User reviews

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.