cloudymeatballstrailer cloudymeatballstrailer
CGIFeature Film

Cloudy with a Chance Of Meatballs Trailer

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Sony Pictures Animation released the trailer today for their next feature, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Watch it here. The eyes on the characters are bigger than in most Pixar/Dreamworks-style CG features so I suppose they’re going for a “cartoony” aesthetic.

  • Angry Anim

    After hearing over and over again from some animators about how “Graphic” and “Stylized” it was and how difficult it was to get into a UPA mindset, I wish it was… well… a little more graphic and stylized.

  • Starsky

    As I’ve said before, the fact that it’s written and directed by Clone High creators Phil Lord and Chris Miller immediately makes it my most anticipated movie of the year.

    Trailer’s cute.

  • Ah, I’m not really that impressed right now. I’ve been looking forward to this trailer for a few months hoping it would make me as hungry as the story synopsis is, but that food… doesn’t look all that appetizing. Maybe it’ll look better in the actual movie.

  • s porridge

    Anytime I see big animated eyes anymore, Hoops and Yoyo run around my brain, screaming their usual screams.

    CWACOM has potential to attract this viewer who’s waaaay older than the target demographic — at least it isn’t another round of wisecracking animals banding together and running off to A Better Place.

  • Sean

    Figures. Ugh.

  • Mike Lucy

    wow, you guys should be all over this. Amid, all you can say is that “suppose they’re going for a “cartoony” aesthetic?”

    I expected some more than that from the writer of Cartoon Modern. No thoughts? Clearly with the noodle arms and the eyes they chose they are working with a heavy UPA/ fifties cartoon style influence. No comments other than “cartoony” in quotes? Is that a derisive comment?

  • Tom

    I’m not familiar with the book, but if those big eyed characters are taken from the book, I’ll be okay with it. As it is, the character designs are pretty distractingly homely, but the rest of it seems like a lot of fun. I laughed and got caught up in the whimsy of the thing, and that’s something that doesn’t happen with animated trailers that often. The trailer for UP, for example, didn’t “wow” me, but I’m going to go along with the Pixar brand, trusting them to make a quality show. This I want to check out because it looks funny and interesting.

  • Al

    The character design doesn’t appeal to me. Its too plain and boring for my taste. Everybody looks basically the same. The only difference is the hair style and the clothes. There isn’t enough variety and detail to differentiate each character. I was never a fan of the Clone High aesthetics with its 1.5 dimensional style of animation.

  • whatever

    “cartoony” in quotes…that’s all that is said because this blog’s primary objective is negativity and they know it.

    The movie looks great, and unlike any CG feature I’ve seen, which is just about all of them.

  • Dave

    I think it looks pretty promising. I’ll check it out for sure.

  • David

    “I’m not familiar with the book, but if those big eyed characters are taken from the book, I’ll be okay with it.”

    Yeah…they’re not. The book is one of my childhood favorites, and it was illustrated in a very realistic style, not cartoony at all. As for plot, except for a few set pieces (the school getting covered with a giant pancake being the biggest example from the trailer), the setup is nothing like the book’s. I’m scratching my head on this one.

  • Most impressive is that SPA managed to perfectly replicate the voice of the late Don LaFontaine. My buddy over there tells me that processing the trailer’s voiceover crashed Sony’s renderfarm a couple of dozen times.

  • I’m still trying to figure out how they got from point A to point B here.

    I guess when they say it was inspired by the book, it was very loosely inspired. Like, the whole point to the story is explaining why the world in “Cloudy” is the way it is.

    It does have a nice visual style, though. I’m not going to run out and see it in theatres but I’ll keep an eye out for when it makes it to Netflix, I guess.

  • Jay E

    The movie looks like it can be fun, but I am going to have to divorce it from the book in my mind. As fluffy says, this looks very “loosely” based on the book.

    Why do they take a children’s book that is set in a fantasy world where food falls from the skies and decide to set the movie in the real world with scientific origins? It would be like trying to set a Dr. Suess book in the real world at first, or giving a scientific explanation to why Winnie the Pooh and friends can talk to Christopher Robin (time traveling nanotech descendants of Teddy Ruxbin?) .

    I like the style and color palette, but this isn’t the book. Let’s see if it can stand on its own.

