Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Mr. Popper's Penguins (2011)
Contrived, but still Charming
Before I begin, let me say this: I like Jim Carrey. I really do. In fact, I watched Ace Ventura: Pet Detective back when I was a kid, and I still find it funny today. But, as with most actors and comedians, there is that little thing called shtick. Don't we all see a pattern when we see those familiar faces on the screen? In fact, it seems to generate the same kind of reaction: We become endeared to it at first, but then it gets real by the time the fourth or fifth movie rolls around. Will Ferrel, Adam Sandler and even Carey himself, are all the biggest 'offenders,' so to speak, in this day and age. But, for the sake of this interview, let's focus on the latter, and how this movie relates to his 'shtick.' The movie in question, if it wasn't obvious already, is Carey's latest venture, Mr. Popper's Penguins. Based looselythe key word being 'loosely'on the 1938 novel by Richard and Florence Atwater, "Penguins" tells the story of a work-obsessed businessman named Tom Popper, whose life is turned upside down when he inherits six penguins from his late explorer father. As is wont, his cold heart begins to melt by means of the flightless, cold-loving birds. In the meanwhile, he tries to evade suspicions of his bosses, a respected entrepreneur, and a brown-nosing zoo keeper while also rekindling his relationship with his estranged ex-wife and kids. And, yes, that's the plot in a nutshell. But, does that mean it's as mind-numbing as it sounds? No, my friends. It's not as bad as it seems.
First off, let's get the downside out of the way. The plot is thoroughly and shamelessly predictable. It is riddled with so many clichés, that I could sit there, predict every turn the movie was going to take and be right. Also, I sat there and counted sixyes, sixpoop or fart jokes. There may have been a couple that I missed during a bathroom break, but I'm sure there were a couple more that I could have counted. I blush to admit it, but I do laugh at potty humor, but only when I don't expect it or it makes the movie actually funny. Again, predictability killed the mood for me.
However, for all its faults, it's more charming than repulsive. Carrey, though he is relying on his standard, over the top shtick, is not overshadowing those adorable penguins. But, aside from Carrey, his six co-stars, and his estranged family, there are two saving graces for this movie. Mr. Popper's secretary, Pippi (played by British actress Ophelia Lovibond) is a prim little poppet with a penchant for alliterating all her sentences with any and every word beginning with the letter P. She does grate a little bit, but she is still quite adorable. The other actress to show her face here is the great Angela Lansbury, who plays the owner of a restaurant that Popper used to eat at with his late father. It is so refreshing to see this woman on the silver screen again, especially for a girl who grew up with the likes of Beauty and the Beast and Bedknobs and Broomsticks (There's alliteration there, too, eh? Oh, darn this movie!). She still retains that grace and charm through all the forced dialogue and situations, and I applaud her for that.
Overall, my feelings for this movie can best be summed up by its summary on RottenTomatoes.com: "Bland, inoffensive, and thoroughly predictable, Mr. Popper's Penguins could have been worse
but it should have been better." But for all its faults, its charming, fun and completely harmless. It's probably best for kids, but animal lovers will love the cuddly penguins, and Carrey fans will like seeing their idol on screen. Give it a shot and decide for yourselves.
Alternate Title: Existentialism by Salvador Dali
If you took Sam Peckinpah, Terry Gilliam, and Disney and put them all on Hunter S. Thompson's brainwaves, you would get Rango. Yes, this movie is as outrageous as it sounds. It's surreal, it's gritty, it's undoubtedly sneaky with its wit and humor, and its all the more fun because of it.
The film stars a chameleon (Johnny Depp), going through an existential crisis, as he has lived his whole life in a terrarium. When that life is quicklyand literallyshattered, he finds himself walking in search of water. Instead, he finds a town called Dirt, where all the residents are plagued by outlaws and a severe lack of water, which is used as currency, it's so rare. Rango, seeking acceptance, assumes the role of sheriff, a role that has been played before, but with more unfortunate results. To make matters worse, someone is dumping water in the desert and draining all of dirt's resources. Who could it be, what is their diabolical plan, and is Rango really the unlikely hero of his own story?
