Well, everyone, today, we review the latest biopic. It is one that chronicles a couple that served as a Neil Diamond tribute band. It stars Hugh Jackman, and Kate Hudson as our main characters. Presenting to you all my review of the biopic, Song Sung Blue, which is based on a 2008 documentary of the same name, and chronicles a lot of the life of this couple, and their journey.

Plot: The movie chronicles the life of musicians Mike Sardina (Hugh Jackman), and his wife, Claire (Kate Hudson), who served as the Neil Diamond tribute band, Lightning & Thunder. It tells of the journey of the band, both highs, and lows, and anything else that went along with their journey.

First of all, I was completely surprised to find out what this film ended up being about. I mean after seeing previews for this movie, I went into this film thinking this was going to be a biopic about Neil Diamond himself. Boy, was I in for a surprise when it turned out that this film is actually a biopic about the tribute band for Neil Diamond, “Lightning & Thunder”. After seeing this film, I was also surprised by how much I found myself watching it, and watching a biopic that isn’t based on a Christian artist, or band, you know? Honestly, it wouldn’t be surprising if, after other people see this movie that have yet to, they would find themselves enjoying it more than other recent biopics like Rocket Man (which was about Elton John), or Bohemian Rhapsody (which, of course, was about Freddie Mercury/Queen). Now, is that to say that Rocket Man, or Bohemian Rhapsody were bad movies? No, absolutely not! In fact, they were still good movies. It’s just that, Song Sung Blues seemed like a more fun movie in this case. Now yes, like some of the other biopics that we have seen come out in more recent years, there were some sad, and depressing moments here in this film too. However, what makes Song Sung Blues stand out even more, in this case, is that while there were some sad, and depressing moments here too, it also felt more fun, lighthearted, and uplifting this time around. Not only is that the case with the storyline itself, but also probably thanks to the stars of this particular film, Hugh Jackman, and Kate Hudson. First of all, once again, just as Hugh Jackman did well with bringing his singing talents to films like 2012’s Les Miserables, and 2017’s The Greatest Showman, he does the same with Song Sung Blues. Even Kate Hudson does well with that. After seeing this film, I was shocked to hear how well she even sings. If anyone here found a film that she sings in, please let me know. Anyway, Jackman, and Hudson not only have great chemistry between their respective lead characters, but chances are people might find themselves wishing that they starred in other films together as well. In addition to all of this, this film did well with showing the character growth with each of these characters, especially with Mike, Claire, and even secondary ones like Rachel, Claire’s daughter from her first marriage, or Angelina, Mike’s daughter from his first marriage. Oh, and that’s another strength for this film. That being the story being well developed, the characters being well developed, and the movie not being afraid to show both the great times that happened for these characters, and the struggles that went along with many of them. Oh, and one other thing to appreciate about this film is how we got at least a little bit exposed to some of Neil Diamond’s other works in addition to his big hit, “Sweet Caroline”, including ones like “Soolaimon”, and, of course, “Song Sung Blue”. Honestly, and maybe this is just personal preference rather than anything against this movie, but it might have been nice to hear this tribute band sing a little more of Neil Diamond’s work. But hey, at least we got to hear a little more of Diamond’s work in this film. Finally, this film does well with teaching some really valuable lessons, like drawing lines between wanting to make people happy, playing things safe, and being willing to sometimes take risks, being patient with others that you care about, and loving others in spite of mistakes that they might make in life.

And that’s my review for Song Sung Blues. So, I guess the question remains, is it going to be films that come out around Christmas time, like last year’s “A Complete Unknown”, or this year’s “Song Sung Blue”, or even biopics that come out around Christmas time, that will end up being the more enjoyable ones than those that have come out at different points in past years in the end? Well, you got me! Well, one thing is for sure. “A Complete Unknown”, and “Song Sung Blue” have been a couple of the better biopics that have been released in more recent years. It’s a fun time at the movies, Hugh Jackman, and Kate Hudson are phenomenal in this movie as their respective characters, along with the supporting cast as their respective characters, the music is awesome, and there some really valuable lessons to learn from this film. Also, can we take time to appreciate that this is likely, if I’m not mistaken, one of the first films, if not the first one, to be a biopic featuring a tribute band to an artist, or band, instead of one about the artist, or band itself? All to say, if you can, definitely take the opportunity to see Song Sung Blue in theaters. It may not be an experience with visual effects, or seeing objects in 3D. Still, because of the wonderful story that goes along with this film, and all that goes with it, you’ll find yourself glad that you saw it in the end. So yes, please don’t wait until this movie’s On Demand to see it if possible. See it sooner instead, if you can. I can guarantee you won’t be disappointed. So, again, see it ASAP, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 10/10

Well, everyone, today, we review a sequel to a surprise hit, from Walt Disney Animation Studios, that was not only released back in 2016, but also won awards such as an Oscar, and, if I’m not mistaken, a Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature. Since then, there has been a short TV series that aired back in 2022, and now, this sequel, that was released just back around Thanksgiving of this year. Now, was it worth the wait nine years after the first film, or should Disney just stuck only with having the first Zootopia? Let’s find out! Oh, and before we get on with the review, let me just say welcome to this new monthly segment of me reviewing either a an animated film from Walt Disney Animation Studios, or one from Disney/Pixar. Yes, I plan to review the ones that I reviewed just on Facebook, since my additional blog viewers for this site didn’t get a chance to hear my thoughts on those. Also know that for those of you who followed me on Facebook, and saw those reviews in the Disney Canon a long time ago, just know that though my attitude towards some of them may still stay the same, it may also change towards others in the canon as well. And please, don’t be surprised if, or when that may happen over the course of me doing this hopefully for the next few years. Also, I may take a break in January by doing something still related to the world of Disney, but not necessarily part of either the Walt Disney Animation Studios Canon, or the Disney/Pixar one. Anyway, without further ado, let’s discuss Zootopia 2. Oh, and yes, a revisit for the first Zootopia is planned for this year, in 2026. Anyway, let me begin now.

Plot: One week after the events of the first film, now officers Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), and Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) attempt to crack a case that involves a blue pit viper named Gary De’Snake (Ke Huy Quan), who steals a book from crime boss Milton Lynxley (David Strathairn) in order to hopefully prove who the real founder of Zootopia was. With the help of Pawbert Lynxley (Andy Samberg), Will Nick, and Judy be able to catch up to Gary, prove Gary’s innocence, and be able to have him, along with the rest of the reptile community, welcomed back into Zootopia?