  • Amanda

    hm… maybe it strays from the book BECAUSE there were no characters besides the cleverly named ‘grandpa’. There was (almost) no dialog and the whole premise of the book was ‘run away from your probelms’. I for one am really excited about it! Its nice to see some creativity for once!

  • Lucky Jim

    The fact that it’s from the creators of “Clone High” is all I need to know to get me excited.

    And I like big eyes on cartoon characters.

  • Rodrigo

    Whether or not the design is appealing to you, the animation accentuates the cartoony-look very successfully. Looks fun to me.

  • “Heavy UPA/fifties cartoon style”? It looks more like Jimmy Neutron to me-nothing like UPA. But, it does look like it could be fun. It reminds me of that Dr. Suess’ Oobleck story.

  • Hey, this actually looks good! And it’s not really copying Pixar’s style, either. This definitely hearkens back to the UPA character designs! A lot more unique than what’s used by other studios trying to ape Pixar.

    I’ll definitely check this movie out!

  • I liked it!

  • Connie Pinko

    I’m excited for this movie. (Finally, humans that aren’t cast from The Incredibles mold.) I really like what Sony is doing. I admit I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this movie, but they’ve taken a basically plotless, characterless book and made it their own. No guarantees, but I anticipate a good film.

  • Dimwit

    HOLY CRAP! An original concept, AND original character designs on a CG animated feature?!?

    There IS a God.

  • Anonymous

    As an enthusiastic fan of the book since I was a wee little lad, this trailer is a rape on the original subject matter. I have been looking forward to this trailer for a long time and it reeks of executive interference.

    I can see how people would be a bit upset about the changes made in Coraline, but they were minor deviations from the book and Henry Selick really retained the heart in the film.

    This is a complete abandonment of the subject matter. If this was made as a traditional feature ala Dudok de Witt (I’m a fan of cartoony over exaggeration, but a CWACOM feature would’ve benefited from more subtle and realistic character designs) it would have been incredible.

    The character design is piss poor and it looks like Sony is just trying to make a quick Dreamworks buck out of this movie. The food in the movie has no appeal. It looks like CG shit pie. There was no research (like Ratatoutuille) into how food can look good and tasty. Even in the book (which was black and white and cross hatched like a Michelangelo figure study) the food looked delicious!

    And I’m also sick and tired of the delayed reaction comedy so common in animated features. They keep watering and watering down previous Dreamwork gags. Go back to the damn source material and stop recycling old animation. It’s not funny, it’s annoying as hell. If that’s what they call comedic timing these days then everything has gone down the crapper.

  • Looks very colorful and promising design wise, the trailer though reminds me of “Planet 51″‘s trailer which arrived earlier and will be out two months later after this.

    Let’s hope this one actually brings in some dough for Imageworks’ feature animation department. “Open Season” was alright and “Surf’s Up” was a predictable penguin cartoon disguised as a faxumentary with beautiful water effects (which doesn’t fit well with bug-eyed penguins swimming in it.)

  • Alex K

    I’m somewhat baffled by the cynicism here, this strikes me, in terms of both design and movement, as something of a quantum leap forward. For instance, the eyes aren’t just bigger, they’ve finally found a way to avoid those horrible perfectly spherical, iris ringed, “Keane” orbs all CGI characters seem to possess. I can see where touting this as a “UPA” look is greatly misleading, but let’s not toss the baby with the bath-water. I’m just happy for any innovations that make the medium more expressive.

  • Tsimone Tse Tse

    You would have to be hard pressed to find a better screen grab to emphasize your point. When I first saw that shot I thought uh, is this Clokey’s Davey & Goliath?

    Then I watched the preview. And laughed.

    I do see the UPA style in the characters, which was refreshing – but they aren’t going to be able to replicate UPA’s famously flat 2-D layouts and be able to show it in 3-D to a mainstream audience.

    I remember why I have a fondness for “cartoony” things. This is why I WILL take my daughters as we laugh all the way through a big gloppy bag of popcorn.

    Now about this whole “this film is not yet rated……….”

  • Tsimone Tse Tse

    “It looks like CG shit pie.” “It’s not funny, it’s annoying as hell. If that’s what they call comedic timing these days then everything has gone down the crapper.”

    Milt Kahl IS ALIVE!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    I was at a screening of Cloudy last week (about 50% animated, the rest animatics)… and I just want to let you all know, this movie is AMAZING. It’s nothing like a Dreamworks movie — there are no pop culture gags. It’s actually a rare thing in this industry — a completely original, funny, classic story.

