66 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A Harry Potter based film without Harry Potter? No problem.
25 November 2016
Originality is nearly non-existent in the movie industry now a days since sequels, spin-offs, prequels, and Remakes dominate. But I do usually see them because the originals are good. Checking this out in theaters for me didn't require any trailers, because its based on the Harry Potter universe. What's not to like about that?

This film is set in the same universe as Harry Potter, except in 1926, in New York. It is centered on the wizard Newt Scamander, who brings magical a suitcase containing Magical Creatures to New York, but when the creatures come loose, its up to him and his friends to get them back to avoid getting exposed to non magical people. The movie mostly has a good pace, and is fun. It also introduces interesting ideas to the universe, which really got me intrigued. However, it can be confusing, and hard to get into at first. When I watched it, it took me 10-15 minutes to understand it. But those little nitpicks don't take away the good writing this film has.

For the characters of this film, they are a pretty enjoyable cast. The main character Newt (I'm just going to be honest) is a moron. Seriously why would anyone think that bringing a suitcase of magical creatures that isn't 100% secure to a city of non magical people is a wonderful idea? However, he is a fun character with a goofy personality and if great to follow. Also joining the adventure, is the auror Tina and her sister Queenie, who are likable and contribute to the adventure. But my favorite character is Jacob, who is a no-maj(non magical person) who gets involved in the adventure and helps Newt. I liked how he has a goofy personality and is very funny. The fantastic beasts in the movie are also really funny, and cute as well. I only mentioned those because the rest of the cast involves spoilers, but the characters are overall pleasant additions to the Harry Potter universe.

The visual effects in this movie are better than shown in the other 8 Harry Potter movies. The budget is 180 million and it shows. The design of the animals are brilliant, (just to avoid the "fantastic" pun)with unique abilities, and they all stand out rather than simply having dragons. Other magic in the film is unique (like the suitcase). I like how this film used many more of these ideas to bring to life and doesn't make it stand out as much in the action scenes or use gimmicks (unlike the other Harry Potter films). So overall, brilliant visual effects to add to this film.

After the Harry Potter films, I didn't expect this spin-off to be this good, but I was wrong. The movie is overall a holiday treat with a Fun story and characters, interesting ideas, and awesome effects. It is a recommendation from me indeed, and after this, we'll see if the next spin-off coming to theaters near us, Rouge One: A Star Wars Story, can top this.
21 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the darker 2016 animated movies, also one that is Oscar worthy
28 August 2016
Look guys, I appreciate stop motion. I've seen some shorts that feature it, mostly Wallace and Gromit and Shaun the Sheep. I even saw The Oscar nominated Shaun the Sheep movie while traveling to Paris. But I haven't seen any of Laika's movies. Not even Coraline. But when the trailers made it intriguing, I knew I was going to miss something big if I didn't go. I'm glad I did go (Note: this review will be spoiler free).

The story is about Kubo, a storyteller with the ability to use two strings to animate his storytelling, who must go on a quest to find his fathers magical armor to fight his grandfather, the Moon king. Going into it, I thought it would be too similar to other action packed animated films, but I was incorrect. The story is sometimes unique, yes action packed, and entertaining. I do have one nitpick to give out, but I won't say it do to spoilers.

Along with the great writing, we are brought a cast of memorable and charming characters. Kubo is a likable main character that is bright, funny, and brave. What is more interesting about him and the journey is that the journey he goes through is similar to the story he tells. The monkey (who came to life from a money charm) starts out as the impatient guardian of Kubo through his journey, but then becomes less harsh on Kubo and more caring. She was my personal favorite character due to bringing humor in her impatience and sarcasm. Bettle, who was formerly trained by Kubo's samurai father and then cursed to become a beetle, is the more dim-witted one, but is very funny and charming as well and serves some purpose to the plot. Kubo's two aunts (who are on his grandfathers side) are CREEPY beyond belief, and those two characters make it more suitable for audiences older than 6. There's a few others I won't spoil, but they bare importance to the plot as well.

The animation in this movie is unbelievable. The animators took years of effort to create figures and animate them, and the effects and character movements came out so great that has just as good animation as the lego movie. It looks realistic and beautiful, and the credits are similar to Hotel Translvania where they have traditional animation. Also, the humor in the movie is really funny, and makes the movie even more enjoyable.

Kubo and the two strings is a movie that I highly recommend to 8 or over. The writing is solid, the animation is beautiful, and the characters are memorable. So all I can say is go watch it. Just do it. It's a movie for kids and adults alike, and it gives Zootopia a run for its money (No pun intended, it's not getting even close to what Zootopia got in the US and Canada).

2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The mediocre dinosaur
9 August 2016
In 2015, after the spectacular Inside Out by Pixar, I was looking forward to this film that would mark the first time Pixar has ever released 2 films in the same year rather than one at a time. However, I did not see it in theaters but saw it on a plane in February along with Hotel Transylvania 2 (I never get tired of movies on a plane since they are free, have you ever been on one of those flights?). But that's not the point. So once I saw this movie, I could understand how critical people were of this movie.

First things first, the writing is complete garbage. It doesn't give us any new ideas by ripping off The Lion king, with Arlo's dad dying. It is also fascinatingly predictable since we already know from the trailers what's ahead for Arlo and Spot. There is only a little heart, and you don't feel for the relationship between Arlo and Spot because the story is so rushed. Because of this, the journey is underwhelming and the lack of length and many slow moments makes the ending too sudden. A good example of a film that has good pacing is Inside Out, not making it too fast for the ending to be this sudden and not too slow to make it boring (some may disagree though). I expect better writing from Pixar because this horribly paced, predictable, unoriginal, and fascinatingly underwhelming story makes DreamWorks writing look like Finding Nemo.

For the characters, there is Arlo, who probably has the least development of a Pixar protagonist. Despite making friends with Spot, I don't feel for this annoying, foolish, and enamoring kid. The father is basically the caring father who is bland and we don't care about him very much. The same apply's to the rest of Arlo's family pretty much. Spot however is a fun and likable character who cares for Arlo. Thunderclap and his gang are the bland antagonists who have no other motives other than attack and kill Arlo and Spot. However I did like the caring and friendly T-Rex family. They were very good characters that cared deeply for our 2 protagonists, however they were wasted since they get very little screen time. So these are basically Pixar's weakest characters since Cars 2.

