flavia_cj Even if you have never seen, you already realize that a movie is bad when there is no specialized criticism about the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and when there are only 5 comments (6 now with me) in the IMDb, the majority written 10 years ago.Well, I'll be as sincere as possible: This film is insufferably, unbearably bad. One of the worst animation I've ever seen. I think only "Titanic's animated movies" and "Food Fight" overcomes this. I unfortunately watched it with my dear father some 10 years ago, in a period that I didn't have the habit of reading reviews on the internet before venturing into the theater. In short, my father lost his money and we lose almost two hours of our lives that no longer return.The story is so forgettable, the characters are so generic that one hour after the end, you will forget all about the movie. I can only remember a ridiculous scene in a generic amusement park (or something like that) and the ugly duckling turning teenager in a blink of an eye.Take my advice: preserve your time. If you have not watched this thing yet, feel happy: you have lost nothing.

Robert Armstrong Not really a bad film: children will appreciate some overarching lessons about human relationships if they're not too confused by the conflicting details.Irony is that what's perhaps most dissatisfying about this film is where it __does__ resemble HC Andersen's original fairy tale; the meandering from one apparently unrelated scene to the next in order to fill out the prerequisite playing time of a feature-length story.(Mild spoilers from here on, but I'm trying not to reveal much. Film is grudgingly recommended for children, but adults should be aware of content, and prepared to discuss with children anything that disturbs them morally or physically.) Main character Ratso appears to be buddies with a worm character, who then turns out not to have all that much to do with rest of story. Backstory of worm and rat is as developed as present tale of rat with baby "duckling" who assumes Ratso is his parent, yet the worm is unworthy of being recognized as extended family member, presumably because he is a worm. Rat's exploitive, selfish personality is allegedly redeemed by love, although for most of story he has shown no emotional capacity or learned skill for caring. He could have been friends with the worm, or at least in denial about needing friendship with the worm."Adult" aspects of storytelling seem to be tempered for younger audiences, resulting in implausibly denied reality: a predator is evil and deadly, then suddenly friendly. Another predator appears to have killed (a bit graphic here), and then victim turns up alive. Similarly another villain turns out not to have wanted to kill them at all.Sudden growth spurts turn the title "duckling" into different personalities overnight, again hearkening back to Andersen's original story wherein the character becomes a swan (we'll allow that spoiler, I think) whether or not preceding learning experiences have contributed to his becoming a better, or at least more attractive, person. Lesson here is for parents to identify with their own dealings with growing kids, but logistical problem of starting out with one character and then abandoning it (remember the worm?) is a jarring technical point the audience is going to resent.Plenty of inter-special relationships, including romantic/sexual affinities (burdening audience with yet another layer of suspended disbelief, a la the grasshopper-bee relationship in Fleischer brothers' Mr. Bug Goes to Town).Admittedly UD + Me is attractively filmed and animated, a plus for its acceptance by younger audiences, however intelligent these kids are. The adult swans, however, who are admired for their physical beauty, aren't all that graceful or attractive. There's an intended irony in question of whether physical beauty is enough for the "duckling" to want to become swan-identified at the end, but the superficial beauty in these distant objects of desire isn't quite there anyway. Voice actors are talented and well cast.Little tweaks in the writing of the dialog might have smoothed over inconsistencies. Shakespeare could have created satisfying plot development within this random grouping of "people" who become a family, even though they're not technically family. Perhaps the writers, including Andersen, should have studied Shakespeare.Tries to please everybody with adult-yet-not-adult content: ultimately, is this film for anybody?

alewar After watching the trailer I thought the would be fun, it was curious though that the last function was at 16:30 hrs. To begin with the animation was nothing special, the drawings of the characters look cheap and the plot could have been written by a four-grader. It was boring and I feel cheated by the trailer (in a "happy feet" way).At least I realized that Europe can produce exactly the same kind of superfluous, empty and bad movies without Hollywood. Another disappointing film. Keep your money and don't watch this crap.

Aleks Stosich A very heart-warming and kid-friendly film, brought up-to-date in terms of some of the plot twists and humour. When Ratso, a slick city rat, sees Ugly (yep, that's his real name), all he can imagine is dollar signs. He plans on exploiting the duckling at carnival sideshows. But, "the best-laid plans of rats and ducks" don't always work out the way we originally want them to. At the Toronto Festival, this was part of the pilot "Family First" series, an outreach of the "Sprockets" Children's Film Festival, so it was unusual but very refreshing to have so many kids in the audience. Their laughter was genuine, and the rest of us had plenty to laugh about as well (Got a teenager in your life? you'll love the scenes of Ugly's very rapid-onset 'puberty'). The animation is crisp and inviting, and the voices in the English language version were excellent.