MrDHWong

"Zootopia 2" is the sequel to the 2016 animated Disney film "Zootopia". Directed by Jared Bush and Byron Howard and once again featuring the voices of Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman, it is another fun buddy pair up of its two lead characters that should keep fans of the original happy.

One week after the events of the first film, Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) and Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman) have been working for the Zootopia Police Department (ZPD) as partners, though their contrasting personalities cause numerous problems for those around them. After the pair mess up a case, Chief Bogo (voiced by Idris Elba) forces the two to attend a therapy class to control their reckless natures, otherwise he will separate them permanently. However, during the duo's bungled case, Judy believes that a snake has somehow entered Zootopia for the first time in over a hundred years due to her discovering a piece of snakeskin at the scene, and finds clues that point to the reptilian creature appearing at the upcoming Zootenial Gala. Going against Chief Bogo's orders, Judy and Nick sneak their way into the Gala where they meet Gary De'Snake (voiced by Ke Huy Quan), a pit viper who reveals to the pair that the entire history of Zootopia's founding is based around a terrible lie.

Nine years ago, Disney released what I would consider to be one of the best animated films of the 2010s; a brightly coloured romp about a rabbit and a fox called "Zootopia". As well as providing a great deal of lively entertainment for younger viewers, this film also contained some cleverly woven in social commentary on racial prejudice and stereotypes that older audiences can appreciate on its own. Best of all, the film managed to combine all of these elements together in a way that never made it feel preachy or condescending, allowing it to become popular among audiences of virtually all ages. Almost a decade later, "Zootopia 2" continues the story of these anthropomorphic animals in a sequel that further proves that this mismatched pairing of Judy and Nick are still worth watching.

Picking up just barely a week after the first movie, we see that Judy the rabbit and Nick the fox are still on good terms with each other, partnered together to patrol crime throughout the city of Zootopia as ZPD officers. Despite their good intentions, the pair's differing views on how to keep the citizens safe puts them at odds with each other, with Judy choosing to do things by the book and Nick idealising a more hands-on, forceful approach, almost like a classic "good cop, bad cop" dynamic. Naturally, this all reaches a boiling point once the two of them end up causing a major accident while chasing a van filled with criminals, leading to the threat of their partnership being permanently ended. This is a nice way to remind the audience of the conflicting nature of animals who are predators versus animals who are prey, which in this case is used to show the difficulties of a rabbit and a fox joining forces to bring down a gang of misfits.

From this point forward, the film starts to take on a different tone to the original, focusing on the darker aspects surrounding the history behind Zootopia itself. It is revealed to the audience that reptiles, especially snakes, have not been seen in the city for over a century, leading to mass panic when a pit viper named Gary suddenly turns up at the Zootenial Gala. Unlike his frightening reputation as a snake, Gary is shown to be friendly and wishes to help Judy and Nick remove the stigma his species has so that they can all live happily alongside every other animal in Zootopia. This plays into one of the key things I enjoyed about the original movie; the world-building. Here, we get to see Judy and Nick visit the Marsh Market, a secret community located on the swampy outskirts of Zootopia, where all kinds of reptilian creatures like turtles and lizards congregate. Without revealing too much more, I liked how this place gives off the impression of a neglected slum filled with rejected animals whom society has choosen to look down upon, turning it into a hotspot for crime and corruption.

Much like its predecessor, the film is vibrant and colourful at the best of times, yet isn't afraid to look dark and seedy whenever the plot calls for it. This allows the environments that the characters move through to be just as immersive as before, only this time on a slightly larger scale. The aforementioned Marsh Market features a nice demonstration of the film's creative colour palette, showcasing some sepia-toned lighting whenever Judy and Nick are exploring the interiors of the buildings. In one scene, the pair enter a blues bar filled with amphibian musicians, tortoise bouncers guarding the doors, and a short-tempered sea lion performer who hates being mistaken for a seal. As the duo wander through the decrepit building, they meet with a criminal basilisk named Jesús, who being voiced by Danny Trejo should clue you in to how dangerous he is as a character. What I liked here was how this whole scene played out in the style of a violent crime thriller with a humorously family-friendly tone, something rather difficult to pull off in a movie intended for all ages.

