Ooops! Noah Is Gone... (2015)

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Blistering performances.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

After seeing some of the negative reviews for this movie I just had to submit a positive one because this is a good movie. If you are in the mood for a fun animated film, it is definitely worth a watch. This is far from "Your Standard Religious Ark Story" Anyone that believes this 100% did not watch the film. There is 1 mention of Noah, and then its just animal antics on a boat. Some of the jokes are predictable and the writing does feel standard, but there are more genuinely funny moments and surprisingly heart felt ones as well. You might watch the trailer and think this is a low-tier animated attempt, but if you sit down and watch it you will be surprised

The movie is visually engaging and often funny, and it's for these reasons that our 9, 10 and 11-year-old seemed to enjoy it. But the 14-year-old laughed "at it," not "with it." Here's why, I think.While in no overtly way religious, this is a Noah's Ark story, so by definition it's a biblical story. What's amazing about All Creature Big and Small is the implausibility of it all. The basic setup is that Noah subcontracts who's "on" and "off" the Ark. The Lion - a spitting image of The Lion King, who - first decrees that omnivores can't eat herbivores. Then he gets the final say over what animals can and can't board the Ark. (As for Noah himself: like all humans, he's conspicuously absent throughout movie.) After the flood eventually comes, some on the "out list" stowaway aboard the Ark. So far, standard kids fare.One creature excluded from boarding the Ark, Finny, is a constantly-worried pessimist while his daughter, Hazel, is a silver-lining optimist. All this proceeds entertainingly enough. But when push comes to shove toward the end of the movie and their lives are imminently threatened, things fall apart. The pessimist learns the value of trust and kinship, while the optimist comes to appreciate the value of force and decisiveness. But rather than leaving things there, the movie makers decide to moralize the story, metamorphosing the now-extinct species into one fit for the post-flood world. The problem, of course, is that evolution - at least as it's currently understood - does not affect a single generation but rather occurs over thousands, if not millions, of years.On the surface, this deus ex machina is a simple contrivance to create a happy ending for all (excepting the villains of the story). But more deeply it seems to suggest not only that Creationism and Evolution each have their merits, but also that they are not mutually exclusive of one another. How? By force-fitting a "happy ending," allowing *all* creatures great and small (except the most minor and villainous) to survive. The means by which they survive is wrapped up in their silly (and inexplicably previously-unrecognized) abilities: breathing under water, farting or squirting a noxious fluid, or an oversized slug turning into a whale. These creatures evolve within a single generation, a resolution that is neither satisfying nor plausible. No one we care about dies. Instead, I suspect that it was not the producer's intention, but by fictionalizing the story of the non-fittest animals, they debase the entire argument of Creationism. So instead of crafting a story in which Creationism and Evolution could plausibly co-exist, by relying on inexplicable Acts of God, the movie debases the prior ideology while making a mockery of the latter.The movie evades death - particularly the death of a species - in its wrong-headed portrayal of natural selection as something that can redeem an individual life, rather than that which governs the continued existence of a species. Though clearly anti-scientific, the movie might be forgiven as mindless entertainment for kids. The net impact for adults, however, is that in attempting to appeal to both Creationists/Individualists and Evolutionists/Collectivists, neither narrative is coherent. For some such beliefs in life, there can be no viable middle ground.

Commencing the movie defense in 3... 2... 1!I, like probably many others, thought this was a generic animated motion picture "for the entire family". I was so wrong. So very wrong. Not only was it not generic; it was way better than expected. After all, it was so good, I am giving it a 9!Okay, let's start with the premise. It is very simple. A single mother and a single father are separated from their daughter and son (respectively), and need to get back together. The daughter is a hunter-type animal who works alone, and the son is a timid-type animal with a natural gift for building things, and a love for warm hugs. It is one of THOSE movies, with the moral being "we need to work together!" It is, as I said, simple, and not terribly original.Now, the reason I give this movie a 9 out of 10. Despite the simple old-as-dirt moral, the way it is HANDLED is great. Morals take a backseat, while the front seat gets firmly occupied by the action, the gags, and the dialogue. It is like the movie team were given complete creative freedom to come up with as many interesting scenes as possible, and they done all of them. The timing of the action is great, the lines are great, the voice acting is great, and not a single "funny" moment felt forced (to me anyway, some people are much more picky). Actually, this movie reminds me a lot of Penguins of Madagascar, in the way it's structured (simple moral, but runs on non-stop gags).The animation has to be mentioned somewhere, so might as well mention it here. It is really good. The only parts where I thought things looked "imperfect", was every time tree branches were used. This animated movie does not have the best looking branches out there. Wood aside, all the textures and atmospheric effects are perfectly fine. And in my books "perfectly fine" equates to "nothing being wrong". The animation itself deserves a 9 as well.You are probably asking at this point: "But what about the Ark? What about Noah? How are those elements used?" Well, I did not mark this review as containing spoilers, and I am not delivering any. Let's just say, the way the "Ark" part of the story is handled, is the most creative way I ever it seen it handled in any movie. And I'll leave it at that.I won't spoil the ending either, but I will tell you that I did not see it coming. That was some truly great cartoon writing, and I was pleasantly surprised. Now, to reassure you somewhat, I wasn't born yesterday, and seen and read hundreds of stories. I have frames of reference, and I have developed that thing called "taste". The ending of this movie was GOOD. Trust me on that.Last, but not least, the movie's title. It was changed for every country it was released in, if I am not mistaken. And it is funny, albeit in a sad way. It can instill the wrong impression upon the potential audience (aka, you), that the people who made this movie did not have any idea what they did. I assure you, the naming problem in no way reflects the actual content, because the movie is great. After all, if it wasn't, I wouldn't give it a 9 out of 10.Watch it. Now. Don't be afraid. It's really good.

In the rush to get on the ark, Leah (a Grymp, an aggressive foxy-type thing) and Finny (a Nestrian, a gentle, dopey, fluorescent coloured plush toy elephant-type thing) are left behind. While their parents Hazel and Dave try to take over the ark and return for them, they do their best to survive, accompanied by an enormous slug-type thing (called, hilariously, Obesey) and his parasitic, er, parasite.This kids' CGI film is, I imagine, good fun for smallish children: as you get older there is less and less in it for you (there is one tolerable Tetris gag). The visuals have several good moments, but are mostly unexceptional and there are some obvious areas where no-one has bothered (the vast ocean is well animated, but there is no surface after-effect following splashes, for instance). The characters are adequately realised, but generic. The story is acceptable but not classic. The voice talent is satisfactory but not dazzling (and comprised of unknowns in the English language version, not that that is necessarily a condemnation).In short, this is a fairly cut-price offering which your little 'uns are likely to enjoy, but you may find it somewhat lacking.