DVDizzy Forum

I think that the critics reviews shouldnt matter, i knew that it was going to bomb with the critics but waht really matters is the box office numbers.. and CL has made a lot of money, of course not as much as pixar, but it was still near the top of this years animated list... and it even was number one at the box office for a couple of weeks

both.

Wow, seems to be a plethora of bumped threads going on here.

Anyway. . .

Something that I keep hearing over and over again is that this film lacks "heart." I would love to hear cases for and against this, as this was a film I actually enjoyed. Or am I in the wrong thread for this?

I don't know if I would call it a curse; it's probably more like a step backwards.

It wasn't great but it wasn't awful either.

I guess CL could have had less unfavourable comments if it were released by some other company...

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:I guess CL could have had less unfavourable comments if it were released by some other company...

I'm not sure. If it were released by Dreamworks, I think it would have gotten just as much a bashing.


And her is something we might not realize:

Chicken Little got a 37% rotten rating on RottenTomatoes.com

Shark Tale (which I haven't yet seen) got a 35% rotten rating on RottenTomatoes.com

So at least Chicken Little doesn't hold the record for most critically bashed animated film from the major studios.



PS: Kind of nostalgic to see my first ever thread being bumped again.

It's funny, my writing style has changed drastically since I joined. Looking at my early posts at the beginning of this thread, they're kind of childish and naive; hopefully I've matured in my writing.

Julian Carter wrote:It's funny, my writing style has changed drastically since I joined. Looking at my early posts at the beginning of this thread, they're kind of childish and naive; hopefully I've matured in my writing.

Developing one's writing skills is very valuable, so there's at least one good "side effect".

The worst part about Chicken Little is the Pop Culture references and songs. Pop Culture references do not a classic make.

That's probably one of the things "in place" when they say that certain movies "get dated" faster than others...

MutantEnemy wrote:The worst part about Chicken Little is the Pop Culture references and songs. Pop Culture references do not a classic make.

I guess you also hate Toy Story 2 for it's Jurassic Park and The Empire Strikes Back references!

You also probably hate Aladdin as well. As the genie makes a lot of pop-culture references. They even make a reference to Arsenio Hall who virtually no one remembers. And don't a lot of people here consider it a "classic"?

While I agree pop-culture references can be bad(especially overused), when not, they can be quite entertaining. I thought Chicken Little did a great job with using pop-culture references, as the only ones I see, will still date well as they fit incredibly well into the story. Even when people forget those songs, they'll still watch Runt and see he sings songs that "aren't cool"(in other words, it moves the story along).

Well I guess there's Chicken Little defense post #200. I'm almost starting to get to a point where I'm saying Chicken Little is the best Disney movie ever. So forget about "Beauty and the Beast", watch Chicken Little!

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:I guess you also hate Toy Story 2 for it's Jurrassic Park and The Empire Strikes Back references!

At least they didn't turn the cover into a pop culture reference.

magicalwands wrote:

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:I guess you also hate Toy Story 2 for it's Jurrassic Park and The Empire Strikes Back references!

At least they didn't turn the cover into a pop culture reference.

It doesn't matter if the cover is a pop culture reference, because when its re-released it will - gasp - have another cover!

Er. . . don't judge a DVD by its cover.

enigmawing wrote:Er. . . don't judge a DVD by its cover.

Er. . . I didn't judge the dvd by the cover, I only said that the cover was a "pop culture reference."

Julian Carter wrote:

Lars Vermundsberget wrote: PS: Kind of nostalgic to see my first ever thread being bumped again.

I didn't realize that you had only joined a few months ago (I should be more observant since the date you join is listed next to your name and avatar but there you go - unobservant as I am!) anyway, so you had only joined in March and you had racked 360 posts! That is quite amazing!

As for CL, someone asked why Disney was releasing these animated films like Valient etc with other animation studios. From what I recall, this was because the contract with Pixar was going to be up after Cars and Disney didn't know what they were going to do (or so said the rumor and speculation mills on the internet) so they had decided to hedge their bets in case they could not negotiate a new contract with Pixar, and try out some other animation studios. thus we ended up with Valiant which came out of a studio in England and I don't know what other films/animation studios they had deals with... but as we all know, Valiant was a financial failure and got very bad reviews. (Was the disaster of Valiant what forced Disney to make an offer to buy Pixar or was the Pixar offer already being negotiated and the films with the other animation studios were to hedge their bets in case they lost their bid to buy Pixar? Only Disney insiders know that one...)

As for CL, I was fortunate enough to see it presented in 3-D, which was REALLY INCREDIBLE. I loved the film! Sure it is not the most amazing film, but I don't think the Disney Co. ever intended it to be a Pixar-like blockbuster. It was very cute, funny and enjoyable. I bought the DVD.

I also think that the website's title "rotten tomatoes" says it all. They do not want to talk about how good a film is - they only want to talk about how bad films are. Therefore, I would not count them in as the most objective site for movie reviews (to say the least!)