Movie review: Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of a movie that revolves around a character I feel a spiritual connection to. This is Maleficient: Mistress Of Evil!

IMDb summary: Maleficent and her goddaughter Aurora begin to question the complex family ties that bind them as they are pulled in different directions by impending nuptials, unexpected allies, and dark new forces at play.

Out of all Disney dark remakes/reboots/reimagining, 2014’s Maleficent has been somewhat not completely panned by critics, while also being financially successful (in comparison, on the dark front, first Alice was a monetary win, however, the second one had dreadful returns. Neither Nutcracker nor Dumbdidn’t leave an impression on anyone. Some more classical takes like Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast also left a mark. Mary Poppins was a moderate success.

Writing

Maleficent 2 was written by Linda WoolvertonNoah Harpster, and Micah Fitzerman-Blue. All three have written the first film as well, whereas Woolverton also penned the aforementioned Alice remake and its sequel. Even though the screenwriters were continuing their own work, they didn’t really respect it, as the opening narration of this film completely dismissed whatever happened in the first picture. And yet, since the idea of truth not mattering if someone can tell a catchy (even if fake) story was a topic explored within the film, I will let this disregard of the first film slide.

What I won’t let slide was the stupidity of the rest of the story, especially its inciting incident. While I am more than willing to suspend my disbelief and accept the existence of fairies and flying half-humans, I cannot forgive the movie for making its characters lack any intelligence or common sense. The inciting incident of the king being cursed is a horrible scene as it is so obviously not the truth. Aurora’s character is also written horribly. Even though she may be kind-hearted, the fact that she seems so gullable does not make her into a character anyone can root for. And even at the end, Aurora does not seem as if she learned anything. Even though she ultimately begins questioning the events happening around her, she still makes a stupid decision in the third act that cost a different character’s life. But this is Disney, so a happy ending is squeezed in there too, with not much explanation.

Not only does the movie try to say something about fake narratives, but it also goes for the big war or peace question. I would like to give props to the writers for trying to have some kind deeper thematical background to the fairytale but I am afraid the movie does not end up saying anything revelatory. But it’s a fairytale, so should I expected anything even remotely close to that? The film also vastly lacks screentime and more action for its titular character. All the bits of the movie that revolve around Maleficent are the best parts. And yet, the story chooses to spend most of its time with humans.

Directing

Joachim Rønning directed Maleficent 2. Previously, the director has worked on Pirates of the Caribbean 5. This movie suffers from the same problems his other one did. It looks spectacular but is empty story-wise. Cannot really blame the director for the lacking script, though. Rønning here also does his best with what he is given. The costume department and the production team should also be commended.

Acting

Angelina Jolie once again proves to be the case of perfect casting. Her accentuated cheekbones do half the job, though. Still, Jolie manages to balance out sophisticated acting with some dramatic flair needed for the fairytale genre. Michelle Pfeiffer, on the other hand, goes full-cartoon and becomes almost a caricature of the villain. Was the director to scared to tell Pfeiffer to reel it in a bit? Ultimately, the viewer doesn’t know whether they hate the villain Pfeiffer plays or her performance. Jenn Murray who plays Pfeiffer’s sidekick also should have tonned down her performance a bit. Sam Riley is fun to watch as Maleficent’s sidekick once again and he and Jolie do have some fun scenes of strained but enjoyable banter. Elle FanningChiwetel Ejiofor, and Ed Skrein all serve their purpose within the film. Prince Phillip gets recast and is played by Harris Dickinson this time around. He does not really leave any bigger impression than his predecessor Brenton Thwaites did. 

 

In short, Maleficent 2 is a pretty looking but poorly written film. Angelina Jolie shines once again but is not given enough screentime to save the whole film with her spectacular performance.

