Reviews by SJMJ91

Personally, being one who couldn't quite see the complete critically acclaimed hype of The Hangover but still found it enjoyable and fun to watch, the sequel looked like good fun. However, everything within the theatrical trailer didn't look like anything similar to what we have seen before in the first film. So, quite frankly, although this was not a bad nor a good film, it was pretty much like the first one all over again but less humorous and cornier.


The Hangover: Part II is indeed called Part II and it felt more like a second attempt at the first film than a second film after the first film, hence why there are almost identical similarities in both films. It is basically this in both films: the wolfpack venture somewhere, wake up in somewhere they don't remember while something has been done to them overnight and they lose a friend, so they must try and find him. So, to be honest, this one just felt rather empty and boring, although there were a few giggles on a few occasions.


Stu is getting married. Along with Doug, Phil, and his soon-to-be brother-in-law Teddy, he regretfully invites Alan to Thailand for the wedding. After a quiet night on the beach with a beer and toasting marshmallows by the camp fire, Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in a seedy apartment in Bangkok. Doug is back at the resort, but Teddy is missing, there's a monkey with a severed finger, Alan's head is shaved, Stu has a tattoo on his face, and they can't remember any of it. The wolf-pack retrace their steps through strip clubs, tattoo parlors and cocaine-dealing monkeys on the streets of Bangkok as they try and find Teddy before the wedding.


All four members of the gang return! Bradley Cooper, perhaps the best actor out of all four in this sequel gave a decent performance as Phil. Unfortunately, unlike in the first film, there just wasn't as much slapstick or as many laugh-out-loud moments from neither Ed Helms as Stu nor Zack Galifianakis as Alan. Justin Bartha was barely involved in this one at all as Doug, so there was a replacement instead: an Asian chap named Teddy who was missing, and led Phil, Stu and Alan to try and find him. Of what we saw of Teddy on-screen, he was one of those people who you just donít want on the screen and wish you could just push out of the way! It was his acting all innocent and rather idiotic attitude that makes him a very dislikeable character.


Admittedly, Todd Phillips did do a decent job in directing the first film, but this time, it felt like he had used the exact same strategy in directing the sequel as he did in the first one. In fact, in every film he's done but just jumbled them together! He can be a good director and can pull off a film that is good fun, but this one just did not work. Just like within the first film, you really need to have that sense of humour to understand it and to laugh at the jokes and the situations that they all get themselves into.


Overall, The Hangover: Part II is basically another copy of the first film but slightly flatter and less funny. Publicly, this is just as overrated as its predecessor, but critically it's not due to it's mixed reception. There are obviously much worse comedies out there that have been made, but this isnít that far away from sinking down to that level. Should there be a third film, improvements are really needed if they are to succeed admirably, such as a story without too many similarities and situations, perhaps a twist with characters and maybe even a new director.

After having received critical acclaim from critics worldwide and being a comedy receiving that reception is quite rare, The Hangover became a must-see at the time back in 2009. After seeing it the first time, it was decent but didn't find it laugh-out-loud hilarious like a lot of people have said it is and it was put aside for a few years. However, second thoughts about not watching it came back (mostly persuasion due to the sequel coming out) and it needed a second viewing, and gladly I enjoyed it a lot more this time and did appreciate it more, but still didn't quite find it hilarious. I mean, it was funny and it did pull off a few good laughs, but this is the funniest film of the 00s? Don't think so.


Some of the jokes are quite cliched and sometimes aren't even funny, but to be honest it is a film that tries too hard with the jokes and that is clearly seen as desperate to gain the audience's approval, so it just didn't work all around in my mind. However, despite some of the weaknesses in The Hangover, there are some key segments that made it absolute genius. The film has the theme like a teenager's film involving teenagers, but because it involves adults, it shows all four of the guy's utter stupidity and that whatever they seem to do, there is always trouble and chaos there awaiting them. Director Todd Phillips has had plenty enough of experience at making comedies (especially road-comedies) aimed towards teenagers and adults, and this is perhaps his best known feature film and the only one to receieve the 'critical acclaim' status (even though I personally can't understand why).


Just two days before his marriage with Tracy Garner, Doug Billings, in the company of two friends: Phil Wenneck and Stu Price; and Tracy's eccentric brother, Alan, head out to party in Vegas. Driving his father's Mercedez, they rent a pricey villa at Caesar's and head for the rooftop to have a good time. Three of them later wake up with a hangover, unable to re-collect what exactly happened. With the villa in a wreck, they find that they have a baby in the closet; a grown tiger in the bathroom; Stu has a missing tooth and a hooker for a bride; and Doug is missing. Hilarious chaos results as the trio head out to re-trace their steps as well as try to locate Doug and bring him home in one piece before the wedding.


The characters of Alan, Stu, Doug and Phil have the body features of men, but still have the brain cells of teenagers. In fact, they are like the adult versions of Jim, Kevin, Finch and Oz in the American Pie franchise and of Will, Simon, Jay and Neil in British teen sitcom The Inbetweeners. All four characters in The Hangover are totally different with looks and personalities but they all have one thing in common: they are all disaster and accident prone! For what the actors have expressed to the audience now, it has inadvertently perhaps increased the enthusiasm for teenagers to go out and get drunk, rather than to make them stop drinking because disaster and accidents come around.


