Well, everyone, today, we review an animated film that was one of a few, along with Toy Story, Ice Age, and a few other animated films of it’s type, to set the stage for the popularity of computer animation. Not only that, but it is also known for winning the very first Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Did this film deserve that Oscar in the end? Well, let’s find out by diving into the one called Shrek, from back in 2001!

Plot: When a cruel king named Farquaad (John Lithgow) of the fictional kingdom of Duloc forces an entire group of fairytale humans, and creatures out of his kingdom, and into the swamp of an ogre named Shrek (Mike Myers), this frustrates the misunderstood ogre, and causes him, and his new pet pal, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) to march onto his kingdom, and demand his swamp back as it was. Because Farquaad must marry a princess in order to officially become a king, Farquaad makes a deal with the ogre, that if he makes a dangerous quest to deserted castle that’s guarded by a fire-breathing dragon, defeats that dragon, and rescues the princess (Cameron Diaz), he will give him his swamp back as it was before. Will Shrek, and Donkey’s quest prove successful in the end?

Alright, so, right off the bat, I must confess that I was actually pondering whether, or not to finally rewatch, and review the very first Shrek movie as of sometime this year. Well, because Shrek 2 was getting re-released this year, due to that sequel reaching its 20th anniversary as of this year, I decided to go ahead, and rewatch for the first film as of now.

So, watching it again, is it as good as I remembered? Well, though it’s still a good film, I still Monsters, Inc. should have been the animated film to win the Oscar for Best Animated Feature that year. Granted, I never the other nominee, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. So, I will probably need to go say for sure which of those three should have won the Oscar for that year for that category. Anyhow, why should Shrek have just been nominated, but not win, you may ask? Well, for one, there’s the soundtrack. Okay, some of the song choices like “All Star” were probably decent choices. Still, some of those songs won’t be quite as memorable as of today, like maybe they might have been back then. Well, maybe “If You Like Pina Colada”, or “I’m A Believer”, or the rendition of that latter one that plays near the end of the film, were pretty cool. Still, since some of the songs felt more like montages than helping the story, some scenes might have worked a little better with an instrumental score, or something along those lines. Oh well! The other issue with Shrek is that a lot of the humor was really crude in this film. Sure, a lot of those moments will probably fly over a kid’s head. Still, some of those crude scenes could also potentially borderline a PG-13 rating. In some ways, it was probably a miracle that Shrek ended up only being rated PG instead. Well, I will also say this as well. I rewatched, and reviewed the 2000 DreamWorks animated film, The Road To El Dorado (which yes, I may review again on this blog) a few years ago. For those of you who saw that review on Facebook, you may recall that one of my criticisms was the fact that there were some scenes in that film that also were a little too adult for an animated film. Well, a friend of mine commented on that review about how Shrek was most likely more adult, and crude than The Road To El Dorado. So, was he right about that being the case? Well, after rewatching Shrek for the first time in years, I’m going to confidently say very much so. Well, not only were there some scenes in the film that may have been a little inappropriate for children at points, but there was one scene around the middle that, though subtle, may have also potentially been a little creepy, and disturbing. I even heard of some people on YouTube pointing it out. I won’t give it away, but if you rewatch Shrek again, feel free to ask about it either privately on Messenger, or someplace like that. Well, thankfully, that scene didn’t last all that long.

With those out of the way, what were the good things in Shrek? Well, for one, there was the animation. Yes, there were some scenes where the animation did seem to feel a little dated. However, overall, the animation was still very good, especially with this being an animated film that was made by DreamWorks, and at time when the company was beginning to be on the rise with animated films. And hey, at least films like Shrek, and later Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, and How To Train Your Dragon, for example, have helped improve animation for DreamWorks. It was also interesting that DreamWorks decided to use this film to poke fun at fairytales, especially with how Disney was portraying the fairytale formula for a really long time. Additionally, how could we not briefly discuss how likable the characters are? I mean not only Shrek, or even love interest, Princess Fiona, but Donkey is hilarious, Farquaad, the villain, even is well developed, and has some funny moments himself. First off, I will say that I find it interesting that DreamWorks Shrek was released just five months after the Disney animated comedy, The Emperor’s New Groove, which also had a hilarious Disney villain. Second, could we take a moment to appreciate the fact that Eddie Murphy came back to voice another animated character, in this case, Donkey, just three years after voicing Mushu the dragon in the 1998 Disney animated film, Mulan? Well, just a thought there! And as for Shrek, and Fiona’s relationship, there most definitely is chemistry there. And yeah, definitely can’t forget the memorable banter with Shrek, and Donkey. As for the storyline itself, how could we not love how this film changed up some cliches with the fairytale formula, and the animated film formula with that type of formula? It just comes to show how much DreamWorks was willing to challenge the Disney animated company. Yeah, considering that one of the founding members was Jeffrey Katzenberg, that many of DreamWorks’ employees came from Disney, and how Katzenberg might as well as acted as if he was ready to take revenge on Disney for feeling screwed over by them, it’s not that surprising at all to see how ready the company was determined to compete with Disney, and take them down. This shows with not only films like Shrek, but also with earlier films before it like Chicken Run, The Road To El Dorado, and The Prince Of Egypt, which, like Shrek, also had more complex stories with more mature themes in them. Granted, Disney’s Enchanted, which came out six years after this film, attempted to pull off something similar to Shrek, but probably for slightly different reasons. You got me! As for the soundtrack, though a lot of it feels like montage after montage, as mentioned before, it works better at least a couple times in this film, and brilliantly well. It was also awesome to see this film briefly introduce kids to other material like the three blind mice, Snow White, and other stories, and fairytales for that matter. John Powell, and Harry Gregson-Williams also provided a score that was both epic, as well as calm, soothing, and peaceful at other times. The comedy though crude, and a little bit cruel at times, was also clever, and creative at the majority of other times. Oh, and the choreography, when it came to some of the songs, and even some action scenes, was surprisingly well-times, and well done overall as well. Finally, there was a great amount of heart put into this film, from the memorable, and creative storyline, likable characters, and more.

And that’s my review for DreamWorks’ Shrek. Even though it may be a little overrated, and shouldn’t have won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, Shrek is definitely a fun film. It has a beautiful score, good comedy, fun characters, and things like those. Though Shrek could have maybe been tweaked with one, or two more drafts, it is most definitely a fun film overall. I would say that if you surprisingly haven’t seen Shrek, definitely make it a point to do so. You will have a fun time with it, regardless of its strengths, and flaws. So there you have it!

