nilanna999

I was at work this morning and during a lull, my boss put on this movie. I wasn't really paying a lot of attention to it but I eventually had to ask him to watch the rest of it at home.

I'll be the first to admit that parody films are not my forte. I don't like gross out humor and I find a lot of them to be completely immature. But I'd seen The Hunger Games so I figured I could just glance over every once in a while if a joke was funny. I like the 5 minute parody videos on youtube (you know, How It Should Have Ended and such) so I figured it would be like that.

I was wrong.

Some of the jokes were nonsensical. And by that I mean I was trying to figure out what the joke was and why it was supposed to be funny. Jokes that make me wonder if the writers just threw in random inside jokes without explaining them are not jokes at all. They're just random events the movie treats like jokes.

Some of the jokes were needlessly gross. I will never understand how anyone finds this kind of humor funny but I thought surely professional writers would know how to actually write something that could be funny to someone other than themselves in their addled state of mind. I was wrong. The ridiculous sound effects made it all the more difficult to tune out by the time I knew this wasn't going to be funny. Even the jokes that did have punchlines that pertained to the actual movie it was parodying were so predictable, I literally said "called it" at one of them after it was said.

No one in this movie looks like they care at all about what they're doing. This is such an obvious attempt to cash in on a popular franchise, it's shameful. I get that movie studios are businesses and they need to make money to keep afloat but at what cost? Nothing about this movie showed any effort whatsoever. I would have thought, for a movie parodying The Hunger Games, that they would have at least made fun of the dim lighting of that movie instead of just making everything brightly colored. Was this so you could see every disgusting physical joke more clearly? It doesn't come off as a parody if you can't even make fun of things that actually lend themselves to humor.

I hate movies like this. 4.5 million dollars and there was no talent or effort in this movie. I'd seen the actress who played the Katniss mockery in other things so I know she can act. I felt a bit sorry for her that she actually thought this would be anything but embarrassing. As someone who would love nothing more than to be a screenwriter, it's an insult to people who put real thought into their writing when these kinds of movies get made. There's Hunger Games fanfiction better than this. And anyone can write fanfiction.

I know what you're thinking, how dare you judge this movie when you didn't even finish it. But have you ever watched a movie that started out badly and finished as a masterpiece? Because I haven't. And if there was clearly no effort in the beginning, there's no way there was suddenly effort at the end.

I really hope Hollywood learns from movies like this and the genre dies out. In the meantime, I'm hoping this review dissuades anyone with a sense of humor and any class whatsoever from watching this terrible, terrible movie. Or even listening to someone else watching it.

I'll be honest here: I'm not a DreamWorks fan. I loved How to Train Your Dragon and Prince of Egypt but the other DreamWorks movies don't really do anything for me. So my hopes weren't too high when I saw the previews for this but I like Jim Parsons and I wanted to support the Dragons franchise so I saw it anyway.

This movie was more or less what I expected. And that's not a bad thing. Jim Parsons was fantastic as Oh and really carried the movie, even through some of the slower parts. I personally think the script was clever enough to get some laughs out of adults and kids. The jokes that didn't work weren't painful and the ones that did were quite good. The animation is bright and colorful. The Boov change color when having a strong emotion and the variety of colors was fun to look at and even added a surprising depth to some of the characters toward the end. If you pay attention to Oh in particular, his reactions to certain events can be more entertaining than the events themselves! The amount of detail that went into this movie was impressive.

As I said before, Jim Parsons stood out as one of the best things about this film. The passion he puts into the character and the obvious fun he's having shines through. Steve Martin does a great job as well for a lot of the same reasons. I have no complaints about either of them; their performances were pretty much spot on. Unfortunately, Rihanna was a poor choice for Tip, as she simply doesn't sound like she's in her early teens. Her acting is okay but it still felt strange to see her voice coming out of such a young character. I honestly thought Tip was in her early 20s until halfway through the movie! But this is more of a nitpick on my part.

The only real complaint I have with this film is the music. The instrumental sections are fantastic and capture the feel of the movie perfectly. But the pop songs are poorly placed and not very interesting. Some of them play in the background of scenes with dialogue, which does nothing to add to the atmosphere and comes off as distracting. Fortunately, such scenes aren't common enough to detract from the story or the acting but I still would have replaced them with instrumental pieces. The biggest problem I have with the music is one scene toward the end in which the dialogue is drowned out so the pop song adds atmosphere. The problem is that this technique rarely works with pop songs. Even then, I would rather have heard the dialogue than Rihanna's attempt to force me to have an emotion.

