Movie Review: Dinosaur Adventure - The WORST Animated Feature Ever

So, you might have noticed I'm not doing a lot of Movie Reviews this year. Basically, I've found that I enjoy writing editorials more and they get more views so I decided to step away and take a break from movie reviews. Really, it's a good thing though because after a hundred reviews you kind of start to run out of ways to say things like "This animation is Bad" or "These characters aren't interesting", so really editorials are just easier to write as well. I mean, is there any kind of animation that is so abysmal, so poorly-constructed, so infamous that it could not only reinvigorate my need to be a critic, but also offend me on such a deep level that I can actually be pissed off at what is ultimately an inoffensive and mostly harmless movie? I mean, what kind of movie would exist that is both harmless and completely offensive? It would have to be something so cheap, so poorly made, so transparently blatant that I would have no choice but to review it, but a movie like that could never exist right? Every one who works in any artistic field has to have some amount of love and passion for what they do, even if it doesn't always end up with a good product. Anyway, this is my review of the Dingo Pictures movie Dinosaur Adventure.

And yes this movie qualifies for a review, it's a "technically" review since the movie is under an hour, but over forty minutes.

This is usually where I would recount the plot. So, a young dinosaur hatchling is forced to go to a dinosaur class where they learn that a volcano is about to erupt and destroy their homeland. Nobody believes the teacher, and then the volcano erupts and destroys their homeland, so the last half of the movie is the dinosaur hatchling, their teacher and another friend looking for dinosaur survivors, including the hatchling's parents. Pretty basic plot right? It is, and you know what else it is? So very ungodly boring. Like I was watching this movie with a friend, and I was zoning out so many times because the movie was just so boring, not that it does any good to zone out because by my friend's words, the movie is full of the characters standing around and doing nothing but talking, very little is shown to progress the plot, everything has to be explained verbally. If you are not paying any attention, or you don't have any audio because you're watching this over a Discord call, you might miss some information. Granted most of the information is absolute filler, but you might miss something.

Of course, you may also miss something because of the awful audio mixing and voice acting. I have heard awful voice acting before, but Dingo Pictures productions really take the cake. It really does sound like they pulled random people out of their offices, gave them one take to record something and didn't bother giving them any directions. It also hurts a lot that a lot of the actors speak so softly that they are almost whispering sometimes, it is not too bad in this movie, Animal Soccer World is far worse in that regard because the voice tracks absolutely get drowned out by the music track in that one, but second worst is not that much better. Speaking of Animal Soccer World, the music is lifted right out of that animation. I bet they reuse that music in other productions too, because why bother getting a cheap keyboard at a second-hand store and futzing about on it?

I will give the movie this over Animal Soccer World, it looks somewhat, maybe even partially better. The animation is horrible, some characters look traced from other properties (Cough, The Land Before Time, Cough), some character designs are just absolutely baffling, lip-sync is almost non-existent, There is a scene with a realistic dinosaur skeleton just photoshopped into the environment, movement is stilted, and sometimes the characters heads just vibrate because... animating laughter is hard. However, everything in this movie mostly looks like it belongs, you're not going to get a dalmatian and a jungle panther standing next to a duck biker gang for instance. Still, that may be a knock against this movie because it is absolutely nothing special to look at, like most of the scenes are filled with nothing and are completely barren to look at. Animal Soccer World at least, I can't believe I'm writing this, retained some interest, even if that interest was just by wondering what could be stranger than an anthropomorphic bird in a trench coat or cheerleader pigs.

I mean, you knew all this right? This movie and company are notorious thanks largely to memes. They are worse than Golden Films, WowNow Entertainment, The Asylum, arguably even worse than Vídeo Brinquedo. Is that really fair though? It's not like they're making anything that is genuinely harmful or offensive, they just make cheap kids movies right? Wrong, they make cheap, soulless, transparent cash grab kids movies. I'm fairly certain showing this movie to children counts as child abuse and a violation of the Geneva Convention, and I'm not even being facetious when I say that because watching this movie was torture. I Have never had such an unpleasant movie viewing experience in a long time, and the fact that this movie is just a transparent attempt to swindle people into buying a movie because it looks like another movie, or has something that kids might like on the cover. That is what offends me, that they could not even pretend to care about the movie they were making.

I have said it before that I have less respect for those kind of "-Lite" knock-offs, you know movies like The Swan Princess or Quest for Camelot, movies which are very clearly knock-offs but they have a budget and are released theatrically. I said that I have less respect for those movies than direct-to-video mockbusters, largely it is an elitism thing, I think that there is more meaning and prestige to a movie that gets released theatrically and putting a prettied up mockbuster in theatres is just kind a waste. The truth is I don't really have respect for either, but direct-to-video releases are easier to ignore. Still, I think this might be the least respectable movie I've ever seen, it is also the least good, least entertaining and least redeemable movie I have ever seen. The mere existence of this movie offends me, which is not something I can say about The Misty Green Sky, yes, this movie is worse than The Misty Green Sky. At least that movie had ambition, ideas, I'd even argue passion. Do I even need to say it? This movie gets the rating of "AVOID".

And I didn't even watch the Italian version with the "Yee" meme, I watched the English dub!

Old and Forgotten YouTube: Why The Microwave Show Could Never Exist In Modern Times

Author's Note: Look, I can't predict the future, if I knew that Disney was gonna do something terrible, which frankly is as safe a bet as you can possibly make, then I would have decided to wait and write about that. The problem with weekly posts is, when you have something ready by the deadline, you can't really replace it, and when you have time to write about it, it's no longer at the height of relevancy. So, to begin this post, I'm gonna state, for the record, screw you Disney, and Trans Rights!

End Author's Note

When I was a kid, YouTube was an entirely different beast than it is now, it really was the type of place where anything was available, and most of us used it to watch pirated TV Shows and movies, but there was original content, and if you thought YouTube could get weird today, well where do you think it came from? On some level I guess I do miss "Weird YouTube", some would argue we still have it in places, but what do we really have today? Don't Hug Me, I'm Scared? That began in 2011, plus, the animations of David Firth are way weirder. The Amazing Digital Circus? That's not weird, that makes tons of sense compared to compared to stuff like There Is Nothing or Olivier de Sagazan, "Transfiguration" performance. You think any of the big name YouTube stars are doing weird things, explain to me what the Hell Shay Saint John was. I should probably clarify here, "Weird YouTube" wasn't just spooky and unnerving stuff, it mostly became that because weird and spooky go hand in hand, but "Weird YouTube" was an era of YouTube when literally any dumb idea could take off, case in point, I have a question to ask you; Is It a Good Idea to Microwave This?

"Is It a Good Idea to Microwave This?", hereafter referred to as The Microwave Show (yes I did use "hereafter" to be pretentious), was a show that originally aired on July 1, 2007 created by director Jonathan Paula and host Jory Caron. The basic concept of the show was that they stuck a bunch of random crap in a microwave and filmed what happened, if anything happened at all. Then they would decide whether or not it was a good idea to do so. I'm not sure if they ever took this idea seriously but after a while the term "Good idea" and "Bad Idea" were kind of just punchlines, like you never really were meant to take this show super seriously, maybe Season 1, but that's really it. The show lasted for 10 seasons, ending in July, 2011 and it aired a few bonus episodes until August 2015. The many countless microwaves, weird experiments and the hosts Jory, Jon and the sidekick Riley Mcllwain are forever etched in the history of YouTube.

The Microwave Show was my eye opening experience to the wonders and possibilities of YouTube, the reason I got a YouTube channel was to watch an episode that was "Flagged" and so you had to be over a certain age to watch it, shockingly it wasn't the episode where they microwaved a condom. You can imagine that this show has some sentimental value to me, and you would probably expect me to say that this show needs to come back, and while I would love to see a return of The Microwave Show, I also have to concede to the point that maybe it's a good idea to not bring the show back.

Of course the first thing people will say is "You're just saying that because the edgy humour hasn't aged well" and, I mean some of it hasn't sure, but that's not the reason. Jon, Jory and Riley weren't working off of any scripts, so everything they said was improvised and off-the-cuff, so if they came back to do another season, I do think we'd get some different kinds of jokes out of them. Of course, the chances of them coming back to do another season are slim considering Jon and Riley both have families and they might not want to do something like this anymore.

