KatyGriffinSaye

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

"Mrs Doubtfire" before "Mrs Doubtfire", but actually not... Both "Mrs Doubtfire" & "Tootsie" are both about men going in drag, yet their stories are different. The plot about a the man, Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), who is done dirty by the industry, the way he can get back is becoming a woman (slightly alter ego) named Dorothy or such. I love how the plot is a promising one, never a ripoff. At first, I thought the comedic relief was the script that he had, because it contained some hilarious quotes, which Michael Dorsey shouted out at the start. I also just want to highlight some iconic moments about the argument he got into with the lady in his apartment when going through his drag phase & calling HIMself a LESBIAN (this will stick out). Then again, I will love this movie for giving the message of learning, honesty & showing the true self, which is all you want to be.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Do not terminate this just because it is not great. I do think this movie is a loveable one, it has many liveable characters. Tom Hanks portrays the Bulgarian Victor Navorski trapped in the airport & not able to speak fluent English. I suggest what makes him lovable is that he is naive about languages - we really do love silly characters. I also think Victor has some nice chemistry with other characters, that we could sympathise with. Steven Spielberg is a great director & Debra Zane is a great caster given that the many characters focused on in the movie are portrayed by actors, who are just good at acting. However, not many of Steven Spielberg's movies are great, despite what I mentioned above - it does spend most of its time in the airport Hahaha. Does that bring it all down?

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This movie is notorious & taken differently. I do not really want to analyse as a review, but say sentences about it. The first scene of the movie was good because we saw a ginger girl named Annie (just like the origional). Not much of what people say in the movie are pointless; Annie's concerns about politicians is that they can lie & let us down. Colleen Hanningam is such a mood: she cannot stand having those girls around & having some redemption - she is me, to care has put a strain on me. About her name, Colleen is a name for any bad woman, just like in the real world: Colleen Hoover or Colleen Ballinger. **** them up in the vacuum! Perhaps children should not be used in political campaigns. Could her real parents have disowned her? No wonder she says that those were not her real parents & she is a Foster child. The music got me through anything. And this Annie actually did enjoy the original - now those are the positive parts. It's modern take got me unlike "Oliver".

Some of my treasured (screwball) comedy movies. Don't you remember the times Jim Carrey appeared to be unforced funny (& still is)? Especially with his actions & hair, which made him look young. "What a dumb movie!" well do not judge by the title! The movie was not dumb at all! It was comedy gold, where at worst, potty humour was higher than acceptable. All of that humour did it just like the Naked Gun - physical clown jokes, which felt tangible & unforced. Even then, the suspenseful moments could still feel funny. This movie really should be recognised as iconic - the best line from Jim Carrey: "MOVE IT OR LOSE IT, SISTER!". Jim Carrey & Jeff Daniels seemed to be that buddy cop duo. But the most distracting part of the movie was Jim Carrey's chipped tooth - I would have felt more comfortable if he had a tooth covering on.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This movie has made TMNT more appealing. Over time, I could never blame the people who consider this the best one yet. We praise the characterization, animation & casting. A lot of the time, Phil Lord & Christipher Miller have started many eras of animation, although they were not responsible for this movie. This animation makes this exceptionally stand out. Some will find it pleasant about the casting choices for the turtles themselves, portrayed by young people, resembling their age - it also goes to April O'Neil. More about the casting of others really makes sense yyy. A big part to play is the characters & backstories - such as, of why Splinter did not like humans & how he tried to keep the 4 boys away from them. Mutants were deemed monsters - prejudice, judged before known & that did happen to them like Shrek - & about Shrek... This movie has so much pop culture references & some er... but in defense, it was set in 2023 & future generations could learn culture from that year.

