Whilst researching for my essay, I came across this review and found it quite an irritating read. This is one of the few bad reviews of Rango that were published, and upon reading it I couldn't help but feel like this reviewer wanted a generic kids movie.
I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I take issue with a few things that were said:
As a family-demographic product "Rango" has a million selling points, among them an unusually strong voice cast headed by Johnny Depp in tremulous-aesthete mode; a popular live-action director making his feature animation debut; and a twist on a genre temporarily back in vogue, thanks to "True Grit."
So, at what point is a child going to announce their desire to see a film from things like a director or an actor, or a trend in cinema? Rango is a Western (remember playing cowboys and indians in your youth?) and the cast are anthropomorphic animals- that is the selling point for a child. I also suspect that the average movie goer won't care about the strength of the acting cast or the debut animation from a director, they will judge the trailer or word of mouth.
"When computer-generated animation sticks this closely to photorealistic landscapes and gunplay and menace, even with a cast of animated lizards and prairie dogs and birds does the result feel like something for kids?"
The whole review gave me the impression that this reviewer simply cannot get past the notion that not all animation is for children and so he attacked the film for its particular brand of humour and style. Rango was never intended to be strictly for children, it was created to be an animated Western above all else.
Regardless of that fact, I think that children are majorly underrated in their intelligence and appreciation for film and I wish that films would stop dumbing down their material to reach the ever younger audience.