Final Grade: A-

Well, everyone, today, we review a film by the name of Arthur The King! No, it is not another adaptation of the King Arthur story. And if you pay attention to the poster above, that should tell you enough. Well, today, we shall discuss a film that was based on a true story, and in which a character in this film was nicknamed Arthur, The King, for reasons that I won’t explain. You’ll just have to see this film to find out why. Anyway, let’s talk about this Arthur The King, shall we?

Plot: Following the loss of a race back in 2015, businessman, and racer Michael Light (Mark Wahlberg) decides that he wants to give running a chance one last time by joining a 5-day race marathon in the Dominican Republic. He recruits a mountain climber named Olivia (Nathalie Emmanuel), and an older racer named Chiki (Ali Suliman). At the advice of his boss, Michael also recruits, reluctantly, a now celebrity figure named Leo (Simu Liu). As they’re racing by different sports through the mountain jungles of the Dominican Republic, they befriend a stray mutt at one of the transition camps. Would this new friendship with the dog just be a temporary one, or a lasting one? Also, did Michael, and his team win the race in the end?

Okay, first of all, what an incredible movie! I mean, for one, how could we not appreciate a movie that involves a man, or men, and a dog that also happens to be based on a true story? I mean we’ve had fictional stories like this such as Homeward Bound, Marley & Me, and films like those. And now this one comes out, and is based on actual events, in this case, ones that occurred almost a decade ago. Yeah, how often has that happened? Not to mention that this comes out in an era where we have many films that end up being prequels, sequels, remakes, and so on. So, to have something more original, particularly in this day and age, is a miracle in of itself. Granted, I’m excited to see what prequels like Mufasa: The Lion King, have in store come December of this year, but beside the point! Back to the topic of this film! This film could have most likely been a PG-rated film had it not been for some potentially inappropriate moments here, and there. Still, if adults don’t feel comfortable seeing this movie themselves, but not showing it to their younger ones quite yet, then no worries! Hopefully, as those kids are mature into their teen years, parents will be okay showing Arthur The King to them then. Anyway, Arthur The King, despite the PG-13 rating, and it feeling a little too adult at times as a result, Arthur The King is truly a heartwarming story. You’ll love every moment with Michael Light, and his team as they race through the art of different sports during the race in the Dominican Republic. And yeah, how could you not love the bond between the dog that Mike, and his team name Arthur, and Mike, and his teammates? It’s almost like Arthur, despite being a dog, might as well be a king anyway, and Michael, and his human friends, and teammates, Arthur’s knights. I know that might not make sense for a film that was based on actual events. Still, trust me when I say that as you watch this movie, you may understand why I say that. Honestly, the more people that watch this movie, the more likely that more will have an appreciation for dogs, or even other animals. It was also great to see Mark Wahlberg for the first time in a while. And yeah, the rest of the cast was awesome too. But some of the major highlights of Arthur The King are some of the lessons that can be taken from this film. There are most definitely some deep, and mature lessons to take away from this film, most notably ones like being willing to listen to the advice of others, self-sacrifice, and possibly even exploring options in different situations. Truthfully, it was these lessons that are not only valuable for the lessons, but also helped characters like Michael especially grow as a person over the course of this movie. Again, not going to say how to avoid spoilers. Still, hopefully, we as the audience will take away some valuable lessons from Michael, his family, friends, and even Arthur the dog himself. Well, I’m not sure how accurate this film was to the actual events that occurred in real life around a decade ago. Still, hopefully this movie was accurate in the best way possible. Oh, and be prepared for the ending of this film. Let’s just say that you may really like things turn out by the time that this film close.

And that’s my review for Arthur The King. Honestly, this film probably could have maybe been rated PG. Still, despite the more mature PG-13 rating, this film is worth seeing, and I’m sure kids may still like it more than dislike it. Arthur The King is truly one of a kind in that is really heartwarming, pulls at heartstrings, and plays with your emotions in any way possible. And let’s not forget the lessons to be gained from the film. If you haven’t seen this movie, but would be interested in something a little more different, and more fresh from the sequels, and remakes that have been mostly coming out as of recently, then all the more reason to see Arthur The King. You will truly love it from beginning to end. It has a great story, some good comedy, important lessons, and, of course, great characters. Please go see it if you haven’t yet. You will be truly surprised by this film. I’m not sure that I myself can recommend this film enough for you all. All I will say is to go see it, and see what you think!

Final Grade: A+

And now, we review the newest entry in the Ghostbusters franchise. Man, can you believe that this franchise has continued around 40 years after it began in the 1980s? Well, let’s now discuss Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, shall we?

Plot: When a special cryptic device is broken, and causes a demonic monster to be released, who causes chaos in the form of creating ice all over New York, it is up to the Ghostbusters to recapture the monster, or destroy it once, and for all? Will the Ghostbusters succeed in this mission like their other ones in the past?

Well, though the older Ghostbusters films, especially the ones from the 1980s, may end up being more classic story wise, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is still a fun film to enjoy. First of all, the visuals are really cool. Yeah, it likely goes without saying that that is the one that at least makes each film get better, and better as this series continues to progress. Dario Marianelli’s score is also really cool as well. Next, there is the action. Man, is the action really awesome in this Ghostbusters film! This is is most notably the case when it comes to the battle scene that involved the Ghostbusters, and the main demon ghost monster, Garraka. I won’t say how that goes down, but that was still really cool. The characters were also fairly well-written. Yes, some of them felt a little cliched, and could have been written better, as well as made a little more interesting. Still, even for what they were, they were still likable, and enjoyable. And as for the acting, how could you not like that aspect of the film, whether if be the fact that the original Ghostbusters team is played by the same actors, as well as those that play newer characters, and more? It was also cool to have Annie Potts join the team as a female Ghostbusters member. Hmm, how interesting that both she, and McKenna Grace, who plays Phoebe in this film, were in some of the episodes of the show Young Sheldon, eh? But we most definitely can’t forget one of the major highlights of this film, Garraka, the demon ghost monster villain of this film. Honestly, his design was really cool, and his character was really well-handled, as well as very well-written. Finally, the climax, though maybe a little rushed, was overall very well done as well.

Honestly, if there was anything negative to say about this latest Ghostbusters films, it would be that, one, again, some of the characters, especially the newer ones, may have felt a little cliched, and one-noted. Honestly, some of those newer character’s motivations for some of their actions could have maybe been handled better. Oh well!

