Tinny-Tinette Reviews

The Jungle Book (2016)

A Worthy, Successful Live Action Depiction of "The Jungle Book"

[8/10 · 1 May 2016]

Disney is obviously on a roll with their live actions remakes. The reason why they're in with this current boom is debatable. But it's not as their live action remakes of their animated classics are something new. In the 90's we saw live action adaptations of "101 Dalmatians" and "The Jungle Book" (by Stephen Sommmers). And semi-remakes as "Alice in Wonderland" (which was hampered of being a Tim Burton film within Disney) and the fan-fiction "Malificent". It's certainly a task to depict a live action adaptation and make it solid on it's own terms, instead of risking the comparisons to their animated counterparts. Last year, Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella" was a critical (and commercial) surprise. Though it didn't came across as an exact replica of Walt's animated classic, it was a film that was made with a certain amount of heart and affection towards the fairy tale genre. And was a product with certain amount of class and quality.

Now this year, the live action adaptations are on their prime with "The Jungle Book", which has become a critical and commercial success. However, it's a relief to say that "The Jungle Book" is completely worth the buzz. This Jon Favreau version is simply the best live action remake of an animated classic and quite superior to the 1994 version. It is a movie that it's worthy of it's success. Due to being scepcitcal about another remake of this film and not finding the movie appealing by it's trailers, it's a relief to cite that skepticism about it was wrong.

It would be tempting to be biased towards Walt's animated classic, hence it was one of the first Disney films which I truly got fond of. However, pondering about it from an adult perspective, it's easier to spot it's faults (it's skimpy plot line). But Walt's hand drawn classic remains a delightful and enjoyable classic nonetheless. Jon Favreau's version is a movie that pays surprisingly homage to it's animated counterpart, but doesn't necessarily comes across an exact replica of it. It's an amalgam of the 1967 version and the original book (which pretty much had enough plot and intrigue for a movie anyway).

This new version manages to stand of it's own, without being overshadowed by the 1967's versions legacy. It's a movie with a quite amount of cuteness and charm. And thrills and excitement. The script is tight, intriguing, compelling and fills certain gaps which the animated movie had. The CGI animation is brilliant, the animals looks believable. And the same goes for the rest of the visuals of the film. While the 3D comes across as blurry at some parts, it does excel at others.

Young Neel Sethi appears as obviously younger than the animated Mowgli was. Nonetheless, while he does not steal the show, he manages to portray Mowgli decently. The other cast does a fine job, without overshadowing or distracting their CGI appearances. In the previews I had my hesitations about Scarlett Johanson's depiction of Kaa, but fortunately she's tolerable in the movie. Bill Murray is a charming Baloo, despite not being a complete replacement of Phil Harris' portrayal, he's good enough. Ben Kingsley makes a decent and rigid Bagheera. Certainly the scene stealer is Idris Elba's Shere Khan, which is a villain that steals the show just as his animated counterpart did.

The only true weak spots are the song segments. Both "Bare Necessities" and "Wanna Be Like You" are incorporated in the movie. Unfortunately they come across as completely jarring, silly and out of place with the naturalistic tone of the movie. Perhaps the end credits gags comes across a bit silly as well. However, those flaws are minor and really doesn't upstage the strengths of the rest of the movie.

So Jon Favreau's "The Jungle Book" is a worthy counterpart to Walt's animated classic and so far one of the finest films of 2016. If Disney could make their remakes which such amount of care and respect, then we could truly look forward to every of their live action adaptations.

Thirteen (2003)

Entertaining, but somewhat clunky depiction of a teenage girl's life

[6/10 · 23 January 2015]

It would be easy to dismiss "Thirteen" as a teen movie or even a chick flick. But the reality is that "Thirteen" is a low budget indie-movie and was the directorial debut of Catherine Hardwick. The title indicates that this is essentially a teen movie which centers about the life of a thirteen year old girl. It's a common, archetypal premise and the script was co-written by Nikki Reed, somewhat based on her own experiences. It's not a bad choice or move, but "Thirteen" does fall into the archetypal traits. But "Thirteen" comes across as a gritty departure and in some ways tragic.

Despite having nostalgic memories of this movie, I must say the indie-factor perhaps hampers the film more than it should. It's not that "Thirteen" is bad, It manages to engage and entertain. But despite the faux documentary style, the film suffers from clunky dialog, incoherent screen writing and bad character development. The problem is that "Thirteen" never quite develops the characters in a compelling or positive way. The grittiness and the willingness to dive deep into the themes is admirable, but "Thirteen" never quite manages to tell a coherent or fulfilling story or come to a final conclusion.

While none of the acting is outstanding, the actors makes the characters shine. Cute Evan Rachel Wood is natural and believable as the goodie Tracy. Nikki Reed makes a fine Evie, the hot, impetuous and popular teenage girl who becomes the bad influence on Tracy. Holly Hunter is the best one of the group, making a good, caring, yet oblivious and human mother.

"Thirteen" is typical of it's genre, but becomes watchable and engaging thanks to it's good cast and good songs. While the story could've been more tighter and less clunky, "Thirteen" is still fine entertainment.

Pornopung (2013)

A poorly executed portrayal of being a ladies man

[3/10 · 14 December 2014]

Based on Mads Larsen's novel, "Pornopung" is a film which depicts the young men's insecurities and troubles in their interactions with women in the college society. I'm not going to claim how many films there's been made of this subject, but I applaud the choice of having a film who depicts the man's point of views and their insecurities on their fragile journey to become a ladies man. Unfortunately, the execution is disappointingly weak and insipid.

The script is pretty much a predictable, "fish out of water"-premise where a good, innocent protagonist joins the cool, bad club. But this time with a quite sexual, intimate and provocative premise. While the films definitively tries to be comedic about the theme, it's not executed with neither class or subtlety. It manages to portray the awkwardness of the themes, but not in a compelling or engaging way. Besides, the quick cutting, exaggerated slow motion scenes and dizzying, loud party-music which dominates most of the time, makes the film way more awkward and blatant than it needs to be.

The second problem lies within the characterizations, the actors and the choice of the lead. None of the characters are compelling, interesting or likable and none of the actors manage to contribute to make their characters shine. The only one who has a on-screen charisma is Anders Rydning as Leo, but he's reduced to Karl's sidekicks and rarely gets to really shine. As the main lead, Ole Christoffer Ertvaag manages to portray Christian as shy, socially awkward and the opposite of a ladies man, but lacks the charisma and likability to makes us care and root for him. It would have been better to have an lead with a more likability.

The third problem lies in Christian's motivation. He's crushing on a girl and is pushed by Karl to become more active with women. But he finally gives in when Karl sleeps with his love interest and doesn't confront Karl about it until the very end. It makes very little sense! Logically this would have made Christian to hate Karl and not less motivated to pursue his goal.

On the positive side, "Pornopung" doesn't shy away from the darker, serious side of Christian's journey and portrays it superiorly than it does with it's lighter side. Unfortunately those sides are reduced to the climax, which leads up to the resolution, where Christian faces what he's done and makes up for it. It's superiorly done, but it is overall rushed. Besides, the film deals with the dilemma which several men faces to attract women. Which is attracting them as a Casanova vs being themselves (their shy, socially awkward self). The film barely taps into the issue at the beginning, but leaves it afterwards and never concludes it. Unforutnately.

So all in all, while "Pornopung" is not horrible, it's still a film about a sensitive theme which could have been executed superiorly.

Frozen (I) (2013)

A passable, but not particularly memorable Disney effort.

[6/10 · 8 October 2014]

With "Frozen", Disney finally gives their audience their long awaited-version of Hans Christian Andersens "The Snow Queen". After being in development since Walt's early days, "Snow Queen" was finally officially green-lit after Tangled's release and been pretty much shaped by the same components that made "Tangled" so successful. Since then, "Frozen" has become Disney's biggest hit ever, even surpassing "The Lion King". As an avid Disney-fan, I'm glad that Disney's once again having an Golden Age, but it's a pity that "Frozen" is the film that has lifted Disney's reputation. While I don't consider "Frozen" to be a bad film, it's a far cry from Disney's best releases.

Set in Norway, the film should probably have made me biased, considering that I'm a Norwegian myself. Fortunately Disney bring the Norwegian culture and landscape with grace and dignity. But while "Frozen" is a solid and watchable film, it's hampered the same problems that hampered both "Tangled and "Brave". As with "Brave", the first half is is superior to the second half and the movie becomes generic afterwards (after "Let It Go"). And as with "Tangled", the film is quite dramatically uneven and even more so than "Tangled", not blending the funny scenes and the quite darker scenes well.

