Rebeccachu Elizabeth C.'s Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews

Happy Feet Two

March 23, 2012

Today, I saw the cover for Happy Feet Two on my Teacher's desk. I remember seeing the original Happy Feet when I was 14 years old, seeing it on the big screen at my local AMC Promenade Theater, and I enjoyed the living hell out of it. And I gotta admit that George Miller is at the helm and he is one of the film's 4 screenwriters. I can also add that some of the voice cast from the original has returned, such as Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Robin Williams, as well as new members, like Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, P!nk and Sofia Vergara. And John Powell returns to compose the score, too. I've been through these kind of movies before, so sitting through this one may just be a breeze, and as a sequel to the original, this should be at the very least different. That should be it.

Later, on March 23, 2012

Okay, what the fuck did I just watch? This is more like of a episodic movie than a real movie. What's the point of having a new baby penguin named Erik in place of the original's main character, Mumble? It's altering the original storyline! Also, why did the Mighty Sven appear in the first place? He appears in the movie for no goddamn reason!! And I didn't even see a sliver of story in this sequel. Why do these two orange krill, Will and Bill, pop up from time to time? No goddamn reason! Is there a reason to have the penguins trapped in an iceberg? What?! NO?!!? Yep, this is more like randomness than a real movie told by good storytelling. Mumble has to save a Elephant Seal? Come on, why doesn't this movie have a storyline? Because it's nonexistant, that's why. Oh, and LIVE-ACTION, REAL-LIFE HUMANS appear in this animated film. I AM NOT MAKING IT UP! I really, really, REALLY didn't laugh so much through the first half of the film that I watched. Next week, the attack will continue with the second half of the movie...

March 28, 2012

It's Wednesday and I have to suffer through the last few minutes of this lackluster sequel. Part two of the movie began with the penguins tap-dancing on ice and Will being thrown back into the water. And then, Mumble and Erik have to see the elephant seals ONCE AGAIN...this time, to reunite the trapped penguins. And WHY DOES ERIK START SINGING ALL OF THE SUDDEN?! Does he have a URGE TO LET OUT SOME LYRICS OR SOMETHING?! Afterwards, Mumble, Erik and the elephant seals all join together to save the group of penguins that are trapped. And how do they do that? By doing a rendition of Ice Ice Baby, of course. And Will, Bill and all of the other millions of Krill join in the tap dancing as they fill up all the broken ice to fix the problem. And once the problem is solved, Mumble thanks all of the elephant seals for helping him out. And so, Gloria, Mumble and Erik all huddle together. And that is where the movie ends, everyone. I'm glad this 100-minute piece of random occurences is finally over, but why did I have
to sit through this movie?? There are still many questions left UNANSWERED!! Why did Miller, Eck, Warren Coleman and Livingston all trade in a thoughtful storyline like the one found in the original Happy Feet and in Toy Story 3 for a mash-up of random occurences in order to make a story for the movie? It's like watching a YouTube Poop, only not as fun!! Yes, there is energy in the movie, but it's all bogged down by those f**King worthless occurences that make up the story, which is sadly not here in the sequel! Come on, Miller, you can do much better and much more than this!! YOU WON AN AWARD FOR DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB ON THE ORIGINAL HAPPY FEET, AND YOU DEMOLISHED YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING THOSE AWARDS WITH THE SEQUEL! If you're gonna make another animated film other than the two Happy Feet films, just write a GOOD script this time instead of a messed-up one like the one for the second Happy Feet Film!! GOD!!!!!!!!!! And, is Miller's animated film career going to move on or will it, sadly, be left behind??
Please, for Pete's sake, TELL ME! And if this movie is goin gto stay around much longer, I'll quickly change the channel even before it comes up! GAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! I'M HAVING A HEADACHE OVER THE MOVIE'S NONSENSE!!! URGH!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!! PLEASE! NO MORE!!!

April 6, 2012

Ugh...It's thankfully all over now. But, seriously, Happy Feet Two, although the animation looks great, is a big mess in terms of storytelling. The Box Office returns for the first film is what caused Miller and Co. to greenlight a sequel. Yes, the film is at 100 minutes long, but almost nothing happens. Yes, it's nothing but an episodic movie.

You have the scenes when the iceberg traps the penguins, the part when The Mighty Sven (voice of Hank Azaria) comes in and starts singing, the live-action part when th ehumans come in to rescue th epenguins, Mumble helping out the Beachmaster and all. made me feel empty inside. I felt dead inside after its 100 minutes of its noisily incoherent narrative.

Yes, many children, teens and adults can definatley learn from many movies, but even Happy Feet Two can insult its target audience!! In fact, it gives out a very huge "FUCK YOU" to the young children that watch it. The side story of Will and Bill (voiced by both Matt Damon and Brad Pitt) is impressively animated, but even then, it doesn't make any sense here, also.

Mumble returns as the lead penguin, and is now married to Gloria. Mumble and Gloria's son, Erik, is shy and reserved, and the other penguins tease him when he tries to dance. Erik and his buddies leave the colony in search of adventure and run into Ramon, who simultaneously channels a Rastafarian and a sex addict. Ramon leads the runways to the Mighty Sven, who claims to have been saved by humans and enjoys dispensing nuggets of knowledge to the other birds. Mumble eventually catches up to Erik to bring him home, but a large iceberg breaks free from the ice shelf and traps the rest of the Emperor Penguins in a large canyon.

Don't let my synopysis of the film trick you. Happy Feet Two has no cohesive story to speak of, and instead assaults the viewer with scene after pointless scene of rapping baby penguins, poop geysers and cloying single servings of virtue. Happy Feet Two is a mess, I say! It's not really a movie at all, but a poorly concocted cash grab full of random cutesy images, a ton of characters and pop songs. George Miller was one of three directors on dancing-penguin hit Happy Feet, but takes the reins solo for Happy Feet Two. The opening scene provides a medley of Kidz Bop-quality recreations of various pop songs, including LL Cool J's "Mama Said Knock You Out" and Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack," which is re-written as "bringing fluffy back." It feels like the filmmakers wanted to assault viewers with as much stimuli as possible. Penguins dance, jump, and swim for your attention during the obnoxious medley, which is only the first of many groan-inducing songs.

The lessons in the film are so trite and their onslaught so pervasive that they completely overwhelm the movie. And, for the voice actors? Happy Feet Two is one of those movies that features so many stars that the voices become distracting. Aside from Wood as Mumble, almost every other voice actor is overly recognizable. From Williams to Azaria and Sofía Vergara, the film is full of recognizable voices. Instead of characters you get these voices, and random celebrities and a nonexistent story do not make a good movie.


I wanted to love Happy Feet Two as much as the original. I really did. If only it had the same type of storytelling as Toy Story 3 had, then it would have been a decent sequel. But I was wrong. Instead, it's unfunny, unfocused and grating. Happy Feet Two is an inferior sequel hell-bent on assaulting viewers with cute, merchandising-ready images and generic life lessons. There is no storyline, the big number of voice actors can get distracting, and those looking for a complex story should move along. There is no reason for paint-by-numbers clunkers like Happy Feet Two to be released when animated movies like Kung Fu Panda 2, Toy Story 3 and The Princess And The Frog exist.

During the last few minutes of Happy Feet Two, I just wanted the commotion and the cacophony to stop. The film flopped hard at the box office, which should send the message that moviegoers are smarter and more branier than the studio anticipated. Happy Feet Two gets a 3.2 out of 100. See why I only gave it a 3.2 and not a lower score? It's because of the excellent animation, the cute penguins and John Powell's score (GOD, I really love his music sometimes). Those are the only three Pros that this movie has. But there are too much cons for this movie, like no story, no plot, too much nonsense and little rewatching value. As it stands out, I don't want to sit through this movie again. The lack of creativity in this movie baffles me -- I can do better by creating original traditional and digital artwork and posting them up to my DeviantART or Furaffinity account. Happy Feet Two is the most annoying animated film from a major movie studio that I have seen in a while right now. Not recommended.

Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3(2010)

What can I truly say? Toy Story 3 is easily the very best of the 3 installments of Disney and Pixar's popular franchise that I have ever seen. I have seen both 1 and 2, but 3 is the best one of them all.

This time, Toy Story 3 follows Woody and all of his buddies to Daycare, while Andy is leaving them behind in order to go to College. While at Daycare, they meet up with some new toys, like Lotso The Huggin' Bear, Buttercup, Trixie and more.

The visuals are once again, like always, awesome. The colors really do pop out also! And Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Ned Beatty and the others do a excellent job at the voice acting once again. It is made of epic win.

The movie's moral and important message is that your childhood has to be left out sometimes. I realized that, but I can't stay as a child forever.

If you are one of the few people that hated this movie, like
Armond White, then you can go kindly die in a hole. Toy Story 3 comes out highly recommended!

Kung Fu Panda 2

Animated sequels are a mixed bag. Some of them work, but most don't. Making an animated sequel to a good animated movie is easy. However, engineering a good animated sequel is difficult. Basically, if it's not Toy Story, then it is going to fail.

Here are some examples: Happy Feet Two, Shrek The Third, Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, Open Season 2, Most of Disney's DTV sequels, and Garfield: A Tail Of Two Kitties. Heck, even the CGI feature film studio god Pixar made its very first big critical misfire with Cars 2.

All these sequels that I have listed above failed with critics. But, however, I read online back then that Kung Fu Panda 2 got good reviews. It made me think "Hey, I want to check this movie out!"

So I did. I bought the Blu-Ray Combo Pack on January 15, 2012. However, I was too lazy to watch it at home. Then, on February 3, 2012, I finally got my very first viewing of the movie at High School.

And on February 10, 2012, I finished the movie. It took me 2 weeks to finish the movie in no time! :D YAY!!! And, guess what? The sequel is SLAM-BANG AWESOME! ;) Yep, you read it. It was GREAT!

I sadly have never seen the original Kung Fu Panda (I will try to, soon), but this sequel hits all the right notes in making a good animated sequel to a well-recieved animated original film. The story revolves around Po and the Furious Five the second time around, as they team up together to take down Lord Shen, an evil peacock hellbent on taking over the world by using deadly Fireworks.

The voice cast is top-notch. Jack Black reprises his role as Po, the lovable Panda Bear who utilizes kung-fu techniques. Gary Oldman is a good choice to play the bad guy, Lord Shen. Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Dustin Hoffman, Lucy Liu and David Cross make good voice actors, also.

And the animation works, too. DreamWorks has released animated movies that are truly eye candy as well as Pixar, such as How To Train Your Dragon, Megamind, Monsters vs. Aliens and Bee Movie. Colors are good, the environments are impressive, and the fur on Po is just lifelike, with lots of textures. There's also a 3D version of the movie avaliable, so make sure to get some 3D glasses if you want to see it in three dimensions! ;)

The Dreamworks Animation Logo variation at the very, very beginning of the film and the 2D-Animated Prologue are both just simply sensational. And the end credits are also well-done, too, by using music and 2D animation along the way. And the movie is as dramatic as it is funny. The movie has a positive message about friendship and making desicions. The movie also has plenty of humor to tickle your funny bone along the way.

And, when I saw the sequences with Lord Shen in them, and when he defeated Po, I was like "GOD DAMN YOU, SHEN! YOU ARE A EVIL PEACOCK!!" And, when Shen was defeated, I was like "YAY!!!" The movie also has a Twist Ending! I don't want to spoil it for you, though.

The screenplay is decent. Not to mention the score by John Powell and Hans Zimmer. It works, too. The two composers have added a Chinese flavor to the mix. All in all, this is a worthy sequel to a great DreamWorks animated film that came out back in 2008.

Kung Fu Panda 2 got a "Certified Fresh" and a 81% "Fresh" score on Rotten Tomatoes. Interestingly, Industrial Light and Magic's very first full-length animated feature, Rango, also released in 2011, at a "Fresh" 88% on the Tomatometer and is also Certified Fresh, is 8% higher than Kung Fu Panda 2 and 5% higher than Puss In Boots. Puss In Boots is at 83% on the Tomatometer, which is 2% higher than KFP2. So DreamWorks might have to give up the Academy Award if Rango succeeds in winning the Awards Ceremony in February of 2012.

But however, overall, Kung Fu Panda 2 is worth your Skadoosh. It's one of those animated sequels that I can recommend without any reservations. It's no Toy Story 3 or Toy Story 2 in terms of critical achievement, but it's still one of the very few best-reviewed animated sequels out there. Kung Fu Panda 2 gets a 8.3 out of a 100. :)

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

You know, I love to watch movies. I have been watching them ever since I was little. Animated Disney films were like "Potty Training" to me in terms of movies. Then, at 6 years of age, I tackled my first PG-13-rated movie, Small Soldiers. Which IMO, I liked.

Then, at 10 years of age, I sat through The Matrix Reloaded and enjoyed the h*ll out of it. Ever since, I have been watching movies. Rarely in the theater anymore, but on Blu-Ray, TV and when I am in school.

But like all of us, we know that all movies aren't great. And the genre that gets a lot of panned movies are Live-Action/CGI hybrids based on classic cartoon or comic strip characters. Even original ideas have failed. As do sequels to original Live-Action/CGI Hybrids. Case in point, Cats and Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore.

My god, where do I begin?? Well...having only seen HALF of the original Cats and Dogs, I can tell that the sequel was going to suck A**. Many sequels to many movies don't fare well as their originals. And in 2010, the year the movie was released, Warner Bros. released only 3 PG-rated Animated movies: This one, Yogi Bear (Which got a 14% rating on RT) and Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole, which I liked, but because of its heavy plot, dark nature and violent, scary scenes, is an animated film more suitable for adults than kids.

The plot is essentially dumb and BORING. Yep, you guessed it, BORING. Canines and Felines team up with a pigeon to save the world from a hairless cat. At first, it sounds really good on paper, but the final product is just BLAH. How this sequel got greenlit before going into development is beyond me. As you can tell, I F**KING HATED THIS F**KING SEQUEL!!

I listened to the critics' reviews of the film telling me to stay away from this film. But, one of my students at school brought in the DVD, so I was ready for a load of TORTURE! I endured 82 minutes of suffering, from the idiotic screenplay to the CGI'd animal antics. After the viewing of the movie, I think I may have lost about 12 of my many brain cells by now.

My heart sank when I watchede the horror of all the wasted talent in this movie -- From Neil Patrick Harris to James Marsden to Michael Clarke Duncan to Christina Applegate to Bette Midler to Nick Nolte to Joe Pantoliano to Chris O'Donnell -- All these talents in this movie are blown up. In fact, the movie was so terrible that Film4's Catheriene Bray called it "Now here's a film there's absolutely no excuse for" and gave it a 1.5 out of 5.

The CGI effects are POOR. Yep, you read it, they're P-O-O-R. When I looked up the movie's company credits on IMDB for the 13 special effects companies that worked on this movie, I was insulted when I saw the name for Sony Pictures Imageworks in it. SPI has done good special effects for a variety of movies -- but this one is a REALLY BIG letdown to me. How can such an award-winning SFX company work on c**p movies like this one? It hurts me a lot.

The screenplay is by Ron J. Friedman and Steve Bencinch, the duo that was also responsible for the mediocre Animated film, Open Season. They steal bits and pieces of good, much better movies, like the James Bond film series and Babe. They churn up those bits and pieces into a steaming pile of sh*t just to get this movie over and done with. There's a lot of "been there, done that" syndrome in this movie.

The film's director is Brad Peyton. He also directed the upcoming Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, which will most likely be better than this POS movie (We'll have to see), but this movie has him directing the animal antics in this movie. The movie is in native 2D, but in post-production they converted it into 3D in order to cash in on the success of James Cameron's Avatar, and to make it more exciting. But it fails. Many Post-Converted 3D Movies Do Not Work. Only a few succeed.

And last, but not least, what is the movie's target audience? Toddlers? Preschoolers? Kindergarteners? 6-Year Olds? Elementary Schoolers? Stupid and dumb 8-12 year olds? We will never know. Yes, the movie's obvious target audience is kids, but the movie's PG rating will definatley keep them away. This movie appears to be made for no one but the most idiotic of all moviegoers of all ages.

Overall, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore is a bad movie in every sense of word. Yeah, you could get some crazy animal antics from some of it, but is it worth the thoughts of losing your time and sanity swimming in your head because of it? Didn't think so. If you love unoriginal and stupid live-action/CGI hybrid movies, then check this out. Otherwise, stay clear. Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore gets a Unbearable 1.1 out of 10. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to put this dog down.


Now, before you ask me, YES, this is the very first animated feature-length movie from ILM (Industrial Light & Magic). And it is also Gore Verbinski's (The first 3 POTC films) first animated film also. And it is a double debut that I truly enjoyed.

As you can clearly see, Rango is the debut for one company and one director as I have mentioned above. The visuals are hands-down the best part of the film. Plus, it's a hit for many animation lovers and those who enjoy well-made animated films.

In short, Rango is 2011's How To Train Your Dragon and March 2011's True Grit. When our protoganist and pet chameleon Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) ends up in the small Western town of Dirt, he becomes an unlikely hero, and of course, the newest Sherrif in town.

As mentioned above, the visuals are the best part of this movie. In order for an animated film to truly work, studios don't always need 3D effects, cute characthers, cuddly animals and bright colors. Sometimes, gritty landscapes and grotesquely-detailed characters work, also.

In case you didn't know, Roger Deakins is the cinemetographer for the film. He worked as the cinemetographer for the True Grit remake and as a supervisor for HTTYD, so that makes Rango 2011's version of HTTYD, as mentioned above. The voice cast is solid. Ned Beatty does a good job as the main villian in the film, just as he tried to trick Woody and friends as Lotso in Toy Story 3.

The musical score by Hans Zimmer is awesome, and the screenplay by John Logan is smart and sharp. He utilizes irrepressble energy and irreverent pop-culture references for the movie. In some parts of the film, hilarity ensues. There are even acid-trip sequences. And it's wacky, and funny. It even pays a big tribute to those old spaghetti Westerns of years past.

Just one word of warning: Rango, despite being an animated film and carrying the "Nickelodeon Movies" label, is one of those films that are more suited for adults than young children. It carries a PG-rating, saying that it has "Rude Humor, Language, Action and yes, Smoking." And the film can get quite violent at times and scary. Plus, it also has adults-only refrences in it. This film also taught me that a PG rating definatley does not equal a kid-friendly movie. I could suggest screening the film before you show it to younger children. Consider yourself fully informed.

Other than the "More suitable for adults" message, Rango is a good time. And I highly recommend it.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Ah yes, Zack Snyder. Known for his visually stunning movies, like 300 and Watchmen. So, it's no wonder that he did his first animated film, Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole. Based on the beloved book series by Kathryn Lasky.

Now, to be honest, I have never actually read the book series. It began in 2003 and ended in 2008, as I have looked. But, when I saw the trailer for the movie, it had good visuals. At first, I was like "Gah, I'm not intrested!", but however, I browsed through the reviews and checked the fresh ones, some reviews said that it was worth seeing. So, I picked up the single-disc Blu-Ray from Best Buy and until August of 2011, I didn't watch it. I left the Blu-Ray sitting on my collection. But on 8-19-2011, I finally decided to take a shot at it.

And what did I find the film? Well, I have one word: IMPRESSIVE.

The direction by Snyder and the visuals were the best parts of the entire movie. The ending credits were also nicely done. And the voice cast was stellar. Jim Sturgess, Ryan Kwanten, Abbie Cornish, Geoffery Rush, Helen Mirren, Richard Roxburgh -- What more could you ask for? Plus, they managed to put in Hugo Weaving as the voice of Noctus.

The story, to me, was pretty fun and good. It was like being transported into a Fantasy World, which Ga'Hoole really is! The score by David Hirschfelder was very good music to the ears. And "To The Sky" by Owl City was Awesome!

And there's also a dedication to someone at the end of the credits. ^_^

My only downside for the film? This film can be too scary for the younger movie-goers. That's why the MPAA rated LOTG "PG", meaning Parental Guidence Suggested. The reason? Some Scary Action. So this film is for brave and older children and teens, but I managed to watch the entire movie without getting scared.

Even at a not-so-perfect 53% on the Tomatometer, Legend Of The Guardians is still better than Warner Bros.' other Fantasy film of 2010, the remake of Clash Of The Titans, which is at a painful 28% (Ouch! Dx).

So, overall, I give Ga'Hoole a score of 7.8 in my book. And judging by the Tomatometer, I could say it is to me a Guilty Pleasure. 8D

Next up for both Snyder and Animal Logic: Man Of Steel and Happy Feet 2! :D

Despicable Me

Guess what? I picked up a copy of this movie on Blu-Ray Combo Pack on New Year's Day 2011. My parents were the first to watch it -- They didn't have a Blu-Ray player in the living room, so they watched the film on the Standard-Definition DVD Version.

But however, on January 7th of this year (The same day that the crappy Season Of The Witch film came out, and it was also Nic Cage's Birthday), I popped in the High-Def Blu-Ray copy of the film. I watched the entire movie, yes, even the credits -- and once the movie was done, I ejected the Blu-Ray disc out of the Blu-Ray player.

