most of the voices were mostly right.

The voices were the major element that kept me from really loving the movie - without Henson and Oz, none of the main cast sound like themselves any more. There's a part of me deep down that views the post-Henson Kermit as an impostor, and I just can't suspend my disbelief fully enough to enjoy him. My Kermit died when Jim Henson did, and you will never convince my lizard brain otherwise.

I didn't have a hard time with Kermit, but Fozzie was really off to me a lot of the time.

Well, he does do it, but it's really offscreen. You see him lean down and come up with a bloody mouth. I've already encountered one adult who didn't realise what happened, because they started doing a C-section with a scalpel before they were interrupted, and they thought that was how it was actually done.

I'm still reeling at how bad the makeup is. The men where veritably spackled...I felt disturbed looking at the white (originally 'shite') paint buildup around Edward's nose. And the men who were wearing wigs all looked William-the-pre-bloody-bad, they didn't sparkle *once*! Not one time. However, the CGI when Bella loses weight as Renesmee eats her from the inside was pretty good, a level beyond what anyone else looks like, ever,

My Kermit died when Jim Henson did, and you will never convince my lizard brain otherwise.

Amphibian brain.

Yeah, I feel the same way about Kermit. Piggy was also off for me.

OTOH, I kind of adore Amy Adams and she should be in everything.

I was DYING laughing during "Party of One" - Amy Adams can do no wrong.

I didn't have a hard time with Kermit, but Fozzie was really off to me a lot of the time.

In pure technical terms, I'd say Fozzie and Piggy were the least like their original voices. But Kermit was the most emotionally wrong for me.

Yeah, Fozzie was off, and at least once was so completely off I didn't realize he had spoken, I thought it was someone else.

Still, it was pretty entertaining even if not as wonderful as the original movie.

Perkins and I saw it today!! I was pretty okay with the different voices (kind of have to be, I guess), and I DIED laughing during the chickens' number. DIED.

Hmm. I've always liked the extended definition of soul food: as opposed to a specifically African-American cuisine, it is sometimes defined as food that is so good that even though you know it is not physically healthy, the pleasure is great enough you will indulge in it occasionally for the good of your soul. So that could be anything you like well enough, a certain kind of chocolate, Korean spare ribs, an oyster po-boy, really good onion rings, whatever gives you enough pleasure.

I'm thinking the same thing can happen in film. A movie with awful writing can have great acting, or a film with bad actors can have brilliant direction and be visually stunning. Or whatever - again subjective. At any rate, I'm wondering what films you find the cinematic equivalent of soul food - films that fail one of the conventional tests of good film-making like writing or acting quality, but provide such great pleasure due to other virtues that you still love them. Not guilty pleasures, but films so good along other dimensions that you don't feel even a bit guilty for enjoying them. (Not that I don't have a possible rant about the whole idea of guilty pleasures.) Hec mentioned the other day a film that was cooler than it was good. Maybe that qualifies. Depends how much Hec enjoyed the coolness.