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!
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!