datautisticgamer-74853

Under similar circumstances as Robin Hood, I decided to watch The Fox and The Hound again, and it's another movie that I feel has not aged that well with me.

The story offers some very solid messages that are actually worded quite uniquely for a Disney movie, such as "Time has a way of changing things". It benefits especially from how it can connect to people like me, where as we age we leave friends behind to find more. In an era of television animation that consisted of a transition from conflict-free fluff or Scooby-Doo clones to extended forms of product placement (toys, video games), it's most refreshing to see something actually worthwhile. The writing, similarly, nails the subtlety of the message through making Tod a generally naïve and arrogant, yet adorkable character, and Copper as a similarly headstrong understudy. There isn't really too much humor in this movie despite how hard they try to make the slapstick stand out (Dinky, Boomer, and Squeeks probably do only, like, 2 things to advance the plot in some form, which are respectively helping Big Mama with Tod and some symbolism at the end). In the scene where Tod makes a fool of himself trying to catch trout (trying to paw it rather than catch it in his mouth for some reason), he also utters what is probably the lamest G-rated misogynistic insult in any movie I have seen. Vixey and some other characters (Porcupine, Mr. Digger) feel underdeveloped, and I wished this movie received an actual sequel to help with adding to their character. Perhaps the biggest error is once Chief is struck by the train; in spite of being directly hit by the center of the locomotive's cowcatcher, hitting his chin on a sharp cliff, and falling dozens of feet into a shallow and rocky stream, he somehow only incurs a broken left back leg. At least, on the other hand, they nailed the emotion with Goodbye May Seem Forever and the surprisingly effective cliché of thunderstorm right after that.

The animation benefits a lot from this movie's unconfirmed American setting, but more immediately, Tod and Vixey look like real foxes (unlike Robin Hood and Maid Marian, they have white tail tips, black ear tips, and brown "socks" on their legs), and the lighting encapsulates the necessary moods of each scene. From gleaming meadows to gritty and secluded deep forests, Disney was trying quite hard with this movie. I counted only 3 pieces of recycled animation, and they're much more difficult to notice and in less important areas than Robin Hood is. They do still pull off some strange decisions with the effects, especially for the water. To simulate its movement from far away, these animators would place random descending sparkles where the water should be. In a similar vein to Hanna-Barbera, there are also times where they shade parts of the incoming scenery differently when the characters are supposed to interact with it; this is most noticeable during Slade's winter hunt. I do have to give it credit for one thing especially: hands down, it has the most intentionally scary film still in any Disney movie, when Tod snarls at Copper shortly before their fight. Tod also receives some rather risqué eyes when Vixey starts nuzzling him. For the most part, the animation is quite solid, and shows that Disney had a little bit of salvation before near-certain disaster struck them after their next movie.

While this movie is rated G, its action and occasional intimacy make PG a more appropriate rating for it. Quality wise, it's a great movie with barely any serious flaws. Watching it again compared to the previous time I did so, I've picked up on what flaws it does have, and thus it's not the gleaming surprise of the Dark Ages I once thought it was. It's still enjoyable to watch and it ends on a more than satisfying note, so it's worth it. Too bad its midquel is trash.

In my initial review of this movie, I was quite generous with some of my criticism of it, and since my brother and I watched it again yesterday through the 40th Anniversary Blu-Ray, I want to elaborate more on why I believe this movie is overrated.

The story is full of conveniences and is overall just strange for a Disney movie, and not the surreal strange like Dumbo or Pinocchio. It feels very much like Disney was really improvising the plot as they went through and didn't take time to explain things like why Toby is suddenly with the rabbit children when Skippy shoots his first arrow, how Allan-a-Dale connects to the rest of the Merry Men, how the vixen Maid Marian is related by blood to lions Prince John and King Richard, et cetera. In fact, you can actually sum up Robin Hood's plot as "That Happens: The Movie". The Phony King of England comes right out of nowhere after Love (strange it got an Academy Award nomination, because it's not really special other than to give Maid Marian another voice). Its pacing is inconsistent, and despite being set around 1194 (King Richard returned to England that year), it features badminton, balloons, and references to football (complete with the background music for the beautiful brawl being a rendition of On Wisconsin). Not to mention, despite being set in Central England, many of the characters give a feel that it would be set in the American South. The music has more of a country than medieval European feel to it, plus Trigger's crossbows are used to make rifle references. There was even one point where "Devonshire" was mispronounced (as "Devon shai-ur" rather than "Devon-shur" in proper English). Lastly, it has probably the most anti-climactic ending in any Disney movie I can remember. We had established that Robin Hood was a trickster, so of course it wouldn't be unexpected that he would feign his own death. Then we run into the cliché of "evil master gets p*ssed at his henchman", and then we cut immediately to Robin and Marian's wedding without developing King Richard or Marian any more.

Because of the anachronisms and the fact they are convinced they are telling the REAL story of Robin Hood, I am personally convinced Disney instead gave us the depiction of a group of 1973 furries who decided to parody the story of Robin Hood. I could at least respect it more that way, but until Disney confirms such (not that they would), the plot is definitely an indicator that since Walt's passing 7 years before the company had lost their way.

Another big indication that Disney was pulling no punches with being cheap is the animation. Conceptually, Don Bluth managed to bring out a great looking Robin Hood and Skippy, and some other characters do present a bit of creativity with their species (like Lady Kluck). On the other hand you have discount Baloo as Little John (both voiced by Phil Harris and having multicolored flashing eyes in their respective movies' menagerie musical numbers), discount Kaa as Sir Hiss (with identical hypnosis and contortion to match), and mice from The Aristocats. Speaking of which, Robin Hood stole a lot of its animation from earlier movies; for The Phony King of England; Maid Marian's shaking is copied from Duchess' in The Aristocats, and her clapping is Snow White's. Little John's dance with Lady Kluck in the same number is taken from Baloo's dance with King Louie in The Jungle Book. The drumming rabbit is copied from The Aristocats' "Everybody Wants to Be a Cat". Finally, during the "beautiful brawl", there is a maze lanes portion that rips off Alice in Wonderland. Of course, it does use plenty of its own animation later on, most notably for the Sheriff. The lighting messes up at times by making some characters' bodies look the same color (i.e. in the start of "Love", Robin's body starts out completely orange before his neck corrects itself to white). I don't know if I can blame Disney back in 1973 because they were becoming as poor as the Nottinghamians when John raised the taxes, but I was just resentful at how many corners they decided to cut here (they even used a live-action bell for Friar Tuck's church; it was added post-production). As the Sheriff would put it, "There's somethin' funny goin' on around here."

There is (as I had mentioned in my previous review) an alternate ending that, if they actually used, almost salvages this movie. It trades the lack of climax for a more manageable deus ex machina appearance by King Richard, and the way its heavy heart was written in (at least as shown in Most Wanted and 40th Anniversary) actually contrasts pretty nicely with the tone of the rest of the film. With a bit more polish on its script, it would have at least had the movie finish on a more satisfying note.

There are things that I will say this film does right; while the music doesn't always feel in place it's not really horrible, and it does distract a little bit from the two-bit animation it often comes with. The settings do feel appropriate for 1194 Central England, the voice acting is spot on in spite of not enough British voices, and there are occasional and intentional chuckle inducers. It still has Disney color and charm that helps it contribute somewhat to the magic, and because of this, I will say that most children will have a blast with this film. They can appreciate having a relatable character in Skippy, the fair idol of Robin Hood, the beauty of Maid Marian, and a pretty fun villain duo of Prince John and Sir Hiss. The relationship between Robin and Marian, as well as some of the writing, could potentially captivate some adults to like this movie too, if my account icon says anything about that...

So overall, is Robin Hood a bad animated movie in general? No. Is it a bad Disney movie? Yes. The sad thing is, Disney probably couldn't foresee that merely 13 years later, they were on the verge of closing Walt Disney Animation Studios for good. While The Black Cauldron would prove be their near-poison, in an alternate universe where they did fold this would not be a good film to have near the end of their résumé. It's good to watch with the kids, but don't feel overly surprised if you feel underwhelmed after watching it.

On the same Finnair flight where I watched Finding Dory, this film caught my eye due to being not only Finnish animation, but from Finland's most popular cartoon franchise as well. I want you to keep in mind that I have barely heard of Moon before this film, so some things might be different compared to if I read the comics before watching it.

The animation looks alright considering how low its budget was, though it doesn't really bring out the action or humor out as much as would be expected for a comic adaptation. It does satisfactorily bring out the feel of its settings, which I suppose I'm fine with in spite of the grand Riviera not being revealed much beyond its façade. While the plot itself has occasionally good writing, much of it seems to rely on devices (such as the sympathetic loser being given a chance and the decision of familial vs. non-familial love) that feel recycled. While not necessarily outright cliché, methinks, at least from what I have heard following my experience with this movie, that the comic series brought more originality out of their conceptions. We similarly get characters that are developed alright for foreign audiences but are quite bland, again owing to how they follow along to a plot that demands they fill out familiar roles. From the Moomins themselves to wise-cracking Little My, the way this film is written just doesn't do their comic incarnations justice.

This film was overall just interesting enough to prevent me from nodding off, however I would have a hard time believing that common film-goers or even Moomin fans would actually like it. I suppose for diehard fans it would work differently, though like in a lot of cases pleasure would come more from the underlying source than its execution. As something to put on for the children, it would most likely bore them; it does include content on the risqué side to go with that, so watch with care.

After missing out on this film in high school, I got to view it while flying on Finnair. I will say that Finding Nemo is a movie that I can view several times without getting bored, especially from its phenomenal animation. But now that we're here, how does its successor hold it up?

The story does continue with great humor and the use of uneven pacing to its advantage in the action and emotional scenes, though plenty of its ideas (especially the squid chase scene) feel replicated from FN. I do enjoy the new characters very much, especially the clever visual riddles Hank provides, the different kind of heart provided by Jenny and Charlie, and the charming voice acting. I do feel that additional development of Dory's character was a nice touch. From her flashbacks to how her STML is not universal, most additions were not unnecessary, which is the quality a sequel should have. The animation is improved as well, particularly in the land scenes with the extra detail added to the humans and objects. It captures the feeling that each species is what they are supposed to be, from the behavior of the otters to the fluidity of Hank and the squid. It's kind of a given seeing how Pixar has generally top-notch computers, though I cannot stress enough how gleaming a standard it continues to set.

If you can get past how this movie and Finding Nemo have somewhat similar plot executions, then I am confident you'll enjoy it. It has the humor, action, and heart that Pixar rarely produces a dud with, and animation that somehow upgrades the already excellent animation of FN. Besides emotion, parents should also watch for some more intense scenes, for they might be paced a tad too fast for children.

It has been a while since I actually watched the previous 3 Toy Stories, however as with most audiences around the world I do remember finding enjoyment in each. The thought of this movie irked me at first since, in addition to the reputation Pixar has with its other sequels, 3 came with the perfect ending to the franchise's would-be trilogy. Pixar really had a lot riding on this, and...

As with any sequels, I would recommend engaging yourself with the prequels first in order to understand how Toy Story sets itself up as a series of movies (that includes the characters as well). For that reason, really the only big thing I want to say about the characters is that I like how the supposed antagonist is not necessarily a villain. The other new faces, like Ducky and Bunny, offer the expected comedy and heart of Toy Story; their writing enhances this. From the one-liners to the delightful action, the whole theater actually laughed out loud in some scenes. That said, I feel as though the story did sometimes feel cliché. In particular, the scene where Woody falls out with Bo Peep and his allies outside of Second Chance Antiques features the same structure as a lot of other types of these scenes, but isn't executed good enough to make it exceptional. I do have to give TS4 big points for its dénouement, which I find too delicate and powerful to spoil for you all. To round up a story that could have been crafted and showcased much worse for a sequel, we have Pixar's top-notch animation, rendering the effects and objects to the millimeters of detail. As much as the humans continue to have a Pixar feel to them, the toys and all the objects they interact with feel even more so like you could just reach out and grab them like real toys. Sure Coco was way more colorful, but that palette was more intended for that movie's world and wouldn't be necessary in a franchise known for relatively down-to-earth premises.

I have to admit I was disappointed by the lack of aliens, however that is a mere nitpick for a dam* fine addition to Pixar's lineup. As with the previous 3 Toy Stories, I can recommend this to even families who are not big on toys. Lovable and/or sympathetic characters will allure children, while adults can appreciate its solid humor and action. I personally would place it on par with 1, above 2, and below 3. Of course, this now means that any Toy Story 5 will have a lot more riding on it, and I dread to see a wonderful franchise possibly be sullied. For that reason, I feel that Toy Story should at this point not continue in movie form. Instead, more shorts like of Terror or That Time Forgot would continue its charm. Ignoring the future, this is still a movie that makes, at least me, proud to say I love Pixar.

I have been a fan of Pokémon pretty much all my life, from watching my brother play the original Game Boy games to playing them myself, from Red and Blue all the way to Black 2 and White 2 (my favorites will forever be the GBA titles). I also had a fondness for its infamous anime, to the point where I can defend a few of its movies. That said, I was actually not expecting this one to be THAT good, but I felt terrible after watching it. What disappointed me more than it should have?

In all fairness, the designs of virtually all of the depicted Pokémon translate very well into CGI, enhancing the feel that each species is intended to give off. The way that they molded one of Nintendo's cartoonier series into live-action environments with such effects is what makes the action scenes epic and the world of Ryme City believable as a setting. There are some, like Jigglypuff, that probably needed a tad more work to be upgraded from a 2D sprite yet still feel like the same Pokémon. Combined with the effective performances of the human actors, Detective Pikachu is conceptually more complex than a lot of other video game movies, coming with the possibilities of every corner of Ryme City and all 809 species of Pokémon, and how it intersects. What really crashes it is its execution; the movie is quite focused on Tim and Pikachu's quest that it doesn't give itself much time to reveal how Pokémon specifically act in the human world. We don't get a lot of questions answered about how Wild Pokémon assimilated into a highly urban environment, and many more, that people who are not fans of the franchise will face likely bewilderment. Likewise, Pokémon fans will also probably not like how they couldn't even fit some sort of reference to every currently confirmed Pokémon (for example, there isn't a very good balance of species between generations), like maybe a brief Pokédex during the credits or something. I will give that the actors and voices gave their most with the material they were provided, that the action is convincing, and that some of the jokes do provide the chuckles (though it wouldn't have hurt to have made an R-rated cut so Reynolds could give Pikachu the Deadpool treatment).

Even looking at it as a big fan of the franchise, I found it hard to enjoy this movie. It feels too alien with its main story to please Pokémon fans, while non-fans will not receive an in-depth explanation of what Pokémon truly are. I do believe I can recommend this to people who are true PokéManiacs (as in, die-hard fans). However, if you're just looking for a movie to bring your kids to, then this may actually be worth passing over in favor of the anime movies. Yes, I know that some of them are lower quality movies in general, but they're developed better as Pokémon movies through their dedication to the central characters and the ever amusing mischief of Team Rocket. Of course, if you grew up watching the anime or playing the games and have children right now, you could always introduce them to this great franchise through these means. I do not advise using this movie as such a gateway, for its intensity and lack of faith to the rest of the franchise compared to the anime movies will likely repulse them.

I got the chance to watch this when my father had errands to run near a theater where this was playing. In 2016, I was blown away by Kubo and the Two Strings, and so I had hopes for this movie. But enough, let's get on...

As the title implies, this adventure comedy film incorporates some mystery elements into it, namely the connection between the Sasquatch, the yetis, and humanity's ancestors. The script has its clever moments, and does balance out the 3 genres quite well in execution. On the other hand, as the title also indirectly implies, there may end up questions that may not go completely answered, such as Lionel's fascination of a possible connection between the Sasquatch and early humans not feeling correctly resolved, and why the yetis are at such odds with the Sasquatch that they would refer to Susan as a redneck (yes, that happens). In addition, some of the scenes feel really cliché such as the "heroes argue while in a rather hopeless confinement" and the end fight against Stenk. The good news is that the characters are developed acceptably even if they come off as standard, with Stenk being a ruthless pursuer of the protagonists, Susan offering clever literal interpretations out of becoming more familiar with man, Adelina being the motivator, and Lionel being motivated out of jealousy for Stenk's hirers to prove the existence of the Sasquatch. The animation is where I have the most praise for this movie; stop-motion so fluid that it can be confused for CGI, immersive and very highly fitting environments for the supposed settings, and character designs that fit right in with the settings as well. Its fluidity makes the action more intense, a plus considering there are a fair bit of scenes with that as the focus.

This film doesn't really deserve to be the box office bomb it currently is, as in spite of its harrowingly ho-hum story for its caliber, it has fine characters and delivers yet again on Laika's brilliant animation. It's acceptable for children, for history buffs, for families, and for most other people who are just waiting for the big name movies this year. You won't really miss too much if you skip this one, but it's not really a true waste of time either. Just don't be surprised if you actually end up a tad unsatisfied at the end.

Upon seeing that this was playing at the Music Box, I had enough curiosity to go view it with my father. I was totally unprepared for what I was about to watch.

The story is apparently attempting to be very stylish as to fit with its artsy theme, and it does deliver quite a bit on its action and development of its devices. From Ruben's relationship with each painting to the paintings themselves, it does play into the titular character's insanity quite well. At the end of the day, though, I really felt like something big was missing from it. As for the characters, Ruben experiences virtually all the strange things in this movie as part of his psychiatric journey into personal exorcism, the main focus of the plot. We have his henchmen (including Mimi), who provide great action and sometimes humor but are relatively hollow otherwise. They happen to be the principal characters, and the others aren't really worth mentioning as to not spoil your experience with this movie. Easily the best aspect of this movie is its animation; the unique design for its characters and the twists it employs on real art really do bring out Milorad's intent to make this movie as surreal as possible. The character animation makes the action engaging and makes it seem like there are legitimate stakes. The backgrounds capture the necessary feel of each location, from the calm of art museums to the secluded alleys of Paris.

This is a bewildering film, but it's not for families on account of its violence, language, and nudity. For those who love art, this movie will probably be one you would enjoy, but I wouldn't be surprised if you left with some level of disappointment. I really felt, again, like something big was missing from it. So while I don't think this movie is overall even close to bad, I wouldn't recommend it to the common film viewer.

I want to kick this off with a disclaimer that I have not seen the first LEGO Movie in its entirety. There are things, therefore, I will miss here that people who did immerse themselves in the prequel will get more. Anyway, I was very curious about this film, so I got my parents and brother together to view it and...

The main thing that drags this down from being 2019's animated blowout is that the plot is somewhat predictable. Mainly, the ending is somewhat foreshadowed by the first 5 minutes, and while it does incorporate one intriguing yet still obvious twist, it doesn't have its predecessor's advantage of sheer originality. The story does balance this out with a very interesting clash between Finn's and Bianca's imaginations, and of course, very (and I do mean VERY) funny jokes. Most characters don't receive that much development from before (at least from what I remember), but then again, LEGO movies shouldn't be expected to have an even medium sized cast. I did like Emmet's side plot, but I feel like Lucy's came off more as a long joke. But then again, character development isn't what most of us come to a LEGO movie for. That, instead, would be for the animation, which is WAG's best work with the property yet. It incorporates non-LEGO accessories such as glitter to emulate children's mods to the bricks, while also adding some CGI effects to it as well. The CGI is actually crafted so well that some scenes can easily be confused for the stop-motion that many LEGO shorts on YouTube utilize. It executes the ideas with elegance, and convinces that we're in the minds of both children. Finally, there is Mark Mothersbaugh's music, which adds a lot to the nonsensical, mysterious, and puerile nature of LEGOs while also sometimes coming off as hysterically self-aware.

This is a movie that pretty much any family can watch, even if LEGOs don't suit you. It has bearable amounts of the risqué, its humor knocks the block off your funny bones, it has fantastic music, and as with The LEGO Batman Movie, it's FUN. I can recommend this to just about anyone who won't get turned off by a movie so colorful and fast, to the point where I got a headache after watching it (seriously, those end credits were bright!).

As someone who watched the entirety of TFS's abridged Dragon Ball Z, I guess I could consider myself an on-and-off fan of the Dragon Ball franchise. For that reason, I was near-captivated by the thought of seeing this movie at my local AMC. My (brief) opinion?

At times, the plot felt a little too eager to get to the action scenes, though the action is trademark Dragon Ball: with well-crafted effects and general unpredictability, the animation really helps bring out the action scenes. The writing is occasionally hilarious, but mostly it does a fine job of developing its "new" characters. Unfortunately, it doesn't really develop Goku, Vegeta, or some of the other returning characters, as if Toei assumed the audience knew who they were. But that's the thing about anime films like this; they were made for fans. So while it is understandable where Toei was going, it still would have been nice to see a brief time lapse of how other characters like Bulma came to be where they are in the film.

For casual audiences, this may very well be worth your time with its action, surprisingly wonderful animation, and insightful backstories on Broly, Paragus, and a few others. For families, do keep in mind that since it's a Funimation dub, they kept most of the language and violence intact from the original Japanese version. On the other hand, I can almost guarantee you will enjoy this film if you are a Dragon Ball fan. Hey, at least it's better than Evolution, right?

After a month, I received an opportunity to see this movie with my mother and grandfather when visiting my great aunt in Urbana. I had already expected this movie to be full of easter eggs from Disney and elsewhere, and I wasn't expecting it to be that good considering how low I would place its prequel among Disney's Neo-Renaissance films. So now that Ralph has left video games, why do I feel this is an improvement?

To be fair, while the story isn't too ground-breaking for Disney standards with its formula, its approach to the Internet does assist it in manifesting itself within the world of its predecessor. Its approach to spoofing popular apps, again, isn't very original, but its execution was done creatively with the Dark Web and malware. Coming to the "fanservice" part, Disney tried really hard to inflate (oops) this movie with as many references to their properties as possible, including the dedication of two scenes to Disney Princesses. Surprisingly enough, the self-aware writing in these scenes makes them rather pleasing. Finally, for once Disney doesn't try to pull off a twist climax with the way they ended this one. For characters, Ralph and Vanellope aren't that much different from Wreck-It Ralph, though seeing as the film took more time developing their relationship than themselves individually, I personally could live with that. As much as some characters who aren't there for cameos could be developed more (like Yesss), they don't feel pointless and do prove the inevitable: when a movie has potential like this to explore an indefinite quantity of ideas, you don't have to explore or even glance at all of them, for that would just waste time. I don't have much to say about the animation (it's WDAS depicting the eternally extended Internet mixed in with their old ideas, very hard to fault), but I received a most pleasant auditory surprise with its music. Alan Menken once again nailed it with his piece for Vanellope, and the petite trinkets of other iconic songs (Disney or not) were enjoyable to my accompaniment.

I do recommend this movie more than its predecessor to regular Disney fans, but I will say that parents may need to take children with them to understand some of the cameos, easter eggs, and ideas this film presents. If technology isn't your thing, I would actually say this isn't a movie for you. For a casual audience, I can't really make up my mind on a recommendation since there's so many variables. From your opinion on the first WI-R to your opinion on technology to your opinion on Disney in general, I am utterly torn and honest when I say it's all up to you on whether you want to view this movie. Children may enjoy the cameos from video game characters and get into the mindsets of Internet users, while adults may enjoy the Princess scenes and earn some information on how the Internet actually works. Just don't say anything about the BPCM game at the end, because with fanservice comes fanart, and...

OK, sorry. But if you're just picking an animated movie at random, this is another solid bet Disney has brought us.

Since I recently saw this movie again during a seminars day at my school, and since I was unsatisfied with my first review of this movie, I have decided to rewrite it. It was a slow Halloween despite a costume-con in my school's atrium, but conveniently it quieted down as this movie began. So why is this movie better than I initially remembered it?

The story, admittedly, does utilize some clichés (especially in its twists), but its structure is very solid overall. It flows affably and delivers on the humor, courtesy of its voice acting (I loved Miguel Ferrer's portrayal of Shan Yu) and the way it wrote its comic reliefs. Not only do these reliefs provide some good chuckles, but Mushu in particular is important to the plot due to his fire breathing and mentoring of Mulan. For our characters, we have the titular Mulan as the woman who wants to deliver more than what is expected of her by any means necessary, Li Shang as her tough yet fair CO, and Shan Yu as a genuinely threatening and bad@$$ villain with, again, an intimidating and all-around awesome voice. Most other characters outside of the Fa family, the Emperor, and Chi Fu are either summed up in tropes (Mulan's trio of friends) or just not important to the main story. Our main characters are memorable and complex, just as we expect from a Disney movie. Even 20 years later, the animation still resonates with its depiction of ancient China, its moderately thrilling action, its appealing character designs, its commitment to the humor, and its enhancement of the songs. It's smooth and perfectly fluid to give the human characters realism, and does enough with its effects and stylization of the animal characters to make them believable in their world. The songs are forgettable in comparison to other Disney songs of the period, but they are very fun to listen to, don't interrupt the plot flow, and make the montages easy to remember, more so than the songs themselves.

Mulan, at least for me, comes off as one of the few Disney movies where one more easily understands it if they view it as they grow older. Young children may remember the songs, Mushu's jokes, some sight gags, and the action, while older children may point out that Mulan is a solid role model. As such, if your family has children of various ages, this would be a safe bet for movie nights. It is a worthwhile addition to Disney collections, even if VP Pence doesn't think highly of it.

I noticed that the Gene Siskel Film Center was playing a subtitled version of this movie, which I had on my watchlist. Because I just couldn't turn down the opportunity, I managed to bring my father along for the trip. We were able to get to the GSFC just in time, and had ourselves quite the blast; here's why.

The story is an anthology trio, with the second one concerning the titular Big Bad Fox. The first concerns the delivery of a baby named Pauline by a trio of the farm's animals after a stork feigns wing injury, while the third concerns the same trio searching for (and later saving) Father Christmas. While the stories aren't really connected besides a play that functions as intermission between the segments, they actually each stand out individually with funny writing, fascinating twists, and rather strange ideas that turn out warming. I was actually smiling for most of the movie because when its humor wasn't jabbing at my funny bones, its pacing and action were delightful. When it comes to the characters, we have the old gruff Dog who is incompetent at protecting the hens, the trio of a duck, rabbit, and pig who deliver Pauline and save Father Christmas despite their conflicting behaviors resulting in shenanigans, and the titular Fox who idolizes and is mentored by Wolf. We have protective mothers in the Hens, and oblivion in their chicks, resulting in the main strange idea of this movie: children can have biological AND step-mothers simultaneously, live happily with both, and see both of them frequently. It gives segment 2 an unexpected ending considering its synopsis and setup. Simply put, while the characters are slightly more on the simpler side in terms of design, the way they are cast and written make them stand out very well. The animation seems somewhat limited in terms of its movements, but the slapstick and comedic timing are really enhanced by its stretchier style on the animals. For a film produced on a budget of less than $10 million, it could have looked significantly worse, but its ability to convey the humor, action, and overall tone of this film helps it be a prime example of French animation.

This is a movie that I can recommend to any family; it has nothing objectionable and its violence is mere slapstick (it actually comes off funnier than many big name studios' attempts to pull it off in their films). In the GSFC I could hear adults and children alike laughing at its humor, which I find is a signal of a film worthy as a comedy for families. I also recommend it for anyone who likes animation, French movies, or obscurity. I want to use this review to thank GKIDS for subtitling yet another amazing movie, and distributing it here for families. It's not just our companies who can produce great children's movies, and GKIDS has rightfully carried this out once again.

As I started my camp in Vermont, one of our counselors decided to put this movie on. I was surprised at how few people went with us to view it, as I was very curious. My family loves the Flying Circus, and for several years they have wanted me to view some of their skits. Now, what is it about this movie that makes it hold up?

For characters, we have twists on Arthur's Knights of the Round Table that stem from 932 social attitudes applied to 1975. Arthur himself is a tad vain in terms of desiring the Holy Grail, all under the guise of serving God Himself. As expected in group comedies, his Knights come with specific kinks that add to, with the exception of Bevedere, the scenes focusing on them specifically. The way the characters' personalities clash, such as the Frenchman and the 3-headed giant, add more to the comedy. The actors seem to know exactly when they're following the down-to-earth style of the marches or the over-the-top style of their skits. There are several facial expressions that add to the silliness, but I feel that the choreography will be more likely in delivering laughs. The environments feel realistic for 932 outside of the 1975 policemen, although I was rather confused about how Aramaic found its way to England that early. What really makes this film stand out as funny, however, is its incredibly witty writing. Granted, British comedy in the 70s would be rather difficult for 2018 Americans to fully comprehend, but the wide array of sight gags, action, strange quotes, and behaviors are sure to at least once cause an uproar. It's occasionally complex and surreal, but this isn't really a film for children anyway. As such, it may not end up being an issue.

Older families will be highly entertained by this film, while young children may be surprised by the nudity, innuendo, occasional language, and violence. It's a classic case of something that the Parental Guidelines would rate PG-DLSV; in other words, know your children before watching this with them. If they are fine with these things, then it may end up being one of the greatest live-action comedies for families. That is more than enough for me to recommend this film.

As part of my flight to Boston in preparation for our camp, American Airlines had this movie as an option for in-flight entertainment. Given its placement on my watchlist, I figured I would be opportunistic. What do I think?

To start with, this film is written in a way that puts it at the middle ground between children's and adult's animation. It adapts Dahl's children's novel into something a tad more heavy-hearted. I won't talk about the story too much since it succeeded in adapting the novel, but its additions (such as the capture of Kristofferson) are written in a way that actually work out in its favor. Our characters benefit from this too, with the combination of familiarity from the novel and somewhat modern twists to their personality (such as Kristofferson's flair for meditation). It actually seems that both our protagonists and antagonists can be sympathized with; out of mere nature, the former want their food and the latter want to keep them away. While the Foxes can be summed up as the usual family of 3, I enjoyed Rat's threatening demeanor, Petey's music, and Kylie's comic stare. What really strengthens the characters, however, is the believable and spot-on voice acting. It fits both the cartoonish influence of Dahl's novel for some characters and the different aim of this movie for others. The stop motion environments feel like they are very comparable to Aardman's work, with the detail on the fields and locations, the unique character models. Like Kubo and the Two Strings, the animation possesses surprising fluidity in the movements of both characters and objects, which is wonderful for its assortment of action/peril scenes.

This isn't really a "children's" movie as much as it is a family movie. Children will enjoy the cute animals and the similarities to Dahl's work, while adults will enjoy the action, humor, and less light-hearted tone. It's worth 87 minutes of anyone's time, really, and I'll be cussed if anyone didn't end up having a good thing to say about it. OK, maybe once was enough...

To spend part of my final full day at home before I headed off to Vermont, I viewed a Blu-Ray copy of this movie that, as with many of my more recent reviews, was a gift from my brother. I have been anticipating a view of this for some time, and now that I have taken my chance, why do I believe this doesn't need to be so obscure?

I want to begin by saying that character wise, the relationship between Jim and John Silver is one of the most fascinating, complex, and unpredictable I have ever seen in a Disney movie. I literally couldn't tell if John would end up being a villain, an anti-hero, or a minor protagonist based on everything that happened. That alone makes for a solid development of our characters, even when Silver's buddies don't have much to offer besides the goon trope. This character building almost complements the story with grace; they refrain from using expected twists or plot devices, such as what happens to Jim after Arrow's death. The ideas of the worlds are rather creative (such as the strange technology in the core of the treasure planet), while the aliens don't get as much of a boost. Sure, we do have some crazy designs and traits for some of the aliens, but I saw some really common ones like hammerhead-style eyes. The good news? The simple designs aren't for vital characters, which really helps considering it would make the movie significantly less interesting in comparison to other space movies. The music doesn't fit the scenes too well, and in fact I was confused about their use of a pop-rock number during one of Jim's flashbacks. If they kept using the orchestra for that scene and shifted the pop-rock to a montage, that would be easier to watch (even though other movies would have done that better). Very easily, though, the animation is what kills the chances of this being a bad movie. It presents the ideas of Treasure Island in space with really tense action and effects that beat out Atlantis: The Lost Empire's. The designs for the characters, backgrounds, and locations are, again, mostly original. That, I believe, is sufficient in giving it another identity than "just another kid friendly aliens movie with humor, action, and maybe heart".

Families should be advised that the action is almost hardcore for a Disney movie, so it could induce some scares in children. Jim's relationships with Silver may raise questions, but his commitment to the Benbow Inn as well as the cuteness/coolness factor of Morph may be the primary balance. For a general audience, I would say this is worth its 90 minutes of run time for its action. For most Disney movies, I find that to be the rule, but I did end up entertained. It may not appeal to Treasure Island fans, but people who like Disney, space, or animation may approve of this film in the end.

I spent some time today to watch a Blu-Ray copy of this film. As a gift from my brother, we planned to watch the subtitled original together. This review will cover the Funimation dub, so obviously there will be differences.

The story possesses many similarities to the plot of the first Bayonetta video game, with a few differences that make it more original overall than many other movie tie-ins. Granted, it's still not enough to make it seem like more than video game cutscenes drawn in anime, but it delivers on the action and occasional humor or drama with more success than others of its kind. If you have played Bayonetta, then the characters should feel very familiar. For audiences who haven't one bit of knowledge, they can be hard to grasp considering how reliant the writing is on the game's plot. We have the trope of a protagonist's family member for a villain in Balder, the forgotten child Bayonetta, her enabler Jeanne, the tough guy Rodin, and the informant Enzo, the characters are only as complex as they are in the game they came from. To its credit, Bayonetta does have a more deep plot compared to many other video games, so it does work out. Very easily, the animation is the best thing about this movie. The fantasy elements, monsters, and action work gracefully and pristinely with Gonzo's style of anime. The effects are enough to make the fights compelling to watch, while the ideas from the video games (such as the Gomorrah that Bayonetta summons with Avavago) look really amazing with the environments.

If you like Bayonetta or are familiar with the franchise, this film is somewhat unremarkable besides just looking like an eye candy version of gameplay. For common audiences (no children, there is graphic violence, language, and nudity, like a classic R film), it may come off as just another otaku movie that isn't designed to cater to a general audience. I didn't find it too interesting, but for some people, its very strong animation and overall higher quality compared to other video game movies may come off as a delightful surprise.

I adore The Incredibles. In fact, I'd say that of Pixar's early 2000s movies, it would be my favorite. Understandably, I was hyped for this movie when it was announced, to the point that I watched its prequel again in order to prepare myself for continuity errors here. After a bit of deliberation, my father managed to find a Friday evening that worked for both of us. Now that we have seen it, what is my personal opinion?

Admittedly, the already familiar plot does draw back on the potential of this movie as a sequel, since it pulls some of the same plot points from the first one but with drastic tweaks. Fundamentally, it's very similar to the first Incredibles, but when carried out, it's a tad more interesting than it would seem. It trades some of the originality and witty, insightful commentary for humor, which is actually a very acceptable trade-off. Sure, there are the cliché jokes such as hand washing, but many of the others are fast-paced. I could actually recall most of my fellow audience members chuckling at some parts. Of course, we also have the family focus side, which is conceptually identical to the first movie but is twisted. Again, not original, but the edits are just enough to save it from being a retelling of the first movie. As time has drawn on, Pixar has continued to upgrade their films, and here, the aesthetics actually received some very glorious upgrades. The environments feel like more attention was added to the detail, and the effects take advantage of the 14-year gap with light flashes and real world tech like VR (the hypnotism goggles). As one of the first film's officers would say to Pixar regarding the overall animation, "You've done it again." I won't talk much about the main characters since they're the same, but I do admire the slight development of Jack-Jack and how the focus on the legal status of supers affects the returning characters. I was disappointed that we didn't see Mirage, Bomb Voyage, or some other characters from the original movie, but I do feel like the new supers and the Deavors made up for it in the end.

If you are a fan of the first Incredibles, you will either love this film for its action, humor, and improved animation, or hate it since, considering its similar plot to the prequel, it may as well have been a (n honestly well thought) fanfic of the first movie. For everyone else, this is more of an older kids' film due to its language and slightly more mature subject matter, but it still has the action, humor, and consistent commitment to family and life that should make it a solid bet for entertainment. I personally enjoyed it, and I expect that families will, most likely, end up satisfied.

As with yet another boring day without school or early activities, I made the decision to view a Blu-ray copy of this film that, as with its prequel, was brought to me as a gift from my loving brother. I made it my choice since I had An American Tail in mind from the previous day, and so viewing this today would make some of the continuity more memorable. So why do I think this movie is an improvement, if slightly?

