The Tale of Despereaux (2008) User Reviews

Good message, better visuals, best vocal work!

[jsmith-348 · 7/10 · 22 December 2008]

Still wondering about the reviews above that insult this film's animation. I thought it looked terrific. (For the record, nearly every professional critic I could find singled out the film's strong visuals.) The character differentiation is very strong in the mice & rats -- and all that tender-loving detail in Ratworld and Mouseworld! You'd have to watch the movie 6 times to pick out all the tiny man-made objects the rodents have used for furniture, clothing, etc.

I see also several reviewers' concerns about the film's "darkness." Ummm . . . don't we find Hans Christian Andersen a bit dark too? Isn't there something about kids being baked in an oven? And doesn't someone's father die in "Lion King"? And a certain famous mother in that deer movie . . . ? For the matter of that, fans of DiCamillo's Newbery-winning book can tell that her version is a lot darker -- heart-breaking at times. At least one critic has scolded the film version for toning down the darkness, which concomitantly weakens DiCamillo's message of forgiveness and redemption.

AND: I don't think I've ever heard vocal work this good in an animated film. They're not big box-office names that will draw tons of kids to the picture, but real pros -- Hoffman, Ullman, Hinds, Watson, and that narration by Sigourney!! -- who bring an amazing richness and authenticity to the characterizations.

Plus, any movie that so convincingly counsels little kids to say "I'm sorry" -- well, even if it had no other merits, it's hard to argue with a message like that!

I liked it

[Hrothgar50 · 7/10 · 7 April 2009]

Although this was not what some would consider a masterpiece of cinema, I though it was great; one of the best kids movies I have seen in a very long time. It was a good tale which taught good principles. There were no adult jokes, fart humor, or any of that nonsense. It did what fairy-tales once did: give hope and inspiration to the less-fortunate while stressing good values. This is what children need more of, not mindless humor meant to please the adults in the crowd. Yeah, the animation wasn't exceptional; but it did have a surreal classic art feel at times. I loved it and will recommend it to my customers. Working at a video store has it's perks. I hope many who would have otherwise turned away will give it a chance.

A very nice tale

[yves-30 · 7/10 · 18 April 2009]

When I saw the previews of this movie, I wasn't too sure it would be good. And when I read some of the reviews here it really didn't look like a movie I would want to see. But I am a real fan of 3D animation and I will eventually see every feature movie, even if it is to look at the technique only. I have dabbled myself in 3D for several years so I can watch movies from an educated stand point on the 3D itself as well as cinema, which I studied in University. So I went to see this movie and was pleasantly surprised. It seems it is a rendition of a book but I haven't read it so my comments are without prejudgment of the story itself.

The story, while having several classic plot elements (princess that awaits for her knights to save her for example) is also about courage, honor, and selflessness. It is well paced, well written, and well executed. This is not a plot that will surprise you with incredible twist elements, but we have to remember that it is aimed at a young audience. It reminds our kids of values that are too often muddied in kid movies these days. Desperaux is well rounded, and unlike other reviews I read, I cared about his journey, as I also cared about his rat friend as well. Technically, it is a well made movie with a style of its own that recalls greatly the pages of old children books. I am very confident in recommending this movie for all the family.

Good film, visually stunning, with plot weaknesses.

[clark-157 · 7/10 · 26 December 2008]

I just saw it with my three kids, and the youngest two (ages 4 and 7) loved it, the older one (18) not so much. In fact, most of the flaws discussed below were pointed out to me by the 18-year old...

It's visually breathtaking, filled with attention to detail (incredibly subtle facial expressions, great use of light/shade, powerful scenery, nice music (although the lute music is somewhat anachronistic – yes, I play the lute, in case you're wondering!)), and overall quite powerful. The only real weakness is the plot.

I do not want to overstate the weaknesses in the plot -- I'd recommend it to parents of younger children (maybe 10 and under; even my 4-year old really enjoyed it, and he usually isn't able to maintain his attention span for an entire movie). But IMO the plot weaknesses include:

• Roscuro, the good rat, turns bad — REAL bad! — so quickly it makes your head spin. Why? The story implies that this conversion to the Dark Side occurs because his attempted apology to Princess Pea (Roscuro had earlier accidentally tumbled into her mum's soup, the shock of which resulted in the queen's death!) turns out very badly, combined, presumably, with the frustration he feels to be stuck in the dank and dreary rat world after having experienced the freedom of living freely amongst humans. The speed and intensity of his turnaround strains credulity. (Roscuro is played by Dustin Hoffman, who was Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy (1969); type casting? ;-)

• The fact that he turns good again just as quickly is also somewhat problematic. This, however, is somewhat more credible to me because of we are given to understand that, unlike other rats, Roscuro has always been essentially good. He is portrayed as a sympathetic outsider misjudged by virtue of his ratness.

