MovieChat Forums > Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil (2011) Discussion > It has to be said: WTF!?!

It has to be said: WTF!?!

posted 15 years ago by handsomedan-1
67 replies | jump to latest

Okay, I'm a big fan of CG films. Really, I go out to see most of them on opening night, I recommend them to friends and family, and there've been a couple that I didn't like.

That said, Hoodwinked is quite simply the absolute worst one I have EVER seen. I mean absolutely terrible. We tried for thirty minutes to watch this thing, but we just couldn't submit ourselves to the pain any longer. We're talking awful.

And the sales were bad too. I remember the figures, it didn't last more than a week or two in the theatres, the DVD wasn't much better.

So... Why on earth is there a sequel? Who could possibly have greenlighted this? And why aren't investors running for the hills? There's no possible way that this could generate a return on the money being put into it. After all, how often does a movie sequel make up for such a shoddy start?

I really hope this one finds it's way over to development hell and is never unleashed on theatregoers. Trite, humorless products like this push people away from animation titles, and hurt the genre as a whole.

[–] arrjaydee-1 15 years ago

To which I say, WTF?

All those words, and you can only make indirect comments and slams? Haven't you anything to say about the actual film? The closest you came is with two words you supplied only attibutively: "trite, humorless" ... OK, why?

I personally found HW to be funny, sometimes downright hilarious. The Corey brothers and Tony Leech *know* funny, and, I think, successfully wrote and directed an excellent children's movie. Far from trite, I found depths far beyond what one might expect in a film targeted for the under-10 crowd. It certainly kept this intelligent 40+ year-old entertained along with his nieces.

There are certainly criticisms one can make of HW. I chalk them up mostly to it being a very low budget production. IIRC, the Weinsteins came in partway though to save the project, but would only spend so much. The polish of a Disney/Pixar production is worlds away. But there was indeed much to like, and I'm not at all surprised that there will be a follow-up. (You missed it, but HW sets up a HW2 (and more) in a pretty cute way.)

I'm a new IMDb member, and so I went to see some of your other forum postings. You don't seem like the type who tries to post FUD for unknown personal reasons, or just to rile folks up. But I'm sorry, that is what your post amounts to. Even if you only sat through 30 minutes, could you please try and give us an intelligent piece of criticism, or two? Or, on some night you're bored, why not go rent HW for a couple bucks? Then you could give us better-considered commentary, more in keeping with other posts of yours.

[–] dark_days 15 years ago

WTF, hoodwinked rocks so much balls

[–] jp_online 14 years ago

the production quality probably would have been higher if this was a student film.

[–] bryanross1985 14 years ago

to say that this film performed poorly at the box office is untrue. it made $86m profit which is great considering the budget of only $15m. I found this a forgettable film which tried to be Shrek but was too obvious in its attempt at intergenerational humor.

HELP ME!!! I need to know if I am alone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFzThGyt5vM

[–] TheCommenteer 14 years ago

shrek has nothing on hoodwinked. its far too patronising and pretentious. in its defence, the way it presents the story is exactly how it would have played out in reality though. not to say i didnt enjoy the movie, but its definately not one id wanna see numerous times.

[–] Ven-ra 15 years ago

I think I have to agree with arrjaydee... this movie was downright hilarious.... the comedy to me was genious... it took me back to a time when comedy was actually comedy and not a bunch of gay inuendos and toilet humor as comedy has become.... I am stoked for a sequel and can not wait....

[–] DJFrodo 14 years ago

Just noticed this today. Part 2...hell ya! Loved the first one. But anyone who stopped it after *cough*30 mintues*cough*.....you HAVE to see it to the end to get the whole picture (pun intended)!

Do have to admit, the CG was a wee bit rough in some spots in the first one.

-=1000 travel books are not equal to 1 real trip=-

[–] wyvdomino 14 years ago

Watched the whole movie, twice, once from a rental, and once because I got it free with four other movies... And it was still overpriced. The framing device for the plot was weak, and the moment the bad guy showed up on screen, I knew he'd done it. Even though you're not supposed to, obviously. Woog...
Also, just got back from Burger King, and noticed they were selling toys for this movie, and went, "Really? They made a sequel?"

[–] TheAdvocator 14 years ago

I literally went out to the BK Lounge to get some Hoodwinked! toys after I read your post.

Now that I'm back and have had time to fully read your post, Hoodwinked was made for 15 million dollars and pulled in over 105 million dollars. A sequel is understandable.

"Watched the whole movie, twice, once from a rental, and once because I got it free with four other movies... And it was still overpriced."

You watched the movie two times even though you don't like it. That's the power of Hoodwinked!

"The framing device for the plot was weak"

Hoodwinked is basically Fletch mixed with the Usual Suspects. Not weak.

"and the moment the bad guy showed up on screen, I knew he'd done it. Even though you're not supposed to"

5-year-olds were not supposed to.

Avatar is literally exactly the same movie as Dances With Wolves. Only the name has been changed.

[–] eckndu 14 years ago

YOU were supposed to know the bad guy before they reveal it, and that's the fun/satisfaction part. the commentator in the dvd feature said they screened it to some kids, and they all jumped horray saying "ahh I knew it was the ---, evil ---!" and that's exactlly what the makers were looking for

[–] errant_rogue 15 years ago

Very nice retort, Arrjaydee-1! It's refreshing to see some intelligent postings on these message boards. I agree with you completely on this one, but that is beside the point. Most of the posts I've read throughout the IMDB seem to be from illiterate juveniles out to start a flame-war. You're giving me faith that there may indeed be something of value to be found here. Thanks.

Cheers,

The Errant Rogue--->

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brochant 15 years ago

I'm sick of CG. Seriously. What was wrong with the 2-D? Why can't we mix it up a bit? A little o' both?

But anyway, despite my vendetta against CG's domination in the animation department, I still thoroughly enjoyed Hoodwinked. You can never go wrong with Patrick Warburton! And the movie was funny. Maybe if you sat through the whole movie instead of just a half hour, you'd like it more. Although I can understand not liking Red--I just can't STAND Anne Hathaway.... Good riddance....

[–] rikfontana 14 years ago

Totally agree with thefancyapple. I would like to see some 2-D on occassion, although I doubt it'll happen as any potential studio will look at it as a 'step backwards' in an industry that seems totally bound to discovering that next, great, new thing... especially in technology.

That's one of the reasons I liked HW! It didn't try to do too much. No new leaps. It clearly was coat-tailing the superior SHREK. Not great, but was solid, funny, clever, and entertaining. And I figured out the culprit before my other two family members, so that's a plus also...

btw: nice retort by arrjaydee-1

[–] TheCommenteer 14 years ago

yeah never see any 2d work, its all 3d. i mean the princess and the frog is just...totally...3d. and all those 2d animations in the kids section at the video store, theyre just 3d in disguise...and all the shows on tv in 2d again...hiding their true inner 3d. are you daft?

[–] Kazum 14 years ago

2D happened with "Kiss the Frog" made by Disney, IIRC.

[–] kjsceltic123 15 years ago

Personally I really liked HW, I thought not only was it a movie a kid could enjoy but at the same time it had just enough of the right humor to keep an older crowd entertained too. I really enjoyed it from the ridiculous song the goat sings to the strudel seller. I couldn't tell you anything about it's sales but it couldn't have done as bad as you say if they're making a second one... that or this one is such a marked improvement over the last one it becomes a viable option for the movie makers.

Also I have to say I miss the traditional 2-D movies too. I'm excited that Disney is doing the Princess and the Frog and hope it allows for a few more of films animated in the way we saw as kids.

[–] jackbeback23 15 years ago

Obviously you suck at research because this movie was made on a fifteen million dollar budget, and grossed over 110 Million in the box office that's pretty impressive the sequel probably won't make as much but ounce again is being produced on a fifteen million dollar budget.

[–] Vengenze 15 years ago

Hoodwinked is hilarious and one of the best CG movies out there, probably even more so than the early Shrek movies.

The replay value is amazing, we still watch it on a regular basis with the whole family and the jokes and storyline still stay funny. Patrick Warburton's performance is especially amazing as the Wolf and the soundtrack is a blast. Even when it's playing in the background or in another room, the audio alone cracks me up.

I've been waiting for the sequel for years! If you don't like this, then frankly, something is very wrong with you and you would be wise to see a doctor soon :)

"See Twitchy.. You've got lemons, you make lemonade"

[–] Clockwork_OJ 11 years ago

"...one of the best CG movies out there..."

What is your relation to the creators of this movie? If you review every children's movie made in the last 10-20 years, then single out all the computer graphics animation only movies, it's really quite simple. Both Hoodwinked movies are dreck and unworthy of comparison to great animation by companies like Pixar.

[–] wakanasakai 11 years ago

chinstrapjack
You used every cliche in the book of movie hating. Forums like this are better off not existing.

Gee, you're right, chinstrapjack.

Nobody should ever be allowed to have their own OPINION about something. What's wrong with all of us!? Do we think that we have the first amendment or something in this country!?

Did you know that President Muslim agrees with you? Why else would he have put somebody in prison for making & posting a youtube video that President Muslim doesn't like?
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

[–] Clockwork_OJ 10 years ago

It's your right to be wrong. And you are.

[–] SjoerdWennekes 15 years ago

Every genre deserves its fair share of bad films.

The reason Hoodwinked made a lot of money was just because it's a 3D animation. Thanks to the success of Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks people were running to the cinemas for Hoodwinked. The problem here is that the large majority of the theatre going public it's used to see animation as a mature genre. And every genre has got his shining pearls and also his piles of crap.
I don't agree with you that films like this hurt the genre as a whole. It's just the opposite, both crappy and brilliant films are necessary for the development of a genre.
I totally agree with you that Hoodwinked was a very, very bad film. One thing is sure; I'm not going to watch this.

But of course, at the end it's all a matter of taste... And probably enough people will pay to watch this, and it will probably be profitable.

[–] TheAdvocator 14 years ago

"The reason Hoodwinked made a lot of money was just because it's a 3D animation."

That's an incredibly idiotic statement. You're suggesting people go to see 3D over 2D as a choice but there were no traditional 2D animated moves when Hoodwinked came out. But Hoodwinked made as much money as it did because enough people liked it. You may have hated it but that doesn't mean other people did.

"Can you show me to the registration office? I'm here to sign up for ESL classes." -Jetfire

[–] alex8039-1 14 years ago

People went to see it because of the popularity of 3D movies. And because it's a clear ripoff of Shrek.

[–] TheAdvocator 14 years ago

Did you even see the movie? It was not in 3-D.

Avatar is literally exactly the same movie as Dances With Wolves. Only the name has been changed.

[–] alex8039-1 14 years ago

Hoodwinked was made with 3-D animation. What do you mean it wasn't 3-D?

[–] TheAdvocator 14 years ago

You say it wasn't made in 3-D like every other single animated movie made after the year 2006. What do you think I meant? The Real-D format with the glasses that cost so much more money.

Would you really expect an animated movie not to be computer generated?

Avatar is literally exactly the same movie as Dances With Wolves. Only the name has been changed.

[–] alex8039-1 14 years ago

I said it was made in 3-D. It's a movie made entirely by computer using typical 3-D animation techniques. Hence why people bothered to watch it. And that they were expecting it to be funny.

[–] Jnbfwc 13 years ago

Wait, wait. Someone explain how this is a ripoff of Shrek, because frankly, that statement is laughably absurd to my uneducated, ignorant mind.

I mean, I know that Hoodwinked is about an ogre, a fairy-tale princess, a talking donkey and an evil king, but they're not THAT similar.

Sure, sure, Shrek was also a parody of detective films and (including the Thin Man) Little Red Riding Hood; had a reporter wolf, a little girl who is a martial arts expert, an evil bunny villain and a grandma with three "g's" tattooed on the back of her neck, but there are plenty of differences.

[–] TheCommenteer 14 years ago

"The reason Hoodwinked made a lot of money was just because it's a 3D animation."

i stopped reading after this. nothing good can come from a post with such a stupid statement.

[–] voxhumana 14 years ago

"The reason Hoodwinked made a lot of money was just because it's a 3D animation." "I totally agree with you that Hoodwinked was a very, very bad film.".

Really - what exactly is so bad about it? I think Hoodwinked made a lot of money because it was supported by people who actually appreciate good story-telling and can see past its technical flaws.

The story is *very* well-crafted, borrowing from both film noir and Hitchcock in its constant context-twisting, while still keeping its feet firmly in "kids' movie" land. A second viewing of the film reveals that numerous clues have been placed in all the earlier scenes, such as the Wolf being visible on the mine cart when Red goes down the steep slope. (again, very Hitchcock).

The characterisations are also good - major characters are well-developed and the minor characters are classic cartoon sidekick types (the Squirrel, the Woodcutter, the Bear police-chief). The voice acting was excellent as well - Warburton is pure gold and even the "less than spectacular" Hathaway had some excellent moments (eg. "I usually wear it").

No, the animation is definitely not Pixar standard. But is that more important to you than a quality story and good acting?

I found this film vastly superior to a lot of the CGI efforts made over the past decade which try to replace good storycraft with cuteness and endless pop-culture references.

[–] jadakiss602 14 years ago

I will see hoodwinked too.. that was a awesome movie. You sir are retarded. you wouldn't know a good movie if it sat in ur lap and kicked you in the neck.
CGI was from 2005.. this is 2009 you do know computer power doubles every 18 months right? now we have Avatar by James Cameron.... yeah so you can bet hoodwinked will be good.. stick that in ur pipe and smoke it.

Drink Like a pirate and Smoke like a hippie

-YizZir Im a 80's baby-

[–] lithodoray2k 14 years ago

Hey now that's what they said at the Alamo.