Search
Search results
Galactic Genius with Astro Cat
Education and Games
App
***From the award-winning developer of Professor Astro Cat’s Solar System*** Hold onto your space...
CarX Drift Racing
Games and Entertainment
App
THE MOST WANTED DRIFT GAME EVER More than 30,000,000 people around the world downloaded CarX!...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The answer to the above is "yes" by the way... it's always yes.
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
It’s hard to believe that the first Incredibles by Disney Pixar debuted all the way back in 2004, and for those of you counting that’s over 14 years ago. Featuring the vibrant animation and incredible voice acting that only Disney Pixar can offer, we find ourselves once again sharing a grand adventure with this lovable superhero family. This will be a spoiler free review so feel free to read on and prepare for a journey of epic proportions.
Not much has changed since we last left off with the original Incredibles. Superheroes are still outlawed, seemingly because the damage they cause when fighting crime is far more expensive than the actual crime itself. This is proven in the very first scene of the movie, where our crime fighting family attempts to stop a bank robbery and they end up causing more havoc and mayhem than would have occurred had they not been involved at all. It seems there isn’t a place anywhere left in the world for superheroes…or is there?
The family is then offered an opportunity to prove how important superheroes are to the world and the impact they can have on the good of humanity. This mission only needs the talents of Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) however, so Elastigirl goes off to fight crime while Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) stays back at the homestead to take care of the three kids.
As with all Pixar movies, Incredibles 2 is far more than simply a cute movie about a family of crime fighting heroes. It is about how Mr. Incredible must learn to be a hero by taking care of his family instead of fighting crime. It shows how even without a secret identity and super suit that a parent helping their kids with “new math” or reading them a bedtime story can makes them the greatest hero of all. I loved that the underlying message to this movie was that being there for your family is as equally as important as saving the town from the next evil menace.
In a similar reversal of roles, Elastigirl takes on the role of the family provider. While she excels with her superhero duties, she struggles with not always being there for her kids. For Elastigirl it’s about letting go and trusting that her husband and family can learn to manage on their own when she can’t be there. We also learn that sometimes being a hero means making sacrifices for the good of the family as a whole.
As you’d expect from any film with Pixar behind it, the animation is beautiful and colorful. I would warn those that might be sensitive to strobe lights to be a bit cautious during a few scenes. There weren’t any warnings for those who might be photosensitive, and the scenes don’t last long, but I feel it’s still important to note. As already mentioned, the voice acting is also excellent. Sarah Vowell does a great job as Violet and Huck Milner is adorable as the voice of Dash. As you might have already guessed, Samuel L. Jackson does an outstanding job at reprising his role of Frozone. Unfortunately, Frozone isn’t in the movie too much but he definitely steals any scene he is in. The story was fun, entertaining and at times downright hilarious. Even though baby Jack-Jack hasn’t been a big part of this review, he is a huge part of the movie. Jack-Jack’s emerging powers mean an even greater challenge for everyone and some of the most entertaining scenes revolve around Jack-Jack and his ever-growing list of powers.
Incredibles 2 is a heartwarming film that shows us all that heroes come in different shapes and sizes, and how important it is for everyone to come together as a family in order to succeed at life (and occasionally take down a bad guy). It’s a worthy successor to the original in every way and will certainly appeal to both young and old alike. So, gather up your own superhero family and run/fly/warp your way to see Incredibles 2 when it releases in theatres on June 15th!
Not much has changed since we last left off with the original Incredibles. Superheroes are still outlawed, seemingly because the damage they cause when fighting crime is far more expensive than the actual crime itself. This is proven in the very first scene of the movie, where our crime fighting family attempts to stop a bank robbery and they end up causing more havoc and mayhem than would have occurred had they not been involved at all. It seems there isn’t a place anywhere left in the world for superheroes…or is there?
The family is then offered an opportunity to prove how important superheroes are to the world and the impact they can have on the good of humanity. This mission only needs the talents of Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) however, so Elastigirl goes off to fight crime while Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) stays back at the homestead to take care of the three kids.
As with all Pixar movies, Incredibles 2 is far more than simply a cute movie about a family of crime fighting heroes. It is about how Mr. Incredible must learn to be a hero by taking care of his family instead of fighting crime. It shows how even without a secret identity and super suit that a parent helping their kids with “new math” or reading them a bedtime story can makes them the greatest hero of all. I loved that the underlying message to this movie was that being there for your family is as equally as important as saving the town from the next evil menace.
In a similar reversal of roles, Elastigirl takes on the role of the family provider. While she excels with her superhero duties, she struggles with not always being there for her kids. For Elastigirl it’s about letting go and trusting that her husband and family can learn to manage on their own when she can’t be there. We also learn that sometimes being a hero means making sacrifices for the good of the family as a whole.
