Monster Family

Happy Halloween folks! Before you ask where the hell this thing came from, the only way I know of this film was the constant tie-in advertisements promoting Sky Broadband. And because I couldn't be arsed paying to watch in cinemas or Sky Store, I decided to wait and inbetween that time I got into an exchange programme in New York and managed to watch it on US Netflix. Yes, that's why I've been putting my blog off, but believe me when I say that I have more time to review (mostly awful) animated flicks that I'm trying to also segue into crappy live action films with increasingly ludicrous reasons...so can the Wishbone family add a dash of happiness to Halloween, or will they be the family local treat-or-treaters egg and TP?

Story: I want to start by saying the plot's catalyst is possibly the creepiest I've ever seen for any film. What if I told you that it's freaking Dracula wanting to marry the first woman who speaks to him via a phone call and curses her to be her Halloween costume so he can kidnap her to his realm? Now, let's list the obvious plot holes surrounding that. How did he get her number? Does he consider the possibility that she's already married (which she is and with kids)? Why didn't he bother looking for a wife after needlessly brooding for centuries? Who knows because this movie runs on an "it's just for kids" logic where we shouldn't ask questions! If that wasn't bad enough, the plot loses any semblance of structure when the cursed Wishbone family splitting up to learn their predictable arcs, with pacing so slow that the number of times I looked at my watch gave me whiplash. What doesn't help is the tools used to slam into their arcs come out of nowhere and don't have any effect until the inevitable climax. And of course, this all leads up to them realizing the importance of family and working together while trying to defeat Dracula.  And no, it's not like The Incredibles where they bring humanity into the stereotypical family unit with fun action sequences and heart because they argue 90% of the time. Oh yeah, and a quick note for the writers: sexually predatory actions in a children's film in light of the Me Too movement is horrendously misguided no matter how much charisma and unfunny sidekicks you give said predator.

Animation: For a low budget movie, the animation is decent, if not bland. The character designs attempt to emulate a mix of Disney and cartoony, but given the under-defined textures and over the top expressions, they can be off-putting to look at (with the extras looking too creepy). Also not helping is the character animation being too cartoony for the more realistic looking humans while looking too restrained during the "action scenes". The backgrounds for the most part are admittedly good, with Brooklyn, the pyramids in Egypt and London scenes surprisingly being well detailed despite their lack of screen time. While it may look nice on the surface, there are quite a few times where, including the lip synching being off (I know it's a German made animated film, but it was supposedly made with the English track), Dracula's lair looking like every generic evil lair and uncomfortable moments where the camera work can make it feel nauseating. Oh yeah, and Frank's farting running gag coming with green gas and stink lines like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. I know it seems like I don't have much to say on the animation, it's just that it barely offered me anything that makes it unique.

Characters: Dracula (Jason Isaacs. Yes, really.) is an inconsistent villain where one minute we're supposed to feel sorry for him because of his loneliness and suave demeanour, but then the next root against him when he tries to destroy the world after being rejected by a woman (very unfortunate implications given recent events). While Isaacs' performance gives Dracula some charisma, his predatory actions towards Emma make him lose any form of likeability. And speaking of, Emma (Emily Watson) is just the nagging mum stereotype prone to changing her mind every two minutes encouraging her family to work together before suddenly deciding to leave them for Dracula after stupid arguments she causes because of her complaining. Oh yeah, and she's needlessly horrible to her husband for apparently being a deadbeat. Guess what her arc will be. Fay (Jessica Brown Findlay) is every cliched rebellious teen worried about her appearance and boys while abusing her newfound powers as a mummy. Guess what her arc will be. Max is an irritating little twerp who wants to stand up to his bullies and be alone. Guess what his arc will be. Frank (Nick Frost) is an overtired workaholic who wants to spend time with his family despite his boss threatening termination and has an unfunny running gag involving farting. Guess what his arc will be. Baba Yaga (Catherine Tate) is the witch who Dracula sends to curse the family before quickly turning to the good side after he threatens to destroy the world. Oh yeah, and Celia Imrie appears as Emma's hippie best friend and Imhotep to benefit Fay's mummy arc. Another thing I want to add is the voice acting is terrible. In case the cast didn't indicate part of the problem, what if I told you that they're supposed to be from Brooklyn? And no, they don't say they moved from England because they fly to London and act as if they've never been there before! It's the same problem as Justin and the Knights of Valour: they feel like they did their lines in one take for a bad foreign dub with no direction. With that, it's safe to say the characters really are monstrocities, but not in the way the filmmakers intended.

In a world filled with crap, I can safely say this movie is just a waste of time. Monster Family has nothing to make it funny, unique or interesting. Its story rips off other films with uncomfortable subtext, the animation offers nothing new and the characters are as likeable as finding sugarless candy in your treat or treat bag. I can safely say skip this for Halloween and watch any of Laika's films, The Addams Family, The Munsters or any Tim Burton film. I'm not a horror movie fan, but I'd honestly rather watch one than this because then I'd get some sort of emotional reaction out of it.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 5/10
Characters: 2/10
Overall: 3/10

Animation in Obscurity: The Trumpet of the Swan

Given the low budget and being made by a relatively unknown animation studio, you'd honestly be surprised by the amount of actors involved in this little film. Based on the book by EB White (responsible for Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little) and directed by Richard Rich (responsible for The Swan Princess and its sequels, Alpha and Omega and its sequels and the animated version of The King and I.), was given a limited release in 2001, which ended up bombing mostly because of a certain animated flick from Dreamworks that was a middle finger to Disney and became a massive franchise. So can live up to Richard Rich's other animated feature focusing on swans, or will it be as embarrassingly ugly as Bjork's swan dress? Let's take a look!