And, to this day, guess what?


Yep, you really heard me, Illumination Entertainment's first film is loaded with animated goodness.

Steve Carell does a pretty impressive job as the voice of Gru, as Jason Segal did a decent job on voicing Vector. The animation is a treat for the eyeballs, and the screenplay for the film was almost top-notch. Even some of the dialogue is awesomesauce. "IT'S SO FLUFFY I'M GONNA DIEEEEEEEEE!!!!" xD

At first, I did not even expect this movie to get good reviews, I though at first I was like "Man, this is gonna blow some banana chunks!" But seeing that my mom enjoyed this animated movie, and the critics enjoyed it also, I was also one of the many who loved this animated feature.

Alsthough it's not as excellent as the other 2 high-rated animated movies of 2010, Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon (Which I both loved a lot), Despicable Me comes out as a fine entry if you love well-made animated films.

Overall, Despicable Me is a great start for Illumination Entertainment, and I hope their 3rd feature, The Lorax, will be as good. Despicable Me...gets my high recommedition. Also, the minions are a blast to watch with their antics. >;)

Alpha and Omega

Even though I may have only seen the second half of it at school, I'm lucky I didn't see the full version of this craptacular wolf-themed animated atrocity! <3

How to Train Your Dragon

Another animated gem from Dreamworks. HTTYD is one of the 2 best-reviewed animated movies of 2010, the other being Toy Story 3.

It takes place on the windswept island of Berk, where a Viking named Hiccup (Voiced by Jay Baruchel) trains a dragon named "Toothless", and in turn, creates a great story to tell everyone who watches this film.

The visuals are a blast, and my eyes got peeled to it. :) And the score by John Powell is awesome, like always. And the supporing cast is good, with the talents of Gerard Butler, America Ferrera and Jonah Hill.

Just like James Cameron's Avatar before it (Another very well-recieved movie), the message and the moral of the movie is "Make love, Not War". How To Train Your Dragon is one of 2010's best movies, and in turn and in my book, comes out highly recommended! :D

FernGully 2: The Magical Rescue

*Sigh* I watched the sequel when I was younger. And it sucks balls. The original is far superior. The sequel sucks donkey balls to the max. That is all.

Furry Vengeance

"Furry Vengeance" is most likely the worst eco-themed family film I ever saw.

Before I begin this review, let me say that first of all, I have been doing my part to help planet earth. I recycle bottles (In fact I pick up bottles while carrying a shopping bag from Target or Wal-Mart when I am at school) and papers that are no longer needed and aluminum cans, have my parents get their smog checks for their cars, purchase Energy-Star labled electronics and save our precious H2O. This movie, on the other hand, sucked, sucked, sucked, SUCKED!!

It is one of the reasons why making a eco-friendly film featuring animals that attack a human was actually never a good idea in the first place. And even when I watched the trailer for the film on YouTube, I knew this film was going to suck smell like a piece of sh*t from a Shaymin.

The story follows an ambitious young real estate developer, Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser), who faces off with a band of angry animals when his new housing subdivision pushes way too far into a pristine part of the wild side.

"Furry Vengeance" is plagued with numerous problems, the biggest being that it has a crummy storyline. Plus, repeated assaults to the groin, bee stings to the eyes, raccoon pee in the mouth, or skunk stink sprayed head to toe is DEFINATLEY NOT the way to teach ecological balance. And even though the score by Edward Sheamur is kinda OK, Fraser acts like a immature 4-year old in this movie. And it disappoints green kids like me, making them CRY rather than LAUGH! It's not for ALL families, it's for TROLLS from DeviantART! I've seen better animal antics in the live-action 101 Dalmatians movie, and it wasn't that good either.

And Furry Vengeance is a BIG INSULT to anyone who has a brain. It MURDERS brain cells and you WILL get BRAINWASHED if you watch this movie. I was NOT impressed at all. AT ALL. I was forced to watch it at school, whereas I would have at LEAST avoided it. Now I will regret the day that I have watched it in my entire lifetime.

Overall, "Furry Vengeance" is a immature, worthless and absolutley polluted enviromental mess. It is ultimatley the worst eco-friendly movie I have ever seen.

Gulliver's Travels

Ever since he first went into Hollywood buisiness, Jack Black has been starring in one quirky movie after another. But in 20th Century Fox's film, Gulliver's Travels, does Black have what it takes to make this movie enjoyable? No, he didn't.

If you don't know what the movie is all about, it's a bastardization of a classic story by Jonathan Swift. And the movie's plot? Travel writer Lemuel Gulliver takes an assignment in Bermuda, but ends up on the island of Liliput, where he towers over its tiny citizens. Seriously. That's the plot. :|

All of this would be fine, and could have made for an enjoyable enough experience, if the script and the directing by Rob Letterman itself were any good. Trouble is, it's not. There's barely any humor through the immature joke scenes, which includes a scene when Gulliver urinates in order to put out a fire. There's also almost no talent from Jack Black (who is sadly wasted in this film). The movie is also unengaging it's still hard to enjoy.

The premise itself is also nonsensical and poorly adapted. Basically, it has something to do with Gulliver boing to the Bermuda for something to work on, and that's about all the explanation that's given. I also found the scenes with the tiny citizens boring to look at, though others might find them funny. Still, the fact that 20th Century Fox made this movie is a complete bastardization of Swift's classic. Such a sorry excuse for a story and characters just further shows how little effort was put into this one.

While younger kids who have never watched a very good, much better Jack Black film before may get a few kicks from Gulliver's Travels, anyone else would do well to steer clear of this one. With a subpar screenplay by Joe Stillman and Nicholas Stoller, Lame, Immature Jokes, and scenes that are tiresome, Gulliver's Travels is only fit for easily distracted children, teens or adults looking to throw away 85 minutes.

Brotherhood of Blood

Oh my god! It is the horror movie from the very near future! :O

Pokemon Ranger and the Temple of the Sea

You thought that I would hate the anime because of the crappy editing and the dubbing. You would expect me to hate the movies too, even though I love Pokemon to death, because they share the same problems. Well, guess what? The 9th Pokemon movie was actually great.

A mysterious egg hatches in the arms of one of Ash's traveling partners and turns out to be a cute event legendary that immediately bonds with that traveling partner. However, the legendary needs to serve an important purpose in a specific faraway location, to which they must journey while the traveling partner acts heartbroken about having to leave the cute legendary behind. Meanwhile, a villain wants the legendary for his own nefarious purposes. Eventually the villain is defeated and the legendary is released, the traveling partner accepting at last that the legendary needs to serve its purpose and leaving it behind.

In accordance with the title, this movie does indeed feature a Pokémon Ranger, Jackie, who in fact is a pretty cool guy (eh protects nature and doesn't afraid of anything). At the beginning, Jackie is on a mission: he is working undercover on the crew of a pirate submarine owned by one Phantom. He is after the legendary Pokémon Manaphy, which according to legend is supposed to be able to lead him to the "Sea Temple", an underwater temple built by a water-based culture known as the People of the Water. This Sea Temple contains the so-called Sea Crown, which Phantom wants to steal, because he is a pirate and wants pretty treasure. Also, the Sea Crown is supposed to make you the "King of the Sea", though nobody elaborates on exactly what that is supposed to mean and we only find out in one of the movie's most utterly bizarre moments near the end.

Well, in any case, the Pokémon Rangers know about Phantom's plans, and thus Jackie has snuck in on Phantom's crew. He snatches up the egg just as Phantom is about to get his greedy little hands on it for the first time and then bolts, kicking a metal beam out of shape while he's at it to keep the goons off his back, because he is just that cool. When Phantom has sent out his Pinsir and Parasect to get him, Jackie brings out his Capture Styler with a triumphant musical swell, captures a nearby Mantine and escapes on its back while it uses Confuse Ray to put the Pokémon out of it.

There is a title sequence which appears to be implying that every oxygen atom in a water molecule in fact houses a separate universe. This is not a concept that is explored in the actual movie, so we'll just assume they thought it looked cool.

Overall, it is a cool anime film, filled with a good storyline and a magical premise. I love Pokemon and I love the anime version of it too. So, go ahead, guys. Make this the lowest-voted review I have ever made, everyone. I really dare you to. >:D

Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny

There's a reason nobody makes Christmas movies like this one anymore. They're fully NOT loveable anymore!!


This is proof that some franchises are better left on comic strips.



AGH! This movie is hardly funny the only reason a laughed because this movie is so stupid and retarded.

Exodus Film Group, try to make a more servicable animated film next time.....


The Tooth Fairy

Alright, I'm gonna review this piece of PG-rated plaque that I watched at school that is the TOOTH FAIRY.

The marvelously handsome wrestler-turned-actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is the main star of this film. When a pro hockey player, nicknamed the Tooth Fairy for his ability to knock out other players' teeth, dashes the hopes of a young boy, he is ordered to one week's hard labor as the real Tooth Fairy.

Flat direction and a committee-written script render this film unacceptably dull. It's not even made by Disney!
And WHY WOULD ANYONE be shrunk SAMLL in real life -- Who the FUCK SHRINKS to the size of a FUCKING PUSHPIN?! Ugh....You see how much this movie caused me -- DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. Avoid it like you are afraid of...uh...I got it! Avoid it like you're afraid of RSV! Avoid it like you're an RSV-infested moron from lipsid highway! Well, I'm gonna sign off of this review right now because I am about to drive myself up to the wall with this movie.


Don't you dare laugh at me. I did not make it AFTER THE FIRST PART OF THE MOVIE! I'm not lying! I did not! It is terrible at all aspects. The acting is awful the directing is awful! And The Asylum sucks @$$.The company makes mockbusters, which are parodies. To us, they're cheap rip-offs!. Woop da freaking do!

The plot: I DONT KNOW! Well it's a cheap knock off of the Transformers Live-Action Movie. It is stupid.

The final verdict: It is idiotic and sucks ass! Fuck this movie to h-e-double hockey sticks! If you see it then get your favorite crucifix and perform a curse on the box and disc.....along with your TV and your Blu-Ray/DVD player. IT IS TERRIBLE! A 0 OUT OF 10 FOR BEING A LOAD OF SHIT! If there's a third film (There's already a sequel OMG), then the power of christ compels that film! And you know what: This is the worst movie from The Asylum I have ever seen. Michael Bay's Transformer's films have NOTHING on this cheap knock-off of a film!!!!!

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Ice Age 3)

The first Ice Age, if not excellent, was a fine animated feature-length debut for Blue Sky Studios. The second installment, however, was below average. But, the THIRD ONE....

....this is proof that this series is ready to become extinct soon.

The story goes out like this: Manny and Ellie are expecting their first baby, while Sid the sloth tries an unconventional way of starting a family that gets him into trouble. With all this talk of babies, Diego might be losing his saber-toothed edge, but a journey to save Sid may just turn the whole group into heroes. In addition to all that adventure, it wouldn't be an Ice Age film if Scrat weren't on a desperate hunt for an acorn, but he might get distracted by a shapely female squirrel.

Now, let me tell you the flaws of this movie.

First off, the story dosen't make much sense? Why are there Dinosaurs in the Ice Age? Didn't they arrive after the Ice Age has ended? And it's all tired and monotonous and predictable in there.

Also, it fails to entertain. It fails to entertain even the kiddies. It fails to entertain most animation fans. And it fails to entertain moviegoers.

Now, here are the somewhat good parts.

First, the animation is INCREDIBLE. It's also one of the best renderings of a CGI-animated film I have seen so far. Definatley trumps the crummy animation of the rip-offs.

Second, the score by John Powell. It is AWESOME. I could listen to it over and over again. It is one of the best musical scores I have ever heard.

So those are the only two good and bad parts, let's move on.

The voice acting is a mixed bag. It is good to see Simon Pegg voice Buck, the one-eyed weasel, but overall, for a film like this, it's wasted. But the return of Denis Leary, Ray Romano and others is...well...fine.

So, in short, this is one film that is entirely forgettable. It is a mindless animated film of the times. The 3D is a waste of money. The series is coming to a close. It's a film franchise that's hopefully gonna be going, going, going......gone.

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

(Takes a deep breath, then shouts it out)

Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal,
Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, Abysmal, ABYSMAL!!!

(Lungs are now deflated)

A Troll in Central Park

Coud this Don Bluth animated film suck any harder? Oh yes. Cuteness? Nil. Characther Development? Non-Existant. Enjoyment? Hardly any. Rewatching value? Forget about it. In short, A Troll in Central Park is best left unseen, and, if seen, forgotten as early and erased from the mind speedily as possible. If you have no taste in animated movies and/or babyish theatrical movies, enjoy. If not, do yourself a favor and avoid this absurd piece of bull. I'm pleased that it got a 0% rating on RT. Anyone who has watched this will possibly try very hard to purge this out of their brains in a week or more, or even years and decades to come. There's really no excuse for wasting your life on this cartoon dreck. See "Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs" for a more perfectly-crafted animated film, "Up" for more fun and "300" for excitement and visuals. Avoid! Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!

Another note: This animated film would want to be a Disney wannabe, but really can't rise to this level.

The Princess and the Frog

Ah yes, Disney's return to hand-drawn animation is surely a likeable gem! The songs were awesomesauce, the animation sweetened my eyes, the characthers were loveable and the movie is overall OUTSTANDING.

Go see it now if you can! ;D

Troll 2
Troll 2(1990)

Stay away from this terrible sequel to a horror movie. Pointless acting and crappy dialogue.

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Me in December 2009, when the movie was released: This Squeakuel looks like crap! I'm gonna stay away from it.

4 Months Later...

I watched this film at school.

I HATED this sequel. It sucks. It's babyish. And it's a crap sequel. If you thought Fox and Regency's previous PG-Rated film aimed for kids of 2009, Aliens In The Attic, made you yawn and check your watch, then this will have you rushing for your noise-cancelling headphones.

Storyline: (Oh my god, it was released on Christmas! This is one big lump of coal!!!) Alvin, Simon, and Theodore meet their musical match after returning to school and entering into a battle of the bands competition in hopes of saving the school's troubled music program. Sent to live with Dave Seville's younger nephew Toby (Zachary Levi), the three lovable marmots decide that getting an education is more important than belting out pop tunes. But the school's music program is about to go belly up, and the only way to save it is to win the 25,000-dollar prize in the upcoming battle of the bands. Though the Chipmunks are confident they have the songwriting skills to steamroll the competition, a newly formed singing trio dubbed the Chippettes promises to give them some stiff competition on-stage. Brittany, Eleanor, and Jeanette are indeed the real deal, and the closer the competition gets, the more Alvin, Simon, and Theodore realize that in order to win, they'll have to give it everything they've got.

This film just lacks any good features. It's got a slapped-together plot, lame jokes and some crappy elements. It crushes my heart to see Jason Lee and David Cross waste their talents in this! Directed by the director of The Brady Bunch Movie, Betty Thomas, the film lurches to life with the arrival of a rival female trio of chipmunk vocalists, the Chipettes (voiced by Amy Poehler, Anna Faris and Christina Applegate).

And what the hell is up with the rendition of some popular songs, like "You spin me right round" and "We are family"? I mean, did the film-makers put them up at 2x speed along with the chipmunk's voices? So sad to see Justin Long waste his talent, also. And also Applegate, Faris and Poehler. Plus Zachary Levi is also one of the victims for his waste of talent!

This film was also not funny. I did not laugh at even the most laugh-causing moment. And even David's Iconic "Alvin!!" yell made my eardrums explode like dynamite. The only best things that I saw on the film of how perfectley rendered the Chipmunks and The Chipettes are in 3D over the use of real live-action ones. That's why this film gets a 10% instead of a 0%.

This movie sucked big time. Even though it's aimed for young children, I think it is actually targeted at the mentally insane criminals who have no taste in movies at all. The Squeakuel has got to be one of the most unneseceary movies EVER! This sequel is so bad that it makes Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen look like Avatar! And why was this movie made, you asked? Because THE FILM-MAKERS HAVE NO BRAINS! It's a sequel to an already crappy Live-Action/CGI film! Goddammit, when will Jon Vitti (Who wrote some Simpsons episodes) and Jonatahan Aibel learn that this film got bashed by critics?!!!

It's a very bad film and so unsatisfying, that one critic calls it "Surely this qualifies as cruelty to humans". If you want to watch a good family film, try Fantastic Mr. Fox, Up, The Princess And The Frog, Ponyo or Where The Wild Things Are. Don't ever watch this movie or its 2007 prequel.


This was the very first film I have ever seen from Studio Ghibli.

Hayao Miyazaki has done it again. He has made a movie that is good for any age!

The visuals were the very best thing. And it's heart-swelling and funny at times.

It's super-sweet. If you love animation, I highly advise you to go check this one out. :D

High School Musical

High School Musical.....FREAKING SUCKS!

Gran Torino
Gran Torino(2009)

This is absolutley one of Eastwood's best! SERIOUSLY!

Old Dogs
Old Dogs(2009)

Oh.....I really do not want to review this film....I wanted to only rate it....but, if I have to do it, then I have to just do it.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the magic of Disney (Just not its crappy stuff, like Hannah Montana, High School Musical and Jonas Bros., you know). I watched this at school. After watching the excellent "Where The Wild Things Are", they brought in a new movie. So my class picked this. What a mistake.

This is the worst live-action Disney film I have ever seen. It's got waste of talent and it's free of laughs. And it's got a screenplay that is almost like that if the writers didn't have any soul at all. This movie is so bad it's not funny. In fact, It's so dreadfully bad that it actually increases your risk of commiting suicide (I am not laughing! Suicide is never funny)!

The story follows two men who are friends, and their lives are changed when they are forced to take care of a six-year old. And the bachelors may even find out that there is something important in life.

This movie lacks any redeeming features. Walt Becker (Who also directed "Wild Hogs") directs this film and he did not even know if he had to do this stuff like that was shown on the film. He just didn't read the script, which was written by both David Diamond and David Weissman. These three did not find any good ideas and instead miss the mark.

Robin Williams and John Travolta have their otherwise great talents wasted like energy. They're forced to speak cruddy dialogue and do mindless performances. What a waste of talent this simply is.

It tries to be slapstick with a Gorilla and a bunch of Penguins, but it only instead falls short and ends up being crappy.

I really wish I did not want to see this film, but I had nowhere to go to. I had to endure it. This Disney film is also so horrid and unfunny that it makes Blank Check look like The Bank Job and First Kid look like Dave!

And the storyline just dosen't work, even though there's a positive message in there. And it's also disturbing, with crap editing and the Gorilla making love with Seth Green.

Old Dogs is Z-Grade Disney Trash, with low production values, a predictable premise, bad acting, poor film-making and a particularly offensive outing in Disney's live-action library from Becker. Please, please please don't waste your precious 88 minutes here. You'd only be encouraging the people who worked on this film.

Fred Claus
Fred Claus(2007)

Why would you watch this dirty candy cane? It's sooooo boring! But I have to admit it: Vince Vaughn is an actually otherwise OK Actor.

Johnny Mnemonic

If you watch this movie, you will have no idea what you are watching or have just watched when you are done.

Beavis and Butt-head Do America

This is the very best out of Paramount's 3 Animated PG-13 Films.

The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter

If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it. If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it. If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it. If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it. If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it. If you find this not-needed film more enjoyable than the first then you will have no control over it.


Let's just say the critics really did not like it.

Where the Wild Things Are

This is one of the most heartfelt movies I have ever seen. I have read the book. And it worked on this film, too. This is the very first film I have seen from Spike Jonze, who directs and co-writes. The visuals are great, the story is good, and the movie is entertaining. Need I say more? ;)

Resident Evil

I know, it sounds pretty crazy, but I'm here to tell you what this movie actually is and how it's not so cool.

What was Paul W.S. Anderson thinking when he did this movie? Did he EVEN play the RE games before he made it? Well, if you want to see why this movie has failed, let's take a closer look at HOW HORRID this film actually is!

- Anderson's screenplay is full of cliches.
- The Direction is inane
- The music is loud
- Some of the scenes are violent
- The storyline is formulatic
- Some of the dialogue is crud

And why did Anderson put in his wife as the lead? Milla Jovovich REALLY is the wife of Anderson!

Also, Michelle Rodruigez is too embarrased to waste her talent on this sh*tty adaptation.

I can't believe Capcom, the creator of the RE franchise, supported this film!

Colin Salmon really ignores being involved in this film.

The other actors/actresses do not even know what they are actually in.

And, worst of all, other than Anderson writing, directing and producing the movie -- Is the fact that it dosen't have real scares in it! It's not even scary as the original game that has inspired this film!

Stay away from this rotting wild dog carcass sandwiched with cream cheese! Please do this and leave it be! Trust me, it's really going to pay off!

Miss March
Miss March(2009)

I'm not gonna watch the film, I know it's really gonna suck. And, reviewing the film? I'm not gonna do it.

