Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&amp;#039;Drama" data-source="post: 415521" data-attributes="member: 23">Wallace &amp; Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl (2024)

<img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceandgromit.com%2Fmedia%2Fxl3nlt2l%2Fkey_art.jpg%3Fmode%3Dcrop%26width%3D1100&amp;f=1&amp;nofb=1&amp;ipt=9bcc391e63ce5781df629ccbab5b747170a69e0d007af4fe78aeba4900abbf0d&amp;ipo=images" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 838px" />

It&#039;s mind-boggling to think that, despite their 35 years on-screen, this is only the duo&#039;s second full-length feature.

While a new W&amp;G film is always highly anticipated, I began watching with some trepidation knowing that this is the first proper film since Peter Sallis&#039;s death back in 2019.&nbsp; His voice is very distinctive, but Ben Whitehead does an admirable job of replicating his familiar tones. It&#039;s a while since I&#039;ve watched any W&amp;G, so I&#039;m not sure if it would stand up to direct, back-to-back comparison, but the recast works perfectly in isolation. And it&#039;s certainly a far preferable solution to any lazy AI-type replication.

There are lots of familiar voices such as Peter Kay (a returnee) and series newcomers Diane Morgan and Reece Shearsmith (not that he&#039;s easily recognisable here). But it&#039;s the clay that&#039;s the star, which is why the show is well and truly stolen by two familiar non-speaking characters: Feathers McGraw and Gromit. Both are a testament to the skill of Aardman&#039;s animators, with Gromit in particular so wonderfully expressive (it&#039;s all in the eyes, eyebrows and ears) it&#039;s easy to forget he doesn&#039;t speak a word. As always, it&#039;s through his eyes that we see much of the story, and he continues to be the most intelligent, resilient and resourceful character present.

The in-jokes and visual gags are present and gave me many a little chortle. Gromit reads a book (A Bone Of One&#039;s Own, if memory serves) by Virginia Woof, and - in a gag that wouldn&#039;t work with subtitles - an announcer hands us over to a newscaster named &quot;Anton Dec&quot;, moments before we see his name on screen.

The instalment&#039;s Achilles&#039; heel for me is its modernity. The world of Wallace &amp; Gromit has always felt as though it was set in the mid-Twentieth century. Nick Park has alluded to 1950s Wigan, and it&#039;s also been likened to vintage Beanotown. This instalment has (for me) noticeably more contemporary speech-patterns at times with a couple of newer expressions, and one character (the young Asian policewoman) ending a sentence with &quot;right?&quot; as though she&#039;s a California teen. In addition, the locale has&nbsp; become far more ethnically diverse. Overnight. This is a consequence of the length between instalments. It&#039;s over a decade and a half since the last proper W&amp;G, and I feel that if watching the series back-to-back, this one would leap out as being &quot;the one with mid-Twenties sensibilities&quot; rather than a timeless period piece. And since timelessness is this series&#039; main appeal, that&#039;s a shame. It&#039;s made in collaboration with Netflix, so perhaps this film has suffered from American studio interference. It later emerged that this was the case with The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (with Dreamworks), but in spite of everything, that film still retained its timeless appeal in a way that this one doesn&#039;t.

Still, the beating Aardman heart is still here.&nbsp; I chortled quite a lot, which is no mean feat. There&#039;s plenty of familiarity and the vast majority of sequences work well. It may be a flawed gem, but it&#039;s still a gem. And a very rewatchable one, at that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 415521, member: 23"] [CENTER][B][SIZE=6]Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl[/SIZE][/B] (2024) [IMG width="838px"]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwallaceandgromit.com%2Fmedia%2Fxl3nlt2l%2Fkey_art.jpg%3Fmode%3Dcrop%26width%3D1100&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9bcc391e63ce5781df629ccbab5b747170a69e0d007af4fe78aeba4900abbf0d&ipo=images[/IMG] It's mind-boggling to think that, despite their 35 years on-screen, this is only the duo's second full-length feature. While a new[I] W&G[/I] film is always highly anticipated, I began watching with some trepidation knowing that this is the first proper film since Peter Sallis's death back in 2019. His voice is very distinctive, but Ben Whitehead does an admirable job of replicating his familiar tones. It's a while since I've watched any W&G, so I'm not sure if it would stand up to direct, back-to-back comparison, but the recast works perfectly in isolation. And it's certainly a far preferable solution to any lazy AI-type replication. There are lots of familiar voices such as Peter Kay (a returnee) and series newcomers Diane Morgan and Reece Shearsmith (not that he's easily recognisable here). But it's the clay that's the star, which is why the show is well and truly stolen by two familiar non-speaking characters: Feathers McGraw and Gromit. Both are a testament to the skill of Aardman's animators, with Gromit in particular so wonderfully expressive (it's all in the eyes, eyebrows and ears) it's easy to forget he doesn't speak a word. As always, it's through his eyes that we see much of the story, and he continues to be the most intelligent, resilient and resourceful character present. The in-jokes and visual gags are present and gave me many a little chortle. Gromit reads a book ([I]A Bone Of One's Own[/I], if memory serves) by Virginia Woof, and - in a gag that wouldn't work with subtitles - an announcer hands us over to a newscaster named "Anton Dec", moments before we see his name on screen. The instalment's Achilles' heel for me is its modernity. The world of [I]Wallace & Gromit[/I] has always felt as though it was set in the mid-Twentieth century. Nick Park has alluded to 1950s Wigan, and it's also been likened to vintage Beanotown. This instalment has (for me) noticeably more contemporary speech-patterns at times with a couple of newer expressions, and one character (the young Asian policewoman) ending a sentence with "right?" as though she's a California teen. In addition, the locale has become far more ethnically diverse. Overnight. This is a consequence of the length between instalments. It's over a decade and a half since the last proper [I]W&G[/I], and I feel that if watching the series back-to-back, this one would leap out as being "the one with mid-Twenties sensibilities" rather than a timeless period piece. And since timelessness is this series' main appeal, that's a shame. It's made in collaboration with Netflix, so perhaps this film has suffered from American studio interference. It later emerged that this was the case with [I]The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit [/I](with Dreamworks), but in spite of everything, that film still retained its timeless appeal in a way that this one doesn't. Still, the beating Aardman heart is still here. I chortled quite a lot, which is no mean feat. There's plenty of familiarity and the vast majority of sequences work well. It may be a flawed gem, but it's still a gem. And a very rewatchable one, at that.[/CENTER] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?