To close, this is one of my favorite DreamWorks movies. Its humor is far less gross or immature than a lot of its predecessors and the voice talents of Jim Parsons and Steve Martin are fantastic. The animation looks beautiful and though it has its flaws, I think that this is a good addition to the DreamWorks library. It knows what it is and it conveys the messages it wants to convey quite well. It's definitely not the best animated movie of the year but considering what DreamWorks has done in the past, it could have been a lot worse. I think 7/10 is more than fair and I would not object to seeing a sequel if it ever gets made.

Okay first off, Left Behind is no perfect film. There are flaws that I'll get into at the end. But talk about some biased critiquing! There is such an anti-God movement in this country, I'm surprised this movie was even made. I was expecting it to be hated... but there's really no reason for the hate.

Let me explain: I am a Christian but I am deeply ashamed of the Christian films of the past. The original Left Behind movie is fine. I'm talking about the really awful, cheesy, ridiculous movies like God's Not Dead, a movie so out of touch with reality that it depicts all non-Christians as total jerks and who are completely deserving of the hardships they go through. But Left Behind doesn't do this.

There is no unrealistically corny conversion at the end. The spirituality of the film isn't shoved in your face. Emphasis is put on the struggle of the characters as opposed to their spiritual journey. Judgmental Christians are depicted negatively.

The biggest miracle of this film by far, however, is the subtle Nicolas Cage performance. Fans of his freakouts will be disappointed because his acting is great.

My only complaints are in some of the actors. The kid who played Raymie was the worst of the bunch but he was also pretty young so I'm not going to judge him too harshly. There were a few small scenes that were unnecessary. Some of the special effects looked kind of dumb, particularly the green screen work. Fans of the book will be disappointed because it deviates a lot but I think it does that so it will appeal to all audiences instead of just Christians.

I thought there could have been more spirituality but I'm glad that it was kept at a minimum because I think non-Christians can see this without being offended. Why would a loving God put people through something like this? The question is never fully answered and, honestly, I like that a lot. It allows people to make their own decision about how to see this film.

I've seen plenty of awful movies. This wasn't an awful movie. The only reason Christians hate it is because it doesn't talk about the Bible as much as most would probably want. And the only reasons non- Christians hate it is because they hate anything having to do with Christianity.

Get over your bias and watch this movie as a movie. I highly recommend it because it's well made and it asks a lot of good questions that can lead to some great discussions. I think if people see this with an open mind, this movie would be more positively received.

And this is coming from someone who fully expected to point at it and laugh.

The last time the Newsboys showed up in a film, they were getting pies in the face, shooting a hamster through a cannon, and having bizarre and irrelevant discussions about donuts. Both that film and this one are cheesy and laughable but the difference is that this one takes itself seriously and the first film didn't.

I watched this movie at my Bible study and after a few minutes, we were all laughing at it. The ominous music when the professor came on screen coupled with the angles that made him look like a comic book villain were too much. We laughed at all the breakup scenes (there are a lot of them) and the completely ridiculous ending. The slow motion shots were a great touch if one wanted to make it funny instead of serious. The writer and director of this film were clearly disconnected from reality.

I'm giving this film a 5 because the movie was shot very well, the acting was good in spite of the material, and a few interesting points did come up. That's enough to give it a 5, I think. But the stereotypical jerk atheists were way overdone. Few atheists actually act like this. The Muslim stereotypes are offensive (my friend lives with a Muslim family and they would never act like that). A lot of the dialogue is rather forced. I think this was a really good premise for a movie and had it been done right, it would be very thought provoking. As is, it has some decent ideas but it doesn't expand on them very much. It provides very little alternative point of view.

As a Christian, I really wish my fellow Christians could figure out how to make a decent film that won't offend people this much. But this one is just going to push people away rather than toward the church. Give me the over the top craziness of the Newsboys' previous film because that one, at least, knew its audience.

Toy Story is a good movie. It has good characters and a decent story. But is it really worth the hype? Yes, it's the first fully computer animated movie ever made and that's very impressive. For that reason alone, it will stand out in history. But I certainly never really thought it was the brilliant classic everyone else thought it was. Its animation is great but the story suffers from major pacing issues. There are entire moments of the movie right in the middle that bore me every time and don't stop boring me until I get to the film's climax, when it picks up again. A lot of trimming should have been done in the middle. Toy Story is good but its sequels are a lot better. So is it bad? No. But it's not brilliant. If this were 2-D, I doubt it would receive this high praise.

I can't get over how much I like this movie. It's exciting, it's visually beautiful, it's heartwarming, it's atmospheric... it's everything I want to see in a movie. It has strong characters and a strong message about not judging others by their appearance. The acting is superb and the writing is incredible.

I like to call this movie a cliché cocktail done right. The clichés in the plot are high in number but I feel like this is exactly how they should be handled and, unfortunately, most movies put them in for dramatic effect or to force the audience to feel bad for the characters. In this movie, you already love the characters because they're written in such a way that you get to know them pretty fast and already like them even though some of them bully Hiccup, the hero. So the clichés are done more realistically. You see the pain the characters are in, you feel their triumph, you feel everything. And that's what this movie has more than anything else, it has atmosphere. It sucks you in and pulls at the heartstrings.

The animation is breathtaking. The flying scenes look fantastic, you really feel like you're flying with them. But something else that stands out about this movie is the soundtrack. It is one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard.

I will always say Pixar is better than Dreamworks. But How to Train Your Dragon is, in my opinion, just a tiny bit better than any of the Pixar films. But only a little bit. It's a shame Dreamworks hasn't come out with a movie this good since. I take comfort in knowing that there will be a sequel and I'm optimistic about the sequel because the TV show based on this movie is also quite good.

I spoke to someone recently and asked him if he had ever seen this movie. He said he "didn't like kids movies like that." This is the kind of movie that should at least remind you that just because it's animated and child friendly doesn't mean it's juvenile or below adults. If you haven't seen it, I don't care how old you are, see it. This is a movie for everyone.

Roald Dahl's books are often victims of horrible screen writing and I feared the BFG would be the same kind of movie but I shouldn't have worried. I've read The BFG several times but didn't see this movie until recently. I heard that Roald Dahl himself even liked this adaptation and I can certainly see why. It's very faithful to the book. Of course, it's a little campy since it's a product of the late 80s but somehow that adds to its charm. I found this film highly enjoyable, keeping a similar tone to Dahl's writing and adapting it for the screen very well. I would definitely recommend this movie to those who had read the book but if you haven't, it's still a decent movie. There's talk of a remake which I think could also be good and I'm glad for it because it might make people notice this movie. Like I said in the title, it's not a perfect film but it's good.

My best friend went to see this twice before she took me to see it. She's now completely obsessed with it. Me? The best I can say is meh.

The main reason I saw this was for Steven Moffat. I love his work on Doctor Who, he's the best thing that ever happened to the show, but he wasn't up to his old tricks with this. I think I wouldn't have been so disappointed had I not known that one of my favorite writers was involved.

The film was a lot of fun but there was one little thing that bothered me enough to knock 4 points off the score. TINTIN!! Boy was he boring!! He had no personality, he was just sort of a talking cardboard cutout!! I didn't care at all about him!! If he'd been randomly killed off, I wouldn't have felt bad at all. As for the other characters, they were okay but Tintin brought it all down. I liked Snowy a lot and that other guy with them, Haddock or something, he was okay. But I just wanted Tintin off the screen. If that's how he was in the comics, no wonder Americans don't know who he is. I've never seen a more lifeless character in my entire life and that's saying a lot considering I've seen some pretty awful movies with horrible actors. But I felt like whoever played Tintin didn't have anything to work with and that's the fault of the writers, which brings me back to my immense disappointment with Steven Moffat. I mean this is the guy who wrote for the 11th Doctor, my favorite Doctor of all time, and he didn't give Tintin any personality.

And of course I could go on and on about the over the top, self indulgent ending that screamed "OF COURSE THIS MOVIE WILL HAVE A SEQUEL, YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT!!" While the movie was good in its own right, I won't be seeing the sequel.

This movie came out the same day as Oliver and Company. And as a kid, I liked it much better than O&C because I understood the story in this one but not the other as much.

Now that I'm older, I decided to watch both films when I learned that this was more successful. I was expecting to feel the same way. But boy did I change my mind. I loved Oliver and Company, it was a real delight to watch again and I'm disappointed that it's become so underrated. But The Land Before Time? Oh boy. I can understand why I liked it as a little kid. It's very easy to follow. But now, as an adult, it's too dumbed down. At times it felt like it was trying too hard to be a dramatic and grown-up story but fell flat.