    True, people who are hoping it’s just like the beloved childhood book will be disappointed. But how do you make a movie faithful to a picture book that has no plot, and only one speaking character? What Lord and Miller did is create a story that accentuates the best parts of the book: childhood whimsy, fantastical set pieces, and lots of heart. They also added a bunch of really funny characters that hopefully people will love — Mr. T and Andy Sandburg’s characters in particular are huge standouts that this trailer barely shows.

    Basically, I’m saying to the haters, please reserve your judgement until you see the final product. Trust me, it’s like a kids’ version of a Bruckheimer natural disaster movie. Really funny stuff. And also, some sequences that will bring a tear to your eye.

    Okay, sorry for sounding like a shill. Just had to put my two cents in on something I actually know about for once… :)

  • Matt Sullivan


    I like different :}

  • Billy Batz

    The characters look like Davey and Goliath more than UPA

  • That big guy in the center looks like the Swedish Chef on ‘roids.

  • Andrew

    Looks like an animated version of a shallow stunt comedy (and shows NO connection with the book it was “adapted” from), but it’s still promising. Two of my favorite directors making a comeback in CGI is also exciting. I hope this will give Sony more films like their best one so far- Surf’s Up- and no more films like Open Season 2.

  • Is unnecessary use of slow-motion a requirement in every animated film these days?

  • This is going to be the most horrible book adaptation in the history of entertainment. This trailer has officially ruined the book and quite possibly my childhood. Honestly…a rock n roll version of “Food glorious, food?” Sony, what have you done!!?!

  • akp

    Anonymous is a friggin’ genius if he or she can read that much knowledge from a two minute trailer. Here’s what I see… this is not Ratatoutuille. That was another movie. And as far as the DW gag reference… This is a two minute trailer that was probably heavily poked and prodded by a committee of marketing executives (the biggest problem with Sony is they don’t know how to sell their movies)… how the hell can you identify the entire comedic point of view of this film from that? I admit, the teaser is wobbly, but all in all it looks promising.
    Seems like half the opinions feel like there is room for something different and half are whining about how much better things are at Pixar and DW.
    I love Pixar movies, I really do… but is there not room for something different in the marketplace? And as far as DW goes… I have more faith in the creators of Clone High to put up something original and funny than I do from the gang that brought you Shark’s Tale and The Road to El Dorado (Kung Fu Panda is the anomaly there… Bee Movie is the norm). Considering how deep CB is in the pocket of that company, it is no wonder the “cartoony” negative posting is aimed at slandering this film. The whole situation stinks to me.
    I hope the movie is good… I hope Sony gets their shit together and figures out how to sell this thing. I’m giving the gang that made it the benefit of the doubt.

  • All I can say is that they sure LOVE purple at Sony pictures :-P

    And there’s just something generally wrong with the lighting too.

  • jojoma

    I loved the trailer! The shot of the clouds opening up gave me goose bumps! I can’t wait to see it!!

  • I liked it, with exception of the large eyes that seemed to be stretching a little bit much.

  • Ian V.

    @ akp: He said in the first sentence that he saw a half-finished (part animatics) screening of it, so he’s not just making up an opinion off of the trailer.

  • About an hour ago you noted that I’d not left a smart arse comment on here for a while.
    This isn’t it.
    I thought this looked pretty funny.
    I laughed out loud at the pancakes.

    (It’s no Delgo, though).

  • Here’s my 5 and a half cents.

    I’m working on it. ( right now actually — 9 p.m. )

    My animation team is amazing.

    It’s by far the “cartooniest” film I’ve ever worked on.

    Wait till you see Mr. T’s character. Hilarious.

    Give it a chance cartoon lovers ….. you will not be disappointed.

  • phil

    I’ll wait ’til it’s on abc family

  • Anonymous #3

    Yes…I just about fell off my chair. Thanks Anonymous!…. the first/angry anonymous poster I mean. You managed to use the words “rape, shit pie, piss poor and crapper” in a post about an animated kids movie. Well done.


  • Pedro Nakama

    From the creators of” Clone High” and the executive input from “Open Season” and “Surf’s Up.”

    The only thing this has in common with the book is the title.

    My prediction is after this film they have 1 more film slated called “Hotel Transylvania.” Then it’s shut down time for Sony Pictures Animation.