Story: While the film takes basic elements from the book, everything else surrounding it ends up leaving you confused, bored or annoyed. With no narrative structure or originality, the writers refuse to answer basic questions on story or character to the point where I made a list of plot holes: How did Louie understand English? What made him think writing his thoughts would make the other swans accept him when they didn't know how to read? How did he know the songs he performed? How did he read the music? Did he ever rehearse? How did the music shop owner know Louie's dad was the same swan who took the trumpet when Serena's father has the same character model? Why did Serena go through with the wedding despite her obvious sarcasm at Boyd's proposal? Why is this movie making me ask so many questions? As you can tell, nothing is explained or expanded in this sixty-five minute film and ends up feeling trite despite lots of plot points and contrivances being brought up. Most go nowhere and are introduced too late to have any impact on the characters, with the rest being cliched while offering nothing new. The most egregious of these would be Louie's fifteen minutes of fame in Boston which is frustratingly forgotten after Louie does the cliched rushing to the wedding and a pathetically dull climax and "villain defeat" that makes no sense. With the low running time and numerous ideas and subplots, is it any wonder the writing is a mess?

Animation: While the animation is your generic direct to video quality, it's OK for the most part, if not cheap.The designs have the same issue as the other Richard Rich films, in that they're trying to emulate Disney but end up looking off-model and bland with the only way of distinguishing the swans is the garish feather colours and styles on the top of their heads. This still doesn't help matters because there are moments where they copy character models which ended up confusing me with who was who. Another odd part is the rotoscoping on the people, making them look more restrained compared to the cartoonier animals and people we see. While some of the backgrounds look nice with the watercolours and vibrant pallette, they don't offer much in scope or personality. What makes this worse is the attempts at portraying real locations, with Billings, Montana being a hopelessly generic small town and Boston being a generic city with skyscrapers (believe me, I went to Boston a few months ago and it's one of the most beautiful cities I've visited). There's also no lighting or shadowing making the film feel flat and lifeless. It may not be the worst animation I've seen, but some of the design and technical choices don't do much to create a sense of wonder.

Characters: Louie (Dee Bradley Baker), the mute trumpeter swan, is your generic underdog shunned by his peers because of his abnormality, and would've been interesting and complex if the writers didn't rely on his internal dialogue that plagues the film. It ends up feeling redundant after he learns how to play his trumpet alongside reading and writing and we don't know anything about him because the writers think his abnormality is the only thing that should make us care about him. Serena (Reese Witherspoon) is Louie's romantic prize and the object of Boyd's affections despite not wanting to and has no personality. Instead of Serena and Louis falling in love by her own accord, we now have conflict in the form of the generic jerkass Boyd (Seth Green) who may as well be swan Gaston right down to three pens gushing over him like the three Blonde Bimbos. Louie's parents (they're not given names and are voiced by Jason Alexander and Mary Steenbergen) would have been interesting if it weren't for his mother being useless (she doesn't even have the token "he's not strange, he's special" trait) and his father being utterly annoying trying to fix his son while favouring his daughters and worrying about stealing the trumpet when it was actually thrown at him. This is partly due to Alexander's gratingly hammy performance, and is probably the character I hated the most. Sam Beaver is the generic "cool and hip" kid who inspires Louie to read and write while turning up at random times to move the plot along yet doesn't appear to age when the average trumpeter swan's life span ranges from 20-30 years. Sweets (Gary Anthony Williams) is a squirrel also turns up as random to motivate and follow Louie, but he has so little impact and is quickly forgotten after meeting a squirrel politician in Boston (yes, really). Monty (Fat Tony himself, Joe Mantegna) is Louie's human manager in Boston is such a useless and obvious villain, that taking him out the film would have no effect on the plot. sisters Ella and Billie (subtle shout-outs to Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holliday) are useless except for their father having a reason to neglect Louie. And Mrs Hammerbotham is Sam's teacher who has no reason to exist other than to teach Louie to read and write via montage and get Carol Burnett to act as crazy as possible. With numerous subplots cramming for attention, is it any surprise these characters have the same dimension as a pile of swan crap?

Songs: This is a case of the songs having no purpose besides filling the running time. While the trumpet music jazz is beautiful to listen to by itself, the sudden shifts into modern pop score are distracting and date the film. This isn't hrn the genres are all over the place. Spittin' Image is the opening number about Father Swan expecting his unborn children to be perfect despite the obvious irony. Hey, Hey, Hey is just a filler pop/jazz song by the pens that's all about music and having fun while not revealing anything about their characters. Louie, Louie, Louie is the obligatory crowd number when he immediately gains fame for his trumpeting skills with lackluster choreography and uninspired animation. Touch The Sky (mercifully not wasting Reese Witherspoon's singing talents) is Serena's pop ballad declaring her love for Louie despite barely sharing any screen time or explaining why she loves him. They're easily some of the dullest songs I've ever heard and would literally make no difference to the story if they were removed.

What else did you expect from this mess? The Trumpet of the Swan may have some mediocre animation, it the paint by numbers script with numerous plot holes and contrivances, one-note and useless characters and equally as useless songs. I think it's safe to say a majority of the budget went into getting celebrities for the voices instead of saving it for good animation and storytelling. If you need your fix of an animated version of an E.B White book, then check out the 1973 Charlotte's Web by Hannah Barnera. Heck, check out the live action Charlotte's Web (the one with Dakota Fanning & Julia Roberts) and Stuart Little movies because they still respect the source material and have interesting characters unlike this crap. And...I just realized this movie's the plot of Happy Feet! Seriously, a male bird is born with an abnormality in a music loving society and is shunned for it by everyone except for a girl who'd later become his love interest. After growing up isolated, he runs away and realizes he can embrace his talents after performing for humans, so eventually returns home and ends up with said love interest while his parents, particularly the father, learn to love their son for the way they are...except Happy Feet had amazing photorealistic animation, fun dance and musical numbers, sympathetic and funny characters, gut busting comedy and Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Robin Williams and Hugo Weaving, all of whom are talented people. Other than that, totally the same.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 4/10
Characters: 2/10
Songs: 2/10
Overall: 3/10

