So I can't do a two-sentence movie review for "Wallace and Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death" because my feelings about it were too complex to sum up, even considering my talents at extended paragraphs.
The short version, for those of you who don't want spoilers, is that in certain respects I found it very upsetting and I feel it is definitely not suitable for small children.

The long version, and Here There Be Spoilers, is that I couldn't figure out why the plot they had was used at all. The back of the DVD case claims it's a "whodunnit spoof, " but it's was more of a Hitchcock-style plot. "Whodunnit" is synonomous with Agatha Christie, and implies that there are multiple characters, one or more of which is a murderer, and the detective spends the duration unraveling clues that eventually reveal the murderer, usually in a dramatic fashion at some kind of social event etc. There's no question who the murderer is in this; there's literally only one other human character in the film. Thus Hitchcock, who liked on occasion to let you know who the murderer was up front and let you spend the film trying to figure out how he or she would meet their just desserts. This is fine, even entertaining, in an actual drama. In this, it just feels out of place. My general rule for animated films that are intended for general audiences is, if it wouldn't happen to Wile E. Coyote, it's not good for small children. (This is why small children shouldn't watch "The Lion King, " either- it's basically Hamlet with fur) So, when you have someone getting murdered in the first scene, even comedically, it's really just ruled itself out for a section of the audience that could have a great time with "A Grand Day Out" etc. And I could forgive that and say, fine, whatever, show it to the older kids, except for Fluffles.
Fluffles is the poodle pet of the aforementioned only other human character in the film, and she is very obviously abused. I understand that you want to give the audience clues that a character probably isn't what she seems, but does it have to be done so *realistically*? She was so like a real abused dog, even from the first scene, and every little flinch, attack of the shakes, resigned acceptance of commands, and glance at her mistress to make sure she hadn't overstepped herself just left me reflecting on cases of animal cruelty I have seen over the the years, which is, unsurprisingly, a hell of a damper on what is supposed to be an amusing film. The fact that the dogs in the show are so intelligent and human-like only makes it worse; it brings to mind the instances of human abuse I've seen, which is *also* a big damper on any gags they try to play. At the end, instead of assuming everything was going to be okay, my first thought was that I hoped Gromit had the resources to put Fluffles through intensive therapy, because that's what it takes to heal years of systematic abuse- getting a single chance back at your tormentor and watching her get eaten by an alligator simply isn't enough to heal that kind of damage. It doesn't go away overnight, and in some cases, animal and human, it simply never goes away at all, despite all efforts to the contrary. And I found myself reflecting on that, too. Someone please explain to me why that's a good concept to bring up in an animated short? Isn't there another way to show a character isn't to be trusted? It's fine in a drama, but not in what is ostensibly a lighthearted gadget-filled romp, and because of it, I couldn't laugh at the gags. I was too busy thinking of how abusers should meet a bloody, horrible end, and I can't believe that that was the point of the exercise.

[Edited to add: Yes, Curse of the Were-Rabbit had Wallace being threatened with death, but those are *threats* which may or may not be carried through on depending on how the plot unfolds. Fluffles' behavior implies that the abuse has already *happened* systematically, and things which have happened are obviously more upsetting than things that *might* happen. There's also a difference between violence that is perpetrated by an unstable maniac with delusions of grandeur, and violence that is perpetrated on someone who is the ward of the abuser, who is supposed to take care of said ward and yet does not, and the ward is physically unable to speak out about the abuse. Kids can understand maniacs, and should feel secure enough in their homes not to worry about psycho big-game hunters or malfunctioning robot dogs, but one's caregiver's intended being a murderer and abuser is pretty tough stuff for a child. And it's pretty upsetting to me.]