In terms of humour, most of the comedy comes from the same mismatched pairing of Judy and Nick. Judy essentially acts as the straight woman to Nick's sly, wisecracking demeanour, which was a winning formula last time but does occasionally become repetitive here. Similarly, the jokes about each respective animal we see in this movie are very hit-and-miss, with there unfortunately being more misses than hits. Some examples of jokes that I thought worked were of smaller animals terrifying the larger ones, like with a tiny mouse causing a huge elephant to panic and require trauma counselling along with Judy and Nick. Likewise, I was happy to see the extremely slow sloths return in this film, as their meandering antics were one of my favourite jokes in the first movie. On the other hand, ones that didn't tended to drag on longer than they should, like with a group of walruses who only communicate by saying "Yep" over and over. While it was funny at first, the joke didn't need to go on for over five minutes and by the time it finished, it left me feeling more annoyed than humoured.

Yet again demonstrating their solid chemistry, both Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman are great fun to watch as Judy and Nick, respectively. As mentioned earlier, Judy is a great straight woman to play off Nick's wisecracks, and Goodwin and Bateman perfectly embody these traits like last time. Even though this film takes place only a week after the first one, it is clear that each of the two have grown considerably in that period. For instance, Judy is still optimistic as she was before yet is now considerably pragmatic in how she approaches her job, whereas Nick retains his street smart attitude towards his position as a cop with a more altruistic inclination towards protecting others. It's nice to see character development like this, even if it seems somewhat minor in regards to the rest of the plot. As for the rest of the cast, Idris Elba got a few chuckles out of me as Chief Bogo and Ke Huy Quan is also a welcome edition as Gary. There are also a few other voiceover cameos that some fans of the original movie might be able to recognise as well, but I won't be spoiling any surprises here.

Although it doesn't contain the same level of freshness as the first movie, "Zootopia 2" is still a mostly enjoyable sequel that caters primarily to fans of the series in general. There's just something satisfying about witnessing the wacky adventures of a peppy rabbit and a sly fox solving crimes together, almost like it's an affectionate nod to Saturday Morning Cartoons many older generations who are now parents themselves likely grew up watching. Without disclosing what actually happens, the film features a post-credits scene that is most definitely hinting towards a third film in the future. Judging by what transpires, things seem to be heading in high and exciting directions.

I rate it 7.5/10.

"Wicked: For Good" (a.k.a. "Wicked: Part Two") is the second part of the "Wicked" musical fantasy films based on the 2003 stage musical and 1995 novel of the same name by Gregory Maguire, which themselves are both based around L. Frank Baum's novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". Once again directed by Jon M. Chu ("Now You See Me 2", "Crazy Rich Asians") and starring Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Michelle Yeoh, and Jeff Goldblum, it is a fine continuation and conclusion of the first film that finds ways to blend its way into the original 1939 movie.

Five years after the events of the first film, Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) has embraced her reputation as the "Wicked Witch of the West", striking fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Land of Oz by her very presence. However, much of what the people of Oz perceive of Elphaba has been distorted by propaganda spread by the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) and Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), as Elphaba's defiance was mainly in regards to the Wizard's treatment of Oz's animal population. Meanwhile, Glinda (Ariana Grande) has been granted the formal title of "Glinda the Good" by the Wizard, as well as the task of protecting Oz from Elphaba, her former friend. As the two witches come to terms with their new identities, Elphaba and Glinda soon find themselves questioning their own loyalties towards each other, especially after the sudden arrival of a young girl and her little dog in the Land of Oz.

