Benjamin-M-Weilert's reviews
This page showcases all reviews Benjamin-M-Weilert has written, sharing their detailed thoughts about movies, TV shows, and more.
656 reviews
There are plenty of Christmas movies out there that explore the different aspects of Santa in lots of different ways. Whether it's the "origin story" of Klaus (2019) or the "legal magic" of The Santa Clause (1994), there are many different interpretations of the magical main character of the holiday season. The one that does its best to modernize and show the logistical challenge of delivering presents to every kid on Earth in one night is none other than Arthur Christmas (2011).
I've always loved Aardman animation, so it felt a little weird to me to see them work their family-friendly magic in this movie with a visual style that did not fit most of their previous work (like Wallace & Gromit). Still, their standard British humor shines through here while also managing to be a heartwarming story of family and legacy. If anything, their version of the Santa Claus mythos makes the most sense with as little magic introduced into the formula as possible (although, most advanced military technologies could be considered magic anyway).
The interesting thing about Arthur Christmas is that it's really about different approaches to the same problem (the logistics of a one-night present delivery service) while forgetting the most important reason it was being done in the first place. That there are several generations of "Santa," each of whom has a different idea on how to accomplish this task, is an interesting twist on the formula. The heart of the story, though, isn't about how traditional or fast this feat is accomplished, but about the recipients on the other end. Kids don't care how they get their presents, only that someone cared enough to listen to them.
Aardman's take on the Santa story via military-level logistics, I give Arthur Christmas 4.0 stars out of 5.
I've always loved Aardman animation, so it felt a little weird to me to see them work their family-friendly magic in this movie with a visual style that did not fit most of their previous work (like Wallace & Gromit). Still, their standard British humor shines through here while also managing to be a heartwarming story of family and legacy. If anything, their version of the Santa Claus mythos makes the most sense with as little magic introduced into the formula as possible (although, most advanced military technologies could be considered magic anyway).
The interesting thing about Arthur Christmas is that it's really about different approaches to the same problem (the logistics of a one-night present delivery service) while forgetting the most important reason it was being done in the first place. That there are several generations of "Santa," each of whom has a different idea on how to accomplish this task, is an interesting twist on the formula. The heart of the story, though, isn't about how traditional or fast this feat is accomplished, but about the recipients on the other end. Kids don't care how they get their presents, only that someone cared enough to listen to them.
Aardman's take on the Santa story via military-level logistics, I give Arthur Christmas 4.0 stars out of 5.
There's a trend in quite a few sequels that follow "coming-of-age" stories where the main character must then step into a leadership position now that they've figured out who they are. How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) did this, and Moana 2 (2024) also followed this formula. While the first movie usually does a great job of having the main character overcome an obstacle to achieve their goal, leadership is often much more complicated to convey and requires more moving pieces.
While rounding out the group dynamic for these kinds of movies is fine for providing a wider range of talents to pull from, with Moana 2, most of these characters felt one-dimensional because they had almost no presence in the previous film to establish their core abilities. The only one that had any previous background was the foe-to-friend Kakamora. And while Moana (Auli'I Cravalho) learned her lesson that she doesn't have to do everything by herself, there's also the problem that Maui (Dwayne Johnson) is off doing his own similar thing-which feels like a duplication of effort.
When comparing to the original Moana (2016), it's hard not to notice that the songs aren't as catchy or memorable. I also worry that the mid-credits scene here requires a third movie to complete this story (or the "Trilogy Conundrum" I often point to in these situations). And while the visuals look great, there's almost a weird lack of a sense of space to know where anything is or where anything is happening. But if you're like me and just watching it with your kids, your kids will probably enjoy it for what it is.
An OK sequel with a few too many moving pieces, I give Moana 2 3.0 stars out of 5.
While rounding out the group dynamic for these kinds of movies is fine for providing a wider range of talents to pull from, with Moana 2, most of these characters felt one-dimensional because they had almost no presence in the previous film to establish their core abilities. The only one that had any previous background was the foe-to-friend Kakamora. And while Moana (Auli'I Cravalho) learned her lesson that she doesn't have to do everything by herself, there's also the problem that Maui (Dwayne Johnson) is off doing his own similar thing-which feels like a duplication of effort.
When comparing to the original Moana (2016), it's hard not to notice that the songs aren't as catchy or memorable. I also worry that the mid-credits scene here requires a third movie to complete this story (or the "Trilogy Conundrum" I often point to in these situations). And while the visuals look great, there's almost a weird lack of a sense of space to know where anything is or where anything is happening. But if you're like me and just watching it with your kids, your kids will probably enjoy it for what it is.
An OK sequel with a few too many moving pieces, I give Moana 2 3.0 stars out of 5.
It's funny how your perspective on movies changes as you shift into new life stages. Growing up, Finding Nemo (2003) was entertaining because of the adventure Marlin (Albert Brooks) went on to save his son. Decades later, I can resonate with Marlin's desire to save his child because I now have children of my own. Of course, this still doesn't change the core lesson that Marlin learns, which is to not be quite the helicopter parent and let Nemo (Alexander Gould) explore the world on his own.
As with most Pixar films from their early era, Finding Nemo looks great. It has a fine balance between being "cartoonish" and the realism that computers could produce. Taking a break from Randy Newman soundtracks did this movie a great service, as his cousin Thomas Newman's score fits so well with the otherworldly ocean atmosphere. The variety of characters and voice actors fit their roles in the story superbly well, and it was fun to see the contrast between creatures in the ocean compared to the ones kept in a dentist office's fish tank.
Perhaps my only qualm with the movie comes from my perspective as a parent. While Marin isn't necessarily right for controlling so much of Nemo's life, parents put boundaries on their children to protect them. Fortunately, Nemo also figures this out by the end of the movie as both clownfish grow either less protective or more trusting of the boundaries, respectively. It's great that Marlin would go to such lengths for his only son, but it also would have been a much shorter movie if Nemo had understood some rules were there for his safety.
A visually fantastic film with lessons for parents and kids, I give Finding Nemo 4.5 stars out of 5.
As with most Pixar films from their early era, Finding Nemo looks great. It has a fine balance between being "cartoonish" and the realism that computers could produce. Taking a break from Randy Newman soundtracks did this movie a great service, as his cousin Thomas Newman's score fits so well with the otherworldly ocean atmosphere. The variety of characters and voice actors fit their roles in the story superbly well, and it was fun to see the contrast between creatures in the ocean compared to the ones kept in a dentist office's fish tank.
Perhaps my only qualm with the movie comes from my perspective as a parent. While Marin isn't necessarily right for controlling so much of Nemo's life, parents put boundaries on their children to protect them. Fortunately, Nemo also figures this out by the end of the movie as both clownfish grow either less protective or more trusting of the boundaries, respectively. It's great that Marlin would go to such lengths for his only son, but it also would have been a much shorter movie if Nemo had understood some rules were there for his safety.
A visually fantastic film with lessons for parents and kids, I give Finding Nemo 4.5 stars out of 5.
With so many superhero movies having been released in the last two decades, it's amazing to consider that one of the best superhero films ever created came years before the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and had no connections to any comic books or other previous superhero media. Sure, other franchises touched on the core aspects of this film, but its execution was so flawless that I consider it the de facto singular superhero film. That movie is The Incredibles (2004).
The closest that any franchise gets to what The Incredibles is about is probably X-Men (2000), since both deal with superheroes as a family unit as well as needing to hide their powers to fit into a society that is weaker than they are. That The Incredibles also includes aspects of the nuclear family-like being a supportive spouse or caring parent-adds to its legacy. Using common superpowers in a way to highlight each character's personality is just the chef's kiss on top of an amazing plot about teamwork and doing the right thing.
Even the little moments like visits with fashion designer Edna Mode (Brad Bird) show how well-rounded the universe is that there would be consideration for such a role in the superhero community. The big-band-style music-which is still one of my earliest and most favorite soundtracks-helped achieve that 1950s aesthetic that matched the golden era of comics. On top of everything else, this movie just looks great. Pixar created a timeless classic that seems to have hardly aged at all since its release (even considering how inexperienced they were with animating people at the time).
The best superhero film ever made, I give The Incredibles 5.0 stars out of 5.
The closest that any franchise gets to what The Incredibles is about is probably X-Men (2000), since both deal with superheroes as a family unit as well as needing to hide their powers to fit into a society that is weaker than they are. That The Incredibles also includes aspects of the nuclear family-like being a supportive spouse or caring parent-adds to its legacy. Using common superpowers in a way to highlight each character's personality is just the chef's kiss on top of an amazing plot about teamwork and doing the right thing.
Even the little moments like visits with fashion designer Edna Mode (Brad Bird) show how well-rounded the universe is that there would be consideration for such a role in the superhero community. The big-band-style music-which is still one of my earliest and most favorite soundtracks-helped achieve that 1950s aesthetic that matched the golden era of comics. On top of everything else, this movie just looks great. Pixar created a timeless classic that seems to have hardly aged at all since its release (even considering how inexperienced they were with animating people at the time).
The best superhero film ever made, I give The Incredibles 5.0 stars out of 5.
Sequels can be a tough transition for a franchise. There's always a struggle of keeping the magic of the first movie, but exploring the world in new directions. Lean too far in one direction, and the sequel feels stale; too far in the other direction and there's nothing to connect it to the original. The best sequels are the ones that use the fact that the first movie dealt with the "origin story" and now they can use a confident main character to advance the franchise. How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) is a better sequel than most, but it raises more questions.
While How to Train Your Dragon (2010) was a coming-of-age story, its sequel also carries a similar plot structure. Instead of figuring out who he is, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) needs to build enough confidence in who he is to take over being chief from his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler)-if he even wants to do so at all. Visually, this sequel shows how much advancement DreamWorks had made in their CGI in four years. The new characters of Valka (Cate Blanchett) and Eret (Kit Harrington) added depth to the world-building, even if their presence makes one wonder about how isolated Berk really was.
In the first movie, the plot made it seem like this dragon problem was only something these Vikings dealt with. But with trappers, guardians, and the big bad of Drago (Djimon Hounsou) being known entities in this world, why were they not mentioned before? I get the need to expand out and show the contrast of the dragon riders from their former roles as dragon killers, but the selective memory feels a little weird. Otherwise, there's lots of great character growth for Hiccup and Toothless in this well-done sequel.
Great character growth, but with some bigger world-building questions, I give How to Train Your Dragon 2 4.0 stars out of 5.
While How to Train Your Dragon (2010) was a coming-of-age story, its sequel also carries a similar plot structure. Instead of figuring out who he is, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) needs to build enough confidence in who he is to take over being chief from his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler)-if he even wants to do so at all. Visually, this sequel shows how much advancement DreamWorks had made in their CGI in four years. The new characters of Valka (Cate Blanchett) and Eret (Kit Harrington) added depth to the world-building, even if their presence makes one wonder about how isolated Berk really was.
In the first movie, the plot made it seem like this dragon problem was only something these Vikings dealt with. But with trappers, guardians, and the big bad of Drago (Djimon Hounsou) being known entities in this world, why were they not mentioned before? I get the need to expand out and show the contrast of the dragon riders from their former roles as dragon killers, but the selective memory feels a little weird. Otherwise, there's lots of great character growth for Hiccup and Toothless in this well-done sequel.
Great character growth, but with some bigger world-building questions, I give How to Train Your Dragon 2 4.0 stars out of 5.
For 70 years, Disney released movies that built up this fantastical notion of what a "princess" was. From Snow White (1937) to Cinderella (1950) to Sleeping Beauty (1959), and all other princess movies since then, Disney built up an amount of lore around these characters that would look ridiculous if transposed into reality. And while the princesses scene in Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) understands the tongue-in-cheek nature of these fantasy stories, nothing ever quite beats Enchanted (2007) as the best self-aware commentary of the princess genre.
Starting off in the animated world of Andalusia, Enchanted introduces Giselle (Amy Adams) as a princess yearning for "true love's kiss." Luckily, she falls right into the lap of Prince Edward (James Marsden) who proclaims that they will be wed the following day. Of course, this does not sit well with Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon), who banishes Giselle to the real world. Here, Giselle's "princess powers" still somewhat work as she summons all the nearby animals (read: vermin) of New York and is able to get all of Central Park singing a tune about true love. However, even these stunts aren't enough to overcome the reality that there isn't always a happy ending in the real world.
While Adams and Marsden playing up their fantasy roles in New York City is a brilliant contrast to how people actually behave, Robert's (Patrick Dempsey) bewildered commentary is the highlight of the movie. Both sides of the fairy tale/real world equation grow closer to an understanding of each other's culture and change their optimism/pessimism in kind. This is the crux of Enchanted: the real world might be harsh, but it's better if you look on the positive side of things and work toward solutions instead of bemoaning the current state of things.
The best self-aware princess movie, I give Enchanted 5.0 stars out of 5.
Starting off in the animated world of Andalusia, Enchanted introduces Giselle (Amy Adams) as a princess yearning for "true love's kiss." Luckily, she falls right into the lap of Prince Edward (James Marsden) who proclaims that they will be wed the following day. Of course, this does not sit well with Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon), who banishes Giselle to the real world. Here, Giselle's "princess powers" still somewhat work as she summons all the nearby animals (read: vermin) of New York and is able to get all of Central Park singing a tune about true love. However, even these stunts aren't enough to overcome the reality that there isn't always a happy ending in the real world.
While Adams and Marsden playing up their fantasy roles in New York City is a brilliant contrast to how people actually behave, Robert's (Patrick Dempsey) bewildered commentary is the highlight of the movie. Both sides of the fairy tale/real world equation grow closer to an understanding of each other's culture and change their optimism/pessimism in kind. This is the crux of Enchanted: the real world might be harsh, but it's better if you look on the positive side of things and work toward solutions instead of bemoaning the current state of things.
The best self-aware princess movie, I give Enchanted 5.0 stars out of 5.
The more classic Disney movies I watch with my kids, the more I pick up on the animation breakthroughs each film brought forth. They're mostly hidden to the untrained eye, but realizing things like how colorful Sleeping Beauty (1959) looks or noticing early CGI use in The Little Mermaid (1989) highlights how innovative Disney was in their Golden and Renaissance eras. And the movie that kicked everything off was none other than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).
Story-wise, Snow White is your basic Grimm fairy tale put through the Disney filter to make it not quite as terrifying to young kids (although it still has its moments). Nothing extraordinary, but it lends itself to a few interesting animation techniques-some of which I still scratch my head trying to figure out how they pulled it off. Mainly, the human characters look a little weird compared to the more cartoonish ones because they were roto-scoped from prerecorded performances, ensuring the proportions and movements were natural. This leads to a small amount of the uncanny valley, but it's not so much that you're turned off by it.