The animation in the movie is nothing short of spectacular. The backgrounds look awesome and believable, the sound is great, and the characters are well designed. The only problem is the inconsistency, with Spot looking realistic, and the dinosaurs looking very cartoony. But overall, Pixar is better than ever in terms of animation.

There may be some things done right, but this is not Pixar. Despite Great animation, the movie has awful writing, and a weak cast of characters. I even consider it on par with Dreamworks projects due to this. That is saying a lot because I think Pixar is the best animation company, not DreamWorks animation. Despite intense scenes Kids 7-10 will likely get a kick out of this. If you are curious and is older than that age range, I would recommend skipping it and checking out Inside Out, or renting it for just one night if you are very curious. It may not be a total waste of time due to the animation and a few good characters, but it really misses my expectations.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Finding Dory (2016)
A sequel on par with if not, bettet than the original
5 August 2016
I saw Finding Dory several weeks ago, and I have to admit, I can be slow at making reviews, but that's not the point. I really enjoy Finding Nemo for its great concept, humor, and heart. Similar to the gap between Toy Story 2 (1999) and 3 (2010), this comes 13 years after the original. Because of the long gap and how most sequels aren't as good as the original, I thought I would enjoy it but it wouldn't be as good as the original. I was wrong, and here's why:

In this movie, Dory, (the blue tang who suffers from short term "remembery" loss) remembers that she has a family and sets off to find them with her two friends, the clownfish father and son Marlin and Nemo, and Dory (while trying to find her family) gets separated from Marlin and Nemo, and the father and son duo must FIND DORY (get it). From this summary, I will admit it has similarities to the original, and it can get a little predictable. However, the story has depth, (no pun intended) and true heart of a Pixar movie, especially when we see Dory's struggle with short term "remembery" (I meant memory) loss. It is also enjoyable, with some cleverness and it isn't very predictable.

As for the characters, everyone's favorite blue tang is back, and she's better than ever. She's three dimensional, therefore well developed, and still very enjoyable with a good personality. However, Marlin and Nemo are still enjoyable and funny, however not as well developed as Dory in this one. Hank the octopus (or septopus) is a very funny character who is grouchy, but later shows that he does in fact have three hearts. Destiny and Bailey are like the tank gang, and are enjoyable as well, however not as great. Mr. Ray is as funny as ever, and other characters from the first one get cameos. This may not be the best cast of characters, but it is good to see some old ones again.

For other things, the animation is better than terrific. It upgraded the original animation by giving out even better textures, backgrounds, and design. Pixar delivered a whole new level of high by animating Hank and his camouflage well and detailed. Also the humor is really funny, mainly from Marlin, (no pun intended)Mr. Ray, Dory, and Hank.

Finding Dory isn't as good as Zootopi, but is close with a 3 dimensional plot, characters that not even Dory herself could forget, and stellar animation. I definitely recommend it. Pixar has rebounded from the let down the good dinosaur.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An improvement over Minions, but absolutely not perfect.
16 July 2016
This film is from illumination entertainment, which recently created the first non Disney animated film to crack 1 Billion worldwide, Minions. For my thoughts on the studio, Despicable me 1, and 2 were great, Hop was OK, but forgettable, but The Lorax and especially Minions were bad. Then this film came along.

Easily the weakest part is the writing. It rips off Toy Story using the same concept except with pets, which makes this movie very predictable, often in the first hour. It however, becomes a lot less predictable in the 3rd act, which gives it some suspense. This is also a problem with Independence day resurgence, but unlike that movie, the concept is well executed, which makes this movie entertaining. I had a good time watching it because of that. But overall, this writing is mediocre.

The characters in this movie are one of my favorite parts. Max is, however the weaker one who is like Woody from Toy Story, who is a jerk to his companion at first, but then grows to be friends with him. The rest of the characters are all lovable and enjoyable to watch, suck as Duke, Gidget, Chloe, and more. But my favorite one is the bunny Snowball, who is the funniest, with Kevin Hart making a good performance as the bunny that looks cute but has a violent personality, making him the villain.

New York City is one of my favorite cities in the world, and New York looks like nothing I've ever seen before. It perfectly shows all the attractions such as the One World Trade Center, Times square, Central Park, and Brooklin in way I've never seen in animation. Also, the design of the pets are accurate as they are both cute and well designed. The only part I don't like about the animation is the human design, which is always rather weak in Illumination movies. Along with this high quality animation, the humor hits a lot, with very smart gags, and not the very unfunny slapstick in Minions and it also takes a break from DreamWorks like Crass humor. There is an animated short that plays before this called "Mower Minions", which is OK and cute, its just that the humor isn't funny, just like the Minions film.

The writing may be weak, but the film is enjoyable with memorable characters, and smart and funny gags. The animation is also breathtaking as heck. I recommend to kids and adults. It may not be as smart as Zootopia, or as unforgettable as Finding Dory, but it is a good addition to the summer.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An abysmal action flick
3 July 2016
I haven't seen the original Independence Day, which was an action flick about aliens with technology so much better than the 1996 human society technology, with the humans fighting for their planet against the aliens in '96 featuring Will Smith. 20 years later, this sequel comes out that I decided to check out.

In an age where it can be difficult for the writers to come up with something original, there may be some films that succeed at it. This movie however barely tries. It is so un-original as it features the same old plot of Aliens with superior technology totally getting the humans screwed, and then the humans try their best to fight back. This makes the movie entirely predictable from beginning to end. It also features too much action, which makes the movie boring. It got so tiresome and boring that I almost walked out of the theater. I might not like the dull plot of Blade Runner, but at least it was original. This however is a copycat story that overall fails to excite and is predictable.

Like a lot of action flicks, the characters in this movie are not likable, dull, generic, and one dimensional. The actors did not do a very good job portraying them. Like, there's a 2 bland heroes each having a bland love interest. None of them have a personality. Because of this, you can't feel sorry for anybody. Plus, the villains (the aliens) don't even have much lines. They are all just so forgettable.

I have hit this movie very hard, so I now have some positive things to say. The special effects are pretty decent, but the CG overload doesn't really work, it just feels too artificial, unlike the Jungle Book's CG, which felt more real. Also the humor in this movie is a mixed bag. There are some funny jokes that did make me laugh, but there were some weak ones that got a chuckle, but weren't memorable.

So overall, if you do want to watch a movie, Finding Dory is a much better option. In this movie however, the writing is abysmal, and the characters have no personality. It is also boring, and very predictable. For the 4th of July, (the US independence day) watching this would be a complete waste of time. Save your money, and watch the fireworks on the 4th of evening. It's far more interesting and it captures the feel of it far more than this awful movie. Avoid!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sonic Boom (2014–2017)
This show is actually worth it, it makes up for CN bad shows
15 June 2016
I know for a fact a lot of people did not like this show. Now just ignore those negative reviews. I know this show has some cheesy moments, and if you don't have a high cheese tolerance and expect this show to be like the action packed games, then just skip this show and watch a different one.

Now that we got that out of the way, here's my review of the show:

The plots of the show are similar to those of normal CN shows like Teen Titans Go, and The Amazing World of Gumball. I think Teen Titans Go is lousy, annoying, and so boring that it makes me sometimes change channels. Also, The Amazing World of Gumball is mean spirited, cruel, and boring, topped off with unlikeable characters. That said, why do I give it such a high rating? Well, although the plots are so simple and frankly weak, it does it in a way that it is actual funny and entertaining, and not boring. In fact, it is sometimes deliberately dumb, making it funny and entertaining. For example, one episode is about a music star named Justin Beaver who brainwashes girls like Amy and Sticks for an evil plot. The most criticized part about this is what they did with of the old characters. But I actually find them very amusing and a lot of fun, especially Dr. Eggman, who is my favorite character for being both funny and likable. Also, although Knuckles has been changed to arrogant and stupid, he is actually still a likable character. But there are some things that bring the show down. Like the animation is pretty good, but the lip sync is bad. However, at least this animation is better than the abysmal cut scenes animation and graphics in the Sonic Boom: Rise of lyric video game. Also, while the voice acting is pretty good, with Mike Pallock doing well as Eggman, Roger Craig Smith as a pretty good, but whiny sounding Sonic, but some voices like Tails and some of the other villagers can be a little annoying. Also, some episodes such as the 4th episode, Buster, are not good at all.

So overall, Sonic Boom is a good cartoon, so much better than some of the shows we have on there today. So if you do have a high cheese tolerance, than I recommend it. If you do not, I would recommend giving it a skip. 7.5/10
64 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Its not amazing, but the critics were too harsh.
31 May 2016
This was actually my first time watching an X-men movie. I never seemed to be interested in the movie series from X-men 2000 to X-men Days of Future past. But like Captain America Civil War, (which is a great super hero movie, a must see) I once again chose to see this over the Angry Birds movie. But that's not the point. I came in with low expectations, expecting it to be only a little better than 2015s non MCU Marvel film Fantastic 4 (which is underrated, but still not good). But I actually found it quite good. Here's why:

I found the story in it a rather interesting story that puts you close to the edge of the seat. It includes very funny humor, backstory that doesn't fall at a boring level, and intense , but riveting action scenes. One issue is that the bland characters (which I will get into) gives this interesting story a stale and bland side, but that still doesn't destroy this riveting action movie, Like I said, the characters in the movie are mostly bland, but with little exception. Charles Xavier, for instance is like Nick Fury from MCU films, but he lacks big personality. Raven is also a pretty bland character, and I think the writers /directors could've used the character and Jennifer Lawerence better. But some exceptions are some comic reliefs that are actually funny, and provide most of the great humor the movie has to offer. The villain Apocalypse, lacks a big villain build up, and lacks a personality, but he does have great reasoning for being a villain. In fact, it may b a character a lot of people could possibly root for.

So overall, I think that this film is worth your time with Great special effects that look very believable in it's effort, and a great story and humor. It's not as good as Civil War, but it's fun exciting and exciting, trust me.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The best Marvel movie I've seen
21 May 2016
I'm not a big fan of the MCU films, but on this weekend, I chose to watch it instead of The Angry Birds Movie (which is getting ugly reviews). But anyways, I thought it was great, much better than any other MCU film I've seen. Here's why.

I found the story in this movie solid. It was entertaining, it mostly made sense, and it was funny. In it, the world considers Super Heroes dangerous, so Iron Man wants limit to their actions, and Captain America doesn't, which causes conflict between the two. But in the process, a threat rises. I find it also deep, and well craft. Age of Ultron's story on the other hand, was simple compared to this, and not solid. But one flaw I find is there are a couple of plot holes. But I won't tell them, because it might be a spoiler.

The characters in the movie are more dynamic than they are in other MCU films. There is clearly some struggle in them, and with good reason. Also, the special effects in this movie are amazing, and very realistic and believable, despite the CGI.

So overall, I recommend this movie to anyone over 10, even non-Marvel fans. It is amazing, and I consider it better than Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disney's domination continues!
14 May 2016
This is so far shaping up to be a dominant year for the company. First, we got the best animated film ever since Toy Story 3, if not the greatest animated film of all time (I'm talking about Zootopia). Then, in the month of April, (which is a quiet month for the move industry) they release a remake of the Jungle Book. But keep in mind that I have actually never watched any other adaptations of the original book. Not the 1967 cartoon, not the 1994 live action version, or any other than this.

Storywise, there hasn't been much changes to the story when you compare it to the 1967 cartoon. It stays faithful to that film, but it isn't a bad thing. It is also very compelling. Having not seen the original 1967 cartoon, (But I however did hear that the story was almost the same after watching this film) I found it mostly unpredictable, and it, without a doubt, wasn't nap time for me unlike others that find it "Boring". There isn't a lot of humor, but the humor that was in it was simply hilarious, especially the dialogue. With this compelling story with great action scenes, and funny humor, it sure isn't time to hibernate.

The characters in the movie aren't as strong as the story. The characters I like in the movie the most are Baloo, (Who is funny and caring) Bagheera, (who is strict, but caring, and shows it) and Mowgli (who is very brave). As for the rest, the wolves play as the caring guardians of Mowgli, but for King Louie, I have thoughts to share. He's compelling and all, but compared to Shere Khan, he doesn't serve a really big purpose, which is disappointing. Shere Khan is insanely compelling, intimidating, and fierce, which makes him a great villain. But then there's Kaa, who serves a little purpose of telling Mowgli of his orgin, but feels just wasted, since she (yeah she, they got Scarlet Johansson to do the voice) appears just briefly only to do that and try to kill Mowgli. It was just a missed opportunity. But one concern is that the relationship between Mowgli and some of the other characters isn't strong. Like for between Mowgli and Baloo, they don't interact a lot, therefore not building up a big one.

The special effects are instantly known to be CGI, but they believable. Like the fur on Baloo is realistic, and the action scenes are intense, but a load of fun to watch. Also, all the actors (like Bill Murray) are well cast and perform well, except for Scarlet Johansson voicing Kaa. We should've gotten a talented voice actor do a unique voice like in the original cartoon, not a very bland black widow voice. Plus (not to be sexist) I find that the change of gender doesn't make any sense, I just don't.

So overall, this film is solid. It isn't as good as Zootopia, but I recommend it to Jungle Book fans and even those who haven't watched any adaptation made before this. By the way, there's "The Bare Neccesities" in it to, so it can even get nostalgic.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Zootopia (2016)
We need more Disney films like this!
25 March 2016
In a year full of animated films, a majority of them feature a big cast of animals. Like previously, we had Norm of the North and Kung Fu Panda 3, and we are going to get even more with The Angry Birds movie, Finding Dory, The Secret Life of Pets, Storks, and Sing. But Zootopia is a masterpiece and looks like it's going to win an Oscar. I personally thought it was great. Why is that so? The film has an excellent message about not to judge others despite any limitations. It perfectly brings out this message very deeply. That's not all. The story is highly well crafted through the characters experiences and the twists that come. Many of the scenes are twists that make the story so unpredictable that it surprises you deeply throughout. In fact, the villain (Who I simply can't spoil) gets revealed after several other characters we thought were the villain weren't. These twists are very clever, the message is deep and strong, the humor is hilarious, and this makes perfect writing.

The animation is unbelievable. It shows all the parts of Zootopia, the backgrounds are amazing, and the character design is a delight. Remember how The Lego Movie had amazing CGI that surpassed Pixar quality even? Well this is just as great, and looks even better than the special effects of Star Wars: TFA.

Also, the characters have so much depth and are very dynamic. Judy Hopps is the perfect role model for people everywhere, not giving up her dreams when bullied by others, and is enthusiastic to "Make the world a better place". Nick Wilde starts off as a jerk, but later has a back story similar to Judy's that develops him, and becomes a good friend. With the exception of a few minor characters, many of the other characters are important, dynamic, and strong. I'm talking characters like Chief Bogo, Mr. Biggs, and more. The villain (Major Spoilers, not going to tell) is clever because it is revealed after many twists and turns. These are just highly unforgettable characters.

This is the best animated film I've seen since Toy Story 3 because of it's great writing, outstanding animation, and unforgettable characters. It's even better than Inside Out, and it's the best Disney film I've seen along with Fantasia and The Lion King. It will likely sweep the Oscars due to it's success and will be remembered for a long time. I never thought I would see a modern Disney film that would be a 10/10 for me. So bottom line: Watch it in theaters now, it's a must see.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Blade Runner (1982)
A complete waste of time and effort.
14 February 2016
The most praised movie of 1982 (Along with ET of course) gets a 8.2 average rating on this database you are on right now. How could it be that high? I mean this is a complete garbage film that is so overrated. And heres why: In 2019, Earth has been rebuilt and Los Angeles becomes a dark and depressing area or "colony". A group of replicants (robots who look like humans) from outside of Earth steal a spaceship to get to Earth to meet their creator and murder people. Then the police call a retired employee, Deckard a Blade Runner (A person who kills replicants) to kill the replicants. Why is it so moronic? Well, there are a series of plot holes: One plot hole is that there are said to be six replicants at first, but then for some reason even when none have been killed, it is said to be 4 with no explanation. There is also no reason for the replicants to be murdering a bunch of random people. Plus because of reasons that will spoil this film, wouldn't the geniuses that created the replicants build them so that they won't kill people and steal spaceships? This is completely illogical and idiotic. That's not all. The film is also VERY BORING. Even though I watched the whole movie, I lost interest in the first 10 minutes and nearly fell sleep. I mean there's not much action. It's just a bunch of talk 11/12ths of the time. And not interesting talk like the Indiana Jones films. So overall, this is pitiful. It also lacks strong emotion, heart, and development. So overall story of the movie is so depressing, dark, cruel, very boring, and is completely illogical.

There's also the characters. Oh my gosh, this is sad. The replicants in the film (Roy, Leon, etc.). Lemme just say that they have no personality. Sure they're robots, but maybe they shouldn't have been so bland. Y'all may disagree, but I think they should've had a big personality like Bender from Futurama did to make them more interesting. Harrison Ford was wasted because he would underact and sound bored while playing Deckard. Deckard is charmless, and bland. The creator of the Replicants amazes me because of how forgettable he is. Then there's Sebastian. He's actually a 25 year old who do to health problems looks so old, but he does collect toys and show a smile, which is why he is the best character of the movie. So yeah, these characters are so boring, undeveloped, and such that it is just unappealing.

That's your answer. Blade Runner is the steaming pile of crud. The writing is abysmal, and the characters are so bland. It is so boring that I was so close to falling asleep. One of the only redeeming qualities I didn't mention before was a Star Wars reference when you can hear a Chewbacca growl at one part, which is a very small pro but adds a little Star Wars, which is why better than this Atrocity and has everything this doesn't: A well crafted story, memorable characters, a little heart, and lots of charm.

3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Martian (2015)
Nice job Oscars for nominating this!
13 February 2016
Yep, this film is rated just fine. It's like Cast away(2000) combined with the previous space blockbuster Interstellar(2014). But how good is it in my opinion.

Like we see in the trailers, Astronout Mark Watney cannot be saved from a storm on Mars as his crew has no choice but to leave. But Mark Watney survives but Earth figures this out and brainstorms how to get him back to Earth. There is no antagonist, but a very simple plot. It's enjoyable most of the time, but one problem with it is that the Earth sub-plot starts out interesting, but becomes a bunch of very boring talk that no one, no one wants to listen to. I was just thinking, move on to Mark Watney. The scenes with Mark Watney are the best scenes in the movie. As Watney would say, "So yeah, Surprise!".

The special effects are a piece of art. They are just brilliant and they don't over load s much as the Marvel films. There are no flaws. It makes you feel like you are in Mars or NASA. Just incredible.

The characters in this film. Mark Watney swears up a storm on Mars (Get it?) and learns to survive on Mars. He is a very smart character, is sometimes funny, and a little inspiring too. The crew that traveled to Mars with Watney are blamed for the problem, but they are not antagonists because they had to leave him for huge safety reasons, but are still great characters. Most of the rest of the characters are helpful, but I should say, bland.

So overall, the Martian is a treat and deserves it's Oscar nominations, including best picture of the year. So go watch it. No seriously, I recommend it. Rated PG-13 for language, Frightening scenes, and violence (well, I didn't mean little kids).

So overall, the Martian is a true treat
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Entertaining really, but still flawed.
12 February 2016
I haven't seen the second film, Scorch Trials, but I have seen this one (That's why I'm writing the review, duh). But know that I think of this film, it's a mix between the March 2014 Sci-Fi Divergent and the 1998 Jim Carrey Comedy, The Truman Show. I will explain the similarities soon in this review. BTW, I've never read the books, but when I watched it, it felt like I didn't need to.

In the story, a teen stumbles upon other teens around him all trapped in an area with walls surrounding it (See, the Truman show similarity?). Everyone in the area called the Glade has no memory of why they are there, but they try use this electronic maze to get out, which included 3 years of failed attempts. Its like putting the characters of Divergent in a Truman show like environment. Actually, it's an enjoyable film with the good execution and it's even thought provoking. But one plot hole is this: The Glade has some trees in it, yet the people there never tried building a ladder to bypass the wall (it isn't a dome, unlike the Truman show). Not a single one of the Teens figures this out. Isn't that just moronic? But even with that, it also has some twists, like a condition where a person would go insane and will have to be killed in the maze, and the condition is caused by a "Sting". So overall, things do get a little creative here, even with similarities to other films, but it does have some issues like that plot hole.

The special effects are very effective I should say. Get it? But seriously, for 32 million dollar budget, it looks amazing. The technology in the film like the maze, the grievers, and more don't look cheap. The effects look artistic and look like very special effects. Get it? Okay, enough with the puns. But still, don't expect awful CGI creatures that look like Jar Jar Binks or that lazy CGI dog from the 2002 Scooby Doo.

The characters in the film. Ah, not so great. The protagonist Thomas seems to be like the confused Teenager that is actually be very helpful, but he's treated badly in the Glade like an idiot. I think that he's a pretty good character, actually. Other than a few exceptions, the rest of the teens in the glade aren't very smart. Like I said earlier, they never figured out about a ladder ever and are huge jerks to Thomas. Plus, they are pretty bland. BTW, I can't tell you about more important characters because they will spoil the movie, who actually are pretty interesting. So overall, some characters are good, others, not so much.

So overall, The Maze Runner has an enjoyable plot, Great Special effects, but not so great characters. Oh, and FYI, I can review the Truman show and Divergent soon to share my thoughts on those.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overrated, despite doing some things right
5 January 2016
When Ferris Buellers day off was released in 1986, it got so much positive reviews and became so famous it had a lot of movies/ TV shows reference it. That's just a brief history of a movie that I think is actually really overrated, frankly. But how come? The story in this is about a teen wise guy named Ferris who pretends to be sick so that he can force his friend to go and lie to get his girlfriend out of school so that the 3 can spend a day in Chicago. The problem with the story is that its just weak. I mean, just a highly sophisticated plan for a day off of school? That's not all. There's no emotional journey for the protagonist, no real drama, and no heartwarming moments. There's also no message. I mean, this film is so lighthearted they lacked all those things. But one thing people might be wondering, is at least funny? Well, the movie actually has some really great humor and plus its a little enjoyable to watch with a great soundtrack. But that still doesn't make up for the pitiful main story. Also, one really bad thing about this movie is that it makes skipping school when there's something important like a test without permission from your parents or teachers so that you can have fun look cool, which is a not a good message at all.

I give it a 4.5/10 The characters in this movie. Let me say that they are just one dimensional with no development. First off, our main character, Ferris, is a high school hot shot who's selfish, unlikable when he bully's his Ill friend to go on the trip, and a liar. Like I said, he makes skipping school and being selfish look cool. He is an absolutely terrible role model for kids. His ill friend Cameron, is a character that you can feel bad for because of not wanting to be on the trip to Chicago but he's actually a great guy whose honest, kind, and doesn't find Ferris's selfish acts cool. Ferris's girlfriend Sloane is just a one dimensional girl who agrees to go to Chicago and forgettable. The "Villain" Principal Ed Rooney, is actually good because of trying to bust Ferris, but pointlessly bumbles around the suburbs doing so and has no development, but he's a bit funny. Then there's Ferris's sister, Jeanie, who is aware of Ferris's whereabouts. She's very bland and instantly forgettable.

So overall, Ferris Beullers day of is funny, has great music and is enjoyable, but it still has a weak story, and lacks any real drama, emotion, and character development. The characters are all one dimensional with a couple of bland ones. So this movie is just a light hearted comedy, and if you want a movie with a valuable message, this is not it.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The most anticipated movie of the year, and how it turned out
19 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Yeah, I know how people who haven't seen this don't want to see any spoilers. I will only write one small spoiler here (I'll warn you when it comes, so read on), but i will tell you what I thought of it. It was actually the first live action (Not clone wars animated stuff) Star Wars theatrical movie since Revenge of the sith. So how was it?

The story in this movie takes place 30 years after Return of the Jedi and focuses on what happens in the future of Luke, Leia, and Han's galaxy, which in the movie is not only expanded, (The desert planet in the trailer was not Tatooine, for example) but features new characters that we focus on throughout. The concept of an expansion to the original trilogy is very engaging, drags people to theaters, and gets people talking about it. Its actually a well executed and much more enjoying than the awful Phantom menace and Attack of the clones. Is it perfect? No. One reason is that it is way too similar to a New Hope. It may sound awesome, but it just takes away any suspense by making it so predictable. But can it be funny even if the trailer insists its an action drama. Yes, because there were some parts that just made me laugh (Even those parts are spoilers, there are so funny). Also, there were a couple of plot holes and questions it leaves that are problems. The story overall can be clumsy for its predictability, unoriginal , with a couple of plot holes, but it is enjoyable for its great execution and nostalgia of the original trilogy.

