KatyGriffinSaye

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Smurfs with a superior sequel. Despite being in the same tone of the 2011 predeccesor, I have got some positives to this: This seems to contain more: adventure, real NAUGHTIES (Vexy & Hackus) created by Gargamel I'm action. We even get to see more about the Winslows & Patrick's stepfather, Victor Doyle - portrayed by Brenda's Gleeson. Would you see him in a movie like that? This is not the Naked Gun! Next, we have a meaning. Remember how Smurf3tte felt about being created by Gargamel, starting of as a Naughty & being traumatised from. What did Great Papa Smurf say? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM, WHAT MATTERS IS WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE! You could say the same with Doyle. Now, I shall never care about movie studios movies whether their CEO is trustworthy or not! I always loves its soundtrack, ooh la la & we love an Owl City in a family movie. Maybe the duology was not so bad after all.

From the start, a nostalgicly divisive hybrid movie. At first, despite the Smurfs you may find looking uncanny, it does show the way the traditional Smurf style it used to be & Gargamel getting out to get them. But when they get through the portal, that is when the reactions get negative is the fact that they were in the present day, in New York City - when Smurfs were set in medieval times (I refused to believe that they were in the medieval times). In which, there are tasteless moments & unbelievable uncool elements. Looking on another side, if we could take it out of context, it seems as LAUGHABLE as it is bad. Since it seems funny that small blue characters discover the world & try to find out what real things are - they could be more fit for a parody segment. Maybe Smurfs were not worth living when Gargamel could use their magic on beauty without testing on REAL ANIMALS. Ha, I love Hank Azaria & I love how they discovered their origin from Peyo. Maybe I have MIXED FEELINGS.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The franchises batteries are running low. "Pirates of the Carribean"s movies have begun to get old with their plots, & storyline get more repetitive. This is supposed to be at ITS world's end. About the repetitive storylines: • We have the same enemy crew from the 2nd movie: the skeletons from the first were way cooler. They should have had a new swat. • It is the same old conflict that Elizabeth Swann has (she has to boss fellow pirates around. What I am happy to see is William Turner - Orlando Bloom used to be handsome. And a black woman, who is not Zoe Saldana (Tia Dalma) turning into a giant woman. The movie is not even taking itself seriously, Jack Sparrow says things like Doctor Who. He has many clones & in 1 scene has 2 small versions of himself on his shoulders. I was not good at doing this review. Now I am going to stop here, given how future movies declined in quality.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Reminding me of "Night at the Mueseum" & "Avatar" The adventures of Jack Sparrow & Will Turner+ continue on, but every time, it stops being as good as the predecessor. We are introduced to many crews from around the world, which may make it stand out. Then, they start to compete & play games, which makes the movie childish. Once again, they have to battle a crew of monsters & it is still about the Black Pearl - instead of skeletons, there are sea monsters. If you look closely at the CGI, it does not beautiful - a "Predator" movie would seem better than this. Characterizations, I was put off by. Do you remember the pirates lovingly with Elizabeth Swann (who is now a pirate) betray each other in one seen - I saw this in uncanny new instalments to popular sagas. Judging by the critics score, I may have to stop watching.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

That is the right adaptation! It used to come across as underrated whenever somebody would reference an adaptation of Roal Dahl's story, it would be the 1971 adaptation. However, this is an improvement! More book accurate! It has dark humour, iconic moments & characters reflecting our generation! Do not forget the book accuracies: the story of Prince Pondicherry, the shown backstory of Oompa Loompas & their songs which came to be from the books & Mike Teavee did use the Great glass elevator too. If you are shocked that the movie is darker, this is because it is directed by Tim Burton, who took on his tone for his creations & some people like to see things reimagined as a specific style. Don't you care about BTS? Freddie Highmore was so delighted to work with Johnny Depp again, Deep Roy played every Oompa Loompa (taking a lot of work), many squirrels & the big boat scene. In the end, I would not be suggesting the 1971 version, but this if you want to see an adaptation.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The movie was smoking unmasked to be good. What any cinephile could need in their life is some sort of comedic movie. Anything is a special kind, like this. Jim Carrey has always been bound to be funny anywhere, no wonder I choose any of these movies. When things go zany, he can be funny with this childish but act for the age movie. FACT: Not all of these iconic cartoonish mask moments were computer generated so nobody cringe, we getting freaky! To watch the movie seems to be escapism. Jim Carrey is the wimpy man, Stanley & that mask turns him into the green-headed, black lipped hero with the power that he never usually had. Don't you wish any sort of magic thing miraculously does positive things to you but it never happens in real life? He is always the person you love, no matter what. Do great things for society.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Fly away! This is our introduction & how we see what Peter Pan is like. I love its iconic characters: Tinkerbell is such a cartoonist mood known for fairy dust also reading around, which is used to fly. Captain Hook is menacing yet still hilarious: he gets sensitive about his lost watch & the ticking crocodile. Well, you can tell the other pirates actually do not like him when they have a target modelled on him. The atmosphere is sweet: a place where there are mermaids where Wendy wanted to play; there are pirates & indians* just like John & Michael had imagined in their stories. *Now, the scene of the Indians & Tiger Lily might not age well due to being racist stereotypes but if you are tired of wokeness, who cares?

