VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,5/10
2714
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Woody Woodpecker deve trovare una nuova casa dopo essere stato cacciato dalla foresta. Al campo Woo Hoo pensa di aver trovato una casa per sempre, ma c'è un ispettore a piede libero che vuol... Leggi tuttoWoody Woodpecker deve trovare una nuova casa dopo essere stato cacciato dalla foresta. Al campo Woo Hoo pensa di aver trovato una casa per sempre, ma c'è un ispettore a piede libero che vuole chiudere il campo.Woody Woodpecker deve trovare una nuova casa dopo essere stato cacciato dalla foresta. Al campo Woo Hoo pensa di aver trovato una casa per sempre, ma c'è un ispettore a piede libero che vuole chiudere il campo.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
William Atticus Parker
- Delivery Guy
- (as William Parker)
Ras-Samuel
- Kyler
- (as Ras-Samuel Welda'abzgi)
Recensioni in evidenza
Woody gets annoyed by a brash social influencer doing a production nearby. He causes havoc and drives him away. For all the destruction, the park banishes him. He finds a new home in Camp Woo Hoo next door. He befriends young camper Maggie. Maggie's mother is camp owner Angie (Mary-Louise Parker). They get into a battle with a rival camp and escaped criminal Buzz Buzzard.
This is a sequel to the 2017 Woody Woodpecker movie. I doubt it's necessary to see the first movie. It's live action with cartoon characters. It looks cheap on the level of Netflix and it's not trying to be more than that. First I don't like the design of Woody. He reminds me of the worst of his animation. It's definitely not the classic cartoons. On the other hand, Buzz looks fine. As for the rest, it's a lot of weak kiddie movie story and forgettable characters. Even Mary-Louise Parker is struggling in this one.
This is a sequel to the 2017 Woody Woodpecker movie. I doubt it's necessary to see the first movie. It's live action with cartoon characters. It looks cheap on the level of Netflix and it's not trying to be more than that. First I don't like the design of Woody. He reminds me of the worst of his animation. It's definitely not the classic cartoons. On the other hand, Buzz looks fine. As for the rest, it's a lot of weak kiddie movie story and forgettable characters. Even Mary-Louise Parker is struggling in this one.
My little boy is five, he thinks this movie is great. Which is good for him and me. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those movies that caters for adults too. You will likely only find it funny or entertaining if you are five (or near five).
On a side note, I noticed a couple people voted this movie as a seven. I worry for these people. How are you scaling this stuff? This is why IMDB has to be taken with a pinch of salt these days, since streaming, the scores are not good.
Anyway, this is a movie with woody woodpecker and the chick you used to be hot in 'Weeds'. She's sixty now you know? Still looks pretty good.
Am I at the limt yet? Oh yeah, there now - bye!
Peace.
On a side note, I noticed a couple people voted this movie as a seven. I worry for these people. How are you scaling this stuff? This is why IMDB has to be taken with a pinch of salt these days, since streaming, the scores are not good.
Anyway, this is a movie with woody woodpecker and the chick you used to be hot in 'Weeds'. She's sixty now you know? Still looks pretty good.
Am I at the limt yet? Oh yeah, there now - bye!
Peace.
This movie is good for kids under 10
I watched this with my son and got me it was excruciating to sit through though I did for my son. It was so predictable and lazy. The animation was super lazy and u can tell the actors were trying to act to nothing visually in their scenes until post production.
The way they made choices with scenes which were perfect in animation but didn't work in reality were just awful. They didn't really even make it a semi continuation from the first one.
In the first one you didn't know if they could understand woody or not. In this one he spoke to people and just caused unnecessary chaos and havoc in a way that seemed like the studio was more under pressure to produce something rather than making things work together and better.
This movie was not anywhere close to the cartoons I remember watching as a kid. Yes woody was a trouble maker but only after he had been disturbed or bothered by the villain.
This movie (in my opinion) was a really bad waste of time and money for the film studio.
The writers were so very lazy this seems like a low scale team (possibly grade school kids) wrote this during the writers strike and were paid in robux or vbucks.
I watched this with my son and got me it was excruciating to sit through though I did for my son. It was so predictable and lazy. The animation was super lazy and u can tell the actors were trying to act to nothing visually in their scenes until post production.
The way they made choices with scenes which were perfect in animation but didn't work in reality were just awful. They didn't really even make it a semi continuation from the first one.
In the first one you didn't know if they could understand woody or not. In this one he spoke to people and just caused unnecessary chaos and havoc in a way that seemed like the studio was more under pressure to produce something rather than making things work together and better.
This movie was not anywhere close to the cartoons I remember watching as a kid. Yes woody was a trouble maker but only after he had been disturbed or bothered by the villain.
This movie (in my opinion) was a really bad waste of time and money for the film studio.
The writers were so very lazy this seems like a low scale team (possibly grade school kids) wrote this during the writers strike and were paid in robux or vbucks.
The movie was quite average overall. The CGI quality was acceptable, but it didn't particularly stand out. However, the voice castings for the characters were impressive and managed to capture the essence of the original Woody the Woodpecker series.
While some of the jokes missed the mark, it's important to note that the film is primarily targeted at children, but adults can still find entertainment value in it. The storyline was fairly basic and lacked depth, following a predictable and straightforward trajectory. The pacing of the movie was notably brisk from the outset, which may have contributed to the feeling of it being a bit rushed.
In terms of the performances, the actors did reasonably well, although, at times, the acting came across as somewhat overexaggerated. The musical scores were nothing out of the ordinary and did little to elevate the overall viewing experience.
In summary, the movie had a low-budget feel to it, but despite its shortcomings, it still manages to warrant a modest recommendation.
While some of the jokes missed the mark, it's important to note that the film is primarily targeted at children, but adults can still find entertainment value in it. The storyline was fairly basic and lacked depth, following a predictable and straightforward trajectory. The pacing of the movie was notably brisk from the outset, which may have contributed to the feeling of it being a bit rushed.
In terms of the performances, the actors did reasonably well, although, at times, the acting came across as somewhat overexaggerated. The musical scores were nothing out of the ordinary and did little to elevate the overall viewing experience.
In summary, the movie had a low-budget feel to it, but despite its shortcomings, it still manages to warrant a modest recommendation.
I'm not that familiar with the Woody Woodpecker franchise so if I state some inaccuracies with the characters. Woody Woodpecker has been kicked out of his forest. Finding solace in Camp Woo Hoo, he soon helps the camp overcome obstacles and soon uncovers a plot to get rid of the camp itself.
This is an average movie all around- the presentation is acceptable, the characters are likeable enough, CGI is surprisingly decent and Woody Woodpecker is appealing. I would've wished for the villain to be more menacing but he's slimy enough to root against him. I was initially not bought into Woody's character. I found him annoying and arrogant but he does become a more likable character later on.
Overall, good quality fun for the whole family. Nothing too special, more of a disposable movie dare I say. Recommended for ages 4-10. No suggestive material or serious violence throughout.
This is an average movie all around- the presentation is acceptable, the characters are likeable enough, CGI is surprisingly decent and Woody Woodpecker is appealing. I would've wished for the villain to be more menacing but he's slimy enough to root against him. I was initially not bought into Woody's character. I found him annoying and arrogant but he does become a more likable character later on.
Overall, good quality fun for the whole family. Nothing too special, more of a disposable movie dare I say. Recommended for ages 4-10. No suggestive material or serious violence throughout.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhen Woody meets Maggie, he carves and paints a wooden statue of Chilly Willy the Pinguin (1953). Chilly Willy is a character who's shorts ran along with Woody Woodpeckers, on the Woody Woodpecker Show.
- BlooperThere's no mention of why Woody no longer lives in his custom built house by the river that Tommy's dad built for him.
- Curiosità sui creditiEric Bauza (Woody Woodpecker), Kevin Michael Richardson (Buzz Buzzard) and Tom Kenny's (Wally Walrus) names appear during the "main cast" section of the credits, but not the "full cast" section.
- ConnessioniFollows Picchiarello - Il film (2017)
- Colonne sonoreI Love This
Performed by Danger Twins
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Woody Woodpecker Goes to Camp?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Picchiarello al campo estivo
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 15.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 40min(100 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.90:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti