aileencorcoran

The "How to Train Your Dragon" films are two of my favourite films of all time. The charming story about a boy and his best friend, in a fable about respecting nature and each other. I was waiting the bones of 5 years for "The Hidden World," and it personally didn't disappoint.

The film takes place a year after the events of HTTYD2. Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is now the chief of Berk after the death of his father, while his best friend, Toothless the Night Fury (vocalizations designed by Randy Thom), is the alpha of all the island's dragons, since he bested the Bewilderbeast to protect Hiccup. Berk is becoming overcrowded with new dragons that are being rescued by the young chief, much to the growing concern of the villagers, especially the paranoid Gobber (Craig Ferguson) and Hiccup's fiance, Astrid (America Ferrera). Hiccup, too attached to Toothless to even consider the dragons may be safer in the wild, takes heed from the stories his late father, Stoick (Gerard Butler, in flashback), about a mysterious Hidden World from which dragons hail. Hiccup's plans to move his village to the mythical world are jettisoned with the arrival of Grimmel (F. Murray Abraham), who has killed all the Night Furies, bar one, and the alabaster Light Fury, who ruffles young Toothless' wings. The two friends are shown their true destinies, in an adventure that shows the struggles of finding one's feet, having good faith and loving enough to let loved ones go.

The first thing to note is that the film isn't as epic as HTTYD2. In fact, it is much more on the level of the first film, where it's a deceptively simple story told in a big way. The reason why the film works is due to the time it takes to show the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless, as well as Toothless and the Light Fury, through subtle animations and wordless actions. It feels incredibly authentic . One can see the internal struggles of both characters through their expressions alone, from Hiccup beginning to realize that Toothless may be safer in the wild, to Toothless being town between his mate and best friend. This leads to an emotional crescendo of a climax, where the inevitable end is met, not because the characters want it, but simply because no other choice is viable. It's heartbreaking, and you can feel the pain seeping from the characters. Toothless is even more of a star in this film, and seeing him struggle with his tame and feral side is enthralling, so when he finally accepts his place as king of dragons, you can't help but feel both proud and sad at the same time. The film masterfully takes you on this rollercoaster of self doubt and realization, to the point where you feel as upset as our heroes, but are at peace with the outcome.

The themes of nature and nurture are in constant flux, as shown through Hiccup trying to help his best friend in wooing his new lady love, to Toothless noticing that he needs to fly alone without Hiccup for the first time in 6 years, and how conflicted it makes him feel. The elements of respecting nature, loving one another and independence are tantamount, as is the ultimate theme: love and loss. This film is the stages of grief, personified, and it is through the ultimate acts of adoration, loyalty and sacrifice that we see this trilogy come to a near perfect conclusion.

Yes, I said near perfect, for it has a few blips. The pacing, while not horrendous, does suffer from being hodge podge in places, especially when the villain is on screen (or his goons, rather). Another aspect that can sometimes miss is the humour; a lot of it works, such as Tuffnut's (Justin Rupple, replacing T.J Miller) pep talks, anything with Toothless and his mate and Gobber, Ruffnut (Kristen Wiig) being the underappreciated legend that she is and all the subtle humour. However, there's the issue of Tuffnut's fake beard, and Snotlout (Jonah Hill) trying to impress Valka (Cate Blanchette). While there are one or two moments of these jokes working, they largely fall flat. There's also the issue of Grimmel teleporting to New Berk just as the Furies arrive, but then again, we have baby dragons being ridden in 2, and Toothless suddenly controlling flight in 1 when he spooks Astrid. So, it comes full circle. Some take issue with New Berk's height, and with the new prosthetic tail fin. I don't, to be honest. I can suspend disbelief in those regards, especially for the fin, as it'd be incredibly insulting to those with disabilities for an organic tail to suddenly grow after 6 years.

The villain is the perfect antithesis for Hiccup, but is bogged down by lackeys that could've been eradicated. I loved him and his talks with Hiccup, but the presence of the warlords just irked me.

The animation is beyond amazing. They updated the character designs wonderfully, the texture and lighting is gorgeous. It is easily some of the best CGI I've ever seen. The music is also sublime The parts with Toothless and Light Fury and Toothless have zero dialogue, and play like a David Attenborough documentary. I didn't want any scene to end, only to be extended (save for the Snotlout and lackey parts!)

Of course, the main heart of the series still stands; Hiccup and Toothless' bond is the cement that binds this trilogy, and it is no different here. While they spend a lot of the film apart, the connection they have is only strengthened by the events of the film, so when the ending and epilogue come around, you can only cry and cheer that the friendship has most certainly stood the test of time. It is indeed, the friendship of a lifetime, and this film shows this just as much as before.

Overall. I was delighted with HTTYD3. It's a beautiful conclusion to DreamWork's benchmark series. While some of the jokes don't land and the pacing is a little off, the character relationships and themes are handled perfectly. It is an amazing film, both visually and thematically, and is a wonderful capper to my favourite animated series. I can't wait to own the Blu-Ray, and analyse all three films together. It makes me beyond elated to say that Hiccup and Toothless managed to stick the landing.

9.3-4/10

Stop motion animation is a technique that is not only alive and kicking, but provides many acclaimed features. Despite being seen by many as archaic, the winsome charms of studios such as Aardman and Laika have not only kept the medium alive, but also continue to push past adversity to deliver a unique and enchanting experience. Wes Anderson added to the roster of stop motion films with his Oscar nominated "Fantastic Mr Fox" in 2009. It came out in the first of what would be two years of amazing animated features, and lost its nominations to Pixar's first Best Picture nominee, "Up." While most critics looked favourably on "Fox," what with it gaining a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, it flopped at the box office, earning a measly $46.5M on a budget of $40M. That, and despite its praise, "Fox" fell into a more cult classic pile of animated films, like most of its stop motion comrades, and indie films such as "The Secret of Kells," which was released the same year. I, for one, was one of the few that preferred Anderson's take on Roald Dahl's book more than "Up" (which I love, but not nearly as much). Even though it strayed from the source material, it still kept with the quirky storytelling and wistful nature of the book, and was funny, relatable and gorgeously animated. Needless to say, when Anderson announced that he was working on another animated film, about my favourite animal, I was excited. "Isle of Dogs" may not be as colourful as "Fox," but it's still jovial despite its sombre story and messages. It takes place in the distant future, in Megasaki City, Uni Prefecture in Japan. The corrupt Mayor Kobyashi has all the city's dogs exiled to Trash Island due to outbreaks of Snout Fever and Dog Flu, which has started to spread to humans. The first dog to be sent away is Spots, the body-guard dog of Mayor Kobayashi's distant nephew and ward, Atari. Six months later, Atari flies a dinky little plane to Trash Island, where he enlists the help of a group of former pets, and one stray, to help him find his best friend. I loved this movie. I loved the characters, the animation and the overall look and feel of the film. I like the way the story was told. It isn't perfect, but I had a huge smile on my face at the climax, and I didn't want the film to end. There's something inherently special about this film. There is so much passion and effort put into every minute detail, that too many may go unnoticed. When Jeff Goldblum makes his characteristic "uh" ("uh, you heard the rumour, right; about her and Felix?"), they took the time to animate the very thing that the actor is known for. The sneezes are composed of cotton wool and sugar. Each bit of hair (Alpaca, by the way) was attached to the puppets one by one. The fur moves so realistically that it's both mesmerizing and disconcerting in the most glorious way possible. Each shot, each movement, each camera angle ads so much verve and pop to what is basically a film set in a dump. The anatomy of the dogs, the way they move, is spot on (there is only one scene that made me go "uhm?" but it was an aerial shot of Chief running, and one or two little quirks only ads to a film that breathes individuality). This film is gorgeous. I'm partial to the stop motion films where you can be both immersed in the world, and sense the work the very touch of human hands helped create. The story, at a glance, is rather predictable. However, much like "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Coco" the filmmakers manage to elevate the story so that the familiar story beats feel energized and new. While it is an A to Z search party plot, the film sports an interesting commentary on the corruption of society by higher power, the fear of the Other and the use of innocence to slap authority in the face. Some people will see this as a nod to immigration, others to snobbish politicians, and some will see it as a fun romp with five dogs and a boy. Fun, you say? The plot sounds grim; it's about dogs fighting to stay alive. It is grim, and harkens back to a similar film from 1982, "The Plague Dogs." In Rosen's animated feature, based on Richard Adams' book, two dogs must fend for themselves after escaping a vivisection lab, while avoiding capture from authorities who think they have the plague. The difference here is that the equally fantastic 80s film holds little humour, save from the Geordie fox. Anderson's film is peppered with tongue in cheek dialogue ("I'm fetching it because I feel sorry for you," "I wish somebody spoke his language"), an ironic sense of cheerfulness and, of course, dog jokes ("you son of a bitch!") From the dogs talking about their favourite food, to Oracle thinking she's psychic ("she just understands television"), to the dark humour, there's so much joy and verve in what can be considered so bleak. This is a film where the characters talk about suicidal ideation, where one pro dog person is murdered, and where many dogs cry salty tears over missing their owners, or having to eat their friends, and yet it feels so jovial and bright. This is all thanks to the witty dialogue and fantastic acting. The film knows it's serious, but can have fun with itself. It's refreshing, and breathtakingly authentic. Some have taken issue with the Japanese elements of the feature, such as the use of mushroom clouds, wasabi as a weapon and implementing Haiku as a narrative device. While I can see how this will bother some people, as a random European person who just wanted to see a good film, I wasn't bothered by the nudges towards Japanese culture. In fact, it felt more like a tribute to Japan than anything else. The Japanese characters speak in their native tongue, with no subtitles save for a few occasions, and are voiced by Japanese actors and actresses. One of the writers, who also voices the mayor, is Japanese. It feels more like a friendly nudge-nudge than slander, as if Anderson is toasting to an old friend. To touch again on the use of Japanese language, some have also criticised how it was often left untranslated (save for scenes with an interpreter), saying that it removed part of the human's character, and left them unrelatable to the audience. That and it silenced Japanese people. I fervently disagree, but I do see the point some are making. Much like YMS, I would like to experience the entirety of a film I adored, and wouldn't mind if there was an option to watch the film with the Japanese language subtitled on the Blu-Ray. However, I feel that this may remove some of the artistic value and over all vibe of the film. I liked not completely understanding the humans; the focus was on one human and a group of dogs. Said human is a twelve year old boy, and children need not speak much to be understood. Somehow, the intuitive knowledge of the dogs and the boy's understanding of them was enough for me. This leads unto the characters. I adored them. The dogs are all so likable and scruffy, each with their own personalities that is their own, but still infused with the actors that voiced them. Each quirk was endearing, even Duke's running gag, which I taught I'd tire from, but ended up laughing at when he did it yet another time ("uh, did you hear the rumour?") Each dog is just lovely. Atari, the boy, is likable and tenacious. However, the main character here is Chief, the ragamuffin Tramp of the pack who has never had an owner, and fervently distrusts humans, stating that "he bites." From the scene where we see all the dogs sitting before Atari, but Chief lying down, we know that the two will form a bond. Predictable? Yes, but the unfolding of events and how they are handled makes the bond seem very amiable. The only issue I had in regards the characters is with Tracy and Spots. I can't go into Spots, due to spoiler reasons, but let's just say that I felt that he really was a "son of a bitch." Tracy just seemed gratuitous to me; it seemed as if Anderson felt the need to have a saviour, when we already had ones in Atari and the dogs. I didn't hate her character or plot line, but I did feel that if she were removed, it would make no difference. The dogs and Atari were more than enough to carry the plot forward. Despite my minor gripes, I found "Isle of Dogs" to be absolutely fantastic. I said when it was over; "I think this is one of my new favourite films." There's an odd, quintessential charm that makes it infectiously likable. This film is a very good boy.

A1|10/10|**** I have not watched many Japanese animated films; I've seen three Ghibli films (I loved "Grave of the Fireflies"), and that's it. I just never had much incentive to seek out Japanese animation, which is odd for one who adores the medium. Despite this, I wanted to check out "Wolf Children." I watch my animated films on Kiss Cartoon (unless I own a physical copy), so I headed over to its anime equivalent, and found a version with subtitles, since I always try and watch films in their native tongue. I could barely keep my eyes off the screen, for what I saw was a wonderfully simple film of what is something so complex and bizarre. Its design is so quaint, yet so artistic. Much like Brad Bird did with "Ratatouille," Momaru Hosoda manages to take a very odd concept, and transform it into an involving, moving and ironically real experience.

"Wolf Children" tells the story of Hana, a nineteen year old college student, who falls quickly in love with a man, who harbours a personal secret. The unnamed man, who I will refer to as Wolf Man, has the ability to transform into a full wolf at will. He has found an accepting person in Hana, who loves him and his lupine ways, and the two move into a small flat, and have two children; Yuki, born on a snowy day, and Ame, born on a rainy day. Together, the quiet, loyal Wolf Man and peppy Hana raise their two children, but struggle to make ends meet; Wolf Man, who works as a moving man, hearkens to the wolfish instinct of hunting for his mate and cubs. While doing so, he dies in an unfortunate accident, when in wolf form, in a heartbreaking scene where a devastated Hana falls to her knees as she sees her husband being thrown in the back of a garbage truck. Hana is forced to drop out of college and quit her job, as she makes use of the Wolf Man's savings to help raise their two kids, who, like their father, can change into wolves at will.

We watch Hana struggle even more without her lover, as she is not only raising two young children, but wolf cubs, who chew on her belongings and cause chaos, especially the hyperactive Yuki. Hana is at a loss of how to care for them, as is shown in a darkly humorous scene where Yuki falls ill, and she is not sure whether to bring her to the vets or to a doctor. She studies parenting books and books on raising puppies and wolf behaviour, exhausting herself so she can raise her children to be happy and healthy. Obstacles are inevitable, for Hana cannot bring her children to hospitals for checkups and vaccinations due to their condition, and, in order to keep them hers and to avoid prying eyes, she moves to a large house in the country.

For such a strange set up, Hosoda managed to produce a moving feature full or reliability and heart. It seems rather simple, and in a way it is, but complexities lurk under this wolf's skin; here we have a story of a devoted mother and wife, who refuses to give up on her family, no matter how tiring the circumstances may be. We see Hana farm fields of potatoes, only to fail time after time, until help comes when she least expects it. She ends up making unlikely friends, despite the difficulties of keeping her children's secret hidden, and trying to protect them from the world. As time goes on, we see Hana come to terms with the fact, that the wolf ages faster than the child, and even though they may be ten years old as children, they are fully grown wolves, who need to find their own paths. For Yuki and Ame, we see two children trapped between two worlds, who are unsure of whether to follow the call of the wild, act more human, or try and balance on the edge between man and beast. What we have is a multi faceted story, about motherhood, family and love. We have three people facing the trials of adolescence and childhood all at once, of dealing with disability and how others may perceive them. Here we have three individuals, who struggle with who they are and who they may become, with the only person who can understand dead and gone.

So many beautiful themes, all handled so delicately and with great care. Such likable characters, such a pleasant, homely tone. The animation is lovely, and reminded me so much of these story books I had as a child, which happened to be translated from Japanese into English. So in watching this film, I had a sense of nostalgia I was not expecting. There are no scenes of epic triumph, but moments of life and joy and glorious happiness, of crippling sadness. We see privilege, prejudice, acceptance and passion. With Hana, Yuki and Ame, we see life in a way we have never seen it before; through the eyes of both man and beast. There's no magic, or ultimatums or deadlines. "Wolf Children" is complex in its simplicity, and simple in its complexity; it's refreshing and engrossing to the last second.

All the pure loveliness and heart of this wonderful film shine in not only the relationships between the characters, but in two scenes; one that is before the climax, and another in the snow, with Tagaki Masakatsu's score accenting the simple joy and pure emotion of what dances before us on screen A must see.

Let's face it, we as pet owners have always wondered what our furry friends are up to when we're not home. It's an idea that has been played around with for years, from Tom and Jerry to Phineas and Ferb. As ideas go, it isn't original, but the possibilities it can bring are endless. When Illumination Entertainment, the French animation studio behind monster hits such as Despicable Me and Minions (the first non-Disney animated film to earn a billion worldwide) launched a teaser trailer documenting the mischief pets get up to, curiosities were peaked. The world cried in unison; what does this animation studio think pets do? We already have pets as spies, pets being obsessive compulsive mouse hunters, and pets finding their way home. There is still so much one can do with this age old trope, if one is clever enough. What we got, is a beautifully animated flick with plenty of humour and good spirits that packs too much into its run time that has good intentions, despite borrowing heavily from a certain 1990s film.

The film opens with our protagonist, Max (Louis C.K.), a Jack Russell Terrier living in New York City with his owner, Katie. Max, like any terrier, is full of beans and love for his master; Illumination got the happy go lucky attitude of the Jack Russell down perfectly. They also got the territorial side, for when Katie brings home a Newfoundland mix named Duke (Eric Stonestreet), Max is less than impressed. Not wanting his perfect life torn upside down by the hairy interloper, Max tries his darndest to get rid of him, leading, of course, to the pair getting whisked away by the pound when Duke tries to dispose of Max. Naturally, the pooches must cope with each other and find their way home, but not without obstacles; underneath the belly of NYC is an underground secret society of abandoned and unwanted animals, led by the not so cuddly rabbit, Snowball (Kevin Hart). Due to accidentally offing a valuable member of the society, Snowball and his henchmen swear vengeance on our furry duo. While all this madness is afoot, a Pomeranian named Gidget, who has a major crush on Max, enlists the help of all their animal neighbours to save him.

The main issue of the film, and it's a biggie, is that it's Toy Story with pets. There's no sugar coating it. The main species has a social circle that their owners aren't aware of. The main character loves his owner so much, and is insanely jealous when they bring home someone new. When one is trying to get rid of the other, they end up far away from home, and have to find their way back. They even have elements of Toy Story 2 and 3; friends coming together to find the main character, and a seemingly cute antagonist causing chaos. The only real original element is that the animals have their own language; they don't harbour the ability to speak to humans. Despite this, the film isn't a dud. By now, you've already heard from many sources about the parallels with Toy Story, and, if you're open minded, can enjoy the film for what it is; a slapstick comedy with talking animals. It doesn't remove the issue, but it allows one to see the effort the creators put in to the rest of the film.

The animation is fantastic; the textures and anatomy of the animals, while stylised, is still very true to what it represents. The look and feel of New York is large in scale and immensely colourful. The characters look like they have weight to them, that despite their cartoony appearance, they could be real animals. The characters are likable and cute, with the actors making them sound like they are animals; in better terms, you believe they are animals, not animals being voiced by humans. I don't know how they managed that, but they did.

What little character development is present it given to Max and Duke, with the latter having a genuinely heartbreaking moment which is sadly glanced over, and thrown aside. There is so much life and likability here. The only issue with character, is that there's too many to remember, and not enough time to get to know them. It's a good thing when you want to see more of the characters, but it also gives glaring warning signs: an inevitable sequel. Or perhaps, that may be a good thing. For this film, despite its flaws, seems like it could be the precursor to a creative franchise. There is so much that can be done with these characters, and with this world, that a sequel would be welcomed. The only issue is, would it be milked to the death like the poor Minions?

The jokes are mostly funny, with some misses; there is a jab at YouTube cat videos that will forever be relevant, and the metal loving poodle is amazing. The little quirks that the animators and actors gave the animals are fantastic, such as the dogs having short attention spans, and the cat sitting in too small containers. There's a lot for pet owners to relate to, especially in the ending.

It may be a mixed bag, but it's a good, likable one. The Secret Life of Pets had potential to be amazing, and still has potential to become a creative, lasting franchise. This beautiful film is plenty of bark, with little bite. If you leave without a smile on your face, then you were clearly neutered.

Rating: B2

"The Three Caballeros" is a much more solid product than "Saludos Amigos." The animation is better, there appears to be a lot more passion put into it, unlike "Saludos Amigos," where the only segment with that true Disney flair was the last ten minutes or so in Brazil. In "Caballeros," the colours just pop, the characters leap off the screen. It's wonderful to look at, if not a tad exhausting. Much like "Saludos Amigos," it tries to be an educational piece, telling American audiences little tidbits about their South American and Mexican neighbours. It was, as was its sister picture, an attempt at showing harmony between South and North America.

There is not much in terms of plot. The framing device is Donald Duck opening some birthday presents, which transport him to different places in Central and South America. There are some short films, such as a little boy and his flying burro, a penguin who wants to live in the sun, and so on. These shorts are much more entertaining than those in "Saludos Amigos." We also have the welcome return of José Carioca, the green parrot, who brings Donald to Bahía, where they lust after a live action woman (Aurora Miranda), who is selling cookies. There is also the introduction of our Mexican mascot, Panchito, a hyperactive rooster who dons a sombrero and carries a pair of pistols. He's as much fun as José, if only crazier. Panchito tells a very interesting story about Las Posadas, a Mexican Christmas tradition, which implements the use of the piñata. Using a magic carpet, or sarape, Panchito flies Donald and José to various places in Mexico, such as Acapulco and Pátzcuaro, where they learn various Mexican dances, and where Donald tries to get it on with the ladies. You read that right, Donald tries to get some tail on a Mexican beach. I hope Daisy doesn't find out! This is a fun little film. The main trio are enjoyable and charismatic (more so José and Panchito), and the animation is bright and well crafted, and brilliantly timed. There is also some live action and cartoon mixing, which is not as impressive as later Disney ventures, but still impressive for this time. The ending gets a bit too heavy on the dancing and partying, and never slows down to take a breather. There is a lack of focus, but it seems that was the intention. Regardless, the animation is so nice, the characters so likable, and the music so catchy and fun, that it makes "The Three Caballeros" a unique, enjoyable experience, with plenty of culture and atmosphere.

I'm not sure whether to call "Saludos Amigos" a film, a short, an educational piece or an experiment. It is, at the very least, an interesting endeavor. The snippets of information given in the segments are interesting, and it's nice to get a bit of culture. The aged, sepia tone video footage of the Central American areas visited (and South American) gives it a rustic feel, which makes me want to visit. Yes, this Disney cartoon made me wonder what it is like to live in Brazil, Argentina and so forth. That's impressive enough on its own.

"Saludos Amigos" isn't as such a whole story, but four segments. In all honesty, they don't seem like much to make up a movie, and while the first three are cute and well animated, they seem more like the Disney shorts for television. The style doesn't seem cinematically distinct, like the Golden or Dark Age of Disney. It's lovely to look at and masterfully done; the movements and comedic timing are sublime, and the backgrounds are gorgeous. It just seems a tad less special than Disney's other works.

That is, until the last segment. Set in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, it is called Aquarela do Brasil (Watercolour of Brasil). It's beautiful, artistic and inspired. The music is wonderful, and it showcases the animator's talent and imagination. It seems like the whole movie was interesting tidbits, leading up to a really cool piece of animation. The flamingos, waterfall and toucan-bananas were really cool! Not only that, but now I know where that green parrot originated from. José Carioca, needs to be brought back. He's suave, has a sexy accent, and smokes cigars. I demand more José! Also, seeing Donald getting drunk and nabbing some booty is rather hilarious.

The segments include Donald and Goofy in all sorts of situations; Donald rides a grumpy llama at Lake Titicata, Goofy takes on the persona of an Argentinian gaucho. There's a sweet little short involving a plane named Pedro, who must deliver mail in Santiago. There is a few funny moments, such as when Donald and his llama get stuck on a bridge, or when he breaks the fourth wall in the fourth segment by using ink from José's outline to draw a silly stick figure. The educational aspects were pleasant, you can tell the animators had fun. It was neat to see Uncle Walt! Overall, "Saludos Amigos" is a passable little feature. It sports some decent and amazing animation, and introduces a cool character. It was genuinely interesting. I'm not sure if the information is outdated, but it show cultures of days gone by, and that is worth a lot. It's nothing amazing, but it's cute, you can see the effort put into it. It deserves to be checked out at least once.

I want to put it out there right now, that I have not read Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book." I have started reading it, but let's just say I'm reviewing this film as a stand alone movie, as well as a remake of the 1967 Disney film.

I was worried about the impending "Jungle Book" remake. I loved the Disney version of "The Jungle Book" growing up. Adored it, even. It was one of those videos I used watch over and over again. I had grown up with the '90s remakes "Homeward Bound" and "The Parent Trap," without having seen the originals. I had no baggage. "The Jungle Book" is a childhood favourite that I don't want decimated. So I was against it, until I saw the teaser trailer. Damn, this film looked awesome. They took my childhood and gave it balls. Then the official trailer came out. Then the movie premiered and was given tons of praise.

I was really excited, now! So, I just came back from seeing "The Jungle Book," and, let me tell you, it didn't disappoint. This is a gorgeous, well acted film with plenty of tension and fun. The CGI is the best I've seen since "Life of Pi," even the backgrounds and jungle look real. The music is fantastic; they implement the Overture from the 1967 film, which was a nice surprise, but the new score, with the original theme and "Bear Necessities" seamlessly interwoven with the new score by John Debny, it truly is a lovely soundtrack. I'm glad it isn't a traditional musical, as I don't think it was meant to be. Yes, they sang "Bear Necessities," but it wasn't as such a musical number as just a little sing song with a friend. I was disappointed with how they handled "I Wan'na Be Like You;" Walken sings it well, and I like how it was spoken at first, that was good! The thing is, the song is one of those you can't help but stand up and dance along to, while King Louie, in this film just... sits there. Hahaha, NO. Not this song. It's much better just hearing Walken singing it over the credits. Also, why mention that Louie is a Gigantopithecus in the song? Mr Sherman, explain? Honestly though, that's my only problem with "The Jungle Book." I wrote this assuming you all know the story, of the 1967 film, at least. Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is a man-cub who was left abandoned in the jungle. A panther named Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) brings him to the Seonee wolf pack, who, along with Bagheera, raise the "man-cub." Ten years pass, when Shere Khan (Idris Edlba) comes to kill the boy, for he hates man, after Mowgli's own father maimed him with Man's Red Flower. With his beloved pack under threat, Mowgli, much to his dismay of mother-wolf, Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o), decides that it's better to leave. Bagheera then proceeds to take him to the man-village, much to Mowgli's chagrin; he thought he'd be staying with different animals. Along the way, the pair get separated, and Mowgli runs into many different animals, from Kaa the python (Scarlett Johansson), a sloth bear named Baloo (Bill Murray) and many other jungle creatures, including the aforementioned King Louie. All the while, Shere Khan is waiting for Mowgli to hear that he has killed pack leader, Akela (Giancarlo Esposito), so that he'll come back to seek revenge, and face the tiger head on.

As I said above, the anmation is fantastic. It's clear that they studied the anatomy and behaviour of the animals closely, and the new software developed for "Zootropolis" (which I'm guessing they used here) was certainly worth all that time and effort. The fur, muscles and eyes of these creatures, they way they move and how they sound, it's just a wonder. They look, sound and move just like the real thing. I especially like the details on the wolves, the matted fur on Shere Khan and Louie, and the pattern on Bagheera's fur. Also, Baloo is so fluffy I want to hug him. The actors are well cast in their roles, and all do a grand job at bringing old favourites back to life (I quite like the more snarky Baloo, here, even though I'll always love Harris's version of Ol' Papa Bear). I like how Raksha has more of a role here, and Nyong'o does a wonderful job voicing her. I could feel these animals emotions, especially on Raksha and Grey, and there's a moment where Bagheera's ears go back when Mowgli berates him for not telling him of Akela's death. These are subtle things, but noticeable. Yes, Disney managed to make CGI photorealistic animals be relatable. I never thought I'd see the day.

What a fantastic film. It's a visual delight, an aural wonder. The acting (especially Neel Sethi, who is fantastic as Mowgli) and technology, the little throwbacks to the original movie, the pure balls the filmmakers have to make it bigger and darker. By the way, the ending is different to the '67 film, and I honsestly think it fits much better. Dare I say it, the film may be overall better than the original. Go and see it.

Let's face it, "Zootropolis" was released at just the right time. I know Disney has no control over current affairs, but think about it; the US Presidential Campaign, the refugee crisis. The events in Brussels occurred only a week after the film's release in Ireland. The socio-political commentary in "Zootropolis" is going to hit home for many people.

Thankfully, "Zootropolis" succeeds on it's own merits. Here we have a beautifully animated, funny and incredibly smart film. Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwinn) is a rabbit, who dreams of being the first police-rabbit in Zootropolis, a city populated by anthropomorphic animals. However, despite being valedictorian of her police academy, and being assigned to the first precinct by the mayor, she is ostracized for being a bunny, and is therefore placed on parking duty by her prejudiced chief. Determined to prove her worth, Judy teams up with con artist fox, Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), in order to crack the case of a missing otter. With only 48 hours and Judy's job on the line, she and Nick have to race to solve the case, while at the same time uncovering some unsavory truths about the supposed harmonious city they live in.

The film is gorgeously detailed. The architecture, background animations, and little bits and pieces added for the different species of animals; from the frigid Tundra Town, to the drizzly humidity of the Rainforest District. The animation is sublime; the character quirks, the expressions, the eye movements and subtle facial changes. The fur looks so realistic; the way it sticks out over clothes, how it moves in the wind and matts in the rain. Using the camera to show size differences, How, despite walking on two legs, the animals' anatomy was exactly spot on. The canines had hocks, for God's sake! It's so genuinely smart, and hard hitting at points. With dark allusions to days gone by and of present times, the current affairs of Zootropolis are eerily similar to our own. From racial discrimination (even though we see that Hopps is scorned due to her species from the get go, there is a surprising scene where Nick is cast out of an ice cream café for being a fox) to work place racism, to political corruption and mass paranoia. There's a montage scene where there's panic over the predators going savage; a mother pulls her child away from a tiger on a train, and a polar bear is muzzled after mauling a colleague. There is some heavy stuff in this film, and it's funny that, despite it being about animals, it seems more human than our own world.

The films is funny; there are plenty of well thought out jokes and one liners, the typical pop culture references. One funny gag is that involving a sloth, which hist home with a powerful home run. The characters are all immensely likable; Hopps and Wilde have amazing on screen chemistry. Thank God they weren't paired together; it's nice to see buddies being buddies. The side characters are all so pleasant and charming. The voice acting is fantastic, even though I will say I was aware that the actors were in a booth the whole time.

My only issues came in the last third. We have that stupid falling out scene that always leads to the friends getting back together. yes, it's done well enough and the montage scene after is great, and Hopps' emotions are well portrayed, but it's still cliché and stupid. Also, the twist villains are getting old. I will admit I knew of the villain and bait and switch before going in, but it still seems overused. The villain was society, was that not enough? The bait and switch didn't bother me at all, but the emphasis on Nick's eyes did; it was established earlier that the Nighthowler made the predators eyes go wild. Nick's didn't. That's a nitpick, however, and my flaws are minimal.

This is one of the rare times I want a sequel from Disney. Nick and Judy are so likable and fun together, and the world is so imaginative and realized, that the possibilities animate themselves. A lovely film.

Bambi II may be a pointless midquel, but its focus is interesting; the relationship between Bambi and his father, the Great Prince of the Forest. It keeps that focus for the most part, and that's where the good stuff in the film lies. That, and the climax, which, despite there being little to no stakes, is well executed.

The film has a rather odd idea to start right after Bambi's mother gets shot. In one way it makes perfect sense, since the Great Prince does take Bambi away into the happiest transition of all time. Yet, starting an already pointless semi follow up to one of Disney's most treasured masterpieces, and using one of the most poignant scenes, seems rather, not in poor taste, but strange.

This is a filler movie. Not only is it filling the gap in the original by showing Bambi's childhood and pre adolescence, but it sports pointless scenes with Thumper and his annoying sisters. There's scenes where Thumper teaches Bambi to roar and act brave to impress his father, and, other than one instance where Bambi has an amusing altercation with a porcupine, it just feels like it was placed for cute scenes involving nostalgic characters. The original movie had cute scenes, too, but they used them to their advantage. There was this charm about them. Also, Thumper is useless and irritating here. The callback to the scene where his mother tells him off is out of place, and word for word taken from the meadow scene in Bambi.

The film is not without merit. There is a scene where Bambi has a dream about his mother. This scene has little effect, given that the dialogue is ripped straight from The Land Before Time, but the scene directly after is, for the most part, handled very well. In an earlier scene, Ronno, who was in the original movie Bambi's rival for Faline's love, tells the young animals about Man using a call that sounds like deer to trick them. The film cleverly uses this, and, to my surprise, an effective scene comes from it; I knew Bambi wasn't going to die, but the poor little thing was so convinced that the call was his mother. The emotions in that moment were handled rather well. Except when Bambi froze. That looked so stiff, it was funny.

Patrick Stewart was a fantastic choice to play the Great Prince. His performance was understated and strong. The character was likable, too, despite knowing exactly how his arc was going to play out. It was satisfying, and you wanted to see him get together with his son. When the new doe appears to give Bambi a new home, I felt sorry for both of them. Yes, it was formulaic and cliché, but in a selfish way, it worked. Bambi and his father do develop a nice, believable friendship. It's nice to see.

The climax is very good. The foster mother's dialogue paralleling Bambi's mother's, while Bambi stood frozen, was a clever moment in the screenplay: when Bambi runs, you can tell he won't let what happen to his beloved mother happen to this doe. The animation in this scene is the best in the movie, and when Bambi kicked the dog off the cliff, I thought, good! Survival of the fittest. Of course there was no stakes. The cop out death was stupid, but the Great Prince's reaction made up for it. That was a touching, effective moment... until Thumper cried obnoxiously.

The animation ranged from okay to good enough. The lighting was great, when it was used. There was awful, cringeworthy sound effects in some scenes, and the songs were awful. The score was nice enough, especially the strings when Bambi says goodbye to the Great Prince. I did like that they implemented the theme from the original without overdoing it.

I suppose the question is, if Bambi II is a worthy sequel? The answer is, no, and it does try to be. It does, however, show the development of a worthy relationship. That, alone, is worth recommending the film for. I'd say, skip the scenes other than those with Bambi and his father, and the climax. Right there, is a decent enough novella to attach to the original tale.

I saw Bambi a few years ago on video (yes, on video. VHS. Tape) and I wasn't wowed. Since I'm reviewing all the animated Disney movies, I had to watch it again. This time, it enchanted me.

Bambi is a young deer, son of the Great Prince of the Forest, known as such for being the oldest and wisest deer. Bambi grows up in the forest under the watchful gaze of his loving mother, while learning how the world works with his pals, Thumper, the rabbit, and Flower, the skunk. Life is tranquil in the forest, except for one thing: man. It is man who results on Bambi having to face the trials and tribulations of growing up.

The movie is as simple as it comes. There's no epic adventure, no underlying message (unless it's to respect nature, I suppose). It's just the life of this deer, as he grows from fumbling fawn to a strapping young stag, facing grief, falling in love, and just living life.

The relationship between Bambi and those around him, especially his mother, are kept simple and yet they work well. The focus is kept on Bambi. The dialogue is little and only used when needed. The script is well written. There are stakes in this story. Even though I've seen Bambi before, and even had a picture book as a child, I still gasped when Bambi got shot. This is the type of film that sucks you in without even trying.

The characters are all lovable, and are well written, and animated well, too! The character animations and anatomy are truly masterful. The subtle movements show the passion behind every brush-stroke. The animation is timed well with the musical score, which also acts as the sound effects for the film. This shines out especially in the April Shower scene; it's hypnotic, mesmerizing and artful. The backgrounds are so enveloping, that it feels like you're one with nature. This isn't just a movie, it's a celebration of nature and all that it has to offer. The animators truly outdid themselves.

Once again, the choir has me just as engrossed as the animation before me.

The emotions are pure and visceral. There is no hamming up here. The children (well, if you can call them children) act thusly. Thumper is the epitome of what a child character should be; charming and perhaps a bit irksome, but lovable. I was wrong when I said there was no message: Thumper's father's saying about being nice or say nothing at all is something everyone should take to heart.

What a beautiful film. Pure emotion, pure celebration of nature. A true animated masterpiece.

What strikes me about this film is its length and simplicity. It's only over an hour long, and the main character is silent. It's a simple story about an outcast trying to get along in an unjust world with the help of an unlikely friend. It's simple, to the point and the underlying message touched me more than it ever did as a child.

Disney's fourth animated classic tells us the story of Jumbo Jr., or Dumbo. Dumbo, the large eared, big hearted child of Mrs Jumbo, is ridiculed by the rest of the elephants at the zoo. He's very close to his mother, and is devastated and left alone when she is locked away after defending her son from a nasty little boy. Rejected from his kind, and the laughing stock of the circus, Dumbo is befriended by Timoty Q Mouse, who sees nothing wrong with the youngster's apparent disfigurement. With Timothy's help, the silent elephant learns that it matters not what one looks like, but what you're made of, and that you can learn to use your weakness as your vehicle to achieve greatness.

Dumbo himself is just adorable. I love silent characters like this, who convey emotion through action, expression and noises. He says so much by saying so little. I loved him.

The message of hope in the face of adversity is profound and done beautifully here. It isn't hammered in. It teaches us not to judge on looks alone, but to look beyond it. An age old lesson, but done here so well that it feels fresh and new. As someone with disabilities, this film touched my heart; Timothy is truly what a great friend should be. If there was more people like him, we'd have far less problems in the world. The relationship between Dumbo and his mother is just lovely, and the song "Baby Mine" made me see how much I love my own mother. I feel for little Dumbo; my mother is my rock, and if I lost her I don't know what I'd do. He's a brave little guy, no doubt.

It surprised me that the humans and circus workers didn't seem to hate Dumbo at all. It was all the elephants (and that one boy who took it too far). Your own kind can me much crueler than others.

The animation is beautiful, especially the little details they added such as rain and flags blowing in the wind. I was pleased that the animators showed Dumbo and his mother rocking side to side after being separated; this is a tell tale sign of depression in elephants.

The music is lovely. I've always liked the choir in these older Disney films. In the opening song, they mentioned my hometown, County Cork, which surprised me a great deal. The crow scene didn't bother me in the slightest, I actually found them quite funny. It's a product of the times, and they sing that awesome song. The Pink Elephant scene dragged on a bit too much for me, but the song was cool. I better mention that there's flashing lights in this sequence.

The length of the movie is perfect. Any longer and it would have overstayed its welcome. What a lovely little film. A great introduction to Disney for children, and such a pleasure to revisit now as an adult.

I watched "Fantasia" a couple of weeks ago, and it's been on my mind a bit since. This isn't a film with a flowing narrative; it consists of a series of animations set to popular classical music. There are segments which have a little story to tell, but none flow into each other. It seems like the animators were just told to animate what they feel (if I recall, that is exactly what the host, played by Deems Taylor, says), and that is what this film seems like to me – the animator's emotions and experiences whilst listening to timeless music.

Some of the segments left little to no impact on me. That is not to say that the animation in such segments wasn't stunning, as it is throughout. All were beautiful and the music is fantastic. Instead of focusing on all of the segments, I'm going to focus on those I remember most, the ones I enjoyed the most. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," based on the piece of the same name by Paul Dukas, shows Mickey Mouse (voiced by Uncle Walt himself) as the apprentice of a powerful sorcerer. The sorcerer has Mickey do chores like mop the floor and so on, while Mickey idolises his mentor to the highest degree. However, one evening when the sorcerer goes to bed, Mickey doesn't feel like filling the well with water, so he dons his mentor's hat and brings a broomstick to life, making him do all the work. However, this leads to hundreds of brooms flooding the place, and Mickey having to figure out how to stop them. The animation is beautiful, as is most done by Disney, and the timing is magnificent. It's just a fun little cartoon. It's easy to see why sorcerer Mickey is one of Disney's biggest trademarks, heck I even have a pair of the furry years ant hat from Disneyland! My favourite segments would have to be "Rite of Spring" and "Dance of the Hours." The former is just so poignant and breathtaking, and the music just seems to match the tone the segment is trying to set. The animation, especially on the lava and water and during the t-rex attack, is just phenomenal. I have no idea how they paced this thing, but by God they did it will. It's also heartbreaking! These poor animals just drop dead! I liked these creatures; they had so much character even though they spoke nary a word! It ends on such an ambiguous note, with such subtlety and intrigue. It's just lovely. "Dance on the Hours" is a rather baffling affair, but my God it looks beautiful. The lighting, the colours, the designs on the animals. How did they make a hippo so graceful? I have no idea, but then again that seems to be the magic of Disney. They can make the impossible possible. The little romance between the hippo and alligator is just adorable; sometimes things can be said without uttering a word.

People are going to smite me for this, but I didn't see what was so special about "The Night on Bald Mountain." It's beautiful and thought provoking, the music was nice ... and that's it. The only thing massive about the last segment to me was Chernabog himself; I mean, he is the devil. The devil is one scary guy. Other than that, after all I'd heard about Bald Mountain, it just seemed underwhelming. In my opinion, "Rite of Spring" would've been a better finale. It's much more evocative to me.

Overall, "Fantasia" is pretty damn good. I don't find it as amazing as other Disney fans do, but it is gorgeous to look at, and groundbreaking to boot. There is this sort of charm about it, this air of grandeur. It is worth checking out.

8/10.

I'm actually not sure if I ever saw "Pinocchio" before now, but eh. This film took me by surprise, not because I thought it was going to be bad, but at how good it actually was. Based (although from what I've heard without much of the hardcore stuff) on Carlo Collidi's novel of the same name, "Pinocchio" tells the story of the titular puppet who longs to become a real boy. When his creator, and Italian toy-maker named Gepetto, wishes for the marionette to come to life, the Blue Fairy makes his wish come true. Not only that, if Pinocchio can prove himself good, honest and unselfish, he will become a REAL boy. With the help of his conscience, Jiminy Cricket, Pinocchio will learn how easy it is to be led off the beaten path, and how important it is to put yourself before others, to be honest and to always let conscience be your guide.

The animation is stunning, with the shading exquisite, especially on the fur of Tuxedo cat, Figaro, and the wily fox, Honest John. The white finish makes to give the fur a distinct, fluffy look. The animation of the water is amazing, with luscious brushstrokes imitating the tide - hell, even the tide is animated well! The backgrounds are once again lovely, with these amazing panning shots that make it seem like it was filmed by an actual camera. The little details are wonderful, such as the flickering flames, the bubbles and the fish's transparent tail. It's a true work of art.

The characters are plenty of fun too. Jiminy isn't half as annoying as I thought he'd be, in fact I found him charming. Pinocchio is that everyman kid, who soaks things in and comes out on top, but still isn't perfect. Not only is he a very good character due to this, but he acts like, well, a real kid! Kids do act selfish, tell lies and go against authority, but sometimes, especially when very young, they may not even know what they're doing is wrong. Pinocchio is a great example of this, and Jiminy walking away, getting lost and so forth shows the swaying of the conscience. It's very clever. Minor characters are shown for just the right amount of time, showcasing their charisma, likability and sometimes fear. The villains are great; all are malicious on different levels, but the one that shocked me most was the Coach Master, who runs Paradise Island. Call me an overthinker (which I am), but I got this child predator vibe off him; inviting kids to have fun, then stripping them down to a primal level ... ugh he was just creepy. Well, whatever the deeper implications may or may not be, the obvious intent is there, and is clever too. I guess it can be read in many different ways.

Gepetto was a likable fellow, but who really stood out to me was Figaro, the cat. Let's just say I understand why Disney wanted him to be in the film as much as possible, he's just adorable, and his expressions are great! Overall, "Pinocchio" is a wonderful film , with stunning artwork and numerous important messages for children, and even adults.

So, I've decided to watch and review all Disney animated classics, their sequels and TV shows. Naturally, I started with "Snow White," which (prepares body armour) I'd never seen.

The story is based on the Brother's Grimm tale,and was the first ever fully animated motion picture, released in 1937. It was Adolf Hitler's favourite movie. The more you know.

Within, we have Snow White, a pale skinned, raven haired beauty who trusts everyone like a derpy puppydog, but is so nice you can't help but enjoy her. She is the prettiest in the land, much to the unease of her stepmother, the Evil Queen. Queenie orders her loyal huntsman to off Snow, but she is just so smexy and innocent that he balks, and lets her go. Snow runs through the forest in terror, only to come across some friendly animals, who guide her to a humble cottage owned by seven dwarfs. The dwarfs agree she can stay, and in return Snow offers to keep house. Everything is fine and dandy, until Queenie discovers that Snow is NOT dead, that the heart she requested is a pig's, so she magics herself into an ugly hag, creates a poison apple and sets off to do Snow in herself.

The story is simple, and Snow isn't the most amazing heroine, but she is nice. REALLY nice. She happy and chipper, yet quite assertive in the do-as-your-mother-says way. Her curiosity and innocence is both endearing and grating; her excitement over a tiny chair is just too sweet, yet her swooning over this hunky prince dude is just blegh, but maybe I'm just a cynic. Snow meshes well with her dwarf pals, and has a likable, soothing aura, which is saying something for an animated character. The dwarfs are good fun, and are easily the highlight of the movie. Each have their own distinct personality and each gets to shine through, hell they even look very different, kudos to that! They couldn't do that in the Hobbit where there was like, twenty of them? My favourite was Grumpy; I just love the old curmudgeon with the heart of gold. When he's the first one to jump on a deer to save Snow I was cheering on the inside, haha.

Where the film truly stands out is the animation and backgrounds. The colours, even though not as bright as the later Disney films, are still vibrant. The backgrounds are stunning, and I hope Disney do something like "Bolt" and bring painterly backgrounds in again. The animation is so smooth, and the musical and comedic timing is spot on, especially in the "Whistle While You Work" sequence, however they did that was amazing, it is easily the best part of the film for me. The shading is amazing too, the shadows and different tones make the film come to life. It's truly a moving painting. The music is pretty neat too, what with the score (was some of it reused or used in homage in "101 Dalmatians years later?) and the timeless songs. Except "Someday My Prince Will Come." Oh my Lord. I'll take the same stance as Grumpy on that one! Overall, "Snow White" does hold up pretty damn well, especially in the animation and technical department. The message, well I'm not sure if there is one, but that doesn't matter much. I mean, Snow just barges into the dwarf's house and cleans up the place, she takes the apple from Queenie-Hag after being told by her new pals not to trust anyone. Yet there's the whole never judge the book by it's cover, listen to others, don't trust strangers and be patient. The ending where hunky prince charming comes along to smooch Snow had me thinking, is he like the Grim Reaper? Carrying her up to his castle on the clouds, while the dwarfs say goodbye? The ending was more bittersweet than happy to me, which is interesting.

"Snow White" is truly a timeless classic, and a magnificent foundation for what was to come from Uncle Walt.

Gorgeously animated, beautiful score, and emotionally resonant. The opening where the dino family were farming was very clever. The relationship between Arlo and Spot was lovely, and shows silence can be golden. It was rather intense; the poor little dino is beat up and trodden on so often, that he's left with scrapes and bruises. I cringed whenever he got hurt, seeing him struggle to get up.

There's a number of poignant scenes which work very well, such as the scene where Arlo explains what family is to Spot using twigs, and Spot does the same, only to bury his parent's twigs, showing he's an orphan. Then he shows Arlo how to grieve through howling. The scene where Poppa Henry dies, although I knew it was coming, was so sudden; his look of defeat as he looked at his son... the part where Arlo sees his ghost and is beside himself with joy made me cry.

The scene where Spot and Arlo go their separate ways surprised me; I thought it'd be something cliché, like he just realizes he has to go, hugs Arlo and leaves. Instead, it's Arlo that persuades Spot that he should go with the humans. The ending with Arlo's family is simple and not overwrought.

This movie is very quirky in its humour and style. People say it's too childish and I can't disagree more; "The Good Dinosaur" is one of those important family films. It is VERY different to "Inside Out." Do yourself a favour, and try not to compare the films going in, for it'll be like comparing chalk to cheese. I reckon if "Good Dino" had been released earlier, it may not be as snubbed as it is. It's kinda suffering from Lion King-itis; you know how after "The Lion King," every other Disney movie was compared to it? Well, IMO, "Inside Out" blew people's minds so much that this little movie has a lot to live up to. (Side note: I love "Inside Out," but "Ratatouille" is my favourite PIXAR movie, "The Lion King" is my favourite movie of all time).

As someone who suffers from OCD, I am terrified of my thoughts and of the future etc. This movie tells kids, and adults, that it's 100% natural to be scared, and if you aren't then something isn't right. This, is the movie "Brave" wanted to be. I enjoyed "Brave," but it was disjointed and cluttered in places. "Good Dino" is also imperfect; one would have to only glance at its production history to know that, but it still works. I think it's the work and love that went into the years trying to make the film as good as it could be. Besides, there's something about this quirky boy and his dog tale that seems so familiar and yet so different; there's genuine threat, real terrible fear, our main character gets battered and bruised and is left for dead. The movie takes a lot from "Lion King," but it's still a separate movie. The farmer and cowboy dinos are so out there and inspired, how'd they come up with that?! The characters are so likable, and the antagonist is terrifying; it's nature, and fear itself. There's a genuinely creepy addition with a pterodactyl cult that gave off a weird vibe, as well as a funny oddball voiced by the director, but even though those elements are strange, they add to this bizarre world.

This film will possibly become a cult classic, and that odd one out of the PIXAR bunch that is so familiar yet so different, that it comes across as brilliant.

Go see it.

8/10.

I'd heard many great things about "Basil, The Great Mouse Detective." Having never seen it, I looked for it on YouTube and sure enough, I found it. What I got was an entertaining, charming little movie, so quintessentially British, on that fine bridge between the Dark Era of Disney and the Renaissance.

"Great Mouse Detective" is based on a series of children's books by Eve Titus and Paul Galdone, which are heavily inspired by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes". Basil, the titular character, lives in Sherlock's house, for Basil is a mouse. The story starts out with a little mouse named Olivia (Susanne Pollatschek), whose father, renowned toymaker Mr Flaversham (Alan Young), is kidnapped by the evil henchman of Professor Ratigan (Vincent Price). Ratigan is planning to force Mr Flaversham into building a robot replica of the Mouse Queen (the Queen of England in mouse form), so he can fool the people into thinking he is the new ruler of the land. The real Mouse Queen, it is assumed, will be dealt with accordingly. Olivia, desperate to find her father, goes to the great Basil of Baker Street (Barrie Ingham), a charming, cocky little detective who is Ratigan's arch nemesis. Along with his accidental assistant, Dr Dawson (Val Bettin), Basil risks his whiskers in trying to save both Mr Flaversham, and the rodent population of London.

The animation is flowing, the characters very expressive and likable. The protagonist is clever, vindictive and scatterbrained, but with a soft spot. One of the film's best scenes is where Basil believes he has been bested by Ratigan, and you can see how torn he is. It's a very relatable moment, and rather poignant. There is a Bassett Hound named Toby who acts like a regular dog, and is very funny and cute. The real treat however, is Ratigan. It was one of Price's dreams to be in a Disney film, and he is relishing every minute; Ratigan is easily the best character. He is so funny, so twisted, so smarmy. He loves being evil and knows his evilness has no bounds. His expressions are priceless, and it's no surprise he was animated by Glen Keane, who went on to animate the Beast and Marahute, the Golden Eagle from "Rescuers Down Under". The interactions between Ratigan and Basil are very good, and Basil is a very enjoyable character, but it's Ratigan who really steals the show.

The best scene is the riveting climax inside Big Ben, where traditional animation and CGI are married perfectly to create an electrifying finale. "GMD" may not be as Great as Mousedom's greatest detective, but it's charming, good looking, and a lot of fun.

"All Dogs go to Heaven" (Bluth, 1989, MGM/UA) is one of my favourite animated films of all time. Bluth is a genius, already kicking all kinds of balls in the animation genre before Disney did. I love Disney, but Bluth has some BIG cahones; dogs drinking, gambling and double-crossing each other, rats made super intelligent by animal testing, a young orphaned dinosaur leading his friends to Utopia while grieving the death of his mother. Heck, even "Anastasia" (a film I love by the way), took risks for just existing, and that was Bluth's attempt at being Disney! Yet, it is not only Disney that has suffered the rath of the unneeded sequel. 90% of Bluth's movies have had sequels, TV shows or both adapted from them, ALL without his input. Except for "Bartok: The Magnificent." "The Land Before Time" is the most known example, with 12 sequels and a show, and another sequel coming riding on the tailcoat of "Jurassic World." Many people of the 80s and 90s are aware of the "American Tail" franchise. Ditto "Secret of NIMH 2." Then there's the "All Dogs go to Heaven" franchise.

OK, most people know there's a sequel, but there was also an Emmy winning show and TV movie. Also, a really fun PC game. Judge me.

Why? Why do Bluth movies get exploited like this? I mean, I love Bluth and his work, but his movies weren't critical babies until "Anastasia" came along. I mean, they were well received, but made little money EXCEPT on home video... oh.

ADGTH was one of the highest earning home video releases at the time, so it makes sense that somebody would take this unique little gem and milk all of its heavenly cloud juice. However, is the sequel, appropriately titled "All Dogs go to Heaven 2," with "Charlie's New Adventure" added in some cases, really bad? In my opinion... no. It's OK. Not great, but watchable.

The story starts off in Heaven where we see Carface (Ernest Borginine) having a shady phone conversation, before heading off to the Guardian Angel crowning thingy for perfect angels. Here we see Charlie (Charlie Sheen), the lovable rogue who redeemed himself by putting a little girl's life before his own. In a clever allusion to the song "Let Me Be Surprised," Charlie exclaims he's bored with Heaven. When his best friend, Itchy (Dom DeLuise) arrives in the afterlife, he bemoans his boring angelic life. So it makes perfect sense when Gabriel's Horn falls from Heaven, that he (and a reluctant Itchy) volunteer to retrieve it.

So after once again conning the Heavenly Whippet, who now has a name and is stupid as heck (Bebe Neuwirth), Charlie and Itchy are sent to Earth as ghosts to find the Horn, which has fallen because Carface, who for some reason got a medal for being top notch angel earlier, made a deal with devil-cat Red (George Hearn), who wants the Horn to open the Pearly Gates so he can capture all of Heaven's dogs and lock them in Alcatraz so he can make Heaven Hell, I guess? Charlie and Itchy end up at a club where Charlie is smitten with smexy Irish Setter, Sasha LeFlur (Sheena Easton). Being the Casanova that he is, Charlie attempts to put the moves on her, only he can't, because he's a ghost. So Charlie and Itchy meet Carface, who they don't know is still evil, find out he got a life collar from a friend, which, well, makes him alive. Cool concept. Charlie, despite Itchy's reservations, goes to this friend, gets them both a collar, and goes to swoon over Sasha, before the collar's power wears out the next day. Of course, the friend is Red disguised as a dog, who is going to use the collar to control Charlie into leading him to the Horn. Oh, and the Horn is forgotten... for now.

As it turns out, Sasha is not interested in Shepherds and is looking after a runaway boy named David (Adam Wylie), who is feeling understandably gypped because his dad and stepmom are having a baby. So he runs off to become a magician. David thinks Charlie is his guardian angel, so Charlie, in order to impress his new boo, plays along. So in between looking for the Horn, helping the kid do magic tricks and getting him back home, defeating the evil devil cat thing and falling in love, plenty of stuff goes down.

It's all entertaining enough, the acting and music are good, pretty damn good actually. The animation isn't as polished as the original, but it's serviceable for a sequel, despite the NUMEROUS errors. Carface is now a pansy, which sucks, but Red is fun enough. Itchy is still funny. Even though Sheen can't replace a role literally made for Burt Reynolds in mind, he does a good job. The story isn't too bad either. But why, why is it set in 1996 San Francisco when the original was set on the brink of WWII in New Orleans? How did Itchy live that long? Where's Anne Marie? (I get that little Judith Barsi was murdered before the original film was released, so I guess that was a nod of respect for her). Why does the film exist other than to make money? Why does Charlie trust Carface when he MURDERED HIM IN THE FIRST MOVIE???!!!! The original had a passion quite akin to The Lion King; yeah it was risqué but we have a story to tell and God damn you if you don't like it! ADGTH 2 is harmless enough and moderately entertaining, but when compared to the gritty classic like the original it's based on, it's like comparing wet kibble to dry. This sequel ain't Heavenly, but it isn't Hell. It resides in Limbo, and that's fine too.

6/10.

I did not watch "Nosferatu" by choice. One of the modules I picked for my first term this year in college is European Cinema, which started off with German Expressionism. "Nosferatu" was one of the films we had to watch, and it is, at least to me, one of the better ones.

Directed by F.W. Murnau, one of the most highly acclaimed Expressionist directors, "Nosferatu" is an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula." Stoker's widow was unimpressed with this, and asked for all copies of "Nosferatu" to be destroyed. Most were, but one survived, which is the print that people around the world have seen since 1922.

Set in a small German town, a cheerful young real estate agent named Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) is summoned by his shady employer, Knock (Alexander Granach), to Transylvania. He is to sell a house to the reclusive man known as Count Orloc (Max Schrek). Hutter obliges, leaving his beloved wife, Helen (Greta Schröder), pining for him at home. Hutter heads to Romania, where he is warned by locals and books of the occult that where he is heading is not safe. Not even when the carriage that is transporting him refuses to go any further sways his stubborn mind. Alas, it is only when he meets the strange Orloc that Hutter realizes things are not all well in the mountains of Transylvania. He cuts himself when eating a late dinner with his host, to which Orloc reacts with erotic flourish, "your blood... your precious blood!" Odd happenings occur at Orloc's castle, such as doors opening for the Count without him moving his hands, Hutter falling unconscious in a chair only to wake up with a peculiar mark on his neck. Most bizarre of all, is when Orloc proceeds to attack his guest on his first night, only for Helen to somehow know something is afoot, calling out her husband's name in a frenzy, distracting the vampire...

Hutter eventually discovers that his host sleeps in a coffin, and after seeing him journey away to his new home, across the road from him and his wife, Hutter escapes and tries to make his way back home. Orloc manages to kill an entire ship, leading the people of his new town to believe that they are in the midst of a plague epidemic. This is not helped when Knock, Hutter's boss, goes mad, and starts killing small animals for their blood.

Despite illness and overwhelming fear, Hutter gets home to his wife, telling her to not research into the events that are occurring. Alas, Helen finds out that the only thing that will stop the henous Orloc is if a good hearted woman gives her blood to him before the cock's first crow...

As a horror film, "Nosferatu" is more chilling than scary. It showcases many human fears, both from the time period and today. There is an underlying sexual tone, perhaps due to Murnau's sexuality (he was openly gay), where the unusually flamboyant man is seduced against his will by a creature of undetermined gender. There is Helen; is she deprived of sex from her husband (which from the amount of kissing they do seems unlikely), or does she see her husband is conflicted and offers herself to Orloc for his freedom? There is the fear of the unknown, of being possessed. Losing control of oneself, of what can not be seen or unseen. Of sickness and death. Of love and war. "Nosferatu" may not be a scary film, but, in the words of Roger Ebert, it haunts us.

8/10.

Unlike John Green's "The Fault in Our Stars" and "Looking for Alaska," I only read "Paper Towns" once - and a bit. I'd started reading it again but lent the book to a family friend. Now, that doesn't mean I don't like the book, I do! I'd just place it third in my favourites when it comes to Green's work.

So, I entered "Paper Towns" with excitement, but not as much as with "TFiOS," and my memory not as fresh. The novel came flooding back as I watched, and I must say that this is a very faithful adaptation, with changes that fit rather than feel out of place.

The story is about a boy and a girl. The boy is Quentin "Q" Jacobson (Natt Wolf), who is bright, innocent and kind hearted. The girl is Margo Roth Speiglman (Cara Delivinge), a wild, husky voiced mysterious cool girl. Q is in love with Margo. One night, after years of being next door neighbours but not talking due to high school social cliques, Margo climbs through Q's window, for she needs him in an extravagant revenge plot due to her cheating boyfriend and wayward friends. Together they plant catfish in cupboards and take pictures of ex boyfriend's tiny appendages as they run away. The next morning, Margo disappears.

With his friends, Ben (Austin Abrams) and Radar (Justice Smith), Q discovers clues that may point to Margo's whereabouts in a remote Paper Town in the state of New York. Along with Margo's best friend Lacey and Radar's girlfriend Angela, the boys go on a road trip of a lifetime, to find Margo, so Q can express his love - all while trying to make it back in time for prom.

When I heard that "Paper Towns" was being adapted into a film, I was surprised; it didn't seem like a marketable film, only to Nerdfighters and not to the general public or critics. It wasn't as mainstream as other young adult novels; dare I say it, it may be one of Green's more hipsterish novels, which is not a bad thing at all! It's a unique little story and I was thinking, how will they make it work? Well they did, and it's another faithful adaptation that Green and his fans seem to enjoy as much as the book. The acting is great, the changes are suited to the pacing of the story (Angela does not go on the road trip in the movie, but here she does and it does not disrupt in any way). The ending is slightly changed, but again not in a negative way, at least not to me. I enjoyed Abrams as Ben, so geeky with his Dutch-Courage; he even made the phrase honeybunny sound cute, a quote which made me cringe in the novel.

Wolf isn't as charming here as he was in TFiOS, but he is likable. and there's one cameo which they focus a bit too much on. The road trip scene is hilarious, and all the bits are there: the gas station, the great wall of cow, the World's Best Granny and Confederate t-shirts. Even the Black Santas! It's a treat for Nerdfighters who are open to small changes.

"Paper Towns" is a charming coming of age slash road trip buddy comedy, with realistic banter between boys and their awkward shyness around girls. You may learn a thing or two from this movie. For me, is that boys are just as emotive when it comes to girls as we are towards them; you may understand men a bit more! For others, it may tell you to not fall in love with the idea of someone. For most, it's possibly just a funny teen comedy that deals with growing pains in a clever, poetic way. It's not as grand as TFiOS or Perks, and it's not trying to be; it is sure to please other fans, it's fun, it's relaxed and that's OK by me.

I have no idea what I was thinking when I decided to do a project on "The Exorcist" for college. I don't like being scared, and avoid horror films religiously (pun unintended). I am scared of my own shadow. So the proper course of action when told I had to do a presentation on something, of any medium, that showed tropes of the American Gothic, was to go ahead and do it on what's considered by many as the scariest film of all time.

My boyfriend (who will be addressed always as Himself), was delighted at the prospect of watching me squirm through a horror film. So we watched it on Valentine's Day. How romantic.

"The Exorcist" is based off the best selling novel of the same name, by William Peter Blatty. Blatty also wrote the screenplay and won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for his efforts. It tells the story of a little girl named Regan McNeil (Linda Blair), who appears to be possessed by some malevolent demon. Her mother, actress Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) is beside herself with worry, and, at the advice of medical professionals, goes to a trouble priest named Damien Karras (Jason Miller), to request an exorcism.

The film is frightening, but not conventionally. The only jumpscare is that of the demon's face for a split second. No, this film is psychologically chilling. Yes, chilling. It effects you, deep down. One sees themselves within the demon, as the little girl struggling to cope. We identify with Karras, who is on the fence about his faith. We are in that freezing room covered in vomit; we are the strong priest who does not balk at the terror before him, we are the troubled Jesuit who does not know where to turn. We are the little girl in the bed, screaming obscenities; we are monsters.

Father Merrin (Von Sydow) says to Karras upon him asking why such a malignant source would infect an innocent girl "I think the point is to make us despair. To see ourselves as... animal and ugly. To make us reject the possibility that God could love us." Roger Ebert also said that the film sits on the fence between cinematic escapism and reality, that it makes us look inside ourselves. This is what makes the film terrifying; the fact that it shows us humans at our worst. We are, at some stage, the demon and the conflicted priest, the frantic parent and the tortured girl.

8.5/10

After the amazing epicness that is HTTYD2, Home looked funny but not as awesome. Then I saw the film, and came out smiling.

It's no HTTYD or Shrek, and won't be a mega hit like them either. It's a sweet, funny children's film, with genuine heart and emotion.

It tells the story of a little alien named Oh (Jim Parsons), who is a member of this alien race called the Boov. The Boov are a bunch of cowards who run away from trouble and don't believe in fun. Oh, while cowardly, wants to have a good time, and ends up getting into plenty of scrapes.

In a mission to escape their enemy, the Gorg, the Boovs, led by Smek (Steve Martin)take over earth, placing all the humans in Australia - all except one. Oh accidentally sends a party invite to Gorg, which, if not deleted in time, will lead to him finding the Boov's new home and destroying it. Now a fugitive, Oh goes on the run with a young girl named Tip (Rihanna), and promises to help her find her mother, who was inadvertently abducted by Oh's kind.

The opening twenty or so minutes are rather eye rollingly silly, but after that you get a quirky little adventure with a range of emotion and quite a few laughs. Some of the jokes are hit and miss, most are genuinely funny. The animation is beautiful in certain stand out ways; the cat, Pig, the Boov's skin colour changes due to their emotional state, and Tip's hair, among other things. It won't be nominated for awards, but it's still pretty.

The voice acting is overall great; Parsons is as idiosyncratic and geeky here as he is as Sheldon on TBBT, Steve Martin is unfortunately the weakest link. What surprised me most, is Rihanna; I'm not a huge fan of hers (there's a few songs I like, including some in this film), but she blew me away with her talent here. I hope she gets more voice acting rolls in the future. This is one big name star with a lot of promise in this field.

The morals are good; there is such a thing about being too positive or negative, you have to balance the two, take a chance and have some faith and hope. I learnt a thing or two from Home, you could too.

Give it a chance, it may abduct your heart :) 7.5/10

Very rarely is a movie better than the book it's based on. This is one of those rare exceptions.

Richard Adams is known mainly for his novel "Watership Down." A tale true to nature, about rabbits trying to survive. He also wrote "The Plague Dogs," another parable involving talking animals, but is much darker and more harrowing than Adam's best known work. It is also, unlike the latter, NOT for children.

"The Plague Dogs" is set in the Lake District in North West England, in an animal testing facility. It tells the story of two dogs who live therein. Snitter (voiced by John Hurt), is a Fox Terrier who has had a lobotomy performed on him. Rowf (voiced by Christopher Benjamin) is a Labrador mix who has been drowned and resuscitated regularly to see how long a creature can swim before drowning. Snitter knows humans can be good, for he had a master, before he died and the terrier was sent to the facility. Rowf was born in the facility, and sees humans, whom he calls "White Coats" as evil.

The pair escape the facility by chance, with Snitter wanting to show Rowf that not all people are evil. However, due to their time in the facility they do not know how to survive in the wild, and revert to killing sheep. Despite the help they receive from a cunning yet well meaning Fox, the Tod, they are eventually hated by the rural community. It does not help when a rumour emerges from the facility that the dogs knocked over a vial containing the Bubonic Plague during their escape. This sets England on fire, and suddenly the navy, army and local farmers are out to kill the animals.

The film is as bleak and depressing as it sounds, yet it is beautiful and captivating. The animation, fully traditional and done without the help of computers, is astonishing, so realistic and engrossing that you are with these animals, traveling around Yorkshire, joining them on their perilous journey. The voice acting adds a layer of humanity to the characters, as does the way they are animated; you feel their suffering, you sense the fear and desperation. The music, which is minimal but used at the most poignant times, strikes the heart. The opening lines and bars to the end title song will stir something primal within.

This is a story of ambiguity, of terror and the pure evil that us as humans can inflict. We see these animals suffering and pining for justice, and curse ourselves as a species. Rowf cries that he is a good dog, why are they treating him like this? Snitter experiences seizures and horrific flashbacks and hallucinations due to his lobotomy. One dog becomes a feral wild animal, the other withers to a fearful, vulnerable mess.

It's important to note that the film is NOT meant for children. This is an adult tale for the adult mind. This is an adventure story in which we fall in love with those at their most desperate, and come away with a different mind-set. In this film, the animals are more human than we are.

An underrated gem.

Based on James Herbert's novel of the same name, "Fluke" is a unique, touching fable of life, love and loss, told through the eyes of a beautiful dog who isn't all that he seems.

Thomas Johnson (Modine), a workaholic estranged from his family and best friend, is killed in a tragic car crash. Sometime later, he is reincarnated as a puppy named Fluke. As he grows up, Fluke starts having flashbacks of his past life, and, believing his family is in danger from the man he holds responsible for his death, sets out to find them.

"Fluke" isn't your typical doggie movie; this isn't "Old Yeller" or "Homeward Bound." This is a touching story about mortality, and how love goes on after death. It raises important questions for both children and adults - is everything as it seems? What happens when and our loved ones die? Are they happy, what's in store?

Yes, the film is at times cheesy, but it isn't wholly distracting and is forgivable. The training is amazing and the voice acting (Modine as Fluke/Johnson and Jackson as his friend, Rumbo), gives a depth and personality to the canine characters. There is beauty in Fluke's love for his wife and son, in the subtle relationship he shares upon his return in dog form. The music is wonderful. There is much depth to this film that one would not know upon picking up the box.

I first saw "Fluke" at around ten years old; I was obsessed with dogs, and my mom told me that there was a film about a dog finding his family on TV one night. I fell in love with this movie instantly, and it's still a firm favourite to this day. It is nowhere near perfect, but it's fascinating and beautiful - this is quite possibly one of the most important, overlooked films of all time. This isn't just a kiddie dog film; this is a film about something deeper.

Give this underrated gem a chance; it may touch you in ways other stories can't. This is a film for everyone - not just children.

p.s. Parental Guidance advised - the themes are serious and dealt with extremely well. but there's no dumbing down. Please watch WITH your children.

HTTYD is one of my all time favourite films, so I was both excited and nervous for its sequel. I was looking forward to it, but hoping that it didn't crash and burn like the Shrek series after the 2nd one. I had no reason to fret, as this gem did not disappoint.

Set five years after its predecessor, Hiccup, now 20, is due to become chief of his tribe on the island of Berk. His father Stoic, thinks he's fit for the job, but Hiccup isn't so sure. His troubles only double when he finds out that a dragon trapper, Drago Bloodvist, is building a dragon army for purely evil purposes. In the meantime, Hiccup and Stoic reunite with Valka, the latter's wife and Hiccup's mother, who had been snatched by dragons 20 years before, and, like her son, felt at home amongst the beasts. Hiccup believes that he can talk sense into Drago, but his parents warn him that he is a madman, and that they must protect their people - such men cannot be reasoned with. Like his father in ways, Hiccup ignores them, which leads to a tragic event that will change him forever.

I recently read a quote by a critic, which stated that the first HTTYD was about a boy finding his best friend, and that the second was about the same boy becoming a man. He/she could not have said it better. HTTYD 2 is much darker and mature than its sister movie, with bigger problems (and bigger dragons!) and an even bigger message. The moral is very Lion King esque, to face one's responsibilities. There is also the important lessons of forgiveness, loyalty and friendship - and listening to your elders! The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has only grown stronger over the five year gap, and it's evident, and portrayed beautifully. Hiccup's older design, as well as the subtle changes in Toothless's features, add maturity without taking away from their younger selves. Hiccup and Astrid share great chemistry, and have lovely moments together. Valka and Hiccup connect immediately, and the love that she and Stoic share after all the years apart is a joy to behold. There is a great father and son bond that seems to have grown stronger, but rather than Stoic learning from Hiccup, Hiccup is learning from Stoic.

The emotions run high in this film, and there are certainly some heartwrenching scenes. HTTYD 2 is more for the teenagers who saw the original, now adults. However, it is, like The Lion King, a fantastic family film that teaches important lessons, as mentioned above, and brings back the same characters we fell for before, with exciting, high flying adventures.

(the animation is even better than the original, and the music just as beautiful).

A worthy continuation of what is possibly DWA's best series.

No story is truly original. That is a fact when it comes to writing. Each film you watch, every novel you read, every song you hear, all can be likened to similar tales from any medium. Of course, some stories are more common than others. None of this is an issue, once the execution is done right. It is rarely you see a film that tells an age old tale in such an inspired way, that it feels new again.

This is the case with How to Train Your Dragon. Based *loosely* on the book of the same name, the CGI adventure is directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBois (Lilo & Stitch), and tells the story of a Viking teen named Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). Hiccup is weedy and nerdy, which ostracizes him from his peers and his father, Stoic (Gerard Butler), who happens to be the chief of their village. Berk, the aforementioned village, has been plagued for years by dragons, who steal livestock and burn down buildings. In order to gain the respect from the village, especially his father, Hiccup invents a machine to take down the most feared and rarest of all dragons – the Night Fury.

Naturally, Hiccup manages to capture a Night Fury, but finds that he cannot kill him. Instead, he sets him free, and decides to study him. Meanwhile, Stoic tries to help his son mingle with his peers and gain confidence by enrolling him in dragon training. Hiccup meets the dragon in secret, and slowly befriends him, naming him Toothless due to his retractable teeth. The pair soon develops a strong bond, with Toothless even allowing Hiccup to ride him, with the help of a new tail fin that Hiccup makes. It is due to his friendship with Toothless that Hiccup realizes that everything Vikings believe about dragons is wrong. He now faces uncertainty when he becomes top of his class due to his sudden surge of dragon knowledge, and has to kill a dragon in front of the village, including his father, who knows nothing of his new friend. The story soon lies on a precipice; will Hiccup be able to forge a new era of peace, or is the life of his best friend in grave danger? What we have here, is two very common stories; the boy and his dog story, and the underdog tale. Such stories are so well worn, that not only are they staples in family entertainment (see Old Yeller, My Dog Skip, Teen Wolf, and many more), but they have been done so much that they can form a predictable narrative, and several clichés. However, the crew behind How to Train Your Dragon handle the story in such a way, that it feels like a new, crisp bed sheet. The characters are well rounded and wholly enjoyable, even Hiccup, with his nasally voice may poise an irritation for some. The other kids in the village are all voiced by massive talents, from T.J. Miller to Oscar nominated Jonah Hill, each who add so much character and life to such small roles. Gerard Butler is in fine, Scottish form as Stoic, and you can understand his plight with the dragons, and with his son; he lives in a culture where stature and strength is a major factor, he is the head of a village that is being bombarded by fire breathing beasts. The strained relationship he shares with Hiccup is one of respect and longing, and the time that is spent on them is just enough to show how much care and love is hidden.

However, the most poignant relationship is between Hiccup and Toothless; the time and passion dedicated to nurturing their relationship is a wonder to behold. Their bond is obvious, and needs very few words to describe; the majority is done through the masterful animation, character interactions, John Powell's powerful score, and the perfect amount of pacing. It is clear to the viewer that boy and dragon have forged an unbreakable bond, and that is one of the film's most lasting and endearing points.

A marvel on his own is the dragon himself. Toothless is the star of the film, with his Stitch like features and expressive eyes, and qualities that fall in tandem with mostly cats and a handful of dog, Toothless is a wonder of character and animation. With his little purrs and rumbling growls, and unique little mannerisms and movements, Toothless is a fine example of how one needs not a witty script to be one of the most memorable characters of recent memory. In fact, Toothless is rather funny in his own way, which is all done through his character animations and vocalizations.

The animation still looks astounding today, six years after the film's release. The fire effects, flying scenes, the way Toothless spreads his wings, still amaze me. The only film that trumps it is the sequel, which eats this film's dust. But that's a review for another time; let's just say that both films are things of beauty, and represent how much animation has evolved. The music is stirring and emotionally breathtaking. Each dragon has its own personality, that even with short screen time, each feel like a real character. It is clear that much thought went into the overall feel and look of this film.

How to Train Your Dragon is a fine example of how, when in the right hands, age old stories can be told anew. With a clever script, and emotionally resonant relationships and relatable circumstances, DreamWorks managed to produce what is easily a near masterpiece. This dragon doesn't just fly high, it soars.

Rating: A1.