Over The Hedge

Post by **James** » October 17th, 2006, 2:39 pm

I got the Hammy plush free when I bought the DVD at Sears.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 17th, 2006, 11:45 pm

I want that Hammy plush soooo bad!

Post by **Josh** » October 18th, 2006, 12:17 am

Did you buy the DVD at another store?

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 18th, 2006, 12:21 am

Um, nah, I didn't buy the DVD yet.

(I just got the Mermaid one, so...

)

I will buy it soon!

BTW, I still see a lot of Madagscar toys around! Especially Alex plushies. Has anyone else?

Post by **Meg** » October 18th, 2006, 8:25 pm

BTW, I still see a lot of Madagscar toys around! Especially Alex plushies. Has anyone else?

Yup, They sure make cute plushies.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 19th, 2006, 11:41 pm

Hey, remember in the Mad Christmas caper cartoon, the Alex plushie was torn apart by Mr. Chew?

Private: "Nice doggie!"

I still say that cartoon deserved a nom.

Post by **Dacey** » October 20th, 2006, 10:30 am

Here's a short review of the DVD from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/rev ... -DVD_x.htm

Three and a half stars out of four. That's a pretty good rating.

Post by **Meg** » October 20th, 2006, 2:34 pm

Hey, remember in the Mad Christmas caper cartoon, the Alex plushie was torn apart by Mr. Chew? Private: "Nice doggie!"

I loved that bit!

I still say that cartoon deserved a nom.

And I still don't..like Ben said, I see these types of shorts as DVD extras more than anything else.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 21st, 2006, 3:02 am

And I still don't..like Ben said, I see these types of shorts as DVD extras more than anything else.

Not even a NOM?

C'mon Meg.

It was just so incredibly adorable, so what if it was based off a film. Not just cute but VERY inventive, exciting, funny, sweet. I enjoyed it way more than Boundin' or One Man Band. But I suppose that doesn't shock anyone by now.

Also, it still floors me that some critics rave about the "emotion" and "warmth" of Cars

and don't say squat about OTH except that it was "really funny."

Post by **Dacey** » October 22nd, 2006, 1:30 pm

Vi, haven't you noticed that "Over the Hedge" got GREAT reviews? Or at least really good ones?

I'm just sayin'.

Post by **Daniel** » October 22nd, 2006, 4:13 pm

ShyViolet wrote: Not even a NOM? C'mon Meg. It was just so incredibly adorable, so what if it was based off a film. Not just cute but VERY inventive, exciting, funny, sweet. I enjoyed it way more than Boundin' or One Man Band. But I suppose that doesn't shock anyone by now.

I say it did deserve a nomination

it was ever so cute, I just can't help loving those little penguins

Here's hoping for there movie to be twice as good

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 22nd, 2006, 9:35 pm

Vi, haven't you noticed that "Over the Hedge" got GREAT reviews? Or at least really good ones?

I'm just sayin'. Wink

That's just it...

it got good reviews, I'd say mostly midly positive ones. (as well as few bad ones too.) In their reviews they mostly stressed how it was a "funny comedy" or that it was "clever" or "entertaining" but very few praised the graphics, the actual storytelling, or the genuine warmth of the story, the sweetness of it. (Hey, I'm not just saying this, look up the reviews

)

When reviewing Cars, THAT'S ALL YOU HEARD....as well as the usual treacly love sonnets to Pixar, how great it looks, how sweet, how whimsical, how nostalgic and blah blah blah...Oh, and what Pixar review would be complete without at least one comment of how superior Pixar is to all other studios, even if this wasn't the "best" film they ever made.

I dare anyone to find a review that actually RAVES about this film in the manner that critics fawn over Pixar.

(Yes, I realize that there was one reviewer that said that Pixar, not DW, has "forgotten" what animation entertainment is supposed to be about. But he is a very, very, very rare exception.)

Here's are comments from "fresh" reviews for OTH on RT:

You can't tell me that there isn't a HUGE discrepency here.

With OTH the emphasis of the reviews is the "humor". With Cars it's the "heart." You decide which is more positive.

Post by **YCougar** » October 23rd, 2006, 3:01 am

I enjoyed Over the Hedge at least as much as Cars, for the record. Maybe even more, but I can't accurately judge that because I haven't seen either since the month they came out in theaters.

I do remember giving DW a very hearty commendation for the look of the movie - that fur is reach-into-the-screen-and-touch-it good, and the textures are pretty true to the different kinds of animals they had to... um, fur. Didn't like the way the humans were done, whether that was intentional or not... but the animals were the stars so it really didn't matter. It was a pleasant experience after I'd been let down by Madagascar.

Pixar does enjoy an advantage in public opinion, probably because they're more well-known to the general public than DW. And I wonder if a lot of people see all the horrible CGI films out there and stick to Pixar because it's a proven success. Which, unfortunately, probably prejudices people against DW at the outset just because it isn't Pixar. I tend to judge films for what they are individually after I see them... though a studio's past successes can get me excited for future movies. I will freely admit that part of the reason I saw Cars in the first place was because it was Pixar. I saw OtH because DW is capable of making great movies, even if their previous one hadn't done it for me. But afterwards, it's all about the movie's merits.

I think it might help DW a little bit if they broke out of their current comedy streak, too. Shake things up a bit.

Post by **Ben** » October 23rd, 2006, 7:13 am

The Guardian didn't like Cars, Vi.

And I really liked Over The Hedge in the end.

Though how come it's okay for the Christmas Caper short to have an Alex plushie in it? That's just soooo pompous of DreamWorks to include a joke nod to their own success. Why, the nerve of those animator types...

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 23rd, 2006, 3:39 pm

The Guardian didn't like Cars, Vi. Wink

Yeah, that's why they rule.

Though how come it's okay for the Christmas Caper short to have an Alex plushie in it? That's just soooo pompous of DreamWorks to include a joke nod to their own success. Why, the nerve of those animator types...

But it was lilke, what, the first time EVER that DW did something like that?
Also, the Christmas Caper was in the same universe as Madagascar, so technically it would be logical for the old lady to have an Alex plushie for her dog.

It's not the same as the Bugs guys and the TS guys existing in the same "world." That's really breaking the fourth wall in my opinion, way too much.

(It's like...what if the old lady had an RJ plushie? That would be so stupid! )

That's essentially what Pixar does in their films. Like, "yes, this is a Pixar film, and don't you forget it! We're Pixar! We're Pixar! Aren't we swell!" ONCE or twice is O.K....but it's getting REEEEALLLY old. The gratituous, self-congratulatory "winking" of this extended joke is getting on my nerves. And to go even further, GOOD LORD! If Pixar EVER does another "Hi, we're Pixar" thing like they did on the Nemo DVD where Lee and Andrew drag in John Lassetter only to have Lassetter waving in the background when they talk, I'll boycott their DVDs! (J/K

)

But what other studio could get away with something like that? How about none of them??

And I really liked Over The Hedge in the end. Smile

That's why you rule!