• Miggery Sow, the aptly-named (i.e., plump) lady-in-waiting to the princess, also turns bad with astounding alacrity, and appears to have developed a pretty serious case of dementia as well, due, we surmise, to a difficult life. This is a bit more believable to me, but the big problem with this character is that, after coming very close to having had Princess Pea eaten alive by rats, there is absolutely no repercussion for this act. At the end we see her back in the country with her dad, happily tending the fields. What happened to the dementia? Where is the punishment for kidnapping the princess and attempting to murder her? Where is Miggery's apology or show of contrition?

The film's narrator, performed with wonderful serenity by Sigourney Weaver, tells us that forgiveness is "the most powerful thing you can feel" (after earlier telling us that hatred is the most powerful thing we can feel... And here I thought it was love!), and this presumably is by way of explanation for why the princess apologizes... But for what? For being somewhat short on one occasion with her dimwitted, kleptomaniac servant (Miggery), and being scared of a crazy-looking rat?

The character of Despereaux is consistent from beginning to end. He is a quixotic non- conformist who becomes enamored with chivalry after reading about it in a story, and he makes it his quest to save the princess. When others write of the positive values in this film, I suspect that it is Despereaux's character to which they mostly refer.

But ultimately, I believe it is meant to be a film about redemption — we are told that saying 'I'm sorry' will, essentially, make any wrong right, but the plot doesn't lead me to buy into it, particularly in the case of Miggery Sow who never apologizes for anything and gets away with her abduction of the princess scot-free.

As some others have commented, another weakness (or at least strangeness) is the Boldo character, who is magical, and made out of vegetables. Why? He is apparently the chef's muse... but what's he doing in the film? There's no back-story about where he came from, or anything to explain why we need this character.

I'd be curious to know how the film compares to the book; I'm guessing that most of the plot problems are not the fault of the book, but I guess I will have to have a look at the book to find out.

Again, I think it's a good film, definitely worth taking your younger kids to.

I just find it perplexing that with the humongous budget they must have had to hire so many huge Hollywood stars and and the many talented creative people who made it look and sound so good (amazing, really), they couldn't figure out how to avoid some pretty serious flaws in the plot.

the animation & voice talent are excellent, but something was lost in translation

[alerter · 7/10 · 15 December 2008]

This will be one of those "animated" feature films that adults will drag children along as an excuse to go see, with mixed entertainment value for the tykes.

Don't get me wrong, the animation is both storybook stylized and state of the art. The characters' eyes and all emulated reflections and refractions of light are technically excellent, as are the flow of character body movements and facial expressions. (Real world physics are otherwise pretty much ignored, but this is a fairy tale, so no harm done by that.) The face of Princess Pea (voiced by Emma Watson) is an inspired interpretation of Vera Farmiga's (and not a bad choice, even though she was not in the voice cast).

All of the other voice talent also deliver better than decent performances. Matthew Broderick captures the essence of youthful wonderment and exuberance in all of Despereaux's lines.

If I could pick anyone to read me a bedtime story, it would be Sigourney Weaver... but there is too much use of narration to bridge the gaps between book and screenplay.

There is a lot more to honor, courage, heroism and commitment than merely reciting them as a laundry list, no matter how beautifully Weaver repeats the words. The pared down story telling in the film reduces Roscuro's character arc to one of an opportunist with an heart of gold. Roscuro simply switches sides without much self-examination or doubt about his honor, courage, heroism or commitment.

I could not help but notice that a lot of the younger kids (K-6-ers) who were present for the screening I attended grew visibly and audibly restless and were, at times, completely lost.

When a film engages children, they are brimming with accounts of the parts that they liked the most and want to see again. That was not the case with this film. The film makers were too busy aiming to please the grown-ups, who pay for the tickets, and forgot about the kids. The kids shuffled out at the end in near silence.

I think that is an unfortunate shame, because the book is such rich source material, speaking to most age groups. It is possible to keep both children and adults engaged with a good story, without having to alternately play to one audience at the expense of the other. I think kids were given the short shrift.

(For adults who have the time and patience, there is a lot of material in the film worth trying to discuss with children, after they've seen it. But that is more of a credit to the book than the film on its own.) Middle school children might better grasp the moral/ethical dilemmas and uncertainties, as boiled down in the film, than K-6-ers. High school students will likely disdain going to see a "children's" animation, whereas, many of the characters in the story are acting out what amounts to teenager-ish angst.

This is supposed to be a story concerning four "heroes," but the case for heroism is not evenly made. (A press kit I saw listed Princess Pea as the fourth, who was omitted from the IMDb synopsis). Despereaux passes muster (the film would be a disaster if he didn't) with flying colors; but the heroic conduct of the others is dubious, at best. There is also a fifth hero in this story (the Royal Chef, who eventually defies the king's decree against soup), but the promotional materials for the film have overlooked the obvious.

