Alright everyone, tonight, we are going to be diving into a film that is based on a true story this time around. It is set during the 1960s, and 1970s, when racism began to arise in the US, especially in the South. Presenting, the one, and only, Judas & The Black Messiah!
Plot: William “Bill” O’Neal (Lakeith Stanfield) gets arrested in Chicago after attempting to hijack a car. He is then approached by special FBI agent Roy Mitchell (Jesse Plemons). Mitchell decides to drop the charges on O’Neal on the condition that he agrees to infiltrate the Black Panther Party (BPP), led by the leader Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya). Did O’Neal succeed in pulling it off?
Wow, this is a really hood film. First off, Judas & Black Messiah does well with portraying how nice people can become corrupt, or at least get involved in the wrong crowds. Not only that, but the movie really shows how people really got persecuted in the 1960s, and 1970s. This movie does not why away from the amount of violence that took place during this time period. Oh, and it’s tragic to learn some of the psychotic acts that gang members, and violent groups did to citizens. Let me just tell you that some, if not all of those things will shock you, maybe even sicken you as well. The acting is also well done too. If none of the actors, or actresses get nominations for Best Actor, or Actress, or something along those lines, then there is something wrong with the people at the Academy Awards, and/or the Golden Globes. It’s also nice to know that there were people that worked under cover for good causes even back around this time of history. What’s even more great is that, despite how many people are in this film, Judas & The Black Messiah is excellent at honing in on those characters that this film needs to focus on. I mean there have of course been a lot of films where a movie may focus on too many characters, and some don’t seem to get as well developed as one may like. Thankfully, however, Judas & The Black Messiah doesn’t suffer from such a problem. And praise God for that! The only things that this film may suffer from is that words like the F-bomb may have been used one too many times. Seeing as a cuss word like that didn’t seem to be as common of a word during this time period, that probably may not have worked as well. But please feel free to correct me on that, if I’m wrong! Oh, and there is another thing that should be worth pointing out that may not so much be a docking if the film, but something to think about. That is the timing of the film’s release. Guy, as we know, movements like “Black Lives Matter,” and movements like those have become more common over the past year, yes? So, with this film coming out during difficult times such as this, here’s hoping that after one sees a movie like this, people don’t seem to think that “Black Lives Matter,” or movements like it are for e best, especially when in fact they seem to be for the worst, you know?
And that’s my review for Judas & The Black Messiah. If you haven’t seen this film yet, definitely do so! It will be very educational about how the Black Panthers were formed, and other things about how life operates back then. The movie can also show how bad company can seem to corrupt good character as well. Definitely go see it, and see what you think!
Good evening, everyone! Tonight, we are going to go in the world of the Old West. Specifically, we are taking about what may be the Old West in Australia, and starring Tom Seleck, Laura San Giacomo, and Alan Rickman to name a few. The one, and only, Quigley Down Under.
Plot: Set in the Australian Old West, when the British Empire ruled that part of the world, a cowboy named Matthew Quigley (Tom Seleck) arrives there to meet up with a captain named Elliot Marston (Alan Rickman). But when Marston asks Quigley to use his sharp shooting skills to massacre the Aboriginal tribes in the area. So he, and a woman named Crazy Cora (Laura San Giacomo) get dumped in the Outback, and treated as outlaws, and fugitives. However, they get rescued by Aboriginal people in the area. With the help of the Aboriginals, and Crazy Cora, can Quigley eventually defeat Elliott Marston, and his thugs once and for all?
Okay, first of all, is it just me, or did quite a few films that took place in Australia, as well as got released in the 1990s, get titled something Down Under? I mean think about it! There was this film that was titled Quigley Down Under, as well as the Disney film, The Rescuers Down Under (which, like this film, was also released in 1990). If anyone can give me an example of a film that was set in Australia, got released in the 1990s, and didn’t have the words “Down Under” attached you that film title, please let me know! With all that said, how was this film overall? Well, there are a few areas where this film could have possibly improved. Still, Quigley Down Under is overall good.
Nevertheless, you might be wondering, “What could have possibly made Quigley Down Under better? Well, to begin, there’s the relationship between Matthew Quigley, and Crazy Cora. Okay, the dynamic between them is established fairly well. However, in some ways, you might find yourself thinking that there could have most likely been a little more chemistry between the two of them. Next, to a degree, there’s our main character, Matthew Quigley. Oh, he’s established very well, with us seeing how much of an expert shooter he is, and things like that. However, as you watch this film, it’s almost like people like Crazy Cora seemed to steal the spotlight in terms of getting fleshed out a little more than people like him. Still, that doesn’t mean that he’s a badly written character, because he still is. He just maybe could have been a little better. One other thing to mention is that there are some deaths that occur in this film as well. When it comes to some of those people that get killed off at one, or two points in this film, we don’t seem to feel that sad, and emotional feel that we might say for Mufasa’s death in The Lion King, or William Wallace in Braveheart, or someone like that. The reason being is because we don’t get to feel that much of an emotional attachment to those characters, and don’t seem to feel that pull at your heartstrings moments as well because if that, you know? Well, this film was almost two hours long. So I guess there’s so much you can do, eh? Still, would it have maybe been a little too much to ask for this film to be an extra 15-20 minutes, if not slightly more than that? You got me!
Now, what are the areas that make this film good? Well, first of all, there’s the score by Basil Poledouris. Like other good music composers, Poledouris knows how to engage the audience with his music. He also seems to understand what music was probably like during this particular time period of history. There’s really great cinematography in Quigley Down Under. If this film didn’t win an Oscar, or even a Golden Globe for Best Cinematography at either of this award ceremonies, then that’s too bad, because if may have deserved that, along with maybe Best Actor for Tom Seleck, or Alan Rickman, and/or even Best actress for Laura San Giacomo. This film could also provide a potential mini history lesson about how Britain apparently controlled Australia during this time period of history. The heroes, and villains are also mostly, if not fully well written too. Truth be told, one could possibly argue that Rickman, who played the villain, Elliott Marston, in this film, may have easily given us a sneak peek of how well he would do with future villain roles such as Professor Snapes in the Harry Potter movie franchise that would get released a little over a decade later. The script, and the comedy are also really well tuned in this film too. Oh, and as for Matthew Quigley, even if he could have possibly been written up better, he is well written in that he not only shoots well, but does a surprisingly fantastic job at assessing situations from afar, and truly thinking through what to say, or do in those situations. Th ere are also the costume designs. Wow, the costume designs are another area of his the setting of this film is really captured well. One other thing to mention is that Quigley Down Under is great at teaching people that we should be willing to do what’s right, even if it means turning a good job down, possibly getting persecuted, or things like that.
And that’s my review for Quigley Down Under. Even if it might not be quite perfect, it still has plenty of heart in it, has excellent music, mostly well written characters, and teaches some valuable lessons that we, the audience, could take away from this film. If you haven’t seen Quigley Down Under, I would highly recommend it. That is especially if you like actors such as Tom Seleck, Alan Rickman, or people like them.
Good evening everyone, and welcome to yet another session of movie reviewing. Well, now that we’re done with reviewing films that are Tom & Jerry related, we are now going into some more mature territory. This comes in the form of a cop thriller movie by the name of The Little Things.
Plot: Set somewhat shortly after 1990, in Kern County, in Bakersfield, California, a sheriff named Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington), and a detective named Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) hear of a serial killer that has been hunting his victims since around 1990, or before. Seeing as the serial killer has continued on his killing spree, can this duo track him down, and bring him to justice once and for all?
Well, for a movie that’s considered a thriller, and rated R, this one seems to stand out from other films of this genre. Quite honestly, if it wasn’t for that one cuss word being thrown in several times (which is typically the reason for a film of this type to be rated R nowadays), The Little Things could have most likely gotten away with a PG-13 rating. But oh well! Anyway, what makes this movie seem a little different from other thrillers is that it doesn’t seem to keep people in the audience suspended on the edge of their seats as much as others. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this film is suspenseful at times. However, at the same time The Little Things also does a surprisingly good job of balancing out it’s more suspenseful scenes with some more pleasurable moments. I mean, let me put it to you all this way? Some of you out there have seen a cop/detective show by the name of Blue Bloods, have you not? Well, for those of you who have, you know how the episodes in that show do have some action scenes, while also showing that officers, and detectives seem to also live a normal life when they have their days off, and things like that? Well, that basically seems to be the case in this film too. Granted, Blue Bloods seems to handle that better than this film, The Little Things. But you know what, Blue Bloods is a TV show that has been going on for the past decade, while The Little Things is just a movie that’s a little over two hours. So what are you going to do in that regard, you know? Anyway, Denzel Washington, and Rami Malek work well, with their respective individual characters, as well off of each other. I mean these actors, especially Denzel Washington, seem to prove that when you have the right people cast as certain characters, it can help make a movie even more good. Now, how about the story. Well, of course we’ve seen a numerous amount of stories of this kind in the past before. People are getting killed, the culprit needs to be tracked down, and things like that. However, what seems to make this movie a little more special in that regards is that the movie does end up having some really excellent messages, including how we can’t let our enemies get inside our heads, how we can’t let trivial things, or sometimes even things that are a huge deal, stress our lives out, or even destroy our lives. The additional characters, in addition to Joe Deacon, and Jim Baxter, are also really well written. Now, not all of them are of course going to be fleshed out. And that’s okay, since a movie can only focus on so many characters. Well, at least does a fabulous job of zeroing in on the characters that this film needs to focus on, you know? Oh, and another thing that I would like to mention is the score by Thomas Newman. Wow, if you liked his music in live-action films like The Green Mile, and Pay It Forward, or even animated films like Finding Nemo, or WALL-E, you’ll most likely like the music that he incorporates in this movie too. Once again, Newman puts his musical touch on this film, and shows just how much he can make the music shine, whether that be in the more intense moments of this film, or even the more quiet times as well. One other thing to mention is that the picture quality, and the scenery of California, or the parts of the state where this film is set, are really excellent.
And that’s my review for The Little Things. This film is a really great story with well composed music, excellent characters, an overall fantastic story, and an interesting thriller that may stand out from others of that type of film. If that’s a thriller that you’d be interested in seeing, or want to see one that seems to stand out from the rest, then all the more reason that The Little Things is a must see. Go see it for yourself, and see for yourself!
Good evening, everyone! Tonight, we have come to the what may be the end of the Tom & Jerry franchise either for good, or just for the time being, something like that. Well, for the conclusion of this film franchise, or just the end for now, something like that, we talk about the newest Tom & Jerry movie that was given a theatrical release. Released just a few days ago, the movie is simply titled Tom & Jerry.
Plot: Cat and mouse duo Tom & Jerry arrive in New York City to start their own new lives. Jerry tries to find a new home, and Tom tries to make success as a pianist. But one day, a new hotel named Kayla (Chloe Grace Moretz) is trying to help with wedding plans where she works, by the name of the Royal Gate Hotel. Having stumbled upon Tom and Jerry, she asks the duo to quit fighting, and help out with the wedding arrangements. Can Kayla, with the help if her new friends, help pull things off well in the end?
Now, for those of you who read my review for the last Tom & Jerry movie that I talked about just yesterday, and of course was released in the 1990s, you may recall me mentioning that I basically was not a fan of that film, and gave it a really negative review because of that. You may be wondering, then, is this film an improvement from 1992’s Tom & Jerry: The Movie? I’m delighted to let everyone know that this Tom & Jerry film pulls off nearly everything quite well. Again, this film is not perfect, but more on that later! For now, let’s talk about the mostly positive aspects of this film, shall we? First of all, this Tom & Jerry story is crafted very well. To begin, the real world, and the animated are both structured surprisingly well. Well, I’m fact, real life, and animation end up blending together in a way that not many people might have possibly dreamed of before. How so? Well, picture this! Imagine if we humans were still all in our live-action versions. Now, picture all the dogs, birds, lions, tigers, and every other animal that you think of. After that, imagine that instead of them being in live-action form, like us humans, the animals all looked like cartoon characters. That is how the world of this Tom & Jerry movie is designed this time around. Can you imagine? How much more clever can you get than that? Next, there’s the animation. Yes, the animals seem to have more of a CGI look in each of their designs this time around. However, even if that may be the case, you can tell that each of the cartoon characters look more hand-drawn than computer animated. The music in this film, both the songs, as well as the score, are composed, and written well for this film. Additionally, there come the jokes. Wow, wow, wow, the jokes, along with every comedic moment hit the mark in nearly every way that one can think of. There comedic moments, and lines that both kids, and adults will enjoy one way, or another. Yes, some of the jokes could possibly feel somewhat childish. Still, there are jokes that adults will more than likely love too. In addition to all of this, the movie does a very good job of balancing out the moments with Tom and Jerry, with the human characters, or even some of the additional cartoon characters as well. Speaking of the characters, that is another vast improvement from 1992’s Tom & Jerry: The Movie. Remember how I mentioned in my review for the 1992 film that almost no one outside of Tom, Jerry, Robyn, and Robyn’s father, were likable all that much? Well, folks, if you also felt that way as well, and were worried that most of the characters in this film would be mostly mean-spirited here as well, then fear not! Nearly every character is fun to watch onscreen this time around. This goes for human characters like Kayla, the couple that have plans to get married at the Royal Gate Hotel, you name it. There are also some really good messages about how we should not compare our lives, or our gifts, and talents, to other’s. Seeing as there were some characters in this film who did that, as well as the fact that many of us find ourselves comparing our lives to other’s, the message is most definitely a good one to learn again even in this film.
However, one could probably find one, or two gripes with this film. First of all, there’s the character that actor Michael Pena plays this time around. Now, please, hear me out! Yes, his acting is very good in this film even this time around. However, when you compare his role here to say some of his roles in movies like the Dora The Explorer film, or the Ant-Man films, for instance, you could tell that Pena seems to lack the same amount of charm, and comedy here that he had in previous movies like those. Yes, I understand that this film was a different role for Michael Pena. Still, does that mean that he has to lose some of the charm, and comedy that he had in previous films? Just a thought! Finally, there are one, or two aspects about how this film ended. Don’t get me wrong, you’ll most likely love the ending overall. However, there were certain aspects of the ending that felt a little strange. And that’s as far as I’ll go on that.
And that’s my review for the new 2021 film, Tom & Jerry. Wow, one could maybe tell that Warner Bros. came a long way from the 1990s. The executives seem to know how to make a more well-crafted film, and most of the characters seem more likable this time around. Definitely see this film regardless of whether or not you’re a diehard Tom & Jerry fan. The movie has a good blend of animation, and live-action. Oh, and of course, there were good messages in this film too. Well, can the upcoming Space Jam: A New Legacy perform just as well, if not better, than this new Tom & Jerry film? Let’s hope so!
Well everyone, we’ve begun to near the end of the line. Today, we are going to review the last of the films that either Tom & Jerry made cameos in, or the duo got to have a major role in. Today’s movie review falls in the latter category. Go figure! Today, we review the first of, what is so far, two of Tom & Jerry’s own two feature length films that were released in theaters. Released as a world premiere in Germany in October 1992, as well as in the USA & Canada in July 1993, the movie is Tom & Jerry: The Movie.
Plot: After recently losing their owners, and becoming homeless following unexpected circumstances, Tom (Richard Kind) & Jerry (Dana Hill) stumble upon an orphan girl named Robyn Starling (Anndi McAfee), who has been running from her mean guardian Pristine Figg (Charlotte Rae), and her lawyer, Lickboot (Tony Jay). Sometime later, it is discovered that Robyn’s father, who was presumed dead, is discovered to be alive somewhere in Tibet. With the help of Tom and Jerry, can Robyn find her father before Figg, and Lickboot take her back into custody?
Now, I believe I watched this film once, or twice as a kid, and maybe liking it then. However, watching it again years later, it’s not all that great anymore. I mean it has a little bit of charm to it, but not all that much. First off, there were quite a few plot holes in this film. One most notable example is in the beginning, when Tom & Jerry are basically silent characters. Then, when stumbling upon new characters, they discover that they can speak? What on Earth!?! How do they not know that they can talk before? Pretty strange, wouldn’t you say? Also, there were quite a few scenes, particularly in the beginning, that seemed to act more like fillers for the movie, and were there either just to keep the plot going, or to make sure that this film would in fact stretch into a full-length movie. Yeah, when you have to do something like that, shouldn’t that be a sign that either a movie shouldn’t be made into an hour and a half long film, or something like that? Next, there’s the songs. They’re not exactly horrible, per se. However, aside from one of the beginning ones being surprisingly somewhat catchy, the songs in this film are generally forgettable. Not to mention that there’s one song that involves the two villains singing by a fireplace, and almost acted like a Hellfire wannabe type of song. Okay, not to try to spoil the film, to a degree. However, I mainly bring this number up because of how, one, Tony Jay was one of the villains, as well as was singing in this number, and two, to point out how the villain song, Hellfire that was sung by Judge Claude Frollo in The Hunchback Of Notre Dame (another animated film, in which Tony Jay voiced a villain, and his villain character was singing by a fireplace) was done way, way better when that film was released later in that decade. Additionally, most of the characters in this film, besides Robyn, her father, Tom and Jerry, and one, or two animal characters that the mouse and cat duo meet, are downright cruel, and mean. One thing that’s really despicable about this film is that there’s this doctor who sings about “God’s Little Creatures,” and then turns on Tom and Jerry, and imprisons them shortly after. Okay, I understand that this is a film that’s aimed more for younger kids. Still, did it ever occur to the filmmakers that maybe even kids might be turned off by Christianity after listening to the hypocrisy in such a song? Okay maybe there weren’t as many Christians working in the film industry back in the 1990s, but still. What’s worse is that this film seems to either intentionally, or unintentionally, seems to teach kids that if adults are your parents, or family members of yours in one regard, or another, they’ll be kind to you, and maybe even to others. If not, adults will treat you with disrespect, and probably even destroy your self-esteem in the long run. Also, at many points in this film, it’s almost like this film also seems to tell kids that most adults are cruel, and greedy, and will almost never choose to do what’s right, but only care about money. Yes, it’s good to learn that there are plenty of selfish, and greedy people that live in the real world. But come on, there are plenty of kind, caring, and selfless people out in the real world too. Oh, and let me say something else in regards to this whole aspect of this Tom & Jerry movie. I’ve heard a lot of people who said that they hated say Dumbo because of how Dumbo was treated with cruelty, or the Disney version of The Hunchback Of Notre Dame because the people of Paris started off treating Quasimodo horribly, or instances with movies like those. Well, those instances were tragic, make no mistake. Still, after rewatching Tom & Jerry: The Movie just recently, I will say that people should see this movie, despite how not so great it is. Why? One of the main reasons being is because one of the main differences between Tom & Jerry: The Movie, and Disney films like Dumbo, or The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is that, while the main characters in those films started off not being treated too well, at least there was more hope for them, and the characters in those films learned to appreciate characters like Dumbo, or Quasimodo for who they were on the inside, and not just for their “strange looks.” All to say that if one were to watch Tom & Jerry: The Movie, and then go and watch Disney films like Dumbo, or The Hunchback Of Notre Dame after that, people who hated Disney films like those before may have more of an appreciation for them afterwards.
Well, if there is any saving grace to this film, there is at least one, or two areas where that is the case. One is how Tom & Jerry bring in their magical charm at quite a few points in this film. Not to mention that it’s cool to hear Tom and Jerry speak at least for this time around. Second, it’s also nice to see cameo appearances of characters like Droopy, and maybe some other Hanna-Barbera characters as well.
And that’s my review for Tom & Jerry: The Movie. I may have liked what I remembered if it as a kid. However, after rewatching it again, it’s not a movie that I would watch again all that much anytime soon. Kids will like the moments where Tom and Jerry have their charm with their personal comedies. Beyond that, however, I don’t know if you would want to really see this film, or see it over, and over again, you know? My recommendation would be that if you’re a hardcore Tom & Jerry fan, then go ahead, and see it. Otherwise, go ahead, and skip it! Well, here’s hoping that people don’t have to worry about feeling the same way about the new animated/live-action Tom & Jerry movie that was just released as of recently.
Ladies & gentlemen, today, we review the next live-action, and/or animation hybrid that was made my MGM, and was a musical. Like Anchors Aweigh, this film also had an animation segment that featured the famous mouse, and cat duo, Tom and Jerry. It is the one, and only, Dangerous When Wet, which was evidently released in 1953.
Plot: Katie Higgins (Esther Williams) is the daughter of two dairy farmers, and with a couple siblings in her family. Although she may not be into swimming as much as the rest of her family, she decides to get into it more when a salesman by the name of Windy Weebe (Jack Carson) invite her, and the rest of her family to go, and swim the English Channel. Will Katie get into swimming more as a result, and can she accomplish a possibly difficult task such as this one?
Okay, first of all, forgive me if it sounds unfair for me to make some comparisons between Dangerous When Wet, and Anchors Aweigh, or films like these ones. It’s just that these two films had animation duo Tom and Jerry in them, and there were areas where one film seemed to do better than the other. So let’s get started! To begin, the family dynamic with the Higgins family is really good. I mean there seems to be some really good chemistry with each of those family members, including the Mom, and Dad of that family. You really care for them, and they’re a family that any of us might even enjoy being a part of. The rest of the cast is also very colorful, from Windy Weebe to love interest Andre Lanet, and other characters in this movie as well. The music is also very fun, and upbeat as well. Sure, you may find yourself singing, or even humming the song, “In My Wildest Dreams” the kost of all the songs. Still, if you listen to these songs several times more, you might enjoy singing along to them too. Quite honestly, songs like these, or even songs that were written for other musicals that were released during the 1950s, 1960s, or shortly after seem to help show how much more lively, and possibly even more fun life seemed to be back then compared to today. Okay, that’s not to say that life isn’t still fun today too, or even that movie musicals aren’t good today as well. Still, at least there weren’t quite nearly as many crazy things happening in the world like there seem to be now, you know? There’s also the scenery of the water. Wow, I’m not sure how to put words to it. For now, what I will say is that it’s almost like when you see the scenes that take place underwater, it’s almost like the live-action sequences like those seem to look more animated at times. And yes, we’re talking about scenes that take place outside out the Tom & Jerry moments. Speaking of the moment, where Tom & Jerry make a cameo appearance, that was a vast improvement in comparison to the one from Anchors Aweigh. I may have mentioned in my review for Anchors Aweigh that the animation sequence in that film seemed to be cut short by a few minutes, yes? Well, this time around, that doesn’t seem to be the case quite that much, if at all. In fact, the audience seems to have more time to enjoy it more this time around. So that’s a strength in that regard. One final thing to mention as far as benefits for this film go is that this film seems to have good messages about learning to have a good balance between your work life, and making time for personal relationships as well.
