Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
About to take her place as a lady of civilized society, Alice is having trouble fitting in with the expectations of the world around her. How will she ever fit in with her wondering mind and regular dreams of a fantasyland filled with magic, creatures, and more than a tea pot filled with nonsense.
Tim Burton’s new live action “Alice in Wonderland” takes us past the tale of the animated Disney classic and into an even more vivid plot-filled adventure. The film merges elements from both of Lewis Carroll’s much beloved tomes, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There”. For those who do not know the books, the new live action film will introduce you to characters not encountered in the original Disney film. Those who have patiently waited to see their favorite characters on the screen will delight in the precise details; from the wild environment to the strategic use of literary quotes.
As much as it is a visual spectacle filled with eye-popping clothing, explosive color, and delightful dialogue, where “Alice in Wonderland” most impresses is in characters. The most familiar characters, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat (voice by Stephen Fry) and The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), are zanier, more charming, and definitely madder then ever before. And new characters such as the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) also captivate and amuse. In fact, audiences will be hard pressed to choose a favorite character let alone scene.
Viewers who opt to see the film in the intended 3D (better still in IMAX 3D) will be highly rewarded; the effects are engrossing straight down to credits. For those who forgo the additional dimension “Alice in Wonderland” is so well plotted that even without the bells and whistles it will prove to be exceptional.
A must for an Alice fan of any age and a delight for anyone with a strong imagination, “Alice in Wonderland” blows past the dreary expectations by bringing curiosity and nonsense back to the big screen.
Tim Burton’s new live action “Alice in Wonderland” takes us past the tale of the animated Disney classic and into an even more vivid plot-filled adventure. The film merges elements from both of Lewis Carroll’s much beloved tomes, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There”. For those who do not know the books, the new live action film will introduce you to characters not encountered in the original Disney film. Those who have patiently waited to see their favorite characters on the screen will delight in the precise details; from the wild environment to the strategic use of literary quotes.
As much as it is a visual spectacle filled with eye-popping clothing, explosive color, and delightful dialogue, where “Alice in Wonderland” most impresses is in characters. The most familiar characters, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat (voice by Stephen Fry) and The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), are zanier, more charming, and definitely madder then ever before. And new characters such as the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) also captivate and amuse. In fact, audiences will be hard pressed to choose a favorite character let alone scene.
Viewers who opt to see the film in the intended 3D (better still in IMAX 3D) will be highly rewarded; the effects are engrossing straight down to credits. For those who forgo the additional dimension “Alice in Wonderland” is so well plotted that even without the bells and whistles it will prove to be exceptional.
A must for an Alice fan of any age and a delight for anyone with a strong imagination, “Alice in Wonderland” blows past the dreary expectations by bringing curiosity and nonsense back to the big screen.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Dec 3, 2020 (Updated Dec 3, 2020)
A greasy, molten CGI fever dream that bounces from random bullshit to random bullshit with the appeal of rabies mouth foam - I actually sort of dig it? Ten and a half years ago this was read as possibly one of the worst offenses to the Disney brand at the time; but now in lieu of the ever-growing gallery of visually sterile, grossly overbloated, laborious live action remakes we have now from the company the fact that this has any idiosyncrasy at all - insane as it is - makes this automatically better by comparison and you can't convince me otherwise. For better and for worse there's a reason people remember "Tim Burton's 𝘈𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥" and not "Guy Ritchie's 𝘈𝘭𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯", for instance. Not to say this is that good, it still sucks a shit ton where it counts - has most of the usual collection of issues these have including but not limited to trying to turn this purposefully senseless source material into another bland "find your destiny" snore and maybe the most nothing lead character to ever exist (doesn't help that Wasikowska dons one expression the entire movie). But it's also 100% cockamamie self-assured auteur work that occasionally finds home to some striking imagery like tiny Alice crossing the water over bloated decapitated heads or the gorgeous final battle on a chess board-esque field. As you've heard, angry bobblehead Helena Bonham Carter steals the show. I like this a lot more than its detractors but hate it a lot more than its supporters.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Funny, Heartwarming, And Beautifully Animated
Toy Story 4 is a 2019 CG/comedy movie directed by Josh Cooley and based on screenplay written by Andrew Stanton, and Stephany Folsom; along with John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Valerie LaPointe, and Martin Hynes. It was produced by Picard Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele and Keanu Reeves.
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When I was younger, my mom and I would get all dressed up and we would take a special holiday trip up to Seattle to see The Nutcracker. I was captivated by the costumes, dancing and the story. When I found out that a film was being made based off of the famed ballet I was very excited especially with Disney behind it.
Clara is given a gift for Christmas that requires a one of a kind key. To find this key she must follow a piece of string that leads her into a world full of magic and mystery but is in a state of disrepair. Along the way she meets many different characters who want to help her find the key and restore harmony within the lands.
The film in its entirety is visually stunning and equally entertaining. In a way, the film sort of reminds me of Alice In Wonderland as it has a very Tim Burtone-sque feel to it. The star studded cast made the film that much better. It was lovely seeing Mackenzie Foy all grown up, the beautiful Keira Knightly with her somewhat annoying high pitched character voice, Morgan Freeman and Dame Helen Mirren’s amazing acting and Misty Copeland’s beautiful dancing just to name a few.
It is certainly refreshing to see a new twist on a classic story. I am pleased that they didn’t do away with the dancing along with the most familiar score listened to during the holidays. The CG sets were amazing with bold colors that made the film very visually appealing. It encapsulates an entertaining and adventurous story along with humor and excellent acting. In my book, that is the perfect recipe for a great film. I look forward to adding this one to my ever growing movie collection.
Clara is given a gift for Christmas that requires a one of a kind key. To find this key she must follow a piece of string that leads her into a world full of magic and mystery but is in a state of disrepair. Along the way she meets many different characters who want to help her find the key and restore harmony within the lands.
The film in its entirety is visually stunning and equally entertaining. In a way, the film sort of reminds me of Alice In Wonderland as it has a very Tim Burtone-sque feel to it. The star studded cast made the film that much better. It was lovely seeing Mackenzie Foy all grown up, the beautiful Keira Knightly with her somewhat annoying high pitched character voice, Morgan Freeman and Dame Helen Mirren’s amazing acting and Misty Copeland’s beautiful dancing just to name a few.
It is certainly refreshing to see a new twist on a classic story. I am pleased that they didn’t do away with the dancing along with the most familiar score listened to during the holidays. The CG sets were amazing with bold colors that made the film very visually appealing. It encapsulates an entertaining and adventurous story along with humor and excellent acting. In my book, that is the perfect recipe for a great film. I look forward to adding this one to my ever growing movie collection.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“ Yo ho, yo ho, a pirates life for me. We pillage plunder, we rifle a loot. Drink up me ‘earties, yo ho. We kidnap and ravage and don’t give a hoot drink up me ‘earties yo ho”.
Captain Jack Sparrow is at it again with a map in one hand and a bottle of rum in the other. In the fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Captain Jack Sparrow teams up with an old flame Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and her father Blackbeard (Ian McShane) in the hopes of finding the Fountain of Eternal Youth. There are a group of Englishmen captained by Barbossa and a group of Spaniards who are on the quest to find the fountain as well. In order to reap the benefits of said fountain they have to find two chalices that are in the possession of Ponce de Leon and a mermaids tear. With a great storyline from Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio the summer movie season has started off on the right foot and looks very promising.
Jerry Bruckheimer brings us Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger tides in excellent 3D. Unlike a lot of the other recent 3D movies converted into 3D, POTC is actually shot with a 3D camera providing the audience with better graphics and exciting effects. Unlike the others this new installment is based upon the book On Stranger Tides written by Tim Powers and includes but is not limited to mermaids, Zombie crewmembers, lots of rum, revenge, romance, mystery and a lot of swashbuckling excitement.
Orlando Bloom and Keira Nightly are not missed as Capt. Jack once again steels the show. The 1967 Disney attraction has changed over the years and most recently Capt Jack himself, Capt. Barbossa and coming soon they will be adding Blackbeard to the previous Davy Jones fog projection screen. The future for Jack Sparrow looks very promising as it has been rumored that Johnny Depp is already signed on for more pirate adventures. I loved this movie and is a great kick off to the summer movie season and I plan on seeing it again only this time in “4-D” at the closest D-Box(motion simulation seats) theater.
Captain Jack Sparrow is at it again with a map in one hand and a bottle of rum in the other. In the fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Captain Jack Sparrow teams up with an old flame Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and her father Blackbeard (Ian McShane) in the hopes of finding the Fountain of Eternal Youth. There are a group of Englishmen captained by Barbossa and a group of Spaniards who are on the quest to find the fountain as well. In order to reap the benefits of said fountain they have to find two chalices that are in the possession of Ponce de Leon and a mermaids tear. With a great storyline from Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio the summer movie season has started off on the right foot and looks very promising.
Jerry Bruckheimer brings us Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger tides in excellent 3D. Unlike a lot of the other recent 3D movies converted into 3D, POTC is actually shot with a 3D camera providing the audience with better graphics and exciting effects. Unlike the others this new installment is based upon the book On Stranger Tides written by Tim Powers and includes but is not limited to mermaids, Zombie crewmembers, lots of rum, revenge, romance, mystery and a lot of swashbuckling excitement.
Orlando Bloom and Keira Nightly are not missed as Capt. Jack once again steels the show. The 1967 Disney attraction has changed over the years and most recently Capt Jack himself, Capt. Barbossa and coming soon they will be adding Blackbeard to the previous Davy Jones fog projection screen. The future for Jack Sparrow looks very promising as it has been rumored that Johnny Depp is already signed on for more pirate adventures. I loved this movie and is a great kick off to the summer movie season and I plan on seeing it again only this time in “4-D” at the closest D-Box(motion simulation seats) theater.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As an Alice in Wonderland enthusiast, I was more than thrilled when Disney announced they were making Alice Through the Looking Glass, since the first film was visually stunning I went into watching the sequel with the same expectation that it would be rich in color and visuals. Visually it did not disappoint, with lavish costumes, and whimsical set design from beginning to end; the film was entertaining to watch. With returning characters such as Alice (Mia Wasikowska), The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and The White Queen (Anne Hathaway); the main story focuses on Alice trying to save the Hatter. With the citizens of Wonderland concerned for the Hatter’s wellbeing they rely on Alice to try to save the Hatter before it is too late, however Alice must race against Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to try to learn what has happened to the Hatters family. Alice learns you can’t change the past but you can learn from it for the future; but will this knowledge help her save the Hatter or keep her stuck in the past?
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Vicki Gleave D'Aunay (12 KP) Aug 8, 2019