In short, I was entertained (but a bit troubled by what was lost in translation from book to film). Kids, on the other hand, were just barely included for much of this ride.

There are worse films to take kids to see, but this one could, and should, have been so much more.

Like others, not what I expected, but not that bad, either.

[NoHeadedHershel · 7/10 · 25 December 2008]

Based on the commercials, I was expecting a whimsical story about a non-conformist mouse, but the story went much deeper than that. The story was called "Despereaux," which is the name of the mouse... however, the story, strictly speaking, didn't actually revolve solely around the mouse. It was more of an "ensemble" animated movie.

While it had a few funny moments, for the most part it was much more of a serious story for kids, and then you get beat over the head with the "lesson" at the end.

Still, my two kids (7 and 9) both enjoyed it, although it obviously wasn't their favorite animated movie. My wife and I also enjoyed it. I was not disappointed that it wasn't what I expected; I don't see how you can mark a movie down just because it wasn't what *you* expected.

The animation was not terrible; I don't know what people expect these days. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised at the variety of styles that were used for different aspects of the movie; the animation they show when they visualize what a character is reading in a storybook, for example. The animation is not the greatest, but I don't think they were trying for "the greatest," they were trying for their own style, and their own style worked just fine. The humans in the film are not realistic, but they are not supposed to be (nor should they be... it's ANIMATED, after all, not live action).

I will agree with some reviewers about the voices; some of the characters were voiced quite well. Mathew Broderick as Despereaux, and Frank Langella as the Mayor were quite good. Most of the voicing was terrible, though, it just didn't seem to fit.

So, 7 out of 10 overall... this is not the Incredibles or Cars or Toy Story or Shrek, but there's a lot worse kids movies you could go to and the lesson is a pretty good one.

Very good

[Textocal · 7/10 · 26 December 2008]

This was very entertaining. The artwork was great and the detail was good. I wish I could be like Despereaux. His character is strong and willing to go help others. It has a good message that shows how what you do affects others.

The vegetable man does bother me, I wish that part could have been left out. I don't like the need to get help from a "being".

I would have liked to have gotten more information on why the father had to give up his baby girl.

I liked the story of the rat that got into a bad situation and almost let it destroy him. However, he realized that good was better than evil.

Qualities and flaws

[Mihnea_aka_Pitbull · 4/10 · 19 January 2009]

The qualities:

• Superb graphics, expressive, beautiful and stylish;

• Solid characters, both intrinsically and visually;

• A compelling atmosphere, and mood in general.

The flaws:

• A chaotic script, confusing and unprofessional. They were too ambitious to keep as much as possible of the novel's sub-plots and secondary characters, but didn't know how to organize them according to the screen-writing rules.

• A linear direction: everything flows on too uniformly, the important scenes are not accented and developed enough. As such, it gradually becomes boring, and during the culminating moments it's positively anticlimactic.

• The disadvantageous comparison with "Oblio". That one had spark! This one is also smart, but less inspired.

While it may look for small children, it's still decent entertainment

[bellino-angelo2014 · 7/10 · 22 December 2022]

As I said in some of my recent reviews I am not the target age for some kids movies with A-list stars (or B-list actors I love) voicing the characters because I am close to 24 and childless. Yet many of them are very good despite this, and since THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX has a voice over cast full of many great names, I knew that one day I should have seen it, and I was even amazed by the fact that despite it was a hugely advertised film in 2008 I never had the chance of seeing it until last September. Now I can discuss it.

Mouse Roscuro (voice by Dustin Hoffman) arrives by sea to the French kingdom during the French soup day, and the smell makes Roscuro go to the castle and fall in the cauldron, and when it ends on the Queen's plate she has an heart attack and dies, and then the king banishes both soups and mice. Years later Despereaux Tilling (voice by Matthew Broderick) is born, and along with having huge ears has other reasons to be different from other mice: he doesn't eat books but reads them and is brave. After being caught talking with a human Desperaux is hexiled and sent to the Rats where he meets and befriends Roscuro. Together they join forces and will save Princess Pea from the rats and the chef will return to cook soups again.

The CGI is different, it looks like the animators did it on purpose for giving the movie an European style and I kinda liked it. The voice acting was decent: Hoffman, Broderick, Richard Jenkins, William Macy, Christopher Lloyd and the narration by Sigourney Weaver... with such a cast you can't go wrong. Some of the situations were very funny and I still remember well the scene with Roscuro and Despereaux running in the castle chasen by the rats, it was so funny! I also liked how despite looking for small children it was enjoyable even for an adult like me that watches these movies only for the cast members.

Overall, a safe children's movie that manages to be funny for both children and the adults that are forced to see it with them, and with a great ending too. Not to be missed if you have a chance.

