Sorry I had problems and I just couldn't have time to write a review for "The Pebble And The Penguin" until now.
Like I was saying in my review of "A Troll In Central Park", Don Bluth achieved being the first true competition Disney had in decades, forcing them to regroup and releasing "The Little Mermaid" which put Disney again on the road. But now Disney was back with all their might, and Don Bluth struggled facing them. Every single of his films would be compared to their Disney counterparts ("Aladdin" to "Rock-a-Doodle", "The Lion King" to "A Troll In Central Park"...) This dangerous habit of comparing his output also severely damaged his integrity when trying to make his films: executives forced him out of his distinctive, trademark style to one the public would be more easily to stomach, with fictional devices and conventions common in Disney films that would be more sure to make money. But when it was the time to release the film on the big screen, distribuitors wouldn't have faith on it, the only animated films that could prove that were capable of make money are Disney's, so why bothering distributing a Don Bluth film when you could as well distribute a proper Disney's?
So, in this lose-lose scenario, having been caught between fire from the executives that wanted a Disney-style film that would be more likely to make money, and the fire from the distribuitors that wouldn't trust any animated film not made by Disney, was where "The Pebble And The Penguin" was made. And how bad it affected it? Certainly, Don Bluth abandoned in the middle of the production and demanded that he wouldn't be credited in this film. An Hungarian studio had to finish it, and so you see why the legendary high-style quality of the animation of Don Bluth, one of the things he never compromised no matter if his films were bad, here hits his lowest quality and seems at times as unpolished and mediocre.
But luckily, Don Bluth had a couple of tricks in his sleeve to redeem the animation, like the opening sequence in 3D musical sheets, the scene of the shooting star, and Drake's musical number. Which brings the next topic, the score was certainly better than "Troll" but nowhere near his best. "Don't make me laugh" (Drake's number) and "Forever and ever" (the opening sequence) are great but others songs aren't particularly memorable. Maybe is the quality of the voice acting that makes what they are, which brings the next topic. I didn't liked Hubie's performance, nor that of many support characters, but Rocko, Marina and specially Drake were fine (see? I'm starting to note that Drake was the best thing of the film)
And the story/plot... well it's OK I've seen plenty of films like this in Cartoon Network, it's perfectly acceptable to have a film like this, with this mood and atmosphere, if I could catch a film like this in a Saturday afternoon on TV I wouldn't see what's different with many other films like "A Nine Dog Christmas" or "Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer" so why the film failed and was another flop of Don Bluth? Disney. Like I said, all animation had to be only and just only from Disney. This cruel and sadistic practice of the industry (and to some extent, the public too) would come later to bite back Disney and destroy their traditional animation divisions with the arrival of the CGI, but that's another story...
5/10, it's a perfectly OK, average film, absolutely better than "Troll" and "Rock-a-doodle" but nowhere on par of Don Bluth's best.
Like I was saying in my review of "A Troll In Central Park", Don Bluth achieved being the first true competition Disney had in decades, forcing them to regroup and releasing "The Little Mermaid" which put Disney again on the road. But now Disney was back with all their might, and Don Bluth struggled facing them. Every single of his films would be compared to their Disney counterparts ("Aladdin" to "Rock-a-Doodle", "The Lion King" to "A Troll In Central Park"...) This dangerous habit of comparing his output also severely damaged his integrity when trying to make his films: executives forced him out of his distinctive, trademark style to one the public would be more easily to stomach, with fictional devices and conventions common in Disney films that would be more sure to make money. But when it was the time to release the film on the big screen, distribuitors wouldn't have faith on it, the only animated films that could prove that were capable of make money are Disney's, so why bothering distributing a Don Bluth film when you could as well distribute a proper Disney's?
So, in this lose-lose scenario, having been caught between fire from the executives that wanted a Disney-style film that would be more likely to make money, and the fire from the distribuitors that wouldn't trust any animated film not made by Disney, was where "The Pebble And The Penguin" was made. And how bad it affected it? Certainly, Don Bluth abandoned in the middle of the production and demanded that he wouldn't be credited in this film. An Hungarian studio had to finish it, and so you see why the legendary high-style quality of the animation of Don Bluth, one of the things he never compromised no matter if his films were bad, here hits his lowest quality and seems at times as unpolished and mediocre.
But luckily, Don Bluth had a couple of tricks in his sleeve to redeem the animation, like the opening sequence in 3D musical sheets, the scene of the shooting star, and Drake's musical number. Which brings the next topic, the score was certainly better than "Troll" but nowhere near his best. "Don't make me laugh" (Drake's number) and "Forever and ever" (the opening sequence) are great but others songs aren't particularly memorable. Maybe is the quality of the voice acting that makes what they are, which brings the next topic. I didn't liked Hubie's performance, nor that of many support characters, but Rocko, Marina and specially Drake were fine (see? I'm starting to note that Drake was the best thing of the film)
And the story/plot... well it's OK I've seen plenty of films like this in Cartoon Network, it's perfectly acceptable to have a film like this, with this mood and atmosphere, if I could catch a film like this in a Saturday afternoon on TV I wouldn't see what's different with many other films like "A Nine Dog Christmas" or "Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer" so why the film failed and was another flop of Don Bluth? Disney. Like I said, all animation had to be only and just only from Disney. This cruel and sadistic practice of the industry (and to some extent, the public too) would come later to bite back Disney and destroy their traditional animation divisions with the arrival of the CGI, but that's another story...
5/10, it's a perfectly OK, average film, absolutely better than "Troll" and "Rock-a-doodle" but nowhere on par of Don Bluth's best.