The next thing you might say is "Oh you're saying it shouldn't come back because kids will imitate it even though YouTube is not solely meant for kids", and I will admit, that is a part of the reason. That being said, the guys were aware of how bad some of the stuff they did was, putting "Don't Try This At Home" warnings on some of their more dangerous experiments before making it a common feature in Season 7. I also remember there was an imitation on YouTube that was being uploaded around the same time, "What Happens When You Microwave This?" which was more or less the same idea, but without the Good Idea/Bad Idea thing. I would also be remiss if I did not mention this, but there was another alleged imitator who was uploading his own microwave videos onto YouTube, and during one experiment, started a fire that killed his mother. Jon himself talked about this situation on his secondary channel.

So yes, this has happened before, but it does highlight exactly the real reason I think this show should not come back. To put it bluntly, YouTube has changed.

I'm not saying that YouTube has changed in that, this kind of content is no longer allowed on the platform, I mean, The Slow Mo Guys have done several videos with explosives, firearms and sharp blades, so YouTube would still allow this kind of stuff on their site. No, YouTube has changed in the sense that it no longer has become about having that unique and weird idea that gets all the attention, but it's become a giant, globally scaled rat race, a rat race where following trends and making content farms has become more profitable than having unique ideas.

To be absolutely fair, this is not new to YouTube, the previously mentioned imitation shows still existed, particularly "What Happens When You Microwave This?" with one of their most notable episode being when they microwaved ten of the worst video games ever made. I think this show is mostly lost media now. However, there is difference here, these guys weren't making it a content farm or making any indication that what they were doing was a good idea. Really, the rise of the content farm has made YouTube a far more dangerous place for kids than Television or Video Games, because these content farms with their bright cheery music, colourful visuals and usage of smiling emojis will make things that are irrefutably dangerous and make them seem, like doable and fun ideas.

I really have to wonder how everyone feels about the legacy of The Microwave Show, because it genuinely was one of the shows that shaped original YouTube, it defined a bygone era of YouTube that we may never see again, but at the same time, the YouTube landscape has changed to the point where a show like this is a massive risk. While they might put "Don't Try This at Home" warnings on everything and mark their content as "Not For Kids", the content farms that steal from them might not, and they might get someone killed, someone else killed.

If you want a good channel talking about the dangers of content farms like 5-Minute Crafts, Australian YouTuber and Food Scientist Ann Reardon of How to Cook That does a lot of videos debunking bad and dangerous baking hacks from content farms, and I highly recommend these videos.

Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure (2006) - A Wonderful and Respectable Adventure For Young Kids

 

Hey, It's Franklin! Yeah, I wanted to do something else that was relatively easy to review because, movie review last week, but I'm getting back on schedule, as a bonus for me it's another movie based on a property for preschoolers. I remember watching Franklin growing up, if I remember correctly I even had a Build-a-Bear turtle that I named Franklin, I think I preferred Franklin over Little Bear as a kid, but I don't actually remember too much about it now, I remember some episodes, but I think Little Bear just kind of stayed with me longer. To be fair though, Franklin had the better theme song, sung by Canadian icon, Bruce Cockburn (pronounced KOH-burn). Anyway, I wanted something familiar to review this week, so I chose Franklin, and as another bonus, this movie is available on YouTube via the officialfranklin YouTube channel and the Treehouse Direct YouTube channel.

Franklin finds his Aunt Lucy has returned to Woodland, and brought her Goddaughter, Sam along. Wanting a real adventure before the summer ends, Franklin and Sam are given an old map drawn by Franklin's Grandmother that lead to a small time capsule she buried when she was a kid. Seeing the old map causes her to remember a tragic event in her childhood. When she later falls ill, Franklin, Sam, Aunt Lucy and his friends Beaver, Bear and Snail, travel to Turtle Lake to find the time capsule, and the talisman that was inside of it. I really have to respect this movie a lot, beyond the fact that the plot is well structured with few diversions from the main plot, and even then they keep in the spirit of the theme so they aren't that big. The fact that the story does go to such a dark place, it does not hide the fact that Franklin's Great Grandparents didn't make it out of the fire. I admired The Little Bear Movie because it did not shy away from the dangers the characters could face on their journey, and similar can be said about this movie.

I feel like I should talk about things like this because, animation has a reputation amongst certain audiences as solely being for kids, unless it specifically goes out of its way to be raunchy and violent, and that does lead to a certain kind of image. I've ranted about this in the past, movies like Mummies, UglyDolls, Robinson Crusoe, Open Season, movies that are just uninterested in being anything other safe entertainment for children, stuff that doesn't stick with them as they grow up. Now, I'm not saying we should be letting children watch Felidae or anything, but there are plenty of kids movies that take risks, that go into darker places, and it always irritates me when a movie like Open Season or UglyDolls is made, because here is a movie for the same, arguably a younger demographic, and it takes more risks, it makes children experience harsher emotions, possibly more confusing ones. If Franklin the Turtle can take more risks and go darker places than your kids movie, you better hope that movie has some other strength to it, because that is frankly embarrassing.

The characters are charming, Franklin, Bear, Sam, they feel like genuine kids, and they have problems like kids too. Bear has a moment where he feels Franklin is putting someone else over their friendship, and it comes from an understandable place. I also like all the odd characters they meet, they all have their charm and even some kind of magic to them. If you are familiar with the old cartoon, I don't believe there is much difference between the characterizations. Also, Snail is just really adorable. What I can also praise this movie for is the animation. I'll be honest, I do like it when an animation style is polished for a movie, and the movie just has a warm and visually pleasing look to it. The only downside is that both official YouTube uploads are locked at low quality rates, with the Treehouse Direct upload only being 480p. So I would recommend finding this movie on DVD if possible, but if you don't mind 480p YouTube quality, the movie still looks good, just not as good as it could look.

I really was surprised by Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure when I first watched it, I love watching movies like this because they really do shoot the whole idea that these movies have nothing good for anyone after a certain age in the foot. Sure, kids will absolutely love the adventure and the pretty visuals, but I feel grown ups will have an appreciation for the story, the character moments, the theme, and the artistry. It really is one of those movies that I believe children that grow up watching will have an appreciation for animation afterwards. Put it up there with The Little Bear Movie and Blue's Big Musical Movie as something perfect to show really young kids. I would probably put this under Blue's Clues, but above Little Bear. All in all, Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure is a wonderful movie for kids, and I absolutely recommend it for kids and parents.

Garfield Gets Real (2007) - A Lousy Attempt to Bring the Comics to Life

 

So, I've been on a Garfield kick right now, not sure if that's really a surprise. I remember reading those comics as a kid, we used to have a set of those rectangular books full of the comic strips, there was also this big thing that sort of got me reacquainted with Garfield; I began my journey to read through every entry in the 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die book, yes I am losing my grip on sanity. Also, there is that new Garfield movie that came out, so that may have got me thinking too. I always did have a soft-spot for Garfield, so I think this is the perfect time to look at one of his direct-to-video movies from the late 2000s... as for why I chose this specific one, well it was available on YouTube, sometimes I don't need a real reason.

The plot follows Garfield as he grows tired of his job of acting in a comic strip. Y'know, I would say that this is stupid, ridiculous and asinine, but the original Roger Rabbit book, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf had pretty much a similar setting, comic strip characters doing the comics as their job. The difference is, in Wolf's book, the cartoons and the humans coexisted in the same world, while in this movie it's two separate worlds, which adds a layer of confusion. After Odie looses a prop in the real world by a tear in a screen that lets the comic characters see into the real world, Garfield decides to jump into it, followed by Odie. Then after a day, their strip is about to get cancelled, so they have to return to the cartoon world, but they might be replaced by two buff and muscular animals, and hold on one second, how can they find replacements for Garfield and Odie if they're in the real world. It is said in the movie that there is no way back from the real world, so why is the real world finding replacements? Call it a nitpick, but it's kind of distracting. I guess the rest of the plot works, but that one bit bothers me.

