different than the norm for the animation genre. just thought it sagged a little in the middle.

 

[jf-08]

Took the family to see this over the weekend.

We really enjoyed it. I thought the animation was incredible.

I went into this with little expectations, but it thoroughly delivered.

However, I know I am nitpicking, but armadillos and saguaro catuci aren't found in the Mojave Desert.

 

[Covert Rain]

Spectacular. Awesome. Beautiful. Amazing.

I don't know how else to describe this film, which is probably the best non-Pixar/Disney animated film in history. Certainly a top 5 computer-animated film and a top 10 animated film PERIOD.

Pixar has upped the ante, and studios are finally starting to catch up with this and How to Train Your Dragon. Unfortunately, they'll still produce crap like Mars Needs Moms and Puss in Boots.

Warning for those with kids--probably NOT a movie to take the little ones to. Animation is gorgeous, but the themes and dialogue will probably be WAY over their heads. Plus, animals die.

This was a good movie but not the "best non-pixar" CGI film. That crown IMO still goes to the original Shrek. Despicable Me and How to Train your Dragon were also better films IMO. My problem with the film is that at times it felt very disjointed and uneven at times in tone.

To me the top films both keep the parents and the little ones engaged at the same time. It's a tough balancing act but one that Pixar has absolutely mastered. That is the very measuring stick for "greatness" for me.

Having two kids I took to the movie, my daughter was flat out bored at times and my son thought some parts were cool. My wife and I both agreed the movie was very uneven at times. Thought Depp was awesome playing Rango and some of the characters were really good too.

Definitely worth seeing and one of the better efforts to date. Technically speaking the CGI was spectacular. Overall though I just don't know where it ranks in my "best ever" list. For sure this doesn't crack my Top 5.

 

[Chaplin]

This was a good movie but not the "best non-pixar" CGI film. That crown IMO still goes to the original Shrek. Despicable Me and How to Train your Dragon were also better films IMO. My problems with the film is that at times it felt very disjointed and uneven at times in tone.

Hard to argue with Dragon, but it's a lot better than Shrek and certainly better than Despicable Me. Shrek was well written, but come on--the animation was below average.

Why do animated films have to pander to 3-year-old kids? And how is it that they must be judged on that criteria? I think it's a mistake to automatically judge an animated film based on how your kids reacted to it.

 

[Covert Rain]

Hard to argue with Dragon, but it's a lot better than Shrek and certainly better than Despicable Me. Shrek was well written, but come on--the animation was below average.

You can't judge a film's CGI quality with that of a movie that just came out as the main determining factor in regards to where it ranks overall. That criteria is only one factor for me unless your talking specifically to the technical aspects of the film.

If that was the main criteria than the Toy Story movies would eventually slide off the "greatest" list simply because of dated CGI. That simply is not the case. For example the CGI in the original film although great doesn't do textures and surfaces in current CGI films any justice compared to current offerings.

Shrek, How to Train your Dragon and others are overall better films than Rango. In fact, if we were talking just "technical" feats I would put up Legend of the Guardians up there with any CGI FX I have seen to date. The scenes with the Owls flying in the storms were simply amazing. Since that is not my only criteria it doesn't crack my top 5 either.

Why do animated films have to pander to 3-year-old kids? And how is it that they must be judged on that criteria? I think it's a mistake to automatically judge an animated film based on how your kids reacted to it.

I can't speak to a 3 year old's reaction since my kids are 8 and 10. However, I don't understand the "pandering" comment at all. CGI films like this are absolutely meant to "pander" to kids. Look at the marketing campaign and target demographics. If we were discussing a movie like Beowulf that would be a different story.

Also, you left out the part where I said the "great" films do a great balancing act engaging both demographics (kids and adults).

By the way, if you re-read my post, that wasn't my only criteria either. My own reaction and my wife's were almost identical. Again, the film felt disjointed to me. Again, we enjoyed it and thought it was very good but not top 5 great.

 

[Chaplin]

Also, you left out the part where I said the "great" films do a great balancing act engaging both demographics (kids and adults).

And yet I still ask, why? Why does an animated film have to be great only if it appeals to both kids and adults? A film that appeals to both demographics can be great, no argument there, but disagree that appealing to demographics is the gauge on how great a film is.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Hard to argue with Dragon, but it's a lot better than Shrek and certainly better than Despicable Me. Shrek was well written, but come on--the animation was below average.

Why do animated films have to pander to 3-year-old kids? And how is it that they must be judged on that criteria? I think it's a mistake to automatically judge an animated film based on how your kids reacted to it.

i gotta say, i thought despicable me was pretty damn good as well. besides it being entertaining, it was flat out FUNNY for all ages. I probably laughed more in that film than any Pixar film.

 

[MadCardDisease]

i gotta say, i thought despicable me was pretty damn good as well. besides it being entertaining, it was flat out FUNNY for all ages. I probably laughed more in that film than any Pixar film.

Ahhh-you're to late son. NASA isn't sending monkeys to the moon anymore.

 

[Covert Rain]

And yet I still ask, why? Why does an animated film have to be great only if it appeals to both kids and adults? A film that appeals to both demographics can be great, no argument there, but disagree that appealing to demographics is the gauge on how great a film is.

What kind of animated film are you referring to? Your making a pretty general statement. I am specifically speaking to family animation films. You seem to be generalizing and putting all animated films in the same category.

