I liked the live version way better then the animation one. Well acted and was surprisingly entertaining.

**Beautiful and bland at the same time.**
The story that's been told 1,000 times. Although this retelling boasts the most impressive costumes and stage design with an excellent cast, there is not much else to set it apart. Everything is familiar, draining some of the magic from this classic story.

Lily James takes the title role in this colourful telling of the original rags to riches story. Upon the death of her father, she finds herself little better than a skivvy for her acerbic stepmother Cate Blanchett and her ghastly daughters "Drisella" (Sophie McShera) and "Anastasia" (Holiday Grainger). Meantime, the handsome prince (Richard Madden) who appears to have had his breeches sprayed onto his body, is unhappy. His father (Sir Derek Jacobi) needs him to take a wife - but whom? Well, the fairy tale sets out the rest of the story and Sir Kenneth Branagh sticks faithfully enough to it. Helena Bonham Carter arrives to turn the pumpkin into a coach and... It's quite an adequate adaptation, this. The attention to detail is superb, a strong testament to the costumier's arts with a fine Patrick Doyle score (and a bit of "Bibbiddi-Bobbiddi-Boo") to accompany what is a well cast, and good looking film. There is certainly too much reliance on CGI, there's not a great deal of chemistry between Madden and James, and I could have done with a little more input from Blanchett, Sir Derek - and the entertaining Stellan Skarsgård as the "Grand Duke" but for the most part this flows along stylishly. The eagle-eyed amongst us might spot a young Josh C'Connor in an equally tight uniform, too! Is it Disney or "Slipper and the Rose" (1976)? Maybe a bit of both, but not so good as either?

The best reviewer of Cinderella (2015) might be a child, for its message of kindness and courage wrapped in the Disney classic and illuminated through the eyes and smiles of Lily James (Ella), Richard Madden ("Mr. Kit"), Haley Atwell (Ella's mother) et al. calls out the beauty and virtue of child-like simplicity. I think the great accomplishment of Lily James is her non-verbal communication of this central theme to "have courage and be kind" in the midst of the vicissitudes of life, just as Cate Blanchett's non-verbal communication of jaded bitterness masterfully supplies the melancholy contrast of devious conniving. James brings love into her little world while Blanchett's legacy is her two spoiled rotten daughters played marvelously by Holliday Granger and Sophie McShera. This remake brings a lot of humor to help get the message across-- primarily in Helen Botham Carter, the hairy Godfather, I mean, the fairy Godmother-- whose quirky kindness charms and delights. The animals too, as Ella's constant companions, add to the humor. The casting in this film utilizes the actors' talents quite well. I found myself watching this over and over again, at least parts of it, for the sheer joy of its message. In a world of negativity, there is something very real about simplicity and purity, if only in a love fantasy.
A final note must be added about the music-- it contributes its share to the film's message most beautifully.

An improvement on Disney's past attempt from 1950.
I do like the animated version from the studio, but this 2015 release of 'Cinderella' makes for a more enjoyable experience in my eyes. Lily James and Richard Madden are smart choices to play Cinderella and Prince, while Cate Blanchett is impressive as the Stepmother. Helena Bonham Carter (Fairy Godmother), Stellan Skarsgård (Grand Duke) and Nonso Anozie (Captain) are also noteworthy.
The premise has a few changes, the ending plays out slightly differently compared to the '50 production - to positive effect. It also makes the nastiness of Blanchett's character unmistakably clear, I actually felt hatred for her - which wasn't the case, at least to the same extent, with the original.
Good viewing.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
I'm honestly concerned that this isn't a movie that anyone is going to watch again and again, but it's a solid watch, and a definite improvement over the 1950 animated classic, though I can't say this touches "Ever After" for me.
The original story was somewhat lacking, but had fantastic animation for the time, along with voice acting and writing parallel with the movies of its time. I'm somewhat sad to say that is a fair difference in quality compared to modern standards.
Disney very much kept this dumbed down for younger audiences, and I expect them to have more fun with scenes like "lizard footman eats a fly", but in the very least they steered away from realistic cg talking animals (a creepy factor in many of the live action remakes), though they do make a very specific nod to it at the beginning of the movie.
While I do think they managed to improve on almost ever facet of the original, it certainly isn't without flaws.
The casting is all over the place, which, I'm sure, affected the odd character development. Oddly, the less important characters, the men, in this case, are fine, I really have zero to say other than I rather like Nonso Anozie in anything he's in, and I did think the bit about "Kit" was a rather inspired thing.
I understand that Kate Winslet has had a villainous kick the past few years, and she plays "stuck up snoot" very well, but seeing Helena Bonham Carter come in to give us "the fairy godmother who ain't got time for dat" really makes me wonder if they just weren't paying her enough to care. It would have made more sense to let Winslet elevate the fairy godmother (one of the only things that really wasn't) and let Carter goes Bellatrix Lestrange as the Wicked Stepmother.
Sophie McShera did a marvelous job of making me hate her character, and Holliday Grainger kept making me see Katherine Heigl if we could keep her away from tanning beds, so they both did a marvelous job as wicked stepsisters (honestly, probably the best performances of the movie).
For some reason though, they made a very strange decision to make all the wicked women gingers, though not with a very convincing dye job. I don't know if it was supposed to be representative of their tacky fashion and the ability to dye hair at the time, or if Disney really thinks gingers don't have a soul, but it was a blaring message, if illegible.
What makes me think that they don't care at all is Lily James. She's lovely, she did a good job with the role as written, and I'm dying to see her in anything else to see if any of the oddities were her, or she's done just as good as Winslet with the roles they were given.
Cinderella is traditionally a "fairest in the land" look, given that it's the middle of Europe, I imagine northern was exotic once upon a time, or at least certain people thought so she is traditionally very blonde and very fair. Lily James is neither (in this, despite some of the posters), so I thought they were taking a more Germanic look with a more honey colored hair....but it is also very oddly colored, and perhaps we wouldn't have notice if it wasn't for her very prominent BLACK eyebrows (which I have nothing against, I actually think they're lovely) which would have been simple enough to die to match. Alternatively they could have abandoned blonde altogether (plenty of versions do). It is just very odd to spend millions of dollars to do something purposefully (and repetitively) to make it look like they don't care and objectively make their movie worse.
Overall, it's this sort of attitude that seeps into the movie at different points. It could have been a masterpiece, but instead, everyone knows it's a guaranteed paycheck on the title alone and made something that ends up being rather average despite itself.

> Probably the best live-shot Cinderella I've seen.
Disney has done it again. Everybody knows Cinderella story and what this film gave was as it is with the help of modern CGI works. When I heard about the Disney's live-shot version is getting ready, I had a serious doubt, but not anymore. Nowadays, the filmmakers know how to pull it off a big budget movie with ease. Especially from Hollywood, if one market fails, it will raise in another as the recent example was 'Age of Extinction'. I am glad this movie met a great success despite it was not a surprise material as a story, but was as the quality of product.
The movie runs nearly for 100 minutes, that does not feel too long as the narration had a wonderful pace. Everything was awesomely handled by the director of 'Thor'. It's a new era of the live-shot movies, which borrows the stories from the fairytales, folklore and classical animations. Recent 'Maleficent' was one of the great examples and this film as well enters the book of triumph.
Lily James was very good, I haven't seen her much, because she's kind of a new actress in the spotlight. She's cute and adorable, I love to see her in many movies in the future. While Cate Blanchett, I never had any disbelief in her and she delivered it perfectly. An ideal movie for a family to watch at the weekend. I think children would love it, so at least watch it for them, with them.
7/10

Well here we don't even bother with the gooseberry bush, let along the maternity ward, as the young besuited baby arrives to join mum, dad and elder brother "Tim". These kids don't exactly hit it off. Is that because "Tim" is jealous of the love his parents smother their new arrival with? Or is it because he doesn't behave like a baby at all, just a diminutive business executive who speaks and acts like someone forty times his age? At his most confused, "Tim" also discovers that this rugrat has a more sinister objective and that the boss of the global megacorp "Puppy Co." has instigated a plan that will forever change the loving dynamic between people and their favourite pets. It seems that the only chance he has to thwart this dastardly plan is to work together with his duplicitous and bossy but incredibly astute sibling. Loads of escapades now follow as the pair have to do some intrepid detective work, risk life and limb, and even join an Elvis impersonators convention. Now had they just left the scenario with a degree of obnoxious baby menace, then this might have worked better for me. Sadly, though, they hadn't the courage of the original conviction of the film and so it drifts all too readily into a cheesy world of sentiment and predictability that neuters the whole thrust of the thing. It does take a bit of a pop at the corporate world and at it's approach to monetising children and pets so shamelessly, but the fun is sucked out of it simply by relying on a mediocre script and a soundtrack of adapted ballads whilst the sense of mischief just peters away. It all just goes too goo goo ga ga in the end, and though I get I'm not the demographic, I still thought it an opportunity for something a bit different just wasted.

**An elegant and well-made film, but with far-fetched, forced ideas and a certain lack of “soul”.**
I am aware that my generation, “Generation Y”, is the first in the history of my country where the majority of us are only children. With the increase in education, health and food costs and low salaries without corresponding increases, for most families it has become insane to have more than one child. And the truth is that many of us will prefer not to have children, or we will become parents late (I think this helps explain the issue of “love for puppy dogs”, in the film and in real life, after all they're cheaper and aren't indelible bonds that connect us to others, ex-wives or ex-husbands). I can speak for myself: I'm close to forty years old, and I have no idea of starting a family, I have no conditions and I feel that my future has been mortgaged by the financial crises that society has been experiencing since the beginning of the millennium. I'm sure I won't be the only one who feels this way.
This film, in a joyful and naive way, is a portrait of all this by showing how a seven-year-old child finds the birth of his brother strange. I already understood that love and rivalry are contradictory feelings that are part of what it means to have siblings: they may compete for their parents' love and attention, but they often come together when necessary. And the film shows us all this by creating a whirlwind story in which the new member of the family is also a disguised executive with authoritarian tics and who behaves like a “Donald Trump in diapers”: giving orders, grumbling, shouting, firing everything and everyone like the worst CEO we can imagine.
To be honest, I only saw the film now because, at the time, it seemed so uninteresting and forced that I didn't pay to see it in the cinema, contradicting the success it had at the box office and joining me with a mass of suspicious people who thought that the critics could have been right in the way she bombed the film in the media. And, in fact, we have to agree that DreamWorks has already done better things and seems to be in an inspiration crisis. The quality of the drawings and animations, the vibrant colors, the good character design and the technical refinement are still visible, but there is a lack of good ideas and some soul. This film makes an effort, appeals to fraternal feelings and the public apparently responded well, but it is not a film at the level of past successes. As for the soundtrack, which features some notable songs, it's reasonable, but not so good as to be worth it on its own, and the humor is suitably sarcastic, although the jokes can, at times, be more aimed at adults than children. (I doubt most kids know what a memo is).
The film, being an animation, does not have a cast, but features the participation of several well-known voice actors, with particular emphasis on Allec Baldwin (who gave the voice of Baby) and Steve Buscemi, who gave the voice of the story's villain. Still worthy of mention and a positive note are the contributions of Jimmy Kimmel, Lisa Kudrow and Miles Bakshi.

**The baby on a mission!**
If you ask anybody from the pre 90s, they would say their love for animated feature started with 'Toy Story'. But mine was DreamWorks' 'Antz'. So this production house might not be as good as Disney or Pixar, but still a better one than the rest of those who are in the same business, except Sony who comes equal. I wanted this film to be good, yeah, it is a box office hit, but not critically. The regular animated film goer accepted it. And I think as well, it is entertaining, so much fun in parts, if not the entire film.
The story of a boy whose happy life being an only child has taken away from his newborn little brother. Then one day he discovers the baby could speak and came to the house with a bigger plan. Knowing what it is and joining hands with him to tackle is what the remaining narration covers. Quite fun film. Animation, story and all the adventures were good. The voice-over was great. Alec Baldwin was awesome, but it's fair to praise the technicians, the animators.
At first, I thought some of the jokes were rude, if the film is for families, particularly for the kids. But when I watched the rest of the film, it did not look going anymore worse. A simple story and predictable, but it was enjoyable, that makes you forget yourself for a while. Despite the mixed response in acceptance, I've heard the sequel is on, in a couple of years. I think it is a good decision, even the storyline, how it ended encourages that. It's not going to be your favourite animated film, but surely not to be missed if you love animation.
_7/10_

**Rush isn’t just a good racing movie. It’s an excellent film, period.**
Ron Howard pumps adrenaline straight into your veins with rivalry, risk, and high-stakes racing. The cinema and storytelling make the audience feel the intensity and danger of every race. Drivers are horribly disfigured and even die, forcing characters to stare their own mortality down every time they sit behind the wheel. Each character responds differently as they grapple with the peril of doing what they love. I didn’t expect to enjoy this movie, but the true story of Niki Lauda and James Hunt, told with Howard’s powerful realism and grit, was incredibly captivating. The racing scenes are beautifully filmed and framed with compelling character-driven storytelling. Be wanted, the R-rating results in some nudity and sex scenes, but if you are willing to fast forward or skip ahead, the rest of the film is worth it. I mean, Thor vs. Baron Zemo in race cars? What’s not awesome about that?

Awesome, the best racing movie since grand prix 👍

I figured I saw the first two, I might as well see this one, too. Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is tricked into going to the second island by Amanda (Tea Leoni) and Paul (William H. Macy) Kirby, who are looking for their missing son Eric (Trevor Morgan). A few supporting players go, too, to provide food for the dinosaurs without caring about the loss of their characters. There is lots of running, a climax that never happens, and the promise of another sequel that wouldn't come.
Forgive the short synopsis, the truth is this film steals tons from the first two films. There is a "dinosaur poop" scene, and another character supposedly dies and we must waste our time watching for him to appear hurt but alive. I would compare this film to the awful "Back to the Future Part II." It was also released to kind of tie-in the future episodes, but does not stand well on its own. If you are going to continue a major action franchise, you would think the third film would be even bigger than the first two. No such luck here. The special effects run hot and cold. Good dinosaur graphics, but what is with the script? The film makers decided the audience wants nothing but dinosaur attacks, and throws in all sorts of them. These do not seem to take on any sort of breakneck speed, this just looks like a resume tape for Stan Winston's special effects. This is a greatest hits compilation of people getting chased, attacked, and eaten, in all its PG-13 gory glory, without any sort of suspense or scares. Action scenes would start, like the dinosaur at the steel fence, then end as the humans would run away, talk, then get chased again. Would everyone stop teaming Sam Neill with children? The teenage boy here is better than the lovey-dovey cutesy-wutesey duo from the first film, but I was sick of seeing his heart melted by youth. Speaking of youth, I literally cannot remember anything about Neill's young protege, Billy (Alessandro Nivola). His character is so vacuous and laid back, he disappears from the screen. I kept thinking "who is that? oh, yeah, Billy with some stolen raptor eggs." Macy and Leoni are okay, but better than this material. If you have seen the first two, you might as well see "Jurassic Park III" as well. It is not any good, but when has that stopped a major motion picture studio from shoving a middling franchise down our throats?

I have to say that I found this, though still a poor relation of the first film, eminently better than the second. Sam Neill is lured to the Isla Sorna (the reserve isle) by a businessman - ostensibly as a glorified aerial tourist guide - only to discover it is a rouse to help "Kirby" (William H. Macy) & his wife "Amanda" (Téa Leoni) recover their son who went missing whilst paragliding over the island some weeks earlier. It's the usual adventure fayre with loads of great big beasties, velociraptors and dodgy sat-phones. There's plenty of fantasy gore and roar and it does it's job well enough - though I have to say I would gladly have fed Blake Michael Bryan ("Charlie") to any one of the carnivorous monsters from about 30 seconds after his fiercely irritating character hit the screen.

No longer a theme park. People still go to the island. A small group gets stranded on the island, and encounters the dinosaurs.

I guess you could call this Jurassic Park Lite. Everything about it is reduced. It has a much shorter running time and the plot is contracted to the point that it is just about a handful of people looking for a child in a violently wild zoo. They enticed Sam Neil back into the cast, and to a lesser extent Laura Dern, but the movie seems to feel the absence of Jeff Goldblum’s Ian character. The script seems to recognize this lack as they have Alan Grant whipping out quotes and theories of Ian’s. Meanwhile I think William H. Macy’s talents might have been a bit wasted in his role.
It is an entertaining little film, at least, as they threw in the obligatory sigh-inspiring shots of herds of large dinosaurs and spots of humor. I could have done without the ascension of the raptors to the status of being thinking, plotting creatures who would have been superior to humans if they only hadn’t been wiped out by that pesky asteroid. I thought that was a bit extreme. I thought the best moment came when Alan realized the the bridge they were crossing was part of an aviary for the pterodactyls.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
I can understand why some viewers find Jurassic Park III fun enough. I just can't tolerate it, sorry. It feels more like a parody than a serious attempt at making a good sequel. The suspense and sense of wonder are totally gone. Even the CGI-animatronics combo looks terrible.
I also couldn't stand the new characters, ugh. I may come back tomorrow and think differently, but Fallen Kingdom has more redeemable qualities, despite it also being pretty awful and even offensive to fans of the saga.
I just don't imagine myself rewatching III ever again.
Rating: D-

Reverse Darwinism - survival of the most idiotic.
Eight years after the horrors of Jurassic Park, we find Dr. Alan Grant happy with his lot, nothing on Earth could coax him back on to one of the "InGen Islands." Trouble is, is that Paul and Amanda Kirby, in the search for their missing son, get him to Isla Sorna without his knowing anything about it, and sure enough, dinosaurs are set to rule their evolved world once more.
Clocking in at just about 83 minutes in actuality, you sense that director Joe Johnston (Jumanji) knew he had to get in quickly, do his job, and get the hell out of Dodge ASAP. Sure enough, JP3 feels like (is) a quick coin in, the formula is straight up simple from the executive desks, dump a load of annoying characters on an island and see if they can survive being chomped on by dinosaurs. That the makers managed to get Sam Neil and William H. Macy on board with such a turgid script, is nothing short of amazing. Perhaps just as Neil's character is duped in the film, so shall it be in real life...
Still, it's no abomination by any stretch of the imagination. Johnston, realising that the audience wants dino action, wastes no time in letting the critters loose on our motley crew. Which in spite of the child friendly nature of the piece (think more chase movie adventure than monster peril) is all rather spiffing and enjoyable. You may find yourself hoping the irritable Téa Leoni gets eaten, and you may find yourself laughing at some of Alessandro Nivola's scenes when you are not meant to (is that a Superman homage?), but at least it's fun enough to get away with the bad points. Thanks in the main to the creatures and the relatively short running time. 5/10

Just as pointless to make as the last film. At least the raptor effects were back up to specs.
**_Alan!_**
_Final rating: ★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole_.

I was a huge fan of the original Tron when I was a wee scamp, so when the sequel finally came about I was well up for it. Unfortunately, it missed the mark by a mile. It looks gorgeous but that's about all it can offer, unless incredibly irritating characters are your thing. The original might look naff by today's standards but it's still a far better movie. Having said that I still can't stop watching this new one, go figure.|

**Lots of style, lots of high-quality visuals, but little substance.**
There are things that are inexplicable, and one of them is how “Tron” managed to become popular, even after not being a big hit in its time. I have already written about it and I stand by what I said: it is a film that I understand, that came in the wake of a popular fever around everything electronic, but that was made before its time, with visual and special effects that, today, seem as archaic as a 1990s cell phone. I don't know if this movie should be a sequel or if it should have been made a remake instead, but there's no doubt about the superiority of this movie: not only does it feature visual effects and CGI of great beauty and quality, as it has a frankly better script (which does not mean perfection).
Indeed, the script is satisfactory, presenting an unlikely story, where a very rich young man decides to sabotage his own company thinking he is doing what his father, who disappeared for years, would approve. After that, he receives a message from his father, and the clue leads him to an old arcade, long closed, and to his father's old computer. It is there that the young man is sucked into a cybernetic space, controlled by a vile and dictatorial program. Yes, humans sucked, physically speaking, into computers. As if social media weren't enough! Added to this, the worn-out clichés of the relationship between an absent father and a needy son, an essay on a loving sub-plot without any logic, a cartoon villain without personality and made to hate.
Jeff Bridges returns to the character he played in the first film, both in the person of the actor we know, and in the figure of a young alter-ego, created digitally. The actor is good, and we already know his merits, but the truth is that he doesn't seem to be in great shape. He accompanies the film, following the action, but he is not particularly noticeable in this work, as he was not in the initial film. Garrett Hedlund has a little more visibility and is, in fact, the protagonist here, but he doesn't do much more than be an action figure.
It is in the technical aspects that the film stands out and deserves some praise, particularly thanks to the extraordinary design of the visual effects and the CGI, which are among the most elegant and well-executed we have seen. Recreating the concepts of the original film, they show a cleaner and more finished look, without obvious gimmicks that are unbelievable to the eyes, and with much better worked colors. However, a film is not made of style and extraordinary visuals, and there are many recent examples of visually amazing films that are worthless because they do not have quality stories. Also noteworthy are the sets and costumes, as well as the electronic soundtrack, by the French dJ duo Daft Punk.

**Overall : Kosinski upgrades TRON in every way for a new generation with this stunning sci-fi adventure.**
Believe it or not, Top Gun was not the first franchise Joseph Kosinski revives with a legacy sequel over 30 years after the original. And just like Top Gun: Maverick, Kosinski did a masterful job bringing a series back to life. TRON: Legacy improved on its predecessor in every way. I remember seeing it in 3D IMAX and being completely blown away at the effects (although the de-aging effects are pretty dated but were impressive at the time), the soundtrack, the story, and the acting. Kosinski connected the past with the modern age by bringing back Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner while providing a story that engages and intrigues a new generation. I can't say I was a major fan of the original, but I loved this movie. This sci-fi adventure felt like the beginning of something incredible, but sadly Disney acquired Marvel shortly after the release of TRON: Legacy and shifted their focus to the MCU. Hopefully, after Kosinski's success with Top Gun: Maverick, the chances of a TRON 3 will be reignited because I am ready for more!

A massive upgrade on the first film, at least for someone like me who certainly doesn't enjoy the 1982 production.
'TRON: Legacy' is much more vibrant, developed and tangible. I actually formed a connection with the characters in this one, which is the complete opposite to the original. The special effects (bar the de-aging) are a vast improvement, which is to be expected in fairness; I love the look of this.
It's nice to get a proper view into the 'outside' lives of the protagonists, rather than receiving a tiny backstory before shoving them into the new universe; I appreciated the build-up to the eventual entry. The score is also terrific, even if it's strange hearing Daft Punk's "Outlands" due to my familiarity of it coming from Sky Sports UK's Formula 1 opening credits.
Garrett Hedlund is great in the role Sam, I enjoyed his performance from the get-go. Jeff Bridges is excellent too, I feel all the actors in general were given much more to work with in this one; I barely took notice of Bridges (& Co.) in the predecessor, but he stands out big here. Olivia Wilde and Michael Sheen are good, also. Cillian Murphy even makes a minute appearance.
It does, at least to me, feel like a very different film when compared to 'Tron', which may disappoint lovers of the latter but will be relief to opposing folk; e.g. me.
Wasn't sure what to expect from this, but thankfully it produces an entertaining time.

Where do you start with Tron: Legacy? It’s a sequel to a minor cult hit that arrived in theaters 28 years ago, a film more renown for its (at the time) state-of-the-art design than its coherent story or classic characters, rekindled now not as a reboot or remake, but as a direct sequel to that long-ago work.
Tron's esteem may have grown in the intervening years (much the same fate as another maligned-at-the-time science fiction film, Blade Runner), but time has been mostly unkind to it; Disney attempted to stage a run of pre-LEGACY screenings of the original film, but modern audiences greeted its dated appeal as unintentionally hilarious. Frightened by the impact this might have had on their $170 million spectacle, they pulled plans for a theatrical release, and whisked the recent 25th anniversary DVD off of store shelves. And so, bereft of a childhood that contained Tron, I went into the sequel with naught but a Wikipedia plot breakdown (which was, to be honest, frustratingly informative) to fill in what turned out to be largely irrelevant narrative gaps. I say that to say that I am reviewing Legacy solely for Legacy's sake, untainted by nostalgia or high expectations.
More than two decades after the events of the first film (which, for the uninitiated, involve a computer programmer [Jeff Bridges, reprising his role] being zapped from the physical world into the computer world he created and fighting an oppressive digital tyrant within), we’re introduced to that computer programmer’s twenty-something kid, heir to his father’s tech empire and not terribly happy about it. It seems he’s still hung up on his father’s mysterious disappearance long ago, and a mysterious message leads to him discovering Dear Old Dad’s secret underground lab, where he’s accidentally zapped into the digital world as well. I’m afraid I’m not spoiling anything to go ahead and say that within he finds his trapped father, and they must fight their way back out. To give more plot details would be unfair and pointless. Suffice to say that once within the digital realm, it becomes action beat after action beat wherein our young hero rescues dad and his requisite romantic interest until the film ends.
Oh sure, there are good guys, and there are bad guys, and there’s a token stab at depth, but what does it matter? That digital world looks really cool, right? And that’s why we go. The sad truth of the matter, however, is that what looks awesome in a two-minute trailer begins to wear on the eyes when presented long-form. “The Grid” exists in three colors: neon blue, neon orange, and black. Well, two colors and an absence of color, I suppose. As nifty as this may seem, two-plus hours of this (particularly at the reduced light offered by 3D projection) robs it of interest, and the whole thing becomes a dull slog. 3D works by enhancing depth, but little to no depth is present when the film is lit and shot in such a stylized manner. To boot, only the bad guys are orange. And as our audience proxy characters are good, we’re robbed even of the contrasting orange to break up the monotony.
There are some neat sequences, of course: the initial lightcycle battle, a digital dogfight later on, etc. Garret Hedlund and Oliva Wilde are perfectly fine in their frankly bland roles, and Jeff Bridges squeezes what depth he can into his dual characters (actual Kevin Flynn and his twenty-years-younger digital duplicate, thanks to some unnerving but nifty visual trickery). The film is far from the unwatchable dreck of, say, The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader. It’s just...not very interesting. Techno group Daft Punk’s score was easily the best part of the film, and something I’d actually recommend picking up with no hesitations. At its best, the Daft Punk score and stylized imagery (early in the film, before it wears you down) do provide a unique and imaginative experience. It’s just one fit for the length of a music video, not a feature film.
But let’s not kid ourselves: Tron: Legacy is a flashy, ridiculous spectacle that exists solely to put pretty pictures onscreen for two hours and drive a $4+ 3D surcharge. And I say that with no judgment. Some films simply are what they are, and you’ve no more right to expect a dog to meow than to glean from them deep meditations on the human condition. The history of cinema is full of this kind of shallow but aloofly entertaining distraction. But is it wrong to want more of these kinds of films? Take Star Wars, for instance: its strength lies mainly in its revolutionary aesthetic and special effects, but it’s the characters that we remember from the film, not just how cool some set-piece looked. And Lucas isn’t even a terribly good writer; the strength of his characters came from that universal pull all great archetypes have, that ability for audience identification and empathy. Will the name Sam Flynn have the same kind of longevity? What about...uh, Oliva Wilde’s character? Apparently not, at least for me. (Note: IMDb says it’s “Quorra.”) If nostalgia for the first film is strong for you, or you’ve no qualms about paying $14+ for a mildly-distracting if uninvolving experience, go for it. Everyone else may as well save themselves the money. Maybe catch it on Blu-ray.
I should note, though, that I can honestly say 3D added nothing to the experience, so if you want to be able to actually see in The Grid, save yourself the money and hop into a 2D seat.

After his surprising success as the "Dragon Warrior", the cheery "Po" is hoping to take it easy. History, though, has no intention of letting him sit on his laurels as it emerges that the slighted peacock villain "Shen" has designs on taking over the globe. We learn from a brief retrospective a bit about the cause of his bitterness and it seems that he and "Po" have an overlapping provenance that might just explain a few things for both of them. Thing is, "Shen" has developed an all-conquering secret weapon that can cause even the most formidable of fortifications to tumble, so it's going to take all that "Po" and his five best friends can muster if they are to thwart the dastardly plan and save the nation from the peacock with feathers as razor sharp as his wit! This is becoming my favourite animated franchise. It successfully mixes some pithy dialogue with loads of characterful and colourful action and it's message of teamwork and inter-reliance is subtly delivered amidst a sea of entertaining mythology and adventure. It's quickly paced from start to finish and though I could have been doing with a little more of the sceptically sagely "Shifu" it's still just about as good as the first film from 2008. Great fun.