And that’s my review for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. Well, at least the storyline is still very good, the comedy is good, some of the older characters are memorable, and, of course, at least we still have the original cast for the main Ghostbusters crew. The movie also does an excellent job of making this film as interesting as possible. Should we get any additional films in this franchise sometime in the next few years, or somewhat distant future, hopefully, they will be just as good, if not better, than this one. I would say definitely see this one, especially if you’ve been a big Ghostbusters fan for this long.

Final Grade: A

Ladies, and gentlemen, we have finally arrived at the latest installment in the Kung Fu Panda franchise. Today, we shall see Po journey into a new phase as Dragon Warrior. So now, let’s discuss Kung Fu Panda 4!

Plot: Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) tells Po (Jack Black) that he must find a new Dragon Warrior so that he can move up from Dragon Warrior to being the Spiritual Leader of the Valley Of Peace. Meanwhile, a new threat in the form of the Chameleon (Viola Davis), a sorceress who has the ability to take the shape, and form of anyone that has ever lived, and can steal kung fu moves from other masters with the flick of her tongue. The Chameleon wishes to take over China, and the world. Po learns of this threat from a thief, and prisoner named Zhen (Awkwafina), who is also a corsac fox. As Zhen journeys with Po, will she end her life of crime? Will Po find The Chameleon? Also, who will Po appoint as the new Dragon Warrior, if anyone?

Alright, so, the question remains, did Kung Fu Panda 4 improve at least upon Kung Fu Panda 3? Well, sadly, no! Although Kung Fu Panda 4 does have some good points to offer, there were more times where this sequel had potential to be better.

First of all, why is the main villain, The Chameleon, only given that name? Could the writers not come up with a more creative name to give to her? I mean that’s like calling Tai Lung just The Snow Leopard, or Lord Shen The White Peacock, or just calling General Kai The Bull. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like calling the main female villain by only The Chameleon is a little lame, you know?

As for the score, yeah, it was decent, but still, composers Hans Zimmer, and Steve Mazzaro could have probably composed some better pieces for the different situations in this film. There was a genius piece that occurred at one point, but a little more on that in a bit. Still, overall, people will likely find themselves enjoying the score in the first two films, if not the third film, more so. As for the story, overall, again, it had the potential to be better. Honestly, at this point, I’m not sure why DreamWorks seemed to feel the need to make six films altogether. Okay, is the storyline bad? No! Even so, with the way a lot of situations in this film turn out in the end, you can likely tell that the writers are either starting to run out of ideas on how to continue making this franchise really good, or the writers chose to rush to get this sequel out, rather than taking a little more time to make it better. Now, just know, I’m not saying that I’m against movie companies making more than two to three films in a movie franchise. In fact, far from it. I mean it worked for the Harry Potter franchise, for example, and probably would have worked for the Chronicles Of Narnia movie series, if two of those theatrically released films had also been successful. But here’s the difference! First of all, those were based off of books that were already in existence before the films even came out. Sadly, the Kung Fu Panda series doesn’t have that same luxury. And yet, the second, and third films were either good, or great, while this fourth film is decent at best. Why is that? Well, I can maybe think of a couple reasons. For one, maybe the writers did originally have a better story for a sequel than they did in the end, but scratched it either due to corporate meddling, or some other mysterious reason. Another reason could be that regardless of how good, or not as good the story was, the company probably felt the need to rush to push it out ASAP. Well, perhaps I could theorize other reasons as well, but that’s all that I’ll consider at least for now. Even when it was time for the film to come to an end, right around the time that the climax occurred, even that felt rushed, and seemed to get robbed of a potential opportunity to play itself out. One way, or another, as you watch Kung Fu Panda 4, you can tell that it most definitely had potential to be a really good film, and got robbed of a good opportunity to be better than it was. Again, I’m not saying that the story is bad. Still, it could have been more than it turned out to be.

As for the character development, again, that was alright. Well, when it came to the older characters, they were handled very well. Now, about the newer characters. Well, except for Zhen, who is a new friend of Po’s, and helps him on his journey to find The Chameleon, they were alright. First off, they didn’t have a whole lot of depth to them. In fact, they felt rather one note, for the most part, and didn’t feel all that memorable because of that. The only other newer character that came fairly close, but fell short was a Sunda pangolin named Han, who was voiced by Ke Huy Quan. Okay, he did have some personality, as well as a couple hilarious moments in the film. Even then, his character could have even been better written.

One other thing that I would like to mention are the messages in this film. Now, are the messages bad? Well, I don’t know if I would go quite that far. Still, the messages from this film could potentially feel a little confusing at times, especially for kids.

Now, are there some pros for this film? Well, yes, there most definitely are. First off, we have to appreciate the friendly banter between Po, and new character Zhen. Also, having Jack Black, and Awkwafina do those respective voices, how cool is that? Plus, speaking of good sides of the characters, how could we not appreciate Viola Davis as the female villain herself, The Chameleon? As I said before, she may not be the most memorable of the villains in this franchise. Still, Davis does truly bring a menacing side to her. I’m not sure if this was her first time playing a villain, or if she had played in such a role in other films in the past. Either way, she did tremendous in the role. Same goes for the other roles that each cast member played. Oh, and one more thing about The Chameleon. How could you not like the creative things that she does at different points in this film? Oh, and one more positive about the character development! How could you not like the banter with both Po’s biological father, and his adoptive one? Just a thought!

As for the score, again, it wasn’t the best this time around. Still, when Zimmer’s score has a chance to shine, it truly does so, most notably during a fight scene that occurs shortly before the climax, especially since it’s something that music fans will surprisingly appreciate a lot, and during the climax itself.

As for the storyline, even if it could’ve been better, either by going through one, or two more drafts, or leaving the idea of the fourth, fifth, and sixth films on the shelf for a little while longer, if not maybe 15-20 years longer, or more, it was still decent for what it was. I mean it still had a good amount of comedy, despite some of that lacking this time around. And the climax, again, even though it could have been written better, definitely had some high points, especially when it came to how some of the characters were handled.

Finally, about the messages! Again, there were some mixed messages in this film, there were good ones as well, despite not being executed as well as they could have been.

