Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Broken Hearts Gallery (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Lucy (Geraldine Viswanathan) works in a very well-known art gallery owned by the ever so extraordinary Eva Woolf (Bernadette Peters). It has been a dream of hers since she was very young to work as a curator in a gallery and she is starting as an assistant at “The Woolf”.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
She has been seeing Max (Utkarsh Ambudkar), the gallery curator for a while. Helping him with information on the artists as well as the likes and dislikes of Eva. On the night of the latest show launch, Eva asks Lucy to step to the podium and introduce Max so he could open the show. In a matter of minutes, Lucy loses her job and is dumped.
Lucy, having been through a traumatic loss, mistakenly hops into a stranger’s car under the assumption that it was her uber. She then proceeds to tell the driver of her night of disaster without registering that she is in the car of a stranger that is not her uber driver. Come to find out, the driver, Nick (Dacre Montgomery) is a budding hotelier trying to build a small boutique hotel.
He drops her off at the apartment, where her roommates immediately cocoon her in a dance that they have done oh so many times.
She has known Nadine (Phillipa Soo) and Amanda (Molly Gordon) since they were in high school. This trio is the partner in crime type of best friends. The interactions between them is so well coordinated I believed that they have been the closest of friends for ages. The same goes for Nick and his best friend Marcos (Arturo Castro).
.This film is the perfect Romantic Comedy that is very well suited for this moment in time.
It is a well-deserved salve on the dearth of darkness in cinema as of late. The lines are funny, the timing of the responses, quick and clever. It is also quirky and charming as well as emotional and sweet.
Natalie Krinsky, the Writer and Director had cast the characters perfectly. The actors drew me into the film as I laughed at their escapades, vicariously experienced celebrations. This movie was a joy to watch. It was sweet, funny, clever, and heartwarming.
Viswanathan embodied Lucy. The character is of the modern twenty something woman in hipsterville. She showed that Lucy is intelligent, imperfect and at times, insecure, but she is brave and willing to forge through anything.
The soundtrack is fantastic, the songs support the scenes and it is a veritable list of the current pop artists that are played in daily rotation.
Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Halsey, Rita Ora, Ariana Grande, and Selena Gomez who is an executive producer on the film.
If this is the direction of the modern romantic comedy, I look forward to the development of this genre as it grows. I rarely want to watch most films a second time. If you like the Romcom, this is one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Well worth the time and the ticket.
Radar HD - Future Weather Radar and Severe Alerts
Weather and News
App
Fast. Simple. Predictive high-resolution weather radar. Severe weather warnings. Storm tracks and...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apocalypse Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
We get thrown into the disasters pretty quickly, so quickly in fact that I really thought I'd missed something, you will be glad to know that it's isn't so complex that you can't pick it up, it's just ridiculous.
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
Foul Play on Words
Book
Between a kidnapping, a double booking, and a crew of hapless volunteers, Charlee is worried the...
Cartooner: The Fast & Furious Game of Drawing Comics
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Cartooner is a new experience in drawing games, a game that combines storytelling and drawing. It is...
Troy Aker (6 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Dec 13, 2017
Much fun from JJ Abrams
With Super 8, JJ Abrams did something I feel is rare in cinema. It was a monster movie in which you actually care about the people involved. Way too often in movies it becomes easy to cheer on the monster because the people involved just aren't likable, or that not enough time is spent on them to create a connection with the characters. A character driven monster-disaster movie is rare. This movie is the anti-Michael Bay movie. Which is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Star Light, Star Bright in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Review added: May 16, 2013
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/