Addams Family Double Feature Review

Addams Family Double Feature Review                                                                                          10-13-19

Warning! Both of these movies are rated PG-13, so single-digit kids shouldn’t be reading this!

Based on the cartoon characters created by Charles Addams, The Addams Family is about a creepy and peculiar family known as the Addams. Father Gomez is sad that he hasn’t seen his brother Fester in years. Gomez’s lawyer Tully Alford is having financial troubles, but when he discovers that the Addams secretly have a stash of doubloons in their house, he proposes that Gordon, adopted son of Abigail Craven (whom Tully owes money to), to dress up as Fester to steal the Addams’s stash. However, the more Gordon spends time with the Addams, the more he slowly attaches to them and their culture.

While the sets are nice and the acting is top-notch, the story is too confusing to follow.

In Addams Family Values, Morticia gives birth to a healthy baby boy named Pubert. However, Wednesday and Pugsley are jealous of Pubert, so they try to kill him. Gomez and Morticia of course don’t approve of this, so they hire a nanny named Debbie Jellinsky to take care of the kids, and she suggests that Wednesday and Pugsley should go to summer camp. Little does anyone know that Debbie is secretly a serial killer, and she plans on wooing and marrying Fester just so she can kill him!

Addams Family Values is one of the few sequels that improves upon the original with a superior story, life-like sets and backgrounds, and talented acting from A-list actors.

If I were to complain about one thing, I would say that some of the returning characters, like Thing the disembodied hand, don’t have as much screen time as in the original film. However, I still enjoyed Addams Family Values more than I thought.

Wednesday Addams unfortunately has to participate in a play inspired by the first Thanksgiving, despite it being the summer. She plays the role of Pocahontas, who didn't even appear at the first Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately, the film tanked at the box-office: Addams Family Values had to compete against The Nightmare before Christmas, Schindler's List, and Mrs. Doubtfire. Let's hope that Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan's Addams Family does better at the box-office. It's main competition won't be Frozen 2, but Maleficent 2: Mistress of Evil.

Addams Family rating- 3 stars out of 5.

Addams Family Values rating- 3.45 stars out of 5.
For those parents at home reading this review, here are links to reviews of both Addams Family movies below.
Addams Family
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-addams-family-1991
Addams Family Values
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/addams-family-values

My Thoughts on the Live-Action Disney Remakes (Excluding Lion King)

Hi, everybody! Today, as I promised in my 'Dora' review, I will talk about every live-action Disney remake leading up to Aladdin. Most of what I'm going to say today I have said in this link below.
https://asateriale.blogspot.com/2017/03/movie-review-beauty-and-beast-2017-part.html
Anyway, let's go over the nine Disney remakes over the years!

This whole craze of live-action Disney remakes began in 2010, with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Despite receiving very mixed reviews, the film earned over a billion dollars worldwide! While I don't hate it like other people do, I find it crazy that it earned so much money at the box-office. I have yet to see the sequel, and I don't plan to in the near future.

The next live-action Disney remake was Maleficent, released in 2014, starring Angelina Jolie as the famous wicked sorceress. It was meant to tell the story of Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty through the eyes of Maleficent, as well as how she became evil. Instead, we got a mess of a film in which Maleficent is the hero and King Stephan (Aurora's father) is the villain. To make matters worse, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather, the Three Good Fairies in the original film, were demoted to female equivalents of The Three Stooges.

The third live-action Disney remake was Cinderella, released in 2015. It stuck faithfully to both the Disney and Charles Perrault versions of the fairytale, and added a deeper backstory to Cinderella (whose real name is Ella this time around). When I first saw this film in theaters, it was right after one of the most insane ideas ever for a crossover episode: Steven Universe's 'Say Uncle', a crossover episode of Steven Universe and Uncle Grandpa. What's next? A crossover episode of Star vs. the Forces of Evil and Pickle & Peanut? Or a crossover episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the CGI turtles) and Fanboy & Chum-Chum?

The fourth live-action Disney remake was The Jungle Book, released in 2016. It had a young boy, Neel Sethi, who plays Mowgli in this version, in a CGI jungle with hyper-realistic CG animals voiced by celebrities like Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Walken, Idris Elba, and Scarlett Johansen. Only two of the songs from the original film returned: 'The Bare Necessities' and 'I Wanna Be Like You'. It's a very enjoyable film, but I feel sad that the vultures, nor Shanti, the human girl Mowgli falls in love with at the end of the original film, don't return. However, director Jon Favreau stated in the audio commentary that he didn't like the ending of the original Jungle Book, so he decided to make a new ending with Mowgli staying in the jungle and becoming more mature.

Also released in 2016 was Pete's Dragon, based on the 1977 film of the same name. I actually talked about this film back in August 2016, and I think it's a near-perfect live-action family film.

http://asateriale.blogspot.com/2016/08/movie-review-petes-dragon-2016.html

In 2017, the tale as old as time became new again with the billion-dollar winning Beauty and the Beast. The reason why this movie exists was to 'improve' on the original film and 'fix the plot-holes'. There are many changes to the original film, such as the household objects getting unappealing character designs, some of the songs being expanded, Prince Adam receiving a book that could teleport him anywhere in the world, and the enchantress who was mentioned in the original film physically appearing. I personally don't like this movie as much as other people do because I felt that a lot of the humor has been drained out of the original film, and Emma Wattson's singing voice can get on your nerves.
I also find the book to be pointless: The only reason it exists is so Belle can find out why her mother died. Adam could've used it to escape from his castle when it starts falling apart!


The following year, Disney released Christopher Robin, based on the beloved Winnie the Pooh stories by A A Milne. I actually reviewed this movie last year, and looking back, I feel I was a little too generous on it. As Rachel said in her review...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpAXl3ZPT3I

Christopher Robin was a bit of a jerk. She also points out that it would've been better if the film had more whimsy and wasn't as depressing. I would've rewritten the script to make Christopher a more likable character.

As for what I think of Christopher Robin, it's okay, but if you really want a live-action Winnie the Pooh, I recommend the preschool series The Book of Pooh. It aired on Playhouse Disney (a predecessor to Disney Junior) between 2001 and 2003, and faithfully stuck to the source material while teaching very young kids important lessons on friendship with Henson-quality puppets. Quite a few episodes of The Book of Pooh can be found on YouTube.

The little blue bird on Rabbit's hand is Kessie, who originally appeared in an episode of The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

Before I talk about the next film, here's my review of Christopher Robin from last year.

https://asateriale.blogspot.com/2018/08/movie-review-christopher-robin.html

There were three live-action Disney remakes released this year, two of which I will talk about: The first was Tim Burton’s Dumbo. As well as avoiding the usual Tim Burton art style, this retelling of Dumbo also has a bit of a different story from the original, somewhat similar to Free Willy. Also, the animal characters don’t talk, so characters like Timothy Mouse, Mr. Stork, the Nanny Elephants, and the Crows got removed. Instead, Dumbo is guided by human children Milly and Joe Farrier and their widowed father Holt. Unfortunately, Tim Burton’s Dumbo didn’t meet box-office expectations, perhaps because it had to compete against How To Train Your Dragon 3 and Avengers: End Game.

As for what I thought of the movie, I liked it more than Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast, but less than The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon.

Aladdin, on the other hand, proved to be very successful, earning over a billion dollars at the box-office and even green lighting a sequel. Some of the changes that were made to this film include Jafar not only being power-hungry, but also war hungry, Jasmine having a song that has little impact on the story, Iago (Jafar’s parrot) behaving more like a real parrot, and Genie being played by Will Smith instead of Robin Williams, with mixed results.

Unfortunately, the film itself is less engaging and less enjoyable than its 1992 counterpart. Much like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin drained much of the humor and charm out of the original film. It also hurts that Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, screenwriters of the original film, don’t return, despite working on the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

Of all the remakes talked about here, the only ones here that I truly recommend are Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete's Dragon. As for the rest, it's all up to you.

If you're wondering about what I thought of Jon Favreau's The Lion King, I will review it some time in January.

Movie Review: Mary and the Witch's Flower

Movie Review: Mary and the Witch's Flower                                                                              9-15-19

Mary and the Witch’s Flower is the first movie from Japanese animation studio Studio Ponoc, which was founded by ex-Ghibli animators in 2015. Directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, this movie is about a British girl named Mary Smith. She is stuck in the country with her Great-Aunt Charlotte when she discovers a magic broomstick and a strange flower that only blooms every seven years. Suddenly, Mary finds herself whisked away to Endor College, a school of magic run by Madam Mumblechook and the brilliant Doctor Dee. But the school is not all that it seems, and when Mary tells a lie, she must risk her life to set everything right.

The strengths of Mary and the Flower come from its top-notch animation, strong protagonist, excellent sound design, and some memorable music from Takatsugu Muramatsu.

With all this said, Mary and the Witch’s Flower still has its flaws: Despite being from a different studio, ‘Mary’ features similarities (both from an artist’s and author’s perspective) to Ghibli movies like Spirited Away, Castle in the Sky, and Kiki’s Delivery Service. Not to mention that Mary Smith herself bares a resemblance to Merida from the black sheep Pixar film Brave. Here's Merida...

...And here's Mary Smith.

In conclusion, not as good as even non-Ghibli anime movies like Your Name, In This Corner of the World, or Wolf Children, Mary and the Witch’s Flower is a fine anime movie that kids might enjoy.

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: A Kid in King Arthur's Court

Movie Review: A Kid in King Arthur's Court                                                                                           8-17-19

Based on the book ‘A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court’ by Mark Twain, 14-year-old baseball player Calvin Fuller gets sucked back in time and ends up in King Arthur’s court. But all is not well with the realm; An aging King Arthur is in danger of losing control to the evil Lord Belasco, and now, it’s up to Calvin to save the kingdom. But before he can find a way to vanquish Belasco, he must first find a way to conquer his own fears.

I didn’t know this movie even existed until more than a year ago, and I have to say, this is a rather underrated flick. ‘King Arthur’ may not have big celebrities from this time (with the exception of Kate Winslet) or the strongest of stories, but it has impressive sets and props for a small budget, a memorable score from JAC Redford, and tougher-than-she-looks Princess Katey.

However, the film does have its flaws: The story can be a bit dull and drag on on more than necessary, and most of the characters are one-dimensional.

I can see why this movie was originally a box-office failure; Everyone wanted to see Babe instead of this. However, it doesn’t mean that ‘King Arthur’ is bad. There are still some qualities to appreciate about this movie, though I guess it varies from reviewer to reviewer.

I also recommend the Mickey Mouse cartoon that originally accompanied this movie in theaters, Runaway Brain. It’s quite entertaining, and it even got the Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short Subject. Here’s a link below.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyo55m

Rating: 2.6 stars out of 5.

PS. As I promised in my review of Toy Story 4, I will now determine if it or ‘Dragons 3’ was better: Both films are really close, but I liked How To Train Your Dragon 3: The Hidden World just a little more.

Movie Review: Dora and the Lost City of Gold Part 2

Movie Review: Dora and the Lost City of Gold Part 2                                                               8-10-19

In Part 1 of this review, I talked about how Nickelodeon tried taking old characters and putting them in more grown-up stories and situations. Here's the link below.
https://asateriale.blogspot.com/2019/08/movie-review-dora-and-lost-city-of-gold.html
However, both shows talked about, All Grown Up and The Legend of Korra, have divisive fanbases. However, taking something like Dora the Explorer, making it live-action, aging up Dora (and Diego) to their late teens, and putting them in a National Treasure-esque adventure story is more fitting, since double-digit moviegoers wouldn't want to watch a preschool movie that encourages the audience to interact with one another, even though it would definitely ruin the experience for other people in the movie theater. The only good preschool movie, in my opinion, is the 1985 Sesame Street movie Follow That Bird, which I'll review this November.
Enough of that said. Let's get into Dora and the Lost City of Gold!

Dora (Isabela Moner) is an energetic and cheerful Brazilian girl who loves exploring with her wild monkey friend Boots. However, her parents believe that she’s safer in the city, so they send her to a Californian high school with her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg). While on a trip to a museum, Dora accidentally gets shipped back to South America along with Diego, awkward boy Randy (Nicholas Coombe), and popular girl Samantha (Madeleine Madden). Guided by veteran explorer Alejandro (Eugenio Derbez), the unlikely quartet embark on a journey to find the Incan civilization known as Parapata, hidden in the dangerous jungles of South America.

Has it finally happened? Has there finally been a good live-action movie based on a cartoon since 1990’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I'm surprised to say this, but yes. Dora and the Lost City of Gold is best described as a cross between Disney's Enchanted, Hey Arnold! The Jungle Movie, and The Goonies; The film has some of the charm and self-effectionet parody of Enchanted, the adventure of The Goonies, and the twists and perils of The Jungle Movie. Dora, herself, is like Giselle from Enchanted: She likes to sing, has an animal sidekick that other people find revolting, can be oblivious about her new surroundings, and always focuses on the positive side.

Also, with many live-action movies that I've seen, the sets and backgrounds make me feel that I'm really in California/South America.

For those parents out there who are concerned about having overly cute animals and objects talk and sing, no need to worry! None of the animal characters talk except for Swiper, the fox antagonist from the original cartoon. In this film, he works for the antagonist, helping to steal his share of the treasure of Parapata.

In conclusion, Dora and the Lost City of Gold may not be as good as 'Dragons 3' or Toy Story 4, but's it's definitely much better than 2010's The Last Airbender. Think of this film as a Plan B for Toy Story 4. I would also choose it over most of the live-action Disney remakes any day!

Rating: 3.46 stars out of 5.

Speaking of Disney remakes, I'm going to give an updated synopsis and opinion of every live-action Disney remake leading up to Aladdin in October.

Movie Review: Dora and the Lost City of Gold Part 1

Movie Review: Dora and the Lost City of Gold Part 1
As most of you know, Dora and the Lost City of Gold isn’t Nickelodeon’s first attempt at making a live-action adaption of a pre-existing Nicktoon: In 2010, they teamed up with M Night Shyamalan to create a movie based on the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Today, however, I won’t be talking about that movie. Instead, I will talk about Nick's two previous attempts at making more grown-up stories with classic characters: All Grown Up and The Legend of Korra. First, let's take a look back at the Rugrats spinoff All Grown Up.

All Grown Up started as a half-hour TV special in 2001 to accommodate the 10th anniversary of The Rugrats. Titled 'All Growed Up', the special was about the babies and Angelica imagining what their life would be like ten years in the future, and it depicted the characters as 10-to-13-year-olds. The TV special was hugely successful, raking in millions of viewers, and Nickelodeon commissioned creators Arlene Klasky and Gabor Csupo to create a spinoff series called All Grown Up, as well as cancel the original Rugrats. Anyway, the series revolved around Tommy and the gang ten years older than they were on The Rugrats: Tommy, Phil, Lil, and Kimi were now 11, Dil was now 10, Chuckie was now 12, and Angelica and Susie were now both 13. The characters are now drastically different than how they were in The Rugrats, such as Tommy wanting to be a film director, Phil being a talented cook, Chuckie becoming a lady's man, Angelica becoming nicer, and the strangest of all, Dil having a connection with aliens. The series would focus on the characters going through problems that tweens would have, such as puberty, being bullied, and trying to be cool. Some fans loved the new series and thought it gave the characters more depth and had more interesting plots, while others think it ruined the original series and drained the magic of the original source material. I personally feel that it was unnecessary because Nickelodeon already had another series with a similar premise: As Told By Ginger. I never seen it, but I heard it was actually pretty good. Too bad this show was never released on DVD as a complete set. The Legend of Korra was originally conceived as a miniseries (but eventually made into a full-fledged TV series with 52 episodes), taking place 70 years after 'Avatar'. Aang has passed away, and now a new Avatar has been chosen: A 17-year-old Water-Bender named Korra. She has mastered all of the major elements but Air. Joined by her polar bear dog Naga, Earth-Bending and Fire-Bending brothers Bolin and Mako, and mechanic Asami Sato, they fight for and protect Republic City from villains like Bender-hating Amon, Dark Avatar spirit Vaatu, and evil Earth Queen Kuvira. Since a lot of people already talked about the flaws of The Legend of Korra, even going as far as ranting about it, I'm going to sum it up: No over-arching plots, underdeveloped characters, clumsy writing, and few returning characters that didn't do much. Not to mention that some of the new technology in 'Korra' was too advanced for the Avatar world, even going as far as having radios and movies with sound!
Seriously? A telephone during the Imperial Ages? As for what viewers thought of 'Korra', it mostly got positive reviews. However, it is rather divisive among the Avatar fanbase: Some love it and think it's better than the original, while some hate it because it isn't like The Last Airbender. To be continued in Part 2, in which I will talk about the actual Dora movie.