Delgo

As a scriptwriter and producer of, and all-round lover of all types of animation, no matter where in the world it is from, I rushed to see this movie as soon as possible. The trailer looked okay and the art seemed original. So how disappointed was I when it turned out to be this bad. I spent an hour with the deepening niggle that I had seen this all before and in the end realised that, of course, I had. The character and set designs are taken from old (admittedly high quality) adventure games a la 1985, the animation movement is just a little out in many scenes, the script is an awful cobbled hash of better films, and even the voices don't really fit. It may be her last film, but sadly Anne Bancroft simply sounds old and tired. So what was Delgo about? The bad guy secretly pushing peaceful neighbours to go to war, the boy and girl from each side of the divide, the awful, bad leader/general, the overwhelming odds... yadda yadda yadda. You've seen it all before, and the fact that it is from a "new independent" studio makes no difference to its quality, which is cynically derivative, rushed to the screen and generally inferior. Do yourself a favour and play the old adventure games instead. They still have an air of naive originality.

I admit the animation was wonderful. The initial use of alien creatures was right on the mark -- special -- creative -- enticing... the voices were amazing throughout, but then there's the pesky need for a good story.

As an author of 11 scripts I noticed the scripted flaws immediately and continuously. The introduction narrative was completely unnecessary and should have been incorporated (if at all) into the movie as it unfolded.

The logic and progression of plot points were very flawed: so much so that I was annoyed that the film turned away from its initial strength 'originality' and fell on the sword of blandness. The reason so many people keep saying this film in plagiarism is simply because it follows such common event sequences you can't help but compare it to many other movies: Camelot (guards attacking the helpful hero), Star Wars (comic relief was the mirror image of a famous Gungan), Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty (hero finds a lost item, evil dragon lady,) and even the Lion King (when you see it you'll understand), etc.

The script was quite frankly pathetic in parts, but also (to be fair) had some moments of honesty. Those moments were presented but then lost when the script failed to follow-up on the logic thread.

So much of the movie is filled with clichés, and the comic relief was really annoying -- not funny -- that I was totally outside the movie and making remarks to myself (OMG, please not that, YGTBKM) instead of flowing along with the action. By the way, I was the only person in the theater. When I asked the ticket person if the movie was worth the price he said, "Opening day sold only 2 tickets." What this story has in beautiful animation and initial originality (the first few minutes) was completely lost to illogic. The amazing creatures were pushed to the background for the most part and the main characters were developed by narrative not action. We were usually told, not shown (or allowed) to feel with the characters. There was no character growth as such, just a jarring thump from one sequence to another as if the characters were puppets on a string.

How sad that what could have been a great adventure turned into trivialities. I would just like to say the burning bush had such possibilities.

Wow. It's like Lord of the Rings never happened at the start of the decade.

Even the opening credits sequence with those bloated flying things just made me cringe.

It appears to have been written and animated by middle-schoolers, and yes they were probably high too. They had to bring in all that big-name talent to do the voices, or the handful of people who did go see this film wouldn't have even gone.

However, I do credit the animators with at least making a handful of nice images in the film. But really, a film like this should be beautiful to look at from start to finish, not just a few brief instants.

There are not-so-subtly racist overtones, and the use of the slur "pansies" renders it even unfit for viewing by children, although infants are probably the only age group likely to be able to enjoy it.

Watching this, I feel insulted as a viewer. It's geared towards infants, as far as I can tell. Of course, so was Toy Story, but the difference is that Toy Story is a masterpiece, and this is ... not.

And the thing was about 30 minutes too long.

If I had been associated with this project, I would have wanted it to disappear quickly and be permanently "lost". I would not be alleging that a more competent team "stole" it. But, these days, it seems the courts are the refuge of the incompetent, when it comes to content creation. Avatar is such a superior work that obviously required far more effort, that there is just no way that the Delgo team could ever hope to claim to have contributed to it. Rather, it seems more likely to me as a viewer that Delgo was ripped off from Avatar, and rushed out the door to beat it to market. An inside job.

the references are the basic support for transform Delgo in an acceptable animation. the fight between good and bad, the bitter memories from past, the characters who seems be from The Dark Crystal. all ordinaries ingredients are present. all the glamour from fairy tales, love story, the good king against cruel relative, different people with so common links, the revenge, the ordinary guy who becomes hero, the goodness in all the nuances and the drops of humor. and that does the film acceptable, predictable and almost boring. because the same story, with better adaptations, is not exactly a virtue. but, like many simple animations , the references, the nice scenes, maybe Filo more than Delgo are reasonable solutions for entertain. but a film saved only by memories of the public about another films with the same subject is far to be the most inspired option.

It's sad. There was so much hope in me that the little guy could stare down the Hollywood gods (in this case Pixar and DreamWorks) and come out a winner. I new going in that this film had problems; no advertising, no studio release backing, many production trials, a relatively expensive cast of voice actors for a venture of this type. Still I had hope.

What I was left with was, oh how glad I am that few will see this film and remember that it was Anne Bancroft's last work. Orson Wells didn't fare as well with his, but his last wasn't as bad. This film had a brief glimmer at the beginning then quickly sank into an abyss of unoriginality, cliché, confusion, too much narration rather than exposition, and too many irritations. The movie felt like a little pebble that gets into your shoe and just irritates the crap out of you until you take off your shoe and dump it out. I haven't had this bad of a time at a movie since "Blindness" and in fairness, "Blindness" was more of a masochistic experience to watch than this.

It all started for me Monday when I was off work, bored and had nothing better to do, so I figured I'd give this underdog a shot. The worst I thought could happen would be that I'd be bored and watching a movie instead of just bored and staring at the walls at home. That's your options when all your friends are at work and you can't bare the drivel of daytime TV.

Anyway, I was worse than bored and watching a movie, but I kept in there, hoping for the little guy to give me something to grab a hold of. Unfortunately it never came. I hoped that this movie could have been something triumphant in the face of adversity. Something that overcame the great odds against it and at least made back the money invested in it. I was looking for some unlikely cinematic surprise like "Facing the Giants" or its kin "Fireproof," but to no avail. Ultimately, I lost an hour and a half and $6.50.