Let me try to explain. The baby dinosaurs hatch at the beginning and look so cute. I was reminded of the opening of Dumbo when Littlefoot's parents were gushing all over him. Only, in Dumbo they give you time to really see the bond between mother and son. In LBT, I thought they didn't give it any time at all. I never saw any affection between the two, just a bunch of really boring conversations. So when the mother died, I felt nothing. I honestly didn't care. Even the death scene was boring. And then Littlefoot meets up with a jerk, Cera, who reminded me of a boring version of Lucy from the Peanuts comic strip. Only she's not nearly as much fun as Lucy. We also meet Ducky, who's okay but not really all that memorable. And Petrie, who is REALLY annoying (when he almost died at the end, I was hoping he wouldn't come back). And finally Spike, who serves no purpose in the entire story except maybe to look cute. They all go through this land and get into adventures and finally find what they're looking for. Yep. That's about it. No depth, no character development (except for Cera perhaps but it seems abrupt), and nothing interesting whatsoever. The music is also repetitive and the end even shows clips from the beginning as if to remind you that you're supposed to feel something. I found this bland and boring.

So I think the only reason it's hyped is because it's better than the sequels (but that's not hard to do) and because a lot of people grew up watching it. And while it does have some nice animation, there's nothing going for it. I've heard it compared to Disney but, like I said, I really liked Disney's offering that year. This is just as bland and uninteresting as An American Tail. Typical Bluth, cute but no depth whatsoever.

If you're under age 6 or 7, you might like this though. It's easy to follow and the characters are easy on the eyes and mind. But this advice is for little kids. If you're a teenager or an adult, I suggest skipping this one and taking a look at Oliver and Company. You might surprise yourself.

I'm not a big fan of this movie but when I saw it, I didn't think it was too bad. It's definitely not a kid friendly movie, so it's not one I'll be buying for my future kids so they're probably going to miss this one too. But for what it is, it's passable. There have been far worse Disney films. But there have definitely been better ones. The main problem with the movie is that it's forgettable. I don't remember much about it at all. I can say that the villain is great!! He's actually very creepy. So if you love Disney villains, this movie's for you! Unfortunately, the characters, with the exception of Gurgi, who I actually thought was pretty cute and looked like a relative of Stitch's, are also quite forgettable. As a whole, I'd suggest watching it if you're a big Disney fan but don't expect it to blow you away.

When I was a kid, Roald Dahl was one of my heroes. His books really understand some of the ways kids think. They're downright nasty at times but they ring true to children and adults. So therefore, I would expect any movies based on his books to capture that essence and to look the way we imagined the story or to show a new way of imagining it that is just as good as our version.

In 1971, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a perfect movie version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It didn't follow the book all the time but it captured the heart of the story and, at times, told the story even better, especially in the character of Charlie. Other directors have made good films out of Dahl books as well, even when they deviated from the material. Since Burton wanted to make an adaptation that was closer to the book, I was excited to see what he came up with because it really is a good book.

Let me make something perfectly clear. This movie could have been fantastic under Burton's direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has some intense and almost disturbing ideas and had Burton intended to make this a horror film he would have succeeded with a lot of the elements in the movie staying the same. The soundtrack sounds like something in a horror film. Some of the scenes are scary enough that a bit of tweaking could make it fit the horror genre (especially the blueberry scene, little tip, that wasn't supposed to be scary, it was supposed to be WEIRD). And had they made this a horror film, tweaking Depp's performance would have worked to its advantage seeing as he's already creepy enough. Yes, this movie could have worked. But like with The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, they decided to take this dark and disturbing direction and market it to children and, even more insulting, Dahl fans.

Taking lines directly out of the book does not make this movie more faithful to the book. If that had been Burton's intention, he would have made the movie a little brighter and a lot more whimsical. Neither Depp nor Wilder really capture the Wonka from the book (who acts a bit like the 11th Doctor from Doctor Who, now I think of it) but deviation from the character isn't necessarily an issue. Wilder drew on the mad scientist elements from the book and made the role a real joy to watch. But Wonka from the book was odd, yes, but not awkward like Depp's portrayal. I don't know what drugs he was on but his performance was awful. Depp could have been a good Wonka and that makeup would have worked, again, had they wanted to turn this into a horror film. Coming back to the lines taken from the book, had Depp performed the character just like the one in the book, the lines would have worked. But they simply didn't work for his portrayal. Nothing worked at all.

One of the few things I thought the film did a little better was making the kids more bratty. They should have toned down Mike Teavee, however, who was annoying but not necessarily a complete jerk. Violet's upgrade worked well because it played on a stereotype we've all seen, the kid who has to win everything. If there's one error in Dahl's writing, it's that his earlier protagonist children didn't have much personality, an error he fixed with later books, and that's very obvious with Charlie but Charlie was a nice kid with the spark of imagination and he was a bit of an idealist. Peter Ostrum's portrayal took that and improved on it. Freddie Highmore, who is a fine actor but nonetheless was subject to the directing, took that character and did NOTHING with it. In fact, he gave the character even less personality. The exact same can be said for Veruca, who was a brat in the book, even more bratty in the original movie, and had no personality in this movie.

