Despicable Me

[fatcake]

I saw this movie yesterday and it was awsome! When the movie was over and the credits appear, just after I was about to get up, they showed the minions doing funny stuff and then they showed the crediets, then they showed it again, well wasint that weird! Why can't they just shoes it all before showing the credits, well I have to admit it was sort of amusing espicialy it in 3D!

[blackcauldron85]

Despicable Me sequel in the works
http://animatedviews.com/2010/despicabl ... -a-sequel/

[UmbrellaFish]

Despicable Me sequel in the works
http://animatedviews.com/2010/despicabl ... -a-sequel/

Well who didn't see that one coming?

I don't care though, as long as I get more Julie, I'm happy.

[tsom]

Saw it in 3-D Thursday night. It was quite adorable!

[ajmrowland]

just read Luke's review of this movie, and i think he needs to take off those Pixar-tinted glasses. Seriously, to claim that the movie has no heart and then list off the predictable parts is like claiming you have no cereal in the cupboard while mentioning the boxes of Froot Loops, Frosted Flakes and Cheerios that are in there.

[Elladorine]

Judging from the one trailer I barely paid attention to and from the movie posters featuring the minions, I seriously thought this one was going to be stupid. But Rey really wanted to see it while it was still in the theater and I certainly can't turn down any offer to see animation on the big screen.

I went into this completely spoiler-free (unless you count vaguely knowing what the minions looked like) and was pleasantly surprised. I thought the kids were adorable with more than enough varied personality traits to keep the audience from getting cavities. And Gru was a surprisingly sympathetic bad-ass, if that makes any sense. Sure, I knew from the moment he incorporated the girls into his evil plan that they'd win him over before the final scenes, but it was entertaining to watch their story and relationships unfold. I felt it was especially interesting to see an animated film focus on a supervillain rivalry yet not involve any type of superhero character or the overly-done good vs. evil plot line.

I loved the visual distinctions between Gru's and Vector's weaponry (cold war vs. iPod, lol) as well as the character designs themselves. Vector is such a self-absorbed, spoiled geek. Gru may have been a villain that delighted in doing his evil deeds, but with a mother like his it's kinda understandable (thank you, Julie Andrews)! I cheered for him because of his history, because he acts out in ways many only wish they could, and because, well, who wants to see a spoiled brat like Vector win anyway? Maybe I'm a sucker for these things but I cried when Gru read his unicorn story; it was a surprisingly touching moment.

Anyway, it's an animated film that I was more than happy to add to my home collection, which seem to be fewer and far between these days.

[dvdjunkie]

If you own the Blu-ray of "Despicable Me" and haven't watched the movie in the "Gru-mode" you are missing so really big laughs. And no one has mentioned the three minion mini-movies that are also on the release. I really like this movie, and am glad that I saw it in the theater in both 2-D and 3-D and now I can enjoy it in the privacy of my own living room.

[ajmrowland]

I enjoyed the "mini-movies", but havent really found the time to do much else. The minions are overmarketed. That's all I'll say about "gru-control".

[dvdjunkie]

"Gru-control" is not all about the minions. But they are involved and the movie takes on a whole different style.

Note to ajmroland: You said it was full of fart jokes. Where and when? I have watched this film three times in the theater, and about ten times since it came out on Blu-ray. One of the reasons I think people love it is because there are no jokes about breaking wind. You may have your movies mixed up.

[disneyboy20022]

"Gru-control" is not all about the minions. But they are involved and the movie takes on a whole different style.

Note to ajmroland: You said it was full of fart jokes. Where and when? I have watched this film three times in the theater, and about ten times since it came out on Blu-ray. One of the reasons I think people love it is because there are no jokes about breaking wind. You may have your movies mixed up.

Gru wanted a Dart Gun...nefarious thought he wanted a fart gun and well....

Either way...It was a very good movie

[dvdjunkie]

Wow!! I just read the DVDizzy review of "Despicable Me", and could not disagree more with the review of this film. I don't understand their criticisms of the film. Did they actually watch this movie in the theater before they watched it on DVD.\? I don't think so.

I was put off by the teasers that were shown for almost a year before the film was released in the theater, but when I saw it, I was totally entertained and put it at the top of my "DVD Must-Have" list of purchases.

I found the story to be charming, and it was pure heart-tugging to watch this 'evil genius' have his heart turned by these three little girls he basically adopted to use in his evil plan and turned out they used him for theirs.