The movie does Garfield as a character alright, like at no point did I think, "Nah, this ain't Garfield". Most of the characters remain the same from the comic and other adaptations, save for two. Nermal and Arlene just kind of felt different. I think it's felt less with Arlene, but in the comic she actually could keep up with Garfield's dry wit and sarcasm, she was practically just as sarcastic as he was, and here she feels like... gosh I don't know how to describe it, she feels like the only thing that the writer knew about this character was that she was Garfield's love interest, and I know for a fact that isn't right because the sole writer credit is Jim Davis himself, so maybe he wanted to do something different here. Nermal straight up annoyed me in this movie, he always did have a little ego calling himself the "World's cutest kitty cat", but here, he's just arrogant and annoying, and Jason Marsden's voice performance does not help. That being said, the voice cast is fine overall, Frank Welker does a good job replacing the late Lorenzo Music as Garfield, he doesn't have the same voice, but the inflections are there. Wally Wingert and Gregg Berger as Jon and Odie respectively are good. I think most people agree that Wally is almost as good as Thom Huge as Jon. Of course, the two villains have to have the worst voice performances though, being muscular pets, they obviously have to have Hans and Franz accents.

As an aside, for a world of cartoon characters, most of the comic strip characters they have are not real characters from real strips. Dagwood from Blondie cameos, but he doesn't really say or do anything, I mean I doubt you could have actually gotten Snoopy to appear, and so you only had to mention him, but why not Hagar the Horrible? Pearls Before Swine? Doonesbury? What about Dilbert... Actually yeah, maybe that was a good call, but my point still stand. Heck, even have some characters from discontinued strips appear, Little Nemo is in the public domain, any of those characters could have appeared. It really does cheapen the film a bit by not including that many memorable comic strip characters. They don't even make a reference to Rube Goldberg, and they invented a character who makes inventions.

The animation of this movie is disgusting. Okay, that is a bit of hyperbole, but the 3D models and this style of animation just do not mesh at all. The movement is almost too fluid, and character designs just look ugly. It sits in that middle ground, where the animation is cheap, but not Television cheap. I'm gonna say it, the 2009 Garfield Show looks better than this movie, yeah that animation was cheaper looking, but this movie just looks hideous. I suppose compared to other movies I've reviewed this movie isn't the worst, but I just hate looking it at, I can't really think of any other movie I've reviewed that is just straight up unappealing to look at, even movies like Silver Circle or The Misty Green Sky I can excuse as not having any real budget. I know Garfield hasn't had the best looking animation in anything, with the exception of a couple Television Specials, but this may just be the worst he has ever looked. They don't even do anything visually to separate the cartoon world from the real world.

It probably wouldn't help much if the movie looked good, because the writing just isn't there. We've all made comments and jokes about how the Garfield strip has become less funny over the years, but this movie is just painfully unfunny. Each joke was predictable, and Garfield just doesn't really have that bite to him, probably because he's not working off of Jon in this movie, he's working off of new characters who aren't really interesting, and Odie, who doesn't talk. I think back to a lot of the old Garfield strips, and Garfield's wit and sarcasm was genuinely funny, even if it took a while to get the joke, his dry responses to what was around him was a big chunk of the humour, so taking that away, what are you left with? Not much really.

Really, "Not Much" is the best way to describe this movie. The writing is lousy, the plot is flawed, the art-style is terrible, really the only saving grace is Garfield himself, and even then this movie doesn't have any of his strengths as a character. If you really want a solid adaptation of the comic strip, I say keep looking, I think your best bet would be the Garfield specials like Garfield Hits the Town, Here Comes Garfield and even the Garfield Christmas special. This movie just doesn't work, and I can't really think of any reason to watch it, unless you're like a big, and I mean big, Garfield fanatic. Even then, I think this is one that is safe to skip.

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) - A Ridiculous Effort, Kind of a Guilty Pleasure

Warner Bros. is in a rough position... understatement of the year I know, but y'know.. hindsight and peaks and valleys and all that... The point is Warner Bros. is not in a good place as of now, and it is very likely that the ramifications of said not good place are very likely to reveal their ugly heads soon. Whether that is another, much larger strike, the dissolution of one of the most important studios in film history, or the complete collapse of the Hollywood system... Well I've put money on stupider bets, but it remains to be uncertain, though each outcome is equally likely. I bring this up because, people are saying that the big animation studios are gonna crumble, you know Disney, Warner Bros, and all that stuff, or at least people are thinking that is what will happen, and all I have to say is... no. If Disney was going to crumble, they would have crumbled during their disastrous era in the nineties and early two-thousands, which involved failed theme parks, box office flops, and lots of bad business decisions. Disney is not going to crumble because of a couple movies that we're mediocre are worst. However, Warner Bros is a different story, because it is looking pretty bad over there, because while Disney's current lull is not as bad as their Post-Death, Pre-Renaissance era was, this is looking worse for Warner Bros than their post Quest For Camelot era, where they straight up lost faith in all their upcoming animated releases... which included The Iron Giant and Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

All of that build-up to such a minor reveal. Almost like a real journalist. Anyway, I needed another movie to fill in this week, because I have an editorial that will follow my next movie review, so for this week I chose to review another movie from my childhood, it also let me rant about the response to this valley for Disney and Warner Bros, so, I win.

The story is... zany. Describing almost feels like a Herculean task because it's just so wild and ridiculous. After Daffy Duck gets let go from Warner Bros. he causes some ruckus that gets a security guard named D.J. Drake fired as well, which is unfortunate because D.J. is the son of the studio's most beloved star, Damian Drake, who has appeared in several spy movies. It also just so happens that Drake is in fact, a super spy and is on a mission to recover a supernatural diamond called "The Blue Monkey", but he gets captured, and must entrust the mission to his son, D.J. and Daffy tags along because he heard the word diamond and thinks he'll get rich, while Bugs and a WB Executive are after them to get Daffy back. Honestly... this plot is inane, ridiculous, asinine, and other synonyms. I kind of love it, it is a little bit too ridiculous for what I would imagine to be a Looney Tunes movie plot, I think somewhere between Space Jam and Back in Action is the level of ridiculous I'd like for a Looney Tunes movie. That being said, the plot gives us some fascinating locations, unique scenes and some pretty alright gags. It's pretty clear that at some point, they stopped taking this movie seriously as a movie and took it seriously as a vehicle for gags and jokes. It's ridiculous, but I can't help but love it.

I don't think the characters are all that great, I mean, the live-action characters are passable, but they're mostly saved by their casting. Brendan Frasier smiles like a Looney Tunes character, and Jenna Elfman is pretty good at being the frigid and more grounded in reality character. I love Steve Martin, but I think the role was written more for a Jim Carrey type performer, someone who has much more fluid movement, Steve Martin just looks very stiff with his movements, which I guess is a joke in and of itself, but I dunno, I think you could have given this role to Jim Carrey and it would have been a lot funnier. One place I can give credit to the casting for is the smaller roles, Timothy Dalton as the Super Spy? Come on, that's just an amazing casting gag, and Peter Graves cameos in a secret mission instructional video. Goldberg as a secret agent henchman is great, and the Acme VP members are all filled with "if you know, you know" kind of names like Bill McKinney, George Murdock, Ron Perlman, and Robert Picardo.

I also must give credit to the voice actors. Joe Alaskey is probably my second favourite Bugs Bunny, behind Mel Blanc (I should do a blog about that), and Jeff Bennett is a great performer for Foghorn Leghorn and Yosemite Sam. Of course, Billy West and June Foray are wonderful as always, two of my favourite voice actors right there, and Casey Kasem and Frank Welker cameoing as Shaggy and Scooby-Doo respectively is always welcome. Some archive recordings were also used, for the most part it's minor. I think the casting is very well done here, and the cameos from some lesser known Looney Tunes characters like Nasty Canasta and Marc Antony and Pussyfoot are really nice. I do wish Blacque Jacque Shellacque cameoed, but that's really about it.

I think the animation is a mixed-bag. On one hand, the actual animation is not terrible, the characters move fluid and look solid enough. The problem comes in with the live-action mixing, and not just the actual integration, though honestly it's pretty fine, like I can believe these characters are part of this world, until I see them interacting with other characters. When a live actor has to hold, attack or physically interact with a cartoon character in any way, it often looks phony, and does pull me out of this illusion. Roger Rabbit worked because they took several steps in order to make sure the cartoons were believably interacting with the live actors, and Space Jam had the live actors predominately in the cartoon world, so it had less blending to do than this movie. It also doesn't help that some of the CG has visibly aged rather poorly. I think to mask a lot of this, the editing is much faster paced than a typical Looney Tunes short, and that does this movie zero favors. Slapstick really works best when you can feel the impact of each hit, and if you cut away as soon as the impact is made, it just doesn't land as well. Looney Tunes shorts worked best because they were a lot more cleverly written than other shorts of the era, and that clever writing also lends itself best to slower paced editing.