However, the one downside to Dangerous When Wet is that there are points where the writing can feel a little clunky at times. I’m not sure how to put words to it, except that it seemed like there were some points where the writing could have maybe improved, whether that be in the direction that this film went at points, maybe developing certain relationships more, and things like that. Honestly, these were some areas where folks like Anchors Aweigh seemed to improve upon.
And that’s my review for Dangerous When Wet. Although the film may have fallen shirt at some points, it is an overall really fun film. Are people most likely to rewatch it? Yeah, probably! Maybe not quite as much as say Anchors Aweigh, My Fair Lady, or films like those, but people may want to revisit this movie from time to time. Because of how fun this film is, this is one you definitely need to see if you haven’t yet! You’ll definitely have fun with it, I’m sure.
Well everyone, today, we are going to dive into older territory this time around. The reason being is that we will be talking about a film that was released back in 1945. Part of the reason why is that a certain film, featuring two famous cartoon characters by the name of Tom & Jerry, is going to be released around the end of this month. So, in preparation for seeing that movie, I figured, “Why not watch, and review a few films in which those guys are the main characters, or they just make cameo appearances, you know? With that said, we are talking about the first of apparently three features length films, Anchors Aweigh.
Plot: Two Navy sailors by the name of Clarence Doolittle (Frank Sinatra), and Joe Brady (Gene Kelly) are out on a four-day leave from their base. During this time, the two friends encounter a young boy named Donald (Dean Stockwell), who wants to join the Navy. Also, Clarence asks Joe to teach him how to get girls. Will Donald be able to join the Navy? Also, can Clarence, and/or even Joe each get a girl before their leave is up?
Okay, despite this film having a few flaws, Anchors Aweigh is an overall really fun film. To begin, nearly all of the characters, including Joe Brady, Clarence Doolittle, Donald, Aunt Susie, and almost everyone else have some of the best personalities. For a movie that came out in the 1940s, that may yet be a really great accomplishment. Well, granted, this movie is over two hours. Still, even movies that are that long can be considered not that good. Thankfully, that is not the case with Anchors Aweigh. These characters are likable. Also, the songs that play around the last half to three quarters of the film can be very catchy, and possibly even memorable. The movie also proves as a great example of why life back around the 1940s, and/or even before, or shortly after, was better. I mean think about it! People seemed to have more morals, and integrity back then, and, overall, seemed to be nicer as a result. Yeah, compare that to today, and, look how much our morality has seemed to go out the window as of nowadays. Not to say that there aren’t still people out there who have morals, and integrity, but still. Anyway, I digress! The movie also stays true to the times that this film takes place. I mean with the style of the music, how people dressed, and things like those, you can tell this movie tried to capture what life was like back then. Oh, and of course there’s the choreography of this film, with all the fun dancing, and there surprisingly being some tap dancing involved in this film. If there are any of you out there who don’t know what tap dancing is, watch movies like this film that was made by MGM, or even 2006’s Happy Feet that was made by Warner Bros. Oh, and did I forget to mention the acting in this film? If I did, then the acting is also really good too. Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, and even Kathryn Grayson, who plays Susan Abbott (aka aunt Susie), know how to put their respective personalities into each of these characters. There’s also Jose Iturbi, who plays himself as the head of MGM Studios. Additionally, Anchors Aweigh does an excellent job with showing how life, more often than not, can be full of twists, and turns. I’m not going to give away the areas where this film shows that. However, as you watch this film, hopefully you’ll probably understand why this film does an excellent job of portraying that.
However, like I said, there are some areas in which this movie could have likely improved. First of all, when it comes to the first maybe quarter of the film, the songs don’t seem to be as memorable around that time frame. There’s also the animation sequence that features Tom and Jerry making cameo appearances. Oh, it’s a good sequence, no doubt. However, it’s also safe to say that it could have maybe been given an extra few minutes just to see certain events unfold shortly after. Finally, there was a relationship that maybe could have most likely been given a little more room to grow.
And that’s my review for 1945’s Anchors Aweigh. While it may not be in the same league as other musicals like Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, South Pacific, Fiddler On The Roof, or some of those musicals, people will still have a fun time with this film. Will people want to rewatch Anchors Aweigh as much as some of the other musicals that I mentioned? Well, maybe not as much, but it wouldn’t be surprising if people did decide to rewatch this film sooner rather than later. After all, there are things to like about it, like the majority of the songs, the good story, fun characters, and other good elements as well. If you haven’t seen this film, definitely give Anchors Aweigh a chance. At the end of the day, you won’t regret it.