Jack Frost
Jack Frost(1998)

Feel like getting heartwarmed by a man who's been transformed into a snowman? Watch the trailer.

Theodore Rex
Theodore Rex(1995)


Just when you thought the dinos were extinct...




What was that movie all about?!

I really do not want to ruin it for you buddies, but --

YEAHS!!!!! Teddy truly gets it in here!!!


Like many other movies from the Walt Disney Animation Studios, Bambi is elegantly animated and has a story that's sure to make me grab some tissues for my eyes!

The Lion King

Definatley one of the most stunning Disney Animated films!!


Do yourselves who have not seen this film a big favor -- Don't bother watching it.

Date Movie
Date Movie(2006)

Date Movie can have a date in HELL!

Finding Nemo
Finding Nemo(2003)

What can I say? One of Pixar's bestest outings yet!!!

Richie Rich
Richie Rich(1994)

Try squirting grapefruit juice into your eye than see this film. It would be much more fun.

Inspector Gadget 2

OH DEAR GAWD, HELP ME!!! Basically, this Crummy Disney Direct-To-Home Video sequel is simply a unworthy one. It's the Direct-To-Video Equailvent of jumping off of a 35-foot telephone wire while smoking 45 Marijuana Squares when you're the size of a pea and you land with a loud thud and you become really paralyzed so much that you can't walk anymore and then a huge brick lands on you and then you are hit and you die and become blind in the real world and you are forced to watch nearly every abysmal cheapquel on over 11,200000000,000000000000000000 HD Television screens in H-E-Double Unsharpened Pencils. Yes, I have watched the cartoon version of IG in my early years, but the live-action film killed it. But this sequel is even more WORSE!! It's worse than the mediocre original.

IG2's casting coup is "3rd Rock From the Sun"'s French Stewart. He replaces Matthew Broderick from the original, and in comes Elaine Hendrix as the sleek, all-robot babe G2 (with whom he, a human with cybernetic installations, falls in love, raising obvious issues the film can't be bothered to deal with--she reciprocates without the bat of a screenwriter's eyelash) to stop the nefarious Claw--would still suggest a reactor leak at the Crayola factory, but more so.

Since the defining trait of Inspector Gadget is that he's a gizmo-laden robot who only looks like a man, you can safely assume that that's all the Disney Sequels needed to know. Hire a desperate actor willing to withstand a whole LOT of green-screen work, and there's your movie: a bumbling detective who has rockets shooting out of his hat and wheels popping out beneath his feet as he sits in a computer-generated car that talks like a sassy black guy. Oh, and there's pink goop flying everywhere.

It would all be a lot more fun if it weren't so damn lifeless. In a casual deference to 'plot', this Part 2 introduces a new-fangled lady Gadget who might just make our "hero" all but obsolete, just so the audiences can be sure that the screenwriters have all seen Terminator 3 and Robocop 2 or basically any sequel in which one cool robot is now being threatened by an upgrade. Of course Gadget's growling nemesis, The Claw, gets involved with some badness that must be thwarted. It's all very tiresome, trust me.

And what in the blue sky were Ron Anderson, William Robertson & Alex Zamm (Zamm also directs) thinking when they wrote the script? Were they on 34,234 cans of Budweiser or something?! This has got to be one of the most poorly-written screenplays I've ever witnessed in my entire life.

You can look away from the screen and close your eyes if you want, but the sound fx, dialogue and the music will almost rape your ears like pure sh*t. And, they added a ton of CGI in this film. About 70% of the CGI looks like it's been done off of a 5-decade-old Apple Power Mac GS I! Seriously, this is what happens when you don't utilize CGI in moderation.

I have been forced to watch it at school, and I actually cringed in my seat during the film. And I lost some of my brain cells during the first half. As for Robertson, Anderson and Zaam -- James Cameron, Quentin Taratino and The Wachowski Brothers they are not. Featuring a truly awful screenplay and more overbaked CGI detritus than you can shake a claw at, Inspector Gadget 2 is a loud, leaden, garish and oppressively off-putting experience. The lead is nothing but a keening cipher, the narrative clearly has no intention of making sense, everything is beholden to the copious goopy layers of CGI stupidity. There's no heart, no wit and certainly no real sense of fun.

Spare yourself from this movie. Seriously -- Stay Clear of this Disney Direct-To-Home Entertainment Sequel of a mediocre live-action Disney Movie!

Thomas and the Magic Railroad

I was a huge fan of Thomas. I saw the TV episodes on VHS and had the toys I played with. I was a huge squirt when I loved Thomas back then. But as I grew, I started to outgrow him...until this movie came along.

OH MY DEAR GAWD!!!! This movie was HORRIBLE!!! It did NOT follow the same premise as the TV Series and the Illustrated books did. It was just plain UNORIGINAL.

Anyways, here is the story. Eleven-year old Lily (Mara Wilson) sets off to see her grandpa (Peter Fonda), but she ends up on the wrong train. Lily meets Mr. Conductor (Alec Baldwin), who lives in the town of Shining Time. Mr. Conductor uses magic gold dust to visit the Island of Sodor and Thomas the Tank Engine and the Magic Railroad. When Lily arrives, Thomas is having problems with Diesel 10, a renegade diesel engine, and Mr. Conductor is running out of the magic dust. But all will be well if Lady, a missing golden engine, can be found. In the meantime, Grandpa has an engine hidden away in the mountain. Could it be Lady? Will Mr. Conductor find more magic gold dust? And will Thomas again be the number one hero of the Magic Railroad? Let's keep our fingers crossed, apparently.

Oh, god...WHY?!!! Why did both Peter Fonda and Alec Baldwin have to waste their talents on this dreck????!!! Oh, sweet dear mother of lord...

But one thing you will NOT find in this house is anything that has to do with `Shining Time Station' - the poorly done PBS children's show that had the cute little Thomas shorts as a regular feature. As much as I loved Thomas, I did not even watch `Shining Time Station,' perhaps one of the worst children's shows ever. It was quite literally banned from our children's television viewing. All their knowledge of Thomas comes from the videos, books and toys.

So it was with great dismay that I discovered that the Thomas movie incorporated many elements of that miserable television show into it's plot. (If you can call it a plot.) `Shining Time Station' the children's show was 50 minutes of absolute fluff with ten golden minutes of Thomas. Sadly, this film nearly follows that ratio. But sadly, the character the film is named after, `Thomas the Tank Engine,' has precious little screen time. I believe that even the evil `Diesel No. 10' had more screen time than Thomas, and sadly much better lines.

More miserable than using than using the `Shining Time Station' motif was the portrayal of the chief protagonist of this sad affair, the aforementioned `Diesel No. 10.' Rev. Awdry, the man who can be rightly called the father of Thomas, used the Thomas the Tank Engine stories as a means of teaching simple morals and proper manners. The worst characters in his books (and in the videos based on the books) were merely rude or a bit rebellious. They were there to serve as a negative example, to show why rude, obnoxious behavior is unacceptable. Yet `Diesel No. 10' in the Thomas movie is not merely rude or rebellious, he's downright EVIL, wanting to DESTROY the entire Island of Sodor railway network, and kill Mr. Conductor! We are not given any insight into why he wants to do such a terrible thing, other than the fact that he's a diesel, and they are just prone to diabolical behavior. (I must say that as a railfan, I found it to be downright insulting that `Diesel No. 10' was based on the real life BR's Western Region `Warship' class of diesel hydraulics - which themselves were based on a German railway diesel of very similar design.)

There's so much wrong with this film it's difficult to understand how it ever made it into the theaters. The plot is indecipherable, the characters uninteresting, and melding of British and American culture just kind of stupid. What's the point in showing '64 Mustang convertibles and '55 Chevy pickups rolling through the hills of the Isle of Man? And why does a blatantly American steam train have to stop at a charming little English country station??? The nice thing about the Thomas stories for us Americans was that He and his friends were unapologetically British. There wasn't so much as even a hint of American culture, except for George Carlin's narration on some of the videos. It's as if all of a sudden American children wouldn't accept the film unless American trains, cars and actors were blatantly displayed at every turn.

And even some of the original characthers don't even appear! The film's director and screenwriter, Britt Allcroft (She also created the TV Series) must have been covering her ears about the TV Show! SHE CREATED A PLOT THAT IS SO C**P!

The plot was unoriginal, I could see the ending from a mile away, the voice acting sucked, and bad acting of Fonda and Baldwin got on my nerves, and I saw this when I was 8, at school on a VHS, for god's sake!!!! UGH!!!!

Bottom Line: Go get the TV Episodes, the Toys and/or The Original illustrated books. A better use of the franchise and your time.

Team America: World Police

If you love mindless marionettes, randomness, hours of laughter, insanity, getting offended, being left in stitches, stupidity, crude humor, crazy acts of violence, a good time and a overall quality film from the two people that brought you South Park, this movie is for you.

Space Jam
Space Jam(1996)

Oh my gosh! Sufferin' succotash! That irreverent alpha toon, Bugs Bunny, has been reduced to a sock-sniffing cheerleader in Michael Jordan's ego-tripping "Space Jam." And even though the wacky wabbit shares top billing with His Airness, this overly commercial enterprise is almost as hareless as Jordan's bald head.

And here is the story: "Space Jam" marks the film debut of basketball legend Michael Jordan, who plays himself opposite some rather "colorful" co-stars... When the Looney Tunes bunch are kidnapped to another planet by the dastardly Swackhammer, Bugs Bunny challenges them to a basketball game to win their freedom. But when the hulking opposing team, the Monstars, sap the talent from such popular hoopsters as Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley, the Looney Tuners realize they're in deep trouble. In response, they enlist the aid of Michael Jordan, who trains and later joins the squad. It's gonna be a wild 'n wacky, high flyin', slam-dunk of a game -- with everything at stake for Bugs and company. Can "Air" Jordan lead them to a victory? Maybe, maybe not.

The co-stars do interact, but not to the extent that the live actors and toons mixed it up the vastly superior "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." It is no surprise to find the movie's produced by Jordan's agent, David Falk, who uses "Space Jam" to showcase his client, the products Jordan endorses, and the teams with which he is or was associated. The film even includes footage from his college years with the North Carolina Tarheels.

Warner Bros. also puts in its own plug: Daffy Duck is surprised to find the company logo sewn on his feathery fanny. And with plugs and pitches so prominent throughout, it's a wonder that Porky Pig doesn't turn into a pink plush toy or maybe a lunch box before the credits roll.

Inspired by the Nike ads that team the bunny with the ballplayer, the film likewise pits this pair against evil alien hoopsters. Only there's more than overpriced sneakers made in Asian sweatshops at stake here. If their side loses, the Looney Tunes will be forced to become theme-park mascots on the planet Nerdlock.

Known as the Monstars, the aliens have siphoned know-how from NBA players Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Larry Johnson, Muggsy Bogues and Shawn Bradley. The heroes, however, have a secret asset in their new teammate, Lola Bunny, a so-called feminist whose ideology is belied by the rhythmic swing of her cottontail.

Lola is gaga for Jordan, but then all the Loonies worship the tower of power. And why not? Everybody wants to be like Mike, including Mike, who is surrounded protectively not only by toons and NBA colleagues, but a supporting cast of actual live actors. They're meant to disguise the star's shortcomings when he isn't shooting hoops or staring bemusedly into the distance. Ever see a totem pole try to act?

Jordan and company are at the mercy of Joe Pytka, who has directed one bad movie and 5,000 TV commercials. Apparently Pytka brings the attention span of the average gnat to the project, which lacks both coherence and cohesiveness. Though Warner Bros. boasts this is their most expensive animated project ever, it's hard to see where all that money went in terms of artistry or technical craftsmanship.

Don't let the presence of the Warner Bros. Cartoon Characthers or Michael Jordan entice you -- THIS IS ONE HELL OF A BAD LIVE-ACTION/ANIMATION HYBRID MOVIE. If you are one of the jerks (NOT INCLUDING ALL OF MY FRIENDS -- Sorry if I offended you) who loved the movie 100%, you STINK LIKE SQUIRTLE POOP. It is a terrible film, and gets a 20% in my book. Don't watch this. At all. AT ALL....

Overall: If you want a great basketball experience, watch it on broadcast. If you want Looney Tunes, stick with their cartoons.

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

Although it was a little bit imaginitive to's busy enough to keep people who have a sunflower seed-sized brain interested -- but the slapstick goes overboard and the special effects, although well executed, definatley throw the production into huge amounts of mania.

Cats & Dogs
Cats & Dogs(2001)

Enjoyable only if you have a low IQ and a blueberry-sized brain -- or under the influence of canine-versus-feline madness.

The Return of Jafar

Easily the first, and one of the worst Disney Direct-To-Video Cheapquels ever made. The animation is great, but it's god-awful in all respects. If you want to see a mind-numbing Disney DTV Cheapquel Presentation, see this and Cinderella II: Dreams Come True (You have been warned!).

Jingle All the Way

No, I am not kidding. What the hell was 20th Century Fox thinking? Ah-Nold as Santa Claus? Action Figures? A TV announcer cautions that "this could be the end of civilization as we know it, though anyone who's seen Ransom will know better than to doubt the power of a rich white dad"? Why? WHY?!?!? When you compare this movie to any of the other Christmas movies that came before it, there's no contest. This movie sucks. REALLY sucks. It's an insult to the Holiday cheer. From bad one-liners to atrocious acting, this even made me ashamed, and I didn't even work on the movie! There are a slew of things wrong with this movie:

No chemistry between Howard Langston and Sinbad (wait a second, there was ROMANCE in this movie???); a action figure that dosen't exist; Santa; TurboMan (I mean, come on: A IRON MAN RIP-OFF???); the month of December (speaks for itself); Bat-nipples (also speaks for itself); unfunny things; a PG rating...

I could go on, but it would be pointless.

Bottom Line: Stick with the Christmas movie classics, and forget this one ever happened. You'll be better off.

Scary Movie 4

This movie falls sooooooooooooooooo hard.

101 Dalmatians

Pretty cruddy live-action version of a classic Disney Animated film. Rather watch Close in Damages!

Aladdin and the King of Thieves

The second sequel and the third in Disney's "Aladdin" franchise. It's so mediocre, that I cannot describe what it is when I first watched it.

(SPOILER WARNING! You have been warned!)

Aladdin (Scott Weinger) and Princess Jasmine (Linda Larkin) prepare for their marriage. Aladdin returns once more to his old hideout to recover a dagger, his only memento of his lost father, who had abandoned his family when Aladdin had been a small child (it is implied that his mother has died). But during the ceremony they and the assembled guests find themselves the targets of a raid by the infamous Forty Thieves, led by a man named Cassim (John Rhys-Davies), who is after a particular piece of treasure: a staff which is the receptacle of a powerful oracle. Aladdin, Abu, Jasmine and the Genie fight back against the thieves, driving them off. Aladdin asks the oracle about his father; the oracle reveals that his father is with the Forty Thieves, "trapped within their world".

Believing him to be their prisoner, Aladdin, along with Abu, Iago and Carpet, tracks them down and stows away into their hideout, Mount Sesame. He is shocked to find that his father is not their prisoner at all, but their leader: Cassim, the King of Thieves. But, family or not, Aladdin has trespassed in their lair and Sa'luk (Jerry Orbach), Cassim's irate right-hand man, is eager to have him punished for it. Cassim, however, slyly suggests that Aladdin instead face "the Challenge" - an initiation ritual - where he must defeat another one of the Forty Thieves and take his place. Sa'luk fights Aladdin, but the latter just barely manages to prevail by throwing his opponent off a cliff into the sea. He is welcomed into the band, and Cassim reveals to Aladdin why he had left his wife and son: to find the Hand of Midas, a powerful artifact that can transform anything it touches into gold. Cassim believed that, with the Hand, he could return to his family and give them the life they deserved instead of one living out in the streets, and had instigated the raid so he could capture the oracle's staff so he might question the seer as to the precise whereabouts of the artifact.

Aladdin convinces Cassim to come back with him to the Palace as his guest and, for a while, Cassim is happy to spend quality time with his son. Cassim meets with Jasmine and the Sultan, and they immediately take a liking to Aladdin's father, not knowing (since Aladdin and the Genie choose not to reveal the fact) that he is actually the King of Thieves himself. Yet, despite the warm welcome, Cassim cannot resist the urge to recover the Hand, and he decides to carry on his original scheme, winning Iago as a new friend and accomplice.

Unknown to all, however, Sa'luk has managed to survive his fall and made his way to Agrabah. He reveals himself to Razoul and sells out his fellow thieves by telling Razoul the password to their hideout in exchange for immunity from prosecution. After thirty-one of the thieves are captured, a disgruntled Sa'luk (who got angry upon not seeing Cassim in the cells) tells them that Aladdin is one of the forty, and his father Cassim is the King himself.

While attempting to steal the Oracle from the palace treasure chamber, Cassim and Iago end up captured by the palace guards, who were ready for him, and Razoul reveals to the Sultan that Cassim is the King of Thieves. With no other choice, the Sultan has Razoul incarcerate Cassim and Iago in the dungeon for life. Aladdin is heartbroken, but decides not to leave his father to rot in the dungeons. He frees them both the very same night, but is discovered by Razoul. Now branded a fugitive himself, Aladdin still refuses to turn his back on all he has come to love and returns to the palace to take responsibility for his actions. The Sultan prepares to punish Aladdin, but Genie and Jasmine come to his defence, stating that all he wanted was to give his father a second chance. The Sultan accepts his apology, much to Razoul's dismay.

With the oracle in hand, Cassim and Iago return to Mount Sesame, only to be captured by Sa'luk and the remaining Thieves, whom Sa'luk has swayed to his side. Cassim is forced to use the stolen oracle in order to find the location of the Hand of Midas and then lead his men there. The Oracle directs them to The Vanishing Isle, a great marble fortress built on the back of a gigantic undersea turtle that periodically dives to the bottom of the ocean, where the golden Hand is hidden. Iago manages to escape from the group, and goes off to lead Aladdin and Jasmine, Abu and Carpet to his imprisoned father.

Aladdin manages to free and reconciles with his father. Working together, they retrieve the Hand just as the turtle is beginning to submerge, when they are attacked by Sa'luk. Then, after struggling to escape the flood, Sa'luk takes Aladdin hostage, demanding that Cassim surrenders the Hand, and Cassim throws the Hand of Midas to Sa'luk. Foolishly grabbing it by the gold hand, Sa'luk turns into a gold statue. Aladdin and Cassim manage to escape with the Hand, but, finally realizing how much disaster his obsession with the item had caused, Cassim decides to toss it into the sea, realizing that his ultimate treasure is actually Aladdin, and seeing the great man his son has become. The Hand of Midas lands on the ship with the remaining thieves aboard, turning it into gold and sinking it.

Aladdin and Jasmine finally get married, with Cassim attending in the shadows, as he is still wanted for his crimes. Also among the guests are several cameos from characters from the TV series. Iago decides to join Cassim as a traveling companion, and they both go off once again to see the world. A reprise of Arabian Nights is then sung; the Peddler makes an appearance at the end of this film to mark the end of the legend of Aladdin (originally planned for the end of the first film) as Aladdin and Jasmine fly past him and wave good-bye to Cassim and Iago. There. The entire film is spoiled for you so that you do not have to fear of wasting your time by watching it.

Overall, this is one of the many poorly-faring Disney Direct-To-Video Sequels, and no one should ever have to watch it. Just pretend they never even existed. I know they will.

The Pebble and the Penguin

Who in the freakin' world greenlit this piece-of-crap animated film!?! Whose idea is it to create this Antarctic 2D-Animated Bullsh*t film?!!!! Was Don Bluth himself sucking down some demented fruit smoothie before he made this film? Let's get a closer look....

In an ancient Antarctican penguin ceremony, a lovable but introverted penguin named Hubie (Martin Short) must present a special betrothal pebble to the bird of his dreams before the festival is over--or lose his chance with her forever. He just manages to pluck up the nerve when the evil Drake (Tim Curry) knocks him off the ice, and Hubie is swept away. Picked up and caged by a ship, he meets the streetwise Rocko (James Belushi), whose only wishes are to live in sunny climates and learn to fly. Together they escape, and Hubie convinces Rocko to help him find his way home. In this lighthearted animated fable, good music (composed by crooner Barry Manilow) and expert animation enhance a cast of talented voices. The real adventure of Don Bluth's THE PEBBLE AND THE PENGUIN lies not only in Hubie's journey but in the challenge of defeating his worst enemy, Drake, and helping Rocko face his issues about flying.

By the mid 1990s, the career of animator-director Don Bluth had seemed to drop to its all-time low. Before, Bluth had made a series of popular animated films, many which remain beloved today such as "The Land Before Time" (1988), "The Secret of NIMH" (1982), and "An American Tail" (1986). But beginning with "Thumbelina" in 1994, his films seemed to decrease more and more in quality and popularity and one of the many unfortunate entries is 1995's box office bomb "The Pebble and the Penguin", a film that didn't attract audience members beyond parents and children under the age of seven. Frankly, the latter are the only audience members I can comprehend taking enjoyment out of this rather bland animated feature.

