Search
Another smash hit by Jordan Peele
I am an avid horror fanatic. This being said, I have seen loads of horror/thriller movies and Us actually made me leave the theater feeling more creeped out than I have ever felt watching a movie in this genre.
The sound editing was on point. The song "I got 5 on it" by Luniz was used several times in the movie as the original song and sampled in various ways depending on the portion of the movie and it worked in all aspects. The slowed down version worked well during the heightened moments when it was needed to be sufficiently creepy.
Surprisingly there were a few funny moments in the movie. I wasn't expecting to be tickled in a horror movie but Mr Peele knows how to keep that balance between funny and scary. It had just enough to cut the tension in some moments but not so much that you felt like you were watching some garbage like Scary Movie or Paranormal Whacktivity.
Plotwise, it didn't feel like it was hard to get lost but, in the mark of a true horror director, just when you think you have things figured out. BAM!! Plot twist came out of left field and slapped me in the face making me realize that I had no idea what was even right in the first place.
The acting was well done for the main cast but I feel the secondary cast could have been portrayed better or even with better people. It wasn't bad but the minor characters were so one dimensional and lacked any kind of personality that made me care about them for the short time they were on screen multiple times.
Overall, really great movie. I give it a 9 inky because nothing is perfect, but that was very well done and I look forward to Jordan Peele helming the reboot of The Twilight Zone series later this year. If it's anything like his last 2 movies, we're in for a treat.
The sound editing was on point. The song "I got 5 on it" by Luniz was used several times in the movie as the original song and sampled in various ways depending on the portion of the movie and it worked in all aspects. The slowed down version worked well during the heightened moments when it was needed to be sufficiently creepy.
Surprisingly there were a few funny moments in the movie. I wasn't expecting to be tickled in a horror movie but Mr Peele knows how to keep that balance between funny and scary. It had just enough to cut the tension in some moments but not so much that you felt like you were watching some garbage like Scary Movie or Paranormal Whacktivity.
Plotwise, it didn't feel like it was hard to get lost but, in the mark of a true horror director, just when you think you have things figured out. BAM!! Plot twist came out of left field and slapped me in the face making me realize that I had no idea what was even right in the first place.
The acting was well done for the main cast but I feel the secondary cast could have been portrayed better or even with better people. It wasn't bad but the minor characters were so one dimensional and lacked any kind of personality that made me care about them for the short time they were on screen multiple times.
Overall, really great movie. I give it a 9 inky because nothing is perfect, but that was very well done and I look forward to Jordan Peele helming the reboot of The Twilight Zone series later this year. If it's anything like his last 2 movies, we're in for a treat.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs Biollante (1989) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018 (Updated Feb 8, 2018)
The Rise of the Rose of the Risen Dead
Toho Studios held a competition to find the plot for their next Godzilla movie after the semi-reboot of the series in 1984, and this is the film that resulted from the winning idea. Heaven knows what the losing entries must have been like, because this is a tale dripping with utter insanity of a kind you just don't get in conventional western movies.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Not quite a noisy cricket.
I saw this film with an open mind, figuring (as is sadly the case more and more nowadays) I had seen the best parts of the movie in the trailers. I had seen other reviews which had been overwhelmingly negative. I wasn't expecting much, but it was two hours away from the world, so what the hell.
Definitely not the best film I've ever seen, but surprisingly far from the worst.
The plot is simple enough - there's a mole within MiB that's trying to start a war between a long-forgotten enemy and another race of aliens, which will ultimately endanger the earth. Nothing we haven't seen before.
But it's actually pretty good fun. The chemistry between the two leads (Thor and Valkyrie!) is a joy to watch, and if nothing else, this movie serves to reiterate what we first found out in the "Ghostbusters" remake - Chris Hemsworth is hilarious! His comedic timing is brilliant, and he's a genuinely funny guy which shines in the right role (see "Thor: Ragnarok").
Sadly, I guessed the *big twist* from watching the trailers. Figured it was obvious, as we've all seen this type of film/story before. And if I could figure it out, most other people probably can, too. As the film entered its third act, I found myself hoping my prediction was wrong, just to inject a little more life into the experience, but nope... nailed it.
Whilst there are subtle nods to the original films, they aren't required viewing ahead of watching this. A cross between a sequel and a reboot, it stands well on its own merits.
I think with a film like this, you're never going to get an "Avatar" or a "Shawshank Redemption" experience. Not that this is bad, per se, but because the level of potential quality will always be limited by its content and genre. Same way an "Expendables" movie would never win an Oscar. I think they're brilliant, but they are what they are and nothing more. Same here. It's not a bad film. It's not a great film. It's just a film. Would I have paid to see it in hindsight? Perhaps not. But definitely catch it when it's on Netflix.
Definitely not the best film I've ever seen, but surprisingly far from the worst.
The plot is simple enough - there's a mole within MiB that's trying to start a war between a long-forgotten enemy and another race of aliens, which will ultimately endanger the earth. Nothing we haven't seen before.
But it's actually pretty good fun. The chemistry between the two leads (Thor and Valkyrie!) is a joy to watch, and if nothing else, this movie serves to reiterate what we first found out in the "Ghostbusters" remake - Chris Hemsworth is hilarious! His comedic timing is brilliant, and he's a genuinely funny guy which shines in the right role (see "Thor: Ragnarok").
Sadly, I guessed the *big twist* from watching the trailers. Figured it was obvious, as we've all seen this type of film/story before. And if I could figure it out, most other people probably can, too. As the film entered its third act, I found myself hoping my prediction was wrong, just to inject a little more life into the experience, but nope... nailed it.
Whilst there are subtle nods to the original films, they aren't required viewing ahead of watching this. A cross between a sequel and a reboot, it stands well on its own merits.
I think with a film like this, you're never going to get an "Avatar" or a "Shawshank Redemption" experience. Not that this is bad, per se, but because the level of potential quality will always be limited by its content and genre. Same way an "Expendables" movie would never win an Oscar. I think they're brilliant, but they are what they are and nothing more. Same here. It's not a bad film. It's not a great film. It's just a film. Would I have paid to see it in hindsight? Perhaps not. But definitely catch it when it's on Netflix.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Shaft Gets The Shaft In This Newest Reboot/Update
Shaft is a 2019 action/comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kenya Barris. This film was produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jessie Usher, Regina Hall, Alexandra Shipp, and Richard Roundtree.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
Angry Zombies 2 HD for iPad
Games
App
[to iOS 7.0 Users] = You will have to Log Out GameCenter in order to play this game at iOS 7.0 =...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) in Movies
Dec 4, 2021
Well then, colour me surprised because I didn't absolutely hate this.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
I'm a big fan of the Resident Evil games. So much so that the entirety of the original movie franchise actively annoyed me with every passing entry. This reboot makes a decent effort to stay faithful to the source material, and that alone commands some semblance of respect. The general atmosphere is very Resident Evil, many of the set pieces seem familiar, but there's just something missing. The cast boasts some great talent - Donal Logue, Hannah John-Kamen, and Neal McDonough are amongst the ranks - but all of them seem to be doing the best they can with a poor script, a script which is pretty much all the characters saying their names to eachother, and spouting exposition like there's no tomorrow. There's also the issue of the narrative content. Honestly, I'm just longing for a straight up adaption of the first game, a minimilast tense-as-hell thriller set in the original mansion. Welcome to Raccoon City sort of delivers in that respect, but also opts to cram in the plot of the second game, and even smatterings of the third. For a film that seems to be setting up a new series, that's a whole lot of content to burn through in one film. It results in a narrative that comes across as choppy. There's a little too much going on for it to flow properly. I also hated how Leon Kennedy was portrayed as a big dumb fuck. Show the man some respect! On top of this, the CGI is pretty damn atrocious throughout. The practical effects here and there look genuinely great, but there's a lot of undercooked effects work that managed to pull me out proceedings, especially in the final set piece.
Despite its shortcomings however, WTRC is a pretty entertaining video game adaption. It can be underwhelming at times, but it's aesthetic is pretty spot on, and it's so far removed from the initial film series that I can't help but kind of dig it, and I'll happily take it over any of those movies. Genuinely hoping a sequel happens.