Well, as I’m sure many of you know, especially for those of you that keep up with movie news even somewhat, Zootopia has been making bank. It’s made over $1.4 billion worldwide. Some have claimed that Disney is back on the right track again. Some have even said that Zootopia 2 is better than the original Zootopia movie. And yeah, I’m sure that other positive things have been said that I’m not mentioning right now.

With all that said, was it worth the wait nine years after the original film was released? Is this sequel in fact better than the first film? Well, let me put it to you all this way! It is great that we had some of the same filmmakers back from the first film, especially director Byron Howard, and Jared Bush (who was screenplay writer for the first film, but now is director, alongside Howard, and replaced Rich Moore this time around for some reason). Why!?! Well, based on what I, and I’m sure many other movie buffs have observed, sequels that have some of the same filmmakers that made a previous installment of any movie franchise, those are the ones that are oftentimes almost as good, if not better, than a previous installment. Granted, there are rare exceptions, like 2018’s Mary Poppins Returns, or even 2024’s Mufasa: The Lion King. But that might be because of the former film coming out over fifty years after that original film, Mary Poppins, or the latter thirty years after the original Lion King film. Well, what do I know? Anyway, back on track!

All to say, Zootopia is one of the better Disney sequels to be released in recent years, especially compared to other ones that were released by Walt Disney Animation Studios, like 2019’s Frozen 2, or 2024’s Moana 2. I mean regardless of whether you liked, or disliked either of those sequels, many people will probably agree that Zootopia is better than either of those two combined. The reason why is because, well, even though Frozen 2, and Moana 2 did alright with expanding on the world building, and trying to develop the characters better, and such, you can tell that there was something lacking in either of those sequels that their respective previous predecessors had. Well, even if that is sort of the case for Zootopia 2 (more on that in a bit), you can tell that filmmakers were trying to put as much effort into it as possible. Well, not to mention that Zootopia 2 didn’t originally start off as a scrapped TV series for Disney+, like Moana 2. And, again, the fact that the filmmakers were willing to wait around nine, or ten years after it’s predecessor to make a sequel, that shows how much time the filmmakers were willing to make to make this sequel.

In addition to all of this, there is one major highlight that makes this one of the better sequels. That is that they expand on the world building of Zootopia. I mean just when we thought that we knew quite a bit about this fictional world with these particular anthropomorphic animals, we’re thrown in for a surprise. The reason being is because we get to learn about additional areas of Zootopia not mentioned, or explored in the first film. I mean we get to know about at least the reptile world, and what happened to them. And what’s even more is that we get to learn more information about Zootopia in terms of, well, quite a few things that maybe some people that saw the first movie might have been curious to know about some of the Zootopia world before.

An additional major highlight for Zootopia 2 is that there are so many hilarious moments scattered throughout the course of this movie. That is one aspect of this sequel that might have made it better than the first movie. Oh yes, there were quite a few comedic moments, and hilarious jokes in the first movie too. It’s just that Zootopia went over, and beyond, in that regard. Oh, and did I forget to mention that there are quite a few Easter eggs to go along with some of those jokes? Granted, it’s mostly adults, maybe even teens as well, that will understand some of those jokes. Still, they’ll surprisingly work really well.

Next, we have most of the characters back from the first movie. Nick, and Judy are back as the main characters, along with supporting ones like Chief Bogo, and Mr. Big. We also have newer characters like Gary De’Snake, who’s voiced by Ke Huy Quan, Pawbert Lynxley, voiced by Andy Samberg, and, probably one of the major highlights, and maybe helps bring out some of the more comedic moments in this film, Mayor Winddancer, who is voiced by the awesome Patrick Warburton. How could you go wrong with Patrick Warburton especially? Seeing him come back to Disney for the first time in twenty-five years since he first voiced the villain sidekick, Kronk, in the 2000 Disney animated comedy, The Emperor’s New Groove, and that being memorable, he didn’t disappoint even this time around. And yeah, having a snake be a good character in a movie for the first time in, well, quite a while, that was a welcome change as well. The rest of the voice cast, old, and new ones, was overall really great as well. One other thing to mention about the characters is how could we not appreciate that for once in a long while, a snake is portrayed as good for the first time in a while. And the way that Gary was handled, and developed, let’s just say that it was really with what the filmmakers did to make this character.

The animation is also really top notch. It would seem that it’s great as the animation as that of the first film, if not slightly better.

Another thing that should be mentioned about Zootopia 2 is the score by Michael Giacchino. Though it may not carry as much of an emotional impact as the first film did, it still helps keep this movie sequel engaging from beginning to end. Now, about Shakira/Gazelle’s new song, “Zoo”, that was a very fun, and catchy song. Still, again, “Try Everything” was probably more memorable, and will probably leave more of an impact on audiences.

One other thing is the storyline for Zootopia 2. Well, like the characters, and almost everything else, the story is well done, well developed, and helps enhance the Zootopia world really well. There are also some really interesting twists that feel a little stronger than those of the first film. Also, when it comes to solving cases like is usual in the police world, it is done really well in this film. And, like with the first film, people will be impressed with all the creativity involved like with the creativity of the first movie.

Finally, which was better? Was it the first original Zootopia, or the second one? Well, aside from this film being a little funnier, certain twists working a little better in the second one, and the world building being expanded upon, definitely the first one. For one, the first Zootopia movie left more of an emotional impact on audiences. In addition to that, the score was more memorable, and “Try Everything” was more of an Oscar contender for Best Original Song (even if the song got snubbed of such a nomination), and the characters might have been a little better developed. Again, yes, Zootopia 2 was more hilarious, and the world building was explored even more. Still, for the reasons mentioned, Zootopia was still superior to the second film. And, finally, some jokes will probably remain more timeless in the first film than in the second one.

And that’s my review for Zootopia 2. Even if the first movie, I can still see why the second one has been performing well. The characters are still likable, even the newer ones, the sequel is funnier, the world building is expanded upon more, and things like that. If you can make it to the movie theater to see this movie, and sequel, definitely make a point to. In the end, especially if you saw the first film, and enjoyed seeing that one in theaters, you’ll also be glad to have had the theater experience for Zootopia 2. And another thing! Make sure that you stay for both the mid-credit scene, as well as a post-credit scene. You’ll be glad that you did, especially since the end of the post-credit one more than likely sets things up for a third Zootopia movie.

Final Rating: 9.5/10

P.S. Well, at this point, after some okay offerings like Strange World, and Wish, is Disney back on track at this point? Well, considering that there’s been a change in leadership, and hopefully for the better this time, with successes like Zootopia 2, and hopefully future films like Hexed (which comes out in November of this year), 2027’s Frozen 3, and an original film coming out in 2028, weeks can hope that things are back to going upwards for Disney at this point. But I will say this, let’s do hope that some of Walt Disney Animation Studios’, or even Disney/Pixar’s upcoming original theatrical films will be successful to the point that both studios can say, “Man, maybe we don’t have to rely on sequels, and their successes to be successful companies after all”. Now yes, there are some changes that need to be made for that to happen. But hopefully both studios have realized that, and gotten the message at this point. But we shall see. Anyway, here’s hoping to better for both Disney/Poxar, and Walt Disney Animation Studios at this point forward!

Well, everyone, today, we review an older Christmas-themed film that has been said to be a favorite of many people to watch around the holidays, especially Christmas time. Strangely enough, I just saw this film for the very first time as of recently. I’ve heard many good things about it. However, I personally never got around to seeing it until recently. So now, let’s discuss the one, and only Christmas classic, It’s A Wonderful Life.

Plot: Businessman, and banker George Bailey (James Stewart) begins to contemplate suicide after a series of difficult circumstances begin to occur in his business, and his family life. Because of this, other people around him, including his family, begin to pray hard for him. When those prayers reach Heaven, God sends for an angel named Clarence (Henry Travers) to head down to Earth to talk George out of such a plan. But before Clarence can do so, God tells Clarence all about George, and his life. Now, will Clarence be able to stop George from taking his own life before it’s too late?

Well, is It’s A Wonderful Life one of those films, Christmas-themed, or not? Well, honestly, it is a really well done film. It also shows a clear example of how people in Hollywood didn’t seem afraid to incorporate things like God, people praying to God, and things like that in mainstream media back then. Also, the fact that this movie started off asa black and white movie before having color added decades later, it also shows that a film can be good whether it has color, is black and white, you name it. What’s even more is that there are valuable lessons to take away from the film. The characters are also really well written, and well-developed. Truthfully, the big standouts as far as characters are Mary, along with George Bailey, and Clarence, especially George, and Clarence. Honestly, the filmmakers did a great job of showing that even Jesus, and the angels have a sense of humor. Why? Well, because the character of Clarence especially helped bring a great sense of humor in terms of how he delivered his lines, and some of the things that he said during some of his interactions with George. George Bailey is also a really great character. He’s one of those characters that you learn to like, yet can feel frustrated with him at points such as when he can act like a character such as Ebenezer Scrooge character at one point in the film. And no, not in the way that you think! More like he can be similar to such a character, but seems to be more complex than that. The score was also really nice. That was done by Dimitri Tiomkin. It’s so nice with the sound of bells, and other instruments over the course of this film, specially when it comes to the more significant scenes in this film. There were also some really fun, and creative scenes in this film, especially around the beginning to middle of this film. And let me tell you, there were some rather hilarious moments. Granted, especially for a Christmas-themed film, it may not reach the heights of films like Home Alone 1, or 2, or likely even a film like A Christmas Story. However, because of how well done this film is, how memorable the characters are, and the valuable that this film tries to teach to the audience, it doesn’t really matter how big, or little, of a comedy this film is. And truly, that is what makes this movie great. Finally, will also say this, though this is technically a Christmas-themed movie, this is probably one of the rare to few times when a movie with that kind of a feel should probably be viewed more often than just at Christmas time. Why? Well, because this film helps teach really good, and valuable lessons, especially learning to love, and value God, and the gift of life that God has given each of us. Seeing as negative things like suicide seem to be more common in this day, and age, it would seem as if more people that may not have given this film a chance yet need to. Yes, it is a movie. Still, for being a movie that centers around a main character that contemplates suicide at one point, starts to wish that he was never born for reasons that I won’t spoil, and things like that, this film could potentially hit home, and teach really great life long lessons to many people.

And that’s my review for It’s A Wonderful Life. There is a lot to recommend for this film. In addition to great lessons to take away from this movie, the storyline is great, the characters are memorable, and people will have fun watching it to one degree, or another. Sure, if people want films with more comedy around the time of the holidays, this may not be people’s first choice in that regard. Still, for other great qualities that this film, be it the morals, the well done characters, and more, people that see this film will come to have an appreciation for it. So if you haven’t seen It’s A Wonderful Life, please, please make it a point to. Not only will you likely have an appreciation for it, but this movie will serve as a reminder of why older films released back around this time, along with others seem to be better than many movies released today in terms of quality, and delivery. So all to say, see it, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 10/10

Well, everyone, today, we review a non-Disney film that was made by the company 20th Century Fox, over twenty years before that company got bought out by Disney, and then was renamed 20th Century Studios. Oh, but that’s not all, before this movie was released, or even went into production for that matter, directors Don Bluth, and Gary Goldman went through some very serious hardships following the release of their 1989 hit All Dogs Go To Heaven. From films of theirs like 1994’s Thumbelina, and 1995’s The Pebble & The Penguin being flops, to having to shut down their former main animation studio in Dublin, Ireland, and then having to lose their former film business animation partner John Pomeroy to Disney, Don Bluth, and Gary Goldman faced difficult circumstances before they would form Fox Animation Studios in Phoenix, Arizona for a few years. From there, they would go on to make the first of two full-length animated films before that animation studio would surprisingly close down in June 2000. Well, let’s now discuss this very first animated film that was made at that former studio, and directed by Don Bluth, and Gary Goldman. Presenting to you all my review of the 1997 non-Disney animated film that was made by 20th Century Fox, and starring a cast that includes Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Kelsey Grammar, Angela Lansbury, Hank Azaria, and Christopher Lloyd, the one, and only Anastasia!