Long story short, this was very close to being a good film. The tone should have been shifted to horror and it would have worked on every level with a bit of fixing here and there. It was already dark and creepy and removing the stupid, horrible jokes would have made it a lot more scary and thus it would have been an interesting take on the book. As it stands, it simply does not work for anyone. It's too scary for children and too stupid for adults. Half the characters and cardboard cutouts or stereotypes and the other half are over-acted or over done and the one character that actually worked, Violet, still was bogged down by everything else that went wrong. Read the book, watch the 1971 film, but don't waste your time on this film. It's not worth it.

I didn't like Cars. There, I said it. Go ahead and throw your tomatoes at me. So I didn't go see Cars 2 in theaters because I didn't think I would like it either. But then I finally decided, once it was released on DVD, to give it a try.

Now, I don't regret not seeing it in theaters because I wouldn't put it on my list of favorite Pixar movies. But I liked it much better than Cars. Now I will admit, The Incredibles is my favorite Pixar movie and it's pretty violent (but by action movie standards, it's relatively tame). But I actually thought Cars 2 was more violent and I was pretty surprised at the death toll. In fact, I'd have given it a PG rating as well. But while Cars didn't make me laugh at all, Cars 2 made me laugh a few times. Mater definitely held the movie together while McQueen who, in my opinion, is the more boring character is just supporting.

Actually, I guess what I'm saying is that if you didn't like Cars, you'll probably like Cars 2. And I find it kind of funny that the percentage of critics who gave Cars 2 a bad rating is almost equal to the percentage of critics who gave Cars a good one. Coincidence? Probably. But I think that if Cars didn't do anything for you, Cars 2 just might.

The first half was funny and entertaining, I thought. It was the second half that fell short. Let me explain.

The first half introduced all the characters and set up the basic plot. And it's a pretty interesting plot, a rat helps an inept garbage boy learn to cook. It was pretty clever, the dialog was witty, and all in all, I enjoyed it for what it was.

In the second half, that's when we uncover some new information. Unfortunately, there's little time to react to this information or go into detail about how different everything becomes. They resort to a lot of montages. Now montages can be great when they explain things that aren't vital enough to be full scenes but enough that they need to be explained. They just didn't work in this movie. I don't want to give anything away, but I will say that the second half is really confusing unless you're paying close attention. That's where the movie suffers.

So all in all, it was okay. Not spectacular or anything but it was decent enough. I don't I'll be watching it again anytime soon.

Okay I like a few of the songs from this movie. But that's about it. As a matter of fact, I'd be rather fond of this movie if not for one character: Mary Poppins herself.

It's not Julie Andrews I dislike. She's a wonderful actress. And though I've never cared for The Sound of Music either, I can't fault it for any reason. But Mary Poppins is dull. She never cracks a smile. For someone who comes out of the sky, she is certainly a killjoy as well. I wouldn't want her as my nanny, while she sometimes participates in the fun activities, she acts annoyed with them most of the time. Even as a kid, I thought she was a bit mean and far too firm. Which is what makes the moments when she does do silly things seem out of character.

A very unpleasant title character really bogs down any film, no matter how good everything else is, and Mary Poppins is a good example of a bad character.

I've seen dozens of Christmas specials and only two of them warm my heart and make me think of that excited feeling I got as a child. One is a Charlie Brown Christmas. The other is Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too. Now the reason that this special is my favorite is simply because I'm a bigger Pooh fan than a Peanuts fan. But there's also a reason this special is such a classic. Most specials are pretty clear in teaching that Christmas isn't about what we get but what we give or who we spend it with, I think Winnie the Pooh and Christmas Too teaches that message the best way. In usual Pooh fashion, it doesn't have to stop the story to explain why Christmas is better with loved ones. It simply embeds the message in the very sweet story. Pooh and his friends are some of the best role models when it comes to friendship and caring for one another despite their differences. Children can get a lot out of this special and for nostalgic adults, it may just bring a tear to your eye.

I've read lots of negative reviews of Oliver and Company and, 10 years ago, I'd have agreed. I didn't like this movie when I was a kid. The story was confusing and I really didn't understand it completely. I watched it again at age 21 and, after a, well okay, kind of weak beginning I began to dread having to sit through it all. But I was surprised to find myself really interested in the story and following it completely as the movie unfolded.

I don't think this movie is as good for kids as Disney's usual fare because the story is a little confusing and could go over their heads. But it's still a good and solid effort on Disney's part. I enjoy the music and the characters are very entertaining. The actors sound like they're having a really good time recording the voices too.