In case it wasn't obvious enough from this summary, the film's tone is surreal, complex and almost shockingly mature for an animated picture. It blends in so very many movie references, blending the gritty, revisionist western with the surrealism of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a too-obvious comparison on the latter's part. Director Gore Verbinski had a unique way of producing and directing this picture: he gathered Depp and all the other actors on a sound stage, in various costumes, acting out their scenes, as a sort of visual reference. Depp affectionatelyand appropriatelycalled this 'Emotion capture,' as it gives the movie a more natural, organic feel, as if the reactions were believable. When it's put on screen, it's full realized in both interaction and appearance.
What most people have touched on when talking about the pros of this movie is, indeed, the stellar animation and, boy, is it stellar. Granted, some of the human cameos are kind of on the flat side, but our animal heroes are textured and expressive, which is important in this kind of movie. We can reach out and touch these sets if we were able; the roughness of the scales, the harsh desert heat and the sponge and spikes of cacti that crop up throughout are just a few of the details in this grand visual experience. The characters that make up this floundering town are actually interesting to look at and listen to, as the animation and awesome voice work give them all distinct and likable personalities.
Resident include old prospector mouse Spoons, large, but quiet tomcat Elgin, morose, trigger happy little aye-aye Priscilla (Breslin), and, my favorite, the kind, but no-nonsense Beans (Fischer), a rancher lizard who finds herself falling for the goofy, but sincere hero. But, by far, the biggest fan favorite has to be Bill Nighy's rogue, Rattlesnake Jake, who is hands-down, flat-out scary in any scene he is in! How any kid will survive his scenes is beyond me! However, that made him more of a threat that Rango needs to overcome, which is more satisfying in the long run.
Overall, while Rango has a few glaring problems (like seeing the Spirit of the West, who had been built up too much to show his face and be effective), Rango is easily one of the best movies of the year, if not one of the best-animated movies. It's surreal, but rewarding; strange but still gets the message across in a reasonable way that all can understand. Just don't bring the under 7 crowd, as it may be too odd and definitely too scary (*coughRATTLESNAKEJAKEcough*), but for those who can tolerate it, Rango is a trip that you soon won't be forgetting, no matter how many times you watch "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."
(I mean, you're already in a reptile house if you think about
Oh, never mind
"Solid, Humorous Story with a Fairy Tale Feel..."
When I heard that Disney was finally going to adapt the classic Grimm's fairy tale, Rapunzel, I was ecstatic. For as long as I can remember, I have been waiting for them to pick it up and put their own spin on it. The final product is the musical comedy Tangled, which, while not as edgy as I would have liked it to be, was still very enjoyable. The tale is kooky, funny, moving, uplifting, andwhat elseDisney.
Directed by the co-directors of 2008's Bolt, Tangled is a twist on the traditional tale of Rapunzel, wherein the damsel (played by a sweet-n-spicy Mandy Moore) possesses magical hair, which is kept by the villainous Mother Gothel (played with malice by Donna Murphy) to maintain the latter's physical beauty. When a charming but irresponsible rogue thief named Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) seeks refuge in her tower, she sees this as her ticket out of there, and off to see the floating lanterns released every year on her birthday. These lanterns are released as a memorandum to a kidnapped princess that was stolen on that very same day. Coincidence? I think not.
What makes this movie work is the timing. The trailers tried to appeal way to much to the hip crowd, making it out to look like another floppy animated comedy. But, when I checked out the story, the characters and, finally, saw the movie itself, I realized it kept tighter to the traditional Disney formula of once upon a time and far away, but it was also giving off its own vibe, without trying to be something its not. The jokes all worked, for the most part, and helped tell the story instead of clogging it up with throwaway jokes, which I do appreciate.
The story also shows one of personal growth, especially that of Flynn Rider, whose story this really should have been. He starts off as an irresponsible thief, trying to find a shortcut out of sticky situations with his charm. On his journey with Rapunzel, he falls in love with her spirited nature and even gives his life to save her but I won't give too much of that away. Donna Murphy's villainous Mother Gothel was also pleasantly over-the-top, but gradually became more threatening as the tale went on. Even though she is not Disney's strongest villainess, she still is a pretty fun one.