As you’d expect from any film with Pixar behind it, the animation is beautiful and colorful. I would warn those that might be sensitive to strobe lights to be a bit cautious during a few scenes. There weren’t any warnings for those who might be photosensitive, and the scenes don’t last long, but I feel it’s still important to note. As already mentioned, the voice acting is also excellent. Sarah Vowell does a great job as Violet and Huck Milner is adorable as the voice of Dash. As you might have already guessed, Samuel L. Jackson does an outstanding job at reprising his role of Frozone. Unfortunately, Frozone isn’t in the movie too much but he definitely steals any scene he is in. The story was fun, entertaining and at times downright hilarious. Even though baby Jack-Jack hasn’t been a big part of this review, he is a huge part of the movie. Jack-Jack’s emerging powers mean an even greater challenge for everyone and some of the most entertaining scenes revolve around Jack-Jack and his ever-growing list of powers.
Incredibles 2 is a heartwarming film that shows us all that heroes come in different shapes and sizes, and how important it is for everyone to come together as a family in order to succeed at life (and occasionally take down a bad guy). It’s a worthy successor to the original in every way and will certainly appeal to both young and old alike. So, gather up your own superhero family and run/fly/warp your way to see Incredibles 2 when it releases in theatres on June 15th!
Pixaki – Pixel art studio
Productivity and Photo & Video
App
Pixaki is a powerful pixel art creation studio for iPad. It features many of the same features found...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolfwalkers (2020) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020
Coming into this I wasn't sure what to expect, an animated Apple TV film... hmm.
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
A Monster Calls is based on an idea by writer and activist Siobhan Dowd, who sadly died from cancer in 2007 before she could develop her story to print. Her ideas were developed into a book by Patrick Ness in 2011 and illustrated by Jim Kay where it went on to receive a number of childrens literary awards.
The story is set in a very dreary looking England and features a boy called Conor struggling to cope with his mother’s terminal cancer. His father is divorced from his mother and is living in the States with his new family. He’s bullied at school and he’s troubled by nightmares. And then he starts being visited at night by a monster who tells him 3 stories. It’s a bleak tale about the harshness of life, and I was kind of worried about how my 11 year old daughter might take to it when she said she wanted to see it with me.
J.A.Bayona, director of The Orphanage, handles the subject matter well, showing us how a child’s fantasy can make sense of the world and their feelings. The stories told by the monster occur over a number of days and are beautifully depicted in watercolour animation. Each one providing its own lesson to be learned in life. Liam Neeson is the monster, the large yew tree that Conor can see from his bedroom window, giving his best Aslan voice. Felicity Jones is the mother, gradually dying as each cancer drug fails. Sigourney Weaver is the grandmother who Conor reluctantly goes to stay with while his mother is receiving treatment.
The monster itself, the great yew tree, is a real triumph. Beautifully rendered and realistically interacting with its surroundings. When you consider the films meagre budget of 43 million dollars, it’s breathtaking what they’ve managed to achieve.
As expected, the movie really packs a punch with barely any humour or lightheartedness. There are times it’s a little too slow and gloomy, but it’s hard hitting thought provoking and intense. I don’t mind admitting that both me and my daughter found ourselves in tears towards the end too. Along with most of the cinema!
The story is set in a very dreary looking England and features a boy called Conor struggling to cope with his mother’s terminal cancer. His father is divorced from his mother and is living in the States with his new family. He’s bullied at school and he’s troubled by nightmares. And then he starts being visited at night by a monster who tells him 3 stories. It’s a bleak tale about the harshness of life, and I was kind of worried about how my 11 year old daughter might take to it when she said she wanted to see it with me.
J.A.Bayona, director of The Orphanage, handles the subject matter well, showing us how a child’s fantasy can make sense of the world and their feelings. The stories told by the monster occur over a number of days and are beautifully depicted in watercolour animation. Each one providing its own lesson to be learned in life. Liam Neeson is the monster, the large yew tree that Conor can see from his bedroom window, giving his best Aslan voice. Felicity Jones is the mother, gradually dying as each cancer drug fails. Sigourney Weaver is the grandmother who Conor reluctantly goes to stay with while his mother is receiving treatment.
The monster itself, the great yew tree, is a real triumph. Beautifully rendered and realistically interacting with its surroundings. When you consider the films meagre budget of 43 million dollars, it’s breathtaking what they’ve managed to achieve.
As expected, the movie really packs a punch with barely any humour or lightheartedness. There are times it’s a little too slow and gloomy, but it’s hard hitting thought provoking and intense. I don’t mind admitting that both me and my daughter found ourselves in tears towards the end too. Along with most of the cinema!