Reviews

Woody Woodpecker Movie was not FUNNY!!!!

The CGI was monstrously bad, the jokes were atrocious (just as bad - if not worse - as the Emoji Movie jokes), too much gas jokes for a Woody Woodpecker movie, a lame predictable plot, rushed character development (making everyone unlikable), unintentionally scary visuals, and it made the 1940's character unrecognizable visually and as a character! I've seen only one Woody Woodpecker episode, and they don't seem that similar at all, other than the voice and laugh! Even Yogi Bear had some similarities to his cartoon character. This movie is so bad it is on the list of Worst Live Action Adaptations, right up there with Jem (2015) and Last Airbender (2010)!

Final Verdict: I hate this movie! I hate it even worse than The Emoji Movie! Yes I darn well said it! At least it had good animation and one funny joke, even if nothing else was good! This movie managed to obnoxiously irritate the living daylights out of me!

Wow..............just...........ugh. For the record, I'm not mad at it just because it's nothing like the book my older sister and I grew up with, but because it obeys the tired Alvin and the Crapmunks/Dumb Children's Movies Cliches Checklist rules: 1) Main character is a self proclaimed hero but is really a jerk, only to redeem himself in the final fifteen minutes - causing me to feel more sorry for the antagonist. 2) Quirky Dave-like character (in his case beyond quirky) 3) Butt jokes 4) No reason for anyone to be likable. 5) Why is Peter into the fourth wall? 6) Generic love interests - with the girlfriend being the uninteresting smiling wildlife expert, and the boyfriend is a deliberate awkward liar. Oh and she's completely ignorant when he's in pain thanks to the rabbits. 7) Liar revealed along with the moping and doping! 8) Plot holes 9) The characters having little to no personality. 10) The fighting for affection story. 11) The sappy "abandoning your dreams for a better dream" ending. 12) When could the rabbits have the ability to talk back to humans and the humans understanding? This was never made clear until the final fifteen minutes. Even Alvin and the Chipmunks made the communication clear. 13) Oh that narration. 14) The wrong person apologizes.

Why is it that the Curious George movie actually did those cliches right? Why and how? Woody Woodpecker Movie did it wrong, Yogi Bear Movie did it wrong, Shark Tale did it wrong, Cat in the Hat Movie did it wrong, and so on. Why and how is the five year old's film did it right and not the other movies?

Let's talk about that infamous scene: Young McGregor is allergic to blackberries and gets pelted with them. In most cases, I wouldn't be bothered by it, but since most of these jokes are pretty fourth wall-ish (including Peter outright saying: "Everyone's suddenly allergic to everything" and "Of course, it's a real struggle, and my heart goes out to them. It's very though, very sad. I don't want to get any letters" while smiling at the camera) I can easily see why it's offensive: acknowledging it and then going ahead with it makes it not funny but flat out mean spirited. While I can understand that was in the character's motives to cause him harm, it doesn't help when you tell the fourth wall that you feel sorry for people with food allergies and then use it to as a means to take down a character with food allergies. So yeah, either the early apology should have been erased and the scene proceed or that scene should have not existed while the apology did. Having both in the movie doesn't work on a story level.

Anything good? The rooster somehow makes me laugh. The fourth wall-ish jokes would make me laugh if it hadn't been done to death already, and if it wasn't a Peter Rabbit story. Sometimes the comedy is along the lines of Looney tunes, but also feels out of place. On occasion there are animated sections that look exactly like the book. It also manages to make the death of Peter's father tragic. And while I don't think the animals look realistic in any way, they do look like the original characters. Also for a brief moment, the older Mr. McGregor was kinda scary for a bit, and Sam Neill really did great for what he was given. I still remember how much he scared me in the books, it was that well written.

Like I said before, I'm not mad at it just because it disobeys the books, but because it is one of many films that join the Bad Children's Cliches Checklist films, along with Smurfs and Alvin and the Crapmunks. Kids can be a lot more critical than we think and eventually are going to notice the similarities and get bored of it quickly. And that's what this is, just another excuse to keep your kids quiet. When movies are made for that purpose alone, it irritates me; movies are meant to entertain/educate/encourage/so on. Don't abuse that chance when film making because children truly deserve better, even Disney and Big Idea knew that.

As an adaptation: it's a mega failure! The book was about a rabbit disobeying his parents and almost dying because of it as well as his later encounters with Mr. McGregor. It built up the characters and their traits, Benjamin Bunny wasn't cowardly, and while Peter was mischievous, he wasn't a fourth wall breaking, life endangering character.

If you like this movie, good for you. At least someone got to enjoy it; but personally, I didn't like it.

Okay so I'm going to talk about this as both a subject and a movie. First as a movie, the title says it all: it's about Taylor who constantly gets harassed online, pushing her toward suicide. When rescued from her attempt, she is forced to confront reality, the person who helped make things worse for her, recover, and bring attention to online bullying when everyone else is unable to help the situation.

I would like to cover the cons before I cover the good stuff: Cons: The situations can occasionally feel shoehorned. I applaud it for tackling as many issues about cyber bullying as possible, but sometimes it causes the situation to feel messy. While the main characters are okay, it's the bullies: Lindsey and her friends who have absolutely no personality except they're cruel. Yes bullies can be cruel, and it's inexcusable, but they have personalities too. I would have liked to see some motivation, or trouble going on for them, leading them to be jerks rather than being jerks for the sake of being jerks. And the ending makes things look like it was too easily solved, which really bothered me. I know we like to see things easily solved, but that's not always how life works. And I don't mean how the friends work things out, but when Taylor and the whole school confront Lindsey and her friends (the real bullies). It was possibly the most cliched ending I had ever seen in a movie that's suppose to be taken seriously.