However, I think the major saving grace of this movie is the humour, and I don't mean the big jokes or the slapstick, a lot of those are alright, but a lot of the background jokes had me howling with laughter. Everyone brings up Mathew Lillard talking to Shaggy about his portrayal in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie, but in the same scene, seeing Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf do their routine in the background, or seeing Michigan J. Frog just be randomly carried away are really good gags. Bugs and Daffy exchanging last will and testaments during a car chase was a fantastic gag. I also loved a lot of the fourth-wall breaks and seeing the references in Area-52 was just fantastic for my little movie loving heart, Robot Monster, Forbidden Planet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Kevin McCarthy reprising his role for a brief cameo as well. To be fair, some of the bigger more prominent jokes and gags were kind of funny too. I don't think I'll ever get tired of the lit match in the room full of explosives gag, it's a well-worn bit, but I love it.

The term "Guilty Pleasure" has a very loose and undefined meaning. Is it something you like in spite of, or even sometimes because of, the flaws? Is it something you wouldn't normally admit to enjoying, but love anyway? I think Looney Tunes: Back in Action is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, in that "Shut your brain off and enjoy the ride" type of enjoyment. It's a dumb, ridiculous and inane mess, I'd almost call it a farce, but I'm not always best with genre. I think if you're my age and you grew up with this movie, you'll have some fondness for it, not like a Treasure Planet level masterpiece that was unappreciated in its time, but as a movie that's good for some dumb laughs. This might be my favourite of the Looney Tunes movies, which... kind of says more about the rest of the movies than it does this one. Do I recommend it? Yeah, I guess. It's hard to really recommend this as a hidden gem or an unfairly slept on movie, but at the same time, I do think it's an entertaining flick, and if you can tolerate an inane plot, there may be some enjoyment in this film.

Tom Sawyer (2000) - Really bland, but mostly harmless

 

I have said before that there is a hierarchy to movie releases, that you have movies released in theatres, then major streaming releases, followed by minor streaming releases, then Direct-to-Video releases, Television movies and finally movies released onto YouTube. I suggest this hierarchy as like, levels of ignorable for critics and audiences really, not necessarily about quality or how respectable they are, lots of direct-to-video releases exist, and just by sheer volume some of them are going to be good. This is really how I observe the kinds of movies other critics talk about, that they tend to focus on movies that were given theatrical releases, or movies on streaming when they have a ton of buzz about them. I feel like I was one of the only critics who tried to watch the Larva Island Movie when it was released onto Netflix, but I know I'm not the only one who watched movies like Duck Duck Goose or Next Gen. It makes me wonder why some movies just don't get much attention, do we just have a stigma about smaller movie releases? So, I'm going to take this time to take a look at a smaller scale release, the 2000 direct-to-video Tom Sawyer movie by MGM.

The story is an adaptation of the classic Mark Twain novel. I only vaguely know of the book in the sense that it is a pop culture icon, so whether or not it is a good adaptation, I can't say. Tom Sawyer is a rambunctious young man who becomes smitten with a young girl named Becky. Also, he and his friend Huckleberry Finn are looking for buried treasure, while a criminal by name of Injurin' Joe (Nice save there guys), is also looking for said treasure, murdering a man and framing another in the process. It's mostly the scenes with Joe that I find the most interesting, because they get fairly dark and intense, but most of the first act is spent with Tom cooing over Becky, and chunks of the rest of the movie are spent with Tom's Aunt and brother, and his friends, and frankly, I just don't find any of them interesting characters. Even the scenes with Joe, they do go somewhat dark, showing him actually kill a man, but it's a tame killing (Ain't that an oxymoron), the man gets thrown into a gravestone and we don't get to see the impact, we don't even get a dark joke that he was thrown into the grave he was just mourning at. It's scenes like this that make me want to respect the movie, because it's clear they did want to tell a respectful version of the story, but the rest of it... eh.

I think a lot of that is down to the characters, because I just don't find them that interesting. Tom is Bart Simpson, he is rambunctious and trouble-making, but ultimately a decent kid beneath it all. Huckleberry Finn is sort of the idiot best friend character, Becky is the southern lady, but is also that "non-girl" girl, she's into arm wrestling and adventure, and I've seen every single one of these character types before. Honestly, Joe isn't even that interesting, he's just your standard snarling crook, and I swear any character like Tom's brother is immediately a character I will despise. I feel like a lot of this isn't really the movie's fault, Tom Sawyer was published in 1876, about one-hundred and thirteen years before The Simpsons aired their premier episode in 1989, but the trope is called "Seinfeld is unfunny" for a reason. I've seen these characters before, and this movie does not really do much different with these tropes. At least the voice acting was alright, but as much as I love Betty White and Kevin Michael Richardson, these weren't the best roles for them.

Frankly, the animation is not much better. Full disclosure, I found an uploaded version of this movie on YouTube, so the visual quality was not gonna be the highest, pro tip for anyone getting into media review, ease of access and quality tend not to go hand in hand. Regardless, the animation was... okay. Frankly, there is not a lot to comment about it, the animation is serviceable, it's... it's mid, the animation is mid. The whole movie is completely, absolutely, agonizingly mid! The characters? Mid! The story? Mid! The animation? Mid! They should have called this movie "Mid Sawyer", it's so mid I wouldn't be shocked if this was actually Illumination's first feature, everything about it is mid. The music especially, I skipped through a lot of the songs, but the opening song was repetitive, and it cut out for a brief moment to some Arabian Music, because it was for a dream sequence and that is what Tom was dreaming at the moment, I hated it when it happened in the Pink Elephants song in Dumbo, I hate it now. I'm not even really a big country music fan, actually no, I'm not a big fan of post fifties country music from male singers, and the main characters are voiced by country stars. This review was really tough to write, because what can I say about a movie that is absolutely mid?

Okay, well there is one thing I can really talk about; Is this movie a good introduction to the classic Americana story? To answer this question, I have to ask myself if I would have liked this movie as a kid, and I have to say... maybe? I can easily imagine myself fast forwarding through several of the scenes to get to parts that would have interested me a lot more. I can't say it's made me more interested in the book, but it hasn't made me any less interested either. It's harmless, just really bland. If this is something you think your kid might be into, it's better than crap like Duck Duck Goose, but as for watching it on your own, meh, I don't think I can really recommend it all that much. At the same time though, it's not really a movie I recommend avoiding on any level, it's just a movie that I feel only really gets watched by people babysitting kids. So, I don't recommend it, but if it's available to watch somewhere, I can think of worse movies. I can also think of much more interesting ones, and frankly, I need something much more interesting to review next.

Kung Fu Panda (2008): A Fun Start to a Large Franchise

 

I don't think I'm saying anything shocking when I say that animation has the potential to take silly concepts and make them great. Actually, that is a technical truth, it is not that animation allows dumb concepts to work, it is that animation gives more leeway to sillier concepts. Comics and video games have been doing ridiculous stories for years, it is not the medium that makes a stupid concept work, it is, as it always should be, the effort. Kung Fu Panda could not have been made by any other studio than DreamWorks, it's been said by others that DreamWorks movies are the epitome of the saying "Don't Judge a Book by it's cover", but really, the truth of the matter is that DreamWorks has very rarely half-assed a project. Regardless of what you think of Antz, it was a movie made with genuine effort, and The Prince of Egypt is easily one of DreamWorks' masterpieces. It really should not have been surprising that Kung Fu Panda became one of the company's most successful franchises, and with a fourth movie on the way, I think it's time to do another marathon. The Kung Fu Panda movies really should have been scratched off my list ages ago, Pandas are my favourite animal, DreamWorks is one of my favourite animation studios, Jack Black is one of my favourite actors, so it is finally time to cross these movies off my bucket list.

