Lennon-S

I caught Zootopia 2 this evening and it was absolutely delightful! It keeps all the charm of the original with fresh surprises that left me smiling the whole time. I just loved Gary de Snake. He was adorable and easily my favorite character this time. I never expected I’d fall for him so hard, but his story really touched me.. The first half felt a bit slow (not bad, just slower than the original), but the second half picks up beautifully and delivers real excitement. The villain is much trickier to spot this time; the reveal genuinely shocked me and made me rethink everything. The main song is super catchy (still stuck in my head), and Judy and Nick’s relationship feels deeper and more heartfelt than ever. I’m still hoping a future sequel finally dives into Nick’s full backstory and family; there’s a heartbreaking story waiting there. Packed with clever adult references that’ll sail over kids’ heads (and plenty of non-Americans too) but had me chuckling. The message is tender, heartfelt, and never preachy; something everyone can get ****, there are a few shocking moments, so maybe best for older kids, but it’s nowhere near as dark as some reviews claim. If your child can’t handle this, steer clear of classic Disney and Don Bluth entirely; those are way darker. The animation is stunning, and finally seeing more of the city (especially Nick’s apartment) was a treat. I honestly don’t get the harsh reviews here. Trolls who seriously believe they’re going to stop people for seeing the film because they leave a (very obvious) fake review ? What more do they want? This is a fun, heartfelt sequel done right. If you loved the first film, you’ll adore this one. And if you have a heart at all, you’ll enjoy it too. Perfect for kids and adults alike.

Disney’s Robin Hood holds a special place in my heart as one of the most endearing and unforgettable animated films of all time. For me, it’s not just a film—it was the film of my childhood. The adventures of the lovable outlaw, Robin Hood, and his band of merry animals captured my imagination like no other, and it’s a testament to the film’s timeless appeal that I still hold it in such high regard ****’s address the elephant in the room: yes, the animation is rough around the edges. The film comes from a period of Disney history when the company was struggling financially, and the loss of Walt Disney left the studio in a transitional phase. Robin Hood was made during what some would call the “dark ages” of Disney animation, when budget constraints and a shift in creative leadership led to a noticeable decline in the quality of animation compared to the studio’s earlier masterpieces. However, rather than detracting from the film, these rough edges actually add a certain charm and character to the film. The minimalistic style and recycled animation techniques may seem crude by today’s standards, but they fit the whimsical, low-key nature of the story perfectly. The animation may not be as polished as some of Disney’s earlier works, but it still exudes the charm and warmth that made Disney great in the first place. And let’s face it—this rough-around-the-edges quality only enhances the movie’s enduring appeal. It feels personal, intimate, and real, capturing the essence of an era where Disney was still finding its footing in a changing animation **** what really makes Robin Hood stand out, beyond its animation, is the character of Robin himself. Voiced by the smooth and charismatic Brian Bedford, Robin Hood is one of Disney’s most effortlessly charming and handsome heroes. As a young viewer, it wasn’t just his cleverness and sense of justice that drew me in, it was his undeniable charisma and, dare I say, his sexiness. There’s something about Robin that goes beyond the archetype of the swashbuckling hero—he’s cool, confident, and effortlessly charming, yet also kind-hearted and selfless. He’s not just the hero of Nottingham; he’s the hero of every little kid who dreamed of standing up for what’s right. Robin Hood is witty, brave, and unapologetically attractive, with a voice that adds layers to his already dashing persona. His swagger is undeniable, and yet, he’s grounded by his loyalty to his friends and his compassion for the oppressed. He’s the kind of character you can’t help but root for—and yes, there’s a little bit of that childhood crush mixed in with admiration for his unwavering moral **** film’s charm doesn’t end with Robin Hood, though. The ensemble cast of characters, from the endearing Little John (voiced by Phil Harris) to the bumbling, yet hilarious Sheriff of Nottingham (voiced by Peter Ustinov), is a testament to Disney’s strength in crafting memorable, lovable characters. The mix of humor, action, and heart makes Robin Hood a well-rounded, entertaining film that still resonates today. It’s a story that never takes itself too seriously while still delivering a message of standing up to injustice—an ideal that is timeless, no matter the era.Robin Hood may not have the sweeping grandeur of Disney’s earlier classics, but it’s no less magical. It’s a film that captures the spirit of adventure and the warmth of friendship, with a touch of lighthearted romance and a healthy dose of swashbuckling fun. It was my favorite film as a child, and it still holds that distinction today—there’s something endlessly delightful about the combination of catchy songs, lovable characters, and that dash of rebellious spirit that makes Robin Hood truly **** may have been created during a time of uncertainty for Disney, but it remains one of their most enduring classics, a film that continues to captivate new generations. If you haven’t seen it in a while—or, heaven forbid, haven’t seen it at all—take the time to revisit this charming, slightly rough-edged gem. It’s an adventure that’s as timeless as the legendary outlaw himself. And who knows? You might just find yourself falling for that handsome, roguish hero all over again.

