Change Your Image
RemusGrey
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Toy Story 4 (2019)
Surprisingly Disappointing
My initial thoughts for now:
Rushed ending (am I the only one who didn't cry here?), so many useless characters, and a way too stretched third act (as stretched as Finding Dory's third act). Keanue Reeves as Duke Caboom was a saving grace, as well as the photorealistic animation, the score (loved it), the humor (despite some falling flat), and of course, the presence of the two iconic leads, Woody and Buzz. Also, Gabby Gabby was a surprisingly well-written character. A particular scene with her brought out the feels (unlike the anti-climactic ending, which was big middle finger to the ending of Toy Story 3). Other than that, I was very surprised that in the past four years, Toy Story 4 turned out to be the biggest disappointment for Pixar (in my opinion).
It feels so unfortunate for me to give this a 3.5/5, making it one of my least favorite Pixar films (just above A Bug's Life, Monsters University, The Good Dinosaur, and Cars 2). The first three Toy Story films made up a holy trilogy for films, let alone animated films. This one was far from their quality.
Ghostbusters (2016)
Is Sony bribing critics?
When the first trailer of this awful reboot came out, I knew it would be horrible. Guess how many likes does it have. Last time I checked, it had 272K likes and 942K dislikes. I was one of those who disliked it. Paul Feig, you raped our childhood! Hollywood is running out of ideas now. I'm not against the cast being all female, but add the title Ghostbusters and our childhood has been raped. I really should have saved my money for Jason Bourne or Suicide Squad.
First, the good things in the movie:
None.
Nothing is good about this movie. Some of the flaws:
1. Humor. Literally, I wanted to throw up in the theater. The jokes are not funny at all. Not even a single laugh, chuckle, or smile came from me watching this.
2. Story. There's no story. It's all about (unfunny) jokes. More like or childhood in ruins.
3. Cameos. Poor Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Sigourney Weaver. Their cameos were terrible. Not even their appearances can save this movie. I'm glad Harold Ramis didn't see this nor make an appearance.
4. CGI and visuals. God, aside from Fant4stic, the CGI and visuals are one of the worst I've seen in my life. It made me feel like I'm watching a Scooby-Doo and Casper movie.
5. Death of the last ghost. Want to know how the last ghost died? His dick got shot. Very dumb.
6. Acting. The acting is so terrible. I don't think the cast were happy to be part of this movie either.
7. After end credits scene. Was this necessary?
8. Ghosts. As said, in number the terrible CGI and visuals made me feel like I'm watching a Scooby-Doo and Casper movie.
9. Theme song. Poor Fall Out Boy. They wasted their talent on a terrible film. Their song for this film will make your ears bleed. Maybe they too aren't happy with a female remake of Ghostbusters.
And the list goes on. This movie makes Batman and Robin look good. The Phantom Menace puts this to shame. I wasted another hour and a half of my time watching trash. Do not watch this film! Do you want to be dumb? Do you want to rape our childhood? Then watch this.
1/10.
Finding Dory (2016)
Finding Dory is supposed to be a worthy sequel, but it isn't.
I am a very big Pixar fan. I grew up watching all the Pixar classics when I was a kid. Toy Story, The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Finding Nemo are some examples of my favorite Pixar movies of all time. When the Finding Dory teaser played before The Force Awakens, that effing piano at the beginning gave me goosebumps. The highly anticipated sequel to our favorite classic is here! I was very excited as I entered the theater. I wasn't surprised that 40% of the theater was occupied by children (although the most surprising thing here is that elders were dominant). It was supposed to be a great day to spend Father's Day last month. But as I exit the theater, I don't know exactly what was wrong with me. I felt kind of underwhelmed and disappointed at the same time. Is this the most disappointing Pixar film yet?
First, I'll list the only good stuff in the movie.
1. Voice acting. The old cast in this sequel still have the same energy they had back in 2003. The new cast such as Idris Elba, Diane Lane, Eugene Levy, and Ed O'Neill shined in their roles.
2. Humor. Although the humor is aimed at kids, there were also jokes made to fly over their heads. Sigourney Weaver's scene and Dory considering her as her friend as an example. It's a remarkable scene.
Now here are all the flaws in the film:
1. Story. Not only did I notice the storyline is rushed, but even others did. Are they low on budget? I don't know.
2. Plot. This is a problem most people have with the film. The plot is basically a rehash of the first Finding Nemo! I didn't have any expectation of wishing for something original since this is the first time Pixar rehashed a classic. Add some exaggerating and unbelievable moments in the film.
3. Lack of heart. Another big problem with the film is that it lacked heart. When I heard that there are no teary eyed moments, my excitement lowered a bit. However, when my friends said they did cry, I went to the theater also expecting to cry. But there wasn't any time for teary eyed moments. Take Inside Out, Toy Story 3, Up, and Finding Nemo as examples. They broke our hearts so much that you can't resist crying. The story is "so human". In Finding Dory, they were replaced with laughs instead.
4. The Tank Gang's appearance. Why were they at the after end credits scene? They could've been in the actual movie instead of letting only a small amount of people getting to see them again. Really disappointing.
5. Exaggerating moments. The new character named Hank was a really likable character, until he was ruined in the third act. He actually drives a truck on the road! Would you also like to see fishes hijack a truck? What about a whale shark escaping from its tank? You'll find those here. What a move, Pixar.
6. Music. Thomas Newman is a great movie composer. But he's not so great here. His music sounds so uninspired and he didn't bring the original Finding Nemo theme (excluding one scene). Dory's theme is too similar to the theme of Finding Nemo. And at times, his music gave me a Dreamworks feel.
7. Theme song. I literally hated Unforgettable. It sounds more of a James Bond theme (kinda sounds like Writing's on the Wall from SPECTRE) than a Finding Dory theme song. Sia wasn't even a good choice to sing the theme song. Is Hollywood hiring famous singers to sing theme songs for every single movie? The terrible Ghostbusters remake has Fall Out Boy performing the theme. Bad idea. What's next? Justin Bieber singing a new theme for Rogue One?
8. Children are treated like devils. This isn't really an issue in Toy Story 3, but they did it again here. It's like saying Pixar thinks children are devils.
As you can see, I am very disappointed with Finding Dory. I was ready to give this a 10, but after seeing the movie, I am very disappointed. This is supposed to be a worthy sequel, but it isn't. Instead, we were given another mediocre sequel from Pixar (in my ratings Cars 2 is rated higher than this because at least the characters are not exaggerating and we had a really good theme, but it's still a disappointing Pixar movie). It's not as good as Finding Nemo either. This won't be in my Pixar collection. This is the second Pixar movie not to be present there. I refuse to believe this exists. Hopefully The Incredibles 2 won't be as mediocre as this.
4/10.
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Best Marvel movie so far!
Don't let these fake 1 star reviews trick you into thinking this is a bad movie. This always happens in IMDb to great movies.
I had very high hopes for Captain America: Civil War because of The Winter Soldier's success. I was also quite worried that it might end up like Age of Ultron (I enjoyed it, but there were too much humor and felt way forced on us). However, as I exit the theater, my expectations were exceeded. The humor never felt out of place and it was balanced. Each character had a spotlight and they each had an arc. There may be too many characters, but the Russos handled them well. The action scenes were very thrilling and the acting is so much better. Despite my 9.8 rating (gave it a 10 as an estimation to a 9.5+ score), the movie still has some flaws.
1. Unnecessary subplot. It involves 5 extra winter soldiers. The main villain traveled all the way to Siberia just to find out they're already dead? Or maybe I didn't understand t.They could've been unleashed to battle the Black Panther, Stark, Cap, and Bucky since his motives are to split the Avengers.
2. Shaky camera. In earlier fight scenes, the camera is shaky and can be quite jarring and hard to watch as if it's a Jason Bourne action scene wannabe. Still thrilling, but it's hard to watch.
3. Missed opportunity to build Cap and Bucky's reunion. Bucky's already fine, so what about a reunion? I understand the movie is about Cap and Tony fighting over the Sokovia Accords, but this is also a Captain America movie.
4. Dialogue. This is a minor issue since the dialogue was alright, but what Stark said to Cap after their fight was a tad bit underwhelming. The line, "That shield doesn't belong to you! You don't deserve it! My father made that shield!" is fine but he could've also said, "You don't deserve your title! You don't deserve to be Captain America!" right after he says his first line I stated.
The flaws are actually totally forgivable. Now for the positives:
1. The acting. The acting improved here. The highlight is Robert Downey Jr. I found his acting really powerful.
2. Spidey and Panther. They're totally the highlights of the movie. Black Panther is Batman of Marvel (hopefully they won't mess him up in his own solo film). Those who say his accent is fake didn't realize Wakanda is a fictitious country. As for Spider-Man, they got him right! He is young in the comics, and they got a young actor, Tom Holland, who was so good here. His jokes were hilarious.
3. Humor. Like I said earlier, they never felt out of place. There's a lot of light moments while there are also dark moments. The first act was very serious with a little amount of jokes. The second act was more comedic because of the airport battle. The third act had the same tone of the first act. Ant-Man and Spider-Man were the most comedic characters in the movie.
4. Arcs. Each character had an arc. This is Cap and Bucky's film while also Iron Man's story. T'Challa, Stark and Rogers are consumed by guilt and vengeance. They have something in common with the villain. Vision goes on a journey where he finds love. He was "human" in this film. This is also a prelude to Spider-Man: Homecoming and Black Panther.
5. Villain. Honestly, I found the villain to be really good. I wouldn't even want to call him a villain. He has no gadgets and no superpowers. Just a normal guy with a simple motive: to split the Avengers. He doesn't want to rule the world; that'll make him so clichè. As I stated earlier, Steve. Tony, and T'Challa are consumed by guilt and vengeance. Same thing with Zemo. He feels guilty for not being able to save his family from the climactic battle of Age of Ultron. And now, he wants revenge on the Avengers. His task was also completed and not foiled by the Avengers. He won. The Avengers have been divided. It's our expectations that made us believe that Zemo is another weak villain of the MCU.
I don't seem to understand why every great films (Inside Out, Mad Max, The Dark Knight Rises, etc.) gain negative reviews/hate in IMDb whilst mediocre/terrible films (Click, Pixels, Tomorrowland, etc.) get positive reviews. These fake 1 star reviews here are from those so-called DCtards who will always do this to every single Marvel movie. These comparisons to BvS (before you accuse me of being a Marvel fan, I enjoyed BvS and other DC films) are so laughable. It's clear that they haven't watched it. They even gave BvS a 10 whilst Civil War gets a 1 star from them. And a reviewer said this is the Fant4stic of 2016 but they barely did any black-washing to the characters. How laughable these fake reviews are. Now they're doing the same to Finding Dory.
I'll give this movie a 9.8/10 rating. This is the best MCU movie to date indeed!
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is flawed, but still entertaining
Let me say that I am more of a fan of Marvel than a DC fan, but I personally enjoy watching DC films. I thought that The Dark Knight Nolan Trilogy is one of the best CBM's out there. This year, we have a new DC film released. I had high expectations for Batman v Superman before I entered the theater. My expectations were met, but however, there are still some major flaws in this movie. Here they are:
1. Confusing story. Hence the title, "Batman v Superman", this is expected to be about Batman and Superman's battle. In fact, this movie is actually not about their battle at all! It wastes their time more on Clark Kent's conflicts on prejudice and trying to add more screen time for Bruce Wayne. Their battle only lasts for less than 10 minutes and later, that clichè team-up after a fight happens. They then fight Doomsday, who has no need to be in the movie.
2. The Villain. Let me be honest, this is not Lex Luthor at all. The Lex we have in the movie is not serious and is really annoying. Bryan Cranston or Corey Stroll should've taken the role as Lex Luthor. Jesse Eissenberg's acting was good though and at least Lex was quite menacing like a true devil.
Doomsday was another problem in the movie. They should've saved him for future DC installments. His CGI is also quite awful and has that Hobbit- CGI look.
3. The pacing. The pacing itself is slow and can be boring at some parts. I saw some people have a bladder break during those "boring parts".
4. The end of a car chase. Yes, there is a car chase scene. I found it entertaining and thrilling, but was Supeman really meant to be the one to end it. Bruce could've just ignored him and continued on his car chase. This isn't exactly a major problem, but I felt that what I said could've been done that way.
5. Too many "fade to black" scenes. Superman saved Lois Lane in his first scene, then fade to black. There are some more, but it made me feel like I'm watching Tom and Jerry or any other classic kids' cartoons.
6. The easter eggs. Happy Easter from Zack Snyder! Now he has to put easter eggs in the movie. Um, hello?! Just because it was released before Easter Sunday doesn't mean you need to insert too many easter eggs. Not actual easter eggs, but I assume you know the easter eggs I'm saying. They're quite too forced on us.
And the list goes on. But other than those, the performances were outstanding. While Christian Bale and Michael Keaton are the best Batman players, Ben Affleck still made a great Bruce Wayne. Henry Cavill still enjoys playing Superman. Gal Gadot is and will be the only best person to play Wonder Woman. I was the only one in the theater who applauded when she entered the battle.
While this could've been better, this is quite entertaining. The action sequences could've been more thrilling, but they're enough to keep you entertained, despite this being flawed.
After reading all those negative reviews from critics, that was the day where I started to ignore critics when they give a negative review to a movie that I have been anticipating. As Amy Adams said, "If you're interested in a film, you should see it and form your own opinion rather than just going on the word of somebody else."
So I'd say now that if you don't find this helpful at all a you want to watch this movie so badly, just go see it for yourself and don't take my word just like I did before watching.
8/10
Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)
Kung Fu Panda 3 is the weakest of the trilogy, yet a great movie
I am personally a Kung Fu Panda fan mainly because of its comedy and its story. I find both the first KFP and KFP 2 the best. With a third installment released, I was expecting a darker story and a really threatening villain just like in KFP 2. When I first heard that J.K Simmons will voice the villain, I had high expectations, given that he portrays his roles very well. However, not all my expectations were met, but this was still a great movie.
First, let's talk about the story. I'll be honest, it's not as dark as Kung Fu Panda 2. This, however, had so much going on. A spirit villain coming to take the pandas' chi, Po learns that there is a secret panda village and he isn't the last panda after all, and taking the next step to being a dragon warrior. They could've just sticked to one story rather than lots in one.
In my opinion, when Po found his father, it could've been more emotional. It was funny, but making it a tear-jerker scene would've been better. Also, I believe the story should have Po having a conflict in pleasing his panda father and adoptive father.
I'm also wondering, what happened to this whole "TiPo" thing? Is it still there, or is it gone? Does Po and Tigress have a different relationship now? It's barely seen throughout the movie.
The villain, Kai, wasn't as threatening nor scary as Tai Lung and Lord Shen (whom, in fact, I find the best villain of the KFP trilogy). I do like the idea that he can take pandas' chi, but in order to make a more meaningful, Kai should have done something excruciating to Po's panda father like being the murderer of Po's mother (although Lord Shen has already done that). The voice wasn't so sinister at all. I was expecting something just like J.J Jameson, Fletcher, and even Mayor Lionheart from Disney's Zootopia, but more sinister. I do find the voice "okay" though. Jack Black still enjoys lending his voice as Po and Bryan Cranston as his real father really enjoys voicing his character. Animating was still beautiful, mostly the Spirit Realm.
This is the weakest in the trilogy. But while it's not better than its predecessors, it's still a great movie. I'm just hoping that Kung Fu Panda 4 will be as dark as KFP 2 and will improve over this.
8/10
Zootopia (2016)
Best Disney movie so far!
I just came home from seeing Zootopia, and guess what? It's great. In my opinion, it's better than Big Hero 6.
Zootopia mixes up a laugh-out-loud comedy with a detective story with some serious scenes, and the result is just fine. There are times where I got distracted by a scene, in particular, where past Disney movies were spoofed as a pirated Blu-Ray, or another one, the sloth scene we saw in the trailer. It's a detective story about searching a missing otter and why he went savage en route plus who is behind this.
Please take note that there are some scenes that are not that kid-friendly (i.e, turning animals into savage by guns, fooling somebody just for the money, a panther with a scratched eye, a fox scratches a young Judy Hopps and her wound is seen, discouraging someone that she can't be what she dreams to be, parents laughing at Judy Hopps for being a parking guard and not a real cop, a naturalist resort with nude animals, etc.) which explains why it is rated PG-13 locally (in my country).
The voice acting was well-done! Jason Bateman and Giniffer Goodwin fit in their roles. While I had really high hopes for Michael Giacchino's score, I thought it was just okay, but that wouldn't undo my high rating. The puns and spoofs are what make this movie really hilarious (Carrot/Apple, Rangled, Pig Hero 6, Meowna based on Disney's upcoming flick 'Moana', Wreck-It Rhino, Targoat, etc.).
Zootopia is not your usual comedy film. It actually has a story that is really entertaining, memorable dialogue and comedic scenes, well-developed characters with realistic emotions, a well-done design for the city Zootopia, and a strong message for both kids and adults alike about prejudice that is explained clearly. This is the best Disney movie (still not better than Pixar's films, but it is in their level) so far!
10/10
The Peanuts Movie (2015)
The Peanuts Movie gains distinction through its simplicity
The Peanuts Movie is very loosely structured around Charlie Brown and his attempts to become worthy of the notice of the new kid in class, the little red headed girl. The movie glides through the school year, documenting the various events that give Charlie Brown a chance to stand out: a standardized test, a talent show, a school dance and a book report. Through all this, he gets the help of his faithful canine companion Snoopy (given voice through the archival recordings of the late Bill Melendez), who in his off time is imagining himself as the hero of a romantic novel set in World War I.
The movie seems very mindful of preserving the tone of the source material. It doesn't stray very far from the elements that made the strip so beloved, though it does seem a lot less melancholy than the comic and the derivative works often got. There is a sense that the movie is simply playing it safe, limited by both the demands of faithfulness and mass market acceptance. And this makes the film less interesting than it could have been. But even them, the charms of the strip make their way through, and it is still something worth seeing for both adult fans of the comic, and kids who have never been exposed to the magic that is Peanuts.
The biggest leap this film makes is in the animation. The jump to 3D could have jarring, but even here the production is very careful to stay true to the strip. The art style hasn't changed at all, the new dimensions just adding a shade of depth of Schulz's designs. It looks lovely, the film looking a lot warmer than most animated features. There is an inviting sketchiness to the whole thing, a handdrawn quality that belies the digital source of the animation. And in the Red Baron sequences, the movie is able to deliver a sense of scale as well. The flying sequence are really well put together, and are about as thrilling as anything the bigger adventure movies have given us.
Compared to other adaptations of the comic strip, this movie's story is actually pretty cohesive. The movie manages to string together many of the most beloved elements of the property while still keeping to one solid narrative. And the tone is mostly faithful. While there are glimpses of the strip's more melancholy, philosophical side, the film mostly keeps to easier comedic material. The film strays the furthest from the tone of the strip in its resolution, the story foregoing the bittersweet as it displays a more mainstream sensibility. This is understandable, certainly, and not a big thing in the long run. But it might rub some people the wrong way.
But none of this negates just how charming this movie is. And even with the melancholy toned down, this is still a much more thoughtful and even keeled movie than one tends to get nowadays. A lot of films aimed at children tend to get frantic, building elaborate quests filled with attention grabbing action. This movie largely stays grounded in the emotions of its main character, and that's admirable in itself. Helping things along is the voice work. It shouldn't be remarkable that this film actually looked for children to voice its characters. But we live in a world where a yearning for a recognizable name trumps common sense. The film benefits greatly from its young voice cast, the characters sounding exactly like they ought to sound.
The word that best describes The Peanuts Movie is "lovely." There was probably room here for more experimentation, or perhaps a touch more of the salt that made the sweetness of the original strip so distinct. But overall, this is a film that captures much of what made the source material so beloved. And in doing that, it emerges as something pretty special in the vast landscape of animated features for children. It resists the temptation to go big, to create something loud and frantic. The story stays with this one little boy trying his best to be good, even when the world seems to have it out for him. In a world of endless bombast, this is something to be cherished.
8/10
Le petit prince (2015)
The Little Prince finds what is essential
The Little Prince doesn't tackle adapting the classic children's book head-on. It takes place in present day, introducing an unnamed little girl (Mackenzie Foy) who is being groomed by her mother (Rachel McAdams) for life in the prestigious Werth School. After a disastrous first attempt, they move to a new house and resolve to spend the summer getting ready to try again. This new house happens to be beside the house of the aviator (Jeff Bridges), a seemingly crazy old man with an airplane in his backyard. The little girl and the aviator become unlikely friends, as the little girl finds respite from the routine of her studying in the aviator's wild tales of a boy that lives on an asteroid somewhere out in space.
The decision to not simply adapt the book is a wise one. Beautiful and graceful as it might be, it is also a very thin volume that doesn't have nearly enough plot to sustain a feature length film. This movie instead holds on to the themes of the book, and recreates the wonder of the story through a whole new context. It is a little broad at times, and perhaps a little lacking in grace when deliver its messages. But all in all, the film finds really clever ways to bring this story to screen.
One of the most remembered and beloved lines from the book has to do with what is essential. And this film mostly concerns itself with the question of what it is essential. The opening sequences of the film depict a world that has been reduced to everything essential: a world of adults zipping around in identical cars, going to home to the same gray boxes. The little girl in the film looks like a kid at the beginning of the picture, but she is already well on her way to becoming another functional cog in this larger societal machine. She is on her way to becoming essential.
Though a bit lacking in lyricism, this is a pretty good way to bring the book's themes to the fore. The film still gets to many of the scenes from the book, but it grounds them in a smaller, personal story that does feel altogether relevant. And when the film starts to go beyond the book, it actually becomes inspired. In imagining a life beyond the ending the book, the film starts to draw from different inspirations, and develops a true voice of its own. It hits its themes a little hard, but that's forgivable in the end. The film provides enough beauty along the way that it doesn't really matter.
This is a very beautiful film. The CG animation is crisp and benefits from a very strong design sense. And the scenes taken from the book are visually breathtaking. These scenes have paper and paint coming to life, capturing a sense of whimsy that is really important to the story. Voice acting is well done all throughout. Mackenzie Foy delivers a solid lead performance. Jeff Bridges is perfect as the not-quite-all-there aviator. Paul Rudd, James Franco, Ricky Gervais, Bud Cort and Albert Brooks are all pretty memorable in their performances as characters of the book. It's great stuff all around.
The Little Prince is a little heavy handed, and the gap between the second the third acts is maybe a little too long. But it is quite lovely all the same. The film is clearly the product of a great love and understanding for the source material, and a real yearning to do justice to it. Whether it is in the beautifully conceived stop motion scenes that cover the book, or the cleverly put together CG sequences that go beyond it, the film always keeps The Little Prince in its heart. It is looking for what is essential, whether it be visible or not.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens makes Star Wars fun again
The opening crawl quickly catches the audience up on the new status quo. From the ashes of the Empire, The First Order has risen. The Resistance, led by General Leia Organa, is still putting up a fight. Both sides are looking for Luke Skywalker, who disappeared years ago. The Resistance has sent their best pilot, Poe Dameron to retrieve a clue to the Jedi's whereabouts. From there, the film introduces a couple of new characters: Finn, a stormtrooper that gains a conscience, and Rey, a scavenger on the desert planet Jakku who runs into a droid carrying an important secret.
The film mostly follows Finn and Rey as they get tangled in the conflict between The First Order and the Resistance. The first ninety minutes or so has them encountering familiar faces as they stumble into a succession of dangerous situations. The film seems to actively separate itself from the ponderous pacing of the last three films. It hits the ground running and barely lets up for the rest of its runtime. Along the way, it manages to set up lots of interesting little plot threads that give the film an emotional center. The movie only slows down in its last act, with an overstuffed climax that doesn't feel entirely cohesive.
But for the first ninety minutes or so, the film is frantic fun. It quickly establishes who these new characters are, and has them zooming their way from one strange alien location after another while pursued by a superior force. Like in the original trilogy, the overarching plot initially takes a backseat to the immediacy of the predicaments of these characters. And through this succession of crises, we really get to know these characters well, and what it is that's going to be driving them for the rest of the series. And these sequences feel the most like Star Wars, the film populating its scenes with strange creatures and wondrous landscapes. It's the kind of stuff that will bring the kid out of anyone.
But the film does struggle a bit in putting together a big climax in the final stretch. It isn't exactly bad, but the movie starts feeling like it's hitting obligations rather than telling its own story, awkwardly sticking together elements from previous films that don't precisely work together. And here the story starts to stall as the characters start delivering swaths of awkward exposition that sets the rest of the narrative up. It isn't nearly enough to sink this film, and it still sets the stage for plenty of good to come. But this climax just doesn't quite land the way it's meant to. Big emotional moments feel rushed, and the attempt to create a new epic battle sequence a la the Death Star Trench run doesn't really work out.
his isn't a huge problem, though. It doesn't cancel out the rest of the achievement. This is a fun, thoroughly watchable film filled with great moments and likable characters. It's a great looking film, too. This is probably the best looking movie of the franchise, with practical effects and digital wizardry finding a nice equilibrium in the construction of the visuals. The action sequences are tightly directed. The lightsaber duels eschew the flashy martial arts influence in the prequel films, and get back to the epic, desperate confrontations of the original trilogy. And the acting is terrific all around. John Boyega gives this film its heart. Oscar Isaac seems to be having more fun than anyone else. Adam Driver brings needed intensity. Daisy Ridley hasn't quite gotten her moment yet, but there's already plenty to like. The film even manages to get a delightful, emotional performance out of the new droid, BB-8 which reminded me of Wall-E. But we should also congratulate the cast members from the original trilogy. Harrison Ford still has the charms as Han Solo. Carrie Fisher is still Princess Leia. As for Mark Hamill, he appears at the end (maybe 30 seconds before the credits), so I can't really say anything about his acting. It was pretty much a dumb idea for him to appear at the end and make expressions instead of moving and getting back his lightsaber. He doesn't speak, too. The rest of the cast showed us that they are all talented in acting.
Thankfully, it's easy to get behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens. There are certainly things worth quibbling about, but it's still very much Star Wars in some of the best ways. It does make one excited for more films in the franchise, as it all seems to be headed in a good direction. What gets through in the end is the absolute joy put into the filmmaking, the palpable pleasure that everybody involved derived from being part of telling this new Star Wars story. It's easy to get caught up in all that fun and it's a great thing to be caught up in Star Wars again. Stop reading those hate reviews. This is a real Star Wars movie from beginning to the end.
9/10
Ranking all the Star Wars movies from best to worst (not based on rating): 1. Episode V (10/10) 2. Episode VII (9/10) 3. Episode IV (10/10) 4. Episode VI (10/10) 5. Episode III (6/10) 6. Episode II (6/10) 7. Episode I (6/10)
P.S. This would've been a perfect movie for anyone aged 7 and above, but due to the violence and tone, this is much better for 9 and above. Anyone below 9 will really need guidance from parents or an adult.
Update: Watching this a second time makes this even better than how we previously thought it was upon our first viewing.
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
Stunning visuals hold The Good Dinosaur together
The Good Dinosaur begins sixty-five million years in the past, with the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs just narrowly missing the Earth. The story picks up millions of years later, with an Apatosaurus family building a farm out on the frontier. Arlo (Raymond Ochoa) is the youngest and smallest of his three siblings, and though he's eager to prove his worth, he struggles to keep up with the rest of his family. Then, shortly after his first encounter with tragedy, Arlo falls into a river and washes up somewhere far away from his home. He goes on a long journey heading back, and finds an unlikely companion in a feral Neanderthal boy.
The Good Dinosaur is a film filled with strange details. It sort of builds itself around the question of what would have happened if the dinosaurs didn't die out. Its answer is surprising: not much, really. The film posits that the dinosaurs would pretty much take the same path to civilization that humans did, just millions of years earlier. It then goes into a plot that feels cobbled together from familiar bits and pieces of other stories: a little Lion King here, a little Jungle Book there, and surprising dashes of frontier Western all throughout.
And in spite of that, the movie still manages to be thoroughly watchable, and at times dramatically resonant. It forces in some of the emotional content, but the visual storytelling is at a level where it hardly even matters. It also helps that this might be the best-looking Pixar film yet. The movie is constantly elevating the material, turning familiar, simple story beats into visual magic, producing scene after scene of jaw-dropping animation made all the more remarkable by the occasional touch of outright weirdness.