Rate: 2.75/5

Trailer: Maleficent: Mistress of Evil trailer 

MV5BZjJiYTExOTAtNWU0Yi00NzJjLTkwOTgtOTU2NWM1ZjJmYWVhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_.jpg

5 ideas about a movie: How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to another review that makes me aware of my own age. This is How to train your dragon: The Hidden World!

IMDb summary: When Hiccup discovers Toothless isn’t the only Night Fury, he must seek “The Hidden World”, a secret Dragon Utopia before a hired tyrant named Grimmel finds it first.

  1. How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World is the third and final (as final as anything is in Hollywood) instalment in DreamWorks’ Dragons series. I’ve followed this series for a while now: I’ve seen the first one while I was still in middle school, while the second one came out while I was in high-school (I distinctly remember skipping a few lessons at the end of the day to be able to go watch the film with my friends). (reviews of both are here). I’m about to graduate college. I guess it’s fitting that the series’s end is coinciding with the end of a very important and substantial part of my life. Also, 4-5 years between sequels is almost Pixar levels of waiting for a sequel (better than a decade though)
  2. Anyways, How To Train Your Dragon 3 was written and directed Dean DeBlois, who also directed and wrote all the previous films and has also worked on Lilo&Stitch projects before (makes sense: animal(ish) and human relationships seem to be his topic of interest). The film, as mentioned before, was also produced by DreamWorks – a heavyweight studio during my childhood that has fallen off its A-game in the past decade. The Dragons series was its last really successful property, so I hope they can find something else soon. Or is it just gonna be Captain Underpants and The Boss Baby moving forward?
  3. Okay, now onto the actual review of the film. The script was great. The movie mashed the action-adventure story with a romantic drama impeccably. The coupling up idea is not the most original (or one that I personally like), but it was done so well here, that I cannot even find any fault with it. The romantic relationship (both) were so well written. The human one felt so real especially: like it was lived in, similarly to the world of the story. The human-animal relations were brilliant too. And the ending was emotional and highly effective. I know I wasn’t alone in shedding a tear in a screening of only adults.
  4. The visuals of the film were magnificent too. The care and the effort that went into the animation were visible in every frame. The sequence with the lights and colours was a stand-out.
  5. The voice work was just the icing on a very delicious cake. Major props are due to all of the cast: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, F. Murray Abraham, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, and Jonah Hill among others.

In short, How To Train Your Dragon 3 is an amazing piece of animation for all ages.

Rate: 4.8/5

Trailer: How To Train Your Dragon 3 trailer

5 ideas about a movie: The Grinch

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to another Christmas movie review that’s coming out way too early. This is The Grinch!

IMDb summary: A grumpy Grinch plots to ruin Christmas for the village of Whoville.

  1. The Grinch was written by Michael LeSieur and Tommy Swerdlow. I don’t really have strong feelings about the film’s script: I think it was adequate but didn’t really add anything to the material. The message of belonging and family was a cute one but wasn’t really executed in a way that would make it powerful. What I’m saying is that basically, The Grinch lacked an emotional impact. What I liked best about the writing were the bits of rhymed narration: I thought that they added authenticity to the movie.
  2. Dr. Seuss’ books are absolute children favorites. The 2000 live-action Grinch is a family classic and a Christmas-staple: I clearly remember watching it every year on TV. Thus, since I have fairly fond memories of the last cinematic adaption of this story, maybe that’s why this one seemed unnecessary and average at best.
  3. The Grinch was directed by Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney (two filmmakers that haven’t had that much practice as directors). The animation was absolutely stunning and extremely detailed: one could literally see every individual hair on Grinch’s body. The slapstick humor of the film was a win with the kids at my screen too.
  4. Benedict Cumberbatch voiced the Grinch and was really good. At first, I couldn’t really tell that it was him but after a while, you could distinguish his voice. I don’t know if he bested Jim Carrey’s performance, though. Supporting cast featured the voices of Cameron Seely and Rashida Jones. Pharrell Williams was the narrator.
  5. Before The Grinch, a short Minions film was screened, as both properties belong to the animation money maker that is Illumination entertainment. I don’t really have much to say about the short film (I’m not really a fan of the Minions), but I appreciated the fact that it was actually short (I’m looking at you, Frozen shorts).