The second problem lies in a very busy plot. The plot line about Elsa's inner struggle and angst, as well as her and Anna's broken relationship, is enough for an entire movie. But the film also adds Anna's quest for true love (the main theme of the movie), as well as giving her two love interests, and one of them turning to be evil. I applaud the choice of having an evil Prince Charming for once, but it should have been in a story where it was actually needed, since Hans' sudden turn was contrived and not needed at all (and Hans had been a likable guy until then). Kristoff had the potential to been a deeper, more complex character, but he's just given the role as a loner for no particular deep reason at all.

It's not that the sister relationship isn't the main focus on the movie, because it is. Although Disney has made a sister-relationship once before with "Lilo & Stitch, at least that movie managed to take a sister dynamic to another level and portrayed real, dimensional characters. Elsa and Anna are just stereotypes with one trait. Anna is your typical plucky, spunky, naive and endearing Disney Princess (pretty much an amalgam of the traits of previous Disney heroines) and is given most of the spotlight. The other sister, Elsa, is the Snow Queen herself and your typical misunderstood Disney outcast. But since she's reduced to being a secondary protagonist, she's given less screen time and therefore less characterization. Elsa's character is a relatable metaphor for depressed and angsty people. I'm not trying to turn this into an Anna vs. Elsa debate, but since Elsa is after all the main catalyst for the events, she should have been the main protagonist and the film should have been primarily her story.

With "Frozen", Menken has been replaced by the songwriting team Bobby and Kristen Lopez. Three of their songs work really well; the lovely anthem "Let It Go", the wonderful "For the First Time in Forever" and "Frozen Heart". The rest of the songs are not awful, but quite forgettable. However, less successful is Christophe Becks score, which unfortunately is quite generic and unremarkable. While there are a few hints of authentic Norwegian folk music in the score, it's still a missed opportunity to make a score entirely based on Norwegian folk music.

Now it may sound that I detest this movie, cause I don't. The visuals were stunningly gorgeous and takes CGI visuals to a new level. The first half manage to engage and Hans' and Anna's romance is quite skillfully executed for a Disney couple. Olaf manages to light up the scenes that he's present and is surprisingly endearing. Co-directed by Chris Buck, he manage to bring the cuteness factor that was quite present in "Tarzan". The voice acting is mostly fine and little Sven is the most cutest thing ever. However, the character designs on the humans are disappointingly generic and barely resemble a Disney design.

At the end, "Frozen" is a somewhat enjoyable and solid, but not particularly memorable Disney film. But on the positive side, it has made sure that Disney is hip again on the general masses. Let's hope this reputation will last this time.

Treasure Planet (2002)

A great voyage to "Treasure Planet"

[7/10 · 23 August 2014]

In the early 2000's, Disney went away from their traditional formula that they used in the 90's and started to exploring with some different genres, with both comedy ("The Emperor's New Groove", "Home on the Range") and sci-fi ("Atlantis", "Lilo & Stitch" and "Treasure Planet"). Being an older teen at the time, I thought it was refreshing that Disney went away from their formula and expanded their horizons a little. Afterwards none of these films have been perceived as classics and most of them were box office failures (with the exception of "Lilo & Stitch"). However, most of these films were quite enjoyable, even those much panned efforts as "Home on the Range" and "Atlantis". One of the most marketed of these films were "Treasure Planet" which had the unfortunate fate of being a box office failure, probably because of many reasons. Which is a pity, since "Treasure Planet" really deserved more recognition.

When I saw "Treasure Planet" initially, I thought it was fine, but nothing memorable and remarkable. However, the film has grown on me and I've ranked it higher on my list. It's not a so-called Disney classic, but it's still a darn good movie and better than "Lilo & Stitch" and "Brother Bear". Despite it's sci-fi approach, it still has the classical and recognizable Disney-vibe, more than "Atlantis" and "Lilo" had.

Where "Treasure Planet" really excels is in terms of it's visual and it's music. The film is visually stunning, with many bright and luminous colors and while the blending of the CGI elements isn't always seamless, it's still great to look at. Continuing the non-musical approach of the early 2000's, "Treasure Planet" is a non-musical, but is replaced by an epic and beautiful score by James Newton Howard. Although the film is set in outer space, it still keeps a Gaelic vibe to the soundtrack.

The screenplay is quite good. It starts a little slow, but expands after-wards and becomes more engaging and captivating, with much action and clever twists. The film is the brainchild of directors John Musker and Ron Clements, who are responsible for Disney's biggest successes. As with their other projects, "Treasure Planet" is big on action, but lacks the witty and spunky humor that dominated both "Aladdin" and "Hercules". However, the film isn't deprived by humor and gets some cute gags and some clever lines here and there.

The Silver/Jim dynamic is the heart of the picture and is skilfully executed. Cudos for making Silver one of the most complex antagonists in the Disney history. While the characterizations aren't as memorable as prior Disney flicks, they are still engaging. The most successful character is with no doubt Captain Amelia, brilliantly voiced by Emma Thompson. David Hyde Pierce is fine as Dr. Doppler and Brian Murray makes a good Silver. More grating is Martin Short as B.E.N. While the character becomes more tolerable in later viewings, he's still a failed attempt as a comic relief for this movie.

If there's any flaw with "Treasure Planet", it's the characterization of Jim Hawkins himself. Voiced by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt, he's one of the least memorable and engaging lead characters in a Disney film ever made. While he's not particularly awful, he's quite personality-deprived and forgettable.

"Treasure Planet" does take a clever attempt to bring a new touch to the story by setting it in space, but is surprisingly enough not so much futuristic, mostly thanks to the 70/30 law they had in the movie (70 classic/30 futuristic). However, the setting does have some contrivances, as having sailing ships. Or how about that Jim and his mother (who actually looks about his age) are the only humans set in a planet where most of the creatures are aliens or animal-like creatures? However, I'm just nitpicking.

At the end, "Treasure Planet" is a good ride and it's a film worth watching. I'll warmly recommend it and it deserves to be recognized by a large audience.

Hannah Montana: The Movie (2009)

Decent, but ambiguous

[5/10 · 1 June 2014]

It's hard to believe that it haven't been a long time since "Hannah Montana" was a huge phenomenon. While the juggernaut has lost some steam, it's really not many years ago since the franchise was huge and practically everywhere. While Disney has produced many series, none of them were as huge as "Hannah Montana". With the popularity, it wasn't strange that a movie was produced (actually two, if you count the concert movie) and released theatrically.

Why exactly this franchise became such a phenomenon, is somewhat fascinating. There's obviously no wonder to say that it's a cynical and calculated product. But if we're discussing the quality of the TV show itself, it's definitively cheesy and dumb, but still harmless and watchable at times. There's no denial that the show was aimed specifically at a young audience. So where does it leaves the movie?

"Hannah Montana The Movie" shall have praise for at least having (most of the time) a more mature and adult tone than the show. But the movie's obvious flaws makes it's purpose ambiguous. "Hannah Montana The Movie" isn't exactly horrific. That's not the problem of the film. It's cute and definitively watchable at times. But it's shifting tone and it's muddled message makes the film harder to shallow. The film really relies on a clichéd and worn-out plot-line about Miley finding back to herself by traveling back to her hometown after Hannah has taken over her life (a plot line that had already been used in some the show itself). The film really leads up to the point where Miley has to choose between her two worlds, but the ending really backs out and leaves the question really open (and ambiguous).

The tone is really somewhat inconsistent. From having a quite frenetic opening, to a slower second act, the film becomes a sappy melodrama at the third act. Which really the movie didn't needed, since it worked better with a less sappier tone. The slapstick is, surprisingly, not grating, but besides that, "Hannah Montana The Movie" really doesn't rely on humor (not that the series was funny, but at least it didn't relied on slapstick humor). None of the acting is particularly special. The most likable star is Lucas Till as the love interest, who has presence and charisma. The songs are hit and miss as well. A few of them are catchy ("Let's Get Crazy", "Hoedown Throwdown", "Crazier", "Dreams"), but the rest are forgettable.

A problem with the concept really is the portrayal of Miley Stewart herself. She's energetic and bubbly, but at times she can be an unlikeable and selfish brat. This movie is no exception. Of course a character doesn't need to be perfect, but Miley is indeed a flawed ans selfish character that repeats her mistakes. Really, it's somewhat odd that such a character became iconic.

So at the end, "Hannah Montana The Movie" isn't exactly horrific. But with a more focused theme and tone, this movie would have been more acceptable. At the end, for all the flaws of the show has, it's still more harmless.

The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998 Video)

A good Disney cheapquel, but still a flawed one

[6/10 · 30 April 2014]

During at time when Disney were churning out direct to video-sequels, "The Lion King" was one of the earlier films to receive a sequel. It's a pity that such a intelligent and substantial film as "The Lion King" didn't received a theatrical release, but after the unfortunate box office failure of "Rescuers Down Under" (for the most ridiculous reasons ever made), Disney went to a safer alternative with releasing them direct to video. While I've never personally detested them as many does, there's no denial that they are in a inferior quality. Regardless, "Simba's Pride" has gotten a fan base and has the reputation of being a superior quality of the cheapquels bunch. So is the good reputation deserved?

It's tempting to say yes, but unfortunately "Simba's Pride" is hampered by some flaws that makes the cheapquel qualities obvious. On the positive side, "Simba's Pride" does excel in terms of it's sheer charm. The film does have a irresistible cuteness factor that makes the film appealing. The animation is actually quite fine. While it's not on the same level as it's stunning predecessor, it' still better than many of it's cheapquels siblings. The music is pretty good, with a fine score and actually some quite likable songs ("We Are One", "My Lullaby", "Upendi", "One Of Us").

Where the film falls flat is on it's screenplay and characterizations. The Romeo and Juliet-esque story offers dramatic potential, but it's execution is disappointingly thin and straightforward, leaving some obvious plot holes. Kiara may portray some spunk now and then, but at the end she's nothing more than a just another poor miserable princess who's unhappy with her situation and the movie does nothing to elevate that. The outlanders, especially Zira and Kovu, does display some dimensionality, but their development are vaguely executed. The film also doesn't really know what to do with the characters from the former movie. Timon and Pumbaa were actually fine in the first movie, but here they are grating. Zazu is personality-deprived. The only one who does portray some spunk is Rafiki, but even his role is limited.

So where do I put "Simba's Pride". It is a cute movie on its own merits, but the flaws hamper the film from being as good as it could have been. However, the film is not a total dud, so I'll give it some good points for it's strengths.

Balto (1995)

A well made and dramatic animated event.

[7/10 · 26 April 2014]

Released in 1995, "Balto" was Amblinations attempt to the animated empire that was then occupied by Disney (although their domination was starting to decline). While it didn't set the box office on fire, "Balto" was still a cult hit and has gained it's audience after wards, which is quite deserved.

Balto may not be a milestone in animation, but still delivers a quite likable experience, as the matter of fact quite likable. Watching the film again after many years, I was surprised to see how much there was to like about the film, as a solid story, engaging characters and a fine score by James Horner. Although "Balto" is obviously aimed towards a younger audience, it has enough pathos, drama and suspense to engage an older viewer. While the animation may not be at Disney's standards, its's still not entirely flawed either. The character designs are good and the character animation is quite effective.

Whether it was intentional or not, "Balto" does bring back some thoughts to Disney's features. Balto comes across as a canine version of Aladdin, while Steele is obviously a canine version of Gaston. The three dogs that worship Steele are reminiscent of the hyenas in "The Lion King", while the female dogs hearkens back the thoughts to the female dogs in "Oliver and Company". The bear attack is reminiscent to the one in "The Fox and the Hound". In true Disney fashion, Balto has the sidekicks in Boris, Muk and Luk and a love interest. But interestingly enough, "Balto" is no musical and is absent for songs, which is an interesting choice.

The characters are another strong component to make "Balto" work. Balto may be your average hero, but he still is quite likable. Rosie is an endearing little girl. Steele is a effective semi-villain and his three worshipers are enjoyable. Boris and Muk/Luk might be grating at times, but they do have their moments. The least successful is Balto's love interest, Jenna, who's horribly bland.

If there's any flaw in "Balto", then there's the screenplay and the pacing. The pacing is somewhat clunky and muddled at times. The obligatory kiddie-humor can also be grating at times.

Despite this, "Balto" is a good film that deserves to be seen by every animation fan.

Pocahontas (I) (1995)

Pocahontas; A flawed, but beautiful masterpiece.

[7/10 · 14 April 2014]

"Pocahontas" is a film which stands with a bad reputation. While it fortunately has a fan base, it's also a film that many people loves to hate with a passion. After all, many consider it as the picture that ended the Disney Renaissance that began so promisingly with "The Little Mermaid" and the films that followed "Pocahontas" grossed less (with the exception of "Tarzan"). While "Pocahontas" wasn't a box office failure, it made less money than it's predecessors. Most animation fans know that "Pocahontas" was originally going to be the ambitious project and "The Lion King" was seen as the inferior picture. However, the tables turned and "Pocahontas" suffered the fate of being the inferior follow-up to "The Lion King".

Despite that "Pocahontas" have always been a favorite of mine, it's easy to see why the film has failed to connect with many. Despite being deeply steeped in the Disney formula, it does comes across as a departure from the earlier Renaissance films, as being more serious and somber at times. The film had also many things against it, as being the first film based on historical events (though the story of Pocahontas is surrounded by myths), the PC-message about tolerance, the depiction of Native Americans and the portrayal of Pocahontas herself as a Native American version of Barbie. The former issues are enough to hamper the movie and along with "The Lion King" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Pocahontas" was a part of the new Disney trend of making more serious, epic pictures, but the ambition seemed more to hurt the film than to help it. So therefore "Pocahontas" will probably never seen as the same league as the earlier films from the Renaissance.

Besides the obvious flaws, the strengths of this movie excels. First of all; The visuals are amazing. With grand, spectacular views of the Virginian Forrest and bright, pastel colors, the film is a feast for the eyes. The color scheme are quite noteworthy, with adding some deep colors that bathes the entire scene and it's characters. The vertical design of the Forrest is also successful, as are the characters designs, more angular than you usually expect from Disney. In terms of character animation, "Pocahontas" is superior to it's predecessors, bringing the "character acting" to new heights, by letting tiny, subtle expressions on the humans faces be obvious. The music is wonderful, simply being Menken's best work. While the music for his former films were great, "Pocahontas" blows them out of the water. Stephen Schwartz lyrics are also quite successful, from the depiction of Native American phrases and philosophy from "Steady As The Beating Drum"/"Colors of the Wind" and surprisingly hard-hitting and spiteful rhymes in "Savages" (though Schwartz would outdo himself even further with his lyrics for "Hellfire" in "Hunchback).

"Pocahontas" have been criticized for it's weak and bland characterizations, but I have to disagree. The characters may not light up the screen, but they are certainly not entirely detestable. Although a few of them can be grating at times (Percy, Flit and Nakoma), the rest of the characters are acceptable. Pocahontas herself has been criticized for being bland and boring and while she comes across as reserved, she still possesses a dignity and strength that makes her appealing. She's as headstrong and adventurous Ariel and Belle, but she's definitively a more complex and mature character than both of them. Irene Bedard and Judy Kuhn beautiful voices compliments her character. Although Smith is a charming main lead, he comes across as a inferior character, thanks to Mel Gibson's weak performance. Ratcliffe may come across as a weak villain, but he does possess some personality now and then. Russell Means brings dignity and power to Chief Powhatan, while Christian Bale delivers a likable Thomas. Billy Connolly and Joe Baker delivers some fun to Ben and Lon and David Ogden Stiers delivers some spark to Wiggins (as he also did with Ratcliffe). The most successful character is indeed Grandmother Willow, beautifully conveyed by Linda Hunt. Secondary comes Meeko, stealing every scene that he's in.

Where "Pocahontas" falls flat is on it's ambition. The movie does comes across as "trying too hard" at times. Besides the interactions between the animals and a few one liners, the film doesn't really rely on humor. While other Disney films excels with their serious tones, "Pocahontas" comes across as being somber and melancholic at times, which is a sign of the film trying too hard to be serious and epic. I personally didn't mind the PC-message and the lack of a climatic battle. But the worst aspect of the movie lies on the script, being very straightforward and delivering some obvious plot holes. An example of it is how the lovebirds learns to understand each other by listening with their hearts. For a film striving to be realistic, such a plot hole is laughable. But the worst example lies in the ending. While the ambition of giving a tragic ending is admirable and the ending is an emotionally heart-wrenching moment, it could have been more hopeless and less contrived (yes, the historical Smith was sent back to England, but there is possibility that he would have died during the voyage).

Besides that, "Pocahontas" remains one of my favorites and it is a good movie on it's own merits. It does have some obvious flaws, but it's strengths excels. It is a movie that I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoy and it is a movie that deserves to be appreciated.

Austin & Ally (2011–2016)

A Hannah Montana premise with a male lead. But one of the better Disney Channel shows. Not flawless, but still enjoyable.

[7/10 · 25 February 2013]

With "Austin & Ally", Disney Channel has made yet another sitcom in line which centers about a teen who becomes a famous musician. Which means that a normal kid can live a normal life, while being a popstar at the same time. Of course, by watching those shows it means that you'll have to let pass some illogical notions. And yes, an immediate comparison is of course the much hyped "Hannah Montana" and though of course "Austin & Ally" isn't a carbon copy, it borrows many components and story lines from "Montana" in a obvious and overt way. In the last years, Disney Channel has been desperate to cash in on their stars and have made most of their shows and TV movies as big, cultural phenomenon's ("High School Musical", "Hannah Montana", "Wizards of Waverly Place and "Camp Rock" come to mind). I'll confess those shows have been a guilty pleasure of mine. But there's no denial they're glossy products, aiming just for kids, which is even more evident on the current DC shows. "Austin & Ally" is still a fine exception. While it doesn't bring back to the glory days of DC sitcoms and it's not absent of flaws, it's still one of the better shows from Disney Channel and is better than shows as "Shake it Up" and "A.N.T. Farm".

"Austin & Ally" may not have the broad appeal as "Good Luck Charlie" or the sheer enjoyment of "Pair of Kings", but it actually have a strength that the current Disney Channel shows lack; The characters. There's a genuine dynamic and chemistry between the characters in it that I haven't seen since the early DC sitcoms. While the acting is far from top notch (especially from male hunk Ross Lynch as Austin), the characters are really likable. Many people detest Dez (Calum Worthy), but I happen to disagree. In my opinion, he's one of the best Disney Channel characters ever made. While I'll admit he can be grating at times, he's still endearing. His frenemy Trish (Raini Rodriguez) is also a feisty character. Laura Marano is a good fit as the insecure and prissy Ally. And while Ross Lynch is the weakest actor, he still brings some genuine energy to his character. The episodes borrows some plot lines from both the aforementioned "Hannah Montana" and "Sonny With a Chance", but works fine nonetheless. And not to forget that the songs (while obviously marketed to a certain audience) are most of the part really catchy.

The problem with "Austin & Ally" lies on a current notion that several Disney Channel shows has; Making a show specifically for children as opposed to a broader audience. Which means that there unfortunately are many childish jokes and dumb comments along. If it wasn't for that, "Austin & Ally" would have been a real throwback to the earlier Disney shows. But for what it is, it's a fine show. Take it for what its; It's just silly, trashy fun and not supposed to be something else either!

Brave (2012)

Pixar or no Pixar; Brave does have a few strengths, but a lot of flaws

[6/10 · 25 June 2012]

First I want to start this review by saying that I'm not a Pixar fan. Frankly, I think Pixar is one of the most overrated companies ever. While they have churned out a few great films now and then (the first Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Up and yes, both Cars films), I've found most of their films to be quite adequate and unremarkable. Therefore I wasn't going into "Brave" expecting a so-called Pixar masterpiece. But rather a masterpiece on its own. While I had my doubts, I still hoped to be blown away. And while some parts lived up to my expectations, other parts did disappoint me.

Despite that I'm lukewarm about most Pixar features, I shall admit that Pixar had really never made a bad movie (even Cars 2, which everyone seemed to despise, was quite enjoyable, despite its flaws). Brave doesn't fall into that category, but it's still without doubt one of Pixar's most flawed movies.

To start with the positive aspects of this film; The animation is a definite top-notch. Lush, detailed and absolutely gorgeous. The cute and satisfying prologue is reminiscent of Disney's Dinosaur and Jurassic Park The Lost World. The score of Patrick Doyle is absolutely wonderful and the few songs are enjoyable as well. The Scottish accents give the film authenticity and the voices are perfect for the casts, especially Billy Connolly as Merida's goofy and fun-loving father, Fergus, which is the strongest character on the film.

So where does the film fall flat? One word (an aspect which several reviewers and especially an early review of Ain't it Cool-News were pointing out); the narrative. The film lacks a consistent storyline. After a fairly satisfying thirty minutes, the film turns another direction and becomes another "Brother Bear", which is one of Disney's most flawed and insipid features, in my opinion. While Brave never becomes an identical copy of the bear movie, the similarities are obvious enough to make the non-fans cringe. For there on, the movie loses some of its spark, becomes less engaging and introduces the viewers to some plot points which are even more insipid and laughable.

So how could I depict Brave as a whole? Its not a awful film, but it's indeed a frustrating one. How could a movie like this lack such a coherent narrative? While I don't find it as mediocre as Brother Bear, it's still less satisfying than what it could have been. But despite all these problems, I'm still giving Brave a few points for the positive aspects.