Kronk's New Groove (Saul Blinkoff, Elliot M. Bour and Robin Steele, 2005) Review

This was a sequel that was definitely unnecessary. Lion King 2 worked, The Return of Jafar cleared up the first film and Little Mermaid 2 did a good job continuing the story...not this one. This was really not needed. The Emperor's New Groove was okay but it wasn't anything special so why did they need to make a sequel to it? The first one was only above average so what did they expect from this film? Kind of pointless if you ask me. Well, Kronk was a popular character so I guess he deserves a spin-off film right?.....right?

After the events of the first film, Kronk (Patrick Warburton) has now changed his ways (not that he was really evil) and no longer works of Yzma (Eartha Kitt). He is now trying to spend the rest of his life trying to please his father (John Mahoney) by having a great house on the hill, a beautiful wife and a family. During the process of this, he runs into Yzma again who tries to bribe him so she can sell her 'youth potion' to the old people in town and gains the house on the hill as a result. Next, Kronk and his group of campers (seen at the end of the last one briefly) ends up competing against a camp troop leader called Ms. Birdwell (Tracey Ullman) but they ultimately fall in love which could leave the wife that Kronk's father wants him to have. Now Kronk has to secure the things he has by the time his father comes to visit.

It sounds a bit all over the place and that is a result of the use of a framing device. This feels like a combination of short cartoons stung together by the scenes in the restaurant. I hate films like that. Tarzan and Jane (a pseudo sequel to Tarzan) was exactly this as it was made up of episodes from the cartoon series. This one isn't made up of cartoon episodes but it might as well be because of the fact it's all over the place. Yes, Kuzco is in this film and yes he is still voiced by David Spade (they had a replacement for the series so I was impressed that they bothered to get him back) but he acts as another framing device. Yes, there is a frame for the frame. It's a mess.

Well, that's the problems but are there any good points? Yeah. It's funny, just like the first film. The humour is still hear but it isn't as funny as the first probably due to the lack of Kuzco being a main role. The first one had both Kronk and Kuzco prominently. Take one of them away and you're left with one funny thing. The animation is also good but it doesn't look as good as the first probably because it lacks the vast backgrounds and some great action scenes.

I said it with Cars 2 but I really mean it here: Kronk's New Groove doesn't need to exist. The first one wasn't anything special so why make a sequel to it? I just don't understand Disney's way of thinking. Give The Emperor's New Groove a sequel and not one of the best ones like Robin Hood or 101 Dalmatians? What's that? You say there is a 101 Dalmatians sequel? Ohhh...nooo...

Verdict:
5/10
An average film that doesn't need to exist. It looks nice and is funny but the plot is a bit rubbish and the new characters leave a lot to be desired.

The Emperor's New Grove (Mark Dindal, 2003) Review

We were all confused when this was released. This was from the same animation gods that created The Lion  King and Beauty and the Beast but when they announced there next film would be about a llama voiced by David Spade. Let me repeat that: David Spade...is a llama. I...whah...I...WHAT?! I was as confused as the next person but when I finally watched it, I will admit that it was pretty good. Sure, it wasn't as good as the likes of The Lion King or Aladdin but it has a certain charm. Let's take a deeper look.

Kuzco (David Spade) is a egotistical, self centred emperor who, despite his flaws, is adored by everyone...everyone except his administrator Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and her right hand man Kronk (Patrick Warburton)...not that Kronk really cares. Yzma decides that she has had enough of Kuzco and decides to poison him. Kronk gives him the wrong poison and ends up turning him into a llama. He is dumped out of the castle and left with a peasant named Pacha (John Goodman) who is reluctant to help Kuzco since he planned to destroy Pacha's house to make his own holiday home. Kuzco promises to not build it and they set off to the castle in order to restore him to his former glory.

Kind of like A Goofy Movie, The Emperor's New Groove is a buddy film (between Kuzco and Pacha) and also a 'road to' film since they are trying to get back the castle and visit a number of different locations filled with random characters they meet along the way. It's also one for Ymza and Kronk...although I use the term 'buddy' very loosely. I guess it was nice to see Disney do a comedy for once. The humour of the film is memorable and is actually pretty funny. I think the bizarre combination of Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton (name a weirder duo, I dare you) is what really brings the humour out. They really work well together. Of course, David Spade is funny but is just being David Spade.

I do have a few gripes with this film. The obvious one being that I just can't escape the thought that Disney will never be as good as they used to be. The Princess and the Frog sort of teased us into thinking that it was going back to the way it was. Sure, The Emperor's New Groove looks good and it's nice that it was traditionally made but I would rather watch some Disney films during the Disney Renaissance (from The Little Mermaid to Tarzan) but I can't really say it's the worst Disney film...no where near.

The Emperor's New Groove is a funny, good looking film that's only as good as you find it. It's a simple film that sees our heroes getting from point A to point B but it features some good character development, great villains and some decent voice acting. I would recommend it to anyone who likes comedies. You don't have to  like animated films because the writing is good enough to pass as a live action script.

Verdict:
7/10
A good looking comedy that features some great aspects. Not Disney's best but it's nowhere near the worst.

Mr. Popper's Penguins (Mark Waters, 2011) Review

Let's sum up my initial opinion of this film in one word: sceptical. This film could either be really really stupid or surprisingly heart warming and actually less of a comedy film then I had expected. After watching this film, I can now say that it was the latter. I was actually very surprised by this film considering it didn't seem to be around for long. Is it a good film though? ...........let's take a look.

Tom Popper (Jim Carrey) was never really close to his father but this doesn't stop him from leaving Tom something in his will. What would you expect in his will? Money, a house or maybe a pet or two, or three...or six. Tom receives a package to which he finds the next step in his life, six pet penguins. Naturally, he wants to get rid of them but his kids grow an attachment to the penguins and the penguins grow an attachment to him. His antics catches the attention of zookeeper Nat Jones (Clark Gregg) who wants to take the penguins for his own. Now Tom has to make a choice: keep the penguins who love him or give them up to the zoo.

What surprised me the most about this film is the approach it took. It could have been a very stupid kids film but it isn't. Sure it's a kids film but it is in no way stupid. It's surprisingly funny and Jim Carrey keeps his zaniness to a minimum which may please those who don't like it when Jim Carrey goes crazy (like in The Mask and Batman Forever). Sure, it isn't his best work but it isn't his worst either. The penguins are just in it for the kids. They do make up the narrative but the whole reason for their existence is just for kids but I guess it's far considering that this is a kids film...a more mature kids film then I've seen in recent years.

There are still problems. You do grow to like the penguins but even so, they are a bit ridiculous. The filmhad already set itself up as a quite serious and realistic film and, by the end, you begin to question this films logic. Sure, it's a kids film but even so there are so scenes that seem out of place. It's also a little too kiddy for my liking. There are fart jokes...has it really come to this? REALLY?! You can do better.

Mr. Popper's Penguins is definitely a kids film, there's no way to ignore it. It isn't a terrible film but it isn't the best film ever. It is above average but it could have been better. I do like Jim Carrey in this and even Clark Gregg is very memorable and it's good to see him not being Agent Coulson and even an antagonist. If you haven't seen this film...I might recommend it if you enjoy Jim Carrey films. Basically, if you liked films such as Yes Man and films like Night At The Museum, you should enjoy this.

Verdict:
6/10
An enjoyable family film that, while it does have problems, is fun to watch and filled with great acting.

The Truman Show (Peter Weir, 1998) Review

Well it's my birthday today so I guess I ought to review a film that is somewhat special to me. I'll say why at the end. I mentioned in one of my first reviews (Yes Man) that Jim Carrey was one of my favourite actors. This was the film that made that concrete and easily has one of his best roles. Sure it's not the only reason that was great about this film but it is one of the biggest reasons. Let's dive in to The Truman Show.

Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) begins to feel that the world seems to centre around him as weird stuff start happening. From set lights falling out of the sky to homeless people looking like his father. His friends and family try to make it seem like it's all in his head until it's revealed to the audience (yeah, not to Truman) that his life is in fact a TV show created by Christof (Ed Harris). He is the only real thing in the show as everyone he knows is an actor even his wife, Meryl (Laura Linney), and his best friend, Marlon (Noah Emmerich). Now Truman is determined to prove that his world isn't as simple as it seems.

The concept is fantastic. I absolutely love it. The execution is the reason it works. Jim Carrey really conveys the naivety of being trapped in a fake world very well and is easily his best role. He only goes 'over the top Jim Carrey' in one scene and even then it's tame. If you hate Jim Carrey, you probably won't in this film. He really proved he can do more than comedy (although there are a few funny moments). The rest of the cast work well with him and Ed Harris creates an excellent over-seeing character who watches over Truman's world. The concept plus the characters is really what makes this film shine.

I can't really think of any problems unless I really think about it. It's a fantastic film. The way everything comes together is genius. It's an intelligent film that is actually better the second time around. They do explain things but the first time through you may be confused...you have to be patient with this film or else you won't enjoy it. It definitely pays off and is were the movie also shines. This movie shines alot, alright! It's so clean it squeaks. I spot something new everytime I rewatch this film, just like Back To The Future, and I welcome films like this since they make me feel smart and that's a good thing.

The Truman Show is a fantastic film. The idea behind it is fantastic, the acting is great and the fact that everything comes together well makes this film stand out even more.The only bad thing from this film is that it probably inspired Big Brother (which is...eeeehhh) and, if that's the worst there is, that must mean it's a good film. It is. It really is. Now, at the beginning I said this was somewhat special to me. Why? Because this is my favourite movie of all time (at time of writing).

