Search
Gangstar: Miami Vindication
Games
App
Enjoy the most immersive full-3D crime simulation ever on iPhone/iPod touch! Gangstar: Miami...
Gangstar: Miami Vindication HD
Games
App
Enjoy the most immersive full-3D crime simulation ever on iPhone/iPod touch! Gangstar: Miami...
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 Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mulan (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
"Dishonour on you! Dishonour on your cow!" This is probably the only thing from Mulan that I can identify beyond some of the characters. I think that's generally how Disney goes though, they become viral so easily that you recognise things without ever having seen the films... even worse in this case though... I actually own it but took myself to the cinema to see it anyway. If you're gonna do it you've gotta do it right because it doesn't matter how close I sit to the 50 inch TV at home it's not like watching it on the big screen.
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
Just as enjoyable as the original
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how big a hit 2013 movie Frozen was. For a long while after it was released, you couldn't go on social media, or even turn on a TV, without seeing mention of Frozen in some form. And you couldn't really avoid hearing somebody bash out their rendition of 'Let It Go', arguably one of the biggest and most recognisable songs of this decade. Frozen became the highest-grossing animated film ever and a sequel was always inevitable. But, with any sequel, there's always a high chance that they'll fail to live up to the original, simply coming across as nothing more than a cash grab. Frozen 2 had a lot to live up to!
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.
Mega Photo Pro: 1000+ Real-Time Camera Effects
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
The most fun you can have with your photos -- Mega Photo Pro is the hilarious app that brings your...