For everything said about it, the silliest thing about Kung Fu Panda's premise really is just the specific concept, as the plot itself is not that dumb. The story follows Po as he is selected to be the Dragon Warrior by Master Oogway, despite the other Kung Fu master, Shifu, and the Furious Five not believing he is more than a fat panda. However, as Shifu's former pupil, Tai Lung, escapes his prison, Shifu and Po must trust each other and themselves to defeat Tai Lung and protect the village. The great thing about this plot is that, we see how each of the characters change and develop. We can see where Shifu begins to see potential in Po and begins to believe that he can be trained. We can see the character journey for Po and Shifu, and that is what makes the plot work. If Shifu just kept training Po without finding the way to train him, the plot would not be as strong. I believe the over all theme of the movie, beyond the whole thing about books and covers, is about overcoming obstacles, specifically the obstacles of self-doubt and pride. When Shifu learns to teach Po on his level, he can let go of his pride, and when Po is treated as a pupil, and equal, he can overcome his self-doubt.

It also helps that the characters are wonderful. Po is very excitable, wants to make others happy, and is not afraid to let himself feel emotions, he is open about the fact that he eats when he is upset. Honestly, the way Po is interested in Kung Fu kind of makes me think... well, I have something planned for April. It helps a lot that he is balanced out by multiple different characters, each with a pretty distinct personality. Viper is tough but has a softer and more caring side, Mantis probably has the most sympathy to Po, and Tigress and Shifu are both taken hold of their past and their pride, which makes them great foils for Po, and of course makes their turn around all the more satisfying, and earned. Tigress feels very much like she could have become another Tai Lung, who some may argue is a boring villain, and while he definitely is no Ratigan or Ramses, I think he fit with the story they were telling. Tai Lung is a victim of his pride, he could not let go of it and that is why he was not chosen as the Dragon Warrior. It does hurt a little that he is voiced by Ian McShane, and his voice does not entirely match the design or character. The rest of the cast is pretty solid though, Dustin Hoffman as Master Shifu sounds perfect, and David Cross and Lucy Liu are pretty much flawless as Crane and Viper respectively. It is always pleasant to hear James Hong and Michael Clarke Duncan, and of course, we have to talk about Jack Black. Honestly, it's kind of a shame that Jack Black only won a Kids' Choice Award for his performance as Po, because I can't think of a more perfect voice role for Jack Black, and that includes Bowser. I don't think anyone could have perfectly captured that excitability and the drama of the character like Jack Black.

Though most of the character is not just in the writing and performance, but also in the animation. The character animation is fantastic, you can infer what each character is thinking by their facial expression, their body language, their eyes, I love it when animated movies do this, it does not just spell out what each character is thinking, it lets you read the characters a lot. Beyond this, the rest of the movie is straight up gorgeous, the colours are all just right, the right tinting of blue, the right shade of yellow, the right brightness of pink, there are many shots in this movie that I feel you could just show someone a still image of and it would blow their minds. Plus, for a late 2000s movie, the textures are really good. Oogway looks properly tortoise like, and Po and Shifu look genuinely furry, like Sulley from Monsters Inc. If I did have one nitpick, I think maybe some of the darker scenes might have been a bit too visually dark, but that's more of a nitpick than anything. It also did not distract from the action scenes, Tai Lung escaping the prison, and fighting the Furious Five on the bridge are easily two of the best fight scenes in animation history, and the final fight with Po was equal parts goofy and awesome.

Overall, I do see why Kung Fu Panda became one of DreamWorks' bigger franchises, and while I can't say this movie is completely perfect, it is pretty close. This movie really is the perfect balance between goofy, emotional and exciting, and it is not surprising to me that it is one of the most loved movies in DreamWorks' filmography. Honestly, most of the DreamWorks movies I have reviewed so far have pretty much been my platinum standard for what any kids movie should be, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Prince of Egypt, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, I'll even throw Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit in that pile. These movies are respectful of their audience, and do not think that "It's for kids" is an excuse. They are not afraid to be more than expected of them, and that is the kind of movie that DreamWorks really excelled at. The team behind this gave us an excellent movie and if there was any movie that earned a "High Recommendation" from me, it is this one. Another gold star for DreamWorks.

Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie (2002): A Perfectly Adequate Bible Movie for Kids

 

Well this review is a bit tricky to write. I was thinking about movies to watch for this blog, and since it is December, this is a biblical story, and I was a big fan of VeggieTales as a kid, I thought this would be the perfect movie to talk about. Then I put the movie in and got reminded that most of the Bible is set in Israel, and Israel has kind of been a hot topic at the moment. Still, I do think this is a good time to talk about this movie, or more accurately the themes of the movie, but my job primarily is to review a movie as a movie, so I'm going to save my soap box standing for the end. Still, Christmas, and most of the winter holidays, is a good time to remind people about good will, kindness, love, friendship and especially compassion and mercy. So, the themes of this movie are good, but the question now becomes, is this a good way to teach these themes?

I was a huge VeggieTales fan as a kid, had plenty of the DVDs and VHS Tapes, and a couple DVDs for 3-2-1 Penguins too. So the main plot structure of this movie is not unfamiliar to me, and shouldn't be for anyone that is familiar with VeggieTales. The stories usually begun with a conflict and the stories being told were lessons on how to resolve the conflicts, and this movie works similarly. The conflict starts when, on their way to a concert, a few misfortunes happen to Bob the Tomato, Dad Asparagus, Junior Asparagus and Laura Carrot, as Bob and Mr. Asparagus get two flat tires on their bus, and Laura loses her concert ticket, which Junior says is her fault for teasing them with it. This is overheard by Pa Grape, Mr. Lunt and Larry the Cucumber, the infamous band of scallywags known as The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, who tell Junior that he should be compassionate to his friend, reciting the tale of Jonah and his voyage to Nineveh. The story is told in a kid friendly way, which... is fine. Sure, I would have liked something like The Prince of Egypt, a much darker movie that doesn't shy away from the drama and trauma of the events, but as a movie for really young kids, this is fine. I won't say it's completely sanitized, like they do have a ridiculous and kinda silly form of execution in the movie, but it's still is execution, it's toned down definitely, but it's still there. I can't think of anything plotwise I take issue with.

VeggieTales is a fun series, mostly because the characters in the films do feel like they're putting on a play or production. So when you see a character like Mr. Nezzer or Archibald Asparagus, even if they play a different character they still have their own characteristics, which means that Jonah, played by Archibald, has a sarcastic side to him that is very entertaining. We also spend a lot of time with the Pirates, and they're an entertaining bunch. I think the only character I'm not to keen on is Khalil, and for two reasons, firstly, he's not a vegetable, he's a half-caterpillar, I'm sorry that just weirds me out a little, like I know animals are a thing in the VeggieTales world, but... actually no, that also weirds me out, why does the VeggieTales world have animals? Okay, one thing at a time, the animals previously in the series were... animals, they never talked, or at least very rarely. The second thing is, you know the whole, white voice actor putting on an accent is a bit of a debate topic, but apparently the performance was nominated for an Annie in 2003, I mean it isn't a bad performance, as long as you can sit through bad Persian accents.

Animation wise, it looks like VeggieTales, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's good because it won't be too alienating to go from direct-to-video CG animation to this movie. To be fair, VeggieTales was a major step forward in CG animation, being one of, if not the first direct-to-video series made with Computer Generated Animation. However, it is also a bit of a weakness in this movie's case, as this was early 2000s CG, and couple that with the almost simplistic style of VeggieTales, some moments of animation don't really mask the weaknesses in the animation, stuff that makes you ask if this was worth putting on the big screen. That being said, there are a lot of fun details, little touches that make the animation a little better. Honestly, I think the same can be said for the writing, there are little moments that give this story more life and identity than just a flat re-telling of the story of Jonah, like during a huge storm, Larry and Mr. Lunt are just playing Go Fish as if nothing is happening. There are some moments in this movie where I did chuckle, or even straight up laugh.

I should also bring up the musical numbers, because as VeggieTales is known for their silly songs, this movie is as one would anticipate, a musical. The songs are... mostly okay. The first real song in the movie "Message from the Lord" is pretty good, there is a line about not eating bats which has aged... interestingly, but most of the other songs are not that great. "It Cannot Be" is a good moment with Jonah having a small crisis, but the backing music sounds like an ambient track you would get in a small quiet moment where the characters look up at the sky or something, and the song "Second Chances" has one of the worst editing choices I've ever seen in an animated movie. The background music is also alright, there was one moment where Jonah was riding a camel, and the music synced with the camel's movements, that was neat. Overall, I can't say this is a bad movie, it's adequate for young kids, and bearable for adults.