While there are technical marvels I have yet to deduce how Disney pulled off (like the well water effects when Snow White is singing), the simple fact remains that a movie of this scale was also unheard of at the time. Most animation took so long to accomplish that a full-length movie (albeit a short one at 83 minutes) was unheard of. You can tell they went all out in all the little details and massive amounts of movement-just the dancing sequence in the Dwarfs' home and all the individual animals needing animation just boggles my mind. If any movie in Disney's filmography most showed off what they could do, Snow White was it.
A technical marvel that still mostly stands up today, I give Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 4.0 stars out of 5.
Story-wise, Snow White is your basic Grimm fairy tale put through the Disney filter to make it not quite as terrifying to young kids (although it still has its moments). Nothing extraordinary, but it lends itself to a few interesting animation techniques-some of which I still scratch my head trying to figure out how they pulled it off. Mainly, the human characters look a little weird compared to the more cartoonish ones because they were roto-scoped from prerecorded performances, ensuring the proportions and movements were natural. This leads to a small amount of the uncanny valley, but it's not so much that you're turned off by it.
While there are technical marvels I have yet to deduce how Disney pulled off (like the well water effects when Snow White is singing), the simple fact remains that a movie of this scale was also unheard of at the time. Most animation took so long to accomplish that a full-length movie (albeit a short one at 83 minutes) was unheard of. You can tell they went all out in all the little details and massive amounts of movement-just the dancing sequence in the Dwarfs' home and all the individual animals needing animation just boggles my mind. If any movie in Disney's filmography most showed off what they could do, Snow White was it.
A technical marvel that still mostly stands up today, I give Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 4.0 stars out of 5.
If one movie were to cement the Disney Renaissance in the 1990s, it would have to be Beauty and the Beast (1991). While The Little Mermaid (1989) kicked this era of Disney off, Beauty and the Beast had a deeper and more meaningful moral based in contrasting reactions to masculinity that was powerful enough to earn it a nomination for Best Picture that year (the first time an animated movie had done so). Disney had figured out their formula here and used it to great effect for the next few years.
As with all these modern classics, Alan Menken's songs make this movie quite memorable. The visual style that accompanied everything was bold and distinct, using even more CGI than The Little Mermaid did to even better effect. The variety of character designs and personalities also made the cast feel diverse and well-rounded. It may be a little dark for small children at times; but then again, what Disney movie didn't have a few moments that would scare these little ones?
Where I think this movie really bridges the gap between The Little Mermaid and Aladdin (1992) is in how it's not all about a princess or a prince. Sure, Belle (Paige O'Hara) needs to look past the rough exterior of Beast (Robby Benson) to the potential he has within him to change. However, there's a contrast here between Gaston's (Richard White) toxic masculinity and Beast's growth needed to fix the curse he brought upon himself (brought on by his own toxic traits). This is perhaps the movie's largest strength because it proves men don't need to be the "alpha" to get the girl, even if they think they deserve her.
A well-produced examination of multiple moral lessons, I give Beauty and the Beast 4.5 stars out of 5.
As with all these modern classics, Alan Menken's songs make this movie quite memorable. The visual style that accompanied everything was bold and distinct, using even more CGI than The Little Mermaid did to even better effect. The variety of character designs and personalities also made the cast feel diverse and well-rounded. It may be a little dark for small children at times; but then again, what Disney movie didn't have a few moments that would scare these little ones?
Where I think this movie really bridges the gap between The Little Mermaid and Aladdin (1992) is in how it's not all about a princess or a prince. Sure, Belle (Paige O'Hara) needs to look past the rough exterior of Beast (Robby Benson) to the potential he has within him to change. However, there's a contrast here between Gaston's (Richard White) toxic masculinity and Beast's growth needed to fix the curse he brought upon himself (brought on by his own toxic traits). This is perhaps the movie's largest strength because it proves men don't need to be the "alpha" to get the girl, even if they think they deserve her.
A well-produced examination of multiple moral lessons, I give Beauty and the Beast 4.5 stars out of 5.
It's nice to know that of all the X-Men characters to get a spinoff trilogy, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) was able to improve from one movie to the next. Of course, it's easy to surpass the peculiar X-Men Origins (2009) with a movie that explores what happens when Wolverine loses one of the core parts of his identity as a mutant. It also helped that this film (and its sequel, Logan (2017)) were directed by James Mangold-a solid director with a variety of different genres under his belt.
I'm glad this little piece of Marvel recognizes there are other locations in the world other than New York City and San Francisco. Having the Japanese setting combined with a nuclear backstory (which also ties into the mutant nature of Wolverine) felt like a breath of fresh air for these superhero films. Because having Wolverine fight guys wielding katanas seems like a natural thing to happen in Japan (and it's fun to watch). The action overall is quite impressive, including a big set piece that takes place on a bullet train.
One thing that forms Wolverine's identity is his mutant ability to regenerate. When The Wolverine (2013) focused on taking away that power, it raised the stakes in a way that the other films hadn't. Now the immortal Wolverine could be killed. The problem, though, was that this concept never got very far in this film. It was a neat "what if" that felt like it was forgotten by the third act just to shoehorn in a "big bad" villain for Wolverine to fight. Still, it wasn't any worse than having a botched Deadpool adaptation for your movie's big reveal/finale.
A great Wolverine idea that doesn't quite stick the landing, I give The Wolverine 3.5 stars out of 5.
I'm glad this little piece of Marvel recognizes there are other locations in the world other than New York City and San Francisco. Having the Japanese setting combined with a nuclear backstory (which also ties into the mutant nature of Wolverine) felt like a breath of fresh air for these superhero films. Because having Wolverine fight guys wielding katanas seems like a natural thing to happen in Japan (and it's fun to watch). The action overall is quite impressive, including a big set piece that takes place on a bullet train.
One thing that forms Wolverine's identity is his mutant ability to regenerate. When The Wolverine (2013) focused on taking away that power, it raised the stakes in a way that the other films hadn't. Now the immortal Wolverine could be killed. The problem, though, was that this concept never got very far in this film. It was a neat "what if" that felt like it was forgotten by the third act just to shoehorn in a "big bad" villain for Wolverine to fight. Still, it wasn't any worse than having a botched Deadpool adaptation for your movie's big reveal/finale.
A great Wolverine idea that doesn't quite stick the landing, I give The Wolverine 3.5 stars out of 5.
2012 was a weird year for Disney and Pixar films. Disney released Wreck-it Ralph (2012), which felt like a classic Pixar movie, but Pixar released Brave (2012), which felt like a classic Disney movie. And while the visuals in Brave are as amazing as ever thanks to the quality Pixar had been known for, the plot felt a bit lacking compared to some classics that have come out of that production company. For once, the movie Pixar released felt just average, which was more disappointing because audiences had already seen Pixar make much greater movies before.
Perhaps this was the start of the trend in Pixar movies to deal with generational trauma in creative ways, but it never felt that the "mother turning into a bear" plot-line was as strong as the "I want to be an independent woman" one. Sure, they're both connected, but all the advertising somewhat overshadowed one by focusing on the other. The problem is, neither plot seems that original. Heck, Tangled (2010) already dealt with the "daughter wanting to just live her life" concept much like Brother Bear (2003) handled the "transformation into a bear" struggle.