Bradley Cooper leads the wolfpack as Phil Wemmeck. Phil is the one of the four with perhaps the easiest life seeing as he is a married man with children, but still occasionally complains about that. He is a decent character, but he is definitely not the best one out of the four. Justin Bartha's role as Doug Billings was brilliant, of what we see of him in the film anyway. He is best friends with Phil and Stu and Alan's brother in law. Let's face it, just by looking at Doug and Phil, question arise and you think: why are they friends with muppets like Alan and Stu? Ed Helms' performance as Stuart Price was just amazing! Stu is definitely my personal favourite of the four because he has a strong profession (dentist) and yet, he makes the craziest mistakes and does the most ridiculous things you could ever do! As for Zack Galifianakis's performance as Alan Garner: the Alan character just doesn't suit the other three guys in the group and doesn't exactly help them in their situations, but he is a very funny character. Despite it is a group of four grown men who seek to go out and have a laugh and do end up falling into trouble, it is still a good story about friendship and that they do stick together whatever happens.


Overall, The Hangover is quite an overrated comedy that does have its weaknesses, but is humorous and decent enough to enjoy. It is one of those films where you need to have the sense of humour to love it and one where you might need to give a second try to at least appreciate it. Let's hope that the second one will be better than this one.

The first thing that came to mind about the idea of a new film in the Planet Of The Apes series was this: what is Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes actually classed as? Is it a prequel where we find out how Earth became overrun by apes? Or is it a reboot and the start of something new? It isn't the kind of prequel you have seen in previous films that build up to the original versions such as The Godfather: Part II (flashbacks), Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith, Batman Begins or even X-Men: First Class, but the dialogue within, the characters, the visual effects and background settings are the beginning of something new, so it is more of a start of a reboot where either this story will continue or another new story will rise.


Many things within the film have become the start of something new, but you cannot help but feel stunned at the motion capture visual effects! It was a wise decision using motion-capture effects for the apes rather than full CGI effects and people in suits because the apes looked real and using the motion-capture expressed even further how similar apes/monkeys are to human beings. The techniques of filming and the emotions and the differences and similarities between species that you feel within the film bought back similarities from District 9 in 2009. Thankfully it wasn't one of those "big budget, little brains" so to speak kind of films, which is what we are seeing quite a lot at the moment. There is no doubt that this will be a strong contender in the production category at the 84th Academy Awards, but it should earn a sealed lock for Best Visual Effects.


Will Rodman, researching a cure for Alzheimer’s, takes home a baby chimpanzee after its mother — supposedly a failed experiment — is destroyed. Caesar, the chimp, exhibits near-human intelligence, and comes to question his kind’s place on a human planet. Impounded after attacking a neighbour, Caesar meets other apes and foments rebellion.


After his recent Oscar nominated performance in 127 Hours, James Franco rises to an even higher level by leading the cast in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes into a whole new dimension, but this time joining two different species of the same family together. The close friendship between Dr. Will Rodman and his adopted monkey pet (more like a father-son relationship) Ceasar together express how similar yet how different human beings are to apes despite coming from the same family of species. It can be said once again that Franco is part of something special, and part of another franchise. In almost every single film there is, there is always a male and a female who fall in love, and despite that Caroline became Will's girlfriend, it felt more like Will and the ape were in love and it was more about them. Plus, she was barely involved at all so therefore she was a completely irrelevant character who just was not needed.


Andy Serkis has a critically acclaimed history with motion-capture after his fantastic role as Gollum/Smeagol in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy (and reprising the role in the upcoming Hobbit films) and as Kong in King Kong, which are ironically all Peter Jackson films. However, Andy Serkis performs motion-capture for the first time as ape protagonist Caesar. He stole the show of this, like he did in Lord Of The Rings and King Kong and proves that he is the master of motion-capture! Serkis always provides a whole new personality to a motion-capture character, even without speaking that just involves actions. Now that the Harry Potter franchise is over, we see the appearance of Tom Felton as Dodge Landon who is one of the people who 'look after' the apes. Landon is a lot like Draco Malfoy: cowardly, arrogant and abusive. Felton proves again that he is perhaps better at playing a villain. He did pull off quite a decent American accent for a Brit. John Lithgow gave a great performance too as Charles Rodman.


The making of Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes was not your typical colourful Hollywood film. In some ways it felt quite surreal, extraordinary and quite frankly, more professional. It would have been even better than it already is if Peter Jackson had either directed or produced this film, which is another link to District 9 seeing as Jackson produced it. As for the director of Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, who was Rupert Wyatt before this film? Now, he is known as the director of a great film and one of those rare reboots that turn out really great! The audience feel a wide mix of emotions in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes from heartbreak due to some animal cruelty, to heart-warmth due to the very close and beautiful relationship between Will and Caesar and to a lot of excitement with the action and anticipation of how the film will end. Should there be a sequel, it'd be good to see Rupert Wyatt reprise his role as director, and maybe make Peter Jackson or Neill Blomkamp as producer.


Overall, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes was a lot of great fun and was surprisingly a very heartfelt and genuine, which is the first time we have seen within the series. This one certainly makes up for 2001 remake in every way and truly shows even Tim Burton how it is done! This perhaps looked too modern to be a prequel of a film in the 1960s, but now that this is a reboot and we get a brief idea of the story of how it all happened anyway, we could be seeing a whole new series be reborn all over again. It is something to take seriously and to get great fun out of it, so it will leave you with a wide grin on your face, or maybe even make you shed a tear or two.

After their previous films involving toys, bugs and monsters, Pixar Animation Studios yet again take us on yet another adventure in their fifth animated feature film set in another world underneath ours. Just like pretty much every film that Pixar have made, Finding Nemo is another that truly does have everything that an animated film must require. Considering that the majority of Pixar films have all the positives worthy of animation, there is always at least one that every film from Pixar has the most. Finding Nemo is easily the most humorous and hilarious film they have done with some very clever modern-day jokes. The jokes that are told within the film are easy to deeply understand and they are creatively ingenious, so therefore it is very easy to laugh out loud while watching it.


Back in 2003, the animated effects in Finding Nemo were mesmerizing and jaw-dropping, but even now after almost a decade since its release, that is still their latest status in the effects. The effects in the underwater scenes with the fish, sharks, jellyfish etc is like filming the unfilmable because the animators managed to give us an exact image of what is underneath the water, and makes some of the fishes look like real fish. It has been a difficult task for Pixar to make human characters and although they have improvised and got better at it as more films have come out, some of the humans were brilliantly animated.


A clown fish named Marlin living in the Great Barrier Reef loses his son, Nemo, after he ventures into the open sea, despite his father's constant warnings about many of the ocean's dangers. Nemo is abducted by a boat and netted up and sent to a dentist's office in Sydney. So, while Marlin ventures off to try to retrieve Nemo, Marlin meets a fish named Dory, a blue tang suffering from short-term memory loss. The companions travel a great distance, encountering various dangerous sea creatures such as sharks, anglerfish and jellyfish, in order to rescue Nemo from the dentist's office, which is situated by Sydney Harbour. While the two are doing this, Nemo and the other sea animals in the dentist's fish tank plot a way to return to Sydney Harbour to live their lives free again.


Albert Brooks provides the voice of Marlin with a great performance! Marlin is a perfect example of an overprotective parent, but all parents who are like that have their specific personal reasons for that behaviour. In Marlin's case, it was his love's (and Nemo's mother) sudden death that led him to being protective over Nemo. Despite he is a well-intentioned fish, he is a rather insecure and dangerous one as well who becomes first off totally overprotective and then completely obsessed with finding Nemo and his rude attitude towards Dory. The quest to find Nemo is a lesson for Marlin, and it not only bonded him with Nemo, but it bought him and Dory together too. Ellen DeGeneres literally stole the show after her hilarious performance as the well-intentioned but forgetful Dory. She truly is one character of on her own that surprised us all with a whole new character, but at the same time a character that pretty much sums up Dory's personality cannot be repeated at any time in the future. Her character is just so perfect for Marlin to be accompanied because her short term memory less on a serious quest simply do not match, but as the film progresses, they become as close as soul mates or maybe even closer than that. Dory is not only the funniest animated character of all time, but DeGeneres gives a perfect performance as Dory and is quite possibly the greatest performance from an actor/actress in any animated film.


There are more cast members within the film that give good performances too. First, we obviously hear Pixar favourites John Ratzenberger, Bob Peterson, Joe Ranft and Brad Garrett. in their respected roles. Willem Dafoe plays Gill, the leader of the fish in the fish tank at the Dentists in Sydney. Gill is someone who we knew well, but didn't quite know enough about his history in the ocean and how he ended up in the fish tank, like Nemo. As for his relationship with Nemo, he wasn't like a replacement father figure but he felt more like an uncle or a close mentor so to speak. Dafoe was a great choice for Gill because he is an extraordinary looking fish with quite an eerie personality, and that is Dafoe's voice in a nutshell. Australian actor Geoffrey Rush somehow manages to pull off a very different kind of voice in comparison to the other films he has been in, as he is the voice of local Australian seagull Nigel, who happens to be a friend of the fish in the tank and helps Marlin find Nemo.


In their fifth animated feature film, Pixar select another new director for Finding Nemo - Andrew Stanton. This was his first animated feature film with Pixar, but has been a screenwriter and producer of some of Pixar's previous films. However, he wasn't alone. Lee Unkrich who went on to direct Toy Story 3 worked alongside Stanton as co-director. At the time, this was the most productive and constructive Pixar film and neither of them could have done it alone, so together they make one of the greatest animated feature films of all time. The most special quality about Finding Nemo is that it combines two different worlds on Earth together and expresses both of their natures. One of Pixar's main specialties are writing scripts. Words just cannot describe how brilliantly written Finding Nemo really was. Stanton, Bob Peterson and David Reynolds, who wrote the films script made it feel emotional, hilarious and, quite frankly, a really cool film (especially the scenes with the turtles).


