Reviews WesternAnimation / Megamind

I find it odd that you target Dreamworks's expensive CGI of all things. How much do you think Pixar spends on their CGI? It's much, much more.

While I think you were a bit harsh on some things, I do overall agree with your review. I didn't like some of the character designs, and I didn't like the use of liscenced songs - the first one was fine, but after that...well, you know.

I find it strange that you say "unfulfilling artistically and/or socially" at the end, because works don't have to be art to be entertianing.

But I do dislike Dreamworks and their sheer mainstream aim and lack of heart in their work. There's just something about their animated movies that feels soulless and empty to me. I think if you removed two of your complaints - the one about it being "unfulfilling artistically and/or socially" and the one about the budget of the animation - the review would be more fair.

I dunno, dude, 'I got dragged to see it' probably isn't the best mindset to assess something with. 'SNL rejects' seems kind of weird, considering Tina Fey and Will Ferrell are pretty popular, and I actually thought that the exchange of metaphors was one of the movie's least funny moments. It wasn't in the trailers, though, so maybe you were just jaded by the over-exposure the film's marketing did.

So wait... Why are you even mentioning the promotional material? Or the cost of CGI?

Next time you type a review, try making it useful to people who aren't basement-dwelling fanboys.

I disagree with you, though only to an extent — your description of the movie as "going through the motions" and being somewhat unremarkable kind of strikes a chord with me. Certainly, compared to some of the animated masterpieces that have come out over the recent years the film feels quite ordinary, nothing very special.

On the other hand, I think it does a few things to make itself stand out. I liked what they did with the (real!) villainous character in the film, especially — when you first see the character, you expect them to be harmless comic relief, or yet another creepy stalker that the movie wants us to see as likeable and sympathetic... And then it turns out that, well, the movie is actually a bit of a take on the Banality of Evil. I rather liked that twist. Megamind himself was also a consistently entertaining character to watch, and Metro Man was a generally enjoyable parody. So, yes, compared to some of the great works of animation that are out there the film was nothing to write home about — but it also wasn't completely forgettable, and has a few things genuinely going for it.

Do I smell a bit Complaining About Studios That You Don't Like, or is that just my dinner burning up in the oven?

While I do agree, that Megamind isn't the best movie that DW has made, I really can't comprehend why you bash this movie so much, since I sincerely found it enjoyable, though at times it lacked the heart, but for a few moments: The jokes, while not being laughable were amusing at least, the drama and the idea worked well and the characters were likeable and development happened in them in the course of the movie. Actually, let's see and deep analyze what you wrote in there:

"For starters, there's the stunt-casting of SNL rejects with voices that no one in the world could recognize" - Wait, what? Since when it was important in animation to recognice the actor? Wasn't it supposed to be the complete opposite? Second, SLN rejects? Will Ferrell, Brad Pitt, Tina Fey...those are popular names. Maybe not to you, since I don't know what kind of movies you like to watch, but certainly to a lot of people.

"Going further into this, we've got the expensive crowd scenes that could possibly feed a third-world country with all the money put into them" ...what actually was your point in there? That the CGI was too expensive? As said, it wasn't even near expensive when compared to Pixar's budjet. That the main characters were too badly degined given the money they had? Roxanne's fat thighs notwithstanding the desing was quite good and rich in imagination.

"the unmemorable sassy smartmouth female character whose sole story purpose is to fall in love with the male lead," The movie is a homage and a bit of parody to superhero movies, you do realize that, right? Homages are supposed to mirror the original source, so I of course it would be needed, and the fact that they played with the "hero always get's the girl" plot point worked pretty well in the setting, creating genuine drama without seeming too corny because they were Genre Savvy about it.

"Nice to see Hans "The Lion King" Zimmer's talents being squandered once again for the sake of what amounts to mere background noise." Squandered? I'm a Zimmer fan myself and I certainly didn't think it like that. This isn't the best work Hans has done, but when it comes to the movie's own original music, he really can stand in his own merits when compared the other songs. I understand that you are peeved about the licenced songs, but I can't really understand why you raise such a noise about - what - four songs that together last less than ten minutes of about a 95 minute film, since they didn't steal my attention from the original music. And when it comes down to it, I enjoyed that there were rock songs, and it's not just the rocker speaking in me now. I think it was a witty extra that mirrored and added more guts to the showmanship-esque personality of Megamind (keep in mind that in the universe the BG is often Minion's boombox). Besides, I give a huge plus to DW that they actually chose good oldies like Ozzy and Guns N' Roses and had the balls to add "Highway to Hell".

"...the movie ultimately feels like Dreamworks going through the motions" Did you ever stop to think the Aesop? While DW has been recycling the "be youself" message for a few years now the aesop was more of a "Don't let peer pressure and habits distort your self-image." or at least that's how I saw it. Megamind was enjoying his job from the very first second and was already "himself", but warped because of his experiences. Then again, it's debatable was there even an intended aesop, since it was a homage.

As one Troper above me said, you shouldn't be writing with that "My sister made me watch this movie against my will so it sucks." mindset, because it just makes you act as a straw critic who notices only the bad things instead of both good and bad that a reviewer with more neutral mindset would see.

The next time you try to post a review, please stop for a moment and ask youself "Am I really going to give constructive criticism, or am just here to whine?"

I normally hate Dreamworks intensely, but this film was a pleasant surprise along the lines of Madgascar or the original Shrek. This review comes off as though you did not watch the movie and were making generic statements about Dreamworks as a whole.

let's not forget the obligatory Dance Party Ending to, surprise surprise, another licensed song, because we totally equate Michael Jackson's legacy with mediocre and commercial animation.

While I can't argue that the Dance Party Ending is slightly cheesy, considering that Michael Jackson was seriously one of the most commercial performers ever (seriously, have we all forgotten his Pepsi adverts?) this particular element of the review seems a little ironic.

Using words like "mainstream" and "commercial" as pejoratives makes you seem like a hipster douche.

And now the butthurt fanboys are here defending this piece of crap. Cry more?

"'SNL rejects' seems kind of weird, considering Tina Fey and Will Ferrell are pretty popular"

Will Ferrell, yes, but Tina Fey? I wouldn't exactly call her popular. Maybe "Baby Momma" or "Date Night" made a little money, I don't know. However, her main claim to fame, "30 Rock," is relatively obscure, despite the critical hyperbole, and I'm pretty sure no one considers her time at SNL as anything but rote.

She's a critical darling, little more. She gets mentioned plenty, but not for lighting up the box office or Neilsen's. She gets it for one-offs on SNL because she just so happens to look like someone in the headlines, and for being nominated for Emmys annually without it affecting who's watching her show one whit. She's a celebrity's celebrity. You know, like how they call people "a comedian's comedian" or "an artists' artist" when what they manage to produce the sort of quality only people who also produce the same thing appreciate, without anyone in the larger world caring.

Actually, no, she's not that esoteric. She's half celebrity's celebrity/half mediocre talent.

"While DW has been recycling the 'be youself' message for a few years now the aesop was more of a 'Don't let peer pressure and habits distort your self-image.'"

That doesn't sound like a different message, just a slightly elaborated one.

That message sucks anyways.

"SNL Rejects"

Will Ferrell isn't a reject, he's a retiree. And Tina Fey is still on SNL, as far as I know.

And replying to Cyberania, I don't think that "Roxanne's fat thighs" were a design flaw. I actually thought that Roxanne was one of the more attractive cartoons I'd seen, mostly because for once animators were using a different mold.

Next time you write a review, I suggest complaining about the PLOT OR STORY instead of complaining about Roxanne's fat thighs or a song you didn't like. For instance, "I hate this movie because it puts too many plot elements in one story. Roxanne/Megamind's relationship, Hal's jealousy, and the superhero theme were too much to put in an hour-long kids' movie. They should have taken atleast one of the plots out to focus more on (insert plot you liked atleast a little bit)" That's not how I feel about the movie, though, I enjoyed it. But I'm not criticizing your review because I liked the movie, I'm just saying that you should complain about plot/story/theme or the characters instead of the animation (it could have been worse: I saw Tintin. Ugh...)