Plot: In the year 1916, Tzar Nicholas Romanov (Rick Jones), his daughter Anastasia (young Anastasia voiced by Kirsten Dunst, and adult Anastasia voiced by Meg Ryan), and his family celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Tzar rule in Russia. But the party is interrupted when the Tzar’s former advisor, Rasputin (Christopher Lloyd), who was exiled for treason, uses a reliquary to cast a curse on the family. Rasputin then sells his soul to that object for the power to destroy the Romanovs, and spark the Russian Revolution, causing the death of all of them except for Anastasia/Anya, and her grandmother, the latter who escapes to France, while Anastasia falls, and gets amnesia. Ten years later, Russia is under the Soviet Union, and rumors spread of Anastasia being alive. After Anastasia leaves an orphanage, she uses a clue from her necklace that her grandmother gave her ten years before shortly before the siege on the palace that should help her eventually remember who she was before. Now, with the help of a dog named Pooka, and two conmen named Vladimir (Kelsey Grammar), and Dmitri (John Cusack), can Anastasia find her grandmother, and rediscover her true heritage?

Well, I will say this, first of all, seeing that this was probably Don Bluth’s first really, really good film since maybe 1988’s The Land Before Time, or 1989’s All Dogs Go To Heaven, Don Bluth, after a string of just okay animated films that he made like Rock-A-Doodle, or Thumbelina, he really seemed to realize what made a great film in the first place. Now, even though this movie was based on actual events, as well as, like films such as 1995’s Disney film, Pocahontas, also full of historical inaccuracies, Anastasia is a well done film overall. First of all, though this film was probably a little too dark, and scary for an animated film for children in the beginning, Anastasia helps make up for this with things like a good story, very memorable characters, including the villain, and villain sidekick, and some surprisingly great, and mostly, if not fully, memorable songs that were written by Stephen Flaherty, and Lynn Ahrens, and a score by David Newman.

So, first off, for the story, though, again, it is apparently inaccurate, including what these characters were actually like in real life, you can tell that Don Bluth, Gary Goldman, and the team at Fox were trying their best to put as much heart into this film as possible. Now, whether the filmmakers made this film the way that they did because the real life story of Anastasia was much darker than portrayed in the film, or they were just trying to take artistic licenses, and creative liberties, I’m not sure what the case was. Anyway, however inaccurate this film is to Anastasia’s real life story, there is plenty of heart to this film. And yeah, let’s remember that many films, and even shows that are based on historical events take creative liberties. Case in point, films like Pocahontas, Titanic, The Patriot, and The Prince Of Egypt! Anastasia is certainly no exception. Sure, the film does have some cliches, notably like girl meets guy, main character wanting more in life, etcetera. Still, the way that it’s handled surprisingly ends up being a little more different than in many animated movies particularly that were released back around this time. Due to that being the case, though Anastasia can feel a whole lot like a Disney film, the movie isn’t afraid to have more darker moments in this film, maybe even more so than many Disney films. Now, granted, some of the remaining Disney films that were released in the mid to late 1990s, like 1995’s Pocahontas, and 1996’s The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, had a more darker tone than your typical Disney fare. Still, director Don Bluth has never seemed to be afraid to incorporate some very dark moments in his animated films. I mean look at films like The Secret Of NIMH, which had really intense moments in the climax, An American Tail with the really dark moment with the Jewish pogrom scene before the main mice characters immigrated from Russia to America, or even in All Dogs Go To Heaven, which had one of the most bittersweet endings in animated film. Well, the point being that even if Anastasia, like those had really, really intense moments, at least it was able to balance that out with some more lighthearted, and heart-warming moments, including some hilarious moments here, and there, and more.

Next, there are the characters. Starting with Anastasia. Yes, like many typical Disney princesses (which, reminder that she was a non-Disney one until a few years ago, when Disney bought out Fox), Anastasia does want more in life. But the fact that she mainly cares about finding out about her family, and who she is more than anything else, that certainly more unique than many other animated princesses, particularly for this time period. Then there’s Dmitri. Yeah, he did serve as the love interest for Anya/Anastasia. However, the thing that makes him stand out from many other love interests is that he seems to go from a caring person to acting selfish, and wanting certain things for selfish reasons, and going through a transformation that would help him being a more caring person again. What’s more is that he doesn’t even work for the villain in spite of this. Yeah, how often did that seem to be the case in the world of animated films that came out around the 1990s, or shortly after? Hopefully rhetorical! Then, there are supporting characters like Vladimir, and Anastasia’s grandmother Romanov. They were fun characters too who also have great development. Same goes for the dog, Pooka, who is more like comedic relief, along with Dmitri, and Vlad, serve as helping Anastasia on her journey to Paris, France in an attempt to find what remains of her family. Then, there’s the villain, Rasputin. I’m not sure if he was made the villain for this film due to him being rumored to have done some very horrible things in his life, or some other reason. Either way, he was a really well-developed villain, whose motives for being a villain were actually understandable. It doesn’t excuse him being who he allows himself to be in this film, but still. Oh, and it’s also worth mentioning that even if he’s not as hilarious as a villain like Hades from Hercules (ironic, considering that Disney film came out just a few months before Anastasia), he’s still memorable for what comedic moments that he does have, and for being brave enough to get a job done himself if he has to. Plus, how can you go wrong with him being voiced by Christopher Lloyd? Yeah, Lloyd always does well regardless of whether he plays the role of a hero, or a villain. The one character who could have been better written was the albino bat, Bartok, who served as Rasputin’s sidekick, and served as comic relief. First of all, the fact that he has a closer relationship with his master than other villain sidekicks to their respective villain masters, that’s likely either a plus, a double-edged sword, or all of the above. But what’s weird is that Bartok can also be a little bit of a confusing character in terms of how he acts as if he wants to go along with Rasputin’s wishes, and yet at other times, feels hesitant to want to assist Rasputin in his plans to kill Anastasia, you know? Finally, with the characters, and the voice casting, how could you not appreciate that we have mostly a well known cast for the voices of this film? From Meg Ryan playing Anastasia (Kirsten Dunst does young Anastasia, Lacey Chabert her young singing voice, and Liz Callaway does Anastasia’s adult singing voice), and John Cusack playing Dmitri (Glenn Walker Harris Jr., and Jonathan Dokuchitz his adult singing voice), Angela Lansbury voicing Grandma Maria Romanov, Kelsey Grammar voicing Vlad, Hank Azaria voicing Bartok, and, of course, Christopher Lloyd voicing Rasputin (and Jim Cummings apparently providing the singing voice for him), and more, how could one not appreciate that this film had a mostly, if not fully, well-known cast?

