Easily the best part of this movie is George himself--his innocence, his sense of fun and his curiousity about everything is very well conveyed given that he is an essentially silent character. He steals every scene that he's in and, given that he's supposedly the star, that's the way it should be.

Unfortunately, the only down-side to this movie is the other plot elements that seem stuck in to make the whole thing movie worthy. There's the business about the bankrupt museum, poor Ted (the Man in the Yellow Hat) for whom nothing seems to go right despite the best of intentions, the cheesy romance--although thankfully this is kept to the bare minimum... I'd have to say the most distracting plot element is Junior, who wants to tear down his father's museum to and go into the lucritive parking lot business.

None of these things I think turn Curious George into a *bad* film... it's more like their flaws in what could've been a truly excellent film--wonderfully done animation, great characterization on the part of George. I even thought Will Ferrell was an excellent choice for Ted--a nice mix of warmth and humor which worked well for this rendition of the character.

All in all I'd give this a solid kiddie recommendation... although perhaps not so much for the veteran animation fan.

If anyone knows me they know I am a depressed loner with no friends and an addiction to sugar.

Thats probably why I like this movie because its about a monkey who starts off alone but finds a friend. So if I keep on hoping maybe I will find that special someone to. George reminds me of me.

Curious George is a bundle of inquisitive cuteness which ought to keep any young child entranced for long enough for you to catch a nap. I have to say I enjoyed it myself, when showing it to an audience of children. The plot isn't terribly brilliant or original, but George's innocent, childlike propensity for mischief is well expressed.

How well did it convey the original material? Well, it's been a long time since my George-reading days, but it seems to me they've done with this movie what everyone seems to do with White Fang: took a book about a dog and made it a movie about the owner.

In the books, the Man in the Yellow Hat was the infallible father figure, the competent one who could make everything right again. I can't say I think it was true to the books--or necessary to the film--that he be converted into yet another stereotypical lovable loser. The yellow hat (and matching suit) were never questioned in the books, and I don't think they needed to be explained away. The Man in the Yellow Hat was always the cavalry coming over the hill, the hero who appeared when things were darkest, the one who picked George up after his adventures and tucked him into bed. He was the comforting anchor to George's adventures, because you always knew he'd keep George from harm, whatever trouble his mischief got him into.

But it does sometimes seem Hollywood only knows one way to adapt works to movie format, and that's by throwing in a lovable loser and a cheesy romance. All in all, it's not so very important.

What is important, George was very much George, full of innocence and mischief and the excitement of discovery. Gotta give points for that!

What can I say? This movie was not that great. Yes, I loved seeing 2D animation back on screen but I think they could of done WAY more with it and tightened up the plot.

From a animation viewpoint this movie was good. The animation was solid and pretty consistent considering it was done in several different studios. There were some great animators working on this, many of them ex-Disney, and, again, it was enjoyable to see 2D animation on the screen once more.

But there were a few things that bugged me about it from a technical standpoint.
The CGI stuck out like a sore thumb and some of the coloring looked... off... and just plain distracting at times.
But that's not the animator's fault.

Now, what REALLY bugs me about this film is the charcater Dick Van Dike played. I looked forward to some Van Dike style humor but none came.
They could have done SO much with the character and could have even added some comedy for the parents.
Dick is a wonderful actor whom I admire but they did absolutly NOTHING with his character. The character just came across as... flat. He was just.. there.

Another thing, this movie is hard to sit through if you're under 7. It was boring. Plain and simple.
Once again, if they could have done more with Dick's character and had some light humor coming from Mr. Ferrel it could have been quite entertaining.

I mean, I know it was aimed at a very young audience but so is Sesame Street and Veggie Tales but I still can find humor in those!

One more thing, I think the overal design of the movie should have stuck closer to the book's water-color painting style. It would have looked a lot nicer.

In conclusion: it's not a "bad" movie by any means but it's flawed in many aspects. I think if theyt could have spent more time on character development and less time on "deep canvas" visuals this would have been a real gem.

2/5 stars: C-