Notice I don't write "animated film"? Animation has now evolved to a point where, well, it's pointless to use it as a category in much discussion. I love hand-drawn animation, but that is - has to be - 2D illustration and seems to fall naturally into a category of its own, with different concerns and criteria than a live-action film. The apparently 3D animation computers make possible is now so good that the audience forgets it's drawn at all. (Or never knows.) Mingling of CG animation into photographed "reality" in films like Avatar or Lord of the Rings has begun to make "real" versus "animated" a quibble.
For instance, I think Rango is one of Johnny Depp's best performances. It's convenient to credit Depp, and his voice (and, I suspect, in-house-film-example physical performance) makes the character "his", yet Depp needs to share the accomplishment with who-knows-how-many talented animators, story board artists etc...? Frankly, I don't care. Rango is an ensemble character. He's wonderful. 'Nuf said.
Image borrowed from Digital Trends, film by Paramount Pictures, directed by Gore Verbinski, starring Johnny Depp.
The whole film is clever, funny, imaginative, true, and, I think, brilliant. Go watch Rango!