It is not a practically perfect sequel, but still nostalgic & joyous. I am praising for... Firstly, the music: stepping in time - with reasons & rhymes. Secondly, up with the atmosphere: Mary Poppins takes the 3 little Banks on captivating adventures through more strange places, like bathtubs & vases of their late mother where there must be fixing when it has been chipped - that is where the animated animal world comes by once again - Disney can take notes from that whenever they are set to make a 2D animated movie for the first time in forever. Thirdly, some of the acting is majestic, such as the acting of Ben Wishaw & **** Van Dyke. But, I deem it inferior to the predecessor. Unlike Julie Andrews, Emily Blunt portraying Mary Poppins does not seem quite so sweet as her predecessor & slightly smug but the character was good & made Georgie want to take a bath again. Just loved that story of a figure in children's when they are getting through a personal problem (having a home).
A Blind Screening will Shock you Alive. I believe that it was a nice thing - a movie (directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal), who wanted to make a story about the Bride of Frankenstein & she was inspired by old movies like "The Bride of Frankenstein" & "Top Hat" which did get referenced in the movie itself, which is nice. Also, the Bride (Ida) brands herself after Ginger Rogers. There are many nice parts to it: I found interesting that Ida is actually the author, Mary Shelley, telling the story from the dead in greyscale. The prosthetics also give something different: Frank has normal skin & his head does not seem to high. This is divisive: positively, it could have a more real feel; negatively, it could make him look dull & off-putting.
Ida did not need stitches; she was already & sparked back to life. BTW, I believe Ida could have gotten more time to shine. Why am I being positive about a polarising movie? It is labelled as OK BTW
Do Not Just Give Animals a Future, Give Pixar a Future. I believe what will be interesting with it is that the animation style differs from what Pixar or Disney usually looks like such as not having surreal & beautiful eyes with shiny bodies - instead, it is more comical, texture less & geeky. It would be very fit for you if you were feeling tired of the bean mouth syndrome some characters suffer from. Animation differs are why Ican love certain movies, such as, the reason I like Illumination's "Migration". At first, it would be also interesting given that this Pixar movie may not seem like the most emotional with a meaning like others. Well, actually, it does! It focuses on Mabel Tanaka with her love for animals & dismay about the destruction of the area from Mayor Jerry. About him, who he is voiced by Jon Hamm, ever since he was told about the trouble, he became a favourite to me. It would be ironic that you know Tom Lizard actually talks. "Gatto" should take on a style too.
A relief to watch a movie from Illumination that is not from the "Despicable Me" saga. It is actually somewhat of a nice movie for many reasons. Firstly, I see this as creative although it may be lacking in originality- it is the type of creativity that is really like "Toy Story" (it's main plot is similar too) but it may not be Pixar-resque. I can give credit to its screenwriters for anything about it, I shall support Brian Lynch, who was involved with its screenplay. What a nice concept! Depicting what pets do when their owners are away... & take it to the extreme! TBF, I do not believe that I need to be about the plot to review it. There are other things to enjoy: we have been introduced to many lovable pets with positively exaggerated personalities & designs - I believe the funniest part was the evil little white rabbit, who Kevin Hart plays. This movie is a nice animated comedy for anybody of any age... but not everybody.
You Can Catch it Whenever, Wherever You Can. Steven Spielberg should go down in history of iconic movies. Should "Jurassic Park" be the most influential? Because this had some iconic potential. Why have a chase scene where there is a fast paced chase movie? It is a chase, but a non cliche adventure of a chase without full on running, false jobs & family conflicts. The acting & casting was a fascination: Leonardo DiCaprio did not need to be the romantic role but instead, a 17-year-old con man, who could have been successful in escaping from Carl (Tom Hanks). Both are some of the best on-screen combos & on screen combo s are iconic. Well, I will never forget the iconic music & title sequence.
That was an ass one of the saga. The "Train to Busan" saga is getting similar to "Night at the Mueseum" where every plot is about main characters saving themselves from something. However, "Night at the Mueseum" is way more exciting than this. All the time, it is a group of survivors fighting their way out. The plot really does get tiresome throughout it all. It seems to me that the most interesting parts were the ways they could defeat the zombies. One example is, a group of men, shirtless with red numbers painted on, fighting them through a flood of something like water. I cannot remember if they survive or not, tell me.
The movie wants to be me. Let me get this straight: this is an adaptation of the musical, so slow down if you are going to consider this a remake, just like "Matilda". And this is not a case with "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" since Tim Burton's version was just his own superior iteration. What I said when I said that ^"the movie wants to be me"^, it is because "Mean Girls" is a girly girl thing - as somebody who does some girly things, given pink is my favourite colour whilst I can still do gender neutral or even masculine things, this movie can be targeted towards me. Also, I actually love musicals since I live music & music/songs can give me captivating energy. "Mean Girls" does have problems, given that I have been met with people who disliked it. Listen, unless it was trying to be comedic, it might be so ungreat, it is laughable & I found the acting meh whenever there were songs. Do YOU think it was OK to have modern day items in this "Mean Girls" not from 2004? At least it had heart.
Not All Movies Have to Live in Hollywood. Why should this movie be considered special? This movie is very different to other movies that I cater to most. Those ones being majors from the USA & how flashy they can be. As compared to this one, this comes from Britain & to Americans, this is not an animated movie from somewhere like Aardman. It is not just that it is British, Phillippa Lowthorpe & this movie decides to take on a more gentle tone that is not so hyper (although I love those kinds of movie (I.e: "The Naked Gun). Its gentleness is what I love about it. This movie is captivating with its plot & cast. The movie is based off the 2014 memoir/moment by Helen McDonald who came to be owning a hawk after the death of their father. And Claire Foy portrays them - she had a brilliant performance with attended emotions & some iconic moments. It is not "How to Train Your Dragon" but I was happy seeing the moments of her & Mabel together. Brenda's Gleeson is Scottish in this...
Titley speaking for itself. Hikari was too well paced but he directed no movie like this. If there was anybody to cast the main protagonist (Philip), it should be Brendan Fraser because he looked washed up in scenes on his own. Look at him then, look at him now. I liked the melancholia moments when he is alone & depressed looking - it is effective & this movie does delve into topics, like loneliness. When you thought Japan was homophobic, feel happy when you see the lesbian couple, who then leave to Canada. Another aspect to this movie is when he is made to be a father (figure) for the girl, Mia Kawasaki. I could have cried at moments when they almost leave each other. I found to be sad when her life had been mapped out. I believe it means that not having a parent be there be a mistake, because Philip's father died 2 years prior & he did not attend the funeral. It was good to have Mia join a younger boy with her & Philip (Kevin) because he did not have parents there.
A good example of the Disney renaissance. Perhaps, some of my favourite Disney movies from the 1990s. With heart, big comedy from Robin Williams as the genie & wonderful songs. I loved seeing that a poor thief, Aladdin, actually had a kind heart. It was perfectly acceptable for Jasmine to trust him. Let Jasmine choose what she wants because she is not a prize to be one. Next, your favourite part is the genie, who is Robin Williams (which triggered something). I enjoyed his shifting humour. He just used to serve anything up (turning things into a game show or turning himself into other people). Everything about it can make any Disney movie special.
A memoir movie, highlighting the lives of Lightning & Thunder. This is a biopic seeming different to others since this is not about a singer, but tribute artists instead. Hugh Jackman portrays Mike Sardina, the Lightning who met Claire (Kate Hudson) who used to be a Dolly Parton impersonator. His acting may not have been as ambitious as others, but I sure loved the chemistry they had. We had the best moments of them playing those Neil Diamond songs joyfully. With that comes the shocking moments: sometimes, love stories have got fighting in them. The moment Claire lost her leg in a car accident was effective with the instant & stressful scene cut happening. Good to look into her daughter (Rachel)'s life too, mother she became & that is Claire's grandmother hood. Anything is unpredictable. Things can strike you like Lightning & Thunder! Do not disappointed if a romantic biopic does not have a happy ending. Finally, play "Sweet Caroline".
The most lovable Christmas movie. This was "The Boxtrolls" before "The Boxtrolls" about an orphaned baby being sent to loveable creatures & raised by loveable creatures. He learnt skills as an ELF when he was raised. Will Ferrell portrays Buddy Hobbs, whose father never knew he was born. James Caan portrays him, the kind of actor who would be sent the role of a father who has no belief of his son but his son must prove it. The adventure Buddy has was fun. Many parts that he was in were the most funny parts. How about you make spaghetti bolognese with maple syrup & sugary ingredients for yourself? The movie is all about believing & keeping spirits high. Christmas brings us together when Jovi (Zoey Deschanel) sings, which is one way to do it. My favourite moments are how the elves are normal grown humans but are smaller than Buddy the human. And the uncanny stop motion characters.
It may not be as good as the predecessor, but it is clearly anticipated. It was fair for the span between the 2 movies is more decade - Jake & Nyitara started a family. Even a sky person, Spider, lives in Pandora (it does not matter where you came from, what matters is who you choose to be). The animation may be a slight improvement. The adventure is also exciting when the Sulleys go into home of Na'vis living in the way of water. Of course, the Colonel is the antagonist once again. It may seem tiresome but James Cameron has set him to be the main antagonist throughout all of the movies. It does feel like an interesting story that he would get revenge & try to make it easier by disguising as a Na'vi. But you could obviously if it were a sky person if he was armed of military.
The Start of a New Era of 20th Century CGI. The first 20th Century movie to use their 2009 logo made by their animation house: Blue Sky Studios, which was the best in animation. The animation was apparently at its prime. I could suggest that the animation on some creatures was so bad, it was beautiful (I over analyse animation quality). I found it wonderful how Jake Sully could get up from a wheelchair to be the upstanding Na'vi in their universe. He & Nyitara showed me some lovely chemistry. It was beautiful to look into the world of Na'vi such as having a tree, bonding with the ends of their hair & feeling like they could dominate the Earth in the future. We make love, not war - I like that Na'vis come together. FOX actually had it all with animation.