And that’s my review for Kung Fu Panda 4. Well, even if this sequel was alright, it sometimes just comes to show that some franchises should either come to a close, or wait to make additional sequels until they truly have a really, really good sequel to make, you know? Kung Fu Panda 4 isn’t bad by any stretch. Still, it did have potential to be much better than it was in the end. Is this sequel worth seeing? Well, to a degree, yes. Still, don’t expect this fourth movie to be as good as the first, second, or possibly even the third film. The reason being is that once you see it, you can likely tell at times that it probably should have either been put on hold for the near, or distant future, or not have existed at all. Well, at this point, can DreamWorks do better with the fifth, and sixth films, if DreamWorks still plans to make those? Let’s hope so! Well, for now, if you liked the first three films, still see it for what good things that there are in it. But probably see it when you can see way a cheaper price, or for free, something like that!

Final Grade: C+

And now, everyone, it is time for the third installment in the Kung Fu Panda franchise. It was released just five years after the second film. Not to mention that this is my second time seeing it since first seeing it in theaters back in 2016. So now, time for some Kung Fu Panda 3!

Plot: In the Spirit Realm, a former student of Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), who is a bull named General Kai (J.K. Simmons), successfully steals the chi of other Kung Fu Masters that lived before, including Master Oogway himself. This allows Kai to go from the Spirit Realm, and into the mortal world in an attempt to declare war on any Kung Fu Masters still living, and defeat them by stealing their chi as well. With the help of Tigress, Monkey, Crane, Mantis, and Viper, aka the Furious Five (Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, David Cross, Seth Rogen, and Lucy Liu respectively), can Kung Fu Master Po stop Kai in his tracks, and send him back to the Spirit Realm once, and for all?

Well, even if Kung Fu Panda 3 is at least a good sequel, it lacks the depth, and substance that made Kung Fu Panda 1 really great, along with the heart, bigger depth, and emotion that made Kung Fu Panda 2 one of the better sequels. Does that make the sequel bad? Well, not if you’re just thinking of this film as a standalone movie, rather than a sequel. Still, even then, the movie falls due to a lack of strong characters arcs, minus maybe Po, to a degree, and a stronger story overall. As for General Kai, he was definitely a decent villain. However, he’s not quite as memorable as maybe he could have been. He’s still memorable. It’s just that he somehow could have been better, and lacks the charisma, and depth that made villains like Lord Shen, or even Tai Lung more interesting. Still, the fact that Kai is voiced by J.K. Simmons, of all people, makes him more fun to watch onscreen. That is especially since he does have some funny lines, thanks to what J.K. Simmons did to the character of Kai. As for some of the newer characters, minus Po’s father, Li Shan, and the villain, General Kai, they probably won’t be all that memorable. In fact, you’ll probably forget about them. Sure, there was the one female panda, who did her dances with the ribbon object. That character was decent. Even then, there might have been a little more potential for the newer characters in this sequel.

Now, what are the benefits for Kung Fu Panda 3? Well, there’s the music by Hans Zimmer. Whereas he composed alongside John Powell in the first two films, the company, for some reason, had him be the only one to compose this time around. And let me tell you, he does not disappoint, as with many films that he’s composed. Honestly, the times that Zimmer’s score really shines is during the epic fight scenes, most notably the ones that occur in the Spirit Realm. Next, there’s the gorgeous animation. Now, the animation, and visuals, are beautiful to look at. However, the Spirit Realm is really where the animation is not only beautiful, and gorgeous, but is surprisingly drawn really creatively. I mean even when the film switches from the bright colors to the dark ones in that world, it is still really memorable, very symbolic, and more than you could ask for. And yeah, even the animation overall, in the mortal world, was really good too. As for the relationships, while the film did lack some in that area, it also does well in other ways, most notably when it comes to Po’s relationship with Tigress the most of the Furious Five, and his relationship with both his adoptive father, Mr. Pony, and his biological father, Li Shan. Okay, I’m curious, as far as the Furious Five goes, why does Po seem to have a closer relationship with Tigress than eight the other members of the Furious Five, especially in the second, and third films? I mean, for those of you who have at least seen 1-3 of the four films, do any of you notice that, or is that just me? Well, just wondering either way. It was also really cool to see a backstory behind Master Oogway, and General Kai’s former friendship as well. Yeah, even if Kai’s not as memorable as the previous two villains, at least he’s fairly well developed, in part, because of this backstory. In addition to all of this, there are some really hilarious jokes included in the script, one of the most memorable ones being made during the climax near the end of the film. I won’t tell how that joke goes. However, let’s just say that I wouldn’t be surprised if many other people would consider it their favorite joke in this sequel as well. The second to last thing that I should mention is that there were some very welcome surprises to be found in this sequel as well. Finally, if there were any lessons to be learned from this film, they would probably include ones like not being jealous of others, and learning to forgive others, particularly when they have wronged you.

And that’s my review for Kung Fu Panda 3. Although it lacks the same amount of heart, emotion, and maybe even memorable comedy that made the first two films really great, there are still plenty other elements to enjoy, from what clever jokes that there actually are, to the gorgeous animation, the world building and more. If you have seen the first two movies, but not the third film, still give it a shot. You’ll still have a fun time, regardless. Now, the question remains, will Kung Fu Panda 4 improve, or be worse than this third film? We shall see.

Final Grade: B

Ladies, and gentlemen, today, we continue with the Kung Fu Panda franchise. In this case, it is the second film that was just released three years after the first film, in 2011. So now, let’s discuss the sequel, the one, and only Kung Fu Panda 2.

Plot: Now that Po (Jack Black) is established as the Dragon Warrior, and fighting alongside the Furious Five, as well as continuing to learn more arts of kung fu under his master, Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), a new threat arises in the form of Lord Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen was a peacock who, years before, was once a Prince of a place called Gongmen City, but was banished after committing a horrible crime that affected others really badly. Now, along with a huge wolf army, Shen creates a powerful weapon with fireworks, and gunpowder, that could potentially destroy kung fu for good. After hearing of this threat from Master Shifu, can Po, along with Master Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Master Monkey (Jackie Chan), Master Crane (David Cross), Master Mantis (Seth Rogen), and Master Viper (Lucy Liu) stop Shen from destroying kung fu, and taking over China?

