When I first saw the posters for this, I thought WTF, they remade El Arca (2007) in CGI? But while that movie was funny and (due to being South American) somewhat raunchy, this one is just mediocre and boring. Our heroes are two "nestrians" (what an original name), small furry elephantlike creatures that look like rejected Pokemon/Invizimals - basically, the kind of design you see little kids draw. The flood is here, and a (never shown, guess human CGI was not in the budget?) Noah built his Ark, and the bored King lion assembles the animals for the Ark. Problem is for our nestrian father and his son, they are not on the list. So they pretend to be grymps (foxes with fur resembling some anime's mascot) to get on board, angering the mother grymp and her daughter a lot. See the similarities here already? El Arca also had two humans disguising themselves as nonexisting animals to get on board, as well as the whole "no meat eating on the Ark" thing that was the crux of that movie. They even ripped off effeminate chimpanzee butler. Here however, the plot falls already apart. WHY are a father and his son and a mother and her daughter selected for the Ark??? Did the writers forget that the point of selecting two animals each was so they can reproduce later? Enter our villains, the weird flying fox-like Mr and Mrs Griffin, who A: don't even remotely resemble mythical griffins but bats, and B: despite being flyers who could easily sneak onboard the Ark, they never even try. They just try to eat the two kids who miss the Ark and have to work together to survive. From here on, it's where the movie turns into a boring by the numbers trope-fest... The kids have to work together and of course the grumpy "I can do everything myself, I don't need anyone" grymp girl becomes friends with the clingy friendly nestrian kid. At the same time, on the boat their parents also work together to turn the boat around and learn to like each other. The kids pick up friends, the weird moss-covered giant blob with a mouth and his parasite, and learn to appreciate teamwork, yadda-yadda... All this culminates in a final scene where the movie pulls a 180 and made me slap my forehead so hard it hurt. When the grymps fall into water and the nestrians jump after them to save them, it suddenly turns out they can breathe and swim underwater... What's more, the giant blob was actually a whale! Umm, writers, really? That's NOT how evolution works. A creature won't develop organs and abilities to be used in an environment it never even visited. Or if it was already developed for this, it would KNOW which environment it needs to live in. Even if the writers are creationists, would God create an aquatic creature and place it in the middle of the dry rocky mountains? Overall, a boring Noah Ark's animal story, with a lot of chases and hijinks that lead nowhere, and characters you will forget immediately with the most unoriginal designs I have seen. The CGI was on the level of console game cutscenes. El Arca was no masterpiece either, but it tried to be innovative. This was just boring.

After seeing some of the negative reviews for this movie I just had to submit a positive one because this is a good movie. If you are in the mood for a fun animated film, it is definitely worth a watch. This is far from "Your Standard Religious Ark Story" Anyone that believes this 100% did not watch the film. There is 1 mention of Noah, and then its just animal antics on a boat. Some of the jokes are predictable and the writing does feel standard, but there are more genuinely funny moments and surprisingly heart felt ones as well. You might watch the trailer and think this is a low-tier animated attempt, but if you sit down and watch it you will be surprised

Commencing the movie defense in 3... 2... 1!I, like probably many others, thought this was a generic animated motion picture "for the entire family". I was so wrong. So very wrong. Not only was it not generic; it was way better than expected. After all, it was so good, I am giving it a 9!Okay, let's start with the premise. It is very simple. A single mother and a single father are separated from their daughter and son (respectively), and need to get back together. The daughter is a hunter-type animal who works alone, and the son is a timid-type animal with a natural gift for building things, and a love for warm hugs. It is one of THOSE movies, with the moral being "we need to work together!" It is, as I said, simple, and not terribly original.Now, the reason I give this movie a 9 out of 10. Despite the simple old-as-dirt moral, the way it is HANDLED is great. Morals take a backseat, while the front seat gets firmly occupied by the action, the gags, and the dialogue. It is like the movie team were given complete creative freedom to come up with as many interesting scenes as possible, and they done all of them. The timing of the action is great, the lines are great, the voice acting is great, and not a single "funny" moment felt forced (to me anyway, some people are much more picky). Actually, this movie reminds me a lot of Penguins of Madagascar, in the way it's structured (simple moral, but runs on non-stop gags).The animation has to be mentioned somewhere, so might as well mention it here. It is really good. The only parts where I thought things looked "imperfect", was every time tree branches were used. This animated movie does not have the best looking branches out there. Wood aside, all the textures and atmospheric effects are perfectly fine. And in my books "perfectly fine" equates to "nothing being wrong". The animation itself deserves a 9 as well.You are probably asking at this point: "But what about the Ark? What about Noah? How are those elements used?" Well, I did not mark this review as containing spoilers, and I am not delivering any. Let's just say, the way the "Ark" part of the story is handled, is the most creative way I ever it seen it handled in any movie. And I'll leave it at that.I won't spoil the ending either, but I will tell you that I did not see it coming. That was some truly great cartoon writing, and I was pleasantly surprised. Now, to reassure you somewhat, I wasn't born yesterday, and seen and read hundreds of stories. I have frames of reference, and I have developed that thing called "taste". The ending of this movie was GOOD. Trust me on that.Last, but not least, the movie's title. It was changed for every country it was released in, if I am not mistaken. And it is funny, albeit in a sad way. It can instill the wrong impression upon the potential audience (aka, you), that the people who made this movie did not have any idea what they did. I assure you, the naming problem in no way reflects the actual content, because the movie is great. After all, if it wasn't, I wouldn't give it a 9 out of 10.Watch it. Now. Don't be afraid. It's really good.

The plot is the same as we have seen, the dialogue is what i really enjoyed along with the same comical response and what has happens in it, which is good. Offers a good message for the young ens. Though i hated absolutely outraged that an animal was called Fatso insulted over his weight, although it is a kids movie that perpetuates that religion which is all fine, but its for children. We want to teach them not to insult others over how they look. I would have given this a higher rating but because of that it gets a 2 star, the writer really has to do some soul searching of some sort. horrible person or persons, I am not a fan of the religion but i find this is still very watchable an enjoyable and i am enjoying it but hate the parts with the creature being call fatso!all in all keep your kids away from it , unless you are parents who judge people by there looks and want your kid to do this also!