Pros: Like I said in the cons section, this movie makes an effort to show the effects cyber bullying has on a person and community. It also shows that anyone of any age who uses the internet needs to be careful what they post, especially when it comes to talking about other people. Some moments are made up, but they're centered around the realities of cyber bullying.

What the movie tries to remind us is that while it is fun to talk on the computer, we should not forget that on the other side of the conversation is a person who has vulnerable feelings. Insulting them online is just as bad (possibly worse) as doing it in person. Even if it's meant to be a "joke", it doesn't always work that way. This is one of the reasons I've asked everyone on this page to not insult each other just because you don't agree with someone else's movie reviews. Words are not as tamed as we think they are; we are the ones who need to tame our choice of words. (btw, that "Sticks and Stones...........but names will never hurt me" rhyme is a lie)

I don't know if I 100% recommend this movie, mainly because the ending bothers me too much. If you want to learn more about the effects of cyber bullying, I recommend looking up Megan Meier's story more (heck, this movie was loosely based off her real life story) just keep tissues nearby when you do. Or if you went through cyber bullying (or bullying in general) post about it. How did you get through it? The next generation is going to look to you for inspiration on how to fight bullying online, in person, or anywhere.

I remember watching Nostalgia Critic's review of Care Bears Nutcracker and he mentioned about a version involving the Holocaust. I legit thought he was joking and that the poster was photoshopped. However, I eventually saw reviews of it (including Musical Hell) to prove it's grim reality and I couldn't believe how real it. Recently, I've decided to look at it out of curiosity. Now that I've finished watching this all the way through, I'm going to share my thoughts about it.

(Steam bursting through my ears!) THIS MOVIE WAS GARBAGE!!!! While I do give credit that most of the adult actors did a decent job with what they were given, the costumes look great (the snow fairy's gown looks like silver wrapping paper), most of the music is well composed, and a few effects are okay at best. At worst: THEY ARE HORRIFYING!!!!

What's wrong with this movie: 1) The child actors: Someone please remind me a movie that Elle Fanning (Mary), Charlie Rowe (the prince), and Aaron Michael Drozin (Max) have been good in? In here, they don't sound emotional, and when they do they don't make it look believable. 2) The music misplacement: Not only am I a ballerina in basics, but I grew up loving the music and dancing. The music is often in the wrong setting: from having the Grand Finale in the beginning to the March where the Nutcracker comes to life. The music doesn't have to be in the exact order, but it has to match the tone of the atmosphere (only once did they ever do that right). Most of the time the music chews up the scene rather than enhancing it. 3) Adding songs: Outside of adding songs and music that wasn't in the ballet, they add lyrics to the Tchaikovsky music. None of the lyrics work and are painful to listen to! (I ripped off my headphones while face palming at the March having lyrics). While some of the singing is okay, this is easily some of Tim Rice's worst work. 4) The Nutcracker: First of all, look at the nutcracker. It doesn't look like it could crack a walnut. Second, oh my gosh, those are some of the freakiest effects I've ever seen from the mouth movements to the soulless eyes. Third, it doesn't help that Shirley "Moaning Myrtle" Henderson has the most unconvincing boy voice (next to Tara Strong as Rocky). 5) Giving it a WW2 spin: No, just no. Something about this just feels insulting. Outside of Albert Einstein being cast as the uncle in the late 1930's (when he really evacuated to America in 1933), it feels like it's either trying to be light hearted while being "dark" about one of the world's biggest evil moments: from burning toys in the town square, to demanding everyone be part of "ratification" done to the music of the "Spanish Chocolate" (I actually feel dirty saying that). Plus, the "Hitler" rat was nothing like the dictator and not threatening - outside of his CGI face. 6) Putting in 3D: Say what you will about putting a movie in 3D in general, but I would not put this movie in 3D if my life depended on it! The imagery is not just creepy, they're flat out scary from the Nutcracker to the rat king making faces! It's like putting Son of the Mask in 3D. 7) "It was all a dream": The cliche is bad enough, but the rats appear in the real world in the same CGI form, and even some moments from the "dream" are marked in the real world. If it's trying to make it a "it's a dream or is it?" it doesn't work! Pick one and stick with it!

So yeah, I don't just hate this movie because I'm a Nutcracker purist, but because the plot, score, acting, and setting don't work. There have been several retellings of the Nutcracker (heck the ballet is it's own retelling of the original story), but the way the story was executed was terrible, a lot worse than Nuttiest Nutcracker (despite how bad that was). I know this has been the director's passion idea, but as an aspiring writer, not every idea is a good one. Or if you're going to stick with the idea, develop the characters, keep the situations' continuities, as well as if adapting an original project, stay true to the heart of the source material. This movie did neither.

Well, the one film critics were anticipating is finally here. I went to see it myself and found that nobody was kidding about how bad this movie was!

The story is Gene a meh emoji can't keep a straight face for some poorly explained reason and is outcast for that, along with High 5 and Jailbreak, the love interest. On the other side of the phone, Alex (the human) tries asking a girl out on a date, but his phone keeps humiliating him before he can pop the question.

Nobody was kidding about how much this movie shamelessly rips off Wreck-it Ralph, Inside Out, and Lego Movie. The only difference between Inside Out and this movie is that Inside Out had plausible situations: if Sadness affected Riley, she would display it as a reaction to change happening around her. In this movie, if an emoji messes up, the phone literally jumps around and opens up unwanted apps. If it explained butt dialing, that would be one thing. Also, Wreck it Ralph had mostly familiar characters with an already attached story within the games they belonged to. Emojis have no story. It's the same as making a story for the Garbage Pail Kids cards. It also manages to rip off Chicken Little (unlikable characters), Through the Looking Glass (cop out ending), Bee Movie (hero searching for more in life through adventure), Foodfight (horrible puns and rips off Wreck it Ralph), and Toy Story. Even the director admits that he loved Toy Story so much that he wanted to make a toy movie that hadn't been touched yet.

