"Kung Fu Panda" - Talkback (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Martha A
- Start date
ThisSickBoii
New member
Y'know, the reviews have been fairly good so far, but I'm still not particularly interested in this one. The trailers/commercials don't really do anything for me, and I think I've just been burned by Dreamworks one too many times. :shrug:
Rainy Rose
New member
One reviewer compared it to The Incredibles, which is a pretty big comparison to make.
I saw it in IMAX this morning and I was EXTREMELY impressed! Absolutely beautiful work-- and I'd venture to say this is their best one yet.
A lovely treat was the 2d animation that started and closed the movie. Fun stuff.
Overall, the movie was very fun and entertaining. Great animation and visually, it was stunning. I loved all the characters and I hope to get to see this again on the big screen.
A lovely treat was the 2d animation that started and closed the movie. Fun stuff.
Overall, the movie was very fun and entertaining. Great animation and visually, it was stunning. I loved all the characters and I hope to get to see this again on the big screen.
identity_unveiled
New member
I loved it. Especially the use of 2D animation. That 2D animation was very Samurai Jack-esque and it makes me want a 2D Samurai Jack film even more so. But it's also a bit of a shame that the movie wasn't entirely 2D because that could have been great. Even so the art was nice throughout and it was a very enjoyable flick and I would actually like a sequel.
But in reguards to voices. I had no idea that Monkey was Jackie Chan and while I probably should have guessed it was him I wasn't expecting Seth Rogen as Mantis.
It had some good action sequences but the comedy was really where this movie shined. It was genuinely funny.
Popculture references were indeed not present and it was quite refreshing for that alone but it also was a rather interesting story with amusing characters that could occasionally do something "really cool" and I was downright impressed by how squeeky clean it was. No unneccessary potty jokes (except for something which you may not consider a potty joke), no questionable dialogue and while it was somewhat violent at times it was of course bloodless and also not too brutal unless it was for comedy purposes and I think those hard hits are really all that pushed it to PG.
So what you have is an entertaining and squeeky clean farely original story that isn't drowned in pop-culture jokes. It's been too long since you could say that about a movie that didn't come from Pixar (and even they are guility of some typical problems with CGI family films). It wasn't the movie of the year but it was a very good movie and I'm going to tell my co-workers that they should take their kids to see it.
But in reguards to voices. I had no idea that Monkey was Jackie Chan and while I probably should have guessed it was him I wasn't expecting Seth Rogen as Mantis.
It had some good action sequences but the comedy was really where this movie shined. It was genuinely funny.
Popculture references were indeed not present and it was quite refreshing for that alone but it also was a rather interesting story with amusing characters that could occasionally do something "really cool" and I was downright impressed by how squeeky clean it was. No unneccessary potty jokes (except for something which you may not consider a potty joke), no questionable dialogue and while it was somewhat violent at times it was of course bloodless and also not too brutal unless it was for comedy purposes and I think those hard hits are really all that pushed it to PG.
So what you have is an entertaining and squeeky clean farely original story that isn't drowned in pop-culture jokes. It's been too long since you could say that about a movie that didn't come from Pixar (and even they are guility of some typical problems with CGI family films). It wasn't the movie of the year but it was a very good movie and I'm going to tell my co-workers that they should take their kids to see it.
cereso1996
New member
To me it was kinda "meh". It was... a Dreamworks movie. Not good, not bad.
Although they didn't have any pop culture references or characters breaking into an old 80s song like another recent movie I saw... *COUGH*HortonHearsaWho*COUGH*. I'll give them credit for going easy on those. Maybe they finally got the message
However the animation and visual style of the film was great. It was interesting to look at and the action scenes were really impressive.
The writing just needs work.
Although they didn't have any pop culture references or characters breaking into an old 80s song like another recent movie I saw... *COUGH*HortonHearsaWho*COUGH*. I'll give them credit for going easy on those. Maybe they finally got the message
However the animation and visual style of the film was great. It was interesting to look at and the action scenes were really impressive.
The writing just needs work.
DorsetsFinest
New member
This movie was
AWESOME!!!!
The action! the 2D animation! The humor! The lack of toilet humor and pop culture references!
I don't see how anyone could regret watching this movie. Anyone who does is ridiculously hard to please.
Clearly the best movie Dreamworks Animation has ever done. I wouldn't mind them doing a sequel to this!
AWESOME!!!!
The action! the 2D animation! The humor! The lack of toilet humor and pop culture references!
I don't see how anyone could regret watching this movie. Anyone who does is ridiculously hard to please.
Clearly the best movie Dreamworks Animation has ever done. I wouldn't mind them doing a sequel to this!
Just got back from seeing it. The theater wasn't an IMAX, but a digital "mega-screen". The room was about 3/4 full. The audience contained some teens, mostly parents and kids.
Hmmm...well, somebody here mentioned that the animated 2-D beginning was the best part of the film...and I have to concur. Not that the CGI was lacking in any way...the quality was superb. (Pixar-superb? Don't be silly). But as I watched the "oh WOW' opening, and then sat through the rest of the film, I came to this conclusion: that CGI, no matter which movie studio employs it, has a sterility that no amount of planning, writing, computer know-how or pixels can overcome. The 2-D opening was so vivid, so gorgeous, so full of immediacy, humor and life, such a visual delight, that the rest of the film never recovered from it. Now I love CGI and 2-D. But I've come to the regretful conclusion that CGI cannot supplant the older art. It is its own artform. And if it has one flaw, it is: too much information. Visual information that is more distracting than not. It tries too hard to imitate real life in a way that 2-D never even attempted. That is its strength...and its flaw.