In short, The Grinch is a good but, ultimately, unnecessary retelling of well-known Christmas legend.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: The Grinch trailer

41hsIfGzhfL

Movie review: The Nutcracker and Four Realms

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of a first Christmas movie of the 2018 holiday season. If the whole season will be as rocky as its start, then we can just cancel Christmas. This is a quite negative (as you have probably already guessed) review of The Nutcracker and Four Realms.

IMDb summary: A young girl is transported into a magical world of gingerbread soldiers and an army of mice.

Writing

The Nutcracker and Four Realms – a mouthful of a title, huh – was written by Ashleigh Powell. It’s a remake/reimagining of a classic fairytale and a famous ballet. Disney has been making quite a few live-action fairytales. Some of them crashed, like Alice in Wonderland and its sequel. Some blossomed like Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast. The Nutcracker seems like it will be joining the first group. I feel like there is a general fatigue of live action fairytales and only the really special ones turn into something. The Nutcracker, being a niche and holiday-specific fairytale, is already a hard sell. The fact that it’s premiering so early in November also almost guarantees that it will have a small opening. Maybe it will play for a long time?

Anyways, speaking of the writing: it wasn’t bad but wasn’t original in any way, shape or form. The message on how to deal with grief was a neat one and the young woman’s journey into self-confidence was also a nice thing to spotlight. The actual adventure was sooo by the numbers. The twist could be seen from miles away. The characters were also just meh. The nutcracker especially was so unexceptional despite being the titular character. The dialogue was very simplistic. It just seemed that this whole film was aimed at a very young audience. And by young, I mean babies.

Directing

The Nutcracker was directed by Lasse Hallström (of The Hundred-Foot Journey and A Dog’s Purpose) and Joe Johnston (of Captain America: The First Avenger) – what a weird duo of directors. And even a weirder end product. They did a good job with the visuals – I cannot fault the film’s production value. The CGI could have been cleaner. The pacing was way off. At least the runtime was fairly decent. To end on a positive note: the ballet scenes and the ballet-inspired credits were nice touches. The score, which included the classic melodies, was good too.

Acting

The Nutcracker’s cast’s performances were a huge letdown. Mackenzie Foy and Jayden Fowora-Knight were both wooden. Hellen Mirren and Morgan Freeman were folding in their performances and were still the best just because they are true pros and can outact everyone in their sleep. Keira Knightley was killing her career with every minute of being on screen. She was both a cartoon and a parody: everything about her performance – from the look to the speech to the behavior – were just so cringe-y. Her work her kinda reminded me of Anne Hathaway in Alice in Wonderland (another unfortunate comparison between the two less than good Disney fairytales).

The actor who played the father – Matthew Macfadyen –  looked like off-brand Armie Hammer. The British comedian Jack Whitehall also had a cameo role – good on him for finally getting into a Disney movie (even if bad one) after being cut from Frozen.

In short, The Nutcracker and Four Realms was a boring film that won’t bring anyone any Christmas joy. A basic narrative, oversaturated visuals, and some cringe-y acting – that’s this picture in one sentence.

Rate: 2.4/5

Trailer: The Nutcracker and Four Realms trailer

The_Nutcracker_and_the_Four_Realms

5 ideas about a movie: Smallfoot

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to my once-in-a-blue-moon review of an animated film. This time, we are discussing Smallfoot!

IMDb summary: A Yeti is convinced that the elusive creatures known as “humans” really do exist.