Disney’s original The Jungle Book (1967) is a masterpiece of animation that continues to capture the hearts of audiences, young and old, decades after its release. Its timeless charm, memorable characters, and infectious music make it an absolute standout in Disney’s animated canon, and frankly, it’s lightyears ahead of the 2016 live-action remake.From the very first note of “The Bare Necessities,” The Jungle Book hooks you with its infectious energy and whimsical spirit. The songs, filled with joy and life, are the heart of this film, and they bring an element of fun and carefree adventure that’s sorely missing in the more somber, CGI-heavy remake. Whether it’s Baloo’s carefree anthem or the jazzy rhythms of King Louie’s “I Wanna Be Like You,” the music in the original elevates the entire experience, turning it into a celebration of fun and **** characters are full of personality, and each one is perfectly voiced to add to the charm. Phil Harris’s Baloo is the epitome of lovable laziness, his warm and laid-back demeanor making him the perfect companion to the young Mowgli, voiced by Bruce Reitherman. The dynamic between Mowgli and Baloo is one of pure joy and heart, creating an unforgettable friendship that stands at the core of the film. The other characters—whether it’s the mysterious Bagheera, the mischievous Shere Khan, or the comical vultures—bring their own flair to the movie, creating a colorful cast that adds depth and energy to the **** animation itself is a testament to the artistry of its time. While the vibrant colors and fluid motion may seem simple compared to modern techniques, they carry a charm and warmth that’s often lost in today’s hyper-realistic, CGI-driven films. The hand-drawn animation has a level of expression and warmth that still feels more alive than the cold, computer-generated creatures of the 2016 **** above all, what makes The Jungle Book so beloved is its heart. The original film is full of life, joy, and a sense of adventure that feels sincere and untouched by the heavy-handedness of more modern retellings. It’s a movie about finding your place in the world, about embracing who you are, and about the importance of friendship. These themes are delivered with warmth and simplicity, without feeling forced or preachy, which is something that the remake unfortunately struggled to **** comparison to the 2016 live-action Jungle Book, the original is miles better. The remake, while visually impressive, misses the emotional depth, lighthearted fun, and sense of wonder that the animated classic exudes effortlessly. The live-action film, with its dark tone and forced nostalgia, fails to recreate the magic that the original film achieved so effortlessly.Simply put, The Jungle Book (1967) is a timeless gem. It’s the version that will remain in the hearts of generations to come—an animation that is as fun, as heartfelt, and as enduring as ever. If you’re looking for the true spirit of The Jungle Book, don’t waste your time with the hollow, overly serious remake. Go back to the original and rediscover the magic that still holds up today.

The Lion King is one of those films that seems to hold mythical status in popular culture, but for me, it’s never quite reached the emotional or narrative heights that others claim it does. It’s beautifully animated, sure, and the voice work is solid. There’s clearly craftsmanship on display. But strip away the nostalgia, and what you’re left with is a fairly standard coming-of-age story, dressed up in talking animals and Shakespearean ****, the story borrows from Hamlet, but it never digs into those themes with any real depth. It’s clean, safe, and broadly appealing—by design. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t leave much room for real emotional complexity. It flirts with darkness, then pulls back before things can get too heavy. It’s meant to be digestible for a mass audience, and it succeeds at that, but for some of us, it doesn’t linger after the credits ****, I do like Elton John’s music. “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is a genuinely beautiful song—but let’s be honest, it barely makes it into the film itself. His best work is saved for the end credits, which feels like a missed opportunity. The rest of the soundtrack, while iconic, is more Disney spectacle than genuine emotional resonance.I get why people love The Lion King. It’s big, it’s polished, it’s dramatic. But for me, it’s always been more of a technical achievement than an emotional one. It’s good—but it’s not sacred.

Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is not just a film—it is a seismic event in the history of horror. It is unrelenting, unapologetic, and utterly transformative. It redefined the boundaries of fear and birthed an entirely new kind of cinematic terror. Before this film, horror was scary. After it, horror became traumatizing. It was the first film to make audiences feel true, unfiltered terror. People didn’t walk out of theaters—they staggered out, shaken, crying, and disturbed. That kind of reaction can’t be manufactured. It’s earned through something rare: honest, bone-deep fear.Unlike the gothic horror or creature features that preceded it, Texas Chain Saw gave viewers something far more disturbing—realism. It wasn’t about monsters in castles; it was about monsters next door, in the sun-scorched backwoods, wearing human skin and speaking in screams. Hooper’s film was primal, suffocating, and raw. It took horror out of fantasy and made it **** a shoestring budget, the film crafted a nightmare that feels like it was never meant to be seen. The sweat, the grain, the sun-bleached terror—it all bleeds through the screen. The result is a suffocating sense of dread, a fever dream of madness and meat that burrows into your mind and stays there. It didn’t ask for your attention—it demanded your **** legacy is immeasurable. Texas Chain Saw is the blueprint. Ridley Scott famously cited it as a direct influence when crafting Alien, calling it “a chainsaw movie in space.” That sense of claustrophobic dread, the unpredictability, the feeling that nowhere is safe—all drawn from Hooper’s hellish vision. Wes Craven, Rob Zombie, Eli Roth, and even modern auteurs like Ari Aster and Robert Eggers owe a debt to it. From The Hills Have Eyes to Hereditary, its DNA runs through decades of nightmares. Even filmmakers outside horror have studied it—because this film isn’t just about fear, it’s about how fear is **** no, not even The Exorcist—for all its polished, Catholic grandeur—reaches the same level of raw, psychological damage. Where The Exorcist was theater, Texas Chain Saw was a descent into madness. One was frightening; the other was **** you call yourself a movie fan—especially a horror fan—and you dismiss this film with a negative review, you’ve said more about yourself than you have about the film. You’ve exposed your ignorance of the genre’s roots, your lack of appreciation for craft, and your addiction to the sanitized, soulless sludge that’s been spoon-fed to audiences for the last two decades. You’re not controversial—you’re just loud, young, and painfully out of your **** Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn’t here for your approval. It doesn’t need your validation. It has carved its legacy into the bones of cinema itself. It was the first to truly terrify, and nothing since has equaled its savage, enduring power. It stands alone—bloodstained, defiant, and immortal.