Now, for the songs! As mentioned before, these songs were written by Lynn Ahrens, and Stephen Flaherty, and the score composed by David Newman. First of all, the fact that David Newman was the one to compose the score for Anastasia, wow, what a great thing! I mean for him to come from a family of musicians that includes his apparently brother, Thomas Newman (whose works include films from Disney/Pixar’s library like 2003’s Finding Nemo, and 2023’s Elemental), and cousin Randy Newman (whose works include the Toy Story films, Monsters, Inc., and more), and be a composer himself, how cool is that? I mean considering you don’t often hear of composers from the same family, isn’t that cool, or what? Well, putting that aside, Newman’s score helps engage this film from beginning to end. Even the Academy seemed to think so too, as David Newman apparently got a nomination at the Oscars for Best Original Score for this film. How about that? And just think, five years later, he would go on to compose for Fox, and Blue Sky’s very first full-length animated film, Ice Age. But another major highlight for this film when it comes to the music is in fact its songs. Seriously, I was surprised how much I found myself singing along with some of these songs, like “A Rumor In St. Petersburg”, “Journey To The Past”, In The Dark Of The Night”, and one of my favorites, “Learn To Do It”. Even if you don’t have these songs fully stuck in your head when seeing this film the first time around, then they may end up growing on you if you decide to watch this film a second time around, or even multiple times after that. Yeah, considering that can be said about Anastasia, or even Disney’s Hercules, and both movies being released in the same year, in 1997, definitely shows what even animated are capable of when it comes to writing original songs. Finally, on a side note, can we take a moment to appreciate the fact that even though Disney had their last villain song in 1996’s The Hunchback Of Notre Dame for the next thirteen years, until 2009’s The Princess & The Frog, non-Disney animated films like Anastasia, 1998’s Quest For Camelot, and 1998’s The Prince Of Egypt would continue the tradition of being a musical, and including a song for the villain in the mix? Just a thought!

One other thing I should mention is the animation. Wow, Don Bluth truly knows how to use the art of hand-drawn animation as an art form of storytelling. No doubt did he do well with doing that even here. The way that facial expressions are animated on the characters, the beautiful backgrounds of snow, rivers, and more, the animation is also an amazing aspect of this film as well. It’s just a shame that Don Bluth, and Gary Goldman were only able to make two full-length films when partnering with Fox, and then had to call it quits thanks to the financial failure of 20th Century Fox/Fox Animation Studios’ second full-length films, from 2000, Titan A.E.

Finally, of the two animated films that were released in 1997, and were fairly popular, you may be wondering, which one was better, was it Disney’s June 1997 film Hercules, or 20th Century Fox’s November 1997 film, Anastasia? Well, I will tell you the truth, ladies, and gentlemen, for the most part, it’s Anastasia. Now, don’t get me wrong, there were at least a couple ways that Hercules might have been a little better. Those being that Hercules was a little more hilarious, was more lighthearted, had a more hilarious villain in Hades, and a little more memorable than Rasputin because of that, as well as villain sidekicks that were better developed, and not confusing at points, not by much, if at all. Aside from those aspects, Anastasia was better for quite a few reasons. Among those reasons are that the songs were a little more memorable, you have a warmer feeling from beginning to end, better animation, characters that are a little more complex, a storyline that’s based on actual events, and better lessons to be learned. Plus, at least with Anastasia, at least you find yourself having a better feeling with how things turn out by the end. Seeing as Hercules had an ending that you’d find yourself feeling happy, but also ambivalent about, it helped to see Anastasia do a better job in that regard too. Oh, and also, at least Anastasia didn’t feel Americanized, or feel corny by much, if at all.

And that’s my review for Anastasia. Even if there were inaccuracies to this film, then look at it this way. One can go watch, or see Anastasia, and then decide to do research on the actual life of Anastasia afterwards. This film has a great story, likable, and memorable characters, excellent songs, wonderful animation, and many other qualities that help make this film worthwhile. It was great to see this film succeed financially, even if it could have performed somewhat better at the box-office. Truly, it’s tragic that Fox Animation Studios was short-lived, and didn’t last long, and had to close its doors after the financial failure of 2000’s Titan A.E. But hey, at least people can look to Anastasia, and remember how great, and well-done it was. If you’re interested in a retelling of Anastasia, regardless of accuracies, or inaccuracies, then definitely make a point to see this film. You’ll definitely be glad to have seen it. Though Anastasia may not be quite as great as animated films like The Lion King, or The Prince Of Egypt, Anastasia definitely deserves recognition, including being one of the better non-Disney animated films that came out in the 1990s. With all that said, definitely go see Anastasia if you haven’t, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 9/10

And now, everyone, it’s time to dive into Part 2 of a musical that’s based on a Broadway musical, and The Wizard Of Oz. Presenting to you all my review for Wicked For Good/Wicked Part Two!

Plot: In the land of Oz, events begin to come full circle for witches Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande), and Elphaba/The Wicked Witch Of The West (Cynthia Erivo), as political unrest begins to unfold in the land.

Well, there were quite a few things to like about Wicked For Good. First of all, some of the characters were better developed this time around. Yeah, some of that could have been done better for some of them. But more on that in a bit! The action, and suspense also made this film more intense this time around as well. There were also some very interesting twists in this sequel as well. I’m not sure how much either part followed the first, or second part of the original Broadway show. Hopefully either part did a good job of that, though. Additionally, there were some really excellent visuals, especially when it came to seeing the land of Oz. Finally, what really makes this movie worth watching even in theaters is how both the light tones, and the even more darker tones are done really well. Yeah, when things are more lighthearted, and you see even the brighter colors of Oz, you truly do find yourself feeling like you want to visit the land of Oz if it really existed in real life. As for when you see the more darker moments, the dark places of Oz truly have that darker feel. I mean the darker land of Oz might have the feeling of say a mythical place like Mordor from Lord Of The Rings, or some place like that.