Ladies & gentlemen, today, we are going to be talking about a film that was released by 20th Century Fox back in the mid-1990s, when the company was it’s own studios, and NOT associated with Disney like nowadays. Featuring Keanu Reeves, Aitana Sanchez-Gijon, Giancarlo Giannini, Debra Messing, and a few other people, the movie that we are talking today about shall be, A Walk In The Clouds.
Plot: After recently returning from WWII, Army veteran Paul Sutton (Keanu Reeves) tries to get settled down with his life. En route to going to Sacramento, California for a job, he runs into a pregnant woman named Victoria (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon). After spending time with her, and her traditionalist Mexican family, will Paul, and Victoria eventually fall in love, and get married? Also, will Paul learn to have a different outlook on life in general?
Okay, first off, for a movie that stars Keanu Reeves, this must have possibly been a different step for him from the normal action movies that he starred in in this decade, as well as the 2000s, and on. I mean think about it. During the 1990s, he was in action movies like Point Break, The two Speed films, and of course the Matrix trilogy that went from the late 1990s, and into the early to mid-2000s. And then we have this film, A Walk In The Clouds. Sure, it had scenes where there was fighting in the war. However, it doesn’t seem to be quite the same, you know? Anyway, the music, especially in the beginning is just beautiful as well. Okay, yeah, it’s not just the beginning, but throughout a good majority of the film that the music is enriching, and amazing. I’m not sure if the soundtrack for this film is available say on Amazon, or even a few stores, where they may still sell CDs, or not. Either way, this film, and it’s soundtrack is something that you could listen to while in the car, and having something peaceful, without lyrics, to listen to (minus the more violent moments of this film, that is). Next, there are the characters. I mean, sure, there were one, or two that could have perhaps been fleshed out more. However, the other characters are ones that you can relate to, sympathize with, and overall make you wonder what it would be like if you were in their shoes. Oh, and much like with the 2000 Disney film, The Kid, or a movie musical like 1971’s Fiddler On The Roof, the characters are not divided into heroes/heroines, and villains. The movie simply has characters who may agree, or disagree with each other in terms of sharing opposing viewpoints about life. Additionally, A Walk In The Clouds does a phenomenal job of portraying the Mexican culture. Let me just tell you guys this. After you watch this film, and especially see the scenes that involve Victoria, and her Mexican family, as well as overall get a better understanding of the Mexican culture as well, let’s just say that we could learn a thing, or two, or even more from the Hispanic/Mexican culture. Why? Well, this is particularly because of the fact that A Walk In The Clouds does a really great job of showing that many people in the Mexican culture seem to have more Godly values, and a desire to serve God to the best of their ability. It just comes to show how much we, as Americans, and other nations, and peoples of the world need to get back in the roots loving, and serving God, and people more, you know? Oh, and it’s also great to see people like Paul, in this film, really grow as a character. I mean as his relationship with Victoria blossoms, and he spends time with her, and her family more, he seems to really appreciate, and value things in life more. Again, as any of us watch this film, we may yet do so too. Also, Paul is not the only one, who grows as a character. People like Victoria, Victoria’s father, Alberto, and some of the other characters really get fleshed out, as this lover progresses. The movie also does well with teaching some great lessons about learning to make important commitments to others, and to not always rush into certain things, be it marrying someone too quickly, or trying to figure out too quickly what you want out of life, and other things like that, you know? Finally, there’s the ending. Okay, let me clarify, I WILL NOT spoil the ending, or even the events that happen towards the end. However, what I will say is that this film does excellent with showing that even when the worst happens, there is still hope that good things can still come come out of those horrible circumstances. It just goes back to times like when Joseph from Genesis said it best, “What the enemy meant for evil, God will use for good.”
The only areas, where this film could have been improved at least in a couple ways are that one, Betty Sutton, Paul’s ex-wife, was the one character who could have maybe been fleshed out a little more. I mean there were times when we probably could find ourselves thinking that her motives for her selfish actions could have probably been better, and not just somewhat bland, you know? There were times where maybe the writing could have maybe been tweaked a little better as well, be it with some of the characters, how certain situations in the story were handled, and things like that.
And that’s my review for A Walk In The Clouds. First of all, this film does well with showing that even a live-action movie doesn’t have to be quite two hours long in order to be good. Sure, in this case, there were one, or two areas where this film could have improved by a bit. Aside from that, however, A Walk In The Clouds is very well-written. Not to mention it’s great that a movie doesn’t have to officially be called a Christian film in order for things like God, or the love of God to be talked about. So, how about that? Definitely see A Walk In The Clouds if you haven’t yet. It is a film that is undoubtedly worth seeing, and one that you could easily watch multiple times, if you chose to.
Good evening friends, and family! Hope you’re all having a fun week so far, and are ready for yet another weekend, especially with the Super Bowl happening. Anyway, tonight, like with my last review, we are talking about yet another Disney film that was released when the 2000s first began. Unlike last time, however, we are going to discuss what may yet be one of Disney’s better offerings. Oh, and not just that, but we’ll also be tackling a Disney film that was released during a year when Disney DID NOT seem to be afraid to come out with stories that, while still for kids to enjoy, seemed to go a little more towards the adult side of the spectrum. And this wouldn’t be the only time in the year 2000, when that would happen, as we had what seemed to be more mature films from Disney like The Kid, Remember The Titans, Whispers: An Elephant’s Tale, and, heck, some could possibly argue that maybe Dinosaur may have been a little more for adults than for kids as well. But I suppose that last one could be up for debate. Anyway, tonight, let’s talk about one of the better Disney films, from the year 2000, and starring Bruce Willis, Emily Mortimer, Spencer Breslin, and Jean Smart, to name a few celebrities. Presenting a review for the one and only, The Kid!