  • Anonymous

    Well they are at least trying a slightly different visual style from PIXAR & DreamWorks.

    Seems to be chock full of the same material though.

  • Trevor

    Character designs look like a student film

  • Tom

    Pedro, why would a studio with two excellent movies under its belt and another looks-to-be-great-fun kids’ film slated for release shut down production? Don’t be so gloomy, Gus!

  • “I suppose they’re going for a “cartoony” aesthetic.”

    /Double checks name of this website

  • Miki

    It looks amazing! It’s even better than I imagined it to be.All the characters look really cute and funny…alot of energy..definitely NOT boring. Flint looks like Adrien Brody as a muppet.I can’t wait to see the whole movie.

  • Prince

    I like the look and feel of this movie.
    It’s whimsical and will no doubt appeal to it’s target audience.
    The animation’s fliud and it looks like the characters & inanimate objects belong to the same universe.
    People are too quick to dismiss things that look a little different.

  • People all too quickly forget how Sony Animation’s previous filmn Surf’s Up surprised everyone by actually being a really good film, so I have hopes for this. The big googly eyes are cute, sort of like Scott Pilgrim taking to a even further exaggeration, and the animation looked nice.

  • Graham

    I might actually enjoy this flick. Although Sony may not be going for the best animation on the face of the planet, they always manage to produce sleeper hits with animation. When Surf’s Up was paired with Shrek the Third a couple of years ago, I actually found the Sony penguin film to be more entertaining than DreamWorks’ overhyped ogre–a complete reversal of the perception I originally had before seeing both in theaters.

    Sony and subsidiary Columbia/Tri-Star have produced and distributed numerous animated films and television series that deserve the critical acclaim they’ve received like Monster House, Jackie Chan Adventures, X-Men: Evolution, and Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. These guys have an eye for finding talent and giving them a chance in the limelight. Unfortunately, every time they find a chance, they become overshadowed by the fiercer competition.

    Give this movie a chance. Sure, Sony and Co. may not be up to snuff with the likes of Pixar, but they’ve proven themselves worthy enough that they don’t need to be. They’re the animation arm that gets unfairly pushed aside in favor of the bigger guys, and I feel they deserve more attention.

  • Ron Barrett, the author of the book, is one of the great people in this world. I hope for him this does well even if it’s nothing like the source material (which, incidentally has personal resonance).

    If I were to pick one person at random for an internet fundraiser, it would be him.

  • this looks a great deal more promising than recent cgi features, such as the glorious mess that was ‘delgo’, the wrechedly generic ‘bolt’, the very tedious looking ‘planet 51’, the abhorrently awful ‘open season’ sequel.

  • Jorge Garrido

    I wonder what George Ouzounian aka Maddox will think of this?

  • I’m glad this isn’t like the book. When I heard this was to be a film, I couldn’t wrap my head around HOW in the world they would pull out a plot with constant characters that you could follow in a traditional story line and manage to keep you hooked for the average of two hours. It would be a headache of a bore if the film were just like the book, so I was afraid this film would turn out like that.

    Also, I’m glad I watched the trailer and formulated my own opinion before immersing myself in some of the buzz-kill here in the comments. Sometimes, I don’t know at all what some of you want in animation.

    That trailer was the funniest thing I’ve seen – even just in trailer-format – in a long while. I was sincerely impressed with Sony’s “Surf’s Up” (I didn’t have many expectations for it before I saw it..but it also helped I hail from some surfing too), so I know they can conjure up really nice things. I’m very excited to see the whole of “Cloudy” when it’s released!

  • Saturnome

    Watched it without sound and never heard of the book, but I like the animation and visuals, that idea of raining food looks great fun, but the plot development looks common (I see a science geek, a girl, and a occasion for the geek to prove himself because of epic danger he must stop after creating it), not necessarily bad though. I’m sure it’s worth a look!

  • I’m beginning to believe there’s only one cg company anymore. All the films look basically alike. They shout, they scream, they blow up and have mad chases in a rubbery bit of nonsense not worth viewing.
    The book had style. This film does not.

  • I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed there doesn’t appear to be a more interesting central conceit than “wacky inventor invents something wacky.” In an effort to drum up whimsy, Cloudy looks to miss a good deal of the book’s already inherent whimsicality: a world in which food, for no apparent reason, falls from the sky like rain or snow.

    That being said, I’m encouraged by some aspects of the design and hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised by the rest.

