Kis Vuk

Even if this ugly thing does not even looks like a cartoon movie, probably been a prosperous business - if money laundering and wasting national sponsorship is considered to be a success. This is a picture perfect specimen of the deeply rooted corruption that so sadly penetrates its developer country at all level.

Don't be mistaken, it is simply not a movie to watch, its sole purpose was described above. Frankly, it still has a positive side: so very filled with primitive errors that you definitely not want to commit if you ever make animated films that you can actually learn from it. However, it is quite long for a "how-not-to-do-a-cartoon" tutorial, and there are continuously repeating faults that are tiresome.

Truly a visual poison, should be forbidden to minors, its not made for them. It is made for the money, and the money only.

Back in 1984, the folks who went on to create Pixar brought out their first short film, "André and Wally B. ". Its use of CGI was amazing for its day and it led to great things...at least for Pixar. In contrast, "A Fox's Tale" came out in 2008...and looked pretty similar in CGI quality to "André and Wally B."--which is appalling, as by 2008 CGI had improved exponentially and films like "Ratatouille" and "WALL-E" were the new norm. Yet, inexplicably, "A Fox's Tale" looks decades old and is just an incredibly cheap and ugly film.

This cheapness and ugliness of "A Fox's Tale" is exactly why it ended up on IMDB's old Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. However, the criteria for the list recently changed...and films required at least 10,000 votes to make the list....and "A Fox's Tale" only currently has about 8300 votes. Now a few years ago, I tried to find this film because I was trying to see as many of the old Bottom 100 as I could...and only recently has the film come to YouTube...so better late than never. Or, perhaps not.

So despite having very dated CGI, is the film worth seeing? No. The main problem is that the CGI is so ugly that watching it is a real chore. An ugly short film is bad enough...but in this case you have 85 minutes of eye-bleedingly ugly animation. Frankly, stick figures or sock puppets would have looked better! Then, when you add insipid songs, a story that is terrible and dead-looking humans that move like robots, it's a recipe for disaster...both for kids as well as adults. In fact, if I ever bought a copy of the film, it would be to use as punishment if my kids were bad...very, very, VERY bad!!

So is this the ugliest and most worthless CGI film I've ever seen? Well, that's tough call, as the standard of pure ugliness and awfulness is very low with films like "Foodfight!" also making this old Bottom 100 list. Suffice to say that it's about as bad as "Foodfight!" and is worthless in every possible way. An abysmal mess of a film that is so bad you have to see it to believe it! I score it 1 simply because IMDB doesn't allow 0.Pretty good computer animation for 1984...but it came out in 2008!

Really not much more left to mock about this title, but because it's a fine tutorial how NOT to make a film (or anything else!), I think, I should gather the scraps and flush them too down the toilet.

I really tried to watch this from beginning to end. I tried hard, but I failed. From the first time I saw the trailer of this disaster, I was sure, I really gonna enjoy watching it while simultaneously beating its every aspect... But it's just too much. It's not possible to sit through this movie.

The movie begins with a bunch of ugly bunnies jumping through a horribly rendered forest. No anti-aliasing can be seen, nor motion blur, or anything. My eyes begun to hurt. They begin to whine, which is annoying, and you can see the credits nailed onto the trees, which looks like manure, and then a truck comes. Or goes. It's moving, that's for sure, but one couldn't tell where it goes, because the storyboard artist was a dead skunk. So this truck comes, and almost hits the bunnies, but i really don't know how the hell they saw it coming, and they jump down the road and run into the forest. The virtual cameramen work already made me nauseous, but this is the point where someone shoots his balls off with a salt-gun. The picture starts to move rapidly to totally random directions and I begin to feel sick. They bump into another bunny, which at least stops the seizure of the cinematographer, but then, this butt-ugly, and badly rendered crow starts to do his rap... That's quite bad already, but I cant even make a word out of it!!! It supposed to be a children's movie! In the forest our eyes must deal with the horrible high contrast shadows of the branches, which makes the characters blend into the similarly messy background... If something looks quite okay, you can be sure its a stock object. And you already witnessed a lot of free stock sounds too! And now we are at the fifth minute of this "experience"... I couldn't ever watch through 00:20:00.