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Coming out before coming out. Here is a fact: the original story was about how the author himself, Hans Christian Andersen, wanting to come out of the closet as a dark metaphor. First, this take is a brighter one. It is about how somebody wants to follow their dreams, that being Ariel, who would rather be a human on land. She sings a song "Part of Your World" which is the best & beautiful song in it. Then, there is her father, King Triton, who does not want her to go out & assisting with an iconic character, Sebastian with his song "Under the Sea". "Under the Sea" had me mixed. It was an aim to put off Ariel's dreams yet it is glamourizing it. Similar to "Mulan"'s "I'll Make a Man Out of You". One More thing that it teaches: sacrifications for love. Ursula took Ariel's voice away so that she could get on land & be with Eric. So, this movie is about sacrifices, dreams & parents being accepting.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Steven Spielberg was trying everything. Did you ever love the telling of Disney's classic tales? Did you dislike live action remakes? Did you want a re-imagining of their tales?... Other studios seem to retell better than Disney. Particularly, somebody like Universal or Sony/Tristar Pictures who did their live action adaptations better & this iteration will be spoken about. I find this an interesting is making a story of Peter Pan actually growing up youthless & have started a family. And we see Wendy, she is Granny Wendy who has never married Pan. It feels very different to have a grown up return to where he had always been a child. It really does have its problem, like what critics criticize such as its screenplay & a goof is that the Lost Bpys still live in Neverland when they moved into the Darling's in the original tale. Now back to the positive, the characterizations are awesome: Mr Smee is such a mood & Captain Hook is always like his original iteration & evilness.

Has anybody said this is their favourite adaptation? This is a live action adaptation of the fairy tale from J.M Barrie, which is not from Disney, but Universal Pictures & Sony instead. They did a better job at doing a live action adaptation that Disney did with "Peter Pan & Wendy". There are many charming things about it. To start off with, the chemistry between Peter Pan & Wendy given that story's original title was "Peter Pan & Wendy", they had so much time together with Peter learning what a kiss is - it was obvious when you noticed Tinkerbell's jealousy. Next, is the atmosphere. It was enjoyable of how they also flew into space to reach Neverland. Although the FX may not be impressive, they are colourful, charming, many different places with some nostalgic charm. Finally, my favourite part should be Captain Hook. How more villainous can he be when he does such evil things like manipulate Wendy at one point? Out of nowhere, he is evil & handsome. Children would love it.

All Hail Mary. It just comes from any types of acclaimable movies with all kinds. And, it was a blessing to star Ryan Gosling. Phil Lord & Christopher Miller are the perfectionist directors that I would look up to fortheir elements. Oh, most of them really. Given that Ryan Gosling portrays the science teacher, Dr Grace, I did learn from his science lessons: something is eating up bits of the sun, which is diminishing it at a small fraction & in a few decades time, the population would be reduced. Does this give me hope for the future? Now, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller are having their take on Pixar. When Grace meets an alien (who looks like a cross between rocks & a spider), Rocky, who he spoke through voice translation. It is actually cute when I may get chills at the sight of his species. Thinking "The Good Dinosaur" or "Elio"? Another thing that I like is that Rocky is moved via puppetry & not CGI (which could have ruined it all), making it look 10/10.

This movie is priceless. Now, what I am going to say is, everything about it was priceless. Remember to give credit about the directors, screenwriters & those who were responsible for music & FX. First, I already knew that it was just a set but the set of Mars was so convincing & proof that other planets are not that different to Earth. As we could see, Mars looked like a place of fiery coloured sand with many cliffs. Second, I love the cast. Their acting is iconic. The characters are all iconic & many lines are quotable - "you gotta be **** me" or "I'll science the **** out of this". I find Matt Damon adorable as Mark Watney with his little adventure & situation. I could sniff the oxygen coming out. There was some comedy in it - Mark was forced to have disco music & disco music gets us through things. Even other people in the movie laughed, GET THEM OUT OF THERE! Truthfully, the movie is fun. It was special to feature Donald Glover. And it seems I love Matt Damon.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It is not a practically perfect sequel, but still nostalgic & joyous. I am praising for... Firstly, the music: stepping in time - with reasons & rhymes. Secondly, up with the atmosphere: Mary Poppins takes the 3 little Banks on captivating adventures through more strange places, like bathtubs & vases of their late mother where there must be fixing when it has been chipped - that is where the animated animal world comes by once again - Disney can take notes from that whenever they are set to make a 2D animated movie for the first time in forever. Thirdly, some of the acting is majestic, such as the acting of Ben Wishaw & **** Van Dyke. But, I deem it inferior to the predecessor. Unlike Julie Andrews, Emily Blunt portraying Mary Poppins does not seem quite so sweet as her predecessor & slightly smug but the character was good & made Georgie want to take a bath again. Just loved that story of a figure in children's when they are getting through a personal problem (having a home).

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A Blind Screening will Shock you Alive. I believe that it was a nice thing - a movie (directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal), who wanted to make a story about the Bride of Frankenstein & she was inspired by old movies like "The Bride of Frankenstein" & "Top Hat" which did get referenced in the movie itself, which is nice. Also, the Bride (Ida) brands herself after Ginger Rogers. There are many nice parts to it: I found interesting that Ida is actually the author, Mary Shelley, telling the story from the dead in greyscale. The prosthetics also give something different: Frank has normal skin & his head does not seem to high. This is divisive: positively, it could have a more real feel; negatively, it could make him look dull & off-putting. Ida did not need stitches; she was already & sparked back to life. BTW, I believe Ida could have gotten more time to shine. Why am I being positive about a polarising movie? It is labelled as OK BTW

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Do Not Just Give Animals a Future, Give Pixar a Future. I believe what will be interesting with it is that the animation style differs from what Pixar or Disney usually looks like such as not having surreal & beautiful eyes with shiny bodies - instead, it is more comical, texture less & geeky. It would be very fit for you if you were feeling tired of the bean mouth syndrome some characters suffer from. Animation differs are why Ican love certain movies, such as, the reason I like Illumination's "Migration". At first, it would be also interesting given that this Pixar movie may not seem like the most emotional with a meaning like others. Well, actually, it does! It focuses on Mabel Tanaka with her love for animals & dismay about the destruction of the area from Mayor Jerry. About him, who he is voiced by Jon Hamm, ever since he was told about the trouble, he became a favourite to me. It would be ironic that you know Tom Lizard actually talks. "Gatto" should take on a style too.

A relief to watch a movie from Illumination that is not from the "Despicable Me" saga. It is actually somewhat of a nice movie for many reasons. Firstly, I see this as creative although it may be lacking in originality- it is the type of creativity that is really like "Toy Story" (it's main plot is similar too) but it may not be Pixar-resque. I can give credit to its screenwriters for anything about it, I shall support Brian Lynch, who was involved with its screenplay. What a nice concept! Depicting what pets do when their owners are away... & take it to the extreme! TBF, I do not believe that I need to be about the plot to review it. There are other things to enjoy: we have been introduced to many lovable pets with positively exaggerated personalities & designs - I believe the funniest part was the evil little white rabbit, who Kevin Hart plays. This movie is a nice animated comedy for anybody of any age... but not everybody.

You Can Catch it Whenever, Wherever You Can. Steven Spielberg should go down in history of iconic movies. Should "Jurassic Park" be the most influential? Because this had some iconic potential. Why have a chase scene where there is a fast paced chase movie? It is a chase, but a non cliche adventure of a chase without full on running, false jobs & family conflicts. The acting & casting was a fascination: Leonardo DiCaprio did not need to be the romantic role but instead, a 17-year-old con man, who could have been successful in escaping from Carl (Tom Hanks). Both are some of the best on-screen combos & on screen combo s are iconic. Well, I will never forget the iconic music & title sequence.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

That was an ass one of the saga. The "Train to Busan" saga is getting similar to "Night at the Mueseum" where every plot is about main characters saving themselves from something. However, "Night at the Mueseum" is way more exciting than this. All the time, it is a group of survivors fighting their way out. The plot really does get tiresome throughout it all. It seems to me that the most interesting parts were the ways they could defeat the zombies. One example is, a group of men, shirtless with red numbers painted on, fighting them through a flood of something like water. I cannot remember if they survive or not, tell me.

The movie wants to be me. Let me get this straight: this is an adaptation of the musical, so slow down if you are going to consider this a remake, just like "Matilda". And this is not a case with "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" since Tim Burton's version was just his own superior iteration. What I said when I said that ^"the movie wants to be me"^, it is because "Mean Girls" is a girly girl thing - as somebody who does some girly things, given pink is my favourite colour whilst I can still do gender neutral or even masculine things, this movie can be targeted towards me. Also, I actually love musicals since I live music & music/songs can give me captivating energy. "Mean Girls" does have problems, given that I have been met with people who disliked it. Listen, unless it was trying to be comedic, it might be so ungreat, it is laughable & I found the acting meh whenever there were songs. Do YOU think it was OK to have modern day items in this "Mean Girls" not from 2004? At least it had heart.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]