Anyway, as for my overall appraisal of the film...well, Po the panda is adorable, no doubt about it. Jack Black does a creditable job as the bulgy bear's voice. But the real voice star is Dustin Hoffman. He is superb. He takes the timeworn role of oriental master and gives it a fresh energy. The other voices...serviceable. I do wish Jackie Chan had gotten more lines. He is as much comic actor as he is martial artist. (I've always felt he'd been a far better Mushu in Mulan than was Eddie Murphy). The character design was lovely, although it again had a certain sterility. There are some great fight scenes and some funny moments. But the film dragged here and there. The kids in my theatre got very restless in some parts. And the final confrontation between the panda and the snow leopard is certainly...vigorous. And yet, it's very unsatisfying mostly because...what the heck happened to the leopard? That is never made clear. Did he vaporize? Did he disintegrate? Did he run away? We don't know. We are told that he was "defeated". And that's it.
And you know what that means. I see a franchise ahead. Everybody duck.
Hmmm...well, somebody here mentioned that the animated 2-D beginning was the best part of the film...and I have to concur. Not that the CGI was lacking in any way...the quality was superb. (Pixar-superb? Don't be silly). But as I watched the "oh WOW' opening, and then sat through the rest of the film, I came to this conclusion: that CGI, no matter which movie studio employs it, has a sterility that no amount of planning, writing, computer know-how or pixels can overcome. The 2-D opening was so vivid, so gorgeous, so full of immediacy, humor and life, such a visual delight, that the rest of the film never recovered from it. Now I love CGI and 2-D. But I've come to the regretful conclusion that CGI cannot supplant the older art. It is its own artform. And if it has one flaw, it is: too much information. Visual information that is more distracting than not. It tries too hard to imitate real life in a way that 2-D never even attempted. That is its strength...and its flaw.
Anyway, as for my overall appraisal of the film...well, Po the panda is adorable, no doubt about it. Jack Black does a creditable job as the bulgy bear's voice. But the real voice star is Dustin Hoffman. He is superb. He takes the timeworn role of oriental master and gives it a fresh energy. The other voices...serviceable. I do wish Jackie Chan had gotten more lines. He is as much comic actor as he is martial artist. (I've always felt he'd been a far better Mushu in Mulan than was Eddie Murphy). The character design was lovely, although it again had a certain sterility. There are some great fight scenes and some funny moments. But the film dragged here and there. The kids in my theatre got very restless in some parts. And the final confrontation between the panda and the snow leopard is certainly...vigorous. And yet, it's very unsatisfying mostly because...what the heck happened to the leopard? That is never made clear. Did he vaporize? Did he disintegrate? Did he run away? We don't know. We are told that he was "defeated". And that's it.
And you know what that means. I see a franchise ahead. Everybody duck.
Drummerrrgirlll223
New member
Of course. It's already getting a TV series for Nickelodeon.
It is worth checking out IMO. I don't regret seeing it, I guess I was so floored by the uber-cool opening and then I was treated to...more CGI. But I liked it a lot better than Cars, for instance. And the kids in my theatre were chattering away about Po as they left the theater (I was behind one little girl who said to her parents, "Well, I think that tiger was really selfish!") 
There's no doubt Dreamworks has another star character. And...FWIW...I like Po better than Shrek. If there is a TV series planned I will definitely check it out. (After all, I liked the Barnyard TV series better than I expected to. Especially today's ep "The Chronicles of Barnia". I chuckled all the way through that one).
There's no doubt Dreamworks has another star character. And...FWIW...I like Po better than Shrek. If there is a TV series planned I will definitely check it out. (After all, I liked the Barnyard TV series better than I expected to. Especially today's ep "The Chronicles of Barnia". I chuckled all the way through that one).sexilizzie2012
New member
I'm looking forward to it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't-and won't-pass judgment on it until I do, but one minor nitpick I have already is that the character of Master Tiger looks kind of...mannish, considering she's a tigress with the sultry voice of Angelia Jolie. Strange, considering they actually managed to make a snake, of all things, look curvaceous and feminine.
After reading the review, I'm also glad that they didn't try to put one of the 2 female members of the Furious Five into some contrived tacked on romance with Po. based on what I've been reading here, Kung Fu Panda just may be worth checking out.
After reading the review, I'm also glad that they didn't try to put one of the 2 female members of the Furious Five into some contrived tacked on romance with Po. based on what I've been reading here, Kung Fu Panda just may be worth checking out.
tibberon00250
New member
"Kung Fu Panda" - Talkback (Spoilers)
I?m agree about Tigress, she looks very manly. What, they got afraid of atracting certain weird fandom of the internet?
I?m agree about Tigress, she looks very manly. What, they got afraid of atracting certain weird fandom of the internet?
Female tigers aren't exactly curvy and vivacious...
I think they just wanted her to look tough, rather than making her into a sex symbol so she'd actually be a believable rival for Po rather than a viable love interest. But I know very little about the movie. So I can't back that up at all.
I think they just wanted her to look tough, rather than making her into a sex symbol so she'd actually be a believable rival for Po rather than a viable love interest. But I know very little about the movie. So I can't back that up at all.
True Balla
New member
I agree. Although I won't see the movie until this Thrusday, I have to say that, before I heard her voice, I thought she was a man. 