The special effects, are out of this galaxy far, far, away. I've heard before release that director JJ Adams tried to use as little CGI as possible. Even if there was still some, it sure delivered. The special effects, are epic, from the TIE fighters to the explosions, and the controlled (Non CGI) robot used for BB8. Unlike the Marvel films where the effects are epic but have so much CGI that it makes you think about it all 2 1/2 hours, this didn't have a lot of that and also had less ugly CGI aliens than Phantom Menace. So overall, these are effects some directors should take into consideration.

The characters in this movie are the following: The main character, Rey, starts off doing things similar to what Katniss Everdeen did in District 12 like getting food, for instance, then proceeds to become involved in an adventure. She's not really as appealing as Luke Skywalker, but she is still a good character. There's the other main character, Finn, who is actually a better character because of choosing to be good instead of evil, which makes him a great guy actually. Han Solo is great to see again because he was one of my favorite characters in ep. 4-6. But the problem with him is that he may be a bit like the old man who was once a hero but now a grumpy person, but still a good character. However he gets character development at one point, but it would be spoiler galore to tell you guys. Chewbacca is in it as well, and is also nice to see again, and still pretty helpful and lovable. As for the rest, Leia does appear, but is more quiet in this one than in previous films, and doesn't develop really. Lovable droids C3-PO and R2-D2 are barley in it at all, but are nice to see on the big screen again, making it a positive appearance. Then there's the villain, Kylo Ren. He actually isn't that amazing of a character because he is powerful with his helmet on, but (Small spoiler) actually kind of wimpy with it off (At one point). But he does have a great struggle, making feel like a real character, far more real than Dooku or Darth Maul. There"s one character named Poe, who's important in the first 30 minutes, but then the film seems to forget about him for a while. Finally, there's BB8, the droid with a sphere bottom and a half oval head we see in the trailer. He's very interesting in the first half for reasons I won't get into, but then those reasons tone down, but he's still a cute and helpful little droid to be in it. But most of the characters overall are great.

So overall, the Force Awakens is a good holiday treat to watch in theaters. An improvement to the prequels obviously, but not as good as the original 4-6 movies. But for this weekend of movies, I took it over Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Road Chip because seeing the force re-awaken for the 7th Star Wars film would be more enjoyable for me than hearing atrocious Chipmunk talking/singing for 90 minutes. Seriously, how come they released their 4th film at the same time as this? So Star Wars fans can see it, but they should maybe lower the high expectations a bit because of its flaws.
1 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great movie, my favorite of the franchise
9 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
That's right, folks! It is slightly better than the amazing film, Raiders of the lost ark! Its also an improvement from Temple of doom as well. But here's why its so great In this, the prologue takes place with young Indy's adventure in 1912, which is fun and interesting to see Indy as a boy scout escaping from gangsters. The rest of the movie takes place 2 years after Raiders in 1938, where Indy must hunt for the holy grail before the Nazis and find his missing father. OK, I admit that it is like Raiders, but I am totally fine with it because Raiders is an amazing film, and this is a well executed film that is linked with it. Unlike Temple of doom, its a sequel that actually follows raiders and has Marcus Brody, Sallah, and Nazis, making this related to Raiders. But the only problem is that there were some plot holes in the 3rd act (I won't spoil it). But other than that, its much more pleasant and great than seeing monkey brains being eaten and children being enslaved, and having an annoying love interest like in Temple of doom.

The special effects are great as always. But the only problem is that in one flying scene, it looked fake. So great special effects that look great are a great addition to a great movie (That may've sounded ridiculous).

The characters in this are great as well. Indiana Jones is charming as always and fun to follow on his adventure. Marcus Brody is very helpful and smart, but I've always noticed that every movie that character is in, it turns out amazing. Then there's my favorite character in the movie, Henry Jones Sr played by erstwhile James Bond, Sean Connery. Not only is he charming, but he's smart, funny, (especially "Junior")and extremely helpful. The Nazis (not the same ones in Raiders of the lost ark)are greedy like in Raiders, but they are great as villains because they are fierce for power and memorable. There's Sallah (who was in Raiders as well) who is kind and helpful, making him a great character once again. The only character that's kind of in the middle is Elsa Schnider, the "love interest" that turns out to be a Nazi villain like Donovan. Sometimes I just feel like she switches sides a lot like I was confused that at the Nazis burning the books, she looked upset watching then the next time we see her, she's loyal to the Nazis. Se is a kind of OK villain, but it just leaves me a little confused. So overall, there truly is a great set of characters.

The last crusade is my favorite of the franchise. It is the most exciting, with great characters. I am surprised that some people think Temple of doom is better. I think not. I notice that Raiders of the lost ark is to The last crusade as Home alone is to Home alone 2. Well, Last crusade isn't exactly like Raiders of the lost ark, but they are similar in their own franchise. So if you liked Raiders of the lost ark,, watch this!!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Indiana Jones and the tumble of doom after the first one.
20 November 2015
Indiana Jones 1 and 3 are amazing films for their adventures, suspense, and treasure. I haven't seen much of the 4th one, but it's not that good. But what about Temple of doom? Well, I didn't really like it as much, and here's its problems.

The plot in this is about Indiana Jones escaping from Shanghai bringing a singer and a child. They fly toward India and crash land into an Indian village where Indy learns about powerful stones and discovers an evil empire within. This movie is supposed to be a prequel to Raiders of the lost ark (which was better). We can tell its stand alone. It doesn't lead into Raiders at the end, no characters from Raiders are mentioned, and its not even important to the Indiana Jones franchise. Also, can I just mention that the plot doesn't work for Indiana Jones. Instead of getting involved in an adventure slowly but surely and even fighting the Nazis like in Raiders, they just get there by crashing a plane. That isn't a good way to get you in when it comes to Indiana Jones. It's just not executed that well. So this story is 100% bad, right? Wrong. I will give it some credit because the opening scene, while not as exciting as the one in Raiders, serves a purpose, which led to the 3 going on the plane. Plus sometimes I didn't care about the stones as much as the getting-out-of-the-temple goal in the second half. It can be enjoyable at times, but it still doesn't make up for this choppy story.

The special effects in this are great like in Raiders. Its very enjoyable and is a good quality for Indiana Jones for its fun and excitement when they those stunts would come its just engaging. But one problem is that some special effects don't look too good like you can tell its filmed on a green screen. One other problem is how it gets to get so gory when that scene with the heart removed plays. So overall, the special effects in this can be really good.

