Terrible Disney flick
586602
My kids and I settled in for a relaxing evening to be charmed by the latest Disney musical flick. As the story went on, the more and more horrific it became - certainly not appropriate for children! I kept waiting to see Anna Kendrick (Cinderella) and Meryl Streep (the witch), but could never clearly identify the characters as such. Kudos to the makeup department, but poor work by the screenwriters in communicating your characters to the audience.

Disney, get it together.
4568827
In fairy tales, the forest is often a dangerous and deviant space populated with symbolic highwaymen, witches, wolves, and other disruptions of purity.  The new Disney film Into the Woods (adapted from a beloved Broadway musical of which I have almost no knowledge) aims to explore this concept by blending various bedtime-story icons, such as Cinderella, Rapunzel, and Red Riding Hood and her Wolf.  However, in my minority opinion, it is entirely inert and a shameful failure.  I despise this film.  It bored me to tears, and its pretentious gestures toward "deconstructing" fairy tales to reveal the inner admonishments and warnings are obvious and underdeveloped at best.  I can only praise it on three counts.  Chris Pine delivers a hilarious and refreshing performance, nicely lampooning the cartoon brawn and dashing pomp of Prince Charming archetypes.  Emily Blunt is also fine; her character is a mite bland and retrograde, but Blunt plays her with characteristic poise and conviction.  And there is a single fantastic song, "Agony," featuring the aforementioned Pine as he tears open his shirt to reveal his chiseled chest and falls to his knees to convey the depth of his romantic longing for Cinderella.

Sondheim devotees can crucify me, but I did not find any of the other songs memorable or even particularly tuneful.  Point a gun at my head, and I could not recite a lyric or whistle the melody from any of them a few hours after watching the film.  Many of the actors seem uncomfortable in their roles or at least unsure how to play them, broadly drawn as they are.  Meryl Streep will receive an obligatory Academy Award nomination for her camp turn as a maternal witch, but her scenery-devouring theatrics are unspectacular.  There is no sense she is having quantifiable fun or pushing herself as a performer.  It is just a seasoned pro loudly overacting in even louder wigs.  And it is hard to imagine a key performance in a major motion picture duller than MacKenzie Mauzy's personality-free turn as the witch's (stolen at birth) "daughter," the long-long-haired Rapunzel.  Anna Kendrick also flounders as a muted, indistinct Cinderella.

Director Rob Marshall does an awful job tying the various fairy-tale references and themes together.  There is never a sense this is a single picture depicting a single world nor is there substantial momentum.  The film registers as an overlong, lopsided swarm of halfhearted and unfinished vignettes.  There is also a dearth of visual imagination on Marshall's part.  This project invites pop, spectacle, and a playful visual eye, but he proves a wan non-stylist at every turn.  Much of the action unfolds on the same half acre of studio-lot woodland.  One ongoing subplot involves Cinderella thrice fleeing the prince's ball in fear he will realize her low social standing and fall out of love, but never once does Marshall's camera dare enter the ball itself.  He is satisfied filming the steps again and again.  Nor are we treated to even a single tantalizing glimpse of the land of the giants.  Just closeups of those magic beans.
3282666
I went to see this movie with my girlfriend and her two sons, ages 8 and 12.  Within 30 minutes we were all snickering at this film, and totally disgusted with it.  We left and the theater manager kindly gave us our manager back.  It is worth noting that a male adult, female adult, and two children all disliked this movie.

Here is what I thought made it so poor.  To begin with, the subtitles flashed on the screen quite quickly.  I am a fast reader and barely made it through them before they were gone.  The type face they were in seemed hard to read to me.

Where this movie really lost me was in the much vaunted fight scenes.  It was ludicrous.  These people were standing sideways on porch railings, hanging upside down from the edges of a roof, and leaping 30 feet.  When you kick someone, they to do not two two backflips and land 20 feet away.

Some people describe this as beautifully choreographed.  I call it, fake, unrealistic, and so far-fetched that it made the entire movie more ridiculous than a cartoon.  There was one scene where thousands of arrows were raining down, and this man and woman were twirling in front of them knocking them all to the ground with their swords and clothing.  This utter departure from any sense of reality is not what I want to see.
1972835
WHAT was Disney thinking on this release?

Great vocal and music talents lined up.....

TERRIBLE screen play.....

equals:  BAD MOVIE.

Nobody in my family liked it (from my 6 year old daughter to myself).

Okay, here goes....

This movie had no plot (Save the farm?!? THAT'S original!).....  The musical score was completely forgettable, bordering on insipid (this from the guy who gave us the music in "Beauty and the Beast"?!?)...Cuba Gooding (who I greatly admire as an actor) was trying TOO hard to recreate Eddie Murphy's zany Mushu character from "Mulan"....and Mr. Gooding fails something fierce....plus, as a matter of fact, I think there is a Bugs Bunny cartoon from the 50's that did this whole schtick MUCH better (and much shorter, too!)

Just awful.  Don't waste your time.  I'd rather watch "Beauty and the Beast" again for the zillionth time than to watch this disaster.
572375
Hallmark releases about 1 - 2 fantasy movies per year, and this one starring Beau Bridges is probably one of the worst ones of this decade.  The story is simple enough, a widowed father and his two daughters travel to a magical kingdom while chased by trolls.  In the kingdom, they meet up with the Minotaur, Medusa, Oberon and Titania from Shakespeare's play, more trolls, a dragon, nymphs, and an assortment of other characters.  The father is a professor, and in the magical kingdom he is prophesized to save them from the trolls.

If this movie came out in 2008, I would say it was a cheap knockoff of the LOTR, Harry Potter, Narnia and Stardust movies.  But since it was actually released in 2001, it seems more like a cheap knockoff of other Hallmark movies.  Here are some examples.  The principal character is a single father with two daughters.  In Hallmark's "The Tenth Kingdom" and "Snow White", the principal characters were a single father and his daughter.  In this movie, our traveling family encounter a wide array of mythical and fairy tale creatures while sailing on a ship thru a magic kingdom.  In "The Tenth Kingdom", the father/daughter duo encounter a wide array of fairy tale creatures while traveling thru a magic kingdome.  In Hallmark's "Gulliver's Travels", Gulliver encounters a wide array of characters while sailing around the world.  Then we have the part about a prophecy.  Again, we can look at Harry Potter, Narnia, LOTR, and every other fantasy movie/book out there.  The worse copying was in the look of the trolls; they could have been taken straight from the set of "The Tenth Kingdom" without any changes in dialogue, makeup or costume design.

Probably worst of all was the execution of the movie.  In its 3 hours of running time, it has four very long swordfight scenes that probably last a total of 20 minutes.  In all 20 minutes, there is only one scene where someone actually gets cut by a sword; the professor gets sliced across the arm.  I understand Hallmark tries to make family-friendly movies, but the action sequences in this film were so diluted as to be pitiful.  Hallmark's Merlin was a totally acceptable movie for children, and it had very realistic combat scenes that showed people getting stabbed, cut, and hacked to death.  And most of the swordfight scenes suffered from that most horrible of symptoms; opponents would aim to hit the other's sword instead of the other's body.

There were some original scenes in the movie that actually stood out for being good.  Principle among them is the College of Medicine scene that occurs inside a book.  Another original scene is how the professor's family takes Medusa with them on their quest.  However, there were also many original scenes that were just laughably stupid; one good example is when the older daughter, Miranda, summons a mermaid to drive away the sea serpent.  Her song and dance looked like a really bad MTV video.

The casting for this movie was so-so.  The two actresses playing daughters Miranda and Cassandra did not look anything at all like either the mother or father.  For most of the other characters, the costume and make-up more or less disguised true faces.  The only bright spot was the actress casted for Medusa, Kira Clavell.  Her multi-ethnic ancestry gives her an exotic look perfect for a deadly but beautiful creature.

Another letdown was the comedy, or lack thereof.  There were dozens of scenes where a well-placed line or change of detail would have added some laughs.  A good example is when Cassandra sits down to eat with the Minotaur.  He offers her a slab of meat as they sit surrounded by piles of bones.  A more comedic turn would be to have the Minotaur be a vegetarian, and instead of being surrounded by bones of all the animals he has eaten, he is surrounded by all the animals he has stolen from nearby farms to save them from slaughter.

So all in all, this is a bad movie.  It is not worth your time to watch it, or your money to buy it.
3702864
This was so disappointing. I've historically loved Disney movies, but this one was a total waste of time and money. I really wanted to love this story but it had no redeeming points. The prince was a jerk throughout the entire movie, even to the end. The racial stereotypes are sad and exaggerated, as if having an african american princess makes the rest ok. Then there's the voodoo. Magic is one thing, but the extent of voodoo and dark spirituality used was disturbing - certainly not something suitable for children. Don't waste your time or money, you're not missing anything.
1366771
I would not recommend this movie to anyone unless they enjoy pointless scenes of girls bitching each other out, with no dramatic plot twists; or enjoy a movie that parallels Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs very badly.  Overall it was horribly predictable and slightly too cheesy
3460698
This was an appalingly bad movie. Shallow script. Poor characterization. Cheesy effects.  Looks like it was made for Saturday after the cartoons for the 12 and under set...Definitely a waste of $15 to purchase - would seem like a poor investment if it was free on demand from Comcast
265933
Prior to viewing "Shrek", I was intrigued by the animation I had seen in the previews and I had liked the idea it had of parodying fairy tales. I loved "The Princess Bride" and how it mocked the standard fairy tale in a way that both crucified the genre and honored it. It made fun of the frivolousness of the tales, but still also offered an experience that rivaled even the best traditional fairy tales. It was also a "family" movie and it managed at times to capture the grandeur of a fairy tale through the emotional attachment. A good story has to at least hit us on an emotional level. The score itself was moving enough to be worthy of a serious dramatic tale. "The Princess Bride" was a much better paced piece of work and did not attempt to simply crack jokes every few seconds as "Shrek" did. The major flaw of "Shrek" was that it tried to be too funny too often and managed little effective humor at all. The audience is numbed by the lack of emotion to counter all the frenzied dippy humor that no child could ever understand anyhow.
As well as the jokes being way too adult oriented than children could possibly understand, I was absolutely apalled by the music used in Shrek. I could understand pop music being used in Disney movies like "Beauty and the Beast" because those Disney movies always wound up being musicals anyway. At least in the case of those Disney movies the music had something to do with the movie. I cringed right off the bat when Smashmouth's "Allstar" started playing early in the movie. I thought,"Why use that in a movie about an ogre?" It had nothing to do with what was happening on the screen.
So watch "Shrek" once renting it and laugh at some of the adult oriented humor.(Some of it is funny) Quickly forget about what you saw because it sure wasn't anything memorable. The actual story of "Shrek" is weak to say the least. So "Shrek" winds up a mix of humor for adults with a (...) story for kids that moves at a pace of a Concorde jet. The sales are huge. I wonder why.(Sarcasm intended)
2462771
the visuals were beautiful, but the movie was terrible.  I usually like artistic movies but this had nothing other than a couple good action sequences and a few pretty epic screen shots.  do not waste your life on this one.
84625
I just want to be as clear as humanly possible.  This is NOT a good movie by any standards.  The actings awful, the script is terrible, the costumes are goofy looking, the score and music are low-rent.  The whole film's production value was somewhere around an above-average 'Power Rangers' episode.

Having said all of that, this is a rare instance where the film not only accepts its cheesyness but seems to embrace it.  I was actually suprised the production team didn't try and get a PG rating.  It would have made a good post-Saturday morning cartoon movie.

If you were looking for a good 'B' movie to entertain yourself with, this fits the bill. Any movie with Jimmy "Dyn-No-Mite" Walker in it is always going to be entertaining on SOME level.
2037525
This movie is less than par, in fact not even sub par.  Leave it to disney to ruin a timeless classic such as this story.  The animation is very very poor, the acting is regrettable, and the sound and picture quality are that of an old worn out tape.
2294010
This movie seemed like a cheaply made, run of the mill, dumbed down "family" film.  The kids laughed at the part where the dog flies and when the other dogs attempt to fly- and that was about it.

The storyline seemed to drag on with no real clear way that it all worked out- it just did (surprise!).  The "mild crude humor" wasn't needed for the story and had the kids all turning to me with "uh-oh" on their faces.  Kids can have a healthy sense of humor without the farting and playground humor.

The parents seemed very out of place and awkward.

FYI- there is a alternative lifestyle protrayed in the movie.

I thought about donating it to the library, but then just threw it in the trash after we watched it (something I very seldom do).
2766278
This film will be nominated for worst picture of the year.  I put this in my DVD player with all the negative critical reviews in mind, thinking I would then enjoy it more if I didn't expect too much.  No, sorry, this movie is poorly made comic book tripe.  The special effects are incredibly poor, looking more like video game nonsense than a big budget extravaganza.  When the Nautilus first rises and we are all supposed to be in awe of its immense size and grandeur, it looks more like a shiny toy on a blue screen.  Then there are the characters.  While I at first felt a kind of nostalgia at seeing the Insvisible Man, Dorian Gray, and Mina Harker from Bram Stoker's "Dracula," that feeling soon wore off and I was left with a motley cast spewing out one-liners and dumb babble.  Captain Nemo entering the picture was my first indication of downhill progress.  He looks and acts monumentally stupid, and is somehow able to perform martial arts like Jackie Chan.  Mr. Hyde is another poor creation, with obvious makeup effects and bad dialogue.  There are many plot flaws here, as well. The Nautilus, this huge vessel when first revealed, is then able to shrink in size and then traverse the narrow canals of Venice?  Mina Harker, a vampire, is standing in the daylight at the end of the film?  There were other scenes that were plugged in for time consumption.  One example is when Allan Quartermain is atop the Nautilus firing at red buoys being launched by Captain Nemo.  If there was ever a scene that needed to be cut, this was it.  The special effects are not special; the acting is okay in moments, but poor overall.  This is a really bad movie in virtually every way.
2628079
This movie was so bad that my eight year old hated it.  Do you want to watch a movie that has some of the worst acting you have ever seen, a special effects department that looked like they were working with a twenty dollar budget and nothing at all to do with the cover art?  If you are expecting a cyborg killing machine, look elsewhere.  However, if you are looking for a movie to have a Mystery Science Theater 3000 night with some of your friends, this is perfect.  I rented this free as a member of Prime, and I still felt ripped off.  Just a terrible film with no redeeming qualities at all.  The only five star reviews of this film came from people actually in it.  Pure schlock, and not a film so bad that it was kind of enjoyable, just a terrible, awful waste of time.  ENJOY! :)
3600595
I was very excited when I saw the previews for this movie. Finally, I thought, Disney was going to do a truly "classic" remake based entirely on the books, themselves. Unfortunately, this was not the case. It's a reboot, yes - but more so a reboot of the Disney Pooh World and not a reboot of CLASSIC Winnie-the-Pooh.

The animation was tight and charming, which was a plus. I also greatly enjoyed the "book" portions, where characters meandered on pages and walked across sentences. The letters even fell from the pages to interact with the animated portions. Genius stuff there. Very cute and very likeable and an obvious nod to Pooh's beginnings on the written page.

However, instead of rebooting the series to remain truer to the original works... They've rebooted the series to basically change it even MORE so from the original works in order to, apparently, be less of a retread. Well, Disney, you can't have it both ways. You can't both "reboot" a series AND present unknown material. Had this movie stayed true to the original book stories and kept the charming portions that Disney did add orignally (namely, those wonderful SONGS), this could've been an epic reboot. As it is... I feel it's even worse than the originals it was meant to "refresh".

The songs are terrible. Really, truly terrible. Don't even get me started on the "Everything is Hunny" song portion, which has Pooh biting into a Pooh made out of hunny. Yes. Life-sized Poohs made of hunny spring out of a giant jar... and then Pooh EATS HIMSELF. Is this cannibalism? What is this? This is weird. That's what it is.

Then we have the Backson. Now, I was happy to see Owl's classic mis-reading of Christopher Robin's "back soon" note... but it quickly degenerated into utter and complete nonsense that never occurred in the book at all. Then this nonsense started sucking in other tales and chapters from the books, covering them in gooey nonsensicalness and spreading the nonsense even further. Disney basically took a small portion of ONE tale and turned it into the entire basis for several tales' existences and... Well, suffice to say, this basically turned what I THOUGHT would be an authentic re-telling of the classic stories into an exercise in how many ways you can change classic stories so they retain only the barest framework of what they once were.

Also, Winnie-the-Pooh would never stick his best friend Piglet's head into a beehive and then hit it with a stick. Come on now, Disney. That's entirely out of character. I did get some laughs from "Tigger Two" but that whole part was just ridiculous nonsense that never happened, either.

Ultimately, this was a cute and charming movie... if you're a child or a fan of Disney's rendition of Pooh. However, even then, I would imagine this film would feel a bit... familiar in that "haven't I seen this before?" way, only with worse music this time around and some unfortunate dabblings in eating food that is shaped like yourself. But since this IS ultimately a children's movie and I think children would be amused by it, I'm giving it 3 stars, instead of the 2 I would've given it otherwise.

At least Gopher wasn't in it.
362558
Rescuers (1977) is one of the worst Disney films I have ever seen.  The story is predictable.

Bob Newhart is particularly bad.

Zsa Zsa Gabor is very good & makes the film watchable.

Geraldine Page is good as the villain.

Michele Stacy as the orphan is almost unbearable.

The worst crocodiles, Nero & Claudius (?)proved good commit relief