Again, like my example above, if you referring to a film like Beowulf than you have a point. That is not a family film. Therefore, your not targeting families and you don't have to appeal to both.

Clearly, the type of film like Rango is a family film. By definition it has to appeal to both to be considered great. Either that your you completely missed your target demographic. That alone tells me it wasn't great if you the film you just watched doesn't appeal to the very audience it was intended for.

When I think about all of the Disney classics and the even the modern day kids classics (like the Pixar films), they all have one thing in common. They appealed to a wide audience.

I can't think of a single modern day kids movie that has reached "classic" status that only appealed to kids. Can you? Every single example that I can think of entertained the adults just as much as kids. On the flip side there is no such thing as a great family film that only appealed to adults.

 

[Chaplin]

What kind of animated film are you referring to? Your making a pretty general statement. I am specifically speaking to family animation films. You seem to be generalizing and putting all animated films in the same category.

Again, like my example above, if you referring to a film like Beowulf than you have a point. That is not a family film. Therefore, your not targeting families and you don't have to appeal to both.

Clearly, the type of film like Rango is a family film. By definition it has to appeal to both to be considered great. Either that your you completely missed your target demographic. That alone tells me it wasn't great if you the film you just watched doesn't appeal to the very audience it was intended for.

When I think about all of the Disney classics and the even the modern day kids classics (like the Pixar films), they all have one thing in common. They appealed to a wide audience.

I can't think of a single modern day kids movie that has reached "classic" status that only appealed to kids. Can you? Every single example that I can think of entertained the adults just as much as kids. On the flip side there is no such thing as a great family film that only appealed to adults.

The point is that Rango isn't necessarily a family animation film. They certainly didn't go overboard marketing to kids (not like Mars Needs Moms). The only thing you're using to say this was "clearly" a family film is that it's animated. The humor is definitely more adult in nature, and to you it looks like that really hurts the quality of the film. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but ok. I don't understand how with the type of humor the movie displays, you think it's a kids film.

This is NOT a Disney movie, and it's not disguised as one and wasn't marketed as one either. Maybe that's the problem, you're comparing to films that it probably shouldn't be compared to. This is almost a whole new genre--it's basically taking the idea of anime and altering it to a contemporary Western (i.e. American) audience. Very interesting, and IMO extremely well done.

 

[Covert Rain]

The point is that Rango isn't necessarily a family animation film. They certainly didn't go overboard marketing to kids (not like Mars Needs Moms). The only thing you're using to say this was "clearly" a family film is that it's animated.

It absolutely is a family animation film. It was marketed towards kids and families. They have been marketing toys, games and showing the previews on every kids station and put the trailer in front of every kids movie that has been out.

I don't recall if you have kids Chap or not. Maybe you are out of tune with that market blitz to kids since Rango was announced. Rango has been on marketing overload on just about every kids channel my kids watch. I don't see how you are saying it's not family movie? This was not marketed anything like a Beowulf. You don't spend millions of dollars marketing to kids if it's not a family movie.

The humor is definitely more adult in nature, and to you it looks like that really hurts the quality of the film. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but ok. I don't understand how with the type of humor the movie displays, you think it's a kids film.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I have no problem with adult humor. Shrek had plenty, Pixar films have alot of subtle adult humor. How is it I don't think it hurts those films but it does this one? Your argument makes no sense.

I never said Adult humor hurt this film. I said the tone was disjointed. In another words, there were times like I felt the movie bounced back and fort so much that it felt like they struggled with the films balance between the different types of humor, emotion and the story they were trying to get across. It felt very uneven at times. I felt at times the movie lost focus trying too hard at one moment to please kids than the next moment to the older audience. It was uneven in execution. I have seen a number of films do a much better job balancing that.

I never said this was an ADULT film. You are saying that. I never said this was a KIDS only film. You think I am saying that. This is a family film intended for both audiences. So, that is how I am judging it.

This is NOT a Disney movie, and it's not disguised as one and wasn't marketed as one either. Maybe that's the problem, you're comparing to films that it probably shouldn't be compared to. This is almost a whole new genre--it's basically taking the idea of anime and altering it to a contemporary Western (i.e. American) audience. Very interesting, and IMO extremely well done.

Never thought it was a Disney film. Your wrong about the marketing aspect 100%. I am comparing this film to ANY family film that was marketed towards families. This is no exception. Again, good movie. I recommend it still just disagree on it's a top 5 animated film EVER. This is strictly my opinion but those slots on my list are reserved for films that are so good in story and execution that it doesn't matter what age you are.

 

[Chaplin]

You are saying quite clearly that in order for an animated film to be considered "great", it must be extremely appealing to BOTH kids and adults. I disagree.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Not the way I'm reading it at all .... seems pretty clear he's saying that a family film to be great needs to appeal to both (animated or not)

It seems the disagreement comes from if Rango is a family film or an adult film (western anime as you stated)

Honestly, from marketing alone I would of put this as a movie marketed to the 9-14 crowd .... a little above a kids movie, but stopping short of the heavier teenage themed movies

The movie is rated PG - The video game that pairs with it is rated E10+ which seems to also help support that

There has been a big advertising push on programs that appeal to that grouping

 

[Covert Rain]

You are saying quite clearly that in order for an animated film to be considered "great", it must be extremely appealing to BOTH kids and adults. I disagree.

Close. What I am saying that for a FAMILY animated film to be considered great it has to appeal to both.