Now, I’ve heard a lot of people say that Kung Fu Panda 2 is one of the rare to few sequels to be just as good, if not better than, the original film. Is that in fact the case? Well, surprisingly, it is. In fact, if the first Kung Fu Panda hadn’t been quite as good as it had been in the end, Kung Fu Panda 2 would have for sure been better than it. First of all, though the characters were very well developed in the first film, their development goes above, and beyond in this sequel. That is especially for characters like Po, and Tigress. It is interesting to especially to get a more in depth backstory of where the former came from. Usually, we get something like this in a first movie of any franchise. So, it’s definitely surprising to find that we wait until a sequel for that in this case. Po also gets really well developed overall as well. This is especially the case with how he has to learn to navigate through certain situations, newer issues that come up in his life, and more. And wow, Lord Shen, he is most definitely one of the best villains of the Kung Fu Panda franchise, along with Tai Lung, from the first movie. Honestly, though Lord Shen is a slightly cooler villain than Tai Lung, the both of them could have potentially been a villain duo, as both had similar goals, most notably both wanting to return for revenge, albeit for different reasons, but still. Would Lord Shen, and his wolf army have taken Tai Lung if Shen, and Tai Lung were to have met? You got me! Just a potential theory to consider, I suppose. Anyway, another thing to mention about Lord Shen is, how could you not like him having an army, even an army of wolves, with a peacock as their leader? Very creative choice, I will say! Also, seeing Shen doo cool things like having creative cannons that spit cannons that are most likely combined with fireworks, as well as having the ability to shoot knives out of his wings, also really tight, wouldn’t you say? Oh, and how could I not mention the fact that Gary Oldman most definitely improved in his acting skills from the time that he voiced Ruber in the 1998 Warner Bros. film, Quest For Camelot, and then would go on to voice Lord Shen thirteen years later, in 2011? I mean for those of us who have seen Quest For Camelot, I’m sure many of us can agree that Oldman could have done a somewhat better job when playing him. But here, in Kung Fu Panda 2, when voicing Lord Shen, he does so much better at bringing that menacing touch to his character. Now that I’ve ranted about the character development for a little too long, especially with the villain, Lord Shen, let’s talk about the animation. Man, was the animation beautiful. This was especially the case with how the firework cannons shot out, the yellow smoke, and fire, the backgrounds overall, and the character designs. Also, the animation that occurred during the prologue at the beginning, in flashbacks of some of Po’s life, and during the end credits, that was also really good as well, especially since it seemed to be hand-drawn animation style similar to the very beginning of the first Kung Fu Panda film. Additionally, definitely be prepared to have either a box, or a package of tissues with you. The reason being is that there is a very heartbreaking scene that occurs around 2/3 of the way through the film. Hard to believe!?! Well, let’s just say that if you found yourself crying, or coming close to doing so at certain scenes like in A Walk To Remember, The Lion King, The Fox & The Hound, Dragon Heart, or movies like those, I can guarantee that you’ll find yourself doing the same at one point for this film as well. That’s one thing that I should mention. Some people might take issue with Kung Fu Panda 2 being a little darker, and a little more violent than the first film. Oh, don’t get me wrong! Kung Fu Panda 2 is still family friendly. It’s just that it has a slightly darker, and more mature tone to it than the first film did. Could that be why it didn’t make quite as much money as the first film did at the box office? Well, I guess that’s up in the air for discussion. I just also mention that Hans Zimmer, and John Powell return once again to score for this film. Man, did they go all out this time around. The score was phenomenal, and really captures the events that occur throughout this film. For the second to last benefit of this film, I should take a moment to talk about the climax of this film. No, I won’t give away what happens during this portion of the film. However, I will say this, you’ll find yourself pleasantly surprised by how beautiful the animation, and visuals during this point in the film, and how well it is executed. Part of what makes this sequel great, and most likely even superior to the first film is because of this point of the film, and how creative it is that the results occur by the end. Finally, there’s the newer topics, and subjects that this film covers, most notably those about learning to find peace in the midst of dramatic events, not letting your past mistakes, or past negative events define you, learning to let go of hurts from the past, and learning to embrace the present, and future. Again, like with the lessons from the first film, these can also allow for Kung Fu Panda 2 to also be part of the “How To Find God In The Movies” series. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if say a church small group were to do a project where they watch movies like Jesus Revolution, or Facing The Giants, for example, and then maybe added either Kung Fu Panda 1, and/or 2 in the mix, and come up with discussion questions for either film. But hey, again, also up for discussion.

And that’s my review for Kung Fu Panda 2. Truthfully, it is very surprising how this sequel is just as great, maybe even better than Kung Fu Panda 1. It has great characters, excellent animation, really good action, an excellent score by Hans Zimmer, and John Powell, and more than one could ask for. Truthfully, though there was a great amount of heart, and care put into the first film, more of that seemed to be doubled down on for this sequel. And as for Rango winning the Oscar winning the award for Best Animated Feature instead of Kung Fu Panda 2, or any of the other animated films that were nominated from 2011, well, at least Rango won, and Cars 2 didn’t even get nominated. For a year that was interesting in a good way, it was good to see Kung Fu Panda 2 at least get nominated, despite not winning. Should it have won? Perhaps! Still, from what I remembered of Rango, that one was good too. So, whatever! Either way, if you haven’t seen Kung Fu Panda 2, I would most definitely recommend it. I can guarantee that you’ll love it just as much, maybe even more than Kung Fu Panda 1. And once you do, you’ll most definitely be surprised by how enjoyable it is. Now, will Kung Fu Panda 3, and 4 continue the streak of being really good like with the first two films? We shall see once I review those ones as well.

Final Grade: A+

Ladies, and gentlemen, today, in honor of a fourth installment of this particular movie franchise from DreamWorks getting released recently, we review a certain animated film that started all just sixteen years ago. Not only that, but it was also a time when DreamWorks was starting to up their game by putting more quality, and heart in their stories. Not that they weren’t doing so before. It’s just that DreamWorks seemed to turn the tide in this regard. So now, let’s discuss the one, and only film in which which Jack Black voiced another animated character from DreamWorks (his first being Lenny from 2004’s Shark Tale), the one, and only Kung Fu Panda.

Plot: In the Valley Of Peace, a fictional place in China, where anthropomorphic animals live, a panda named Po (Jack Black) dreams of learning the art of kung fu. When he gets his chance during a tournament in which a turtle named Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) calls him, the Dragon Warrior, causing a reluctant red panda named Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) to train him to fight against an old foe, a snow leopard named Tai Lung (Ian McShane). If Tai Lung breaks out of prison, and threatens the Valley, as Oogway had prophesied would happen, will Po develop the fighting skills, and courage he needs to face the villainous leopard, and bring peace to the Valley once, and for all?