It becomes very clear very early on why this animated children's musical does not and will not work for anybody older than say six or seven years of age. It just does not have any of the qualities that are required for a good animated feature. Number one, the film looks bad on account of a very poor drawing style. The animation in this film is very cartoony (even as far as animated films go); it's dark, gloomy, there is no vibrancy in the colors, and on top of that, the design of the film and the elements in it are universally droll and laughable. Take for instance, the penguins who star in the film. With only a few background exceptions, every single penguin looks absolutely nothing at all like a bird. Hubie, for example, looks absurdly ridiculous with wide cheeks, a stubby beak, big eyes, and that preposterous hat that he wears wherever he goes. Combined with his hand-like "flippers" he looks like Chris Farley in a penguin suit. Result: he's an ugly, poorly-drawn cartoon character. But the most absurd-looking and absurdly-designed character is the evil penguin, Drake, who frankly looks nothing at all like a penguin. He's a muscle-man wearing a penguin mask. He's got a chest broader than that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and teeth larger than the teeth of the leopard seals and killer whales that serve as the film's predators. Basically, he's a two-dimensional, recycled villain. He lives in a cave shaped like a skull, he wears a cape, laughs a lot, and gets mad when people laugh with him. Result: who cares? And what's also bad, and maybe worse, is that this is an animated musical and there's not a single noteworthy or memorable song to found anywhere within its running time. The opening hymn was harmless?not memorable, but harmless. But after that, the songs became duller and duller and there was one in particular that had me grimacing all the way through. It's the moment that viewers press the fast-forward button for whenever it comes up.

I felt "The Pebble and the Penguin" was lame all around save for the very few moments when Hubie and the rockhopper penguin Rocko are placed in peril at the jaws of leopard seals and killer whales, who were thankfully, given no dialogue and treated as animals instead of cartoon characters. But in a way, for this reason, I cannot wholeheartedly recommend this movie to children. This is the reason. The film displays killer whales are the natural predator of the penguins. My concern is that children familiar with "Free Willy" (1993) may be offended or downhearted by seeing their favorite denizen of the sea portrayed as a bloodthirsty carnivore. The leopard seal was a better antagonist and was more funny seeing as how his jaws opened wider than a rattlesnake's and how he appeared to smile while growling. But the point really is, these moments with the predators?and there are only a few?are the only interesting moments. And they're not enormously interesting, mind you.

If you are one of the numb-nuts (Not including my friends, sorry if I offended you!) on Rotten Tomatoes that really enjoyed this film, YOU are all going to PARTICIPATE in the DEATH RACE. I saw it on VHS at School (It was Middle School) and I felt that I was in a foul mood after watching it. If you are so smart about good animated films, just don't touch this one.

Bottom Line: This is one of Don Bluth's worst animated films, which is truly sad in that it could have been so much more. I give this film a 10%, if only for the 2D Animation and James Belushi's and Martin Short's voices, which was seriously hampered by the inanity of the script. There is no way for me to recommend this, unless if you want to see one of the worst 2D-Animated films of all time. Go see any other Penguin film for greater satisfaction.


May be the most difficult family movie to endure, go watch the NC's review or check Roger Ebert's review instead. This movie -- Don't waste your time.

George of the Jungle

Not a decent Disney Live-Action film. I give it 30%.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III

First of all, why was this movie made? This movie is so terrible, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. Go check out the AVGN's review instead. This movie is putrid. Avoid it at all costs.

Street Fighter
(Part 3 is blocked, sad to tell you)

Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating adaptation to the "Street Fighter" series! The movie is so incompetent that it looks like writer/director Steven E. de Souza intentionally wanted to turn Capcom's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just one of the the worst films, it's also one of the most embarrassing video game movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and ? most of all ? the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Colonel Guile beats up baddies are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering M. Bison ordered commands to his minions? The story takes us to the world of the SF Games. You'd think Van Damme would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no? There's only a huge piece of crud. Another reason why this film is so awful is the completely illogical structure.

How about that: (SPOILER WARNING!!) The film ends semi-humorously, after Guile converses with Chun-Li, Ryu, Ken, Cammy, Zangief, Balrog, E-Honda, T-Hawk and Sawada, they see the last ruins of the temple fall and take their familiar win poses as the camera freezes and fades out. Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Street Fighter" has always been a good game series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. The film, however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it.

Instead, go check out Jedite's review or the NC's review if you want to see what the film is all about! ;D

Inspector Gadget

If you enjoy bad acting, a poor script, un-experienced director, and unbearably corny dialogue, all with a ton of eye candy -- then you need to see a psychatrist....... seriously.


One of the all-time all-ages friendly classics! :)


Disney's take on Babe...and boy, IT SHOWS.

Little Big League

I knew something was up when I popped this in the VHS Player at High School and after watching I felt miserable. I tried to get my teacher to agree, and I could've, after I heard that but -- oh no, I saw the picture.

"I could have eaten a roll of Fujifilm and make a better movie" I thought afterwards. Illustrates everything wrong with Hollywood and Baseball in one movie. You're doing yourself a big favor if you avoid this.


Forty-year-old Peter (Robin Williams) has grown up to be a workaholic lawyer with more affection for his cell phone than his wife and two children. When the family travels to England to visit Granny Wendy (Maggie Smith), Peter's son and daughter are kidnapped by the villainous Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman). Peter's faithful pal, Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts), helps him return to Neverland--"Second star to the right and straight on ?til morning"--to the world Peter has forgotten. There the Lost Boys welcome Peter back and try to get him in shape for his fight with Captain Hook. Peter must somehow remember his long-forgotten boyhood in Neverland and learn how to fly again before he can rescue his children away from the evil clutches of Captain Hook. Bob Hoskins costars as Hook's right-hand man, Smee, and Gwyneth Paltrow, in her first film role, plays the young Wendy.

Sometimes fantasy films can be good; they can be entertaining but are able to retain a certain amount of class; a certain amount of respectability through their pacing, good characters, realistic situations and stunts that do not step over the line of possibility. Some of these films are films like Pinocchio and to a degree, its versions; then there are the Snow White films and to some movie fans' tastes, The Little Mermaid. Hook is none of these things; it does not have any redeeming features bar a stone faced and somewhat enjoyable performance from Williams, further emphasising what a good choice he would've been for the role of some imaginary friend, plus one or two magical scenes you may get a kick out of.

But when the fantasy genre goes bad, it capitulates and this is what Hook does after not very long. The proverbial line I just mentioned is not merely crossed by this film, it is wholeheartedly annihilated thanks to a thousand mile an hour imaginative land; unknown characthers, ships floating and Pirates.........doing fun. Hook is a fantasy film that throws in all the clichés, all the one liners and all the ill-stereotyped issues of representation Hollywood blockbusters threaten to include. This is the sort of film that does not rely on anything else other than fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. The film never allows you to stop to catch a breath, never slows down for dialogue bar when it wants to move the paper thin plot along and just generally insults the viewer.

From the very beginning, Hook makes all the mistakes that you pray you do not have to see. Imagine Nemo and The Little Mermaid years later out of the water and walking with legs? Imagine a re-make of Beauty and The Beast where the Beauty is an ugly old hag and the kind hearted beast slaps her around? How about Snow Black and the 7 Tall Basketball players? Or the Lone Ranger without his mask and shooting Copper Bullets? Cinderella instead of losing her glass slipper loses her wig? Imagine an episode of Harry Potter where he really has no magical powers but you find out he has only been using smoke and mirrors... Have you got those firmly in your minds? Now imagine the myth of a boy who NEVER grows up. He Lives in Neverland where no one grows up...and he is now grown up?

Why is this film so awful? It's the highest of high concept -'Peter Pan grows up' - but because a film is high concept, it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Maybe it's just coincidence, then, that 'Hook' is so dreadful. It's hard to think of a movie so chronically misguided, but it's easy to see how it got the greenlight, given the tried and tested material and the talent involved.

Peter Pan has grown up. Not only that, he's moved to the USA and become a corporate raider, obsessed with the bottom line to such an extent that he neglects his family. But Neverland, and Hook himself, are still out there somewhere, and Hook is still smarting for revenge. So he kidnaps the adult Peter's kids, and takes them back to Neverland in the hope of provoking Peter into a definitive conflict. Peter's soft and middle aged now, he fears he's not worthy of his kids, and it takes concerted action (plus most of the films running time) by Tinkerbell and the Lost Boys to spur him on to his former greatness.

In précis, it doesn't sound too bad. But everything about it is wrong. Peter has, in a sense, become Mr Darling, but the script writers seem completely unaware of this. They're content to spin out the tritest of confrontations between Peter and Hook. The very fact that Mr Darling and Hook are actually the same character shows the ambiguity and sophistication present in the original but totally lacking here. Peter is the good guy, so he must win. Hook is the bad guy, and so must do bad things and loose. And that's basically it.

This is not really a kid's film at all. It's a bitter, cynical film made by men who get through the day on numerous cups of coffee and cigarettes, complaining about their divorce and their wife's new boyfriend. When Hook kidnaps Peter's kids, Peter looks on enviously as Hook tries to make himself into their father. Peter is afraid he's a terrible father, in fact he is a terrible father.

Why does Hook try to become a father to the children? Because the plot says he must. Why does Peter not remember his life as Peter Pan? Because the plot says he must not. If Peter does not remember Neverland, why is it that he's still in touch with Wendy, and that Wendy has 'saved' generations of lost boys? Why do they have a tribute to her? Not because these elements have a cohesive unity that adds up to something resembling a story, but because the scriptwriters have decided it must be so.

The physical production is equally terrible. It's only right and proper that Neverland should not look 'real'. It should be a fantasy, unobtainable, but did it have to look so purposefully designed and constructed? It makes the real, and generally derided, Disneyland look charming in comparison.

Then there are the performances. It's easy to criticise Robin Williams, but when he faces up to Hook with the words 'Dark and sinister man, have at thee', it's laughable. Williams might as well be reading a road sign for all the passion he brings to it. In addition, there's nothing dark or sinister about Hook, as played by Dustin Hoffman. You only have to look at Jason Isaacs as Hook in PJ Hogan's version, to realise how anaemic Hoffman is. Julia Roberts plays Tinkerbell, and she's OK, but she has nothing to do - nothing. Then there's Bob Hoskins, as Smee. He's an exhausting screen presence, horribly out of place here, and utterly lacking in charm.

A couple of elements are OK. The transition which uses the device of Peter kissing the mermaids is a clever way of moving from one scene to the next, and then there's Maggie Smith as Wendy.

It should have been great, but it just doesn't have enough magic dust to fly.

You see, Hook is the sort of fantasy film that destroys and ruins even after it has ended. Can I get Travis Touchdown to kill all copies of this movie now?

Rookie of the Year

An old-fashioned baseball fantasy, somewhat reminiscent in its sensibilities of "It Happens Every Spring" and "Angels in the Outfield," Daniel Stern's "Rookie of the Year" is a comedy laced with poignant moments that accomplishes what it sets out to do ? but only in fits and starts.

The story centers around a 12-year-old Chicago boy who is possibly the worst baseball player in the history of Little League. Henry Rowengartner (Thomas Ian Nicholas) can't catch, can't bat and can barely run. His pitching is somewhat better, but he has no strength in his arm.

Until the accident. When Henry slips on a baseball and lands badly, he breaks his arm, which is in a cast for four months. When the cast comes off, Henry suddenly finds he has an amazing pitching arm ? and his fast ball is not to be believed.

He's so good that the owners of the ever-sagging Cubs sign him up to play in the majors, hoping to win some games, as well as utilizing an obvious publicity gimmick.

Henry is most anxious to meet Chet Steadman (Gary Busey), the team's humorless pitcher whose own injuries have ruined his pitching arm, and, naturally, he's not too pleased about sharing the mound with a kid. But as time goes on, they come to a mutual understanding and Chet, whose nickname is "Rocket," becomes young Henry's mentor.

Young Nicholas is very good as Henry, anchoring the film with a believable performance. And in the second leads, Busey and, as Henry's mother, Amy Morton, are also quite good. Jack Bradfield, as Morton's sleazy boyfriend, is less impressionable.

There are several good supporting players who turn in lively comic performances, including Eddie Bracken, as the team's aging owner; Dan Hedaya, as the heir apparent who doesn't always play on the up and up; Albert Hall, as the team's frustrated coach; and Daniel Stern as the wacky pitching coach. An unbilled John Candy also turns up as a radio play-by-play announcer.

Stern, the lanky comic actor best known as one of the "Wet Bandits" in the "Home Alone" pictures and one of the tenderfoot trio of "City Slickers," makes his feature directing debut here. (He has directed several episodes of TV's "The Wonder Years," for which he also provides narration.)

Stern shows a good comic sensibility but lets the film's natural excesses get away from him ? too much slow motion, lengthy sentimental scenes and a tendency to overplay his own comic character.

The first third or so of "Rookie of the Year" is hysterically funny, but then the film settles into a sentimental rut, only to pick up again here and there with amusing bits. The performances are also wildly uneven, ranging from rooted and realistic to goofy and over the top.

I watched this on a VHS Tape at my former class in school (I am still in High, but a new class now). Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. In the end, this was a total waste of time due to a worthless script (RT told me I should blame it all on the screenwriter as I checked out the worst screenwriters list). Unless you want how to NOT make a Baseball Movie, I would be pleased that you pass.

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Why is is that today that we get inexperienced writers/directors instead of Wes Craven for the NOES series?


When watching this movie, I was offended, cheerful and laughing out loud. The best Sacha Baron Cohen Film I have ever seen in his career and my entire life!!

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Oh sweet dear lord...Oh sweet dear lord of my sanity....THIS PREQUEL TO A 2003 REMAKE OF A CLASSIC HORROR MOVIE!!!! Dx

I was curious to find out what the movie is like, and so I went on YouTube to watch the first two parts. But, HOWEVER....It was TOO INTOXICATING AND VERY BLOODY! UGH!!!! The HORROR of it all! Thank my lucky brain cells and how I spared those other minuutes that I have stopped at Part 2!

Truly lacking in originality, this prequel to the 2003 remake is everything that its predecessor was not: plodding, uninspired, gratuitously violent and just all-around disgusting. That's not to say that the two films -- and, in fact, the 1974 masterpiece that started it all -- do not share some of these qualities, which in some measures can prove effective. But TCM: The Beginning stands out more as an example of the current trend in horror -- unrelenting and not frightening brutality -- rather than the next-gen installment of a more than 30 year-old franchise.

The film follows the increasingly formulaic tradition of horror movies made at New Line where the villains rather than the victims are the focal point of the story. As with Freddy in the Nightmare on Elm Street series or Death itself in the Final Destination films, the storytellers are far less interested in who inhabits the "innocent" roles than what can later be done (via the bad guy) with their still-warm bodies. In fact, this prequel might better have been titled The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Motivations For Doing Stuff, since the dialogue serves to overly explain why the killers, victims and even passersby are performing their designated tasks.

However, their actual motivations are almost completely unimportant: Jordana Brewster, Diora Baird, Matthew Bomer and Taylor Handley are the intended victims. R. Lee Ermey, Terrance Evans and Marietta March are the facilitators of their demise. And as Leatherface, Andrew Bryniarski is the big, blunt instrument that brings all of them together. The time is 1969, five years before the first film happened, though the art director seems to have taken this as a cue to fulfill only the demands of current fashion trends; these are not people who look or sound like anyone but the hottest young stars this side of West Hollywood.

Subsequently, beautiful heads are bashed in, bodies are chopped up, and friends and family are dismembered.The initial problem with the movie is that it is structured almost identically to the original film, which makes it a copy of a copy. Clever though it may have outwardly seemed, enlisting John Laroquette to deliver a straight-faced introduction does not accomplish more than reminding the audience that they're watching a sequel, and a particularly derivative one at that. But "explaining" Leatherface was a bad decision in the first film, and expanding that background to include his kin is a catastrophic miscalculation this time around.

Rather than seeing them as creepy, inhuman monsters, they're perceived as savvy bumpkins -- the kind of back woods folk who are not only well-versed in what city slickers do and think, but evidently know how to creep around with the precise timing of, well, crazed horror movie murderers.In addition, the film relies on a convergence of some highly improbable circumstances.

The reason the kids find themselves in dire straits is not because they screw each other (per the rules of most slasher movies) or otherwise mouth off to the wrong person, but because they are being robbed by a lone female biker when they run into a cow with their jeep and crash spectacularly. Screenwriter Sheldon Turner adds insult to injury when he makes the "victims," and in particular Brewster's character, dumber than just about any horror heroine in the genre's history.

Whether he felt that these characters were comparatively inexperienced since the film was set in '69 or just assumed audiences wouldn't mind that Brewster was dumb as a post, he does the film a disservice by creating characters who are only victims -- i.e. so unsympathetic we don't care whether they live or die.

Ultimately, the film's biggest problem is not its story or characters, but rather its concession to the style of horror movies on the market today. Its predecessor arrived at a time when the truly gross movies weren't being made; since then the likes of Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes have come out -- two films of an increasing number that focus on the blood and guts rather than scaring the crap out of a crowd. Turner and director Jonathan Liebesman try to raise the bar -- or lower it depending on your point of view -- by documenting the brutality, and all but forgoing the truly frightening moments. So while those punctuative riffs from the first film may have returned to accent certain scary scenes, they feel forced, and ultimately, false when exploited here.

There is truly nothing to enjoy about Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, from its disappointingly unoriginal opening to the absurdly violent, equally disappointing cop-out ending. And honestly, if you're going to make a movie about cannibals, at least have the decency not to cannibalize yourself in the process -- especially when all of the really meaty parts were already used up the first time around.

If you want to have a REALLY GOOD TCM experience, watch the Original or the 2003 remake and avoid this prequel at any moment if you can. Like me, look elsewhere and do not waste your time.

Friday the 13th Part VIII - Jason Takes Manhattan

Why does this movie even exist? The only good parts are that Saffron Henderson and Kane Hodder are in it, but that's not a reason to watch an 1 hour and a 40 minute movie. Nothing but a pointless, worthless and stupid 8th part. May god have mercy on your low IQ and soul if you watch this dreck...

Freddy vs. Jason

This has got to be the worst serial killer crossover movie I have ever, ever seen...

....Okay, let's start. The thing about those great, dumb, pointless barroom arguments is, no one really wants to see them get resolved.

Think about it. If you?re fervently arguing with a friend over who would win in a race, Speedy Gonzalez or the Roadrunner, you really don?t want the two cartoon characters to suddenly appear in the street and do the hundred yard dash to settle it once and for all.

If you?re butting heads over who was a better hitter, DiMaggio or Williams, you really don?t want of them to stroll their butt ? frozen or otherwise - into the room, admit that the other guy had the better eye, and thereby end your idiotic discussion. That really would ruin all the fun.

And so it goes ? a little bit ? with Freddy vs. Jason, the I-can?t-believe-they-actually-made-this-thing amalgamation of horror movie franchises that pairs the two psychotic slashers in one giant bloody mess of a movie. Normally, the words ?giant bloody mess of a movie? would signal a failure, but not here ? a giant bloody mess is really the point here, after all, isn?t it?

The bar-room argument on which the film is based is this one: Who is the more menacing, skillful serial killer, Freddy Kruger ? the nightmare-dweller with exacto blades for digits who terrorized the children of Elm Street in seven previous flicks ? or Jason Voorhees ? the hockey-mask wearing, machete-wielding bully victim who terrorized the denizens of Camp Crystal Lake in ten movies of his own? More to the point, who would win in a fight, Freddy or Jason?

The hows and whys of the plot are largely irrelevant, since most of Freddy vs. Jason is little more than build-up to that ultimate psychopathic showdown. But here goes anyways: In the years since his last rampage, the parents on Elm Street have successfully washed the brains of the neighborhood children free of the memory of Freddy, who once passed his time by murdering the kids during their dreams.

?I can?t come back if nobody remembers me!? howls an anguished Freddy (Robert Englund) at movie?s opening.
For a little while, Freddy, helpful as ever, functions as a kind of narrator, a thankless job, since ? as previously pointed out ? the plot here is totally irrelevant. The plot here is also illogical and extremely difficult to decipher, which is exactly what people who watch this movie likely want.

Somehow, Freddy gets his hooks into Jason. I suppose if there are message boards dedicated to discussions of Milli Vanilli, there are, I guess, also places in cyberspace where movie franchise serial killers can get together and chat about ways to help each other effectively kill more stupid, lusty teenagers.

However it happens, the bored Freddy instructs Jason to head to Elm Street and chop a few teens to bloody bits, which he does. Only the hockey mask wearer kinda likes it ? well, of course he does, he?s Jason Voorhees, hello? - and kinda wants to keep chopping up the Elm Street kids, even after they?ve unleashed Freddy in their bad dreams.