  1. Smallfoot was written by Karey Kirkpatrick, Clare Sera, John Requa, and Glenn Ficarra. I actually quite enjoyed the film’s story and how it took a popular myth – that of the bigfoot – and reversed it. The actual story was also well written: it was quite similar to the story’s of a lot of children’s film but it was executed really nicely.
  2. Thematically, Smallfoot wasn’t breaking any grounds either. On the other hand, a big part of the world still can’t make these themes into a reality (looking at you, US), so maybe they are not that common. Smallfoot highlighted the importance of integrity and called for a complex truth rather a simple lie. It invited us to question everything rather than ignore stuff and had an ultimate message that the old way might not necessarily be the right way.
  3. Smallfoot was directed by Karey Kirkpatrick. I didn’t know that going in but this film was actually a musical. I guess its kinda fitting then that a song – Niall Horan’s ‘Finally Free’ that was released as a promo for this movie – was the thing that got me to see the movie. I actually quite enjoyed the rest of the soundtrack too, as I unironically enjoy pop music.
  4. The animation of the movie was really beautiful. It was also used effectively in all the slapstick humor of the film. I wasn’t the biggest fan of that part of the film but all the physical jokes got a great reaction from the audience at my screening. And it wasn’t just the kids who were laughing.
  5. Smallfoot had quite a star-studded voice cast, led by Channing Tatum (Kingsman 2), James Corden (I loved his voice work both here and in Peter Rabbit. His voice is instantly recognizable!), and Zendaya (The Greatest Showman). Common, Gina Rodriguez and even LeBron James also had supporting roles.

In short, Smallfoot was a pleasant all ages film with some neat messages and catchy songs!

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Smallfoot trailer

Movie review: Peter Rabbit

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of another vaguely Easter-themed movie that is not really about Easter and has been out for almost a month. This is Peter Rabbit!

IMDb summary: Feature adaptation of Beatrix Potter’s classic tale of a rebellious rabbit trying to sneak into a farmer’s vegetable garden.

Writing

Peter Rabbit was written by Rob Lieber (the writer of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day) and the director Will Gluck. The film’s script was based on the characters and tales by Beatrix Potter. I haven’t come across Potter’s stories before so this movie was my introduction to them. And I absolutely loved the experience of watching the movie, even though I certainly wasn’t its target demographic.

The adorable nature of the whole thing was just undeniable. I feel like Peter Rabbit did the same thing with rabbits as Paddington did with bears: made them cute and British. I also loved the self-referential writing of the film and how the story wasn’t afraid of owning its cliches (the character flaws, ulterior motives said out loud, journey reduced to highlights). I also loved the cheeky humor. The film had a lot of simplistic physical humor but it also had a plethora of more adult snippets, poking fun at British nature, salads, and human contact (what a group). It also had a sweet rural romance and an overall nice message to share the love. That might sound cheesy and not particularly original, but when it is executed well, I can’t complain much and can only enjoy.

Directing

Will Gluck (the director of some of my favorite comedies, like Friends with Benefits and Easy A, as well as the Annie reboot from a few years ago) directed Peter Rabbit and crafted an energetic and infectious all-ages film. The live-action and animation combination was seamless. All the woodland creatures were both realistic and cutely cartoonish – there was just a perfect balance in their design. The main rabbits were goddamn adorable. Just look at those ears!

The paintings, which were included in the film as part of the story, were a stellar nod to the origins of the tales in illustrated children’s books. The credits, drawn in a similar fashion, were neat too. Speaking about the credits, there were quite a few scenes dispersed throughout them, so make sure you don’t leave as soon as the film ends. Peter Rabbit also had an amazing soundtrack, full of older and newer pop songs that made for some great cinematic moments.

Acting

Domhnall Gleeson played the human lead in the film and was an absolute delight to watch. He is one of the few constantly working actors, who stars in everything: experimental art pictures (mother!), mainstream franchises (Star Wars 7 and 8), indies (Unbroken), biographies of various genres (American Made, Goodbye Christopher Robin), and awards films (The Revenant, Brooklyn). His co-star Rose Byrne (X-Men: Apocalypse) was also good: very relatable and sympathetic. Sam Neill (Hunt for the Wilderpeople, The Commuter) also had a fun and unexpected cameo.