However, Wicked For Good does seem to have flaws as well. Maybe those who saw the Broadway play Wicked might feel differently? You got me! Anyway, while some of the characters were done well, there were others that probably could have been handled better. The way that Elphaba (aka the Wicked Witch Of The West) was handled especially seemed poorly handled, and confusing. I won’t go into details as to why, but you’ll hopefully know what I mean. Maybe how she was handled was done better in the play? Hmm! Another thing to consider, I suppose! Anyway, the film, overall, doesn’t seem to be quite as fun, engaging, or as memorable as Part One seemed to be (which, of course, just came out around Thanksgiving last year). Don’t get me wrong! The songs, for example, were decent to say the least. However, they didn’t seem quite as memorable as say those of last year’s Part One. I mean most people probably remembered songs like “Popular”, or “Defying Gravity”, for example, in Part One. However, the ones here, though alright, don’t seem to be ones that you’ll find yourself singing, or humming to for a long while after seeing the film. That is, again, maybe unless you saw the original Wicked play. I don’t know. Even then, Wicked For Good seems to feel a little more dark, and depressing, and doesn’t seem to feel quite as fun as the Wicked Part One. Don’t get me wrong, there were still good moments, like the villain song, the one fairly memorable one, along with maybe “For Good”. There were also some redeeming qualities around the middle to end of this sequel as well. Finally, again, though this sequel helps wrap things up, and bring things around full circle, you’ll probably still find yourself finding the first film more enjoyable by the end.

And that’s my review for Wicked For Good. The movie does have some good things going for it. Still, because it may have felt a little darker in tone, and may have been a little too depressing at times, people who may not be as well acquainted with the original play might not be as appreciative of this sequel, yet may somehow still find the first part more fun. If, however, you’re familiar with the play, people may still enjoy both parts equally, and maybe I’m missing something. Feel free to let me know if I’m missing anything for those of you that have seen both parts one, and two of the play, and of this film! I would still say to go see this film if you’re a big fan of musicals, a fan of The Wizard Of Oz, and, of course, saw the play, Wicked. You’ll still get even some enjoyment out of it, I’m sure.

Final Rating: 7/10

And now, everyone, let’s discuss a film that is apparently a remake of a live-action film from 1987, and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger. This remake stars Glen Powell. So now, let’s discuss 2025’s The Running Man.

Plot: Sometime in the fairly near future, Ben Richard’s (Glen Powell), and his wife, Sheila (Jayne Lawson) have a daughter who is on the verge of dying of fever. Because they don’t have as much money, against his wife’s wishes, Ben decides to join a contest, known as The Running Man, in order to get enough money to get medication for their daughter? Will be successfully win the money needed to help make his daughter feel better?

Well, though the film may be one of the more darker adult films out there, The Running Man still has quite a bit going for it. First of all, there is a lot of great action in this film. What’s even more is that there are also a lot of comedic moments in this film too. Glen Powell, who starred as the Running Man character in this film, helped bring this film’s more comic relief into this new remake. What’s even more is how the main character, Ben Richards, is willing to go to any lengths to help either his family, or anyone else out around him. Oh, and did I forget to mention that even though there’s foul language in this film, it’s not quite as prevalent compared to many other R-rated films as of nowadays? Yeah, that’s a nice change in an R-rated film for once, wouldn’t you say? In addition to all of this, the visuals are also really good too, even for not having 3D effects. Finally, the story is very engaging, thanks, in part, to elements like great action, comedy, and everything else that goes with it.

Still, The Running Man does have some flaws that go with it too. For one, this film can be a little too dark, and eerie, at times. Yeah, I realize that this film is rated R. Still, even by today’s standards, this film may be a little too violent even for a rating like that. What’s even more is that this movie, though it has a good storyline, does seem, at times, to almost act like a Hunger Games wannabe. Then again, maybe the 1987 film may have acted in a similar manner, and I’m missing something because of that? You got me! Finally, there were some parts near the end that made this movie have a very weird feeling. I’m not sure how to explain it without hopefully spoiling, but that’s all I can say at this point.

And that’s my review for the newer Running Man film. Though it may not be one of the best action films out there, it still has some good things going for it, like good action, some comedy, and things like that. I would say that if you want an action film where it’s remake is supposedly said to be better than it’s 1987 counterpart, where actor Glen Powell lets his comic side shine out, and more, then I would say give this film a shot. I can guarantee that you’ll still have a good time with it in the end.

Final Rating: 7.5/10

Hey, everyone! Welcome to another session of movie reviewing! Today, we review a rather interesting film that may yet have had one of the more creative premises in Disney history. In fact very creative for a simple story that turned into a franchise that consisted of an additional theatrical sequel, quite a few sequels, and, apparently, an upcoming theatrical sequel that is evidently coming out sometime next year. What’s even more is that this film that we are about to review was released during a summer that gave us not one, not two, but three films that were released in one summer alone. That’s right! We are talking about the summer 1997, when we had Disney films Hercules in June 1997, George Of The Jungle in July 1997, and this film, Air Bud, in August 1997. So now, let’s discuss the one, and only Air Bud!

Plot: After the death of his father, 12-year-old Josh Framm (Kevin Zegers), his widowed mother, Jackie (Wendy Makenna), and his two-year-old sister, Andrea, relocate to the fictional city of Fernfied, Washington. Josh has lost interest in many activities, including his passion for basketball. But one day, when a golden retriever, who ends up escaping his previous owner, a clown named Norm Snively (Michael Jeter), walks into the life of Josh, and his family, they name him Buddy. With Buddy having the unique ability of shooting hoops into a basket on a basketball court, can he help reignite Josh’s passion for basketball? Also, with Norm on the hunt to track Buddy down, can Josh, and his family maintain the rights to keep Buddy if Norm tracks him down?