Disappointing, to say the least

[russcampbell-1 · 4/10 · 4 January 2009]

This was a movie that was "just there." I remember being doubtful about Ratatouille. After all, rats and food? Didn't sound like the best combo, but Ratatouille grabs you and pulls you in. Not Despereaux. I was waiting for it to happen, but I was sorely disappointed. The plot was meandering and had no drive to it. I think I chuckled at one thing during the movie, but mostly it was devoid of humor. My kids may have laughed once, too. They didn't leave with the normal "can we get that on DVD" questions. You're waiting for something to happen, for something to peak your interest, for a little heart palpitation, a little humor, an interesting plot twist. It's just not there. One person called the movie a "hack job" on the book. I can't speak to that, since I did not read the book, but I hope - for the author's sake, at least - that the book was better. I'd recommend that you wait to rent this movie. Your kids may like it, but I doubt they will find it as good as Ratatouille, Cars, Shrek, or some of the other quality kids films, so don't waste your money in the theater. For a $5 rental, it's OK. But for the big bucks they charge at the theater, no way!

Enjoyable Fairy Tale!

[g-bodyl · 8/10 · 23 January 2011]

It's sad that movie producers don't make this kind of movie anymore. This is a classic, wonderful fairy tale that is good for the whole family. It does have a few flaws such as this movie is too dark for a G-rating. But the movie itself works and it's not boring like many people say it to be.

This is about a mouse who is different from the rest of the mice. After being kicked out of this tribe, he befriends a rat and together they must save a kingdom from darkness.

This movie has an impressive voice cast. Matthew Broderick does a good job playing the hero mouse.

The animation is pretty good. It looked like the animation was drawn. I liked it though. It reminds me of old Disney movies. In fact, this has a great moral like the rest. I liked this film a lot. I rate this film 8/10.

Interesting, but flawed

[Rectangular_businessman · 6/10 · 14 September 2011]

"The Tale of Despereaux" was a cute, little film, which tries to evoke the same feeling of several old fairy tales and classic animated movies. However, despite the good intentions, this movie had several flaws and annoying aspects that made it very much less enjoyable, and while this film could have been great, it ends being just okay.

The best aspect of this film it's the animation, with a great atmosphere and cute and appealing designs. (The sequence where Desperaux reads a fairy tale about knights and dragons is particularly beautiful and well made, and for me, it was the best part of the movie) The voice acting is correct, without being particularly memorable. Personally, I think it was a mistake to cast Matthew Broderick as Desperaux. I don't have anything against that actor, but his voice doesn't fit with the character. Also, the narration made by Sigourney Weaver is incredibly annoying and preachy (And completely unnecessary, since all the scenes and the message from this movie are quite clear and easy to understand) That narration just get worse and worse while the movie advances, to the point of being distracted.

The story, without being incredibly original, starts very well, but while it advances, it turns somewhat rushed, having some plot holes, and unconvincing twists (And to get it worse, the annoying narrator doesn't even bother make a good explanation about those aspects of the story, telling the most obvious things and reminding the viewers the message of the movie instead) Some of the characters that at first seem like they are going to have a relevant role in the story are quickly forgotten and never mentioned again (Such as weird guy made out of fruits and vegetables) Anyway, despite those flaws, this movie was funny to watch and had some good scenes and an excellent animation. Personally, I would recommend this film to all the viewers who love the classic animated movies based on fairy-tales, though I think that this movie could be a little "dark" and heavy handed for the little kids (Well, at least compared with the most recent CGI animated films which are more focused in the comedy)

Bizarre, incomprehensible mishmash

[zmarc · 4/10 · 1 January 2009]

I was looking forward to this and expected to like it, but I was crushingly disappointed. I think I could go so far as to say I hated it, which shocks me. How could one go wrong with the story of a funny little mouse who's a hero? I don't know, but somehow this film does it.

First of all, the story is way overdone: it's got too many things happening and jumps from plot to plot with no transition at all that it's confusing and breaks your chain of thought. For example, the basic story seems to be that of a brave mouse who saves a princess. But mixed in with that is the story of a rat who's somewhat similar and who helps the mouse. That is further complicated with the story a girl who's a "princess" serving as a maid in the King's castle. All of these stories sound generically familiar, but they purposely resolve differently than we expect; I suppose that's to make things more interesting, but I just found it annoying, since the whole movie you are confused as what is happening. Is the Desperaux the mouse the main character? Then why is so much time spent on the rat's story? And which princess are we to root for: both, neither? It's all bewildering.