Overall, Finding Nemo is a visually beautiful and hilarious journey that is perfect for all adults and all children to enjoy! Finding Nemo is one of those rare animated comedies that not only make you chuckle a few times, but it is quite possibly the one film that mix both those genres together where you literally cry with laughter! It makes its mark as one of only a few animated films that pretty much every single person felt magically enchanted and charmed by back in 2003 and still remains to do just that at the present day.

The Prince Of Egypt was released during the time where DreamWorks Animation were slowly up and running, and even though that this is one of their first films and is perhaps their most underrated film, it truly is one of the best films that they have done! Unfortunately, it doesn't quite reach the public critical acclaim like Disney animated films do, but in many ways, this film is a lot better than some of the ones we see nowadays. This is quite rare for an animated film, but The Prince Of Egypt didn't only have the touching and quite horrific story but it tells the audience a very strong message of courage, bravery and what is truly important in life. Therefore, it is one of those rare epic animated films. I'd like to call it the DreamWorks Animation version of The Lion King because in many ways, both films have identical positives.


Another reason why The Prince Of Egypt is just so brilliant is that despite it is from the Good Book (and could have been history) and making only a few slight adjustments within the story from it, the film's target audience is still aimed towards both kids and adults! Plus, the fact that it's a musical perhaps makes it slightly easier for children's eyes, although some of the songs are pretty depressing to watch. There were some Hebrew words and sentences used in the lyrics throughout some of the songs to mixing the legend of the Bible with the modern world and to win the appreciation of both kids and adults.


Set in Ancient Egypt, Pharaoh Seti commands all male hebrew babies to be drowned. A desperate mother places her son in a basket and lets the Hebrew God guide it along its way on the River Nile. The basket is found by the Queen, and Moses is brought up as a brother to the heir of the throne, Ramses. Years later, the brothers, who grew up happily and wealthy, are split by Moses' recognition of his true heritage and the suppressing system his brother is about to inherit, willing to carry it on. Fleeing from the city in despair, Moses finds himself being called by God. He is given the task of being the messenger in order to free the Hebrews and to lead them into a country where milk and honey flow.


The Prince Of Egypt has one of the most impressive ensemble casts in cinema history that combine great actors together to send a message. First of all, Val Kilmer is the protagonist in the film providing the voice of Moses. The Moses in The Prince Of Egypt is slightly different Moses that is in the Bible and in previous film adaptations that tell his story. It is good that Moses is the adopted son of Pharoah Seti I himself instead of being the adopted son of the daughter of Pharoah Seti I like in the Bible, because it makes it a slightly different film and avoids some similarities with the Moses character in The Ten Commandments portrayed by Charlton Heston in 1956. Plus, it will catch the audience's attention more and they will take the journey with him. Kilmer not only portrays Moses, but he also plays God. Kilmer's God voice was pretty impressive and I think showed God's nature: being both a good being wanting peace but also bad for hating humanity for what they've been doing to the world. Having never been a deep admirer of Val Kilmer, he deserves critical acclaim for his roles in The Prince Of Egypt.


Ralph Fiennes provides the voice of Rameses, the adopted brother of Moses and heir to the throne as Pharoah. Fiennes already has a trademark voice and has been in quite a few animated films over the years, and by him playing Rameses shows that Fiennes is a fantastic antagonist as well as protagonist! What was surprising was that he is actually a very good singer (sings The Plagues song) and it would be good to perhaps see him star in a dark musical in the future. The rest of the cast consists of Michelle Pfeiffer as Tzipporah - wife of Moses, Sandra Bullock as Miriam (Moses' biological older sister), Jeff Goldblum as Aaron (Moses' biological older brother), Patrick Stewart as Pharoah Seti I, Helen Mirren as Queen of Egypt (mother of Rameses and wife of Seti), Danny Glover as Jethro (High Priest of Midian). So, it is still a very impressive ensemble cast and they all did an incredible job in their selected roles.


It took three directors to craft together a film that has captured many hearts over the past decade and still continues on to do so. Due to the many similarities as far as the epic feeling, a dialogue for kids and adults added with both delightful and depressing songs, The Lion King must have been some kind of influence seeing as the music scores are very similar, both films open and end almost identically and the singers during some of the songs and foreign language keywords in lyrics. Two of the directors of The Prince Of Egypt made their directorial debut but havenít really been noticed ever since, apart from Brenda Chapman being involved in upcoming Pixar film Brave. Despite the slight adjustments to the story in this film as told in the Bible, the screenplay was fantastic! Like a lot of films set in an older generation or an Ancient era, The Prince Of Egypt manages to persuade the viewers that although it clearly is a modern day film, it can lead them to believe that the story of Moses could be history, not just legend from the Bible. The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Song (''When You Believe'') and should have won for Best Original Score also.


Overall, The Prince Of Egypt is in my honest opinion, one of the greatest animated films of all time! Even after growing up with this one, it still has a rightful place as one of the most entertaining, epic and gripping films that I have watched! It doesn't deserve to be as underrated as it is (perhaps the most underrated film of the 1990s), but does deserve a lot more credit than other animated films that we have seen in the past. It both sticks true to the Bible, and it is a great achievement for DreamWorks Animation and for the animation genre itself!