  • I loved Surf’s Up, so I’m optimistic about this one. I looked up the original book on Wikipedia, and just from what I read I already like what they’ve changed.

  • Coppico

    I for one am kinda excited by this. Seems like it might be fun actually.

    More fun than Monsters & Aliens, anyway.

  • Damn, I love this blog!! Non-stop action, folks.

  • I wasn’t impressed as much with the trailer for the film. It’s definitely a huge turn away from what the book was about. As if it took one individual to do it (in the film), rather than the fact that it was already happening (in the book). Some of the character designs are fine, they’re not bothering me that much (way better than Happily N’ever After). I will have to wait and see how this turns out. I just know that it won’t be a strong candidate to take on contenders like Pixar, DreamWorks, and Laika’s hit Coraline.

  • Anonymous

    It’s probably not much like the book because


  • Go cloudy!

  • David Cuny

    The clip made me laugh, especially the bit with pancakes falling on the school. Cartoony, silly, and no fart jokes.

    What’s not to like?

  • PJ

    Ok guys, lets all just calm down. The movie looks like good cartoon fun.

    And if it does suck, it won’t rape, shit on, piss on, or destroy any of us, or its source material.

    We’ll make it through this.

  • bug

    “The eyes on the characters are bigger than in most Pixar/Dreamworks-style CG features so I suppose they’re going for a “cartoony” aesthetic.”

    I laughed =]

  • Jay Taylor

    Well, I like that they’re TRYING to be more cartoony. It still has that “can only stretch it so far because it’s cg” look, though.

    Honestly, it looks better than Up, but I won’t be seeing either.

    And now you may stone me…

  • Mac

    I like the idea for the film better than the book it’s based on. I think the idea of a town called “Chewanswallow” where there’s gigantic food raining down making everything all sticky and smelly all the time is disgusting. I appreciate the skill shown in the illustrations, but they still look dull and ugly and make the concept look as unpleasant as it sounds. Also for a children’s book, it sure mentions the Sanitation Department a lot. I’m glad I live in a country where no one’s even heard of this picture book let alone regard it as a classic!

    This film looks like it could be good, silly fun. It may also resolve all the things I hate about the book. This looks like it will be the story of a crazy inventor causing a wacky problem that has to be solved, rather than Grandad’s old story about a storm of bad food that makes everyone abandon their homes.

  • Someone

    Yha, they should have stuck closer to the book. Like the way Jumanji did.

    Come on people, it’s a trailer. You can’t learn much from the trailer. No mater what it looks like it all boils down to is the story any good and are the characters engaging. And you can’t tell that from the trailer.

    Is it a personal artsy film? No. Is it a direct page per page remake of the book? No. That’d be stupid, (youtube: “Good Night Moon” if you disagree with me). But it is different then what’s out there and that’s pretty cool. At least they’re trying to be different. After a couple box office bombs you’d think that Sony would be trying to copy Pixar, instead they’re doing their own thing. We should give them credit for that.

    Oh and PJ: “We’ll make it through this.” <-Brilliant.

  • splinejunkie

    I predict a lot of feet going in a lot of mouths this September. Open wide naysayers…

  • Mike Lucy

    Ahahahaa, wow, you people are as bitter as ever.

    Way to loathe a 2 minute trailer.

    “Michael Sporn says:
    I’m beginning to believe there’s only one cg company anymore. All the films look basically alike.”

    Yes. It looks EXACTLY like all other films made in 3D. Just like all drawn looks exactly the same, and all stop motion.

  • Looks different and original.
    The designs seem very “simplistic”, not very “flat and graphic”. Guess it doesn’t help if the characters are rendered in three dimensions…
    Had some funny/cute gags, might check this one out.

  • why do people keep giving a nod towards UPA? there is nothing remotely UPA about this?

    anyways regardless of the “skin” it still looks like the same old meat’n’bones of every other CG animated feature. nothing much original there

  • Paul K.

    I just want to state for the record that I really like this, and would actually go see this in theaters. Sure there’s some cliche bits, and there’s some over-acting– still, it’s the only animated feature I’m looking forward to, thus far this year.

