The Crunch Bird

I don't understand what I just watched! Or how it won an Oscar.

The animation was crude, even cruder than animation done decades ago, and didn't really add anything.

The story was poor. The humour stale. The voice acting limited.

Yep it's true! The first thing you do after watching is scratch your head and ask yourself "how did THIS win an Oscar"? Then You chuckle and realise it doesn't matter and this is a funny short. Worth watching! And what else really matters huh?

I'm in agreement with rnigma-1 from down south that THE CRUNCH BIRD definitely did not deserve to win the Oscar for Best Animated Short in 1972, though I wouldn't rate this film a 1--though perhaps my 5 is a bit generous. One problem is that the cartoon isn't particularly well animated and has very garish colors. The other is that the cartoon is a rather crude joke that 7th graders might find funny, but most anyone older that that won't. It's really sad that this insignificant film won, as one of the runners up (THE SELFISH GIANT) is head and shoulders better. Unlike the crude and rather stupid CRUNCH BIRD, THE SELFISH GIANT has a wonderful message, excellent animation and a depth to it. When seen today by sane people, it's obvious that THE CRUNCH BIRD is an inferior film and the Academy should have been embarrassed at picking the winner that year. I don't even think THE CRUNCH BIRD should have been nominated--let alone win. A super example of an over-rated film. Since they gave THE CRUNCH BIRD an Oscar, perhaps Pauley Shore will one day win the Best Actor Oscar!!!

The cartoon is merely the telling of a joke. Not only is it a good one, but the execution is perfect. Once you see it, you'll smile whenever you hear the phrase "crunch bird." The same people made one or two other cartoons, but faded away.

Considering that the work is from 1971 and still makes me laugh, despite having a simple plot, it surprised me. Not as funny or with deep messages as other Oscar-winning animated shorts but still good.