So battle lines are drawn. The street of Elm is only big enough for one big screen serial killer, and Mr. Kruger is awfully territorial. And so the two blade-wielders grapple with each other, first on Elm Street and then back at Camp Crystal Lake, inflict nasty wounds and generally do their all to settle this bar-room spitballer once and for all.

I leave it to you to discover which one of these bloody icons emerges victorious. I do this not out of journalistic duty and integrity or the desire not to spoil your fun, but because I am still not sure for myself. I watched it all, and I think I know who won, but then, maybe I don?t.

Of course, it wouldn?t be a Freddy movie, or a Jason movie for that matter, if its ending weren?t entirely ambiguous. And it wouldn?t be one of those movies if it weren?t completely stupid, hopelessly immature and occasionally far more violent than it needs to be.

See? It really is the movie version of a bar-room bickering match. Ah, yes. Let the great, dumb, pointless debate rage on.

Fans of the two horror franchises will enjoy this showdown. But however, for everyone else, like me, it's the same old slice and dice.

Even though I totally HATE the two murderers of Legend and Folklore...And some of you may think it's a good idea to have a crossover...let me tell you -- this movie sucks. In fact, it REALLY, REALLY SUCKS. Why the hell do both Damian Shannon and Mark Swift still have a job? Why were they both allowed to have a job? Have they even heard of the words "character development" or "plot"? If you never been a fan or watched the previous 7 NOES films or the previous 10 FTHE13 films, and you try to watch this film, you will not know what the blazes is going on. There is NO character development. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There is also no plot. Also, the fight scenes were incredibly lame. I mean, what the hell was that duel between Freddy and Jason all about? It looked like something out of a bad 70's kung-fu movie. This is a good thing, since I got rid of the DVD after buying it from Wal-Mart a few years ago. To all the morons on RT (Not including my friends) who said this is a good film, you are in the MINORITY of the DARK PASSENGER. Look up that word when you have a chance. This movie sucked, plain and simple.

Bottom Line: Go to your video store and rent a GOOD serial killer experience, like the original 1978 Halloween, or the original 1980 Friday The 13th, or Twin Peaks, or even the First Three Seasons of Dexter...the possibilities are endless!

Happy Feet
Happy Feet(2006)

This is one visually dazzling animated debut for George Miller. I like Mumble and Gloria as little ones best. :)

Surf's Up
Surf's Up(2007)

This is one of the most perfect Penguin Movies I have ever seen in my entire life. It's got surfing, and it's a great animated mockumentary. Need I say more? :3


Pixar, you have done it again. You just made....ANOTHER INCREDIBLE 3D-ANIMATED ADVENTURE! The animation is excellent, as always, and it's just a film I want to watch over and over and over and over. If I want to recommend satisfying your appetite for a upcoming Pixar Film, I recommend Up.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

I saw this for the first time at school. And, guess what? It was a really huge and tasty time! The visuals are GREAT. Way, Way, Way, WAAAAAAAAY much better than those Toyland Video Rip-Offs! And nice use of some good actors in the voice acting category. A wonderfully tasty adaptation of a good book! Highly recommended! ;)

Jason Goes to Hell - The Final Friday

Pure crap. One of the worst Friday The 13th films ever made. Every aspect of this film is horrible. Jason Voorhees is one killer I REALLY hate because he kills the good people. AVOID unless you are curious to see how awful it really it is.


German director Uwe Boll is making a name for himself as a schlockster, methodically working his way through a long list of video game adaptations for the silver screen, to painfully bad effect. Sadly, Boll is rushing so quickly through each of these absurdly bad pictures that he isn't taking the time to put the schlock where it belongs, so even fans of bad cinema are going to be pretty disappointed.

BloodRayne is the story of a red-headed half-vampire vixen (Kristanna Loken), a dhampir, on a mission to take revenge against her vampire father (inexplicably portrayed here by a wooden and probably somewhat disoriented Ben Kingsley) and the kingdom of night stalkers over which he rules. There are some motivations behind all this, and from time to time Kingsley and Loken utter lines apparently intended to illustrate these motivations, but mostly it doesn't make sense at all and it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Rayne comes equipped with a pair of awkward-looking sword-type things and she knows how to use them. Well, she doesn't really, but a series of quick edits make that a moot point.

Wandering the countryside in search of Rayne and her vampiric foes is a ragtag team of vampire hunters led by Michael Madsen and Michelle Rodriguez, neither of whom seem to realize that they're supposed to be wandering through the 18th century Romanian countryside rather than, say, the Palos Verdes Mall. Of course it doesn't help that most of the sets appear to be taken from your local county's Renaissance Faire and populated by those stoner D&D kids from your college dorm.

How Uwe Boll managed to round up this cast of actors, all of whom have reasonably respectable resumes to fall back on and -- we can assume -- highly paid agents whose job is to protect them from this sort of career-killing mistake, will forever remain a mystery. Of course, not a single one of them, Kingsley (a freakin' Oscar winner) included, manages to deliver one line of worthwhile dialog throughout the entire picture. But that's clearly got a little something to do with the movie's appallingly clichéd script, which was penned by none other than American Psycho writer Guinevere Turner, who also somehow managed to make her way to this pitiful production. It's as if Boll brought together the best team of talent he could possibly secure on short notice and then told them all to suck. And they do!

Unfortunately, nothing about BloodRayne sucks well. Though critics repeatedly compare Uwe Boll to the legendary schlockster Ed Wood, Boll's pictures invariably lack the one redeeming quality consistent with those of that old D-movie master. They're not even funny. In scene after scene Boll misses every possible opportunity to inject humor and camp into this painfully retarded story, which might otherwise have salvaged this idiotic exploit. Instead, Rayne is dry, dull, and senseless from start to finish. Given a choice between watching this movie or watching an 11-year-old kid play the video game version for two hours, you'll likely get a more fulfilling cinematic experience from the latter.

When it Raynes, it's poor.

So, STAY AWAY from this movie. Especially if you've played the game. It makes Boll produce more films. Trust me, DO NOT rent it!!

Halloween - The Curse of Michael Myers (Halloween 6)

I don't care if I haven't seen the movie. I don't care if I review it. I don't care if you love it. I HATE MICHAEL MYERS! BECAUSE HE KILLS TEENAGERS! THE INNOCENT ONES!

Seriously, this is one of the most dreadful Halloween films.

Sixth in the series and the fifth to feature the character of Michael Myers. It has been six years since both Michael and Jamie disappeared from Haddonfield's Police Station. Now, in 1995, the kids of Haddonfield want to have parties on Halloween Night again after their parents have banned it since the incidents of 1988 (H4) and 1989 (H5). Meanwhile, Jamie has been raped by a cult but manages to escape with her new-born baby. But Michael in hot pursuit. The Strode family has moved into the Myers' house, in an attempt to break the curse and to finally sell the house. But daughter Kara Strode has problems with her son, Danny Strode who is haunted by the Man in Black (from H5). Help is at hand though from not only Dr. Loomis but also from an unexpected source, Tommy Doyle (one of the two child survivors from H1). Tommy has grown up and has researched into Michael's madness and he might have the answer...

Now, I volunteer to review bad movies, and I'm easily amused, but I had no idea it would be like this. Everyone in the cast could benefit from a lobotomy. And there was...the death of Donald Plescence? Somewhere? Yeah, and you'll watch our brain-damaging movies and like them. This movie makes me nostalgic for "Titanic: The Animated Movie", "Date Movie", "Harlem Nights" and "Say It Isn't So". And I would rather be nailed to a chair and forced to watch those four films back to back for a week, than sit through this piece of s**t movie.

For the record, I give it 10%, compiling it with the 4% rating for the critics, with 27 "Rotten" reviews and 1 "Fresh" review. So almost nobody wins.

Because I Said So

"This film is going to be distributed by Universal Studios."

"Well if you say so, hey should I just swing my gun around and scratch my chin with the barrel, Keaton?"

"Sure, why not? While your at it, be sure to knock down a few props and don't worry about Piper. She will-CUT!!"

"...Wait, we were filming?"

Yeah, that's as good a theory as any as to how this movie was made.

I'm giving it a 40% but this zero is for making the perfect bad movie, a sort of honor. It's quite an achievement to gain 100%, meaning I can't think of anything noteworthy to complain about (which I hate btw, it's as if the movie won) but to score a perfect 40%, not earn my cruddy dreck and-on top of that-be the highlight of my day? Only Because I Said So can pull that off.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

WHAT THE F&CK IS THIS SH^T!? What kind of jack@$$ greenlighted this sh@t anyway? Did the director even read the script?! No, better question did they even care?! This was one of the worst horror movies movies the critics have ever seen! Girard and the writers of this sh(t took the William Shatner-masked serial killer of Halloween legend, pulled down his tights, bent him over and raped him. THEY FU@KING RAPED HIM! I mean, my god, they made him apear in part 5 for christ sake! Why in god's name would you do that? When the town police ignore his warnings that the madman Michael Myers has escaped his mineshaft tomb, Dr. Loomis tries to persuade Myers' niece to help him trap the evil killer who has embarked on a bloody rampage through the town and then do know what happens if you don't -- you are one lucky bastard for the rest us -- we get Michael killing his innocent teenage prey none of the smart guys wanted to see that! ...Well except maybe Donald Plescance but not too many but I'm getting off track here...Myers what the fu^k did you do now before I even begin to rip it to this character let me just say Don Shanks is playing him for this part. Now who the fuck even decided to pick him for this part? Shanks is not the type of actor to be picked for major speaking roles he's best as an actor when possible and I think we can all agree. Also Michael was never really the type of villian to make annoying puns he was always more of a cold and emotionless villian he never really gave a shit anyone but at least hey got that part right in this stinker. But that was not as annoying to me. Danielle Harris was a actress ever able to break the bat and when I say that I literally mean she bent him over his knee and snapped his spine like a twig after pushing Myers to his phsyical and mental limit. In this sh#t they made into a big dumb henchmen with the IQ of a baby hell. But I have to agree with the Critics on the worst sin of this movie being the screenplay. I mean, what the f&ck does the Michael need with Girard so what if someone annoys him he would murder more teens my god. This movie was one of the most epic fails in '89 almost as epic as epic movie comming soon to a toilet near you. I'm Rebecca Clark, Critic I give &$^@ movies the response they deserve no sugar coated bullshit whatsoever. Thanks and good night everybody!


This live-action Disney Canine film is Barkingly Bad.

Baby Geniuses

Why was this movie made? Seriously, if anyone can answer this, let me know. This movie is bad on so many levels it wasn't funny. For one thing, Kathleen Turner shouldn't have even been able to be in this, much less with her career right now. The acting sucks for the most part, there was hardly any plot, and there were continuity errors and plot holes abound. Then there's the screenplay...all I can say is "wow". Bob Clark, what the blue f#$@ were you smoking when you wrote the last twenty minutes of that movie? That is one of the worst movies ever of all of humankind. Anyway, don't watch this. You'll be wasting your time.

Bottom Line: Don't. Just don't.

Friday the 13th Part VII - The New Blood

I say that this film is the Goldberg of horror movies because if you think about it, like Goldberg of WCW, he is just a rip off of Stone Cold Steve Austin of the WWF, and in horror film terms it is [lan 9 From Outer Space. And believe me, I did not even see this film, but throughout this film, I yearned for it like a shredded wheat addict yearns for its fix. Because, when I thought that possibly Halloween 5 was the worst horror film of the 80's, I was wrong. This takes the cake. The story follows Tina (Lar Park Lincoln), a telekinetic mental patient, travels back to Crystal Lake for some therapy that will allow her to transcend the tragic death of her father--whom she inadvertently killed... Tina (Lar Park Lincoln), a telekinetic mental patient, travels back to Crystal Lake for some therapy that will allow her to transcend the tragic death of her father--whom she inadvertently killed with her mental powers. While staying at the campsite, Tint inadvertently frees Jason from his watery tomb with the same powers, and the masked madman proceeds to make chop suey out of the countryside and all its inhabitants. Ok, maybe some fans will find this a good movie, if they had any respect for the genre. But hopefully they can do themselves a favor by not dragging their own good to this pathetic, rip-off that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and I don't just mean the used breakfast cereal.

Friday the 13th, Part V - A New Beginning

Truth be told, I have owned Paramount's Friday The 13th Box Set since Christmas 2004, when I was only 12. It has All 8 DVDs of All 8 Parts (Paramount was the distributor of the first 8 at the time). But the other installments (From Part 2 to 8), even I have to say, Part 5 sucked. Big time.

Truth be told, Corey Feldman is in it, and it has Jason in it. Tommy, the young boy who finally killed hockey-masked murderer Jason Voorhees in Part 5, has grown up and is now spending time in a home for the mentally fragile. Not long after Tommy checks in... Tommy, the young boy who finally killed hockey-masked murderer Jason Voorhees in Part 5, has grown up and is now spending time in a home for the mentally fragile. Not long after Tommy checks in though, someone starts killing the patients one-by-one. Has Tommy picked up where the legendary serial killer left off or has Jason come back from beyond the grave to kill again? Now, had the movie put in the Real Jason, then it would have been watchable.

Then, the Shaymin wench came in the form of 2 words; Fake Jason. He appears, but he ain't the villain. And even the nurse at the end can't be the big bad. Nope, it's the Fake Jason and his obsession to kill Tommy that drives the movie, start to finish.

Anyone who has watched the first film knows how scary horror movies can be. You'd think that, if the guy runs a multi-national corporation, he'd have a brain. But even the fakey Jason can't figure out something's wrong. Guess he doesn't have a brain! The movie simply combines 2 good elements that mix to form nothing: A horror movie and a characther that can scare people. Picture the cast of Leonard Part 6 in the 1978 Halooween, and you'll get an idea of how bad the movie was. It was basically a step backward. It contributes nothing to the series, and actually creates a huge plot hole (the opening sequence mentions a dream sequence). And after the dream sequence, the real Jason is even mentioned, but is never seen in this film. If I, as a non-fan didn't like this movie, how enjoyable do you think it would be for a fan? Save yourself an hour an a half, like I did, and skip seeing this.

Friday the 13th Part 3

For the most part, the first installment was scary and good, and Part 2 was average overall. Then there's...this. Well now, this is one really f#$@ed-up 3rd installment. I mean, yes, Jason gets his mask for the first time, and had ample chances to blow the villains to high hell!) and you had intelligent teens dying left and right, not to mention truly "WTF" moments like Pamela getting murdered(!)and Jason is still surviving, the inane way the 3D just stopped working in some areas, and the lame plot that was presented in it. Well, there is some value for watching it, if only to see how to not make a decent horror film. All in all though, the movie sucks. Plain and simple.

Bottom Line: Go rent the original installment in this series.

Friday the 13th

One of the scariest firsts of all time.

Van Helsing
Van Helsing(2004)

Too much CGI. This movie makes me want to reach for pesticides everytime it shows up....


Man, this movie stunk Glaceon Balls. "Underworld" is a dark, dank morass of a horror/fantasy epic, all faux-Wachowski action scenes and dim blue light and thumping industrial music and dripping pseudo-Gothic interiors and Kate Beckinsale cramming her cute English schoolgirl figure into a pleather cat suit. (Nobody's complaining about that!) It's trying to be "The Matrix" and "The Lord of the Rings" and Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles and "Romeo and Juliet" all at the same time, and it isn't 10 percent of any of those things. It has absolutely no sense of humor (at least not on purpose) and features some of the worst hambone acting this side of William Shatner. Basically what I'm saying is that by any reasonable standard it sucks.

But who cares about reasonable standards? Behind all the overcrowded pomposity of the story, the monsters out of some fanboy video game and the semi-arty, cologne-commercial design, you get the unmistakable sense that director Len Wiseman and screenwriter Danny McBride actually gave a crap. "Underworld" may be ludicrous; it may pack too many geek-fantasy elements into one package; it may really not work at all. But it's nowhere near Hollywood's usual condescension to the fantasy audience, which may mercifully, in the post-"Rings," post-"Harry" era, be a thing of the past.

If anything, "Underworld" is an overly detailed slice of a new fantasy universe, one just as concerned with delivering a convoluted saga as with chills, thrills, ass-kicking and vampire babes in bodices and cat suits. If this story doesn't bloom into a new franchise, it sure won't be for lack of trying. From the first moments of the film, when Beckinsale rushes through a bewildering voiceover narration and then plunges into an extended subway gun battle where we can't tell who is who or what in hell is going on, the filmmakers are unafraid to set us a steep learning curve.

What makes this different from random genre crap like "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" -- movies where the action is totally confusing and it seems like no one with a brain ever bothered to read the screenplay -- is that in "Underworld," for all its flaws, the story has been meticulously worked out. Wiseman and McBride are indeed plunging us into the middle of the action without much explanation -- into the middle of an eons-long war between the Vampires and the Lycans (i.e., werewolves) that neither side really understands and that shows no signs of abating.

Selene (Beckinsale) is both a vampire and a "death-dealer"; she ambushes and kills Lycans because she has been trained to do it for centuries, and she has never found any reason to question the tradition and training of her tribe. At least, not until now. She lives among a coven of vampires in a brooding old mansion at the edge of town, where beautiful undead boys and girls lounge around on the Victorian furniture like models in a "Fashions of the Times" spread. Heading the gang of bloodsuckers is a shallow, square-headed schemer named Kraven (Shane Brolly), who, as his name might suggest, is unworthy to uphold the grand tradition of big chief vampire-ness. He appears to have forged a secret Hitler-Stalin-type pact with Lucian (Michael Sheen), the stringy-haired Jesus lookalike who runs the local den of Lycans in some slimy urban cavern (and who is supposed to be dead but isn't). All this is happening in one of those decrepit, half-imaginary cities that contemporary filmmakers love so much, basically the same place where "Se7en" and "Fight Club" and "City of Lost Children" and the early scenes of "The Matrix" are set. (In this case it's actually Budapest.)

This entire movie is full of campy overacting, but Brolly and Sheen seem to have been selected for their talents in this regard. Sheen prances around giving one of those line readings where one word is ridiculously overstressed ("You're acting like a pack of wild DOGS!"), and he looks distressingly like the female-to-male backup singer in "Hedwig and the Angry Inch." But he's Cary Grant compared to Brolly, an Irish actor whose muddled accent got drowned in the Atlantic and who spends the whole movie seething and gnashing his teeth. Those hemorrhoids are driving him insane!

Whether the contrast is deliberate or not, Beckinsale's icy English composure creates a sense of stillness at the center of the general art-directed chaos of "Underworld." The Lycans have developed special vampire-killing bullets using ultraviolet light! (That is, sunlight in ballistic form -- a nice touch.) So the vampires fight back with special silver nitrate bullets that make the werewolves wither up and die! (Ordinarily, the Lycans can just sort of swell up like bee-sting victims and expel bullets from their bodies, an especially cool effect.) And why are the Lycans so intent on capturing -- and werewolf-izing -- a clueless beefcake human named Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman)? Could he be the inheritor of some rare genetic werewolf-vampire whatsit that will, well, do something or other?

To some extent, "Underworld" is supposed to be the story of how Selene falls in love with Michael, who is completely off limits because he's: 1) a regular old lowly human and 2) possibly not human but actually a Lycan, which is worse. But although it's especially satisfying when Michael, once bitten by Lucian, begins to understand the tortured origins of the Lycan-vampire war (thereby filling us in at last), there's no real chemistry between Beckinsale and Speedman, who barely even kiss. Speedman is handsome, all right -- in the mild, sweet manner of a frat boy who actually believes the organization is about community service -- but he never feels well-matched to Beckinsale's cool, translucent beauty.

Just as "Underworld" begins in the middle of the story, it also ends without a real conclusion. I don't know if this is a weakness or a strength, but Wiseman and McBride are brazenly betting they'll be able to make more chapters. Selene awakens the forbidding Viktor (Bill Nighy), the slumbering vampire lord, in order to defeat Kraven, and then must face her conflicted feelings about him (Viktor's the one who bit her and made her undead in the first place). Michael is transformed into some kind of vampire-werewolf-Incredible Hulk hybrid creature, but instead of bringing an end to the endless war, his arrival seems to make things worse. Nonetheless, this movie sucked badly. Don't watch this. At all.

Bottom Line: You're better off watching The Twilight Saga: New Moon. At least this movie is stylish and takes place in a fantasy world.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

Man, I used to avoid mean characthers. I mean, every week you would hear a legend about him/her, and you would want to stay away from this person.

Then, as I grew, my fears took a sharp turn for the worse.

What in the blue hell were Michael De Luca and Rachel Talalay thinking? And New Line Cinema as well! I mean, Freddy put more T&A into his thoughts, killed one of the most likable characters on the show (not to mention sending him off in one of the worst exits in the history of film; I mean, getting hit by a bus!!!), sent another one to a VIDEO GAME, killed the other girl, replaced her with someone else, bringing in another new character, finding the teen who was in a INFERNO, and then killing him off, and then ending the film with two words! And let's not forget, the only guy left at that point was the teenage girl and she is STILL IN DANGER! And Freddy...Oh my God! He scares me since I'm a young adult! How could you take something so good and turn it into something so bad? R.I.P. Innocent Teenage Victims.

Bottom Line: If you really want to watch genuine horror, Get the First Movie of the Series, and never, EVER watch the 6th installment of the series.

Jason X
Jason X(2002)

Todd Farmer and James Issac?!!!!! How could you scare me with an upgraded Jason Voorhees that is in this film? I simply can't believe it...this movie is actually more horrifying than Freddy vs. Jason. I got it on DVD for my 12th B-Day back in 2004....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The script SUCKED. The premise SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you are one of the pedophiles (not counting my buddies) that loved this movie, YOU SUCK, TOO. And to Mumu_Lovelace, who gave this a 100% "Fresh" rating, you are a RUSTED TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but weed-addicted jerks with Hockey masks who think the upgraded Jason is God. I'm still shaking to this day thinking about that horrible and scary upgraded version of Jason....and then there was Jason Goes To Hell...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. Thank my brain cells that I got rid of the DVD. It is, in all truth, one of the most intoxicating experiences of my entire life. Do not go watch this at all costs.

Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, bury them in a inaccesible place, and blow them ALL up. And then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Quentin Taratino's Inglorious Basterds...or Gone With The Wind...or Crank 2: High Voltage...or actually even a Disney Direct-To-Video Sequel!

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

Ah god, PLEASE, get Freddy away from me! =O =O =O

Friday the 13th, Part VI - Jason Lives

This explains why Dexter Morgan is America's Favorite Serial Killer.

Dunston Checks In

Forget the live-action Speed Racer, Project X and Every Which Way but Loose: This is the absolute worst movie with a primate in it ever made. Dunston Checks In is a cheap, so-bad-it's-not-good film directed by Ken Kwapis, the guy who also directed He's Not Just That Into You. The plot is so simple that it could've been done in 7 seconds. And you thought Home Alone 2 was very slow-paced enough.

Seven year old Kyle and his fourteen year old brother Brian live at the Majestic Hotel with their father, Robert Grant, the hotel general manager. Kyle and Brian devise games and practical jokes to amuse themselves, but unfortunately for their father, the amusement sometimes causes chaos for his hotel guests. Life at the hotel really becomes chaotic when Mr. Rutledge checks in with Dunston who starts entering the suites to steal the guests' valuables. After Dunston's first heist, Mr. Rutledge is mean to the orangutan causing him to run away. Dunston and Kyle become friends and after seeing the way that Rutledge mistreats Dunston, Kyle decides to hide him until he can convince his dad of the orangutan's existence. However, it is not going to be easy because at every turn Mr. Rutledge is close on their heels. It is not until Robert sees Dunston in the flesh and observes Rutledge's mistreatment of the orangutan, that he is convinced of the sincerity of Kyle's story and agrees to help. Robert even jeopardizes his job by helping the orangutan to escape Rutledge during the hotels most important event, the Society Ball. What is suppose to be an evening of style and elegance for the elite, becomes one of mayhem as Dunston goes from looking up ladies dresses to jumping off a chandelier as he dodges the clutches of his owner.

As I watched this film, It had those otherwise perfect actors: Frank Welker, Faye Dunaway, Jason Alexander, Glenn Shadix, Eric Lloyd and yes, Paul Reuebens, Pee-Wee Himself.


Cue lots of stupid physical humor, shots of surprised guests shocked at the prospect of seeing a monkey in a rich hotel, more shots of disgust from the struggling father (Alexander doing his George Costanza), and Faye Dunaway looking old.

This is a really terrible movie for children. It says that if you don't have any friends, you should get a monkey and be really destructive and ruin your father's business - because rich people suck.

Either Faye Dunaway likes working all the time, or owes the taxman big time, but either way she was supposed to turn down this movie. Kathleen Turner could have done it just as well and since most of her recent career moves have been mediocre, at best, no one would have noticed. I did wince a little at the sight of Bonnie Parker getting a piece of cake in the face. Jason Alexander, Rupert Everett & Pee Wee do not muster up much laughter.

But poor Glen Shadix gets it worse than anyone, except for the audience.

Nothing is funny in tis film; yet it is worth seeing for Mrs. Dunaway as a delicious blonde?she looked delicious.She might be one of the finest looking women on the screen in the '90s. See,in this very film,her ass,her legs?as much as they are visible. The rest of the cast is bad, as it is wasted.

Mrs. Dunaway is of course underused in such a film.

Hope it doesn't sound too libidinous?if you're interested in a comedy, it's rubbish; if you're interested in Mrs. Dunaway's derričre, it might tempt you. (Anyway, do not look for too much, as Mrs. Dunaway's beauty is not really explored and exploited here.)

From Faye, it's just funny, glamorous overplay.

And there actually is some cruelty in this film, too. Like when Dunston gets his hand cut and it's bleeding -- It's a sad moment for animal rights companies and animal lovers alike...

This movie is an insult to animal lovers and primate activists and people who love movies. It smells like an overdue wedding cake. It makes the crappy Jawbreaker look like an Emmy Award-winner! Injecting Chikorita Tranquilizers into your bloodstream is a much better experience than this crap! It's no wonder why the film is rated PG. So watch it if you dare, or don't watch it at all. Because I was brave and retarded enough to really watch it.

High School Musical 3: Senior Year


In other words, don't you really hate it when a poor movie like this gets a good grade? I think so.


I mean, come off it, swearing in a supposedly-good-for-all movie? No wonder it's rated PG, which means it may be unsuitible for pre-teenagers. This movie is so bad words can't describe how bad it is. The whole screenplay for the movie is retarded!

I can't believe Christina Ricci and Bill Pullman were in this film. If I were them, I'd be embarrassed.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York

Crap filmmaking, A Poopstick Screenplay and actors who look embarrassed to be onscreen make Home Alone 2 worse than the premise suggests.

Cheaper by the Dozen

Steve Martin has appeared in sone perfect movies...but this is not one of them.

Firehouse Dog

Oh lord.....Where to start....Where to even freakin' begin.....Oh, oh, I got it! There we go!

There is no more denying it: Firehouse Dog is GOD-AWFUL. It is VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY BAD. It is the WORST dog movie I have ever seen. A cute premise has been sadly ruined with a overlong runtime and bodily function jokes! UGH! THIS MOVIE MAKES ME WANT TO WATCH THE OTHER BAD ANIMAL MOVIES!!

This little-known release from 20th Century Fox, one of the 6 Major Movie Studios, and Regency Enterprises, came out with little fanfare for one good reason: It SUCKS. It was filmed in 2005, two years before the movie came out! They should not have made it in the first place anyways! The filmmakers may even have some sequels planned! Firehouse Dog 2: The Forest Fire, Firehouse Dog 3: The Cat That Won't Get Out Of The Tree, Firehouse Dog 4: The Next Blaze, Firehouse Dog 5: The Big Factory Inferno and Firehouse Dog: The Last Adventure? Don't you dare give out a little chuckle or even a big laugh. These ideas are most likely sitting on one of the screenwriter's desk right now.

Anyway, the story is that of Rex, Hollywood's top-grossing canine, is known for his extreme athletic abilities and diva-like demeanor. His perks package, rivaling that of any A-list celebrity, includes Kobe beef, a poodle harem, and a diamond collar. Rex?s luck ? and Hollywood high life ? runs out while shooting a commercial; an aerial stunt goes awry, leading Rex?s handlers to presume he?s dead. But Rex is merely lost ? alone, filthy and unrecognizable in an unfamiliar city. Chased by animal control, he takes refuge in grubby abandoned lofts, a far cry from his former luxurious lifestyle. Shane Fahey (Josh Hutcherson), a bright but rebellious 12-year-old, has exasperated his father Connor (Bruce Greenwood) for the umpteenth time. A single parent and captain of the rundown inner city fire station known as Dogpatch, Connor is charged with inspiring the sad-sack company: veteran and firehouse cook Joe Musto (Bill Nunn), the super-fit and strong-willed mother hen Pepita ?Pep? Clemente (Mayte Garcia), the exhausted family-man Lionel Bradford (Scotch Ellis Loring), and the calendar-worthy rookie Terence Kahn (Teddy Sears). The team is still coping with the recent loss of their former captain, Connor?s brother. Shane is also troubled by his uncle?s death, and he?s been acting out by ditching school. And then flames break out. Fight them. Live a boring life. Go to a dog show. Fight the blazes again. All that random stuff. Yeah, that's all you need to know about the movie's plot.

Like Carpool, I have seen it at school TWO TIMES. First was the Summer of '07, after the DVD was released. Then, Again, In October 2, 2009! I have suffered enough already from this shell of a dog movie. A cute premise...Ruined? THIS IS NO FAMILY-FRIENDLY DOG MOVIE!! This is a PG-Rated movie which is about a dog who farts, burps, snores, poops, and rides a skateboard, and the question arises: Is it worse to strive for greatness and fail, or to strive for mediocrity and succeed?
The movie is a jumble of ideas. Some of them actually work, and a few of those that actually work actually work quite well. But most of them do not work, although they do hit their stated objectives of getting kids to laugh by showing a cute dog doing silly things. There is the aforementioned farting, burping (?mouth farts,? as they call ?em here), and snoring, all of which arrive whenever the writers can?t figure out how to wrap up a scene. A key punchline comes when we notice the dog has relieved himself into a pot of stew; we do not see the event, but later, we are treated to the sight of him peeing on a fire. And, yes, he rides a skateboard, and pulls blankets off of people, and cocks his head on cue, and when those tricks fail the script, CGI comes in to let him do backflips and Jackie Chan-esque wall-climbing stunts. In one scene, he wears sunglasses while ?Bad to the Bone? plays on the soundtrack.

So yes, ?Firehouse Dog? is, in parts, everything you think ?Firehouse Dog? is going to be: base, stupid, and tiresome. Occasionally, randomly lame. And the runtime is 111 Minutes! WHICH IS OVERLONG! Couldn't it be reduced to 69 minutes or so?! Ugh...Why? WHY? Why does it have to RUN TOO LONG?! Goddammit, I just wasted 111 minutes of my life for about two times just now! This is an oddly second-rate production for a major-studio release; the underwhelming mystery belongs in a "Scooby-Doo" episode, and the slapdash direction is just as shaggy. Even the titular star is accurately described as an "ugly, stinking mutt" (and one whose primary attributes are computer-generated tricks and a notably queasy digestive system).

If "Firehouse Dog" was on cable, where it belongs, it would make a passable diversion from homework or chores. But a kid would have to be pretty desperate to leave the house - and waste allowance money - for this modest distraction. But, No -- It had to be released on the silver screen. How perfect of you, Fox. To release a movie that needs hosing down, for god's sake...

Ultimately, this is the same plot as Disney's Cars, Aardman's Flushed Away, Ridley Scott's A Good Year and dozens of other movies: a spoiled, talented outsider is suddenly thrust into a new, unfamiliar world populated by kind-hearted, but reserved, misfits. Each side teaches the other a thing or two about humility and selflessness, and everyone winds up forming a new, loving, perfect family. It's obviously a popular formula, but ultimately has little to do with any kind of real experience, and it's getting tired.

The movie also trips up its chance to parody show business. This film's idea of "jokes" is to pun on recent movie titles like Jurassic Bark and The Fast and the Furriest. The main trouble is that Hollywood hasn't had a real dog star since Benji romped through the 1970s (although a small attempt was made just this past year to resurrect Lassie), and Firehouse Dog really doesn't have the first idea what dog stardom actually entails (again, no pun intended). For one thing, it has to do with a great deal more than navigating a multi-tiered story; back in the silent era, Rin Tin Tin worked in some of the creakiest plots imaginable, but he had a palpable screen presence, one that can still be felt today. (His 1925 film Clash of the Wolves is available in the "More Treasures from American Film Archives 1894-1931" DVD box set.)

Also...If Shane ditches school, the screenwriter's act is beyond me. Does the entire movie take place on weekends? Moments of the other, satirical movie emerge when Rex daydreams about love-of-his-life Lola, a Dalmatian with Bo Derek cornrows, or when Trey throws a lavish funeral complete with fake rain and such luminaries as the Aflac duck and the Taco Bell Chihuahua (presumably not the real ones). Mostly, however, this is a slow, flat-footed film where even firefighters don't seem to move with any urgency. Every fart, poop, burp and snore joke gets pulled out and marked off like it's on The Official Kids' Movie Checklist. But it is far from the fun-filled, fish-out-of-water comedy of its marketing campaign. Not even Greenwood, Hutcherson, Mihok and Culp can save this movie from being in my bad movies list.

The film is directed by Todd Holland and is written by Mike Werb, Claire-Lee Lim and Michael Colleary. Werb and Colleray also serve as producers. And "Bad To The Bone" in this movie? Not to mention the "Rocky" theme? Ugh. Werb and Colleary should be fined for the use of "Bad To The Bone" and/or the "Rocky" theme song. And it concentrates on plot, lots and lots of plot, a butt-numbing 111 minutes of plot with at least six subplots. And, also, the story also blantly rips off from TWO other firefighting movies: Backdraft and Ladder 49! Think of it as Beethoven + Backdraft or Air Bud + Ladder 49. You decide.

Supposedly a comedy, it actually features four different stunt Irish terriers tricked up with computer-generated special effects that give them humanoid expressions and allow them to slide down firepoles. UGH! Real Irish Terriers?! WTF?!!!! Haven't PETA and the HSUS even HEARD of the cruelty of using real animals in movies?!!!!!!????

The effect is cute with a capital K and grotesque with a capital G, as though offscreen puppeteers were pulling digital wires to make the animals dance. "Firehouse Dog" isn't quite the equivalent of the 1999 talking-infant bomb "Baby Geniuses ," but at times it's close enough for discomfort.

That's too bad, because the human scenes in "Firehouse Dog" are perfectly acceptable on the level of a heartwarming family B-movie. Not one of the three writers seems to have a solitary spark of an idea. Scruffy, spirited, family-friendly comedy with too many flatulence jokes and pooch-related puns. An uncomfortable blending of three different stories that neglects the one thing I want to see -- the relationship between the boy and the dog. The film is likely too intense for younger children yet too simplistic for their older siblings or grownups. You'd be better off taking yourself to visit a dog run for a few hours.

Oh, and two more last notes: This is a movie that may not be sutible for children, and for people who dislike poop and fart jokes. Also, the closing credits of show Polaroids of the cast and crew's own dogs, their names scrawled beneath each picture. And this is, sadly, wasted on a very bad film. Awesome. Very awesome.


So, how much rewatching value and redeeming qualities does Firehouse Dog have? In terms of these two, I have this: It has....ABSOLUTELY...MOTHERF**ING NOTHING!!! F**K THIS CANINE MOVIE! IT'S THE WORST DOG MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN! NEVER, EVER, EVER WATCH IT -- IT IS A HUGE PIECE OF DOGSH*T!!!!!

Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!

My 100th review!

After the overcooked live action Grinch and nauseating Cat In The Hat, Hollywood has finally served up a tasty adaptation of Dr. Seuss.

On the fifteenth of May, in the jungle of Nool, in the heat of the day, in the cool of the pool. He was splashing...enjoying the jungle's great joys...When Horton the elephant heard a small noise. With his signature evocative and rhyming text, writer and cartoonist Dr. Seuss, an American treasure whose books have delighted generations of young people, opens one of his most beloved tales, Horton Hears a Who! Now, over fifty years since Seuss, whose real name was Theodor Seuss Geisel, published this perennial favorite, the makers of ICE AGE and comedy giants Jim Carrey and Steve Carell, bring it to life in a way never before experienced. For the first time, a motion picture transports audiences into Dr. Seuss' incredible imagination, through state-of-the-art CG animation. DR. SEUSS' HORTON HEARS A WHO! (TM) is Seuss as you want to experience his work at the movies - and as it was meant to be seen. The film, like Seuss' book, presents an imaginative elephant named Horton (Carrey) who hears a faint cry for help coming from a tiny speck of dust floating through the air. Although Horton doesn't know it yet, that speck houses an entire city named Who-ville, inhabited by the microscopic Whos, led by the Mayor (Carell). Despite being ridiculed and threatened by his neighbors, who think he has lost his mind, Horton is determined to save the particle...because "a person's a person, no matter how small." Horton's eight-word explanation for his actions embodies an idea both simple and profound, and which means so much, to so many. The film provides more food for thought, having Horton explains to his skeptical friends: "If you were way out in space, and you looked down at where we live, we would look like a speck." Then there's Horton's code...his motto... that, "an elephant's faithful 100 percent" - pointing to his honesty and determination to never abandon his mission to find a new home for the speck that houses the incredible world of Who-ville. These philosophical declarations point to Seuss' unique ability to take complex issues and boil them down into understandable thoughts that anybody, at any age, could understand. It all comes together through the vision of a master storyteller, the magic of computer animation, and the special alchemy of three generations of comedy stars - Carrey and Carell are joined by the legendary Carol Burnett, as well as cutting-edge talents Will Arnett, Isla Fisher, Amy Poehler , Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill - to create an all-audience comedy event.

Hollywood?s meddling with the memorable works of Ted Geisel ? far better know by his pen-name, Dr. Seuss, has met with mixed success over the decades since. There is, however, one point that consistently seems to apply ? the farther these films stray from the images, and even the stylized and distinctive language, of Seuss, the less satisfying they are.

This has been demonstrated by the eleven Seuss television specials ? which were generally true to Seuss and consistently successful (most notably How the Grinch Stole Christmas! and Horton Hears a Who!) ? and the mixed success of the big-screen adaptations. The Cat in the Hat strayed considerably from the spirit of Seuss and paid a big price for it, while How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was closer to vintage Seuss and relatively successful as a result.

So, with the computer-animated Horton Hears a Who!, the truism of Seuss authenticity equalling success was put to the test again. And while there are a few unfortunate add-on characters, a significant filling-out of the story elements set in Whoville, and the overbearing familiarity of numerous Hollywood star voices, this time out Hollywood is as true as it?s ever been to Seuss. Guess what? The movie is a big success. So the truism remains uncontradicted: Horton Hears a Who! bears pretty close resemblance to Seuss? creation, and Horton hears a Who! is pretty darn good.

All this will seem meaningless if you don?t know Dr. Seuss, but who doesn?t know Dr. Seuss? Geisel?s creations, including some 16 of the top 100-selling children?s books of all-time, are highly distinctive. Most written in verse (anapestic tetrameter, to be precise) and featuring imaginative images of weird beasts, Seuss?s creations are unmistakeable and his stories are generally pure fun (although imbued with distinctly liberal social values).

Naturally, nobody in Hollywood is going to embark on a major project with Dr. Seuss as the movie?s sole asset. So, enter the familiar voices: Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Carol Burnett and a host of others. Do we really need to hear Carell and Rogen for the 63rd time in the past couple of years of movies? Personally, I find the over-exposed Hollywood voices distracting, as I think of the actors more than the characters when I hear them. However, the familiar voices may increase the movie?s audience and certainly bring comfort to the Studio Suits, so here they are.

The story? It?s a social and environmental allegory about a miniature world existing on a speck of dust that?s befriended by Horton the elephant (voiced by Carrey), who sets out to help the Whos when their existence is threatened. All the while, both Horton and the mayor of Whoville (voiced by Carell) must deal with sceptics who doubt the existence of the other world.

Directors Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino and screenwriters Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul have walked a fine line, keeping much of the original 1954 Seuss content while also adding new content in the form of add-on characters and dialogue that showcases the familiar voice actors.

None of the big stars rises above the Seuss original and the animation ? stark and simplistic yet precise as computer animation tends to be ? is remarkably well suited to the original Seuss drawing style. The result is a fun, likeable and satisfying Seuss adaptation that?s unlikely to offend the Seuss aficionados who were so scornful of Mike Myers? Cat in the Hat debacle.

Taking on Seuss has proven a challenge for Hollywood, but with Horton Hears a Who!, a nice balance has been struck between authenticity and new ideas. This one?s a winner.

Overall, this is Fox/Blue Sky's beat film ever, and unlike their past efforts, which are rated PG -- This one's rated G. Bravo for Carrey and Carell, too! I really loved it! Nice visuals...and really masterful. Highly recommended. :)

Hamtaro Vol. 1: Hamtaro and the Ham-Hams

Still love this cartoon characther after 8 years...

South Park - The Complete Seventh Season

Sorry Kyle, but I'm afraid only one
of us will be showing up to do the comemrcial
tomorrow! Hahahaha! Thought you had
me with your Serbian Jew double bluff,
didn't you?! Well let's see you try
to open this door now. Hahahahaha!
Haa haa hahahahahaha! Haa haa haha-

What are you doing?

Oh... Hello, Kyle. Oh man.Wait, this isn't my house.

Cartman, you go ahead and do the commercial
tomorrow. But I'm warning you, those
anti-smoking people are liars and they're
bullies who will stop at nothing to
get what they want, and that means they're

Hahahahahaha! Nice try, Kyle! Let's
see you try to get through the door
now! Haa haa hahahahaha!

Dennis the Menace

Everything you need to know about the juvenile, unsavory, PG-Rated Dennis The Menace can be summarized by a single shot: a close-up on a steaming pile of crap.

Make Mine Music

The 8th feature-length animated feature from Disney is so delightful. Only part I saw from this film was "Peter and The Wolf!"

Sunday School Musical

It may be better than High School Musical, but it is STILL a piece of poop! It makes Camp Rock look like HBO's Bored to Death!

Beauty and the Beast

Comes close to one of the best animated films...


I love so many Disney Animated Films!!!

The Little Mermaid

Another solid Disney Animated Film!

The Emperor's New Groove

Disney's animated films just keep going up for success!!

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The story may be dark, but the visuals are what make a Disney Animated Film Perfect.

Alice in Wonderland

Disney's animated movies keep getting better....


Disney's take on Greek Mythology is suprisingly adept!

The Sword in the Stone

I have seen this way back then. It's a decent Disney film.


Not the best Disney/Pixar Movie, but close!

The Rescuers
The Rescuers(1977)

Disney Animated Films = Top-Notch!

Race to Witch Mountain

With Dwayne's carrer sinking, he may be nothing but a little piece of gravel soon...

The King and I

Animation = Great.
Not a Disney Animated Film = Bad.

The Rescuers Down Under

Another solid outing from the Walt Disney Animation Studios....

Oliver & Company

Not very bad, but not great either. Pretty stiff animation, but it's better than those crappy CGI-Animated Rip-Offs from Toyland Video.

Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

Three shorts, all well-crafted, and all rolled into one feature film.

Chicken Little

The animation is completley very good, but the story is pretty much a bit trite.


Although it had a heartwarming premise, there is one way I have to say about the plot: WTFH?!

Fun & Fancy Free

The only cartoon I saw from this film was "Mickey and The Beanstalk", which I actually like. I plan to see it again!

The Jungle Book

Once again: I have seen it in my early years, like the other Disney Animated Films!

Plan 9 from Outer Space

The fact that the critics gave it a 62% considering that this is one of the worst movies ever is sad and it makes me want to sniffle and cry.

Little Bee
Little Bee(2009)

I watched the trailer for this movie. I really like to see 3D-Animated films sometimes, but I did not like the movie. First of all, it has graphics that look like they've been pulled off of a First-Generation Sega Saturn game and then the dreadful voice acting. I think that this rip-off is not worth the time, you're better off watching (GASP) Plan Bee, and will be better serverd. All in all, if you want really good animated movies, stick with the ones of Walt Disney, or even Disney's Sequels to its Animated Classics or the works of Hayao Miyazaki. Sorry.

The Animal
The Animal(2001)

A smack to the face of anyone watching, this film is about as fun as getting punched. Whose idea was it to have Rob Schneider to act like a wild beast? They deserve a medal! It's too bad that the actual movie is executed poorly, more proof that a good idea does not make a good film.

Friday the 13th

The feared aquatic innocent teenager killer returns!! 0____0

The Frog Prince

An overlong (and by overlong I mean it shouldn't exist) Princess and The Frog rip-off. Worthless, pointless, dull, stupid, boring, racist, uninteresting, offensive...

Aliens in the Attic

This is the movie that was called "They Came From Upstairs"? OH HAYL NO! This movie was SO BORING! AND SO MUNDANE! Mark Burton and Adam F. Goldberg, GET A LIFE!!

Pokemon - Pikachu's Winter Vacation

Sweet and Enjoyable, this Pokemon-Based Feature is a treat! (Especially for crazy fans like me)


I saw this, like the other WDAS films!


Try to shake your head violentley like a bobblehead and grab some earplugs if you want to. It's the only way to experience this movie.



101 Dalmatians

Whatever opinion you come to have of the black-spotted, white-colored breed like me, Walt Disney has once again found a fascinating subject for his very last canine flick.

Barney's Great Adventure

If I see another positive review for this film, I swear I will be killing somebody. Yes, Barney's first movie was made for children and suposed to entertain them but instead would rot their brains and turn them into moldy cheese. If I was forced to watch it at a place I can't escape, after they would off the movie after it was finished, I would go for the "Clear Eyes" eye drops. After seeing that it got a G rating and if it ever, ever gets a Blu-Ray release, I would go outside and scream profanity at the sky. As soon as the trailer on YouTube ended I will never set my eyes on it again. Great. Now I hope for Barney to end.

Small Soldiers

The best PG-13 rated film I have ever seen in the 90's! It's also my first, even though I wasn't 13 back then. I watched it like over 100 times! I REALLY love this movie.

Son of the Mask

What the hell is it with sequels to Jim Carrey movies that piss critics off?


Another awful movie? Bad acting, laughable dialogue, and luxury cars included!


I saw the preview....and OH GOD! THIS RATATOUILLE RIP-OFF!! Dx The animation is TERRIBLE, the CGI is S*&T, the graphics are F&*#ING BULL, the characthers are ABYSMAL, and the movie itself is PURE CRAP! The preachiest "Toyland Video Rip-Off" I've ever seen in my life. Reeks of a warped sense of intelligence from Disney/Pixar. A relentlessly annoying animated film, and it's a 100% waste of time.


A direct knock-off of E.T. It is so bad. And really hard to watch. Like me, please do not waste your time.

Plan Bee
Plan Bee(2007)

This is a terrible animated film from the company that brought you Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale and A Car's Life by itself, and it's got one of the worst CGI Animation and one of the most dreadful voice acting I've ever heard or seen. No one should see this animated rip-off film.

Transporter 3

Although "The Transporter" was good and "Transporter 2" sucked, "Transporter 3" redefines the franchise. And even though it's got a 36% on RT, I give it a 80%. Go ahead, you 66 other critics. Throw rotting fruits and veggies at me all you want.

Nothing is more important than Transporter 3. It?s been a long time since a new movie has been so spiritually and aesthetically exhilarating. Producer Luc Besson, director Olivier Megaton and star Jason Statham work at the top of their imagination and abilities?not like they?re completing a formulaic sequel but reinventing the action movie genre.

The chase sequence, the fight scene, the love scene are performed with a rare skill that analyzes the visual, generic components while snapping them into place with new rhythm. Every sequence whirls like ingenious choreography. It tells a story?in movement?of Transporter Jack Martin (Statham) forced to escort a Ukrainian politician?s daughter Valentina (freckly Natalya Rudakova) across Europe while dragged (kicking and flying) out of his steely macho isolation. (No star runs in character better than Statham, whose agile body is superbly sculpted while his voice remains tender?despite gruff edges).

Transporter 3 affords viewers a similar romantic evolution. For all the violent movie conventions we endure and standard CGI imagery with that stale, storyboarded look, Besson, Megaton and Statham make action movies exciting again.Watching Martin outmaneuver a ruthless Trump-quoting businessman (Robert Knepper) isn?t ?dark?; it?s a joyous good vs. evil exposition. Aficionados will appreciate the humor of a goon?s ?Are you the smart one?? retort. Snobs will misunderstand the progress before their eyes. When Megaton makes Godardian symbolism of Martin?s hand retrieving a key from Valentina?s, Transporter 3 evinces greater art than Van Sant?s studied poetic effects.

The old thrill-ride phrase is obsolete, it denotes passive movie watching; Transporter 3 is a thrill drive. It demands audiences intellectually appreciate its construction.

Sequences where Statham cycles down a rail across a sweatshop work table, plays piano with a man?s head and drives a car kitty-corner between trucks are all applause worthy. These intricately edited movie jousts aren?t about speed but narrative, capturing instantaneous action, rescuing a moment and imprinting it. Movement is given comic-book efficacy and cubist energy.

It?s true visual wit. These are not stunts; they?re objets d?art. Somewhere, Buster Keaton is smiling and Spielberg should take notes.

I love Jason Statham, don't you think?

One Missed Call

Hey everyone! This is THE worst Japanese remake movie ever made! Am I gonna say anything about it? NO! I guess I shouldn't be writing this review then, should I? Oh, well.

Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience

How the hell did A JONAS BROTHERS MOVIE not work out? That's a great idea that would get fangirls happy... but it tried to be a G-Rated film. THE JONAS BROS NEVER FOUND SUCCESS IN NON-FANS! GET THAT INTO YOUR HEADS, GUYS!!!!!

Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2

It's not all-ages friendly. It's not funny. It's not intelligent. It's not so bad it's good. It's so bad it stays bad, really bad. This movie is like watching a friend get repeatedly punched in the face. It's not fun, and it's not pleasant.

Speed Zone
Speed Zone(1989)

Speed Zone is the worst car movie in the 1980's and I am sure they wish they could take this film back and stop production on it before it was ever released. I cannot believe that some good actors/actresses starred in this piece of dirt. First of all, Comedy is nowhere to be found the entire movie. This is the third in the Cannonball Run series, aka "Cannonball Fever". Unfortunately, this film is awful. It is almost as unfunny as All 5 of SovietBarney's YouTube Videos. Overall, Speed Zone is terrible. No matter how much you love car movies, do not see this movie.


You want something much more worse than New Moon, Twilight and The Vampire's Assistant together? Then, I dare you to watch this.


This movie was made in the USA. And I was actually born and raised in the USA. What a shame.

Space Buddies

Any movie that has fart jokes, a horrid screenplay, boredom, trash-talking animals and a movie targeted for those who have no intelligence is trouble. Avoid this one at all costs.

The Matrix Reloaded

Without a doubt, the BEST Live-Action Sci-Fi film I have ever watched. I was 10 when I first saw it and it's rated R. XD

Epic Movie
Epic Movie(2007)

Do some studios even support Friedberg and Seltzer's works anymore?

Meet the Spartans

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer both SUCK!

Fantasia 2000

As mom calls me I'll always be her baby, I think I found this film enjoyable as the others do as well as my own self.

The Fox and the Hound

It is what other films from the Walt Disney Animation Studios do: It takes us to the far horizons beyond our imagination, has perfect visuals, great writing and likeable characthers.


Carpool? CARPOOL?! CARPOOL???!!!! CARPOOOOLLLL???!!!!!!!

This is no Warner Bros. comedy! This is a very poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted piece of trash. I watched this movie in its entirety (Two Times! D:), and did not laugh even once. A terrible waste of talent. Even The Simpsons Movie and Surf's Up are much more enjoyable....

The Happening

Just those words: It sucks Hummingbird balls.

Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour

The 71% rating this movie has with the critics really strains the creditability of some of the RT community reviewers. This is an obvious cheap movie with a VERY BRATTY lead actress and of course the awful songs that come into play.

Sad. Very, Very Sad.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

Has Freddy been giving birth to a baby?!? Screenwriter Leslie Hopkins has given us one of the most cruddy horror sequels in the last 7 years! This film is not even adequate on any level. The script is awful, the plot is incredibly perposterious, incredibly amateur direction, exceptionally bad lighting. The dialogue is mouth dropping bad. The music sounds as if it were written by a 6 year old. Poor and Pikachu Poop in every horror genre sense.


There's really no need to drink some Red Bull or any other energy drink to watch this movie -- It's already crazy as heck!

Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Not even Jim Carrey can save this expired-almost-seventy-years-ago fruitcake.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Don't like the franchise or haven't seen the first one? Then this film is DEFINATLEY not for you.


I would rather eat a moldy banana than sit through this bad Disney movie anymore.

Batman Forever

Stay away from this crap movie. I was brave and enough to watch it and brave enough to have my time wasted on it.

(Although I still have enough life left!)

Batman & Robin

I saw the 9-minute video on YouTube, and this movie sucks.

First Kid
First Kid(1996)


- A Very Mediocre Disney Live-Action Film
- An Unknown Screenwriter
- Sinbad (The Kid) at his very worst
- A storyline that is so dull
- Pre-Teen Comedies
- Some cliches that don't make any sense
- An Annoying Black President
- Some lame jokes
- A PG Rating considering that some of the material in this film is NOT EVEN suitible for the youngsters
- An Overall Unfunny and Middling Movie Experience

...then you have been serioulsy smoking a ton of weed.

Car's Life: Junkyard Blues

Do we REALLY need any more Rip-Offs from you, Spark Plug Entertainment? -_-

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Paranormal Activity can be proof that horror movies are scary, but films like this don't show it and instead stand out as some of the worst I've ever seen. God, I HATED THIS FILM!! Saying it sucks is being nice, and I have to say that there isn't one point I ever even smiled, and I really ignored it even when it was showing. The plot is pathetic, but it could have been pulled off really well if the script was better. The script and the director are not even experienced, and the film was a real pain to watch. I know there are some fans out there that think this is a decent film, but I honestly can't see why. Freddy, just die, you're not a good (Name of only killing bad people) killer at all.

Hotel for Dogs

Although I do LOVE canines, this movie just plain stunk!

Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins


Reno 911!: Miami

I may have seen episodes of this now-defunct TV Series (Some of them) and watched this movie, but this movie just plain stunk like expired greek yogurt.

Dog Gone
Dog Gone(2008)

This is one of the worst Direct-To-Video Dog Movies Ever. The CGI is so crud-worthy. Thank god I stopped at Part 1 before there is more permament brain damage to me....

Kidz Bop Kids - Kidz Bop: The Videos

Kidz Bop Songs = Pre-teen songs. Pre-teen songs = Ruining Adult-Themed Songs. Ruining Adult-Themed Songs = Crap. Crap = Exploding Eardrums. Exploding Eardrums = Medical-Strength Ear Medicine.

Atlantis - The Lost Empire

Since RT gave it a 46%, I'll try to ignore this score and instead give it a 60%.

Peter Pan
Peter Pan(1953)

Can you possibly tell that I have been exposed to the Magic of Disney Animation since the beginning? =)

The Aristocats

I watched this movie in my childhood, as well as many other Disney Animated Classics. Did you know that? :)

Lady and the Tramp

By the 1950s, when the pieces finally began to come into place on what would become their fifteenth fully-animated feature film, Walt Disney and his studio had returned to the single narrative format with which they had ushered in the animated motion picture to much acclaim nearly twenty years earlier. But unlike the three cartoon films Disney had previously released -- Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and Peter Pan -- there was no world famous piece of literature driving Lady and the Tramp, just the ideas of Disney's story department and Ward Greene, a writer whose short story helped Walt and company decide where to take their tale about dogs.

As you guys know, Lady and the Tramp tells the story of Lady, a petite, playful, pampered cocker spaniel, and Tramp, a cynical, roving mongrel from the other side of the tracks. Like Bambi and Dumbo, Lady starts at square one, with its tiny puppy protagonist Lady becoming a Christmas present between her two owners. This adorable ball of fur brings happiness to Jim Dear and Darling, the married couple whose lives she enters. In turn, they give her their attention and a spot at the end of the bed.

Lady's story is told strictly from a dog's point of view. The few human characters whose names we know (or think we know) are basically limited to glimpses. We only really see things from Lady's perspective and so her life appears to consist of hanging out with a pair of older neighbor dogs from her small turn-of-the-20th-Century New England town. They are Jock, a feisty Scottish Terrier and Trusty, a forgetful hound named who is losing his sense of smell. Lady proudly shows off her shiny new collar to them and things seem to be going well. But, soon, Lady's owners become preoccupied with the coming arrival of a baby, which finds with less attention and less patience in dealing with Lady.

At the same time that Lady is expressing concern over her situation, she meets Tramp, a streetwise, owner-less mutt who wanders by and, eavesdropping, warns her of the terror that newborn babies bring to dogs. Nonetheless, things aren't all that bad after Lady's owners welcome their offspring into the world. (This event is humorously portrayed with a subtlety that simulates a pet's emotional distance posing no obstacle to viewer comprehension.)

But not long after, Jim Dear and Darling set off on a trip of uncertain purpose and indeterminate length. This brings the old maid Aunt Sarah and her two devilish Siamese cats Si and Am into the household to take care of their baby and, oh yeah, Lady.

The next thing you know, Lady is being blamed for the cats' mischief and forced to wear a muzzle. In a state of distress, she runs off and only finds more trouble. Enter Tramp, who saves the day, addresses her muzzle dilemma, and introduces her to an unbridled way of life she never knew. I'm assuming you know the rest and if not, you will want to discover what happens on your own. At the very least, I'm sure you're aware that spaghetti and meatballs figure into things.

While Lady and the Tramp is noteworthy for being the very first animated film to be made in the very wide CinemaScope format, a format which retrospectively seems associated with grandiosity and spectacle, it is actually one of the most down-to-earth of the single-narrative features that Walt oversaw. Although Lady lacks the epic feel and elements of Disney's beloved fairy tales, it holds in this place a charming spirit and a compelling story which entertains more readily than many of the aforementioned class.

Whereas fairy tales often strive to achieve a timelessness, Lady recreates the simpler times of the early 20th century and coupled with the mid-'50s sensibilities which distinctly show through the production, it still ends up aging extremely well. The film's structure is not remarkably different from present-day romantic comedies, but its execution elevates it to a status far loftier than the types of movies that expect returns purely based on the fact that nearly 70 percent of American adults are married or in a committed relationship. Lady plays its opposites-attract story to expectations but nonetheless, the diverting pleasures it offers do not seem formulaic or trite.

Like most of the best Disney animated films, Lady wins audiences over with a blend of music, comedy, imagination, and romance. Looking back, it seems that the Disney studio should have run out of stories relying on these ingredients long ago, and yet it has repeatedly put them to fine use, to the encouragement of flocking audiences even when the reviews were not as kind, as was the case for Lady.

After adapting the fantasy lands of children's literature fixtures Lewis Carroll and J.M. Barrie, Lady's visuals may have been less fun for Disney animators to bring to life, but their world-through-the-eyes of dogs is a captivating one and, with Cinemascope offering framing nearly twice as long as what Disney had previously used, new tread is definitely and satisfactorily tread here.

As far as music goes, the presence of pop star Peggy Lee as co-composer and the voices of four characters took the film's soundtrack towards modernity, a different direction for Disney. Lee sings two of the film's three most memorable numbers, summoning stereotypical Asian dialect for the "Siamese Cat Song" and her usual sound for "He's a Tramp", performed as pound puppy Peg, a character named after her. The third, the Italian-flavored "Bella Notte", is heard over the opening credits and the film's most iconic set piece at the alley by Tony's Restaurant.

Story and characters are essential to most films' success and ultimately, they are responsible for why it is so easy to be completely taken by Lady and the Tramp. If like me, you haven't turned to Lady for many repeat viewings, revisiting it may reveal that you don't remember the rat showdown that provides the obligatory action climax, have any recollection of a song called "What Is a Baby?", or know that Jim Dear has a mustache. But if you've seen Lady and the Tramp even once, then you likely remember its sheer power to entertain and the core romance that left an indelible mark on cinema in relatively little time.


After seven years of making fragmented "package" films to cut costs with the world at war, Walt Disney's 1950 release Cinderella marked a return to the format with which he launched the animated feature film -- the fairy tale.

Loosely adapted from Frenchman Charles Perrault's late-17th century book, Cinderella tells the story of a spirited young lady who is reduced to being an overworked servant at the hands of her relentlessly cruel stepmother and unpleasant stepsisters.

News of a royal ball to which the attendance of all local eligible bachelorettes is sought gives Cinderella hope for a happy evening out and maybe more, for it is being thrown to find a handsome prince a suitable wife. But stepmother Lady Tremaine sees to it that only her daughters by birth, Anastasia and Drizella, go with the prospect of catching the prince's eye. Until, that is, the Fairy Godmother shows up, works a little magic, transforms Cindy's shredded dress into an elegant gown, and whisks her off to the dance.

Despite having a lovely night of waltzing with a charming stranger, the fact that the magic will wear off at midnight forces Cinderella to exit in a hurry, thus separating her from her newfound love and leaving only a glass slipper behind. I'm sure you know this much and the rest, and chances are you know it from Walt Disney's widely-seen and adored retelling.

With only that much to comprise the central plot, Disney's 74-minute feature would certainly need something more. To that degree, there are talking animal sidekicks, the oft-assumed "Disney fairy tale staple" which most truly exists in this film. Two mice, Jaq and the roly-poly Gus, are Cinderella's best friends and, along with their fellow creatures, are the only ones who seem to care about Cinderella (until later, anyway). Their chief nemesis is Lucifer, a pampered black cat with a mean streak. Throw in some slow-paced songs, a prolonged climax, and no shortage of animal antics, and you have a slight, but fondly-remembered classic that children of three different generations have now grown up with.

Cinderella is credited with reviving the Disney studio, for its massive success assured that feature-length animated magic was not to be a short-lived phenomenon. I'm glad that audiences connected with it, because the format has given the world countless great cartoon films since.