I honestly can’t believe I wasted any time watching this film, and I’m lucky I didn’t waste a single penny on it. If I had actually paid for this soulless disaster, I’d have felt downright robbed. This is the kind of trash Hollywood keeps churning out because people keep feeding it money, and frankly, I don’t understand why anyone would want to subject themselves to this pile of garbage. If you want a textbook example of why Hollywood is so creatively bankrupt, this film is ****’s make one thing clear: this film isn’t a “remake.” It’s a hollow, lifeless cash grab. Comparing it to the 1994 animated classic is insulting to the original. The 1994 Lion King was a hand-painted masterpiece. It had vibrant colors, hand-drawn beauty, and a sense of charm that made you feel like you were part of the world it created. This version, on the other hand, is like a depressing, soulless mockery. Sure, the CGI is technically impressive—on paper. But when the animals are more lifeless than the plastic toys on a store shelf, what’s the point? The faces don’t show any emotion, the animation is stiff, and it just feels flat. It’s as if the filmmakers were so obsessed with making everything look “realistic” that they forgot to inject any soul into the film. The whole thing feels like a cold, robotic ****, the voice cast is no better. Sure, you’ve got big names like Donald Glover and Beyoncé—who cares? It’s all a flashy distraction from the fact that their performances are about as flat and uninspired as the CGI animals they’re voicing. I get it, big names sell tickets, but it’s clear they were cast for their celebrity status rather than their ability to breathe life into these characters. Gone is the charm, the personality, the magic that made the original so unforgettable. What we’re left with is a version of Simba who lacks any real emotional depth, and that is the film’s fatal ****’s talk about the music because, wow, what a travesty. The original Lion King was one of the most iconic soundtracks in cinematic history. Circle of Life, Can You Feel the Love Tonight, and Hakuna Matata were not just songs; they were anthems. But here? The songs are flat, uninspired, and performed in a way that makes you wish they were just background noise. There’s no expression on the characters’ faces, so the music feels completely hollow. How are you supposed to get any emotional connection when the characters can barely move their faces? These songs could’ve been replaced by elevator music and the film wouldn’t have lost a single ounce of **** the worst part of this disaster? It’s not even trying to do anything new. It’s a shot-for-shot remake of a film that didn’t need fixing. Instead of reimagining or improving upon the original, we get a direct copy of it—except it’s devoid of the heart and charm that made the original a classic. It’s a lazy cash grab with zero creative ambition. At least The Jungle Book (2016) had the decency to attempt something fresh, something new. This film, however, plays it safe and ends up doing nothing but stealing nostalgia from people who don’t know better.Hollywood keeps pumping out these brainless reboots because it’s an easy cash grab. This isn’t an homage to the original; it’s a corporate scheme to milk a beloved classic for all it’s worth without offering anything new in return. It’s a slap in the face to anyone who cares about storytelling, creativity, and the magic that movies can create. The people behind this film didn’t care about honoring the legacy of the original—they cared about one thing: money. And you, the audience, are the ones who are lining their pockets by supporting this ****, to everyone who still defends this mess and complains about the lack of originality in Hollywood—take a look at what you’re spending your money on. You are part of the problem. You’ve been duped into paying for the same thing, just with a shiny new coat of paint. This film is the epitome of what’s wrong with modern cinema. Avoid it at all costs. It’s a soulless cash grab, a hollow shell, and a complete insult to the original. Don’t let Hollywood think they can get away with this.

I was never a fan of The Incredibles. The original felt overly smug, oddly joyless, and never earned the praise it was showered with. So imagine my surprise when The Incredibles 2 somehow managed to be worse. Dry, boring, and painfully uninspired, this film is a perfect example of how nostalgia continues to prop up mediocrity.There’s no heart here, no spark. Just tired dialogue, dull action scenes, and the same cardboard characters going through the same motions—but this time with shinier animation. Brad Bird’s direction feels mechanical, like he’s punching a timecard rather than trying to tell a story anyone actually needed. The plot? Forgettable. The villain? Laughably weak. The pacing? Like molasses.What’s truly amusing is watching grown adults—those who grew up with the original—flock to theaters with wide-eyed reverence, desperately trying to relive a childhood memory that, frankly, wasn’t that great to begin with. This film isn’t a celebration of anything. It’s just a corporate product, wrapped in the illusion of meaning by people who want to believe the stories they loved as kids were deeper than they actually **** here’s the kicker: these same people love to complain that Hollywood doesn’t make anything original anymore. Yet here they are, lining up in droves for the latest sequel, remake, reboot, or reheated nostalgia bait. The Incredibles 2 is exactly what it looks like—a polished, hollow cash grab masquerading as “beloved cinema.”If you found something meaningful in it, good for you. But for the rest of us, it’s just another overhyped entry in the endless cycle of safe, recycled content. And no amount of Pixar polish can disguise how empty it really is.

I still remember when Zootopia won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature in 2016—and I especially remember the tidal wave of outrage that followed. The tears, the tantrums, the cries of “Moana was robbed!” Really? Robbed? I don’t know what film those people watched, but it certainly wasn’t the same Moana I ****’s be honest: Moana isn’t special. It’s the exact same well-worn Disney Princess formula they’ve been recycling for decades, only now wrapped in a tropical setting with a lot of CGI water and a few catchy songs to distract from the fact that there’s nothing new going on. Plucky girl? Check. Disapproving parent? Check. Magical quest of self-discovery? Check. The “quirky” sidekick? Yep—this time in the form of Dwayne Johnson trying really hard to be funny. We’ve seen it all before, and done ****’s amusing how quickly people forget that Disney has already told this story—multiple times—often with more charm and stronger writing. Moana is just the next in line, a beautifully animated echo chamber that adds nothing to the conversation beyond looking nice and throwing in a few empowerment buzzwords. Sure, it’s visually stunning. Great. So is a screen **** compare that to Zootopia—a film with actual world-building, smart writing, relevant themes, and a fresh take on the buddy-cop genre. It walked away with over 40 awards, including that Oscar, while Moana managed fewer than 20. But sure, tell me again how Moana was “robbed.” The numbers—and the quality—speak for **** the end, Moana is surface-level shine without substance. It’s comfort food for people who don’t want to be challenged. If you’re looking for innovation, storytelling depth, or anything that makes animation feel exciting again, you won’t find it here. Just another safe, squeaky-clean product from the Disney factory line—polished, packaged, and utterly forgettable.

There’s no denying that Coco is a beautiful film. Visually, it’s one of Pixar’s most striking achievements—the vibrant colors of the Land of the Dead, the intricate character designs, the swirling lights and textures. It’s a stunning piece of animation from start to finish. But once you look past the surface, Coco reveals itself as a film that doesn’t quite live up to the mountains of praise it’s **** story, while heartfelt, is familiar. It follows the typical Pixar structure to a fault: a child defies family tradition, goes on a magical journey, uncovers a long-buried family secret, and returns transformed. These beats are executed competently, but they don’t surprise. In fact, for a film so steeped in a culturally rich setting like Día de los Muertos, the plot feels surprisingly safe—almost restrained, as if it’s more concerned with not offending than with truly exploring something profound.Musically, the film also doesn’t quite soar as expected. For a story centered around music and legacy, Coco oddly underdelivers in its soundtrack. Aside from “Remember Me”—which, granted, is poignant in its final reprise—the rest of the music doesn’t leave much of a lasting impression. When compared to the emotional resonance of other Pixar films like Up or Inside Out, Coco feels emotionally calculated rather than genuinely moving.There’s also a sense that the film is more beloved for what it represents rather than how it tells its story. It’s commendable that Pixar chose to spotlight Mexican culture, and the attention to detail in that regard is evident and admirable. But strong representation alone doesn’t make a film great. It still has to stand on its own narrative and emotional weight—and in this case, Coco only just manages **** the end, Coco is a good film, but not a great one. It’s earnest, respectful, and visually impressive, but beneath the beauty lies a familiar, formulaic story that doesn’t quite strike the deep emotional chord it seems to be reaching for. It’s a film worth seeing—but perhaps not quite worthy of the pedestal it’s been placed on.

And yet another film in a series that's sole reason is to sell toys! But hey this time you'll get a nice message about retirement because hey it's for kids! Cars is and always been the worst of the worst from Disney and Pixar! Do youreself a huge favor and don't buy any more Cars branded toys and don't go out and watch this! You will be doing a great service to the community by stopping Disney from making this crap!

For a film that calls it's self "The Little Prince" it has very little to actually do with the beloved stories! No this is classic bait and switch with a odd comming of age story and with bits and peices of the original story trown in. I don't see how anyone over the age of 12 could take this thing seriously!

If you think The Jungle Book (2016) is a masterpiece because the animals look “real” or the jungle is rendered with stunning detail, then you’ve completely missed the point of storytelling. This film is nothing more than a hollow shell of a beloved classic, dressed up in shiny CGI and flashy visuals to distract from its lack of substance. It’s a prime example of how a movie can check every technical box and still fail miserably where it truly counts: in the heart and soul of the story.Sure, the CGI is impressive. The animals look lifelike, the jungle appears to breathe with life, and the environments are lush and vibrant. But that’s where the praise should end. The Jungle Book is so consumed by its visual spectacle that it forgets to deliver what really matters—an engaging, heartfelt narrative. The charm, warmth, and emotional depth that made the 1967 animated classic such a timeless treasure are completely lost here. Instead, we get a lifeless, soulless rehash that clings desperately to its nostalgia while offering nothing new or compelling in return.Neel Sethi’s Mowgli, despite his best efforts, is left floundering amidst the digital noise. It’s hard to connect with a character who’s acting opposite nothing but green screens and tennis balls, and the result is a performance that feels distant and disconnected. Meanwhile, the voice cast—which includes heavyweights like Bill Murray and Christopher Walken—adds absolutely nothing meaningful to their respective characters. Bill Murray’s Baloo sounds like he wandered into the booth with a half-hearted shrug, and Walken’s King Louie is a baffling misfire, more distracting than entertaining. These aren’t memorable interpretations; they’re just big names slumming it through what feels like a paycheck ****’s even more frustrating when you consider the film’s failure to pick a tone. It doesn’t know if it wants to be a gritty, realistic survival story or a playful, nostalgic adventure. The clumsy insertion of Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You only emphasizes this confusion, because these classic songs don’t fit into the bleak, overly serious atmosphere that the filmmakers are going for. It’s as if they were forced in because someone was afraid to completely stray from the original—but when they’re included, they feel awkward, forced, and completely out of **** what really bothers me is how this film is championed by so many, simply because it looks “real.” People seem to think that if a movie has stunning visuals, that’s enough to make it worthwhile. It’s like the very concept of storytelling has been sacrificed for the sake of visual fidelity, and it’s a sad commentary on how far we’ve fallen as a moviegoing audience. If you’re more impressed by how fur ripples in the wind than you are by actual emotional depth or creative risk-taking, then I guess The Jungle Book is for you. But if you still believe that a movie should move you, challenge you, and leave a lasting impression beyond its surface, then this version is an absolute disappointment.This isn’t a film with heart; it’s a soulless attempt to cash in on nostalgia while masking its lack of innovation with glossy CGI. If you’re looking for the soul of The Jungle Book, you’re better off revisiting the original animated classic. At least it had something real to offer.

There’s no denying the sheer artistry behind Kubo and the Two Strings. It’s a visually breathtaking film, and the craftsmanship on display is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Every movement, every frame, every stitch of fabric and fluttering paper origami is the result of painstaking dedication by Laika’s talented team. In that sense, the film is a triumph of animation—a living, breathing work of art. However, as much as I can appreciate the labor and skill involved, I can’t help but feel that Kubo ultimately falls short in the one area that matters most: its storytelling.From the opening sequence, Kubo makes a promise—a promise of mystery, magic, and emotional depth. But as the narrative unfolds, that promise is only partially delivered. Yes, the film is drenched in atmosphere, and yes, it has some beautiful ideas at its core—family, memory, legacy, and the power of storytelling itself. But these ideas are never fully realized in a satisfying or coherent way. Instead, the film drifts between set pieces, often leaning heavily on visual spectacle to fill the gaps left by its uneven pacing and underdeveloped character arcs.Take Kubo himself, for instance. He’s a likable character, and his ability to bring paper to life with music is an inspired concept. But beyond that, I struggled to connect with him in a meaningful way. His emotional journey feels more told than shown, and the supporting characters—while occasionally funny or touching—don’t evolve much beyond their archetypes. Even the villains, who begin as haunting and intriguing, eventually fade into narrative convenience rather than embodying any truly memorable threat or psychological weight.When I compare it to another stop-motion gem like Fantastic Mr. Fox, the contrast becomes clear. Mr. Fox is a film with a distinct personality. It has rhythm, clever dialogue, and a consistent emotional tone. It engages not just the eyes, but the heart and mind. It knows exactly what it is, and it excels within its identity. Kubo, on the other hand, seems to want to be a poetic epic, a children’s fable, and a coming-of-age adventure all at once, but it never quite harmonizes those tones. The result is a film that feels slow, ponderous, and at times—even **** that brings me to the larger point: Are we reaching a place in modern animation where visuals alone are being treated as the sole hallmark of artistic success? I find it troubling that so much praise is lavished on Kubo without equally interrogating its shortcomings. A film, no matter how stunning it looks, still needs a strong narrative core. Technical brilliance should serve the story—not mask the absence of one.This isn’t to say Kubo is a bad film. It’s not. It’s ambitious, unique, and clearly made with love. But for me, it was an emotionally distant experience. I watched with admiration, not with investment. I saw the beauty, but I didn’t feel the soul. That **** the end, Kubo and the Two Strings is a masterclass in craftsmanship, but a reminder that beautiful animation alone does not make a film great. It may be framed like a fable, but its heart feels just out of reach.

My grandfather brought me to see this film when it was released in 1989. It was the last film I ever watched with him and it still holds a very special place in my heart. So is it a perfect film? No. But the critic reviews are way unjust for this film and it does deserve better than what it's received! Personally it's what I'd call a classic that is very much worth a watch and likely you'll find something to enjoy in it. And to this day the ending still makes me cry! No matter how many times I've watched it now.

