It seemed to have all the right ingredients?
- witty story line by the same team that did Chicken Run
- animation by Pixar - who before this movie seemed to have the golden touch
- star power voices like Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellan
so what went wrong? According to the IMDB site they lost a LOT of money!
Maybe it's the name? I remember being reluctant to see this because the name didn't appeal to me.
shareIt was animated by Dreamworks.
shareThe sad answer is marketing..
shareI personally thought the trailer for the movie sucked (IMO).. The name didn't help much either. When I finally did see it, which was yesterday, I regretted not seeing it before
I had a really cool sig, but since IMDB is a pos, I couldn't use it.
[deleted]
Too many animated features, I think. Personally, I didn't think it was that great myself.
shareIt is hysterical. Every time I see it,, it gets funnier and funnier. Those crowds of rat people are just hilarious as is the boat family. Millicent_Bystander, indeed !!! And there's those slugs. And the tadpoles. Wonderful. Not slimy at all !!!!
sharefar to much unfunny slapstick,stock cardboard characters and a plot so forgettable I have actually forgotten what it was:(
share[deleted]
Bear in mind it didn't make much less than Curse of the Were-Rabbit which was considered a success. The problem was that Flushed Away cost 5 times as much to make.
Also, the fact that Aardman's style is distinctly British and very few British movies become international megahits unless they're from big franchises like Harry Potter or James Bond. Although you do get some British films that become sleeper hits.
Don't get me wrong, I love Aardman's work and I love the Dreamworks animated films, but I think it was a bad move on Dreamworks part to invest that much money on what is a British film in style, because British humour generally doesn't travel well in America. I'm not saying that Americans don't enjoy Aardman films, but distinctly American flicks like Shrek and Kung Fu Panda I would imagine to be more appealing to American audiences simply because they haven't as much exposure to British films and TV like the British, who watch American films and TV all the time and therefore Brits are more accustomed to American humour.
Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Worlds End are other good examples of this. They're massively popular in the UK and they've had good reviews in America, but their box office intake was piss poor by American standards, again because of British humours lack of appeal to American audiences.
I think it's because not too many people were interested in a movie about a rat that gets flushed down the toilet....also I remmeber the trailers for the movie not really making it look that appealing, I wasn't going to originally see it but I decided to based off some good word of mouth and also thefact that i was a big fan of Aardman
shareI have the Nintendo DS video game of Flushed Away and when I played the Flushed Away video game I didn't know there was a movie based on it until I saw the preview of Flushed Away on my Nacho Libre DVD and from what I saw on the preview I thought Flushed Away had a weird storyline and I don't know why Dreamworks and Aardman decided to make Flushed Away in the first place? Probably to have another successful film after the Wallace And Gromit film was released and to cash in on British cartoons to release in America. But even though it had a mostly British cast Flushed Away was underrated in America and with Hugh Jackman as the top star voicing the character Rodrick "Roddy" is probably Flushed Away's only saving grace but just like Chicken Run did by having Mel Gibson be the only American actor in the film by voicing the character Rocky Dreamworks proved that with adding an American flavor made British based animated movies sell like hotcakes and they hoped to do the same with Flushed Away
share