Search
Search results
David McK (3372 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Apr 21, 2022
Adaptation of perhaps Agatha Christie's most famous murder mystery, which I had previously read even if I had not seen any of the previous TV or movie adaptations.
I also watched this after recently watching the semi-sequel 'Death in the Nile' on Disney+, thinking then that - as that was a sequel of sorts - I might as well go back and watch the original.
The problem, of course, as with all murder mysteries is that once they are solved (in either print or on screen), then they lose nearly all sense of drama or suspense. That, I think, is a fault of the genre as a whole and is perhaps the reason why it is generally not my favourite type of story: I prefer works that you can rewatch or re-read and discover something new each time through.
Anyway, the fact that I already knew the ending might have spoiled my enjoyment of this movie, even if I'm aware it takes liberties with the source material. Not obvious liberties, though! (Or, at least I didn't think they were).
I also watched this after recently watching the semi-sequel 'Death in the Nile' on Disney+, thinking then that - as that was a sequel of sorts - I might as well go back and watch the original.
The problem, of course, as with all murder mysteries is that once they are solved (in either print or on screen), then they lose nearly all sense of drama or suspense. That, I think, is a fault of the genre as a whole and is perhaps the reason why it is generally not my favourite type of story: I prefer works that you can rewatch or re-read and discover something new each time through.
Anyway, the fact that I already knew the ending might have spoiled my enjoyment of this movie, even if I'm aware it takes liberties with the source material. Not obvious liberties, though! (Or, at least I didn't think they were).
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Moon Knight in TV
May 5, 2022
It's bloody wonderful that we're at a point where more obscure Marvel characters such as Moon Knight are getting their own projects.
This latest limited series does a fantastic job of introducing him, and his multiple personalities, in a unique and interesting way. It's definitely something different for the MCU and it's good that Disney+ is providing a platform to explore these quirkier and darker avenues.
Oscar Isaac deserves a whole bunch of credit for his portrayal of essentially two different characters. Both Stephen Grant and Mark Spector are characters that I cared about by the time the finale rolled around.
The overall pacing is the main detriment to Moon Knight. After an intriguing start, it does hit a major lull around the midway point that flirts with boredom on occasion, but a sharp left turn plotwise and a thoroughly entertaining finale save proceedings and then some.
Another enjoyable, if not perfect, series from Marvel Studios then, and a promising set up for Moon Knight to enter the movies as they start to explore some of the darker corners of their properties.
This latest limited series does a fantastic job of introducing him, and his multiple personalities, in a unique and interesting way. It's definitely something different for the MCU and it's good that Disney+ is providing a platform to explore these quirkier and darker avenues.
Oscar Isaac deserves a whole bunch of credit for his portrayal of essentially two different characters. Both Stephen Grant and Mark Spector are characters that I cared about by the time the finale rolled around.
The overall pacing is the main detriment to Moon Knight. After an intriguing start, it does hit a major lull around the midway point that flirts with boredom on occasion, but a sharp left turn plotwise and a thoroughly entertaining finale save proceedings and then some.
Another enjoyable, if not perfect, series from Marvel Studios then, and a promising set up for Moon Knight to enter the movies as they start to explore some of the darker corners of their properties.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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 (977 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney’s animated take on Rudyard Kipling’s classic The Jungle Book is a timeless classic. My mother is even fond of telling me about the Jungle Book theme I had in my room as an infant. So it was with great interest that we covered the new live-action film version which continues a successful tradition for Disney of adapting their animated classics into live-action features. For those not familiar with the story it involves a young boy named Mowgli (Neel Sethi), who was found alone in the jungle by a panther named Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), Mowgli is put in the care of a Wolfpack under the custody of Raksha (Lupita Nyong”o), who raised him as one of her own in the ways of the pack.
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2021 (Updated Jun 3, 2021)
The Acting- great performances by both Emma Stone and Emma Thompson (2 more)
The costume designs and wardrobe were amazing to see
The soundtrack was phenomenal - great music
Original cartoon Cruella vs this Cruella (1 more)
The pacing was sparratic and movie ran a little too long
Part Devil Wears Prada, Part The Joker, Surprisingly Splendid
https://youtu.be/Ja_Cl-9IKNI
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
I have to say this movie really wasn't on the top of my list for "must watch" movies as much as I like Disney movies and Emma Stone as an actress (loved her in Superbad as Jules, lol) but I really liked this movie and it was really good. Emma Stone was fantastic as Estella/Cruella and this movie really came off as a mix of Devil Wears Prada and The Joker in my opinion. I wasn't sure if I was going to like it in the beginning because I was weary of the concept of them trying to turn this villain into a good guy or giving them a compelling reason for their "villainy" ways but I'm a sucker for revenge movies. I have to say it had me right away with what happens to her mother and It was "hook, line and sinker" for me and I was along for the ride. I like how the movie kept the characters of Jasper and Horace which if I remember correctly were the name of her two helpers the skinny and fat one from the cartoons who helped her steal all those puppies so that was pretty cool as well. I really can't say how much I loved the soundtrack for this movie, it was just hit after hit, song after song the whole way through the film. Lots of great oldie music from around the times that they movie was supposed to be set in which was 1970's. There were some issues that I had with the movie like how it portrays Cruella when she's so horrible in the cartoons, how the plot turns into a whole heist situation, and how it takes until the end of the movie to answer a lot of the questions that were building up the whole movie. The movie did have good things too, such as the acting being great, especially the performances by Emma Stone and Emma Thompson, the setting and time period fitting the story in 1970's London and the clothes and the fashion, not to mention the soundtrack that knocked it out of the park. I give this movie a 7/10, unfortunately it doesn't get my "must see" seal of approval and I wouldn't suggest shelling out $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription to see this movie by yourself. However, if you plan on watching as a family it is definitely worth it to watch it in the comfort of your own home and not worry about movie theater etiquette or prices especially if you have young ones. If your not in a rush to watch it, I would wait until it becomes free to watch on Disney Plus which has been announced as Friday August 27th, so around 3 months. If you want to hear more of what I thought about the movie stick around for the spoiler section review.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
https://youtu.be/PvPC_yAMwFQ
I guess my spoiler section review ran a little long so if your interested in what else I had to say check out the full review on my website or check out my spoiler section video on YouTube.
Beatriz (17 KP) rated Lilo & Stitch (2002) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Lilo & Sitch (2002)
Lilo & Stitch is one of my most favourite Disney films.
It was released in 2002 passed in Hawaii. It tells the story about a girl (Lilo) and her sister (Nani) that fight to stay together as Nani is trying to prove to the social worker Cobra Bubbles that she is fit to take care of her younger sister. In the meawhile Lilo is bullied and feels different so Nani takes her to a dog shelter to adopt a dog. There Lilo meets Stitch, a mutated alien (or more specifically, experiment 626) that is hiding, from the Galactic Police, on Earth, and ends up using Lilo as his shield. But with time Lilo and Stitch become Ohana ( "Ohana means family and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten)
Its a fun and emotional film that touched a lot of childrens and adults hearts (including mine)
Here are some interesting facts that i found about the film...
- The original story focused solely on an alien living in a forest, trying to overcome his isolation and find out where he came from.
Lilo didn’t become a part of the film until much later during story development.
- Stitch was not originally supposed to talk, but when the filmmakers realized the story hinged on him being able to express himself at the film’s end,
they began developing his voice. Director Chris Sanders provided Stitch’s voice during test animation, and eventually everyone got so used to it that they
decided to keep it.
- After an early test screening showed that audiences thought Nani was Lilo’s mother, filmmakers reworked some key scenes to make their sisterly relationship clear.
- Lilo & Stitch was the first Disney animated film since Dumbo to use watercolor painted backgrounds.
- While on a tour of Kaua?i, filmmakers noticed that their Hawaiian tour guide seemed to know someone everywhere they went. They were so struck by the guide’s
explanation of the term “‘ohana” as it relates to an extended family, that they made it the central theme of the film.
- In the climax of the movie, Jumba can be seen flying around in a huge red spaceship that looks very similar to an airplane. This is because in the originaL
edit of the film, it WAS an airplane! In the original edit, the writers and animators had Jumba hijacking a Boeing 747 from the Lihue airport and crashing it
into buildings throughout Honolulu.
Unfortunately, the movie came out right after 9/11/2001. The animators felt this was much too close to the attacks that happened on September 11th, so they
remodeled Jumba’s spaceship to look a bit different than a Boeing 747, and also changed the buildings to mountains.
- All of the landscapes in the movie are recognizable locations in Hawaii
- Not only was the setting and plot of the movie unique, Lilo & Stitch was also very unique in the way that Disney promoted the movie. Disney released a set
of trailers in which they inserted the character of Stitch into some of their more “classic” films.
Some examples of the movies they inserted Stitch into, are as follows: The Little Mermaid; Stitch surfs on a wave that crashes down onto Ariel. Beauty and the
Beast; Stitch can be seen loosening the chandelier during the ballroom dance scene and it almost lands on Beast and Belle. Aladdin; he steals Jasmine away
during their magic carpet ride. The Lion King; Stitch is on Pride Rock instead of Simba.
- Did you know that the character of Stitch was actually created way back in 1985? Stitch was created by one of the directors of the film named Chris Sanders
for a children’s book he was writing. The children’s book was never published, and Stitch was made into a movie 17 years later.
Chris Sanders was not only one of the directors of Lilo & Stitch, but he was also a co-screenwriter, a co-character designer, and also provided the voice acting
for Stitch.
- During the animation stage of Lilo & Stitch, the animators made a conscious effort to design the "alien" aspects of the film a certain way.
Since the movie was going to take place on the island of Hawaii, they decided to design all of the alien aspects of the movie to resemble marine animals.
This makes sense, since Hawaii is famous for its diverse marine plant and animal life that resides on the island.
It was released in 2002 passed in Hawaii. It tells the story about a girl (Lilo) and her sister (Nani) that fight to stay together as Nani is trying to prove to the social worker Cobra Bubbles that she is fit to take care of her younger sister. In the meawhile Lilo is bullied and feels different so Nani takes her to a dog shelter to adopt a dog. There Lilo meets Stitch, a mutated alien (or more specifically, experiment 626) that is hiding, from the Galactic Police, on Earth, and ends up using Lilo as his shield. But with time Lilo and Stitch become Ohana ( "Ohana means family and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten)
Its a fun and emotional film that touched a lot of childrens and adults hearts (including mine)
Here are some interesting facts that i found about the film...
- The original story focused solely on an alien living in a forest, trying to overcome his isolation and find out where he came from.
Lilo didn’t become a part of the film until much later during story development.
- Stitch was not originally supposed to talk, but when the filmmakers realized the story hinged on him being able to express himself at the film’s end,
they began developing his voice. Director Chris Sanders provided Stitch’s voice during test animation, and eventually everyone got so used to it that they
decided to keep it.
- After an early test screening showed that audiences thought Nani was Lilo’s mother, filmmakers reworked some key scenes to make their sisterly relationship clear.
- Lilo & Stitch was the first Disney animated film since Dumbo to use watercolor painted backgrounds.
- While on a tour of Kaua?i, filmmakers noticed that their Hawaiian tour guide seemed to know someone everywhere they went. They were so struck by the guide’s
explanation of the term “‘ohana” as it relates to an extended family, that they made it the central theme of the film.
- In the climax of the movie, Jumba can be seen flying around in a huge red spaceship that looks very similar to an airplane. This is because in the originaL
edit of the film, it WAS an airplane! In the original edit, the writers and animators had Jumba hijacking a Boeing 747 from the Lihue airport and crashing it
into buildings throughout Honolulu.
Unfortunately, the movie came out right after 9/11/2001. The animators felt this was much too close to the attacks that happened on September 11th, so they
remodeled Jumba’s spaceship to look a bit different than a Boeing 747, and also changed the buildings to mountains.
- All of the landscapes in the movie are recognizable locations in Hawaii
- Not only was the setting and plot of the movie unique, Lilo & Stitch was also very unique in the way that Disney promoted the movie. Disney released a set
of trailers in which they inserted the character of Stitch into some of their more “classic” films.
Some examples of the movies they inserted Stitch into, are as follows: The Little Mermaid; Stitch surfs on a wave that crashes down onto Ariel. Beauty and the
Beast; Stitch can be seen loosening the chandelier during the ballroom dance scene and it almost lands on Beast and Belle. Aladdin; he steals Jasmine away
during their magic carpet ride. The Lion King; Stitch is on Pride Rock instead of Simba.
- Did you know that the character of Stitch was actually created way back in 1985? Stitch was created by one of the directors of the film named Chris Sanders
for a children’s book he was writing. The children’s book was never published, and Stitch was made into a movie 17 years later.
Chris Sanders was not only one of the directors of Lilo & Stitch, but he was also a co-screenwriter, a co-character designer, and also provided the voice acting
for Stitch.
- During the animation stage of Lilo & Stitch, the animators made a conscious effort to design the "alien" aspects of the film a certain way.
Since the movie was going to take place on the island of Hawaii, they decided to design all of the alien aspects of the movie to resemble marine animals.
This makes sense, since Hawaii is famous for its diverse marine plant and animal life that resides on the island.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Oh. My. This was always going to be a tough one for me, and I've been thinking long and hard about how on earth I was going to review this. I love the original, anyone who even remotely enjoys it would be able to sing you at least one of the songs, and therein lies one of the problems. Would I have had a different opinion about some of the elements had I not seen the original so many times? After a lot of contemplating I think the answer in most cases is no.
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
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!).