05-30-06 The Un-Review: Over the Hedge

[Chuck Oberleitner]

columns

The Un-Review: Over the Hedge
By C. W. Oberleitner
May 30, 2006

Generally speaking, film critics usually attend advanced screenings and review a film before it opens. Still insisting he’s no Roger Ebert—and who are we to disagree—senior correspondent and columnist C. W. Oberleitner brings us, two weeks after it opened, his thoughts on DreamWorks Animation’s latest CG animated film, Over the Hedge.

Read the full story here... >>

Your thoughts...

[Crazy Legs]

Thanks for the info

[Monorail Man]

Over the Hedge isn’t a bad movie. Its biggest problem seems to be that it’s somebody’s idea of “good enough.” It relies too heavily on star power that draws the audience’s attention toward the actors doing the talking rather than serving the characters and the story.

This is the problem with most 3D movies, they rely too much on sight and voice gags, then presenting a real story. Pixar is much better at this, but even their stories can be weak sometimes (see Nemo).

[jrriddle]

Sorry Chuck,
I'm going to have to give it a bit of a better grade than you did.
I agree with everything you wrote, but I really enjoyed the movie!
Especially after having to sit through The Wild...
I agree that "big star" voice actors are getting pretty tired.
And I am personally getting a little bored with CG animation.

Good article Chuck.
Looking forward to the next article (and podcast).

[RenMan]

^ Agreed. I thought the movie was more like a B- myself.

I did find the animation to be amazing, especially of the squirrel. I thought his face was very expressive.

It's interesting that one of the animators quoted expressed my same thoughts: the humans in The Incredibles, while stylized, were very acceptable. Since everyone's avoiding the uncanny valley for the time-being, I guess the factor with humans is whether you empathize with them or not. The lack of wrinkles on a human character doesn't bother me too much, but I guess at this stage of the game it would be nice for more detail to start going into the humans.

I think one of the big reasons we don't "buy" humans in CG films is that the physics is still off. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they can't get this right yet. The models seems complex enough to handle all the range of motion needed, and surely the computer firepower is enough. Why, then, does every computer character look wrong when it runs. Maybe not every, but the vast majority.

[Morrigoon]

Interestingly, I remember reading about Shrek that they had to make Fiona LESS realistic because audiences didn't like it. I wonder where that problem figures in.