And I do think that the themes of this movie are delivered well, Khalil does kind of spell it out at the end, as do the Pirates, but it is shown throughout the movie what compassion and mercy are, and how people should be given second chances. I'm not going to discuss whether I agree with all of it, but I want to stress we should be living these themes, Christmas is a time of love, kindness, friendship and joy, and why do we have to keep that to one time of the year? What stops us from giving our friends gifts any other time of the year? Love, Kindness, Peace, these are not things we should keep to one time, these are things we should live year round, and I think we need to remember that above all else, we need to be good people. Is this movie the best way to send this message? Maybe not, but it's not a bad way either, if you have kids, I do think this movie is worth showing them, regardless of if you're Christian or not, because kindness knows no faith, pray for peace everyone, and fight for goodness.

Ponyo (2008) - An Adorable and Charming Take on a Classic Tale

 

I guess I just am on a bit of an anime kick right now, not really surprising since I've been getting more into graphic novels lately, and that includes manga. It may also be that I really wanted something comforting to watch, and you can't really get more comforting that Studio Ghibli. One of the most recognizable animation studios in Japan, Studio Ghibli is probably what most American audiences think of when they think of "Anime Movie", and it's easy to see why, these stories are cute, charming, resonant, powerful, exciting, creative, Studio Ghibli is a unique brand of animated movie that I don't think we really have an equivalent to in the west, nor does there need to be one. I haven't talked much about Studio Ghibli, mostly because I want to really explore animated movies and find things I wouldn't normally watch on my own, but I did take a look at Whisper of the Heart as my fiftieth movie review, and I thought, it's been a while so maybe I should take a look at another Studio Ghibli movie, and why not make it the first Studio Ghibli movie I ever watched, Ponyo.

At it's core, Ponyo is a retelling of The Little Mermaid, in that it's about a girl from the sea who falls in love with a human boy and wants to become human herself. Ponyo, or Brunhilde, is one of the daughters of Fujimoto, a formerly human sea wizard, yep this is definitely a Studio Ghibli movie. Anyway, Brunhilde swims off and comes across Sōsuke, a five-year old boy who lives on a Cliff by the sea. This is where she gets the name Ponyo, and wishes to become human, and she does, she begins to turn into a human. The problem is, something about the sea world and the human world never being able to fully cross, so either Ponyo has to give up her powers to fully become human, or the world ends. The plot moves along, kind of at it's own pace, there are a lot of scenes that don't really advance the main plot in anyway, but they still work because they serve to show Ponyo learning about and interacting with the human world, and as far as Ghibli movies go, Ponyo is actually not that slow. You can still tell this is a Ghibli movie, it has the pacing and editing, but it's not to the same extent of Whisper of the Heart or My Neighbor Totoro.

It may also not feel slow-paced because Ponyo herself is a highly energetic character. She's usually always running around and laughing, and it never gets too annoying, it also helps that she is just super cute too. The rest of the characters are pretty good, Sōsuke is a good kid, kind, hopeful, I think he's just well developed for the story being told. I think the only character I have some issue with is Lisa, Sōsuke's mother, she does clearly love her son and she's not unlikable, but I do think she can be a bit of an irresponsible parent, like leaving two kids alone during a flood is not something a responsible parent would be doing. Honestly, the characters aren't too complex or deep, pardon the pun, but they work, besides, this story is about Ponyo, and she's a fun and charming character. I also watched the Japanese version available on Netflix, and not the Disney dub this time, and I will say the voice acting was quite excellent, though Fujimoto's voice actor was a bit... I mean when he says the world is gonna end, he doesn't say it with a lot of weight.

Where the movie really shines is in the animation, and yeah, this is a Studio Ghibli movie and they have high quality animation. Not only is it really bright and colourful, but the way they make the water look, with flat colours and different shades of blue is incredible, and the backgrounds are just filled with tiny details, like Ponyo's wet footprints on the concrete, all kinds of creatures moving around. None of which is wholly necessary, but it's all appreciated, it makes each scene come alive, while it also doesn't overstuff each scene with things. When a scene needs to be empty, the scene is empty, like Sōsuke and Ponyo finding Lisa's car on the road, there is only Sōsuke and Ponyo in that scene, and it works so much better because of that. Really, this is kind of a standard for Ghibli movies, what else can I really add about the animation?

And really, what is there more to say about Ponyo? It's just a good movie, solid and likeable characters, a good story, wonderful and detailed animation. Honestly, there is not much else to say about Ponyo, it's a cute, charming, enjoyable watch, and I think this is a great starting place for anyone who wants to get into Studio Ghibli's features. Like, people will always bring up stuff like My Neighbor Totoro or Spirited Away, but if you want something that is more accessible, I think Ponyo is a good place to start. This and Castle in the Sky would be my picks for starting points if you want to get into Studio Ghibli, in fact I should consider doing a review of Castle in the Sky as well. I can't say Ponyo is their best movie, but that is a really high bar to reach considering, and regardless it is a good movie and I definitely recommend it to anyone, consider this one of those "Almost High" recommendations.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) - Phenomenally Boring and One of the Worst Movies I've Ever Seen

 

The emotion of fear doesn't have to revolve around traditionally scary things, there are multiple kinds of fear, including dread, worry, anxiousness, panic, many types of fear. Why do I mention this? Because when I was younger, I popped in a VHS tape my dad had, it was a recorded tape of three movies, it was one of my first double features as I skipped over the first movie on the tape (it was Leon: The Professional if anyone is curious), the movies I watched began with Resident Evil, a really bad movie that I hated watching. Then it started, the movie that I would dub "The worst movie I've ever seen in my life", a movie that would stick in my brain and make me so angry every time I thought about it that even after years of never having rewatched it, it still holds that spot. I've seen some awful movies in that time, and a part of me wonders if this is still the worst, or at least my most hated, of the bunch. It made me mad when I was younger, now it makes me afraid as an adult, it is silly, I know, but I'm walking into this review feeling like a man condemned to the electric chair. Well, here it is, my review of what I dubbed "The Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

The plot follows Dr. Aki Ross as she tries to find some energy forms known as "Spirits" in order to save the Earth from an alien threat known as The Phantoms, translucent beings that are almost immune to physical attacks and seem to kill people by attack their life essence. See, all beings have this kind of essence to them, and organic life forms are apparently attached to the spirit of the Earth known as The Gaia, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything Final Fantasy that I am aware of. Okay, I know that there is some form of environmental theme in Final Fantasy VII, but like, there is nothing Final Fantasy about this Final Fantasy movie, I mean this is normally the point where I would say, "Full disclosure I've never played a Final Fantasy game ever", but that literally does not matter here because even I, who knows next to nothing about the games, can find nothing that identifies this movie as Final Fantasy, you literally could have called this movie "Spirits of Gaia" it would still work. As for the plot itself, I mean it moves along fine, they have a major reveal in the first third of the movie that would have worked better in the second act, and the big reveal of the movie is that the phantoms, beings I have described as similar to ghosts, are actually ghosts of an alien species. What a reveal...

However, that really isn't the biggest issue with the plot, the biggest problem with the plot, and really the entire movie is that it's boring. It is really boring, like I have never seen a movie this boring before. Remember when I was reviewing Open Season and I mentioned that I don't find boring movies to be worse than bad movies? This is the exception to that statement, this is the boring movie that is worse than bad movies. Open Season was boring but it was an uninspired kind of boring, Wonder Park was boring but it was a predictable kind of boring, this movie is almost offensively boring.

I think the big problem is that the crew were too focused on the animation and graphics. This movie had a 137 Million dollar budget, not the most expensive animated movie ever made, Treasure Planet had a budget of 140 Million, but that is just one of the examples of how much they hoped the visuals would save this movie. It took four years to complete this movie, and 960 workstations to render it all, they wanted this to be one of the first photorealistic computer-generated movies ever, and the worst part about all of it is that it doesn't look all that great. Like, it looks no different from a PS3 game really, which is funny because a later Final Fantasy project would also be known for trying to push graphics to an absurd degree to the point where background plants had just as much polygons, if not more, than human players. Apparently when it comes to Final Fantasy, lessons are always learned the hard way. 2001 was the year Monsters, Inc. was released and that movie still looks great today, while this one doesn't look that great.