Now, I remember Kung Fu Panda being of the few DreamWorks films that I actually loved, along with at least 2, if not 3 as well. After watching the first film after being absent from it for so long, is it as good as I remembered it? Well, yes, actually. In fact, Kung Fu Panda may be better than I remembered. First of all, you have to give the filmmakers credit for having this be a film, from DreamWorks, with all anthropomorphic animals in it. Yes, we did have talking animals from the company with films like the Shrek franchise, Madagascar, and Flushed Away. But those all had humans in them as well. But here, in Kung Fu Panda, they’re all animals this time around. So, props to you, DreamWorks, on that! Next, there is the score! Wow, were we in for a treat, because we had a duo of both John Powell (who previously scored for films like Chicken Run, and Shrek), and Hans Zimmer (who previously scored not only for Disney’s The Lion King, but also for DreamWorks films like The Prince Of Egypt, Gladiator, Spirit: Stallion Of The Cimarron, and Madagascar, to name a few). Man, could we have probably not gotten a more excellent duo. Not only is the score by the both of them combined amazing, but it helps capture the Chinese culture, and keeps the audience engaged from beginning to end. Even in the most tense moments does the score end up being very memorable. Next, there are the characters. Okay, the film may focus on more than two to three characters, namely Po, the main character, the Furious Five that consists of Tigress, Monkey, Crane, Mantis, and Viper, as well as Shifu, who is a red panda, and one, or two other characters. However, for one reason, or another, within around 90 minutes they end up being really well developed. Sure, we don’t have a back story for Po until the second film (again, the review for that sequel is coming up soon). Still, he even ends up being a well-developed character himself. And wow, how could we not love to have a well-developed villain like Tai Lung? Okay, I remember him being a complex villain. However, I will say that it is surprising how complex of a villain that he is. Not only is he a great villain, but he has all the ingredients needed for such a title, from a menacing look, and voice, to having cool moves, and more. Oh, and did I forget to mention that Tai Lung at least is given a backstory? Though his reasons for becoming a villain aren’t justified, let’s just say that you still understand why he becomes a villain in the first place. As for Po’s relationships, be it with his adoptive father, Mr. Ping the goose, Shifu, or even the Furious Five, whether he has major, or minor moments with them, or his other relationships, they are also really well-developed. Additionally, there is the amazing animation. Many of DreamWorks’ movies have had some of the most gorgeous animation (though likely more so in their early hand-drawn films). Kung Fu Panda, and likely even its sequels, are no exceptions. Not to mention that, even if this is a computer animated film, it also does well with incorporating what was likely newer hand-drawn animation at the time. Man, was that animation amazing, despite it only being used for at least one, or two times during the movie, and it being used during the end credits. Now, for one of the major highlights, of the film! The action! Man, does Kung Fu Panda have some of the best action for an animated film. Not only that, but it was also clever how Kung Fu Panda did surprisingly well at balancing the comedy, and action to the point where this film may have been a very good comedic animated action film. Truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if that might have been one of the major reasons that this film ended up being as popular as it was. Finally, there’s some of the valuable lessons that are incorporated into Kung Fu Panda. And boy, are there quite a few to take away from this film, including ones like how there are no accidents, but that things happen for a reason, being willing to have faith that things will get better in the end, having the strength, courage, and willingness to nurture, and guide others in life, and, one that I failed to catch when this film first came out, and one of the more important ones of this film, being humble no matter if things go well, or wrong in life. Now granted, as a Christian, I was not exactly a fan of the whole thing about how “the universe” has chosen this, or decided that, and things like that. Still, because of the many good lessons that can be taken from this film, and analyzed from a Christian perspective, one could easily argue that Kung Fu Panda could be one of those films that could be used in a Christian Church sermon series like “How To Find God In The Movies”, or some sermon series like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Christians ended up liking this film just as much, if not more so, than non-Christians did in the end.

And that’s my review for Kung Fu Panda. Honestly, it’s a shame that Kung Fu Panda didn’t win either an Oscar, or Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature. Don’t get me wrong, WALL-E was certainly a good film with a good environmental message. Still, is it bad for me to say that WALL-E may feel a little overrated? Well, feel free to let me know! Anyway, either award ceremonies should have given the award to Kung Fu Panda, or possibly even Bolt. Kung Fu Panda has an excellent mix of comedy, and action, phenomenal animation, well-written characters, and some of the most memorable lessons that were executed in some of the best ways possible. No doubt that there was plenty of heart, and care put in this film. If you haven’t seen Kung Fu Panda yet, make it a point to, and then likely see even its sequels as well, if you still have yet to see those. And boy, does it feel great to give a film like this a more perfect score for the first time in quite a long while!

Final Grade: A+

Ladies, and gentlemen, today, we review yet another biopic of another famous musical artist. This time around, we will be looking into the artist, known as Bob Marley. So now, let’s discuss Bob Marley: One Love, shall we?

Plot: The movie centers around Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir), and how, during political unrest in Jamaica in 1976, and after, he came out with music that would hopefully change music, and the world for the better? Did he accomplish his mission in the end?

Well, after seeing Bob Marley: One Love, I was surprised to discover that he read the Bible, and seemingly wanted to follow God, but was also part of a movement called the Rastafari Movement. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Rastafari Movement, it holds some of the same ideals as Christianity, but also has some convoluted beliefs. I won’t go into details, but let’s just say that Rastafari acts like a cult with weird practices like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and more. With all of that said, was this film enjoyable? Well, even though we could have maybe gone a little bit more in depth with Bob Marley’s life, we did seem to understand his life, and his music quite a bit from this film. Marley was developed well, and his family, and friends we got to know enough even if, again, we could have maybe gotten to know them a little more. However, it was good to learn something new from this film like how there was a great deal of political unrest during the time that Bob Marley was beginning his musical career, how Marley came to write the songs that many of us know, and love, how stubborn he was, and, better yet, how loving, and forgiving he was towards others, including those who may have hurt, and/or those who hurt him badly physically, or emotionally. Honestly, it is interesting to know that, unlike other recent biopics like Bohemian Rhapsody, or Rocketman, or films like those, Bob Marley: One Love really distinguishes by including the religious aspect of this film. Yes, clearly, that was big part of Bob Marley’s life. Still, the fact that the filmmakers were willing to include that aspect was very good, even if there was the fact that Bob Marley was part of the Rastafari Movement. So, I guess the question is, was Bob Marley a Christian? Well, Marley may not have exactly been a Christian per se, or did he try to be, despite being part of the Rastafari Movement? Well, God knew his heart, that’s for sure. Anyway, it was good for this film to have Bob Marley sing the songs that he did, for this film to portray how he felt joy, and even fear when he, and his family were sometimes in danger, and how Bob Marley was willing to have the courage to face dangerous situations whenever he may have needed to. This movie also does well with teaching some great lessons, including how we should not be stubborn, and be willing to listen to advice from others, even when it’s something that we may not sometimes want to hear. What’s even more is that Bob Marley set a great example during one scene of why forgiveness is important. I won’t give away what he said, nor the circumstances that led to a scene like this. However, let’s just say that for those of us, even as Christians that may be struggling to forgive those that hurt us really badly, we could learn a lesson, or two from someone like Bob Marley. Finally, the score by Kris Bowers was good, the characters were good, and things like that. Still, in a case like this one, the film could have maybe gone an extra half an hour, if not more just to flesh out Bob Marley’s life, his family, and things like that out a little more.