Another major problem is on Alex's side of the story, he tries to use an emoji to ask a girl out to the dance. First of all, nobody would be able to guess by an emoji that you want to go out on a dance. Second, she's literally two desks away from him that he could whisper to her or text her the words: "U wanna go out with me?" This makes the emojis unnecessarily important.

All of the emoji characters are irritating in a unique way: Gene is the generic bland hero, Jailbreak is a "cool" love interest who turns out to be a princess (just like Wreck it Ralph!), High 5 is the useless "comic relief", Mel Meh is the unsupportive father that has a 180 character arc in the last twenty minutes, Smiler is the Joker wannabe, and everyone else is a bland jerk to Gene for no reason other than "he's different, shun him". Good storytelling doesn't depend on two dimensional characters to make the hero likable.

I tried finding good things about the movie and found only two:

1) The background and human animation: Sony is capable of doing some really good animation and it really shows with the phone world. Each app location does have a unique feel to it; not as impressive as Wreck it Ralph, but still really good. Also the human characters are a better improvement than Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

2) The background jokes: The jokes that the movie loves to market are shockingly unfunny, but the barely noticed jokes are surprisingly funny. For instance Spam was funny and another joke involves an emoji Christmas tree who keeps shouting "Merry Christmas" and another emoji replies, "It's still September, Tim." That actually made me laugh! Why couldn't we have more of those jokes and less of "We're Number 2" jokes?

I may have been merciful on those two elements, but the rest of the movie is awful with shameful rip offs, unfunny jokes, irritating clichés, wasted talent, and aggravating cash grab idea of exploiting emojis. If this movie came out before Wreck it Ralph and Inside out, I think it could have had a better chance of being less hated. I always thought that emoji toys were overrated and this movie nails why I think so. I'm tempted to not give Sony's Peter Rabbit and Star a chance, but I'm not that cruel. However, this movie is awful and I highly don't recommend it. I don't care if it's just for kids; they deserve better than this.

I've never read the book, so I can't judge it as an adaptation (though my sister says it's mostly faithful), but as it's own thing I think it is a great movie.

The story is about a man who lost his young daughter to a rapist and wants answers from God. One day, he gets a letter supposedly from God telling him to come to the shack, where his daughter was killed, to meet Him. He arrives and meets God as a family: Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu and hangs out with Him/them for the weekend.

First thing I want to say is that while I understand some "Christian" movies getting bashed, I think this one does not deserve it. Apart from the fact that it's an adaptation of a book, it is well acted, and well written which some "Christian movies" don't do right (God's Not Dead 2).

Also, let's get to the big "controversy": Most of us know that God (the Father) is not a woman, but in any movie God appears in, it's indicated that He can come in any form, even a woman. Here it really works, not just because of the acting, but the fact that the main character could not stand a father figure for the time being (thanks to his abusive father). So right from the start, God responded to what he needed most. Later He reappears as a man, showing that He doesn't stay in one permanent form, so honestly the complaints about this movie/book being "blasphemous" are rather invalid. What also makes the family depiction of God great is the fact that you know exactly who He/They are and yet you feel right at home with them.

On a personal level: apart from the fact that I loved it, I began wondering if God was speaking to the main character or to me when it came to the message of keeping your eyes on Jesus in tough moments, God knows and cares, only God is the righteous judge, and especially forgiving those who sinned against us. I won't go through the moments people have wounded me, but this was the toughest part of the movie: a reminder that God knows the sinner too and wants to redeem him/her, especially since we too are sinners whom He wishes to save. It's a difficult message to take in, but I believe it is one we all need to hear.

I love this movie, and I look forward to getting it on DVD when it comes from the theaters.

I've said before that I like the first God's Not Dead. Sadly, I don't think the sequel did as well as the first movie. I admire them trying to tackle the issue of whether or not talking about Jesus as a historical figure (not as a religious figure) is okay in a school; it's legitimately a tough issue. However, where the first one was able to talk about whether or not God was dead or not, this one feels pointless in many ways.

1) First of all, the title is called God's Not Dead 2, and the plot doesn't really deal with that situation. It feels like an excuse to promote the Newsboys. Even the returning cast members add little to nothing to the plot, or really help the main character that much. One of them has to be on the jury, but then he's too sick to help so someone new has to step in. What was the purpose of any of them being in there? Also, with it being called "God's Not Dead 2" it doesn't deal with whether or not He's really dead; it's only bringing up whether or not Jesus should be mentioned in class or not. Why couldn't it be called "God is Good" since they use that phrase a lot more than they do "God's Not Dead".

2) Most of the Atheists: I'm a Christian, and even I know Atheists don't talk like Disney villains. Apart from the lawyer helping the main character (he was an interesting character), all the other Atheists are portrayed as cold, cruel, heartless, and just looking to destroy God's name in court and literally say that it will be the final proof "that God is dead." That was not the goal of the court; the goal was to discuss whether or not Jesus should be mentioned as a historical figure, this has nothing to do with God being dead or not. It really felt like the screen writer did not know how Atheists think and wanted the audience to only sympathize with the main character. Okay, but if we have to sympathize with her, don't make real people act like cartoon bad guys; that's part of good story telling.

I still really admire the movie's attempt to debate whether or not Jesus should be talked about at school as a historical figure, because it is a tough issue. Even if you don't think Jesus was the Son of God, He is classified in the history books as a rabbi who taught love in a dark time and paid for it. However, I really wish this movie did not have two dimensional villains or pointlessly use the same title as last time. In terms of Christian films, this was definitely one of the weaker ones, and I hope in the future they can obtain better writers.

Dear Tim Burton,

Thank you! Thank you for a wonderfully silly movie! Yes, you had this series of books gift wrapped for you, and a lot of fans are probably angry that you didn't take full advantage of them. Even as someone who's not read the books, I'm a bit disappointed myself (at least with the second half).

The first half was really good with developing the story, atmosphere, characters, their abilities (which are visually great), and Eva Green was terrific as the title character. Whether or not they are just like the book, I will let the actual readers say for me. For the most part, the actors all are really good, even if they're not given much to work with. The person playing the main character, Jake is identifiable. The idea of the "peculiar" children being stuck in one time frame for years is intriguing and I wish was explored more.

It's the second half of the movie where you lost me completely! Where do I start?

1) Samuel L. Jackson as the villain. He can do great characters, and at first does great shapeshifting as Jake's psychiatrist to get info. However, not only does this guy sound like he's dying to swear his head off, but he just talks and looks silly. Anytime he knocks on a door I expect to hear him say, "Heeeere's Baron!" Also, the bulgy eyes and mad scientist hair look outrageous.

2) The confrontation at the pier. OH MY GOSH!!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I can't watch that whole scene or say this paragraph without bursting out into laughter! One of the kids brings skeletons to life to fight off the monsters trying to destroy them! That whole scene has got to be the silliest confrontation in any PG-13 movie ever!!! Anytime I see those skeletons fighting I keep waiting to hear the "Remains of the Day" or "What's This?" songs playing in the background. I heard it wasn't in the book, so the fact that this is in the movie makes it all the more silly. Not to mention, I think that was put in to just remind the audience, "You're watching a Tim Burton movie." I had to pause a couple of times to laugh my lungs out, and almost could not continue; it was that hilarious!

3) How it all should have ended: Miss Peregrine keeps protecting the "peculiar" children from these monsters that want to eat their eyes, but later it's revealed that two of these children could turn them into stone if their faces were revealed. Why weren't they put out in front of the enemy as soon as Miss Peregrine saw signs of danger? The battle would have been over within five seconds.

4) The oh so predictable romance. I heard that in the book the main character falls for a tougher girl. Why was she downgraded here? It's cool to see her fly, but that's about it. She's barely got a character arc to her.

So, even though you've angered lots of fans of the book, I'm not angry. I'm disappointed you didn't go all out dark on the story, but at the same time I found a new movie to make me laugh on a bad day. So for that I thank you. But next time, don't be tamed by Hollywood formulas, especially when adapting an original idea.

Thank you, Bonnie

The first two Despicable Me movies were delightful movies, thanks to the relationship between Gru and the girls, the interesting stories, and of course the cute minions. For some reason, they became the most popular characters in the series, so much so that Universal wanted to make a movie based off these guys. Where do I begin on how that doesn't work?

1) The narrator. This guy speaks in the beginning and end of the movie. While I don't hate the narrator completely it causes the audience to lose investment in the characters, because the narrator is doing their job of figuring out the situation or letting any emotion sink in.

2) How do you make a movie solely about the minions? It was one thing to make a movie about the Madagascar Penguins, because they were great stand alone characters. The Minions on the other hand have little to no personality and speak mixed languages (with no subtitles added). The only reason they were likable in the first two movies was, because they were cute side characters that could make anything they did mindlessly adorable, and they were under the main character's leadership. Even the movie knows that on their own, they aren't that great, so the writers just throw the minions into whatever crazy thing they think of, from the evolution of the characters to one getting crowned king for pulling out a sword, causing Elizabeth the Second to resign, to constantly finding a new master.

3) The villain. Scarlet Overkill is built up to be the greatest super villain of all time. What is her big diabolical plan to prove her worth? Steal the Queen of England's crown. Pretty underwhelming plan. It would be more impressive if her plan had been to kill the queen and become queen in her place. Also, in the end, she's defeated by boy Gru. That's gotta be a sad day for a villain to be defeated by a child. And she's pretty whiny. Why are the supposed to be "greatest villains" whiny? While her weaponized dress is cool, her plan and character development are just not that impressive.

4) The ending. (SPOILERS) So Scarlet's defeated, the minions return Elizabeth's crown, she knights them, they're heroes, they come across young Gru, and follow him to be villains again. The motivation all along had been for them to find an evil leader to assist. Now they're England's greatest heroes and are their own masters. Inserting Gru and reminding us of the motivation at the last minute was the movie shortcutting its way into trying to tie into the Despicable Me series. It doesn't work anymore. They're heroes and their own masters. The minions now have no point in working for Gru anymore now that they're worshiped by England, since they would be given anything they wanted now.

Okay so is there anything good? The animation's good of course. The weapons Scarlet gives the three minions are awesome and I'd love to see them in the third Despicable Me movie. Please put the lava gun, hypnotic hat, and stretchy suit in Despicable Me 3! Occasionally the minions are allowed to have a few emotional moments when the narrator doesn't get in the way, and it always feels genuine. And as much as I hate to admit it, gigantic Kevin kinda makes the movie worth at least one viewing.

Aside from that, the movie's completely pointless. It's not a terrible movie; it's just stupid while also being harmless. I still refuse to believe it's the prequel of the Despicable Me movies. I still stand with my theory that the minions are vitamin pills that Gru brought to life.

Even if I had not seen reviews from Siskel and Ebert or Doug Walker, I'd likely come to the same conclusion about how embarrassingly awful this movie is.

The plot is about a boy named North who divorces his parents and travels the world to seek out new parents.

