fsimpson-23439

So here I am, watching Klaus, a Christmas film, on Netflix, in mid-January. Pretty normal for someone like me, but for most, it's likely a criminal offence.

The animation is breathtaking. Enough said.

No, but in all seriousness, this is a modern Christmas classic. Yes, there are some weird song choices used that stick out like a sore thumb. Yes, the third act doesn't land too much. And yes, this is a Netflix film, which may annoy some. But this truly warms my heart, even when my heart is at it's coldest.

The film's incredible hand-drawn/2D animation is a breath of fresh air for an industry overshadowed by 3D animation, with occasional stop-motion attempts here and there. Not only this, the animation allows the characters to have phenomenal designs as well. When looking at the cast, the only real standout is JK Simmons, but in the film, everyone is giving it their all. From the aforementioned Simmons to Jason Schwartzman as Jesper, hell even the smaller roles have actors/actresses doing a great job. And the characters are so fun to watch. Jesper and Klaus make for a unique and brilliant dynamic, and their chemistry is never-ending. The story itself is interesting enough to keep me engaged, so that gets a solid pass.

It's hard to believe that the director of this, Sergio Pablos, was one of the co-creators of the Despicable Me franchise of films/merchandise. But that shouldn't be an issue in the slightest. You may find yourself drawn in due to the phenomenal animation, and yes that is true, but stay for the ride and you'll find more than just the animation to keep you entertaining for nearly 100 minutes.

Oh and I did I mention the animation is brilliant?

The first film I've seen in cinemas this year/decade, and what a way to start. Whilst the story is fine and decent, but not much more, the rest of the film is outstanding. Obviously, the cinematography by Roger Deakins is the highlight, especially at nighttime, where the town of Ecoust being lit by fire and flares being amazing. Definitely a contender for best cinematography (even though The Lighthouse will give it some good competition). As for the 'one continuous long shot', I knew there were bits where they cut, but there wasn't anything glaringly obvious. But it doesn't matter too much, the camera work is phenomenal.

George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman give extremely committed and natural performances, and they act incredibly given how the film is being shot and the fact they're in World War 1. The musical score was good enough, if not excellent, and I love some of the small moments of the two soldiers trying to relieve stress and pressure by just joking around.

This is a film everyone should see. Yes, over 70% of the film is people walking or running, with bits of tense yet well-crafted action placed in between, but that doesn't stop this film being excellent. A strong contender for Best Picture, bolstered by natural performances, great direction, realism, and of course, outstanding cinematography. See it. You won't regret it.

This is a bad movie, no doubt about it. With horrible CGI, bad dialogue, acting and characters, this would be considered a disaster if it was made and taken seriously. It wasn't, and what we have left is this film from the producers of Sharknado that looks like a Playstation 1 game, make that what you will. The film also tries to have some emotional scenes of people dying, but when that's in the same movie as blue zombies from the deep blue sea causing huge tidal waves containing them, it's not a good tone.The zombies are also curious. There could be many surrounding an area, and by the next time we see them, there is only like 4 or 5. Also, at the end there is a zombie that can actually hold and fight the character Hunter, even though every single other zombie couldn't. What is this movie, and why is it so bad, yet sometimes charming and entertaining?