In the grand scheme of what Pixar had done, Brave felt like a safe movie to make. Disney princesses over the years made the medieval setting the de facto timeframe to set these kinds of movies. That Brave felt like it was trying to be an adaptation of a fairy tale speaks more to how little risk the company wanted to take with an original idea after a few years of putting out sequels like Toy Story 3 (2010) and Cars 2 (2011). In the end, Brave isn't a terrible movie; it's just not that memorable.
An average movie from Pixar instead of an average Pixar movie, I give Brave 3.0 stars out of 5.
Perhaps this was the start of the trend in Pixar movies to deal with generational trauma in creative ways, but it never felt that the "mother turning into a bear" plot-line was as strong as the "I want to be an independent woman" one. Sure, they're both connected, but all the advertising somewhat overshadowed one by focusing on the other. The problem is, neither plot seems that original. Heck, Tangled (2010) already dealt with the "daughter wanting to just live her life" concept much like Brother Bear (2003) handled the "transformation into a bear" struggle.
In the grand scheme of what Pixar had done, Brave felt like a safe movie to make. Disney princesses over the years made the medieval setting the de facto timeframe to set these kinds of movies. That Brave felt like it was trying to be an adaptation of a fairy tale speaks more to how little risk the company wanted to take with an original idea after a few years of putting out sequels like Toy Story 3 (2010) and Cars 2 (2011). In the end, Brave isn't a terrible movie; it's just not that memorable.
An average movie from Pixar instead of an average Pixar movie, I give Brave 3.0 stars out of 5.
Growing up, I never felt Disney movies were something that appealed to me as a young boy. Most were fairy tales of princesses, and I didn't connect with Snow White (1937), Sleeping Beauty (1959), or The Little Mermaid (1989). Then along came Aladdin (1992). Not only was the main character male, but the movie was full of action, adventure, and a funny performance by Robin Williams as the Genie. It quickly became my favorite Disney film and remains so to this day.
Ultimately, Aladdin taught me a few things about life. Being content with our circumstances can keep us out of a lot of trouble; telling the truth is easier earlier on before the lies grow into more complex scenarios; and sometimes the quick magical fix isn't the right way to go about solving a problem. That I could relate much easier to Aladdin and his struggles as he tries to woo the princess just goes to show how one-dimensional the princes from other Disney films had been for decades.
While I've seen Aladdin performed on Broadway and thought the 2019 live-action remake wasn't entirely terrible, there is just something magical about the original 1992 movie. The limited CGI was used in the most effective ways for the time-it's only noticeable now because we're used to what it looks like. The songs were catchy and fun, and the setting was entirely different from the European-style medieval era that I expected of Disney films. But the best part of all (which also somewhat dates it) was the Genie, who fused pop culture references in a quick-fire way that I was still unwrapping years later.
The best male-oriented film of the Disney Renaissance, I give Aladdin 5.0 stars out of 5.
Ultimately, Aladdin taught me a few things about life. Being content with our circumstances can keep us out of a lot of trouble; telling the truth is easier earlier on before the lies grow into more complex scenarios; and sometimes the quick magical fix isn't the right way to go about solving a problem. That I could relate much easier to Aladdin and his struggles as he tries to woo the princess just goes to show how one-dimensional the princes from other Disney films had been for decades.
While I've seen Aladdin performed on Broadway and thought the 2019 live-action remake wasn't entirely terrible, there is just something magical about the original 1992 movie. The limited CGI was used in the most effective ways for the time-it's only noticeable now because we're used to what it looks like. The songs were catchy and fun, and the setting was entirely different from the European-style medieval era that I expected of Disney films. But the best part of all (which also somewhat dates it) was the Genie, who fused pop culture references in a quick-fire way that I was still unwrapping years later.
The best male-oriented film of the Disney Renaissance, I give Aladdin 5.0 stars out of 5.
In the history of Pixar films, I feel the pinnacle of their filmography is none other than WALL-E (2008). By this point, their technical prowess had an impressive track record, and their stories were proven to be quite heartfelt. Still, some of the earlier films have not aged quite as well as this masterpiece. And the ones that come after have been fairly hit-or-miss. The planets aligned to make WALL-E an achievement of storytelling and visual splendor that has stood the test of time.
While Pixar worked around the uncanny valley with the human characters being bloated versions of their former selves, everything else in this movie looks so beautiful and real. Perhaps it's even the techniques they used where it almost feels like the whole thing is actually shot on camera instead of entirely in a computer that gives it that sense of grounding. Because there's personality in a little robot that's rusting on the corners and covered in dirt compared to the clean and sleek iPod-like robot from the sanitary space station merely out to accomplish her mission-both of which come through in this movie's stunning visuals.
Many will point to the opening sequence of Up (2009) as an example of storytelling without dialogue. I would argue that WALL-E did it better and for a longer section of its runtime. The expressions of these robots and the slight inflections on their singular vocabulary are a more impressive constraint to work around, but Pixar managed to do so in a way that was entirely charming from the get-go. That the movie has something to say about determination, grit, consumerism, apathy, and hope all packaged into something the whole family can enjoy is equally rare.
A visually grounded and deeply thoughtful film for the entire family, I give WALL-E 5.0 stars out of 5.
While Pixar worked around the uncanny valley with the human characters being bloated versions of their former selves, everything else in this movie looks so beautiful and real. Perhaps it's even the techniques they used where it almost feels like the whole thing is actually shot on camera instead of entirely in a computer that gives it that sense of grounding. Because there's personality in a little robot that's rusting on the corners and covered in dirt compared to the clean and sleek iPod-like robot from the sanitary space station merely out to accomplish her mission-both of which come through in this movie's stunning visuals.
Many will point to the opening sequence of Up (2009) as an example of storytelling without dialogue. I would argue that WALL-E did it better and for a longer section of its runtime. The expressions of these robots and the slight inflections on their singular vocabulary are a more impressive constraint to work around, but Pixar managed to do so in a way that was entirely charming from the get-go. That the movie has something to say about determination, grit, consumerism, apathy, and hope all packaged into something the whole family can enjoy is equally rare.
A visually grounded and deeply thoughtful film for the entire family, I give WALL-E 5.0 stars out of 5.
One year after the release of the book Ready Player One, Disney also jumped onto the video game setting with Wreck-It Ralph (2012). Both have an astonishing number of licensed characters, even if they're relegated to cameo status most of the time. The larger difference between the two is that Wreck-It Ralph examines the virtual world from the villain's perspective. Redeemable villains have been all the rage for some time, so providing video games as a space to contextualize the concepts of destiny and cultural expectations was a perfect fit.
Plot-wise, I enjoyed the video game universe Wreck-It Ralph created-even if there are undoubtedly some plot holes if you take it too seriously. I felt the Sugar Rush section of the film was a little long, but only because it had to deal with an entire other subplot with Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Sure, feeling like you don't belong because you're a glitch parallels Ralph's (John C. Reilly) journey, but there's almost too much to unpack there after having spent half the film jumping around to other video games.
To flip the Shakespeare quote around, "Some are born villains, some achieve villainy, and some have villainy thrust upon them." While other films like Megamind (2010) cover the first two parts of this, Wreck-It Ralph asks whether video game villains are forced to be the bad guy. In the timeless battle of good versus evil, there's always the need for evil so good has something to fight. Of course, Ralph asks whether this is fair, considering that he always has to be the loser. Strangely enough, the positive message here (and with the glitch subplot) is that we must love ourselves, even if nobody else does.
A positive self-worth story wrapped in a fun video-game setting, I give Wreck-it Ralph 4.0 stars out of 5.
Plot-wise, I enjoyed the video game universe Wreck-It Ralph created-even if there are undoubtedly some plot holes if you take it too seriously. I felt the Sugar Rush section of the film was a little long, but only because it had to deal with an entire other subplot with Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Sure, feeling like you don't belong because you're a glitch parallels Ralph's (John C. Reilly) journey, but there's almost too much to unpack there after having spent half the film jumping around to other video games.
To flip the Shakespeare quote around, "Some are born villains, some achieve villainy, and some have villainy thrust upon them." While other films like Megamind (2010) cover the first two parts of this, Wreck-It Ralph asks whether video game villains are forced to be the bad guy. In the timeless battle of good versus evil, there's always the need for evil so good has something to fight. Of course, Ralph asks whether this is fair, considering that he always has to be the loser. Strangely enough, the positive message here (and with the glitch subplot) is that we must love ourselves, even if nobody else does.
A positive self-worth story wrapped in a fun video-game setting, I give Wreck-it Ralph 4.0 stars out of 5.
I first heard of Robot Dreams (2023) when it was nominated for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. When I looked into it, I learned that there is no spoken dialogue in this film. This creative decision is always intriguing to me (almost as much as the one-shot technique) because it requires emphasizing body language and other "show, don't tell" techniques in filmmaking. For this reason alone, I wanted to see it. What I got out of it was a somewhat philosophical treatise on relationships.
While the animation in Robot Dreams is crisp, it's not trying to do anything extraordinary here. And while having most of the characters as animals or other non-human beings was also a creative decision, the only thing I got out of it was a few jokes tied to the characteristics of these animals. And ultimately, I think the lack of dialogue in this movie was right at the edge of being too artsy as it seemed to leave out a few details that would have been better understood if they were spoken.
Despite some of these weaknesses, the strength of Robot Dreams is in its message. Even if it starts with the idea that you can "buy" friends, Robot Dreams handles some tough concepts like loneliness, rejection, and moving on. While most people want relationships (romantic, or otherwise) to last, it's not always achievable. We bear the scars of broken relationships, even if we still have fond memories of our time together. Each individual we share life with contributes something to our personality that we then carry into our next relationship. What's most important is realizing that an ended relationship may not be entirely the fault of either side, but just the result of bad timing.
A deep message about relationships without ever saying a word, I give Robot Dreams 3.5 stars out of 5.
While the animation in Robot Dreams is crisp, it's not trying to do anything extraordinary here. And while having most of the characters as animals or other non-human beings was also a creative decision, the only thing I got out of it was a few jokes tied to the characteristics of these animals. And ultimately, I think the lack of dialogue in this movie was right at the edge of being too artsy as it seemed to leave out a few details that would have been better understood if they were spoken.
Despite some of these weaknesses, the strength of Robot Dreams is in its message. Even if it starts with the idea that you can "buy" friends, Robot Dreams handles some tough concepts like loneliness, rejection, and moving on. While most people want relationships (romantic, or otherwise) to last, it's not always achievable. We bear the scars of broken relationships, even if we still have fond memories of our time together. Each individual we share life with contributes something to our personality that we then carry into our next relationship. What's most important is realizing that an ended relationship may not be entirely the fault of either side, but just the result of bad timing.
A deep message about relationships without ever saying a word, I give Robot Dreams 3.5 stars out of 5.
Say what you will about whatever era of Saturday Night Live you want to pick on, but the fact that this show has been on the air for 50 years is astonishing. Even more so when you realize how close it came to not airing on that first night at all. All the iconic moments that have become part of pop culture over its five-decade run should be placed in the context of what Lorne Michaels was trying to do with this ragtag group of comedians.
Saturday Night (2024) is a look into that last hour before the very first episode aired in 1975. I appreciated the ticking-clock aspect that director Jason Reitman brought to this film to emphasize how much still had to come together to make the show work. That everything is moving in real time shows just how frenzied these last-minute preparations were for everyone. There were quite a few moments where something would go wrong or a critical decision needed to happen where I honestly thought the entire premise would come toppling down. This made the ending just that much more satisfying when everything miraculously came together.
Perhaps the biggest flex this movie has going for it is how well the cast looks and feels like the original actors. Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Dylan O'Brien as Dan Akroyd, Matt Wood as John Belushi, and Ella Hunt as Gilda Radner were definitely some of the standout performances that make this movie work. It probably didn't hurt that there were enough hints at some of those well-known SNL bits from that first season to make long-time fans of the show point at the screen like that Leonardo DiCaprio meme. Even if you don't care for SNL now, this movie was an engaging moment in television history.
A well-cast, tautly timed historical comedy, I give Saturday Night 5.0 stars out of 5.
Saturday Night (2024) is a look into that last hour before the very first episode aired in 1975. I appreciated the ticking-clock aspect that director Jason Reitman brought to this film to emphasize how much still had to come together to make the show work. That everything is moving in real time shows just how frenzied these last-minute preparations were for everyone. There were quite a few moments where something would go wrong or a critical decision needed to happen where I honestly thought the entire premise would come toppling down. This made the ending just that much more satisfying when everything miraculously came together.
Perhaps the biggest flex this movie has going for it is how well the cast looks and feels like the original actors. Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Dylan O'Brien as Dan Akroyd, Matt Wood as John Belushi, and Ella Hunt as Gilda Radner were definitely some of the standout performances that make this movie work. It probably didn't hurt that there were enough hints at some of those well-known SNL bits from that first season to make long-time fans of the show point at the screen like that Leonardo DiCaprio meme. Even if you don't care for SNL now, this movie was an engaging moment in television history.
A well-cast, tautly timed historical comedy, I give Saturday Night 5.0 stars out of 5.
Low-budget films often get a bad reputation because their lack of funds becomes obvious in the finished product. There are plenty of places where the application of more money would make for a more polished result. Sets, sound, costumes, special effects-many of these things suffer when the finances don't allow for the ability to do them correctly. Or, as is the case with Hundreds of Beavers (2022), you focus on what you can do with the money you have and make creative decisions to disguise how little money it took to make.
The creative choices that went into this film helped it overcome its meager budget. As a comedy, the cardboard cutout special effects used work for laughs. Even the fact that all the animals are just people in mascot costumes is goofy enough to distract from the almost childish way things were put together. Of course, dubbing all the music and sounds on top of the captured footage likely saved money by not needing on-site audio recording. Monochrome is also very forgiving, which was likely why Hundreds of Beavers was shot in black and white.
As a black and white and "silent" film (there are still some grunts and other talking-like noises), Hundreds of Beavers evokes the madcap silent comedies of the early era of cinema. It feels like a slightly more modern version of The Gold Rush (1925), but with a bit more bathroom humor. Some of the running gags are pretty good, but there's also a bit of the plot that's hard to follow in this silent format. It's definitely worth a watch just to see how much you can do with $150,000.
An amusing silent slapstick low-budget film that hits it out of the park, I give Hundreds of Beavers 4.5 stars out of 5.
The creative choices that went into this film helped it overcome its meager budget. As a comedy, the cardboard cutout special effects used work for laughs. Even the fact that all the animals are just people in mascot costumes is goofy enough to distract from the almost childish way things were put together. Of course, dubbing all the music and sounds on top of the captured footage likely saved money by not needing on-site audio recording. Monochrome is also very forgiving, which was likely why Hundreds of Beavers was shot in black and white.
As a black and white and "silent" film (there are still some grunts and other talking-like noises), Hundreds of Beavers evokes the madcap silent comedies of the early era of cinema. It feels like a slightly more modern version of The Gold Rush (1925), but with a bit more bathroom humor. Some of the running gags are pretty good, but there's also a bit of the plot that's hard to follow in this silent format. It's definitely worth a watch just to see how much you can do with $150,000.
An amusing silent slapstick low-budget film that hits it out of the park, I give Hundreds of Beavers 4.5 stars out of 5.
It's odd how few superhero movies ever look at the villain's perspective. Sure, modern villains have been written to be tragic figures whose descent into evil is justified based on their background and past trauma. However, taking all the tropes of the genre and flipping them on their head can expose how ridiculous some of these heroic premises are. As a satire of the genre, Megamind (2010) is surprisingly deep considering its animated and child-like appearance.
The argument of nature versus nurture (and brains versus brawn) is front and center here as two alien beings voiced by Brad Pitt and Will Ferrell arrive on Earth and are given distinctly different upbringings. But once Megamind finally defeats his heroic counterpart, he sees how he tied his identity up in his role as a villain. And in creating a new hero to fight him, Megamind learns the difference between the contrasting hero motivations of altruism versus narcissism. Ultimately, the moral of the story is that helping people feels better than being evil (somewhat akin to Wreck-it Ralph (2012)).
Most of the jokes in this film end up being silly as compared to outright bathroom humor. As an adult, I also appreciated some of the more obscure superhero references (like the call out to Marlon Brando in Superman (1978)). Visually, most of the main characters are enough of a caricature that they don't fall into the uncanny valley. Unfortunately, Roxanne (Tina Fey) suffers from this and is clearly an artifact of the DreamWorks visual style at the time. Because after all, what can make or break a superhero film is something as simple as...presentation!
A surprisingly deep superhero film from the perspective of the villain, I give Megamind 4.0 stars out of 5.
The argument of nature versus nurture (and brains versus brawn) is front and center here as two alien beings voiced by Brad Pitt and Will Ferrell arrive on Earth and are given distinctly different upbringings. But once Megamind finally defeats his heroic counterpart, he sees how he tied his identity up in his role as a villain. And in creating a new hero to fight him, Megamind learns the difference between the contrasting hero motivations of altruism versus narcissism. Ultimately, the moral of the story is that helping people feels better than being evil (somewhat akin to Wreck-it Ralph (2012)).
Most of the jokes in this film end up being silly as compared to outright bathroom humor. As an adult, I also appreciated some of the more obscure superhero references (like the call out to Marlon Brando in Superman (1978)). Visually, most of the main characters are enough of a caricature that they don't fall into the uncanny valley. Unfortunately, Roxanne (Tina Fey) suffers from this and is clearly an artifact of the DreamWorks visual style at the time. Because after all, what can make or break a superhero film is something as simple as...presentation!
A surprisingly deep superhero film from the perspective of the villain, I give Megamind 4.0 stars out of 5.
There's something magical about a coming of age story where a young boy befriends an alien entity. The Iron Giant (1999) is among the ranks of E. T. - The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and How to Train Your Dragon (2010) for these similar stories with equally magical results. I'm not sure if the moral of these films is that adults are more likely to want to kill what they don't understand or if there's an inherent peaceful nature to every creature-at least until it's threatened with violence.
What works well for The Iron Giant is the Red Scare of the 1950s providing a backdrop for the fear of unknown technology. Having just demonstrated the power of nuclear weapons in World War II, the titular giant can be seen as both a helpful and extremely dangerous entity. The ability of children to assume the innocence of things they don't understand sits in stark contrast to the cynical assumption that the unknown is dangerous and must be destroyed. Unfortunately, things spiral out of control because nobody listens to the child.
There are still some tropes in this kind of movie that I don't particularly care for. The bathroom-related plotline isn't really as funny as I think it's meant to be. And while I still don't know why these kids always have to be in single-parent homes, I appreciate there's at least a mentor available for the main character to stand in for that missing parental figure. Still, The Iron Giant is a magnificent film that fuses 2D and 3D visuals in a way that doesn't look too dated by today's standards. And it's not even from Disney!
A metaphor for nuclear energy wrapped in a charming iron exterior, I give The Iron Giant 4.5 stars out of 5.
What works well for The Iron Giant is the Red Scare of the 1950s providing a backdrop for the fear of unknown technology. Having just demonstrated the power of nuclear weapons in World War II, the titular giant can be seen as both a helpful and extremely dangerous entity. The ability of children to assume the innocence of things they don't understand sits in stark contrast to the cynical assumption that the unknown is dangerous and must be destroyed. Unfortunately, things spiral out of control because nobody listens to the child.
There are still some tropes in this kind of movie that I don't particularly care for. The bathroom-related plotline isn't really as funny as I think it's meant to be. And while I still don't know why these kids always have to be in single-parent homes, I appreciate there's at least a mentor available for the main character to stand in for that missing parental figure. Still, The Iron Giant is a magnificent film that fuses 2D and 3D visuals in a way that doesn't look too dated by today's standards. And it's not even from Disney!
A metaphor for nuclear energy wrapped in a charming iron exterior, I give The Iron Giant 4.5 stars out of 5.
As a lover of cinema, I immediately recognize Francis Ford Coppola's name. He put out such great and timeless films as The Godfather (1972) and Apocalypse Now! (1979)-iconic to this very day. Since I was too young to see any of his films in theaters, I jumped at the opportunity to go in blind to see Megalopolis (2024). Once I got out of the theater, I had to double-check. Turns out, he has made dozens of movies, but there are only a handful worth mentioning that are any good.
Megalopolis suffers from some of the same problems that I feel plagued movies like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (2019) and Babylon (2022). These directors, like Quentin Tarantino and Damien Chazelle, have made such a name for themselves that they received a blank check to do the movie they wanted to do. These movies then end up being too long and meandering, as if the editors didn't dare touch the work of a master filmmaker. Megalopolis is Coppola's most self-indulgent film and proof that these great directors work best when there are guardrails to keep them in check.
I know it's heresy to suggest that studio interference could make a movie better, but with these films, something might have been changed to at least make it less bad. Sure, parts of Megalopolis looked neat, and I appreciated the thinly veiled modern metaphor for the fall of the Roman Empire. But when so many parts of this film just felt like Coppola trying to show off how great a filmmaker he is, the whole thing really fell flat. If it is the "fable" it claims it is, why can't I seem to recall any significant lessons from it? What was the whole point? The director's indulgence.
Coppola's entry into the hall of fame of self-indulgent directors, I give Megalopolis 1.5 stars out of 5.
Megalopolis suffers from some of the same problems that I feel plagued movies like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (2019) and Babylon (2022). These directors, like Quentin Tarantino and Damien Chazelle, have made such a name for themselves that they received a blank check to do the movie they wanted to do. These movies then end up being too long and meandering, as if the editors didn't dare touch the work of a master filmmaker. Megalopolis is Coppola's most self-indulgent film and proof that these great directors work best when there are guardrails to keep them in check.
I know it's heresy to suggest that studio interference could make a movie better, but with these films, something might have been changed to at least make it less bad. Sure, parts of Megalopolis looked neat, and I appreciated the thinly veiled modern metaphor for the fall of the Roman Empire. But when so many parts of this film just felt like Coppola trying to show off how great a filmmaker he is, the whole thing really fell flat. If it is the "fable" it claims it is, why can't I seem to recall any significant lessons from it? What was the whole point? The director's indulgence.
Coppola's entry into the hall of fame of self-indulgent directors, I give Megalopolis 1.5 stars out of 5.
Having grown up with both Pixar and DreamWorks movies, the level of quality has usually been on the side of Pixar. Whether in their visuals or their storytelling, Pixar had a special magic that seemed to outdo whatever DreamWorks was putting out. In recent years, this has flipped. There's been less heart in Pixar films, but DreamWorks has knocked it out of the park with original and heartfelt ideas. That DreamWorks has also leaned into their more "stylized" animation styles has made it stand above and apart.
The Wild Robot (2024) is probably the best recent example of how DreamWorks has created a timeless story that resonates on several levels. The juxtaposition of natural and mechanical is front and center, but deeper down the themes delve into parenthood and the ability for machines to feel human emotions. As a parent, this movie hit hard with its ability to show how nurturing also needs some amount of nature-in the form of positive role models-for a child to thrive. We always want to parent by the book, but need to be flexible for our kids to truly thrive.
I love seeing animation evolving before our eyes. That CGI can create movies like this that feel more hand-drawn and organic is a testament to the full circle that the medium has traversed. And while most of the animals have a sort of DreamWorks "in-house" style, their personalities shine through in ways that only those animals can convey. Sure, I might not remember any of their names or truly memorable quotes, but the warm and heartfelt feelings that remain in my soul should recommend this movie to anyone who wants to give it a try.
Proof of DreamWorks' growing domination in the animation space, I give The Wild Robot 4.5 stars out of 5.
The Wild Robot (2024) is probably the best recent example of how DreamWorks has created a timeless story that resonates on several levels. The juxtaposition of natural and mechanical is front and center, but deeper down the themes delve into parenthood and the ability for machines to feel human emotions. As a parent, this movie hit hard with its ability to show how nurturing also needs some amount of nature-in the form of positive role models-for a child to thrive. We always want to parent by the book, but need to be flexible for our kids to truly thrive.
I love seeing animation evolving before our eyes. That CGI can create movies like this that feel more hand-drawn and organic is a testament to the full circle that the medium has traversed. And while most of the animals have a sort of DreamWorks "in-house" style, their personalities shine through in ways that only those animals can convey. Sure, I might not remember any of their names or truly memorable quotes, but the warm and heartfelt feelings that remain in my soul should recommend this movie to anyone who wants to give it a try.
Proof of DreamWorks' growing domination in the animation space, I give The Wild Robot 4.5 stars out of 5.
I've always been a fan of Aardman Animation and I usually make it a point to watch the films they put out. And while not everything can be from my favorite Wallace & Gromit franchise, their movies can be a little hit or miss, depending on a variety of factors. I appreciate that they've been trying to improve their already impressive stop-motion visuals, and The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012) shows off a lot of visual style. However, the plot itself felt just average.
The most impressive visuals here are all the little details in absolutely everything. Characters. Settings. Backgrounds. All the little jokes sprinkled throughout that you'd likely have to pause to catch are a nice touch, but almost feel too hidden to be truly appreciated. The voice work is also quite good, as it relies on a ton of famous actors like Hugh Grant, David Tennant, and Martin Freeman. It's just too bad that this movie came out about 5 years too late to really capitalize on the "pirate" craze that hit the world in the early 2000s.
While not every Aardman film can pull from more famous movies (like how Chicken Run (2000) is an adaptation of The Great Escape (1963)), I didn't find the story here that compelling. Or, rather, there were too many small stories crammed together to make a full-length movie. After all, Aardman excelled with the short film format in previous Wallace & Gromit outings. Sure, it's cute-but it's also weird and funny in a British humor kind of way. Most will find something they like in this movie, but it's not likely to be for the entire film.
A visual treat from Aardman but with a somewhat weak plot, I give The Pirates! Band of Misfits 3.5 stars out of 5.
The most impressive visuals here are all the little details in absolutely everything. Characters. Settings. Backgrounds. All the little jokes sprinkled throughout that you'd likely have to pause to catch are a nice touch, but almost feel too hidden to be truly appreciated. The voice work is also quite good, as it relies on a ton of famous actors like Hugh Grant, David Tennant, and Martin Freeman. It's just too bad that this movie came out about 5 years too late to really capitalize on the "pirate" craze that hit the world in the early 2000s.
While not every Aardman film can pull from more famous movies (like how Chicken Run (2000) is an adaptation of The Great Escape (1963)), I didn't find the story here that compelling. Or, rather, there were too many small stories crammed together to make a full-length movie. After all, Aardman excelled with the short film format in previous Wallace & Gromit outings. Sure, it's cute-but it's also weird and funny in a British humor kind of way. Most will find something they like in this movie, but it's not likely to be for the entire film.
A visual treat from Aardman but with a somewhat weak plot, I give The Pirates! Band of Misfits 3.5 stars out of 5.
For a series that originally appealed to children, it felt like the Transformers movie franchise took a long time to focus on its original demographic again. Sure, the nostalgia bait of the early Michael Bay films led to its continued popularity. But focusing on smaller, origin-based stories like Bumblebee (2018) has brought some life back into the flashy, CGI-heavy explosion fests that these movies had become. That's why I was pleased to find Transformers One (2024) reaching back to the roots of its original audience and focusing on the medium that kicked everything off: animation.
Compared to the busy, almost incomprehensible action sequences of the previous live-action movies in the franchise, Transformers One has focused and well-designed set pieces that lean into the fact that animation can often do more than any live-action/CGI hybrid could. There was almost a beauty to the simplicity of the character designs instead of the eye-watering detail that plagued the Michael Bay movies. That it took this long to even get a movie like this likely proves that there was a sunk cost fallacy happening behind the scenes.
Plot-wise, there's nothing terribly interesting to write home about. As an origin story for Optimus Prime (Chris Hemsworth) and Megatron (Brian Tyree Henry), anyone who knew anything about Transformers would know that they wouldn't be friends by the end of the film. Still, the journey is a fun one, with only a smattering of dumb jokes that will get the kids laughing and a handful of lines that will make the adults chuckle. Ultimately, I felt this movie was more appropriate to show to my children than any of the live action ones (at least for the time being).
A great modern Transformers film to introduce new kids to the franchise, I give Transformers One 4.0 stars out of 5.
Compared to the busy, almost incomprehensible action sequences of the previous live-action movies in the franchise, Transformers One has focused and well-designed set pieces that lean into the fact that animation can often do more than any live-action/CGI hybrid could. There was almost a beauty to the simplicity of the character designs instead of the eye-watering detail that plagued the Michael Bay movies. That it took this long to even get a movie like this likely proves that there was a sunk cost fallacy happening behind the scenes.
Plot-wise, there's nothing terribly interesting to write home about. As an origin story for Optimus Prime (Chris Hemsworth) and Megatron (Brian Tyree Henry), anyone who knew anything about Transformers would know that they wouldn't be friends by the end of the film. Still, the journey is a fun one, with only a smattering of dumb jokes that will get the kids laughing and a handful of lines that will make the adults chuckle. Ultimately, I felt this movie was more appropriate to show to my children than any of the live action ones (at least for the time being).