Okay the plot sounds interesting, so why is it so horrible? It's when he starts traveling the world where everything becomes wrong. First he goes to Texas where everyone is a stereotypical cowboy in fancy costumes, accents, all about being big, and an awful country song. The whole scene makes me wonder if Reba McEntire felt dirty (being from Oklahoma) about her scene and if Dan Aykroyd (Canadian born) had to write an apology letter for not portraying anyone from Texas right. Then he goes to Hawaii where everyone dresses in grass, flowers, shirts, and eager to show off North's butt. Not kidding. And then he goes to possibly the most offensive stereotypical scene in the movie: Alaska, where everyone lives in Flintstone-like igloos, Kathy Bates slaps on make-up to look Alaskan, and the elderly are cruelly sent away on ice blocks for no other reason than they're such an embarrassment to the society. I try to be forgiving of some movies people deem "racist" because I often believe that the writers directors didn't intend for it (like Phantom Menace or Willy Wonka) or I just don't recognize it as well as others. But this movie has absolutely no excuse. There's no subtly about what culture they're mocking, and when it tries to represent real life it is humiliating and hard to watch.

On top of that, the parents themselves are horrible (even taking out the racism). One set wants to fatten the boy, the other wants to show off his butt, the next wants to get rid of his would-be grandfather, and so on. And it never explains how he signed up for these parents in the first place. He just flies to their "village" and temporarily lives with them. As for his real parents: they're just plain unfunny. Every joke written for them falls flat and makes no sense, which is a tragedy since they're played by funny actors.

Eventually it reveals that the whole thing was just a dream. I guess you can say that it explains the stereotypes, but it also means that the director thinks he could get away with it. Also, it indicates that the entire movie was frustratingly pointless. Also, I'm pretty sure that any nine year old boy (American or not) would know that these places are nothing like this movie.

If I had to say anything good about this movie it is that the actor of North (Elijah Wood) gives a really good performance, and of course would lead him to go star in better roles. In fact all the actors are really good and try to give a great performance, even if the script and jokes fall flat. Even Bruce Willis who has to wear a bunny costume, cowboy outfit, Federal Express outfit, and so on actually tries to be dignified in his role, even though the script failed him. Also that awful song in the Texas scene is a reminder that Reba and Dan are terrific singers.

Sadly, none of the great performances could save this movie. It's pure racist garbage. I don't care if Rob Reiner's father believed in "laughing at themselves", this movie is where none of the jokes work and come out as offensive for kids and adults.

If I'm going to be technically honest, it's not a great movie. If I'm going to be nostalgically honest, I like it and don't stop watching it.

The story's about a girl that is named Thumbelina (who is no bigger than your thumb), her love for the fairy prince Cornelius, and the three villains that want to marry her. Almost the same as the original story, just adding the prince being a major character, songs, side plots with the villains, setting it in Paris, and animal side characters, one of which gets a main role (Jacquimo the swallow).

While I like this movie a lot, there are a lot of problems with the movie. One is that it came out around the time Disney was making such beloved classics such as Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Lion King which came out the same year as this movie. If it waited a few more years later, it might have had a better chance. In fact the story resembles The Little Mermaid in many ways (same author, voice actress Jodi Benson, and unique hair). And the music is a hit and miss. Half of the songs are irritating, one of which won a Razzie (Marry the Mole) and another sung by Gilbert Gotfried. But the biggest issue has got to be that Thumbelina had every chance to get home since Jacquimo could fly, but he doesn't even try to take her home, tell any of the jitterbugs to grab her by the arms and fly her to the top of a flower, or even fly above and tell her what direction to go while he searches for her prince. He just leaves her to look on her own. In the original story it made sense, because there are no friends to help her, and she doesn't meet the swallow until the end. Also, she couldn't figure out where she was, so she legitimately gave up. This Thumbelina has friends to get her home but nobody helps her, nor does she think to ask them to fly her home, except with one of the villains, but as that's not one of her allies that doesn't quite count.

However, for all its flaws, I still love it. The animation is beautiful, and it's easy to see the hard work on the character designs, fairy wings, fairy magic, and backgrounds. It almost is like Disney animation and yet not quite; it's its own thing. The way it's animated makes you feel like you're the same height as the main characters. In my opinion, some of the best animation can be seen in the song "Let Me Be Your Wings." Speaking of which, I consider that to be the best song in the entire movie. Yes it's a knock off of "A Whole New World" and the romance may be rushed, but the lyrics are well done, the music is beautiful, and of course the duet is wonderful. Jodi Benson singing is a saving grace for even the bad songs. Also, I think the voices are spot on, including Carol Channing as Field Mouse. Something about her voice actually does sound a bit like a dry, cynical, greedy mouse. And as bad as "Marry the Mole" was, I give her credit for trying to make the song work, and that it didn't stop the plot. It's not a good song, I don't like it, but I don't think it's the worst either. And for anybody who loves the original story better, this movie encouraged me to read the story. It's not my favorite Anderson story, but it's a lovely little adventure.

What amazes me about this movie is that it got harsher criticism than A Troll in Central Park when it first came out. While A Troll in Central Park also has amazing animation, that movie was pandering and nothing but filler. This movie has an actual plot; an not very well done plot, but at least tried to be something decent. I don't care if it's a "Disney knock-off"; I think it's not terrible. This was probably a hard story for Don Bluth to adapt to a feature length film, but I'm not sure if even Disney would tackle it. I don't stop enjoying the movie, but at the same time I understand the flaws.

Where do I start with this review and why this movie doesn't work? Let's do a quick count of everything wrong with this movie:

1) Cool Cat: The title of the movie is about how Cool Cat saves the kids, but really, he does nothing to save any of the kids. He doesn't prevent cyberbullying, redeem the kids' self esteem, or change the bully's life period. Really, the kids save themselves, while Cool Cat is just the eye candy for three year olds.