The film's tumultuous journey in development is felt in the narrative. The film was delayed for a year and a half for retooling, a new director coming in at some point in the production. The story just doesn't hold together as well as one might expect. It's all a little loose, and ultimately a little thin. The plot ends up relying a bit too much on rote lessons and familiar beats. But the looseness also gives this film a distinct personality. It is quieter than most animated pictures, and a little stranger. It exhibits its creativity in singular bursts of visual splendor, in scenes that do little to move the plot forward.
And so the film manages to be moving outside of the normal dramatic paradigm. The animation takes the fore as the movie puts together scenes that convey emotion often without the benefit of words. This film is astounding to look at. It's a little strange that the characters are designed to look cartoony, given that the world they inhabit is completely photorealistic. But it's all still terribly impressive, and it is ultimately what makes the film affecting. The animation ably conveys the beauty and the cruelty of nature, and the bits of weirdness that give this film its bursts of joy.
Taken individually, the component parts of The Good Dinosaur shouldn't work. But the visuals manage to keep the film together somehow. From start to finish, the film is just outright gorgeous. The film imagines a version of nature that might actually be more spectacular than nature itself. And within this context, the film is able to evoke emotions that the script fails to convey. In the end, The Good Dinosaur probably won't be remembered as one of the classics of the Pixar canon. But it's hard to dismiss its compelling weirdness, and the breadth of its technical achievement.
Inside Out (2015)
Inside Out visualizes on an emotional journey
Inside Out is kind of like a coming-of-age story, but told from a very different perspective. It starts by introducing us to the emotions inside the head of Riley, a little girl from Minnesota. Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear run things in headquarters, taking turns at the controls of Riley. Joy mostly gets to run things, though, Riley amassing a huge collection of happy memories. But things are thrown into turmoil when Riley's family moves to San Francisco. Things go awry at headquarters, which results in Joy, Sadness and Riley's most important core memories being thrown out.
The film then cuts between Joy trying to make her way back to headquarters and the three remaining emotions trying to run things in her absence. This story takes some very abstract concepts and turns them into a grand adventure. It turns a little girl's psyche into a colorful landscape populated with figments of imagination and a working class devoted to keeping things together. The film is exactly what Pixar is all about, delivering a brightly-lit narrative that is unafraid to get melancholy. It is a story about embracing all our feelings, even the ones that don't feel too good.
The nuts and bolts of the plot take a very familiar form, with a pair of mismatched characters racing against time to get to somewhere important. This is basically the setup of eighty percent of all children's films. But Inside Out takes this basic framework to stranger places. This is a story that mostly works within the realm of metaphor, the locations representative of the inner workings of the mind. The film creates landscapes that stand in for the complex mechanics of personality and memory, finding interesting ways to represent an emotional journey.
And so the characters are ride a train of thought and go to where dreams are produced. And the emotions assert themselves at different intervals, and we see the effect in Riley in the real world. It's really clever stuff. The things happening outside drive the action inside, but the movie makes it appear that it's the other way around. The journey within is purely representational, the anthropomorphized emotions a really ingenious means of showing the growth of this one person. All of it is done beautifully, with lively visuals and a willingness to explore tragedy within the context of a children's cartoon.
There's a wealth of imagination in these images. There would have to be, given the subject matter. But the world inside Riley's head is a joy to behold. And when we get glimpses into the heads of other people, the differing design sensibilities do a lot to enrich the milieu of this particular world. The voice acting is top notch, with Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith bringing a lot of personality into roles that are specifically written to be representative of a single emotion. Lewis Black, Bill Hader and Mindy Kaling are also delightful in much simpler, more outwardly comedic roles.
Inside Out is exactly what Pixar is all about. For years now, the company has been telling children's stories that are much more willing to get emotionally complex. This film features the same kind of thinking that allowed for the depiction of tragedy in the first ten minutes of Up, and the quiet acceptance of fate in Toy Story 3. This is a film that is about that specifically, about the capacity of young people to take the bad with the good, the capacity to understand that there is more to sadness than just being sad. It's a simple, yet beautiful truth that doesn't get explored nearly enough.
10/10
Oh, and tell this lesson being taught to your kids: You can't have the same emotion for the rest of your life. Too much of everything can lead to something terrible, and too much joy, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear is bad too. If you are having a problem, you can talk to your parents about it. You have to open up to them so that they can solve your problems.
Pixels (2015)
A "Ghostbusters meets Wreck-it Ralph" Sandler film as fun as the best video game level
Pixels is all about aliens on 1982 who intercepts video feeds of classic arcade games and misinterpret them as a declaration of war, they attack Earth, using the games as models. Knowing that he must employ a similar strategy, President Will Cooper (Kevin James) recruits his childhood pal, former video-game champ and home-theater installer Sam Brenner (Adam Sandler), to lead a team of old-school arcade players and a military specialist (Michelle Monaghan) in an all-out battle to save the planet.
Pixels is based on a Youtube short with the same title (Pixels) created by Patrcik Jean. Adam Sandler's movies always has these kind of good ideas but with something really wrong. The problem were some of the jokes. They fell flat, really flat. That's the first problem of the movie, flat jokes. The second problem is the acting of Sandler. To be honest, Kevin James acting was okay. Josh Gad's and Peter Dinklage's acting was very good, but the weakest is Michelle Monaghan's who doesn't look like she likes her role. Adam Sandler's acting is worse than Monaghan's. Sandler is not trying to give his best, and he ended up looking like he gave up in acting. He was better in Hotel Transylvania where he looked like he was happy with his role. But the biggest problem yet is its promotion. No, it's not the marketing and advertisements, it's what it wants others to do such as yell at their parents, be disrespectful to others, etc. It was advertised a lot to children but swearing and those what I listed? Those are very unacceptable to kids. And finally, the lack of story. All just for laughs. However, that should be part of your expectations for the movie. That's what is always part of a Sandler movie, no story and all for laughs. But there is one thing that is rare in Sandler films, the films being enjoyable. If Adam Sandler and Kevin James wasn't here, I'm very sure it would have a 6.7 - 7.5 score since it was directed by Chris Colombus, director of Harry Potter and Home Alone which had a 7.0+ score. Pixels is just like watching someone play a "Wreck-it Ralph meets Ghostbusters" level. Although charmless, it is as fun as the best video game level there is. I don't care if haters will bash me or hurt me with their words just because I enjoyed Pixels. It actually didn't deserve hatred.
7/10
P.s. Apologies for short and rushed review. I'm very busy and I chose to review this quickly.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a step backwards and mixes action and romance
The Amazing Spider-Man separated itself from Sam Raimi's trilogy of Spider-Man movies by taking a more grounded direction. Rather than focus on spectacle, the movie delivered on smaller moments that had the character out of costume. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 still has a few of those moments, but it's clear that the focus has shifted. It is a brighter, louder film that's laying more groundwork for films down the road. The final product is still sometimes compelling, but as a whole it struggles under the weight of its clashing priorities.
There's a lot of ground to cover, and the narrative obviously strains to get to all of it. The film follows multiple plot lines that don't really intersect for much of the picture. There's enough material here for three movies, but the film stuffs it all together into one long picture. In the process, it sacrifices nuance. This is most noticeable in the Max Dillon thread, which largely features a series of broad clichés that closely resemble other villainous origin stories. Dillon comes off as terribly cartoonish, and that makes him a rather weak villain. The multiple plots fray at the seams, with sequences that reveal information but don't make much sense in the long run. There's a sequence, for example, that has Gwen Stacy evading Oscorp security. The consequences of her actions are never brought up again, however, the sequence seemingly existing in a vacuum.
As with the first film, the best moments are markedly subdued. Marc Webb's talent for shooting dialogue remains his best weapon, the film finding its charm in quieter moments that just have the characters hanging out. The film gains much from the flirtations of Peter and Gwen, and the chummy history between Peter and Harry. The film also gets to the core of the Spider-Man character in small moments that happen in between big fights, as he interacts with the people he's saving. It all gives the film a personality beyond the series of CGI-heavy fight sequences.
But there are much fewer of these moments now, the film beholden to the largeness of its plotting. It's a shame because it is these sequences that make best use out of the talented cast. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is as palpable as it was in the first film. It is actually pretty rare for superhero movies to have a love interest worth caring for, but the interactions of the two leads lends genuine weight to the relationship. Dane DeHaan lays it on a bit thick in his villainous moments, but he's pretty charming when just hanging out with Peter.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is palatable enough, but it feels like a step backwards plus mixing a comicbook action movie with a romance genre. Its predecessor had managed to find a nice balance between teenage drama and superheroics, delivering its charm through the contrast of its two sides. Here, the balance is tipped as the film is forced to deliver a surplus of plot. There is just too much being setup here, an action comic book movie mixed with romance leaving the film little time to fit in those tiny moments of human interaction that helps ground the superhero action.
Shaun the Sheep Movie (2015)
Shaun the Sheep the Movie is a movie that doesn't need dialogues to be good.
Shaun the Sheep is a highly popular character first introduced in Wallace and Gromit. Then he was given his own show featuring him. He became very popular. A few years later, he was given his own movie. Shaun the Sheep doesn't speak. He never spoke at his Wallace and Gromit cameo, and every character at the Shaun the Sheep show never spoke. In this movie, nobody spoke. But the movie is easy to understand. It doesn't need dialogues to be good.
Haters who criticizes the film for no dialogues needs to understand that this is for kids and it is a good thing for no swear or curse words. Nobody would like kids to copy them, right? It does get a bit boring without any words being spoken at the film, but we can easily understand the movie's story
There are no jokes spoken. Again, this is because the movie is a dialogue- free film, so no jokes are spoken. Instead, they are used by actions. Adults may not find it funny, but this is a movie for kids, so expect them to laugh.
Verdict: The movie is really good without any dialogue. This is a movie aimed for kids, so it must be them who will laugh more than adults. Fans will find this fun. And if they are adult fans, then they will like this movie. I am a Shaun the Sheep fan, so I enjoyed it. We don't always need dialogues for everything to be good. And that's something from Shaun the Sheep the Movie.
8/10
Jurassic World (2015)
Jurassic World is a perfect return to Isla Nublar
We want a better Jurassic Park sequel. Jurassic World is a "better sequel". It doesn't have a story based on the book and it does feel like a remake using the same timeline, yet it is perfect return to Isla Nublar. Remember when the first Jurassic Park movie came out in 1993? The movie was a preview tour of the park. The whole park was destroyed and the T-Rex was the only dinosaur to survive the hurricane on Isla Nublar. John Hammond envisioned a fully functioned theme park on Isla Nublar. While we are at Isla Sorna (The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3), the park was probably being fixed and improved. John Hammond has passed away later on, and what he envisioned (a fully functioning dinosaur theme park) came true. 14 years later after Jurassic Park 3 (2001-2015) the movie brings us back to Isla Nublar's dino park and it is complete! It is wonderful! What John Hammond had dreamt of on the park has come true! It feels "realistic". Let's compare the park of Isla Nublar to a building being under construction for many years. That building was planned to be opened that year after a preview tour, but was wrecked with an earthquake. And you can never go there again. A few decades later, that building has opened again and this time has been improved and is exactly how the creator of this building dreamt of. As you were a kid, the building was ordinary, but now it has improved and is exactly how the maker wanted it be as you are now an adult. The same thing goes to Jurassic Park becoming Jurassic World. And it's a perfect return to Isla Nublar.
However, the film feels like a remake to the first one. Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) feels like Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) and Alan Grant (Sam Neill) again. The two kids played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins are just like the two kids in the first Jurassic Park movie. Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is another main female character who feels like another main female character in the first movie. The characters felt like they were remade, yet we have a very different story.
The story is pretty interesting. The plot, however, makes it a bit too long to be a perfect movie. We first meet two baby I-Rex's, we meet the two kids, we return to Isla Nublar, we meet a girl, we meet a raptor trainer, the I-Rex escapes, and the story goes on. It's kind of hard to understand the story. The story is about saving Claire's children from the dangerous I-Rex. We will focus on new things, then the old, then we return to the new ones, we come back to the old, and it goes on. It's not that important, but I can say that it's likable. Returning to the old things is the most memorable parts of the movie. It's not to say there is nothing else memorable. The dinosaurs are also memorable. Those raptor chase scenes, dinosaur attractions, and of course, the final dinosaur fight. Those are not really seen in the first Jurassic Park movie, but the movie still cannot be better than the first one.
There are some weak dialogue in the film. It's a tiny letdown, but you would appreciate the directing and acting. Colin Trevorrow who directed the film directs just like Steven Spielberg and he does a great job in bringing a classic back to life. Michael Giacchino's score is very good and in two scenes, the score made me wish to cry as my childhood returns. He is just like John Williams right now. Chris Pratt does very well in his acting. His voice may be annoying sometimes, but he is a talented actor who follows the tone of the scene. Bryce Dallas Howard plays an annoying character. She is indeed annoying in her role because of her character. I bet she follows how her character is developed.
Verdict: Jurassic World's story is pretty hard to understand. The plot is OK, but it makes the length of the movie longer, which is good. Again, even though the story is hard to understand, this is a perfect return to both the classic film and Isla Nublar. The ending, to me, is my favorite scene in the whole movie. Remember the T-Rex from the first Jurassic Park? We meet her again. We can see her wounds from the previous raptor fight in the first Jurassic Park. She is old, but still strong. Her roar at the end may have meant that she has won the T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. She won. She saves the day again! Her roar makes me want to cry because it brings back my memories from the first Jurassic Park movie. The soundtrack in that scene also make me want to cry. The ending is perfect. The movie should never beat the first Jurassic Park movie, but the whole crew of the movie did an unbelievably great job in bringing back our Jurassic Park memories. Let's hope that The Force Awakens does that too and Star Wars 8 does a perfect Lando return. Jurassic World is the best "classic welcome back" movie and one of the best movies of 2015. The filmmakers just doesn't do their job, they had a good idea behind all these, and it ended up perfect. No, not the movie, it's the ideas.
8/10
Ant-Man (2015)
Ant-Man is a fun and successful MCU entry
I don't know why I liked this film so much. It seems like another Guardians of the Galaxy film, but a better Marvel tie-in and more awesome story! This small hero's film may be short and have a small box office (which is not that important), but the film made itself a fun and successful MCU entry.
The movie has more focus on a new Ant-Man with the first Ant-Man being present as an old character. We also focus on new characters like Hope van Dyne instead of her mother Janet van Dyne (also known as The Waps) who has (presumably) died while joining Hank Pym on a mission, Darren Cross who is Scott Lang's first enemy (though he was working with a younger Hank Pym). It has a "reboot feeling", but this idea from Marvel was a great idea. Surprisingly, unlike Age of Ultron, has a fewer city destruction (in this film, a building blows up and shrinks) and a lighter tone (though it was 15% percent darker than Guardians of the Galaxy), yet the story is well done. Darren Cross was kind of underdeveloped but even his alter ego, the Yellowjacket, was a more menacing villain than Ultron. Ultron's evil plan was just to destroy the world. That's it? Kind of stupid, eh? Leave it to the Yellowjacket who was more menacing and his evil plan was to take over Hank Pym's company and destroy everyone Scott Lang cares for. That doesn't seem too menacing, but his attitude is really menacing.
Let's move on to the acting. Paul Rudd is as awesome and likable as his character Scott Lang. Michael Douglas as usual, has an impressive acting. Evangeline Lily who will be the new Wasp (as revealed in the mid-credits scene) was much better in her martial arts training. Corey Stroll who plays a menacing villain indeed is menacing in his role. Michael Peña who has a familiar voice and face (I felt like he played a character in Turbo) has a comedy role and seriously was the funny one.
Ant-Man was better than Age of Ultron. It is just like Guardians of the Galaxy with a 5% darker tone, yet very light. Age of Ultron wasn't better than the first one but was still fun. But Ant-Man was such a big improvement that it ended up being more fun and better than Age of Ultron. Again, this is just like Guardians of the Galaxy, but the only similar things about the two are the light tones and comedy. Guardians of the Galaxy was a big success. And this little hero has become a successful Marvel film. Yes, it does also feel like another Iron Man too, but Iron Man's tone is still dark. Iron Man 2 ended up OK, but failed to be better than the first. The same happened to Age of Ultron. Let's hope that the Ant-Man sequel will not end up like Age of Ultron. For now, all I can say on this verdict is this: Ant-Man is a fun and successful MCU entry.
10/10
P.S. Unlike Age of Ultron, this film now has two bonus scenes! Make sure to stay for it.
Minions (2015)
OMG! The theme is evil!
Minions is just like a much worse version of Despicable Me. It shows that being evil is cool for kids. Kids will follow that since everything done in movies are being copied by children. Despicable Me was a great movie, with a heart. This one, however, lacked heart. The humor is inappropriate and dark. I was expecting everyone in the theater to laugh, but only few people laughed and few laughs were present in the right funny scenes. During the dark comedic scenes, nobody laughed. It's not for kids anymore! Some dark humor like a whole family robbing a bank (I hate that part. I wanted to like it because a Beatles' song was playing, but it's not funny! Nobody in the cinema even laughed at that scene.), hypnotizing guards and making them take off their clothes and dance, pushing a girl in the escalator, dethroning Queen Elizabeth, etc. And the theme is evil! The first Despicable Me movie was evil, but not fully! It ended with a positive ending. How about this one? Nope, it didn't lose the evilness at the end (though it was epic with Gru's appearance). Other than the inappropriate humor, there are some that are still funny. Some of the minion's humor are funny and are better than the inappropriate humor, but most remain unfunny.
One thing I don't get with the others is that they hated watching a movie with mostly gibberish language from the minions. Can't they understand that this movie focuses on the origin of gibberish speaking minions? I don't need subtitles, some are translated by a narrator and some are easy to understand even though it is gibberish. The songs used in the movie were perfect. Hearing the classic songs make me feel like I am listening to Awesome Mix Vol. 2 (from Guardians of the Galaxy). I was happy that the Beatles' song was played in the movie (I'm not sure if it was really them stepping on the minions because I thought the Beatles had a cameo). Now for the voice acting. Pierre Coffin was OK in speaking gibberish, but he can't beat Chris Renaud's minion speaking. Sandra Bullock was just OK in voice acting, not that impressive. I didn't really like her character either as it represents Satan. Michael Keaton, even though I hate his character, was as good as his Birdman role even though it was voice acting. Jon Hamm was much better than Sandra Bullock's villain voice acting.
Minions lacks heart, it has an evil theme, and inappropriate humor, and is a terrible origin story about the minions. Minions serving the baddest villain? Evolution? (I am a Christian, so forgive me for that) The film's tone is really evil. It's not as fun as the first two Despicable Me movies were. Don't add this to your Despicable Me collection since it is a really evil film. Not worth the money or your time. Go watch the first two Despicable Me movies and if that idea isn't good, hug Baymax instead of minions. I'm sorry if this hurts so much, but the minions represent demons and servants of Satan. If you are a Christian, don't watch this. That's why I said "Hug Baymax" instead of minions. I really regret watching this movie that teaches being evil is cool. Spend your moeny on Inside Out instead. While it is too complex for children to understand, it has a good influence and teaches that too much of everything is bad and life is not all about happiness, which is why sometimes it is fine to feel a negative emotion. What about Minions? Evil is cool! Be a criminal so that you will be better than everyone. Not a good influence, right?
1/10 +1 for Beatles scene. 2/10
Penguins of Madagascar (2014)
70% entertaining, 30% disappointing (no spoilers in the review)
You read the title correctly (so no need to worry about spoilers). These adorable penguins now star in their very own movie. It's a kind of film like the MCU solo entries where their events take place after a movie but are not a sequel nor a spin-off. But there is one thing different from the Penguins of Madagascar and MCU solo entries. Penguins of Madagascar is a movie that felt like Despicable Me 2 all over again. I don't know which one is copied among Shrek (Puss in Boots), Madagascar (Penguins of Madagascar), and Despicable Me (Minions), but I find this movie 30% disappointing. The spin-off idea felt like I was watching the Minion movie, or even a kid-friendly MCU entry. Yet this film is 70% entertaining! It's not the best Dreamworks has done. It's not even the worst. It's average, not good, not bad. Those funny scenes still make me laugh up to now. These penguins are still memorable, too. The pun humor idea feels like a new thing from Dreamworks. The humor in Dreamworks movies may be the only new thing and nothing else, but they still entertain! Remember, if any Dreamworks movies lack better humor, you can always remember the storytelling. This one is not gonna part of the best Dreamworks movie bookshelf, but you will still be entertained. Benedict Cumberbatch and John Malkovich's octopus and husky voice, funny jokes, and entertaining spin-off story makes this entertaining! But the movie still leaving a 30% disappointment rating. Nevermind. This movie is still entertaining anyway.
7/10
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
Both funny and touching
This movie's concept is pretty similar to How to Train your Dragon. Darker and maturer story and plot. But it is different in one way, the comedy is still there and it is a stronger comedy. This is a perfect sequel Dreamworks has done. Stronger comedy with a darker and maturer story, but Dreamworks remembers that this is a movie for kids and they never went "over-maturer". But they still made a movie that can entertain adults also. And also this is really touching which can tear up some others. I call this the best sequel and best movie of 2011.
P.S. Don't let adopted kids watch this as this story has Po finding out that he is adopted and may upset adopted kids.