A warm as wool movie for all ages. I think many parts of it are lovable - it may have USA elements but I loved how a studio like Amazon MGM could make a family friendly movie & have to be dark. Hugh Jackman can be great in anything: whether he was Roddy in "Flushed Away" but now the farmer, George Hardy. I loved the character of George Hardy, he was a unique character, who cared for all his sheep, giving them names & reading him mystery stories. Soon, it gets dark, he is murdered - but it is right to be so. That is when the sheep of different kinds must stand up together to find out what caused the death. We believed it could have been anybody, even the people, who we love. Sheep & all of us need/deserve to have names, we should all be recognised. This movie is unpredictable, funny & cute to be. CGI animals never look great but this time, I should recognize it to be part of its charm.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A woeful war story. For the first time, I saw Christopher Nolan making a positive story, Christopher Nolan having a warm heart when lost soldiers were found by home. Some of the cinematography is intresting: one scene has a 16:9 ratio whilst another scene had a widecreen ratio, that would be to show what was more dramatic. Usually, that was never seen before in a movie. Scenes had a right to be dramatic: the twin brother could have almost been dying on that boat whilst taking war. One highlight is those dynamics close things like brotherhood have. Did you know that Harry Styles was in that movie? On his acting, he is good with the trope that is show it, don't tell it - I saw him but he was hard to recognize & just like one of them, it could have been scary of what he was going through. I think it was right to love those many biopic movies & learn about war stories & technically nothing serious at the end. I am just an amateur at putting in words for a review.

Bless My Soul, Herc' was on a roll! Disney used to just be creative with focusing on tales in other parts of a storytelling world in its renaissance. This time, it focused on the Greek gods & the boy who came from the sky: Hercules! Hercules was always something special, given that he was the son of the Gods to save them from the alternate dead reality & save the love of his life, Meg. About the characters, which were my favourite part of the movie... every one of then is so iconic & distinct. Hercules was deemed a wimp growing up but in the end, is a hero & would never give up, but Danny Devito was disrespectful about rookies - "Givin' ups for rookies". Meg is so sassy, unhappy to be around Hades*. Now Hades, is a villain, but he such an icon with his sass & humour, not too evil - my favourite quote of is "Relax, its only half time". Now, my favourite ones, are the Muses - the 5 women from the vase who sing & narrate our tale. I love all them songs.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Smarter than apes. This Disney movie has the heart **** & there is many to love about it. Disney had managed to be able to make this a quirky one. Instead of a singing Broadway musical, they included some original songs performed by Phil Collins. No wonder it would have such a memorable soundtrack like no other. This was "Ice Age: the Meltdown" before "Ice Age: The Meltdown". An orphaned specie is raised by a different species until they meet the same or their kind to fall in love with. It is also enjoyable for a city living explorer to go into the rural jungle, discovering & also finding love, showing that specie who they really are. YOU DO GET THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. Next, we get that touching moment where they almost say goodbye but I felt happy about the ending: love is more important than anything else, or it would be betrayal. Does it compare to "George of the Jungle"?

The funnest sequel of 2026. "The Devil Wears Prada 2" seems to be in a situation where a sequel is better than the predecessor & look at the Rotten Tomatoes score - 2% higher. What makes a sequel like this so good? Have a more different storyline, especially from what I saw in the trailer. Keeping the characters consistent & quirky, which was what "Ralph Breaks the Internet" failed to do. Also, it is a story of mystery & problem solving having plot twists within, no wonder "Murder, She Boat" has been my favourite Simpsons episode & there is a Simpsons reference in the movie! Pretty much like it's predecessor, it is engaging through iconic lines & adventure. I loved the characterizations is this. Benji had an amount of potential, as an antagonist. Next, we have more depth in character - Miranda has turned into a more softer person & Emily is sympathetic in the end, given a job. I do not want to focus on the plot this time in a review. Have fun & catch Lady Gaga!

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Smurfs with a superior sequel. Despite being in the same tone of the 2011 predeccesor, I have got some positives to this: This seems to contain more: adventure, real NAUGHTIES (Vexy & Hackus) created by Gargamel I'm action. We even get to see more about the Winslows & Patrick's stepfather, Victor Doyle - portrayed by Brenda's Gleeson. Would you see him in a movie like that? This is not the Naked Gun! Next, we have a meaning. Remember how Smurf3tte felt about being created by Gargamel, starting of as a Naughty & being traumatised from. What did Great Papa Smurf say? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM, WHAT MATTERS IS WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE! You could say the same with Doyle. Now, I shall never care about movie studios movies whether their CEO is trustworthy or not! I always loves its soundtrack, ooh la la & we love an Owl City in a family movie. Maybe the duology was not so bad after all.