Plot: A 40-year-old businessman named Russ Duritz (Bruce Willis) seems to be enjoying a care-free life, but also act selfish, and cruel towards others as well. But one day, when his past comes back to visit him in the form of his 8-year-old self (Spencer Breslin), can Russ learn, and remember why he turned out the way that he did, and change for the better in the end?
Now, much like quite a few family films that I watched as a kid, or even a teen, The Kid was a movie that I really enjoyed in my younger years. However, after rewatching The Kid for the first time in maybe several years, it’s surprising by how much more great this film is. To begin, there’s the music by Marc Shaiman. Okay, I didn’t realize that his musical works included works like the Sister Act movies, George Of The Jungle, or evening the more recent Mary Poppins Returns. Well, with The Kid, he doesn’t disappoint with this film. He seems to add this jazzy flare to this particular movie. Next, there’s the characters. Wow, each of these characters really stand out, including the ones that don’t get all that much screen time. What’s even more interesting is that there aren’t necessarily any real heroes (or heroes fighting bad guys, or something like that), or villains in this movie. Instead, what we have is just characters, who are either teaching themselves, or other people important lessons, standing up for others, or even learning important life lessons from a child’s, or even an adult’s perspective. Not only that, but for some of these characters, especially the main ones, you really seem to sympathize with them, and truly understand where they’re coming from, even when it comes to the more self-centered characters in this movie. Because of this, the movie also ends up teaching us, the audience, that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge people’s hearts, and/or even their motives. Yes, of course we need to stand up for what’s right, and watch out for those people who are constantly doing things that are wrong. Still, at the same time, people can take away some lessons from this film like not being too quick to judge others before you get know them, or those kinds of lessons. All to say, it just comes to show that when it came to live-action Disney movies even back then, Disney knew how to make characters with layers to their personalities. Well, of course, even back then, there were some animated characters in Disney, especially when it came to the protagonists, that had some complexity to their characters. Still, it’s safe to say that in more recent years, Disney has finally learned that they can make complex characters with both their good, and bad guys even in their animated films. For those of you who saw animated films like Zootopia, Moana, or even Frozen, we seem to know that already. So yeah, it’s definitely great to know that Disney has seemed to realize that they can make their characters more complex in both their animated, and live-action films, and not be more lenient in either of those areas. In addition to all of this, The Kid helps balance the more serious tone of this film with some spot-on comedy. Yeah, the script is fantastic when it comes to the more comedic lines of this film. Heck, even Bruce Willis does a brilliant job of bringing out his comedic side after starring in mostly action films. Yeah, isn’t it interesting how actors like Bruce Willis, Vin Diesel, or even Arnold Schwarzenegger go from starting from these buff action movies, to being in more comedic roles in family films like The Kid, Jingle All The Way, or even The Pacifier, for instance? Oh, and let’s not forget the relationship between Russ, and Amy, who is played by Emily Mortimer. The relationship is handled well, and seems to show one of the more realistic sides of romantic relationships. And that’s as far as I’ll go with saying that. One final thing to mention in regards to The Kid is that even though kids, and teens will likely enjoy this film for it’s comedy, slapstick, and humorous moments, adults will enjoy the movie for those reasons, but also for additional reasons as well. What adults will probably enjoy, in addition to those reasons that kids will enjoy this film, is that adults will enjoy the more adult aspects of this film as well. Adults will enjoy the mature direction that this film that it takes. The reason being is because adults will probably have gone through some of the experiences that our main characters go through in this film, and appreciate this film more as a result.
And that’s my review for The Kid. It is a very unique film for Disney in terms of storytelling, a great script, and some of the most memorable characters in Disney’s history. Also, the acting is superb, the story is well told, and there are some really good lessons to learn from this film. If you haven’t seen this underrated film from Disney, this is yet another one that I would recommend to you all. You’d be surprised by how good it is. In fact, after seeing this film, you may find yourself thinking that it probably could have been made by any other studio, like Universal, Columbia Pictures, it one of those studios. Still, as we know, Disney decided to take the reins for this film, and make it in the end. So yeah, that’s all the more reason to see it, and hopefully really enjoy it.
Ladies & gentlemen, you know how a couple years ago, I reviewed a couple Disney “sequels” from that smaller Disney subsidiary company called Disney Toon Studios? Well, tonight, we are going to be diving into that film library again. The reason why is because we are going to be talking about one of the very first direct-to-video sequels to be released around the early 2000s. It is one that was from my childhood, and remember liking quite a bit. Watching it again years later, is it as good as I remembered? You shall find out shortly! For now, let’s talk about The Little Mermaid 2: Return To The Sea.
Plot: Sometime after Prince Eric (Rob Paulsen), and Ariel (Jodi Benson) get married, they now have a daughter named Melody (Tara Strong), and celebrate her birth. But the celebration is interrupted when Ursula’s sister, Morgana (Pat Carroll) attempts to harm Melody, and attain King Triton’s (Kenneth Mars) magical trident. Now seeing Morgana as a threat to humans, and mer people, Eric, and Ariel now decide to build a wall around the coast of Eric’s kingdom, and keep Melody safe until Morgana is found, and defeated. Even if it may take time, will King Triton, and his subjects ever find Morgana, and vanquish her for good?