The characters in this movie aren't much better than the choppy story. First off, lets start with the characters I like. Indiana Jones would be one because of his bravery and un-annoyance, and a bit charm. The villains in the movie are mostly ruthless, but not as good as the Nazis (Fun fact: Temple of doom is the only Indiana Jones film with the antagonist not being based on any real life armies since the ones in Raiders and Last Crusade are Nazis while the ones in Skull were Soviets). As for the rest, Willie is the love interest with a love/hate relationship with Indy and spends lot of time screaming, making her a huge step down from Marion from Raiders. Short round is the innocent little boy who looks at Indy as a father going on this dangerous adventure. For the others, there are gangsters from the beginning, the village kids a, the royal kid who I just want to strangle like Homer strangling Bart, the list goes on. So overall, this characters aren't very good in this move other than Indy.

So overall, even with the things it did do right like the good special effects and important beginning, Temple of Doom is a film that is just meh. But compared to greats like Raiders of the lost Ark and the Last crusade, its a disappointment. For Indiana Jones fans, its just a pass, or a rental if you're curious. And one last thing: Don't let your kids see it till they are 12. This is not a 2 hour Brochure to India.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Iron Man 3 (2013)
Special effects don't always make up for extreme overratedness
14 November 2015
I'm not a huge fan of Marvel, since I've only seen a few. Captain America was nice, age of ultron was good, iron man 2 was OK, and I've seen this one. It was released in 2013 to high amounts of praise. But I think it's over-hyped. And here's why

The story in this film is about terrorists about to completely take over the U.S., and it suddenly starts to focusing on people that can burst into flames. See, this is super disorganized this film is? What makes it more choppy is the fact that Tony Starks home was under attack, then he gets in his suit unconscious, flys off, and wakes up in a totally different place. I thought while seeing that, what just happened? Things get more disorganized for reasons that will spoil the film. The writing is just super choppy, disorganized, and a bit confusing. It goes on like this for so long and it just makes me wonder what the heck is happening here. There is not much logic. Its just super messy and just doesn't make sense.

The special effects look super great. I will not lie, it just gets you excited and hyped during the action scenes. It's another big budgeted set of special effects that played off. The iron man suit looks great and it really gets you. The only problem I have with it is the fact that the action scenes makes you think about the cgi in the movie. So overall, the effects have a lot of effort.

The characters in the movie are flimsy just like the movie. For the main character Tony Stark, instead of learning more like in the second one, he's just the ordinary hero. The kid in the movie serves more of a plot device and is a bit bland. The rest of the characters are mostly forgettable like the people who can burst into flames and more. So there's not much to offer with these guys. There just isn't.

So overall, Iron man 3 is one of marvels worst films. It may have done things right like the special effects are great, and the acting is good . But it's not enough to save it from its lackluster writing, and bland characters. Iron man 3 is so over-hyped that I think some people were a bit harsh on the second one. So bottom line: Its a waste of a screenplay, a waste of characters we watch for two hours, and it's overall a bad film.

Rating: D+ = 3.5/10

One more thing: This movie was so confusing that I even wrote a factual error about the plot that I had to remove. Well, I hope that doesn't happen again.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Muppets. (2015–2016)
Funny, but it does need some improving....
12 November 2015
This is a show that was anticipated for Fall 2015. I watched the premiere on TV. This is what happened: The first episode was nice, but the script wasn't that great because it focused on Mrs. Piggy not wanting Elizabeth Banks on the show and Kermit doesn't know what to do. The jokes were good, but the story wasn't engaging. I give that one a 6/10.

The humor of the show is really funny, (especially in bear left then bear write) the characters are as well, but the guest stars in the show are all plot devices usually and the stories aren't masterpieces and need work.

Mrs. Piggy was bossy in the first episode, but fine in the others, Kermit is just hilarious, and the other ones are likable as well.

The camera angles, I've do got to admit, shaky at times, but it doesn't apply all the time. The puppet handling is great as well.] So overall, the Muppets is a good show to spend time on Tuesday night watching. The stories may not have great writing, but the humor and characters are funny. This may not be exactly Jim Henson's Muppets, but its still worth a watch.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Peanuts are back on the big screen, folks!
8 November 2015
I have always been a fan of the Peanuts specials like a Charlie Brown Christmas for it's great humor and creative stories. When I heard of this film, I really had high hopes for this film and the trailers were hilarious. OK, now lets go to detail on the film.

The story is about Charlie Brown trying to become a winner to redeem himself and impress a new red haired girl. It may not sound engaging, but once you watch it, it's really a good story even if it's at times predictable. As for Snoopy's subplot with fighting the red baron, I've got to admit, it may be filler, but it's really funny and even creative but it doesn't have to do with Charlie Brown. In this subplot, Snoopy has a love interest as well. As for the humor, I didn't think that the jokes in the trailer were as funny as the ones you see in the movie. They are just hilarious. There are also great references to other specials. So overall, this is a good enough screen play for a Charlie Brown film.

The animation in this movie may've bagged the 2-D and made 3-D instead, it is just amazing. The backgrounds are just breathtaking in the red baron scenes because it showed it unlike the Charlie Brown Halloween where the flying scenes only showed the sky. Charlie Brown and his friends may look a bit simplistic, but it's OK. The animation showed that they could bring peanuts to Computer Animation. It looks almost flawless and maybe even a bit hand drawn. So you've got to look into this great texture of hair and backgrounds, it's that amazing.

The characters in this movie are unforgettable just like the classics. The side characters like Lucy and Snoopy are just hilarious and fun to watch even if they are just 2-D. The main character, Charlie Brown is 3 dimensional and he try's to accomplish his goals. He's also lovable because he shows helpfulness and honesty. Then there's the little red haired girl whose face was revealed for the first time since the 1977 Charlie Brown short, "Its your first kiss, Charlie Brown". Even though they revealed her unlike the comic strips, she's still really cute, and uses her very few lines in the movie to tell Charlie Brown about how she liked him for who he was, which was sweet.

If you're a fan of Charlie Brown and Snoopy, go watch this film, Even people who never watched the Peanuts cartoons or read the comics should watch it. The only people I don't recommend it to are those who hate Peanuts because even though its modern, its still Peanuts. One additional detail I would like to make is the fact that we never see one cell phone nor computer in the movie. This shows that the environment stayed around the 1960s era. So go watch it, it's a treat.