As it is, I can certainly appreciate the film -- it's extremely watchable and has held up better than plenty of other studios' live action films from the '50s -- but I'm just not moved by it the way I am by Alice in Wonderland's wit, Peter Pan's imagination, Sleeping Beauty's visual beauty, or even The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad's winning atmosphere. Does that make me an anomaly among Disney fans? It seems like it, but then I have somewhat similar feelings, but and only a slightly greater connection to the much-loved Beauty and the Beast. So that's where I stand. I won't pretend that I am marveled by Cinderella and I can't vocalize entirely why that is.

At its heart, Cinderella does have an interesting story of a likable girl overcoming her unappreciative obstacles. To compensate for the paucity of this tale, though, the film aims to divert early on with an excess of antics by animals whose presence is only paid off later. The lack of really interesting animation that feels important makes the affair seem especially thin and the proceedings lack a consistent hold on the attentions, especially for the modern viewer. Gags are called upon repeatedly to sustain interest when the simple plot does not move forward. Some of these are funny, including the fiery interactions of the Grand Duke and the King and the laugh-getting bits involving the mice and Lucifer, but they're not supportive of the film as a whole. Gus and Jaq may have our full support in the later portions of the film, but they are given too much time and not enough to do in their introductory sequences when they can only be recognized as the most sympathetic characters (along with Cinderella) on repeat viewings.

To its benefit, Cinderella does boast some potent sequences, and these are the ones you are most likely to remember even if you haven't seen it in a while. It's not easy to forget the mice and blue birds teaming up to make a suitable ball dress for their friend, nor the bell-ringing happy ending Cinderella is met with. Likewise, in case it's not clear, the film improves upon the themed short-compilations which occupied the Disney animators between Bambi and Ichabod and Mr. Toad. Those productions, particularly the two music-oriented ones and two with a Latin America flavor (pairs easy to confusedly reflect upon), do offer some creative artwork and tales amidst select vignettes, but their chief value is historical and artistic, rather than emotional. Cinderella most definitely restores a human touch that any film composed of unrelated segments would struggle to maintain.

Dragging out the movie portion of this review would seem to be the literary equivalent of my complaint about Cinderella's narrative. Taken on its own, Cinderella is a colorful and fairly fun way to spend 74 minutes. Stacked up against the brilliance of the Disney studio's many other creations, however, I cannot help but acknowledge that it falls short, as the slightest of Disney's most beloved early classics.

Daddy Day Care

Wow. Wow...Just, Wow. 0_o

Little Panda Fighter

I just saw the trailer on YouTube and it had Graphics like a Sony PSOne, and was just dreaded. Horrid.

Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale

This is the WORST RIP-OFF EVER. I agree with Max, the movie should have never been made. The CGI Animation will give viewers eyestrain and cause health problems (some of them). This is a hard film to look at, just beause it is so 100% godawful. DO NOT WATCH.

Funny Man
Funny Man(1995)

Copy the URL, Paste (Remove any spaces, please!), watch and tell me what you think.


Do NOT watch this Targeted-For-Fans Vampire Film!

Unless you like the franchise, that's the point.


When my mom watched this reimagined pile of Squirtle Poop from the writer/director of The Devil's Rejects and Heavy Metal musician Rob Zombie, she had her brain cells (Uh, at LEAST some of them) destroyed. If I could watch it, after watching it once, I would feel like like puking. Halloween 2007 is even much more worse that Halloween 3, 5, 6, and Resurrection combined, and I would really give it -0/10 in the Horror genre. It is just simply awful. Haven't John Carpenter and Debra Hill even heard of the Weinsteins, and Zombie, as he made this?

Okay, so the story is that in Haddonfield, Illinois, the nine-year old Michael Myers (Daeg Farech) is raised by a dysfunctional family: his mother Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob's wifey) is a stripper in a night-club; his foster father Ronnie (William Forsythe) is an alcoholic bum; his sister Judith is a easy girl; and he is connected to his baby sibling. On October, 31st, after an incident in school where he is bullied by a schoolmate, Michael overhears the conversation of the principal and the psychiatric Dr. Samuel Loomis with his mother. They had found pictures of Michael torturing animals in his backpack and Dr. Loomis would like to send Michael for psychiatric evaluation believing that the boy is deranged. This revelation triggers Michael that escapes from the school and kills the bully, Ronnie, Judith's boyfriend Steve Haley and his sister Judith. Michael is held in custody in the Smith's Grove Sanatorium under the treatment of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell -- WHY?!!). Elsewhere a shy teenager by the name of Laurie Strode (Scout-Taylor Compton) is babysitting on the night Michael comes home... is it pure coincidence that she and her friends are being stalked by him? Let's hope not...

The violence is the most brutal in this film. It looks like it was done by a Low-IQ-Gifted 2 1/5 year old! None of the characthers are enjoyable. The film has the Halloween music in it, though. The story isn't anything special at all. It just isn't perfect at all. None of the scariness is found in this version, either. And what's with "Halloween" in the title? It shouldn't be named as the same as the 1978 classic at all! The creators put "Halloween" in this one for no apparent reason at all.

Overall, this feels like a redneck version of "Halloween," which is going to offend some people, but I can't think of any better way to describe it. It's trashy, vulgar, offensive and silly - and hey, that's fine, if that's Rob Zombie's motif and he wants to make movies pandering towards that sort of audience. I have not seen it, and I think it may work with some films - I can imagine him making a good re-do of "Santa and The Ice Cream Bunny" (although I hope it never, never happens!).

The first film was eerie, spooky, and unnerving because Michael's motivations were cloudy and we weren't sure whether Laurie was right or wrong when she said he was the boogeyman. We only knew one thing: he wasn't entirely human.

Michael's true demonic core - the natural horror element of the series - is stripped bare and all that is left is a disturbed, abnormally tall redneck with greasy hair who hasn't showered in years wearing a silly mask going around killing people because he had an abusive family life as a child.

Like I said, the script is so wretched that you can sometimes clearly see the violence, poor character development or no scares and you might easily notice some crap editing in this film the filmmakers didn't have time to fix! It makes See No Evil look like A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Do not see Halloween 2007. Do Not See It. I repeat -- DO NOT. You'll have to sit on your seat and try your best to take your eyes off of the sheer ugliness, but it would be too hard to. Your eyes will bleed at the violence. You'd wish you were never born. You'd even feel proud that you liked The 1978 Original. If you even hated the 1978 Original, your opinion might change a little for this one. What was Zombie thinking? Avoid this one like the plague.

Skip it! Skip it, for the sake of the critics and your life!

Just SKIP IT!!!!!!!!

Little Cars - Super Highway

It does what Video Brinquedo/Toyland Video's other titles do.....It crashes and burns, which means it sucks....

Little Cars
Little Cars(2006)

Another genuine winner from Toyland Video/Video Brinquedo.

Little Cars 2 - Rodopolis Adventures

This movie is so eye-straining that it makes the crudely-animated Superman 64 look like pure gold. This is a movie that is almost nearly impossible to sit through. That's all I got to say about this dreadful rip-off of a movie.

The Simpsons Movie

Do you actually notice I still love The Simpsons even though I'm not a squirt anymore? ;)

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Like Twilight, only REALLY CRAZY Twilight Fans Need Apply.


If I EVER wanted to sum this up with a sentence, it is this:

Avoid it like the plague.


Walt Disney, who is never further back in the film parade than the front line, presents a new and novel treatment of animated cartoons in a group of illustrated classical musical compositions, under the title of "Fantasia." Heretofore, Disney has worked solely in collaboration with his own highly trained staff of animators, story-tellers and musicians. In "Fantasia" he has enlisted the assistance of Leopold Stokowski, the Philadelphia Symphony orchestra, and Deems Taylor as screen commentator. The result of mixing all these ingredients, including his own unique approach to things theatrical, is a two-hour variety show, which spans the formidable entertainment categories ranging from a Mickey Mouse escapade in the title role of Dukas' "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" to a very lovely musical and visual interpretation of Schubert's "Ave Maria."
There is something in "Fantasia" for every taste. The eight individual compositions have been selected with an eye and ear to a wide audience. The presentation eclipses anything previously attempted in mechanical sound entertainment and it was necessary to install special RCA reproduction equipment to cope with the recording innovations. Similar installations will be required wherever these Disney novelties are shown. It is the purpose of the sponsors to proceed slowly with out-of-town openings. The Broadway theatre, formerly the Colony, underwent a six weeks' job of interior renovations in preparations for the premiere.

Whether such costly preliminary outlays will be justified by commensurate popular boxoffice support is the showmanship problem of "Fantasia." Currently the bill is being shown twice daily, at advanced admissions over the prevailing price scales at the theatres operating on the continuous plan. The huge film gross rolled up by "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was garnered from the long established type of houses. "Fantasia," therefore, is not only a new kind of sound picture; it also must create its own channels of exhibition.

Disney will never be charged with any lack of commercial courage, considering the task he is undertaking in the face of physical obstacles. The only comparable pioneering in film history, perhaps, is to be found in the early struggles of Vitaphone. Disney will encounter the same scoffers, the same doubters--and, very likely, the same generous success.

Affinity of music and the screen has been a long established partnership. "Fantasia" best can be described as a successful experiment to life the relationship from the plane of popular, mass entertainment to the higher strata of appeal to lovers of classical music. The boost isn't so far from general taste as might be imagined, in the light of the proselyting which radio, with the help of Toscanini, Damrosch and others, has been carrying on in millions of American homes for some years.

When the audience settles itself at "Fantasia," and the house lights are dimmed, the screen reveals a procession of musicians, comprising one of the great symphony orchestras, shown in shadow and color, as violinists, cellists, wood-winds, harpists and brasses take their accustomed chairs. It is a disjoined representation in which no more than four or five players are shown at one time. The moment of tuning is enhanced by the directional loud-speakers, which are placed behind and on either side of the screen, the strings at right and the percussions at far left. Through a series of impressionistic drawings and colorings, Stokowski mounts the podium. What the audience sees is a single figure: what it imagines is an orchestra of 103 artists poised for the first bars of Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor."

Deems Taylor has explained that the first offering is a flight of sheer fancy on the part of the Disney illustrators. The Bach number is nine minutes of pictorial kaleidoscope, in the course of which various gay and bizarre representations of musical instruments are flashed in grotesque shapes across the screen.

The familiar Tchaikovsky "Nutcracker Suite" is the second offering, somewhat longer, as it runs 14 minutes. Like its predecessor, the animation was supervised by Samuel Armstrong. Pictorially, it is a series of charming ballets, the leading and supporting characters of which are flowers, fish and fairies that cavort in whimsical surroundings. Some of it is reminiscent of "The Water Babies," a short which Dinsey produced some time ago. The underwater color effects, the impish capers of the flower petals, the grotesque dance of the mushrooms in Chinese costumes and the designs of the fan-tail fishes are striking and amusing.

Comes Mickey next as the mischievous apprentice in the Dukas number, in the telling of which he becomes highly and humorously involved with a broomstick.

First part closes with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring," the most ambitious number on the program and a 20-minute gasp for breath. Here is visualized the birth of creation, the heavenly nebulae and the placement of the solar system in the universe. It is a brilliant piece of imaginative conception, relating the evolution of sea life into land reptiles, the battles of the dinosaurs and the probable extinction of prehistoric animal existence through centuries of blistering earthly heat.

Reserved for the second part are the Beethoven "Pastoral Symphony" and Ponchielli's "Dance of the Hours." Former is a mythological allegory, employing Zeus and others on Mt. Olympus. Hamilton Luske, Jim Handley and Ford Beebe supervised the execution which is one of the loveliest tales from the Disney plant. In contrast, the studio tackles the "Dance of the Hours" in a facetious mood, burlesquing and satirizing the ballet traditions. Among the dancers are elephants, rhinos and ostriches.

Concluding film is a combination of Moussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain," a terrifying exposition on evil, and the compensating "Ave Maria," charmingly sung by Julietta Novis with appropriate decor.

Characteristically, Disney's credit lists extend over several typewritten pages. General supervision of "Fantasia" was handled by Ben Sharpsteen, Joe Grant and Dick Huemer; musical direction, Edward H. Plumb; musical film editor, Stephen Csillag; recordings, William E. Garity, C.O. Sylfield and J.N.A. Hawkins.

Estimates of the production cost of the film put the figure at slightly more than $2,000,000, a sum within the range of fantasy in the face of the marketing limitations which are confined to this hemisphere. Subjects are of the kind, however, which may return earnings for many years.

In my mind -- A work of art indeed! Like many other WDAS films, it's a treat for all of the senses. I've seen lots of Disney Animated Films in my childhood, and so I recommend it.


After making history in 1937 with the first feature-length animated feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Walt Disney followed up that success with a tale based on the serialized stories of Italian writer Carlo Collodi, about a mischievous puppet who longed to be a real boy. Building on the techniques and equipment created for Snow White (like the famed multiplane camera), Disney released Pinocchio in 1940, solidifying the studio's reputation as the premiere producer of animated entertainment. Judging by the many theatrical and home-entertainment re-releases the film has had over the years, it continues to connect with audiences even 70 years later, thanks to its beautifully painted worlds, whimsical songs and charming characters.

It may be hard to think of Pinocchio as a technical marvel, given what studios like Pixar are able to create these days with computers, but for its time, it was state of the art. When Jiminy states, "What they can't do these days," he isn't just talking about the Blue Fairy. Compare this to Snow White, which was made just three years earlier but looks rather rough, uneven and decidedly quaint in comparison. The character designs -- from the boyish Pinocchio himself to Geppetto's adorable cat and goldfish companions to the translucent Blue Fairy -- and detailed backgrounds -- like Geppetto's workshop and Monstro the whale's underwater realm -- represented an aesthetic leap forward, striking an impressive balance between realistic and fanciful.

Perhaps second only to the film's visual appeal in terms of praise and notoriety is its musical component. The film won two Oscars, both in musical categories (for best original score and best original song). It's worth noting that at the time Pinocchio was produced, integrated musicals -- in which the songs actually move the plot forward -- were the exception rather than the rule. The Oscar-winning "When You Wish Upon a Star" not only established the tradition of the opening "wishing song" that still permeates musicals (Disney and otherwise) to this day, it became the company's signature anthem.

But enough with the lavish praise. The film may be a timeless classic, but it's not perfect. It's often unconventional, at times nonsensical and, yes, inherently flawed. Due to the serialized nature of the source material, the film is divided up into vignettes, resulting in a string of unconnected fables. After Pinocchio is brought to life by the Blue Fairy in answer to the wish of goodhearted toymaker Geppetto, he bounces haplessly from one adventure to the next, first drawn by the promise of a carefree actor's life to Stromboli's marionette theater, then falling to the temptations of cigars, alcohol and shooting pool on Pleasure Island. It isn't until he's nearly transformed into a donkey that he realizes -- with some help from his "conscience," Jiminy Cricket -- the error of his ways and returns to his father's workshop reformed. But when he learns that his father has been swallowed by a whale while searching for him, he sets out on another adventure to save him, finally proving himself worthy of being a real boy. Without proper instruction or guidance (Jiminy proves to be a rather ineffective conscience), Pinocchio has to learn the difference between good and bad by trial and error, inevitably choosing the wrong path and suffering the consequences before he can move on.

Which brings up another problematic story issue. This is the most consciously moral of the Disney classics (once again, remaining true to the source material), and its message is not a subtle one. The film tells us flat out that taking the easy road will always get you into trouble; that bad little boys make jackasses of themselves (quite literally); and that children who don't respect their parents will never amount to anything in life. While other Disney films certainly have their messages and lessons, this one is a little too obviously preachy at times. Add to this the somewhat arbitrary and logically inconsistent nature of the narrative elements -- things like the fact thast walking, talking anthropomorphic characters like Honest John and Jiminy Cricket appear alongside Figaro, Cleo and Monstro, who are depicted more realistically and don't speak -- and the story structure begins to fall apart. We're never told just how Geppetto and his companions ended up in the belly of that whale, and how does Pinocchio find out about his father's misfortune? The Blue Fairly drops him a note and sends him on his way. How convenient.

Strip away the rich scenery, catchy tunes and now familiar, beloved characters and Pinocchio amounts to little more than a series of awkwardly strung-together morality tales. It's likely that young viewers just discovering this film for the first time won't notice or care, but as adults considering where the film stands among the great animated classics, it's fair to say this still a masterpiece, albeit an imperfect one.

Overall, Disney's Second Animated Classic is masterful, and it's a must-see for those who like Disney Animation.


At a svelte 65 minutes, Dumbo is the one of the shortest of Disney's feature-length films, but it remains one of the medium's most memorable efforts. Initially released in 1941 following the artistic triumph of Disney's pet-project Fantasia, the tale of a cute, clumsy elephant with oversized ears might outwardly have seemed like a featherweight endeavor to those who had only recently begun to see animation as a legitimate art form.

But the movie's lasting commercial success and well-earned place in the hearts of animation fans everywhere since demonstrated that its significance cannot be underestimated. As the movie's premise goes, the biggest lesson audiences can learn comes less from its legacy than the film itself - namely, that even the most unassuming underdog can go on to accomplish great things.

The interesting thing about the movie is that its brevity seems to have produced an almost encyclopedic familiarity among fans with every scene and sequence; it's been 69 years since it was originally released, and at least 15 since I last saw it, and yet I remembered every moment as if it were tattooed on my brain.

There's the irresistible introduction of mother and baby; the upturned trunks of the other elephants when they discover Dumbo's 'disfigurement'; the incarceration of his mother after she spanks a misbehaving adolescent; the tearful moment shared between mother and son between the bars of her cage; the drug-fueled journey through 'pink elephants on parade'; and, of course, Dumbo's triumphant flight over his tormentors once he learns the true purpose of his mammoth ears.

At 65 minutes, there's barely enough time for a plot, but the filmmakers do a spectacular job rendering these characters in dimensions that we respond to; from his initial cuteness to his tearful reconciliation with his mother, Dumbo is completely silent, and scarcely an agent of his own destiny, but we are imminently compelled to care about him and seek his redemption. As in all of the best Disney movies, there's also a moral - in this case 'don't judge a book by its cover' - but director Ben Sharpsteen treads so delicately over this easily bruised subtext that we aren't even aware it's there until long after Dumbo has turned his co-stars' hearts.

At the same time, the animators clearly had a ball putting together the movie's many weird and wild sequences, most notably the hallucinatory 'pink elephants' sequence. In the same scene, there are shots of sublime beauty and frightening strangeness, all executed with expert, unwavering dexterity; that those shadowy figures continue to haunt the dreams of almost everyone who sees the film is a testament to its power and artistic significance.

But overall, none of these moments overshadow the emotional core of the characters and their story - which is what elevates such films to 'events', and further, those events to the realm of movie mythology.

Ultimately, Dumbo is one of the greatest animated films, but that achievement does not necessarily come as a direct result of some technological achievement, cultural context or even narrative proficiency. Rather, it comes because we watch, recognize and identify with its characters' core emotional needs; after all, who doesn't need to feel like that odd feature or quirky quality serves some greater purpose to be celebrated by all?

But as a reintroduction for the rest of us, and a reminder that great things come in small packages, Dumbo delivers the goods and then some.

Overall, I've seen this Disney Animated Classic so many times, I think It may be my favorite film from the Walt Disney Animation Studios!

Highly Recommended!

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

My first-ever review on Rotten Tomatoes! It's a review on the first-ever full-length animated film in the world, also!

In 1937, just a few short years before Orson Welles revolutionized filmmaking with Citizen Kane, Walt Disney and his team of animators did the same thing for animation with the first ever full-length animated feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The film is Disney's most precious part of their vault. It expanded the art of animation and propelled the young studio on its path to total world domination.

There's no need to break down the story of Snow White, as everyone knows it. What is important however, is how innovative and revolutionary this film was, and why this movie deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Citizen Kane. In terms of storytelling, Snow White was ahead of its time for animation. Running at a brisk 84 minutes, it has everything that you would expect from good storytelling, with artwork that amplifies the emotions of the characters. For example, there is the sad scene late in the film where Snow White lies dead with all of the dwarves around her, kneeling with the forest creatures. That single frame of film touches your heart in a memorable and visceral way.

By telling an animated story in that way, Disney also radically upgraded animation, taking it from a short-film format to a complete feature that rivals any live-action film. But, that wasn't enough for Walt. He wanted to expand animation even farther, and do things that were never done before. Snow White was his opportunity. The multi-plane camera, first tested in Disney's "Silly Symphony" shorts, was fully used for the first time in Snow White to create deep, three-dimensional environments.

As for the animation itself, well, the quality of the character animation can be put side by side with most Disney films in the 80's and 90's and still holds up. The scenes of Snow White running along with a large group of individually animated forest creatures, all done by hand, is such a treat to my eyes.

Where Citizen Kane changed the way live action films were looked at and made forever, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did the exact same thing for animation. It remains one of the finest examples of the art form, and anyone who considers themselves a film snob or animation fan must see this sooner or later.

Overall, I have the Diamond Edition of the film and it looks great even after so many years. And, yes, it deserves the definate Disney treatment like many of Disney's most treasured releases. Highly Recommended! :D