Is this a masterpiece? Well, no. But it deserves a lot more credit. It's fun and family friendly and it is certainly entertaining enough for adults too. I'm going to give it a 7/10 because it's not perfect but it's still good.

The Rescuers is one of my favorite Disney films of all time. It's subtle, beautiful, and sweet. So that's why it irks me that this movie even exists. But what irks me more is that this movie is so completely inept at even the basics of decent storytelling, which is saying a lot considering the company it came from. But what really gets me, well not furious but pretty mad, is that people actually think this is better than the original. But I'll get to that.

The movie begins with Cody, a typical little boy living in the middle of absolutely nowhere who can talk to the animals with no real explanation as to how. We learn that he lost his father. And that's it, folks, the only character development we get from this character! We see him learn nothing or change in any way, he remains the same completely bland character throughout the whole movie. We're also given no explanation as to why he has an American accent when he clearly lives in the middle of the Australian Outback. Was he born in America and moved to Australia when his dad disappeared from existence with no explanation? Ah well, he gets trapped by a poacher and we're treated to 72 minutes of environmentalist agenda. But never mind that, we then get to see our main characters.

And, unfortunately, they play a minor role in the movie, despite the fact they're in the title of the film. The running gag is that Bernard is trying to propose to Bianca, a pretty weak gag if you ask me. Then they go flying with what has to be the most annoying character the Disney animators of the Renaissance ever put on screen: Wilbur the albatross. And he never leaves. His subplot is never funny or necessary and it just made me very uncomfortable watching him get shot with a giant needle.

And then Cody is trapped with a few characters who appear for, I guess, comic relief, but are left to rot down there because they're never shown again. Thus making that scene completely pointless. The other stupid thing in this movie is that, in the end, Bernard is standing on a weak branch holding a rope that is supporting Cody and keeping him from being washed away in a raging river. Now I know this is a cartoon but give me a break, a mouse couldn't possibly be that strong.

The only thing this entire movie has is visuals. There's no denying that it's a beautiful movie. The scenery is breathtaking. But I still think it isn't as good as the first film, which was a bit more like a gorgeous watercolor painting. But I think that's more of a matter of taste because while I may prefer the subtly of the first film, you might prefer the more realistic and gorgeous Australian scenery this film offers and I think both are equally as good. But that's about all that's good about this movie.

This movie looks like a good one on the surface but if you actually see it, it's clear there's nothing else to offer. Better than the original? I don't think so. This is one of the worst sequels to a REALLY good movie that I have ever seen. Skip this and watch The Rescuers. And if you're unimpressed by this, still watch The Rescuers to see how telling a story about two heroic mice is REALLY done.

My little brother LOVED this show as a little guy. He's 8 years younger than me so while I grew up on The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, he grew up on this. And, while it's not nearly as good as New Adventures,which was written for an older audience to begin with, it's a good show. I watched it again pretty recently and it still holds up. The stories can be a little bland at times, but it's also a show for pre-k so I'm sure kids would love it all the same. But it also retains some of what's good about the cast of characters. While it's not brilliant, it's a lot of fun for little kids and it won't bore parents who have to watch it with them. So I'd say, if your kid is a Pooh fan (or if you're like me and you're an adult Pooh fan), it's definitely worth checking out alongside New Adventures.

I may be the only person to say this but I think The Rescuers was a LOT better than the sequel. Oh don't get me wrong, Down Under's pretty good. But, to me, The Rescuers is the best.

Since I was a little kid, I have had a short attention span so movies with more action generally held my attention. The Rescuers and the Pooh films were the two exceptions for me. This isn't a very fast moving film, at times it's quite slow. But that's when the tension builds. You feel a certain warmth watching it, similar to the warm fuzzies you would get from a Pooh film. It's sweet. It's fun. The characters are lovable and the villains are detestable (I mean Madame Medusa kidnaps an innocent little girl and then forces her to go into a dangerous pirate cave, if that isn't evil, I don't know what is). Even the supporting cast is awesome, if not entirely memorable. I think there were too many critters at Devil's Bayou, had they cut the cast down a bit, perhaps I could remember them all. But that's literally my only complaint.

The film is slow but it doesn't feel slow. It doesn't lag at all. It keeps you completely focused on the characters. By the way, the acting is superb, particularly Michelle Stacy as Penny. Usually child actors are hit and miss but she does an excellent job, she really makes you feel for Penny and that's the most important part. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor as Bernard and Bianca. They really bring the characters to life.