From the start, a nostalgicly divisive hybrid movie. At first, despite the Smurfs you may find looking uncanny, it does show the way the traditional Smurf style it used to be & Gargamel getting out to get them. But when they get through the portal, that is when the reactions get negative is the fact that they were in the present day, in New York City - when Smurfs were set in medieval times (I refused to believe that they were in the medieval times). In which, there are tasteless moments & unbelievable uncool elements. Looking on another side, if we could take it out of context, it seems as LAUGHABLE as it is bad. Since it seems funny that small blue characters discover the world & try to find out what real things are - they could be more fit for a parody segment. Maybe Smurfs were not worth living when Gargamel could use their magic on beauty without testing on REAL ANIMALS. Ha, I love Hank Azaria & I love how they discovered their origin from Peyo. Maybe I have MIXED FEELINGS.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The franchises batteries are running low. "Pirates of the Carribean"s movies have begun to get old with their plots, & storyline get more repetitive. This is supposed to be at ITS world's end. About the repetitive storylines: • We have the same enemy crew from the 2nd movie: the skeletons from the first were way cooler. They should have had a new swat. • It is the same old conflict that Elizabeth Swann has (she has to boss fellow pirates around. What I am happy to see is William Turner - Orlando Bloom used to be handsome. And a black woman, who is not Zoe Saldana (Tia Dalma) turning into a giant woman. The movie is not even taking itself seriously, Jack Sparrow says things like Doctor Who. He has many clones & in 1 scene has 2 small versions of himself on his shoulders. I was not good at doing this review. Now I am going to stop here, given how future movies declined in quality.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Reminding me of "Night at the Mueseum" & "Avatar" The adventures of Jack Sparrow & Will Turner+ continue on, but every time, it stops being as good as the predecessor. We are introduced to many crews from around the world, which may make it stand out. Then, they start to compete & play games, which makes the movie childish. Once again, they have to battle a crew of monsters & it is still about the Black Pearl - instead of skeletons, there are sea monsters. If you look closely at the CGI, it does not beautiful - a "Predator" movie would seem better than this. Characterizations, I was put off by. Do you remember the pirates lovingly with Elizabeth Swann (who is now a pirate) betray each other in one seen - I saw this in uncanny new instalments to popular sagas. Judging by the critics score, I may have to stop watching.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

That is the right adaptation! It used to come across as underrated whenever somebody would reference an adaptation of Roal Dahl's story, it would be the 1971 adaptation. However, this is an improvement! More book accurate! It has dark humour, iconic moments & characters reflecting our generation! Do not forget the book accuracies: the story of Prince Pondicherry, the shown backstory of Oompa Loompas & their songs which came to be from the books & Mike Teavee did use the Great glass elevator too. If you are shocked that the movie is darker, this is because it is directed by Tim Burton, who took on his tone for his creations & some people like to see things reimagined as a specific style. Don't you care about BTS? Freddie Highmore was so delighted to work with Johnny Depp again, Deep Roy played every Oompa Loompa (taking a lot of work), many squirrels & the big boat scene. In the end, I would not be suggesting the 1971 version, but this if you want to see an adaptation.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The movie was smoking unmasked to be good. What any cinephile could need in their life is some sort of comedic movie. Anything is a special kind, like this. Jim Carrey has always been bound to be funny anywhere, no wonder I choose any of these movies. When things go zany, he can be funny with this childish but act for the age movie. FACT: Not all of these iconic cartoonish mask moments were computer generated so nobody cringe, we getting freaky! To watch the movie seems to be escapism. Jim Carrey is the wimpy man, Stanley & that mask turns him into the green-headed, black lipped hero with the power that he never usually had. Don't you wish any sort of magic thing miraculously does positive things to you but it never happens in real life? He is always the person you love, no matter what. Do great things for society.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Fly away! This is our introduction & how we see what Peter Pan is like. I love its iconic characters: Tinkerbell is such a cartoonist mood known for fairy dust also reading around, which is used to fly. Captain Hook is menacing yet still hilarious: he gets sensitive about his lost watch & the ticking crocodile. Well, you can tell the other pirates actually do not like him when they have a target modelled on him. The atmosphere is sweet: a place where there are mermaids where Wendy wanted to play; there are pirates & indians* just like John & Michael had imagined in their stories. *Now, the scene of the Indians & Tiger Lily might not age well due to being racist stereotypes but if you are tired of wokeness, who cares?