The art in this movie also helps tell the story, as well as makes everything look lush and colorful. Rapunzel's hair is one of the most awesome props in the movie, and makes it out to be something more than just looking pretty. It's used as a swing, a rope, a makeshift weapon besides that darn frying panas well as a light and a healing device, which is activated by a special song. Everything else, the flowers, the foliage, water, characters, all look amazing, even if it is in computer animation. The most beautiful scene though, is when Rapunzel and Flynn watch the floating lanterns from the lagoon surrounding the palace. It was here that I started to get a little teary eyed until the ending.
The only real problems with it were A) I would have liked to see it in traditional 2D animation and B) I would have liked Rapunzel to be a bit edgier (and a tad skeptical, but how WOULD you feel if you spend your whole life in a tower). However, as is, I think it's one of the best Disney films out there so far.
All in all, Tangled is a fantastic watch, with beautiful animation, a solidas well as funny storyline, and fantastic songs and voicework. While not as good as Dreamworks' earlier 2010 release, How to Train your Dragon, OR even 2009's The Princess and the Frog, it still holds up.
A Miser Brothers' Christmas (2008)
Yep, They've Still Got It!
Finally, after 34 years, the brothers are BACK! Produced by Warner Brothers Animation, who hold the rights to the original Rankin/Bass classics, and Cuppa Coffee studios, this special turns the spotlight to the Misers, turning them into heroes. When Santa is outed with a bad back, the two brothers are forced to cooperate and deliver toys in the big man's place. While the Miser Brothers' mischief and constant bickering have been blamed for Mr. C's condition, this is truly the doing of the North Wind, a semi-dashing, conniving spirit who wants to take Christmas for himself. Now, the brothers must band together not only to do Santa's job, but save Christmas from their blustery windbag of a brother...pun GLADLY intended!
I must say I was ecstatic when I heard my favorite characters from The Year Without a Santa Claus would be getting the spotlight. While that is a good thing, I am kind of sad to say that it doesn't hold up as well as the original film from which they came. Granted there are some good things: George S. Irving and Mickey Rooney, both actors pushing 90 at the time, reprised their roles as Heat Miser and Santa Claus, respectively. Though sounding a bit aged, both held their own (Rooney and John Goodman have always been the best to portray The Big C, in my opinion), and that's pretty impressive. The new voice of Snow Miser, Juan Chiron, though different from the late Dick Shawn, was pretty darn good, maintaining Snowy's lighthearted demeanor. But, with every good thing, there must be a bad thing.
First of all, the plot is flimsy. We've seen it before, we'll probably see it again, but the writers could have been a little more original. Second, a lot of the voices are HORRIBLE. Mrs. Claus, for instance, was voiced by the late Shirley Booth in the original; and while I can't say that I particularly liked Booth's voice, at least it was tolerable. This version's Mrs. C was just ridiculous! The actress was just trying way too hard to impress the kiddies instead of the audience as a whole, which, to me, is what a family movie--or special, in this case--is truly about: finding something everyone can like. But, I digress. I also didn't really care for the North Wind. He was just a clichéd, full of himself villain, and while vanity is a good point for developing many villains, they could have made him a bit more threatening. Again, balance is essential for good family entertainment.
That being said, while the movie's condescending tone can grate on my nerves, I can say that the Misers themselves were still fun to watch and you should check it out. However, I do recommend the original 1974 movie, The Year Without a Santa Claus, being that it was a bit more enjoyable. You'll also understand the characters a little more after seeing it. But, still look at this special, as well. You'll still see that the brothers still got it!
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
'Sweeping, Action-Packed, and All With Plenty of Heart'
Ah, good ol' Dreamworks. As their most successful-albeit overused-cash cow is the Shrek series; it's pretty hard to distinguish any other of their movies as gems. However, while a humorous approach has been taken to their movies, many of them have had different results. For example, the 2004 movie 'Shark Tale' was an utter disaster, while 2008's 'Kung Fu Panda' was funny as well as plenty entertaining. Their latest romp, 'How to Train your Dragon,' definitely falls into the same category as the latter, but also succeeds in distinguishing itself as a completely different movie.
Based on the book series by British author Cressida Cowell and directed by Disney alum Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch), the story centers around a young Viking lad named Hiccup (Jay Baruchel, whose nasal tone compliments him both physically and mentally) whose absent- minded ideas and wry sense of humor make him outcasted by other Viking teens, as well as shunned by his father, the mighty Stoick (Gerard Butler, also perfect). But, when one of his inventions actually manages to capture the mysterious Night Fury, he finds himself befriending it in secret, as well as learning from it to become the first 'dragon trainer.' But when he finds himself at odds with not only the town, but with the dragons themselves, he also finds himself with the key to making peace betwixt the dragons and Vikings.
The plot itself-even in a nutshell-is pretty enticing, but the trailer proved otherwise. It looked formulaic and joke-ridden from the first trailer, which made my skeptical side say, 'no way, Jose!' However, during the second trailer, I was reeled in. It was more dramatic, more depth defying, and definitely more plausible. From there, I was eager to see it and, let me say, its money well spent.
At first, it seems that the plot is going to be a little formulaic. You know the story: The underdog, who everyone hates and can't seem to do anything right, proves the town wrong with his groundbreaking, but effective methods. That has indeed been done before, but, surprisingly, this plot enhances the story instead of slowing it down. Anything that seems to be a cliché only gives the story the wings to fly...excuse the pun.
The other big issue I had was with the side characters. No, I don't mean the brash, but helpful Gobber (played by a highly entertaining Craig Ferguson) or the beautiful, fiercely driven Astrid (America Fererra). I mean some of the other teens who are thrown into the dragon training ring with Hiccup, who is inept at first, but his friendship with Toothless helps him make his way up. Anyway, I thought that these four teens: The pigheaded jock, Snotlout (Jonah Hill, another cash cow), the adorable, girth-wide nerd Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz- Plasse, aka Superbad's McLovin), and, my personal favorites, the jugheaded, head-butting twins Ruffnut (a gravelly-voiced Kristen Wigg) and Tuffnut (A snarky TJ Miller). The latter have become a cult following that is huge in the online and fandom communities, much to the moviegoer's surprise. However, in the movie, these teens are only here to serve as the play- it-by-numbers obstacles that our main hero has to overcome on his own, though there are definitely more pressing issues. I would have liked to see more of them in the film, despite the fact that they might take away from the story. It just would have been nice to see someone sympathize with Hiccup.
Oh, and one more thing-the dragons, man! All of them also have different types and personalities, which I think is kind of awesome. The flying scenes are pretty cool too, described by many to make 'Avatar' jealous. There's a lot to look at, so why not? Overall, this movie has more heart than most of their works (Save 'Kung Fu Panda'), as well as unbelievably creative settings and creatures. It's definitely worth the time to be swept off your feet by this instant classic.
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
"Gritty, Weighty, and All the Same Childlike...Pure Sendak!"
Maurice Sendak, who recently passed away, was one of the most controversial yet still imaginative authors to ever have been published. The stories he wrote are very much like Grimm's Fairy Tales: whimsical and fun, but still dark and threatening. He didn't pander or sugarcoat his stories simply because he didn't feel a need (as well as a rather unpleasant childhood that introduced him to mortality in a less gentle light than most kids, but that's another story). These come through in such books as 1981's Outside Over There, 1970's In the Night Kitchen, and, in the case of this review, 1963's Where the Wild Things Are.
The funny thing about the latter is that this book is only 9 sentences long! That's a short book, even by children's standards, despite the story being told more with pictures than words. So, naturally, director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers had to go out on a limb with the extra effort if they were to successfully make a movie based on it. The effort is an interesting and impressive venture; No embellishment, no sugarcoating, just a stripped- down, but still whimsical tale of a child's curiosity and imagination.
The story is pretty much the same: Max, (Max Records, believably a kid), an imaginative, but frustrated kid gets into a fight with his stressed-out mother (Catherine Keener), runs away, and soon finds himself floating to a strange land, wherein dwell creatures that are both terrifying and fascinating at the same time. It's a simple story, but, as said before, they get across a lot with what they have.
The performances in this movie are stellar. Max Records plays Max as...well, a kid. He doesn't pander to the audience or become cloying and 'pwe-shuss' at any point in the movie. He's angry, bratty, imaginative, playful, greedy, attention-seeking, kind and all those other things a normal kid is. This doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him humble and endearing when coming across what he sees and experiences with the titular "Wild Things." Speaking of which, these creatures not only look great, but are also something of (which has been made abundantly clear by most of the critics, but it's still there) a representation of Max himself. Take the imposing, but enthusiastic Carol (James Gandolfini, aka Tony Soprano), for instance. He's Max's pent-up frustration, creativity and longing for love. Loudmouth Judith (Catherine O'Hara, a scene stealer) is Max's brazen independence. Gentle Ira (Forest Witaker), is Max's artistic ideals. Shy Alexander (Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano) is Max's longing to be heard, as well as his fragile naïveté. And the gentle KW (Lauren Ambrose) is the feeling of maternity that Max has not felt from his own mother in a long, long time. Once he discovers these fragments and puts them together, he realizes that there is more love to be had at home than he realized.
The visuals in this movie are also great. The place where the island is doesn't have any magical places aside from the Wild Things themselves, but its full of trees, dirt and desert plains that are barren and empty. But, it's what they do with it that makes it impressive. They have huts made of branches, a dirt clod fight, long walks along the desert, and even the building of a huge hut. It's so massive, just like an imagination.
The only problem with this movie is that it can gets pretty depressing at times. It's probably supposed to be pushing boundaries, as the original book did, but the conversations, dialogue and themes can become quite weighty, and brings the movie to a grinding halt. This is especially true towards the end, when Carol becomes more and more savage, and tensions rise between Max and the Wild Things. But, that being said, it does give the movie some conflict and raises the stakes for Max's safe return home, despite his strong bond with these creatures.
Overall, this movie is, like the book, a portrait of childhood at its core. There's no talking down to the audience, but at the same time, it's more for nostalgic adults than kids. But, the adults that enjoyed the book will enjoy what Jones, Egger, Sendak, and this movie have to say. It also looks beautiful, with fantastic sets, creatures, and characters to ogle at. There's so much love and detail put into this movie that all that can be said is...well...
I'd eat this movie up, I love it so...even though Roger Ebert beat me to that, it's still true.
Julie & Julia (2009)
Pleases the Pallate and Funny Bone
As a movie after my own heart--and cravings--I thoroughly enjoyed this cinematic treat (Pun gladly intended). Meryl Streep is a winner as Julia Child and does her a world of good. She gets Child down to a T, all the way down to her funny little voice and height, which gained many, many laughs from the audience. Amy Adams, though not as sizzling as Streep, is a pleasure to watch as Julie Powell, a frustrated secretary and writer, who challenges herself to cook all 520 recipes in Child's famous "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." Adams, who earned my attention in "Taladega Knights" and "Enchanted" is a delight to watch on screen, though her character is a bit anal at times. The plot is as rich and enticing as a delicatessen dessert (Get used to it, there's a lot of food analogies in this review) and makes you laugh at times. Many, many times. Oh, and don't watch this on an empty stomach. I'm craaaaaving that raspberry creme Powell makes to accompany a SAVORY beef stew...you see what I mean? Food, food everywhere and not one bite to eat!
I hate giving mediocre reviews. I just don't like criticizing much. But, to expand as a 'critic,' per se, I'd like to make an exception.
So, I have chosen to review a movie about one of the most tragic disasters in the world, which cost thousands of lives and pound upon pound of steel hurtling into the icy depths of the Atlantic. I'm sorry to say, though, that this is not the strong, near-accurate portrayal given in the beautiful James Cameron version.
This is the version butchered by an Italian filmmaker, titled, "Titanic: The Legend Goes On."
The plot of this movie is hard to decipher. There are so many of them interwoven that they simply overlap (unlike "Despereaux", which linked them together seamlessly). But, I will give it a try. The main story centers around two lovers named Angelica and William. Angelica's story is an obvious rip-off of Cinderella, what, with her cruel stepmother Gertrude and her two whiny, flirtatious stepsisters (Hortensia and Bernice, who even LOOK like Drizella and Anastasia of "Cinderella"), who force her to do CHORES. Then, there's William, who, admittedly, has optimism that I admire a lot, but the rest of him lacks any depth. So, William is a rich boy traveling with a few friends and a 'nanny' when he falls spontaneously in love with Angelica when he runs into her in the corridor. From there, you can tell what happens.
What are really overlapped are the subplots. There is one about a detective hunting down a group of jewel thieves, a bunch of animals organizing a party downstairs, one of William's accomplices tries to woo over an aspiring singer...you get the general idea. Now, the reason these overlap is because the editing is terrible. That's right, it's straight TERRIBLE. Why? Because it skips over from shot to shot like a slideshow.
Same thing with the plot. They wanted to cram so much activity into this one movie (though one or two SUBTLE subplots are okay) that it looks like the movie is jumping from plot to plot to plot and literally off the screen. It looks like everything's just bouncing, moving way too quickly for any movie to move. For heaven's sake, SLOW DOWN!!!
Oh, and one more thing: everyone seems to remember one scene in particular that has made this infamous. Three Words: It's Party Time. A dog starts rapping in the middle of a scene for no reason AT ALL, something that many would call a 'Big Lipped Alligator Moment'. I guess the reason this got so much attention was because this, along with many other scenes, were completely random. That's just the trouble with this movie
I have to give it some credit, though not TOO much. The singer was an interesting character, very strong and able, but her just standing there when the ship sank was a bad choice. The dialogue is well-written at times, with a few good lines, but that's about it. Honestly, though, they could have put more effort in. Had they added more depth and less overused plot-lines, it would have sufficed.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
"...Disney's Strongest, Most Stirring Tale of Prejudice and Acceptance..."
HOND (as the movie is abbreviated) is a movie that came out when I was 6 years old, and I was a big fan of the movie from the start. As I got more into anime and Tim Burton, I always held a love of this movie. I have recently rediscovered the movie and now see it in a different light. It is Disney's strongest, most stirring tale; one that tells of prejudice and acceptance. It touches on many sensitive aspects, very rare in Disney films, such as the Christian religion, damnation and bigotry, as well keeping the trademark Disney themes of overcoming great adversaries and believing in oneself.
The story came from that of Victor Hugo's 19th Century novel, which, oddly enough, was a cry to preserve the sanctity of the holy building in which it took place. Anyway, it is an adaption that tells the story of Quasimodo (Tom Hulce), who desires to be a part of society, but his master, Frollo (Tony Jay, in his most riveting performance) keeps him confined out of fear and scorn for the poor beast. But, when he is crowned "King" in the annual Festival of Fools, he captures the heart of outspoken and beautiful Esmeralda (Demi Moore), whom he helps escape Frollo's wrath.
The movie has many big names, as well as some lesser known, who deliver a wonderful performance. Tony Jay*, known for his deep, compelling voice in video games and cartoons, probably delivered his finest performance in this film, that of a tortured and corrupted religious figure. Paul Kandel delivered the performance of the versatile Clopin, the narrator of the story, if you will. The three gargoyles, one of which is voiced by Jason Alexander, gives the movie a touch of loyal Disney sidekicks.
However, this movie received a G-rating. I feel, due to it's dark undertones, that it should have been given a PG. Many of the themes will go over the heads of kids under 7, and it may seem frightening at times, as well as the VERY thinly veiled element of lust, so parents, be warned.
Overall, the movie is a tapestry of beauty and a powerful message of Justice and Courage; taking a stand for what's right.
*-Sadly, Jay died in 2006 due to complications following lung surgery, but his performance will never be forgotten
"...Pixar May Have Very Well Outdid Itself This Time..."
From the time Pixar debuted their first full-length animated film, "Toy Story" in 1995, a genre was born and technology began to pop up in the cinema. Almost Fifteen years and 9 films later, Pixar rules the roost of computer-animated films that it inspired. But, with it's latest film, Wall-E, Pixar has broken it's traditional mold, incorporating live action footage with state-of-the-art computer animation with objects and characters that look so realistic, you can touch them.
Onto the story. Wall-E, as everyone has said, is a romantic story at heart. Definitely true. The two main characters, who get most of the screen time (and use it wonderfully), are: Wall-E, a childlike robot that lives on Earth after all the humans left, making junk into priceless treasures; and EVE, a beautiful 'directive' that searches for signs of life and, instead, finds Wall-E. The two venture into space to discover a long-lost secret left on earth. (I'm not gonna give away too much of the plot).
The way that they used less dialogue and more visual appeal, they were able to convey emotional depth through expression, which I really like (Yes, I'm a sucker for visuals and art, I know).
To conclude, I must say that with all the hype that this movie has received, Pixar may very well have outdone itself this time around with this masterpiece.