And that’s my review for Bob Marley: One Love. It is a film with great lessons, great music that he wrote, and knowing why he wrote them, and more. Whether you find yourself loving this film, hating it, or having a love/hate relationship with this movie, Bob Marley: One Love is a film that is worth seeing, had at least a good story, and has some valuable lessons that are timeless from this film. For those of you who are not all that familiar with Bob Marley, his music, and his life overall, this is a good place to start in learning more about him. If you haven’t seen it yet, I would highly recommend it. Yes, some people will love it more than others. Still, definitely go see it. You’re bound to enjoy it to one degree, or another.

Final Grade: A

Ladies, and gentlemen, today, we review a film that was not only made by companies such as Lionsgate, and Kingdom Story Company, but was also based on real life events that occurred around thirty years ago. It stars Hilary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis (whom I’m sure some of us know as the main mother character in the show, Last Man Standing), and a few other people. So now, let’s discuss the film that is known as Ordinary Angels.

The film depicts difficult circumstances that occurred back in 1994, when a widowed father named Ed Schmitt (Alan Ritchson) struggles to find the means to get his sick younger daughter, Michelle (Emily Mitchell) a liver transplant. However, a miracle may happen in the form of a hairdresser named Sharon Stevens (Hillary Swank), who, after hearing about this issue, and death of Ed’s late wife in the newspaper, decides to rally her hairdressing business to raise money in an attempt to save his daughter’s life. Did her plan succeed, and did Sharon, and Ed succeed in saving her life in the end?

Okay, first off, what an incredible movie! First off, who doesn’t think it cool to have celebrities like Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis (aka, also characters like the mom in the former TV sitcom, Last Man Standing), and Hillary Swank, among others all in one movie? Well, because each cast member’s acting is really great in this film, it works really well. Next, there is the story. Yes, we have seen Christian-themed films in the past where people ended up struggling in their faith, and feeling tempted to give up on life when circumstances go south in their lives. However, in each, and every film with that type of storyline, it is handled in a rather unique way. Ordinary Angels is no exception. That is especially with how people like Ed handled questioning his faith, and/or uncomfortable situations, and, especially with how relationships were handled. Well, I’m sure that those relationships were handled that way (and you’ll know what I mean when you see this film) in real life as well, but still. Additionally, there are the characters. They are all really great, from Ed’s daughters, his mom, you name it. However, it really is Ed, and Sharon that stand out not only for the celebrities that play them each, or the fact that they’re the main characters, but also because of what they both go through in their respective journeys. This movie does also do great with showing how God DOES in fact work in mysterious ways. This is especially shown with the events that helped Sharon help others out, how, Ed, and his family came to meet Sharon, and more. But one of the more important aspects of Ordinary Angels is how this movie teaches important lessons on boundaries, being willing to do whatever it takes to help others, including doing the impossible, and having faith in God more than ever, being willing to get help when you’re beginning to fall to your lowest, and more. Also, how could you not appreciate how, back thirty years ago, there were more people, in addition to Sharon, who were willing to help Ed, and his younger daughter out by any means necessary. Truth be told, just as Boys In The Boat helped to teach that feeling entitlement in any situation is hardly, if ever, a good thing, Ordinary Angels helped to teach valuable lessons about how important it is to think about, and help others, and never make life about us, and us alone. Really good reminder, especially in a day, and age where selfishness has seemed to become more common than selflessness, you know?

And that’s my review for Ordinary Angels. Honestly, if studios like Kingdom Story Company, and Lionsgate, along with Angel Studios continue to make movies like Ordinary Angels, The Jesus Music, Jesus Revolution, and more movies like them, there could potentially a great shift in Hollywood for the better. I mean considering that a lot of secular media hasn’t always been the best as of recently, we definitely need more Christian-themed films like Ordinary Angels, and more in terms of films that are dramatic, but send more positive messages in the end. With all that said, if you haven’t seen Ordinary Angels, I would highly recommend that you do. You will be glad that you did in the end, especially since this film proves that miracles do happen even today, and that there are still some kind people in this world.

Final Grade: A+

Everyone, today, we review a musical that was based off of a certain novel by Victor Hugo. Not only that, but there was apparently a Broadway version that today’s film was adapted from, along with the original novel. Oh, and did I forget to mention that this film just got re-released in theaters this past week? Apparently, that was in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Broadway version, come next year. Why this film got re-released in theaters this year, and not next year, because of that, you got me! Either way, without further ado, let’s talk about the one, and only musical film that stars Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and other people, Les Miserables.

Plot: After nineteen years of being a slave, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is taken out of slave work by Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), and asked to go on parole. However, after Valjean comes across the Bishop of Digne (Colm Wilkinson), and is shown kindness by him, and the people of his church, Valjean decides to become a new man, including being the mayor of Montreuil, France. However, things get heated up, and circumstances occur that cause Javert to recognize Valjean, forcing Valjean to be on the run once again, while caring for Colette (Isabelle Allen when she’s a kid, and Amanda Seyfried when she’s an adult), the daughter of a woman named Fantine (Anne Hathaway). Now, the question remains, after seeking shelter in another church territory, will Valjean remain at peace, and safe from Javert for good?