The Cat in the Hat (2003)
This movie is a real mess
The Cat in the Hat movie used to entertain me before. When I saw it on TV, I decided to watch it again. But it's so ugly, not kid-friendly (I'm not a kid, but this is supposed to be for kids!), unrealistic, and messy! This is not for kids at all! There is even an unfunny scene where the kids rides ob their grandma and the Cat in the Hat hangs her on a closet. Does that sound funny? No! The Cat in the Hat even destroyed a kid's house entirely. He was never like that in the book. Also, hitting a cat many times with a bat? Really? Never bring your kids to movies like this. Mike Myers shouldn't have starred here. His Shrek role will be better than his Cat in the Hat role. I heard that there is gonna be a Cat in the Hat remake soon. So when it comes, The Cat in the Hat remake has to clean up its mess. Unlike this one, this movie feels like a spoiled brat who never cleans up her room made this movie. Save your money. Save your time. Stay away from this movie.
Chappie (2015)
The critics are right!
Did you read that? If you did, what you read is correct! The movie Chappie has failed to answer those questions in the movie correctly. The story and plot didn't get me satisfied at all. And the movie itself is boring. The soundtrack playing in the movie was just "OK" to me. Acting was not very good either. It's just a waste of their time in acting for the movie. Hugh Jackman, while not the lead character, is really weak in his role. Sigourney Weaver and Dev Patel didn't do for me either. But Sharlto Copley who voices the robot Chappie seemed like he's the only one among the entire cast who showed their real talent, even if his was only voice acting. The good thing here is the focus on the robot Chappie who has a child- like mind trying to know how to do things. Still, the movie gets boring later on. Unsatisfying story and plot, bad acting (excluding Sharlto Copley), and long running time. Even the movie itself has failed to answer questions correctly. The whole crew of the movie can do better than this.
3/10
Tomorrowland (2015)
Tomorrowland does get a messy plot and lack of character development, but it has a unique storytelling.
Tomorrowland positions itself as remedy to a world that has become obsessed with Armageddon. This might seem like a lofty endeavor, given that this is just a PG-rated action adventure movie, but the fact that its head is in the imagination may be part of the point. The film stumps for the kind of thinking that goes well beyond the bounds of conventional reality. It asks audience to move to another dimension, to accept the possibility of simply fixing things by rejecting the inevitability of our own destruction. The movie that surrounds this thinking has an oddly shaped narrative, and is at times slowed down by its long storytelling. But Tomorrowland's theme has a message to the audience, and that's what the movie is trying to tell us. And it becomes a huge impression.
The plot gets messy. It even takes long until they get to Tomorrowland. And because you only get to see them in Tomorrowland for a short time, it becomes a letdown because the movie takes most of the time showing them getting to Tomorrowland.
But the movie is still good. The unique story about making the world a better place, about global warming, and about not giving up. The film gets into an awkward rhythm as it preaches this particular thought, but it thrives when it shows us the alternative.
The script does feel like the characters are mixed up with modern and medieval times, and sadly, only few of the cast did good. Britt Robertson and George Clooney who plays the main characters suits them well. Raffey Cassidy's accent feels like it's for a medieval times and doesn't sound like it was real. And unfortunately, even Hugh Laurie's acting was terrible, and his character development was lacking a lot. But that's not to say the movie is awful. Aside from their acting, the soundtrack playing in the movie was also a huge surprise. Brad Bird's choice of directing this one was a perfect choice. Without this movie, there wouldn't be a more unique storytelling from Disney.
Again, the story is unique, and without this movie, there wouldn't be a more unique movie coming from Disney. The plot gets messy. One acting gets bad. Hugh Laurie's character lacks a lot of character development. Those makes the movie sound like it was rushed, but that's not the point of the movie. The reason why Disney made this movie was because they wanted to tell you a story that everyone can make the world a better place. People gives up in what they are doing, and nobody seems like they care for the earth anymore. But dreamers can make our world a better place. The movie is not saying the future will not be like that. They used Tomorrowland as an example of a better place. And that's a unique storytelling from Disney.
9/10
P.S. I recommend it to ages 7 and up because the violence may scare younger children like hand, head, and self-destruction from robots disguising as humans (children younger than 7 will think they aren't robots. And there are some language.
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)
I was impressed by the first time seeing this, but not anymore for the second time.
This was one of my most anticipated movies of 2014. Because of so much anticipation, I enjoyed this movie when I first saw it. When I was going to see it for a second time, I finally realized that the plot was too long making the movie 165 minutes! It didn't even have a story at all. All there are in the movie are just a lot of loud noises, explosions, destructions, invasions, and long battles that takes place in so many places. Sure, the effects and Optimus Primes riding his T-Rex Dinobot was cool, but that cannot be a reason to say the movie was great. The real focus of the film is the millions of tons of computer-generated debris. That's all. All things where my thumbs are up are on Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci's performances, the soundtrack and "Battle Cry" song, and the effects. But get ready for my thumbs pointing down on almost everything except the good things I listed. Michael Bay's movies never changes and apologizes to us. It just continues being awful. I liked the first and third Transformer movies. The second one was fine. This one was bad. And the punishment of the audience and critics are hates on this movie. I'm sure Michael Bay wouldn't direct the fifth movie because of hates. And I'm sure the fifth one would be the Transformers movie apology. Don't watch this.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
It's bigger, darker, and it's not the best Marvel movie. But it's still fun!
The much anticipated movie of 2015 is The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron. It's a different kind of sequel. This kind of sequel differs from it predecessor. It's bigger and darker. But it has one thing that is still the same. Both the predecessor and sequel is still fun.
The movie is about Tony Stark and Bruce Banner who created a peacekeeping program called "The Ultron Program". But when something goes terribly wrong, the Avengers must reassemble to stop Ultron from destroying the world.
Seems like the theme is much darker. The first Avengers movie felt like a culmination of something. The sequel is trying to build bigger things. It feels like a transition, just a necessary step towards the bigger finale that the brain trust behind these films has planned for the years ahead. It does feel like it's straining under the weight of competing concerns.
Ultron was a perfect choice as the antagonist from the director Joss Whedon. He is a really threatening villain, making the movie a dark toned one. But even though Ultron is a very likable villain, the film never really allows him to be the threat that he could be. But the film limits itself mainly to physical encounters, its superintelligent villain apparently lacking the imagination to do anything beyond sending wave after wave of drones after the heroes.
Surprisingly, Ultron's voice is really a scary and extraordinary role from James Spader who voiced him. But it never quite brings the menace that the big villain should. And thus, the villain and the entire film end up feeling like placeholders for bigger developments to come. The movie still has its joys. There were many fun moments in the movie. And one that feels like they really are in a party. Plus the action scenes were awesome!
Acting was very good. Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans and Hemsworth still fit in their roles as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. Scarlett Johanson and Mark Ruffalo are very good in their roles, though their romance was very useless in the movie (except the lullaby for the Hulk). Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye always has the best lines in the movie. Newcomers Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch did have a mistake in some of their European accents, but roles were still good. Too bad Aaron Taylor-Johnson won't be in Civil War because his character died in the movie (and what his sacrifice for a child and Hawkeye was very emotional).
The Avengers 2 is bigger and darker. Darker story and bigger movie. But it still has one thing in common with the predecessor. The fun things in the movie. 9/10.
P.S. stay for the 2 minute credits for an extra scene. After that, leave. No scene after all the credits at all.