2) The story: Possibly the most distracted set of plots I've ever seen. One moment it's Cool Cat dealing with a bully along with another kid, next moment it involves him in a Hollywood parade, then it cuts back to him confronting the bully again, then suddenly cuts to him entering a writing contest, and cuts back to the bully, and sloppily wraps all the plot holes up. Yes, life happens in between such moments, but none of the transitions make sense. If this was set up as a TV show, I might forgive it a bit, but as a movie, it's not something the director can get away with.

3) The bully: This has got to be the most offensive thing in the entire movie. As someone who has been bullied as a kid and even as an adult, I know a bully doesn't wake up in the morning and say to themselves (and the camera), "How can I make someone's life miserable? (with a maniacal laugh)" They're not one dimensional villains; they're people too with backstories we probably won't know until later. Sometimes they bully because they're bored, are going through emotional pain and don't know how to deal with it, they find someone different and "unusual", are curious about someone and don't know how to approach the situation, maybe all of the above combined, or another reason I forgot to add in. However, that doesn't excuse they're behavior in any way, but maybe it can show that bullies have feelings, just like the people they pick on. Sometimes they don't even know that they're hurting someone's feelings. Why couldn't this movie explore how to redeem a bully properly as well as stand up to him/her? I don't care if this movie was made for five year olds; they need tips on how to properly stand up for themselves as well as maybe help redeem a bully.

4) It was made in 2015: This is probably a minor thing, but aside from the fact that 2015 was the year for kids' films to treat their audience like they're intelligent, this was three years after the Sandy Hook School shooting, and Amanda Todd's suicide after constant harassment, and so on. If this movie wanted to take the whole bullying and guns at schools situations seriously, they should have taken it seriously rather than randomly phone in the situations. When you do that, it becomes insulting to anyone who's gone through losing a loved one to suicide (from bullying) and who had been shot in a school.

5) What I hate even more about this movie is that it's suppose to be anti-bullying, but the creator, Derek Savage, doesn't even follow the moral compass of the show. Anyone who criticized the movie online got emails from Derek himself, threatening to shut down their sites. He even posed as someone from the government to intimidate a reviewer (look it up). That makes me hate the movie even more than the one dimensional bully, because officially he has undermined the message he was trying to get across to kids: Ignore bullies and don't join them. So in many respects, he killed Cool Cat's reason for existing.

I do give this movie credit for trying to be an anti bullying movie, but it becomes hard to take seriously if the bully is one dimensional, the acting is unrealistic, the title character does nothing other than just exist as well as is a six foot weird looking talking cat, if the rest of the movie consists of pandering, and especially when the creator happens to be a bully himself. This honestly makes Barney look a lot more educational on real life events than this movie, and I can't believe I even said that. This movie would have been better off it was a documentary about bullying, or if Cool Cat had to exist, make it a TV show and not a movie.

I read the book in eighth grade and loved it more than I thought I would. It was basically about a 12 year old boy named Jonas who gets assigned to be the Receiver of Memory. In the new job, he understands everything that the community he lives in, tried to block out, such as deep emotions, color, smell, music, and so on. Through this job, he discovers how his world was not as perfect as he and his community always supposed.

While reading the story, I kept thinking "Hollywood would do a great job with this story." However, when the trailers did come out, fans of the book (including myself) cringed at the amount of color shoved onto the community, the romance, Jonas' age change to 16, the way the giver himself transfers memories to Jonas, and how Jonas gets caught by a search plane. It seemed like the directors were deliberately going against the book's design. Although, when I finally saw the movie, I found myself conflicted a bit.

The problems I have with the movie are many, such as: why make them teens? There's a reason why Jonas and his friends were grown up at 12 and not 16. It was because that was the early age of puberty and everything that came with it had to be gone. At 16, they're past it and it doesn't make as much sense. It's like the directors were trying to make it marketable by making the main characters high schoolers. Also, in the book, though everyone but Jonas lacked deep emotion (like joy or depression) they were still likable and made you feel sorry that they couldn't understand Jonas when it came to love, pain, or joy. Here, they're all sticks in the mud, even Jonas' best friend, Asher, who was basically the funniest guy, but now all that humor's given to Jonas. This all ends up making the community rather hostile, which they're not suppose to be. This isn't the Hunger Games where emotions are intentionally stolen and the community leader is an antagonist, this is The Giver where Jonas is learning about hard emotions and memories, and seeing that the community legitimately tried to create a utopia freed from hate, heartbreak, racism, religion, pain, difficult weather, and all the world issues we suffer today. But he also sees why this kind of utopia can't exist if we are to survive.

To be fair to the movie, there are some good elements. Of course Jeff Bridges as the Giver is spot on casting, and I can't think of anybody better to play the lonely, frustrated, and occasionally amusing character. Also, Jonas, though very bland in the movie, does shine when showing his curiosity about the lost memories. And even though the trailers marketed the movie to be technicolor, the color only comes in when Jonas is "seeing beyond" and the effects are what I always imagined in the story when reading it. Also, everyone keeps up the rules of the book such as precision of language, Ceremony for the 12's, accepting apologies, and release. Also, kudos for making Taylor Swift unrecognizable. She plays a minor character and doesn't stand out more than the main characters. In my book, that's 5 points in this movie's favor.

To be fair, this is a hard story to adapt to film, and I give the directors credit for trying at least, even if it didn't quite work out. I heard that the author Lois Lowry backs this up, but I have trouble seeing that in this film. Technically, it's not a faithful adaptation, and as a stand alone movie, it almost seems like a boring Hunger Games wannabe.

The Rankin Bass Christmas films have always been considered enduring classics, and this short is no exception. It's charming, enjoyable, nice to watch, but also very funny to watch. The story's basically about a snowman called Frosty who comes to life thanks to a magical hat, but he must go to the North Pole before he melts. Also he needs to keep away from an evil magician (who actually acknowledges that he's an evil magician) who wants Frosty's hat so he can be rich from its magic. The short's pretty goofy when you get down to it. The animation's weird, the kids don't sound at all like kids or even act like kids that much, the logic is non existent, and of course the villain has got to be the silliest part of the short. Not only does he outright acknowledge that he's an "evil magician", but he goes to extreme lengths to get the magical hat, without caring that he would be essentially killing a snowman and even a little girl at one point. I honestly think this short could have done without a villain. However, I think that the goofiness is part of the short's charm. How often do you see kids being unfazed with the fact that a snowman spontaneously coming to life, a snowman able to speak to a rabbit but not to other woodland creatures, the adults acting childish, or Santa threatening to never give the villain presents unless he writes "I am very sorry for what I did to Frosty" a hundred zillion times? It's just so funny. But all that aside, what else is good? Jimmy Durante singing the song in between the short is such a delight to hear as usual. It's always my favorite version of the song. And of course, Frosty himself is a lovable character and has an adorable personality, and the friendship between him and the little girl is believable and heartwarming. Personally, I think that even though it's a goofy short, I still love it. It truly is a Christmas treasure. It's fun to watch, the character of Frosty is lovable, and it just puts me in a good mood, not just for Christmas, but for any day.

It hurts to look at this show and every second I feel like someone is punishing me for being intelligent, for loving Dreamworks Studios, and for loving the original show at all. Yes, this show was produced by Dreamworks Studios, the same company that produced movies like Prince of Egypt, Megamind, and How to Train Your Dragon. Let that sink in. Dreamworks often had a way of creating movies that made families enjoy together, rarely ever talked down to a child, had ground breaking animation (especially any flight scenes), and are such beloved family classics. This show on the other hand talks down to children, the stories are horribly done, and the animation's scary and is some of the worst I've ever seen. IT'S 2016!!! YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!! That is only the first of my major problems with this show.

Second, and most importantly, what have you done to VeggieTales? I'm not going to act like the original VeggieTales was always a masterpiece. At the start, they had fairly interesting computer animation. Not sure if I can say it was groundbreaking, but it was unique. And the way the characters were written was timeless and priceless. The main characters: Bob the Tomato was down to earth and a great storyteller, and Larry was mostly the comic relief who occasionally had a serious role. It doesn't sound like much, but somehow the producers of Big Idea knew how to make all this work out through well thought out storytelling, timeless original songs, and morals that still stay with us even as adults.

As the years moved on, not only did the animation change to better, but the stories became hit and miss. Then suddenly out of nowhere came VeggieTales in the House and Noah's Ark with horrendous animation, cringeworthy storytelling, changing character identities, annoying pop music, and slapping on morals at the last minute. Let's look into those aspects one at a time (already covered the animation). 1) Characters: This was where Dreamworks clearly didn't care about Phil Visher's work. Bob has become too goofy and Larry has somehow become underdeveloped to a dumber and dumber level. I never thought someone could make Larry childishly stupid, but somehow they pulled it off. It's like a three year old rewrote these characters. Also, why are they too bouncy? I know they hop because they don't have arms or legs, but good grief, these guys are bouncing like basketballs on steroids. They look exactly like waving keys in front of a child's face just to keep them awake. And those French Peas are now racist, the same reason Khali got deleted from the show. Really hypocritical of you, Dreamworks. 2) Pop Songs: Just because something is "hip" for kids doesn't mean it will always interest them. These songs go on for too long, none of them memorable, and don't add to whatever story fills up the episodes. The original VeggieTales wrote songs, not just to keep kids awake, but to add to the story, express a character's emotions at the appropriate moments, and give them something to sing along to. What are kids going to remember? "God is Bigger than the Boogie Man" or "My Puppy Best Friend"? 3) Morals: First I want to ask if I should be grateful that Qwerty the Computer's not in this show? At least they don't mess him up, but they still horribly mess up the moral. The original show built up the message in a way kid would understand, so that when Qwerty brought up the verse at the end of the show, they would hopefully live by it. Whether it was about obeying your parents, careful about your actions (lying, greediness, etc), "turn the other cheek", God has a plan and purpose for you, and perhaps the most adult "your life is meaningful, even when you don't see it". How did we go from that to Bob doesn't need mustache or glasses to look awesome, "whoever can be trusted with guppies can be trusted with puppies", or cooperate always? I'm not kidding, these are the morals and stories of the shows. Also, this was possibly the first time I got angry when they slapped on "God made you special and He loves you very much." I don't hate the theme at all, I adore it, but the way the show had abused all the other morals, it's near impossible to hate every time there's a wink at the better show. Plus, it feels like this show isn't built up on that moral the same way Big Idea would build up to it, but rather slapped on at the last minute, because they forgot to add it.

Even if they weren't based on a beloved children's show, this is still insulting as a whole. It says "You're stupid" to children and slaps their parents on the head with a mallet for sitting through it. Big Idea had this belief that they could make parents and kids learn and entertain at the same time and often would succeed. It boggles me how Phil Visher and Mike could go along with Dreamworks and watch their masterpiece getting slaughtered. And it equally amazes me that Dreamworks would be behind this abomination of animation and storytelling. If you like this, okay, good for you. I personally hate this, not just for putting my childhood in a blender and pressing grind, but for insulting my intelligence on a Disney Jr. level.

I grew up with this movie since it was first released. I remember I would always see this with my older sister whenever we went to visit Grandma. Nostalgia aside, it's a harmless movie.

