Is it? What are the differences? What is it about Shaun the Sheep that made it get better reviews than Minions?
Interesting question. Until I saw the OP, I hadn't released that
Minions (a film I enjoyed) got mixed reviews: 54% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared with an astonishing 100% fresh for
Shaun the Sheep. [For comparison, both
Inside Out and
Paddington are on 98% - in the case of the latter, the three dissenting critics are probably even now still locked in stocks while being pelted with marmalade sandwiches.]
There are a number of factors at play, but I think one of the main differences is
consistency. Many of the
Minions reviews refer to it as "episodic", and I understand where they're coming from. Although the OP refers to the lack of "comprehensible verbal language", that's only actually true of the minions themselves. Unlike in StS, the humans still speak English, and I personally felt the film dragged whenever these human characters were driving the scene.
By contrast, StS is
entirely dialogue-free, and that means that the visuals (with the odd sound effect) have to drive the plot. The result is a much more tightly-scripted film.
As a more general point, I think this is something common to stop-motion films as a whole. I may be being unfair to other forms of animation, but the slow and labour-intensive nature of making a film like StS requires everything to be nailed down, meaning a very trim and polished script before filming starts. Aardman are masters at this, with every scene crammed with so much detail and so many sight gags that you cannot spot them all in
several sittings, never mind just one.
As an example, I remember when
Curse of the Were-Rabbit came out: the critic Mark Kermode argued that it should have been nominated for a "Best Cinematography" Oscar, because there simply wasn't any other film released that year where so much care and attention had been spent on
every single frame.
[CotWR is 95% fresh on RT.]
reply
share