Story: 7/10 Animation 9.5/10 Characters: 8.5/10 8.5/10
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Simpsons: The Man Who Came to Be Dinner (2015)
Season 26, Episode 10
24 October 2015
The episode starts out with the Simpsons going to a boring amusement park, until getting abducted by aliens. It starts out watchable, but then it gets really boring. I got so bored I started doing something else halfway through. After the Simpsons landed on the alien planet, I just stopped caring. I can't believe how overrated this episode is! Sure it shows Kang and Kudos outside of a Halloween episode, but boy it was wasted. But one unusual thing about this episode is that the town people are completely absent, other than cameos during the credits. I don't think that this episode is as bad as some other atrocities like Miracle on evergreen terrace, but it still is very bad. I think that the Simpsons should just make another movie, and that's it because I think that Homer, Bart, Marge, and Lisa (excluding Maggie) have been all used up by now.
5 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Simpsons: Miracle on Evergreen Terrace (1997)
Season 9, Episode 10
More like "Sickening on everhating awfulness"
20 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This episode is just sick! In this episode, Bart is up early and destroys the Christmas tree/gifts and hides the evidence under snow! He lies to his family, saying that it was a robber, and the whole town pays the Simpsons money that they don't need in support. They blow the dough by getting a car. When the town sees the flat Christmas tree/toys, the town gets angry and refuses to include them till they pay them back a total of $15,000! Marge goes on Jepordy to try to win, only to gain none. The town eventually steals all the Simpsons stuff till they're left with a wash cloth!

See how bad this is?! It's mean spirited and hate full just like Bart mangled bannner! Like lets take the ending. Was that charming, sweet, and funny? NOT ONE BIT!!!!! Bart was a huge liar up until the third act. This mean spirited atrocity also has a 7.4/10 while the actually HEART WARMING Cars (which was still 50 times better than this despite a bit lacking of Pixar. I still liked it and thought it was kind of sweet.) has a 7.2/10!!!!!! Its also higher than Million dollar arm, which was inspiring and really emotional and full of drama got a 7.1!!!!!! What the heck!!?? I wish this awful episode that shouldn't exist had a 1.9/10 like Disaster movie! I want to break most of the Springfield jerks after seeing this because they were never this cruel or uncomfortable to watch even when they weren't very god people before. I would rather see any mediocre newer episode than this truly sick pile of junk-fest that is completely overrated. It is also a DISGRACE to other Christmas specials that are actually heartwarming.

This horrid episode should never air again! It has bad characters, mean spirited writing, and beyond. Watch the Charlie brown and Grinch Christmas special which are actually great instead of this abomination. I don't recommend this to young or old. In fact, I don't even recommend this to Simpsons fans for how bad it is!!! It is truly awful, sickening, hateful, and one of the few Simpsons episodes I give a 1/10. AVOID IT!!!!! Rant over.
6 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Walk (II) (2015)
Best movie this year since Inside out!
17 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Now this is a story based on a documentary called "Man on wire". I've always loved the story of Phillipe, ever since I heard about it in a sweet and simple picture book. I even watched the documentary, which was nice, but it felt like it was too much of back-round information. Now that we have my introduction, lets go into detail.

Now this story is a drama about a true story about a French boy who's always has the wildest dream that always gets him in trouble: Tight rope walking. He hears about 2 towers in New York city that are super tall and plans to walk between them on a cable. The story is very detailed, but the problem is that the back story showing the boy as an 8 year old is pretty rushed and focuses on the main subject more. Its not that fast paced, or slow paced either. Its just right.

The special effects are really beautiful for its $35 million dollar budget. Sure it doesn't have any actual locations, but then again, that's OK. It's spectacular and it really kicks in at the scene where he's (spoiler) walking the towers. I mean, let's look at the Maze runner movie. It doesn't have a big budget, but it's visuals are amazing. This film is no different.

A for the characters, the main character is very 3-dimesoinal and it strongly shows his thoughts along with his girl friend Annie. His accomplices for his mission don't really develop, but that's OK. As for the man that Phillipe asks for help, he's grumpy at first but then starts appreciating him, making him a developed character. So there is a lot to offer with these characters.

This may've bombed at the box office, but it really doesn't deserve it. The walk is a fantastic movie you should walk to the theater to. I highly recommend it. It is fantastic. I wonder if the upcoming peanuts movie can top this one, and I hope it gets at least on par. I hope this box office failure becomes a classic like the 1999 Iron giant movie that failed at the box office as well. I hope it gets nominated for best picture at the Oscars along with Inside out. I recommend this to over 10-11 due to mild language/brief nudity.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Lorax (2012)
Better than the cat in the hat, but not great
4 October 2015
Now before this film was bad they made 2 awful live-action adaptations, the Grinch, and the Cat in the hat. They were so bad that Dr. Suess's wife did not allow any more of them. Then they made Horton hears a who animated, which was decent. But now lets look at this one.

OK, lets start with the plot. The main plot is pretty weak because it's about a boy who lives in a town with no trees but fake designs that people like called thneedvile. He visits the onceler not because he was interested in nature. He gets in trouble by the mayor doing it, but he does it to receive a seed for a truffula tree, for a girl. Yep, that's all. But the good thing is that the plot of the original book with the Lorax and the onceler is pretty good. So the main story is not well written, but the books plot is.

The animation is pretty good. The character design has always been a weak point at illumination, but it is decent. The environment is very colorful and looks excellent. So you got to hand it to the animation.

The characters I like the most is the onceler . The onceler because he goes through development, and knows that what he did was wrong. Danny DeVito does good as the Lorax, but the Lorax doesn't get enough screen time, but is slightly annoying as the onceler said it best. The other characters are very one dimensional and the mayor would've been a better villain if he had been more sinister.

There are 4 surprise musical numbers. All of them are horrendous. With bad lyrics, bad tune, and are very surprising and annoying. They are only a little better than Rebecca Black's Friday, but that's not saying anything at all. These songs are horrid! So the verdict overall is that it's not any better than the just OK Horton hears a who movie. It's just not. The animation is pretty good, but I forgot to tell you that the jokes are pretty bad actually. With only 2 good characters but otherwise a one dimensional cast, a weak main story, and atrocious songs, it is an improvement of the live action films, but it is still just not good. It's just not.

Story: 4.5/10 Animation: 7.5/10 Characters: 4.5/10 Songs: 1.25/10 4/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed