What's this?

A CGI feature film that's made for families, but isn't cute?
That is all real with just a subtle touch of fantasy?
That doesn't have the intention of making you smile, let alone laugh?
That makes you think?
That is devoid of whimsy, clichés, pratfalls and talking animals?
That doesn't try to be anything else?
That doesn't resemble anything like a franchise kickstarter?
That boasts a unique visual style but doesn't relish in it enough to lose track of its storytelling?
That doesn't shy away from dealing with topics other animated family films in this age wouldn't touch?
That has characters who aren't bright, colourful and energetic, but are still believable as a whole?
That is every single one of the above at once?

About goddamn time.

Other than any film with a clumsy, inexperienced underdog, a sidekick with brains, braun and a thing for attention, a spunky love interest who fails at a kiss the first time, gibberish-speaking comic relief, a misguided villain and a more powerful, sinister superior, both with British accents, Mune is unlike anything you've seen before.

So I learned that this would be screening twice at the London Film Festival, but I cheated the BFI (for the second time this season) by watching it via iTunes on my brother's laptop.

If this does not get a nomination for either Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing or Best Actress in a Leading/Supporting Role by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association or even the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, then I am suing...

What am I saying? Only in a perfect world can this happen to a film so obscure to the public eye.

BAD: It's a mixture of fairies, Shakespeare and Moulin Rouge. It's worse than "strange".
GOOD: It has some decent taste in music.
BAD: It uses a bizarre combination of photorealistic CG and modernised, Disney-esque quips.
GOOD: At least there's no toilet humour.
BAD: A film using characters like these is bound to be a failure, and George Lucas forgot all about that. George Lucas will always be a bastard.
GOOD: The visuals aren't meant to be cute, so I'll give it some credit.
BAD: For a movie about not judging people by their appearance, those shortstacks sure do look off-putting.
GOOD: At least the other creatures look interesting. No wonder the only poster for this film highlights them.
BAD: It shoves romance into your face so aggressively you'll end up disregarding its tagline.
GOOD: Dawn's actually pretty cute when she's love-dusted.
BAD: Most attempts at humour fall flatter than any creature who we may think really does get crushed by a rock.
GOOD: The Bog King's to this film what the Grand Duke to Rock-a-Doodle. His design is badass, he's basically Alan Cumming singing metal and he shares the most agreeable chemistry with the two princesses through any relationship in a bad film this year.
BAD: None of these relationships, not even B.K.'s, start off subtly.
GOOD: The film uses the "Disney Death" cliché but at least adds an interesting twist to it by trying to get its audience relieved when the bad guy survives.
BAD: Sunny infects a lizard with a love potion, making her act like a dog and apparently he calls it "falling in love". The way it's used just adds one extra layer of bestiality to the script.
GOOD: Any time the Bog King and Marianne were together, I found myself smirking and in some way rooting for them.
BAD: I'm not supposed to be smiling at or believing in anyone in this lovey-dovey, psuedo-Epic, Lucasfilm trash!

Still succeeds in providing that breathtaking experience it's going for after 14 years, but please, Disney, when you replace this ride make sure you don't fool around with any cartoonish effects of your own, okay?