Arthur's Missing Pal

From Qualitipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ToddHoward2010sm (cropped).jpg All of this just works.
― Todd Howard
This article needs cleanup to meet our rules and guidelines. You can help by editing it.
Arthur's Missing Pal
Arthurs bad movie.jpeg
"THE PIZZA BOY IS FRANCINE!" — The Brain
Genre: Family
Mystery
Comedy
Drama
Adventure
Animals
Animation
Directed By: Yvette Kaplan
Produced By: Richard Rich
Written By/Screenplay: Ken Scarborough
Starring: Carr Thompson
Daniel Brochu (credited as Conway Bruce)
Luciano Rauso
Bailey Lauren
Nicole Blanchard
James Burkholder (credited as James Buckholder)
Bruce Dinsmore (credited as Bruce Smithee)
Wendee Lee
Catherine Lavin
Mona Marshall
Marc Graue
Photography: Color
Distributed By: Lionsgate (theatrically; international)
Kidtoon Films (theatrically; international)
Lionsgate Home Entertainment (DVD)
Mainframe Entertainment (international)
Release Date: July 1, 2006 (theatrically)
August 18, 2006 (TV)
August 22, 2006 (DVD)
Runtime: 68 minutes
Country: Canada
United States
Language: English

Arthur's Missing Pal is a computer-animated mystery television film based on the animated PBS Kids television series Arthur and the Arthur books by Marc Brown. It first premiered theatrically, on July 1, 2006, then aired on PBS KIDS GO! on August 18, 2006, and was later released on DVD on August 22, 2006.

Plot

Pal goes missing, after Arthur leaves for his friends' water balloon fight, because Arthur has forgotten to feed him. However, he and Buster are certain, that D.W. did it, but D.W. denies any involvement. Arthur and his friends mount a search throughout Elwood City, for the missing dog.

Why It's (Intentionally?) Not a Wonderful Kind of Movie

  1. Really ugly and cheap CGI animation, that is a really big downgrade, from the books and show's animation, and is bad, even for 2006 standards, enough to make the flash animation in seasons 16-19 look like it was a literal masterpiece, in comparison.
    • Speaking of the animation, the CGI used for Mr. Kone's mop, is probably some of the worst of it, in the entire movie, and that's really saying a lot, as rather than touching the floor, it actually floats above it.
    • Also, the character designs are pretty bad, as they horribly transition, from 2D flat designs, to uncanny CGI ones. Some of them aren't even that recognizable when you compare their original versions to their transitions into CGI here. The Tibbles, Francine, Muffy, D.W., and Kate are notable offenders of this.
    • The animation is so bad, that, it actually manages to make some of the characters look uncanny, in their transitions to CGI. For example, Arthur's eyes look creepy, and confusing, while the character's facial expressions, look unnatural, in some scenes.
    • What doesn't help at all is that it was animated by Crest Animation, also known as RichCrest Animation Studios at the time of this movie's release, who would later milk their Alpha and Omega, up until Splash Entertainment held the rights to make the last three sequels after their bankruptcy, and Swan Princess, up until 2023, franchises with direct to video CGI sequels in the 2010's, and being exposed, for overworking, and underpaying their employees in their Indian business, according to an Indian news article, regarding their bankruptcy.
  2. False advertising: Some of the posters, and one trailer claim that this is Arthur's first movie. However, this isn’t Arthur's first feature-length film. Arthur's Perfect Christmas, despite being a Christmas special of the show, which was released six years, before this film came out.
  3. Arthur screaming, "PAAAAAAL!", after Pal runs away, is very annoying.
  4. The plot is rather unoriginal, and poorly executed as it feels similar, and steals some elements, to the SpongeBob SquarePants episode, Have You Seen This Snail?, in which Gary runs away, after SpongeBob forgets to feed him, as well as Clifford's Really Big Movie, another film based on a PBS Kids show.
    • Arthur's Lost Dog, an episode from season 1, also has the same plot as this movie. That episode is no better, either.
  5. There are constant, and repetitive montages, that often come off as pointless, and serve as little more than filler, in what's already a short movie.
  6. There is no good comedy in this film, which is unacceptable, because Arthur is meant to be a comedic franchise.
  7. Poor soundtrack that mainly consists of unoriginal, and mediocre songs, that are very poorly incorporated, into the story.
  8. Arthur treats Pal very harshly at the beginning of the movie, as he blames Pal, for losing the water balloon fight, despite the fact that it was actually his own fault, as even though Pal distracted him, he was still the one who started talking, and, therefore, ended up giving away his hiding spot and losing, and tells Buster, that sometimes he wishes that he literally had any other dog in the world, instead.
  9. Most of the cast in this movie, used pseudonyms, instead of their real names, for some reason, which can be extremely confusing.
    • On that topic, only Daniel Brochu (Buster) and Bruce Dinsmore (David Read and Binky) reprise their roles from the TV series.
  10. Some, albeit minor, animation errors. For example, when Buster, Dad, and Arthur are in Mr. Kone's ice cream factory, the background door is still locked, and during the water balloon war, Muffy's camera continuously changes its position, despite the fact that she's never actually seen moving it.
  11. A few inaccuracies, to the original Arthur franchise, as the one-off character, Mr. Kone, along with his own ice cream company, were never included in the original book series/show, making this unofficial.

Redeeming Qualities

  1. Arthur is still a likeable character, throughout the rest of the movie, despite treating Pal very harshly, earlier on.
  2. The voice acting is mostly okay, even if most of the cast didn't reprise their roles, as mentioned above, Daniel Brochu and Bruce Dinsmore reprising their roles from the TV series.
  3. The ending isn't too bad.
  4. There are some heartwarming scenes, though that does not make up for the film's flaws.
  5. It was never intended to be released theatrically, which can explain some of the problems.
    • Also, due to its quality, it may have been made to be bad, on purpose.

Comments

Loading comments...