A great modern Transformers film to introduce new kids to the franchise, I give Transformers One 4.0 stars out of 5.
There are few films that hit home quite like Ratatouille (2007) does. Not only is it a gorgeously animated representation of French cooking (and cooking in general), but its message about pursuing your creative dreams despite the obvious challenges is an important one. I think this film and La La Land (2016) both speak volumes about what it means to work in creative spaces. True talent will rise to the top, but only if they have the grit to keep with it.
I have a soft spot for Brad Bird's films, and Ratatouille is no exception. The theme of exceptional outsiders strings through from The Iron Giant (1999) to The Incredibles (2004) and really lands here in Ratatouille. While there are so many movies out there that tell you to "follow your dreams," Ratatouille does so with such a juxtaposition that you figure it would never happen. Rats are dirty, so how could one become a famed chef? And yet, we root for Remy (Patton Oswalt) because it feels impossible and if he can achieve his goals, then maybe we can as well.
Visually, Ratatouille hits right at that peak of the rise of Pixar. Picture-perfect food was the flex they brought to the big screen just like they did with fur effects in Monsters Inc. (2001) or water effects in Finding Nemo (2003). Anchoring this movie to a real place also meant they needed it to look believable to those who have actually been to Paris-something that hadn't happened in a Pixar movie before. There's just so much about this movie to recommend it that if you haven't tried it, I suggest you give it a taste.
A powerful message wrapped in beautiful, food-filled visuals, I give Ratatouille 5.0 stars out of 5.
I have a soft spot for Brad Bird's films, and Ratatouille is no exception. The theme of exceptional outsiders strings through from The Iron Giant (1999) to The Incredibles (2004) and really lands here in Ratatouille. While there are so many movies out there that tell you to "follow your dreams," Ratatouille does so with such a juxtaposition that you figure it would never happen. Rats are dirty, so how could one become a famed chef? And yet, we root for Remy (Patton Oswalt) because it feels impossible and if he can achieve his goals, then maybe we can as well.
Visually, Ratatouille hits right at that peak of the rise of Pixar. Picture-perfect food was the flex they brought to the big screen just like they did with fur effects in Monsters Inc. (2001) or water effects in Finding Nemo (2003). Anchoring this movie to a real place also meant they needed it to look believable to those who have actually been to Paris-something that hadn't happened in a Pixar movie before. There's just so much about this movie to recommend it that if you haven't tried it, I suggest you give it a taste.
A powerful message wrapped in beautiful, food-filled visuals, I give Ratatouille 5.0 stars out of 5.
One of the weird things about claymation is that there's this fine line between rough early works and super-refined later films. For Wallace & Gromit, the quality of shorts like A Grand Day Out (1989) shows potential, and the next two shorts of The Wrong Trousers (1993) and A Close Shave (1995) refined the feel of the universe while still having that organic, handmade aesthetic. After having released the full-length Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005), the next short of A Matter of Loaf and Death (2008) actually felt too polished.
Stylistically, A Matter of Loaf and Death is perhaps the most consistent of the shorts. Whether CGI helped or if the processes to make stop-motion films have improved over time, it's difficult to tell. Whatever the reason, so much of this short feels too clean-there aren't the errant fingerprints or other artifacts that reveal the handmade nature of the film. It's a little weird that this is a fault here, but it just doesn't feel like an authentic claymation movie.
It doesn't help that maybe my bias stems from having watched the original shorts so many times that I have them memorized. There's nostalgia there. This one being so recent means I haven't had time to re-watch it constantly and really appreciate it. That's the problem, though: I don't particularly feel there was any gag or bit in this film that stands out as something I'd want to see again. A Grand Day Out had the construction sequence, The Wrong Trousers had both the heist and the train chase, and A Close Shave had the climactic fight against the evil dog. This? It has an OK love story for Gromit and that's about it.
A forgettable and too clean Wallace & Gromit short, I give A Matter of Loaf and Death 3.5 stars out of 5.
Stylistically, A Matter of Loaf and Death is perhaps the most consistent of the shorts. Whether CGI helped or if the processes to make stop-motion films have improved over time, it's difficult to tell. Whatever the reason, so much of this short feels too clean-there aren't the errant fingerprints or other artifacts that reveal the handmade nature of the film. It's a little weird that this is a fault here, but it just doesn't feel like an authentic claymation movie.
It doesn't help that maybe my bias stems from having watched the original shorts so many times that I have them memorized. There's nostalgia there. This one being so recent means I haven't had time to re-watch it constantly and really appreciate it. That's the problem, though: I don't particularly feel there was any gag or bit in this film that stands out as something I'd want to see again. A Grand Day Out had the construction sequence, The Wrong Trousers had both the heist and the train chase, and A Close Shave had the climactic fight against the evil dog. This? It has an OK love story for Gromit and that's about it.
A forgettable and too clean Wallace & Gromit short, I give A Matter of Loaf and Death 3.5 stars out of 5.
Mid-2000s Disney was an interesting time for their CGI movies. Pixar had been dominating for at least a decade and created gorgeous films with heartwarming plots. Struggling to keep up with this new medium, Disney still hadn't fully committed to CGI, and it has not aged well. Just as an example, think about how incredible WALL-E (2008) looked and realize it came out the same year as Bolt (2008). Not to say that Bolt is a terrible movie, it just feels bland in comparison-both on looks and plot.
Part of the problem of this era of CGI movies is how dated they can feel. Sure, Disney was using some CGI in their animated films even as far back as The Little Mermaid (1989). It's just that Pixar seemed to understand that humans needed to be more like caricatures to escape the uncanny valley. The people in Bolt look so weird and wrong that it's almost a bit distracting. If they didn't play so strongly in the B-plot of finding a replacement for Bolt, they could have been avoided and the better-looking animals could have carried the visual momentum of the movie.
The premise for Bolt makes sense: most animal actors don't know they're not in a movie, but with Bolt (John Travolta), the studio has to pull a Truman Show (1998) subterfuge to get the best acting out of this dog. When Bolt gets lost, he is exposed to the real world as he tries to return to his owner. The world-wise street cat Mittens (Susie Essman) and super-fan hamster Rhino (Mark Walton) made this Homeward Bound (1993)-type journey more entertaining. Even despite these bright spots, Bolt remains quite average in so many ways.
A painfully average film in one of Disney's dark eras, I give Bolt 3.0 stars out of 5.
Part of the problem of this era of CGI movies is how dated they can feel. Sure, Disney was using some CGI in their animated films even as far back as The Little Mermaid (1989). It's just that Pixar seemed to understand that humans needed to be more like caricatures to escape the uncanny valley. The people in Bolt look so weird and wrong that it's almost a bit distracting. If they didn't play so strongly in the B-plot of finding a replacement for Bolt, they could have been avoided and the better-looking animals could have carried the visual momentum of the movie.
The premise for Bolt makes sense: most animal actors don't know they're not in a movie, but with Bolt (John Travolta), the studio has to pull a Truman Show (1998) subterfuge to get the best acting out of this dog. When Bolt gets lost, he is exposed to the real world as he tries to return to his owner. The world-wise street cat Mittens (Susie Essman) and super-fan hamster Rhino (Mark Walton) made this Homeward Bound (1993)-type journey more entertaining. Even despite these bright spots, Bolt remains quite average in so many ways.
A painfully average film in one of Disney's dark eras, I give Bolt 3.0 stars out of 5.