It took me by surprise how much I ended up enjoying the 2024 film adaptation of the popular stage musical "Wicked", at least the first part of it. Though I am a fan of the 1939 movie that started it all, I never actually got around to seeing the original musical on stage, so a cinematic version was always going to be a new experience for me. With that in mind, I'd say the film contains all of the ingredients of a successful musical, regardless of whether you're familiar with the source material it is based upon. One year later, the second part of that musical "Wicked: For Good" both continues and concludes the story of Elphaba and Glinda's fractured friendship on a mostly satisfying note.

Picking up half a decade after the previous film, we see that the Land of Oz is living in fear of the "Wicked Witch of the West", the alter ego taken up by former Shiz University magic student Elphaba. To keep Oz on alert, large signs can be seen hanging by balloons heeding the call to Oz's citizens that the Witch could attack at any time. Unbeknownst to Oz's populace, Elphaba's intentions started out relatively noble, calling out the Wizard's mistreatment of the animals, one of which is a cowardly lion named Brrr. As anybody who remembers what happened back in part one, Elphaba's descent into villainy came about as a result of everything happening around her, exacerbated by the troubles she faced growing up with her unusually green skin. In other words, this "Wicked Witch" is more of a villain by proxy rather than someone outright evil for the sake of it.

On the other hand, Glinda has since been promoted to the position of official spokesperson for the Wizard himself, now going by the name of "Glinda the Good". In such an elite role, Glinda is tasked by her superior to arrest and bring in Elphaba before she hurts more people. However, Glinda is secretly reluctant to capture her formerly close friend, instead allowing her to escape into isolation away from everyone else. This reminded me of one of my favourite things about the first film; how it examined the complicated natures of these two characters. Elphaba clearly wanted to be a good person but others automatically pigeonholed her as evil due to her outwardly green appearance, whereas Glinda has had a superiority complex instilled in her since childhood but learns the importance of humility upon stepping out into society. Of course, as seen previously, all of this was accomplished by showcasing the unlikely friendship between the two of them, which we see again here in the second part. The difference here is that each of them have now fully adopted their respective titles that everybody best knows them for, which has an element of tragedy knowing full well what happens to one of them in the end.

As I made quite clear before, I have not seen the original stage musical of "Wicked" so all I have to compare this film and its predecessor to is the 1939 movie "The Wizard of Oz". On that note, from what I can gather, I would say both films have done a nice enough job of bringing the Broadway musical experience to the big screen pretty efficiently. Once again, the music numbers here are all used effectively to give the audience an insight into what each character is feeling at that particular time, and considering how much more is at stake here, that is highly important. For instance, the song "Wonderful" shows the Wizard contemplating how he wishes to be viewed among the general population of Oz, tossing up between whether he wants to either be loved, feared, or both at the same time if possible. Perhaps the most important song, or at least the one that stood out to me the most, is "No Good Deed", which is sung by Elphaba as she laments her constantly thwarted attempts to do good for others, only to still be seen as an evil threat who needs to be stopped in her tracks. Like last time, all of these moments are well-choreographed and feature some creative dance routines throughout each number, something highly important for a musical feature film of this calibre.

In addition to this, I like the way the Land of Oz looks and feels in both of these movies, updated to current technological standards while also giving the impression that it could take place within the confines of the 1939 movie. Fans of the original film will likely notice some affectionate references featured throughout the story, like the building of the iconic Yellow Brick Road and the brief origins of some familiar characters that Dorothy Gale meets on her travels. However, one major problem I did have was with some of the blatant retconning of certain events and character traits for the sake of moving this story forward creatively. Though I cannot discuss these in detail without revealing major spoilers, all I will say is that some of the creative compromises did leave me feeling frustrated over how they completely undermine the importance of almost everything that happened in the 1939 film. I understand that this is most likely following both the 1995 novel and the musical itself, but from the perspective of someone who has only seen 1939's "The Wizard of Oz", it comes across as borderline insulting.