  • Tim Hodge

    I think the film looks great.
    I read this book a hundred times to my kids. It’s about 20 pages. So how to you stretch it out into a 90 minute story? By taking liberties. Lots of em!
    C’mon, the book isn’t an ageless classic. It’s a fun yarn.
    Remember, “The Iron Giant” was hardly faithful to its source material either, and it turned out pretty good.
    I also think it’s a bit ironic that so many on this forum wish that Animation was taken more seriously by the motion picture academy, yet all we seem to do around here is rip apart every new film that comes out.
    Lighten up, folks. And go support the art form!

  • My nieces loved the trailer and I definitely enjoyed seeing hamburger rain and giant pancakes (with syrup!).

    Is it just me or does Flint’s lady partner look very much like Ginormica (the giant woman in Monsters VS Aliens). Sony/Dreamworks Crossover? :)

  • Brian Kidd

    Here’s the thing. CWACOM is probably my kid’s favorite book. He’s been all over seeing this film since I saw that it was in production some time ago. He, and most likely all the other kids who love the book (it’s been around for a LONG time), are going to be confused and let down.

    Would the book make an interesting film? Nope. Not enough story. Look at any Dr. Seuss adaptation to see what happens when a story that works well as a short is expanded into a feature film as evidence of this. So why do it? Why not pay the authors for their ideas and then make a film under a different title? Because let’s face it: this ain’t “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs”. Whether or not the film turns out well on its own merits is immaterial. I hope it does. I always want more quality animated films. All of us who read and comment on this blog do. I’m just tired of films based on books that bear no resemblance to their source material and simply use hte title as a marketing tool. If a book wouldn’t make a good film, then get a clue and make a film about something else!

  • Cyber Fox

    Even though i’m not a fan of “Clone High”, The trailer holds me interested in this film

    Keep in mind there are other films that didn’t stay faithful to the book by much yet are classics namely “The Phantom Tollbooth”, “Charolette’s Web” and “Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory”

  • Two thumbs up from the kids over here (and me). We’re in.

    I’ve been hearing good buzz already from admittedly biased people (none of whom have commented here, methinks). So I’m with splinejunkie: “I predict a lot of feet going in a lot of mouths this September. Open wide naysayers…”

    Is there a Box Office pool, Brewers? You really should start one! Give out a prize for whomever’s closest. It’d be fun.

  • I quite like the ‘bland’ character designs. I’d more be more inclined to call them uncluttered.
    There’s actually a great deal I like about this, my only hope now is that it has a story.

  • Kelly Tindall

    Looks good to me. Decent line delivery, funny cartooning, and the people don’t look like Playstation zombies. Fingers crossed.

  • Brad Constantine

    A movie I can actually take my kids to….Go figure.

  • Adaptations don’t need to slavishly adhere to the source material, they merely need to capture its essence. The Polar Express is a perfect example of a failed attempt; not only does Express lack the simple holiday innocence of the (very brief) picture book, it seems to go out of its way to avoid it. What was once a dreamy bedtime story became a hyperactive experience far too enamored with its own set pieces and extraneous secondary characters.

  • Adrienne Jenkins

    Sorry, accidentally pressed “Go” somehow.

    Anyway, from what I’ve seen, the film has potential. The idea is amusing. Weren’t the Brizzi bros. tied to this project at some point?

    p.s.–actually, I thought the rock version of “Food, glorious food” was halarious. Coming from the midwest, I remember that song already being parodied in a Wisconsin cheese ad in the 80’s.

  • vzky

    It definitively looks better than “Food Fight!” though.

  • As an original CGI film I liked the big-eyed character design a lot. (Am I the only guy who thinks the hero looks like Clyde Crashcup, except without the mustache?) But as someone who read the book to my kids over & over when they were little, yeah, I would’ve liked to have seen something closer-looking to the book’s art. From the trailer it looks like someone was leaning very heavily on the ‘wacky’ button on the control panel…

    EVERY picture book that gets expanded (inflated?) into a feature film has to figure out how to turn a 5 minute read into a 90 minute movie. Some are better at in than others – I’ll reserve judgment on this one until I see it.

  • at least they have five fingers on each hand. for that, i’m hopeful.

  • I think it looks funnier than most CGI films. The look reminds me a little of UPA too, but mostly of Dexter’s Lab, Powerpuff Girls and, well, Clone High, mixed with claymation.

    This should be pretty good.

    I’m tired of the slow-motion gag, though. But the rest looks pretty nice.

  • C’mon its got Mr. T in it. I’m in.
    Might have been an easier sell around here if it had Jack Black in it? Seinfeld?*ducks*