After a decent and entertaining first instalment and then followed by an atrocious, chaotic sequel, a third instalment in this financially successful but critically failed franchise was perhaps the icing on the cake! After what we witnessed in the second film and after seeing the theatrical trailer of Dark Of The Moon, there were clearly bound to be footprints from the second one to make this third instalment a failure. at least some faults and flops within the film. The only reason why this third instalment perhaps needed watching was to see if it turns out even worse or slightly better than the others. Anyway, after seeing the film and although it wasn't quite as painful to endure as Revenge Of The Fallen, Dark Of The Moon was still an appalling film that quite frankly got out of hand again.


There have been debates and confusion with the title Dark Of The Moon seeing as it is in fact the name of an album from Pink Floyd. Just like the predecessor, this one doesn't express the meaning of the title and has a very muddled target audience. This is a fault that all three films have: they are about 10-20 minutes too long, especially the action scenes. The running time needlessly continues in a desperate attempt for the audience to enjoy it, but is pathetic and typical Michael Bay. Dark Of The Moon was still this *bang* *explosion* *2 minute conversation* *bang* *explosion* that we saw in Revenge Of The Fallen. It's a mystery how Dark Of The Moon has grossed over $1 billion worldwide and there is almost no reason why it actually deserves it.


Autobots Bumblebee, Rachet, Ironhide and Sideswipe led by Optimus Prime, are back in action taking on the evil Decepticons, who are eager to avenge their recent defeat. The Autobots and Decepticons become involved in a perilous space race between the U.S. and Russia, to reach a hidden Cybertronian spacecraft on the moon and learn its secrets, and once again Sam Witwicky has to come to the aid of his robot friends. New villain, Shockwave, who rules Cybertron, is on the scene while the Autobots and Decepticons continue to battle it out on Earth.


It is a well known fact that Shia LaBeouf truly is the most overpaid and underachieving actor of this generation, and after being in some good films in the past but with a weak performance, he really couldn't sink any lower in this one than he did in Revenge Of The Fallen. Sam Witwicky has gone from a hero, to a hopeless romantic and now to a hopeless loser who can't even get a job! Even some of those scenes were hard to endure and it resulted of a few facepalms and shaking head a few times. It would just be so much better if he actually died in the film (like he should have done in the sequel when he almost did), then they would avoid being a contender for Razzie nominations! LaBeouf makes a very weak protagonist in blockbusters so, in this case, he seems more suitable for a supporting character (second best) for every film he is part of in the near future.


The news of no Megan Fox in the third film was a great idea, but at the same time it was a bit of a shock. This is where Bay could've improvised and made this a very good film with a strong leading actress to make this an epic final instalment. However, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Carly Spencer. is perhaps easier on the eyes than Fox was in the first two films, but as far as performance and character are concerned, she was as dry as a dog bone! She became the next annoying girlfriend of Sam's who was almost like using him just to get fame, which is what the leading cast change was perhaps for. She wasn't quite as dull, boring or an instant turn-on for men like Megan Fox was, but she really wasn't far off from achieving just that. The film perhaps would have been better if they killed her off too, just to ease the pain of the audience a bit. It is pretty easy to say that the Autobots and Decepticons are some of the most annoying characters that you will ever see in a film, because their characters basically sum up this: transforming cars banging and running around with annoying deep voices. Every single character in the entire series should just be killed off!


Michael Bay: the biggest money-grubbing, weak and chaotic filmmaker of this generation! After promising a fantastic sequel, we get a chaotic disaster and then promising a final third epic conclusion, we get another awful, forgettable waste! Understandably, with the huge set and many crew members and actors, you're going to have plenty on your shoulders but at least make sure the stories make sense, they don't go out of hand when they do and that they aren't so damn noisy! His career as a film director is truly dead now and has killed many films over the years (Pearl Harbor he totally took out of hand and destroyed!), so he should just disappear off the face of the Earth. The script was really flat as predicted! It totally died after the word ''boner'' was said during a make-out scene between Sam and Carly while the mini robot watches!


Overall, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon was, as expected, an absolutely appalling 'blockbuster' that almost sank down to the same disaster level as like Revenge Of The Fallen, but was still very close to doing so. Obviously, the effects were fantastic and that is the only bit of credit the film deserves (like Revenge Of The Fallen), so it could be an Oscar contender in that category. As far as money is concerned, it is the most overrated one of the trilogy and this could and should a few more Razzie nominations and wins in 2012!

The first impressions of Sucker Punch before seeing it was that it perhaps looked the corniest film to be made as far as dialogue is concerned, but it did look like a good bit of fun with it's breathtaking effects and production design. However, despite the fact that there quite frankly wasn't very much to expect from this film, it truly is a very dry, empty and quite boring film to watch. Unfortunately, those three main keywords define some films that have high budgets but with little brains. As quoted from Zack Snyder himself: ''It is like Alice In Wonderland but with machine guns''. News flash! It really is not that because the story of Alice In Wonderland is fun and magical with a lot of lovable characters but sucker Punch really wasn't. In fact, it wasn't even a badass film either so, in simple words: it just didn't work.


As always, a high-budget film is going to have stunning effects and for that, the film does deserve credit especially with the hot females. However, the most annoying thing is that just because a film has great effects doesn't make it a great, fun film all around. It needs to feel exciting, to have at least satisfactory character development and a solid enough story for its target audience, and that is all what Sucker Punch really lacked. If there is any similarity that Sucker Punch has with any other film, it would be Frank Miller's The Spirit because, to be perfectly honest, they both have the exact same faults but also the exact same strengths and positives.


A young girl (Baby Doll) is locked away in a mental asylum by her abusive stepfather where she will undergo a lobotomy in five days' time. Faced with unimaginable odds, she retreats to a fantastical world in her imagination where she and four other female inmates at the asylum, plot to escape the facility. The lines between reality and fantasy blur as Baby Doll and her four companions, as well as a mysterious guide, fight to retrieve the five items they need that will allow them to break free from their captors before it's too late...


Seven years ago, Emily Browning appeared in Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events as Violet Baudelaire, but now she goes into her first big major film since then but not as a little girl anymore. Now, she is a grown woman who gets into a more adult-friendly and graphic film. Although I wasn't entirely impressed with Browning in her previous major film, she may have looked hot in Sucker Punch but her character felt as dry as a dog's bone and just had no character. Baby Doll bought back resembling similarities with Spirit in The Spirit Dawn Of The Dead remake, 300, Watchmen and Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole, but now he goes on to make something of his own. So, even after a first attempt of writing and directing a film of his own making, he unfortunately makes his weakest film to date. Unfortunately, the majority of his films have consisted obviously of fantastic effects but story wise, they have felt a tad bit dry. Sucker Punch felt more like a film that Snyder came up with in his head really quickly and took no patience to do it, and decided to rush it, especially after working on previous films Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole and Watchmen. So, after this one and the fact that Snyder focuses more on effects than dialogue, characters and acting, there are perhaps some uncertainties about a satisfying new Superman film set for 2013.


Overall, Sucker Punch is a dull and rather empty visual stunner that perfectly demonstrates how some film directors prefer adding effects than a strong story, characters and script. If you're looking for a film just for stunning effects only, this is one for you but if the other way round (which is the better way), then perhaps not. I wanted to like this because it did look fun to start off with, but it just wasn't fun or entertaining, so makes it one of the worst films of 2011. Zack better improvise with Superman: Man Of Steel!

The reputation from Walt Disney Pictures at making animated family feature films was dying after Tarzan was release, but now after Disney have released The Princess And The Frog, Tangled and now Winnie The Pooh, it has been rebooted and resurrected. The idea of a new Winnie The Pooh feature film was perhaps a bad idea to start off especially by trying to get the accuracy of the voices from the original actors, but after seeing it it truly is an absolutely fantastic family treasure that will warm your heart from start to finish and greatly honored the original cartoons.


There are many key reasons why this new Winnie The Pooh is so special. Thankfully they bought Christopher Robin back, they had a narrator telling the story again and the bond between him and the characters within and the fact that Disney decided not to go from 3D animation (like a lot of films we have seen in the past decade) but went back to original 2D animation. The effects were absolutely splendid and stuck to the effects in the older Disney films very well. There are uncertainties of whether Winnie The Pooh is classed as a musical or not seeing as it does involve songs, but like the films in The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh, the songs within don't flow with the events that go on or are going to happen within the film so, I perhaps would say that it is a musical.


During an ordinary day in Hundred Acre Wood, Winnie the Pooh sets out to find some honey. Misinterpreting a note from Christopher Robin, Pooh convinces Tigger, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga, Roo and Eeyore that their friend has been captured by a creature named "Backson" so they set out to save him.


The biggest risk in my opinion making this new Winnie The Pooh film was finding actors who aren't only able to pull off voices that sound almost exactly like the actors in the originals, but also having said that, managing to still feel the magic and beauty within the characters. Jim Cummings had the honors of taking the leading role by not only providing the voice of Winnie the Pooh, but also the voice of Tigger. His voice portrayal of Pooh was perhaps the most accurate an actor could possibly pull off in comparison to Starling Holloway as Pooh as the original character. Due to this, Cummings pulled it off really well and despite knowing it is a different actor's voice and after over 30 years, it is an honor to say that the magic within the character is still there. Therefore, it still feels the same cute and innocent character we saw from The Honey Tree, Blustery Day and Tigger Too. However, Cummings' role as Tigger wasn't entirely convincing because the great and late Paul Winchell's portrayal of Tigger really is timeless and is the only actor who could have pulled off the voice of Tigger and expressing his character so perfectly. Cummings' role wasn't a bad attempt at all seeing as it is quite a trick to try and get the uniqueness of Winchell's Tigger voice so accurately. So, it was still a satisfactory attempt.


I felt more than thrilled to find out that Christopher Robin was returning and despite that the animation of the character and voice was very different, he somehow seemed a lot younger. However, he was still that adorable, innocent and friendly little boy from the films years ago. Like Paul Winchell and Sterling Holloway, John Fiedler's voice role of Piglet perhaps felt like only he could pull it off, but despite new voice of Piglet: Travis Oates wasn't as convincing as Jim Cummings's role as Pooh, it wasn't a bad attempt at it at all (like Cummings' as Tigger). Bud Luckey's role tallies second most accurate voice portrayal (after Cummings as Pooh) in the film as he provides the voice of Eeyore. He still expresses the old gloomy, depressed and pessimistic donkey so brilliantly. Therefore, all critical acclaim is rightfully deserved towards the actors and their attempted voice portrayals in the film.


Steve Anderson has worked in Walt Disney feature Animation since 1995 and has only provided us with one film during that time: Meet The Robinsons, as well as providing voices in a few other recent Disney projects. He was chosen to work alongside Don Hall to direct this reboot so to speak, and because the Winnie the Pooh Disney adaptations are some of the pieces of Disney's backbone, Anderson and Hall had plenty of weight on their shoulders. Together, they made this into a masterpiece from generations aimed for generations to come. The main reason why this is such a special film is that it is a film that mixes two generations and provides Disney's true colours and what they are all about. So, due to that I don't think there has been or will be a more innocent story than Winnie The Pooh for a very long time. The script was sublime and due to the very simple story, it at the same time made it feel like a great film for adults to enjoy as well as kids. In fact, teenagers and adults who grew up with the older cartoons would get more pleasure out of this than kids of this generation!


Overall, Winnie The Pooh is truly an enchanting and both visually and emotionally magical treasure from Disney that is my pick for Best Animated Feature at the 84th Academy Awards. It is more of a trip down memory lane than another breakthrough for Disney, although in ways it is just like both. Shamefully, a few people will not watch this due to its innocent story that is aimed towards kids more than adults, but it is truly a magical film that demonstrates what Disney is all about and it is a very easy film to fall in love with.

With the release of The Avengers coming in summer 2012, and having seen all of the films thus far featuring the members of the team (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and Thor), the time has come for this final build-up film. They have saved the story about the leader of the team until last, so having said that, expectations were rather high but it needed a lot for it to be one of Marvel's best films. Captain America: The First Avenger is indeed a very fun, intense and exhilarating film to watch that really does make it an exciting build-up to The Avengers! It was beautifully crafted with absolutely splendid 1930s background design and sublime costumes! There were moments in the film that weren't your typical Hollywood action film overloaded with visual effects, such as Captain America's costume. It was dark so that made it more unique and stuck well to the comics.


The main thing that is getting so good about Marvel adaptations as of late (especially in 2011), is that they aren't getting as colorful or as cliched. There is now a darker tone to the films that has appeared, which we saw in this film and saw in Thor earlier in the year. Lets just hope that Disney don't jeopardize their current status. However, as exciting and intense as this really is, Captain America: The First Avenger does have its weaknesses. It's main weakness is that throughout at least the first half of the film, the pacing of the film was incredibly slow so it took quite a long time to get going. However, despite the slow pacing in the first half, the action and all the fun burst out and it made up for the slow-paced introduction.


It is 1942, America has entered World War II, and sickly but determined Steve Rogers is frustrated at being rejected yet again for military service. Everything changes when Dr. Erksine recruits him for the secret Project Rebirth. Proving his extraordinary courage, wits and conscience, Rogers undergoes the experiment and his weak body is suddenly enhanced into the maximum human potential. When Dr. Erksine is then immediately assassinated by an agent of Nazi Germany's head of its secret HYDRA research department, Johann Schmidt aka the Red Skull, Rogers is left as a unique man who is initially misused as a propaganda mascot. However, when his comrades need him, Rogers goes on a successful adventure that truly makes him Captain America and his war against Schmidt begins.


After previously appearing in the two Fantastic Four films as Johnny Storm/Human Torch, Chris Evans as Captain America was, in my mind at the time, one of the worst casting decisions because it just felt like a cover-up to try and make up for the previous films he has been involved in with Marvel. However, after having some knowledge of Captain America and getting to know the character, Chris Evans was actually really good as Steve Rogers/Captain America. What was truly special about Evans' role as Captain America in this was that when he was Steve Rogers before the procedure, he looked like this helpless little boy who wanted to fit in with everybody else, but afterwards when he was starting to become Captain America, he felt and looked like a totally different person. The effects on Chris when he was short and slim Rogers were literally jaw-dropping (reminded me a bit of Brad Pitt in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button). He was great so I can't wait to see him reprise his role as Captain America in The Avengers. In every Marvel film, there is always a beautiful actress who portrays the love interest of the superhero and I'm glad to say that Hayley Atwell was good as Peggy Carter, but she's not one of the best female characters in a Marvel film.


There is quite a wide range of great supporting actors in this film. First, the great Hugo Weaving. Hugo is one of those actors who can easily pull off playing a hero, but at the same time, is really great as a villain! His performance as Johann Schmidt/Red Skull wasn't only badass and just really cool, but it was at times quite terrifying especially when you see his true identity and what he looks like. He is almost like the devil so critical praise goes to Hugo. Tommy Lee Jones as veteran Colonel Chester Phillips. He has portrayed slightly similar characters like this in the past (for example, his Oscar winning performance in The Fugitive and in the Coen brothers film No Country For Old Men), so he looked good in Captain America: The First Avenger and his performance was good. Stanley Tucci is another great actor in the film who, like Hugo Weaving, can portray villains really well but great heroes as well. Despite his role isn't all that long, he was great.


Joe Johnston may have a very short filmography and has received quite a lot of criticism over the years (especially for The Wolfman in 2009 and Jurassic Park III in 2001), but was the director of Jumanji back in 1995. Anyway, Johnston achieves with Captain America: The First Avenger like what Kenneth Branagh did with Thor earlier in the year: a breakthrough for Marvel Pictures and making them one on their own and not your vintage Hollywood film. I would like to see him do another Marvel film in the near future (or even a possible Captain America sequel after The Avengers). So, I think he has finally achieved his career-changing breakthrough.


Overall, Captain America: The First Avenger is another brilliant Marvel film that is rightfully one of the best films they have done. Evans' role as Steve Rogers/Captain America truly does make up for his incredibly poor role in the two Fantastic Four films, and the great supporting cast managed to help him achieve this. The film proves itself worthy as one of the most intense and fun action films that you'll see in 2011. After seeing the film in normal 2D, there is no purpose of it being converted into 3D other than the typical reason: to absorb more money! Anyway, now that all of the films involving the members have been released, the excitement and build-up to The Avengers in summer 2012 has truly kicked-off in style!

Ironically, being on a critically acclaimed streak after Cars was released, Pixar Animation Studios have given us the likes of Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3 and then there was Cars 2 that had the honours of continuing on this streak. However, admittedly at the time, the first Cars film was my least favourite Pixar film and the idea of a sequel wasn't exactly an exciting idea. When the trailer was released, I was actually really impressed with it and it actually did look like it could be better than its predecessor. The outcome of Cars 2 was surprising on some levels, but on others, it was a disappointing film.


And of course, the effects were sublime and so colourful! It perhaps has the best effects in any animated film that I have seen. So, for the first time Pixar have made something less personal but more creative in terms of effects and action. The film also has it's bad (or at least lower than satisfactory) key segments, but the one that made it not like a typical Pixar film was that it really lacked charm, a soul and a message that gives us all something to think about. Even the first Cars film gave us that, but on a few occasions, Cars 2 was quite flat so therefore it really doesn't belong in one of Pixar's finest films. It was perhaps too childish for it to appeal to adults as well as kids (every other Pixar film has made its target audience towards both kids and adults) and even the first Cars only just got away with that. It would have perhaps been a really great film if they perhaps stuck to one story; the World Grand Prix and added like a personal background story into it without avoiding too much similarity with the first one. As for the other side of the story involving Mater being a spy, I'm sorry but spies and cars do not work. Action is fun, but the story with the car spies just didn't work.


The sequel that follows racing legend Lightning McQueen and his trusty sidekick, Mater, as they secure their passports and take part in the biggest race on the planet. As the first-ever World Grand Prix approaches, cars from every continent prepare for the ultimate competition. But who will have what it takes to become the fastest car on the planet? Just as Lightning McQueen edges up to the starting line, however, his old pal Mater gets sidetracked on a top-secret spy mission that takes him from Japan to Europe as the entire world watches. Thankfully Mater's friends are always willing to lend a helping wheel, and as the race gets underway, everyone shifts into high gear to help out an old friend.


Owen Wilson reprises his role as the voice of Lightning McQueen, and what really surprised me about the sequel was that Lightning wasn't even the main protagonist of the film so therefore, it wasn't really focused on him. Mater was more the protagonist this time, and despite from one's point of view that Mater is an incredibly annoying character, there were moments where you would feel sorry for him and would want him to change his ways. So, in a way, I'm glad it wasn't all about Lightning this time than before. Unfortunately, the great Paul Newman who portrayed Doc Hudson in the first film, passed away in 2008 so we weren't going to see Doc return in the sequel (which was the right decision). However, in Cars 2, there is another veteran actor who doesn't so much replace Newman, but perhaps steps in and takes the honour himself: Michael Caine. Caine portrays Ö. and he is almost a totally different character to Doc and focuses more on Mater than Lightning, so I'm glad replacing Newman's involvement in Cars (which was one of his last films) wasn't jeopardized in the sequel.


John Lasseter, the guy who gave us the first two Toy Story films (and the story of the third one, but didn't direct), A Bug's Life and, of course the first Cars, goes somewhere a tad bit different with Cars 2. As I said, he makes this one more appealing towards kids than adults and goes aside from making it a personal, thought-provoking film and just making it just a fun piece of entertainment instead. Yes, admittedly it could have been a lot better and could have surpassed the first film, but it lacked an in-depth story and a gripping side to catch the audience's attention.


Overall, Cars 2 is a somewhat enjoyable film and does have a few good things about it, but at the same time, it is quite a disappointment. If you're looking for explosive action and great effects, I would recommend Cars 2. It's a decent recommendation for kids as well. There perhaps doesn't need to be another Cars film, so it is now time to put Cars aside. It is perhaps Pixar's weakest film to date and really does not match up to any of Pixar's previous films, so I think they'll miss out on winning Best Animated Picture this time. However, upcoming films Brave and Monsters University simply must improvise massively if I am to keep faith that Pixar won't fail.