I don't know if it meets the standard as a children's movie. After all, it's past the time to appreciate children's movies. Thinking about the horrors of domestic children's films, the mission of children's films must have been achieved. So, as a family movie (or a popcorn movie), it seems to be debatable whether it meets the standard.
The reason why I say this is that I can avoid a detail, that is, I hold more unintentional views on the current insinuation of the political issues of "Angry Birds". On the one hand, the film does remain largely true to the game's setting; on the other hand, even if there is a certain degree of overlap, the innuendo of the film itself does not serve the purpose of true political judgment. Therefore, it seems that the excavation of its political innuendo can be avoided for the time being.
As a game adaptation, those with plots can catch the eye. For those senior "game fans" and those with deep feelings, it is very satisfying to see the various birds angrily smashing at the green pig on various small screens with motivation, life and personality. If such motives can be explained more clearly, the plot of playing treasures is more cute and cheap, and the feelings of the party will be basically satisfied. Therefore, such an adaptation is basically inconsistent. Moreover, the excellent level of animation production (at least the production of Hollywood level) and the serious production attitude also ensure the passing level of the film to a certain extent (this may also consume the sentiment index of the sentimental party.)
However, for a People who have no feelings need to think carefully. In fact, the crux of the problem is that several very key settings in the game need to be story-based, and it is best to tell a truth. From this point of view, this work does not do enough. The most important thing is, why did the bird hit the green pig? Why pass the "slingshot"? The movie made explanations, but it seems that these explanations are of a perfunctory nature. Maybe from the point of view of the filmmakers, everyone just wants to watch the bird play tricks, or just watch the bird smash the green pig? In the end, the narrative and artistic functions that the film itself needs to carry are relegated to insignificance (if the producers really have political mapping, I apologize again).
Therefore, the success of the film is almost entirely due to a few unstoppable laughter (such as the play in the water), a few slightly awkward jokes (such as the "force-in" of some funny passages), and a few interesting settings (such as the secular setting of Condor). Such a hodgepodge is both the fate of the game adaptation movie, and it also constitutes the film's strengths and weaknesses.
If you compare Angry Birds to Minions, this Despicable Me spinoff seems to be a better (though generally bad) Angry Birds movie. Minions are cuter, stupider and more cheap, and their mapping and jokes about historical events seem to be more direct and sarcastic.
Yes, both angry and cute, all the way to play cute and playful, and that's all. From the end of the movie, there seems to be a possibility of a sequel. But judging from the current works, such a small world view is definitely not enough to support a "sequel", unless the world view of "two islands" can be set a step further. This will test the brains of directors and screenwriters even more.
However, looking at the sadness that is everywhere in the theater, think about the only thing to watch, that is, "Angry Birds", so it also highlights the family-friendly nature of this movie. In the end, in comparison, this movie is at least a viewable.
View more about The Angry Birds Movie reviews