Some people compare the look of this movie to mid 90's video game intros. Now that's just a misunderstanding. Pre-rendered (and even in-game) movies on those consoles has been based on real movie clichés, therefore all our perceptions of movies met, and we enjoyed them even despite the primitive technology they used to make them. People who made Kis Vuk are clearly NOT professional filmmakers. Not one of them ever worked on a film (being credited doesn't mean a thing). And even worse: they don't have a clue about how a movie works!!! Even if you watch the original Star-Wars trilogy just once, and you never watch any other movie in your whole life, you already have far more information about film-making, than to get a way with a mess like Kis Vuk!

Before someone gets the idea, that I'm being too harsh, I must tell, that nothing can prepare you for this. Even I was surprised, despite I'm one true b-movie fan! It's really that incredibly bad! Final word: if you want to find out all things that could go wrong while making a movie, witness this disaster. Really enlightening.

Update: I was being forced to sit this through recently, so now I've seen the whole movie from the first frame to the very last of the credits. And it always managed to amaze me. Once I got used to all those problems listed above, and managed to look below the surface which as I said is hideous, all i saw was a pretty awful children's movie, with a plot that makes no sense... I'm saying "pretty awful", and not the "stinkiest pile of manure"!

I begun to feel quite ashamed for being that harsh earlier... "you know it is really bad, but hey, I've seen worse..." But every time I started to think like that, something horrible happened on my screen which proved that this movie deserves the beating it got. And the worst part is this: despite the movies concept to stun me with its horrendousness whenever I start to accept it, it was incredibly boring (and it's less than 90 minutes long!)!

The credits are a treat. They knew this movie's gonna suck, and people gonna yell at the screen: "What the hell did you do during the production you lazy morons?!?!?!". So beside the scrolling list of names, we get a little "making-of" montage on the other half of the frame. "See? We worked hard! You can't say we didn't! We have video evidence!" I'm just speechless. And not because I'm convinced. And for now, let me part with the last few sentences I heard at the end of the credits: -Little Vuk is frightening! Everyone is afraid of Little Vuk!

Kis Vuk is probably the worst animation sequel ever made. The first episode was a classic cartoon created by Attila Dargay in 1981. It had a remarkable Hungarian and international career, and a whole generation grown up on it.

In spite of the new project had enough money, the quality of graphic is ridiculous in 2008. Not just the scenes and characters are obsolete, but the animation of characters is unnatural and amateurish. This sequel is a mockery of the original movie and it is a shame for the creators.

The Hungarian animation industry has a lot of talents and qualitative products, Kis Vuk is an exception.

I love animation, and have seen a lot of animated movies, old and new, good and bad. I only saw this out of curiosity, having seen many of my IMDb friends putting this movie on their worst animated movies list, so I wanted to see whether it was really that bad. And to me it was that bad. In fact I have not seen an animated movie this awful since about July with Space Thunder Kids. The animation is among the laziest I've seen, the character designs look ugly, no make that hideous, the colours are flat and the backgrounds and sceneries are horribly rendered. The writing is some of the worst I've heard in a long time, all the lines are banal, verging on preachy and very unfocused. The story is dull, futile and thin even for the running time. I will say I have seen the 1981 film Vuk(of which this is a sequel of), that was charming, well animated, beautifully voiced and written. This sequel is the complete opposite, not only does it "rip-off" the 1981 film but it completely fails to capture the spirit and style of it, let alone its heart. The voice work is poor, with the voices out of sync sometimes with the lip movements. This voice cast(Freddie Highmore, Bill Nighy, Miranda Richardson and Sienna Miller) is talented, but they are wasted with awful writing and dumb characters we don't give a toss about. Overall, just a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox