While there's some memetic lines and it can be enjoyed as a "so-bad-it's-good" flick, this Americanization of the classic British series gets everything wrong. The trains' "telepathic speaking" really doesn't translate well to the big screen, let alone in live-action. It actually looks creepier than if you just gave 'em Synchro-Vox mouths. The plot is needlessly confusin' and complicated for a movie targeted towards preschoolers. They try to explain things, sure. And I do hear the TV series has become guilty of this in more recent years ever since the shift to CGI. But this is "Thomas the Tank Engine" and NOT "Lawrence of Arabia." Then there's the acting. Alec Baldwin is clearly tryin' but, unless he's voicin' a villain in a animated movie, I don't think children's films suit him. Peter Fonda looks very depressed throughout the entire movie; even near the end of the movie he looks slightly less depressed. Somehow I doubt the Academy wants anything to do with this disaster. And of course, the problem that plagues a majority of live-action adaptations with non-human protagonists of anything that's done in a cartoony matter: lack of screentime for Thomas himself! He's barely in the film. This is actually because the movie was also partially a crossover with "Shining Time Station," a more obscure children's show, but since this was hyped up as Thomas' big-screen adventure, how much do you assume even parents are gonna notice? If you showed me a clip of just the humans out of context, I possibly wouldn't notice this is from "Thomas and the Magic Railroad." In short, this is a very bad film. But this was never meant to appeal to me or anyone outside of the preschooler demographic, so what do I know?
As the Nostalgia Critic pointed out, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone above the age of 3 who unironically loves Barney the Dinosaur and that's mostly 'cause of the points he makes in his video. While this is a harmless adventure, it's a disgustingly harmless one with everything bein' insultingly babyish. Yes, I know, it's called "Barney's Great Adventure," what did I except? But even children deserve better than this. I do like the more cynical boy before he goes through "character development," though, if only because he represents the state of mind of the reluctant parents and older siblings dragged into watchin' this disaster. It brings you exactly what you think you're gonna get and now, I'll make it a point to distance myself from this movie as much as possible.
Havin' a cute polar bear and some beautiful scenery doesn't do much to save this disaster of a movie from havin' a generic plot, idiotic moments, made-for-television vibe and ABSOLUTELY UNLIKEABLE protagonist. Yes, I'm aware there are two heroes but by "protagonist" I mean the boy 'cause, you know, telling his father to his face that he should've died instead of the mother isn't gonna result in a lot of people taking the hero's side even if the villain ain't no saint himself either.
Just plain awful. Only exists to cash in on the success of "Sky High." Actors who are mostly in it just for a paycheck, flat characters, jokes that miss 99.9% of the time and bein' rather boring. As temptin' as it is to draw comparisons with "Sky High," I'm not gonna waste my time complaining 'bout how THIS movie serves as a reminder of just how bad that film could've been so...make it a point to never watch this film or show it to your children, and just get "Sky High" instead.
I don't feel like writin' a full-length review for this disaster, even by the standards of Disney's live-action family comedies of the 90's, so let's just say this movie sucks and you'll waste less time watchin' the Nostalgia Critic review.
Slightly better actin' and a twist that's unpredictable but not nonsensical don't really do much to make "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2" a sequel that's gonna delight anyone but actual infants who don't know any better. Because, try as the filmmakers might, babies CAN'T act so all they can do is put bad superimposed lips of different actors over theirs and replace them with little people in costumes for terrible, even by family-friendly standards, fight scenes. Please, don't waste your time with this second misguided attempt at bringin' a copyright-friendly "Rugrats" to life.
If you wanna understand why the concept of a live-action "Rugrats" just doesn't work, look no further than "Baby Geniuses." The movie's got NO target audience; it's too inane for adults, too advanced for kids. And it's so short, they tacked on a sentimental little music video at the end, but it ain't enough. Worst of all, you'll likely be put off by the fact that babies can't act. Because infants aren't developed enough to understand basic direction, they can't be told to look happy or sad, so the filmmakers just had slightly older voice actors do their dialogue and superimposed creepy-lookin' lips over their mouths for scenes that require them to speak. You'll possibly have more fun countin' the amount of times infants are blatantly replaced with young children in costumes rather than from actually watchin' this film; a scene where a little guy in a Elvis costume with a baby's head poorly pasted over his is the one that really takes the cake. Avoid this disaster, like the plague. AND THERE ARE SEQUELS TO THIS THING?!
Before I start, I'm goin' to tell you that Taytum, my eldest sister, is gonna have a baby 'round roughly January 2022. That means I'll be a uncle and have a nephew or niece. Off to the review: Until I saw the poster, I had no idea that there even was a Playmobil movie. And I immediately thought 'WTF?' 'cause the only time where a movie based off of Playmobil would've stood a chance would be a time before "The Lego Movie." This came out 5 years after that film and ALMOST 10 months after the 2014 animated classic's direct sequel. And like Jacob B said in his review, this film came out even earlier dependin' on where ya live. I'll skip the whole "Lego Movie" ridicule thing BTW. Basically, all you need to know is that, barring character designs, every single Lego brick that's rendered in the film is real; even the serial numbers or whatever you call 'em are accurate. Setting aside the fact that Playmobil is often looked down upon as second-rate Lego, "Playmobil: The Movie" barely even works as a glorified commercial. Yes, there are Playmobil sets in this movie that exist in real life, you can give the writers credit for tryin' to tell an original story, the voice actors do give the characters a lot more identity and personality than the script allows, and the animation is solid despite the art style not even being Playmobil-style, but the film doesn't offer much of a reason as to why I should buy for myself or my children Playmobil figures and sets, and it sucks big time, even if judged as a stand-alone film than as a promotional tool for German toys. From superfluous live-action bookends (and a mid-credits scene; you possibly won't care anyway) that are just obvious plot devices with flat direction and a rushed feel because the kids want to get what really matters: animation; a generic storm of a story, world-building inconsistencies, and cringy musical numbers (which are also generic; they're forgettable, have a cliched vibe and even some of the more fun ones don't give you much of a reason to listen to them again since, unlike "Lego Movie 2," they don't even have any flashy visuals to keep your attention), it DOES remind one of just HOW bad "The Lego Movie" could've been.
Exactly what the hell is this? Is this truly a "Fantastic Four" film? I don't think so IMO. I actually think this was just plain terrible. While the 2000s F4 films were far from perfect, at their best they had the humor, joy, and colorful thrills that made the source material great, redeeming qualities that this reboot sorely lacks. The F4 we have here get their powers from their own stupidity, as well. And the final battle is five minutes long? FIVE MINUTES?! Is that all they could do after all that buildup? And is that why the movie's only 100 minutes long? I'll let you guess if that's true, but my other problems with the film are still there. So yeah, while a more serious "Fantastic Four" movie could have worked, this reboot wasn't one bit fantastic for a F4 film and it wound up bein' dead on arrival.
Well, while the third film didn't flat-out work for me, "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" is hands-down much worse, since it's cinematic kryptonite; not only could it kill the "Superman" series, it might also leave filmgoers feelin' weak. Right from the offset, the special effects look cheaper compared to the previous films. For instance, the Cannon Group simply reuses the same shot of Superman in flight, and during the moon scene, you can actually see the black curtain that should represent space. The action is boring as well, and none of the actors even appear interested in where the plot's going either. As if to showcase the "boring action" problem, for instance, Superman and Nuclear Man don't even punch each other in battle. So yeah, "Superman IV: The Quest for a Plot" or "Superman Farce: The Search for a Quick Buck" could have fit the film better for titles. Clearly this film didn't work for me. The only good thing is that Christopher Reeve was the best actor to portray the Man of Steel and this was his final film.
The third "Superman" movie is OK at best. The special effects are still dated, but "Superman III" also overuses slapstick, sight gags, and Richard Pryor. When none of that is in use, the film resorts to plot points rehashed from the first 2 films. Honestly this didn't flat-out work for me, but I'll just go see how bad Superman's "Quest for Peace" turned out to be.
As with the first film, few words can explain how great "Superman II" is. The humor does stumble into slapstick terrority quite a few times, and the special effects are dated today, but puttin' those issues aside, the film meets, if not exceeds, the standard set by the original. Shame that the same can't be said with its follow-ups.