I found that the story was a tad more engaging in this film. Sure, it doesn't have the epic prospects of immigration or dealing with topics such as cultural appropriation, but I found no glaring writing errors or problems with continuity. It continues to offer some great action and passable jokes (aside from Wylie's occasional crudity), and that's good enough for at least me. It does have Native stereotypes, continues to have abrupt cutaways, and has some rather questionable lines regarding a god vs. dog transformation, so while it's more polished, it continues to have some issues. Given the 5-year gap, the animation was overall upgraded, which is unfortunately more than can be said of many other animated movie sequels. It continues to make the action appear menacing and keep it cartoony enough to make the gags more than worthy of a few chuckles. The environments, owing to the more light-hearted nature of this film, are generally more vibrant. Sure, it isn't eye candy or overall blowout like in Beauty and the Beast, but it offers little distractions from what is meant to be seen. I feel like the characters are a bit of the same, though, since both Mama and Papa Mousekewitz don't have much importance other than being Fievel's social guides, Yasha is still not that meaningful aside from a visual diversion, and Fievel is still bold and at times foolish. I also felt like parts of the film focused way more on Tiger than on Fievel, but since they took time to develop his previously hollow character, I felt fine with Tiger being the de facto lead in the latter half. The new characters are less developed than they are just fun to witness, like Waul and Chula. Probably my choice for biggest improvement, however, would be the music. In the first An American Tail, I found the numbers somewhat tolerable, but mostly approaching gritting with how high the voices went. Here, I found Tanya's voice to be actually really beautiful, and the other songs were delightful to hear in general. Granted, they're still not that memorable, but they're easier to hear compared to the previous songs (including the previous version of Somewhere Out There).

If you were a fan of the first movie, it's pretty much a coin flip. You'll either appreciate its new direction, slightly more polished writing, and better character development for Tiger, or you'll dislike its light-hearted turn and its removal of Bridget and Tony. For casual movie-goers, it could pretty much go the same way as well. Families will likely enjoy this movie more because of its humor, more vibrant animation, and catchy songs. Sure, its story isn't as fundamentally composite, but when the viewing experience is fun, it feels as though it doesn't need to be. It beats out many other animation sequels and even some films Don Bluth himself actually contributed to, so it makes a nice alternative for those who want to start a Bluth collection but are afraid of having to ask for the worst of his movies. If parents can get by the same drinking, smoking, and sporadic crudity, then the family could very well have a blast watching this movie.

As today was rather uneventful, I made the decision to view a Blu-Ray copy of this film my brother had provided to me as a gift. I had last watched this film about 5 or 6 years ago as part of a 6th grade Humanities class, so I figured a slight nostalgia trip would provide some entertainment for an otherwise boring day. Looking at it again, how has it held up for me?

I was pleased with the animation quality in general, since in spite of it depicting things that are too weird to work with a cartoony style (like jiggly body parts) in a G rated film, the effects (such as the cat shadows, light flashes, and the Great Mouse of Minsk) are very well done for 1986. It isn't as breathtaking as The Secret of NIMH, but the animation is bound to please many who view it. The characters range from actually fascinating to ones who can be summed up by a trope, both in terms of actions and personality. Fievel turns out to be a rather sympathetic character in spite of his naïveté and frail emotions, giving us the message of determination with Henri that sums up what the US should be for the world. As I said, most of the other vital characters can be summed up in tropes (the con Warren, friendly fat man Tiger), which is unfortunate considering both The Secret of NIMH before it and its Disney rival TGMD offered characters that required a whole TV Tropes page to sum up. The biggest issue this movie has, though, is its story. I will give that it did write out the action and calm scenes well, but there are some supposedly minor things that actually impact how one may end up viewing the film. As one example, when Fievel goes into the sewers for the first time, he doesn't bring his hat with him. After the cockroaches chase him, he somehow has his hat even though he never went back up to retrieve it. In one scene, Fievel appears to sleep in a straw basket on a puddle of water, which disappears the following day. Fievel seems to know Bridget's name in her introduction scene even though she never informed him of that. Lastly, Tony had no information that Warren was actually a cat, and merely acted on Fievel's tip that he was an impostor. The story, in summary, had great potential that was unfortunately mostly lost in a series of not-so-convoluted errors. On the bright side, though, the music is actually really endearing, and the action and humor do work very well.

An American Tail came off to me as one of those movies you liked more as a child than in coming years. Families will get some laughs, some scares, and some tears from this movie, but given its writing goofs, I am not confident that everyone who views this will end up really pleased. However, unlike All Dogs Go To Heaven, it's not a film I will say is overrated. It is still emotional, hilarious, and adrenaline-inducing, which should be enough to provide many with a satisfying movie experience. In my book, that's just enough to give this film a passing score. Just be aware, parents, that there is alcohol, cigar use, and occasional bright flashes in this film.

I had the opportunity to see this movie when my father provided a request. In some light rain, we trekked to an ICON location to view this movie. My father had already informed me of the favorable reviews of this movie, but I would like to set those aside entirely. Instead, since that is the point of my review, I will be presenting my personal thoughts on this movie. Now to not dawdle...

The premise behind the story was already a curious one to craft a film from, and the presentation of it didn't disappoint. We have the tale of dogs shunned by future Japan and exiled to a figurative Hell, the dystopian society of Megasaki led by one who wants to decimate the dog population, and that man's adopted son who journeys to the island to find his long lost guide and friend. Despite having enough material for 3 film plots, Anderson blended them together so intricately that one may just forget, in all the thrills and laughs, how complex the story becomes. Being my first Wes Anderson movie, I can't say much about his style of humor except that for this film, it works. For the characters, I did end up getting confused in Part 4 when it comes to the feud between Kobayashi and Domo, since we didn't get much development of the latter's character enough to understand his view on the dog epidemic. For the rest of the characters, I can say that they fit their purposes in the plot excellently, be they the main characters or the kind who are just slightly more useful than comic reliefs. The blend of stop motion and traditional animation is rather strange, especially when the traditional animation isn't in a more anime style like I would expect for a Japanese setting. That's not to say the animation is disappointing, especially when it pulls off nice effects with stop motion that I would actually compare to Kubo and the Two Strings. The character designs and animation do offer in creativity and do complement the setting well.

This is a movie that I am sure most older families would enjoy. If children are able to get past the offensive and violent language, they could take something away from this as well. People who like dogs or futuristic settings would be the most likely to enjoy this movie, but for a general audience, I would overall find this a safe bet for pleasing. A bit confusing, but in a way that puts us in thought. After all, one aspect that makes many animated films great is that they get us to ponder their messages, especially more contemporary ones. For this, there isn't much of a deviance from that, so see it and be prepared to encounter (the good kind of) complexities.

I had the opportunity to watch this film during a day of seminars at my high school. We planned to watch this the first time we had the seminar, however not all of my classmates brought the permission slips. Now that everyone brought them, we truly kicked off the seminar with this film, and what be my thoughts?

I really appreciated how realistic the acting turned out to be; the emotions, the situations and how the actors responded approach the struggles that plenty of high school seniors face in getting into college. The powerful implications behind the behavior of certain characters, especially Marion, bolstered this further by making the struggles even more believable. In some ways, it actually reminds me of my own problems when approaching college, specifically finding a school where I would fit well, do well, and be well but wouldn't financially strain my parents. The set designs aren't too special, again owing to the fact that they're attempting a realistic approach, but they are utilized nicely by the actors. I don't have much to say about the cinematography, since it covers the angles that would be used with one's eyes to view fascinating events, but doesn't do anything otherwise notable.

Despite how much I enjoyed this movie, I feel like its messages and structure will appeal more to those who can immediately connect to it. I feel like the people who would most like this movie are ones like Christine, though I personally do not know many people who are in positions comparable to her own. I could recommend this to older families, but I do feel like a bit more caution should be taken with this film than with other films I rated 8. But should you consider seeing it anyway? Most absolutely.

While flying back from Los Angeles, I had the chance to view this movie on the American Airlines in-flight entertainment. It was the one Pixar movie before their post-TS3 Dark Age that I had yet to view. So why is this my favorite Pixar film?

I appreciated the simplicity of the dialogue, which while not that creative, is executed differently than other sci-fi by focusing more on the robots. The setting is my personal favorite when it comes to Pixar films, as it reminded me slightly of my Ratchet and Clank-infused childhood; futuristic but indeed realistic, with so many different robots that have spoiled the human race. The humor works and the action is highly intense; for most of them I was just sitting there in awe. As for the environmentalism, it's highly subtle, but it does dawn eventually that we need to take more action to stunt the development of such a dystopia. Many other environmental movies like Norm of The North and FernGully fail because they end up becoming too preachy and pandering with the same overall message. For the characters, AUTO isn't my favorite Pixar villain, but it does encapsulate the dangers of surrendering common tasks to robots (as many other parts of the AXIOM scenes depict). The chemistry between WALL-E and EVE was delightfully complex, given how they have different and not usually overlapping directives, and how a lot of the stages allowed for a G-rated movie play out differently in this setting. Even 10 years later, the animation is nothing short of glorious, even for Pixar's standards at the time. The character designs and effects continue to resonate in an era where we have studios continuing to push out much simpler designs for characters and objects.

Some people who don't appreciate environmentalism may not like this movie, but I can recommend this to just about any curious viewer. It's safe for families (if a bit loud sometimes) and is, all in all, my favorite Pixar film so far. It's just one of those movies that we look back upon and say "Really? How on Earth did we create this 10 years ago?"

As I had to return to Chicago tomorrow, I recommended to my aunt that we view this as a parting gift. It was the first time I had seen this film in over 16 years, so it felt fascinating to view it on VHS after all this time between her house and some theater I don't remember from my infancy. So what do I appreciate about this film?

The story is rather nice with its idea of combining modern technology with what people in 1914 believed would be the near future, as well as providing a different perspective on Atlantis than the usual mythology. It isn't acted to its fullest (I noted some parts where Michael J. Fox's performance as Milo felt really off), but does pull off the occasional gag and passable action. I believe Lyle to be in the mid-tier of Disney Villains, as he has an impressive motivation but doesn't carry it out too effectively. The characters are a rather strong suit of this movie, with Milo of course having a familial legacy to develop and the Atlanteans being significantly more sophisticated than a society buried for centuries underwater would suggest initially. I found the specialists to be a tad above standard for somewhat minor characters, but they did contribute enough in the action and gags departments that I did have some fun. By far, however, the animation is the best thing about this movie; the character designs are really catching and the environments are among the best I have ever seen in a Disney movie. And oh goodness, the effects... I just can't describe them. And it's at that point when you know Disney is on another level altogether.

As forgotten as this movie is in the Disney canon, the animation is sure to please Disney fans. Ones who have sci-fi hold them to captivity will likely get something out of this, though it's more for a slightly older audience compared to the average Disney movie. That said, families can enjoy it just fine.

This was the final film my aunt and I viewed today, again on VHS. I was really elated from this morning to see this, as it begun what many people my brother's age proclaim as the best Disney era. So here lie my thoughts on it.

While the story doesn't adapt everything in the Andersen tale, it pulled off some really great humor and magic that made Disney glorious again back in 1989. Almost every scene in this movie ended up taking my mind to places of fascination, which I would say even rival some films I consider a 10. The character development was absurdly strong, providing with it the lessons of knowing the implications of selfishness, and I do think Ursula is one of the better Disney Villains from her complex motives and just being all around awesome. The animation is of a quality I cannot describe; I could say that it conveys vivid environments and character designs, and I could say that it really does upgrade the occasional slapstick and sight gags, but that wouldn't scratch the surface of what Disney has achieved here. I will say right now that only Mary Poppins has a better overall score among all the Disney films I have seen; in the animated canon, though, this takes the cake. The 3 main songs of this movie all deserve to be remembered for years and really do serve as a foreshadowing to the career of the amazing Alan Menken.

Any Disney fan or animation historian will want to view this movie for the impact it has made. While I still stand by that the Renaissance actually started with The Great Mouse Detective, this solidified its existence and brought complete stability to the company. Just for that, I want to give this film a special place in my heart. I possess optimism that many of you out there reading this will find at least 2 things to enjoy. For a Disney film, that's well above a compliment, but I feel it meritorious of such.