@Ardashir Don’t you dare watch this animation abomination! I watched it, and I was unable to sleep for two months! The characters are horse manure! They constantly put their arms in the air like idiots, they don’t recognize a bad guy when they see one, say tons of annoying and bad food puns, and they look deformed and ugly. The story is a big mess. The voice acting is awful. It sounds like it was done in one take. The jokes are really inappropriate for children. I’m not kidding, there are sex jokes everywhere! Now I’m fine with adult humor in kids’ films, but their shouldn’t be too much, and they should be subtle! And there’s a lot of Nazi references! There’s more problems with the movie, but I’m just gonna cut to the chase, and point out the film’s biggest problem. The animation is AAAAWWWWWFUL! IT’S HORRENDOUS! UNGODLY! UNNATURAL! UNREALISTIC! Threshold had ten long years, and a $65,000000 budget to make this movie, and this is what we get?!? This movie is pretty much “VeggieTales from Hell”. I say this because this movie was directed by Beelzebub’s foreskin himself, Lawrence Kassanoff! I just hope Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, and all other CGI animation studios find him, and punish him by either tying him to train tracks, or Don Bluth giving a death stare! So there you have it. Foodfight is awful. I give it ONE urine-stained star. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to destroy every Foodfigt DVD in the world.
Five stars. Well worth every penny. I use it as a teaching tool for my children. Like… Take out the garbage or I’ll make you watch Foodfight! You will not believe how fast that garbage goes out. All I need to do is walk over the dvd rack and the kids become little helpful angels.
@Ardashir
The film was originally supposed to come out in 2003. Supposedly the hard drives with a lot of data were stolen (personally I think most of the budget went up the producer’s nose), then there were more loan defaults, until finally the remains of the film were sold at auction to whoever was foolish enough to want to spend a couple hundred thousand to complete ancient CG animation with voice actors that had no marquee value a decade later (Hilary Duff? Eva Longoria? Wayne Brady?) I’ll it it might have been able in 2003 if it had been completed as planned, but seriously, even the Video Briquendo films are better than this.
@Beau Skunky
I figured those were some kind a joke, actually. No serious studio would put that a film that obviously bad out for audiences, would they?
Everyone keeps saying how awful this movie is, but I think you’re just kidding. I should get a copy and watch it for myself to see just what’s so supposedly mind-rending awful about it.
@Beau Skunky
The Toy Story films had plenty of product plugs and merchandise tie-ins, but never saw anyone complain about them. As for riff fodder, indeed, it’s the Manos of animated films.
@kircher
I think some people get too bent over the commercial/capitalistic aspect of movies/shows. (Same to those demonizing MLP for being a “toy commercial”) Still, that’s not what made the movie so bad. There are TV commercials much nore entertaining, and well-made.
Y’know, one good thing is the movie makes good riff fodder.
@Background Pony #67A5
When the movie was in production, I recall some parents’ groups decrying the commercial aspect of it. Then I guess they saw some previews and realized no one but sadomasochists and stoners would ever make the effort to see this and no more complaints were heard.
@Beau Skunky
>some people bash this movie for using some actual commercialized characters
I’ve never seen people use “commercialized characters” as a reason to hate this movie.
If anything, I hate the commercialized characters in the way of “Wow, they got a bunch of licensed food characters and then shit out a terrible movie just to have them as cameos”.
Y’know, some people bash this movie for using some actual commercialized characters, (in minor/cameo roles) but that’s not really the “bad” thing about this movie.
The Tuna fish mascot cameos, and such aren’t what made this movie bad, it’s everything else about it that was bad.
I mean “Wreck-it-Ralph” was good, and it used actual game characters in cameo side/bit roles in it. (Poor poor Q*Bert.)
Yep, I that
Personally I think it was probably not very good, even for 2003, but a lot better than the mess that was finished.
@Ardashir
Note to self: if you have kids, buy Foodfight! DVD
Five stars. Well worth every penny. I use it as a teaching tool for my children. Like… Take out the garbage or I’ll make you watch Foodfight! You will not believe how fast that garbage goes out. All I need to do is walk over the dvd rack and the kids become little helpful angels.
Edited
Worst part is there was a very early trailer form before the supposed hard drive theft that looked far better then the finnished movie.
The film was originally supposed to come out in 2003. Supposedly the hard drives with a lot of data were stolen (personally I think most of the budget went up the producer’s nose), then there were more loan defaults, until finally the remains of the film were sold at auction to whoever was foolish enough to want to spend a couple hundred thousand to complete ancient CG animation with voice actors that had no marquee value a decade later (Hilary Duff? Eva Longoria? Wayne Brady?) I’ll it it might have been able in 2003 if it had been completed as planned, but seriously, even the Video Briquendo films are better than this.
I figured those were some kind a joke, actually. No serious studio would put that a film that obviously bad out for audiences, would they?
Have you seen the animated GIFs in the pic description above? That should give you a clue what to expect.
I’ll pray for your soul.
There’s no way it can be that bad, right?
Edited
Yeah, surprised Hasbro allowed them to make Mr. Potatohead kiinda an A-hole. Still, said product tie ins were subtle.
It might actually make Manos look like a sane movie.
The Toy Story films had plenty of product plugs and merchandise tie-ins, but never saw anyone complain about them. As for riff fodder, indeed, it’s the Manos of animated films.
I think some people get too bent over the commercial/capitalistic aspect of movies/shows. (Same to those demonizing MLP for being a “toy commercial”) Still, that’s not what made the movie so bad. There are TV commercials much nore entertaining, and well-made.
Y’know, one good thing is the movie makes good riff fodder.
When the movie was in production, I recall some parents’ groups decrying the commercial aspect of it. Then I guess they saw some previews and realized no one but sadomasochists and stoners would ever make the effort to see this and no more complaints were heard.
Seeing how this is a piece of it that’s still around, no it’s not.
>some people bash this movie for using some actual commercialized characters
I’ve never seen people use “commercialized characters” as a reason to hate this movie.
If anything, I hate the commercialized characters in the way of “Wow, they got a bunch of licensed food characters and then shit out a terrible movie just to have them as cameos”.
The Tuna fish mascot cameos, and such aren’t what made this movie bad, it’s everything else about it that was bad.
I mean “Wreck-it-Ralph” was good, and it used actual game characters in cameo side/bit roles in it. (Poor poor Q*Bert.)
Gotta get down on Friday.