The animation is beautiful as well. It all seems like a painting come to life. I am particularly impressed with Bernard and Bianca's animation because they look a lot like their voice actors. So you can't imagine a better voice for them. You often forget that they're mice. And that's really impressive.

So, all in all, this is one of Disney's best. Ever. It's proof that the animation studio was still going strong after Walt Disney's death. And it's still one of my all time favorite movies. I say, check it out. There's something for everyone in it.

When I was a kid, my favorite Disney movie was The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh followed by The Lion King but this was my favorite of the movies that featured people. My younger brother and I have fond memories of acting scenes of this movie out with each other. Captain Hook is one of my favorite Disney villains because he's so likable even while doing some pretty horrible stuff.

If you haven't seen this movie, you're in for a treat. The visuals are gorgeous and the story is so timeless that it doesn't feel like an almost 60 year old movie at all! You and your kids will all find something to enjoy about it. Peter Pan actually had me laughing out loud in some parts and I'm almost 21 years old! Forget about your grown up burdens and travel to Neverland for an hour and 14 minutes. You'll be glad you did.

A lot of people aren't very fond of Rabbit. But after seeing this episode, you'll have a very hard time disliking him. You see that he DOES have a big heart that he keeps guarded. This episode is one of the few times you see him let himself love someone completely. That is why the end of the episode is heartbreaking. I have to give props to Ken Sansom and Laura Mooney for their performances as Rabbit and Kessie. They deliver a perfect and, at times, heart-wrenching performance. It shows that people used to put a lot of effort in their Saturday morning cartoons, unlike they do now. Find Her, Keep Her never talks down to children but delivers a message for their parents in a creative and absolutely beautiful way.

This is definitely the best episode of the series as well as the most bittersweet. If you haven't seen it, you should. It is probably the only episode ever written for the parents and the effort shows. I'd be willing to bet the writer send his child to college or walked his daughter down the aisle at her wedding before writing this. It's hard not to tear up at the end. I don't want to give anything away except that you absolutely have to see this. This episode should have won awards. It is one of the best 20 minute cartoons ever made.

I watched Dumbo after having watched Pinocchio and I thought Dumbo was the better film by far. The animation is a lot more simplistic but it works wonders for the story. The characters are lovable. I especially loved Disney's decision to make Dumbo a silent character. Adding Timothy Mouse for the talking was a clever touch. "Baby Mine" is heartbreaking and I was nearly in tears. I can hardly believe Dumbo was a cheaper film to make. Sure it's shorter than the others but I've found that shorter movies are just as good, sometimes better, than longer ones. The only issue I had with Dumbo was the abrupt ending. He learned to fly and then it was over. But even that all wraps up nicely.

People don't usually pay much attention to Dumbo but I think they should. It's a sweet film which would never have been made nowadays. It's a darn shame, too. Children can learn a lot about not judging others by the way they look.

Pinocchio is hailed as one of the greatest animated movies of all time. Everyone rants and raves about how amazing it is. But I sat down to watch it again and liked it even less than when I was a kid (this is coming from someone who likes other Disney films more now, at age 20, than as a kid). Why? I honestly don't understand why everyone says this is Disney's best work.

I admit, for its day and even for now, the animation is superb. I only saw one or two flaws in the whole movie and they were pretty easy to miss. But as nice as it all looks, the continuity was pretty bad. There's a scene in which Jiminy Cricket hangs his coat and hat on a peg. Next shot, it's gone. We see Pinocchio with the hat and coat a few seconds later but they literally disappear off the peg. There's also a scene in which one of the characters is singing and his mouth literally doesn't move at all. And it's pretty dang obvious.

The music is good too. I don't have any complaints about it. It has solid music that's cute and charming and it's all good. So that's one thing the movie did well.

But the story... Hoo boy. First off, the story is a confusing mess. There's no real storyline weaving throughout unless you count Pinocchio's attempts to be a real boy. How does this lead him all over the place? It doesn't. The story of his attempts to be a real boy are scrapped during scenes that don't make a whole lot of sense to begin with. It is never explained how and why bad boys become donkeys (unless you count Jiminy Cricket's line about how they're acting like jackasses). It is also never explained what happens to them when they become donkeys. Are they sold somewhere? Who's the guy rounding them up? And wouldn't parents get worried if a huge crowd of little boys randomly disappear periodically? Why are the talking ones discarded? They're still donkeys. They can still be sold. I have so many questions about that scene. It just doesn't make ANY sense.