Kung Fu Panda 2 excitedly kicks, punches and belly flops its way through overused visual humour. “Everybody was kung fu fighting!” much more so in this sequel when compared to its predecessor. The Furious Five were slapping Shen’s army of diabolical wolves left, right and centre. Master Shifu prodding his stick conveniently during the climactic battle. And a plethora of other anthropomorphic beasts harnessing the power of said martial art. This very much felt like an animated martial arts feature, one aspect the original was sorely missing. However, despite DreamWorks’ best efforts in continuing Po’s search in becoming the Dragon Warrior, its quality offers no improvements. Unable to surpass the boundaries of family-friendly humour that reduces the visual splendour and narrative heft to progress the story onto the next level.
Po, having realised who his parents truly are (not a goose...), must save China with the Furious Five from the malicious peacock Shen and his fascination with metallic weapons. DreamWorks constantly pump out family orientated animations with powerful morals every year. This sequel illustrating the ability to manipulate our past childhoods to shape the person we want to be. For Po, this meant ignoring the familial scars that Shen caused, producing his prepubescent abandonment. A notable moral that many should abide by, but unfortunately is weighed down by excessive comedy that diminished a vast amount of beautiful moments. Aside from the tantalising scene when Po finally discovered what happened to his parents, conveyed through mesmerising hand-drawn animated flashbacks, all other heartfelt examples were brutalised by Po’s apparent requirement to exercise his bumbling personality. Black’s prolific voice doesn’t help matters, with a lack of sincerity to his vocal performance, but the frantic pacing and rushed sequences made for a frustrating central narrative.
That’s not to say this sequel is poor, in fact it’s just as consistent as its predecessor. Rather infuriating is all given the tender bamboo seeds that were lovingly planted, unable to grow into ferocious stalks. The humour, as overwhelming as it is, does provide characterisation to these animals. Po in particular. Making it hugely accessible for all members of all families to watch and enjoy.
The action sequences were splendid and vibrantly colourful, with some ingenious editing that made one chase scene resemble ‘Pac-Man’. The oriental aesthetics and environments built a beautifully inclusive world for the characters to roam in. The antagonist, Shen, was far more memorable and sinister in comparison to...ummm...I forgot his name. The snow leopard? We’ll go with that. Mostly due to Oldman’s vocal work that has a larger range than the entirety of his filmography (and that’s saying something!). The red and black lighting was, at times, excessive in depicting “evil” and surprisingly dark. No, not thematically. It was literally difficult to see anything!
Aside from that, Kung Fu Panda 2 slaps. And punches. And kicks. But also tumbles repetitively due to Po’s constant buffoonery. It does however set the third film up nicely, so guess I’ll have to give that a go...

Admittedly, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the first “Kung Fu Panda.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s alright, but that’s all. Just alright. The jokes about him being big and clumsy get old after an hour and a half, to the point where it almost seems like a movie that’s trying to (ironically) fat shame kids.
“Kung Fu Panda 2” is really more of the same. Same characters, same plot, same jokes. It’s extremely predictable with literally no surprises, giving the characters little depth. What we are presented with here is essentially a paint-by-numbers family film. If you’re okay with that, then more power to you. It’s pretty harmless brain candy, but if you’re looking for more substance or any way to challenge your kids a little, look elsewhere. Again, it’s just kind of...there. Ironically zen, in a way.

Threre are few sequels that are better than the original. This is one of them.
Smarter, with good plot and an amazing animation. Perfect for a movie session with the family.

A no-frills third installment of 'Despicable Me'.
I found the initial few scenes of 'Despicable Me 3' to be solid, with a few chuckles chucked in there. However, from around minute 30 it loses all steam and ends up being a fine but uninspiring 90 minutes. The voice cast are alright, but the characters themselves aren't all that interesting.
Steve Carell and Trey Parker are good, as is an underused Kristen Wiig. Jenny Slate's character seems forgotten, like I feel like it sets up something with Valerie Da Vinci early on but I don't even recall what happens to her here - a waste, as my first impressions were positive. The minions are fine, not as funny at this point but there's some minor amusement there still. I, also, didn't dig the addition of Gru's brother, fwiw.
Pharrell Williams' music, meanwhile, feels overused and ever so slightly rehashed. Gone are the days of 'Happy' - but hey! Only two years until 'Despicable Me 4'! Woo...

The 80s scene at the beginning was awesome and worth a watch. The rest was the traditional weird mess shared by all the other Despicable Me movies.