Another fatal flaw is the animation. At times it's breathtakingly beautiful, with fantastic attention to detail. I loved the way Despereaux's nose glistened with faint wetness, for instance. Amazing. But the animation is inconsistent, with humans looking awkward and dorky, and very often the movement of characters defying real-world physics. Like in one scene Despereaux is bouncing on the end of a rope and he bounces as though the rope is elastic -- it just did not feel natural. In many scenes the editing is so choppy and the camera angles so poorly chosen it's difficult to tell what is happening. You get a vague impression and you're probably right, but it's not clear. Another problem is that the film's humor is odd: there are many scenes where the mice discuss Despereaux's problem in that he's not afraid and hasn't "learned to cower like a proper mouse." I guess that's supposed to be funny and it is the first time, but it's hammered over and over, with parent-teacher conferences with Despereaux's parents, etc., and in the end it just starts to get repetitive and puzzling. There's also bizarreness associated with the supernatural. While there's an aspect of the film that feels like it should be "magical" (fantasy), we're not really shown that anything is actually magic -- except for a strange talking vegetable man. This being assembles itself from a collection of vegetables (i.e. different vegetables for the mouth, nose, eyes, etc.) and he talks. We're given no history of him, no explanation of what he's doing there, how he can talk, what he is, or what happens to him in the end. (Does he die when he fell down the stairs or was he just forgotten on the cutting room floor?) I wanted to see a world with a lot more magic, or key magic used at just the right moment to save the day, or none at all. This bit of random magic for no good reason was just bizarre and weird and pointless.

There are a few moments of brilliance: Despereaux himself is very good (though he's not on screen enough), the narration has some good lines, and some of the scenes are interesting. But mostly this is just a mishmash of styles, stories, characters, and confusion. I really disliked it and found myself contemplating leaving the theatre on many occasions (something I've never actually done). Though it's not long, it felt endless. I am extremely disappointed.

Beautifully drawn,well voice-cast, plotted very slowly and poorly

[KUAlum26 · 6/10 · 5 January 2009]

This film makes me feel bad because while I don't believe it's terrible or low in quality,something makes me feel that this should be better.

Technically,this film is as good as any:the imagery and lines of each character and detail has a rich,almost OLd World sensibility to it,like a classic Renaissance painting. Seeing the list of names associated with this films(those described here,plus Ciaran Hinds,Frank Langella,Richard Jenkins and Tony HAle,among others)has me encouraged. But the pacing and the plot of the show is slow and unenthralling,thus the film seems to drag despite the relatively quick running time.

While this movie purports to tell the tale(via the narration of a gentle,almost TOO laconic and relaxed Sigourney Weaver) of the small,bright and virtuous mouse of the title(voiced effectively by MAtthew Broderick,averaging about a half-movie a year,it seems),this seems to veer off into as much telling the tales of: a weeping King,a forlorn and helpless princess,a perfectionist chef(Kevin Kline,who you'd THINK would've had more to do for the billing),a wayward but decent rat(Dustin Hoffman,very good too),Despereaux's parents,a dumpy and plain stable maid(Tracey Ullman,good,toughest to recognize of the lot)and a saddened oaf of a castle servant. While the stories DO ultimately have a connection,they seem to all dawdle almost completely unrelated to each other for much of the run and make this film distractingly hard to stay tuned to.

BAsed on a (series of?)successful book(s?) by KAte DiCamillo,this film will probably--I say PROBABLY--be rewarding enough for the kids(read: little ones ten and younger)and,to repeat my point,this has a very rich and beautiful look to it,but it just simply doesn't seem to have much pop or spark as it tries to spell out a story(one that doesn't,I must confess,strike me as exceptionally unique on its own)of adventure and heroism. Not a good thing,really. Maybe more of a renter.

Despereaux tallies 8231 at next Rodent Olympics

[charlytully · 7/10 · 21 December 2008]

What does THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX tell us about the next Rodent Olympics decathlon? We learn that "Des" (most of the other letters are silent, anyway) is really short--even for a mouse. With his cure, I think Timothy from the SECRET OF NIMH takes the 100 centimeters with his longer legs. Though Des manages a long jump DOWN into the rat pit, I foresee Remy from RATATOUILLE winning the HORIZONTAL long jump paws down. However, seeing Des hopscotching across the cheese baits on the mousetrap gauntlet into the king's chambers tells me he pulls off the high jump. MIGHTY MOUSE captures the shot put (and later the discus), but I project AN AMER!CAN TAIL's Fievel Mousekewitz out-kicking him by a nose in the 400 centimeters. Des is not at his best in crowd scenes, such as his first trip into Rat Stadium. Therefore, WILLARD will lead the pack in the high hurdles. After the discus comes the two Joe Cool events (pole vault and javelin). Des is a "gentleman," not a cool cat, so FLUSHED AWAY's Roddy and STUART LITTLE will prevail with the shafts. Last comes the 1500 centimeters. Des seems to keep plugging away no matter what, so he may cop a second event here, outlasting grandpa MICKEY MOUSE.

This and Australia

[tedg · 26 December 2008]

I recently saw "Australia." It was made by someone that already has my trust, so I take its flaws as part of an interesting and slightly rude conversation with a talented mind. Its flaws, in my mind, all had to do with the construction of the narrative long form. I have lots of room in my imagination for experiments, adventures, challenge. But to do this, you have to master and extend the way we deal with narrative. Its a matter of hardwiring under convention.