Verdict:
10/10
It was favourite movie of all time. A fantastic concept executed well by great actors and everything else that makes up the film.

Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993) Review

So while I was reviewing Space Jam yesterday, I remembered that Bill Murray appeared in it for some reason. I then remembered that he has done much better films (one of which is one of my favourite films of all time) so I thought I would take a look at one of this best. Let's take a look at a very unique and absoluly genius film: Groundhog Day 

Groundhog Day is a day of the year where the town gathers to watch a groundhog (one of those little mole/beaver things) come out of it's hole and if it sees it's shadow then there will be more weeks of winter (or something like that). Phil (Bill Murray) is a weatherman sent to a town celebrating Groundhog Day in order to report on it (considering the groundhog determines the weather...). Naturally, being a Bill Murray character, he has no problem hiding his frustration (which is the nicest way of saying he's an asshole) but he finally gets punished when he wakes up the next morning. The next morning, he goes about his day as normal but something is up...he has to relive the same day. This leads to some great moments such as him killing himself in many ways or trying to woo Rita (Andie MacDowell). Now he has to find out how to stop the loop and get on with is life.

That's a great set up! That is a very unique idea that can be used for some really good moments. It is somewhat of an iconic film anyway and it's probably as a result of the unique idea. The use of the song 'I Got You Babe' and Sonny & Cher that plays on Phil's alarm clock everytime he wakes up. It has been parodied in the likes of American Dad! in a similar situation. Still, the unique idea + Bill Murray really work well together as it offers more alot of hilarious moments. This is a funny film but considering it's Bill Murray and is directed by Harold Ramis (two of the reasons that Ghostbusters was so good), this doesn't really come as a surprise.

Being British, I have no idea what the point of Groundhog Day is nor do I understand it. How can a beaver thing seeing it's shadow determine the weather? I don't know but this film (somewhat) teaches me. I can see that people get annoyed by it (Phil simply calls the groundhog a 'rat') and that it seems like a pointless holiday. That's sort of the charm of the film. It's a pointless holiday so why should we celebrate it. It only acts as a background event anyway, it's just unfortunate that they day that keeps looping is Groundhog Day (hence the name of the film). It seems you don't have to understand it to get this film.

Groundhog Day is a great film. The unique idea for the narrative is really where it shines as it offers alot of opportunities. Bill Murray is...Bill Murray but it works because he actually has to learn something for this film. It has a good moral but you really watch this film just so they can enjoy the great moments and the whole idea for looping one day over and over again with hilarious consequences. If you haven't seen this film, I would highly recommend it if you like Ghostbusters.

Verdict:
8.5/10
A hilarious film with a great premise. One of Bill Murray's best roles and he makes this film even better.

Space Jam (Joe Pytka, 1996) Review

Is this a movie? Really? To me, it looks like one giant commercial...released theatrically. So much product placement and considering that this is a crossover that means it's advertising more things. The concept of the film itself is even more questionable. Looney Tunes...and Michael Jordan...playing basketball...against a bunch of aliens. Huh. It's still a giant advert though. Does that mean it's a bad film? Let's find out!

Michael Jordan (Played by...Michael  Jordan) has decided to quit playing basketball and try other sports like baseball (which I think actually happened). This is relevant. Meanwhile, The Looney Tunes are challenged by a group of aliens to beat them at a game of basketball. Therefore, they need professional help. This where Michael comes in. When playing golf with his friends Bill Murray (Played by...Bill Murray) and Stan Podolak (Wayne Knight), Michael gets sucked down into another world. He is greeted by Bugs Bunny (Billy West) and the other Looney Tunes including the likes of Daffy Duck (Dee Bradley Baker) and Foghorn Leghorn (Bill Farmer). The aliens have stolen the skill from other basketball players so now it's up to Michael Jordan and the Looney Tunes to stop them.  

Lots of people hate this film because it's cheesy, over the top and is basically a hour and a half long advert. Lots of people love this film because of the nostalgia factor, the good animation and voice acting and introduced a pretty good Looney Tunes character to the series who has gone on to be a fan favourite (Lola Bunny (Kath Soucie)). I will say that it does do a pretty good job of combining live action and cartoons similar to how Who Framed Roger Rabbit? did except that was fantastic while this is...above average...just. I do like the duo of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck mainly because their voice actors are two of the best around. Billy West (who voices Bugs) you may know as Philip J. Fry from Futurama (and basically everyone else) and Ren & Stimpy while Dee Bradley Baker (Daffy) you may know as Klaus from American Dad or Ra's Al Ghul in Batman: Arkham City. The two work well off each other and offer some of the best interpretations of the characters...which is being generous to this film.

There are still problems that REALLY ruin this film. Now I ask you, as a kid, between Michael Jordan and The Looney Tunes what would you rather pick. A kid would rather go for Looney Tunes (unless they a huge basketball fans...) but the film focuses too much on Michael Jordan and considering he is a wooden actor, it really brings the film down. The only Looney Tunes that really get a lot of screen time are Bugs and Daffy (and Lola to an extent) Also, everything's all over the place and in your face. THERE'S NO PERSONAL SPACE IN THIS FILM. The camera must feel violated. One last problem...it's small but leaves a huge mark. Bill Murray. What the hell. He is a fantastic actor (Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day) yet his role in this (as himself) is just...out of place.

Space Jam is an above average film...just. The animation is good and the mix of animation and live action is fantastic but we've already seen it before and it was done better then. The voice acting is top notch but the live action acting is wooden and feels life-less. The product placement is a joke (I believe there was about four or so product placements in one line of dialogue) and the camera zooms in way too much that it's beyond a nit pick. This had potential but sadly missed the mark. It's a nostalgic classic, don't get me wrong, but watching it now...I feel underwhelmed. I will say one thing though, they left out the little rat know as Speedy Gonzales. I can't stand him at all and am so glad he doesn't feature at all. Good one, guys! Thank you.

Verdict:
5.5/10
An interesting concept that sadly missed the mark and left alot to be desired.

An Extremely Goofy Movie (Douglas McCarthy, 2000) Review

I'm back, baby! Without further ado (adieu? Still have no idea), let's dive right in. You probably had no idea that there was a sequel to A Goofy Movie but then you realise "Oh yeah! This is Disney. The make sequels to pretty much everything!" so it wasn't really a big surprise. What WAS a surprise however is that it actually does something Disney sequels hardly ever do: be good! There's your incentive so let's take a look.

After the events of the first film, Max (Jason Marsden) is now moving onto college (university for us Brits) with his friends P.J. (Rob Paulsen) and Bobby (Pauley Shore). Naturally, his dad, Goofy (Bill Farmer), is upset over Max's absence. After daydreaming at work, Goofy manages to get himself fired but in order to get a new job he needs one thing: a college degree. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS! Goofy must now go back to college...the same one that Max is going to! Meanwhile, Max, P.J. and Bobby are trying out for the college's skateboarding team. Their main rivals are the Gamma House led by Bradley Uppercrust III (Jeff Bennett) with his right hand man and main muscle appropriately named Tank (Brad Garret). Bradley tries to convince Max to join them but he declines so he can stay with his friends, this enrages Bradley and how wants to beat Max and his team.

Technically, this film actually looks better then it's predecessor. It has some very nice shading and lighting and the new designs for the characters (since they're older) look pretty good. I say technically because, while it does look better, I still prefer the style of the first one. It's more lively and cartooney (this one was darker) which is what I affiliate with Goofy. Actually that's another thing. The title doesn't really reflect the film. Neither does the first one. In comparison to other films, these films aren't actually as goofy as you might expect and this one isn't as goofy as the first so I wouldn't go around calling it Extremely. Yeah, I realise it's a pun so...bleh!

The cast is expanded from the last films. Goofy, Max, P.J., Bobby and Pete all return from the last film while new characters basically replace the older ones. Roxanne is gone for some unknown reason. New to the series is Slyvia Marpole (Bebe Neuwirth), the college librarian and Goofy's love interest (Max had one last time so it's time that Goofy got one...as a result of Disney's one parent policy), the afformentioned Bradley Uppercrust III who acts as the main villain for the film and, lastly, is a girl who everyone just calls 'Beret Girl' (Vicki Lewis), I guess because she wears a beret, who acts as P.J's love interest. Can I just say that, because of Slyvia and Goofy's love of the seventies, the film has one hell of a dance scene in the middle. There are no songs this time but the dance scene is fantastic. The lack of songs doesn't seem like a problem as the setting of the film would make them seem out of place...plus this film was released during Disney's era where they didn't make musicals (like Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove and Atlantis: The Lost Empire).

An Extremely Goofy Movie was a big surprise considering what usually happens with Disney sequels (they usually suck). It's one of the only Disney sequels where it's acceptable to prefer it to the original. Do I? No. No I don't. The first one was a classic with so many memorable moments and quotes but this one, while it is a good film, isn't as memorable and won't leave a great impression. Kudos on keeping the entire same cast though. Disney sequels don't do that usually. It's a hard film to track down (it was direct-to-video and the DVD was only released in USA) but if you catch in on something like Disney Cinemagic, I would recommend you watch it if you like the first film.

Verdict:
7/10
A pretty good sequel to a classic but it sadly doesn't meet the same level as the first (it's close though).