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Coming out before coming out. Here is a fact: the original story was about how the author himself, Hans Christian Andersen, wanting to come out of the closet as a dark metaphor. First, this take is a brighter one. It is about how somebody wants to follow their dreams, that being Ariel, who would rather be a human on land. She sings a song "Part of Your World" which is the best & beautiful song in it. Then, there is her father, King Triton, who does not want her to go out & assisting with an iconic character, Sebastian with his song "Under the Sea". "Under the Sea" had me mixed. It was an aim to put off Ariel's dreams yet it is glamourizing it. Similar to "Mulan"'s "I'll Make a Man Out of You". One More thing that it teaches: sacrifications for love. Ursula took Ariel's voice away so that she could get on land & be with Eric. So, this movie is about sacrifices, dreams & parents being accepting.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Steven Spielberg was trying everything. Did you ever love the telling of Disney's classic tales? Did you dislike live action remakes? Did you want a re-imagining of their tales?... Other studios seem to retell better than Disney. Particularly, somebody like Universal or Sony/Tristar Pictures who did their live action adaptations better & this iteration will be spoken about. I find this an interesting is making a story of Peter Pan actually growing up youthless & have started a family. And we see Wendy, she is Granny Wendy who has never married Pan. It feels very different to have a grown up return to where he had always been a child. It really does have its problem, like what critics criticize such as its screenplay & a goof is that the Lost Bpys still live in Neverland when they moved into the Darling's in the original tale. Now back to the positive, the characterizations are awesome: Mr Smee is such a mood & Captain Hook is always like his original iteration & evilness.

Has anybody said this is their favourite adaptation? This is a live action adaptation of the fairy tale from J.M Barrie, which is not from Disney, but Universal Pictures & Sony instead. They did a better job at doing a live action adaptation that Disney did with "Peter Pan & Wendy". There are many charming things about it. To start off with, the chemistry between Peter Pan & Wendy given that story's original title was "Peter Pan & Wendy", they had so much time together with Peter learning what a kiss is - it was obvious when you noticed Tinkerbell's jealousy. Next, is the atmosphere. It was enjoyable of how they also flew into space to reach Neverland. Although the FX may not be impressive, they are colourful, charming, many different places with some nostalgic charm. Finally, my favourite part should be Captain Hook. How more villainous can he be when he does such evil things like manipulate Wendy at one point? Out of nowhere, he is evil & handsome. Children would love it.

All Hail Mary. It just comes from any types of acclaimable movies with all kinds. And, it was a blessing to star Ryan Gosling. Phil Lord & Christopher Miller are the perfectionist directors that I would look up to fortheir elements. Oh, most of them really. Given that Ryan Gosling portrays the science teacher, Dr Grace, I did learn from his science lessons: something is eating up bits of the sun, which is diminishing it at a small fraction & in a few decades time, the population would be reduced. Does this give me hope for the future? Now, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller are having their take on Pixar. When Grace meets an alien (who looks like a cross between rocks & a spider), Rocky, who he spoke through voice translation. It is actually cute when I may get chills at the sight of his species. Thinking "The Good Dinosaur" or "Elio"? Another thing that I like is that Rocky is moved via puppetry & not CGI (which could have ruined it all), making it look 10/10.

This movie is priceless. Now, what I am going to say is, everything about it was priceless. Remember to give credit about the directors, screenwriters & those who were responsible for music & FX. First, I already knew that it was just a set but the set of Mars was so convincing & proof that other planets are not that different to Earth. As we could see, Mars looked like a place of fiery coloured sand with many cliffs. Second, I love the cast. Their acting is iconic. The characters are all iconic & many lines are quotable - "you gotta be **** me" or "I'll science the **** out of this". I find Matt Damon adorable as Mark Watney with his little adventure & situation. I could sniff the oxygen coming out. There was some comedy in it - Mark was forced to have disco music & disco music gets us through things. Even other people in the movie laughed, GET THEM OUT OF THERE! Truthfully, the movie is fun. It was special to feature Donald Glover. And it seems I love Matt Damon.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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).

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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