The greatest offense is when a filmmaker mistakes overloading for extension, and gives us a long form composed of genre segments. I understand why Baz did this; he was growing the annotative style he mastered in "Moulin Rouge." He actually came close with the dreaming, singing thing. Even in failure, he is worth the investment.

Here we have the very same failure: too much story as a substitute for good story. An overload of borrowed narrative chunks shuffled together as an excuse for narrative. Well, you already know that because even the ordinary critics say so.

Less noticed is the way the animators handled the framing. This is a new animation studio, and this is their first project. Like everyone else in the business without a unique soul, they are chasing Pixar, who pays special attention to story and framing. Framing in this context means the handling of space. Watch this feature from the perspective of perspective to see what I mean. Things are framed on the edge just as Pixar does, with angles, movements and establishing shots that are slightly — ever so slightly more radical than the usual.

But look at what they get wrong. Pixar and Welles when they do this it is all about environments. The space is what matters and incidentally there are people. This takes work, especially when you are animating because it means you have to work from the outside in. Dreamworks goes the other way: they design the shots around the lead characters and then fill in the backgrounds with lesser technology. The environment is an artifact only, not intrinsic to what you see. We see objects. The animators are so aware of this that they even make a character — someone that fits the story not at all — out of disconnected objects.

The key woman in this is a redhead. Its no accident that the best actor in the thing is her voice

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Botched near classic

[josebut8 · 6/10 · 2 January 2009]

This started out really strong. Interesting story, characters, visuals...but then something happened. It couldn't decide who the story was about. Despereaux? Dustin Hoffman's rat character? The fat girl? And the more the separate stories diverged, the less sense any of it made until the whole thing literally fell apart. The subplots never came back together to influence or enhance the main story. The climactic third act was a total mess that kept interrupting itself with off-putting jump cuts until it so sabotaged itself you didn't really care what happened to any of them. This was where someone needed Disney's storytelling 101 class. Sure, they were trying to tell the story in a clever way, but sometimes, straightforward is best. As for the voice work, everyone was good, except, surprisingly, the Brits. Emma Watson brought nothing to the princess except a kind of bland haughtiness and the usually brilliant Tracey Ullman was completely wasted in a voice performance that you might expect from, well, Emma Watson. As much as I admired her sober narration, I don't need Sigourney Weaver to tell me what to think and how to feel. Actually, I think SAG should ban all big time actors from voice over work. Throw a bone to a bunch of talented unknowns. Those fat cats don't need the money. 6 stars for the beautiful animation! Definite "Sleeping Beauty" (Disney again!) influence. The dragon fight with the "Hero" is right out of that film.

Good enough to be enjoyed, but your kids will disagree

[SandroTheMaster · 7/10 · 6 February 2009]

Slight spoilers about the first 10 minutes ahead.

All in all, the movie is good. If only the beautiful art was matched by the clustered story...

What I noticed is, this movie is way too dark for kids under, say, 10. It is very dark and the moral lessons are a bit too strong for the comfort of 5 years old (of whom at least half a dozen were crying hard in the theater I went by the middle of the movie). Also, there's a character who gets way too much attention just so you don't think of her as evil after a pretty grim act from her, so the movie can be villain-free (alright, there IS one villain, but by the end the villains feels much unnecessary, really). Ultimately, at least they end up actually using the apparently random wacky character instead of just leaving it around to be bizarre (a salad genie, though? Really?), like in, say, Dreamworks animations.

Interesting enough, what many consider to be the problem of the movie is the aspect that pleased me the most. In that the movie has no pace. By that I mean, the story just goes, and in its grimmest moments the pace is about the same as its happiest ones. The movie kicks off with an entire kingdom going to a dark season because soup (the kingdom's favorite, you see) is banned, along with rats (not as liked, no), because the king is glooming over the death of his queen, just because a single visiting rat wanted to smell better the soup served to the royals. Yeah... And it all just happens. Before you know it, the queen is dead. During a comic chase scene between the castle guards and said rat. And at least for me, that's awesome! Because the air won't suddenly become heavier just because something grim is about to happen, nor the other way around. Unfortunately, it seems accidental, since the air do get dark, but only after the characters realizing the death of the queen, not before it is about to happen so the audience knows something bad is about to happen, so the death actually comes as a shock (which, again, is terrible on the youngsters...).

This extends until the end, with the epilogue not looking like an epilogue at all, you feel like the story could just go on if wasn't for the fact that it was, in fact, over.

Also, the movie is unable to make strong scenes. When a character is angry, or sad, or something else, the scenes are just there for you to watch. (Well... not entirely true. The scenes of the king playing his lute alone in a cold gray room are pretty strong, but that's about it).