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2019
Finally another view on the Transformers Universe that isnt Michael Bay.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I will give you a big heads up, I was not crazy about the idea of this movie due to Hollywood casting another female lead that is horrible unrealistic that this female that is a 10 in looks department. Michael Bay at least cast a realistic man named Shia that lets face it is no Brad Pitt. It was something normal people can relate to. Now being a gay male I found that the costar a male looked realistic and was relatable in having the crush on the 'hot' girl. No saying that they managed to sexualize it abit by showing male eye candy in boxers and the costar ripping his shirt off so I gave thaat a big thumbs up for me being the pig I am. Now moving on from the human bullshit part. The opening sequence takes place on the cybertron we all grew up to love and know. No crazy shit like the Cube is mentioned, you get an epic war scene with the majority of the original decepticons that actually look like decepticons, including soundwave and the purple guy that has one eye. I dont recall seeing megatron however, but its been awhile since I last saw it.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
Anywho the movie goes on for character development for the unreal female lead which of course didnt really interest me. However there is a fierce battle between bumblebee and another decepticon and the idea of Bumblebee having a damaged voice modulator is carried over from the Michael Bay Transformers universe. Skipping forward to the introduction of the hero lead human finding bumblebee she is working on the vw beetle and she lays under the car to work on it and it looks just like when look at an transformer toy, you can see bumblebees head in the undercarriage, again freaking awesome!. So this movie made money which I am glad because I gave up on the Michael Bay transformer universe after he started slaughtering the autobots just like the Transformers Cartoon movie. So it is said we will see more from this group of writers and directors as they sort of reboot the universe and start making money again. Go see it, buy it. Snore factor of 2/10 for the stupid human parts.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019
My entire childhood
So funny how seeing a "decked out" DeLorean in a Target parking lot the other day made me want to rewatch Back to the Future again soon. It had been on my rewatch list ever since I purchased the trilogy on Blu Ray on Black Friday, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018 (Updated Nov 5, 2018)
Slight variation on the Alice in Wonderland reboot
I'm guessing Disney want to keep going with their live action Princess films, and thought they'd hit gold with the rights to the Nutcracker for a Christmas release. Similar to the 2010 Alice in Wonderland, the film intends to act as a sequel to the original tale of the Nutcracker, where the world has fallen into disarray. Clara is the daughter of the original story's Marie, who has passed away, and looking to open the intriguing present left by her mother she finds herself following a mouse (not a rabbit!) into a strange world. She is introduced to the world her mother was made queen of, though sadly learns that the "fourth realm" (led by Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger) is at war with the other three (among them are realms led by Keira Knightley and an underused Richard E Grant).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Here Disney have taken some liberties as Clara's brother and sister take the roles and names of her mother's siblings in the original, and for no apparent reason the film based on the Russian ballet that was based on the French adaptation of the German fairy tale, is set in London. I can only assume this was to up the Festive quotient, but seems a very odd choice, despite keeping a number of the German themes.
Keira Knightley is very irritating, doing an ear-piercing impression of Queenie from Blackadder.
Neither of the actors playing Clara or the Nutcracker are very good or likeable and you find yourself bored and starting to root for Mother Ginger just to end it.
The film is too long, and drags in large parts, and all three of my kids were restless for a lot of it. And there was a definite lack of large-scale special effects, some impressive scenes but audiences expect spectacles (not 3D glasses, I mean big scenes!) these days and those were lacking.
The most enjoyable scene was the use of ballet to get Clara up to date with the world she found herself in, being quite respectful to the medium it was adapting (though I can't say how authentic it was!).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jan 9, 2019 (Updated Jan 9, 2019)
Emily Blunt & Lin-Manuel Miranda (1 more)
An Incredible Animated Sequence
Practically Perfect In Every Way?
I've never been a big Mary Poppins fan, but I went to see this because my girlfriend is and we both enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting much, but this was a charming, harmless, family friendly time and I had fun with it. I think the fact that I am not a huge fan of the original was actually a benefit going in, because I wasn't constantly comparing the film to the OG.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.