The story is basically about the orphans Jack and Jill who are forced to live with their evil uncle Barnaby, who absolutely hates toys, which leads him to hating the toy factory run by Mary Contrary and Tom Piper. In the meantime, Tom and Mary must complete Santa's order to create a thousand soldiers before Christmas arrives, and Barnaby does whatever he can to shut down the factory and get rid of his niece and nephew at the same time. With the help of Humpty Dumpty, each other, and the toy soldiers, they foil Barnaby's plans.

In reality, the film is not that strong as a film. Then again, I'm not sure if there's an actual Babes in Toyland adaptation that was able to stand strong as a film. It's really meant to be a fun adventure to enjoy Mother Goose cameos, and it kinda gives some adventure in this adaptation, but not very much. It's mostly kept to few locations, few explored stories, and over all is just weird and silly. But then again, what do you expect from Babes in Toyland other than strange and silly?

As much as I enjoy the characters they aren't really that interesting. The kids don't have much of a personality, Tom and Mary are kinda fun but don't have much to add to the story, and surprisingly the villain's pretty boring. Even Christopher Plummer (voicing Barnaby) doesn't sound like he has much tow work with or enjoy and that laugh is a little too weird. Also, is it just me or are the two henchmen racially insensitive? However, Humpty Dumpty is the most interesting and enjoyable character. I don't know whether it's the voice actor giving so much life to him, or just the fact he's just so fun and lively. He makes Toyland fun to hang around.

Of course the animation's really good and takes advantage of the environments, whether in Toyland or the Goblin Forest. Just looking at Toyland, you really believe you're in Toyland, even though Toyland should really be called "Mother Goose Village". Sometimes the animation can be a little choppy and skip continuity for some of the characters.

The songs are pretty clumsy for the most part. The score is great, but the lyrics for the most part aren't really that great. Most of them sound like the score had been written first and the lyrics were forced. And yes, the score had been written first for the most part, especially the March of the Toy Soldiers score which thankfully has no lyrics. That music still sounds awesome, even if the toy soldiers themselves are a combo of weird, hilarious, and anti continuity (like were they all really installed with water hoses, boxing feet, punching hands, rocket power, and a flashlight each when being created?).

So if this movie is so flawed, why do I still enjoy it so much? Well like I said before, it's nostalgic, so it's kinda hard for me to hate on it. On the other hand, Babes in Toyland (in general) is imagining if toys and Mother Goose characters lived and interacted with one another. It reaches into the child of the adult and brings a young child's imagination to life on screen. I guess that's one reason why most of the characters are almost never interesting in any of the versions. We're not meant to be just watching the main characters, we're watching toys and Mother Goose characters live and breathe in this fascinating world. I still enjoy this movie to this day and remember my childhood every time.

When I first heard the critics talking about the Star Wars prequels, giving me reasons to not watch them (Jar Jar being the major reason). The only other thing that kept me from seeing this movie was that I had once seen about half of it as a kid and was utterly bored by it. But when I finally saw all the prequels (starting with this one) I found that many of the critics were right in both the good and the bad.

This one is about discovering young Anakin, and dealing with politics in a galaxy far far away that make no sense and I care nothing about, because it's Star Wars. I don't want to watch a Star Wars movie where politics makes up about 65% of the movie, which is what happens in Phantom Menace. It bored me as a kid and confuses me as an adult.

But alright, if politics is so boring to the kids, how about putting in lots of comedy. That's the movie's problem, it's either too boring or too obnoxious. Boring includes the politics and the uninteresting acting from pretty much all the cast members, except for Jar Jar. Oh man where do I start on what's wrong with this character? 1) He exists only to get a giggle from the kids with all the poop jokes and getting into trouble 2) His voice was interesting for a while, but then it started to get grating 3) He gets into trouble and everybody else into trouble, why does anybody bother to keep him? 4) Lucas described him as the Chewbacca of the prequels, isn't that a laugh? 5) I know everybody says he's a racist stereotype, but I find him too annoying to notice anything racially insensitive, he's that bad.

Also, while I like the idea of Anakin being a powerful kid, I seriously wish it was it explored a little more. It was not given enough time, thanks to Jar Jar and politics. If it explored his character a little more I might have become more invested other than just "Oh he can fix machines" "Oh, he bears the Force in his blood". It might have even made the child actor's performance less bland and monotoned. The kid, while may have done better in other movies, does not work out well here at all. Partly because the writing is so hokey and bad, but also because Lucas didn't try hard enough with him in tone. I believe Liam Neeson's character is alive more than I believe Jake Llyod's because this movie did not give Anakin enough room to breathe.

There were other times I questioned what movie I really was watching: Some of the worlds looked a little too modern, like the Jedi planet (forgot the name). It looked much more like a technologically advanced version of New York City. Also, the pod racing has TV announcers. Speaking of which, while the pod racing is cool, I probably would have liked it better if I had not seen Ben Hur with the amazing chariot racing. What also bothers me about it is when you think "Star Wars" is pod racing really what comes to mind or is it lightsaber duels? Well thankfully, we do get about twenty minutes worth of a lightsaber fight total in the entire movie. There should have been more honestly, but the best fight scene is Darth Maul vs Obi Wan and Qui Gon. The music accompaniment and the cool choreographed fight still puts me at the edge of my seat, even though I know who's coming out alive. I would have liked to have seen more of Darth Maul, his motivation, where he came from, and see him do more evil under his master's training. We got that from Darth Vader in the original trilogy, why couldn't we see more of Darth Maul? It would be a lot better than sticking around with Jar Jar.

For me, the Darth Maul fight sequence was the only thing that felt like a genuine Star Wars moment. The rest was too boring for me to care about, or just too annoying. The acting was dull, there was too much politics, too much Jar Jar, and I still wonder how nobody figures out that Palpatine's the Sith Lord. I'm glad some people like it, but personally, this movie is anything but a legit Star Wars Movie.