Anastasia: Musical vs Film

Six years ago, I reviewed Anastasia on one of my other blogs and wrote my dream cast if it was ever adapted into a Broadway musical. Well, after begging for one ever since the workshops featuring Aaron Tveit and Angela Lansbury, that dream finally came true. And wouldn't you know it, I happened to get into an exchange programme with my university and studied in New York for five months. What was the first Broadway show I saw over there? Anastasia, of course! And I also happened to see Frozen shortly after opening night, but that's for another post. With no involvement from Don Bluth (who surprisingly hasn't expressed his opinion on it from any of the research I could find). And given society's tendency to pit anything against each other, why not compare the two and see which is the victor of a Russian urban legend that captivated everyone until the sad truth was revealed in 2007? As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so please. Oh yeah, and to make it an odd number so there's no tie, I won't be adding a side characters section because Vlad, Dmitry, the Dowager Empress and Sophie/Lily are pretty much identical in either adaptation and there's nothing wrong with either variation (even if the musical admittedly dives into more of their backstories, I'm not the biggest fan of Bartok and Vlad & Lily are fucking hilarious).
A story

Story

Now, story is a bit difficult because the film was made when the Anastasia legend was still around as a source of mystery and intrigue for people. So what did Don Bluth decide to do with a politically complex tale about a royal family who wasn't really well liked despite their horrendous execution and arguably worse political aftermath for Russia? Turn it into part Disney princess flick (because Disney Renaissance) and part My Fair Lady (which Don Bluth had to choose between doing an animated adaptation of with Anastasia). On paper, it sounds like a plan for disaster, but it oddly works. The writers know the urban legend is somewhat of a real life fairytale, so why not turn it into a full blown rags to riches fairytale devoid of history? What makes the plot engaging is how character driven it is, with not only the obligatory romance working well (even if it resorts to some 90s rom-com cliches), but also the relationships between the side characters and family. However, I do have a big criticism with the story: because it follows a formula similar to Disney, it ends up feeling a bit too paint by numbers. It's also a detriment because some of it ends up feeling inappropriate for the story it's trying to tell, with the biggest problems being the villain and comic relief sidekicks. I'll expand on this more when I look at the villains, but it can hurt the narrative when the main plot of Anya finding her family was fine on its own because it carries the emotional weight the film needs.
With recent history on its side, the show takes the basic concept of Dimitri and Vlad passing an amnesic Anya off as the Grand Duchess and taking her to Paris while the villain is out to kill her. However, there are two massive differences: the tone and villain. It instead takes a historical route by diving deep into the politics as Communist Russia wouldn't have been too kind to a royal still being alive. This immediately means the conflict fits seamlessly into the narrative compared to Rasputin's intrusive attempts to thwart Anya which stop the film's plot dead. However, it's still easy to follow because it focuses on the universal themes of identity and family, still meaning the characters are worth caring about. It blends its humour, emotion and suspense without feeling jarring, making it feel less formulaic than the film. However, the best element to the urban legend it's based on is the ending. It's aware that the show's events aren't what actually happened, but it understands why the Anastasia legend lasted for decades: it was a symbol of hope during a tragic event and for many, a real life fairytale. This honestly is why I consider the musical's story a bit better than the movie. I'm definitely not saying the film's story is bad, but the show's shift in tone makes it feel a bit less cliched and predictable, while the magical aspects feel more intrusive for the film. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

With Stephen Aherns and Lynn Flaherty composing both the film and musical's songs (which must've been a blessing for them given their disappointment at the fairytale shift for the film), their hauntingly beautiful tunes still remain close to many people's hearts. But can the musical's songs live up to them? This is Best Music/Songs!
Music/Songs

Now, this is also hard because the film and show feature the same composing team and songs, so this will mostly be about the show's musical numbers and whether or not they work well with the movie's. This is often a massive risk in screen to stage musicals because new songs are either written around the film's script and end up pointless (*coughs* Shrek, Legally Blonde, Ghost, Aladdin, Frozen *coughs*) or don't fit with the rest of the score (again, looking at you Shrek). The songs which are kept have seamless lyrical changes to fit the historically grounded tone (Rumour is St Petersburg probably does that the best) while remaining fun, engaging and emotional, even when switched around to better fit the narrative. The most notable switch would be Learn To Do It (taking full advantage of the My Fair Lady set-up with hilarious results) and Journey to the Past, now as the act one finale when Anya is at her most determined to discover her past when finally reaching Paris. The biggest omission is In The Dark of the Night for obvious reasons, but it's still weaved into the score through Stay I Pray You in one of the show's most emotional scenes as everyone prepares to leave Russia while knowing they can't return.
Thankfully, the new songs stand well with the film's. They can either be fun like We'll Go From There (God, that's been stuck in my head every time I've been on a train) and Land of Yesterday or reveal more about the characters like My Petersberg, In My Dreams (which admittedly got me teary eyed), The Neva Flows, Close The Door and In A Crowd of Thousands. However, the Quartet at the Swan Lake ballet is where the score is at its most creative, seamlessly shifting from Tchaikovsky's diagetic score with the non-diagetic Once Upon A December melody as the characters express their inner conflicts leading to the climax. The only songs I'd have to criticize in the show would probably be Cross the Bridge and Everything To Win as filler, but they're infinitely better than distracting. However,. I'd be lying if I didn't say that the musical's songs have more impact for me on top of the classics. Believe me when I say listening to the Broadway soundtrack while writing this long-winded post was the best motivator. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

No fairytale musical can do without a villain to sweeten the stakes. But who holds the biggest threat to Anastasia? The biggest change in adaptations, and the person who hinges on which version is better, this is the Best Villain!
Villain

Rasputin, voiced by the ever hammy Christopher Lloyd, is a sorcerer who wanted revenge on the Romanovs after Tsar Nicolas accused him of being a traitor...except that was true which means he's just unwilling to swallow his ego. Besides his admittedly creepy design and animation, I don't think there's much to him. The times he appears onscreen feel intrusive when the main plot of Anya finding her family was fine on its own, with the Russian government and Dimitri's con being enough conflict. This is especially noticeable because he's never mentioned by any of the other characters, so his influence feels more like an afterthought than a real threat. While the writers try to imply that he caused the revolution at the beginning, it still doesn't convince me that he's a lasting threat because later scenes also indicate the Communist rule have caused discord to Russia, and his minions are the ones who actually do his dirty work until the climax (not the best idea when he's easily defeated by an 18 year old woman stomping on his magic relic).
In the musical, we have officer Gleb (Max von Essen in the performance I watched who is definitely a worthy successor to Ramin Karimloo), who is actually a smart change in hindsight because a police officer pursuing Anastasia was the original plan for the film. While he seems like a copy of Javert from Les Miserables, I have to admit that I find his morally grey persona more interesting than Rasputin. His inner conflict of wanting to live up to his Bolshevik father's legacy while growing feelings for Anya can lead to moments where his intimidating persona breaks down in his attempts to comfort her due to the danger of posing as Anastasia could do to her and his cause. He feels more like a villain who believes the Bolshevik cause he follows will unite people despite the pain it's actually causing who call out on the hypocrisy surrounding it. Even if he's still running a turbulent communist Russia by the end, his redemption and compromise with Anya is ultimately what saves him from becoming a monster.
I think it's without a doubt that I prefer Gleb. Rapsutin just feels too weak and ineffective as a villain for me to have any impact. Oh, and any morally grey character previously played by Ramin Karimloo immediately wins in my books. Point goes to Gleb!
Winner: Musical

