StartingAllOver14 Reviews

Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam (2010 TV Movie)

A passable, but mildly disappointing return to "Camp Rock".

[6/10 · 6 September 2010]

With the release of "Camp Rock" in 2008, Disney had found another franchise to milk alongside with "Hannah Montana" and "High School Musical"; a stereotypical movie about a regular teen chick with a regular teen problem, filled with catchy songs and some daily life vs. pop star struggles. However, the first "Camp Rock" was a movie which I genuinely enjoyed. While it's not a film of the lifetime, I found it to be sincere and quite likable. Just as most successful movie franchises, "Camp Rock" gets a sequel, but it's a well known term that most sequels aren't better than their predecessors – and unfortunately the highly promoted "Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam" is no exception and comes off as a mild disappointment.

With all consideration; "Camp Rock 2" isn't exactly bad; just a little disappointing. The film does have its cute and enjoyable moments, but comes across as less compelling as a whole. The main plot isn't exactly a misplaced choice from the screenwriters (a battle versus two camps), but while the first movie didn't exactly had a groundbreaking story, it had a more stronger, internal conflict; Mitchie's (Demi Lovato) conflict with Tess (Meaghan Martin) and her identity-struggle and Shane's (Joe Jonas) internal struggle of being a cold, inaccessible person because of his fear of being fooled by someone who wanted to take use his celebrity status. Besides, the script is less structured this time and jumps from a random musical sequence to another random musical sequence and the events feel less chronological (written by the not so cleverly Dan Berendsen, which has proved his lack of skills in several script).

The film wants to expand the screen time of the characters, but doesn't really take the time to develop them as they did in the first movie. The film gives more time to Shane's band members Nate (Nick Jonas) and Jason (Kevin Jonas). It's not strange that Kevin screen time gets expanded, since he's proved his comical ability and a charismatic presence in several Disney projects. But the subplot with Nate and his love interest Dana (Chloe Bridges) from the forbidden group "Camp Star" is just contrived, unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the plot. Another noteworthy notion is the appearance of Demi Lovato. Yes, this notion has been discussed before, but her appearance as Mitchie was more restrained and natural in the first movie. Now with her black hair, light tan and tons of makeup, she appears as a different character. No 'one shall blame Miss Lovato for her desire to change her appearance (after all, she's still in the puberty), but perhaps she could have waited to dye her hair after shooting the sequel? It seems like the director were more eager to turn this sequel into a "High School Musical" flick, with a more musical feel to the movie and having the characters suddenly break out into song and dancing to cheesy, choreographed dances. The tone and feel highly resembles the "HSM" sequel and the message is more kid-aimed and more kid friendly than in the first movie.

Okay, enough with the complaining; I did enjoy this movie to an extent. It has more kid friendly humor this time without being awkward, while at the same time, the tone is more mature as well. The film has several catchy songs, especially the excellent duet "Wouldn't Change a Thing" between Mitchie and Shane. The film introduces us to a few new characters, as the bragging and sexy Luke (Matthew Finley), Nate's love interest Dana, her cynical father who's the leader of Camp Star and even the youngest JoBro Frankie gets a cameo. The film has also its funny, sweet and sincere moments, has an unpredictable twist to the ending and a good moral.

So while "Camp Rock 2" fails to live up to its predecessor, it still makes a cute, harmless and watchable family flick. It's not a masterpiece and it's not intended to be one either, but a light TV flick which doesn't make any harm. Now let's see if Disney has intentions of making a third movie.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Decent and entertaining enough

[7/10 · 26 May 2010]

The video game genre isn't the most compelling genre to transfer into the big screen, considering mostly that most of the video games adaptations has turned out as mediocre movies. With "Prince of Persia", on the other hand, it looked like something more spectacular, mostly because of it's visuals and stunning effects and also considering that this was a Jerry Bruckheimer film. So this film looked a bit promising.

Most of the time, "Prince of Persia" does what its supposed to do; Delivering some action-filled, fast paced entertainment, to keep the attention of the audience during 116 minutes. While it doesn't becomes something beyond that, it makes a nice watch. But the story starts off as a little monotonic and doesn't take off after twenty minutes or so. But the rest of the film does makes up for that, with some exciting fights and a exciting plot with some clever twists, in spite of a bit frenetic screenplay.

I've never quite pictured Jake Gyllenhall as a sword fighting Persian hero, but he does comes across as passable enough in his part. Although this is far from his most complex role, he has enough charm and screen presence to pass himself during 116 minutes. Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), the obligatory love interest, is fiery and intelligent, but doesn't comes off as a memorable character - although the obligatory love plot starts off in a unconventional way. The rest of the cast are decent in their parts, but none of them stands particularly out.

I shall honestly confess that I don't have much knowledge about the original video game, but I still saw a few references to a video game during the film; the way Prince Dastan fought, jumping from rooftop to rooftop and twirling on sticks, which was noteworthy (and funny) at first, but not particularly distracting. While the fast-paced closeups and slow motions comes off as unnecessary, the film does however have some nice visuals, a solid, Arabic-inspired score by Harry Gregson-Williams (though this isn't his very best score) and some nice special effects, which makes up for it.

Otherwise, this adaptation of "Prince of Persia" may not be a unforgettable motion picture experience, but it's still a watchable and entertaining way to pass 116 minutes with.

The Swan Princess (1994)

The best non-Disney hand drawn feature of the 90's

[9/10 · 25 May 2010]

I've always been a fan of cartoons and as most kids, I used to watch a lot them during my childhood. But when it came to full-length features, it was always those from Disney which appealed to me. Don Bluth's and other full-length features from other studios appeared as cold, generic and lifeless to me. But with "The Swan Princess", the story is another one. The previews of the film looked actually quite promising and the film certainly didn't disappoint when I finally saw it and it's undoubtedly one of the best non-Disney hand drawn films – at least from the 90's.

"The Swan Princess" has the same tone and feel of Disney film and the lighter moments does resembles the lighter tone from "Beauty and the Beast" (without the deep love story and dark undertones). Even the enjoyable songs are Broadway-inspired and sounds like they could appeared in a Disney film. Although this film is not equal to Disney's very best, it still come as very close.

The main plot may be a conventional fairytale, but it does have a twist; It's a normal component that the Prince and the Princess falls in love with first sight without further question, but in this film the Princess literally asks her Prince if her beauty is the only reason for loving her. A quite refreshing twist and actually a more realistic plot point, which is nice for the kids to see.

"Swan Princess" actually does have a bunch of enjoyable characters. Derek and Odette may not be the most memorable protagonists in a animated feature, but are likable and engaging enough and portrays at least more personality than the Disney Princes and Princesses from Walt's films (pre-90's). The sorcerer Rothbart may not surpass the Disney villains, but he's passable enough. The most memorable characters are - just as with the Disney flicks - the sidekick characters, especially the turtle Speed and the bird Puffin (Jean-Bob was just too self-centered and annoying for my taste). Even the minor characters as Queen Uberta, the conductor Lord Rogers and Prince Derek's friend, Bromley, are quite likable.

The animation may not live up to Disney standards, but it's still nice-looking. The score of Lex de Azevedo isn't' despicable, either. Otherwise, if there should be any complains about "The Swan Princess", it would be that the film lacks overall the depth that the Disney movies usually have. The screenplay is mostly solid, but does have a few plot holes now and then. In spite of the refreshing plot point about love shouldn't just be all about appearance, the love story between Derek and Odette comes off as contrived and underdeveloped. And in the end, it's up to the Prince to save the day. Considering that this flick was made in the 90's, it could had a more original climax.

But the mentioned "issues" are just quibbling, since besides that, "The Swan Princess" is a cute and enjoyable cartoon. So if you want to see a enjoyable non Disney-cartoon, "Swan Princess" is definitely worth a watch.

Anastasia (1997)

A epic and decent rival film to Disney

[6/10 · 2 May 2010]

"Anastasia" isn't Don Bluth's first attempt to compete with Disney, but it's certainly one of the most epic ones. While the movie was heavily hyped back in 1997 to be a really competitor to the Disney film, it certainly had the same feel and tone as a Disney classic. However, in spite of that component being a strength, "Anastasia" is still watchable on it's own merits, but it's still hampered by some flaws which makes the hype unnecessary.

As with Richard Rich's "Swan Princess" from 1994, "Anastasia" is more or less as watching a Disney film without the famous and promoted Disney logo appearing on its opening. Ironically, the creators of "Anastasia" followed the same habit as Disney by making a film based on grave, historical events, turning back to it's accuracy and rather focused on the legend. Sounds like a part of the typical Disney-formula, but even for a non-Disney film, the many components of the formula actually works on this film.

Most of the time, "Anastasia" provides as a cute and charming flick, filled with catchy Broadway songs by Stephen Flaherty/Lynn Ahrens, which actually sounds like they could been on a Disney flick and a decent score by David Newman. Anastasia herself, wonderfully voiced by Meg Ryan and nicely sung by Liz Callaway, is a surprisingly spunky and funny heroine, with a personality who outshines the Disney heroines. While her love interest Dimitri, despite his sex appeal, is less interesting, he's given a solid voice by John Cusack, which shares a good chemistry with Ryan's voice. Kelsey Grammar is endearing as Dimitri's sidekick Vladimir, Bernadette Peters is charming as the Empress cousin Sophie, while Angela Landsbury provides a great performance as The Empress.

With the exception of some badly drawn townspeople, the animation is lush and gorgeous, especially on the palaces and the architecture. The film opens with a dynamic and exciting action sequence and most of the action scenes are like that. Although some of the lines are a bit clichéd, the characters has a few amusing comments along the way.

"Anastasia's" flaws ultimately lies in it's predictability. Even for a kid movie, the story has no surprising twist and turn. The film becomes a bit sappy and boring during it's third act. While the villain Rasputin does provide some of the exciting scenes, he still comes off as a less compelling villain compared to the Disney baddies. His sidekick, Bartok the bat, has some amusing moments (and it's brilliantly voiced by the recognizable Hank Azaria), but still doesn't become the charming villain sidekick that he could have been. And the predictable love story between Anastasia and Dimitri feels as a forced and rushed, in spite of the lovebirds shares a good chemistry.

Those components prevents "Anastasia" to live up to it's full potential. However, the film still makes a watchable and entertaining effort for both kids and adults. While this film may not be one of the best animated movies ever made, it still is a worthy competitor to Disney and demonstrates an art-form that nowadays is considered as rare.

StarStruck (2010 TV Movie)

Didn't made me starstruck

[3/10 · 10 April 2010]

You shouldn't expect terms as «Labor of Love» or «creative enjoyment» being relevant descriptions of the current Disney Channel movies, especially in their current way of milking out their stars (the «High School Musical» flicks are relevant examples of that). Fortunately, some of the DC films have turned out to be actually quite passable, like «Princess Protection Programme», «Jump In» and «Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie» (although this is embarrassing to admit, but I genuinely enjoyed «Camp Rock» and felt it was put a little bit of heart and soul into the story). Unfortunately, the same can't be said about their latest effort, «StarStruck», which is a lifeless and soulless attempt of a TV movie.

First of all, both the plot and the movie it self are completely shallow, pedestrian and clichéd. It could least been worked with some finesse, but «StarStruck» is completely dull and unoriginal. There are absolutely no inventive or clever twists in its predictable and worn-out story, which by the way has a few plot holes and drowns it self into sentimentality during the third act. Or you could simply just called this flick «Hannah Montana The Movie» with a male pop star.

None of the acting is noteworthy, with the exception of Sterling Knight. Not that he delivers a profound role, but the consideration that he's played an anonymous loner in «17 Again» and the self-absorbed Chad Dylan Cooper in «Sonny With A Chance» proves that this guy has acting potential. Sterling Knight plays the pop star Christopher Wilde in this one and gives the character both charm and spunk. The girl lead, Danielle Campbell, is extremely cute, but has been given a rather thankless role. Some of the IMDb-users have proclaimed her as annoying. Well, that isn't a coincidence, since the screenwriters haven't given her character substance nor depth. But it's not her fault, though. She and Sterling has a bit of chemistry, but she constantly gets out shined by him. She does however pull out some emotional moments well, but overall portrays Jessica as a flat character without substance or personality. Now I'm just wondering if Disney is going to promote her as the next Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus or Selena Gomez.

Maggie Castle as Jessica's sister Sara, who's obsessed with Christopher Wilde, is extremely annoying and shallow in her part. It's also a pity that the likable and charismatic Chelsea Stub (Stella in «JONAS») has been given a thankless role.

And there's the music of this movie. Since this is another pop star concept, there's ought to be some songs and of course some really mainstream ones, too. But while «High School Musical», «Camp Rock» and «Hannah Montana» at least had some catchy and hummable songs, the soundtrack of «StarStruck» is mainstream, bland and uninspiring, just as the movie itself. The only passable song is the rap tune «Party Up», performed by Brandon Smith (Nico in «Sonny With a Chance»).

Overall, if you're looking for a good DC movie, look everywhere besides «StarStruck», which is an uninspired and soulless money-attempt from Disney.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Much better than the reviewers gives credit for

[7/10 · 7 April 2010]

In spite of having to read many negative reviews, I was still curious to see this movie. I not a huge Burton fan neither, although I've enjoyed some of his previous work. But it was something about «Alice in Wonderland» which seemed appealing; it's visual look and it's quirky characters. Still I had in mind the several hostile reviews, which accused this movie to be a flat, soulless and muddled attempt of a classic, which I also feared it would. But after finally seeing the movie, I can claim my disagreement with the reviewers. In fact, I'm not sure if we even saw the same movie. What exactly was so terrible about it?

Overall, I found «Alice in Wonderland» to be very entertaining. I feared that the movie would loose some of it's magic as the main character entered to Wonderland, but fortunately it never did. I enjoyed the movie from the very start to it's very end. It's a cute fantasy/adventure movie, equal to the «Harry Potter» and the «Narnia» flicks (although I personally felt «Prince Caspain» had some slight weaknesses). But beware; there are some frightening creatures who may scare the youngest in the audience, so the PG rating is suitable.

One of the films biggest advantages is it visuals. With it lush and dark landscapes, cute animals and colorful costumes, the flick is beautifully to look at and I can't wait to enjoy the sharpness of the picture on Blu Ray. The score of Danny Elfman is effective and gives the movie a dreamy, atmospheric tone. The characters are mostly passable. They don't steal the show entirely, but neither do they appear as distractive or annoying.

Although I've always liked the original novel of Lewis Carroll, I must say that I found this new twist of the story fresh and creative, depicting the «wrong» Alice's adventures in Wonderland as a young adult. Linda Woolverton, who's behind the excellent screenplays for «Beauty and the Beast», «The Lion King» and «Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journplay», has written a solid and decent script to «Wonderland». Many has claimed this screenplay to be muddled and confusing, but I didn't felt it that way at all. Once again, did we even saw the same movie?

Mia Wasikowska is quite decent as Alice. Although she doesn't have a distinctive emanation/charisma who characterizes other young actresses at her age, she's still delivers a nice and acceptable performance. Personally I felt her screen presence expanded during the movie. Johnny Depp is indeed a good actor. To claim anything else, would be a like claiming that the climate isn't humid in the rain forest. Although I've never been crazy over Depp's work, he's goofy and great as The Mad Hatter, which is indeed the best character in the movie. Helena Bonham Carter is also believable and funny as the Red Queen (just prepare yourself to hear «Off with his head» at least a hundred times during the movie, ha ha). While Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, is warm and passable as the White Queen (although I must confess it was a little distracting to see her with a blonde wig and with a British accent).

In fact, I can't see anything wrong with this new Burton version of «Wonderland». I truly enjoyed it and recommend it to everyone as possible. It didn't deserved the negative criticism at all, in my opinion. With quality films like this, perhaps I could finally forgive Disney for it's recent mistakes? (*Cough, leaving hand drawn animation behind and promoting teen stars as crazy, cough*)

So follow every white rabbit you see and follow him to the hole... Wonderland is waiting...

Jump in! (2007 TV Movie)

"Jump to the Rhythm and Move to the Music"

[7/10 · 10 January 2010]

If I didn't knew "Jump In" was a Disney Channel movie, I would guessed it was a TV movie from another channel. This urban-oriented flick is a rare DC flick with a more mature feel and tone and it genuinely feels like a TV movie from a more mature channel. While it's still a light-hearted film, "Jump In" is the least cheesy Disney Channel flick I've seen. It seems as the executives of Disney woke up and decided to made a DC flick aimed for a older teen group, although kids and tween's can still safely enjoy the film.

And to be honest, it's good to see a DC film which isn't overwhelmingly sugar coated. Anyhow, "Jump In" is still a cute and lighthearted movie. It's nice and refreshing to see a urban film with almost an entirely Afro-American cast (which is something they should tried out for "The Princess and the Frog") from Disney Channel. While the story and moral is quite traditional, the film delivers a valuable message to the viewers and comes off with a quite decent drama, insuring the story's mature tone.

Although none of the acting is Oscar-worthy, the cast are a good fit for their roles; Keke Palmer is adorable and likable as Mary, David Rievers is a good TV-dad, Kylee Russell is a cute little sister for Izzy without outshining the other cast, while Patrick Johnson Jr is credible as Izzy's hostile nemesis Rodney. Those who watches "Hannah Montana" will recognize "Amber" (Shanica Knowles) as Mary's friend Shauna and Shanica delivers a decent performance. And Izzy's two friends Chuck (Masin Elsadig) and L'ilEarl (Micah Williams) are amusing.

It's no strange that Disney wanted Corbin Bleu to Starr in his own film. He's got lots of star potential; charisma, looks, presence and sex appeal. But is he really a good actor? Well, to be fair on him; although he's far from an Al Pacino or an Robert De Niro (just to take some examples), he does a decent performance as Izzy.

If there's anything to complain on "Jump In", it must be the overall presence of the "villain" Rodney, which also was a problem in "Camp Rock". Although the villains in DC have back-stories which makes the viewers sympathize more for them, their back-stories doesn't get solved and they still have to surrender to the protagonist. Those solutions feels too slight and out of order.

Otherwise, "Jump In" may not be innovative or a masterpiece, but still a entertaining and cute film to recommend and to enjoy. It has pacing, boxing, lot of impressive double dutch movements, a little romance and catchy, urban music.

Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie (2009 TV Movie)

A cute movie adaptation, although the show is still better.

[6/10 · 9 January 2010]

Out of all the recent shows from Disney Channel, "Wizards of Waverly Place" seems to be the one that it's acceptable to like and has the biggest fan-base besides "Hannah Montana". And it's well-deserved, cause "Wizards" it's a funny, entertaining and watchable show. As the popularity increased, the creators decided to give the show a movie, just as "Hannah Montana" and "Lizzie McGuire" were given their movies. But this time, "Wizards" has been given a non-theatrical one. While this movie-adaptation is a cute one, it doesn't surpass the show and neither it's the best Disney Channel flick I've seen.

But let's mention something positive first. Selena Gomez as Alex is the one who carries most of the movie. Besides being incredibly cute and charismatic, this is also perhaps the best acting I've seen from her. When she's leaves "Wizards", she should definitively get out of Disney and aim for more mature roles, cause she has a lot of potential to develop herself to a great actress.

Besides of Alex, the whole Russo family are present in this film, which is nice to see. Jerry (David DeLuise) is just as funny and charismatic as he is in the show, Teresa (Maria Canals-Barrera) is more or less the same character, while Max (Jake T. Austin) is whimsical to an lesser extent. The one who's differs himself from the series is Justin (David Henrie), who shows a more responsible and mature side of himself, which suits the character, although I prefer the goofy and dorky Justin, cause he's usually funnier that way. But he and Alex's has a great sibling chemistry in the film and their relationship are more or less the heart of the story.

Although I don't like saying it, "Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie" somehow suffers from the same problems as "Hannah Montana The Movie"; blending funny characters from a sitcom into a more serious plot. Though "Hannah Montana The Movie" turned the Hannah-concept to all that it wasn't; a sappy melodrama which turned it's back to the show's premises and continuity (Maybe Disney could've hired a director who actually had seen the show?). But while "Hannah Montana The Movie" was more or less absent of humor, "Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie" has some hilarious moments along the road and while it takes the characters to a new place, it doesn't mess with the continuity of the plot as "Hannah" did.

However, Wizards does suffers some other issues; Archie (Steve Valentine) is charismatic, but not a threatening enough as a villain. The movie is cute, but still lacks the spirit and the spunk from the TV show. Although the story is solid, it does struggle with pacing, the slow and fast-pacing moments feels quite separate. Perhaps the movie could've been more energetic and more cohesive paced if it was theatrical released? Well, there has been some rumors about the producers wanting to do a theatrically released sequel. And good is that.

Otherwise, I shan't complain anymore about "Wizards"; It is after all a cute and watchable movie. Fans of the show has already warmly embraced it and those who haven't seen the movie won't probably be disappointed. The story is solid and adventurous, with many nods to both Indiana Jones and Power Rangers. The score by Kenneth Burgomaster is cute and solidly supports the story. The special effects are quite impressive for belonging to a TV movie. And the film has some sweet, tender moments as well.

So to the conclusion; Is "Wizards of Waverly Place The Movie" worth a view? In spite of it's flaws; Ys, absolutely. It is a watchable and okay movie. But a note to Disney; Please stop making movies out of your shows.

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

The Sleeping Beauty has woken up again

[7/10 · 28 December 2009]

Last year, with the release of the Platinum Edition of «Sleeping Beauty», my curiosity for the film woke up, cause it's was a while since I last time saw it. I bought the new DVD and got a pleasant re-acquaintance with «Sleeping Beauty». I won't call it my favorite Disney classic of all time, but it's definitively a entertaining and enchanting Disney classic for Disney-lovers to enjoy.

«Sleeping Beauty» is, layer-wise, also one of Disney's most interesting films for an adult viewer, cause the film deals with pretty dark elements. I'll actually claim that adults may enjoy the film more than the kids, cause there are some really frightening scenes. I saw «Sleeping Beauty» first time when I was eight years old and it was one of the few Disney films that actually scared me. Of course if the younger kids are going to be scared depends on how easy they are to scare, but I'll still state that parents should think twice before showing this film to the youngest family members, cause some scenes, accompanied with gloomy music, are enough to make a traumatic impact on kids (speaking of which, a earlier friend of mine got scared by the dragon and didn't wanted to see the film until he grew up).

In spite of «Sleeping Beauty" being really dark, it's a pretty lighthearted film, too. There are some wonderful, classical Disney moments here, which I'm going to talk more about later. But first about the characters.

The best of them are without doubt the Goodfaires, which are the most present characters too. Fauna is my personal favorite. Other likable characters are Prince Philip's father, King Hubert and the horse, Samson. To claim the two lovebirds, Prince Philip and Princess Aurora, as passive characters may be unfair, but unfortunately that's the truth. But in return, they've been given wonderful singing voices by Mary Costa and Bill Shirley. And Aurora's character design is interesting, too. Malificent, on the other hand, is one of Disney's most memorable villains and there's no reason to wonder why; With her calm, collected, but cold presence she's sure to be memorized by every child and Disney villain (and I personally think she's sort of cute too). I used to think that her monster-like helpers were quite annoying, but not anymore.

As mentioned, there are many wonderful and spectacular scenes; The climatic dragon-fight is one of them, but Aurora's journey towards the spinning wheel in the castle is a chilling sequence. And the sequences with her in the woods along with all the animals and her Prince is pure Disney magic, as is all the scenes with the Three Goodfaires.

The animation is beautiful and the widescreen format suites this movie well, as the Tchaikowsky-music does. It was a perfect fit for the movie, by giving it more substance and sophistication, actually. Except for "Hail To The Princess Aurora", the songs are quite enchanting, although they haven't been the most mentioned ones from Disney. In spite of the screenplay being quite straightforward and predictable (like you can expect from Disney at that time), there are some clever twists on the love story, which catches the interest of the viewers.

So don't miss "Sleeping Beauty". It's a entertaining and cute film for every Disney fans to enjoy.

Happy Feet (2006)

Spectacular visuals makes up for a so-so movie

[6/10 · 25 December 2009]

After hand-drawn animation was declared dead by most of the Hollywood studios because it wasn't hip enough, CGI features were churn out and they all, more or less, felt as the same movie. Elements as adult-in-jokes, pop references and gags to kids made the audience stand in line to see them theatrically, but in my opinion, few of the features really distinguished themselves. I'm not sure which category I should place Happy Feet. It's a cute and entertaining flick, but yet a schizophrenic one at the same time.

From a visual standpoint, this movie is one of the most gorgeous-looking CGI features to date. The animals have a very authentic and realistic look and some of the background looks almost real. The design of the humans are less detailed, though, but they look far from cartoony as the humans in the Pixar film does. This is certainly one of the most jaw-dropping animated features ever made.

But there's a component which is called a story. To be honest, I never became fond of the plot. For the first, it was a about an outcast. Several animated films (both CGI and hand-drawn) has been about an outsider, so the theme has unfortunately been worn out and feels nothing special or fresh in this film. I also felt the story was overall a little weird, including singing and dancing penguins. But on the positive side, though, while the characters aren't memorable, they're still likable, especially the Adelie Pinguins.

I'm not claiming that this is a overall bad movie, but it has so many balls in the air; there's drama, there's comedy, there's action and there's music numbers. The latter component actually works. And this is a nice family film, with a serious tone in some sequences which will appeal to adults. But in a jungle of CGI animated films, "Happy Feet" doesn't distinguish it self from the rest. The sweet moments are too sugary and the grave moments are... well, grave. Of course there's some humor, but nothing that made me laugh hysterically. And there's the cheesy components. All of these elements are combined into a mixture that seems overall schizophrenic instead of telling a coherent story. But of course there are far worse movies than this. At least the characters and the music makes the movie watchable.

But the visuals is undoubtedly the biggest strength here and the film should be recommended mostly for the visuals.

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

It was about time, Disney, give us some more hand-drawn animation!

[7/10 · 20 December 2009]

"The Princess and the Frog", Disney's highly anticipated animated feature, is something rare as a hand-drawn motion picture, which is unusual nowadays. If you've turned back time five or six years ago, this would have been a normal event, but after 2D animation was declared dead in 2004 and Hollywood Companies began to milk CGI films, it has been rarely made hand-drawn movies (with the exception of the animated sections of Disney's "Enchanted"). These five years of absence of 2D has given the audience (included myself) the space to miss and yearn for a new 2D feature from Disney. During these years, I've rediscovered Disney and started to enjoy their animated features again. And it was about time they released a new hand-drawn one.

The crew of this film, including John Lasseter, has claimed in interviews that they've gone back to the roots of Disney (the Princess fairy tales) and made a hand-drawn Disney movie with heart and soul equal to the "classics". So the question is, does "The Princess and the Frog" live up to them? The answer is yes. "The Princess and the Frog" is, more or less, just like watching a Disney flick from the 90's and it's great. However, there have been comments about that some of the artwork and character designs are reminiscent of a Don Bluth flick, which is somehow true, especially in the sections on the Bayou (and remember, Don Bluth used to work for Disney once). But fortunately this film feels more like Disney than Don Bluth.

The animation, with the exception of some bad drawn townspeople, is wonderful. It's not up to Disney's very best, but it's still lush, colorful and detailed.

When it comes to the characters, the lovebirds Tiana and (especially) Naveen are likable and witty, but Dr. Facilier is undoubtedly the one who steals the show. It has become a clichè to declare the villain as the best character of a Disney film, but Facilier really is the most memorable of the cast. Both charming and cruel at the same time, he's certainly the best male Disney villain since Hades from "Hercules".

After seeing some previews, I got the impression that the secondary characters (Charlotte, Louis, Ray and Mama Odie) were way over the top. Fortunately, they are less annoying in the movie (and I actually liked Ray's firefly family). While they're still goofy and far from Disney's best characters, they have a good interaction throughout the movie, which is nice to see. Especially the love progression of Tiana and Naveen is well done.

This film is directed by John Musker and Ron Clements, which has made good Disney movies in the past. You know what you can expect from them, also script-wise, which does have resemblances to "The Little Mermaid". Fortunately, the script is tight and doesn't have many story-holes. It is certainly a new and fresh take on "The Frog Prince" tale. And for the music; There has been lot of whining about Randy Newman doing the songs and score. I shall confess that I was concerned myself, but the songs are absolutely catchy. Not as the same league as Alan Menken's work, but still good. And his score is alright as well.

If there's anything to complain in "The Princess and the Frog", from subjective standards, it must be that I personally felt there were some parts between the climax and the ending who could have been done differently or better. If so, this could have been a 8 or 9-stars movie in my point of view.

Otherwise, "The Princess and the Frog" is a good Disney film. I don't dare to call it a Disney classic, but it certainly one of Disney's finest work, actually and deserves to be at the same league as the films from the early 90's. This film will certainly make up for Disney's recent mistakes like "High School Musical", "Hannah Montana The Movie" (seriously, the creators could just left the show alone and not milking the product for all it's worth) and their milking of their teen stars. And one thing is for certain; I want more hand-drawn animation from Disney! And soon, please!

Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure (2009 Video)

Delightful and full-worthy "sequel" to "Tinker Bell"

[7/10 · 24 October 2009]

All fans of Tinker Bell and her first movie have no reason to worry; "Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure" is a full-worthy sequel to the first movie. Considering that there's only one year of absence between the movies, the filmmakers have done a good job to make this a complete movie and not only a product for cash-cowing, like it easily could have been.

Although I enjoyed last years Tinker Bell adventure, I definitively enjoyed this film more. The previews who were released before the movie came out seemed very promising and the final movie definitively lived up to the expectations. This "sequel" is more dynamic in many ways. It opens with the catchy and inspiring "If You Believe". The plot is more engaging, more suspenseful and it has a few more action sequences than it's predecessor, but this is after all a G-rated family film, so it never crosses the line.

The film focus more on the relationship between Tink and Terence this time, which serves the movie well. Tink herself is presented as a versatile character and the fact that she actually talks feels never distracting in neither of the movies.

Otherwise, this film has the cuteness-factor like the first flick had, which only makes the experience more enjoyable, but it's also a bit more edgier in terms of the adventurous plot. The animation is even better this time, the characters are still likable and the cute score of Joel McNeely fits the movie well. Besides, there are more humor in the screenplay.

So don't hesitate by seeing this movie when it comes to DVD. It is a cute and sweet movie experience and a wonderful movie threat for kids and every Tinker Bell fan.

Princess Protection Program (2009 TV Movie)

The best Disney Channel movie I've seen

[7/10 · 30 August 2009]

I must confess that I didn't cared for watching this film after seeing the previews for it, my thought was "just another way for Disney to milk out their stars". However, recently I saw this movie randomly - and got pleasantly surprised. «Princess Protection Program» is undoubtedly the best DC movie I've seen, surpassing all their recent films like «Camp Rock», the «High School Musical» flicks, «Hatching Pete» and «Dadnapped».

A thing that most DC movies have in common that they're pretty soulless; They seem like they're all the same, with mediocre acting, predictable story lines and squeaky clean love subplots. Their films has rarely soul and emotion (even though one shouldn't take for granted that the theatrical released films has heart and emotion, cause that isn't always the case either). But «Princess Protection Program» was quite cute and enjoyable.

The story is a little cheesy, but still works pretty well and the high school clichés during this film doesn't feel worn out. The cinematography by David A. Makin is quite lovely, making the locations look beautiful and the score by John Van Tongeren is also good. And most of the songs are catchy.

Disney has casted two of their up-and-coming stars to the main roles (the replacements of Miley Cyrus, if you will); Selena Gomez as Carter and Demi Lovato as Princess Rosalinda. Their interaction and friendship on the screen is credible, without being overdone. They both pull of their roles pretty well. Of course since this is a DC movie you can't expect a profound acting, but none of the performances feels overacted. Demi Lovato has improved since «Camp Rock» and has never looked more beautiful than in this film, with her rose-red lips and stunning dresses. She struggles a bit with timing on her emotional moments, but still carries her Princess role with grace and dignity. While Selena, which is wonderful as Alex in «Wizards of Waverly Place», fits the role of a tomboy surprisingly well (I had never pictured her as a tomboy). Of the adult cast, Tom Verica has good charisma as Carter's father.

The film was enjoyable, but the only thing that disappointed me, just like another reviewer on this site pointed out, was the ending, which could been more suspenseful, cause it was leading to an thrilling climax. Otherwise, I highly recommend «Princess Protection Program». The film may not be innovative or Oscar-worthy, but has the mayor ingredient that most DC films lack: heart and soul. Please make more movies like this, Disney.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

Don't worry fans, the third "Ice Age" movie is a delightful threat for everyone

[8/10 · 24 August 2009]

I was looking forward to this movie with anticipation and rather listened to my friends and the critics recommendations for the film, despite I also worried that it could turn out to be bad, considering the movie industries are milking of the products for what it's worth. But fortunately my hopes for this movie got pleased.

There are rarely a trilogy where all the movies turn out to be equally good, but that what the Ice Age trilogy proofs. I felt this movie surpassed the first film, while it's still a notch below «Ice Age 2; The Meltdown», which in my opinion is the best of the trilogy.

However, "Ice Age 3" is a cute and delightful experience, more equal to the second film than the first one. It has good animation, great cinematography, funny lines and gags, a good score and tender, emotional moments. Most of the familiar and beloved cast is back, including the new, amusing character Buck (my favorite one), Scrat's new love interest and the dinosaurs. In spite there's too many characters and not enough screen time to everyone, you still don't feel that the mayor characters gets left behind. The old cast is more or less just the same way like you're used to see them.

Storywise, "Ige Age 3" may not be deep and complex, but one shouldn't expect a profound story while going into this movie, one should watch this movie to get entertained and amused. There are however a subplot that is similar to «Shrek The Third» (which I won't tell more about now). If there's something to complain, it would be the fast close-up shots with Buck, which were unnecessary and I would have liked the film to have more action sequences, but those are just small details which doesn't ruin the experience.

Overall, "Ice Age 3" is a great movie for kids (cause there are too many crappy films/shows that is aimed for them nowadays) and for adults. It's one of the best movies of 2009, so just go and check it out, you'll have a entertaining experience. And be sure that you'll may have the catchy "Walk the Dinosaur" stuck in your head while leaving the theater.

And by the way, a note to Fox and Blue Sky Studios (as if they would have read this); please don't make a "Ice Age 4", it's enough with three movies.

Bare Bea (2004)

Get ready to be swept away by this movie!

[8/10 · 18 August 2009]

"Bare Bea" ("Just Bea") took the Norwegian people with storm back in 2004 and seeing the film result, it's not hard to understand why. This fun and energetic teen comedy is one of the best high school films out there and surpasses most of the American films of its genre.

Even if the film isn't flawless, "Bare Bea" was one of the best and most memorable Norwegian films of 2004. The plot itself may seem corny, but it's skilfully handled. In spite of the film's tone which is overall peppy, it still manages to balance the situations and themes in a subtle way without it becoming too cheesy.

Despite sex is a big part of this movie, it is not a so-called "porn flick". The girls have many conversations with the word sex in it and there are a few sexual scenes, but none of it is too explicit. However, the sexual issues are an underlying theme, because as you will discover during the film its real aim is about Bea's quest for her rights to make her own decisions and follow her path. On the other hand, the subplot about Bea wanting to be an author seems a bit separated from the major story. The film's ambitions are still admirable, cause it shows that sex is a personal issue and not something to be glossed over and that one's first sexually debut isn't perfect. And it shows that you can get into conflict even with your best friends. Thumbs up for that!

The biggest strength of the film lies in the interaction between the girls. Their friendship on the screen feels natural, without overacting. Kaia Foss has charisma as Bea and delivers a good performance of a versatile character. Another noteworthy performance is by young Ingrid S. Buaas as Bea's importunate little sister, who has natural charm, which is something also Kim Falck-Jørgeren as Anders has. The rest of the cast does a decent job with supporting the story and without distracting it.

"Bare Bea" is energetic, dynamic and has a lot of humor, especially on the short flash-back cuts and the clumsy, sexual interactions (examples of this are two harmless scenes; one where Bea and Mia practice the Indian sexual method Kama Sutra and later on where Bea practices it on her Teddy Bear). In the hands of the photographer Marius Johansen Hansen, the colors are created bright and clear. The energetic soundtrack from the Norwegian synth rock band Surferosa (with a female vocal lead) also provides the films dynamic quality.

While Bea and her screen-on friendship is skilfully handled, her interactions with the two guys are not quite as successful. She doesn't have a good chemistry with either of them and while the dialog between her and her friends are brilliant, the lines the screenwriters came up with for her with the two guys are awful, despite that Bea shares some tender moments with Anders. But still, the last thirty minutes of the film becomes in the spirit of sitcom movies too traditional and predictable. And the ending feels too abrupt.

In spite of lacking of a detailed scripting through the third act, "Bare Bea" is still an enjoyable film that deserves to be seen. The teens will embrace this movie with wide arms and the underlying theme of identity search may appeal as much to a grown up audience as well.

The AristoCats (1970)

A fun, cute and entertaining Cat-Classic

[8/10 · 18 July 2009]

"The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.

Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.

"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.

Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories.

So Little Time (2001–2002)

The best Olsen Twins show since "Full House"

[7/10 · 16 July 2009]

"So Little Time" may not be a great show, but it's still a entertaining one. When the show first came out, I used to watch it because I found it a fun show and mostly because of the Olsen Twins. Lately I've re-watched some episodes again for nostalgia and I still consider this show as a cute one.

Like mentioned, The Olsen Twins is a reason for both watching and liking the show (in a objective point of view). I used to watch "Full House" back in the 90's, but not necessarily just for twins, but because it was a entertaining and funny show. The twins were adorable as kids and it isn't strange that they got so popular, cause they had a natural, childish charisma. As teenagers they didn't had the same appeal like they used to have (logically, cause they were growing up), but they were still likable and carried much of "So Little Time". But to be realistic; At that age they had mostly played "normal teen" parts and hadn't had to so much chance to play deeper parts like for example Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment did as kids. Still, the girls had charisma and fortunately a good comedic timing.

The rest of the cast also made the show. My favorite used to be and it's still Larry (Jesse Head), a goofy and innocent character who was likable and adorable. Eric Luthes was also likable as the teens fun-loving and carefree father Jake Carlson. Claire Carey was a perfect fit as the twins business mother Macy, but there's no doubt that Taylor Negron as the Carlson's family domestic Manuelo was the most funniest and charismatic character (despite he wasn't my personal favorite, but he was still funny). Natashia Williams as the vain and times self-centered Tedi was also a fun character, despite her vainness made her unlikeable at times, but she had her moment of kindness. The only misconception is Amy Davidson as Cammie. She was a fun and energetic character, but could have been given more funnier lines.

Otherwise, "So Little Time" didn't distinguish it self from other teens sitcoms. The show was obviously aimed for kids and tweens, but was fortunately never typically childish. There were some bad lines, plot holes and some cheesy guest roles at times. But fortunately the good things weighted over the negative things here and at least the show didn't leaned entirely on typically sitcom clichés.

Camp Rock (2008 TV Movie)

Surprisingly good for a Disney Channel flick

[7/10 · 14 July 2009]

2006 was the mayor turning point for Disney with the new releases of "Hannah Montana" and "High School Musical". While they amused the kids and tweens, they certainly despaired the rest of the world. And why not? They were just made for marketing campaign and for franchise. The High School Musical films (at least those I've seen) were quite mediocre. Hannah Montana the show, despite it's flaws, turned to be quite entertaining, but was unfortunately followed up by a disappointing movie. Logically there's no strange why the hatred for the new Disney Channel products has blossomed and why some of the public attacks them, considering that Disney currently no longer makes hand drawn-flicks (with the exception of "The Princess and the Frog") and instead just produces out teen stars with their own shows, movies, music and etc.

Speaking for myself, I don't like either quite like that Disney produces stars in that way, but I shall confess that I've seen a few of the new Disney Channel movies, just of curiosity. When I first heard about "Camp Rock", my thought were immediately that Disney wanted to repeat it's success with a mediocre movie. But I was wrong; "Camp Rock" is one of the better Disney channel movie I've seen.

Of course this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it's surprisingly decent, entertaining and even better than the High School Musical flicks and the Hannah Montana Movie.

"Camp Rock" is starring the Disney teen star Demi Lovato, who is promoted in almost the same way as Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus. Demi is likable enough and delivers a decent performance here, but she does have a lot of progression to distinguish herself from both Selena and Miley. This doesn't necessarily means that Demi is a bad actress, hopefully if she chooses the right parts, she can become really good. But vocally she is a step in front of her competitors. She doesn't have a distinctive voice, but a beautiful one, who sounds stunning when she hits the right notes. She's also shows energy and dynamic in her "This Is Me" performance at the end of the film.

The rest of the cast does a decent job without being memorable. Those who distinguish themselves are Alyson Stoner as the likable Caitlyn Geller and Meaghan Jette Martin as Tess Tyler. Also Joe Jonas is very credible as the selfish and unlikeable (at least the beginning) Shane Gray. His two other brothers are charming, but far from the best actors this world has to offer. Otherwise it's easy to notice that the same Disney stars from the TV shows is used in the movies. Even Anna Maria Perez de Tagle plays a dumb character in flick similar to the character of Ashley as she plays in "Hannah Montana".

Otherwise, there isn't so much to say about "Camp Rock". It's a typical teen flick; a insecure girl as the protagonist, new friends to make, falling in love and etc. Oh, one thing I want to mention; If you've asked me who Demi Lovato or Joe Jonas was for a year ago, I wouldn't have a clue. And the ironically about the Disney Channel flicks is that their movies are mediocre, but their songs are very catchy and likable - and "Camp Rock" is no exception. There are many good songs here, which are better than both the latest "Hannah" and "High School" songs.

The only bad thing about this film is that is was released a year ago. This is one of Disney Channel's better movies and if it was released today, it would have made up to Disney's other mistakes like the "Hannah Montana Movie", "High School Musical" and even "Hatching Pete" and "Dadnapped". Otherwise, don't expect a masterpiece while you're seeing this film, just expect this to be a harmless and decent teen flick and then you'll be pleased.

8 Mile (2002)

Eminem's decent movie debut

[7/10 · 12 July 2009]

Eminem's big film "8 Mile" was made in a period where it was almost a habit for superstars to have their own movies; Spice Girls with "Spice World" some years earlier, Britney Spears with "Crossroads" and Mariah Carey with "Glitter". Despite this reviewer haven't seen the two latter movies, I'll guess I'm not wrong when I suggest that "8 Mile" is different and has more credibility than the previous "superstar" films.

"LA Confidential" Curtis Hanson as the director was a odd, but still interesting choice, cause a movie starring the superstar rapper Eminem isn't something that you would associate with him, but with Curtis as the director gives the movie immediately credibility. The reviewers and public (in my country) had only positive things to say about this film and when I finally saw it with those recommendations in mind, I turned out to be the opposite of disappointed.

"8 Mile" is a gritty, but good and dynamic movie. It shows that a drama can be dark and gritty without being to gloomy. It shows that a movie can be dynamic without being too overdone. It shows that a movie can be violent, without being too explicit.

Like most of us knows (since it has already been some years since this movie's release), this isn't Eminem's biography, but still parallels the rapper's real, tough adolescence, which is enough to consider this movie as different and more valuable from the other "superstar" films.

Eminem is the one who carries the movie and it's nice to see a different and more calmer side of him. Still, in all consideration, there's no denial that he's a much better rapper than he is an actor. The best acting in the movie is from Kim Basinger as the rapper's mother. The rest of the cast does only a decent job, despite Mekhi Phifer as Future and Evan Jones as Cheddar Bob, two of our protagonist friends, are those who distinguish them self from the rest of the friend-group. Brittany Murphy as the love interest Alex delivers a decent performance, without being particularly memorable.

Like mentioned earlier, this flick is entertaining and engaging. There are some party, sex and action segments and a decent drama to keep the audiences attention and making this a memorable film. In fact, it's safe for non-Eminem fans to watch the flick and enjoying it. But there are some sections who are too slow and could have been cut to tighten the movie up. The relationship between Eminem and his little sister Lilly is a cute one, but could have been more developed. And some of Eminem's secondary friends are at times annoying and distracting.

But since this movie is starring a rapper, there are some of rap in the film and the rap battles are without doubt the highlights. And in those segments is where Eminem proofs why he's one of the best, white rappers out there (despite his content in his lyrics is another discussion).

Despite "8 Mile" is at times too slow, it's overall a great and entertaining movie that deserves to be seen.

King Kong (2005)

Will Peter Jackson's "King Kong" rise as the new movie king?

[7/10 · 11 July 2009]

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" from 2005 is a epic adventure who seems to have all the right ingredients to make a film of a lifetime, especially considering that he went directly from making the epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. But is this new "Kong" version going to last to be a memorable masterpiece or just a blockbuster who is going to be forgotten? Comparing of all the epic blockbusters who have been made, I think "Kong" is going to fade behind them.

This new version of "Kong" is mostly entertaining and watchable, though it isn't perfect. When you make a new and updated version of one of the worlds most famous movie icons, there are some expectations to make and some worries lying ahead.

Anyway; as mentioned, this movie is both grand and epic. There are some knock-out visuals sequences who are absolutely stunning, especially in Scull Island. The dialog is well written, so the interaction between the characters works well (since the movie takes a while before our characters get to Scull Island, the screenplay require that the interaction between the cast isn't boring). The score by James Newton Howarsd isn't his most memorable, but it's still good and epic and James still shows why he's one of the worlds greatest film composers.

Naomi Watts carries the movie with her stunning beauty and natural charisma. Jack Black does actually a very convincing job as the cynical director Carl Denham, Colin Hanks is good as Preston and the rest of the cast does a great job, even young Jamie Bell is decent as Jimmy, despite the latter character doesn't have a real purpose in the story. As for Kong himself; he is a character which many emotions and is likable enough, but without stealing the show, like last time Andy Serkis did with Gollum.

The main problem with this film that it's too long. The film introduces quickly the main characters in New York, but from there on the film become too unnecessary long in some sequences, like the cast voyage through the sea and especially in Scull Island. Of course the time is filled with some exciting action sequences, like the first encounter with the tribe who wants to sacrifice Ann and the exploration of the jungle in Scull Island, but after a while the film becomes filled with too many action sequences, which are there just to fill the 187 minutes of screen time (I've not seen the extended version). And just to make a note; this is movie is pretty violent, with really explicit battle sequences, so the PG-13 rating is appropriate.

The most of us already is familiar with the story of Kong and knows how it's going to end before seeing the movie, which of course makes the viewing experience a little poignant when the film reaches it's end. What I personally missed was more screen time between Ann and Kong, to make their relationship more touching. Of course they share a few moments (I felt the part when Kong and Ann on the ice was a nice, sweet touch), but the movie is too much of action and chasing sequences and not enough bonding time between Kong and Ann, which was essential to the story.

Despite that, "King Kong" is a entertaining and epic movie experience, but of all epic blockbusters this movie isn't doesn't stand out among them. I remember reading all the reviews for this flick in my country and they were all overwhelmingly positive, while the public comments were more skeptical, so I was prepared for even to be thrilled or disappointed. If you're going to be both, it's up to you. But for you who haven't seen it, just go ahead and check it out.

Mean Girls (2004)

My review of Mean Girls

[7/10 · 11 July 2009]

If you're looking for a frisky and entertaining teen movie, "Mean Girls" could be a right choice. Despite it's not my personal favorite teen flick out there, it's still a fun, light and watchable movie.

The movie is entertaining throughout it's screen time, but it's far from flawless. The main problem is the script, who feels chaotic at times and could have been tighten up and more structured. There are also a few annoying characters (Damian and Gretchen) who makes the film cheesy. Just to be said; there is a lot of cheesy humor in this film. But the plot is simple; it's about girls who becomes friends and talks bad about each other behind their back. Sometimes the back-talking is taken too literally, cause throughout the film you can see plenty of the girls lying or talking crap about each other. Though the situations are exaggerated, they're still recognizable. And the moral, despite being not a innovative moral, its' still a good and relevant one, considering that bullying and lying to your classmates are something that unfortunately happens today.

"Mean Girls" was Lindsay Lohan's big breakout film. She also starred in "Freaky Friday", which was directed by the same director, Mark Waters. For me personally, "Freaky Friday" is the superior film, being both funny, smart and fresh at the same time. And Lindsay had a more challenging role on that flick, playing both a teen and a mother. In "Mean Girls" Lindsay acts decent, but steals the show away with her natural charisma (unfortunately, like most of us know, she went the wrong path, which is bad, cause she was a refreshing teen chick back in 2004). But the best acting part is no doubt of Rachel McAdams, who is convincing as the bitchy Regina George. Amanda Seyfried (who lately starred in «Mamma Mia») is also convincing as the not so very smart Karen Smith. The rest of the cast does a decent enough job.

Despite «Mean Girls» suffer from some problems (script, some bad characters, cheesy humor), it doesn't mean that it doesn't entertain. The film is watchable mostly because it's a fun and light comedy. And speaking of which; of course there are some genuinely funny moments here «Mean Girls» have also some really catchy songs and music, which makes the film watchable. And like I wrote earlier; the moral is a good one.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Delightful Simpsons-episode to the big screen

[9/10 · 10 July 2009]

When a successful TV series is being transported to the big screen, there's always some expectations and worries lying ahead. Some of the big screen adaptations of a series works well ("South Park", "Ducktales", I can't remember others by now), others works terrible ("Hannah Montana"). Thankfully, "Simpsons The Movie" is not on the latter mentioned category!

Since it's already two years since this movie was released, I'll guess many have already seen it, so it's going to be unnecessary to tell the fans to not worry. But for those who haven't seen it; don't worry. "Simpsons The Movie" is a delightful and highly entertaining movie experience, series adaptation or not.

The movie is fresh, amusing and never gets boring during it's 87 minutes of screen time. It's also surprisingly funny, just as the funniest episodes used to be. It never feels odd or strange to see the characters in a movie situation, since one is used to see them during 21 minutes or so in a episode setting. Almost all the dear and familiar characters from the show are in the movie and their personalities are like you're used to see them. There are some few new touches, though, like the sweet and increasing relationship between Ned Flanders and Bart, Homer bonding to the Spider-Pig and Maggie being smart, which is nice to see.

The animation it self lives up to the standard of the series and it's bright, colorful and refreshing, despite there are some few and obvious CGI shots who stands out. The score is great and supports the movie, without being distractive. There are also some few cameos by Green Day and Arnold Schwarzenegger, which is fun to watch. The plot it self isn't so distinctive; like usual, there are some mistakes to make and lessons to learn by the characters, but the story still works pretty well.

Overall, I can't recommend "Simpsons The Movie" highly enough. It's a successful adaptation of one of the worlds best and funniest series and has the spirit of the show as well.

By the way; Get sure to not stop the movie before the end credits roll out.

The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

An entertaining Disney delight

[8/10 · 26 December 2008]

I saw this movie again today and I still can't understand why this movie became forgotten. I think it's unfair that "The Rescuers Down Under" didn't get the attention "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast" got. Don't get me wrong, I liked those movies too, but "The Rescuers Down Under" truly deserved to be among the 90's golden age (I know it's sounds like a cliché, but it's true).

This movie opens with a breathtaking, opening shot where the camera swoops over the Australian outback, which is alone worth the watch. One could think the movie would fail from there on, but fortunately it never does. After the prologue the movie offers a high paced action, adventure and humor that will get the kids amused - or a least it amused me when I saw this film at theaters as a child.

The character animation is great and the movie's visual look is beautiful and certainly realistic. I loved the layout and the epic scale. And Bruce Broughtons score is majestic as well.

While the story is quite simple, the characters portrays good personalities. My favorites are Wilbur, Jake, Frank, and Joanna. The fact that the latter character didn't speak made her more amusing. McLeach is a effective villain and Bernard and Bianca are two likable protagonists. And Marahute provides great majesty.

I remember seeing this film for the first time as a 7-year old in theaters - it was an amusing and spectacular experience. Several years have passed and I'm still enjoying it. Although the film's ingredients are enough to please the kids, I still think the action and excitement of would fit to the adults too. It's a film that nobody should miss and deserves to be everyone's childhood memory (or in a adult's memory, for that matter).

Hannah Montana (2006–2011)

This show is far from perfect, but I'll still like it

[7/10 · 21 December 2008]

Okay, "Hannah Montana" may not be original, innovative or flawless, but on it's own merits, it's a highly entertaining and watchable show.

It's easy to understand the big hatred for "Hannah Montana"; a show about a teenage girl taking on a blonde wig and becoming a teen pop sensation. When the show came in 2006, I couldn't care less about the show or Miley Cyrus, for that matter. But three months ago, something happened and I randomly began to watch that show every time I had the possibility and now I'm a fan. I shall confess that.

The characters is what's makes this show. The character of Miley aren't flawless, but still a likable and feisty girl. But the best characters are with no doubt Mitchell Musso as Oliver and Jason Earles as Jackson. They're two wonderfully, charismatic guys that provides the show's comedy. Emily Osment as Lilly is funny, Billy Ray Cyrus provides warmth and kindness as Robby Ray and Morgan York is funny and eccentric as Sarah. Less successful are Moises Arias as Rico and Frances Callier as Roxy, but they still provides the show in their own merits.

Another good thing is that the show doesn't rely entirely on cliché's. "Hannah Montana" shall forever be compared to other teen shows, mostly to "Lizzie McGuire" (a girl who has a dorky guy and a tomboy girl as friends and has a feud with a popular girl in her class and a teasing sibling), but Miley's friends are more funnier, Jackson is actually older than Miley and still dorky and Miley isn't picked by Amber and Ashley in every single episode (at least for all I know, she didn't used to be childhood friends her enemies). We're also allowed to see how Miley deals with her pop star life, hearing some jokes about celebrities and such, although one most wonder how one plausibly would manage to parallel a life as a pop star and a average girl at the same time.

But here comes the bad things: Although there are some funny jokes and gags in the show, there are many jokes which are obviously aimed at the kids and sometimes the writing is so bad that one should think the writers suffered from a terrible insomnia.

Second is the show's predictability: Often the episodes are about Miley making a selfish mistake (which often including lying to her friends and family) and correcting the mistake during the end of the episode. I know that an episode depends on a situation, but one should think that Miley should have learned her lesson, but she still makes the same mistakes in several episodes.

Those mentioned flaws prevents the show to reach it's full potential, but besides that, I still think "Hannah Montana" it's a entertaining and engaging show. Although a better script-play would be nice, but which show is perfect after all? Now we have to see how long the "Hannah" popularity will last

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

Good and underrated Dreamworks flick

[7/10 · 20 December 2008]

Like most of us knows, Dreamworks has been the most noteworthy American competitor to Disney. While they claimed to be innovative with their animated flicks, their hand-drawn films have still been good, but also still flawed in their owned way; "Prince of Egypt" were good and majestic, but too pompous and gloomy. "The Road to El Dorado" were more fun and lighthearted, but suffered from some huge story holes. "Spirit" were cute and Disney-like, but suffered by some dreadful Bryan Adams ballads.

"Sinbad" doesn't contains any big flaws. While it isn't innovative either, it's still a good and watchable cartoon that should be given a chance to every movie-lover.

The animation is quite good. The characters likable. The voice actors does a good job, although their voices are recognizable, they're not distracting. Brad Pitt is good as the fun-loving Sinbad. Catherine Zeta-Jones is also good as the vulnerable, but tough Marina. Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly sexy and seductive as Eris and Joseph Fiennes is marvelous as Proteus. But the most recognizable voice goes to Dennis Haysbert as the sympathetic Kale (since I used to watch "24" in 2003).

There's enough action to keep kids as adults interested. The score of Harry Gregson-Williams is simple and classical, but still good. In a way, "Sinbad" contains all the elements of a Disney movie, without it feels like a Disney flick, which is a good thing.

But does "Sinbad" contains some flaws? Yes, it does. They're not so huge, but considering that I used to be a fan of the 1001 nights stories, there's little left from the original Sinbad tale. Not that it distracts the viewer to enjoy the movie, but a little more reference to the original tale would have been nice (although no film is entirely accurate to it's original source).

The other flaw is that in a animated flick you must have a protagonist to cheer for, but although Sinbad is a charming guy, he still have some very inhumanly and cruel sides that it's hardly explained during the movie. Then you've feel sort of forced to support him during the movie, rather than cheer him up genuinely.

Besides that, "Sinbad" it's a good film that it's worth a view.