On the voice front, James Corden was just brilliant as Peter Rabbit. His three sisters were voiced by three equally brilliant actresses: Daisy Ridley (Star Wars 7+8, Murder on The Orient Express), Elizabeth Debicki (Guardians of the Galaxy 2, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.), Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, I, Tonya, Goodbye Christopher Robin, The Legend of Tarzan). A TV actor Colin Moody was also fun to listen to in the role of the cousin rabbit.

In short, Peter Rabbit was a great kids movie that I, as an adult, enjoyed immensely! Maybe a bit too much. But that’s a conversation for a different time and a different platform.

Rate: 4.2/5

Trailer: Peter Rabbit trailer

images

5 ideas about a movie: Early Man

Movie reviews

Hello!

While some people flocked to the theater to see the last Fifty Shades, I joined my favorite demographic – kids – at the cinema. This is Early Man.

IMDb summary: Set at the dawn of time, when prehistoric creatures and woolly mammoths roamed the earth, Early Man tells the story of Dug, along with sidekick Hognob as they unite his tribe against a mighty enemy Lord Nooth and his Bronze Age City to save their home.

  1. Early Man was written by Mark Burton (comedy writer) and James Higginson and directed by Nick Park (Chicken Run director). This animated feature comes from Aardman – one of the few stop-motion animation studios still working in the mainstream (the other studio being Laika). I have always loved this type of an animation style and the aforementioned style was one of the factors that drew me into the cinema to see Early Man.
  2. Having seen the trailer numerous times (they were showing it literally before every movie here in the UK, Aardman being a British company), I vaguely knew what the story was going to be and wasn’t certain how to feel about it. Part of me was thinking that it’s a good thing to educate children on the origin of humans but another part of me (the anthropology student) wasn’t sure how the film would handle the ideas of a ‘primitive’ (can’t stand that word anymore, thanks, anthropology). Anyways, Early Man’s solution to the tricky representation was to just make every character into an idiot and also, have the movie to turn out to be about something completely different: not the origin of humans but the invention of football.
  3. The whole football storyline (which was, basically, the main plotline) was where the movie shined. All the real world comparisons and jabs completely worked: starting with the instant replay puppets, unfair referee, players acting as if they were hurt and ending with Lord Nooth being a corrupt sports manager (‘Voluntary contribution…everybody has to pay’ was such a great oxymoron of a line). This whole idea to focus on football (or soccer for the US) also seemed very British/European. South America enjoys football too, so maybe this film will be financially successful down there. In addition to smart jokes, Early Man also had a plethora of really stupid ones, which I didn’t care for, but the primary audience (a.k.a. children in my screening) absolutely loved.
  4. The animation of the picture was really great and the character design stayed within the Aardman brand (more round, obviously clay-like characters in contrast to Laika’s more spindly and weirdly shaped ones). The pacing of the movie was good too and I did appreciate how quick and short it was. As all sports-movies (yes, Early Man is a sports movie), this film had a fun and quite inventive training montage. Lastly, I’d love to find out whether any of the football players in the movie were based on real athletes.
  5. Early Man’s voice cast featured some incredible British A-listers (their involvement was the second major draw to the movie for me, personally). Eddie Redmayne (Fantastic Beasts, The Danish Girl, Jupiter Ascending) was great as aloof, optimistic, and infectious lead Doug, while Tom Hiddleston (Thor 3, Kong, High-Rise) sounded like he had fun embodying such a caricaturish old-school villain. Game of Thrones’ Maisie Williams was basically voicing an animated version of Arya (only obsessed with football, not revenge). While one could definitely recognize the voices of all the actors, their accents did sound a bit thicker than usual, which seemed like an intentional choice to go with the overall tone of the film.

