owners of Mr. Magoo, announced that the film was set for development at Warner Bros. Pictures, with Steve Tisch producing, acquiring from the rights to produce its first feature. In October 1995, it was announced Disney was in talks with Leslie Nielsen to star in a live-action adaptation of Mr. Magoo. However, it was stuck at development limbo once that never came into reality. It would be in development again once he entered negations with Sony Pictures (which its subsidiary Columbia Pictures had originally distribute to theatres during the '40s through '60s) producers Cary Woods and Robert N. Fried. Once Sony backed out in favor of an American Godzilla film remake, Disney purchased the film rights from Sony. Filming lasted from March through September 1997. The film was shot in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, Argentina and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, while the scenes in the museum were filmed in the lobby of the Central Branch of the Vancouver Public Library. The animated sequences were produced by Yowza! Animation, a studio based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Release Mr. Magoo was released to theatres by Walt Disney Pictures on Christmas Day (December 25) 1997. It was then released on VHS and DVD on July 7, 1998. Reception Box office performance Mr. Magoo grossed $28.9 million worldwide against a $30 million budget, making it a box office bomb. Critical reception On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 10%, based on reviews from 31 critics, with an average rating of 2.7/10. The site's consensus states: "Leslie Nielsen's affability can't save this dunderheaded update of Mr. Magoo, which delivers a stream of slapstick gags so lame that audiences will feel like they've stepped on a rake." Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale. Criticism for the film singled out the seemingly mocking portrayal of people with disabilities, although Disney placed a disclaimer right before the closing credits. That said, some critics noted that the disclaimer used at the end of the film was not meant to be an accurate portrayal of near-sighted or blind people. On Siskel and Ebert, both critics gave the film a thumbs down. They both claimed that the disclaimer was funnier than anything in the movie, and thought it was unnecessary and that the film was not offensive towards near-sighted people. Roger Ebert, giving it a half-star