It also does not help that it really does feel like more effort was put into the characters, apparently 100,000 polygons, than towards their personality. I could not tell you anything about these characters, maybe one or two aspects, but rather than give time developing the characters and their relationships, they just dump exposition. There is a scene in the movie where one of the characters watches one of her team get killed, and she just gives up and lets the Phantoms kill her too, I'm sorry, all through the movie she made it clear she did not think too highly of this character, now I'm meant to believe that she actually liked him, and not just that, but enough to actually give up fighting after he died? Honestly, such a waste of a decent cast, Donald Sutherland, Alec Baldwin, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi, James Woods, Ming-Na Wen, Peri Gilpin, not bad actors, but they really weren't given the best writing or direction.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is notorious for being one of the worst Box Office Bombs in cinema history, grossing just over 85 million dollars and was one of the major causes for Square's financial trouble that lead to them merging with Enix Corporation. Honestly, I can see why, it banked too much on the visuals and not enough on the story or characters, there is no hook to keep anyone watching, let alone coming back, and I can't imagine this would be any good for Final Fantasy fans either. Is this still the worst movie I have ever seen? Honestly, I don't know, I can think of movies that I hate more, but not really movies I like less. With all of that said, is there anything good about this movie?

I'd say there is, it makes fantastic white noise.

The Simpsons Movie (2007) - A Good Movie with a Bit of a Deeper Side

 

Has there been a movie that you feel is underappreciated? Not a movie that is over-hated or obscure, I'm talking about movies that generally, people are positive towards, but not necessarily favourable. Like, you bring up the movie and people will go "Yeah, that was a good movie", but not much else. For me, The Simpsons Movie is that movie, that movie I think doesn't really get the admiration it deserves, which is weird don't you think? I mean, this movie is not something like Felidae, a risky and one of a kind animated movie, nor is it like Treasure Planet, a very expertly crafted movie that can be considered a masterpiece. The Simpsons Movie seems like it would fall more into the camp of movies like The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie or DuckTales: The Movie, good movies that are entertaining, but that's all they aspire to be, and there is nothing wrong with movies that just want to be solid entertainment, but to say The Simpsons Movie is one of the most underappreciated movies, is to imply that it is more than an entertaining romp with our favourite characters. It also helps that I've been watching a bunch of Simpsons episodes recently, strike the ADHD iron while it's hot, am I right?

The plot is not wholly different from a usual Simpsons episode, it starts with one plot and then veers into another entirely. As condensed as I can make it, The Simpsons Movie follows the Simpson family as another one of Homer's screw-ups puts Springfield under a dome, but they manage to escape. It's kind of like three Simpsons episodes put together, like the first part is Lisa's plot about the lake and Homer's plot about getting a pig, then the second part is the dome, and finally it's Alaska and the plan to blow up Springfield. Despite this, each bit flows into each other nicely, we can see the progression from point A to point B to point C. Homer gets the pig, needs to dispose of it's feces, and dumps it into the lake, which was established to be heavily polluted by Lisa's plot. This prompts EPA involvement which leads to the dome, and so on and so forth. However, this plot is not the stuff I want to talk about, it's fantastically done, but there is something deeper here.

The Simpsons Movie is about how far one man will go to protect the people he loves. That statement may sound wrong, after all this is Homer Simpson we're talking about, this is like saying Family Guy is about one man learning to love his family. However, Homer is not Peter Griffin, while both of their idiotic tendencies have been amplified over the years, there are lines Homer would never cross that Peter has. Peter is callous while Homer is just thick in the head, so it doesn't feel like a stretch to say that this movie is about him and the lengths he'll go to protect his family. Listen to his excuses when the angry mob is trying to kill him, his excuse is that he's afraid for his family, obviously a cover for his real fear, but it's interesting that his first excuse was to protect his family. Him blowing off Marge as she uses his own words against him, an awful thing absolutely, but think of it from his perspective, he and his family are safe, and now Marge wants to risk everyone's life for a town that tried to kill them. Homer also does ridiculous things like dog sled, and then walk, from Alaska to Springfield, or does the motorcycle ride up the dome, this is not a man who doesn't care. He is destroyed when Marge and the kids leave to save Springfield, and his epiphany vision has features them prominently.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that this is one of the deepest character dives in cinema history. I am however, going to say that this movie might have been hiding something in plain sight. I could easily see the writers pitching ideas for how Homer goes from Alaska to Springfield, and they could have done something really silly and jokey, like Homer dog sledding to an airport or a seaport, or even managing to hitchhike with some hilarious one-off character, but they went with something that wasn't as silly, which strikes me as interesting.

Beyond the plot, the movie is pretty solid. It's comedy is a bit... 2000s, but there are a lot of jokes and gags that do make me chuckle, to straight up roar with laughter. This movie was released between Seasons between 18 and 19, which is the era of Simpsons I grew up with, so if you're fond of this era of The Simpsons, I think there should be some bits here that you'll enjoy. These are still some of our favourite characters with some good writing. Admittedly, the satire stuff, like President Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Mr. Burns claiming "For once the rich white man is in charge", have aged a bit, and one gag about Fox advertising shows during movies, I mean in the era of Streaming, that joke feels like a relic of a by-gone era, but I think there are more jokes that are still fresh, than jokes that are aged and kind of groan worthy.

Animation wise, there are a couple flaws I noticed, like Lip-Syncing not matching with dialogue, some shots where characters look out of place, and some movement animation not being complete, but overall, they really aren't obvious. I swear anyone who says that "You need to study animation to appreciate it more" really has no clue what they're talking about, because I've become way more critical of animation since learning to animate. Barring these minor flubs, The Simpsons Movie doesn't really look all that much different from modern HD era Simpsons, maybe a little bit cleaner, like you can tell the difference at a glance, but it doesn't look too different. I think it looks great, minor flubs aside.

The amusing thing is, The Simpsons 2000s run, and even their modern run, are kind of getting second looks. People are going back to these seasons and going "You know, maybe our initial reaction was a bit harsh", yet people don't seem to be doing the same for The Simpsons Movie. I feel that is a bit unfair. I think the problem is it isn't completely a fun and wacky adventure with our favourite characters, but it also isn't something that is entirely deep and emotional, it's kind of an attempt to balance the two. I don't know if audiences would prefer it skew more towards one way or another. On the one hand, a wackier plot would be funnier, but it would be reminiscent of a standard episode like "Bart on the Road" or "Kill the Alligator and Run", whereas a more serious plot would let us care more for the characters, but would ultimately leave behind what The Simpsons is, it's a comedy, not a Drama.

I think there is a lot here to admire about this movie, it is still The Simpsons, the characters and humour are still here. Plus, given a plot that is both silly and character-driven, I really do think that you should take another look at this movie. With The Simpsons modern era getting some more appreciation recently, people may look at the movie as the bridge between classic era and Modern era Simpsons, I don't think it is, "Classic" and "Modern" are descriptors that change with time. I feel like The Simpsons Movie gets lost a little, and I think it should get another chance in the spotlight. I don't think it's on par with the best Simpsons episodes, but when you have highs such as "Cape Feare", "And Maggie Makes Three" or "Last Exit to Springfield", that is a pretty high bar to reach. I say, give it a watch, and let it stand on its own merits, and I think you'll find this movie is more than you may have initially thought of it.

Open Season (2006) - A Rather Uninspired and Basic Kids Movie

 

Nostalgia is a dangerous thing, be wary of it. Those fond memories you have are not entirely based on quality. When everything was new and exciting, you will remember it as better than it was, simply because it was new and exciting, but always remember that memories can be deceiving, and it is best to acknowledge when what you are nostalgic for, is not really that good. By all means, hold onto the precious memories, but do not let them cloud your judgement of your future, your now, for as the Tragically Hip song goes, "You can't be fond of living in the past, 'cause if you are than there's no way you're gonna last". I am not above admitting that Open Season was a movie I enjoyed as a kid, but as time has moved forward, I've not come back to this one in a long time. Is there a reason I've left this movie behind alongside other aspects of my childhood? Or is there something worth growing up with?

The story follows Boog, a Grizzly Bear as he is relocated from his shelter home back into the woods after an incident. A deer named Elliot with a missing antler tries to get him back into his home before open season starts, which causes more problems for everyone involved. As a plot, it moves along alright, the only nitpicks I have are like really minor things that don't really matter. Like, there's a point where Boog is meant to find something in his teddy bear, which he finds because of hearing them break, earlier in the movie he throws his bear at something, and there is not a breaking sound. Again, it's a really minor thing that doesn't really matter, but the rest of the movie is uninteresting to the point where I'm left wondering about stuff like this because it's much more interesting. Which falls mostly on the fact that the plot is not really unique, and the characters aren't interesting.

I'm not really invested in these characters, and I think part of that is because they're really standard, Boog is a character we've seen before and nothing is really done that differently with him. He's the fish out of water, out of his element, and the only thing that really separates him from other characters of this type is that he's a bear. Elliot is your annoying moron sidekick, and that's it. There's some stuff about him being kicked out of his herd, but I can think of way better idiot sidekicks in animated movies. I think another part of it is the voice acting, no offense to Martin Lawrence and Ashton Kutcher, but they're voices do not really match the designs. Martin Lawrence's voice fits the pampered and tamed side of Boog, but I don't really buy it when he's supposed to be angry, it's just kind of too smooth for that, and Elliot's design just does not fit Ashton Kutcher's voice. It's a shame because the rest of the cast isn't bad, especially Gary Sinise, who plays the hunter Shaw, and he's really the only character I wanted to watch in this movie. The rest of the cast is okay, Gordon Tootoosis, Patrick Warburton, Billy Connolly, not bad choices, and they do solid jobs, but we're not spending most of our time with them.

That really is about the best I can say about the technical side of this movie, because the animation and soundtrack are both uninspired. The animation really has that early 2000s first feature vibe to it, it really does look like this was Sony Pictures Animation's first animated feature, which it was, so I can't be too hard on the animation, but when you look at their future films, with movies like Hotel Transylvania and their stylized CG animation, the jump in quality is just too noticeable. It isn't terrible animation, but it's on par with the time period. Similarly, the soundtrack isn't awful, in fact I do kinda like the opening song, but most of the other songs are just kind of generic and I feel they only used because they couldn't use similar sounding songs by R.E.M., it's like this movie saw Shrek, and wanted to have the dollar store version of its soundtrack.

On top of being really "2000s" in the animation and soundtrack, it's also kind of generic kids movie humour, admittedly there were some jokes I chuckled at, like when Boog drops Elliot off a cliff, only for the camera to reveal he caught him, that was a cute gag. Otherwise, most of the humour just did not hit, and it wouldn't, it was a movie made for kids in the 2000s, it wasn't really designed to grow up with them. This is the kind of children's movie I can't stand, it's the Duck Duck Goose or the Swan Princess, the kind of kids movies that are made just to entertain kids and not enrich them. I do think both of those movies are worse than this, Duck Duck Goose was taken to an almost insulting degree and The Swan Princess was a theatrical knock-off, and both of which irritate me more than this movie ever could, but that's mostly because this movie is just... uninspired.

The biggest crime of this movie is that it aims moderately and barely reaches the bar. The animation, soundtrack, characters and story are all uninspired and basic, it's not hard for me to imagine this movie being the favourite of many kids, but it isn't hard for me to see them forgetting about this movie either, because there isn't much in this movie that sticks with you. Some might argue that a boring movie is worse than a bad movie, and on some level I agree, but that implies that all kinds of "bad" and "boring" are the same, I mean, is this movie boring? Yes, is it worse than Duck Duck Goose? The Barbie Diaries? Felix the Cat? The Magic Voyage? Well, I'd much rather watch a movie that is uninspired and boring than any of those, so in this case I'd argue that a boring movie is better than a bad movie, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad movie. I can't recommend this one, maybe if you have little kids they'd be entertained, but they'd probably be just as entertained with any other kids movie. I have some memories with this movie, but I don't think I'll be making any new ones.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) - Another Jewel in the Crown of Pixar

 

You know what just hit me? I really haven't been talking about Pixar on this blog. Outside of the Toy Story marathon I did in preparation for Toy Story 4, and the occasional First Impressions, I haven't talked Pixar that much, and that is a darn shame because Pixar is easily one of my favourite animation studios ever. Pixar literally revolutionized animation with their Computer Graphics and stories that spoke to both the children and adults in the audience. These were the movies that carried Disney through their post-renaissance era and eventually the kind of movies Disney would end up making. Pixar is a really important part of animation history, so I thought it would be a good idea to review one of their movies this time, and since I'm still celebrating getting three-quarters closer to the big one-double zero reviews, let's look at another one of my favourites, Monsters, Inc.

The story focuses on two monsters, Mike Wazowski and James Sullivan, otherwise known as Sulley. They work at, what is essentially a power production facility in the monster world, which is a clever piece of worldbuilding as their world is powered by the screams of children... that sounds really horrible when I say it like that. The two are the top of their workforce, but then Sulley finds a door on the scare floor while working late and accidentally lets a child in the monster world, which is really bad considering this world is afraid of children and sees them as dangerous, deadly and toxic. Sulley and Mike now need to return the child without raising suspicion, but they soon find that there is something much more sinister at work than them. The overall story flows really nicely, you can see how the events lead into each other, and it's pretty genius how they set up the laughter plot point, I will say the reveal is okay, maybe a bit too subtle, but after a couple viewings you do get to notice things like the careful wording of Waternoose when Mike is explaining the situation to him. I don't think it's the best reveal in a Disney or Pixar movie, but it is not the worst.

While I'm on the subject, one thing I want to mention is the ending. I think the ending to Monsters, Inc. is one of the best endings to not just any animated movie, but any movie period. It's a really touching ending, especially when you consider the characters. The characters are really well written for this movie, they don't talk like cartoon characters, they talk like real people, with real quips and backtalk, almost to the point where, even though I hear John Goodman and Billy Crystal, I don't see them, I see their characters. This is a contrast to performances like Jeff Bridges in The Last Unicorn or Orson Welles in The Transformers movie, where I could only picture the actors in the recording booth. You have Sulley, a humble and hardworking guy, and Mike, a narcissistic but generally good person. They're both likeable, but not perfect. I don't think I really appreciated Mike as a character until I watched TheRealJims' YouTube video about the movie. It really made me appreciate the movie in a new way. On top of that, the rest of the main cast is also entertaining, Randall is perfectly sinister and slimey, Mr. Waternoose is authoritative and seemingly friendly, and Roz is just... a perfect character. On top of that each monster has a very unique design, many of which I don't think I've seen in other monster media.

I think animation wise, this is easily one of the best looking animated movies of the 2000s. The character design alone, you can see almost every hair on Sulley, and you can almost feel the scaly texture of Randall's skin. To be fair, most of the environments this movie takes place in are pretty bland, when you think of a monster world you might think of something much more stylized like Nightmare Before Christmas, or Aah! Real Monsters, but I don't really mind the more mundane environments, the interesting and unique monster deigns more than make up for the more mundane world. On top of that, when this movie wants to get visually interesting, it gets visually interesting. The climax of this movie is easily one of the best and most exciting animated climaxes in cinema, and the reveal of the massive door storage area still amazes me to this day. Major credit to the animation team behind this movie.

Ultimately, I don't even know what else to add without stealing lines from other reviews. I mean, Monsters, Inc. is fantastic, and easily one of my favourite Pixar movies, definitely on the same level as Up and Toy Story 3. The story is well written, the characters are likeable, the voice acting is excellent, and the animation is superb, it really is incredible that Pixar was capable of hitting peaks like this early in their history. Really, this is another movie, I really doubt that you needed me, or really anyone, to tell you how good it was, it's one of Disney-Pixar's most popular movies, getting a prequel movie, and a spin-off series on Disney+ which... not really something I'm into, but that's not important. At the end of the day, Pixar really is one of the best animation studios around, and Monsters, Inc. is just one of their many amazing movies that any animation fan must see, if they haven't already. Really, do I even need to say I give it a High Recommendation?