The review said that the film had 'no heart', and I find that very wrong. Also they said it was 'predictable', which I didn't find that at all.

The Blu-ray release has some of the best extras I have seen on an animated film. I really enjoyed this movie, and if I depended on the reviews in DVDizzy, I probably wouldn't have as large a collection of movies as I do.

I personally think that we need to look into these people who are doing reviews of movies that "aren't Disney-esque" and make sure that they give us unbiased reviews. Otherwise if they can't do this, then we need to have some new reviewers.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

What does watching it in theaters have to do with anything? It's the same movie at home (Unless it's a special "Directer Cut edition dvd etc.).

Also, Junkie that review is that reviewers -opinion- of the movie. They aren't stating that "This is 100% what the movie is" or trying to make it fact. They watched the film and reviewed it, if you don't agree with it that's fine but they don't really deserve to have you questioning if new reviewers are needed just beause you don't like the review.

[dvdjunkie]

Every "Good" critic will see a movie in the theater with an audience. It helps with writing a review of the movie. If one doesn't see it with an audience then I would say that the review would be very biased based on the fact that he has no actual "other people's reaction" to what he sees.

As a former writer, and, yes, reviewer of movies and music, I can tell you that I always watched a new movie with an audience. I shunned the 'special' showings for critics and reviewers because I wanted to see what the public liked and how much better or worse it was than my opinions. I always used the line - 'while watching this movie with a full house (or mostly full house) I noticed that we" and went on from there.

Charles Champlin, famed critic from the Los Angeles times once said of my review of "Gone in 60 Seconds" (1974) - "one of the most honest reviews of a movie I have ever read." And I take that as a compliment from someone who's reviews I always read.

So Chernabog, yes, a reviewer should always see the movie in a theater before he watches the DVD in his home.

And I think that "Despicable Me", or as my three-year-old grand daughter calls it "Pickle Me" is a great family fun movie and deserves to be every one's collection.

I always say and have sAid it here a thousand times, "movies are entertainment" and if you weren't entertained by "Despicable Me", then that's your choice, but a reviewer should always make it clear that it was his or her choice to not like the movie, but not ever compare to something that is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Escapay]

Wow!! I just read the DVDizzy review of "Despicable Me", and could not disagree more with the review of this film. I don't understand their criticisms of the film. Did they actually watch this movie in the theater before they watched it on DVD.\? I don't think so.

<snip>

Every "Good" critic will see a movie in the theater with an audience. It helps with writing a review of the movie. If one doesn't see it with an audience then I would say that the review would be very biased based on the fact that he has no actual "other people's reaction" to what he sees.

If a person has to watch a movie in filled-with-other-people theatres before they watch it on DVD in order to write a proper review, how do you propose they cover movies that are direct-to-DVD, have a very small theatrical release that isn't in or far from their area, or were in theatres years ago and are now catalog releases? As Chernabog_Rocks said, it's still the same movie at home. The viewing experience may be different, but when I read a movie review, I don't read it for the reviewer's opinion of how other people around him/her were reacting to the movie. I read it for their review of the movie.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the following recent DVD reviews of movies that haven't been in theatres in years:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/fantasia-fantasi ... ction.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/ritahayworth.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/harrypotter-goblet.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/soundofmusic.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/harrypotter-prisoner.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/chittychittybangbang.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/goonies.html

http://www.dvdizzy.com/elf.html

Since none of the reviewers had the benefit of viewing those movies in a crowded theatre before they wrote the review, are the assessments of the films biased since it doesn't have mention of how other people around them felt when watching the same movie?

The review said that the film had 'no heart', and I find that very wrong. Also they said it was 'predictable', which I didn't find that at all.

Opinions are allowed to be different, Bill. Luke felt the film had no heart and was predictable, you didn't. No need to write off his whole review as "well, he didn't see it in a theatre with people, it's not a good or correct review!"

I personally think that we need to look into these people who are doing reviews of movies that "aren't Disney-esque" and make sure that they give us unbiased reviews. Otherwise if they can't do this, then we need to have some new reviewers.

It's been the same people doing reviews on UD for the past few years. Luke's been writing for the site (his site, after all) ever since 2001. Kelvin wrote for the site in its early years, then returned in 2007. Aaron's written for the site since 2004. There's been various other reviewers who've come and gone since then, but those three have been the three main reviewers for the past three years. And ever since DVDizzy began, the three have also covered a variety of non-Disney and very-non-Disney-esque titles. Every so often, yes, there may be a review that a reader disagrees with. But that doesn't mean that there needs to be a staff change behind the scenes. Perhaps some readers need to be open to the idea that sometimes they'll read an opinion/assessment that differs from their own.

As a former writer, and, yes, reviewer of movies and music, I can tell you that I always watched a new movie with an audience. I shunned the 'special' showings for critics and reviewers because I wanted to see what the public liked and how much better or worse it was than my opinions. I always used the line - 'while watching this movie with a full house (or mostly full house) I noticed that we" and went on from there.

Charles Champlin, famed critic from the Los Angeles times once said of my review of "Gone in 60 Seconds" (1974) - "one of the most honest reviews of a movie I have ever read." And I take that as a compliment from someone who's reviews I always read.

So Chernabog, yes, a reviewer should always see the movie in a theater before he watches the DVD in his home.

Much of Luke's time is spent reviewing DVDs of movies. After all, the purpose of his reviews is to recommend or not recommend a DVD. Whether or not he saw it three months previous in a crowded theatre is a moot point for him, he's writing about the DVD, not the viewing experience. Why should he change his reviewing method just to justify his opinion to you?

And just a general observation, but the complaints by some readers about how the review seems Disney/Pixar biased seem unfounded. Especially since they complain about the bias without bothering to mention that the review also compares Despicable Me to Bluth animated films, Blue Sky animated films, and Dreamworks animated films. Apples, oranges, grapes, pears, lemons...

albert

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I still find that the theater doesn't make or break a review. So, you're sitting in the theater with people but can you honestly say that everyone is having the same reaction? A lot of people around you might love the movie, but others further away that don't react out loud may not be enjoying it.

Also, I sit down and do reviews of various films (am I good at it? Not yet, but I'm working on it) and I write the reviews to show -my- opinion and not a generalized opinion of multiple people at once. I often try to say things along the lines of "in my opinion" or "to me this works/dosn't work because..."

As I said, the theater doesn't make or break a review. There's a lot of great reviewers out there who probably just sit at home and watch (as Scaps said) catalog films and review them. Does that make them a bad reviewer? No. Things like grammar, punctuation and coherent sentences are what make a review good. Using solid facts about the movie's technical aspects and actors also helps. -Where- you view it doesn't matter, it's how you review it.

To touch lightly on the Pixar/Bias comments quickly. I never got that feeling from the reviewer that he was biased to Pixar. I find it a bit silly to claim such a thing when Luke only compared it once I believe and (again, as Scaps said) also compared it with Bluth animated films, Blue Sky animated films, and Dreamworks animated films.

[dvdjunkie]

You "Kids" are just too young to understand my point, so I will just not add anything more to this discussion.

I will say that I never will use a review from the UD 'critics' as a basis of whether or not a movie is good or should be bought or passed on.

I am think that it is foolish for you to think that I would expect a reviewer to see every movie that is ever put out, but when a reviewer doesn't mention that it wasn't seen in a theater and that he is review is only from watching the DVD release, it shows that he really is just trying to convey the best opinion he can on whether that movie is worth watching or not.

If you take your head out of the place where the sun doesn't shine, and read what I have said, you will see that what I expect from a review is if it is a current movie release or was released with the past few months then he or she should make it a point to see it in the theater to get the full experience of a big screen and digital sound (if available) instead of trying to understand what all the "hoopla" is about when they only see the movie on their home tv with whatever sound they have.

I feel privileged to be able to see a lot of movies, three or four a week in a great theater that has full digital projection and digital sound and then later when it is released on Blu-ray or DVD I can watch the movie on my 60+" HDTV with full digital surround from 13 speakers and comfortable 'theater-style' seating. When I have written reviews of movies I always include something that will tell the reader whether I saw it in the theater or am just doing the review from a Preview copy of the film on DVD.

Say what you want, but I have tried to read the reviews in UD and find that for the most part I agree with criticisms made, but all in all I am always looking to find out how the reviewer may have seen the film before doing his review.

And Scaps, I have read reviews on all those you listed and it was pretty silly of you to include movies from the 30's and 40's (Rita Hayworth) in your listing. I am not ignorant of the fact that a lot of the people here were not even a gleam in daddy's eyes when these films were released. I probably should have said "reviews of current movies" need to be seen in a theater first. And if a reviewer in the UD family lives in a podunk town that only has one or two movie theaters, then maybe the chore of writing reviews should be given to someone who lives in a city where he/she has more choices.