Now, I remember seeing this film at least a few times back when it first came out in late 2012, and enjoying it a lot. So now that it’s been over a decade since this film came out, and I’m seeing films from a more analytical perspective, does this 2012 hold up? Well, in more ways, yes. Still, as far as negative aspects go, I’ve heard a lot of complaints about there being constant singing, and hardly any dialogue. After seeing this film again recently, yeah, I kind of see that point. No, not because I’m against musicals. Again, I love musicals. However, for this film, it did kind of feel like some mini numbers felt forced in, rather than letting dialogue come in where talking might have worked better for some scenes. Then, there’s the elephant in the room, Russell Crowe’s singing. Okay, his acting was great as usual. Heck, I believe I sort of rambled about his acting was for characters like Maximus when I reviewed Gladiator recently. But his singing, you can likely tell his singing seemed to be auto-tuned, or something like that. The reason being is that anytime he sang, his voice sounded kind of like a car horn blaring at points. Not to mention that his eyes would get wide-eyed nearly every time that he tried to sing. Because of this, the filmmakers probably should have maybe had someone sing who sung better, and maybe lip sync for Crowe’s mouth moving like how the filmmakers for My Fair Lady had Marni Nixon do that for Audrey Hepburn for some of her numbers in that film. Well, all to say, hopefully this was a learning curve for the filmmakers when it came to these aspects of this film.

Other than those, this film is definitely an enjoyable experience overall. First of all, this film did an excellent job of portraying life in France, following the years of the French Revolution. I mean you have the wealthy, who hardly have any troubles at all, and poorer people like Valjean, and Fantine, who seem to have it pretty bad, big time, especially the latter character. Yeah, seeing as Les Miserables is French for “the miserable”, it only makes sense that the characters that have a lower status don’t have the best lives. However, even if that is the case, at least you have characters like Valjean, who are shown grace, mercy, and love, even by certain characters in the church (which is what God calls us Christians to do anyway), followed by Valjean doing that very thing either to characters like Fantine, Cosette, or anyone else that he can do that to the best of his ability. What’s even more interesting is the fact that both the Les Miserables novel, and Notre Dame De Paris (aka The Hunchback Of Notre Dame) were written by Victor Hugo). Now, why do I bring up both stories, you may be wondering. I do so because of the fact that either Victor Hugo, or writers that adapted film versions of both of his works, seemed to write the heroes, and villains in one of the most brilliant ways in terms of having both the hero, and villain going through similar situations to each other, but the difference being how they each handled it. Yeah, watch both Les Miserables, and certain version of The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, and I’m sure you’ll know what I mean. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people were to argue that both Quasimodo, and Jean Valjean could make a good friend duo, and Javert, and Judge Claude Frollo a good main villain duo. Why? Well, mainly because of the fact that both heroes show grace, love, compassion, and mercy to others around them, while the villain in both stories, or at least in certain versions of each story, act like goody good Christians, but do so in the wrong way, in a legalistic, and a Pharisee type of way, believe themselves each to be high, and mighty, and consider themselves more righteous than everyone else around them. Not to mention both villains having a great villain song in certain versions, especially Frollo from Disney’s Hunchback, with his “Hellfire” number. Then, there are the characters. Wow, are they great, whether they are heroes, or villains. Not only are they each likable, or in the case of the villains, despicable, but they are each genuine in what they say, what they do, you name it. Even the characters that don’t have as much screen time are fleshed out incredibly well. Because of this, pretty much every character, whether they are the main heroes, the villains, and even supporting characters, are going to be memorable in one capacity, or another. Oh, and how could I not mention the how much life each, and every actor, and actress brings into each, and every single character? Be it Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, you name it, they are all really great. Plus, the fact that Anne Hathaway at least won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and other awards either for Best Actress, or Supporting Actress, something line that, she most definitely deserved those awards, because of how well she especially did in her role as Fantine. Though Crowe’s singing at least felt very auto-tuned, even in the songs, each cast member expressed either joy, or all sorts of every other raw emotion into each, and every single character. It is so outstanding how well that aspect of this movie is handled. Well done, filmmakers! Then, additionally, there are the songs. I did mention that at a few points, particularly when the songs are short miniature numbers, those numbers seem to feel crammed in, did I not? That being said, there are many times, especially with the more lengthy numbers, where those numbers work extremely well. Heck, with the beginning number, “Look Down”, I remember both this past time around, and even when I saw this film for the very first time back in 2012, where I found myself thinking that it reminded me very much of “Deliver Us” from The Prince Of Egypt, likely mainly due to both numbers involve scenes with slaves, singing about life in slavery, and more. Granted, one of the main differences was that, in “Deliver Us”, the Israelites did sing about wanting God to deliver them from their bondage, while you don’t hear of anything like that in “Look Down”. Still, both songs can have a very similar feel to each other. In addition to “Look Down,” there are many additional memorable tunes like “Valjean’s Soliloquy”, “At The End Of The Day”, “I Dreamed A Dream”, “Stars”, “A Heart Full Of Love”, “On My Own”, “One Day More”, and quite a few of the many other songs as well that didn’t feel forced in. Yeah, this is one of quite a few times when the numbers help flesh out the characters, and the story overall. Truthfully, reasons such as this, it’s understandable why Tom Hooper, and the team decided to adapt this story from Broadway into film. Oh, and the score by Claude-Michel Schonberg, also so amazing, and does an excellent job of drawing one into the movie. In addition to these elements, how could you not come to appreciate a character like Jean Valjean, especially due to him being willing to show kindness even to others that didn’t deserve it, specifically when it came to characters like Javert? Hopefully, for those of us who do see a version like those one of Les Miserables, people will take away some valuable lessons from characters like the Bishop of Digne, and Jean Valjean in particular. Finally, definitely be prepared to have a box, or two, of tissues before you either see this film hopefully back in theaters, or even on video. The reason being is because, well, especially for those of us who never read the novel of this story, or are unfamiliar with the story of Les Miserables, period, with the way things turn out by the end, it ends up being very unexpected, and rather bittersweet. Again, I won’t give away why that is, but definitely have a box of tissues with you for that very reason.

And that’s my review for the 2012 version of Les Miserables. Although there were a couple things about this film that could have made it better, the 2012 version of Les Miserables is a film that will mess with you emotions in every way, keep you engaged, make you invested in the movie’s characters, and, overall, due mostly to it’s music, and story, will capture your heart, and attention in any, and every way that you can think of. I would say that if you haven’t seen what may yet be a potential classic films that’s been released in more recent years, then I would highly recommend it. Not only will you be glad that you did see it in the end, but it will likely help you see, and understand the world differently, possibly help one be interested in God more, and likely even learn some other valuable lessons along the way. If nothing else, definitely see this film for its songs, especially the more memorable ones. You may want to see it multiple times after seeing it once. Who knows? Well, go see it, hopefully in theaters, due to its re-release in theaters, and see what you think! That is especially if you want to see a musical that is based not only on a Broadway show, but also a classic piece of literature, and is a musical with a great plenty of action in it.

Final Grade: A-