Lady And The Tramp: Disney’s Golden Age?

‘The Lady and The Tramp’ is an animated musical romance film. The plot follows Lady (Barbra Luddy), as she comes to terms with the fact that she might get overlooked when her master’s new baby arrives, during which time she ends up falling in love with Tramp (Larry Roberts).

This film is classic Disney, it came out during that Golden Age for Disney which saw the release of things like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. I have seen this film but twice in my life, once when I was very young and then much more recently last weekend. I have to say it is not how I remember it and, not in a good way.

No, I am not going to go on about how it is outdated and then talk about the racist cat song: because ultimately that was just a feature of a lot of films from that time period. Instead I am going to talk about how I felt it was lacking a lot of the warmth and heart that a lot of those other classic Disney films have.

Lady and Tramp are both likable as protagonists, but I never found myself caring about them. There are two scenes in the film’s third act that both deal with the supposed death of a character. One of these scenes features Tramp being taken away to the pound to be put down, the other sees Trusty (Bill Baucorn), almost sacrifice his life to save Tramp. Out of these two scenes the one that should have more emotional impact is the one where Tramp faces death as he is one of our main characters, that we spent a lot of time with, but this just isn’t the case.

What’s more this film has no real business calling itself a musical, it doesn’t feature many songs at all. Moreover, the few songs that the film does have are not at all memorable and are mostly flat.

Overall, this film wasn’t what I remembered it to be, it lacked a lot of the warmth and the heart I remember it having, for the few good moments it has and the heart warming ending I will still give it an above average score, but it really isn’t a must see.

Pros.

The Classic Disney Animation.

The Happy Wholesome Ending.

Cons.

You Don’t Care About The Main Characters.

It Lacks Any Real Warmth.

It Doesn’t Have That Disney Magic.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Chicken Run: Who Is Really Escaping Who

‘Chicken Run’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, focusing on the efforts of a group of Chickens to escape the farm they live on before they get turned into pies. ‘Chicken Run’ is Aardman Animation’s first film as such, it set the benchmark for the studio.

Though many love this film, I think it is a weak start for the studio. I think though the film is serviceable and, not offputtingly bad, it pales in comparison to Aardman’s later works.

Stop-motion animation for me is hit or miss, sometimes in the case of things like ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ it can work well and enhance the film overall, whereas in films like ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ it can be vile and off-putting. This film I would say is more like the latter than the former the stop-motion animation, for the most part, is good, much like the studios later work with Wallace and Gromit, but there is something off about the human characters; specifically their faces.

The two main human characters are Mr Tweedy (Tony Haygarth), and Mrs Tweedy (Miranda Richardson), they’re both serving the antagonist role; while they’re meant to be threatening, they’re not meant to be creepy. However, there is something about the stop-motion animation with these characters that gives them an unsettling look; there is something about their cold dead eyes and manic facial design that is deeply off-putting and, I can only assume that this was unintentional; as this is not a horror film.

However, the stop-motion animation of the chickens is fine, so at least that is a small mercy. My issue with the chickens is that I don’t find them likeable, they never connected with me, the humour that characters like Fowler (Benjamin Whitrow), provide does nothing for me at all, it doesn’t land.

A lot of the chicken characters are annoying stereotypes this is best shown in Babs, (Jane Horrocks), who is there to provide comedic relief but the whole joke is that she is dumb. Overall I found this to be a very charmless film. What’s more, the fact that they include Mel Gibson as an American Rooster called Rocky feels forced in as though having a big Hollywood name on the poster would sell more tickets. It feels like more of a Dreamworks decision rather than an Aardman Animation one.

Overall this film will do fine entertaining small children but, anything beyond that is a harder sell. The main issue with this film is that it lacks any kind of charm at all. At least Aardman Animations film’s after this improved.

Pros.
It Is Watchable.

Cons.
It Is Strangely Creepy.
The Humour Doesn’t Work.
The Characters Are Unlikable.
Mel Gibson Feels Out Of Place.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mary Poppins Returns: Everyone’s Favourite Nanny Comes Back!

‘Mary Poppins Returns’ is a musical comedy fantasy film it serves as a belated sequel to the 1964 film. The plot this time around sees everyone’s favourite nanny return to teach the next generation of Banks children, how to have fun. The characters of original Banks children are in this film though they’re not played by the same actors.

I have never counted myself as a Mary Poppins fan, I know that it is a very popular film, but it never appealed to me personally. Now that I’ve said that, let’s get into the review.

I think this film has been rather unfairly written off, many people had very high expectations when the sequel was announced, and I believe no matter how good this film was, it would never live up.

I think this film has a lot of charm and all of it, and I mean all of it, comes from Emily Blunt. Blunt plays the new iteration of Mary Poppins and seems to be loving every minute, she has charm and class to spare and lives up to, if not eclipsis, Julie Andrews from the original film. Not only that, but Blunt can also hold her own when it comes to singing, she is fantastic in every song she is in; especially the lamplighter themed one in the second act.

I think on the whole the songs in this film are good, they’re catchy and memorable, without becoming annoying. Though this isn’t true of the film’s first musical number ‘(Underneath the) Lovely London Sky’ which is the worst song in the entire film as it feels like it goes on and on and won’t end; this opens the film on a bad note.

The plot of the film is fine, the Bank’s have to find some shares in the bank so, their house doesn’t get taken away from them. It is serviceable if a little uninspired. It completely wastes the talents of Colin Firth, who is the film’s villain as he is incredibly boring and one-note. The one good thing Firth’s villain does is allow for us to see Dick Van Dyke return, which admittedly is a crowd-pleasing moment.

Overall this film lives only because of how good Emily Blunt is in the role, it has nothing else going for it, in many ways it seems like money was the only thing that made Mary Poppins Return.

Ps. Don’t even get me started on Meryl Steep as Topsy, for another time.

Pros.
Most Of The Music.
Emily Blunt.
Dick Van Dyke’s Return.

Cons.
The Opening Song.
The Plot Of The Film.
Wasting Colin Firth.

3/5

Reviewed By Luke.

Mr Popper’s Penguins: The Love Between A Man And His Penguins

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins’ is a comedy film about a businessman who has lost the ability to have fun, until one day he receives a create and in that create is a penguin. Over time Popper (Jim Carrey), gets more and more penguins and forms a bond with them; this is their film.

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins is the sort of film that revels in the human-animal friendship space, think Alvin and the Chipmunks, or even animated fare like How To Train Your Dragon. These films, play upon the bond that people form with their pets.

Carrey is on top form as Tom Popper he plays him reserved, or at least reserved for Carrey, focusing on how the character slowly begins to care about these penguins and, realises what is important in his life. The message of this film is cliched family and the people you care about, or in this case penguins you care about, are more important than wealth and success. You see, that is the thing with this film in many ways it is incredibly cliche and has been done before, but that doesn’t make in any less effective. It is still incredibly good and sweet despite having not been fresh or, original.

The villain of the piece is a penguin expert called Nat Jones (Clark Gregg), who wants to take the penguins away from Popper and put them in a zoo. Jones is a good antagonist for the film as he is a character you love to hate as well as having a real sense of menace about him at times. You want to see Popper and his penguins continue to be together and be happy, so him wanting to take them away not only adds tension but also makes you consider what is best for the penguins.

Popper’s family, who also plays a role in this tale are all serviceable if not memorable I can’t remember a single one of their names.

The humour of the film delivers, Carrey is excellent and all of his jokes land. Also, the penguins have their moments of comic genius they gave me a good few chuckles as I watched.

Overall this is very enjoyable family fare and, the relationship between Popper and his penguins will speak to anyone who has ever loved a pet.

Pros.
Carrey.
The Villain.
The Penguins.
The Comedy.

Cons.
Cliched.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Fantastic Mr. Fox: Redefining The Word ‘Fantastic’

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, adapting the Roald Dahl beloved children’s book of the same name. The plot follows Mr Fox (George Clooney), as he tries to get back into the business of stealing from the local farmers; after he had given up that lifestyle when his first cub was born.

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ both the book and the film have a special place in my heart and, the film especially is amongst my favourite animated films of all time. There is so much life and vibrancy in the animation that it brings the book to life in the most beautiful way; this is in no small part because of the decision to use stop-motion animation, which not enough films do.

Many people prefer Wes Anderson’s other stop-motion animated film the ‘Isle Of Dogs’, but personally I don’t think that film has anywhere near the same level of charm as this. Yes, a lot of that charm comes from the voice cast Clooney is a great Mr Fox he has both the easy confidence for when things are going well and the steely determination/ gravitas for when things get serious. As well as Clooney the voice cast is also made up of people like Willem Dafoe, Billy Murray, Meryl Streep and, Jason Schwartzman. All of these big stars not only give it there all but also really make the characters memorable. Dafoe plays a Rat that serves as a sub-antagonist for Mr Fox, though he only has very limited screen time Dafoe not only makes us care about this character but, also gives him a personality.

There are several changes made to the story that keep it from being a fully faithful retelling of the book. However, I believe these changes serve the film well as they are often used to create character depth, which helps the characters seem more realised.
The best things about this film are because it has a very keen sense of identity, as well as a very specific sense of style. I truly believe that both of these things are owed wholly to Wes Anderson, who does a great job here and elevates this film into almost a masterpiece.

Overall, this film not only captures the nature of the book but also adds to it. Fantastic Mr Fox will make you care about foxes and badgers while also giving you a laugh or two along the way. This film is a testament to two things firstly the star-power of George Clooney, and secondly what a director with a sharp eye and a firm idea can do.

Pros.
Wes Anderson.
The Voice Cast.
The Beautiful Stop Motion Animation.
Making A Classic Out Of A Classic.

Cons.
Minor Pacing Issues In The Second And Early Third Act.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington 2: Paddington Goes To Prison

‘Paddington 2’ is a live-action animated film and sequel to the 2014 Paddington film. The plot this time around sees Paddington (Ben Whishaw), be implicated in a crime, after a pop-up book of London, that Paddington was going to buy for this aunt’s birthday goes missing. This results in everyone’s favourite Peruvian bear going to prison and the Brown family having to try and prove his innocence.

‘Paddington 2’ is a very strange film to me, in many ways it is because I didn’t see the plot of this film coming. Not only was I not expecting to see Paddington as a jailbird this time around, but I also wasn’t expecting the shift in tone. Make no mistake this is still a happy family film, but there is definitely more of a sense of melancholy this time around; a sadness in the air. The reason why this moodier tone works is because of the first film; it made us care about Paddington as a character, perhaps more deeply than we first realised, as such when we see him lose the court trial and, go to prison it can’t help but break your heart.

The Villain of the film Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), fixes my only issue with the first film, that being the villain was weak, Buchanan is a central part of the narrative throughout. Not only that but, he is much more threatening than Kidman’s villain from the first film, as he represents a real sense of danger to Paddington and his well being. Grant’s performance ranges from comedic and sympathetic, too loathsome and hateable, his Buchanan is an antagonist that you love to hate.

However, my issue with this film which I believe makes it worse than the first film, is that other than Paddington and Buchanan the rest of the cast are barely used. Whereas last time around each character had a moment to shine, without taking focus away from our hero, now these moments are few and far between; this is a shame as the series had amassed some real talent. What makes this issue more pronounced is the fact that while in prison in the film adds even more characters to its ensemble, which stretches the moments each character gets to shine even thinner.

Overall this is still a very good film and, the end of the film is very heartwarming and feel good. However, this is definitely the darker of the two films and also sadly the inferior. Still worth a watch.

Pros.
Paddington.
The Occasional Bits Of Humor.
Grant’s Villain.

Cons.
Over Crowded.
Wasted The Brown Family.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington: AKA Marmalade, The Solution To All Of Life’s Problems

‘Paddington’ is a live-action animated comedy film based on the adventures of the iconic Peruvian bear. The plot this time around is an origin of sorts, in many ways a soft reboot of the franchise, it explains who Paddington (Ben Whishaw), is and details his first encounter with the Brown family.

‘Paddington Bear’ is a quintessentially British character, he has been a popular feature of media in our fair isles for well over 50 years as such he was bound to end up on the big screen sooner or, later. It pleases me to tell you that this is a fantastic reboot for the character reintroducing him to modern audiences, while still showing all the reasons he remains such a beloved character.

Paddington himself is handled in the same animated live-action way as something like Pikachu, in 2019’s ‘Detective Pikachu’. I believe that this is a good move as the animation always looks convincing, as in it looks like he is really there on screen with the other characters. However, the joy of this style of animation is that they can have this while still keeping the wacky over the top slapstickness of the character as well, a real best of both worlds situation. Ben Whishaw does a great job voicing Paddington, managing to capture the charm and, the innocence of the character, making him very lovable.

The human cast around the titular bear is like a who’s who of famous British actors including Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi. Each character has their own moment to shine whether it is Capaldi’s characters redemption or, Bonneville’s character growing to love Paddington over time. All of these individual moments are well done and, have a lot to offer the wider world of the film.

The standout for me amoungst the human cast is Sally Hawkins as Mary Brown. As the mother of the family, Mary gives off more warmth than the sun; she loves Paddington from the moment she sees him, the surrogate mother-son relationship they have is incredibly heartwarming.

My one fault with the film is that it never does much with its villain Millicent Clyde (Nicole Kidman), her motivation is that she is resentful because her family have become a laughing stock after having a run-in with Paddington’s family years prior. As such she seeks to kidnap Paddington so she can stuff him. There a few scenes where she is mildly threatening, but as the main antagonist, she is given very little to do.

Overall a stellar reimagining that brings Paddington lovingly into the 21st century.

Pros.
Paddington Himself.
The Animation.
Sally Hawkins.
This Being An Actual Good Reboot.

Cons.
Wasted Villain.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

How The Grinch Stole Christmas: The Grinch Is Coming For Your Presents

‘How The Grinch Stole Christmas’ is a Christmas fantasy comedy-drama film based on the Dr. Seuss book of the same name. The plot of the film follows The Grinch, a character who has removed himself from the town of Whoville and, now lives in a lair up in the mountains. The Grinch hates the town’s people for laughing at him years ago and, the townspeople fear The Grinch because he is not like them. This mutual ill will comes to a head and, The Grinch plans to steal all the presents from the people of Whoville to teach them a lesson; effectively stealing Christmas from them.

Now before we get into the review in earnest, I want to say that I have never liked anything related to Dr. Seuss I find the need to have nearly everything rhyme off-putting, I feel likewise about the strange character designs. As such I never grew up with these stories, so before I watched this, I was unaware of who The Grinch was; yes I understood what he was in passing from pop culture, but I had never seen his film before.

The issues that I had mentioned before with the character designs and the need to constantly be rhyming are in full effect in this film, which lessens my enjoyment with it, but I have to say a near-perfect performance by the one and, only Jim Carrey wins me over.
Carrey plays the titular Grinch and, he is going full Carrey, by that I mean he is giving this his everything, all of his manic energy and, it really pays dividends.

The film works as a Christmas film in that it has a nice positive message of not judging other people and, that everyone can have a chance of redemption no matter how wicked; this film did make me feel the Christmas spirit. Not only does it works as a Christmas film but, also as a comedy film as it is quite funny at times, the musical number being an example of this, it should generate a chuckle or two.

My one issue with the film is the same issue I have with a lot of others, excluding The Grinch himself the rest of the characters aren’t developed at all, even Cindy Lou, (Taylor Momsen), who is a leading character isn’t given much to do except drive The Grinch’s character development along.

Overall, despite my own personal feelings on Dr Seuss, I can see why so many people love this film, Carrey is fantastic and, it is genuinely sweet and funny at times; it even managed to win round a Seuss hater like me.

Pros.
Carrey
The Spirit Of Christmas

Cons.
The Annoying Rhyming
The Weird Character designs.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

It’s A Wonderful Life: Everyone Needs A Guardian Angle

‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ is a Christmas fantasy drama film, the plot follows George Bailey, (James Stewart), throughout his life as he endeavors to do good and, keep Bailey Savings and Loan afloat. The drama of the film comes when 8000 dollars goes missing and, George looks to be arrested, at this point George is on the edge of committing suicide, but when things seem bleakest he meets an Angel called Clarence, (Henry Travers), who shows George what the world would be like if he was never born.

This film very much like ‘A Miracle On 34th Street’ is widely regarded as a Christmas classic and, that is for a good reason.
The feel-good message that everyone, no matter your circumstance, can have a huge impact on the world by showing kindness to others is incredibly seasonally appropriate. It is a message that reminds us that we should always be happy with what we have and, that though cliche the greatest joys in life don’t come from wealth or things, but rather the people around us.

The acting in the film is all well done Stewart and, Travers are excellent as the two main characters, but there are also a lot of fantastic side and, background characters that have moments to shine. My one issue with this is that though they have their moments to shine these side characters often feel very one note, very much an afterthought.

The dramatic elements are strong in this film as George’s life is very up and, down and, he is put through the wringer. At no point do these dramatic moments feel manipulative or, melodramatic rather they hit the nail on the head and feel genuine and earnest; striking an emotional chord with us the audience.

My other and, more significant issue with this film is that it has quite severe pacing issues. The part of the film wherein George wishes he was never born and, meets Clarence and, goes to the alternative world doesn’t happen until about 50 minutes into the film. Therein for me lies the problem, I understand the need to set the scene and, introduce the characters, but 50 minutes seems like a bit much and, it really makes this opening section of the film feel too dragged out and, too long; feeling almost overindulgent at times.

Overall despite some minor faults, its too long and, the side characters aren’t developed enough, this still captures the real meaning of the season better than any other film and, is worthy of the title of a Christmas classic.

Pros.
Meaning For The Season.
Impactful Drama.
Good Leads.

Cons.
Underdeveloped Characters.
Pacing Issues.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Christmas With The Kranks: A Neighborhood Obsessed.

Christmas With The Kranks is a Christmas comedy film, the plot follows Luther,( Tim Allen) and Nora Krank, (Jamie Lee Curtis), as a couple who decide to skip Christmas and, go on a tropical getaway instead; this runs them afoul of a lot of people in their neighborhood who try and, get them to change their mind.

Narratively this film is a mess it makes absolutely no sense what so ever, whenever the film seems to be going one way it goes the other, almost as though it is trying to be perplexing; this means you can’t invest in the characters or, anything that is going on as you don’t understand and, therefore don’t care.

The characters and, their motivations range from strange to downright bizarre an example of this would be Dan Aykroyd’s character, Vic. Vic seems to have something about Christmas he is obsessed with it he wants Luther and, Nora to celebrate it so much he breaks several laws trying to force them into it. If this is supposed to be funny, it doesn’t come across that way; it is more like creepy and unsettling.

However, it wasn’t only Aykroyd’s character that is done a disservice here, most of the characters are intensely dislikable and, I get it this film is the mean spirited sort of Christmas comedy, but even still these are just the worst sort of people, self-obsessed, no regard for others, trying to enforce their personal world view onto other people and, worst of all our protagonists fall into these sort of character traits as well; making them very hard to root for.

As I said before this film is mean spirited through and through if you view it through the lens of what does it say about Christmas? Does it have a nice message? Then this film stands out drastically from a lot of the more wholesome fare, a lot of the film suggests the most important thing in the world is doing what you want, other people be damned. However, in the film’s third act it does try and, cram in that wholesome festive message, but the issue is that the rest of the film is so tonally opposite to this that the final Christmas message almost feels like a bad joke; cheap and meaningless.

Overall this film doesn’t make me feel any Christmas cheer if anything it makes me question the meaning of the season. Jamie Lee Curtis is trying her best but, not even she can save this mess of a film. This goes to show that the bar for holiday entertainment is set perilously low.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke