Wow! Such a good movie.

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

I really enjoyed it. Although the animation does not have the fine detail (fur, grass) of bigger budget movies, the action sequences, characters, visuals and the soundtrack are great. It is very fast moving and full of refreshing jokes and surprises. The creators of this movie must have had lots of fun making it. I disagree with some other reviewers - it is not your typical Noah's Ark story. Imho, it is definitely original, and not just in the main idea, but in many other aspects of the movie as well. I have not watched it with kids, but I believe small kids as well as many adults will love it. If you feel already tired of the Pixar, Disney, etc. style of animated movies, then see this one.

The movie is visually engaging and often funny, and it's for these reasons that our 9, 10 and 11-year-old seemed to enjoy it. But the 14-year-old laughed "at it," not "with it." Here's why, I think.While in no overtly way religious, this is a Noah's Ark story, so by definition it's a biblical story. What's amazing about All Creature Big and Small is the implausibility of it all. The basic setup is that Noah subcontracts who's "on" and "off" the Ark. The Lion - a spitting image of The Lion King, who - first decrees that omnivores can't eat herbivores. Then he gets the final say over what animals can and can't board the Ark. (As for Noah himself: like all humans, he's conspicuously absent throughout movie.) After the flood eventually comes, some on the "out list" stowaway aboard the Ark. So far, standard kids fare.One creature excluded from boarding the Ark, Finny, is a constantly-worried pessimist while his daughter, Hazel, is a silver-lining optimist. All this proceeds entertainingly enough. But when push comes to shove toward the end of the movie and their lives are imminently threatened, things fall apart. The pessimist learns the value of trust and kinship, while the optimist comes to appreciate the value of force and decisiveness. But rather than leaving things there, the movie makers decide to moralize the story, metamorphosing the now-extinct species into one fit for the post-flood world. The problem, of course, is that evolution - at least as it's currently understood - does not affect a single generation but rather occurs over thousands, if not millions, of years.On the surface, this deus ex machina is a simple contrivance to create a happy ending for all (excepting the villains of the story). But more deeply it seems to suggest not only that Creationism and Evolution each have their merits, but also that they are not mutually exclusive of one another. How? By force-fitting a "happy ending," allowing *all* creatures great and small (except the most minor and villainous) to survive. The means by which they survive is wrapped up in their silly (and inexplicably previously-unrecognized) abilities: breathing under water, farting or squirting a noxious fluid, or an oversized slug turning into a whale. These creatures evolve within a single generation, a resolution that is neither satisfying nor plausible. No one we care about dies. Instead, I suspect that it was not the producer's intention, but by fictionalizing the story of the non-fittest animals, they debase the entire argument of Creationism. So instead of crafting a story in which Creationism and Evolution could plausibly co-exist, by relying on inexplicable Acts of God, the movie debases the prior ideology while making a mockery of the latter.The movie evades death - particularly the death of a species - in its wrong-headed portrayal of natural selection as something that can redeem an individual life, rather than that which governs the continued existence of a species. Though clearly anti-scientific, the movie might be forgiven as mindless entertainment for kids. The net impact for adults, however, is that in attempting to appeal to both Creationists/Individualists and Evolutionists/Collectivists, neither narrative is coherent. For some such beliefs in life, there can be no viable middle ground.

This is your standard Noah's ark story as the title may elude to (albeit the title varies depending on which country you find yourself watching the film). The king of the animals, a lion, announces to the other animals that a biblical flood is on it's way to wipe out all the life from the planet. There is a plan to save the animals as an ark has been built to carry them for forty days and forty nights until the flood has gone. The animals each have to meet with the acceptance committee to see if they warrant a place on the ark - it seems only certain animals will be saved and unfortunately for the main characters of this film "Nestrian's" (fluffy neon animals with big snouts that walk on two legs and excrete a cloud of smoke when they are scared) haven't been selected for safety. Rather than face the flood and sure death head on, the Nestrian father and son combination trick their way onto the ark with some Grymps (wolf like solitary creatures, walk on 4 legs and likes to get angry). The child Nestrian and Grymp wander off exploring only to realise that they have left the ark and have been left behind to face the flood. At this point of the film it turns into a journey story, the children try to find a way to avoid the flood water while following the ark and the single parents on the ark try their best to get the ark turned around to rescue the kids. The overall moral is teamwork because alone respectively the two groups, kids and adults, wont be able to succeed by working as a team they should be able to survive.The story isn't epic by any stretch of the imagination as it's based on a story from the bible we've seen many times before, it mirrors other animated films like "Ice Age" and "Finding Nemo" but all the same its harmless fun. Fortunately the film doesn't try and force religion onto it's audiences it simply takes inspiration from a biblical story and goes off on it's own tangent using the inspiration as platform only. The animation was cute and colourful and while the story wasn't the most original the dialogue was amusing at times and there was a mix of gags that both adult and child could find amusing. The clever thing about the film was that as a cynical adult I knew that random animals with names I'd never heard of wouldn't be saved by the end of the film but there was a great twist which showed what happened to the animals God and Noah didn't save. Ultimately the ending is happy and my cynicism was slightly surprised. This is a European film which has been released in various countries (as mentioned by the title variances) however there is nothing lost and the unknown actors doing their turn for the voices carry off the film with charm. There are occasional problems with the animation but let's face it, this was made with a lot less budget than your next Pixar film is likely to get and for what was invested this is a good way to spend a quiet weekend day with audiences of different ages. I have no problem awarding this 6 out of 10, not entirely my cup of tea but not an awful waste of time by any stretch of the imagination.

Nothing more than the standard ark story that every one has had rammed down their throats already. The animation was sub-par for a professional film, this looks and feels like a student film, a halfway decent student film but a student film none the less. The lighting of the shots were highly stylized and in my opinion didn't work out too well most of the time. The story was abysmal, boring, predictable and unoriginal and that's all there is to say about that. The voice acting was decent and probably the best part of the film but was not good enough to save it. And I think this last part goes without saying but be prepared to have Christian ideology and highly judgmental characters rammed down your throat, standard Christian indoctrination film. If this is your type of film then you'll love it however I would like my 87 minutes back please.