And then they return to the house to find that Pinocchio's father has been swallowed by a whale while he was looking for Pinocchio. Okay so the father was so stupid he actually went into the water looking for his wooden son or the whale jumped out of the water and swallowed him. Also, who left the note for them? Someone who saw it? How did they get the birds to deliver it? Was it Giselle from Enchanted sending her doves with a message again? And then there's the whale. So whales are vicious carnivores now? I admit I could be wrong but that whale looked like one of the ones known for only eating krill. And then there was the fire. So they make the whale sneeze by burning it from the inside? How does that make sense?? Smoke doesn't make you sneeze.

And those are just a few of my examples of why this movie is far from the best Disney movie ever made. It's not bad but it's certainly not good. It's adequate. Entertaining but nothing special. It looks nice but there really isn't anything beneath the surface. So yeah I'd recommend it to Disney fans. But I think I'll leave the title of "best animated movie" to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (if only because it features the introduction of characters that are now more popular than Mickey Mouse and friends... and it's my favorite too). Pinocchio is just another movie on the list of Disney animated features. Nothing more, nothing less.

Everything that could have been said about this movie has probably been said.

WHAT I LIKED: -I feel like I was the only one who really appreciated the use of humor in the movie, it was perfect. I loved the jokes and their timing. While this wasn't close to a comedy, it kept the charming humor of the previous Harry Potter movies and I appreciated that the movie didn't take itself TOO seriously.

-Showing Hermione destroying the Horcrux. This was a scene I really hoped they'd show. In the book it was a brief mention. In the movie, they show the full scene. I also liked that, if they couldn't have Ron's comment defending the house elves as the reason Hermione kissed him, this was the next best reason.

-Neville and Luna had larger roles in this movie. I was particularly pleased with Luna's larger role and that she had the guts to put Harry in his place.

-The CGI was pretty good.

-The acting is VERY good.

-They change JK Rowling's plan in one minor way- by putting Neville and Luna together. TOO CUTE!! And just perfect!! -The original HP theme from the first movie at the end. It made me very emotional. I loved that they used John William's piece instead of making a new one. How sweet.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE -The timing was all wrong. The scene in which Mrs. Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange is just bizarrely placed, almost like they would have cut that scene if her one-liner hadn't become so famous.

-Since when do people explode when they die? -Harry kills Voldemort without using his famous spell... it's just a random burst of red light from his wand. Not only that, Voldemort bursts into ashes. Random. An there's no dialog between them, just fighting. There's no one to see Harry finish him. A terrible way to change a great scene from the book.

-There was NO explanation for ANYTHING!! I mean it, they set up Gridelwald's story... then never do anything with it. They never mention the third of the Deathly Hallows- the cloak. They never explain why Harry knows that Lupin has a son. They don't explain Dumbledore's back story, and so hinting to it is just frustrating. They never explain what happens to Harry's wand. They even don't explain why Harry isn't killed for real when Voldemort kills him. All in all, as a reader of the book, I understood it all but anyone who hadn't read it would be pretty lost.

-Snape's flashbacks. They were okay but I hated the scenes of him crying over Lily's body in Godric's Hollow. EW!! It was creepy, never mentioned in the book, and almost seemed stalkerish. It didn't make me want to like Snape, it made me cringe!! Not only that, they never really explain that Snape was never Voldemort's after Lily's death.

-Young Lily's eyes are very much BROWN in the flashbacks. They couldn't have put in some colored contacts? -No one looked 19 years older in the future scene. They looked weird. The prosthetic team failed miserably.

-The future scene didn't show the kids much. Actually there was no dialog except between Harry and Albus. They couldn't have made the movie 5 minutes longer? All in all, they really should have explained more like in the last movie. It felt rushed. And confusing. Not the worst of the Potter movies (Goblet of Fire was worst) but not the best (Chamber of Secrets was best). So I gave it a 6. Pretty good. But not great.

This film is simply adorable. It brings me back to my childhood- and I was a BIG Pooh fan as a little kid. While this film isn't quite as good as The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and I wasn't expecting anything to top that, it certainly will be around for ages. It felt like a very good sequel to the previous Pooh movie. It had the same theme song and the same characters. But it never seemed modernized, like The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh often did (though they made the modern elements work quite well). And if you're the sort of person who read the book before seeing the movie, don't worry. They stick to the book pretty well.

All in all, I give this movie an 8. The only issue I had with it was the character of Rabbit, who seemed a bit more grouchy than usual and bizarrely animated. And Tigger seemed to be an afterthought most of the time, only popping up every once in a while. But the movie is still very, very good and definitely gives me hope for Disney's future.

Hopefully this sweet little movie will inspire Disney to bring The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh to DVD!!