ChetXBuck
Joined Jan 2000
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews89
ChetXBuck's rating
This is a brilliant and compelling Civil War film, with layered storytelling that works on multiple levels. It's rooted in truth and captures both the brutality of the conflict and the complex relationship between North and South. Few Civil War movies can match Glory, and its Oscar-winning score elevates it even further, cementing its place as a true classic.
Critics often point to Matthew Broderick as the film's weakest link, arguing that his portrayal of a reluctant young officer-struggling to balance fear, duty, and idealism-may stretch beyond his range. Still, he brought early attention to the film and helped broaden its impact at the time of release. Cary Elwes is also slightly out of his depth here.
But the real power of this movie comes from its supporting cast.
Denzel Washington delivers an Oscar-winning performance that remains one of his most unforgettable. And Morgan Freeman-who absolutely should have been nominated-gives a commanding, grounded portrayal that shows why he was destined to become a cinematic legend long before The Shawshank Redemption. NOTE: He was nominated this year for BEST ACTOR - for Driving Miss Daisy.
Edward Zwick's direction is strong and emotionally charged, though it occasionally leans toward the style of a high-budget TV movie. Some of the battle effects now feel dated, especially compared with modern war films, which makes the visuals slightly less impactful than they once were.
Even so, the story endures.
The characters resonate, the themes remain powerful, and the film continues to stand as one of the greatest war movies in cinema history-regardless of era.
Critics often point to Matthew Broderick as the film's weakest link, arguing that his portrayal of a reluctant young officer-struggling to balance fear, duty, and idealism-may stretch beyond his range. Still, he brought early attention to the film and helped broaden its impact at the time of release. Cary Elwes is also slightly out of his depth here.
But the real power of this movie comes from its supporting cast.
Denzel Washington delivers an Oscar-winning performance that remains one of his most unforgettable. And Morgan Freeman-who absolutely should have been nominated-gives a commanding, grounded portrayal that shows why he was destined to become a cinematic legend long before The Shawshank Redemption. NOTE: He was nominated this year for BEST ACTOR - for Driving Miss Daisy.
Edward Zwick's direction is strong and emotionally charged, though it occasionally leans toward the style of a high-budget TV movie. Some of the battle effects now feel dated, especially compared with modern war films, which makes the visuals slightly less impactful than they once were.
Even so, the story endures.
The characters resonate, the themes remain powerful, and the film continues to stand as one of the greatest war movies in cinema history-regardless of era.
Zootopia II is a well-written, energetic, and often delightful family film-absolutely worth seeing in a theater, where its color, sound, and pacing feel far more immersive than they would on a distracted night at home. When watched with focus, it delivers a mix of clever writing for adults and broad humor for kids, making it a genuinely enjoyable family outing.
But it is not the equal of the original.
The first Zootopia succeeded because it was unique, warm, and careful. Characters were introduced thoughtfully. The emotional beats were earned. The audience grew to love the world and its residents gradually, with intention.
Zootopia II, by contrast, tries to build a complex and sprawling backstory that becomes more confusing than compelling. It introduces new characters at a rapid-fire pace-sometimes so quickly that it feels as though the filmmakers were determined to cram in as many celebrity voices and toy-ready characters as possible. The result is a sequel that occasionally feels like the more chaotic sophomore films of the 1980s-think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Home Alone 2-fun and energetic, but unfocused and not nearly as strong as the original.
Where the Film Works
When the movie slows down-even briefly-the smart writing shines.
There are clever Easter eggs throughout (the "Zoogle" search engine gag, among many others), and these understated jokes and references reward adults without overshadowing the story. At its best, the film uses intelligent plot devices-like recording tech-to ground the action in relatable stakes and emotional reality.
During these quieter, character-focused moments, Zootopia II remembers what made the first film special.
Where It Falters
When it tries to appeal to the youngest kids with nonstop gags, impossible physics, and cartoonish chaos, the film loses its way. The tone occasionally drifts into the worst of 1980s Looney Tunes energy-over-the-top antics that break the film's internal logic and undermine the emotional weight of the story.
The longevity of great animated films comes from relatability-moments of humanity, even in a fantastical world. Zootopia II simply has too many gags and not enough grounding. The overstuffed roster of characters makes it difficult to track relationships or care about new additions.
Final Thoughts
There is a very good movie inside Zootopia II-one that surfaces clearly whenever the filmmakers slow down and let the story breathe. It's smart, often funny, visually rich, and full of potential. But the frenetic pace, character overload, and sequel-itis keep it from achieving the elegance and heart of the original.
I genuinely hope that if a Zootopia III is made, the creators take a cue from the strongest sequels in film history: slow down, focus on character, deepen the humor, and trust the audience enough not to drown them in noise.
Still, for families?
It's quality entertainment, worth the price of a movie ticket-especially if you can catch it in a theater while it's still playing.
But it is not the equal of the original.
The first Zootopia succeeded because it was unique, warm, and careful. Characters were introduced thoughtfully. The emotional beats were earned. The audience grew to love the world and its residents gradually, with intention.
Zootopia II, by contrast, tries to build a complex and sprawling backstory that becomes more confusing than compelling. It introduces new characters at a rapid-fire pace-sometimes so quickly that it feels as though the filmmakers were determined to cram in as many celebrity voices and toy-ready characters as possible. The result is a sequel that occasionally feels like the more chaotic sophomore films of the 1980s-think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Home Alone 2-fun and energetic, but unfocused and not nearly as strong as the original.
Where the Film Works
When the movie slows down-even briefly-the smart writing shines.