I seriously have to wonder how many reviewers here actually seen the movie they are reviewing. Per the norm the animation is lovely but people need to face facts. This isn't and I repeat is not quality story telling! And frankly Dory simply can't hold a candle to Zootopia in story, characters, and world building.

Anyone who comes here and sees all these 9's and 10's and thinks, well this must be a good movie! Get prepared for disappointment! Other than major fanboys or little kids that'll enjoy the pretty colors this film is not going to be an enjoyable outing! It's boring, lacks a story, and doesn't do a whole lot for character building. Personally I'm only giving this one a 3 because Ratchet is cute! If you want to see a great animation, go watch Zootopia!

What a god awful mess! If people are that hungry to see Batman and Superman together in the same film I feel very sorry for the public at large! How on earth could anyone other than the most extreme of fans enjoy this? I often hear of others saying that they walked out on a film and this one was near close for me! The South Park episode "The Passion of the Jew" was all I could think about afterwords as I also want my money back! This was not fun and it was not or entertaining at all!

Every once in a while, a film comes along that doesn’t just entertain—it enlightens. Zootopia is one of those rare gems. It’s a film that works on every level: visually breathtaking, emotionally rich, thematically daring, and endlessly entertaining. Disney has created something truly special here, blending classic charm with timely social insight in a way that feels effortless.From the opening moments, Zootopia pulls you into a world unlike any we’ve seen before—an urban jungle populated entirely by anthropomorphic animals, living together in a seemingly harmonious society. The attention to detail is staggering. Each district of the sprawling city is meticulously crafted to reflect the needs of different species, creating a sense of wonder and immersion that never lets up. The animation is not just beautiful—it’s alive. From the flowing fur textures to the sprawling cityscapes, every frame is packed with artistry and **** Zootopia doesn’t rest on visuals alone. Its true brilliance lies in its characters and storytelling. Judy Hopps, the wide-eyed bunny with big dreams of becoming the first rabbit police officer, is an inspiring protagonist—ambitious, flawed, and endlessly determined. Paired with Nick Wilde, a sly, street-smart fox with his own baggage and defenses, the duo becomes one of Disney’s most dynamic and well-developed pairs. Their relationship grows organically, with sharp dialogue, honest vulnerability, and real emotional stakes. You care about them—not because the story tells you to, but because the film earns your **** genius of Zootopia lies in how it weaves its deeper themes into its story without ever feeling preachy. It takes on big issues—stereotyping, discrimination, systemic bias, bullying, and self-doubt—and explores them through a lens that children can understand and adults can reflect on. It’s a parable, yes, but one that respects its audience’s intelligence. The message is never forced—it simply unfolds, scene by scene, in the choices characters make and the struggles they face. It’s a mirror held up to our world, packaged in fur and charm, but unafraid to ask serious **** all of this is delivered with a light touch, a great sense of humor, and a brisk, engaging pace. The film is genuinely funny—whether it’s the famously slow-moving sloths at the DMV or Nick’s biting sarcasm, the laughs feel earned and smart. The humor never undermines the heart of the story, but instead adds texture and relatability.Musically, the score supports the film’s tone perfectly, and Shakira’s upbeat anthem “Try Everything” serves as an energetic and fitting theme for Judy’s journey. It’s catchy, motivating, and works well both within the film and as a standalone **** a cinematic landscape that’s often saturated with sequels, remakes, and safe bets, Zootopia stood out as something original and meaningful. It’s no surprise it won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, nor is it surprising that it collected over 40 major awards worldwide. What is surprising is how a film like this—bold in theme, charming in execution—manages to strike such a perfect balance between entertainment and social relevance. That’s no easy feat, and it’s something even Pixar at its best hasn’t always **** you call yourself a fan of animation, storytelling, or film in general, Zootopia deserves your attention. It’s funny, heartfelt, thrilling, and deeply human—even in a world of animals. Whether you’re a child, a teenager, or a full-grown adult, there’s something here for you to laugh at, to think about, and most importantly, to feel.This is Disney not just at its best, but at its most courageous. Zootopia doesn’t just entertain—it matters. And if you’ve got a heart, it’ll find a way to reach it. It certainly did with mine.