Reviews

I began entirely puzzled by the animation style and quickly grew to love it. Then the story and characters were a little slow to warm too (the sidekick character so cute instantly however!)

Then the first song and it was mesmerising. The colours and animation are beautiful and I love all the nods to the traditional 2D style.

After the halfway point it was just a joy and the ending was really rousing.

The negative reviews on here (I always search when I start a film and am curious to see if my feelings about a film align with the majority) worried me a bit, but I truly think more people than not will love this film.

Magical and I can't wait to watch again!

I even ordered a sidekick plush from eBay midway through watching! They were half price and free delivery direct from Disney at the time of writing, Easter Holidays UK.

I also dragged the sofa close to the telly to enjoy the wonderful 4K imagery. Worked beautifully with Phillips ambilight too!

I hope other first timers enjoyed this as much as I did!

Pretty looking. Needlessly perpetuates some pretty awful morals. As a primary school teacher I stumbled across this on Channel 5's Milkshake. I would never play this in school, in the one episode I saw it perpetuated some pretty terrible gender stereotypes, the impression you should always worry what your hair looks like, and that a male king can just trick a dumb witch into doing whatever he wants, while putting the king on the pedestal at the end of the story. The child asks "why did you lie?" And he replies something along the lines of a sarcastic well sometimes you need to. The programme creators clearly don't have a good sense of values themselves. Some people don't seem to mind, but knowing how children pick up on these things I find it really crass and irresponsible. You can be just as fun, playful and poke fun without needing to be so crass.

The CGI in this film made me realise something. That movies these days with a lot of CGI have become like watching children's cartoons. There's no attempt to make a shot or sequence with make-up, real props and sets or other techniques anymore. It's so obvious when part of the movie is CGI that it really detracts from a) the story but also b) the ability to view the whole film a single piece of art. It's a Hodge podge of acting in sets and watching a kids cartoon and somebody play a computer game.

It's really does detract from the enjoyment and I just didn't get excited by it as the action was unfolding. I'd prefer cruder effects that feel more real.

An original game sbow with some great dark humour and excellent mise-en-scene. Love it! The host is sharp and the contestants good fun. The current season has a great co host too.

I came here because the high ratings were bothering me. This feels like one of those films by a director that has grand ideas but actually very little experience in the real world (that leads to what can only be described as pretentious outcomes). Now by "experience of the real world" I don't mean that the films premise needed to be more grounded, far from it, some of the most outlandish unbelievable (heck even total fantasy) stories can feel grounded thanks their attention to detail that make them (or their world) believable. I mean here that the details/this world is so unbelievable that the whole experience is boring/an insult.

This manifests itself most prominently in the character's and their development.

There are collections of character traits bundled and attached to two main groups of characters: poor and rich. Presumably this is to make the overall plot work (the poor are conniving and greedy and the rich are... well rich? And apparently dumb with their lack of curiosity and poor decision making). This falls apart almost immediately when the poorer family show signs of being sloppy (they can't be bothered to fold the pizza boxes properly and do not understand what's wrong when there is complaint) yet have meticulous attention to detail (they perform an A-class service to the richer family on demand?). Both seemingly motivated by their want for money. If they were indeed driven by money via attention to detail, they would have had a million opportunities in-between these extremes. This inconsistency leads me to view this as a poor treatment of the "poor person" stereotype and much less than being a statement on society this film is actually an embarrassing statement on the directors ignorance.

This is forgivable, not all directors have had the world experience and who is to stop them from making a film? It looks nice at least. What is not forgivable is that the Oscars can't see this for what it is (nor the endless reviewers). The pretentiousness therefore is mirrored in the critics praise - they think they understand a clever observation on society, but all they are revealing is their own poor understanding of class and how people work. Forgivable again perhaps for the average viewer, but critics with large audiences? There's your statement on society: people with loud voices haven't got a ******* clue.

I came here because the high ratings were bothering me. This feels like one of those films by a director that has grand ideas but actually very little experience in the real world (that leads to what can only be described as pretentious outcomes). Now by "experience of the real world" I don't mean that the films premise needed to be more grounded, far from it, some of the most outlandish unbelievable (heck even total fantasy) stories can feel grounded thanks their attention to detail that make them (or their world) believable. I mean here that the details/this world is so unbelievable that the whole experience is boring/an insult.

This manifests itself most prominently in the character's and their development.

There are collections of character traits bundled and attached to two main groups of characters: poor and rich. Presumably this is to make the overall plot work (the poor are conniving and greedy and the rich are... well rich? And apparently dumb with their lack of curiosity and poor decision making). This falls apart almost immediately when the poorer family show signs of being sloppy (they can't be bothered to fold the pizza boxes properly and do not understand what's wrong when there is complaint) yet have meticulous attention to detail (they perform an A-class service to the richer family on demand?). Both seemingly motivated by their want for money. If they were indeed driven by money via attention to detail, they would have had a million opportunities in-between these extremes.

If we are to feel anything for this family, they need to hold some values we can warm to. The suggestion that they are hard-working well-meaning individuals simply down on their luck is once again rendered unbelievable when they take the nasty decision to harm the original house made of the house. There is no dog-eat-dog need to do this, again if they used the smarts on display within this household outside of this household, they would inevitably be more successful and have less need to do this. Yet it is this utterly flawed down-on-luck narrative that upholds the social commentary of "unfair class divides" that apparently makes this film amazing.

The treatment of the rich is also highly flawed. If they are (as many critics have read from this) representations of greed and ignorance, why is the mother then only one that seems to be treating people kindly and fairly? If this is a commentary on how people behave - it is the mother and father of the rich family that are the kindest and fairest and how are we to feel badly towards them or their situation?

This inconsistency leads me to view this as a poor treatment of the "poor person" stereotype and much less than being a statement on society this film is actually an embarrassing statement on the directors ignorance.

This perhaps is forgivable, not all directors have had the world experience and who is to stop them from making a film? It looks nice at least. What is not forgivable is that the Oscars can't see this for what it is (nor the endless reviewers). The pretentiousness therefore is mirrored in the critics praise - they think they understand a clever observation on society, but all they are revealing is their own poor understanding of class and how people work. Forgivable again perhaps for the average viewer, but critics with large audiences? There's your statement on society: people with loud voices haven't got a ******* clue.

I cringed the whole way through this. The icing on the cake was the irony when it tried to be woke about white privilege with a throwaway line, while the whole film meanwhile has made the lame white character the hero with zero effort.

It's like it's unwatchable and revolting and totally compelling at the same time. A couple of the characters are a**holes IMO, but what makes it interesting is that I feel the actual actors that play them are potentially a**holes too. So it's like this showdown between selfish people and reasonable people, and it's awkward as hell to watch because the script and acting are so cringe but also it creates this chaotic mess of friction on screen that's actually interesting to watch. Randal's character is so oppressive it drives me insane. Kevin is the best actor and his character for me brings the realism to the show, Kate is interesting when at her best. The rest of the characters are pretty self involved (Randal the absolute worst in this respect) but the script or plot never seems to acknowledge it - so it's as if it's baked into the culture of the show somehow - creating this undercurrent of tension between the actual actors. So yeah; a watchable mess that is brave, naff, emotive, clever, lame and cliche all in one go. Kind of a hot mess.

It's a goofy funny, I think you have to have the sense of humour to appreciate it. Yeah it's a bit poorly directed at times but there is chemistry and it honestly made me laugh out loud once or twice. It's totally watchable, has some nice sentiments, and I think yeah, 7/10. Well done to the cast and crew.

As a minority I ought to like this. But..

So high on a moral high ground it can't see the very (closed minded) tropes it's built on.

After all the hype I thought this was going to be dead cert awesome watch.

Now I'm of the conclusion that anyone spellbound by this film is basically dumb. The thing is they're not - smart friends of mine loved this. So I've come to the conclusion that if you like this film, you must be like, I don't know, naive.

I may be judging here, but I feel like some rich white kid made this film. One that is slightly over confident to self critique his own clever writing, and uses lazy assumptions about poor people's lives to make half-glossy patronising stuff that ultimately feels like Mike Leigh and the Coen brothers accidentally ended up in some circle jerk together.

If you wanna climb inside a shallow mind and bounce around some lazy film-school tropes for a while, go ahead and immerse yourself in this film.

I'm convinced now that the critic world is just some posh art school boys club.

The acting was awesome, which is particularly incredible seeing as they had such pompous material to deal with.

I feel sorry for the director, tbh.

This is one of the best series I have ever seen. The stories it covers, the dominant of which being that of feminism, are as important today as the time of the story itself. The casting and performances are fantastic. It's perfectly executed and just a beauty to watch.

The lead female roles offer a range of characters which allow for some beautiful performances. It is also refreshing to see the balance of male and female partial nudity, rather than nudity being on the part of the female only.

The irony of an all-male board within a media company canceling a show about male dominance in the media industry. This is one of those shows whose importance should be all that we need to renew it.

Well done to all those involved in the creation of this series, keep it up.