There are clever Easter eggs throughout (the "Zoogle" search engine gag, among many others), and these understated jokes and references reward adults without overshadowing the story. At its best, the film uses intelligent plot devices-like recording tech-to ground the action in relatable stakes and emotional reality.
During these quieter, character-focused moments, Zootopia II remembers what made the first film special.
Where It Falters
When it tries to appeal to the youngest kids with nonstop gags, impossible physics, and cartoonish chaos, the film loses its way. The tone occasionally drifts into the worst of 1980s Looney Tunes energy-over-the-top antics that break the film's internal logic and undermine the emotional weight of the story.
The longevity of great animated films comes from relatability-moments of humanity, even in a fantastical world. Zootopia II simply has too many gags and not enough grounding. The overstuffed roster of characters makes it difficult to track relationships or care about new additions.
Final Thoughts
There is a very good movie inside Zootopia II-one that surfaces clearly whenever the filmmakers slow down and let the story breathe. It's smart, often funny, visually rich, and full of potential. But the frenetic pace, character overload, and sequel-itis keep it from achieving the elegance and heart of the original.
I genuinely hope that if a Zootopia III is made, the creators take a cue from the strongest sequels in film history: slow down, focus on character, deepen the humor, and trust the audience enough not to drown them in noise.
Still, for families?
It's quality entertainment, worth the price of a movie ticket-especially if you can catch it in a theater while it's still playing.
This is a very entertaining and clever film, very much in line with the other Knives Out movies. I'm glad I saw it in a theater, because it's fully engrossing and really benefits from an environment where you can stay focused. If you do watch it at home, try to watch it without distractions-this is a fairly complex story with sharp acting and colorful, unique characters.
The religious storyline has elements of real-world credibility, though, as with the other films, it certainly strains reality in terms of how people behave and what they're willing to accept. Still, it's vibrant, engaging, and stylistically consistent with the first two films. In fact, this one is less eccentric, over-the-top, or bizarre than Glass Onion. It actually gets down to business more directly and more realistically than the prior film.
Whenever Netflix is involved in a production, I'm always wary of cut corners, uneven acting, or lower production value-problems that plague a good 95% of their original content. But in this case, even though Netflix's name is attached, the film maintains true Hollywood-level craftsmanship in its direction, cinematography, editing, and structure. The script is tight and guides viewers through a layered plot that, while complex, never drifts so far that you feel lost.
The cast is uniformly strong, with standout performances from Daniel Craig and Glenn Close. This is also a great introduction for audiences who may know Josh O'Connor from last year's Challengers. He has a very unique role here, and he absolutely shines-clearly a demanding performance, and he deserves recognition for it.
Glenn Close could very well receive an Oscar or Golden Globe nomination; she delivers a complex, memorable, and wonderfully odd performance that elevates the film. It was also pleasant to see Thomas Haden Church-best known for Sideways, the iconic Paul Giamatti film-though his screen time is limited.
As usual, Josh Brolin delivers a masterclass. Benoit Blanc remains excellent; Daniel Craig's distinctive style, accent, hair, and wardrobe continue to anchor the film even with such a large ensemble.
Jeremy Renner appears briefly; it's good to see him back, though this isn't one of his stronger roles. Kerry Washington feels smirky, dull, and miscast-she seems in over her head with a character this complex. Andrew Scott does a solid job. Jeffrey Wright has a small but unique, memorable cameo. Mila Kunis is serviceable; she doesn't fully feel like a plausible police officer and leans a bit sitcom-like, but her familiar presence may draw viewers to an otherwise complex film.
All in all, this is a well-acted, tightly crafted, and highly entertaining addition to the Knives Out universe. Daniel Craig, once again, proves he is the central gravitational force of these films-even among a crowded, talented cast.
The religious storyline has elements of real-world credibility, though, as with the other films, it certainly strains reality in terms of how people behave and what they're willing to accept. Still, it's vibrant, engaging, and stylistically consistent with the first two films. In fact, this one is less eccentric, over-the-top, or bizarre than Glass Onion. It actually gets down to business more directly and more realistically than the prior film.
Whenever Netflix is involved in a production, I'm always wary of cut corners, uneven acting, or lower production value-problems that plague a good 95% of their original content. But in this case, even though Netflix's name is attached, the film maintains true Hollywood-level craftsmanship in its direction, cinematography, editing, and structure. The script is tight and guides viewers through a layered plot that, while complex, never drifts so far that you feel lost.
The cast is uniformly strong, with standout performances from Daniel Craig and Glenn Close. This is also a great introduction for audiences who may know Josh O'Connor from last year's Challengers. He has a very unique role here, and he absolutely shines-clearly a demanding performance, and he deserves recognition for it.
Glenn Close could very well receive an Oscar or Golden Globe nomination; she delivers a complex, memorable, and wonderfully odd performance that elevates the film. It was also pleasant to see Thomas Haden Church-best known for Sideways, the iconic Paul Giamatti film-though his screen time is limited.
As usual, Josh Brolin delivers a masterclass. Benoit Blanc remains excellent; Daniel Craig's distinctive style, accent, hair, and wardrobe continue to anchor the film even with such a large ensemble.
Jeremy Renner appears briefly; it's good to see him back, though this isn't one of his stronger roles. Kerry Washington feels smirky, dull, and miscast-she seems in over her head with a character this complex. Andrew Scott does a solid job. Jeffrey Wright has a small but unique, memorable cameo. Mila Kunis is serviceable; she doesn't fully feel like a plausible police officer and leans a bit sitcom-like, but her familiar presence may draw viewers to an otherwise complex film.
All in all, this is a well-acted, tightly crafted, and highly entertaining addition to the Knives Out universe. Daniel Craig, once again, proves he is the central gravitational force of these films-even among a crowded, talented cast.