Like last time, this is a two woman show, with both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande giving equally great performances as Elphaba and Glinda, respectively. This pair yet again demonstrates their solid chemistry with one another, whether they're delivering emotional monologues or belting out tunes with their powerful vocals. As I mentioned previously, the stakes are much higher this time around, so watching Erivo's Elphaba and Grande's Glinda go at each other at various points in the story feels much more investing, as the entire future of the Land of Oz could be in danger regardless of who comes out the winner. Also, Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh were featured a bit more here than before as the Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Madame Morrible, although I still wish they had a bit more screentime. Despite that, I was pleased to see that each of them did contribute at least one highly important moment to the story, which is more than can be said for the rest of the supporting cast.

Successfully concluding the musical saga of two iconic witches, "Wicked: For Good", is sure to satisfy both fans of the source material and novice audiences alike. It was a wise decision to split this entire saga into two parts, as this allowed the grandiose scope of the story to breathe much better, as opposed to trying to compress everything into a single movie. Although some people may object to the undermining creative retcons of the overall story, its fun music numbers, vibrant visual style, and strong acting performances are just enough to make you overlook most of these issues for entertainment's sake. In the wake of the success of these two movies, I have a strong feeling that this isn't the last time we will see the Land of Oz featured on the big screen. If it isn't, then one can only hope there will be plenty more fun where that came from.

I rate it 7.5/10.

"The Running Man" is a sci-fi action-thriller film based on the 1982 novel of the same name by Richard Bachman (a pen name for Stephen King). Directed and co-written by Edgar Wright (The "Three Flavours Cornetto" trilogy, "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World", "Baby Driver", "Last Night In Soho") and starring Glen Powell in the lead role, it functions as a fun action movie with a nice amount of social satire sprinkled in for good measure.

In the distant future, the global economy is on the verge of collapse, with America quickly falling under the reigns of a totalitarian government just to save itself from ruin. Desperate to provide for his wife and infant daughter, the financially destitute Ben Richards (Glen Powell) auditions to appear on "The Running Man", a gladiatorial government-monitored reality TV show where its contestants known as "Runners" have the opportunity to win huge cash prizes if they are able to survive 30 whole days out in the world without being brutally killed. After Ben is selected to compete, he is given a 12-hour head start to avoid the "Hunters", a group of skilled hitmen hired by the TV network to kill Runners on sight by any means necessary. Though he manages to evade the deadly Hunters at first, Ben's survival options soon start to run out as he eventually finds himself dealing with other dangerous matters like violently obsessed fans of the show, underground conspiracy groups, and media manipulation designed to slander his reputation.

The longer things continue the way they are in the world, the more prophetic many dystopian stories from many years ago seem to become in retrospect. One prime example of this would be the 1987 action thriller film "The Running Man", which despite taking place in the then-distant future of 2017, still correctly predicted some frightening technological and social detriments to humanity that are very much still a problem today. This includes the general public's obsession with reality TV, a genre that continues to draw in strong ratings the world over, and deepfakes, a digital alteration of superimposing someone else's face onto another one's body. In the years since that film, the technological and sociological landscape has only gotten worse, with even more issues arising that even Stephen King couldn't have foreseen back in the 80s. In this 2025 remake of "The Running Man", we are shown a film that closer resembles King's story, complete with most of the original satirical look at humanity's decline and the technology used to exacerbate this downturn.

Unlike the original 1987 movie, where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character of Ben is thrust into the spotlight completely against his will, this film's version of Ben voluntarily puts himself in danger's way for the selfless reason of helping his family. When we first see Ben, he is in the office of his former boss begging to be re-hired after he was previously fired due to his short temper and overall bad attitude. As a means to gain some sympathy, Ben cradles his infant daughter Cathy in his arms during his attempt at bargaining, but his ex-boss sees through this and promptly asks him to leave. With his family's finances swiftly depleting, Ben decides to audition for the highest rated reality TV show of all time; "The Running Man", where if he can survive for 30 days, will win over $1 billion in prize money.