For now, I will just consider that no one understands what I am saying, and those who are critical of how I feel that a movie should be reviewed wouldn't know a good movie if it jumped up and bit them in their hindsides.

[pinkrenata]

When I have written reviews of movies I always include something that will tell the reader whether I saw it in the theater or am just doing the review from a Preview copy of the film on DVD.

FYI -- the reviewers on the site are almost always basing their reviews on final product. Very, very rarely is a test disc sent out.

[pap64]

I haven't seen Despicable Me yet (though I've been meaning to for a while now), but I will admit I was surprised by Luke's review of it, especially since the overall reception has been warm. But you know what? It's his opinion. I don't think he is asking us to accept it as fact, he is being honest with himself.

Regarding movies, it doesn't matter if you watch it at home on DVD or Blu-Ray or if you go to the theater to see it, if it has flaws or if its good enough is all up to the viewer. In other words, the value of a movie lies in the eye of the beholder.

A good example of this is Tron Legacy. I've seen a lot of people bash this movie to pieces because to them the movie didn't deliver beyond its 3D effects and action scenes. But to others, the movie's visuals and action sequences were enough to make it entertaining.

Another example if Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. The movie is aimed at a very specific audience, therefore reactions are divided. Again, some love the movie to death and "get" the deep messages. Other's just can't stand the main characters.

Hell, I've seen people call Tangled 100% FORGETTABLE. I highly disagree with what statement because I enjoyed a great deal of its scenes.

But at the end of the day, EVERYONE will see the same movie, but everyone will have a DIFFERENT opinion about it. Regardless of what Rotten Tomatoes, Meta Critic or any other review aggregator site says, there is no such thing as universal praise or hate. Each mind is a different world, and thus they see the world according to their beliefs, preferences and experiences.

Long story short, people view movies with different ideas, and thus opinions will always be different. Anyone, young or old, can understand that .

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I don't know how reviewers do things around here but...Junkie? There is probably a good chance the reviewers here don't have the ability to go out and see a movie in the theaters before they get the dvd/blu-ray of the film.

Like.....Kelvin has no way of knowing (potentially) if he's going to be given the review for >Insert Film< and thus can't just go to the theater to watch that film for his review later on. There's also time and money to factor in

As I said. It's not where you watch the film, with what kind of t.v you watch it on or anything else. It's how you review it in the end. I could have one of the best home theater systems in town, watch a Blu-Ray in stunning Hi-Def, all the bonus features and still it means nothing if my review just plain sucks.

At least that's just my opinion.

[Escapay]

You "Kids" are just too young to understand my point, so I will just not add anything more to this discussion.

Quite simply, Bill:

I don't read reviews to hear about the audience reaction to a film. I read reviews to hear what the writer's thoughts on the film were. The company a reviewer keeps when viewing a movie (be it in a theatre or in a home) should have not influence on what the reviewer thinks of the movie.

And Scaps, I have read reviews on all those you listed and it was pretty silly of you to include movies from the 30's and 40's (Rita Hayworth) in your listing.

It was not silly. It went against your whole "the reviewer should see a movie in theatres before writing a review of the DVD" argument, which itself is pretty baseless anyway. You stated (before you corrected yourself) that a reviewer should see a movie in theatres before writing a review about it on home media. I simply offered examples of reviews written for movies that haven't been in theatres, be it for a few years (Harry Potter) or a few decades (Rita Hayworth, which is 40s and 50s, not 30s and 40s. I should know, I wrote that review). With your logic, the reviewers' opinions on those films wouldn't be as valid unless they saw it in a theatre. And as Chernabog already said, not every reviewer will anticipate that they'll review a DVD of a movie currently in theatres. They're not theatrical movie reviewers, they're home media movie reviewers. The concept of reviewing a movie is the same, but the method of viewing the movie is different.

I probably should have said "reviews of current movies" need to be seen in a theater first.

You should have, but even then, seeing a movie three months before watching it on DVD/Blu-Ray needn't be a way to validate or justify a reviewer's opinion on a movie.

, and those who are critical of how I feel that a movie should be reviewed wouldn't know a good movie if it jumped up and bit them in their hindsides.

So because we disagree on how movies should be reviewed, I suddenly don't know what a good movie is? What kind of logic is that?

albert