Wow, what an awesome way to end the summer of 1997 by making this the last Disney film to be released around that time! I’m not sure if this film is well known due to it having one, soon to be two theatrical sequels, along with some direct-to-video films, or if this film is not well known in spite of all of that. Well, if there aren’t as many people out there who have seen this film, or heard of it, then those who haven’t need to give Air Bud a shot (pun intended in this case). Why? Well, for one, the thing that likely makes even live-action films like Air Bud stand out from other live-action films in the Disney library is that if you end up watching this film, and you didn’t know that was made by that company, it would be hard to tell that it was made by them. Yeah, you heard that right. I mean maybe other live-action Disney films like Cool Runnings, Squanto: A Warrior’s Tale, and the like would probably have a similar feeling. But back mainly to Air Bud! Had the film been made by a different movie company, like Touchstone Pictures, Columbia Pictures, or maybe even Warner Pictures, example, chances are Air Bud would have probably been just as good, maybe even slightly better. Yeah, hard to believe, right? So what helps make this film a great one? Well, for one, there are some opening shots. I don’t know how to best describe it, except for there being amazing cinematography, and a beautiful score to go along with it. Speaking of which, Brahm Wenger composes the score for this film. I will say that though it’s in the beginning where his score shines, his score is still really great throughout the rest of the film. Then there’s the character development. Man, are they all really well developed, especially main character Josh Framm, Buddy (aka Air Bud), and the clown man, who’s basically the villain of this film, Norm Snively. For Josh, and Buddy’s relationship, it may resemble that of similar movie relationships like Jesse, and Willy’s on Free Willy, for example. However, one of the main highlights of the man, and animal relationship in this case is how, one, Buddy is talented with using his nose for shooting baskets, for example. Second, Buddy helps serve as a metaphor as to why dogs truly are considered man’s best friend. I mean to have this kid show love, and compassion to this dog by any means necessary, and for the dog to not only be Josh’s friend, as well as help him overcome hurts like grief of the loss of his father, and more, this film does truly serve as a reminder as to why dogs are some of the best pets, and companions that humans can have. Truly, because people Norm Snively help the audience see the abusive side of humans by showing how cruel, and abusive humans can be go either dogs, or other animals for that matter, while Josh serves has the more kinder, loving, and compassionate side for animals, that helps truly makes this movie all the more well done. Additionally, Air Bud has everything else that you can ask for, from a mostly well-developed story, well-written characters, hilarious moments, and even serious moments. I mean even though Air Bud may not have the same level of comedic that say Disney films like Hercules, or George Of The Jungle (again, both of which were also released in the summer 1997), Air Bud still has a charm of it’s own, and works well as a film that balances both it’s funny, and more serious moments. What’s more is that people will likely feel touched by both, Josh, and Buddy, and their relationship with each other. If there were any negatives to mention about Air Bud, it would be that the ending probably felt a little rushed. The ending was still very good. It’s just that it could have probably gone on a little longer. Thankfully, there are additional scenes during some of the end credits. Oh, that reminds me, please don’t be so quick to turn this film when the credits roll. You’ll want to see some additional scenes that play even when some of the credits roll.

And that’s my review for Air Bud. Truly, because this film seems to stand out from other Disney films, live-action, or animated, and in a really good way at that, Air Bud is a film that you’ll be glad to watched after seeing it. Heck, you might even want to rewatch it a second time, or more even after seeing it for the first time. The characters are awesome, the story is well done, the score is really beautiful, and well done, and you’ll come to appreciate a lot of things in life after seeing it, be it animals like dogs, sports like basketball, and more, you name it. It is so hard to believe that a couple years from now, Air Bud will be reaching its 30th anniversary. Man, does time fly! Well, if you haven’t seen Air Bud yet, and what a film from Disney that seems more original, and different from typical Disney fare, then all the more reason to see this one of a kind film. You’ll be surprised, and amazed afterwards! That I can guarantee you on. Well, again, see this film, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 9.5/10

Ladies, and gentlemen, today, we review a classic film that has been beloved by many over the past forty years, and just got re-released in theaters a couple weeks ago. Starring people like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, I present to you all my review of the very first Back To The Future film.

Plot: In the year, high school student Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) becomes friends with scientist Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd). When an incident occurs that gets Doc killed by Libyans, Marty uses a Time Machine that is a flying car, and was built by Doc, to go back thirty years before, in 1955. Now, can Marty find Doc in that timeframe, and warn him of his death so that Doc doesn’t get killed thirty years later?

Well, I will say that I can see why this film is co spidered a classic. Back To The Future, first of all, has a a really great storyline to it. I mean the way this film is set up, it is really creative for how this film has some of the characters, most notably the main ones, go back in time to help change certain aspects of the future. Honestly, part of me was a little surprised that this film wasn’t called Back To The Past, or something like that. Then again, since this film was centered our main characters going back to the past to help change whatever needs to be changed about the future, then maybe it was for the best that this film wasn’t given the title that it was? Likely so! Anyway, in addition to the creativity of the storyline, the characters were well written as well. Truth be told, Michael J. Fox, and Christopher Lloyd as Marty McFly, and Doc Brown respectively especially had a great relationship, almost like a father, and son, or even grandfather, and grandson type of relationship. The movie also did well with portraying what life looked like in both modern times at the time, and life in 1955. Whether it was the music at either time, the building architecture of either time period, you name it. The score by Alan Sylvestri was also really good too. Also, who probably won’t have original songs like “The Power Of Love” stuck in their head for a long while to come? Additionally, there are plenty of elements that help make this film well done, in addition to well-developed characters, and story, like excellent drama, comedy, and more. Also, even if the visual effects may feel a little outdated, they were really good for the time that this movie was released. I’m not sure how people are able to transfer those to the movie screen. Still, however they do it, they do a well done job of it even here. Robert Zemeckis, and Steven Spielberg truly did well with working together to craft such a fun, and wonderful film like this one. Finally, this film could potentially serve as a good lesson in how, though we can’t go back to the past to change the future, nor can we control anyone else’s actions, at least we can learn to change the future for each of our own stories in terms of how we live our lives.

If there were any negatives for this film, it would be that there were some moments throughout this film, particularly character development, and/or maybe even arcs, that probably could have somehow been handled a little better than they were in the end.

And that’s my review for the very first Back To The Future. It has fun, likable, and memorable characters, wonderful comedy, a well set-up story, great suspense, cool action, and more, that help make this film really enjoyable. Truthfully, if you haven’t seen this classic film yet, then definitely go see it! That is if you want to see a classic film that helps serve as a reminder of how much better the quality of films was even back then. So go see it, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 9.5/10

P.S. Happy 40th anniversary to Back To The Future!

Everyone, today, we review a faith-based film that was based on a true story. It comes in the form of a review of a new film that was just made, and released by MGM (through Amazon Studios), and Kingdom Story Company. Presenting to you all my review of the one, and only Sarah’s Oil.

Plot: In the year 1913, a young eleven-year-old girl named Sarah Rector (Naya Desir-Johnson) is given a deed to open land in Oklahoma. When she senses that there might be oil hidden underground, she decides to try to get it drilled. With the help of people like Bert Smith (Zachary Levi), and Mace (Mel Rodriguez), will she be able to find oil underground?

Wow, what an excellent movie! I mean first get faith-based films that were based on real-life events like Reagan, Soul On Fire, and now Sarah’s Oil? Man, these are the kinds of movies that need to be making even fairly big time dough. I’m not sure how much of this film was accurate to the actual real life event, and/or life of Sarah Rector. Either way, I, for one, am glad that more films like Sarah’s Oil, and more, are coming out. In this, the acting is really great, especially Naya Desir-Johnson as main character Sarah, and Zachary Levi as Bert Smith, one of the people who helped Sarah find oil in the area that she lived. Next, there are the characters. The characters, and the story, are overall really well developed. But, one of the major good things that makes this film really well done is how, regardless of how much of this film happened in real life, or how much artistic license was taken in the process of this film, there is much to be gained from watching a film like this one. I would say that, at its core, Sarah’s Oil is a film about learning to have faith, and not giving up when it feels easy to do so. I mean yes, there are times in life when one needs to give up certain dreams, plans, you name it. Still, it would seem that films like Sarah’s Oil serve as a reminder as to why, when God truly does put something on your heart, it’s never good to give up so easily. Finally, this film did well with depicting how much greed, corruption, and even racism abounded even back then before especially racism was a bigger deal.

And that’s my review for Sarah’s Oil. It is an excellent movie that I’m sure Christians will come to appreciate after seeing it. Honestly, it wouldn’t be surprising if even some non-Christians came to like Sarah’s Oil. With all that said, if you want to see another faith-based film, want to see another aspect of history that may not have been known, or talked about all that much, or all of the above, then all the more reason to see Sarah’s Oil. So yeah, go see it when you get the chance, and see what you think!

Final Rating: 10/10

And now, after 15 years of Disney being absent from the Tron film series following the 2010 release of Tron: Legacy, Disney decided to revive the franchise by releasing a third film just recently. And now, it is time to dive into the third film that was released just three weeks ago, on Friday, October 10th, 2025, the one, and only Tron: Ares.

Plot: 15 years after Sam Flynn attempted to bring his father back from the Grid, ENCOM chief executive officer Eve Kim (Greta Lee), and her business partner, Ajay Singh (Hasan Minhaj) must use a permanence code for ENCOM to prevent Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters), and his mother, Elisabeth (Gillian Anderson) from bringing life forms Ares (Jared Leto), and second-in-command Athena (Jodie Turner-Smith) from Tron, and into the real world to potentially wreak havoc. Will their plan succeed in the end?

Well, even though this may not be one of the best sequels out there, Tron: Ares still has some good things going for it. The music, and score by Nine Inch Nails was really good. Once again, it helps keep an 80s vibe that started with the very original film back in the early 1980s, when the Tron franchise began. And yes, it will sound a little cliche, but the visuals are really good, especially when you see objects that involve Tron. It also did well with tying the first two films in the movie as well, especially with things like having Julian being the grandson of Ed Dillinger, Kevin Flynn playing a role in the third film, and things like that. The acting was also really great. And come on, particularly for those of us that have watched both the first two films before this third one, who wouldn’t appreciate Jeff Bridges returning as Kevin Flynn? There is also lots, and lots of great action. And what’s even more is how many of the action scenes in this installment are really well-choreographed. A friend of mine, and I saw this film in 3D. Wow, seeing some of the characters ride on the digital Tron bikes made it even more special, and awesome. If you still have yet to see this film, and have an opportunity to see it in 3D, I would highly recommend it. That is if you have ticket discounts for movies. But more on that in a bit! Oh, and did I forget to mention that people who especially saw the first film will likely have an appreciation for scenes that give a nod to that very first film by incorporating part of the old graphics of the Tron world into this third film? Yeah, people who have seen especially the first Tron film from 1982 will more than likely have an appreciation of that. Finally, for positives, this film will hopefully serve as a reminder as to why attempting to create artificial intelligent life forms likely won’t be a good idea either now, or likely ever.

But now, why don’t we talk about the negatives? Well, there’s the story itself. Honestly, even though it most definitely had a good setup, there was likely some potential for it to be better developed. I mean some of the characters, especially the villains, felt a little jaded, one-dimensional, and seemed to miss an opportunity to be better developed, possibly be more complex. They did at least try with at least Elisabeth Dillinger, but even that could have been handled better. And yeah, trying to incorporate more newer characters in, I’m not sure that was the best idea. I mean they probably could have somehow just maybe had Sam Flynn, and Quorra come back for this third film. Honestly, it might have helped tie things from the first two films better, and likely even helped make this third film better. And, honestly, the third film felt a little like an imitation of at least the first film. Now, for those of you who haven’t seen the first film, that may not be an issue for you. Still, for those of us that have seen both the first, and second films, it could potentially be an issue for them. Just a thought there! Finally, the storyline, the world building of additional Tron material, and more, could have maybe somehow been explored more in this third, and final installment.

And that’s my review for Tron: Ares. Though it does have a nice setup, and a fairly good premise, the way that the third film still had potential to be better. It wasn’t a bad sequel. It was just okay. Truly, though, Tron: Ares, and it’s underwhelming box-office seem to serve as proof that maybe there is in fact a point in time when companies like Disney, DreamWorks, Universal, or other companies, especially nowadays in an age where we have a lot of sequels, and remakes, need to learn when to retire some franchises at some point. Look, I realize that movie companies need to find a way to attempt to make money. Still, companies like Disney need to learn to try to somehow come up with more original ideas, and do their best to execute it well. Even Walt Disney himself would likely agree with that. Anyway, because Tron: Ares hasn’t performed as well at the box-office, and may have strayed a little much from the first two films, that may be a lesson that Disney needs to learn to draw a line with trying to make money, and being more creative. And yes, that goes for other movie companies too. Hopefully, Tron: Ares will help serve as a lesson into when a franchise should continue, and when a franchise should retire at some point. All to be said, I would say definitely still see Tron: Ares if you either saw the first two films, are a Disney fan, or a big movie buff overall. Just be warned that after seeing this third film, you’ll probably find yourself thinking that you would probably just rather stick with the first two films, or even hang with John O’ Leary, experiencing his difficult journey in Soul On Fire (which, of course, was released on the same day as this film) than be on another adventure with the older, and newer characters of the Tron franchise. But all the more reason to see this film, just to be curious, and see if you agree, or disagree with me on that!

Final Rating: 6.5/10