data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57818/57818729b2bdf9ba690e3aadd45bc480da82594a" alt="robsta23's profile image"
robsta23
Joined Aug 2009
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.1K
robsta23's rating
Reviews178
robsta23's rating
Kung Fu Panda 3 meets the minimum requirements in what fans of the first two films would expect: jokes about weight, Po's still struggling with handling Kung Fu (even though he became the "dragon warrior" at the end of the first film) and questions of how to determine what true family is. Sadly, the film itself lazily meets these expectations without providing much else for its fan base.
We start with an uninteresting villain played by J.K. Simmons. He is an associate of Master Oogway, and that is how he is known (this joke gets really old really fast within the film itself). He manages to escape the spirit realm (this universe's equivalent of the afterlife) and is determined to take over the spirits of kung fu masters because.... well who cares? The film simply establishes he is a bad guy who wants revenge and to have control over the real world - you know, your typical one-dimensional children's movie villain.
Po's father, played by Bryan Cranston, finds him at the start of the film, which is really convenient because pandas are supposed to know about something called "chi" which is what the villain is after. Pandas were known to heal Oogway with this power in the past, and it is of course the only way to stop Simmons' character. This subplot eventually clears up what we did not know about the pandas in this universe, and of course the film goes to great lengths to make comedy out of how lazy pandas turn out to be.
The jokes used in this film are just rehashed jokes from the first two films, not providing great comedy as its predecessors since it proves to be unoriginal. Kung Fu Panda 3 is still enjoyable, but its strength lies on the theme of questionable identity posed by the two competing fathers of the film: Mr. Ping and Li. This is only touched on a few times throughout the film, but when it is touched on it brings up interesting questions about whether Po would need nature or nurture: that is, does he need his biological father or the one who raised him. These moments are the only ones of great intrigue within the film.
There is also a return to a cop-out fighting technique from the first film that makes the conflict of the story less difficult for Po to get through. While the film has the same spirit of its predecessors, Kung Fu Panda 3 is not a very fun film, but it is not terrible.
2.5/4.0
We start with an uninteresting villain played by J.K. Simmons. He is an associate of Master Oogway, and that is how he is known (this joke gets really old really fast within the film itself). He manages to escape the spirit realm (this universe's equivalent of the afterlife) and is determined to take over the spirits of kung fu masters because.... well who cares? The film simply establishes he is a bad guy who wants revenge and to have control over the real world - you know, your typical one-dimensional children's movie villain.
Po's father, played by Bryan Cranston, finds him at the start of the film, which is really convenient because pandas are supposed to know about something called "chi" which is what the villain is after. Pandas were known to heal Oogway with this power in the past, and it is of course the only way to stop Simmons' character. This subplot eventually clears up what we did not know about the pandas in this universe, and of course the film goes to great lengths to make comedy out of how lazy pandas turn out to be.
The jokes used in this film are just rehashed jokes from the first two films, not providing great comedy as its predecessors since it proves to be unoriginal. Kung Fu Panda 3 is still enjoyable, but its strength lies on the theme of questionable identity posed by the two competing fathers of the film: Mr. Ping and Li. This is only touched on a few times throughout the film, but when it is touched on it brings up interesting questions about whether Po would need nature or nurture: that is, does he need his biological father or the one who raised him. These moments are the only ones of great intrigue within the film.
There is also a return to a cop-out fighting technique from the first film that makes the conflict of the story less difficult for Po to get through. While the film has the same spirit of its predecessors, Kung Fu Panda 3 is not a very fun film, but it is not terrible.
2.5/4.0
Helpful•2420
Chef has a lot of potential for a great story. Instead, we are left with a story that, while making us feel good, lacks quality as well as a major conflict to bring the audience into the story and build interest. The movie is a good father-son story and has heart, but simply lacks something to intrigue us.
The most exciting aspect of the film is the relationship between Favreau's character and his son. The relationship develops progressively throughout the film as it starts out with the two of them "doing stuff" together, but we learn what the kid really wants in a strange situation when Favreau asks his son to help him with Twitter. "I wish we could do stuff like this more... spend time together, talk about things" says Favreau's son. This gets Favreau's character thinking about how he can become more involved with his son, and leads to his decision to let his son help him when things go south.
The first act of this film takes forever to get through though, making the film seem slow at first, yet not exactly uninteresting. We get hints that Favreau might leave his job as a prestigious chef in a quality restaurant early on, but it takes about 40 minutes into the film to finally see this happen so we can move onto the second act: how he will dig himself out of this situation and be able to support himself.
Stories are built on conflict, and sadly there is no one big conflict in this film as much as there are a few smaller conflicts. These conflicts include questions such as will Favreau's character become closer with his son, will Favreau ever get his job back, and will he find happiness despite the situation. And rather than building up tension for these "conflicts," they get resolved slowly but gradually throughout the film. This allows the audience to focus on the relationship at the heart of the story, but it is also somewhat boring to watch since the second act of this film does not hit us hard with huge conflicts. The pace to this movie is slow, but safe.
The third act then is extremely rushed and takes roughly only a few minutes, and then the film is suddenly over right after the "climax." This is annoying if you're looking for a good story, but if you are looking to be pleased this film does just that, but in a cheesy manner. Chef is decent, but it is simply not up to par with other Favreau films like Iron Man or Elf.