This is where the film begins to establish the social hierarchy within its dystopian world, as the contestants on reality TV shows like this are always low income workers desperate to pull themselves out of financial hardships at the sick amusement of the wealthy upper class. When a contestant, otherwise known as a "Runner", is set off on their mission of survival, they have little to no means of supporting themselves other than with their own wit and determination. To make matters worse for them, Runners are also in danger of being exposed by loyal viewers who can also win money by correctly identifying and killing them live on TV, something of which is actually encouraged by the show's producer Dan Killian (Josh Brolin) and host Bobby Thompson (Coleman Domingo). As a result, you really get the sense that the odds are truly against Ben in this unfair game, something of which proves extra helpful in prolonging the film's entertainment value.

As he's shown us with most of his previous work, Edgar Wright is a master at pacing his movies, and this one is no exception. In spite of its runtime of 133 minutes, the film is quick, erratic, and never boring thanks to Wright's ability to keep his audience focused on what is happening without the need to cut away to something different prematurely. Though I think this does come at the cost of some pivotal moments that could have fully immersed the viewer in an important scene, most of the time you are so caught up in the action and quick nature of what is happening that you tend to overlook these parts at the best of times. After all, it's no easy task to make a two hour plus movie move at such an efficient speed.

Additionally, Wright also does a decent job at showing the dangerous nature of living in this dystopian world where "The Running Man" is not only a popular show for people to watch but also every poor person's last ditch attempt at climbing the social and economic ladder. This is proven by the fact that it is often mentioned throughout the story that nobody has actually lasted the full 30 days of "The Running Man", with the closest anyone has gotten being a mere 29 days. As mentioned earlier, this can all be traced back to the unfair rules imposed by the corrupt television executives who care more about ratings than human life. For instance, Runners constantly have their faces posted up on large buildings and on passing vehicles for everyone to see, as well as what they could look like if they were wearing a disguise. Because of this, moments where we see Ben wearing a fake moustache on a train or dressing up as a Catholic priest in a pub could easily go horribly wrong for him if just one person there is able to identify him from memory alone.

Once again proving himself a capable leading man, Glen Powell finds ways to strike a nice balance between a normal everyman and a tough action hero in his depiction of Ben Richards. In fact, it is established right away that this film's version of Ben cares more about what he is competing for rather than him becoming a celebrity for the show's audience to admire, as he driven solely by the desire to win money to give his family a better life. Despite that, whenever push comes to shove, this Ben can certainly hold his own in physical combat. Because of that, I much prefer Powell's Ben over Schwarzenegger's Ben, as in hindsight the latter is just another typical 80s muscle-bound lead role among many for Arnie.

Though this is mostly a one-man show, there are a handful of memorable moments from the supporting cast, including Josh Brolin as Dan Killian, the calculating, ratings-obsessed executive producer of "The Running Man", and Coleman Domingo as the charismatic host Bobby Thompson. I particularly liked watching Ben interact with Dan, since they offer a nice contrast between upper class and lower class opinions on how things function in this dystopian world. Naturally, the two have differing views on this matter, which sets up for an interesting finale. Likewise, Bobby is an attention-grabbing presenter who knows how to draw in large crowds to watch others literally kill the contestants of the show he hosts. At his core, Bobby is not that much different from most real-life reality TV show hosts, which makes his character disturbingly believable within the context of this movie.

Thanks to the mostly reliable efforts of its star, director, and faithfulness to its source material, the 2025 version of "The Running Man" is a worthwhile reimagining that I believe wins out over the 1987 adaptation. Granted, there are parts that could have been better had Edgar Wright decided to focus primarily on establishing a more pessimistic atmosphere, but I still think the film manages to be as entertaining and thought-provoking as the original novel in the grand scheme of things. With that said, you can still enjoy this movie as either a standard action flick or a satirical analysis of reality TV as a whole, both of which are aspects that I think worked just fine here. For those reasons alone, the film should have little trouble finding at least one satisfied audience.

I rate it 7/10.