Pre-teens might enjoy the movie more, even tough they'll probably be expecting more action and jokes from it, but an adult can watch it without expecting it to be a waste of time.

scary, depressing, unengaging and all over the place

[larcenydogood · 4/10 · 2 January 2009]

Desperaux is a poorly conceived film, or, more to the point, three poorly conceived films rolled into one. Much too ambitious/confusing.

First movie, a happy kingdom is about to celebrate their wondrous Soup Day. Among the happy throngs ready to eat are a sailor and his happy rat, Roscuro. Roscuro is so enthralled by the amazing soup that he sneaks into the castle for a closer glimpse and falls into the bowl from which none other than the queen herself is eating. This causes her to faint into her soup and suffer a quiet unnoticed death (No one thought the queen may need to breathe through all that soup?), so that her husband will become a near-catatonic depressive who spends his days in semi-darkness plucking away lachrymose tunes on a lute that sound like funeral music composed by Jethro Tull. He also bans rats and soup. Which drives away curiously, both the sun and rain.

Next movie, Desperaux is born in an unused castle room-village of neurotic mice who seem as though they are all candidates for the Dr. Phil hall of fame. Desperaux is an adventurous mouse, which I suppose makes him a republican in a Hollywood allegorical, and this goes against the grain of angst that permeates his community and he therefore is eventually banished to the dungeons, where the rats, who have their colony in the darkness, will certainly eat him. Guess which rat outcast saves him.

In the last of the three movies an angry dungeonkeepr yells at the comely wench who serves the princess. This servant girl, Miggery, has delusions of being the princess that manifest physically and is so anthropomorphic in reverse that any pigs watching the film would surely gasp, "Golly, it's scary how swine-like they made her." Then there's gladiatorial combat amongst the freaky looking rats, the princess is kidnapped and almost eaten by thousands of evil-looking rats, the mouse saves the kingdom and brings rain (see The Rainmaker, Dune, The Day After Tomorrow, et cetera). He also brings back the sun. And the soup. And we must assume, world peace and reduced carbon emissions.

The whole thing is so convoluted, the characters, especially the dungeonkeeper and the maid, oh and the lugubrious king, and the rat who caused all the problems then tried to kill the princess then had a life-altering moment (apparently he got access to some of the mice's Dr. Phil literature) are hard to care for, there is no emotional charge other than "Jeez, those are nasty rats", which are much too scary for little children, there's a ridiculous Quixotic-kamikaze man whose body is entirely vegetative (I suppose it would be difficult to have a Quixotic-kamikaze man whose body is entirely vegetative not be ridiculous), there is no humor other than laughing at Desperaux's ears (one is left pining for the "wit" of Shrek's bodily evacuations) and it is way too violent to be a kids' movie which it was marketed as. The whole movie comes across like the king, cleverly drawn but emotionally barren.

So inferior to the book

[delibebek · 6/10 · 22 August 2010]

I know that comparing an adaptation to the source book is too close to not looking at the film for its own merits. I won't go into a line by line list of the changes, but the changes bring nothing to the film. They only take away. The changes seem designed to make the movie more like a typical animated film, which the story wouldn't have been had it stuck closer to the themes of the book.

The three characters who really have a story in the book are Roscuro, Miggery Sow, and of course, Despereaux. In the movie, only Despereaux is painted with any real background and character, and all of that is noticeably different from the character in the book. The subtleties that made him so charming are gone, replaced by a devil-may-care nature. Where the Despereaux in the book found heroism in himself, where he didn't expect it, the Despereaux in the film was depicted as being born for heroism. This difference sums up the change in theme and direction of the movie. It becomes much more typical because of this change, without room for character growth. Roscuro and Miggery Sow are similarly rewritten so that they don't develop. The plot is rewritten around them, with strange additions such as the chef and the man made of food.

At first, I was confused by comparisons to Ratatouille, but after seeing the first twenty minutes of this movie, I understood it, and perhaps they have something in that comparison. I can't think of a good reason for some of the additions that came out of the blue into the movie adaptation.

Disappointed - not what I expected

[joewg3 · 3/10 · 20 December 2008]

I expected a bit more out of this movie than was delivered. My 7 year old actually fell asleep near the end of the movie. No kidding. Another reviewer hit the nail on the head in describing the animation as video game quaility (maybe like 1990's quality). The story is a great storybook but terrible in movie format. I kept waiting for a funny part to come or something exciting to happen. It rarely did.

I have to disagree with another reviewer who praised the voices. Honestly, I can't see the importance of having big named screen actors doing the voices of these characters other than trying to draw folks into a mediocre movie, unlike Madagascar where the voices and big named people actually make the movie even better.