In short, Early Man was a lovely and neatly animated movie with a nice message of writing one’s own story. It also kinda made me want to watch a football match or even kick a ball around for a bit myself.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Early Man trailer

images.jpg

Movie review: Coco

Movie reviews

Hello!

The latest Pixar film has finally landed in my local theatres. This is Coco!

IMDb summary: Aspiring musician Miguel, confronted with his family’s ancestral ban on music, enters the Land of the Dead to find his great-great-grandfather, a legendary singer.

Just before we start, here are the links to my other Pixar reviews: Cars 3, Finding Dory, Inside Out.

Writing

Coco was written by Adrian Molina (worked on Monsters University, Toy Story 3, The Good Dinosaur, Ratatouille) and Matthew Aldrich (who doesn’t have much on his IMDb). Disney/Pixar have been dipping their toes into different cultures more and more (just recently with Moana) and have been attempting to showcase these certain cultures without appropriating them. I think that they succeed at this with Coco. On a side note, Coco is not the first animated film to have explored the day of the dead – 4 years ago, 20th Century Fox animation studios made The Book of Life to little or no fanfare. This only goes to show the importance of the attachment of a big name to any project – people trust Pixar, similarly how they trust Marvel or up until recently, Lucasfilm.

Anyways, back to Coco. So, Molina and Aldrich took the rituals and the beliefs of Dia de Los Muertos and turned them into a mythology of the film. To my mind, they were respectful of the culture and did a very good job of explaining it/informing others about it. I’ve always been interested in this particular celebration (even wrote a paper on it in my first year of uni), however, I only had a limited knowledge of it and Pixar’s Coco expanded it. I loved how they also included other iconic elements/people from the Mexican culture (loved the recurring Frida Kahlo gag). I also liked how the move took something culture-specific, like the idea that people decorate altars with photos, candles, and their ancestors’ favorite things, and used it in a very universal, familiar way, a.k.a in the shrine that Miguel dedicates to his favorite singer. While not all of us have made shrines for our favorite things, I’m certain that everybody who reads this blog has at least one movie poster on their wall. I can tell you that I’ve made many movie shrines in my days.

From the structural point of view, I thought that Coco was a well-written and fun adventure. It had some unexpected twists and turns. Thematically, the movie explored the idea of a family v. individual, though, the true conflict of the film was secrets within a family. In addition, while the Dia de Los Muertos setting of the picture already made it a bit dark, some reveals in the third act made it even darker. The Dia de Los Muertos focus of the film also allowed Coco to stress the importance of remembering one’s ancestors – that was such a nice message to spread. Lastly, in the usual Pixar fashion, all the heartstrings were pulled by Coco too.

Directing

Lee Unkrich (director of Toy Story 3, who has also worked on other Pixar films in various roles since the creation of the beloved studio) directed Coco and did a magnificent job. To begin with, the whole animation department at Pixar should get raises or a standing ovation every morning because Coco was the most beautiful animated picture I have ever seen. The amount of detail that went into the design, the vibrancy of the colors, the lighting – everything was just perfect. A lot of these praises are based just on the original visual appeal of Dia de Los Muertos but I do think that the animators deserve recognition for their work of translating this real-world visual appeal into an animated form. I loved the opening sequence with the backstory given through papercuts – it was both original and a culturally-appropriate way to do exposition.  In addition, I loved the aural cultural aspects that were included – mainly the music and how it was both there to embellish the story and be an important part of the story. ‘Remember Me’ was such a great song and, while it might not be the catchiest one, it carried so much sentimental weight. Lastly, the film was paced very well too. It had a good mix of funny moments, entertaining action, educational information, and heart-wrenching emotions.

Voice work

Anthony Gonzalez voiced Miguel and did such a brilliant job. He had such an expressive and strong voice that was just perfect for the lead in an animated film. Gael García Bernal voiced Héctor, while Benjamin Bratt (he does quite a lot of voice work and was recently in Doctor Strange) was Ernesto. I also really loved the brief but important work of Renée Victor (as Abuelita Elena) and Ana Ofelia Murguía (as Mamá Coco) in the movie. One brought such energy to the character, while the other – such love and affection to her respective character.

In short, Coco was a beautiful story brought to life by gorgeous animation and majestic voice work. This is one of those reviews, where any positive synonym of the word ‘beautiful’ works. And the film is very much worthy of all praise.

Rate: 4.8/5 (I’m taking a few points off not because of the movie but because of its messed up international release date)

Trailer: Coco trailer

Coco_(2017_film)_poster

Movie review: Ferdinand

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a film that dared to go against Star Wars: The Last Jedi at the box office. This is Ferdinand!

IMDb summary: After Ferdinand, a bull with a big heart, is mistaken for a dangerous beast, he is captured and torn from his home. Determined to return to his family, he rallies a misfit team on the ultimate adventure.

Writing

The list of writers on Ferdinand is quite extensive. Robert L. Baird, Tim Federle, and Brad Copeland wrote the screenplay, while Ron BurchDavid Kidd, and Don Rhymer received the story credits. The original source material – the children’s book The Story of Ferdinand –  was written by Munro Leaf and Robert Lawson. Even though movies with a lot of writers rarely turn out well, Ferdinand proved to be the exception.

To begin with, Ferdinand critiqued some elements of the Spanish culture quite bravely. The element I have in my mind is the Spanish bullfighting also known as corrida. I expected the film to shy away from the more violent and controversial aspects of corrida – mainly, the killing of the bulls. However, the picture surprised me by taking that element and making it into one of its main plot points. The corrida killing of bulls also allowed Ferdinand to have the good old dead parents trope that all children’s’ movies use way too much. The anti-corrida idea also seemed just a tad bit pro-vegetarian too (honestly, knowing the spread of vegetarianism and veganism, I’m surprised we hadn’t got a more overtly explicit movie about such lifestyles). While I would like to praise Ferdinand’s writers for not being afraid of angering a whole culture, I wish that they would have included some more celebratory elements of it to balance out the critique (and to maybe avoid the backlash). Some more Spanish cultural traits (maybe some Spanish words, dances or settings) could have been included too.

Not only did Ferdinand have some things to say about Spain, but it also had some other national stereotypes as characters. The horses in the film were German (I personally didn’t see the connection between the animals and the country), while one of Ferdinand’s bull friends – Angus – was Scottish. While that character was just the typical stereotype of the Scottish people, it wasn’t offensive one. In fact, everything to do with Angus got a very positive reaction from the audience in my screening in Scotland.

Ferdinand also tackled some interesting ideas about animal gene development with that Frankebull character and presented an idea of a calming goat (which is a real thing, if Daily Mail is to be believed). In addition to all the innocent humor, the movie also had some lovely message about being oneself rather than sticking to the plan that others have formed for you. It also had a neat idea about pacifist not being cowards and celebrated pet (an unlikely pet but still a pet) and human friendship as well.

Directing

Ferdinand was directed by Carlos Saldanha of Ice Age and Rio films. He did a good enough job with the film. The animation was adorable (the ear wagging was the cutest thing ever). The dance battle sequence came a bit out of nowhere but was, nonetheless, fun. The finale was also super silly but also lovely. The Nick Jonas song Home was a good choice as the main theme for the movie. In general, Ferdinand wasn’t super unique but it was perfectly serviceable children’s film. Plus, I sort of felt a personal connection to it because it reminded me of an animated feature about cows that I loved as a child – Home of the Range.

Voice work

The main character Ferdinand was voiced by John Cena, who was the perfect fit for the character. The film had a tonne of jokes about Ferdinand being gigantic and they sounded even funnier when one realized how John Cena looks in real life (bigger than an average human). Kate McKinnon (Ghostbusters, Rough Night) was fun to listen to in the role of the goat – also, in her most PG role yet. Lastly, my beloved Scottish bull was voiced by none other than the Doctor and Kilgrave himself – David Tennant.

In short, Ferdinand is a cute little children’s’ movie that is perfect for the holiday season.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Ferdinand trailer

Ferdinand_(film)

 

Movie review: Paddington 2

Movie reviews

Hi!

A delightful bundle of joy has landed in theatres. It’s Paddington 2!

IMDb summary: Paddington, now happily settled with the Brown family and a popular member of the local community, picks up a series of odd jobs to buy the perfect present for his Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday, only for the gift to be stolen.

Movie over Winnie-the-Pooh, there is a new bear in town! Christopher Robin and his bear first entered the pop culture in the 1920s (Goodbye Christopher Robin tells that story), while Paddington first debuted in Michael Bond’s children’s books in the late 1950s. In 2014, Paddington’s stories have been brought to life on the big screen for the first time (they have previously been adapted into TV movies throughout the second half of the 20th century). Due to the critical and commercial success of the first film, the sequel has been made and the world is just a tiny bit better because of it.

Writing

Paddington 2 was written by the director of the film Paul King (who also helmed the first film) and Simon Farnaby (actor-turned-writer). The writing for the picture was just great. The viewers got to see Paddington entering the workforce and coming face to face with the harsh realities of life, while never losing his optimism. Despite all challenges he had to face, the lovable bear remained an example of endless hope, understanding, and kindness – somebody that we should all strive to be a little more like. The innocent humor, which arose from the situations that Paddington put himself in, was so nice and a pleasant change from the fart jokes of the other children’s movies. The meta-humor – the joke about the actors being evil as they lie for a living – was appreciated too. The good side of the British culture, that was neatly spotlighted in the first film, was on display here too. I also liked the fact that the movie wasn’t afraid to poke fun at the poshness of Britishness too. Also, I loved the fact that the incentive for a story was a pop-up book – I used to love my fairytale garden pop up book as a child and it is still on the shelve in my old room at my parents’ house.

Not only did Paddington got a chance to go on a fun adventure in a sequel, but his family also got some nice screentime. The teenager problems, the middle-life crisis storyline for the dad, and the desire for adventure for the mother were all nice touches that expanded the plot. I also loved how tight the narrative was. Every detail that was introduced in the set-up came back again during the third act of the film. The son’s steam trains hobby, the dad’s yoga, the sticky toffee apples that Paddington ate during the fair, the judge character, the daughter’s newspaper, the mother’s painting and swimming abilities, Paddington’s folded ladder were all important plot-points, not just random ideas that the screenwriters had.

Directing

The director of the first film Paul King absolutely nailed the sequel. He kept the pure, innocent, and joyful atmosphere of the first movie that is so on-brand for Paddington. The picture’s setting was very well-realized: both the broad one (the feature was sort of a love letter to London) and the narrow one (the fair/carnival/circus setting was just adorable). The CGI animation that brought Paddington to life was impeccable too. The cinematography was amazing as well: the filmmakers used a lot of long and mobile shots that were so impressive.

Acting

Ben Whishaw (A Hologram for the King, In The Heart of The Sea, Spectre, The Danish Girl, Suffragette, The Lobster) was, once again, perfect as the optimistic, innocent, but determined voice behind Paddington. Hugh Bonneville (Breathe), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla), and Julie Walters (I can’t wait for Mamma Mia 2!) were great as the ‘adoptive’ family of Paddington, while Brendan Gleeson (Assasin’s Creed) had a lot of fun with the role of the prison cook. Hugh Grant (Florence Foster Jenkins) was wonderful as the over-the-top theatrical villain, while a plethora of great British actors (Jim Broadbent, Peter Capaldi, Ben Miller) also played some lovely minor roles.

In short, Paddington 2 provides an amazing opportunity for escapism and is both heartbreaking and heartwarming. It also will get you craving for marmalade!

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Paddington 2 trailer

8f8b0e078426ff7a42ce5950c6c86368