Possibly one of the memorable elements of the film is Don Bluth's signature animation. But can the musical live up to, or even exceed them? This is Best Visuals!
Visuals

Don Bluth's signature animation is possibly at its most stunning in Anastasia (and most likely why it's often confused for a Disney film). The vibrant colours and attention to detail in the backgrounds give Russia and Paris a whimsical edge while large in scale and historically accurate. The smooth rotoscoped character animation gives them a grounded edge while the characters have that signature Don Bluth look where they're more realistic looking while still being expressive. However, the musical numbers are where Bluth's animation shines, from the ghosts dancing around the ballroom in Once Upon a December to the shift into Van Gough painting backgrounds and overall 20's glitz of Paris Holds the Key to Your Heart. Other sequences help provide a mix of action and suspense like the whimsically macabre nightmare sequence and the battle at Pont Alexandre III (oh, that's why the musical uses it as a plot point!). While the CGI looks dated by today's standards and the squash and stretch on Rasputin can feel out of place compared to the more restrained human characters, the effort put into the animation is nothing short of incredible.
The musical on the other hand decides not to replicate the film, with a few exceptions in the costumes. Not only does this help create its own identity outside of the film, but it also provides a new experience for the audience. From the ghostly dancers projected around the theatre in Once Upon a December, the malevolent red lighting when the soldiers invade the palace and the train revolving with the video background, the transition from screen to stage is really impressive. The projected backgrounds give the show a cinematic quality. However, my biggest praise must be the  costumes, capturing the opulence and elegance of the royal family, while subtly showing the oppressive post-revolution Russia and free spirited Paris in the colour pallette. The choreography also helps with this, especially during the aforementioned Swan Lake ballet metaphorically indicating Anya, Dmitry and Gleb's pseudo-love triangle during the quartet (and is honestly so beautiful to watch, that it would make an amazing Swan Lake production on its own). Seeing the changes made from the Hartford tryouts to Broadway prove that the production team are more than willing to give the material the grand scale and beauty it deserves, so I must commend them for their efforts. This is honestly such a difficult decision, but I'd be lying if I didn't say the film's magical visuals stick with me more. The efforts put into the musical are undoubtedly amazing, but when watching a stage performance is mostly a once in a lifetime experience (for God's sake, bring it to London!), the film you've probably seen many times is going to have more impact. Again, I want to avoid a tie in this post, so the point goes to the film by a margin.
Winner: Film

Both versions of Anastasia/ Anya (I'll just call her Anya for the next section as it's much quicker to say & that's what she's called for a majority of the show) remain the same: an amnesic women wishing to find their family through going to Paris and discovering they're the Grand Duchess Anastasia. But whose journey to the past is worth following more? This is the best Anastasia!
Anastasia

Meg Ryan and Liz Callaway's speaking and singing performances as Anya bring the sass and determination she needs to be engaging. What makes Anya a good role model is her independence and determination to discover her family, with nothing stopping her to reach that goal. Not Rapsutin's numerous murder attempts, Dimitri and Vlad's con, the Dowager Empress' cold heart, or even herself. And when she is one of the only princess characters to actively defeat the villain without any fear, you know she's a force not to be reckoned with. Seriously, for 1997, she was pretty cutting edge for animated heroines. I guess my only criticism with Anya is the times where she can feel too perfect (the Learn To Do It sequence, anyone?). What doesn't help this is the movie never shows or explains her time in the orphanage, leading question her capability to look after herself. However, these are admittedly nitpicks because Anya is still worth caring about, and her non-romantic goal is pretty relateable.
Because every stage actor's performance is going to be different, my opinion on the musical's version will be based on personality and development (even if Broadway Anastasia Christy Altomore is still in the show as of 2018 and was in the performance I watched, who is perfection). Anya still has the same spunk and sass from the film, but the show expands on something which the film briefly acknowledges: her PTSD from her family's execution. This adds a complexity to Anya as despite her optimism to find her family, these flashes throw her off to almost deadly consequences. The show also gives us moments where she gets overwhelmed while learning decades of information about her family gives her a vulnerability unlike her film counterpart where she picked everything up almost immediately. Further helping this is the fact she remembers her identity before meeting the Dowager Empress, which adds to her determination when the time finally comes. Her decision to remain in hiding with Dmitry feels less like abandoning her family for a man, but keeping them safe from the potential dangers and pressures in a turbulent Russia.
It goes down to devlopment and for me. While both versions mostly remain the same , the musical's version of Anya feels like she's evolving, partly thanks to the psychological issues the film mostly ignores. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

Overall winner: Musical
I like both versions in their own rights, rather it be the fantastical elements of the film or the musical's more serious set-up but still mystical aspects. While it may be too Disney-esque at point, there's clearly a reason why the film's gained a cult classic over the years. Whether you can afford a ticket on your next trip to New York or need to sneakily find a bootleg online (which I admittedly did with the Hartford tryout before seeing it on Broadway), I recommend you check the musical out if you love the film. Or just wait until the US tour and German and Spanish productions are in your area, and hopefully a London production!

The Stolen Princess

Loosely based on the 19th century epic poem Ruslan and Ludmila by Alexander Pushkin, this movie was produced in Ukraine since 2013 and was planned to be hand drawn animated. Made by Animagrad and featuring local Ukranian talent in the cast, the English version was released in March 2018 while it was presented and distributed around Europe and Asia during various animation festivals. And given that it was made in Ukraine, it proved quite a success in its home country, opening second at the box office behind the recent Lara Croft: Tomb Raider reboot. So with all of that said, can this new animated fairytale flick steal our hearts, or should it be fed to the dragons and burn to a crisp?  Let's take a look!

Story: Taking the basic elements of the poem, the writers instead decided to take what could have been an epic fairytale and turn it into a Disney rip-off, most taking elements from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid and Tangled right down to plagiarised dialogue. While I understand that adapting a six verse long poem would be difficult to translate to the screen, this movie decides to throw all structure out of the window and never takes time to establish the characters, world and a sense of pacing. Scenes start and end just as quickly without forwarding the story and instead feels mechanical with random fight scenes, cliches and abrupt openings and endings. While there are interesting concepts with the princess legend, world and adventure aspects, they are quickly squandered because Ruslan and Mila's romance isn't worth caring about. I'm not joking when I say their obligatory romance montage at the 20 minute mark (yes, really) takes place straight after their fight scene meet cute and before she's kidnapped by Chornomor. It says a lot when Ruslan falls for an obvious glamour spell which causes the obligatory hopeless moment before the climax. Oh, and them ending up engaged which will likely end in an insanely expensive divorce because they knew each other for around 8 hours and they're still stuck at Choromor's castle. The only things which made me grateful throughout this mess was that there was no liar revealed and the ninety minute running time felt mercifully short. So it's safe to say the plot, structure, are stolen of any common sense or intrigue despite its admittedly interesting source material.

I'm surprised Dreamworks, Disney and DC haven't filed lawsuits for this magazine cover alone.

Animation: With a budget of $5 million, it's safe to say the animation won't be as high quality as Disney, Dreamworks or Illumination. It's clear the animators are working with what, so I guess I can be a bit more forgiving for the effects, textures and character animation looking more like a PlayStation 3 cut-scene. The character designs are a mix of the generic Disney look with the big eyes and exaggerated body types, but their dead eyes and under-defined texturing end up making them look creepy. The character animation also applies to this, especially during the numerous fight scenes where the psychics are inconsistent and slowly edited and choreographed. While some of the backgrounds admittedly look interesting mostly due to the Russian influenced architecture and vast scale, it can feel a bit dull after a while because the characters barely spend time in the locations which mostly comprise of libraries, cliffs and swamps. Also, while it may look nice on the surface, some of the design and editing choices can leads to some strange questions i.e. why does Ruslan's chest plate have six-pack markings? Why was Ruslan's sword fight test all in a motion sickness inducing point of view shot with slow and jerky movement? Why did it show Cat's fight with Farlaf, Rogday and Ratmir via shadows when we already know he can turn into a lion monster? It's questions like this which end up making the animation feel like a wasted opportunity.

Characters: I guess the writers never learned the show don't tell rule in characterization because everyone either spouts out their traits or act as caricatured as possible with no development. Mila is your typical badass & rebellious princess who wants adventure (but no end goal) and not to get married when she's really an aggressive and arrogant damsel in distress who wants to marry the first man she meets and can't even defeat an army of alive food (yes, really). Ruslan (who distractingly sounds like but isn't voiced by Justin Long) is a down-on-his-end actor who pretends he's a knight, goes on a (mostly glossed over) quest to save Mila & falls for the oldest tricks in the book. Nestor is Ruslan's friend and acting partner who just for banter, is responsible and be an annoying despite one snarky line during the dull climax which admittedly made me chuckle. Cat is responsible for the only funny lines and the exposition before Ruslan moves onto the next conflict and is quickly forgotten. The villain Chornomor would have been threatening if he wasn't screeching every five minutes, had no motivation to turn princesses into stone & destroy love and had a weakness that wasn't his Kenneth-Branagh-Poirot mustache getting cut off (again, yes really!). Finn is a wizard who lost his love Naina to Chornomor in the opening and becomes a crazy hermit with his character model being taken right out of Lord of the Rings . Farlaf, Rogday and Ratmir are three brothers for who end up in wacky situations while following Ruslan to save Mila and turn up at the most random times that I almost forgot they were in the film. Another part of the problem with these characters is the terrible voice acting. Despite first being recorded and animated in English, they all sound like they were dubbed in ADR and just received their lines with no context to their scenes, so  decided to go over the top. With their lack of traits or development which are as thin as tissue paper, it's safe to say nobody is worth getting to know, let alone caring about in this,

This movie just confused me. A predictable story that squanders its source material to cash in on Hollywood trends, a romance with nothing unique, animation that may look nice at first but then shows it's creepy true colours and characters whose sole traits are either to act as over the top as possible or  be as hopelessly cliched as possible. It may not be as anger inducing as other low budget animated knock-offs I've seen, but that's not saying it didn't annoy me with every cliche in the book. I can only say to skip this movie and watch the Disney movies that clearly influenced it. They may follow a certain formula, but have plots which are different when looked at closer and have romances worth investing in because of the chemistry and development.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 5/10
Characters: 2/10
Overall: 3/10

Norm of The North

Well...you asked for it! I know, I've been very inconsistent with posting on this blog, but personal stuff, school, life yadda yadda yadda, you've heard it all before, so how about I make up for it by reviewing one of the worst reviewed animated movies in recent years? No, there weren't any behind the scenes facts I could find and to be frank, who the hell cares about knowing stuff that happened in a writers room full of brain-dead monkeys? Let's just dive into this pile of crap so I can get it out of my system!

Story: ROB SCHNEIDER IS A POLAR BEAR...and obligatory South Park joke out of the way because that's what this movie feels like: A "child friendly" version of South Park without any intelligence in it's story, humour (which I say VERY loosely) and basic concepts of filmmaking. With an obnoxious and convoluted environmental message which makes Ferngully look subtle in comparison, all it will do is either make you cringe or question how the fuck it was greenlit in the first place! With such a slow pacing that I was done after the first two minutes (literally), this has no concept of characterisation, let alone development, leaving me completely uninvested in what was going on. On top of the awful humour (which I'll get to in a minute) and obnoxious environmental message, it decides to pad out the running time with action scenes which have no suspense and random dance party scenes with no purpose whatsoever. It's "humour" is more bottom of the barrel than all the Happy Madison movies combined up to the point that Adam Sandler would reject every single joke. In fact, it almost felt saddening watching how desperate the writers were in wanting to make the audience laugh. From pissing Lemmings for 30 goddamn seconds, to obligatory farting, to stupid pop culture references which will instantly date the movie, even the youngest of children would hate it all! And this is on top of the unbelievably lazy cliches which you can already predict when looking at the bloody poster! I'm sorry I don't have much to say about the plot, but this movie should've fallen into the so bad its entertaining category, but this is really so bad, it's not even worth getting angry over.

Animation: I'm not kidding when I say that I haven't seen animation for a film in cinemas this bad since Happily N'Ever After. And I don't care that it was originally meant to be direct to DVD because even by those standards, this would've been crap. The character designs are atrocious with the humans looking like unfinished models with disgustingly caricatured features and the animals looking like the Coca Cola polar bears' derpy cousins. It almost feels like they were designed by a professional for a Lidl rip-off cereal box, and then the animators were told to recreate them in the dark! And to add salt on an open wound, the textures and character animation on everybody leaves them looking and feeling so clunky and unnatural, especially with Mr Greene. The textures and rendering are also atrocious to the point of being intolerable, making it look worse than a PS1 cutscene with awkward and vomit-inducing camera movements and editing. By the way, remember when The Secret Life of Pets' depiction of New York City was beautiful in it's detail with the architecture, scale & atmosphere? Well, this waters New York down to the most generic metropolitan city without any effort to make it distinguishable. And the same goes for the Arctic with the plain white ice and waters, which pale in comparison to Frozen's incredible eye for detail. And keep in mind that this was made in 2016. 2016. The same year that freaking Zootopia, Moana and Finding Dory were released! This is the kind of animation which would've been bad during infancy of CGI, let alone CGI animated movies.

Characters: Norm (Rob Schneider) immediately fails as the protagonist because his motivations and personality are either obnoxious or convoluted. All he does is twerk his ass off to the Arctic Shake, constantly change his mind over his opinions on humans, shove the environmental message down our throats and show why he's such an unfit choice to be the next king. Add in sidekick Lemmings who are the most crass Minion rip-offs (who themselves have become too over-hyped) who should've thrown themselves off a cliff the millisecond they appeared on-screen yet the writers were under the delusion that they would be franchise-worthy merchandise. (Heather Graham) has no personality other than being a moron for thinking that advertising dangerous polar bears would convince people to buy houses in the Arctic. Her daughter, Olympia, is just a generic smart kid who wants her mommy to stop working so hard and to hammer down the SAVE THE ARCTIC message if we didn't get it already. Mr. Greene (GET IT?!) (Ken Jeong) is supposed to be a goofy yet intimidating villain, yet he fails in both traits because all he does is move around like a noodle and never explain his nonsensical motivations for upping his approval rating to sell houses in the Arctic. There's no point discussing Elizabeth the love interest because she has no screen time, let alone personality, for us to know her. Then again, when you're forced to be a romantic interest for a Rob Schneider character, animated or not, you'd probably want to stay as far away from him and the camera as possible. Socrates (Bill Nighy. Yes. Bill. Fucking. Nighy) serves no purpose other than 'motivating' Norm to go to New York which really made me wish I was watching Arthur Christmas so Nighy's talents weren't wasted for an easy paycheck. And speaking of acting, watching this made me feel sorry for almost every voice actor involved when wasted time which could've been spent on much better projects instead of this nonsensical mess. Why almost? Well, given Rob Schneider's tendency to make crap even worse with his racial insensitivity and obnoxiousness, it's about bloody time he sank even lower than the South Park memes. Anyway, I don't care about the rest of the characters like the wise grandpa, Gabriel Iglesias polar brother bear, Oprah rip-off host and New York civilians because they contribute even less to the proceedings. It's almost amazing how an entire group of writers managed to come up with the most brain dead, annoying and obnoxious characters I've ever seen in an animated movie.

Watching this movie made me question what the fuck I'm doing with my life. Norm of the North is easily the worst animated environmental movie with a painfully obnoxious environmental message which makes no sense, animation which will make children wish the ice caps would melt and characters who are as likeable as being mauled by polar bears. Was this as bad as Happily N'Ever After? Well...it's definitely in the same league in terms of it's badness, but I admittedly have fun being enraged at every single thing wrong with Happily N'Ever After. With Norm of the North however, it just left me depressed and bored. I went into this knowing how bad it was, and it gave me exactly what I expected: a movie which should only be used to torture your children. That's my only recommendation for this, actually. Parents, if you want to punish your kids, just show them this.
Story: ⭐
Animation: ⭐
Characters:⭐
Overall: 😡

Barbie in Rock 'n 'Royals

The 30th Barbie movie in the franchise, this would be the second last movie in the third generation Barbie movies. In an interesting little fact, when the movie came out, Mattel collaborated with British pop group Little Mix for the Raise Your Voice campaign. This included a singing competition online where the winner picked out from the group would get to meet them. Hmm, I guess it would be appropriate to pick one of the most popular girl groups at the moment to help promote this movie even if it's to get more money out of clueless mums buying direct to DVD crap as babysitters for their Barbie loving daughters...So can Barbie rock her heart out with a bit of princess magic, or will this concert hit a sour note? Let's take a look!

Story: This time, this movie is about Princess Courtney and rockstar Erika Juno as they accidentally end up in each other's camps, Camp Royalty and Camp Pop. As they get to know everyone and feel more at home, the feuding owners of the camps plan a sing-off where the loser would have to close their camp to make the other miserable. I think it's safe to say that the story in this is let's say...recycled. And by that I mean that they literally took the stories of The Princess and the Pauper & The Princess and the Popstar except for the location changing! This begs the question why did they just make a sequel with Tori & Keria from the latter about them training in camp? But nope, they prefer to do the same plot and all the cliches that come with it, like the fish out of water new girl, the alpha bitch who doesn't like the newcomer interfering with traditions, the big singing competition, the risk of foreclosure story etcetera, etcertera, etcertera! It's like they took the plots of the aforementioned movies with Camp Rock, Burlesque, Pitch Perfect and just shoved them in a blender with a huge dollop of glitter and pink! On top of that, the structure feels really off. It just jumps to Courtney and Erika doing the exact same things with nothing original and neither of them even interact until the final act. At least the other two movies tried to give the girls a friendship, but this doesn't even attempt to give them one. There is one subplot that is legitimately interesting involving the owners of the camps, but the way it's executed is hopelessly cliched since one is a straight-up villain and they hardly bring it up other than throwaway lines and a small scene in the final act. On top of that, while the set-up of the different camps is admittedly interesting, the fact that the movie resorts to all the cliches that come with it makes it redundant and we don't really get to fully see the camps themselves. It just feels like a wasted opportunity and the messages I got out of it were 'conform into society's rules otherwise nobody will like you'. What a wonderful message for little girls everywhere! In fact, that sums up this entire movie. Instead of fully establishing the world it's set in and making an interesting story, they just decided to rehash the plots of their past movies, leaving this to be pretty boring and predictable.

Animation: Yet again, the animation for this movie is pretty creepy. Seriously though, what the hell did you expect at this point after 30 Barbie movies? The character designs look off with their caricatured features which leave them looking as plastic as the dolls and it's clear yet again whenever they're reusing models but changing the hair colour& style/skin tone/clothes. The worst aspect this time round though, has to be the character animation. Since there's a load of dance scenes, while the choreography itself is OK, the rendering is terrible. It feels really clunky and the motion capture makes it even more distracting. As for the backgrounds, they're actually pretty creative in terms of design. While the rendering isn't that great, both camps are interesting to look at in terms of architecture, like the giant piano as Camp Pop's main building, the giant castle combining classic and modern architecture, and the elaborate concert stage for the sing-off. However, that's only it with them other than the treehouses and with all the pinks, purples and blues, it can get boring really fast. The same can apply with the magic and effects, being a bit inconsistent from looking pretty nice to downright embarassing. I will say that at least the movie tries to give it some scope and it is interesting seeing the two completely different styles of camps blend together and it is admittedly pretty colourful. Although I can't say it's amazing even by direct to DVD standards, at least there's a few good things despite not making up for the obvious flaws.

Characters: When it comes to the characters, yet again, they're the bland stereotypes you'd associate them with. Princess Courtney is the wide eyed optimist and is so bland. Erika Juno is your typical 'cool' rock starlet who wants to bring something 'fresh and hip' to Camp Royalty. In fact, these two could easily be considered as the same character because they both share the same personalities, arcs and motivations. Nothing about either of them stands out other than their differing designs and what interests they have. The two bitches, Princess Olivia and Sloane are also pretty much the same character except for the former being a snooty upper class stereotype and the latter being a 'rebellious rock chick'. The side characters are also essentially the same as the token best friends with Rayna, Zia, Princess Genevieve and Princess Aubray filling the roles as the girls' roommates and show them the ropes of the camp. Prince Edmund and Marcus are thankfully not love interests for Erika & Courtney, but they're still bland with the latter spouting out 'cool' lines when praising Courtney. The judges in the show are all also pretty bland with Allegra James pretty much being a cliched rockstar, Prince Reginald as the upper class prince and Svetlana Petranova as the owner of the unseen Camp Arabesque who for some reason a villain with a running gag of nobody knowing who she is. Probably the most intolerable ones though are the two kids. Not only are they horribly acted, but all they do is spout 'cool' and 'hip' lines about Erika and takes selfies. The only characters who are given any sort of 'development' are Finn Oxford (the love child of Paul McCartney, Elton John & Mick Jagger) and Lady Anne (the main antagonist), the respective owners of Camp Pop & Camp Royalty. Constantly at loggerheads, they had a romance several years ago until they broke up and became enemies. Although it's executed in a really cliched way and Lady Anne is a pretty bad villain both in motives and execution, at least they have something called an arc. Although her assistant, Clive...not so much. All he did was irritate me with his whiny voice and pathetic ways of trying to get Lady Anne to like him without coming across as 'threatening'. Then again, what did you expect with these Barbie villains? Anyway, each character can easily be categorized as their stereotypes yet again, despite a couple actually having a tiny bit of depth to them.

Songs: Given the title, it's clear that the movie will have a lot of pop/rock songs. And for what they are they're...OK. They're not intolerable like the attempts at musical theatre style numbers in The Island Princess, but they still give the movie a dated feeling and are easily forgettable. Gotta Get to Camp was really irritating because of how obnoxious the autotuning and EDM are and the lyrics are so cliched and annoying. What If I Shine is a dull 'I Want' pop song for Courtney with really dull and banal lyrics. It doesn't really help that there's a 'sad' reprise during the all hope is lost section of the movie which is equally as unmemorable. When You're a Princess is an a capella song which Camp Royalty rehearses which is pretty obnoxious with them shoving in our faces what it's like to be a prim and proper princess. Actually, listening to this made me realize that this was trying to cash in on the Pitch Perfect franchise. And given that the Pitch Perfect 2 was released a few months before this movie, that probably isn't a coincidence. Find Yourself in the Song is the rock chick style number for Erika, which would actually be pretty good if it weren't for the lazy and boring lyrics. If I had to chose my favourite song in this though, this would be it. Unlock Your Dreams is pretty annoying with the awful autotuning trying to combine rock and a capella with really banal and generic lyrics. The Final Mashup is pretty much a combo of Find Yourself in the Song and Unlock Your Dreams Another massive problem I have with these songs is how they're organised. Most of them range from being in the beginning and the third act, leaving the middle to pretty much be bone dry. It doesn't really help that they're really repetitive as reprises or with altered lyrics with a bland bubblegum pop filled with autotuned voices and electric guitars. So despite one decent song, the rest are at best mediocre and at worst, infuriatingly annoying with how 'cool' they're trying to be.

Barbie in Rock 'n Royals has no point to it's existence other than being a cash-in to much better movies. With a rehashed plot, strange yet colourful animation, dull characters and dated pop songs, it's just a waste of time. I can see the ideas there, but it's clear from the start that they weren't thought through very well and they just resorted to tiresome cliches. If you want a Barbie movie with the two girls switching places formula with some decent musical numbers, then I say stick with The Princess and the Pauper. Sure, the story can be confusing, the animation's below average and the songs can make you cringe into a smile, but at least a bit of effort was put in to make it entertaining.
Story: 😠
Animation: 😠
Characters: 😕
Songs: 😠
Overall: 😠

Barbie in Princess Power

The first Barbie movie released in 2015, this was released around the time where the Barbie franchise was taking a shift, but not up to the point that it would enter the fourth generation movies which started last year. Shown for a limited time in cinemas, can Barbie live up to the likes of Wonder Woman and Black Widow, or do princesses and superheroes simply not mix? Let's take a look!

Story: Having many nods to other superhero franchises, this is about Princess Kara, who ends up gaining superpowers after being kissed on the cheek by a magical butterfly (yes, really). Under the alias Super Sparkle, Kara decides to use her powers both for the good of the kingdom and to actually do something instead of having tea and wearing dresses, gaining attention from the media and jealousy from her cousin Corinne, to become her rival. While that's going on, royal advisor Baron von Ravendale plans to take over the kingdom through creating a potion to gain his own powers, leading the rival cousins to band together to stop his tyranny. Rather than being a deconstruction of superhero movie tropes like the recent Marvel and DC movies, this uses the cliches without shame. Everything is so paint by numbers from Kara forgetting the reason behind why she wanted to use her powers in the first place, somebody revealing her identity due to jealousy, lots of science mumbo-jumbo to explain illogical situations and a giant battle against a hammy bad guy. Add in lots of pink, sparkles and selfies, and that's this movie in a nutshell! It's not terrible, but it was so predictable that it left me bored and the characters themselves are their bland stereotypes with nothing which makes them stand out.The same can be said about the grating message about it 'being better to work together than working alone' which is barely acknowledged until the final act and it feels really shoehorned in so it won't be too scary for the kiddies. On top of that, the biggest problem is the set-up itself. Given that Kara is a very prolific princess, it would have been obvious from the start to everyone who Super Sparkle (God, it sounds like the name of a My Little Pony character) really was. However, I will give credit for the movie actually trying to make a Barbie character do something of importance for her kingdom instead of the stereotypical princess stuff & the climax, while cliched, at least tried to give the movie a sense of danger and peril. And I will say that while tried to set up a relationship between Kara and diet Peter Parker Wes, at least they don't have a full blown romance due to Kara's priorities being more about saving the kingdom. I can see what the movie is trying to do, but for what it is, it's more on the mediocre side in terms of plot and set-up.

Animation: Since there was a shift in the franchise, the animation in this reflects that. And to be honest...it's worse than before. While the character designs have consistently been creepy, the shift brings this up to 11. I think it's mostly because of the skin being smoother, the more caricatured body shapes (up to the point that the women and kids look disgustingly anorexic akin to Barbie Presents Thumbelina) and the eyes are giant compared to their tiny heads on top of looking really sunken. The texturing has also had a downgrade, especially on the hair and fabric as instead of actually attempting to feel like what they're supposed to be, the colouring makes it look more like blocks of hair rather than individual strands. The same can be said about the effectsThe backgrounds also don't fare any better because the city of Windemere looks like your average New York-style city with nothing that makes it stand out. Even the castle looks really out of place compared to the modern pop art look thanks to the more old fashioned look. The character animation is a tad better thanks to the admittedly creative action scenes, but it can still look a bit clunky and off thanks to some uses of motion capture. I know the look is meant to be akin to a comic book filled with tons of pinks, purples and blues, but overall, the animation feels more like a PS2 cutscene. Yes, I feel that this is actually worse in quality compared to The Secret Door! And given how creepy that looked, that's saying a lot!

Characters: Like I mentioned before, the characters are really by the book in their roles. I do appreciate that Princess Kara actually wants to be different than a typical princess and actually contribute to things that actually matter in the kingdom, but when she gains her powers, she can come across as a bit selfish and her priorities can be questionnable (even if the movie acknowledges it). Her friends, twins Madison and Michaela, are 'cool' science geeks with the character trait of arguing about who did what to help Kara and her powers. Princess Corinne is the cliched bitch who's jealous of her cousin, but she can have a bit of depth for actually explaining her envy and her reasons for becoming Dark Sparkle. It's still cliched, but at least it's something. Baron von Ravendale is easily the worst character as the hammy over the top villain who wants to take over the kingdom and nothing else with his 'comedic' frog sidekick. They try to shoehorn his motives at the beginning, but it does nothing to make him 'complex' or 'interesting'. As mentioned before, Wes is the 'clumsy' Peter Parker rip-off who follows Super Sparkle everywhere and exposes her secret without considering the consequences and grated on my nerves. Well, at least he's not the love interest...Anyway, King Kristoff and Queen Karina are the generic overprotective parents who still treat Kara like a child and don't listen to her wishes even though it'd be very important for her to learn leadership and proper responsibilities when she eventually becomes queen! Wait, was that expecting maturity and dimension? Anyway, Kara's sisters, Zooey and Gabby are the cliched fun loving girls who are massive fangirls of Super Sparkle and Dark Sparkle despite not noticing that it's obviously their older sister and cousin. The only other characters in this are the animal sidekicks Parker and Newton and even then, they really don't contribute much to the plot or as the sidekick stereotypes. This is definitely a case of the characters being stereotypes of stereotypes, even if they're not completely hateable.

Barbie in Princess Power is a pretty weak movie with some of the worst animation in the franchise and a dull story and characters, but at least the intentions behind it are clear and they are good ones. This really just feels like a cash grab for children since the popularity of the superhero movies plaguing cinemas is pretty much unavoidable. It's not terrible and I guess girls would enjoy seeing Barbie play a more 'badass' character with some fight scenes thrown in, but this wasn't really my cup of tea. And given how strange it gets by the next generation, I'm starting to get a bit worried over the franchise...
Story: 😕
Animation: 😡
Characters: 😠
Overall: 😠