Originally, I had no intention of rewatching this film again anytime soon. However, I changed my mind, and decided to go ahead, and do so for a couple reasons. One was that I had not reviewed a movie that I had put any lower than an A, or even B in a long time. So, I wanted to see if I, or anyone else could have the guts to review something that one could have a mixed, if not fully negative reaction to. Anyway, the second reason was that I’m planning to rewatch another direct-to-video sequel in celebration of a certain TV show, that the DTV sequel is linked to, turning five years old recently, and see how it, and maybe even Little Mermaid 2 compare to each other.
With all that said, how is The Little Mermaid 2: Return To The Sea after watching it years later? Watching it again, it’s sadly not as great as I thought years ago. I mean certain aspects of the story are somewhat interesting, don’t get me wrong. However, The Little Mermaid 2: Return To The Sea is overall not all that good. For one, there’s the animation more often than not. Oh yes, the backgrounds in the animation are nice to look at, whether it be the ocean, sunsets, or the ice around the Antarctica-like area, for example. Other than those few aspects, however, the animation can feel a little too choppy when it comes to the character movements. Okay, maybe that’s not the case entirely, but it certainly seems to be most of the time. Additionally, there’s the whole deal about Ursula having a sister. None of us recall hearing about Ursula having a sibling in the original Little Mermaid film, do we? So yeah, that is a plot hole that can be rather bothersome. Come on! Why doesn’t Morgana show up to help Ursula in the first film? Was she absent, and/or on a big long vacation, while Ursula was left to do the work of destroying King Triton, and his mer folk kingdom? We don’t know for sure either in The Little Mermaid 1, or The Little Mermaid 2. Truth be told, this was not the only direct-to-video sequel that had major plot holes like this. Let’s think about it! In this sequel, Ursula had this evil sister that we knew nothing of until this sequel. Then, Lion King 2 had this thing where Zira, and her evil lion pride were somehow connected to Scar, Lady & The Tramp 2 had this deal about Tramp having this former friendship with a villainous junkyard dog named Buster, and I’m sure the list could go on, but won’t for the sake of not dragging on. Anyway, there’s the characters. Okay, Ariel, and Eric’s daughter, Melody, and to an extent, Morgana, are probably the only somewhat interesting characters that this film have to offer. Aside from then, however, none of them really seem to stand out. I mean except for maybe King Triton, none of the older characters that were in the original Disney film seem to be as interesting, or as memorable this time around. Ariel especially seems to turn into this more strict, and cliched parent that seems to think that hiding the truth about why she, and Eric won’t let her journey into the sea in this case. Oh, and there’s Morgana’s henchmen, consisting of a shark, and two manta rays. Yeah, let’s just say that you’ll find yourself liking the eels, or even Ursula herself better than these villains. What’s more is that none of the creatures, or people that Melody comes across throughout this sequel seem to stand out, or be likable, or memorable. Of course that may be because this sequel is a great example of an animated that may have been way more fast paced than it should have been. You got me! As for the songs, wow, they are forgettable as all get out. Sure, there were one, if not two, that seemed to stand out. In general, however, the songs sounded like something that maybe belonged in a kid’s show that airs on TV in the morning, or something like that. Also, the sequel, overall, can be a little too repetitive of the 1989 Classic Disney film. Now, I know what you’re all thinking! “But Matt,” you may say, “the 2019 live-action/CGI remake of The Lion King kept most of the same parts from the 1994 Disney animated version of that film. Why is this any different?” Yes, the 2019 remake of The Lion King did have many of the same scenes of the original 1994 animated film, The Lion King. However, the difference in that case is that the newer Lion King, while having many of the same revered scenes, at least added some scenes that helped make the remake good. Also, those characters were fleshed out more, and some of the newer dialogue helped make up for what dialogue was not there that was in that original film. Hopefully, that clarified that argument!
Nevertheless, there are at least a couple good things that make this film somewhat entertaining. For one, even if Melody can act rather whiny at times, she does act strong, independent, and courageous. Not only that, but she’s good at sensing when either if her parents are hiding something from her, or when something doesn’t sound right. Oh, and it was great to have some of the original voice cast back, be it Jodi Benson as Ariel, Kenneth Mars as King Triton, or Samuel E. Wright as Sebastian, for example. Oh, and how about having Pat Carroll back as well, even if she’s voicing a different villain, instead of Ursula? The climax towards the end, even if a little short, is also a good example of a good moment in a not so great film. Truth be told, that’s probably one of the very rare to few moments that you might find yourself wanting to watch again, and again with this film I’d say you had Disney+, or something like that, and you just wanted to skip to that scene.
Well folks, that’s my review for The Little Mermaid 2: Return To The Sea. It just comes to show that especially in the 2000s, Disney Toon Studios should have maybe just stuck with TV shows, and not made many of these direct-to-video sequels. Granted, there were a few gems in this library, especially from the 1990s, like the two Aladdin sequels, or The Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride, that were most likely good (though those should probably be rewatched soon to be sure, eh?). The Little Mermaid 2: Return To The Sea is a good example of why the direct-to-video sequels didn’t seem to work all too well, especially when the 2000s. Well, thank God that once 2006 rolled around, and John Lasseter took over even Walt Disney Animation, he said no to future direct-to-video sequels being made, even though the Tinker Bell movies would still be made. I would say that if you haven’t heard of, or seen this sequel, just act like 1989’s The Little Mermaid is a stand alone film, and like this sequel doesn’t exist. Sure the sequel has a few good moments. Still, it’s overall not all that good. Well, hopefully, should I rewatch something like the Aladdin sequels, or Lion King 2 in the near future, I, or anyone else has a better reaction to those than with Little Mermaid 2, you know?
Matthew’s Animated & Live-Action Movie Reviews 