Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (review!)

The best way to review this flick is to say it’s exactly what you expect from a Wallace and Gromit film, but a lot longer. It’s just as clever, just as visually interesting, just as funny, just as charming, and just as fast-paced. If you loved the W&G shorts, you’ll love this movie. If you could have taken them or left them, you’ll be able to take or leave this.

One small disappointment is some (not too much) obvious use of CGI instead of straight-up claymation. There are the break-neck chase scenes, the possible love-interest, the sweet relationship between Wallace and Gromit, lots of cheese, and some hilarious sight-gags. This is a movie that knows it’s made of clay and takes full advantage. I feel as if I laughed the entire time.

According to my rating scale, this gets a strong 8.

4 Responses to “Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (review!)”


  1. pen

    I really enjoyed this movie . . . so much so, that I wouldn’t mind seeing it again. It was like spending time with old friends that you love. Plus, the rabbits are so cute (just like my Blackberry)! And in true W&G style (((((cheese!))))), there are many scenes to relive and lines to quote.

    I also really liked Disney’s Chicken Little. Disney probably lost something without Pixar, but they managed to put together a touching, visually appealing movie. The facial expressions were especially endearing. While the Pixar/Disney collaborations seemed to have more depth to them (story-wise); there were some nice visual touches, like reflections seen in a glass picture frame and in Chicken Little’s glasses.

  2. Reid

    4/10

    Cute, charming, delightful (particuarly Grommit) are all appropriate adjectives that describe this film, but, for some reason, they weren’t cute, charming and delightful enough for me to really get into this film.
    I thought the storyline was worthy and fun. There are decent action sequences, but, again, not enough to make me really enjoy them.

    I don’t think this is a bad film; it just didn’t work on me.

    I’ve seen another Wallace and Grommit film, and I agree with Mithcell’s review: if you can take or leave the others, you can probably take or leave this one. (Btw, Larri gave this film an 8 at first and then dropped her score down to a 7. I was suprised she liked the film that much.)

  3. Mitchell

    You say you’ve seen “another” Wallace and Gromit film, but when we talked about it the other night, it sounded as if you’d seen two of them: A Grand Day Out and The Wrong Trousers.

    I wonder why your response to these films is as lukewarm as it is. My friends who enjoy them appreciate the cleverness of both the humor and the animation. There’s a definite British-ness to the humor, too, that I really like. For example, in A Close Shave, Wallace’s pet sheep is named “Sean,” but with his British accent, it’s impossible to tell if his name is “Sean” or “Shorn.” This is funny because he’s a sheep and it sounds like he keeps being referred to as “shorn.”

    Now, all by itself, that’s not THAT funny, but the whole movie (and the entirety of the other films, too) is filled with stuff like that. Gentle, subtle humor and attention to detail that enriches the movie-watching experience. Nick Park “paints in the corners,” as Roger Ebert likes to say. You can look anywhere on the screen and see something interesting.

  4. Reid

    I might have seen more than one. I also recall the short film about the sheep, too.

    The example you give is cute, but like you said, it’s not THAT funny. The totality of all the cuteness and delightfulness doesn’t add up to something I’m really enjoying. In a way, the film reminds me of many silent comedies I’ve seen. I recognize the clever, cute and sometimes touching moments in the film, but they don’t always make me crack up or significantly move me.

    I should probably give this film a higher rating, as I don’t think this is a bad film. It just didn’t work really well for me.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.