Lovely, kind-hearted film that doesn't pander

[ldarroch · 8/10 · 18 January 2009]

I'd be hard pressed to name a kid's flick I've seen in the last four years that can't be summed up by "a quest to find his true self." For once, the hero knows who he is, and lives by this truth rather than learning to define himself along the journey. It was refreshing to see a slightly less-linear film aimed at the under-10 crowd. There were at least 3-4 narratives to follow (mouse, rat, servant girl, and to a lesser extent, the royal family). The notion that one's actions and attitude can greatly affect those around you, in unexpected ways with surprising consequences, was a lovely lesson to learn, rather than the rote "value of friendship" moral. I don't quite get the Ratatouille comparisons, frankly. OK, the heroes are both rodents. And there is a chef. This film reminded me more of Big Fish, The Princess Bride, and Pushing Daisies with its small themes and seemingly meandering narrative, that all comes nicely at the end. And yes, the film was utterly beautiful.

Beautifully animated, but I'm still a little bewildered at the rest of it

[scoutcraftpiratess · 6/10 · 4 January 2009]

To say that I did not like this movie would be untrue. I am not against it in the least. However, I still don't if I liked it or if I'm just neutral. I'm an elementary teacher and a bookworm besides, which means I absolutely adore the Newbery Award-winning book. It could be that the book purist part of me is complaining.

Story detail-wise, they really did not change things all that much. When I found myself wondering if such-and-such had happened in the book, I had to reply "well, technically yes." There were a few details and character combinations put in for sake of time, I suppose. Then again, a lot of time in this movie could have been better used. I'll discuss that later for I need to return to the book-adaption itself. Yes, technically, for the most part they stuck to the book. This is not to say that things were not out of order, however, or that things were interpreted the same.

The book is a rather quiet-yet-whimsical adventure. The movie splashed in humor and comedy--which is not a bad thing and I did chuckle at some jokes. However, the entire feeling was different and I guess I just can't get past that. And I would continue to try to do so if it weren't for the blasted aforementioned time thing.

Really, what was with the direction of this movie? The storyline was either all over the place, hopping without warning from character to character and setting to setting or we were watching a stunning piece of gorgeous animation that, despite its beauty, was really slowing down the story.

Now I think I owe it to the movie to be positive (again, I don't dislike it at all). The animation is stunning. There seems to be a slight medieval art inspiration to the characters and setting and it turned out wonderfully. I definitely liked looking at this movie.

I also liked the characters, even as different as they were from their book counterparts. I fell in love with this interpretation of Despereaux. He was brave, he was boyish, he was one adorable little big-eared knight. So what if he never got his tail cut off? I liked Roscuro, though the movie was much more sympathetic to him (he was so much more the villain in the book!) I guess I just liked his nautical ways and maybe felt bad for him. I liked the side characters.

And, honestly, if the direction had been a bit different and I hadn't read the book, I think I would have been very much enchanted by this movie.

Maybe this is one of those movies that grow on you. But I saw it last night, and I'm still a little confused as to just what the film makers were thinking.

Half a good movie

[kurt_kennett · 5/10 · 28 December 2008]

I thoroughly enjoyed everything about this film up to the half-way mark. Right about the point that Roscuro is shunned by the princess. After that point everything fell apart. Despereaux becomes MIA for about 10-15 minutes of screen time, there's the a whole superfluous side-story with the farm chick.

None of the timing worked in the second half of the film - *none* of it. There are such huge lapses in time and space and completely disjointed events occurring that have nothing to do with one another. For example, when Despereaux rings a bell it makes the chef start to make soup again. Why? What's the connection? There isn't one.

Don't even get me started on the vegetable spirit. A completely pointless escapade that is tangential to any part of the rest of the story. It's as if someone said "what's the stupidest thing that could happen at this point?" and then they answered it.

If only they had made a great 2nd half to match the fantastic first half. Sigh. 5/10 is being generous.

The Value Of Saying 'I Am Sorry'

[Chrysanthepop · 7 December 2009]

I'm surprised at all the negativity surrounding 'The Tale of Despereaux'. I found it to be quite a charming little story that has heart, humour, adventure and action. The animation is terrific, very detailed and colourful. The distinction between Mouseworld and Ratworld is brilliant. The story could have been a little more coherent but it rounds up well in the end. With names like Dustin Hoffman, Matthew Broderick, Frances Conroy, Tracey Ullman, Kevin Kline, Richard Jenkins, Tony Hale, William H. Macy, Robbie Coltrane, Frank Langella and Christopher Lloyd, 'The Tale of Despereaux' boasts of an enviable cast. In addition, Sigourney Weaver's narration is superb. However, using Emma Watson's voice for one of the lead roles is a mistake. It was terrible and she makes Princess Pea sound whiny. Many seem to complain about the film regarding its suitability to children because of themes like revenge, treachery, death etc but why start complaining now if similar themes have been depicted in classics like 'The Lion King', 'Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs' etc? What better way than this to teach kids the value of saying 'I am sorry' and the difference that can make?