It was for the best not to succeed at the box office. To start off with, I might believe that it was an anti-racism concept... but it was a fight between good vs evil. There a some jokes that feel in place: Ruby is good at math with calling somebody "Algebro" or the name Chelsea sounding like both "shell" & "sea". Some jokes were just trying to be funny that I could not bare to laugh. The writing/screenplay does not seem to be great. It takes the formulaic plot of the protagonist being advised by the parent not to go out somewhere when it personally does turn to be important; at a climax, they believe their parent was right but they actually thought right. I am not into the character designs either - some look a bit ugly excluding Chelsea the Mermaid. Chelsea was my favourite character - why couldn't krakens & mermaids get along? You know Disney Princesses - now welcome DreamWorks Princesses? (People like Eep, Tip, Poppy or Ruby herself).
The other most memorable CGI movie from Walt Disney Animation Studios since "Frozen". What was made was made a masterpiece. It works that this universe was an all [wild] animal universe, more distinct & better than Illumination's "Sing". That universe also portrays diversity (sizes & species). It is a funny movie with iconic chracters of their typical animal traits (like a sloth or a possum). It has also got a big deal & awareness appeal of discrimination. Judy Hopps was a small rabbit on the prey side who dreamed to be a cop in the city of Zootopia but was underestimated & unwelcomed by the big cops (predators). They never got around to finding the missing otter but Judy Hopps could do it along with Nick Wilde the fox*. *Judy Hopps & Nick Wilde are some of the best Disney duos: they were both of similar sizes, they both had the same bad experiences in their childhoods & foxes are technically predators with rabbits being a prey so their bonding ended that sort of racism. My favourite thing of it all is Gazelle (Shakira); she is iconic & she did not like the racism in Zootopia either.
The Title Speaks for Itself. The 2nd half of the "Wicked" duology is a bit of a fixer upper, it has got a couple of flaws. What I meant by the flaws is parts that I did not really like about it. The parts that I do not feel for is that Jon M. Chu's directing does not feel the same as his directing in the predecessor; Glinda really did not need to get married (but my wish came true) & although there is a yellow brick road, just like in the original story about "The Wizard of Oz", however, there is no red brick road in this (so what **** least the best from it is the music composed by John Powell & Stephen Schwartz because it really set the mood for each scene. The cinematography by Alice Brooks was splendid. She was horrible, no wonder her surname was Morrible, it rhymes with horrible. Notice times whenever Glinda cries? You are supposed to root for Elphaba! On 1 side of both stories, there is not a happy ending but both stories do have a happy ending. TBH, I declare that the story of "Wicked" is better than "The Wizard of Oz".
Anything I would do for Jesse Eisenburg.I believe this to be an improvement over the predecessor, with more originality & original cast. Such as, I was happy that the female horseman, Henley Reeves, came back when I would be annoyed about her absence & seemingly replaced by Lula May (Lizzy Caplan) but she is not a replacement. Henley is iconic. I began to think that this could be a legacy movie when we got met with a trio of apparent magicians: Charlie, Bosco & June, whom I believed would be replacing the 4 Horsemen when I thought they died until J Daniel Atlas showed up. Then, we get excited for Morgan Freeman to be showing up at the upside down **** course, Veronika Vanderburg is the best villain - the matriarchy of a business & had parents who were magicians (maybe just her father). That diamond did not belong to her. And this factory reminded me of an antagonist from DreamWorks's "The Bad Guys". Find Fun to have more Horsemen, needless romance & one day where the franchise goes dry. Jesse Eisenburg, I will be up for your A24 musical & I want a 3rd "Rio" movie. I am unsure if anything like this can top the 1st "Now You See Me" movie.
The animated movie everybody needs. Not just that, but I think that Pixar was a very important animation studio to exist & it was their very important movie to exist. I feel proud that earnt multiple awards. To start off, it is the animation, I never saw a worn down robot like Wall E look so realistic & rendered; I am unsure that I can say that with other movies from Pixar. This animation is just like a Blue Sky movie. The love story between Wall-E & Eve was not just a live story. They got to show each other their own worlds. Out of Wall Es collection of junk, he has an old boot with a plant in it. And Eve shows her where she lives, in an Axiom where humans helplessly got lazy staying there for a long time after Operation cleanup which was not succeeding. Wall E showed the boot with a plant & proved the Captain that there was hope on the planet. There were things to know more & it got better, better than the CEO of Buy n Large, Shelby Fortnight. Talking about Buy n Large, it is a mega corporation that plays a part in this story. It has been economically greedy & never getting around to saving the environment, no wonder they went that way. It is what companies like Disney are kind of becoming now (yet "Wall E" came from Disney themselves). There is another movie involving this issue, but its more different, coming from Blue Sky/FOXs "Robots", which Disney also bought & Blue Sky had to get shut down due to the economic impact of COVID-19. Companies need to learn from this movie so thay life does not end up in disaster in the future. THEORY: Selby Fortnight is either a holigram or originated from AI. Now, this movie could also mean the consequences of AI usage.