2.5/4.0
The most exciting aspect of the film is the relationship between Favreau's character and his son. The relationship develops progressively throughout the film as it starts out with the two of them "doing stuff" together, but we learn what the kid really wants in a strange situation when Favreau asks his son to help him with Twitter. "I wish we could do stuff like this more... spend time together, talk about things" says Favreau's son. This gets Favreau's character thinking about how he can become more involved with his son, and leads to his decision to let his son help him when things go south.
The first act of this film takes forever to get through though, making the film seem slow at first, yet not exactly uninteresting. We get hints that Favreau might leave his job as a prestigious chef in a quality restaurant early on, but it takes about 40 minutes into the film to finally see this happen so we can move onto the second act: how he will dig himself out of this situation and be able to support himself.
Stories are built on conflict, and sadly there is no one big conflict in this film as much as there are a few smaller conflicts. These conflicts include questions such as will Favreau's character become closer with his son, will Favreau ever get his job back, and will he find happiness despite the situation. And rather than building up tension for these "conflicts," they get resolved slowly but gradually throughout the film. This allows the audience to focus on the relationship at the heart of the story, but it is also somewhat boring to watch since the second act of this film does not hit us hard with huge conflicts. The pace to this movie is slow, but safe.
The third act then is extremely rushed and takes roughly only a few minutes, and then the film is suddenly over right after the "climax." This is annoying if you're looking for a good story, but if you are looking to be pleased this film does just that, but in a cheesy manner. Chef is decent, but it is simply not up to par with other Favreau films like Iron Man or Elf.
2.5/4.0
Helpful•02
It is surprising how funny To Be or Not to Be actually is. It does not make a mockery of ALL Nazis seeing that the main villain is smart and cunning, but it does make buffoons out of the high command or enlisted Germans who follow orders blindly without questioning the logic behind the orders. The Germans who are fooled are fooled by nothing other than an acting troupe with Jack Benny at the helm, showing the Germans as buffoons who take in information at face value.
As the movie begins, the audience laughs at the ridiculousness of the acting troupe performing as the high command under Hitler's third Reich. This comedy is interrupted by a soldier becoming infatuated with Tura's (Jack Benny) wife to the point where he thinks they will have a future together. This relationship finishes setting up the first act, and the audience regains the gift of comic relief when it is the acting troupe who must save Tura's wife and bring down Hitler's high command as their identity is nearly compromised.
The humor in the film has a wide range. At times it consists of Jack Benny complaining, but mostly the humor deals with the dramatic irony that the German command is unaware of the acting troupe's true identity. The troupe moves along with its plans with great ease as most Germans take them as fellow Germans and do not see past the costumes. Making the Germans puzzled is almost as wacky as watching a Marx Brothers movie, but it is not exactly the same type of humor since the Marx Brothers deal with rapid-fire jokes and physical comedy such as matching action to make characters believe they are looking into a mirror. In the case of To Be or Not to Be, the actors lead the Germans to believe they are dealing with officials, creating a similar illusion to the "mirror" antics of the Marx Brothers.
An interesting notion of this film is that it was made at the time of the war, but does not induce fear of the enemy (Nazis) at any time during the film. Showing that the enemy can be imitated, and that, in fact, Hitler is "just a man with a little moustache," it illustrates how little people had to worry about the enemy at that point in time by portraying the enemy as buffoons, not unlike Chaplin's The Great Dictator.
To Be or Not to Be is a great, overlooked World War II comedy, and while it may not be up to part with The Great Dictator, it deserves more attention.
3.5/4.0
As the movie begins, the audience laughs at the ridiculousness of the acting troupe performing as the high command under Hitler's third Reich. This comedy is interrupted by a soldier becoming infatuated with Tura's (Jack Benny) wife to the point where he thinks they will have a future together. This relationship finishes setting up the first act, and the audience regains the gift of comic relief when it is the acting troupe who must save Tura's wife and bring down Hitler's high command as their identity is nearly compromised.
The humor in the film has a wide range. At times it consists of Jack Benny complaining, but mostly the humor deals with the dramatic irony that the German command is unaware of the acting troupe's true identity. The troupe moves along with its plans with great ease as most Germans take them as fellow Germans and do not see past the costumes. Making the Germans puzzled is almost as wacky as watching a Marx Brothers movie, but it is not exactly the same type of humor since the Marx Brothers deal with rapid-fire jokes and physical comedy such as matching action to make characters believe they are looking into a mirror. In the case of To Be or Not to Be, the actors lead the Germans to believe they are dealing with officials, creating a similar illusion to the "mirror" antics of the Marx Brothers.
An interesting notion of this film is that it was made at the time of the war, but does not induce fear of the enemy (Nazis) at any time during the film. Showing that the enemy can be imitated, and that, in fact, Hitler is "just a man with a little moustache," it illustrates how little people had to worry about the enemy at that point in time by portraying the enemy as buffoons, not unlike Chaplin's The Great Dictator.
To Be or Not to Be is a great, overlooked World War II comedy, and while it may not be up to part with The Great Dictator, it deserves more attention.
3.5/4.0
Helpful•11